Abortion: Rebalancing An Imbalance
Apr. 26th, 2004 08:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wlotusDuring yesterday's March for Women's Lives, protesters stood alongside the march route with posters and signs denouncing abortion. They displayed blown-up photos of what they alleged were aborted fetuses--in this age of CGI, electronically altered photographs, and using photos out of context, who knows if they were aborted fetuses or not--waved posters proclaiming adoption was the answer, shouted how abortion kills babies, claimed abortion was "black genocide"--I'll have more to say on that claim in a bit--and labeled women who got abortions "murderers". Their point of view was quite black-and-white: abortion is murder and should be illegal, case closed.
I see their point. As a person who believes life begins at some point between conception and birth--I do not know exactly when and do not feel inclined to try to pinpoint it, since I am not God--I believe what many abortion activists call "a fetus" is a someone, and what else do you call killing someone who has not done anything to harm you? That is why I did not join in the shouts or stare-downs or taunts back at the protesters. It isn't that all anti-abortion activists don't care about women. Many of them care very deeply and don't want to see women make what they believe is a dreadful mistake.
However, and this is a very big "however", there are some other questions that need to be asked, other issues that need to be addressed when discussing whether abortion rights ought to now be eradicated or seriously curtailed. So for the anti-abortion protesters, since you call abortion "murder":
What do you call it when a man coerces a woman into having sex with him by repeatedly pressuring her for sex in response to her clear, "No, I don't want to have sex with you?"
What do you call it when a girl is taught that it is her fault when a man persists in pressuring her to have sex with him, so she eventually stops saying, "No," out of guilt, not out of a true desire to have sex and deal with any children that are conceived through their sexual relationship?
What do you call it when a man promises to take care of a woman, then up and runs when she gets pregnant?
What do you call it when a man purposely sets out to get a woman pregnant in order to bind her to him through their child?
What do you call it when the only one left with the social stigma of having willingly had sex outside of marriage is the pregnant woman, even if the man's identity is known?
What do you call it when the only one left with the financial burden of the child is the woman, even if the man, who doesn't have a penny to his name and no job to speak of, is tracked down by social services for child support?
What do you anti-abortion activists call what is done to those women's lives? You don't have a word for it, do you? Perhaps it's time you invented one that has all of the negative weight "murder" has when you fling it around with regards to their right to choose to have an abortion.
So now a woman finds herself pregnant under those circumstances. Do you tell these women that they must then go through the intense physical and emotional changes inherent in pregnancy? Do you tell them adoption is "the answer"? Will putting up that baby for adoption get them back the months they spent going through the physical changes and suffering pregnancy brings? Will putting the baby up for adoption remove the social stigma of having had sex outside of marriage, a social stigma males do not share? Will putting the baby up for adoption put just as much responsibility on the male who got her pregnant? Will putting the baby up for adoption give her back the power over her body and her life that so many males in our society seek to take away by claiming her sex as their right?
The fact of the matter is that we do not live in a perfect world where things are balanced. Males do not have nearly the same challenges to their reputations, earning power, or health when they are involved in a pregnancy. Males take advantage of women who have not been taught they have the right to say no. Males think they have the right to ask for sex for as long as it takes to get it. Males can up and walk away whenever they find out the woman is pregnant, and they can get away with saying, "How do I know it's mine?" Males will not suffer social, legal or financial ramifications for doing any of these things. (And yes, this even applies to born-again Christian males: they do not suffer the same stigma from their Christian community as a born-again Christian woman will, even if he is clearly identified as the father of the child. In fact, he'll be praised for owning up to having produced the child, while she will still be looked down upon for having had sex outside of marriage.) Yet women are left dealing with the consequences when males do these things.
Until it is illegal--I'm talking jail time, folks, not just a, "Tsk tsk...now you know that's not nice/that's a sin/that's not God's perfect will," in passing from the pulpit/lectern--for males to treat women that way, it ought not be illegal for women to choose to have an abortion to balance out the power so many males have usurped over women's minds and bodies.
Abortion is not the problem: it is a symptom of a terrible imbalance that was not started by women (and it was definitely not started or ordained by God), but whose victims are women. Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion, it won't empower and uplift women, and it certainly won't solve the imbalance. Get rid of the imbalance by dealing harshly with the males who are perpetrating it, and abortion will become a moot point.
And as for abortion being "black genocide", I have some advice for the brother who dared to shout that foolishness into a megaphone as we marched: get all of your homies all over the States to stop doing the things I listed above, and then you and I can talk about "black genocide". Perhaps the reason why "the majority" of abortions are performed on black women carrying black babies (or so you claimed, bro) is black men are taking advantage of and then abandoning black women more often than white men are doing so to white women. Send that shout-out to your boys through a megaphone at the next few man-power marches, and then I'll think about hearing what you have to say.
I see their point. As a person who believes life begins at some point between conception and birth--I do not know exactly when and do not feel inclined to try to pinpoint it, since I am not God--I believe what many abortion activists call "a fetus" is a someone, and what else do you call killing someone who has not done anything to harm you? That is why I did not join in the shouts or stare-downs or taunts back at the protesters. It isn't that all anti-abortion activists don't care about women. Many of them care very deeply and don't want to see women make what they believe is a dreadful mistake.
However, and this is a very big "however", there are some other questions that need to be asked, other issues that need to be addressed when discussing whether abortion rights ought to now be eradicated or seriously curtailed. So for the anti-abortion protesters, since you call abortion "murder":
What do you call it when a man coerces a woman into having sex with him by repeatedly pressuring her for sex in response to her clear, "No, I don't want to have sex with you?"
What do you call it when a girl is taught that it is her fault when a man persists in pressuring her to have sex with him, so she eventually stops saying, "No," out of guilt, not out of a true desire to have sex and deal with any children that are conceived through their sexual relationship?
What do you call it when a man promises to take care of a woman, then up and runs when she gets pregnant?
What do you call it when a man purposely sets out to get a woman pregnant in order to bind her to him through their child?
What do you call it when the only one left with the social stigma of having willingly had sex outside of marriage is the pregnant woman, even if the man's identity is known?
What do you call it when the only one left with the financial burden of the child is the woman, even if the man, who doesn't have a penny to his name and no job to speak of, is tracked down by social services for child support?
What do you anti-abortion activists call what is done to those women's lives? You don't have a word for it, do you? Perhaps it's time you invented one that has all of the negative weight "murder" has when you fling it around with regards to their right to choose to have an abortion.
So now a woman finds herself pregnant under those circumstances. Do you tell these women that they must then go through the intense physical and emotional changes inherent in pregnancy? Do you tell them adoption is "the answer"? Will putting up that baby for adoption get them back the months they spent going through the physical changes and suffering pregnancy brings? Will putting the baby up for adoption remove the social stigma of having had sex outside of marriage, a social stigma males do not share? Will putting the baby up for adoption put just as much responsibility on the male who got her pregnant? Will putting the baby up for adoption give her back the power over her body and her life that so many males in our society seek to take away by claiming her sex as their right?
The fact of the matter is that we do not live in a perfect world where things are balanced. Males do not have nearly the same challenges to their reputations, earning power, or health when they are involved in a pregnancy. Males take advantage of women who have not been taught they have the right to say no. Males think they have the right to ask for sex for as long as it takes to get it. Males can up and walk away whenever they find out the woman is pregnant, and they can get away with saying, "How do I know it's mine?" Males will not suffer social, legal or financial ramifications for doing any of these things. (And yes, this even applies to born-again Christian males: they do not suffer the same stigma from their Christian community as a born-again Christian woman will, even if he is clearly identified as the father of the child. In fact, he'll be praised for owning up to having produced the child, while she will still be looked down upon for having had sex outside of marriage.) Yet women are left dealing with the consequences when males do these things.
Until it is illegal--I'm talking jail time, folks, not just a, "Tsk tsk...now you know that's not nice/that's a sin/that's not God's perfect will," in passing from the pulpit/lectern--for males to treat women that way, it ought not be illegal for women to choose to have an abortion to balance out the power so many males have usurped over women's minds and bodies.
Abortion is not the problem: it is a symptom of a terrible imbalance that was not started by women (and it was definitely not started or ordained by God), but whose victims are women. Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion, it won't empower and uplift women, and it certainly won't solve the imbalance. Get rid of the imbalance by dealing harshly with the males who are perpetrating it, and abortion will become a moot point.
And as for abortion being "black genocide", I have some advice for the brother who dared to shout that foolishness into a megaphone as we marched: get all of your homies all over the States to stop doing the things I listed above, and then you and I can talk about "black genocide". Perhaps the reason why "the majority" of abortions are performed on black women carrying black babies (or so you claimed, bro) is black men are taking advantage of and then abandoning black women more often than white men are doing so to white women. Send that shout-out to your boys through a megaphone at the next few man-power marches, and then I'll think about hearing what you have to say.
