I am writing to suggest that the "abortion debate" is wrongly framed, and is therefore irresolvable. We will not have the right laws until we stop arguing about abortion per se.
We are arguing about when life begins, or whether removing a fertilized ovum from a person's body is murder. These are narrow issues in the fight for the right to own your own cells.
We should be fighting for the right of sovereignty over our bodily tissues.
It damaging to frame this fight as a women's issue. It's a civil rights issue derived from a human rights issue.
That the fight is focused on female bodies and babies means we forget the broader repercussions of a law that denies me the right to determine the fate of every cell in my body, even those accidentally altered by male DNA.
If you let your government tell you what tissue you cannot remove from your body, they can also tell you what tissues you must remove. There only have to show that science proves it is essential to human health, with Science taking on the role religions used to play in tyrannical regimes.
"An eye for an eye" comes to mind. Humans had that law. They probably still do have it in some places. They had it after they didn't have it. We don't have it at the moment.
Suppose your son is acting up at school. Three strikes: forced lobotomy?
Suppose you are charged with adultery under some new religious law in a Romney scenario.
Well, if they can force women through all the permanent bodily changes pregnancy brings, they can excise your gonads, men. Just a nip and a suture. Nothing compared to passing a football from your uterus to the waiting world. Perhaps you have not noticed, but the Governors of several states are allowed to murder you if they only THINK you murdered someone, even if no one saw you, even if you profess innocence and an alibi. That's not how justice is supposed to work, but each false conviction uncovered decades later by DNA testing shows that has functioned that way.
You think he won't also take your testicles if he THINKs you raped someone?
When you let another entity say what you can do with any cell of your body, you have set yourself up for unspeakable atrocities.
The main goal of life is to not to lose control of our bodies. We take such good care of them. Why would I cede control of over a marble-sized mass in my pelvis to anyone other than a surgeon or a physician I know and trust?
2. The word "abortion" is also a problem in this fight. To abort is to stop a process that you meant to complete. We abort missions. Using the word "abort" creates the bolsters a wrong idea about pregnancy: that all fertilized ova are destined to become human beings. That's simply not the case. Some do not implant. Some freak out because they got made wrong, and die. Some fertilized ova develop into embryos, even fetuses, and are lost, heartbreakingly, in miscarriages.
My point is that fertilization is not a ballistic course to a live birth. There are challenges along the way.
It is more helpful to use the medical term, which is termination of pregnancy. To terminate is to end a process, whether that process was moving towards a specific completion or just knocking around for kicks.
3. I have lost interest in Roe v Wade.
Roe v Wade was selected by the bad guys to divide America on a core issue that affects very few of us in real life. Both sides of the divide span the gamut of income ranges.
Our system would change for the better if we were to band together as the working poor against the upper class. The poor are divided by abortion; so are the rich. Drop the topic of abortion, and you might find people coalescing over injustices they suffer daily, from the predations of the banks and the exporting of American salaries to workers in others countries. I'd wager that more people die young because of the criminal justice system, the finance system, and wrecked economy than "die" before they form a nervous system in someone else's' uterus.
Abortion is both a red herring and a tar baby. We're chasing the wrong fish, and we can't let go of our lines. They (MSM + BANKS + MULTINATIONALS) don't dare let us arrange ourselves by income segments. They know full well there are more of us than there are of them if we corral them in the compounds. They also know full well that a lot of us are armed.
Really there is no reason to battle over abortion. Abortion is not a medical term. It is a dirty word. An abortion (more properly, a termination) is a result, not a procedure. Procedures that end pregnancies include D&C (look it up) and vacuum aspiration (what it sounds like). As long as those two procedures, which treat various ailments, are available, go get one. You have might have an ailment already--lots of women have uterine fibroids, which are an indication for D&C; everyone has excessive menstrual flow--by definition--and can use a vacuum assist at times.
We will argue about terminating pregnancies perpetually if we argue about the red herrings. "When does life begin?" "At what phase of development can a fetus feel pain?" "Is abortion murder?" We hash those out because we believe the correct answers to questions like those will lead us to the correct legislation.
We must focus the debate on medical privacy control our bodies. All of our bodies, female and male.
We are arguing about when life begins, or whether removing a fertilized ovum from a person's body is murder. These are narrow issues in the fight for the right to own your own cells.
We should be fighting for the right of sovereignty over our bodily tissues.
It damaging to frame this fight as a women's issue. It's a civil rights issue derived from a human rights issue.
That the fight is focused on female bodies and babies means we forget the broader repercussions of a law that denies me the right to determine the fate of every cell in my body, even those accidentally altered by male DNA.
If you let your government tell you what tissue you cannot remove from your body, they can also tell you what tissues you must remove. There only have to show that science proves it is essential to human health, with Science taking on the role religions used to play in tyrannical regimes.
"An eye for an eye" comes to mind. Humans had that law. They probably still do have it in some places. They had it after they didn't have it. We don't have it at the moment.
Suppose your son is acting up at school. Three strikes: forced lobotomy?
Suppose you are charged with adultery under some new religious law in a Romney scenario.
Well, if they can force women through all the permanent bodily changes pregnancy brings, they can excise your gonads, men. Just a nip and a suture. Nothing compared to passing a football from your uterus to the waiting world. Perhaps you have not noticed, but the Governors of several states are allowed to murder you if they only THINK you murdered someone, even if no one saw you, even if you profess innocence and an alibi. That's not how justice is supposed to work, but each false conviction uncovered decades later by DNA testing shows that has functioned that way.
You think he won't also take your testicles if he THINKs you raped someone?
When you let another entity say what you can do with any cell of your body, you have set yourself up for unspeakable atrocities.
The main goal of life is to not to lose control of our bodies. We take such good care of them. Why would I cede control of over a marble-sized mass in my pelvis to anyone other than a surgeon or a physician I know and trust?
2. The word "abortion" is also a problem in this fight. To abort is to stop a process that you meant to complete. We abort missions. Using the word "abort" creates the bolsters a wrong idea about pregnancy: that all fertilized ova are destined to become human beings. That's simply not the case. Some do not implant. Some freak out because they got made wrong, and die. Some fertilized ova develop into embryos, even fetuses, and are lost, heartbreakingly, in miscarriages.
My point is that fertilization is not a ballistic course to a live birth. There are challenges along the way.
It is more helpful to use the medical term, which is termination of pregnancy. To terminate is to end a process, whether that process was moving towards a specific completion or just knocking around for kicks.
3. I have lost interest in Roe v Wade.
Roe v Wade was selected by the bad guys to divide America on a core issue that affects very few of us in real life. Both sides of the divide span the gamut of income ranges.
Our system would change for the better if we were to band together as the working poor against the upper class. The poor are divided by abortion; so are the rich. Drop the topic of abortion, and you might find people coalescing over injustices they suffer daily, from the predations of the banks and the exporting of American salaries to workers in others countries. I'd wager that more people die young because of the criminal justice system, the finance system, and wrecked economy than "die" before they form a nervous system in someone else's' uterus.
Abortion is both a red herring and a tar baby. We're chasing the wrong fish, and we can't let go of our lines. They (MSM + BANKS + MULTINATIONALS) don't dare let us arrange ourselves by income segments. They know full well there are more of us than there are of them if we corral them in the compounds. They also know full well that a lot of us are armed.
Really there is no reason to battle over abortion. Abortion is not a medical term. It is a dirty word. An abortion (more properly, a termination) is a result, not a procedure. Procedures that end pregnancies include D&C (look it up) and vacuum aspiration (what it sounds like). As long as those two procedures, which treat various ailments, are available, go get one. You have might have an ailment already--lots of women have uterine fibroids, which are an indication for D&C; everyone has excessive menstrual flow--by definition--and can use a vacuum assist at times.
We will argue about terminating pregnancies perpetually if we argue about the red herrings. "When does life begin?" "At what phase of development can a fetus feel pain?" "Is abortion murder?" We hash those out because we believe the correct answers to questions like those will lead us to the correct legislation.
We must focus the debate on medical privacy control our bodies. All of our bodies, female and male.
No comments:
Post a Comment