It all started when a friend of mine wrote an article commemorating the Roe v Wade anniversary. Then a guy named Chad decided to comment that "Abortion is the ultimate disgustingly selfish decision a person can make. Taking a life to make it easier on yours." He also claimed that "birth control is like $2 a month the last time I checked with my girlfriend."
When was the last time Chad had sex with his girlfriend?!?! TWO DOLLARS? Are you freakin' kidding me?
I've enjoyed being part of the discussion over there and am pleased to see that other commenters are pointing out how complicated access to contraception is--- for an example--- and beause I'm lazy, I'll just copy and paste one of my responses:
"Anon" suggested a compromise that pro-life people work with pro-choice people to "give women and girls easy and cheap access to birth control."
Absolutely brilliant idea! This is something pro-choice people have been asking of the "pro-life" community for years. But we never get anywhere on this issue because pro-lifers have no interest in life (example? – how about co-opting AIDS relief by demanding America not send condoms to Africa....)
There lack of interest in decreasing abortions was proved AGAIN- most recently in the South Dakota legislature on Friday February 8th.
South Dakota Senate Bill 164 read:
"It is the public policy of this state that the interest in freedom from unreasonable government intrusions into the private lives of citizens, and specifically the right of consenting individuals to obtain and use safe and effective methods of contraception without interference by governmental entities..." ...
The bill would have prevented pharmacists from refusing to dispense birth control. Planned Parenthood in S.D. has several documented instances where pharmacists have refused to do their job and fill prescription birth control for women.
This bill was voted down by the "pro-life" people who claim that they want abortion to end!??!?
So now we know--- pro-life is a misnomer. These people are the sex police. They have no interest in helping women avoid unwanted pregnancy. They want to tell people how to live their lives. No condoms, no pill, no abortion.
And then when you're an unwed teenage mother, they'll call you a SLUT. No really.
Colorado Spring Republican Rep. Larry Liston said (during a recent GOP legislative caucus meeting in Denver):
"In my parents' day and age, (unmarried teen parents) were sent away, they were shunned, and they were called what they are. There was at least a sense of shame. There's no sense of shame today, society condones it. ... I think it's wrong. They're sluts. And I don't mean just the women. I mean the men, too."
Yes because we know how often MEN were sent away in shame for pregnancy. And we know how often MEN are called sluts with any derogatory meaning behind it.
Time to face facts, folks. "Pro-life" people have no intention of reducing the need for abortion. Their gripe is that women can't be shamed and called out for their "slutty ways" anymore. There is no interest in making it easier on single mothers.
-- If you want women to have options
-- If you think people need real sex education
-- If people need access to contraception
-- IF you want abortions to decrease
...then you would best serve your purpose on the pro-choice side.
So yeah, that was fun.
It just makes me absolutely nuts when "pro-life" people come out and claim to care about the welfare of children (in fetus form only of course). They want women to continue every single pregnancy possible... no matter what. Cause it's so "easy" to do?
There was a great article on MSNBC that talked about the child care crisis and how day care costs have outpaced what the average family spends on food. The majority of families rely on two-income households to keep going and that means the kiddies have to go somewhere. But when daycare costs more than food--- how are people supposed to stay on top of it?
According to the article:
Child-care costs are rising at twice the rate of inflation. After paying the mortgage, health insurance premiums, transportation costs and child-care fees, today's two-income families have less money left over than the one-income family did a generation ago.
"In order to go back to one income, families would have to make significant changes, possibly losing health insurance and their home."
So even the good old fashioned nuclear family might have some serious concerns about an unplanned pregnancy. But surprise surprise it was the democratic, pro-choice canidate, John Edwards who talked about more significant tax breaks for people with children in day care.... not the anti-choiceres... seems to me they don't give one lick about making it easier to afford and adequately care for children.
And as for $2 birth control... PULEAZE