Ian MacLeod
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 35
The “Question” of a Woman’s Right of Choice Shouldn’t Be a Question at All!
The right of Choice, with the help of President Bush and his fellow keep-‘em-barefoot-and-pregnant – and-chained-to-the-bed fanatics, has become a hot-button issue again. At least people are finally noticing that all of these seemingly isolated attempts to put unreasonable limits on abortions and even contraception are not isolated at all, and have nothing to do with religion, though uneducated, superstitious, self-styled “fundamentalists” are being used to facilitate the propaganda and the disenfranchisement of women as citizens and as human beings. These attacks are organized, orchestrated and often stealthed (with the help of the corporate MSM) attacks on the rights and health of women, the working poor and poor, minorities, and indeed, on all women except those belonging to (in many cases literally) the wealthy "elites".
There are greater threats than ever against all of the civil rights that too many of us have taken for granted for far too long, but legislation regulating education and health care, especially that regarding reproduction, ties into so many things about the way we think of and treat each other, most do not see a connection. That threat is not just coming from the Religious Right fanatics who are quite willing to have legions of young girls suffer agonies and horrors that make torture look downright benign, who are willing to have these “sinful, Godless whores” bleed out in back alleys or alone in hospitals among strangers, needlessly, as object lessons, because of enforced ignorance and a lack of medical and even simple contraceptive alternatives. These self-righteous Super-Christians and the wealthy, (the latter of whose daughters will never suffer so) – ascribe all this evil concupiscence and the punishment for it by way of pregnancy and deadly back-alley abortions to their merciless, bloodthirsty God (Who is remarkably like His followers:cruel, judgmental and vengeful, as well as illogical). It is also coming from lying, cynical opportunistic "elites" and other power-seekers who are fine with hijacking religion as a vehicle to power. And make no mistake: if it were truly about stopping the “murder” of unborn “children", after all the incontrovertible studies done up to this point that show without doubt that accurate sex education and easily available contraception and abortion reduces the unwanted pregnancies and abortions by up to 90%, they would be backing contraception and legalized abortion. It has been shown beyond doubt that criminalizing abortion does nothing but criminalize sex outside of marriage or in poor marriages, criminalizes women (not men) for that sex, seeks to impose the “punishment” of a child that they cannot afford and for whom they will receive no assistance, and raises the deaths from illegal abortions so much that in some countries where abortion is illegal it is a leading cause of deaths among women! This is not about “Christian love for children, unborn or not". That statement is so blatantly hypocritical it makes me want to puke. It's about power, plain and simple, no matter the cost to others. It's also about the utter, gut-wrenching, night-sweating night terror these sorry excuses for men cannot admit to themselves, much less to anyone else: it's about women having the freedom to live as they choose, without needing a man to supply them with food, protection and everything else they need but air, proving to the world as well as to themselves that anything men can do, women can do save sire a child. What would they do for someone do dominate and look down on if all women were ever to realize that men and women really are equals in every way that could possibly matter? That is their greatest fear.
For the “elites” who are Christian in name only in order to have access to religious organizations – and their votes - it's simply another way to divide people and thus control them. Honestly religious people have always been sucked into this compassionless political issue that really cares only about control. Such people believe the lies they are fed about the "elite’s" own "Christianity", and never really examine either those beliefs, or what their leaders actually do versus what they say, and simply go along in the belief that they’re supporting a Christianity under attack. There is a special word in the English language for rights that no one uses or actively protects: the word is "GONE"!
For anyone not operating strictly on religious zealotry, too little information, too much propaganda, or too much imagination together with the preceding, choice is a clear cut no-brainer. Here are my reasons:
A woman ALWAYS risks her life when she tries to carry a pregnancy to term and deliver. ALWAYS. The chances aren’t what they were before modern medicine, but the damage done to the American health care system by both the unchecked profit motive of the business end of unregulated private health care, and by the medieval attitudes of too many under-informed Americans and wannabe dictators in the government, has dropped the safety factor by an unconscionable amount. There’s no excuse at all, and the reason, as opposed to excuse, is the sheer greed of people and corporations that are already obscenely wealthy. They are perfectly willing to spend a few poor or working poor people’s lives, including the infants they claim to be so concerned about - until the child is born. The Republican’s and many church’s treatment of pregnant women and of infants and children gives the lie to that canard beyond argument.
It takes a woman’s body about five years to recover from a pregnancy. The results of surgery aside – and that is too often done so the doctor can make a golf game or something – pregnancy changes a woman's body, and never for the better. It may not be much, or it may be a lot, but her body will never be the same as it was after bearing a child. Even if the sire (a father is something else again) contributes monetary support, which is just a fraction of what he should be giving – emotional support is just as necessary – it isn’t his body that ages, changes, and in general just no longer works or looks the way a healthy young body does. A lot of it can be helped with the right exercise and food, good medical care that includes preventive medicine, lots of help, especially in the first year of a child’s life, and other things America neglects. Damage can be minimized, with some good luck and work, but her body WILL NEVER GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS. That’s a price a man doesn’t pay, never has paid, and never will.
The long and short here is that bearing children puts a lot of wear and tear on a woman’s body; she can only have so many children in her lifetime, paying a price in health and aging each time, and her time for bearing children is strictly limited. The older she is, the harder it is to get pregnant, the less likely it is she will carry it to term, and the more likely certain birth defects are. She has every reason to be careful about choosing whether, when, and with whom to have a child. A man’s reasons for choosing are more financial (emotional reasons often seem not to apply in this sad and sick society), and women are forced to depend too often on honor that isn’t there. Sorry guys, but until there are engineered exogenous or implantable wombs (for the one or two guys per century who would be willing to be pregnant themselves), we have no business forcing a woman to bear a child, ever. We can try bribery; if we’re in love with the lady and she feels the same about us, it’s a wonderful thing, but force - legal, physical or economic, should always be out of the question.
As for the "rights of the fetus", until it’s at least capable of survival outside the womb (and I’m uncertain myself about this, so the choice should still be hers, as it ain’t my health and livelihood a stake), there shouldn’t be any. Most abortions that take place late into a pregnancy are due to legal and financial delays caused deliberately by the RadRight in order to force a woman to have the child while being able to say, "We didn’t force her – she had legal recourse", which is, of course, a lie. The fetus is literally a part of the woman’s body until delivery, and the cost for her, by every measurement there is, is always high even at best. It’s always been too damned easy for a man to just walk away, and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
For the early part of a pregnancy, the so-called "child" is just a handful of cells that no more constitute a "person" than a pile of bricks constitutes a house. When the fetus becomes anything like conscious is a matter of debate even for experts; we can’t even define consciousness yet, not really. Yes, nerves form, a neural center forms, and you can get proof of electrical activity on a graph – you can do the same thing with plants, too. For that matter, an organ donor's absolutely dead body releases stress hormones as organs are harvested, but I don't hear anyone screaming about pain meds and anxiolytics for the corpse. These people simply pick and choose their interpretations of medical research as they do their scripture. A brain seems to program itself - with experience - and when it becomes self-conscious is ‘way beyond anyone’s ability to pinpoint. As for experience, there’s very little inside the womb. If the God-hucksters would get out of the way with their lying, inaccurate "education" and draconian, delay-oriented legislation that reduces women to the level of slaves, things would almost never get to this point. As for the so-called “Pro-Lifers”, I note that they continue to cut funding for food stamps, immunization and other medical programs, Head Start and every other program for children and poor families they can siphon money away from. “Pro-life”, my ass. Making abortion illegal just drives it underground and makes it more dangerous, more deadly, and anyone who claims anything else or supports criminalizing abortion wile claiming to be “pro-life” and “pro-child” is a lying hypocrite.
As for a soul, first you’d have to prove the existence of souls, then you’d have to prove when an embryo, fetus or child comes up with one, forms one, or whatever. Well, right now there is no such thing as a "soul detector". If there ever is, I want to see what one shows hooked up to people in this administration! Bringing souls into the argument is forcing your own religion on someone else, and that’s against the law, as it should be. As for the fanatics like the Dominionists and Christian Revisionists, I could make an excellent case for designating them dangerous cults, as opposed to denominations, and a clear and present danger to national security and the Constitution. Someone should before they cause even more damage to this society than they already have.
Back before Roe v Wade, I worked ambulance. I don’t know how many times I was called to the scene of an intelligent, sweet young girl, just barely a woman, who had been lied to by her parents and her boyfriend, not told anything worth knowing in school, and had gotten pregnant. Understand too, that these were not all poor kids in poor neighborhoods – many were middle-class, with two cars in the garage and two frightened parents standing by. Once I had to break down the bathroom door – the girl was bleeding to death (which she did), and was too ashamed to face her parents! Too often, by the time I got there, she was well on her way to bleeding out and dying, or had already died. I had been Navy Hospital Corps during Vietnam; I had the training to deal with a lot of it, but couldn’t get the blasted equipment or medicines! I wasn’t allowed, by law. Basically, I could put a band-aid on something, give oxygen, and run like mad for the nearest hospital, hoping and praying I got her there in time. Often, ashamed, they had waited too long to call and were dead by the time we arrived. Two more lives wasted, and a young girl was dead by torture. And you’d better believe it was and remains death by torture.
One of the incidents that still plays in my mind as though it were yesterday was a fifteen year old girl. She'd been lied to by everyone: her parents, school, her boyfriend, her church. She had gotten pregnant and was afraid to tell her parents, and she had been mutilated by a back-alley abortionist. To keep it short, she finished bleeding out in the back of my ambulance; my boots were stuck to the floor so that it took some real effort for me to lift them, and they made a loud sucking sound when I had to move, there was so much blood. It amazed me that such a tiny little girl could have had so much blood in her. All I could tell her parents was that she had been ashamed, and afraid to tell them anything, and that there had been nothing I could do for her. Nothing at all.
She was dark-haired, a babyfaced girl just moments out of childhood and too young to be called a woman, save that she was, indeed, able to make a baby. She'd been a straight A student, very sweet, and always moving, doing something, usually helping others. Both she and a possible child had died because of a bunch of pitiless, narrow-minded busybodies who just had to force everyone around them to live by their interpretation of God's rules, and I flattened one jackass I worked with for commenting that it had been "God's judgment on the sinful", and was "... a sad, but righteous example to others". That's how the RadRight justifies it, too. The best I can say about that is that such an attitude is clearly a totally human one, because a God like that isn't even worth pissing on, much less worshiping, and couldn't possibly have created such a universe as this. When I run across genuine horror, the author or conduit is almost always human.
I can't look at a young girl or a woman without seeing that time, and I wouldn't change that: it keeps my anger and my determination to do what I can fresh, painful and strong.
For what it’s worth, when I was single and in a relationship that included sex, even if it was only one time with a sweet stranger with the same interest as mine, I always made sure we used contraception. I’ve declined sex entirely when the only thing available was condoms and she didn’t want to try any alternatives, because I can’t have an orgasm using the damned things. I’m told there was some damage done by circumcision, and then more by six low back operations, but whatever the reason, I’ve only used them since giving up on them as a favor to a dear friend. I’ve gotten, and paid for, blood tests when I could, especially since AIDS; I’ve always offered to pay for exams and the pill or a diaphragm, or for a contraceptive sponge, and once for an IUD – her choice. Being willing to pay for any necessary contraception is part of being responsible. Choosing your partners carefully is a help when it comes to avoiding disease, but it’s far from perfect. I’ve been very lucky that way. Still, it does nothing around contraception.
Taking responsibility myself was always for practical reasons as well as being the gentlemanly thing to do – children are simply too important for too many reasons to go around making them casually, and abortion should never be a routine method of birth control. The one time I failed, it was after six back-to-back 24-hour shifts working ambulance, and we left the damned diaphragm in the dresser drawer, where it did no good at all. We’d been together for two years and were close to breaking up, but the kid was mine, no doubt, so I stayed another eight years before she got so abusive – especially after I became disabled – that I had no choice but to leave. I still made certain that she got child support, and he moved to be with me (and to get away from her) the day he turned eighteen. We’re great friends, he's still near here, and I’m very proud of him. As a matter of fact, I delivered him at home myself, and am on the birth certificate both as father and attending physician. That didn't make him the fine, caring, intelligent and talented young man he is, though - that's just him.
I’ve heard a lot of doubt from women about girlfriends who stopped taking the pill in order to get pregnant. Well, ladies, it happens; it happened to me three times when I was younger. I learned to demand to see the pills, to check the date of the prescription and to count them. I’ve declined sex because something wasn’t right, too, as well as because the woman said just not to worry about it this time. I never did worry: sex is a lot more than just penetration, and a couple can do a lot if they really want to please each other when penetration isn’t possible for any number of reasons. Both people wanting to please the other is a major part of the definition of good sex anyway – or it should be. Even though I’ve always known that a woman is only fertile three days out of twenty-eight, I didn’t take stupid chances.
Other good rules are:
Never get romantically involved with a woman who’s already in a relationship, or even "just broke up yesterday". The reasons for this should be obvious; if not, either wait until you grow up, or grow a conscience – and a sense of self-preservation.
Expect people to lie where sex is concerned.
Never take (or follow, if you prefer) a woman to bed for the first time if she’s drunk or possibly incapacitated, and you’ve only just met and don’t really know each other. I have had more than one woman I would have sworn was just buzzed and completely competent on wine or very little to drink - I still think so in all three cases – come up with the "You took advantage of me!" bit, despite real enthusiasm at the time. A rape accusation is no joke, no matter what.
A woman can always say "No". ALWAYS. "Stop", "I don’t want to", and any variations thereof are all valid, and the lady’s right at any point short of afterglow, gentlemen. She may change her mind, and that’s her right. In fact, if you aren’t sure if she said to stop, you’d damned well better stop and find out! "No" NEVER "REALLY" MEANS YES! Violation of this can - or should - cost you one or both testicles, gentlemen, removed by the woman at her discretion by whatever means she chooses. Where rape is concerned, I will stand back and applaud, and award ears and a tail (or similar appendage) where warranted.
If there’s ANY possibility of doubt, check her ID; it can be done discreetly, for instance by comparing driver’s license pictures. A young woman I met in a bar back when I was in the military turned out to be fifteen, though she didn’t look or act it at all. After I hit my late twenties-early thirties, that ceased being a problem, as I tend to be attracted to women my own age or a little older. My wife of fourteen years is nine years older than I; my son’s mother was eight years older. I prefer an equal or better as a partner. Young women are nice to look at, but (for me at least) there needs to some other common ground than just a bed; there really should be possible conversation beyond "Thank you" afterwards. Besides, there’s just something very special about an intelligent, full-grown and self-possessed woman that’s exciting in a way a "girl" cannot match!
Never lie (but expect others to, because they will). All it can do is cause problems in the long run, or often in the short run, and it can totally screw up something you may wind up wishing you hadn’t. Aside from being disrespectful, you’ll also get caught more often than you think. It’s just a bad idea all around. If you can’t be honest with a prospective partner, that person is either a bad choice, or you have some problems that may need some professional help, and that’s unfair to her – or to him, ladies. There are plenty of members of the opposite sex who enjoy sex and would be interested – just not in a liar or a game player. Honesty and genuine humor can only help. If you aren't mature enough for frank and honest speech, you are probably not mature enough to be having sex. Not that it ever slowed anyone down a lot.
Never see someone else if you’re already in a relationship, even if you’re only dating, without both of you being clear about it and agreeing beforehand. For that matter, don’t stare at other women while you’re with someone, or pay more attention to another woman than you do the woman you’re with. As it would be for you, it’s a blow to a person’s ego – like a slap in the face. Exception: if a naked woman walks by, the woman with you should expect you to be distracted – that much is hardwired in. So is looking (NOT staring). Sorry, ladies, but we’re locked on and tracking before we realize it. It appears to be an automatic system; we can control it beyond that, though, and the guy you’re with should. As an aside, I’ve noticed that most women look too; they’re just better at being unobtrusive about it; possibly they're just generally more polite.
Again: A great many people think refusal to use a condom is BS, period. I doubt I’ll be able to change their minds, and these days it is taking a terrible chance. For myself, they’re so uncomfortable they’re a constant distraction; they NEVER fit, and sometimes they roll back up and slip off just when things are getting really interesting (while it can be fun getting it back, this is not safe); I have never managed to have an orgasm while wearing one. While granted, an orgasm is not the be-all and end-all of sex and needn't happen every time, now and then is nice. (Use with a spermicide such as those used with a diaphragm is a good idea – CYA). If you CAN use a condom and enjoy it, by all means, they are absolutely the safest, most reliable form of combined contraception and prophylaxis (disease prevention) there is, as long as you use them correctly – WEAR ONE! In Europe they have sizes, and maybe that would help people in my situation a bit; the problem in America, I guess, is that no American male is going to stand at the checkout counter in front of a female clerk with a box labeled "small". Whatever you do, though, YOU are responsible for preventing a pregnancy you do not wish to take responsibility for – you and no one else, no matter what. And remember, there’s a technical term for people who use the rhythm method or who choose to chance that she isn’t fertile right now: "parents". But no matter what anyone says, claims or promises, YOU. ARE. RESPONSIBLE.
If there is a pregnancy, there is at least one other person involved now, so what you do isn’t just about you anymore. Be an adult, try to put yourself in her place, and don’t just abandon her or them, whichever it turns out to be – and yes, the choice still is and should be hers alone! Abandonment is utter cowardice, and sometimes the harm done that way affects generations. Sex is NOT just recreation; it reaches as deeply into the core of who and what we are, right down to the genes, as anything can, and scars resulting from callousness go just as deep. Ideally, sex should be making love (and the difference is as great as that between, to paraphrase R.A. Heinlein, fun, sweaty, co-ed exercise, or a living sacrament); if it isn’t, or if you’re not even trying make it the best thing you can for both of you, then perhaps you need to reevaluate your criteria, because you’re not just taking a chance on really hurting someone, you’re missing out on something wonderful beyond words. It’s as close to real magic as you’re ever likely to run across short of being involved in childbirth. That, now, is a genuine miracle, no matter how often it happens. I’ll take that over parting a measly sea any day!
Guys, women are people; they’re human beings no less than you are. You’ve been hurt, humiliated, had people think and say things about you that really left scars that probably still bleed sometimes. Having experienced that yourself, though usually not with the same seriousness of consequences, you cannot justify doing it to someone else. Chances are the woman you’re interested in likes sex at least as much as you do. Be careful of the other’s feelings, and with luck they’ll do the same for you. Making love should be a mutual gift, not a "conquest" (what a ridiculous notion!), not part of a collection (I’ve never counted – it never even occurred to me), not a "taking" of anything by either person involved, and not just "scratching an itch". If that’s all it is, masturbation is cheaper, easier, safer and more sanitary; it’s just lonely.
A woman has so much more invested, and so much more at stake when she becomes pregnant than a man does, that giving a man control over whether she carries it to term or not is ridiculous, if not insane. When the child is born, things change, and if a woman should be able to expect financial and other help, she should also expect to share child rearing pleasures as well as duties. Otherwise, it really does become a lifetime sentence for a man for a single moment of carelessness – in which a woman is not uninvolved, unless it was rape (and a rapist should have no rights whatsoever, including the right to keep his testicles!) – with no benefits at all. It’s very easy to turn sex and it’s possible consequences into something destructively unfair for either, or both, or all. Be careful with other people, be practical when you should be; then, with a little luck you helped to create, both will more often than not end up with something sweet and special at the very least, instead of the nightmare it too often becomes.
The question of choice for a woman of whether to abort or not shouldn’t even be a question at all. Remember that no matter how careful she is, a woman's right to choose her partner or to have none at all can be taken away in an instant by a rapist. I find it most revealing that “fundamentalist” Rightists make no distinction as to whether she deserves the standard “punishments” or not even in cases of rape: a baby, maybe a foul disease, huge hospital bills, and unsupported, soul-killing poverty for mother and child for life. (Nothing in scripture says anything against abortion, in fact, and what little there is that’s even close to it, in Leviticus, also considers a fetus to be part of the mother, and requires only a small fine from a man who causes a woman to lose a fetus she's carrying).
Every smallest piece of evidence says it’s a matter of control, of establishing and keeping power over others, not concern for children of whatever age. It is part and parcel of the perversion of the groups - neocons, Dominionists and Reconstructionists, Catholics and all - that they require behavior diametrically opposed to normal, healthy, natural behavior, then set up those they require to act unnaturally with even more twisted strictures such that they must fail. They are then justified – they believe, and worse, too often their victims do as well – in telling people how evil and sinful they are for being what they are, and that they deserve punishment and suffering. Such people make of religion a sickness, a plague in society that kills far more slowly and agonizingly than the Black Plague ever did. It’s no coincidence that when these pseudo-religious fanatics are closely watched, scandals erupt showing that they violate their own "Laws of God" more than most. What they require of others is a genuine perversion, while they themselves are perverted even going by much looser standards. But then, rules are never supposed to apply to the Rule Makers and Enforcers, are they?
People need contact with other people, physical contact; touch. We’re built that way. An infant needs to be touched – it’s a real, physical and mental need – that’s how a new brain learns to connect itself up, function, differentiate between me/not me, learns to see and interpret what it sees. Touch tells us that we are connected to Life, and to each other. I don’t know why so many people think we grow out of that, and that touch becomes superfluous, something “extra” but not necessary. There’s such a thing as becoming what I call "body-hungry" – you need to touch and be touched by another human being. Guys will seldom admit to just needing to touch someone (that can be read as "to cuddle"), but that need is there, it's real , and people often mistake it for being horny, or use that as an excuse. It isn’t the same thing at all, but people too often end up trading sex for touch, and I find that really sad.
As it is, there is too little love in the world, and too much to pay for small joys. Whatever anyone’s gender, or preferences, or beliefs, no one is or can be right in taking away or controlling what comfort others may find however they find that comfort, as long as the choice is mutual and no one is harmed. And "harm", short of physical, economic or other clear, provable and undeniable damage affecting bodily, emotional or economic health, must be defined by those harmed, not by some fanatic who decides these people are suffering harms they aren’t even aware of. People who define out-of-wedlock sex as harm by definition are welcome to live their lives that way, but we are all given only one life and no more that we may shape and make decisions about that define us, and make us who we are: our own lives. If we want to own those choices ourselves, we must protect the right to make them for others as well! Either we look out for each other in that way, or we will all stand – and fall – alone, powerless against those who do band together and are willing take whatever they can from us, one right at a time, no matter what it costs us.
Eventually, they’ll do it at gunpoint if we let it happen.
Ian MacLeod
Oregon
August 3d, 2007
Updated December 21st, 2008
The right of Choice, with the help of President Bush and his fellow keep-‘em-barefoot-and-pregnant – and-chained-to-the-bed fanatics, has become a hot-button issue again. At least people are finally noticing that all of these seemingly isolated attempts to put unreasonable limits on abortions and even contraception are not isolated at all, and have nothing to do with religion, though uneducated, superstitious, self-styled “fundamentalists” are being used to facilitate the propaganda and the disenfranchisement of women as citizens and as human beings. These attacks are organized, orchestrated and often stealthed (with the help of the corporate MSM) attacks on the rights and health of women, the working poor and poor, minorities, and indeed, on all women except those belonging to (in many cases literally) the wealthy "elites".
There are greater threats than ever against all of the civil rights that too many of us have taken for granted for far too long, but legislation regulating education and health care, especially that regarding reproduction, ties into so many things about the way we think of and treat each other, most do not see a connection. That threat is not just coming from the Religious Right fanatics who are quite willing to have legions of young girls suffer agonies and horrors that make torture look downright benign, who are willing to have these “sinful, Godless whores” bleed out in back alleys or alone in hospitals among strangers, needlessly, as object lessons, because of enforced ignorance and a lack of medical and even simple contraceptive alternatives. These self-righteous Super-Christians and the wealthy, (the latter of whose daughters will never suffer so) – ascribe all this evil concupiscence and the punishment for it by way of pregnancy and deadly back-alley abortions to their merciless, bloodthirsty God (Who is remarkably like His followers:cruel, judgmental and vengeful, as well as illogical). It is also coming from lying, cynical opportunistic "elites" and other power-seekers who are fine with hijacking religion as a vehicle to power. And make no mistake: if it were truly about stopping the “murder” of unborn “children", after all the incontrovertible studies done up to this point that show without doubt that accurate sex education and easily available contraception and abortion reduces the unwanted pregnancies and abortions by up to 90%, they would be backing contraception and legalized abortion. It has been shown beyond doubt that criminalizing abortion does nothing but criminalize sex outside of marriage or in poor marriages, criminalizes women (not men) for that sex, seeks to impose the “punishment” of a child that they cannot afford and for whom they will receive no assistance, and raises the deaths from illegal abortions so much that in some countries where abortion is illegal it is a leading cause of deaths among women! This is not about “Christian love for children, unborn or not". That statement is so blatantly hypocritical it makes me want to puke. It's about power, plain and simple, no matter the cost to others. It's also about the utter, gut-wrenching, night-sweating night terror these sorry excuses for men cannot admit to themselves, much less to anyone else: it's about women having the freedom to live as they choose, without needing a man to supply them with food, protection and everything else they need but air, proving to the world as well as to themselves that anything men can do, women can do save sire a child. What would they do for someone do dominate and look down on if all women were ever to realize that men and women really are equals in every way that could possibly matter? That is their greatest fear.
For the “elites” who are Christian in name only in order to have access to religious organizations – and their votes - it's simply another way to divide people and thus control them. Honestly religious people have always been sucked into this compassionless political issue that really cares only about control. Such people believe the lies they are fed about the "elite’s" own "Christianity", and never really examine either those beliefs, or what their leaders actually do versus what they say, and simply go along in the belief that they’re supporting a Christianity under attack. There is a special word in the English language for rights that no one uses or actively protects: the word is "GONE"!
For anyone not operating strictly on religious zealotry, too little information, too much propaganda, or too much imagination together with the preceding, choice is a clear cut no-brainer. Here are my reasons:
A woman ALWAYS risks her life when she tries to carry a pregnancy to term and deliver. ALWAYS. The chances aren’t what they were before modern medicine, but the damage done to the American health care system by both the unchecked profit motive of the business end of unregulated private health care, and by the medieval attitudes of too many under-informed Americans and wannabe dictators in the government, has dropped the safety factor by an unconscionable amount. There’s no excuse at all, and the reason, as opposed to excuse, is the sheer greed of people and corporations that are already obscenely wealthy. They are perfectly willing to spend a few poor or working poor people’s lives, including the infants they claim to be so concerned about - until the child is born. The Republican’s and many church’s treatment of pregnant women and of infants and children gives the lie to that canard beyond argument.
It takes a woman’s body about five years to recover from a pregnancy. The results of surgery aside – and that is too often done so the doctor can make a golf game or something – pregnancy changes a woman's body, and never for the better. It may not be much, or it may be a lot, but her body will never be the same as it was after bearing a child. Even if the sire (a father is something else again) contributes monetary support, which is just a fraction of what he should be giving – emotional support is just as necessary – it isn’t his body that ages, changes, and in general just no longer works or looks the way a healthy young body does. A lot of it can be helped with the right exercise and food, good medical care that includes preventive medicine, lots of help, especially in the first year of a child’s life, and other things America neglects. Damage can be minimized, with some good luck and work, but her body WILL NEVER GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS. That’s a price a man doesn’t pay, never has paid, and never will.
The long and short here is that bearing children puts a lot of wear and tear on a woman’s body; she can only have so many children in her lifetime, paying a price in health and aging each time, and her time for bearing children is strictly limited. The older she is, the harder it is to get pregnant, the less likely it is she will carry it to term, and the more likely certain birth defects are. She has every reason to be careful about choosing whether, when, and with whom to have a child. A man’s reasons for choosing are more financial (emotional reasons often seem not to apply in this sad and sick society), and women are forced to depend too often on honor that isn’t there. Sorry guys, but until there are engineered exogenous or implantable wombs (for the one or two guys per century who would be willing to be pregnant themselves), we have no business forcing a woman to bear a child, ever. We can try bribery; if we’re in love with the lady and she feels the same about us, it’s a wonderful thing, but force - legal, physical or economic, should always be out of the question.
As for the "rights of the fetus", until it’s at least capable of survival outside the womb (and I’m uncertain myself about this, so the choice should still be hers, as it ain’t my health and livelihood a stake), there shouldn’t be any. Most abortions that take place late into a pregnancy are due to legal and financial delays caused deliberately by the RadRight in order to force a woman to have the child while being able to say, "We didn’t force her – she had legal recourse", which is, of course, a lie. The fetus is literally a part of the woman’s body until delivery, and the cost for her, by every measurement there is, is always high even at best. It’s always been too damned easy for a man to just walk away, and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
For the early part of a pregnancy, the so-called "child" is just a handful of cells that no more constitute a "person" than a pile of bricks constitutes a house. When the fetus becomes anything like conscious is a matter of debate even for experts; we can’t even define consciousness yet, not really. Yes, nerves form, a neural center forms, and you can get proof of electrical activity on a graph – you can do the same thing with plants, too. For that matter, an organ donor's absolutely dead body releases stress hormones as organs are harvested, but I don't hear anyone screaming about pain meds and anxiolytics for the corpse. These people simply pick and choose their interpretations of medical research as they do their scripture. A brain seems to program itself - with experience - and when it becomes self-conscious is ‘way beyond anyone’s ability to pinpoint. As for experience, there’s very little inside the womb. If the God-hucksters would get out of the way with their lying, inaccurate "education" and draconian, delay-oriented legislation that reduces women to the level of slaves, things would almost never get to this point. As for the so-called “Pro-Lifers”, I note that they continue to cut funding for food stamps, immunization and other medical programs, Head Start and every other program for children and poor families they can siphon money away from. “Pro-life”, my ass. Making abortion illegal just drives it underground and makes it more dangerous, more deadly, and anyone who claims anything else or supports criminalizing abortion wile claiming to be “pro-life” and “pro-child” is a lying hypocrite.
As for a soul, first you’d have to prove the existence of souls, then you’d have to prove when an embryo, fetus or child comes up with one, forms one, or whatever. Well, right now there is no such thing as a "soul detector". If there ever is, I want to see what one shows hooked up to people in this administration! Bringing souls into the argument is forcing your own religion on someone else, and that’s against the law, as it should be. As for the fanatics like the Dominionists and Christian Revisionists, I could make an excellent case for designating them dangerous cults, as opposed to denominations, and a clear and present danger to national security and the Constitution. Someone should before they cause even more damage to this society than they already have.
Back before Roe v Wade, I worked ambulance. I don’t know how many times I was called to the scene of an intelligent, sweet young girl, just barely a woman, who had been lied to by her parents and her boyfriend, not told anything worth knowing in school, and had gotten pregnant. Understand too, that these were not all poor kids in poor neighborhoods – many were middle-class, with two cars in the garage and two frightened parents standing by. Once I had to break down the bathroom door – the girl was bleeding to death (which she did), and was too ashamed to face her parents! Too often, by the time I got there, she was well on her way to bleeding out and dying, or had already died. I had been Navy Hospital Corps during Vietnam; I had the training to deal with a lot of it, but couldn’t get the blasted equipment or medicines! I wasn’t allowed, by law. Basically, I could put a band-aid on something, give oxygen, and run like mad for the nearest hospital, hoping and praying I got her there in time. Often, ashamed, they had waited too long to call and were dead by the time we arrived. Two more lives wasted, and a young girl was dead by torture. And you’d better believe it was and remains death by torture.
One of the incidents that still plays in my mind as though it were yesterday was a fifteen year old girl. She'd been lied to by everyone: her parents, school, her boyfriend, her church. She had gotten pregnant and was afraid to tell her parents, and she had been mutilated by a back-alley abortionist. To keep it short, she finished bleeding out in the back of my ambulance; my boots were stuck to the floor so that it took some real effort for me to lift them, and they made a loud sucking sound when I had to move, there was so much blood. It amazed me that such a tiny little girl could have had so much blood in her. All I could tell her parents was that she had been ashamed, and afraid to tell them anything, and that there had been nothing I could do for her. Nothing at all.
She was dark-haired, a babyfaced girl just moments out of childhood and too young to be called a woman, save that she was, indeed, able to make a baby. She'd been a straight A student, very sweet, and always moving, doing something, usually helping others. Both she and a possible child had died because of a bunch of pitiless, narrow-minded busybodies who just had to force everyone around them to live by their interpretation of God's rules, and I flattened one jackass I worked with for commenting that it had been "God's judgment on the sinful", and was "... a sad, but righteous example to others". That's how the RadRight justifies it, too. The best I can say about that is that such an attitude is clearly a totally human one, because a God like that isn't even worth pissing on, much less worshiping, and couldn't possibly have created such a universe as this. When I run across genuine horror, the author or conduit is almost always human.
I can't look at a young girl or a woman without seeing that time, and I wouldn't change that: it keeps my anger and my determination to do what I can fresh, painful and strong.
For what it’s worth, when I was single and in a relationship that included sex, even if it was only one time with a sweet stranger with the same interest as mine, I always made sure we used contraception. I’ve declined sex entirely when the only thing available was condoms and she didn’t want to try any alternatives, because I can’t have an orgasm using the damned things. I’m told there was some damage done by circumcision, and then more by six low back operations, but whatever the reason, I’ve only used them since giving up on them as a favor to a dear friend. I’ve gotten, and paid for, blood tests when I could, especially since AIDS; I’ve always offered to pay for exams and the pill or a diaphragm, or for a contraceptive sponge, and once for an IUD – her choice. Being willing to pay for any necessary contraception is part of being responsible. Choosing your partners carefully is a help when it comes to avoiding disease, but it’s far from perfect. I’ve been very lucky that way. Still, it does nothing around contraception.
Taking responsibility myself was always for practical reasons as well as being the gentlemanly thing to do – children are simply too important for too many reasons to go around making them casually, and abortion should never be a routine method of birth control. The one time I failed, it was after six back-to-back 24-hour shifts working ambulance, and we left the damned diaphragm in the dresser drawer, where it did no good at all. We’d been together for two years and were close to breaking up, but the kid was mine, no doubt, so I stayed another eight years before she got so abusive – especially after I became disabled – that I had no choice but to leave. I still made certain that she got child support, and he moved to be with me (and to get away from her) the day he turned eighteen. We’re great friends, he's still near here, and I’m very proud of him. As a matter of fact, I delivered him at home myself, and am on the birth certificate both as father and attending physician. That didn't make him the fine, caring, intelligent and talented young man he is, though - that's just him.
I’ve heard a lot of doubt from women about girlfriends who stopped taking the pill in order to get pregnant. Well, ladies, it happens; it happened to me three times when I was younger. I learned to demand to see the pills, to check the date of the prescription and to count them. I’ve declined sex because something wasn’t right, too, as well as because the woman said just not to worry about it this time. I never did worry: sex is a lot more than just penetration, and a couple can do a lot if they really want to please each other when penetration isn’t possible for any number of reasons. Both people wanting to please the other is a major part of the definition of good sex anyway – or it should be. Even though I’ve always known that a woman is only fertile three days out of twenty-eight, I didn’t take stupid chances.
Other good rules are:
Never get romantically involved with a woman who’s already in a relationship, or even "just broke up yesterday". The reasons for this should be obvious; if not, either wait until you grow up, or grow a conscience – and a sense of self-preservation.
Expect people to lie where sex is concerned.
Never take (or follow, if you prefer) a woman to bed for the first time if she’s drunk or possibly incapacitated, and you’ve only just met and don’t really know each other. I have had more than one woman I would have sworn was just buzzed and completely competent on wine or very little to drink - I still think so in all three cases – come up with the "You took advantage of me!" bit, despite real enthusiasm at the time. A rape accusation is no joke, no matter what.
A woman can always say "No". ALWAYS. "Stop", "I don’t want to", and any variations thereof are all valid, and the lady’s right at any point short of afterglow, gentlemen. She may change her mind, and that’s her right. In fact, if you aren’t sure if she said to stop, you’d damned well better stop and find out! "No" NEVER "REALLY" MEANS YES! Violation of this can - or should - cost you one or both testicles, gentlemen, removed by the woman at her discretion by whatever means she chooses. Where rape is concerned, I will stand back and applaud, and award ears and a tail (or similar appendage) where warranted.
If there’s ANY possibility of doubt, check her ID; it can be done discreetly, for instance by comparing driver’s license pictures. A young woman I met in a bar back when I was in the military turned out to be fifteen, though she didn’t look or act it at all. After I hit my late twenties-early thirties, that ceased being a problem, as I tend to be attracted to women my own age or a little older. My wife of fourteen years is nine years older than I; my son’s mother was eight years older. I prefer an equal or better as a partner. Young women are nice to look at, but (for me at least) there needs to some other common ground than just a bed; there really should be possible conversation beyond "Thank you" afterwards. Besides, there’s just something very special about an intelligent, full-grown and self-possessed woman that’s exciting in a way a "girl" cannot match!
Never lie (but expect others to, because they will). All it can do is cause problems in the long run, or often in the short run, and it can totally screw up something you may wind up wishing you hadn’t. Aside from being disrespectful, you’ll also get caught more often than you think. It’s just a bad idea all around. If you can’t be honest with a prospective partner, that person is either a bad choice, or you have some problems that may need some professional help, and that’s unfair to her – or to him, ladies. There are plenty of members of the opposite sex who enjoy sex and would be interested – just not in a liar or a game player. Honesty and genuine humor can only help. If you aren't mature enough for frank and honest speech, you are probably not mature enough to be having sex. Not that it ever slowed anyone down a lot.
Never see someone else if you’re already in a relationship, even if you’re only dating, without both of you being clear about it and agreeing beforehand. For that matter, don’t stare at other women while you’re with someone, or pay more attention to another woman than you do the woman you’re with. As it would be for you, it’s a blow to a person’s ego – like a slap in the face. Exception: if a naked woman walks by, the woman with you should expect you to be distracted – that much is hardwired in. So is looking (NOT staring). Sorry, ladies, but we’re locked on and tracking before we realize it. It appears to be an automatic system; we can control it beyond that, though, and the guy you’re with should. As an aside, I’ve noticed that most women look too; they’re just better at being unobtrusive about it; possibly they're just generally more polite.
Again: A great many people think refusal to use a condom is BS, period. I doubt I’ll be able to change their minds, and these days it is taking a terrible chance. For myself, they’re so uncomfortable they’re a constant distraction; they NEVER fit, and sometimes they roll back up and slip off just when things are getting really interesting (while it can be fun getting it back, this is not safe); I have never managed to have an orgasm while wearing one. While granted, an orgasm is not the be-all and end-all of sex and needn't happen every time, now and then is nice. (Use with a spermicide such as those used with a diaphragm is a good idea – CYA). If you CAN use a condom and enjoy it, by all means, they are absolutely the safest, most reliable form of combined contraception and prophylaxis (disease prevention) there is, as long as you use them correctly – WEAR ONE! In Europe they have sizes, and maybe that would help people in my situation a bit; the problem in America, I guess, is that no American male is going to stand at the checkout counter in front of a female clerk with a box labeled "small". Whatever you do, though, YOU are responsible for preventing a pregnancy you do not wish to take responsibility for – you and no one else, no matter what. And remember, there’s a technical term for people who use the rhythm method or who choose to chance that she isn’t fertile right now: "parents". But no matter what anyone says, claims or promises, YOU. ARE. RESPONSIBLE.
If there is a pregnancy, there is at least one other person involved now, so what you do isn’t just about you anymore. Be an adult, try to put yourself in her place, and don’t just abandon her or them, whichever it turns out to be – and yes, the choice still is and should be hers alone! Abandonment is utter cowardice, and sometimes the harm done that way affects generations. Sex is NOT just recreation; it reaches as deeply into the core of who and what we are, right down to the genes, as anything can, and scars resulting from callousness go just as deep. Ideally, sex should be making love (and the difference is as great as that between, to paraphrase R.A. Heinlein, fun, sweaty, co-ed exercise, or a living sacrament); if it isn’t, or if you’re not even trying make it the best thing you can for both of you, then perhaps you need to reevaluate your criteria, because you’re not just taking a chance on really hurting someone, you’re missing out on something wonderful beyond words. It’s as close to real magic as you’re ever likely to run across short of being involved in childbirth. That, now, is a genuine miracle, no matter how often it happens. I’ll take that over parting a measly sea any day!
Guys, women are people; they’re human beings no less than you are. You’ve been hurt, humiliated, had people think and say things about you that really left scars that probably still bleed sometimes. Having experienced that yourself, though usually not with the same seriousness of consequences, you cannot justify doing it to someone else. Chances are the woman you’re interested in likes sex at least as much as you do. Be careful of the other’s feelings, and with luck they’ll do the same for you. Making love should be a mutual gift, not a "conquest" (what a ridiculous notion!), not part of a collection (I’ve never counted – it never even occurred to me), not a "taking" of anything by either person involved, and not just "scratching an itch". If that’s all it is, masturbation is cheaper, easier, safer and more sanitary; it’s just lonely.
A woman has so much more invested, and so much more at stake when she becomes pregnant than a man does, that giving a man control over whether she carries it to term or not is ridiculous, if not insane. When the child is born, things change, and if a woman should be able to expect financial and other help, she should also expect to share child rearing pleasures as well as duties. Otherwise, it really does become a lifetime sentence for a man for a single moment of carelessness – in which a woman is not uninvolved, unless it was rape (and a rapist should have no rights whatsoever, including the right to keep his testicles!) – with no benefits at all. It’s very easy to turn sex and it’s possible consequences into something destructively unfair for either, or both, or all. Be careful with other people, be practical when you should be; then, with a little luck you helped to create, both will more often than not end up with something sweet and special at the very least, instead of the nightmare it too often becomes.
The question of choice for a woman of whether to abort or not shouldn’t even be a question at all. Remember that no matter how careful she is, a woman's right to choose her partner or to have none at all can be taken away in an instant by a rapist. I find it most revealing that “fundamentalist” Rightists make no distinction as to whether she deserves the standard “punishments” or not even in cases of rape: a baby, maybe a foul disease, huge hospital bills, and unsupported, soul-killing poverty for mother and child for life. (Nothing in scripture says anything against abortion, in fact, and what little there is that’s even close to it, in Leviticus, also considers a fetus to be part of the mother, and requires only a small fine from a man who causes a woman to lose a fetus she's carrying).
Every smallest piece of evidence says it’s a matter of control, of establishing and keeping power over others, not concern for children of whatever age. It is part and parcel of the perversion of the groups - neocons, Dominionists and Reconstructionists, Catholics and all - that they require behavior diametrically opposed to normal, healthy, natural behavior, then set up those they require to act unnaturally with even more twisted strictures such that they must fail. They are then justified – they believe, and worse, too often their victims do as well – in telling people how evil and sinful they are for being what they are, and that they deserve punishment and suffering. Such people make of religion a sickness, a plague in society that kills far more slowly and agonizingly than the Black Plague ever did. It’s no coincidence that when these pseudo-religious fanatics are closely watched, scandals erupt showing that they violate their own "Laws of God" more than most. What they require of others is a genuine perversion, while they themselves are perverted even going by much looser standards. But then, rules are never supposed to apply to the Rule Makers and Enforcers, are they?
People need contact with other people, physical contact; touch. We’re built that way. An infant needs to be touched – it’s a real, physical and mental need – that’s how a new brain learns to connect itself up, function, differentiate between me/not me, learns to see and interpret what it sees. Touch tells us that we are connected to Life, and to each other. I don’t know why so many people think we grow out of that, and that touch becomes superfluous, something “extra” but not necessary. There’s such a thing as becoming what I call "body-hungry" – you need to touch and be touched by another human being. Guys will seldom admit to just needing to touch someone (that can be read as "to cuddle"), but that need is there, it's real , and people often mistake it for being horny, or use that as an excuse. It isn’t the same thing at all, but people too often end up trading sex for touch, and I find that really sad.
As it is, there is too little love in the world, and too much to pay for small joys. Whatever anyone’s gender, or preferences, or beliefs, no one is or can be right in taking away or controlling what comfort others may find however they find that comfort, as long as the choice is mutual and no one is harmed. And "harm", short of physical, economic or other clear, provable and undeniable damage affecting bodily, emotional or economic health, must be defined by those harmed, not by some fanatic who decides these people are suffering harms they aren’t even aware of. People who define out-of-wedlock sex as harm by definition are welcome to live their lives that way, but we are all given only one life and no more that we may shape and make decisions about that define us, and make us who we are: our own lives. If we want to own those choices ourselves, we must protect the right to make them for others as well! Either we look out for each other in that way, or we will all stand – and fall – alone, powerless against those who do band together and are willing take whatever they can from us, one right at a time, no matter what it costs us.
Eventually, they’ll do it at gunpoint if we let it happen.
Ian MacLeod
Oregon
August 3d, 2007
Updated December 21st, 2008
Should THAT be a question, AT ALL?
