This is a rare political post
OK, so by political, I mean dealing with reproductive rights and issues. Hot button for some people, and I am firmly in the pro-choice camp, so if that offends you, maybe skip this post, OK? I can handle discussion, but if things get nasty, I will lock comments.
1. An issue that I've seen discussed lately because of plot lines on a couple shows is who's at fault when an unwanted pregnancy occurs. Over and over again I see the woman blamed. Why wasn't she on birth control? Why didn't she get her tubes tied if she didn't want kids? Nothing about why the men either didn't get their junk tied off, or why he's boning someone who doesn't want kids if he does want them. Nope, it's the woman's fault. Even though birth control fails even when used exactly correctly, it's still her fault.
I stumbled across this article earlier, describing a male birth control drug that only requires two injections every 10 years. And so far in studies it's been 100% effective. Yeah, that's right, 100%. And no side effects aside from mild swelling at the injection sight. Now, OK, the injection sight happens to be the scrotum. Which I'm sure is not a pleasant thought. But you know what? After all the shit I have to go through as a woman, and the drastic side effects women face from their birth control, I really don't have much sympathy. It's a needle once a decade, suck it up.
Now, the drug has not gotten approval yet, but everything I've read makes it seem close, and it should be available in the US for clinical studies soon. Obviously, as a new drug, new side effects could be discovered, or the effectiveness could be reevaluated. But still, this is, IMO, a big deal. It's always on the woman to handle the birth control, with the exception of condoms (I think there are male hormonal treatments? But they're far, far less common than women's).
Maybe in the not too distant future men will take responsibility for stopping unwanted procreation as much as women are expected too, and we can stop blaming only women if they didn't take every possible precaution.
2. Been reading about the Personhood movement this morning, which is basically where states are trying to define zygotes as people, to effectively ban abortion, with no exceptions made for rape, incest, or health of the mother. Absolutely no exceptions. What this means for natural miscarriages (are they investigated as possible homicides) or ectopic pregnancies (waiting for the fetus to die on it's own, which it is guaranteed to do, will risk the life and health and future reproductive health of the mother) and other such issues, doesn't seem to be discussed by Personhood proponents anywhere that I can find. If someone does find any, I'd love to read them.
Anyway, the big thing with them is that everyone deserves the same rights from the moment of conception. This reminded me of an argument I read in that Yes Means Yes book I recommended last month. It was actually just a footnote, but basically, these people don't want fetus's to have the same rights as everyone else, they want them to have rights other people don't. Pro-lifers are stating that the right to life is more important than an individuals personal freedoms. Sounds good in theory, but doesn't hold up if you look at other circumstances outside abortion. For instance, if I found out that my brother's life depended on my donating one of my kidney's, I could refuse. Even if no other kidneys are found and he'll die in days without it. They cannot force me, to my knowledge, to donate an organ against my will. I can survive without it, and the survival rate of surgery is good, but they can't make me. I can refuse to save my brother's life. But pro-lifers are saying that they should be able to force a woman to use her body to support a parasite against her will. It won't automatically kill her, and the survival rate is good, but even if she has concerns or just plain doesn't want to do it, tough luck.
Now, that's a fairly simple way to look at it, and I'm sure there are all types of legal issues at work that I don't understand. But as a simplistic illustration of the issue, I think it works. And for the record, me calling a fetus a parasite is in no way an indication that I hate kids. But that's what they are, at that stage of development.
This has been your political post for the month.
1. An issue that I've seen discussed lately because of plot lines on a couple shows is who's at fault when an unwanted pregnancy occurs. Over and over again I see the woman blamed. Why wasn't she on birth control? Why didn't she get her tubes tied if she didn't want kids? Nothing about why the men either didn't get their junk tied off, or why he's boning someone who doesn't want kids if he does want them. Nope, it's the woman's fault. Even though birth control fails even when used exactly correctly, it's still her fault.
I stumbled across this article earlier, describing a male birth control drug that only requires two injections every 10 years. And so far in studies it's been 100% effective. Yeah, that's right, 100%. And no side effects aside from mild swelling at the injection sight. Now, OK, the injection sight happens to be the scrotum. Which I'm sure is not a pleasant thought. But you know what? After all the shit I have to go through as a woman, and the drastic side effects women face from their birth control, I really don't have much sympathy. It's a needle once a decade, suck it up.
Now, the drug has not gotten approval yet, but everything I've read makes it seem close, and it should be available in the US for clinical studies soon. Obviously, as a new drug, new side effects could be discovered, or the effectiveness could be reevaluated. But still, this is, IMO, a big deal. It's always on the woman to handle the birth control, with the exception of condoms (I think there are male hormonal treatments? But they're far, far less common than women's).
Maybe in the not too distant future men will take responsibility for stopping unwanted procreation as much as women are expected too, and we can stop blaming only women if they didn't take every possible precaution.
2. Been reading about the Personhood movement this morning, which is basically where states are trying to define zygotes as people, to effectively ban abortion, with no exceptions made for rape, incest, or health of the mother. Absolutely no exceptions. What this means for natural miscarriages (are they investigated as possible homicides) or ectopic pregnancies (waiting for the fetus to die on it's own, which it is guaranteed to do, will risk the life and health and future reproductive health of the mother) and other such issues, doesn't seem to be discussed by Personhood proponents anywhere that I can find. If someone does find any, I'd love to read them.
Anyway, the big thing with them is that everyone deserves the same rights from the moment of conception. This reminded me of an argument I read in that Yes Means Yes book I recommended last month. It was actually just a footnote, but basically, these people don't want fetus's to have the same rights as everyone else, they want them to have rights other people don't. Pro-lifers are stating that the right to life is more important than an individuals personal freedoms. Sounds good in theory, but doesn't hold up if you look at other circumstances outside abortion. For instance, if I found out that my brother's life depended on my donating one of my kidney's, I could refuse. Even if no other kidneys are found and he'll die in days without it. They cannot force me, to my knowledge, to donate an organ against my will. I can survive without it, and the survival rate of surgery is good, but they can't make me. I can refuse to save my brother's life. But pro-lifers are saying that they should be able to force a woman to use her body to support a parasite against her will. It won't automatically kill her, and the survival rate is good, but even if she has concerns or just plain doesn't want to do it, tough luck.
Now, that's a fairly simple way to look at it, and I'm sure there are all types of legal issues at work that I don't understand. But as a simplistic illustration of the issue, I think it works. And for the record, me calling a fetus a parasite is in no way an indication that I hate kids. But that's what they are, at that stage of development.
This has been your political post for the month.