![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Feb. 23rd, 2006
Abortions 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?
