So, yea, I'm pro-choice. That's right. I'm a pregnant mother who's had a miscarriage that devastated me, and I'm still pro-choice. Would I ever have an abortion? I honestly cannot imagine the scenario in which I would. But I think it's important for it to be legal, for so many varied reasons that I probably wouldn't have time to touch on all of them in this space. I am lucky enough never to have had to face the decision of whether to have one. I've had friends and loved ones who have, and that implication that pro-lifers often make that women make that decision blithely offends me, because I do not know one person who ever made that decision lightly. I know people who still mourn the decision, years later. I know people who know it was the right decision for them at the time, but who still wistfully wonder about the road not taken. But I don't know anyone who ever said, "Eh...easier to just end it." Maybe some MEN think that way, but...they're not the ones with the embryo growing inside them, now are they?
I also have some pretty strong feelings about rape. Shocking, I'm sure. As a daughter, a sister, a wife and a mother of a son, I feel very, very, very strongly that a woman should NEVER falsely accuse a man of rape. There is absolutely no justification for that. It's disgusting and it sets back the cause of rape prevention every single time someone does it. That said, I, and all the women I know, and God willing the men too, know what rape is. And what it's not. Date rape? Is rape. No means no, like we've all been taught. There is no need to redefine the word rape, thank you very much Congressional Republicans. And to you men in Congress who are interested in redefining rape, consider this. If someone sodomized you against your will, would you want to quibble over wording? Or would you just want that person to be punished? Yea. I thought so.
When I lived in Georgia, my insurance company, in their infinite wisdom, decided they were more capable of making decisions about my sex life than I was. As a result, the birth control pills I had been on for four years (to treat severe menstrual cramps, not actually to prevent pregnancy since I was notoriously chaste at the time), became unavailable to me. If I wanted them, I had to go to Planned Parenthood to get them. Which begs the question - aren't birth control pills cheaper, and don't they require fewer taxpayer dollars, than the CHILDREN who would need support from the government if women can't get birth control? I realize I'm not addressing the moral argument here. And that's because I believe birth control is responsible, not sinful.
The reason I've found myself straying from the Democratic party of late is that I don't think government is responsible for everything. As much as I hate to agree with Sarah Palin, I don't think it's any of Michelle Obama's business whether I breastfeed my baby or not (I will, because I want to, but it's still none of anyone else's business). But by the same token, my reproductive health is also none of your business. Taking federal funding away from Planned Parenthood because abortion offends you is ignorant and short-sighted. There are plenty of organizations out there that get federal funding, and PP is one that actually saves this country money in the long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment