![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jamesqAbortions are in the news again thanks to the South Dakota's attempt to ban abortion. As one of my roomies gets the Calgary Herald delivered to our house, I get the opportunity to read Calgary's right-wing drivel without having to pay for it. There's been a slow-motion debate about abortion going on in the letters page for the last few weeks and I wanted to comment on it.
The best letter was by one Mary-Anne Pechet (Calgary Herald Letters Page, February 18, 2006). Responding to another letter which was a litany of the horrors that befall women that have abortions, she writes:
I've heard this before, but I never really got it until now. I suspect Cary Funk gets it too, he ends his letter with this gem: "If you don't care about the child before it is born, chances are you won't care about it afterwards." He says this, but still wants these people to carry (and presumably raise) children they don't want - even though he acknowledges that they will likely not care about the child. This shows two things - that the child doesn't matter in and of itself to anti-abortionists, it's merely the means to punish sinful woman. Secondly, that while it's true that not caring before the child is born probably means you won't care about it afterwards, it doesn't follow that caring before means you will care afterwards. That is why you never hear about anti-abortionists helping out poverty-stricken moms with postpartum depression. The child is not the point, the punishment for having sex is.
You can see this desire to punish cropping up in different ways. Abstinence-only sex education and attitudes towards AIDS sufferers are obvious. The fight against an HPV vaccine (which should be a no-brainer - it will reduce deaths due to cervical cancer) is less obvious, but still comes from the same motivation. And of course there are the Pharmacists who know better then you and your doctor.
This is like a swift kick to the chakra for me - how could I have not noticed this before?
The best letter was by one Mary-Anne Pechet (Calgary Herald Letters Page, February 18, 2006). Responding to another letter which was a litany of the horrors that befall women that have abortions, she writes:
Like most people trying to exert control over women's bodies [they] fail to mention the millions of women devastated by the emotional and physical consequences of pregnancy and childbirth.It was a pretty good rant! Unfortunately it too garnered a response, this time from Cary Funk (Calgary Herald Letters Page, February 23, 2006):
Where do you warn us that having the baby may mean we "suffer depression for years to come as a consequence"? Stop trying to make women believe having an abortion will likely fill us with all sorts of long-lasting negative emotions and that having a baby will not. One in three pregnancies in Canada ends in abortion? What's the figure for those that end in infanticide or years of fetal-alcohol syndrome, shaken-baby syndrome, abuse and misery?
I don't see you people, including "those women who desperately want to adopt a baby" lining up to adopt these poor lost souls. Yet you are so intent on condemning them to wallow in the poverty and abuse that often follows unwanted births or births to millions of drug-addicted/abusing parents.
If the prospect of parenthood causes women such severe "emotional and physical consequences" that one-third choose to abort, perhaps they should reconsider if they are mature enough to engage in sex...It was at this point that I understood the real issue here. Banning abortion has nothing to do with saving the unborn. It's not even about controlling women's fates (though that is a natural consequence of the true issue). It's all about punishing women for having sex. Remember kids, sex is evil and it must be punished.
...We are tragically failing young women if we are teaching them pleasure and rights supersede the logical results of using their bodies sexually.
I've heard this before, but I never really got it until now. I suspect Cary Funk gets it too, he ends his letter with this gem: "If you don't care about the child before it is born, chances are you won't care about it afterwards." He says this, but still wants these people to carry (and presumably raise) children they don't want - even though he acknowledges that they will likely not care about the child. This shows two things - that the child doesn't matter in and of itself to anti-abortionists, it's merely the means to punish sinful woman. Secondly, that while it's true that not caring before the child is born probably means you won't care about it afterwards, it doesn't follow that caring before means you will care afterwards. That is why you never hear about anti-abortionists helping out poverty-stricken moms with postpartum depression. The child is not the point, the punishment for having sex is.
You can see this desire to punish cropping up in different ways. Abstinence-only sex education and attitudes towards AIDS sufferers are obvious. The fight against an HPV vaccine (which should be a no-brainer - it will reduce deaths due to cervical cancer) is less obvious, but still comes from the same motivation. And of course there are the Pharmacists who know better then you and your doctor.
This is like a swift kick to the chakra for me - how could I have not noticed this before?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 10:46 am (UTC)Is there any way I can convince you to write a letter making the points you have to the Herald in reply to this man? He's not going to listen, but you've summed up points most of us overlook all the time and I'd like to see that message reach every person it can, in case it hits more of them right between the eyes. As you note, it's not just about opposition to abortion. All of these decisions show a massive disregard for women and children.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 03:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 04:49 pm (UTC)Nevertheless, I'm with Madeileen. Please submit this to the Herald.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 05:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 07:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 01:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 03:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 08:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 04:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 05:51 pm (UTC)Even more cynically
Date: 2006-02-24 05:41 pm (UTC)Basic reproductive behaviours among mammals tend towards the male trying to find a maximum number of opportunities to reproduce.
Among females, the biological cost is much higher, and therefore, they tend to be quite selective. (hence the prevalence of mating dances, or among humans, the dreaded "dating ritual")
Once a female is pregnant, that has two effects from the male's perspective:
1) That pregnancy represents another individual to carry their genes forward.
2) It inhibits another competing male from reproducing.
So - what's the effect of shaming people about sex in general - and women in particular?
Pure and simple control over reproduction. Interestingly, the "big 3" monotheistic religions in this part of the world all reflect this by couching the female's reproductive cycle as 'unclean', and framing women as "temptresses". (In scripture largely written by - hmmm - men) {of course, all of these religions portray the female as being "punished" for being sexual through the process of childbirth}
If the woman can - at will - control her own fertility, then it effectively emasculates the male, and to weakens the "biological economy" which would render the female dependent upon the male during later stages of pregnancy and immediately after childbirth. (Of course, we no longer live in a hunter-gatherer society where such an economy makes some sense either - our children aren't usually eaten by the nearest Sabre Tooth Tiger...)
Re: Even more cynically
Date: 2006-02-24 05:56 pm (UTC)Excuse me, I have to go be like my namesake and tilt at some windmills now.
Re: Even more cynically
Date: 2006-03-01 01:53 am (UTC)Some of us, like most of the people we likely know, have done that. By and large we manage our instincts through conscious will and grow as people for it. Unfortunately, for many of us the urge to procreate is replaced by other urges and thus we don't have kids. The ones who don't sublimate their urges and control them have children rampantly since the very biological imperatives they're not controlling demand they do so.
And yes, that is indeed a very nice way of saying stupid people have too many children compared to smart people. Thankfully I can be excused for this belief since its backed up by both empirical evidence, and we smart people have an insidious tool at our disposal. We have control of public education (for now) and since not a tremendous amount of the ability to become smart and manage ones urges is genetic, we can "steal" the stupid children and turn them into smart adults. Free them would be a better way to say it though.
Because You Demanded It...
Date: 2006-02-24 05:48 pm (UTC)Re: Because You Demanded It...
Date: 2006-02-25 02:43 am (UTC)Re: Because You Demanded It...
Date: 2006-02-25 05:37 am (UTC)Re: Because You Demanded It...
Date: 2006-02-25 05:48 am (UTC)Re: Because You Demanded It...
Date: 2006-02-25 04:49 am (UTC)CK
Re: Because You Demanded It...
Date: 2006-02-28 03:38 pm (UTC)Re: Because You Demanded It...
Date: 2006-02-28 04:23 pm (UTC)If Mr. Funk is into punishing women for having sex, what is his position on gay rights? All those horny men have to do *some*thing, and if women aren't going to be helping them with their problems that seems to leave only one source of solace. I suspect, though, that his views are neither consistent nor actually thought-out.
best,
Joel
Re: Because You Demanded It...
Date: 2006-02-28 09:02 pm (UTC)You know, I think I'm onto something here...
Re: Because You Demanded It...
Date: 2006-03-01 01:39 am (UTC)Re: Because You Demanded It...
Date: 2006-02-28 06:40 pm (UTC)That'd be me.
Thank you for concisely and clearly phrasing something dear to my heart that has needed saying for quite some time.
Re: Because You Demanded It...
Date: 2006-02-28 07:12 pm (UTC)Re: Because You Demanded It...
Date: 2006-02-28 09:15 pm (UTC)Re: Because You Demanded It...
Date: 2006-03-01 01:20 am (UTC)Re: Because You Demanded It...
Date: 2006-03-01 06:58 am (UTC)Re: Because You Demanded It...
Date: 2006-03-02 12:59 am (UTC)well said
Date: 2006-02-25 07:23 pm (UTC)I have given up trying to make the narrow minded people i met to change. Instead I gave birth (by choice) to a future opinionated woman.
Re: well said
Date: 2006-02-28 09:07 pm (UTC)Women get punished for having sex.
Gays get punished for having sex.
Criminals get punished for being, well, criminals.
Abortion doctors get punished for allowing women to keep having sex without their just punishments.
If you believe in God, shouldn't you buy into that whole "Judge not, lest ye be judged" thing? Isn't the almighty supposed to do this himself in the afterlife?
stranger commenting again, oops!
Date: 2008-09-25 07:36 pm (UTC)THIS! I came out to my family 5 years ago, when I was 15, and was terrified because of their straight up Roman Catholic values, thinking I'd be kicked to the curb and all.
Except they, you know, have the Roman Catholic values of not judging other humans, respecting and being kind to everyone, etc. People need to take a lesson from the parents of a transgender, sort of gay but maybe queer, obviously Bible disobeying kid. Seriously, my parents rule. Everyone else needs to smarten up too!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 07:32 pm (UTC)perhaps they should reconsider if they are mature enough to engage in sex...
That infuriates me. Sex is not only for reproduction and I am so sick and tired of hearing that arguement. SO sick of that. It's disgusting. Yes, I agree that protective precautions (b/c, condoms, what have you) should be taken - but abstinence is never going to happen. Ever.
As someone who, only a year ago, used to be severely anti-abortion 100%, no way you're gonna change me - I am glad to have come to a place where I've begun to question what I've been taught/told my whole life and make up my own beliefs and morals and decisions.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 07:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 07:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 08:18 pm (UTC)Anyway, you asked for the rest of the story. I mention it being published here. I eventually got three responses in the Herald's letter column, which I outline here.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 09:08 pm (UTC)