Warning: Long-assed diatribe: Folks, there are a few things I’d like to say about abortion and women’s right to choose. What got me thinking about this more than usual was an article with comments I read recently in an excellent blog called Feministing (found on the Web at: http://feministing.com/ ) concerning an idiotic Ohio bill (I found that it’s archived, so it’s a less-than-recent article). The right of Choice, with the help of President Bush and his fellow keep-‘em-barefoot-and-pregnant – and-chained-to-the-bed fanatics, has become a hot-button issue again. At least people are finally noticing that all of these seemingly isolated attempts to put unreasonable limits on abortions and even contraception are not isolated at all, and have nothing to do with religion.
...There is a special word in the English language for rights that no one uses or actively protects: the word is "GONE", and we are all falling down on a citizen’s responsibility of oversight! So be advised that I add my opinions about a lot of the connecting attitudes and circumstances in this piece, and not just abortion. I hope you’ll bear with me, run-on sentences and all. Honestly, I really do talk that way!
Folks, there are a few things I’d like to say about abortion and women’s right to choose. What got me thinking about this more than usual was an article with comments I read recently in an excellent blog called Feministing (found on the Web at: Feministing ) concerning an idiotic Ohio bill (I found that it’s archived, so it’s a less-than-recent article). The right of Choice, with the help of President Bush and his fellow keep-‘em-barefoot-and-pregnant – and-chained-to-the-bed fanatics, has become a hot-button issue again. At least people are finally noticing that all of these seemingly isolated attempts to put unreasonable limits on abortions and even contraception are not isolated at all, and have nothing to do with religion. They are organized, orchestrated and often stealthed (with the help of the corporate MSM) attacks on the rights and health of women, the working poor and poor, minorities, and indeed, on all women except those belonging to (in many cases literally) the wealthy "elites".
There are greater threats than ever against all of the civil rights that too many of us have taken for granted for far too long, but legislation regulating education and healthcare, especially that regarding reproduction, ties into so many things about the way we think of and treat each other, I had to add my two cents. There’s just so damned little sense in the attitudes of both sexes toward the other - though as usual, the ladies get the short end of the stick most of the time. Anyway, that threat is not just coming from the Religious Right fanatics who are quite willing to have legions of young girls suffer agonies and horrors that make torture look downright benign, who are willing to have them bleed out in back alleys or alone in hospitals among strangers, needlessly, as object lessons, because of enforced ignorance and a lack of medical and even simple contraceptive alternatives – all of which the self-righteous (often wealthy, so their daughters will never suffer so) – then ascribe it to a merciless, bloodthirsty God’s punishment. It is also coming from lying, cynical opportunistic "elites" and power-seekers who are fine with hijacking religion as a vehicle to power. Honestly religious people have also been sucked into this compassionless political issue that really cares only about control. Such people believe the lies they are fed about the "elite’s" own "Christianity", and never really examine either those beliefs, or what their leaders actually do versus what they say, and they simply go along in the belief that they’re supporting a Christianity under attack – to the great damage of women and of our society. There is a special word in the English language for rights that no one uses or actively protects: the word is "GONE", and we are all falling down on a citizen’s responsibility of oversight! So be advised that I add my opinions about a lot of the connecting attitudes and circumstances in this piece, and not just abortion. I hope you’ll bear with me, run-on sentences and all. Honestly, I really do talk that way!
First and foremost, I have to say that the Ohio bill requiring the man’s agreement or a list of "possible fathers" before a woman can get a abortion is as big and smelly a piece of bullshit as I’ve ever seen, and I’m from Texas where there’s a lot of bullshit – the kind that makes good fertilizer as well as the kind our government puts out so prolifically these days. The "religious" RadRight needs to put it’s nose back in joint and keep it out of other people’s business, and the rest of us, progressives and (genuine) conservatives alike, need to see to it. For anyone not operating strictly on religious zealotry, too little information, too much propaganda, or too much imagination together with the preceding, choice is a clear cut no-brainer. Here are my reasons:
A woman ALWAYS risks her life when she tries to carry a pregnancy to term and deliver. ALWAYS. The chances aren’t what they were before modern medicine, but the damage done to the American healthcare system by both the unchecked profit motive of the business end of unregulated private healthcare, and by the medieval attitudes of too many under-informed Americans and wannabe dictators in the government, has dropped the safety factor by an unconscionable amount. We’re just behind Liberia or something like that, and ‘way behind Cuba. There’s no excuse at all, and the reason, as opposed to excuse, is the sheer greed of people and corporations that are already obscenely wealthy. They are perfectly willing to spend a few poor or working poor people’s lives, including the infants they claim to be so concerned about - until the child is born. The Republican’s and many church’s treatment of pregnant women and of infants and children gives the lie to that canard beyond argument.
It takes a woman’s body about five years to recover from a pregnancy. The results of surgery – too often done so the doctor can make a golf game or something – aside, it changes her body, and never for the better. It may not be much, or it may be a lot, but her body will never be the same as it was after bearing a child. Even if the sire (a father is something else again) contributes monetary support, which is just a fraction of what he should be giving – emotional support is just as necessary – it isn’t his body that ages, changes, and in general just no longer works or looks the way a healthy young body does. A lot of it can be helped with the right exercise and food, good medical care that includes preventive medicine, lots of help, especially in the first year of a child’s life, with raising the child (only being half as exhausted as they might be is a godsend for parents), and other things America neglects, often perforce. Damage can be minimized, with some good luck and work, but her body WILL NEVER GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS. That’s a price a man doesn’t pay and never will.
A man can sire as many children as there are women willing to bear them; a woman can bear at most a double handful or so, but usually many fewer - and she can then pretty much count on being old while still having relatively few years. Men can also sire children into seriously old age, whereas women run out of eggs and their reproductive equipment shuts down, sometimes while they’re relatively young.
The long and short here is that bearing children puts a lot of wear and tear on a woman’s body, she can only have so many children in her lifetime, paying a price in health and aging each time, and her time for bearing children is strictly limited. The older she is, the harder it is to get pregnant, and the more likely certain birth defects are as well. She has every reason to be careful about choosing whether, when, and with whom to have a child. A man’s reasons for choosing are more financial (emotional reasons often seem not to apply in this sad and sick society), and women are forced to depend too often on honor that isn’t there. Sorry guys, but until there are engineered exogenous wombs or implantable ones (for the one or two guys per century who would be willing to be pregnant themselves), we have no business forcing a woman to bear a child, ever. We can try bribery; if we’re in love with the lady and she feels the same about us, it’s a wonderful thing – but force, legal, physical or economic, should always be out of the question.
As for the "rights of the fetus", until it’s at least capable of survival outside the womb (and I’m uncertain myself about this, so the choice should still be hers, as it ain’t my health and livelihood a stake), there shouldn’t be any. Most abortions that take place late into a pregnancy are due to legal and financial delays caused deliberately by the RadRight in order to force a woman to have the child while being able to say, "We didn’t force her – she had legal recourse", which is, of course, a lie. The fetus is literally a part of the woman’s body until delivery, and the cost, by every measurement there is, is high – for her even at best. It’s always been too damned easy for a man to just walk away, and I don’t see that changing any time soon. For the early part of a pregnancy, the so-called "child" is just a handful of cells that no more constitute a "person" than a pile of bricks constitutes a house. When the fetus becomes anything like conscious is a matter of debate even for experts; we can’t even define consciousness yet, not really. Yes, nerves form, a neural center forms, and you can get proof of electrical activity on a graph – you can do the same thing with plants, too. A brain seems to program itself - with experience - and when it becomes self-conscious is ‘way beyond anyone’s ability to pinpoint. As for experience, there’s very little inside the womb. If the God-hucksters would get out of the way with their lying, inaccurate "education" and draconian, delay-oriented legislation that reduces women to the level of slaves, things would almost never get to this point.
And as for a soul, first you’d have to prove the existence of souls, then you’d have to prove when an embryo, fetus or child comes up with one, forms one, or whatever. Well, right now there is no such thing as a "soul detector". If there ever is, I want to see what one shows hooked up to people in this administration! As things stand, bringing souls into the argument is forcing your own religion on someone else, and that’s against the law, as it should be. As for the fanatics like the Dominionists and Christian Revisionists, I could make an excellent case for designating them dangerous cults, as opposed to denominations, and a clear and present danger to national security and the Constitution. Someone should before they cause even more damage to this society than they already have.
For what it’s worth, when I was single and in a relationship that included sex, even if it was only a single time with a sweet stranger with the same interest as mine, I’ve always made sure we used contraception. I’ve declined sex entirely when the only thing available was condoms and she didn’t want to try any alternatives, because I can’t have an orgasm using the damned things. I’m told there was some damage done by circumcision, but whatever the reason, I’ve only used them since giving up on them as a favor to a dear friend. I’ve gotten, and paid for, blood tests when I could, especially since AIDS; I’ve always offered to pay for exams and the pill or a diaphragm, or for a contraceptive sponge, and once for an IUD – her choice. Being willing to pay for any necessary contraception is part of being responsible. Choosing your partners carefully is a help when it comes to avoiding disease, but it’s far from perfect. I’ve been very lucky that way. Still, it does nothing around contraception.
Taking responsibility myself was always for practical reasons as well as being the gentlemanly thing to do – children are simply too important for too many reasons to go around making them casually, and abortion should never be a routine method of birth control. The one time I failed, it was after six back-to-back 24-hour shifts working ambulance, and we left the damned diaphragm in the dresser drawer, where it did no good at all. We’d been together for two years and were close to breaking up, but the kid was mine, no doubt, so I stayed another eight years before she got so abusive – especially after I became disabled – that I had no choice but to leave. I made certain that she still got child support until the boy turned eighteen, when he moved to be with me (and to get away from her) the day he turned eighteen. We’re great friends, and I’m very proud of him. As a matter of fact, I delivered him at home myself, and am on the birth certificate both as father and attending physician. That didn't make him the fine, caring, intelligent and talented young man he is, though - that's just him.
I’ve heard a lot of doubt from women about girlfriends who stopped taking the pill in order to get pregnant. Well, ladies, it happens; it happened to me twice when I was younger. I learned to demand to see the pills, and to count them. I’ve declined sex because something wasn’t right, too, as well as because the woman said just not to worry about it this time. I never did worry: sex is a lot more than just penetration, and a couple can do a lot if they really want to please each other when penetration isn’t possible for any number of reasons. Both people wanting to please the other is a major part of the definition of good sex anyway – or it should be. Even though I’ve always known that a woman is only fertile three days out of twenty-eight, I didn’t take stupid chances.
Other rules were:
Never get romantically involved with a woman who’s already in a relationship, or even "just broke up yesterday". The reasons for this should be obvious; if not, either wait until you grow up, or grow a conscience – and a sense of self-preservation.
Expect people to lie where sex is concerned.
Never take (or follow, if you prefer) a woman to bed for the first time if she’s drunk or possibly incapacitated, and you’ve only just met and don’t really know each other. I have had more than one woman I would have sworn was just buzzed and completely competent on wine or very little to drink - I still think so in all three cases – come up with the "You took advantage of me!" bit, despite real enthusiasm at the time. A rape accusation is no joke, no matter what.
A woman can always say "No". ALWAYS. "Stop", "I don’t want to", and any variations thereof are all valid, and the lady’s right at any point short of afterglow, gentlemen. She may change her mind, and that’s her right. In fact, if you aren’t sure if she said to stop, you’d damned well better stop and find out! "No" NEVER "REALLY" MEANS YES! Violation of this can - or should - cost you one or both testicles, gentlemen, removed by the woman at her discretion by whatever means she chooses. A hungry and pissed off Tasmanian Devil with dull teeth is a favorite, I understand. Where rape is concerned, I will stand back and applaud, and award ears and a tail (or similar appendage) where warranted.
If there’s ANY possibility of doubt, check her ID; it can be done discreetly, for instance by comparing driver’s license pictures. A young woman I met in a bar back when I was in the military turned out to be fifteen, though she didn’t look or act it at all. After I hit my late twenties-early thirties, that ceased being a problem, as I tend to be attracted to women my own age or a little older. My wife of eleven years is nine years older than I; my son’s mother was eight years older. I prefer an equal or better as a partner. Young women are nice to look at, but (for me at least) there needs to some other common ground than just a bed; there really should be possible conversation beyond "Thank you" afterwards. Besides, there’s just something very special about an intelligent, full-grown and self-possessed woman that’s exciting in a way a "girl" cannot match!
Never lie (but expect others to, because they will). All it can do is cause problems in the long run, or often in the short run, and it can totally screw up something you may wind up wishing you hadn’t. Aside from being disrespectful, you’ll also get caught more often than you think. It’s just a bad idea all around. If you can’t be honest with a prospective partner, that person is either a bad choice, or you have some problems that may need some professional help, and that’s unfair to her – or to him, ladies. There are plenty of members of the opposite sex who enjoy sex and would be interested – just not in a liar or a game player. There are ways to let someone know you’re interested that are honoring of that person, instead of being attempts at manipulation - as long as you both use common sense. I know; common sense is an oxymoron for a lot of people. Just do your best. Honesty and genuine humor can only help. If you aren't mature enough for frank and honest speech, you are probably not mature enough to be having sex. Not that it ever slowed anyone down a lot.
Never see someone else if you’re already in a relationship, even if you’re only dating, without both of you being clear about it and agreeing beforehand. For that matter, don’t stare at other women while you’re with someone, or pay one more attention than you do the woman you’re with. As it would be for you, it’s a blow to a person’s ego – like a slap in the face. Exception: if a naked woman walks by, the woman with you should expect you to be distracted – that much is hardwired in. So is looking (NOT staring). Sorry, ladies, but we’re locked on and tracking before we realize it. It appears to be an automatic system; we can control it beyond that, though, and the guy you’re with should. As an aside, I’ve noticed that most women look too; they’re just better at being unobtrusive about it; possibly they're just generally more polite.
Again: A great many people think refusal to use a condom is BS, period. I doubt I’ll be able to change their minds, and these days it is taking a terrible chance. For myself, they’re so uncomfortable they’re a constant distraction; they NEVER fit, and sometimes they roll back up and slip off just when things are getting really interesting (while it can be fun getting it back, this is not safe; I have never managed to have an orgasm while wearing one. While granted, an orgasm is not the be-all and end-all of sex and needn't happen every time, now and then is nice. For me, I might as well use a latex doll except for the company, because the necessary equipment isn’t touching anything but latex. The couple of times I thought I’d found a good brand, it turned out it felt so good because the damned thing wasn’t there anymore. (Use with a spermicide such as those used with a diaphragm is a good idea – CYA). Anyway, I would think she’s in the same boat and may as well use a rubber toy, because rubber (or whatever) is all she’s getting, too. If you CAN use a condom and enjoy it, by all means, they are absolutely the safest, most reliable form of combined contraception and prophylaxis (disease prevention) there is, as long as you use them correctly – WEAR ONE! In Europe they have sizes, and maybe that would help people in my situation a bit; the problem in America, I guess, is that no American male is going to stand at the checkout counter with a box labeled "small". If it weren’t as bad as a dose of ice water, I would have used them back when I was single. Whatever you do, though, YOU are responsible for preventing a pregnancy you do not wish to take responsibility for – you and no one else. Your partner may lie for whatever reasons, accidents do happen, especially where intoxicants are involved, and remember, there’s a technical term for people who use the rhythm method or who choose to chance that she isn’t fertile right now: "parents". But no matter what anyone says, claims or promises, YOU. ARE. RESPONSIBLE.
If there is a pregnancy, there is at least one, and possibly two, other people involved now, so what you do isn’t just about you anymore. Be an adult, try to put yourself in her place, and don’t just abandon her or them, whichever it turns out to be – and yes, the choice is and should be hers alone! (See above). Abandonment is utter cowardice, and sometimes the harm done that way affects generations. Sex is NOT just recreation; it reaches as deeply into the core of who and what we are, right down to the genes, as anything can, and scars resulting from callousness go just as deep. Ideally, sex should be making love (and the difference is as great as that between, to paraphrase R.A. Heinlein, fun, sweaty, co-ed exercise, and a living sacrament); if it isn’t, or if you’re not even trying make it the best thing you can for both of you, then perhaps you need to reevaluate your criteria, because you’re not just taking a chance on really hurting someone, you’re missing out on something wonderful beyond words. It’s as close to real magic as you’re ever likely to run across short of being involved in childbirth. That, now, is a genuine miracle, no matter how often it happens. I’ll take that over parting a measly sea any day!
Guys, women are people; they’re human beings no less than you are. You’ve been hurt, humiliated, had people think and say things about you that really left scars that probably still bleed sometimes. Having experienced that yourself, though usually not with the same seriousness of consequences, you cannot justify doing it to someone else. Chances are the woman you’re interested in likes sex at least as much as you do. Be careful of the other’s feelings, and with luck they’ll do the same for you. Making love should be a mutual gift, not a "conquest" (what a ridiculous notion!), not part of a collection (I’ve never counted – it never even occurred to me), not a "taking" of anything by either person involved, and not just "scratching an itch". If that’s all it is, masturbation is cheaper, easier, safer and more sanitary; it’s just lonely.
A woman has so much more invested, and so much more at stake when she becomes pregnant than a man does, that giving a man control over whether she carries it to term or not is ridiculous, if not insane. When the child is born, things change, and if a woman should be able to expect financial and other help, she should also expect to share childrearing pleasures as well as duties. Otherwise, it really does become a lifetime sentence for a man for a single moment of carelessness – in which a woman is not uninvolved, unless it was rape (and a rapist should have no rights whatsoever, including the right to keep his testicles!) – with no benefits at all. It’s very easy to turn sex and it’s possible consequences into something destructively unfair for either, or both, or all. Be careful with other people, be practical when you should be; then, with a little luck you helped to create, both will more often than not end up with something sweet and special at the very least, instead of the nightmare it too often becomes.
The question of choice for a woman of whether to abort or not shouldn’t even be a question at all. It’s another fine example of the pseudo-religious Radical Right deciding that something is a Wrong Thing according to their self-serving interpretation of scripture, and trying to force everyone, whatever their religion is, to behave according to their interpretation. (Nothing in scripture says anything against abortion, in fact, and what there is that’s even close to it also considers a fetus to be part of the mother). It’s a matter of control, of establishing power over others, not concern for children, unborn, toddling around, or whatever age. It is part and parcel of the perversion of the groups, neocons, Dominionists and Reconstructionists, Catholics and all, that they require behavior diametrically opposed to normal, healthy, natural behavior, then they set up those required to act unnaturally with even more twisted strictures such that they must fail. The groups are then justified – they believe, or their victims do – in telling people how evil and sinful they are for being what they are, and that they deserve punishment and suffering. Very often that punishment is poverty, and guess who gets the money instead of the people who actually work for it? And of course, everyone knows that "suffering is good for the soul". Such people make religion a sickness, a plague in society that kills far more slowly and agonizingly than the Black Plague ever did. It’s no coincidence that when these pseudo-religious fanatics are closely watched, scandals erupt showing that they violate their own "Laws of God" more than most – being wealthy and powerful, they have more opportunity, I suppose. What they require of others is a genuine perversion, while they themselves are perverted even going by much looser standards. But then, rules are never supposed to apply to the Rule Makers and Enforcers, are they?
People need contact with other people, physical contact; touch. We’re built that way. An infant needs to be touched – it’s a real, physical and mental need – that’s how a new brain learns to connect itself up, function, differentiate between me/not me, learns to see and interpret what it sees. Touch tells us we are connected to Life, and to each other. I don’t know why so many people think we grow out of that, and that touch becomes optional. There’s such a thing as becoming what I call "body-hungry" – you need to touch another human being. Guys will seldom admit to just needing to touch someone (that can be read as "to cuddle"), but that need is real, it’s there, and people often mistake it for being horny, or use that as an excuse. It isn’t the same thing at all, but people often end up trading sex for touch, and I find that really sad.
As it is, there is too little love in the world, and too much to pay for small joys. Whatever anyone’s gender, or preferences, or beliefs, no one is or can be right in taking away or controlling what comfort others may find however they find that comfort, as long as the choice is mutual and no one is harmed. And "harm", short of physical, economic or other clear, provable and undeniable damage affecting bodily, emotional or economic health, must be defined by those harmed, not by some demagogue or other fanatic who decides that these people are suffering harms they aren’t even aware of, or who believe that God told them to climb into other people’s relationships and beds and make sure they’re behaving properly. People who define out-of-wedlock sex as harm by definition are welcome to live their lives that way, but we are all given only one life and no more that we may shape and make decisions about that define us, and make us who we are: our own lives. If we want to own those choices ourselves, we must protect the right to make them for others as well as for ourselves! Either we look out for each other in that way, or we will all stand – and fall – alone, powerless against others who do band together, and are willing take whatever they can from us, one right at a time, no matter what it costs us. Eventually, they’ll do it at gunpoint if we let it happen.
Ian MacLeod
Oregon
August 3d, 2007