Follow me on Hellocotton

Sunday, 28 October 2012

The Womb, Women's Rights, and a Dash of Christianity

Happy Sunday people! Hope you’re all comfy, cozy and ready to say goodbye to bone-chilling fall and hello to blustery winter with a big old mug of hot chocolate and whip cream in your hand.
Recently, I received a nice little facebook prompt that has inspired this post. This prompter, we’ll call him Thom just for shits and giggles, is very politically inclined and in favour of independent government in the American election. Thom Just For Shits and Giggles’ post informed me that yet another wonderful Republican Candidate has opened a can of worms with their opinions on abortion.
Before we get into the slimy grit and guts of it all, please know that unlike my friend Thom, I am not politically current on any given day. I normally find politics in general to be a headache, with many voters pushing for the lesser of two evils to finish ahead. Yes, I am one of those.

Now That That’s Over With

The reason for my present interest is the seemingly constant overflow of anti-women douchebaggery taking place in this year’s election. As with many issues that get drudged kicking and screaming under the microscope of political debate, the issue of women’s right to abortion is being stripped bare for everyone to see. Not one aspect of abortion has been overlooked in the political realm. In fact, at this very moment, I’m waiting for some politician to come out with just how many cells he deems necessary for a baby to be considered more than a clump. You know, just to cover every base that anyone could think of, ever.


As it stands, we have the pro-lifers siding with Republicans and those who identify as committed Christians. I like to call them Team Traditional. Juxtaposing that, is the pro-choicers, siding with the Democrats and those who identify as maybe-not-so religious, not-religious or those-who-feel-religion-sucks. These may seem like sweeping generalizations, and, well, they are. But these categorizations are how political parties target the public. It’s what gives them an estimate of which votes to expect from where. New York: Democratic Tennessee: Republican.

A Day in the Life:

Let’s say, that you’re a die-hard feminist (whaddup, add me to facebook!) who also dislikes abortion. Mind boggling I know. But it happens. And no one talks about it. Because lately it seems like, if you’re a fan of women you’re a fan of abortion and if you’re a fan of abortion than you’re not a fan of women. But, take a breath, because the two are not, by themselves mutually exclusive.
So, on a personal level, you can support feminism and not killing what you see as unborn babies. The issue occurs when things go from personal to political, which, in politics, they inevitably will(who knew??). Then you have a picture of a person who values women’s rights but is being asked by numerous politicians to stand up for their belief in “speaking for those without a voice” and vote against abortion. And all the confusion comes flooding back. You flick on the tube only to catch some bold-faced woman telling you that voting for illegal abortion is against women. Oh no. It seems amuck again, but here’s what I see as the silver lining: If you vote for women’s choice, you’re voting for a woman to decide, without the help of the government, whether or not she wants to abort. You are not voting for abortion. You are voting for the legalization of what would happen anyways, whether it was legal or not. To me, that’s win-win. As a point of comparison, a lot of hard-core Republicans feel the need (still) to oppose gay marriage. Why? You’re not stopping love, or gay sex, but simply marriage. And that, any way you slice it, is an infringement of rights.
So that’s it, that’s my argument: rest assured you can easily be a Christian and a feminist and a pro-lifer...knowing that laws against abortion do not stop abortions, while they do stomp on women’s right to chose what they do with their bodies.

The Latest Clown in the Political Realm:

Though it might seem like I wrote this was to be a leftist, know-it-all douchebag, I promise you that isn’t true. Thom Just For Shits and Giggles informed me that Republican person Richard Mourdock said pregnancy from “rape is something God intended.” This is what I really came to write about. The belief that God intended for babies to come out of the horrible atrocity of rape is not only old-school, it is presumptuous. It presumes that God oversaw what happened to said woman, and on some level, approved of it, knowing that a child would come out of it. It assumes a Christian God. It assumes Providence. It assumes that all bad turns to good, when sometimes, bad is simply bad and the good is separate.
I come from a Christian home. I used to read my Bible as a secret, shamed hobby and try to make sense of its seemingly wise words out of pure curiosity. And nowhere, does God state that a baby is to be considered “the good, purposeful intention” to come from rape. Yes, it is stated that “He” will not have us endure anything we can’t handle, and yes, it is written that good things can come from bad, but nowhere, does it say that a baby is on equal-grounds to overturning the horrific circumstances of rape. Nowhere does it say that a baby is God’s gift to those who have been deeply, and irreversibly violated. In fact, if you’re going to take this whole fate-goes-before-you-route, you might as while acknowledge that maybe, just maybe your God put the baby in the woman’s womb to give her the option to choose the path her life will take. Or! Gasp! Maybe the two had nothing to do with one-another. Now There’s a thought.
Until next time, I await the next ridiculous attempt to undermine women.

No comments:

Post a Comment