I Wish I Hadn't Done it; Therefore, No One Else Should Have That Option, and other sad moments from The March for Life

They're probably the only anti-abortion group that gets to me: average women, sombre faces, black signs with white writing that proclaim "I Regret My Abortion".

And my first thought is: Dude, that sucks.

And my second thought is: That's not a valid argument.

And my third thought is: Why have you gone to the dark side?

Let's deal with those thoughts one at a time, shall we?

First of all - that really, really sucks. I can't imagine how much stress, depression, insomnia, and wordless rage that kind of regret must generate. Every day, every smiling family, every child, every parent, must provoke a numb hollowness that is unbearable.

BUT - and this brings us to thought number two - that is not a valid argument. You made one of the most difficult decisions any person will ever be faced with, and now you regret your choice. You have my sympathy. But you don't know better than I do what's right for me and my body. I'm sorry that you regret your abortion, and I'm interested in your story, but you don't get to make that choice for me.

Laws don't exist to protect me from making decision I might regret (hello, grade six perm), they exist to protect my fundamental human rights and freedoms. They exist to create a society in which fully autonomous citizens are informed and aware and capable of excercising free will.

Which leads me to my final point - these woman have(unwittingly, I like to think) gone over to the dark side by endorsing the same social factors which likely contributed to their regrettable decision in the first place: the systemic devaluation of women, their intellect, their contributions to society, and their intrinsic worth.

Did these women abort because of pressures from their partners, parents or peers? Were they made to feel selfish for considering what was best for them and not the interests of others? Were they threatened with financial abandonment, physical violence, or moral judgment?

Abortion wasn't, and isn't, the problem - it's a society which consistently undermine women's rights. And that is why, when I look at these women, I want to extend my arms and invite them over to this side of the fence, where they belong, where every woman can choose what is right for her and her alone and not fear retribution for daring to presume to act like a full human being with the rights and privileges thereby accorded.

That Was Fast! US Solves Infant Mortality Rate Problem...

...by declaring that all women of child-bearing age treat themselves/be treated as "pre-pregnant".

Read the article here, read Amanda' Marcotte's excellent post on it here (and check out the comments too), and then, if you're a breeder...er, I mean "female", go enjoy that pack of smokes and dry martini while you still can, before the government decides that it could harm the unborn child you may or may not be carrying to term within your body.

THIS IS FUCKING SICK. What's next? "Gee ma'am, I'd love to get you a beer, but first you need to pee on this stick and wait 5 minutes." Or maybe they'll just go one step further, and ban anyone without a Y chromosome from drinking, smoking, eating sushi, dancing, riding horseback, watching violent TV, standing, sitting, thinking, etc.

It's like the fucking twilight zone. Am I actually reading this correctly? The US is getting its fucking ass kicked in infant mortality rates, but that's not the fault of the corporate-controlled private healthcare system or the religious right's takeover of reproductive information...nooooo. It's those goshdarn ladies not devoting every aspect of their lives to being the best baby-machine possible!

How about giving women accurate, correct, scientifically-sound information and access to quality healthcare if and when they choose to have children? HOW ABOUT CARING ABOUT WOMEN'S HEALTH BECAUSE WE'RE PEOPLE WITH OUR OWN INTRINSIC WORTH AND NOT JUST FETAL-INCUBATORS?

If these mysoginistic wackos have their way, it'll only be a matter of time before us womenfolk learn that our place is in a Matrix-like compound of goo-pods, pumping out infants from puberty to menopause.

More on Purity Balls

The SF Gate has a great article on Purity Balls, and why virginity is lousy.

The US Infant Mortality Rate

...is second-highest in the developed world. And, if not for the challenges in medical infrastructure in freakin' LATVIA, the US would have claimed the top spot. Richest goddamn country in the world, and they can't keep their babies alive? Anybody for a rousing round of Friend of the Fetus?

If anyone's in town next year for this, maybe we can whip up a little Culture of Life show and perform...

Catholic Church - Pro-Sex?

Here's an interesting set of moral gymnastics. The Catholic Church thinks that people have a holy obligation to marry and procreate, correct? They are avowedly, adamantly, aggressively, "pro-life", correct?

Then why the in the name of Hades is a Catholic School teacher being fired for doing whatever necessary to conceive with her husband?

Because she committed the unforgiveable sin of, after trying for five years, turning to science to get her pregnant. Yes, she got in vitro fertilization, she got pregnant, she told her bosses, and she got a pink slip.

People like Joseph Capizzi of the Culture of Life Foundation said that in
vitro fertilization ran counter to Catholic teachings, which stress that a child
should be conceived through sex between a husband and wife.

"It's not so much that it's artificial that's the problem, instead it's
removing the sexual act and procreative act from the context of marriage," he
said.

Because babies are supposed to come from marital, procreation-based, man-on-top, penis-in-vagina, not-to-be-enjoyed-by-women sex. And if that doesn't work, well, I guess you just aren't PRAYING hard enough, or you're a bad person who doesn't deserve to have children, so in that case stop having sex immediately.

And that's the next step, isn't it - fertility tests before marriage? If you can't procreate, you can't wed, unless you promise not to have sex, because non-procreative sex is sinful, but a marriage must be consummated in the eyes of God, but okay, only once and neither of you'd better enjoy it, except it's not really sex until the man ejaculates, so maybe if the woman hates it twice as much to make up for the man's enjoyment, but then the man's seed - his precious manly essence! - is still being wasted, so...I guess it's a life of chastity and singlehood for the non-fertile, after all.

Too bad - all those kids sure could have used a coupla loving parents. Oops, I meant "fertile heterosexual" parents, because we all know that what a child needs, first and foremost, is the presence of reproductively viable individuals in her life.

This is why I love The Onion

Today's lead article at The Onion is fan-TASTIC. I wonder how many uterus-covetors are nodding their heads in vigorous agreement.

"Gee, what a big loaf of bread you have..." "The better to exploit you with, my dear"

This BBC article on the sex-for-aid scandal in Liberia triggered a pretty strong response in the readers, as evidenced by the comments posted in reply. Some pretty salient points were made, touching on issues like why these men weren't being observed, how this is still widespread years after the issue first arose, how come the kind of inhuman bastards who would volunteer to help the world's most powerless and then wind up exploiting them aren't being rounded up and shot, etc., etc.

Personally, it reminded me a lot of the sex abuse in the Catholic Church, and I think there are a lot of relevant parallels. Both are patriarchal institutions (and yes, the UN, for all its human rights posturing, is essentially male-dominated and few insiders see any reason to change this; Stephen Lewis being a prominent exception). In both cases, abuse was carried out by persons in positions of authority who, more importantly, are presented as compassionate, caring figures. And, as always, the victims were largely children, as they are the most vulnerable and, therefore, easiest to exploit by the spineless, gutless and souless rejects who commit these types of crimes.

And it made me wonder if, like in the case of the Church, the perpatrators are/were simply being quietly shipped off somewhere else to a whole new batch of victims.

That's no way to solve this. And it certainly won't prevent future debased perverts from flocking to the priesthood/humanitarian aid agencies. This whole, "no gays in the priesthood thing" is also a ridiculous, non-solution, seeing as pedophilia and other forms of abuse are their own category of sexual orientation. Molesting boys doesn't mean someone's a homosexual, it means someone's a FUCKING MONSTER.

The problem is a cultural one, and it's present in Africa and North America. Let's look at this little gem from the BBC comments:

I doubt these girls are being forced to do anything, they know if they give certain favours then they get more food. It like giving money to a "lady" in soho, they need the money, the girls in Liberia need the food, im not saying this isnt wrong of course.

Oh, I see - it's not "force" if you can choose not to do it, even if choosing not to do it means DYING. Right. "Gee, I didn't force her to have sex with me, I just told her that if she or any member of her family ever wanted to eat, then she'd have to have sex with me." Last time I checked, being coerced, threatened or manipulated into sex IS RAPE. Not to mention the fact that there is no such thing as sex with children - IT IS ALWAYS RAPE.

That's what the patriarchy won't admit - that a woman who must prostitute herself for food, water, housing, employment, support for her family, career advancement, anything, is a victim of rape. To admit that would be to admit its own illegitimacy, that the roots of its power aren't in some sort of underlying moral obligation, but merely the result of ceaseless bullying of the powerless. Such as:

After the tsunami in 2004, my aunt, who is from Sri Lanka, said that she had heard rumors of Christian missionary groups in the area refusing to give aid to people until they accepted Christ. Again, it was just a rumor, but unfortunately, it's believable. I can think of few things more inhuman than taking advantage of helpless people in the middle of a crisis, and exploiting a child is even worse. Can we strip these men of their power and starve them, just to see what they would do for food?

Again, maybe it's just a rumour, but maybe not. There are assholes everywhere, and the most cowardly of all are attracted to positions where they are dealing with the world's most helpless - the better to exploit you with, my dear.

Daddy's little uterus

There are likely few girls out there who grew up without daddy issues of some sort. Maybe he was around, maybe he was the greatest dad when you were little, maybe you're both now adults and best friends - but there seems to be that inevitable pause when you start to turn from adorable little pumpkin into actual woman where - as Angela Chase put it so succinctly - "My breasts had come between us."

Daughters and fathers in a patriarchal society are bound to have tense relationships, especially when it comes to sexuality. That "fatherly" need to protect one's female offspring from the horrors of consensual, pre-marital sex (thereby devaluing her future as a saleable commodity to another man) is best exemplified in these bizarre "Purity Balls" which are apparently very popular in the fundamentalist Christian community. There's an excellent post (with accompanying photo of a VERY young girl pledging her purity to her father, probably thinking how nice it is that everyone thinks she's such a purty little girl) describing just how weird and twisted the whole thing is.

My question is, where are the mother/son purity balls? Or the mother/daughter? Or the father/son? Oh, silly me, it's only women and little girls who need help protecting their "purity". So it's up to dad to "protect" and "be an authority" and "keep the seal intact until purchase" and so on. Can't let those mothers do that, because they're not pure. I mean sure, they had sex for procreation, which isn't a sin, technically, but they're still "impure", and, furthermore, they might have enjoyed it, so we can't trust them. Although I can't imagine any man who takes his 4-year-old daughter to such an Electra-complex-creating event is of much use in the sack.

And it's not just anecdotal, skeeves-you-right-out evidence that shows that girls understand daddy's judging their sexuality - here's an excerpt from a study published in The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality that examined perceived parental disapproval as a factor in teens' sexual behavior:

Females were significantly more likely than males to anticipate fathers’ disapproval but the sexes did not differ with respect to mothers’ disapproval.

I don't want to paint all fathers with the same brush, 'cause there are awesome dads out there (and terrible moms too). Genitals don't make you a good or bad parent, any more than they make you a good or bad person. But it's so, so sad that there aremen out there who see their primary fatherly duty to keep their daughter a virgin until she can be given away to her husband. If you think sex makes your daughter "damaged goods", if you think a man who'd reject a woman for marriage because she's committed the unforgivable sin of sexual activity is a man to whom you want your daughter to be legally bound, then you probably think that a woman's only purpose in life is making babies and sandwiches, and the world will never know what your daughter could accomplish with her life, all because of your utero-fixation.

Are Women Who Get Abortions Criminals?

In Canada, there's very few pro-life activists who would go that far. Yes, a "child" was "murdered", yes a crime was committed...but ask them if the mother is a murderer, and watch them stop cold.

This in contrast to the situation in El-Salvador, where the answer is a resounding "absolutely". That fetus is a child, you killed it, you go to jail.

As horrific as that is, it's the logical consequence of an anti-abortion sentiment that considers women to be capable decision-makers. If, like most of the North American uterus-covetors, you believe that women are walking incubators, than you can get with away thinking she was manipulated into an abortion like dumb cow to the slaughterhouse, and blame the butcher.

What's Your Fetal Position?

There are two types of people in the world:

People who believe that beings of equal value with competing interests can co-exist in the same physical body, and people who don't.

People who believe that a sperm, egg or fetus has rights that supercede the rights of autonomous human beings, and people who don't.

People who believe that motherhood is a punishment, and people who don't.

People who believe they're better equipped to make decisions on pregnancy than pregnant women and their healthcare providers, and people who don't.

People who believe they have a holy obligation to judge others, and people who don't.

People who believe that men should have the final say in procreation, and people who don't.

People who believe that anatomy is destiny, and people who don't.

People who believe that strict gender roles are morally sanctified and straying from them is sinful, and people who don't.

People who believe that the positive correlation between abortion access and overall quality of life in a country is, at best, an unremarkable coincidence and, at worst, a bald-faced lie perpetrated by a secret underworld collective of baby-hating scientists and Feminazis, and people who don't.

If you're the latter, welcome to the club. If you're the former, please be advised that this one is taken - get your own damn uterus.

Things are looking up for women...

...in Gambia. Yes, while the beacon of democracy and freedom that is the US continues to tighten its grasps on the the uteri of the nation, there are still some countries in the world actually progressing towards the recognition that there's a woman surrounding each uterus!

National Assembly Members (NAMS) on Tuesday unanimously ratified Articles 5, 6, 7, and 14 of the Protocol on the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of the Women in Africa.

Dota Kamasso, NAM for Wuli East; Netty Baldeh, NAM for Tumana; Halifa Sallah, NAM for Serekunda Central; Sedia Jatta, NAM for Wuli West; and Nyima Sata Sanneh Bojang, a nominated member, all spiritedly defended the motion. Mr Sheikh Tijan Hydara, Attorney General and Secretary of State for Justice, who tabled the motion before the NAMS argued persuasively why the motion should be ratified.

In respect of Article 5 of the Protocol which deals with the elimination of harmful practices against women, he said popularly, women are referred to as being the weaker sex and if it is true, the strong therefore are expected to protect the weak. " Women are the object of love and affection. They are the mothers of mankind, the salt of our world and the inspiration behind many lofty achievements. They not only nurture children, but also nurture adults, male, and female alike and including their husbands as well. Therefore, whatever concerns them should actually not be taken lightly but very seriously," he said.

Progress! But there's still a ways to go, and judging by the whole "pregnancy is a punishment for being a dirty slut" mentality of allowing abortions only for victims of rape (emphasis mine):

"[...]victims of rape, incest, or other sexual assault be given the opportunity
to rid themselves of the consequences forced upon their lives, just like where the continued pregnancy endangers the mental and physical health of the mother or the life of the foetus."

So - every time a woman consents to sex she is implicitly consenting to pregnancy, and therefore ineligible for abortion because a woman can't have her cock and eat it too. But at least it's a step in the right direction. And with any luck they won't look to Bill Napoli to define rape.