Sunday, March 4, 2012

Question du jour: DIscuss

If you're against abortion, how can you also be against contraception?

I just read a Facebook comment and subsequent conversation which began with a woman saying she's suffered guilt and shame because abortion was "too easily accessible" when she was "young and vulnerable."

Well, I remember when abortions were illegal. You had to go undercover to a shady practitioner to get one, or travel long distances and spend a ton of money to find a reputable doctor willing to perform the procedure. You risked your future fertility and your life when abortion was not accessible.

No one is in favor of abortion. It's a gut-wrenching decision. Preventing abortions is a good idea, so should we encourage drug companies to develop "treatments" for raging hormones? Should we spend more research money to develop cures for the conditions that drive couples to terminate wanted, planned-for pregnancies?

Adoption is a good idea, too. I know several couples who have adopted children but they all traveled long distances and spent a ton of money to bring their children back from foreign countries. Where, apparently, abortions aren't performed. (Here's a rundown of abortion policy around the world.) If U.S. law prohibited abortion, would there be more adoptions here? Or would there be more back-alley, coat-hanger abortions?

Doesn't it make more sense to make contraception accessible? Of course it does.

This whole political storm about women's rights comes down to this: It's a man's world. Still. After two generations of fighting for our rights, and a Supreme Court decision, men still want to be in charge of our bodies. They want to say who, when and how to have sex, and they want us to shut up and like it.

Okay, it's not just men. There's Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter. And the woman who wrote that Facebook comment.

So. Now you know where I stand. How about you?


lola said...

american beliefs surrounding abortion and contraception have always confused me. i'm from canada and things are so different here. luckily! interesting read!

lyndagrace said...

Isn't the issue regarding birth control simply a matter of insurance coverage? (said sarcastically) The argument is that if an organization, such as the Catholic church, has a policy, decree, rule, objection (whatever they call it) against birth control, should be forced to pay, via, insurance coverage, for an employee's contraception. For argument's sake, I'm going to assume that the issue is just that simple. I suspect that it goes deeper than that and there is some fear by other organizations that somehow paying for contraception thru insurance will then lead to federal funding for abortions.
So here are my questions. How many woman, who are gainfully employed by the Catholic church or other such organizations, do not use contraception because they cannot afford it? Will those women then use birth control if insurance covers it? Remember we are talking about employed people have their health insurance covered by the organization the work for. I suspect the number is quite small. Which makes me also suspect that this issue was grabbed by politicians as a way to promote their agenda or slam their opponents.
As far as men being in charge and behind an anti abortion movement, believe me, there are just as many if not more women who feel just as strongly about it. And the woman are probably the more militant ones.
I am not saying we shouldn't be aware of these little attempts to chip away at our rights, but we should also be aware that sometimes it comes down to the opportunities taken by those who desperately want to win a presidential election.

from maggie's farm said...

It is a man's world. It's really ticking me off, too. I also try to publicly stay out of the political fray, but I have to say that it is my right to make these decisions for myself. Not politicians, Not judges. Not insurance companies. When, when, when are we going to get a little respect?