Like a lot of folks out there, I'm knee-deep in school and sinking fast...Those of you in school know what I mean, those of you being productive citizens will remember what I mean, so blogging has been a distant memeory for the past month. However, there's a couple of articles that have been stewing in my brain for the past couple of months, and in between bouts of drunken rage at The Man (and also The Man) I've been putting some specific thoughts together on the continued attacks on reproductive rights in the US and around the world.
What's gross and hateful and disgusting is that the fundies hide behind "Won't somebody please think of the innocent blastocysts!" when really, they're not just against that mystical "9 months minus a day" abortion that all women secretly long to have. They just don't see why should women have any reproductive rights at all. Not medical abortion, not preventative birth control, not anything. Because, after all, woman are here for one reason and one reason only - to be passive vessels for manly essence as decided by
Hat tip to Courtney who sent me this link which introduced me to that Kah-razy Karacter, Thomas Euteneuer. Like most self-proeclaimed experts on sex, pregnancy and child-rearing, Thommy has experienced none of those things. However, in his capacity as a Catholic priest, he does have the red phone to that big guy in the sky, and therefore feels qualified to dismiss contraception as it "interferes with a woman's duty to produce "a full quiver" of children for God." That's right ladies! In God's eyes, we are all his precious children/children factories. But hey, don't whine to Thommy about it - if God had wanted you to have an autonomous, spiritually-fulfilling life, he would have given you a penis. Duh!
Because obviously women aren't supposed to make reproductive decisions. I mean, when they do, look what happens (hat tip to Christine for the article): the crime rate goes down, thereby robbing fundamentalists of their "oh noes, society is crumbling!!11!1" arguments. And really, anyone who is actually surprised by the fact that women making their own choices is a good thing deserves the heart attack they get when it turns out that those walking sperm-incubators actually have the capacity to make moral decisions.
I mean, really - is this so controversial? Are we really all that surprised that when women can choose when to have children, said children are generally better cared for and less likely to wind up on the hopeless path of crime? And to those fundie groups that wave the strawman of adoption around, let me just point out three things: 1)Yes, there are plenty of families out there looking to adopt - healthy white babies. Which poor, non-white women don't tend to give birth to; 2)There are far more children without families than families looking to adopt; and 3)Denying reproductive control to women in order to turn them into broodmares for middle-class, white, Christian families is a terrifying and inhuman idea.
Anyway - just needed to get that off my chest. Next time I come up for air, I hope to deal with the issue of anti-contracpetion crusaders and how what they really need is a terrific lay with the consenting adult of their choice.