Log in

No account? Create an account

Medium Dawn Felagund of the Fountain

Today Is Blog for Choice Day

The (Cyber) Bag of Weasels

bread and puppet

"About as much fun as a bag of weasels"...when I first saw this Irish adage, it made me think of the life of a writer: sometimes perilous, sometimes painful, certainly interesting. My paper journal has always been called "The Bag of Weasels." This is the Bag of Weasels' online home.

Today Is Blog for Choice Day

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
As the title says, today is Blog for Choice Day, or the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

I am pro-choice, and I believe that there are three big reasons for that:

  • I am a woman.

  • I do not want children.

  • I understand what it is to hold an absolute, uncompromisable position on an ethical issue.

The first two, I think, synthesize to create the beginnings of my stance on abortion. I am a woman, so I have wrangled with the same issues of birth control and pregnancy as almost any woman. I console myself with the statistics--I take birth control pills, and those are 99.9% effective, supposedly--but then there are the exceptions, that .1%. I know two women who got pregnant while on IUDs, which have a similar effectiveness to birth control pills. I know one woman who got pregnant while on the patch. So the "personal responsibility" angle doesn't have much sway for me; since I started having sex, I have been "personally responsible," but so have plenty of other women I know that end up pregnant nonetheless.

And I don't want children. I have never wanted children, and despite the assertion by some that that will change by my 18/20/25/30th birthday, I'm on the threshold of the latter and ... it ain't changed yet. I could devote a whole post to my reasons, but that is beside the point. I will suffice to say that I do not have the personality or temperament to care for another human being full-time (just ask my droopy houseplants or my husband who occasionally has to plead with me to launder his underwear), and that I place as a higher aim caring for the people already on the planet rather than making new ones to be cared for. That is not to say that I fault those who choose differently than me. Just that I have my reasons too.

Well, where the twain meet--my femaleness and my choice to remain child-free--is where I find the germ of my pro-choice beliefs. I wasn't always pro-choice. I remember arguing with my best friend in the eighth grade about abortion. I was a radical animal rights activist then (more on that in a moment), and life was life: It was an uncomplicated belief that did not acknowledge much less account for the moral complexities of any of the questions on which I had decided the answers. (I was twelve years old, mind, when I figured all of this out.) It was wrong to take life. Period. End of story. Therefore, abortion was wrong.

Enter the third point. I was a radical animal rights activist, and the basis of the most fervent of my beliefs left as little wiggle room as anti-choice beliefs leave for the complexities of these questions. It did not matter if experimenting on one rat would save one hundred children, it was wrong and shouldn't be done. It did not matter how humane one made farming and slaughter, eating meat was wrong. So was wearing leather or fur (I still think the latter is true). Circuses were wrong. Zoos were wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. I drew the line just shy of declaring pet ownership (excuse me ... guardianship) wrong because I had pets and the cognitive dissonance was just too much for me to handle. But everything else was wrong.

If you ask me today how I feel about vivisection or meat-eating or the display of animals in zoos and aquariums, I can't give you a five-second answer anymore. Because there reached a point where I began asking the hard questions. I fell in love with a guy who ate meat. Did I truly believe that he was evil for doing so? I began to ask how I would feel if he became sick and had to rely on a treatment developed using animal research. It had been much easier to consider martyring myself to my beliefs and refusing treatment than to subject my one-day husband to the same conditions. Likewise, I began asking the same questions about abortion. Gone was the myth of the irresponsible young woman using abortion as birth control; that young woman could suddenly be me, and the hypothetical accident would be just that: an event that occurred despite all precautions. Or what if I was raped? I found out that my step-grandfather was a child molester and had raped one of my older cousins. What about that? What if she'd been a bit older and had become pregnant? The line became fuzzy and then disappeared altogether. I could hold myself to as high of moral standards as I wished. I could agree to carry and bear an unwanted child gotten under violent circumstances. But I realized the terrible injustice of doing the same for others, of pointing to a person whose circumstances and beliefs I did not know and sentencing her to meet the standards that I--in my comfortable, privileged, and non-troubled life--had set for myself. I had never been raped or molested. I had never been pregnant. How could I make that choice for someone else?

I have often seen the quote that anti-choice women with moderate beliefs think that abortion should be allowable in cases of rape, incest, when the life of the mother is in danger--and for them. About one-third of U.S. women will, at some point in their lives, choose to abort a pregnancy. A big hoopla was recently made when the number of U.S. citizens who identified as "pro-life" went over 50%. 49% of women surveyed identified as "pro-life." Looking again at the report from the Guttmacher Institute, half of U.S. women will have an unintended pregnancy at some point in their lives, so unless the pro-choice women are dominating that stat, then some of that third of women having abortions come from the "pro-life" camp.

I don't say this to point fingers and cry hypocrisy. I say this because these women have had the same realization that I had on many issues when I reached a level of moral maturity to see issues in more than dualist terms. Surely, these "pro-life" women terminating their pregnancies have convincing reasons why they should be granted an exception for abortion. And that is exactly why no one beside the woman can make that choice, because what do I know of what it is like to stand in your shoes? Hers? Or hers? And what do any of you know of what it is like to stand in mine?

I have the utmost respect for people who decide that abortion is unconscionable and make their personal choices based around that belief. I believe it is possible to be anti-abortion and pro-choice. I support the efforts of those who want to reduce unintended pregnancy, and I support the efforts of those who want to make it easier for women to put their children up for adoption if they choose to do so. What I object to--and why I am writing this post for Blog for Choice Day when I should be doing homework--is the assumption that anyone can make so personal a decision for someone else.
  • (no subject) -
    • Roisin, thank you for this comment. I admire the personal strength it takes to talk about these things for you. *hugs*

      I get "realy" bothered when people seem to put a woman's worth on her ability to bear children, or whether she has them or not.

      Yes! Exactly! I have never wanted children; I have decided instead to dedicate my life to teaching and to my art, through which I hope to promote justice and equality. One day, I would like to work overseas, teaching in countries where the citizens badly need the empowerment that literacy and education can bring. I could not devote myself wholly to these ideals if I had children ... at least, not while also being a good parent. My mentoring teacher, who is awesome beyond words, has three children herself. She asked me the other day if I wanted to have kids, and when I told her no, she said that she thinks that is a really good choice for teachers who wish to dedicate themselves wholly to the profession. She often has to wrangle between her obligations to her family and her ideals about what she owes her students. It is a very difficult issue for her that we talk about a lot.

      I do not mean that some people cannot do both. Obviously, she can, even if it is painful for her at times. I know that I could not. I know my temperament too well. When I am "in the zone" working on writing or on a project (like writing lesson plans), I cannot bear distractions; they make me really irritable and unpleasant. The Goldens get put out into the backyard a lot. I couldn't do that with a kid! :)

      I don't agree that abortion should be used as a form of birth control, especiallly when we have so many birth control options in this dy and age.

      I think the whole "abortion as birth control" is really a red herring thrown by the anti-choicers. While I'm sure that somewhere a woman has used abortion as birth control because I'm sure that, somewhere, a human being has done just about everything that is appalling and nonsensical, then I don't think the vast majority of women do. It is still a surgical procedure; even drug-induced abortion is not pleasant, from what I have read. Also, having known women who have had abortions, I believe that, generally, the first thing done after an abortion is ... write a prescription for birth control.

      I am disgusted but not particularly surprised at the attitudes you have met concerning the necessary surgeries you have had to treat your cancer. Nor am I particularly surprised at the attitudes of that doctor; my mother suffered for years in agony with endometriosis, and I don't believe that there wasn't more that her (male) doctor could have done to help her. But, of course, he's never had a menstrual cramp and never will.

      But I wish women would stop and think how precious their rights, and their health, are because you never know where you'll find yourself in life's crazy journey.

      Yes--and what's worse is that even if abortion is made illegal, it will still be necessary for some women for a variety of reasons. The difference will be the safety of the procedure for them. So no lives will be saved; their fetuses will still be terminated and, often, their lives will be terminated as well. This is pro-life?
  • (no subject) -
    • I agree with you 100% on sex education. I knew what sex was probably by the time I was about six years old. (Mostly because I wanted to be an entomologist and all of my insect books had pictures of insects "mating"; naturally, I asked, and my mother explained it all! :) Ironically (or maybe not), the chief opponents to comprehensive sex ed and making birth control more accessible to everyone are ... the same people who are anti-choice! I think that really reveals the source of their views, and it ain't saving fetuses.

      Late-term abortions, I agree, are a different can of worms. (I am regretting now that I no longer have a paid account and, therefore, my "can of worms" icon is not available to me. Bah.) Of course, late-term abortions are only undertaken when there is a medical issue, so it is not a matter of simply no longer wanting a pregnancy. Personally, I think that the life of the woman always comes before the life of the child. When the question is when a child is not going to survive long beyond birth and/or is going to suffer terribly, I think it is more complicated, but it remains really difficult for me to weigh in because I have never made that decision, and I know it is an agonizing one for parents who find themselves facing it. I have heard compelling arguments for both sides with respect to whether gravely ill fetuses should be carried to term, so I tend to defer again to the judgment of the parents and the doctors treating the case.
  • Being pro-choice myself and knowing what risks come with a pregnancy and even at a later stage still something can go wrong with a baby...

    To hear that your child is handicapped, might even perish or not even survive birth is also one of the choices a woman might have to make during pregnancy, when they decide to end the child suffering after the 20 weeks sonogram, this still is considered as an abortion I have read some articles of mom's with trisonomy kids who felt immensenly hurt by the pro-life campaigners). There are so many reasons why a woman chooses to terminate, it doesn't always say that a child is unwanted, but that nature has thrown up a blockade that even modern medicine cannot overcome. It is just that no matter at what stage of the pregnancy you are, but even prior (taking anti-conception), that load is already at a woman's shoulder (I am not sure where I am going with this, its late here). One of the arguments used by pro-lifers is how careless those women who are pro-choice and choose to abort a life, to kill something like that, but I know that in many many of those cases, a woman assumes her responsibility right there, like who am I to pass on this disease to my baby, who am I to prolong the suffering? Yet at the same time there are amazing women who know for example that their child has for example trisomy 8 and choose to carry it to full term. Even when they know that their child will not make it. During both 20 week ultrasounds were were asked upfront before it took place: if we see something, do you want to know and if so are you aware of the consequences (we wanted to keep it, both were healthy, but it would be welcome and loved no matter what and there we are).

    But you know, that is choice as well, something that is just ours to have and to decide for ourselves and our own judgement call what we should place on this earth (or not). Being a mom means not only taking care of your child 24/7... its until the day you pass on. You will always feel it and I can assure you, being a mom of a special needs kid, it is quite something to be responsible for. Just the fact that pro-lifers would want that to take away from us woman is just an immense slap in the face as if we do not possess the intelligence to make such decisions.

    Edited at 2010-01-22 11:22 pm (UTC)
    • When Dr. Tiller, who was one of the few practitioners left in the U.S. who did late-term abortions, was murdered last year, there was a lot of discussion, at least on this side of the pond, about what late-term abortion was. Most U.S. people, it seemed, thought that it was a decision undertaken for the same reasons that first trimester abortions are done, as though a woman wakes up one morning, six months pregnant, and decides she no longer wants the bother of pregnancy and children. As though it is not one of the most difficult decisions parents have to make. (DoubleX magazine did an excellent series of articles here, here, and here.)

      I am embarrassed to admit it but, despite being a feminist and staunchly pro-choice, I did not know much about late-term abortion either until Dr. Tiller's murder. As I read those articles ... well, I just could not imagine having to make that decision. My heart aches for those who have because I agree with you that both decisions require heartache and courage that I can't even begin to imagine.

      Just the fact that pro-lifers would want that to take away from us woman is just an immense slap in the face as if we do not possess the intelligence to make such decisions.

      Yes! I could not have put it better and this was really where I was going with my whole post, but you just said it beautifully in just one line! :) (Hey, I'm nothing if not loquacious! ;) It is extremely offensive to me that another's moral judgment should be thought worthy to trump my own, as though I do not have the wits to have thought very long and hard about where I stand on many issues, including abortion. And anyone who knows me well in RL will also attest that I angst constantly over the views that I have and am always challenging and reassessing them. I think this is more than many of the anti-choicers can probably say.
  • Well - I'd never want to see abortion as a method of family planning. Who would? As you say, working to reduce unwanted pregnancies is absolutely key.

    As a woman who has never wanted a child, to be brutally honest, it would be devastating to suddenly have to raise one. (And, no, I don't believe the garbage about 'it will be fine if it's your own'...No, it really won't. *Is annoyed that I am seen - primarily by other women who have just met me - as a baby factory*)

    I'm fortunate. My husband has no interest in having children either, so he was prepared to be 'snipped' and - although that's still not 110% guaranteed - after over a decade I do breathe easier!

    For those less fortunate. Those who maybe don't have that option. Or who try to be careful, but 'careful' isn't enough. Well, I don't want to see their lives destroyed, nor (TBH) those of the children they unwilling have to raise. How could that ever be good for society?

    (And I'll call you on the wearing leather! If I eat the meat - and I do - it would be disrespectful to the animal not to fully use the resources. Of course, if you don't eat meat, then clearly you can't go buy a pair of leather shoes. That's just... fails to find a polite word. And avoids sidetracking your key argument, because choice is important!)
    • As a child-free woman myself, I certainly understand how devastating it would be to suddenly be responsible for a life I don't want. Some people would be appalled to hear it said, but I wish more people would say it (or at least think about it) before deciding to have kids. Think of all the heartache we could save in this world even if all intended pregnancies were truly wanted pregnancies!

      *Is annoyed that I am seen - primarily by other women who have just met me - as a baby factory*

      Yes, exactly! I suppose you've likely had the same experience that I have of being assured, so paternalistically, that you'll change your mind when you're older? This used to gall me so badly, as though another person could know my mind better than I do. This attitude certainly shows the regard women have in our modern so-called gender-equal society.

      My husband does not get nearly the flak that I have for wanting to remain child-free.

      And I'll call you on the wearing leather!

      Lol--sidetack away! :D I have no problem with eating meat, although I am a vegetarian myself, nor do I have a problem with wearing leather. (I do have a problem with wearing fur because that is an entirely different ball of wax; I should have been clearer about that in my post.) I think it's everyone's choice and not at all my place to dictate the ethical conclusions that others reach.

      In the U.S., I am outspoken against factory farming for a variety of reasons, but after that, I think that the arguments for a diet that includes moderate amounts of locally and humanely raised meat actually trump, in most cases, the arguments for vegetarianism! :)
  • Thank you for posting this. I'm honestly too beat today to think/write coherently, but if I were up to participating, my own thoughts would fall along a very similar line.
    • You're welcome! This is my first year participating because, in the past, I haven't felt I had the words at all. I still don't think this is a particularly well-written post, but I'll get there. :)
  • Just a thought on this issue. I have a variety of ideas on pro-choice versus no choice but I'm trying to avoid rambling. In a nutshell it boils down to MY choice. I can choose no children - and I have. I can choose to act to eliminate children by a variety of means from abstinence to abortion to bearing them and giving them up for adoption but no matter what it is it should - like free speech - remain MY choice and my right as the potential bearer of said child.
    As to educating people in the ways to avoid pregnancy - Oh yes! That should be far more important to this generation than deciding whether or not to carry a child. Why? Because the reasons for not bringing a child into this world are numerous and varied but all too valid in the majority of cases. Can you truly afford a child when you can barely make the mortgage payments. Monetary reasons are compelling, if cold and ugly but vital. People are not adopting pets because they can't afford them but the seem to feel having children is okay???? This does not compute. Perhaps we should offer coupons for spaying and neutering services for humans? We do for animals. But this could get ugly if I go further. 'nuff said. Be responsible, be proactive in your approach to having or not having children. ANd now I'm babbling, it's late and sleep seems eminently appealing.
    • Chagan, you can come babble in the Casa de Felagund whenever you'd like! :)

      Well put on all the things to keep in mind about having children. I don't know why it is taboo to talk about such things--why should bringing a new life into the world be a wholly sentimental decision? I've always thought it should be the most logical decision a person ever makes, far more important than deciding on buying a house or car, which it seems many people give far more thought to. I have no problem saying that my personality is such that I would probably be an awful and likely neglectful parent. People can think I'm as awful as they want because I say it, but I'd rather say it than have a baby and prove it.

      But this could get ugly if I go further.

      If where you're going is where I think you're going, then I can only agree with you again. ;) Given our collective inability to feed and care for the people already on this planet, I again don't see why discussing the human population becomes a sentimental issue. I think it is very valid to consider--and make choices--based on the fact that a child I have here in the U.S., with all the privileges that come of being born in a developed nation, will consume the resources that could be used by a dozen people in a developing nation. Even if I didn't think I'd be an awful parent, then this would be at the heart of my choice whether or not to have a child.
      • We are definitely on the same page here. I tried to write a much longer reply to this but the LJ system barfed and I can't get back what I did save in the reply so - yup! Me Too!
        I'm sticking with MY CHOICE - and don't tell me "Oh, you'd change your mind if you had children"...no, I don't think so and it's not something I feel up to testing. Good thing about menopause...it shuts down some of those pesky systems and solves the problem very nicely, thank you very much!
        • The "you'd change your mind if you had children" argument always boggles me. It's not like "you'd change your mind if you tried good escargot" or "you'd change your mind if you'd let me hairdresser have a go"--we're not talking about food or haircuts! What happens if I have a child and I don't change my mind? Can I send it back to the kitchen? Have my money back??
  • One more good reason to keep abortion legal, from the perspective of a surgeon - you can insist that abortion providers be trained to do the procedure properly and competently. As a very junior resident, we saw a 17 year old girl come into our ER thanks to complications from an illegal abortion (the state in question required parental notification, which is another whole sticky mess). The instruments used had perforated through the wall of her uterus and into her rectum and at seventeen she ended up with a hysterectomy and a temporary colostomy as a result.

    If I never see something like that again, it will be too soon. It was absolutely horrific. Making abortion illegal won't make it go away - but it will make it significantly less safe.
    • My word. It boggles my mind that, in the 21st century and in a developed nation, such things should ever happen. And in the name of someone's ideology.

      I replied to a comment above about how people who identify as "pro life" are usually the same who want abstinence-only education and to restrict access to birth control. To me, this shows what lies at the heart of the "pro-life" movement, and it's not saving lives. Anyone who could ponder a nation full of incidents like the one you described and still be comfortable calling himself or herself an advocate for life is a hypocrite.
  • I have two children, by choice. I've always doubted my ability to deal with an abortion on an emotional level, so personally it would probably not be an option unless for medical reasons. However, one of my closest relatives had an abortion a few years ago (after contraception failure) and I went to the hospital with her, waited, gave her moral support when it was over. She has her boundaries, I have mine. I have no business pushing my emotional squeamishness onto her. Were it a moral issue for me, which it is not, I would have no right to force a religious based pro-life attitude on her either.

    Anyone who says 'Have the baby, it will all work out afterwards' has never been fifteen, pregnant, terrified and with no emotional support system. I notice also that the people who say one should have the child at all costs, no matter how it was conceived or the mother's circumstances are not going out and adopting a baby every six months so that those unwanted children have decent homes. It's easy to judge from the safety of a cosseted comfort zone.

    Final word. I loathe the attitude that 'all women should have babies, it's what they really want.' It's like saying 'all nine year old boys should have a bike, it's what they really want.' We're all different. Refusing to acknowledge those differences shows a mind-boggling lack of respect or empathy.

    • Thank you for this comment, Kei--it was beautifully put! :)

      It's easy to judge from the safety of a cosseted comfort zone.

      My husband teaches at an alternative high school for boys with emotional and behavioral problems. Most of the students' problems are caused by chronic abuse and neglect by parents and caregivers. Many of his students now live with foster families or in group homes where, from when the sun rises until the sun sets, they are not allowed back in the house. Where they are given no support for their schoolwork and, if they make a single mistake, might be sent to live in a homeless shelter. These people and places are subsidized by the government yet cry poor whenever it is suggested that they do something that is emotionally or intellectually enriching for the children they are caring for.

      You are so right that it is easy to have the attitude that "it is always better to choose life" when one doesn't have to live every day with the consequences of being the life that was chosen, yes, but exists every moment knowing that he or she was never and probably never will be wanted. And bears the physical, emotional, and cognitive scars of that rejection.

      I loathe the attitude that 'all women should have babies, it's what they really want.'

      If I were to take the opposite tack and say, "All people should choose to be child-free. Child-free people are happier and live more fulfilling lives than people who become parents," then I would be tarred and feathered! Yet I can be told the opposite and people either stand by cow-eyed and complacent or join in the insistence that I don't know my own mind and body well enough to be more competent than they are in making decisions for myself. Not that it's all that surprising, given the amount of faith people have in women being able to make good decisions for themselves.
  • I got pregnant when I was 17 and had to make a choice. I chose to have my son and have never regretted it. It was HARD to be a single and very young mom (his abusive father bailed when he was 3 weeks old) but I had sooo much support from my family and friends. I cannot imagine doing it without their support. I don't think I could ever personally have an abortion - because to me if I became pregnant again, I would always think of that baby as I did with my son. But I would fight to the death for a woman's choice to have an abortion. I agree 100% it shouldn't be used as a method of birth control as other posters have said but I think telling a woman she cannot decide what to do with her body is a crime. Not only that - if abortion was illegal, more people would be having babies they don't want. And we'd also have more children who are abused, neglected, or otherwise mistreated because a person is forced into being a parent. There are so many reason why abortion shouldn't be illegal and its not all just about the parents. Its also about the unwanted children and society as a whole. Despite the fact I don't think I could have an abortion personally - if I were raped, I might change my opinions on that. Or if I knew while I was pregnant that the baby had a life threatening disease that would cause their life to be miserable and painful. Until you are put into the position, you never know what you would want to do. And I don't think that the government should decide for us what we should be allowed to do with our own bodies.

    I get really irritated by people who think that a person who says they don't want kids are in the wrong. I'd much rather a person decide they don't want kids than have kids they don't want. And while a lot of people might think you (or any other woman) would be a great mother, if its not a role you want to have - you shouldn't be made to feel guilty or wrong to choose not to have kids. I chose not to have a second child when my son was about 14ish because I didn't want to start over, have a child when my husband (my son's stepfather) sole reason for wanting a child was 'to carry on the family name', and because of both my health conditions and his own combined into being a genetic nightmare. His family tried to guilt me about it but it wasn't right for me to have another child under these circumstances. But I don't regret for one minute the child I do have. :) People should choose to have children if that is what is best for them.

    Edited at 2010-01-24 02:53 am (UTC)
    • Not only that - if abortion was illegal, more people would be having babies they don't want.

      Or more people would be having abortions anyway in unsanitary and unsafe conditions, and we'd see a lot more of what surgicalsteel describes in her comment. This is what boggles my mind about the so-called "pro-life" standpoint. Making something illegal does not make it go away. One would have thought we would have learned that during Prohibition! :) Abortions will continue; they will just often take two lives instead of one: the fetus and the mother. Who would want that?

      And we'd also have more children who are abused, neglected, or otherwise mistreated because a person is forced into being a parent.

      Exactly ... I just said to Kei in the comment above yours that my husband teaches students just like this. From a comfy pie-in-the-sky middle-class existence, I don't think that most people understand the suffering many of these children have endured simply because they were neither planned nor wanted. And that suffering will perpetuate: Most of them will spend their lives in jail or otherwise at the fringes of society. Again, I have to ask, who wants that?

      (As Kei said too, which I thought was an excellent point, one does not see these "pro-lifers" lining up to adopt the children born into such circumstances.)

      my husband (my son's stepfather) sole reason for wanting a child was 'to carry on the family name'

      It always amazes me that I am called selfish for not wanting children and then people give me the following reasons why I should:

      • "You'll change your mind when it's born--kids are fun!" (Always good to bring a new life into the world on the offhand chance that I might get enjoyment out of it like I might enjoy a cherry Popsicle right now.)

      • "Who will carry on your family name?" (Who would want our family name?--it is a hyphenated monstrosity that no teacher will ever be able to say correctly on the first day of school. Yes, that's shallow, but so is pretending that we live in manorial England and must have a son and heir to inherit the manor and all of the serfs.)

      • "Who will take care of you when you're old?" (And I'm the selfish one? Compared to the person who wants me to bring a child into a miserable existence just so my husband and I have someone to change our Depends when we get old??)

      • "But kids are cute!" (So are puppies. And they can be put into the backyard or locked in the basement when they become unbearably annoying.)
      • So are puppies. And they can be put into the backyard or locked in the basement when they become unbearably annoying.

        Kids don't shed! Score one point for kids LOL

        But I know what you mean about lame reasons to have kids. Kids are wonderful and I wish everyone that wanted them could have them. But there is no reason to have one if you don't want one. A lot of other friends of mine have gotten pressured to have a second child when they only want one. Its such a personal decision - I don't understand why people feel the need to give you their 2 cents.

        I don't think Prohibition really taught the government too much. I'm really anti-gun because the thought of having one in the house scares me. I don't have any big solution for gun control because I also realize that if you outlaw guns - only the outlaws will have guns. There are alot of things I don't believe in being personally right for me but that's my right. And having kids is a right not an obligation.
  • I get to control what happens to my own body. I shouldn't be able to control what happens to someone else's! If I want to be able to control my own person, I have to be willing to allow others the same latitude, and trust that they will be mature enough to take that responsibilities that come with such freedom seriously. The overwhelming majority of women out there do. If people want to be 'pro-life', let them donate their time and energy into helping the already-born people out there who need aid; God knows there are enough of them out there who aren't getting much help. Let the pregnant women worry about their fetuses; the don't need meddlesome busybodies overseeing their medical decisions under the guise of 'protecting life'.
  • I believe that abortion is killing a life. That being said, I am definetly pro-choice. Because *I* believe abortion is killing a life doesn't mean everybody does. And you can't say "pro-life" and then make exceptions, even for rape, incest, etc. If you are making those exceptions, then you are pro-choice, even if you label yourself as pro-life.

    It is too much of a grey area for absolutes. Pro-life is an absolute. You do not kill the unborn baby. Pro-choice allows for the grey area. You are given the choice, in whatever circumstances you find yourself, to handle the situation as you see fit, as you need to do.

    And as far as having kids, if you don't want kids, you shouldn't have kids. It doesn't make you less of a woman, or whatever. That's just dumb. Having kid(s) is a huge responsibility that you shouldn't get into unless you really really want it. Because trust me, I really really wanted it, and some days, I'm still like, "GAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!" There are times that it's wonderful, don't get me wrong, but if it's not what you want, it's not what you want.
Powered by LiveJournal.com