Sunday, April 23, 2006

Article Response - When Anti-Choice Forces Get Their Way

When Anti-Choice Forces Get Their Way
H/T to spacelover_itin feminists4life,
@ 2006-04-19 14:02:00

Since my response is long and thought out, I thought it'd be worth posting my reply here too.
"Don’t let anyone tell you that anti-choicers care about women. They don’t."

This is just slander, discredit us and discourage women from turning to us or trusting us. But anyways, there are many "anti-choice" women who also volunteer for a number of humanitarian causes including Habitat for Humanity, soup kitchens, food pantries, and battered women's shelters.

"Their ideal policies will turn women and doctors into criminals."

Um, yeah, this is just blatant stereotyping. Pro-lifers range in beliefs, not all believe criminalizing the woman would be beneficial or helpful.

"They will kill and maim women."

It is not the grusome image projected here of pro-life activists dragging women into back-allies where amatures are waiting with a rusty coat-hanger. In fact, in the time before Roe, the majority of abortions were preformed by physicians in good standing and nurse midwives. And pro-choice advocates insist on keeping abortion available through any means possible, no matter the danger such procedures pose to women. And even since legalization, NARAL and individual pro-choice advocates have continued to fight against legal measures which would protect women's health, such as required licensing for ambulatory surgical clinics (such as abortion clinics) and mandating the availability of proper sanitation devices and emergency equipment, and professional pro-choice organizations such as the National Abortion Federation (NAF) have continued to defend abortion providers in the matter of medical malpractice and negligence suits.
Below are examples of the results when pro-choice advocates continue to place protecting abortion rights and abortion providers over protecting women's health and safety in abortion procedures.

"Women’s empowerment and reproductive rights are deeply and inexoribly[sic] related. Anti-choice activists aren’t interested in “saving babies,” or they’d be pushing for wider contraception access and universal healthcare[sic]. Instead, they’re willing to say anything — and I mean anything, no matter how obviously dishonest — in order to keep women indentured as servants to their biology."

We're not the ones who have a warped view of our ability to reproduce as a weakness or a disease to be remedied. Unintended pregnancy is only part of the problem. Rather than focusing alone on treating the pregnancy (i.e. abortion) we should be also be focusing on addressing the issues surrounding the pregnancy which make it a crisis. As for the last statment, can they back it with proof (not hypothetical nor personal anecdotes, nor stereotypes) to show that our beliefs are unerringly wrong?

"They are grounded in misogyny and outright lies."

Ah, more mud-slinging. When you're not able to rationally defend your position, resort to mud-slinging and stereotyping to discredit and silence opposing views.

“There does not exist any case in which the life of the mother would be in danger”? I think all the friends and relatives of the women who die in childbirth or during pregnancy would beg to differ. And I’ll bet a whole lot of doctors, and women with pre-eclampsia, HELLP syndrome and dozens of other conditions, would beg to differ, too."

I don't think the person they choose to quote adequately explained her position. I think she's saying that every effort can be made to save both mother and child (via c-section?) and using the technology available. Even so, most third-world countries lack proper nutrition and sanitation, as well as the money and technology for basic prenatal care non-the-less emergency ob. care. This is what we should be focusing on.

"Well, the “continent of hope” isn’t looking so hopeful when the women there remain second-class citizens and are tossed in prison for having the audacity to decide not to be pregnant."

Women should not have to be child-free or surrender motherhood in order to have financial/job opportunities and become successful. And this is where feminism has failed us, when we have become like men in order to succeed. And let us reiterate that abortion is often not chosen freely (like you might pick new clothing), but in a crisis situation and under duress.

"Many anti-choicers will tell you that they don’t want to punish women, and that they wouldn’t criminally penalize women who have illegal abortions. Well, they’re either liars or idiots. If we agree that life begins at conception, and that such a life is the moral equal of my life or yours, then ending that life through abortion is a murder equivalent to me killing you. Most anti-choicers will tell you that they believe a fertilized egg or an embryo or a fetus is a life equivalent to mine or yours (whether they actually believe this is doubtful, but let’s just take their word for it). How do you justify, then, allowing a woman to pay someone to end that life, but not prosecuting her? Wouldn’t you prosecute her if she hired a hitman to kill one of her born children? If you, anti-choicer, actually believe what you claim to, how do you justify not criminally prosecuting women who have abortions?"

They're angry because many of us don't fit neatly into their stereotype of pro-lifers and aren't absolutes. they want to paint us as and *gasp* we actually have compassion for the woman who finds herself in a crisis situation. Once again, our focus isn't punishing the woman, but providing better alternatives.

"The face of back-ally abortions has certainly shifted from the pre-Roe days, with advances in medical technology. If abortion were legalized today, chances are that fewer women would die from illegal abortions, if only because they have better access to medical care. But, as this article makes clear, there would still be a great distinction between what rich women have access to, and what poor women do."

True, it's been proven time and time again that it wasn't legalizing abortion which reduced the mortality rate, but advancements in emergency medicine and the discovery of antibiotics like penicillin. Although the poor and minority have a high abortion rate, I've found that it is the wealthy, not the poor, who are the most vocal for abortion rights. This is even described by Norma McCorvey herself in her book, "Won By Love" It seems the wealthy are using the poor as the icon for their cause so they can have their abortion services legal, convenient, and easy to access. It'd be interesting to have a poll and find out how many of the poor are actually in favor or legalized abortion.

Phew! Thanks for bearing with me ;-)

No comments:

Post a Comment