Why do I vote pro-choice?
A candidate’s stance on abortion tells me a great deal about whether or not the candidate values women. If a politician values a potential life more than s/he values the life and needs of an actual living woman, that person does not value women.
Pregnancy is not a petty inconvenience. It often caries life long consequences, and yes, women do still die in childbirth. Even if I would die without it, I cannot force another person to donate a pint of blood. The risk of death from a blood donation is nearly zero for anyone not in the poorest of health. Yet anti-choicer’s would force women to surrender their whole body for the use of another. This only make sense if you do not value women.
Why would I vote against my own interests by voting for an anti-choice candidate? Yes, abortion does trump other issues. If a politician does not have a strong pro-choice record, then our world view are too far apart for that politician to ever represent my interests.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Miss America Fails at makeover...again
For those of you who do not pay attention to such matters, the Miss America Organization (MAO) has decided to recapture some of the pageant’s shrinking audience by making it a four week reality show with a two hour live finale. Miss America: Reality Check has given us the chance to “get to know” the contestants, at least as well as you can “get to know” someone you’ve only ever seen in a broadcast signal. If the MAO was hoping to re-enforce the stereotype that contestants were appearance obsessed, empty headed bikini stuffers or to put forward the idea that the pageant rewards style over substance, they have succeeded brilliantly.
Let’s start with the advisory board. What were they thinking when they chose the people? “Let’s make Miss America a contest to find the latest celebu-tart.” “I know! We’ll let the celebrity culture and fashion industry re-make the contest! That will convince people Miss America is really about achievement.”
Then there are the contestants. I work with college students every day. To suggest these girls are the best and the brightest in the nation is absurd. They might have the brightest smile or the best hair, but their achievements in scholarship and talent are nothing extraordinary. They might have an edge in service, but that is debatable.
I would have some respect for Miss America if the institution and the contestants would just face the facts. Miss America awards scholarships to girls who fit a very narrow definition of physical beauty. Miss America contestants are using their bodies to get through college in the same way that strippers use their bodies to get through college. Only strippers are less pretentious and more honest about what they are doing.
Let’s start with the advisory board. What were they thinking when they chose the people? “Let’s make Miss America a contest to find the latest celebu-tart.” “I know! We’ll let the celebrity culture and fashion industry re-make the contest! That will convince people Miss America is really about achievement.”
Then there are the contestants. I work with college students every day. To suggest these girls are the best and the brightest in the nation is absurd. They might have the brightest smile or the best hair, but their achievements in scholarship and talent are nothing extraordinary. They might have an edge in service, but that is debatable.
I would have some respect for Miss America if the institution and the contestants would just face the facts. Miss America awards scholarships to girls who fit a very narrow definition of physical beauty. Miss America contestants are using their bodies to get through college in the same way that strippers use their bodies to get through college. Only strippers are less pretentious and more honest about what they are doing.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
A woman's worth
When I started this blog, I did not intend to comment on abortion exclusively, and well, I thought I would post more often. Alas, life gets in the way at times. There have been just too many stories in the last week or so that demanded comment. I know it’s an old pro-choice refrain, but it’s true. Pro-lifers (read anti-choice misogynists) do not care about women, unless they are conveniently still inhabiting some other woman’s body. I can’t be the only one who has noticed that each and every one of these stories is about men making decisions for women and about the worth of their lives. Each of these stories has one strong and very disturbing common thread. Anti-choicers value living women LESS than they value a pregnancy.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4876725.html
This one has made it around the feminist blogosphere. The link above is to the Houston Chronicle version of the AP article. The relevant words, straight from the senator’s mouth to the ears of the participants at a Catholic men’s conference, "Rape is terrible. Rape is awful. Is it made any better by killing an innocent child? Does it solve the problem for the woman that's been raped?"
Unlike the senator, I will not presume to speak for all women. Some women would choose to carry such a pregnancy to term and it is their right to do so. Were I to ever be so unfortunate to be pregnant as the result of rape, I know how I would feel. No, aborting a very much unwanted pregnancy would not “solve the problem.” However, being reminded of the rape everyday for nine months would make the problem far, far worse and the healing process even longer than it already would be. Since the senator never has been and never can be pregnant, maybe he does not realize the sacrifices and dangers of pregnancy. Rape is the act of using another person’s body for your own ends without their consent. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is using another’s body for your own ends without their consent.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00066.htm
Mitt Romney might have recently seen the light on a woman’s right to choose, though it is highly doubtful. That has certainly not always been the case. Follow the link and read the interview for yourself. The upshot is that a Mormon woman was pregnant (pregnancy number 6) and was told she needed to terminate the pregnancy due to blood clots. The woman decided to terminate the pregnancy, and her decision was backed by her stake president, who was a doctor. As stake president he outranked Romney in the church. When the good Bishop Romney came to the woman’s bedside, she expected him to offer comfort and support, because that was his role as Bishop. Instead he condemned her decision. Fortunately, the woman was smart enough to ignore his “counseling.” She terminated the pregnancy and left the church.
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/06/13/murio-por-ser-pobre-y-por-ser-mujer/#more-5060
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2007/200706/20070611.html
Abortion death scroll down to part 3
Link to donate
http://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/proj_laicia.html
Some anti-choicers, for an example see the American Life League at http://www.all.org, will try to tell you that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the women. Would it be stating the obvious to say such people are delusional? If she were still alive, I would tell you ask Martha Solay if abortion were ever necessary to save a woman’s life. Ms. Solay died of uterine cancer this week. When she was first diagnosed, she was unable to treat the cancer because she was pregnant, and abortion was completely illegal in Colombia. While it is impossible to say with any certainty that earlier treatment would have saved Ms. Solay’s life, it is quite certain that denying her the chance was monstrous and inhumane.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0608mr-fetus0609.html
Well, ladies, we can now say we know our worth. No, we are not more precious than rubies. The precious seven week’s gestation embryo of Monica Sanchez was killed in September of 2005 when Ms. Sanchez was struck by her boyfriend. Oh, incidentally, the embryo carrier Ms. Sanchez was also killed in the attack. Her boyfriend was sentenced to 16 years in prison for Ms. Sanchez’s death and 20 years for the embryo. Yes, ladies, it’s official, anti-choicers value the life of an actual living woman 80% as much as they value the precious embryo.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4876725.html
This one has made it around the feminist blogosphere. The link above is to the Houston Chronicle version of the AP article. The relevant words, straight from the senator’s mouth to the ears of the participants at a Catholic men’s conference, "Rape is terrible. Rape is awful. Is it made any better by killing an innocent child? Does it solve the problem for the woman that's been raped?"
Unlike the senator, I will not presume to speak for all women. Some women would choose to carry such a pregnancy to term and it is their right to do so. Were I to ever be so unfortunate to be pregnant as the result of rape, I know how I would feel. No, aborting a very much unwanted pregnancy would not “solve the problem.” However, being reminded of the rape everyday for nine months would make the problem far, far worse and the healing process even longer than it already would be. Since the senator never has been and never can be pregnant, maybe he does not realize the sacrifices and dangers of pregnancy. Rape is the act of using another person’s body for your own ends without their consent. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is using another’s body for your own ends without their consent.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00066.htm
Mitt Romney might have recently seen the light on a woman’s right to choose, though it is highly doubtful. That has certainly not always been the case. Follow the link and read the interview for yourself. The upshot is that a Mormon woman was pregnant (pregnancy number 6) and was told she needed to terminate the pregnancy due to blood clots. The woman decided to terminate the pregnancy, and her decision was backed by her stake president, who was a doctor. As stake president he outranked Romney in the church. When the good Bishop Romney came to the woman’s bedside, she expected him to offer comfort and support, because that was his role as Bishop. Instead he condemned her decision. Fortunately, the woman was smart enough to ignore his “counseling.” She terminated the pregnancy and left the church.
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/06/13/murio-por-ser-pobre-y-por-ser-mujer/#more-5060
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2007/200706/20070611.html
Abortion death scroll down to part 3
Link to donate
http://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/proj_laicia.html
Some anti-choicers, for an example see the American Life League at http://www.all.org, will try to tell you that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the women. Would it be stating the obvious to say such people are delusional? If she were still alive, I would tell you ask Martha Solay if abortion were ever necessary to save a woman’s life. Ms. Solay died of uterine cancer this week. When she was first diagnosed, she was unable to treat the cancer because she was pregnant, and abortion was completely illegal in Colombia. While it is impossible to say with any certainty that earlier treatment would have saved Ms. Solay’s life, it is quite certain that denying her the chance was monstrous and inhumane.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0608mr-fetus0609.html
Well, ladies, we can now say we know our worth. No, we are not more precious than rubies. The precious seven week’s gestation embryo of Monica Sanchez was killed in September of 2005 when Ms. Sanchez was struck by her boyfriend. Oh, incidentally, the embryo carrier Ms. Sanchez was also killed in the attack. Her boyfriend was sentenced to 16 years in prison for Ms. Sanchez’s death and 20 years for the embryo. Yes, ladies, it’s official, anti-choicers value the life of an actual living woman 80% as much as they value the precious embryo.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Yet another feminist post on the SD abortion ban
Unless, you’ve spent significant time lately under a nice cozy rock, you know that South Dakota voters will soon decide whether or not to repeal the state’s sweeping abortion ban. The law allows exception only if the woman’s life is in danger. Honest supporters of this law acknowledge it does not include a health exception.
What constitutes a threat to the mother’s health anyway?
I have glaucoma, which is rare in women of childbearing age. Large-scale studies are nigh on impossible due to the small number of women affected in their fertile years. What little data is available is not reassuring. Some doctors try to put the best face on it by pointing out that women who have glaucoma can and do have children. However, this is not without risk of damaged vision due to pregnancy. The largest study of pregnant glaucoma patients, (abstract available here: http://archopht.amaassn.org/cgi/content/abstract/124/8/1089) showed 57% of the women made it through pregnancy with no loss of vision or increase in intra-ocular pressure. However, 36% of women experienced some ill effect, either an increase in IOP with no immediate loss of vision or a loss of vision.
Some women would look at these numbers and decide the risk was worth it. Maybe they are sure they will be in the 57% who experience no ill effects, or maybe the rewards of motherhood out weight the possibility of some vision loss. It is their right to decide pregnancy is worth the risk.
It is just as much my right to look at the numbers, consider the possible risks of glaucoma medicines on a pregnancy and my general lack of interest in motherhood, and conclude that the risks outweigh the benefits by a wide margin.
The truth is that any pregnancy carries health risks. Look at any edition of Our Bodies Ourselves to find the raw numbers. I’m using the 1998 edition. (Note to self: buy newest edition.) Carrying a pregnancy to term carries a 1 in 10,000 risk of death per pregnancy. (other reputable sources cite an even higher risk.) Legal abortions performed between 9 and 13 weeks have a death risk of 1 in 100,100 with earlier abortion having less than half that risk. A tenfold increase in the risk of mortality certainly constitutes a health risk! For the record, the risk of death from illegal abortion is 1 in 3,000
I honestly cannot understand why such blatantly misogynist laws are even being considered. One human being cannot demand another human being surrender a kidney or even a single drop of blood. This is true even if that person is the only one in the world with a compatible blood type and they would suffer no ill effects. Yet somehow because the person in question is a woman she is expected to turn her entire body over to another creature for nine months even with the strong risk of ill effects.
This line of reasoning transforms a person into a mere receptacle. I cannot think of anything that objectifies women more than a ban on abortion. On November 7, stand with the thinking people of South Dakota and vote against anti-abortion legislation and for pro-choice candidates.
Unless, you’ve spent significant time lately under a nice cozy rock, you know that South Dakota voters will soon decide whether or not to repeal the state’s sweeping abortion ban. The law allows exception only if the woman’s life is in danger. Honest supporters of this law acknowledge it does not include a health exception.
What constitutes a threat to the mother’s health anyway?
I have glaucoma, which is rare in women of childbearing age. Large-scale studies are nigh on impossible due to the small number of women affected in their fertile years. What little data is available is not reassuring. Some doctors try to put the best face on it by pointing out that women who have glaucoma can and do have children. However, this is not without risk of damaged vision due to pregnancy. The largest study of pregnant glaucoma patients, (abstract available here: http://archopht.amaassn.org/cgi/content/abstract/124/8/1089) showed 57% of the women made it through pregnancy with no loss of vision or increase in intra-ocular pressure. However, 36% of women experienced some ill effect, either an increase in IOP with no immediate loss of vision or a loss of vision.
Some women would look at these numbers and decide the risk was worth it. Maybe they are sure they will be in the 57% who experience no ill effects, or maybe the rewards of motherhood out weight the possibility of some vision loss. It is their right to decide pregnancy is worth the risk.
It is just as much my right to look at the numbers, consider the possible risks of glaucoma medicines on a pregnancy and my general lack of interest in motherhood, and conclude that the risks outweigh the benefits by a wide margin.
The truth is that any pregnancy carries health risks. Look at any edition of Our Bodies Ourselves to find the raw numbers. I’m using the 1998 edition. (Note to self: buy newest edition.) Carrying a pregnancy to term carries a 1 in 10,000 risk of death per pregnancy. (other reputable sources cite an even higher risk.) Legal abortions performed between 9 and 13 weeks have a death risk of 1 in 100,100 with earlier abortion having less than half that risk. A tenfold increase in the risk of mortality certainly constitutes a health risk! For the record, the risk of death from illegal abortion is 1 in 3,000
I honestly cannot understand why such blatantly misogynist laws are even being considered. One human being cannot demand another human being surrender a kidney or even a single drop of blood. This is true even if that person is the only one in the world with a compatible blood type and they would suffer no ill effects. Yet somehow because the person in question is a woman she is expected to turn her entire body over to another creature for nine months even with the strong risk of ill effects.
This line of reasoning transforms a person into a mere receptacle. I cannot think of anything that objectifies women more than a ban on abortion. On November 7, stand with the thinking people of South Dakota and vote against anti-abortion legislation and for pro-choice candidates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
