Tuesday 10 April 2012
Sunday 8 April 2012
Why are abortion and contraception an issue?
Until the lecture on the subject I never gave the absence of abortion on television much thought. But as outlined, it really IS missing. Having not had cable for the last decade, my television watching has been selective and missing, and the only television abortion I can remember seeing is Claire's from Six Feet Under, which I thought was well done, at least in as much as it in line with my own pro-choice views. The continual punishing of the show's characters not withstanding, Claire was not penalized in any way for the choice she made. Thinking about the absence of abortion from television really puzzles me. But not as much as the current US debate over a woman's right to control her own reproductive system.
It's amazingly confusing that these "issues" are issues at all. Didn't we sort this out 40 years ago?
Isn't 40 years enough time for abortion to appear on television more than 11 times? The whole debate in the US right now is ridiculous. More than ridiculous; it's enraging. That a group of men, a "who's who in who doesn't have a uterus" as Colbert put it, would be deciding anything about a woman's right to control her own reproductive system is enough to give me a stroke.
Aside from the obvious fact that women have the right to their own bodies, and not old male senators and congressmen, study after study show that outlawing abortion does not lower abortion rates. It does, however dramatically increase female mortality rates. Are policy makers be ignoring these studies? Is the christian zeal blinding them to the numbers? Or worse, are dead women irrelevant next to the "immorality" of abortion?
If they have read the studies and are aware of the findings, and are dedicated to eliminating abortions, why are they also rallying against contraception? The studies have all also found that the easier the access to contraception, the lower the abortion rates are. I do understand that if your God is against both, so would you be, but we've got to be realistic. They need to wake up and realise that the only real way to prevent abortions is to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies. The lesser of two evils, I suppose.
Seems that logic isn't their strong suit.
I remember walking past Robarts one day recently and passing pro-life and pro-choice demonstrators in a stand off. This was a sign of things to come I guess (it was prior to the current US debate). At that time, I was surprised to see either group demonstrating. Pro-choicers have already won, seeing as abortion has long been legal, so I could figure out why they were demonstrating. As for the other side, I was struck by the same thought I always am when I see pro-lifers advocating: You're really wasting your time. My views that it's the woman's choice alone aside, pro-life groups are fighting against the murder of human beings. Most people, pro-choicers included would disagree that murder is wrong, but a fetus isn't, legally, an individual. Ergo, it's not murder. So, if they really want to make any change, trying to convince people who think murder is wrong that murder is wrong seems a foolish approach. Until the legal definition of a fetus is changed the point is moot.
And then there's Rush Limbaugh.
At any rate, contraception and abortion featuring so highly in the upcoming election(s), and as a result being highly present in the news media will surely effect television in the near future. As another, and now quite hot, topic in the ongoing culture way it can't really be ignored. We've already seen it make its way onto Friday Night Lights. Hopefully television can start to really address the issue and remove the "last" taboo. And hopefully, the republicans advocating the reproductive slavery of women won't make any real headway. The US needs more, and not less Planned Parenthood (who in supplying some 100 000 women with contraception last year theoretically prevented a million times more abortions than they provided, contrary to the claim that abortions are the bulk of what they do).
It's amazingly confusing that these "issues" are issues at all. Didn't we sort this out 40 years ago?
Isn't 40 years enough time for abortion to appear on television more than 11 times? The whole debate in the US right now is ridiculous. More than ridiculous; it's enraging. That a group of men, a "who's who in who doesn't have a uterus" as Colbert put it, would be deciding anything about a woman's right to control her own reproductive system is enough to give me a stroke.
Aside from the obvious fact that women have the right to their own bodies, and not old male senators and congressmen, study after study show that outlawing abortion does not lower abortion rates. It does, however dramatically increase female mortality rates. Are policy makers be ignoring these studies? Is the christian zeal blinding them to the numbers? Or worse, are dead women irrelevant next to the "immorality" of abortion?
If they have read the studies and are aware of the findings, and are dedicated to eliminating abortions, why are they also rallying against contraception? The studies have all also found that the easier the access to contraception, the lower the abortion rates are. I do understand that if your God is against both, so would you be, but we've got to be realistic. They need to wake up and realise that the only real way to prevent abortions is to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies. The lesser of two evils, I suppose.
Seems that logic isn't their strong suit.
I remember walking past Robarts one day recently and passing pro-life and pro-choice demonstrators in a stand off. This was a sign of things to come I guess (it was prior to the current US debate). At that time, I was surprised to see either group demonstrating. Pro-choicers have already won, seeing as abortion has long been legal, so I could figure out why they were demonstrating. As for the other side, I was struck by the same thought I always am when I see pro-lifers advocating: You're really wasting your time. My views that it's the woman's choice alone aside, pro-life groups are fighting against the murder of human beings. Most people, pro-choicers included would disagree that murder is wrong, but a fetus isn't, legally, an individual. Ergo, it's not murder. So, if they really want to make any change, trying to convince people who think murder is wrong that murder is wrong seems a foolish approach. Until the legal definition of a fetus is changed the point is moot.
And then there's Rush Limbaugh.
At any rate, contraception and abortion featuring so highly in the upcoming election(s), and as a result being highly present in the news media will surely effect television in the near future. As another, and now quite hot, topic in the ongoing culture way it can't really be ignored. We've already seen it make its way onto Friday Night Lights. Hopefully television can start to really address the issue and remove the "last" taboo. And hopefully, the republicans advocating the reproductive slavery of women won't make any real headway. The US needs more, and not less Planned Parenthood (who in supplying some 100 000 women with contraception last year theoretically prevented a million times more abortions than they provided, contrary to the claim that abortions are the bulk of what they do).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
You are quite right that the debate still rages about whether or not the fetus is a human being. In my post I stated that it wasn't an individual, not that a fetus wasn't a human being. That is an important distinction, apparently, in Canadian law. Abortions are legal because they are the termination of a being, acknowledged (I would imagine) to be living, unable to survive physically independent of its mother.
What I was getting at is that if the law doesn't consider a fetus an individual, and the criteria for "individual" is the ability to survive physically independent, then those who seek to outlaw abortion need to first change the legal definition of an individual.
Protesting outside of abortion clinics and accusing women of being murderers is clearly not the best means to that end.
Further, in light of stats and studies and number, the definition of a fetus and the morality of abortion are actually pretty irrelevant. Studies have indicated that abortion rates were roughly the same in countries were it is legal and those where it is not. So, outlawing abortion does not prevent dead fetuses, it only kills (sometimes drastically) more women. In light of this how can anyone who claims to respect life support outlawing abortion? More importantly, since that fetus is a goner either way, arguing either the legal definition of said fetus or the morality of abortion is a huge waste of time, money and energy.
This time, money and energy that could otherwise be spent on providing contraception, sex education and sexual health promotion, the only things shown to ACTUALLY lower abortion rates.
What really gets my goat are those who are against contraception AND abortion AND actually think that people can, and should, refrain from sexual activity. They seem to have zero reasoning skills and extreme tunnel vision. There are two important, static truths they are ignoring: people will never stop having sex; a lot of people don't want children. So, they need either a contraceptive or an abortion. It's just that simple. Personally I'm in camp contraception; prevention is always cheaper and easier than a cure or solution.
While I'm clearly pro-choice I could never fault the good intentions of those who truly believe that abortion is murder (and as I've said most people think that is wrong). I just need they need to open their eyes and realize that contraception is the only effective way to prevent abortions. So what I do fault them for is for is fighting against contraception, which is the most ludicrous thing happening in the US at the moment. It is incredibly serious, simultaneously sad and enraging, and illustrates the most important issue of the entire debate.
Birth control is not only used to prevent pregnancies but to treat brutal disorders like polycystic ovarian syndrome (which left untreated can be incredibly painful, lower your quality of life and leave you barren).
It's hard not to look at this campaign against contraception as a campaign against women (especially since I see no similar issue over Viagara/Cialis being covered by drug plans - a drug that is not multi-purpose). It doesn't help that a women who wants/needs to have her birth control covered by a drug plan is accused of being a "slut" with a "line-up outside her door" on national radio. Are men who get their viagara paid for subject to treatment? Would Rush like them to post videos of the sex they are having as well?
Obviously Limbaugh is an extreme example, but the statements were broadcasted to the world and he is not alone in his view. If this is the subtext of the contraception/abortion debate then we have a massive problem that gets my feminist blood boiling.
This in mind, it is easy to see how the treatment of abortion on television is only symptomatic of the treatment of women (on television). A million prevented pregnancies and a million dead fetuses can only pale in comparison to the subjugation of women, truly.