Blogging for Choice
Jan. 22nd, 2007 02:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsittingstillI saw somewhere that today is supposed to be Blogging for Choice Day. I thought "I'm going to get in on that." I've got a lot to do today, so I better make this brief.
I'm pro-choice because I believe that women are human, that we have the same human rights as anyone else, and that the most basic human right is the right not to be enslaved (you know, forced to labor for the good of another without recompense?). Specifically this includes the right not to have your very flesh coopted and used for the benefit of another organism without your specific, ongoing consent.
A fetus is, biologically speaking, a parasite--an organism that lives within another organism, drawing its nutrients from, and depositing its wastes into, its host's tissues. It is, furthermore, an obligate parasite, which in biology talk means it can't be removed from its host without killing it. (This might be considered to be the source of the moral problem some people have with abortion, but I don't think it is, for reasons I will go into later.) I'm pro-choice because I don't think a living breathing woman who can look you in the eye and beg you not to enslave her should be enslaved for the good of a parasite.
Various groups draw various lines at which a fetus becomes human. For the Christian Church it used to be fourty days after conception (for a male fetus; for a female fetus it was eighty days. Why there would be a difference, and how anybody was supposed to be able to tell which sex the fetus was at that stage of development, is left as an exercise for the reader.) Nowadays the "pro-life" crowd likes to draw that line at conception, when the fertilized egg is still a single cell.
I too see a moral turning point at which a fetus becomes human. Mine is just biological--it is the point at which the fetus ceases to be an obligate parasite on its host, and becomes a free-living organism. At that point (leaving aside for a moment the biochemical Charm Person spell a baby casts on its mother) it is no longer necessary to enslave someone to support zir life.
Furthermore, I believe that some portion (it's my impression this portion is pretty large, actually) of the "pro-life" crowd is actually composed of the "in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children" crowd--the people who believe that unwanted babies are God's Just Punishment on those despicable people who commit the sin of having-sex-while-female. If one has the opportunity to read the kinds of e-mails they send to women who are trying to get Plan B in time to do some good, or trying to get an abortion because none of the emergency rooms in the area would give emergency contraception to a woman who couldn't prove rape, you can see the attitude clearly. "You should have thought of that before you opened your legs, you (deleted)." These people want to control women's sexual behavior. That's why they hate abortion; that's why they despise birth control (I know this seems crazy. Just trust me. I've seen the e-mails. They really do despise birth control. They say it contributes to a "Culture of death." No, really; quit sniggering.). I gather they want to return to a fondly imagined "Golden Age" when a woman was just never alone with a man unless she was related to him. And I think that the fact that this would mean that women couldn't get a decent education or a well paying high status job is not a regrettable but necessary side effect of preserving women's purity, but actually the whole point of the exercise as far as they are concerned. I'm pro-choice because I believe women are the equals of men and deserve to be treated that way.
I can't help but notice that every Christmas, and every Easter, the Humane Society reminds us that getting a puppy or a kitten or a bunny for a family that isn't able and eager to care for it is irresponsible. That puppy/kitten/bunny might be abused or neglected if it's forced on someone who doesn't want it, or on someone who isn't able to care for it. Well, how much more irresponsible is it to give someone a *baby* they aren't able and eager to care for? And how much more irresponsible than that is it to give 1.6 million people 1.6 million babies they aren't able and eager to care for? I'm pro-choice because I don't want babies to be neglected or abused.
I am pro-choice because there are six billion people in an ecosphere groaning under our weight and I think that means you should only have kids if you really *really* want them. I am pro-choice because all women deserve to have the educational and economic opportunities that come with being able to plan your family. And last, but certainly not least, I am pro-choice because every child deserves to be a wanted child, born in joy.
I'm pro-choice because I believe that women are human, that we have the same human rights as anyone else, and that the most basic human right is the right not to be enslaved (you know, forced to labor for the good of another without recompense?). Specifically this includes the right not to have your very flesh coopted and used for the benefit of another organism without your specific, ongoing consent.
A fetus is, biologically speaking, a parasite--an organism that lives within another organism, drawing its nutrients from, and depositing its wastes into, its host's tissues. It is, furthermore, an obligate parasite, which in biology talk means it can't be removed from its host without killing it. (This might be considered to be the source of the moral problem some people have with abortion, but I don't think it is, for reasons I will go into later.) I'm pro-choice because I don't think a living breathing woman who can look you in the eye and beg you not to enslave her should be enslaved for the good of a parasite.
Various groups draw various lines at which a fetus becomes human. For the Christian Church it used to be fourty days after conception (for a male fetus; for a female fetus it was eighty days. Why there would be a difference, and how anybody was supposed to be able to tell which sex the fetus was at that stage of development, is left as an exercise for the reader.) Nowadays the "pro-life" crowd likes to draw that line at conception, when the fertilized egg is still a single cell.
I too see a moral turning point at which a fetus becomes human. Mine is just biological--it is the point at which the fetus ceases to be an obligate parasite on its host, and becomes a free-living organism. At that point (leaving aside for a moment the biochemical Charm Person spell a baby casts on its mother) it is no longer necessary to enslave someone to support zir life.
Furthermore, I believe that some portion (it's my impression this portion is pretty large, actually) of the "pro-life" crowd is actually composed of the "in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children" crowd--the people who believe that unwanted babies are God's Just Punishment on those despicable people who commit the sin of having-sex-while-female. If one has the opportunity to read the kinds of e-mails they send to women who are trying to get Plan B in time to do some good, or trying to get an abortion because none of the emergency rooms in the area would give emergency contraception to a woman who couldn't prove rape, you can see the attitude clearly. "You should have thought of that before you opened your legs, you (deleted)." These people want to control women's sexual behavior. That's why they hate abortion; that's why they despise birth control (I know this seems crazy. Just trust me. I've seen the e-mails. They really do despise birth control. They say it contributes to a "Culture of death." No, really; quit sniggering.). I gather they want to return to a fondly imagined "Golden Age" when a woman was just never alone with a man unless she was related to him. And I think that the fact that this would mean that women couldn't get a decent education or a well paying high status job is not a regrettable but necessary side effect of preserving women's purity, but actually the whole point of the exercise as far as they are concerned. I'm pro-choice because I believe women are the equals of men and deserve to be treated that way.
I can't help but notice that every Christmas, and every Easter, the Humane Society reminds us that getting a puppy or a kitten or a bunny for a family that isn't able and eager to care for it is irresponsible. That puppy/kitten/bunny might be abused or neglected if it's forced on someone who doesn't want it, or on someone who isn't able to care for it. Well, how much more irresponsible is it to give someone a *baby* they aren't able and eager to care for? And how much more irresponsible than that is it to give 1.6 million people 1.6 million babies they aren't able and eager to care for? I'm pro-choice because I don't want babies to be neglected or abused.
I am pro-choice because there are six billion people in an ecosphere groaning under our weight and I think that means you should only have kids if you really *really* want them. I am pro-choice because all women deserve to have the educational and economic opportunities that come with being able to plan your family. And last, but certainly not least, I am pro-choice because every child deserves to be a wanted child, born in joy.
