Today I renewed my drivers license and while I was standing in line I was reading some interesting information. Did you know...
-- Every 13 minutes someone's name is added to the list of people who need an organ donation
-- 80,000 men, women and children are waiting for organs
-- Donating your organs can save the lives of 8 people and enhance the lives of 40 others.
So here's my question. In our "culture of life" why isn't organ donation mandatory? I mean, 18 people die every day waiting for transplants. (http://www.organdonor.gov/)
The pro-life movement practically foams at the mouth when talking about saving innocent lives. They are willing to take over a woman's body and strip her of her rights as a moral authority to make her own decisions. Pro-life advocates want to force women to carry a pregnancy to term under the guise that they care so much about life. How about the innocent men and women and children who die because people refuse to donate their organs? It's hard to understand why people are going into graves with perfectly healthy organs meanwhile someone somewhere is dying of kidney failure. That "life" is going to waste.
Organ donation happens after you die! You won't feel pain of surgery or suffer complications; absolutely nothing physically is going to happen to affect your health. Yet, women who are ALIVE are supposed to carry unwanted or unsafe pregnancies to term. And pregnancy affects a woman for 9 months-- 9 months that carry immense health risks and challenges, physically and mentally. For some it is a painful reminder of a violent attack. Others are reminded of a mistake that her community and family will always judge her for. Some women see a pregnancy as a serious, constant anxiety. They think, "How will I pay for another child?"
It isn't as if women can carry a pregnancy to term and be done. Then she has a child!!! Yet pro-lifers conveniently overlook this. Correction- they conveniently overlook the woman. This is all about a fetus. An unborn with a POTENTIAL for life that is being valued over the life of a female ALREADY BORN. Yet, when it comes to organ donation we tell people, "It's your choice, it's your body. You should be able to decide what happens to it." And this a decision that won't affect you physically. After all, you're dead, you don't need a kidney.
If pro-life zealots were really about "saving life," organ donation would also be a huge concern. So would ending war, and ending poverty that leads to malnourished children... Come on. This isn't about life; it's about punishing women and not giving them rights to their procreative power.
12 comments:
About punishing women? There are so many things wrong with that view. First off, have you ever been to a poverty stricken neighborhood and lived their? Or even worked with people who are located in a little to no income bracket. These are places where kids are getting pregnant. I'm talking 15 year old girls getting pregnant here. Such people should not be allowed "Procreative rights". But hey, they can just go get an abortion if they ever get pregnant. No consequences.
P.S. The phrase "...it's about punishing women and not giving them rights to their procreative power." has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. If your going to have a blog with postings like you have, I assume that you are prepared to recieve comments such as mine, and defend your opinions. However, when you post ridiculous phrases like the aforementioned, it's hard to think your not a radical nutcase. This makes it very hard to take you seriously. In fact I almost laughed when I read it. Think a little bit more about the things you're going to put up so they don't seem like jokes.
Fire Away.
No I have never lived in a poverty stricken neighborhood. I have never lived THERE. T-H-E-R-E. You claim to know ALL about social justice issues but your grammar is seriously lacking.
I don't even know where to start with your comment. It's very frustrating having a debate with someone who is so un-educated. Um, people get pregnant EVERYWHERE. It's not just poor 15 year olds. And by the way, even if it was, why should we now allow these young women procreative rights? Seriously? I'm asking. What kind of nut assumes that --if you're poor, 15 and a woman you must be an immoral idiot who opens her legs and doesn't care because she can "just go get an abortion- no consequences"? Do you have any idea how much an abortion costs?
Here's an actual abortion clinic's prices for you to check out:
http://www.redriverwomensclinic.com/AppointmentsAndFees.htm
As you can see, even if you have a relatively "early" abortion, it is still over $500. So I doubt these POOR 15-year-old girls just think "no worries, I can get an abortion" There would definitely be consequences.
I assume that you hate women. It's obvious really. You don't talk about ending or decreasing abortions (something I think we can one day accomplish with social work and easier access to contraception); rather you mention these irresponsible, stupid, morally bankrupt women who seem to run around having sex with no consequences.
True, some people are promiscuous. But they are from both sexes. It's not a woman problem or man problem. But to assume women (especially poor women apparently) just run around having consequence-free sex is unfounded. You have nothing to back this claim up except your own ignorance.
It IS about procreative power. If women are denied contraception, accurate sex education and are falling victims to incest and rape... not to mention the much less evident abuse of partners who pressure women to have unprotected sex, or sex before women are ready because "that means you really love me, baby." Then on top of all that you tell them "You have no right to seek a legal medical procedure." Then yes, you deny them rights to control their power over their bodies and their ability to procreate.
When do we ever tell men, "You can't wear condoms, because that means you're spilling your seed and being horny and irresponsible." No-- but women are sluts -- especially the poor ones, according to you. We mustn't let women have rights to their uterus; they're too stupid to know what to do. Right?
But again, it isn't about life- as you yourself have proved. It's about disdain and distrust for women.
Thank you for proving my point.
Do men have any procreative rights? If a woman gets pregnant she currently has the option of having a child or terminating the pregnancy. If she chooses to have the child, the father becomes financially responsible and should become involved in the childs life at a minimum, better yet to actively be the childs father. At no point do I see the father having any options. Shouldn't the father get to decide whether or not he is ready to have a child? Why should women have all the options? Shouldn't women have to get consent from the father to continue pregnancy? At the very minimum, shouldn't the father be notified? Many of the points you raise about the life altering consequences of pregnancy apply to men as well.
Why does the pro-choice movemment not promote choice for men? Why are men being treated so badly by modern society? Men have no choice in whether or not they have children and it is a womans choice of who she names as father, no proof is required. A man can have a child and never know it until he gets the bill for 10 years of back child support. That is close to theft in my book. Not to mention the staggering difference in rates of violent crimes against men.
Men today are truly second class citizens.
Well, I HAVE lived in a poverty stricken neighborhood. I won't give you specifics, but there are details of my life that shock even the people closest to me-- and how dare you imply that because people are poor they are automatically immoral. And guess what-- it wasn't my neighbors, sisters, or me getting pregnant at fifteen. It was the middle-class, white, cheerleaders/class presidents/homecoming queens. They were CHILDREN who were presented with a society that sells sex around every corner and then doesn't have the decency to back it up with education and preventative tools.
But I still don't understand your point. Why should a fifteen year old girl who gets pregnant not be allowed pro-creative rights? Are you suggesting that these fifteen year old girls-- who are under the age of consent in every state-- WANTED to get pregnant, or even had any idea what that meant in a profound sense?
I have news for you. Anytime a fifteen year old girl gets pregnant, a rape has occurred, and whether the guily party is her 27 year old neighbor, her 18 year old boyfriend, or society itself for selling sex to kids when they're way to young to deal with it, it doesn't make it any more right.
Ever been raped? Ever been a victim of incest? Ever had someone manipulate you into having sex with them? How old were you? What if they were seven, brutally raped by their grandfather, and got pregnant? THEN would it be okay? Or would she still fall under your category of 'SUCH PEOPLE'?
And
Please explain to me what is so ridiculous about what Tobes said that you rambled on for a paragraph without actually saying anything. What about that sentence offended you so? Was it the apostrophe? The alliteration? Since you don't actually come out and say what it is that makes her a 'radical nutcase' I'm going to have to assume that you became offended by something simply because you do not understand.
Hey, it's okay. People have been lashing out in anger about things they don't understand for years. Just ask Hitler.
Sorry about my ONE grammatical error. O-N-E. I'm also sorry that I am so un-educated(actually spelled uneducated, no hyphen necessary), but I'll try to better myself. Apparently, I'm the kind of nut who would assume such things. Also, it's not an issue of immorality, but if immaturity. Most youths in this era have no sense of future, or for that matter consequences their actions might bring. No, I don't hate ALL women, only women who take a superior approach to life and feel the need to let everyone else know this. I also hate men who are like this. Basically anyone like this in general. Seriously though, your ability to warp and twist other comments to fit your liking is truly magical. You should work for the Bush Administration. They would love you there.
You seem to be right, all of this is really about disdain and distrust for women. Women like you.
Thank you for flaming.
First of all- Men? Second class citizens? What country do you live in? The reason me can’t “terminate” their end of responsibility and refuse to claim support of their children is because once that child is born its needs must be met. A woman has the ability to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term because it’s her body. But once that child is born or a certain number of weeks has passed, she can no longer make that decision *unless serious health risks interfere* So once there is a child in a picture, the parents have to support it together. And, it's bogus to claim that women can make any guy pay for her child. A man can get a DNA test if he doesn't believe he should be paying child support. And it's sad to say, but often the real biological fathers get out of paying support by hopping state lines or claiming bankruptcy. It's not hard and it happens frequently.
And as far for the anonymous who's got his or her knickers in a twist, you don't like the truth, I'm sorry. And as far as pointing out your errors, you’re right, it was rough. I can't help it. People who type "their" instead of "there" and "your" instead of "you're" drive me bonkers, especially when in the same sentence they make bogus racist and class-centric statements that insinuate that poor, 15 years old who are impregnated are immature. If they are so immature do we really want them having children? If they are immature, who is taking advantage of that and having sex with them?
Beside, it’s not just the young, poor women who need or desire abortions. A close friend recently confided in me that she needed an abortion when she was in her 30's and MARRIED (also wealthy, if that matters to you)-- she realized her husband was cheating on her. I've also met an older woman who needed an abortion when she found the fetus was seriously ill and would likely not survive once born.
You assume that the needs for abortions are black and white. You are wrong. You assume that I am an evil femi-nazi. I am not, I don't hate you. I don't even have to give you face time on my blog. I could reject your comments, but I publish them. It’s common courtesy; I will allow a difference of opinion, but I don’t have to agree.
You're right, Bush & Co. are masters of twisting fact. Only thing is, I'd need a lobotomy before I worked for them. Pro-choice and feminist… yeah, I’d be perfect for Bush.
I live in the USA, the country in which you have cited studies showing that men are the victims of violent crime at a rate 50% greater than women, a fact you asked me to prove in another post but have yet to acknowledge or respond to.
When my daughter was born and my wife was recovering the nurse came in to get some information for the birth record. It was 3 am and she was very tired yet I could not provide the infomation and let my wife sleep because only the mother can do that. In fact the nurse didn't want to speak to me at all, even though we are married. That is second class for ya.
No requirement to name who the real father is at birth makes men second class. No recourse for fathers who have been mistakenly named as the father and paid child support up until getting that dna test makes men second class. Men have legal responsibilities that come from a pregnancy but not the legal power to do something about a pregnancy, that makes men second class. If women want to say that since it is their body they should get to make the decisions then they should also be required to take all of the responsibility. If it is a joint decision then it can be a joint responsibility.
Believe me, I will be addressing this discrepancy about violence against men vs. women in an upcoming post. I am taking the time to talk to experts in violence against women, as well as research some newer stats.
I'm not ignoring you, just preparing myself adequately.
The reason that only the mother can answer questions for a birth record is because it has been proven that that female is the baby's actual parent. That nurse had no idea how you were connected to the baby-- and you saying 'i'm her husband' or 'i'm the father' doesn't mean anything.
Also--
This may come as a shock to you, but no one is forcing you to have sex. If you have sex with a woman and she becomes pregnant and decides to keep it, you have to man-up and own your responsibilities, period. It's not like you aren't aware of the risks, and it is not that baby's fault that daddy didn't want to wear a condom. The reason that only a woman can decide to get an abortion is because it's her body. Do you think it'd be fair if a woman could get a court order saying that she wanted your penis removed so that you couldn't get her pregnant anymore? Probably not.
I take care of children for a living, so I see all kinds of parenting situations. The most often cited situation where the man is furious that the woman didn't abort is when he thought, for some reason, that she would abort if she got pregnant. I have no sympathy for that-- talk to the women you are having sex with for more than 9 minutes and figure out what her situation is. And even then, you have to respect the fact that she may change her mind, and not just to punish you. Having a baby is about more than child support.
If it's such a big deal to you, stop having sex. If you find that impossible, get sterilized.
Neepernu, you did an excellent job of validating the pro-life stance of "if you don't want to get pregnant don't have sex". Thank you!
The whole point of my "second class citizen" rant was to just turn the arguments around and see what you thought. They are the same arguments in a different package.
I really had to laugh when you suggested that cutting off my penis was an option though. You guys really need to step back and realize that what you are advocating is selfishness. Pure and simple. You want to be able to do what you want, when you want, and if you can get someone else to pay for it too, well all the better.
I keep seeing Tobes mention all of these extreme cases where the mother might die if she doesn't have an abortion or she has some rare affliction or was raped and impregnated etc. But are you willing to say that _only_ those type of abortions are acceptable?
You really made my point though, when you said "you have to man-up and own your responsibilities, period". I love that!! That is what the pro-life people have been saying all along. If you get pregnant, it is up to you to raise your child not kill it. So "man-up"
I really am only having fun with you guys because you get so whiney and shrill when presented with a different point of view.
I especially liked catching Tobes quoting sources she hadn't read and being caught out on the fact that more men are victims of violence than women.
You guys need to quit drinking the pro-choice kool-aid and come up with your own opinions.
Wow, what a charmer. This must work really well with the ladies. Before you have sex with them, and risk getting them pregnant, do you tell them that you are anti-child support, but that you will think they are Godless and evil if they have an abortion? Of course not. Why would you? No woman is going to have sex with you then, and then where would you be?
It is a woman's body that you are playing with-- anytime that a person has an invasive procedure they stand at a risk. A woman HAS to be allowed to CHOOSE whether or not she has an abortion because only SHE knows what she is capable of.
And the men do have to pay child support if she carries the baby because it is HIS CHILD. The mother will be paying child support, also, in that she will likely be the primary care giver for the rest of this baby's life.
That said, a baby born as a consequence doesn't stand much chance in my book.
I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. Do I think that every abortion that happens is justified? No. Does it make me sick that some people abuse the law? Of course. I take care of children for a living, and I love every single one of them. It breaks my heart to think that any one of them could have been aborted.
However-- the reason that abortion HAS to be legal is because of the abortions that ARE justifiable, and the women who deserve the privacy to be able to go in, have an abortion, and walk away. A woman who was raped should not have to go through an open, public, court process in order to get the OK to have an abortion. A victim of incest should NOT have to out her situation to the world in order to get an abortion. Why? Because it makes it less safe for them, personally, and because it would mean less women getting the help that they actually need because they don't want everyone in their business.
YOU are the one advocating selfishness, sir. You want to be able to have sex with whomever you want too and then not have to pay for the baby that it produces-- and MEANWHILE-- you want the mother to HAVE to have the baby because she should have known to keep her legs closed. What kind of backwards logic is that?
It is a double standard, pure and simple. To you, men only get more status the more they have sex, and women are sluts. A woman who gets pregnant is a dirty hoe who should have to have that baby, by God, because she should have known better. But the man shouldn't have to pay child support... because it is HER FAULT that she got pregnant. That makes absolutely no sense, and I hope that you never have sex again until you get it figured out.
If men could become pregnant as a result of rape, incest, abuse, etc, and then had to carry the child to term and have the baby and be connected to it, see it every day, without end, you'd be singing praises to high heaven for Roe vs. Wade. But since all that is legally required of you is to pay child support, you whine about it, as if dollars and cents were in any way a more profound contribution than childbirth.
And before you get all over me about dollars and cents-- remember that I am the one in this conversation who actually KNOWS what being poor and being hungry is like. I work very, very hard for my money and I am stingy with it. If the situation were reversed, if I got someone pregnant, I don't care if I have to work three jobs, that baby is being taken care of.
I would always encourage adoption first. But I also understand that it is unacceptable for me to look into the eyes of an abused, uneducated, impoverished woman who all ready has three kids and her husband raped her to get her pregnant again, and now she needs to have an abortion because she can't feed the ones she has, and for me to tell her that she doesn't knwo what she's talking about is morally reprehensible.
I don't tell you what to do with your body. No one does, in the country, men are allowed to do pretty much whatever they want too and they get away with pretty much whatever they do. Don't tell me what to do with mine.
An excellent response Neepernu. I really must give you props. You said a lot of what I was feeling. I may have to take this entire topic in post form since it seems to be such a hot button issue.
In response to the question.
I am for CHOICE. Plain and simple. I don't need to know the woman or her situation. It's her body and I trust her to make the right choice with it. I have said before, that it's not just rape victims but also women who can't afford children, don't want children, are too young etc. All these women have a right to choice.
Post a Comment