Posted on 10/10/2005 9:48:46 AM PDT by curtisgardner
By the time this column is printed, Justice for All's cultish tribute to the fetus will have left the grass of our campus. While the right wing whack-jobs are now gone from our fading campus lawns, the ghosts of their messaging haunt me.
What we saw when Justice for All came to Auraria was complete and utter disrespect. Not only were we visually assaulted by an enormous display of gory images with questionable validity and undeniable shock value; the women who make up our student body, faculties and staff had the essence of their freedom questioned. This is not something that just came with the Justice for All fetus-fest; it is an ever-present violation of the privacy and liberty of women that is found in the media, politics, religion, entertainment and social interaction.
The fact that women's sexuality, their safety during sex and their health decisions that follow sexual relationships are debated as topics for broad consensus in the first place is misogynistic. When males are granted the right to make health choices freely while women have the same privacy and freedom denied due to biological characteristics, the sexism that runs rampant in our society is blatantly clear.
Now, self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" reading this column may venture to dub me a hypocrite, as I am opposed to war and the death penalty, yet I support abortion. They will most likely question my support of human life. This is where the error lies. I am not "pro-life" and have never claimed to be. I am opposed to oppression and violations of peoples' self-determination.
I stand behind abortion rights because I believe that no one can serve as a better governing body over an individual than that person. I believe individuals have the ability to discern what they will and will not do, as they are autonomous beings. For this reason, I am also vegan, against the death penalty, opposed to state power and fully supportive of individual sexual decisions.
Honestly, I do not care what a woman's reason is for having an abortion, as I am not in a place to judge. Economics, family, sex abuse, power disparities in relationships, education and many other factors I have no ability to begin to understand, play into a woman deciding to terminate a pregnancy. I do not care how many abortions a woman has or for what reason; it is her body and her choice, bottom line.
Of course, I will discourage one from undergoing numerous abortions as a casual affair. I would also encourage an individual from casually having root canals and open-heart surgery. Regardless of whether I think their judgment leading up to such a choice was the best or if I myself would make the same choice, it is a person's right to do so.
One may ask about the self-determination and autonomy of a child. Once a child is born, I wish it nothing but the best. I would love to see every child have an education, food, shelter and medicine. However, I fail to see how a mass of cells the size of a kumquat, with no nerve endings, or a potentially viable fetus that is so deformed it has no chance of surviving (plus, it may kill the woman carrying it) can qualify as self-determined individuals. I fail to see how one can even consider the aforementioned cellular growths to be humans.
I warn all advocates for an end to legalized abortion right now: you will never succeed in ending abortion. People like me will fight back. We will break any law and violate every social norm to ensure that our sisters can receive safe and affordable abortions on demand, without apology, because it is their right.
I, for one, am tired of having my legitimate decisions scrutinized in the name of morals and governance. I am tired of hearing those that undermine my autonomy, be they men or women, dubbed "pro-life." I refuse to live in fear any further that women will lose the ability to decide to go through a life saving procedure. No government, church, political organization or private citizen will take away my rights to my body, my uterus, my sanity and my safety. I encourage other women to adopt the same standard.
This leaves me to ask a question I once read on a button to Justice for All and their cultish following led by megalomaniacal religious fundamentalist privileged males. If you cut off my reproductive choice, can I cut off yours?
And Cynthia was so mad about it!
As am I! Maybe Cynthia will marry Michael Schiavo and her mother’s rights will be restored.
"And Cynthia was so mad about it!"
At least she can console herself with the fact that she's using her life to prevent so many others from being alive. LOL!
Great letter!
Remove it.
She obviously doesn't want children, shouldn't have children, and can only complicate our lives with her risky unprotected sexual activities that will probably land her in some hospital with AIDS living off the dole i.e. our money.
The unbelievable selfishness of some of today's younger/liberal women is just amazing to me. "IT's MY uterus!" Oh, I see.... And the kids eat after you've paid the manicurist and the cell phone bill, right?
"This leaves me to ask a question I once read on a button to Justice for All and their cultish following led by megalomaniacal religious fundamentalist privileged males. If you cut off my reproductive choice, can I cut off yours"?
"Reproductive Rights" is one of those public issues where the inequality between the sexes is rarely discussed.
Reproductive rights does not exist as a legal concept for men, and men are regularly told that they have responsibilities and not rights. A man has no "reproductive rights" that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. The only right that men have is to keep their pants zipped up, as the course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the woman's "choice".
I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital "reproductive rights " were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable "reproductive right" exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man's income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. Under the law, he is utterly responsible to support any children with his DNA, and often even for those without it. In many states, women are allowed to ABANDON newborn children that they do not want at hospitals or firehouses, no questions asked. Men don't even have any "reproductive rights" in marriage, because his wife retains her "reproductive rights" if she "chooses" to exercise them.
I don't think either sex should have these "reproductive rights", and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.
Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn't qualify for "reproductive rights" since she probably thinks men aren't human anyway.
My point is that men have no "reproductive right" that is INDEPENDENT of a woman's choice, wheras women have options that can be and are exercised independently of a man's wishes. Note that this feminine reproductive veto extends to nullification of the man's wishes whether the man wants the child or not, whether in or out of marriage. While I am acutely aware that this is in large part due to the uniqueness of the reproductive process, this nevertheless leaves the man without any independent ability to influence the woman legally.
I am not even necessarily saying that this is a bad thing, but I do find it curious that we often behave as though the only party affected by the birth of a child is the woman, and to prevent a negative influence on the course of her life we must preserve her right to kill her unborn child. If unmarried, she can "choose" to keep the child and can enlist the support of the state to forcibly take money from the sperm donor against his will. And if he wants the child, then he must yield to her choice to abort. Legally he is told that he has no option other than the one that the woman "chooses" to give him.
Again, I think that BOTH parties should allow a normal pregnancy to take it's course, and come to a mutually agreed upon resolution. But if we insist upon a regime where a "reproductive right" is allowed for only half of the human race, than I think that men should have some LEGAL option to influence the woman's "choice" in either direction, rather than act as though this isn't a significant life altering event for them as well. The one option that I would absolutely forbid, of course is a forced abortion.
Having said all this, I do think it unlikely to happen. Men are legally held to the strictest of standard of responsibility where conception is concerned.
------------------------------------------------------------
Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)
The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)
· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing
· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby
· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child
· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)
· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career
· 7.9% of women want no (more) children
· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?
Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.
Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.
"Justice for All, Stay out of my Uterus"
Oh come on lady! It's Uter-us not Uter-you.
(with apologies to Homer Simpson)
Great Post.
Any idea how many abortions are due to rape or incest which is the big issue that the liar rats like to use.
For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion.1 This evidence alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.
It is difficult to find stats on how many abortions are performed on pregnancies resulting from rape. Not very many. Here is some info. This comes from near the top of the article and there is quite a bit of good info there.
And how many pregnancies result? (from rape)About 1 or 2 for each 1000. Using the 170,000 figure, (a highly inflated figure, read article above) this translates into an overall total of 170 to 340 assault rape pregnancies a year in the entire United States.
The bottom line is that abortions performed in cases of rape is statistically insignificant. It would be some small fraction of one percent in the chart I posted. Beyond that bottom line is the fact that a large majority of those women who do become pregnant from a rape choose not to abort their baby even though it is now legal to do so, rape or no rape.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.