Friday, March 1, 2019

Executing Babies and More Anti-Choice Lies


Lots of abortion news this week. So this is something I've thought a lot about. I used to be religious. I was fed the anti-choice rhetoric and I learned to spout it. I learned Bible verses, I learned to be repulsed, I even listened to a few sermons in which special anti-choice slides were employed in the service of showing everyone how poor little babies are dismembered and aren't those sinners not just sinners but awful, horrible people. I even believed the stuff about the Bible saying it is a sin. I tried to navigate gracefully around the gore and scare tactics because I felt even then that that was too much. I thought let the Bible convict them of sin, but leave the other judgments to God. As time went on, and I obeyed the admonition to study the Bible (Acts 17:11) and test all things (1 Thes 5:21), I started to see some cracks in the logic. Once you realize this is a political campaign, things fall apart and you see the subjectivity of what you formerly believed was impenetrable logic. It requires no political action to either not get an abortion or not have sex before marriage (which is what they wish they could regulate). None. Zero. These are religious tenants you can follow or not follow. When the church ties this to voting, implying that voting anything but Republican is sin - or voting Democrat is sin, their logic falls far short. They violate the first amendment should an abortion ban pass - they do not have the right to require all of us to follow their religious strictures. They violate the rules tax exempt status, if Trump hasn't tossed that already. And they violate their own assertion that all sins are more or less equal except blasphemy, that's supposed to be especially bad, but the rest are supposed to be equal. Clearly, if you've ever attended an evangelical (or evangelical adjacent) church, there is a special focus on anti-choice and anti-LGBTQIA+ marriage/rights, most especially in election years. Those are near and dear to their hearts and those are most definitely politicized. 

 All that to say, I've thought about and considered just about every angle in my journey from anti-choice by default, anti-choice by choice to pro-choice. I still think about it. And there have been troubling things coming from state governments and the SCOTUS and everywhere really.

 To this day I think why do they do that? They pick abortion and gay marriage, two things they'd never ever be tempted to do to rail against and outright ban for everyone. If you choose sinners to demonize, you'll be sure pick ones you don't risk committing so as to avoid hypocrisy. Or maybe these acts are chosen because they can't or can choose not to empathize with the "sinners" like they can with lying or gossip. Those are easy to forgive because even the elderly church lady everyone loves is guilty there. They've been known to magnanimously forgive a Jeffery Dahmer every now and then, so murder wouldn't be a good political tool. Plus most everyone agrees on punishing murderers, so that's really not crusade material.

 Anti-choicers will complain about having to pay for abortions with federal money, their money. Never mind that we have to pay for war even if we are morally opposed. Forget that. Also forget that the "fathers" of all these babies CPCs and anti-choicers are trying to adopt are never punished like the women or made to pay anything toward hospital costs or exposed to equal health risks. It's not about doing right by women. Or babies. If they were actually concerned about these babies, as has been said before, they'd support SNAP and Medicaid expansion and all other programs to assist low income people instead of trying to block every effort. I'd go further and say evidence that they don't really care about women or babies unless to control them is a refusal to pay for women's hospital stays to have babies and c-sections, especially if they intend to force them. They should be for free birth control (which benefits men too btw) if they don't hate women, but do want to prevent pregnancy. They want to control when and how women have sex. That's the bottom line. They don't love babies or mothers or women. It's not about tax money going to something they don't believe in. The goal is to bind their religion on everyone and control women. Period.

 On a more whimsical note, why can't women withhold treatment for erectile dysfunction and prostate cancer? Then women could feel powerful just like anti choice men! I mean a religion could theoretically dictate that cancer, especially of the prostate, is a gift form God and how dare you try and reverse it. Pain? Ill effects? You have the wrong mindset! The cancer must be preserved even at your expense. God said so. The end. Yeah, that sounds crazy.
Some articles this week that inspired the thoughts: 
‘Executing Babies’: Here Are the Facts Behind Trump’s Misleading Abortion Tweet
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/health/abortion-bill-trump.html

 How Abortion Law in New York Will Change, and How It Won't
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-abortion-law-in-new-york-will-change-and-how-it-wont

 Girl, 11, forced to give birth to her rapist's baby
https://www.iol.co.za/news/world/girl-11-forced-to-give-birth-to-her-rapists-baby-19576473
https://www.thecut.com/2019/02/11-year-old-rape-victim-given-c-section-argentina.html

 Scott Walker Compares Abortion To Taking A Baby Home And Killing It, Gets Applause
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/scott-walker-abortion-cpac_n_5c77fb3de4b0d3a48b576224

 Scott Walker's a gem, though, right?
https://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/the_quiet_vicious_racism_of_scott_walkers_wisconsin/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scott-walker-tax-tweet-twitter-slam_us_5c534ccee4b0bdf0e7d946a8

Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)