The ad ends with this: "So even if you think that there's just a small chance that an unborn child is a baby shouldn't you treat it as if it were just in case? Something to think about."
Well, I'm thinking about it and if you phrase it in terms of "unborn child" and "baby" and since "child" and "baby" have the same basic definition, you're not leaving me with much choice (no pun intended).
And, since I'm supposed to treat my "unborn child" in my "box" as a "baby" even if there's only a small chance that the unborn child/baby exits -- and apparently even when it looks like this:
Ahhh! Isn't it cute!
I guess I had better shake my box now and again to make sure nothing's in there. (I'm rooting for a pony!)
(h/t to Shakesville where I always find something interesting.)
.
52 comments:
Ah, now I can finally advocate the pro-life position I believe in here.
We were all in the state of existence that is that ball of cells once. That was you, that was me,that was my mother, that was my father. It is the earliest state of human existence. So yes, I agree with the ad. It's a human life, and the right choice is to bring it into the world. Of course, truly pro-life people support things like prenatal and neonatal government-backed care, truly pro-life people support thingslike AFDC, truly pro-life people oppose the death penalty,and truly pro-life people support improving our adoption system. Pennsylvania's abortion control act is a good first step towards a truly pro-life policy.
I understand the rest of your post, BUT it's not always the right choice for the box, er, woman ("It's a human life, and the right choice is to bring it into the world.").
And herein lies the error of "pro-choice" liberals. How do we decide whether or not it's the "right choice." The mother's finances? What color hair she has? That's a red herring. It may not be right for the mother. But it is always right for the thing that is in a human state of existence to be brought into the world. How can preempt their right to exist?
For the record, I was adopted. By the pro-choice movement's standards for "not the right choice," I shouldn't be here, and should be in some jar somewhere. I prefer being here. Thank you.
That said,the pro-life people have their problems. We have a woman's health clinic in downtown Hagerstown. The pro-life people stand out there with a mangled fetus and try to shame people. Not the right approach.
"But it is always right for the thing that is in a human state of existence to be brought into the world."
Really?
Always?
Let's take the most extreme example since you're speaking in absolutes.
Is it the "right" even if it would kill the woman?
That was the official Catholic position.
This was a Catholic ad. It is the position of the Catholic Church for their hospitals to deny Emergency Contraceptives to rape survivors based on the whole "box" theory.
"The mother's finances? What color hair she has?"
How about basing it on what awoman wants to do with her own damn body? Yep, it's still hers even if there's a potential human being growing in it.
it's my body. it's MY body.
it's MY BODY!
color of hair...
come on.
and yes, my granddaughter IS adopted, my one cousin is adopted
and i put my life and my health on the line to have the daughter i have.
my body, MY CHOICE.
i couldn't and i never would make that choice for anyone else.
Uh oh, I am going to sound like the lunatic fringe here. Yes, it is your body and your choice. But that choice starts with the choice to have unprotected sex. I believe that, were abortion less available, that people would be more likely to use condoms, and therefore the spread of HIV would decrease.
Ok lunatic fringe Mike off. I don't think the Church has a problem with legitimate medical procedures that save a mother's life and end a fetus that is already doomed life.
The distinction about rape is a good one. But even wacko Rick Santorum supported a rape exemption when he was in the Senate. There are very few legitimate pro-life leaders that argue the morning after pill should be denied to raped women. And the few that do are truly people on the fringe (Fred Phelps, etc).
If they ever get rid of Roe v Wade, I believe they should have all the pro lifers register their name on a list to adopt all babies that are born to mothers that would have had an abortion if Roe v Wade were still law. Same holds true for these so called wars we get ourselves into. If you're for the war, you, or your kids can go fight it, instead of someone elses. Too many hypocrits in this country.
John K. says: I would post a comment on this but I'm so lonely I'm going to head out to the nearest mens room and do some toe tapping. I hope I score. You stupid liberals don't you see I have no worries with abortions with man on man sex.
I am truly disheartened to read the posts of people who would not choose life over murder.
If you would hear the testimony of Gianna Jensen maybe your minds would be changed. Her biological mother deciced to abort her at 7 1/2months in utero. Gianna survived and is now an advocate for the pro-life movement. The most poignant moment in her speech, "where was my choice to be born?"
You so-called pro-choice folks are just making excuses for women who are inconvienced by their actions.
By the way....I would gladly adopt a child. I am currently going through the process now and I am well into 2 years of this mess.
Choose life.
"I'm rooting for a pony" Hahahaha! or in modern parlance ROTFLMAO! Sorry, I know its a serious topic, but that is one of the best blog lines ever! Ok, carry on the serious discussion-I'm going to giggle to myself. :)
So, is "Pony in a Box" gonna be your counter-single to Sandberg and Timberlake's little ditty?
- Shawn
Any hospital that would deny emergency contraception to a rape victim is satanic and sadistic.
Hey Catholic Hypocritical Hospitals if the shoe fits.....
To any hospital or 'medical providers' who would force a rape victim to have the rapists baby: F U.
A life is a life...regardless how it was conceived.
Has anyone talked to the woman who have gone through abortions who are now going through tremendous guilt for their actions.
If we can get back to the original post, I'm a bit confused about why this adverstisement would be considered problematic by anyone at all. You're pro-choice, Maria, I get that. But this particular ad all but screams out in acknowledgment that a pregnant woman does, in fact have a choice about what to do.
It's an appeal to women, who are either pregnant now or who might become so in the future, to think a bit more deeply about things before they make their choice. It's just a plea for them to recognize that there is a great deal at stake for BOTH themselves AND their baby, and that they should consider all facets of the situation. This isn't you're ordinary, everyday, paper-or-plastic choice we're talking about. This is literally a life-or-death decision.
As pro-life tactics go, this one is pretty decent. No disgusting pictures of aborted fetuses. No confrontational "counselling" sessions in front of clinics. No "mommy, mommy, please don't kill me" being screamed from across the street.
It's just a plea to think things through, and to present a side of the decision that may not have been given a great deal of weight in the stress of thinking, "what does this pregnancy mean for ME?".
Is it offensive just because the boxes are cross-shaped (they really are that shape, you know, before they are glued together). Is it just because it comes from a Catholic organization?
Look, free speech rules apply to everyone. If you want people to shut up in front of clinics, to have "bubble zones" around certain people where the freedom of expression is suspended, and to ban disgusting placards that offend your sensibilities, then I can at least see some degree of justification.
But if you really have a problem with an advertisement as tame as this one, then it really seems like you just don't want the "other side" to ever open their mouths, ever. That just doesn't seem right to me.
I'll quote the site I saw this at:
"You may ask yourself: how do anti-choicers view women? And I can answer: like empty vessels, bereft of any semblance of importance, except for the fact that they might, just might, contain a fetus."
Also, the Bubble Zone does not prevent protestors from being in hearing or site range of clinic goers -- it does prevent them from literally shoving stuff in the people's faces, screaming in their faces, touching them and blocking them.
If clinic goers can see and hear the free speech, then how is it being stopped?
"It's an appeal to women, who are either pregnant now or who might become so in the future, to think a bit more deeply about things before they make their choice."
Yep, sure enough women who are pregnant just aren't thinking much about that.
Um, yeah, right.
For goodness sake, do you have a clue how much women think about it if we even think we might be pregnant??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Of course women not thinking 'deeply' enough has been the excuse used for why we couldn't vote in my grandmother's lifetime, the excuse given for why we couldn't or shouldn't do certain jobs, etc.
Let's insert any other group in there, how about..."It's an appeal to blacks, to think a bit more deeply about things..."
Nope, not a bit offensive.
Uh, huh.
Right.
Guess what guys?
We bleed every freaking month that we're not pregnant.
It's a really good reminder!
Personally, I've had 432 reminders that I could get pregnant, but being an empty box waiting to be filled, I guess I I don't have a brain to think a bit more deeply with.
"I don't think the Church has a problem with legitimate medical procedures that save a mother's life and end a fetus that is already doomed life."
The Catholic Church did hold the position in my lifetime that if it was the woman vs. the child, the child should live at the expense of the woman's life.
They are currently still against birth control pills, condoms, and most forms of birth control.
Let's think real deep on this. Something like 30% of all pregnancies are lost in the first few weeks, usually without the woman knowing. I will forgo asking the makers of this ad why their God apparently hates "unborn children," but I am may have to bring out my line of coffins for tampons again.
Yes, your body is your body and you can do whatever you wish with your body. Sort of. You can't kill or harm yourself. You can't do that with your body. Its not legal to jump off a bridge. And if you're a "cutter", you eventually wind up in someone's care because society has decided its not a good thing for someone to maim themselves.
But I digress. That other little life inside you? That is not "your body". That is someone else's body. You have no more "right" to kill or maim someone else's body than you do your own. In fact, you have less of a right.
You're upset because it's there inside you? Well, gee ... you put it there.
Its at this point the pro-choice people always run off to the extreme end of the argument: "What about the 12-yr-old girl who's raped by her father?"
There are always exceptions to everything. Always times when anquished decisions must be made. Always times when neither choice is fair. When both choices are bad. But a choice must be made nonetheless. Civilized human beings must strive to chose that which is the least bad.
Yes, rape is a horrible thing. But the "least bad" thing in this situation is not having one of the two victims (mother and child) pay with their life.
I'm 1000% with Bag on this one.
Actually, legally I do have the right (for the moment anyway) to stop a pregnancy (with certain restrictions).
Is there any point in a pregnancy where you think it's all right to end it? Do you believe life begins at conception? If so, are you against Emergency contraception (EC) which could possibly prevent post-fertilization implantation of a blastocyst (embryo)?
If not conception, how many cells then?
Are two cells a "body"?
As for rape being the "extreme end."
Yeah, it is.
It really, really is extreme.
It was really extreme when I was abducted by six guys when I was twenty, taken to I still don't know where and was gang raped.
If there had been (EC) back then and I had had the misfortune of being taken to the nearest hospital which, let's say, was Catholic, or any doctor in any hospital decided that they couldn't according to their own morals/religion give me EC, because they considered a clump of cells that couldn't been seen by the human eye a "baby" then it would have been that doctor's life who was in danger cause I would have been tempted to kill him/her on the spot.
Fortunately, I didn't get pregnant, but it apparently would have been my fault if I did being the empty box I am who might get pregnant at any time.
But best not think too "deeply" on these things.
(OK, fine, you're all playing the adoption card so I pulled out my rape card.)
Still waiting for my pony.
Still wanting to know if we should bury our used tampons (just in case).
And, for the record, I was pro choice before the rape.
I seriously want to know how many cells equal a (born) woman's autonomy.
Any takers?
Sorry Maria but your personal experience should not affect thoughtful dialogue but I don't see how it can't.
WOW............ Slowly backs out of the room.
Well, of course you're right!
My personal experience shouldn't affect it, but neither should the experience of others including: who was or wasn't adopted; or women who end up regretting decisions; or whether or not a particular faith thinks that the an "unborn child" is fraught with original sin and is danger of burning in hell for all eternity if it can't be born and baptized.
That was sort of my point.
What I think is far more pertinent is my last question:
I want to know how many cells equal a woman's autonomy.
Maria,
For me, I don’t know how many cells make up a human life. So for me, I wouldn’t want to guess. Too afraid of the moral consequences of a wrong guess. Wouldn’t want to have to live with myself making the wrong guess. This is for me.
Your rape was horrific. All rape is horrific. My point about using the extremes in the abortion argument is that the entirety of very few things can or should be defined by the extreme. That no one should try to compare, and therefore morally justify, the bazillion abortions which occur each year for reasons of “convenience” to the horrendous situation of a pregnancy due to a rape. To lump them all together in the same thought process, with the same considerations and solemnity actually devalues the gravity of the rape.
Would I deny a rape victim EC for fear that her 2 or 3-cell pregnancy constitutes human life? No, never in a million years. Would I opt for EC if I had been raped? To be perfectly honest … I don’t know. I’d like to think that I wouldn’t. Because from my safe, unraped, unbrutalized vantage point I can logically appreciate that killing the most innocent victim of the rape is not “justice” by any definition. But I bet I wouldn’t be that strong. I bet I’d be traumatized, in shock, and wanting the assault to end.
Would I force all doctors, all hospitals to dispense EC, regardless of their religious/moral beliefs? Nope. Wouldn’t do that either. Maybe every doctor should also be entitled to his/her own “choice” on the matter. Remember, we are asking this doctor to, in his/her eyes, kill an innocent life. Over and over and over again. That’s kind of brutal.
In any case, none of this gut-wrenching stuff has any bearing on the woman who chooses to kill her baby because she forgot. Or slipped up. Or she has more living to do right now and a baby would put a damper on those plans. And she is the vast majority of the abortions today. That abortion may be legal, but in a million years, that abortion is not moral. Excuse my use of the trite card ….. but slavery was once legal, etc, etc.
Lastly and most importantly, I can’t tell you how sorry I am for everything you had to go through. There are monsters in this world. (Like Baby Daniyah’s raper/killer) We need to find them and put them away forever. Life without the possibility of parole. Life without cable TV, computers, conjugal visits. Life rotting in a cell by yourself until you go mad. Because, FYI, I am against capital punishment too. Outside of self-defense, I just don’t think I have the right to kill another … no matter how big or small.
i'm with you maria. how many cells?
it's my body. it's all i or anyone else really have. we were born with it. we will die with it.
i say, if you are opposed, then be as cafeful as is possible not to become pregnant OR get a woman pregnant. if pregnancy occurs then deal with that as you believe you should.
most pro choice people do that. we are very careful not to have an unwanted pregnancy. we work to have birth control affordable and easy to obtain. we support classes to teach the dangers of std's etc.
i believe in giving people ALL the facts and choices. abstinence being one of them if they can do that. i also belive in telling girls the fact that they will suffer far more socially and emotionally if they become sexually active too soon or for the wrong reasons.
still it is my body, my choice and if MY life is no more important than a fetilized egg to you, then...
Well, if we're going to use blood as a criteria, when I had my colon, I produced and excreted more blood in a day than a woman does in a year. Although, I will admit that I have never really bothered to ask women about the volume of their period.
The right choice is life. Period.
that would be, your life??
because in the end, neither decision about an abortion will affect you as much as it will the woman.
you are more than intitled to your opinion and to live by that. i support your position but not when it comes to anyone else's decision.
and that is a big difference.
you, being a man, well there is nothing i can think of to compare a government making a law to force you to do something with your body
especially since they got rid of the draft.
can you think of anything?
Way to miss a point, TBOH&P!
I did not say, "I bleed therefore I can abort a pregnancy."
It's a silly as your assertion that if I'm pro choice, I'm anti adoption ('By the pro-choice movement's standards for "not the right choice," I shouldn't be here, and should be in some jar somewhere.') Sorry, but where do you come up with this stuff?
The point of the ad was that if only we'd think about it, we might figure out that if you're pregnant you could *gasp* have a baby! (And, again, here I thought it might be a pony.)
RKT added to the women just don't think deeply enough on their own meme.
I brought up periods to remind you guys that throughout a girl's/woman's entire childbearing years (some thirty of them), she gets a monthly reminder that she is either pregnant, may be pregnant or not pregnant.
We really don't need as much help to think as some think we do.
Though perhaps we can legislate attaching pot-it notes to panties in case we forget.
Got it?
(Should have been "Post-it" notes)
Sherry,
Every sperm is sacred (so says the Bible -- no spilling of 'seed').
Obviously these little buggers are alive and certainly have the potential to be BABIES.
We must start instituting random checks of used Kleenex -- especially in hotel rooms where men have purchased pay-for-porn and have used the hand lotion.
Similarly, we must install a waiting period on Viagra prescriptions because men obviously can't think it all through that Viagra will aid in creating sperm which are of course potential BABIES!
Let's get the cabal together and get right on it!
I forget who posted this, but somewhere I read on this thread something like, "The reality is that children aren't right for certain people," which is the BS crap we hear endlessly out of the militant pro-choice crowd. I agree with Alan Keyes--who exactly does that effect? The poor and minorities. Which is why I am pro-life.
The unbridgeable divide here is that the pro-choice people keep referring to the unborn baby as “their body.” Whereas pro-lifers believe the baby is not just an extra liver or something, they believe it is in fact a different body, has different DNA and therefore is a different human being. So no, pro-lifers are not trying to tell you what to do with your body. They are saying you don’t have a moral right to destroy another’s body.
This will be a debate without end because no one knows, no one will ever know for certain when human life begins. Or even how to define human life. Is it conception? Is it when the soul becomes a part of the body? Is there even a soul? There are no answers here. There never will be. So regardless of the law, no one side can tout they are right.
What I can say for certain is a society who thinks of a baby as just a blob of tissue up until the moment of its birth is a society in trouble. Up until the head is in the birth canal but the body is not. How do you explain to the 16 yr old who smothers her baby right after the head emerges that she hasn’t just removed a blob of tissue from her body …. She has in fact murdered a human baby? How do you explain that there is a huge difference two minutes prior to birth vs two minutes after birth? Or two hours? Or two days?
The extreme ends of the argument are going to have to give a little. Both are going to have to acknowledge that the other may have a point and that even the “blob” might be due a little respect. A woman’s life cannot be ruined in favor of two cells which in the end turn out to be just a blob. But by the same token, “the government” shouldn’t force every doctor, every hospital to participate in the removal of “blobs”. Those who wish to opt out because they believe these blobs to be human life should have their “choice” respected also. Guess what? They might be right.
“First do no harm” is a great tenant to live by. Unfortunately, with abortion, some amount of harm will be done to somebody. So we’re going to have to settle for “Do as little harm as possible.” And err on the side of caution. That would seem the human and civilized thing to do.
How many cells? Yes, by all means, give us *that* task to do! It should be easy to give you a precise number, despite that fact that nobody in the entire history of human thought has been able to determine when "life" begins. And they were only trying to do it in general terms (so many months of gestation). You, meanwhile, have asked us to come up with not just a general description of time, or features, or biological functioning. Instead, you want a precise number of cells.
Well, I can't give you a precise number, but I can provide a range. Somewhere between 2 and 50 trillion cells mark the exact point at which life begins. You will find people who are willing to stake their own beliefs to just about anywhere along that continuum.
If we knew precisely when life begins, then abortion would be a non-issue. Anything past that point would be murder and would not be permitted. Anything before it would be legal and permissible.
But we never will know or even arrive at a consensus about your "how many cells" question. The question has never been answered. The question will never be answered.
But one question is answerable at this stage. In your view, is it *ever* permissible for pro-life advocates to declare, state, or proclaim their point of view on this matter? If so, under what conditions is such expression permissible to you?
If this kind of advertisement is somehow unacceptable, then what does it take to be able to state one's heartfelt opinion on abortion? It really seems like you rail against any kind of pro-life statement. It really seems like, in your ideal world, all those stupid pro-lifers would just shut up or go away.
This advertisement is no more offensive than a television ad for a particular political candidate. It simply calls for those facing this decision to think about a particular side of the issue. When I saw the DeSantis TV ads a few weeks ago, I didn't think that they were portraying me as being shallow, or uni-dimensional, or unable to consider a possible choice for DeSantis, or that they assumed that I had not already thought about voting for DeSantis.
I just thought they were asking me, once again, to think about voting for him. And that certainly didn't offend me. So why is it offensive to ask a woman, even if she has already thought about the pro-life side of the argument, to think about it once again.
It seems to me like you deem it wholly unacceptable to ever present a side of this issue that is contrary to your own, regardless of how that argument is presented. That seems like a pretty dangerous precedent for the freedom of expression.
i have no problem with anyone having a different point of view than mine. if you are pro-life/anti-abortion, against birth control in varying degress or against it altogether.
you can debate you can advertize, you can preach it in your places of worship, teach your children your views.
i do have a big problem with trying to force others by passing laws.
There's a very easy answer to the abortion question. You can have your own opinion but stay the hell out of other peoples affairs. If you are against abortion, good don't get one. But who are you to JUDGE other peoples decisions. The Lord will make that decision not you.
RTK,
"It seems to me like you deem it wholly unacceptable to ever present a side of this issue that is contrary to your own, regardless of how that argument is presented. That seems like a pretty dangerous precedent for the freedom of expression."
You have got to be kidding, right?
I did not prevent the ad from being shown or attempt to prevent the ad from being shown. Quite the contrary; I displayed the freaking ad on my own freaking blog and all I did was criticize it.
It's YOU who seem to have a problem with my "freedom of expression."
What exactly "dangerous precedent" have I set by opening my big mouth and saying that I think that the ad SUCKS?
I will certainly remeber the next time you criticize ANYTHING to point out to you that you're setting a "pretty dangerous precedent for the freedom of expression."
I mean, really!
Oh good god! Now I'm not only supposed to think more deeply, I'm supposed to SHUT THE FUCK UP about my opinions. I really cannot believe the argument you tried to make.
I know that it really is unfair of me, the uber powerful female blogger that I am to take on the poor little Catholic Chruch's ad...OK this is such ridculous BS that I can't even go into snark here...
HOW THE FUCK HAVE I HURT ANYONE'S FREE SPEECH BY EXPRESSING MY OWN DAMN OPINION????
Nope, no one here wants to control women.
Nothing to see -- move along.
Maria,
I really think you need to go on Prozac....Really, you do. Your anger is almost unbearable.
By the way, I am too a rape survivor, so I can understand why you would be angry.
Don't take it out on us....geez
Well, apparently you don't understand much.
I'm appalled that someone thinks that my expressing my opinion is somehow being against "freedom of expression."
I'm appalled that when I do nothing to censor the opposing opinion or censor any comments it is somehow *I* who am setting some "pretty dangerous precedent."
That has nothing to do with having been raped, but it's nice to know that any expression of my disgust or anger or flabbergastery (yeah, I made it up) will now be taken as my being angry over being raped.
Thank you for reducing my entire life and opinions to one night that occurred nearly three decades ago.
Let's make a list now:
- I don't think deeply enough.
- My expression of my opinion can be dangerous and anti free speech.
- If I get amped about anything, it's just because I'm some angry, hysterical woman who needs sedation.
I think we hit the trifecta!
Please, someone tell me that I'm a terrible "potty mouth" and make my evening complete.
We've pretty much hit every stupid stereotype used against women.
As if on cue:
The Colorado Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for an anti-abortion group to collect signatures for a ballot measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person.
See, there are people out there who follow the logic of their own arguments and answer my question.
The correct answer is two cells trump a women's autonomy.
It's not a women's autonomy! We are talking about another human life for pete's sake.
it's a potential life.
and i think maria had every right to express her opinion just as we all have that right.
the anti-abortion group in colorado just proved the point she's been trying to make.
you know, as well as i, that if the bad old days were made law again abortions would still go on. they have been going on for centuries. only, once again, women would be paying with their health or their lives.
Maria, you are really over-extending everything that is being said here. In response to every last comment, you blow what we say into some ridiculous caricature, set it up as a straw man, and proceed to destroy that straw man as if that proves that the original statement is also wrong.
The way you come across, every single time that anything is said about abortion, is pretty extreme. Any statement made in support of the pro-life position is subjected to a full broadside. Your approach amounts to little more than shouting down the opposition.
Honestly, you get so worked up that it would be easy to imagine you suggesting that we picket (possibly even firebomb) the dozen or so elderly woman who pray the rosary for the unborn every Wednesday afternoon in Polish Hill.
You get so worked up, and you get so busy shouting at the opposition, that you fail to notice the nuance of the situation. This ad pissed you off, that's fine. But it also implicitly acknowledges that a woman does, in fact, have a choice here. That's a victory!
If you could pay attention to things like this, instead of getting instantly pissed off that anyone could ever be so stupid as to hold even the smallest pro-life concerns, you would be surprised to find that you and I actually agree on a number of things. The Colorado thing is ludicrous, for example. Women who are coming and going from health clinics should be free from the more aggressive forms of confrontation (especially since not *everyone* going through those doors is on their way to an abortion). Birth control should be available to everyone (even those who claim that they don't believe in it). Abortion should be legal.
You make one good point that I failed to consider, and that is that you certainly have the freedom to express your own discontent with this advertisement.
I still think, however, that railing against every last pro-life message in the universe makes you look like an extremist, and undermines your credibility on this issue. It makes your opinions on common-sense things like the bubble-zone ordinance easy to dismiss, because you also get worked up over ads on television.
That's all I'm trying to say. Please don't blow my comment into something it's not. I'm not saying that you or anyone else is unable to "think deeply enough". What I am saying is that by attacking everything, you dilute the impact of your attacks. You would serve your cause better by keeping the powder dry for the battles that really matter.
This particular advertisement, in my opinion, was not one of them.
Try to calm down, Admiral. We're afraid you will run your ship onto the shoals while overwrought. Your hysteria clearly emphasizes the kind of Wingnut you are.
Nice try at changing the topic from reproductive rights to Maria's style, though. Do you and John K. get together to strategize much?
RTK,
You started out by saying you couldn't understand how anyone could object to the ad. If you read the comments at the Shakesville where I found this, you will see that there are plenty of women (in particular) who do find the empty box metaphor to be deeply offensive along the lines of the empty vessel theory of women (though the original post was done by a male who also found it offensive).
And, guess what? You are not the target audience for this ad while I am. Of course I'd never use that fact to try to even imply that you should not comment on your own reactions to the ad or that somehow your comments were damaging to my freedom of expression or were in any way dangerous.
You say I overreact and then you post the following:
"Honestly, you get so worked up that it would be easy to imagine you suggesting that we picket (possibly even firebomb) the dozen or so elderly woman who pray the rosary for the unborn every Wednesday afternoon in Polish Hill." while Bog suggests that I'm calling for him no babies to be adopted and that he and the rest should be put in jars.
And, *I'm* overreacting?
The fact that throughout history the control of women's bodies, sexuality, and voices has been a mission, if you will, to many religions and governments, well, I'm supposed to not only ignore this, but I'm not even supposed to voice my own opinions on my own blog is deeply offensive especially in the context of this particular discussion where I am speaking of women's autonomy.
It's not only deeply offensive, it goes to the point of being comical.
Not only should I not voice my opinion, if I defend my right to hold and speak my own opinion, I am some hysterical woman who is apparently on the edge of firebombing little old ladies.
And, yet you fail to see the irony in this.
[Shaking my head.]
Well said, Maria.
yes maria, that's about what it comes to.
you have valid points and some of the others have very nice philosophical debating points.
the problem is that while people debate when "life" begins real "live" women, mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives are facing this situation right now!
as i wrote, i'm all for teaching "your" personal belifs and values in your homes and in your places of worship. i don't mind the people praying for either side of the issue.
what i DO mind are the people who try to force their personal or religious views on those that do not believe as they do.
i simply can not equate a mass of deviding cells the size of a pencil point on a sheet of paper, with my grandmother or my mother or my daughter or granddaughter OR me.
that is life begining to form, if that is equal to me or mine OR you and yours, then you are far more into the philosopy debate than i am.
i will be 56 years old in a few months and i've seen the bad old days.
do not, for one moment think that your daughters or grandaughters
would NEVER end up at some back alley, non or semi skilled hack's kitchen table.
or, perhaps in their desperation, they will try one of the many dangerous remedies that are still being whispered about.
too late after they become septic or bleed to death or become sterile, never able to have children.
see, in my day, when i was growing up and when i became a teenager. it was still, "not any child from this district!" or "they got what the deserved" which was said or hinted at each time there was a tiny article in the paper about a woman found dead somewhere.
as i said, i put my health and my life on the line to have my daughter. i've had 2 miscarriages, almost bled to death in the hospital with the first one.
that was my body, my choice.
BUT, when i went to have my tubes tied so that i wouldn't be faced with either trying to carry to term or abort, my HUSBAND had to consent and SIGN for the surgery.
that made me feel like i was either, incapable of making a decision as to my body or some sort of breeding stock.
can you understand why some of us get a bit po'd?
if he had wanted to get a vasectomy
(ha!) i would not have had to sign for him.
so debate all you want, live your life according to your personal beliefs but please do not try to force them on others.
use your energy and compassion for the people all ready here.
or, work towards eradicating the genetic birth defects that can be fixed or treated after birth, work towards better nutrition for pregnant woman and for classes on good parenting skills . how about head start for kids and health care for the working poor. better schools and attitudes in lower income school districts...
there's a lot of work to be done, but darn it, debating when life begins is just so damn "clean" not getting your hands dirty with debating.
go volunteer in some "bad" neighborhoods for daycare.
so that these moms can make a better living for the kids that are here.
at least then, you can debate with some experiences under your belt.
i've had a lot of exposure to the nitty gritty in this debate.
i won't force any of you to become pro choice, please don't try to make laws to force me or mine or anyone else to suffer for your belief.
"BUT, when i went to have my tubes tied so that i wouldn't be faced with either trying to carry to term or abort, my HUSBAND had to consent and SIGN for the surgery."
Sherry, didn't you get the memo? We're supposed to forget that there's any context to the debate. (Woman are first and foremost and perhaps only worthwhile as empty boxes that may contain babies.)
Not as disgusting as your example but it does remind me of a woman very close to me who had several children and some five miscarriages. After the last birth, her insides were like spaghetti and she hemorrhaged frequently. However, since she was still in her 30s (of childbearing age), she couldn't have a much needed hysterectomy at her Catholic hospital (those were the rules). The doctor called it a D&C (he just didn't tell the hospital that the D&C was performed after he had removed her uterus). This happened in the 70s -- the 1970s not the 1870s.
Still may be happening for all I know.
could be, i know it was a sort of unspoken thing for a compassionate ob-gyn to give hysterectomies to patients that told their doc that they just couldn't go thru with another pregnancy even tho their hubbies wanted more kids. they just said the woman had a "pre-cancerous" condition or some such thing. many women silently blessed those docs!
oh i do know many different things in this matter but i've been accused of lying or boring people when i give examples from my experiences.
but believe me, i have good reasons for all of the belifs that i have on different subjects.
i've been around for a long time now.
Post a Comment