or an argument full of truthiness, to steal from Colbert.
But it's a pretty frame that forced pregnancy blowhards have been using for eons to justify controlling women's bodies. On the surface it SOUNDS good, like they are caring and really all about life and shit. But all you need is a teaspoon sized shovel to dig out their real aim- to punish the dirty whores for having sex by giving them mountains of unwanted bayyyyyyyyyyyyyyybieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.
If they are all about preserving life, are they also anti-death penalty? (Sometimes, but not often)
Are they pacifists? Would they refuse to support any war? Or just the wars they don't like?
If they are all about preserving life, what about the life of the woman?
And if you bring up the "people are not life support machines" argument, they tell you that women choose to become life support machines when they have sex. But if that's true, what about fathers? Should both parents be legally required to donate blood or organs or tissues to their offspring? Should fathers who don't pay child support be charged with child abuse (thats 70% of all non-custodial parents, btw). Should men who smoke pot before sex be held liable if their sperm creates a disabled child? What if the man is old and his child ends up with schizophrenia? He knew he was an old dude when he was getting laid and that the chances of producing a mentally ill child were increased.
This is where the forced-birthers fall apart. Men aren't responsible for the gestation of children, ergo they cannot be used as life support machines. Anything they do with children is a CHOICE, even choosing not to pay child support won't hurt them much in the long run.
The thing is, if they really did want more babies to be born there are a gazillion programs that help do that. Universal healthcare and daycare are a start. Paid parental leave, flexible work schedules, better overall collection of child support or even the socialist idea proposed by Richard Nixon of mandatory minimum incomes so that financial devastation is no longer a side effect of an unplanned pregnancy would help. Eliminating the mommy tax (the giant wage gap between moms and EVERYBODY ELSE that works) would make it better too.
But those aren't programs that punish women for having sex (and generally they require some relinquishment of $ from dudes in the form of lower wages, higher taxes or child support payments). And these are people who see babies as punishment, god's great big scarlet letter for being a dirty whore. And without that, how would good men ever know which women to marry and which women to run off to Argentina with? And if a woman doesn't feel bad about having the dirty sex, then how will she ever lower herself enough to continue having the dirty sex with forced-birthers? (I actually knew a 48 year old grandmother who felt so bad about having premarital sex that she married the 20 year younger copy shop dude she was dating rather than continue to enjoy herself. Guess how long that marriage lasted?)
All this is a long way of saying that the pro life part of the forced birthers party line is one giant crock of shit. The question of when life starts may be fun to debate in a purely philosophical exercise, but it has nothing to do with the actual problem of women who are pregnant and don't want to be. The real debate is who controls your body? You, your nearest patriarchal overseer, the assholes in navy blue suits who vote for our laws? If you believe that you are the only person capable of making decisions about your own body, then you believe that everyone is capable of making decisions about their own body. If you believe that there is ever a time when someone else gets to make decisions about a body not their own (which is slavery), then you better be prepared to line up for mandatory blood donations. If you're okay with a little bit of slavery, it's best not to assume that you're going to be the slave owner.
No comments:
Post a Comment