Today is the 34th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, so the NARAL Pro-Choice America is sponsoring Blog for Choice. Click here for links to all the blogs that are participating.
They've asked us to weigh in about why we're pro-choice. I did a bit of that in my post on Saturday, but I'll offer a few abbreviated thoughts here before I head to work.
I'm pro-choice because a woman's ability to determine whether and when she gets pregnant affects every other aspect of her life. Everything--my relationships, my job, my economic status, my existence in my own body--would be affected were I to get pregnant. Now, that's not to say that they would be affected in a negative way, but they would be affected, and only I am in a position to weigh all the factors and judge whether or not pregnancy and motherhood are right for me.
I'm in favor of comprehensive sex education and the widespread availability of birth control (with lots of options), emergency contraception, and abortion. I'm in favor of much broader support for mothers and children so that people who do want to have kids can do so (is it worth mentioning here that the states that have the most restrictions on abortion also provide the least support for poor children?)--and these positions are also part of what it means to me to be pro-choice.
So, happy Jan. 22. Those of you in the Charleston area might want to come out tonight to a screening of the film The Abortion Diaries at the Circular Church at 7 p.m. Director Penny Lane will be there to lead a discussion after the film.
10 years ago
25 comments:
Just say "no" to sex - seems simple to me !!
Not when it is your father, your uncle, step-father or the guy who you babysit for holding you down and raping you. Nothing is simple and not everyone lives in a perfect world.
Abstinence is a fine personal choice, but it's terrible public policy, not least because not all sex is consensual. And I enjoy having consensual sex, but that doesn't mean I want to have children.
i just figured they were kidding.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention - I would have missed it otherwise. It made me think about things I hadn't thought about in awhile - and a few minutes ago, I googled my brother's old girlfriend's father - and it seems that a Planned Parenthood Clinic was built and named after him in 2004 because of his dedication to a woman's right to choose. As an adult now, boy do I wish I had talked to him more back then - I bet he had stories to tell.
Thanks for the kind words on my Blog for Choice post -- although yours was written better!
Excellent post, Alison. The wording is perfect.
Anonymous is all in favor of "choice," as well, especially when a seed is planted without consent. Accidents are another matter and my concept of choice extends to the unborn child when it is capable of survival if only separated from its accidental "host." Therefore, if one is not willing to accept the consequences of their own actions they "SHOULD" choose ABSTINENCE. All in the opinion of anonymous, of course.
See, Biffle, I told you they weren't kidding! Pro-lifers don't usually joke. I don't even think they're joking in their use of the term "seed"! And they're always anonymous.
Me a pro-lifer? Nonsense. This anonymous poster chose to remain anonymous (not the anonymous one who posted at 12:56 PM) as s/he was responding on the blog of a dedicated, outspoken pro-choice advocate (zealot?)--one who can't recognize that this anonymous poster is also a pro-choice advocate but with a conscience during the third trimester.
It's the idea or thought that counts NOT the identity of the poster who has no desire to get into mudslinging with those who chose to not consider the opinion of others in a forum such as this.
I guess another 'ole saw' would be to never question a pro-choice radical's right to do whatever they please, whenever they please, to whomever they please for they take themselves way too seriously.
PS The use of the term "seed" was to avoid the "issue" (pun intended)of when viable life begins other than to suggest it does when a fetus can survive independent of it's host and it should be protected as a matter of personal and public policy barring exceptional circumstances.
Cheers
"This anonymous poster chose to remain anonymous (not the anonymous one who posted at 12:56 PM)..."
I got lost back there somewhere.
It is odd how they are always anonymous. If our pro-choice views are so "wrong," then why are pro-choice people so willing to put our names on our opinions?
Anyway, nice post and thanks for sharing your story.
Three weak non-responses to my original "anonymous" post (specifically the one that was posted at 9:32 AM this morning for those challenged in interpreting timelines).
Interestingly, none of those who chimed in this morning addressed the substance of my original post.
One might conclude that they (of their apparent ilk) would rather take issue with the originator of a non-conformist thought (in this forum) and attack (read as ridicule for choosing to remain anonymous) the poster than address the issue which was raised.
No kidding, Biffle...and in case of any confusion, this was a serious response posted proudly by an anonymous and pro-choice poster(without malace to those who dare to have an opposing opinion).
I rest my case for remaining anonymous. Bye, bye - I'm off to class now.
why such animosity anonymous? the only person who seems to be taking things too seriously here is you.
what the hell, i'll bite. your comment is not very clear because you jump from supporting a third-trimester fetus to saying that anyone who isn’t ready to get pregnant should be abstinent. i’ll just look at the latter statement because i’m at work and don’t have the time to approach the first part…maybe someone else?
okay, we know for a fact that people are not going to abide by the whole abstinent thing…it goes against our human need and/or want for sexual pleasure. so, if this is the case…shouldn’t there be options such as abortion available for women so that they do not become simply a vessel which has no say about what happens to her own body and her own life? Switch it around. if it were men who got pregnant, do you not think abortion would be a matter of personal business, out of the reach of governmental determination?
The saddest thing about the whole abortion debate is that the same people who protest outside abortion clinics also tie the hands of educators who are forced to preach "abstinence only" and claim that "condoms don't work" despite medical fact to the opposite.
If science, not faith, based sex education and reliable contraception were not met with such hideous persecution, the number of abortions would decline exponentially because young women would not be left out in the cold, too afraid to ask questions, too scared to protect themselves (because planning makes them "bad"), and ending up accidentally pregnant!
Where are the preachers and protesters day by day, hour by hour, as that girl has to go through life making one hard decision after another (answer: out protesting and preaching while the girl gets to sink or swim on her own).
Human nature does not change just because a book says that it should. And having sex is human nature - that's why there are billions and billions of us here right now.
What animosity are you seeing when none exists on my behalf? That's okay, however, you can see what you wish just as you chose to disregard the word, "accidental" in my first post.
Obviously, "femme fortis" there are safeguards one can take to avoid becoming pregnant that work most of the time. When they fail, abortion is, of course an option and I totally agree with one's right to take that step.
The simple point I'm making, assuming it really needs to be clarified, is that if one becomes pregnant, irrespective of the circumstances, they have plenty of time to abort BEFORE the third trimester. When, the "host" choses not to do so for six months, she has, in my estimation, been grossly negligent and a viable life that can't speak on its own behalf needs to be protected. The continued existence of that potential life is, again, in my estimation, no longer the sole right of the "host" to decide.
Hey, its an opinion, nothing more nothing less. Not that it matters but I have no animosity toward those who disagree with me on this issue just a fundamental disagreement, one that I believe government has a right to address in defense of that potential viable life. Who said that one who engages in sex must be abstinent or that they don't have every right to terminate an unwanted, "accidental" pregnancy during the first six months? I surely didn't but to not end a pregnancy before a potential life before it become viable is to me irresponsible or worse...you decide, if you choose to do so, how much worse and what the remedy should be. I have my own ideas on the subject and what they are should be evident...I believe a potential life that is viable outside the womb should be protected except under the most dire circumstances. There is no reason, in my estimation for you or anyone to be so defensive and close-minded on a subject when one voices a different opinion? Also, I see absolu8tely no reason to address the way off-subject issue regarding men versus women, pregnancy, and gender discrimination you attempted to insert in this discussion.
Have a good day and do attempt to not allow a general discussion to become to become one where animosity (yours not mine) takes control.
I've made my point, a simple one, and see no reason to further explain or defend it. Perhaps there is someone else in this forum that would desire to further respond, I don't. If there is, go for it.
well, i love a good squabble, and since "blog for choice" day is over (and i'm now implicated in said squabble), here's my two cents worth:
For the record, i'd like to state i think that abortion is tantamount to murder at almost any time during a pregnancy. It's a crappy solution to a terribly complicated issue.
Now, having said that, i'd also like to add that i don't currently have a better solution to offer. I can tell you from personal experience, however, that "not having sex" is an even more crappy solution for yet another complicated issue. 'smatter of fact, the only beneficiary from the policy of abstinence is the guy who can get off and then run away. (a monthly check is a mighty poor substitute for a partner and parent). There has to be a choice there for the one who's involvement might not end with "oh, oh, oh!".
Now, for anon., i don't reckon anyone even thought about the third trimester thing until you did. I don't have information at my finger tips like Alison, but i imagine i can safely say that very, very, very few abortions are done in the third trimester. In fact, i think that Roe v Wade re-affirmed a third trimester abortion as illegal.
I also think that Alison was wrong for jumping on you like that, but i figure she wasn't reading carefully enough to decipher your halting undergraduate prose.
As a personal attack on you i'd like to offer that i agree with what you had to say, but wonder why you have to sound like such a fuck to say it? I mean, i don't agree with Alison and yet we manage to cohabitate nicely.
Additionally, i'd like to add that this is not a forum: this is a blog. You are our guest on here. Wanna spout crap like us? Take a look at www.blogspot.com.
i'm outta heaah...
nice point, Jaz. and very true. Just about the only sex education i ever got(besides being told "keep it in your pants") was that having sex before marriage was a sin.
You are right, Biffle, this is not a forum. That was a bad choice of words and the moderator proved that by censoring my kind and non-confrontational retort to "femme."
As for my undergrad grammar, give me a break but first reread some of your rants. Also, undergraduate students are not the only ones "off to class," you know? How's that for spouting crap?
Anon
didn't censor, just was waiting to get alison's opinion as to whether we were gonna continue all this. it's happened before about the same subject (and ended in some death threats and some "we know where you live's" and stuff). that's why we had to put the comment moderator thingy on here.
true enough, you're comment to femme was kind enough, but then, gimme some credit for a good witticism: i wasn't implying you actually are an undergraduate--you just write like one.
"true enough, you're comment to femme was kind enough, but then, gimme some credit for a good witticism: i wasn't implying you actually are an undergraduate--you just write like one."
You call that a "witticim"? I call it a cheap shot akin to shooting the messenger.
G'day,
Anon
Ok, my turn...grow up
OK and I will just weigh into say that when anaonymous says "pro-choice advoctae with a conscience" the implication is that no one else has a conscience. Do you think you are the only person to have thought long and hard about the crappy realities that face varieties of people in their daily lives? And the CDC reports that 1.4% of abortions happen after 20 weeks and pro-choice advocates have only asked that life/health of the mother exceptions be added to any thrid trimester abortion limitations, an exception that anonymous has acknowledged by noting "extraordinary circumstances." So what makes you think, anonymous, that you are the only thoughtful and torn pro-choice advocate?
Claire, I regret that you have incorrectly concluded that anything I have written implied that I was the only "thoughtful and torn pro-choice advocate" in the whole wide world with a conscience regarding third trimester abortions.
I've reread what I've written and find it amazing you would arrive at that conclusion but thats ok as apparently that was your perception. Regardless, please accept my humble apology for causing you any discomfort whatsoever regarding whatever "crappy realities" you may be facing in your life now or in the future.
There, I hope you feel better now. Do go forth and have a great day, ok :?)
Anon
time to let it go, E.
On the whole choice issue, I wonder how you feel about smoking in public places? It's a similar issue (personal freedom one party vs health of another party). Yet I find some of my staunch pro-choice friends are very into smoking-in-public-places bans. It's ironic.
Post a Comment