Blogging For Choice

Choice is also what Burger King means when they say "Have It Your Way!". I like that.

Gordon, I think you're a bit of an asshole for making light of this. Have you ever seen what a uterus looks like when it's been scraped and accidently pierced by a hanger? That was my aunt.

When my mother was in high school, she became pregnant. Late in the pregnancy, she developed cysts on her ovaries. If safe, legal abortion hadn't been available to her I would not be here.

"If you think that a woman has to take a tampon out to take a piss, you deserve to be a virgin"

Do you really think anyone digging through this site deep enough to read this thinks that? Not being sarky, just curious. I know fuck all about sex education in America.

thankfully

That statement is unfortunately based on a couple recent encounters. That's what abstinence-only sex ed does to people.

p.s. That blog wasn't written specifically for this site. I just decided to cross-post it from my actual blog.

I never really thought I'd see "teh gayness" anywhere on here...guess you learn something new every day.

I looked this morning and my journal's up on the list of those who participated;

http://www.bushvchoice.com

I'm very excited and proud for doing so, it was fun and enlightening to do this (enlightening as in I found out who I know who also blogs really gives a shit and who just cracked shit at me).

I wasn't making light.

but he's right. The language of choice, when we're talking about the vital issues pertaining to women's physical rights over her own body, is really problematic. (see my Happy "Birth" Day Roe post for more.)

I've never considered myself pro-choice, and I've never associated the need for abortion as a choice. In fact, the first thing I said after I got mine done was "You really have to get one of these." (Ahh, I was working at the ONION at the time. The guy I said this to, my editor, is now the dude behind AMERICAN DAD.)

This makes me pro-abortion. I agitate for abortion to remain an accessible option in our society, sure, but not because I like options. It's because I like abortions.

I like your distinction of pro-choice vs. pro-abortion. That makes me the former rather than the latter, solidly (see blog). It definitely means something that anti-abortion folk call themselves "pro-life" as a PR move; it makes us all "anti-life" (though I prefer to be called "anti-people").

Also, from that PR standpoint, "pro-abortion" wouldn't play well in the sticks, yeah? But that's a whole other set of compromises: how much do we prettify the process that can, as Miranda pointed out, end with a perforated uterus, tons of blood, and death, in the name of getting more people on our side? And why feel the need to pander to the squeamish, even? "Pro-choice" could be the friendly name (not that I'm claiming to be friendly on the issue) that allows people who are for what we're for but for different reasons to rally behind the "available and safe medical abortions" banner. Just jaw-flapping, here...

and thanks for bringing it up. i feel no need to be friendly when confronted with a situation in which i either can have full control over my own body or i can't; i don't see the need to prettify that "debate" at all—although, i must admit, i'm glad that some do. I just wish a wider spectrum were represented than the one we can currently see.

nora, i must ask: if the choice were not between "choice" and "life" but between "abortion" and "life", would you switch sides? I'd imagine you probably wouldn't. (do correct me though, if you don't mind the personal nature of the question.) and I'd imagine a movement that allowed you agitate for abortion but not necessarily have one yourself wouldn't be too far away from the movement you feel currently engaged in.

in the mid-90s there was, by the way, a teeny little movement that did actually call for the strengthening of abortion rights based on the notion that it was defensible murder of a force doing irreparable damage to a woman's body on the scale of a severely abusive husband, say, or a crippling disease. more jaw-flapping, but, ahh, it's interesting to keep in mind.

Not to go too off-topic, but I'd say that's true of many groups in whose ranks I count myself...we see gays who want to get married, but do we see queers who oppose marriage for *everyone* (like me) or polyamorists who want marriage for *all* (as in more than two at once)? No.

No intrusion taken, or whatever, and you're right: I would not change my stance; I'd change my language, I guess. I mean, "life" for whom, you know? As anti-abortioners practice it, to be pro-life has very little pro for the life of the mother or the life of the born child; it's pro-fetus and pro-birth, but after the little miracle of gawd is popped out, lard forbid that pro-lifers vote to provide day care or for good schools.

Isn't that what the [whatever we wanna call it] movement is? Maybe I misunderstood you in this last bit, but I feel like that's what I've got now.

Fascinating! As a non-birth oriented person, I agree: a crippling disease. Now, how best to integrate that with my acceptance of the children my friends and family occasionally have...

well, it all seems needlessly semantic pretty quick, but i do think what we have now is a movement where people call for choice, including the choice to take a stand against abortion. I'd prefer to be a part of a movement where we accept freedom of choice as the bottom line, as the given, as the natural state of affairs, and agitate for what is currently lacking in our society: the right to full control over our own bodies and any and all medical facilities required exert that control.

ok, enough diversion from me! miranda's thoughtful post started this all off and i wish to thank her for it. nora, when you figure out a way to declare yourself anti-birth but pro-baby, let me know. it's an issue that's confused me for a long time.

Uh-oh, does that make the anti-abortionists pro-choice?!? *insert sarcastic eyebrows here*

Word definitely up.

I have always sided with the queers and been a violent anti-breeder.

DON'T BREED!

I use the word choice not because I am too chickenshit to say "pro-abortion". I say that I am pro-choice because I am. To only call oneself pro-abortion would be to limit the scope of the movement, and more importantly, to ignore the fact that there are some women (women of color) who are forced NOT to have kids. It also ignores the issues of limited access to birth control and emergency contraceptives, as well as privacy issues for minors.

I am pro-women-making-their-own-choices-about-their-own-bodies

aka pro-choice.

Can you name the parts of the male genitalia without looking, in the proper Latin, including the urinary tract and the reproductive plumbing? Can anyone here?

Also, what about women whose blowjobs don't result in orgasm or plain just don't feel good? Do they deserve to be virgins?

I would like to further propose that anyone who cannot name all the parts of the human mouth and digestive tract, should be denied the luxury of food.

I understand your point, and I'm all for people being properly educated, but sex can be more than just some clinical experience where all involved parties know the "right" places to touch and the "right" way to do it.

Not to go too off-topic, but I'd say that's true of many groups in whose ranks I count myself...we see gays who want to get married, but do we see queers who oppose marriage for *everyone* (like me) or polyamorists who want marriage for *all* (as in more than two at once)? No.

No intrusion taken, or whatever, and you're right: I would not change my stance; I'd change my language, I guess. I mean, "life" for whom, you know? As anti-abortioners practice it, to be pro-life has very little pro for the life of the mother or the life of the born child; it's pro-fetus and pro-birth, but [b]after the little miracle of gawd is popped out, lard forbid that pro-lifers vote to provide day care or for good schools[/b].