The returns suggest that Mississippi's voters are rejecting a proposed amendment to their state constitution, which would have declared that fertilized human ova are legally people.
I'm happy and relieved, and not just because it takes one more weapon away from those who would deny women's reproductive rights. It's simply absurd to reduce human personhood to our genetics. Many folks may not be aware that, between the world wars, there was an active eugenics movement in the United States. Some states even passed laws barring certain people from getting married, including epileptics. Yup, had my father lived in Connecticut instead of New York, he might not have been able to marry my mom.
But, that's not the real reason for this post. During the comments on this "zygotic personhood" amendment, several people kept commenting that it would not only ban abortion, but certain forms of contraception, including "morning-after pill."
In short, pro-choice people have been buying into the anti-choicers lie that this form of emergency contraception is a form of abortion.
So here we go, folks -- two basic facts. You can check them yourself...
FACT NUMBER ONE: Emergency contraception only works within 72 hours of intercourse.
FACT NUMBER TWO: The time it takes for sperm to travel from the vagina to the fallopian tubes is 72 hours.
Do the math.
Now, I don't know whether the anti-choice crowd are ignorant of these facts, or they are wilfully misleading people. I don't care. The point is these are people who are willing to say and do anything to deny a woman this option, regardless of whether the reason she's seeking it is a broken condom or a brutal rape.
And to my fellow pro-choicers ... please let's not fall prey to this. We can and should do better. Please let's do our homework, and let's not be afraid to expose how they mislead and frighten people to get what they want -- and to deny others their right to decide for themselves.
Showing posts with label reproductive choice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reproductive choice. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Who Says It's Private?
The right to privacy has long been treasured in American political culture. We don’t want government to interfere in our personal lives, especially regarding sexuality, and we tend to be skeptical of other busybodies as well. It is a cornerstone for many of the advances in sexual justice and freedom, from reproductive rights to GLBT equality.
Privacy has also been invoked in a negative sense as well – to silence and constrain already marginalized groups. Because our culture deems sex “a private matter,” not only do we proscribe sexually explicit media to ridiculous extremes, but we still debate whether couples should be allowed to hold hands or exchange a kiss in public. More often than not, however, privacy is invoked as a reason for upholding double standards upon those less powerful. A woman can put up a picture of her beloved on her desk at work – but if that beloved is another woman, don’t be surprised if someone accuses her of being “militant” or “flaunting” about her sexuality. A spiritual community will encourage folks to come to events with their partners – but no more than one at a time. And no problem saying where you and your partner met – unless you happened to meet at a fetish-themed nightclub.
Granted, some people are just not ready to hear all of that. But there’s a big difference between admitting personal discomfort, and using it to declare an objective moral rule that certain “private” realities are permanently off limits. Many people see this as a form of rationalization, but I wonder if there’s something deeper at work. Western culture, and American culture especially, is one which discourages folks from admitting to weakness. Admitting personal discomfort with something can sound very much like a personal failing, as opposed to creating a moral proscription based on that discomfort.
Nor is it confined to outright conservatives. Many folks who are comfortable with GLBT friends, or who are queer themselves, may bristle at discussions of polyamory or kink. Often they make the distinction between “orientation” and “behavior” – who you’re drawn to, or what gender with which you identify, versus how many partners or what you choose to do with them. Are they forgetting that holding your beloved’s hand on the street, or displaying their picture in your cubicle or office, is also considered behavior – and also likely to be declared “off limits” by someone who takes offense? Should we not ask ourselves whether it is the behavior itself which makes us uncomfortable, or the reality which it represents?
The very meaning of privacy is the power of the individual to discern and decide which aspects of their lives should be free from intrusion, and from whom – to set a boundary, if you will, between what others can and cannot know about you. Respecting privacy is not merely about staying on your side of the boundary, but letting the other person determine who or what belongs on which side. Should the comfort level of others be a part of that decision? Of course - but not the only part, and certainly not when it threatens one's integrity, or otherwise damages souls or relationships. Boundaries ultimately need to be negotiated, in good faith among equals who are willing to learn and grow together.
Privacy has also been invoked in a negative sense as well – to silence and constrain already marginalized groups. Because our culture deems sex “a private matter,” not only do we proscribe sexually explicit media to ridiculous extremes, but we still debate whether couples should be allowed to hold hands or exchange a kiss in public. More often than not, however, privacy is invoked as a reason for upholding double standards upon those less powerful. A woman can put up a picture of her beloved on her desk at work – but if that beloved is another woman, don’t be surprised if someone accuses her of being “militant” or “flaunting” about her sexuality. A spiritual community will encourage folks to come to events with their partners – but no more than one at a time. And no problem saying where you and your partner met – unless you happened to meet at a fetish-themed nightclub.
Granted, some people are just not ready to hear all of that. But there’s a big difference between admitting personal discomfort, and using it to declare an objective moral rule that certain “private” realities are permanently off limits. Many people see this as a form of rationalization, but I wonder if there’s something deeper at work. Western culture, and American culture especially, is one which discourages folks from admitting to weakness. Admitting personal discomfort with something can sound very much like a personal failing, as opposed to creating a moral proscription based on that discomfort.
Nor is it confined to outright conservatives. Many folks who are comfortable with GLBT friends, or who are queer themselves, may bristle at discussions of polyamory or kink. Often they make the distinction between “orientation” and “behavior” – who you’re drawn to, or what gender with which you identify, versus how many partners or what you choose to do with them. Are they forgetting that holding your beloved’s hand on the street, or displaying their picture in your cubicle or office, is also considered behavior – and also likely to be declared “off limits” by someone who takes offense? Should we not ask ourselves whether it is the behavior itself which makes us uncomfortable, or the reality which it represents?
The very meaning of privacy is the power of the individual to discern and decide which aspects of their lives should be free from intrusion, and from whom – to set a boundary, if you will, between what others can and cannot know about you. Respecting privacy is not merely about staying on your side of the boundary, but letting the other person determine who or what belongs on which side. Should the comfort level of others be a part of that decision? Of course - but not the only part, and certainly not when it threatens one's integrity, or otherwise damages souls or relationships. Boundaries ultimately need to be negotiated, in good faith among equals who are willing to learn and grow together.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Last Abortion on Earth
Recently on an online discussion, someone brought up the following for discussion...
Practitioners who counsel women seeking abortions do an exercise called "the last abortion." The participants choose one woman among six who will be allowed to receive the last abortion on earth. It is an exercise in individual ethics and forces one to confront her own prejudices. There is an orphaned teenager, a victim of rape, a woman carrying a medically deformed fetus, a 46-year-old woman with HIV, a 12-year-old, and a graduate student who wants to finish her Ph.D. They all have good reasons, because all the reasons are theirs. And in the end, that is the answer: All the reasons are theirs.
If you were the chooser -- what would be your choice?
The fellow who put this on the table proceeded to state why his particular choice was the "right" one. But in my mind, that misses the whole point of the exercise -- and what makes it so difficult.
The issue is not simply which woman is more deserving, or which fetus is less viable. It is who makes the choice -- and that is what governed my answer.
I would rather have the women meet in a room, explain what needs to be done, provide them all of the information they would need and want, from medical data to possible future outcome, and let them discuss and decide for themselves. And while I'd prefer it to be by consensus, such a decision should also be made by the women themselves, not me or anyone else.
Yes, it would be difficult to have these women look into their hearts and decide whether or not a given pregnancy will come to term, and what to do afterwards. But, then again, that's the difficulty which each and every woman with a crisis pregnancy faces every day.
Something we should strive to remember whenever this debate comes around yet again.
Practitioners who counsel women seeking abortions do an exercise called "the last abortion." The participants choose one woman among six who will be allowed to receive the last abortion on earth. It is an exercise in individual ethics and forces one to confront her own prejudices. There is an orphaned teenager, a victim of rape, a woman carrying a medically deformed fetus, a 46-year-old woman with HIV, a 12-year-old, and a graduate student who wants to finish her Ph.D. They all have good reasons, because all the reasons are theirs. And in the end, that is the answer: All the reasons are theirs.
If you were the chooser -- what would be your choice?
The fellow who put this on the table proceeded to state why his particular choice was the "right" one. But in my mind, that misses the whole point of the exercise -- and what makes it so difficult.
The issue is not simply which woman is more deserving, or which fetus is less viable. It is who makes the choice -- and that is what governed my answer.
I would rather have the women meet in a room, explain what needs to be done, provide them all of the information they would need and want, from medical data to possible future outcome, and let them discuss and decide for themselves. And while I'd prefer it to be by consensus, such a decision should also be made by the women themselves, not me or anyone else.
Yes, it would be difficult to have these women look into their hearts and decide whether or not a given pregnancy will come to term, and what to do afterwards. But, then again, that's the difficulty which each and every woman with a crisis pregnancy faces every day.
Something we should strive to remember whenever this debate comes around yet again.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
George Tiller: Murdered in the Name of Life
This morning, Dr. George Tiller of the Women's Health Care Services in Wichita, Kansas, was gunned down in his place of worship. A suspect was later detained in Kansas City some 170 miles away.
Dr. Tiller was one of a handful of physicians who provided late-term abortions. His most memorable phrase was: "Prenatal testing without Prenatal choice is medical fraud." His clinic had been picketed, blockaded, vandalized and attacked; bullet-proof glass had to be installed around it after he had been shot and wounded. In the late 1990's, he courageously invited several political and religious leaders to visit his clinic -- walking them through as though they were patients facing crisis pregnancies.
It is no surprise that the leader of Operation Rescue condemned the attack. I can only hope that those who oppose abortion will do some serious soul-searching about how their rhetoric and tactics contribute to such senseless and cowardly acts.
In the meantime, let's all pray for Dr. Tiller's family, for his colleagues and staff, and for all those who provide reproductive health services for women around the country.
Dr. Tiller was one of a handful of physicians who provided late-term abortions. His most memorable phrase was: "Prenatal testing without Prenatal choice is medical fraud." His clinic had been picketed, blockaded, vandalized and attacked; bullet-proof glass had to be installed around it after he had been shot and wounded. In the late 1990's, he courageously invited several political and religious leaders to visit his clinic -- walking them through as though they were patients facing crisis pregnancies.
It is no surprise that the leader of Operation Rescue condemned the attack. I can only hope that those who oppose abortion will do some serious soul-searching about how their rhetoric and tactics contribute to such senseless and cowardly acts.
In the meantime, let's all pray for Dr. Tiller's family, for his colleagues and staff, and for all those who provide reproductive health services for women around the country.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The Politics and Morality of Plan B
Today, the Food and Drug Administration announced that seventeen year olds will be able to get the Plan B emergency contraception over the counter.
Certainly a step forward! Personally, I'd like to see the age limit brought down to sixteen, and having Plan B as a fully-funded option for all victims of rape everywhere.
And I can hear the leaders of America's Religious Right screaming about teenagers getting access to an "abortion drug". So, let's set the record on that:
1) It takes three days for sperm to travel through the cervix, up the uterus and into the fallopian tubes to fertilize an ova.
2) Plan B can only work during those three days.
3) Ergo, Plan B is contraception -- it prevents pregnancy.
Of course, I don't expect everyone who is against abortion to have this "V-8 moment", smacking their foreheads and saying: "Wow, we made a big mistake here!" It's no secret that so many on the Right have bundled abortion, birth control and sex education into one big nasty evil.
Forget about women who are raped. Or teens living with abusive parents, with good reason to be afraid of disclosing that they might become pregnant. Or women who were responsible enough to have their partners use a condom, only to have it break or slip off.
I recall conversations with an evangelical minister who is staunchly anti-abortion, when he used to live in the Boston area (he's since moved to Connecticut). I'd always pose the question of contraception -- why not support it, since it can prevent unwanted pregnancies and thereby reduce the number of abortions? His response, every time: "Well, many forms of contraception lead to abortion." And nothing else -- no elabortation, no examples of how this supposedly happens, no statement in favor of any which don't lead to abortion. Just a sufficiently vague reason why he won't break with the party line of the Religious Right.
Well, that only begs the question. Sure, you can argue that IUD's, for example, "lead to abortion" by preventing implantation and thus causing a zygote to be expelled and die. But condoms, spermicide, diaphragms, cervical caps -- all they do is block sperm from getting to the egg. No sperm in egg, no conception, no dead zygote. So why lump it in with abortion? And if Plan B accomplishes the same thing -- preventing sperm and egg from getting together -- then why keep calling it abortion?
These are the questions we need to be raising with the Religious Right. Plan B is not abortion, but in fact will reduce the number of abortions, as will condoms and other forms of contraception. So where is their justification in opposing them?
Certainly a step forward! Personally, I'd like to see the age limit brought down to sixteen, and having Plan B as a fully-funded option for all victims of rape everywhere.
And I can hear the leaders of America's Religious Right screaming about teenagers getting access to an "abortion drug". So, let's set the record on that:
1) It takes three days for sperm to travel through the cervix, up the uterus and into the fallopian tubes to fertilize an ova.
2) Plan B can only work during those three days.
3) Ergo, Plan B is contraception -- it prevents pregnancy.
Of course, I don't expect everyone who is against abortion to have this "V-8 moment", smacking their foreheads and saying: "Wow, we made a big mistake here!" It's no secret that so many on the Right have bundled abortion, birth control and sex education into one big nasty evil.
Forget about women who are raped. Or teens living with abusive parents, with good reason to be afraid of disclosing that they might become pregnant. Or women who were responsible enough to have their partners use a condom, only to have it break or slip off.
I recall conversations with an evangelical minister who is staunchly anti-abortion, when he used to live in the Boston area (he's since moved to Connecticut). I'd always pose the question of contraception -- why not support it, since it can prevent unwanted pregnancies and thereby reduce the number of abortions? His response, every time: "Well, many forms of contraception lead to abortion." And nothing else -- no elabortation, no examples of how this supposedly happens, no statement in favor of any which don't lead to abortion. Just a sufficiently vague reason why he won't break with the party line of the Religious Right.
Well, that only begs the question. Sure, you can argue that IUD's, for example, "lead to abortion" by preventing implantation and thus causing a zygote to be expelled and die. But condoms, spermicide, diaphragms, cervical caps -- all they do is block sperm from getting to the egg. No sperm in egg, no conception, no dead zygote. So why lump it in with abortion? And if Plan B accomplishes the same thing -- preventing sperm and egg from getting together -- then why keep calling it abortion?
These are the questions we need to be raising with the Religious Right. Plan B is not abortion, but in fact will reduce the number of abortions, as will condoms and other forms of contraception. So where is their justification in opposing them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
