15 June 2008

A is for...

There are many people who believe, for one reason or another, that women shouldn't have abortions. All life is sacred, perhaps (except murderers and rapists, but that's another post). Or maybe there are so many who can't have a child, those who can should feel blessed (or give it to someone who wants it). In fact, some people will use pop culture to support their position against abortion. And while I don't dispute these as valid reasons, they are missing something.

What's interesting to me is that, without considering the reasons why a woman might choose to have an abortion, many people say we shouldn't and leave it at that, as if that in itself solves the "problem".

I am pro-choice. Many anti-choicers ("pro-lifers") would rebrand that as "pro-abortion". I take great exception to the implication that I think every woman should go out and have an abortion. As a woman, as a feminist, and as a compassionate human being, I think that women need to be able to make some choices about their own bodies. Some of those choices might be to avoid conception altogether, but once in a while a woman might need to choose not to have a baby.

If we still ignore all the reasons why a woman might feel she needs an abortion (age, health, wealth, rape, etc.), we're still left with the fact that women will have them. Take this compelling article from the New York Times. Do anti-choice/"pro-life" advocates actually think that abortion will end wholesale if the practice is made illegal? Or is the idea just that women should have to endure a variety of painful, unsafe, unhygenic and possibly lethal options if they're so stupid as to get knocked up? I guess it's their own fault for having sex in the first place. People seem to forget that there's no medical equivilent for men and that they can walk away from sex (whether consensual or not) without having to worry about the baby they may have created. And weak paternity enforcement laws back that up.

And don't get me started about birth control or Plan B as a chemical abortion. Please.

If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, I sure hope that vasectomies are the next target. Because if women are forced to deliver the babies, we should damn well make sure that men can't be prevented from putting them there in the first place.


Thanks to Feministing.com for posting the article first.

No comments: