This blog entry started out two weeks ago as my own commentary/slant on pro-life versus pro-choice. Then the shit hit the fan with Todd Akin and his idea of “legitimate rape” which is fortuitous timing.
I don’t take personal issue with Todd Akin’s use of the phrase “legitimate rape” for two reasons. First of all, everyone slips up and says something stupid once in a while. A politician constantly speaks in public, and is more likely than you or I to say things that their opposers won’t like. I personally think both Democrats and Republicans are idiots to call for him to step down; there’s no reason why he should. Second, Rep. Akin is not coming completely out of left field with his statement because he is, in fact, representing the viewpoint of many pro-life supporters. This topic has taken center stage to that point that nearly 18 months ago in April of 2011, Ms. ran a cover story calling for the FBI to change the definition of rape. (see http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/04/20/rape-is-rape-no-more-excuses/) So you see, this battle’s been going on for a long-ass time.
What I do take issue with is the reasoning behind the definition of “legitimate”, which here could be translated “valid.” What, then, makes a rape “invalid”? If a person has not consented to sex, but another person goes ahead anyway, that is legitimate, valid rape. It is an act of sexual violence against someone who cannot otherwise defend themselves. I personally know of a woman whose husband had sex with her while she was in a deep sleep due to her prescription medication. Is this considered rape or is it a case of the wife paying her dues to her husband even though she wasn’t conscious? (Note: I realize that women are not the only ones who get raped. It’s a sad exertion of domination over the powerless. However, women are the only ones who can get pregnant, which is why I’m addressing that specifically.)
I also take issue with the idea that “the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.” Okay, fair enough that the rapist should be punished. But what about the woman?? Rep Akin seems more concerned with the unborn embryo than with the fully-formed person who has been violated against her will and now, according to his line of reasoning, must permit the product of an unwanted situation to develop inside of her. Why should she be punished? She should, instead, be allowed to decide for herself what she will do.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that people like Rep Akin are not personalizing the issue, they’re not putting a face on so-called ‘legitimate rape.” What if a beloved female family member of theirs was raped and became pregnant as a result? Would the fault be dropped squarely in her lap as though she must not have said ‘no’ or fought hard enough? Or would they at last be able to dig around deep within themselves and scrounge up some compassion, realizing that the decision to keep or abort needs to lie with the true victim, the woman.
And that, dear readers (I believe there are about five of you, even though only one of you has commented), brings me to the controversial topic of pro-life versus pro-choice.
Contrary to what pro-life supporters may say, pro-choice does not equate pro-abortion. Rather, pro-choice means that the choice of what to do about the life of the unborn baby is up to the woman in question, not the government, and not anyone else who us unconnected with the conception of the child.
For my own body, I am pro-life. No matter the circumstances, I don’t think I could ever bring myself to terminate the life growing inside of me. I say that now, but I honestly don’t know what I would want to do if I were raped. However, I have no right to sit in judgment of women who have decided on this course of action. It must be the choice of each woman. The government should keep out of the affairs of a woman’s reproductive rights, which includes blowhards like Rush Limbaugh calling a young woman a slut simply because she would like access to the same thing he has: the joy of sex. While I’m on that topic, in my own lifetime, which has not been long in the grand scheme of things, I have known of men who abandoned their pregnant girlfriend. What choice then does the woman have when she is left on her own to fend for herself? Rush Limbaugh can stick his cock anywhere he wants and doesn’t have to deal with any responsibility. Men have been doing it for centuries. Why are some of them so reluctant to give us that same power? Oh….because..right, it would give us power. I answered my own question.
Speaking of government keeping out of personal affairs, it should also be a woman’s choice on how she will feed her child (attention, Mayor Bloomberg.) Not all women can breastfeed. For some, it is physically painful. For others, especially women who must return to full-time work, it is logistically impossible to be able to feed an infant as often as required, short of hooking herself up to a milking machine that one sees on a farm. If formula were to be restricted, how would gay parents feed their infant children? Perhaps Mayor Bloomberg can reinvigorate the wet nurse franchise.
To summarize, kids, the government needs to mind its own business and give equal rights to men and women. Class dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment