Tag Archives: Pro-Choice

Women’s rights: For women, by women

Abortion is a decision that should be made by each individual woman and no one else. The idea that women’s rights are being decided by a board room full of men is asinine. Why would a bunch of men, who have no idea what if is or feels like to be a woman, be allowed to decide what women are legally allowed to do with their own bodies?

When it comes to abortion, women should be able to make that decision, to the best of their ability, dependent on what’s best for them. Most people don’t understand the idea that women who become pregnant won’t always be able to take care of the baby, that their social and economic status could potentially be detrimental to a baby’s life.

Many people think that if a woman becomes pregnant it’s her fault, and she should deal with the consequences of it, no matter the potential of not being able to give that baby a life worth living, a safe environment and a constant food supply. Not one person should be able to tell that woman what is best for her or her child.

We don't need no man. Photo from hamptoninstitution.org
We don’t need no man. Photo from hamptoninstitution.org

Pro-life individuals struggle with the idea that women who receive abortions are killing a human being, that getting an abortion is no different than murdering someone. This idea is simply false.

Ninety-two percent of all abortions occur before the end of the first trimester, 13 weeks, and 32 percent of those occur at or before the first six weeks of pregnancy. At this point in time, the “fetus” is truly a conglomeration of cells, not considered to be a baby or to look like a human. How can one compare an abortion, a removal of a group of cells, to the murder of an alive, walking and talking, human being?

An abortion at six weeks is no different than removing something like a tumor, which is a group of cells as well. Scientifically speaking, the thought that abortions are killing human beings is incorrect and should no longer be used in the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate.

The bottom line here is, no man, no woman, no child, should be telling another woman what to do with her body, how to use her body, or when and if she should want to get an abortion. It’s nobody else’s business. A woman shouldn’t have to give a justified reason as to why she has received an abortion. Women’s rights should be decided by women and only by women.

No murder charge in removal of fetus?

When I visited Boulder, Colorado, there was a very strong liberal presence- which I loved. There were eco-friendly cars, a Planned Parenthood office and a Republican headquarters office that looked to be in shambles, which made this place paradise for me.

However, shortly after visiting Boulder, a incident occurred which made it very clear that there needs to be balance in pro-choice legislation. A pregnant woman responded to a Craigslist ad about baby clothes.When she arrived at the poster’s house, she was brutally attacked. The attacker, a nurse’s aide, allegedly took the woman into her basement and cut the fetus out of her stomach, killing the fetus.

The victim hid from the attacker and called 911, and police responded to the scene. They found the victim bleeding and disoriented to the point that she didn’t realize her baby had been cut out of her stomach. Luckily, however, the victim survived.

Colorado state law does not give fetuses personhood, which makes charging the attacker with murder very difficult. The law is new, which means it has tons of flaws. For example, the law recognizes fetuses as people if they can survive outside the womb for a period of time. How long that period of time is, however, is unclear. Also, because the law allows for early-term abortions, it can be difficult to claim the attacker committed murder without also attacking women who seek abortions.

In my opinion, I believe the law needs to spelled out and airtight. This woman was clearly a victim. She was attacked and had her baby forcibly removed from her stomach by a nurse’s aide(not even an actual nurse), which could have caused far worse injuries. She innocently responded to a Craigslist ad searching for clothing for her baby, so clearly she wasn’t planning on aborting. The attacker, however, clearly had planned to,lure in the woman by posting the ad.

To add insultGraphic from IMG Kid to injury, a Republican lawmaker and professional lunatic (aka televangelist) named Gordon Klingenschmitt claimed the incident was an “act of God.” He explained by saying God was punishing America for allowing abortion. It never fails to amaze me how low the right will stoop.

If someone was kidnapped and had an organ forcibly removed, there would be outrage. It happens all the time around the world and often isn’t reported, but the people who do it are deemed the scum of the Earth. This woman didn’t take out a lung or a kidney which would make her victim’s body operate inefficiently, but she forcibly took out her baby — which could cause long-term damage to her reproductive organs and years of emotional scarring. If an organ or even a limb were taken, the attacker would never again see the light of day.

There’s no excuse for what this woman did, but we must remember to keep the ideals of most pro-choicers out of this situation. I believe that most people who identify as pro-choice would agree that this situation is horrific and not at all what we fight for. My hope is that in the journey to becoming a pro-choice country, we can ensure that the law is more clear and doesn’t allow room for such atrocities.

 

Pro-life? Pro- choice? And… something different.

“The Genocide Awareness Project”. It truly does sound like a cause fit for the righteous and the noble. I imagine there are few people on campus who are opposed to eradicating genocide.

 

The main problem with this project is the branding of the project. The problem with the so-called “Genocide Awareness Project” is that it is less about spreading knowledge and enlightenment, and more about spreading fear and hate amongst our campus. Pro-life and anti-life are ideologies; most of the time, those ideologies do not meet in the middle. “The Genocide Awareness Project” takes the pro-life stance to extremes, by equating legal abortion with the inhumane torture and death of Nazi genocide victims and African American lynching victims.

 

To be certain, no qualms should be raised concerning this group’s right to say what they wish. As is well established by the United States Constitution, the people’s right to free speech and peaceable assembly shall not be abridged. Likewise, as some may be surprised to know, Radford University also allows protests like this to take place under its own free speech protection clause, a portion of which states,

 

[f]ree inquiry and free expression are indispensable to the vibrancy and vitality of a campus community. At Radford University, we value and honor diverse perspectives and believe it essential that groups and individuals have the opportunity to engage in peaceful and orderly protests and demonstrations (“Free Expression Policy”).

 

Shocking posters such as this were shown on Radford's campus recently. Graphic from Fletcher's Blog
Shocking posters such as this were shown on Radford’s campus recently. Graphic from Fletcher’s Blog

However, while “The Genocide Awareness Project” is free to express their freedom of speech and freedom of peaceable assembly, this writer will make sure to express his own freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

 

“The Genocide Awareness Project” is welcome to tout their beliefs, but make no mistake, their argument is biased towards women who desire the ability to plan their own lives and families, biased towards men who support those women (regardless of their eventual choice to abort or not), and perhaps most egregious, is that their entire premise and argument makes very little sense in terms of the actual definition of genocide.

 

As outlined by the United Nations,” the United States defines genocide as an act which possesses “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial, or religious group as such appearing in Article II means the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group” (“Chapter IV”). It should be clear that abortion, as a medical procedure, is not an effort to stamp out growth of any group in the United States. Abortion is a medical procedure which was settled by the Supreme Court in 1973, commonly referred to as Rowe v. Wade. “The Genocide Awareness Project” should familiarize themselves with the statutes of American law. Under an ideological banner, they are free to stage protests with the intent to suppress or deter women from consulting with a doctor about the potentially emotional subject of abortion. However, “The Genocide Awareness Project” should also be warned that the letter of the law is not on their side.

 

Protest is perfectly acceptable, as laid out by both The United States Constitution and Radford University; but, “The Genocide Awareness Project” must be intimately aware that their crusade against female liberty will not be tolerated by those of us who have moved beyond 1973. Restrictions on abortion are already in place, and for good reason. These restrictions mean something. Great care has been taken in formulating laws against abortion; no one condones the killing of fetuses past the third trimester. For 41 years, women have had the right to choose for themselves what types of medical care is most beneficial to them, their family, their financial state, and their mental well-being. No one will take that right away from them. The court has spoken, and they spoke loudly and clearly 41 years ago.

 

“The Genocide Awareness Project” should be intimately aware of their messaging strategy. Their entire premise of existence is predicated on the aspect of shock and awe.

If they feel abortion is tantamount to genocide, then we, as citizens, students, and teachers certainly reserve the right to call their project the incoherent ramblings of a demented and misogynistic group of raving lunatics.

 

Work Cited

“Chapter IV: Human Rights.” United Nations Treaty Collection. United Nations, 12 Jan. 1957. Web. 14 Oct. 2014. <https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=UNTSONLINE&tabid=2&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&lang=en#Participants>.

“Free Expression Policy.” (6 August 2014). 1-3. Print.

Sometimes it’s better just to let things go

If you’ve read any of my articles, you would know that I’m in no way anti-abortion. I’m all for it, within reason. Last week, there was a viral video that really reaffirmed why I’m so pro-choice. In the video, a couple is about to have their first child. Like any parents-to-be they buy clothes, toys, a crib and numerous other baby accessories as they await the arrival of their newborn baby boy.

As any expectant mother does, the pregnant wife goes to a doctors appointment and gets a routine ultrasound. Unfortunately, the doctor noticed several abnormalities with the fetus. The fetus appeared to have a cleft palette, kidney failure and heart problems. The doctor, understandably, suggested to the mother that she terminate the pregnancy because the child had zero chance of surviving more than a couple days. However, the couple decided to move forward with the pregnancy so that they could get to “meet” their child and make him as comfortable as possible in the few days that he had.

pregnant2
“I couldn’t, in good conscience, force my child into this world just to watch them die in front of my eyes.”

Many praised the parents for being so brave and not terminating the pregnancy. When you watch the video, however,the baby looks miserable after he is born. The baby died several times in the parents arms, only to be brought back to life by chest compressions. Pro-lifers may applaud the parents for what they did, but I can’t help but put myself in that situation.

I’m not one to judge the parents for their decision. If they feel closure because they got to “know” their child for those few days he had, good for them. However, if I were  in that situation, especially after seeing the way the child suffered during his short life, I would’ve chosen to terminate the pregnancy.

Now before you assume I’m this heartless wench who has no sympathy or that I’m this abortion-pushing maniac, think about what it would be like to only remember your child as being ill. Personally, I would rather not see my child suffer while fighting in vain to keep him or her alive. I would rather move forward in my life, and honestly, try again. I couldn’t, in good conscience, force my child into this world just to watch them die in front of my eyes.

I respect the parents choice, if that’s what will give them peace in the long-run. I just don’t think what they did is this amazing thing that’s completely worthy of praise. In my opinion, it’s sort of selfish to make a small baby suffer just so that you can feel brave and noble about not aborting it.

Although I would have to actually be put into the situation to know what I’d do, I feel strongly that I couldn’t go through with the pregnancy the way this mother did. I believe sometimes there’s no shame in giving up and starting over, especially so that the child didn’t have to die so slowly.

Anti-abortion Libertarians: Living, Breathing Contradictions

The Libertarian party has picked up quite a bit of steam in the past couple of years. More and more Americans are identifying as Libertarian, although few seem to actually vote Libertarian. I started following the Libertarian Party on Facebook last year when Robert Sarvis was running for senator in the state of Virginia. For those of you who don’t know, Libertarians typically preach little government control in many different aspects including gun rights, drug legality and use, and abortion.

Pro-life protesters. Graphic from The Blaze
Libertarians seem to have diverse views on abortion. Graphic from The Blaze

Overall, Libertarians truly emphasize the importance of liberty with little government interference. One post on the Libertarian Party Facebook page shows a woman, standing nude with the words “I’m a Libertarian because my body is my property.” When you ask a true Libertarian what their stance on abortion is, typically the answer will be somewhere along the lines of, “I believe you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t interfere with my rights.” Whether or not they necessarily agree with abortion, the motto for the Libertarian party seems to be, “it’s your choice.”

Reading the comment section on this particular post, the true Libertarians seem to be few and far between. One comment read, “her body is her property, the babies property is HIS property.” It’s obvious that by “HIS” property, this person is talking about God. Several other comments were similar to, “I don’t agree with abortion, but I’m a proud Libertarian for many other reasons!” Many more of these pseudo-Libertarians argued that abortion was actually against the ideals of the Libertarian party because the “unborn babies rights were being violated.”

Let’s break this down. Libertarians believe in little government interference in people’s personal lives including gay marriage and abortion, along with many other rights. We believe that you can do whatever the hell you want, as long as it doesn’t obstruct someone else’s rights. If anyone says they’re a Libertarian but would willingly vote against abortion, they’re not a Libertarian. If one would willingly take away a woman’s right to get a safe abortion because “that baby has rights too,” they’re not a Libertarian. No true Libertarian would agree that an unborn cluster of cells has more right than a living, breathing woman.

One of the best arguments I spotted while scrolling through this comment section was that a Libertarian would never agree that if a child needed a kidney, the parent should be forced to give up one of theirs. It’s the same concept. If a woman finds herself pregnant whether by rape, failed birth control, or whatever the case may be, she shouldn’t be forced to volunteer her body for 9 months if she doesn’t want to. Pregnancy is a great source of stress, mentally, physically and emotionally. I’d imagine being pregnant when you want to be pregnant is stressful enough, I can’t imagine what it’d be like if you didn’t want to be pregnant.

Although I’m happy that more Americans are accepting the Libertarian Party as a legitimate political party, there are going to be a lot of fakers. Being a Libertarian takes a lot of tolerance that I don’t think the Right side has. Unfortunately a lot of neoconservatives seem to be getting confused and identifying as Libertarian. The ideals of this party need to be put out on the table with the words “no exceptions.” Hopefully once the ideals of this party are put out in the open, we can weed out the true Libertarians and the party can move forward with few controversies.