Hi.
Politics. It's a field that is wrought with moral dilemmas and shit slinging. It's a place where the line between government and personal justice is often blurred. For regardless of the form of government exists, it is so closely intertwined with the society that has (at some point in time) either willingly or unwillingly relinquished certain rights to allow it's reign. It is the hope of said societies that they are then ruled by policies that are established by the truths they live by. It is those very truths that make the core of a person. They define who you are and what you came from. They are immobile tracks carry you through life.
I find that in a country as vastly different as mine, there are so many of these immovable stances, that any compromise of shades of gray can be seemingly impossible - as certain parties maintain the stance that the country must live by one individual's standards. How can they ask that when our country is so diverse, that we are considered a mosaic of cultures that have mixed with the American fervor that combine tradition with something new creating a unique society that is ours?
I find that I have yet to establish many stances such as these in relation to US politics. Maybe it's because I have yet to truly participate in a world beyond my own personal bubble and I enjoy blissfully ignoring it. But with the current election coming up - and having to listen to the idiocy called the Republican debates - I most definitely know that I have at least a few. And there is one stance that I refuse to budge on. To quote John Stewart of The Daily Show, I am referring to the "Punanny State" aaaaaaaaaaaand it's closely related sister, abortion.
Now, deep down inside, I believe that everyone has a right to their own opinion on this subject. It depends on the influence of religion, family, life, etc. And I respect the fact that people can have their opinions - I will not force mine onto you.
So when it comes to abortion, I believe that it is up to a woman to do what is healthy for her own body and her own life. Since when do people lacking in a uterus and/or a medical degree get to decide what a woman does with her uterus? It makes me wonder, why is this even an issue that must be dictated by laws when at least half the population could never actually be in such a circumstance? They sure as hell never have to be reminded monthly that they have the potential to be in one!
I classify the circumstances behind abortions into two general categories: willing and un-willing. By this, I am referring to the act of creating a zygote - not the desire to proceed with the surgery.
For the willing situations, there are two subsets: health risk and life risk. Health risk is probably the more accepted form of abortion, because it is performed to save the mother's life. Usually, the cause for the surgery is a difficult pregnancy where the fetus is putting the mother's life at risk or in the case that a sudden injury or mishap requires that the fetus is removed from the mother's uterus, since there is no possible way of saving the fetus without killing both mother and child. These are possibly the worst situations for an abortion just because the surgery is unwanted from the start. The mother wishes for a child but cannot sustain a child without sacrificing both of their lives.
To the people who appose this form of abortion, I really just have nothing to say to you. You would sacrifice a living being for one who is not yet able to even breathe. The reason a fetus must remain in the uterus for about nine months is that it requires that much time to develop the necessary organs to survive in the world. To raise the priority of a sickly fetus, who may not even live (and couldn't even be called bearable if alive), over a grown adult who could help raise another child in this world is cruel on so many levels and degrades the value of woman by likening her to a breeder.
Life risk on the other hand, is the case where the woman's way of life is at risk. Sure after the previous category it sounds pretty silly, but you must consider that having a child changes a woman's entire life. These women may want to have children in the future (or may not want any at all) and having a baby will disrupt any future plans they may have. This process also creates a heavy financial burden and a woman might not be able to carry that weight. To make this a bit easier to understand, let me get into a few more details of the process.
Having a child is more than just giving birth. It means raising the child: providing for its physical and mental health, instilling good qualities, supporting its future education, and many others. With the economy in the low it currently is in, the financial cost for these things keeps rising. There is also a major time expense. You have to be able to donate time into raising this child. And it is a constant amount of time that needs to be devoted. It's not as if once the child is able to walk and talk you can forget about spending time with him or her. It requires time to raise another human being. If you are alone in the parenting venture, it could seem like even more. For someone who is unwilling, having an abortion is better choice when it comes to time and cost, and in a world filled with neglected children, you can prevent the chance of there being one more.
Some of you might then say, why not consider adoption? I think adoption is a wonderful thing. For women who don't believe in abortions, it could be a nice alternative. But once again, it is the woman's choice - not to be made by men who are completely removed from their situation. Though adoption is great, there are still consequences and burdens the woman must carry despite giving up her child. The financial cost is still there. To ensure a healthy delivery (no one really wishes to adopt a sickly baby), a woman must support a healthy diet and lifestyle. It is protocol whether or not you want a baby. You must also remember that pregnancy is a 9 month commitment filled with body aches, hormonal induced emotional rollercoasters, 24/7 changes in normal body functions and cycles - not to mention the disruption of a person's life to accommodate something that you will be giving away. And it is a given that your body will change after having a child (lots of hormonal and physical changes happen). Just because you are not to be responsible for the child doesn't mean that your life won't change!
But what if a woman is not able to provide the growing fetus within her with the care she needs? What if the option of adoption is unattainable because of your position in life? By carrying the child to term, you will only introduce another child into the system, left to fend for his or her own. Yes there are people who do adopt kids, but the older an orphan gets the less likely they will find a family. Through abortion, you are saving a child from that very fate (not to mention the addition strain on state/local government to provide for the orphan).
I believe that abortion should be a healthcare option without restrictions and provided to women who should make the choice on their own. This is especially important for the circumstances of the un-willing: women who are victims of rape.
These women are victims. And to think that they are otherwise is a unaware and shallow judgment. Sure, the physical wounds will heal with time. But the mental ones are harder to heal and can manifest in the most common day activities - and they are also the most devastating wounds to attempt to heal. To pile on the punishment of having to support and grow the product of such a violent crime for nine difficult months on an un-willing victim - those people are just cruel.
Sure some of these women might not believe in abortions, and they are free to follow that conviction. My problem is that government officials are restricting the free choice of women to abort a fetus - especially when the fetus was conceived from a man who has raped and violated them. Sure, the child is innocent in this situation - by why are you further punishing the woman? Does she not also deserve your concern?
In Virginia, the government passed a law required women to have a transvaginal ultrasound/exam before receiving an abortion. For those of you who don't know what this entails, let me elaborate. The doctor must insert a cold, condom covered transducer into the vagina of said women. Ultimately, a woman must endure the forced penetration of a large probe. Sound like something a rape victim would love to experience? I profusely disagree. The mental stress a raped victim would be placed under is vastly unhealthy - this coming from my father who is a psychiatrist. The fact that men who are entirely removed from this situation decide that this is the proper course of action makes my blood boil. They as the government should take in consideration the needs of all the citizens they represent.
I don't believe in forcing my ideals on others. But I do believe in having the freedom to make these choices. It is not right for government officials (a small portion of the population) to force their disapproval of abortion on the entire country. Especially when they have never been directly connected to any form of the above situations. Just because it is easy to judge from afar, it doesn't mean that it is right.
It reminds me of a bill president Obama is trying to pass: requiring healthcare to provide for the cost of contraception (birth control), along with the requirement for all employers to provide healthcare for its employees. What I like about this bill is that it doesn't force religious institutions to directly provide contraception, going against their beliefs. But of course, despite the fact that our government was built on secular ideals - that government should be separate from religion - it is being met with disdain that is justified by religious statements. How are we then a secular government?
Additionally there is an inherent hypocrisy within this stance. When people like Rush Limbaugh came out against advocate Sandra Fluke, calling her a slut for asking the country to pay for the vast amounts of sex she is having, I want to remind them about Viagra. It is provided for by healthcare and is backed by religious institutions. They claim it fixes a medical problem and allows procreation. What I get from this is that they are sanctioning the right for impotent men to have more sex. Do they really think that every act of intercourse by these men is to conceive a child? Please, don't make me laugh.
So why is it that they can accept providing money for men to have sex but the idea that the women they are having sex with should also be given funds to protect themselves is inconceivable? It's as if they are saying it's ok for men to be whores, but not for women. Why is the idea of provided contraception so abhorrent, when it could even decrease the need for abortions? What happened to gender equality? Why are we being governed by ideologies from archaic civilizations? Why can they not accept that we live in a completely different society, and so govern us as we exist in the twenty-first century?
When it comes to these political issues, I cannot step away from the fact that we must be provided with a choice. Yes, I do believe in contraception and abortions, but I don't think that everyone must live and believe as I do. But to blindly use religious values to uphold political policies in a secular government and simply judge situations from a completely removed stance equates to being a bigot.
So if you can't deal, just get up and walk away:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWIB4DCtooI
No comments:
Post a Comment