Angela,
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.
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.
Hi Sean,
ReplyDeletemy point with the statistics was to state a potential reason why it remains to be a taboo in society- people still feel that abortion is a sensitive issue. I am not claiming that pro-life is the appropriate route, especially with regards to the fact that people will still have abortions legal or not.
You also make a good point about the current actions protesters are taking in order to promote pro-life and how it is not appropriate. It would seem more effective to change the current definition of a human in legal terms.
I also agree with your comments about those who act against abortion and contraception. They seem to contradict each other.
I hope this clears things up a bit.
I should have addressed the sensitivity in my response. I understood what you were saying and what I (foolishly) neglected to mention was that it's a very good point! It being sensitive would definitely cause an avoidance on television. But, as I said in my long winded and indirect response (lol), it is not only about the sensitivity of the issue, but the status of women, a much more important issue.
Delete