Rotten Little Girls » Pro-Life

RIP Dr. George Tiller

Kelly — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:46:50 +0000

Abortion service provider Dr. George Tiller was shot in his church this recent Sunday by an anti-choice extremist. My heart and thoughts go out to his family and friends.

For more information, opinions and so forth, here are some related links:

My friend George Tiller

Who killed George Tiller?

Protecting abortion providers

George Tiller needs more than candlelight vigils

Where will women go now?

On Tiller, O’Reilly regrets nothing

Doctor’s Killer Is Not Alone in the Blame, Some Say

The “non-violent” anti-abortion activists

The Murder of Dr. George Tiller: Right Wing Reactions

Anti-Choice Terrorism Hits the US

The Abortion Post

Kelly — Tue, 19 May 2009 12:30:35 +0000

I am pro-choice. If that mere fact offends you, I suggest finding alternative reading material.

So for those of you still reading, I like to have a discussion about abortion. Specifically, the future of the right to choose in America and the current threats to Roe v. Wade. Oh, and the fact that our President is hailed for pussy-footing around the whole issue. (I love you B, but come on!)

If you didn’t hear, President Obama gave a cute little speech at Notre Dame the other day. Notre Dame, home of the Fighting Irish, is quite possibly the best Catholic university in our country. (At least, that’s what my Irish Catholic uncle tells me, but I digress). So, in his speech President Obama said the following on the subject of abortion:

“I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away…Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable…Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature…”

Also, this little nugget of goodness:

“…That’s when we begin to say, ‘Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman. So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies. Let’s make adoption more available. Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term.”

Okay. Obama, I agree with you – mostly. I agree that we should toss out abstinence-only sex education and increase the availability of affordable birth control. I also agree that we should provide care for women who do carry their “precious” children to term (funny that the pro-lifers love fetuses but don’t give a fuck what happens to them after they are actually born). However…

What is this nonsense about abortion being a heart-wrenching decision for any woman? Let’s stop sugar-coating this shit, people. I’m willing to say this straight up: If I got pregnant today I would abort it ASAP, no qualms, no hesitation. Give me that RU-486 pill, ma’am, thank you very much. I’m too young and I have no desire what-so-ever to bring a child into this world for at least 10 years (if ever).

If men were the ones who gave birth, do you think abortions would be “heart-wrenching” for all of them? Hell, abortion would be as common and accessible as breast augmentation.

Obviously, to have an abortion is a difficult choice for some women to make. By no means do I want to belittle their emotions and experiences regarding their abortions. However, I’m tired of the shame and disgust associated with abortion. For those of us who don’t think life starts at conception, the right to an abortion is a no-brainer. For those who do think abortion=baby-killing…why don’t you worry about saving your own soul, alright? You’re perfectly willing to support a war in Iraq, which has killed thousands of people ALREADY BORN and you sleep at night just fine, so I think you can get over a few women “killing” their unborn fetus. (EDIT: I’m aware this does not extend to ALL pro-lifers…)

I’d like to say this post is open for ANY and ALL commentary/debate/what-have-you. I would love to hear from pro-lifers, pro-choicers, pro-baby killers, whatever the hell you identify as. Just remember:

1) Keep it civil. No personal attacks will pass through comment moderation.
2) If you just want to preach your religious doctrine, go somewhere else. I’m a heathen and proud of it.
3) If your post contains the words “baby murderer,” “devil worshipper,” or “evil slutty bitch” (and you’re not being sarcastic), your comment will not pass through moderation.

I obviously have much more to say on the topic, but I thought I would respond in the comments section rather than standing up on my rotten little soapbox and boring you all to tears. :-) Hope to hear from you.

Yours Truly,
Dollface

EDIT: To the guy who commented telling me to “shut up”… I’d like to direct you to my “About Us” page in which I politely but firmly state that I will not shut up, for anyone. For more information on this subject, click here.

P.S. Free “President Bush Sucks” condoms for the 25th comment! (Shameless attempt to get you all debating, I know)

Abortion: Social Issue or Shock Art?

Kelly — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:52:54 +0000

There’s an article in Bitch magazine entitled, “Point/Counterpoint: Art or Bloody Shame.” In this piece, two writers discuss whether or not a Yale student’s senior art project is merely “shock art” or “fodder for anti-choicers.” Basically, a student named Aliza Shvart created a performance piece that entailed, over a nine month period, repeated attempts at artificial insemination and self-induced miscarriages – all of which was recorded on video. If that wasn’t enough, Shvart intended to show her own blood from the miscarriages mixed with Vaseline between plastic sheets.

Gross, huh? According to the artist her goal was “to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body.” Call me prudish or old-fashioned, but this doesn’t seem like art to me. However I don’t want to get into a debate about what is or isn’t art. I want to talk about abortion.

Bitch writer Jennifer McDaniel makes a good point that Shvart’s artworks, “have left pro-choice advocates in the unenviable position of grudgingly defending the student’s right to use her body in any gruesome way she wants.” This raises a controversial question: how far are pro-choicers willing to defend the right to privacy? Shvart is exercising her right to freedom of expression: she is, after all, choosing to artificially inseminate herself, choosing to video tape herself miscarrying, and so on.

The problem lies in the frivolity of her actions. I believe that when women become pregnant and then choose to abort their fetus, it is because they have carefully weighed the consequences of their actions. They are making an educated decision about their bodies and their lives. Shvart, on the other hand, is reducing such an important facet of human life to what can only be called “shock art”. Do I believe she is a baby murderer? No, because I don’t believe life begins at conception. Do I think she is wrong to tape her miscarriages? No, because she is entitled to do what she wants in the privacy of her own home. However, I agree with Yale’s decision to ban her artwork; it is, after all, a private institution and her artwork is not sensitive to the gravity of the issues at hand: motherhood, abortion, choice, and women’s right to privacy.

Most problematic is that Shvart’s art feeds into the misconception that people who are pro-choice relish the thought of “murdering innocent babies” and enjoy provoking their pro-life counterparts. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Although many (including John McCain) believe that pro-choice = pro-abortion, the reality is that pro-choicers just want women to be able to make their own decisions about their body without the government or other people’s interference. Shvart’s actions are protected by this notion but they certainly are not promoted or supported by the pro-choice cause. It’s just like with freedom of speech – you are allowed to use hateful language by law but most people engage in self-censorship out of respect to other people’s feelings. A woman aborting her fetus is a private matter; displaying a video of your self-induced miscarriages on a college campus is not. Shvart’s art is shocking, yes, but it is also offensive and of questionable taste. Her video could have a harmful effect on women who have experienced involuntary miscarriages. Furthermore, she seems to make a mockery of the entire abortion debate: not only does she paint pro-choicers as careless and reckless, but she provokes pro-lifers who honestly believe she is murdering numerous human beings. No matter which side you are on in this debate, I think we can agree that Shvart’s shock art adds unnecessary controversy to an already controversial social issue.

What do you think of Shvart’s performance art? Am I being too dismissive of her “artwork”? Is the thought of video-taping induced miscarriages disgusting to you or morally reprehensive? Please weigh in.

Related posts:
Perez Hilton
Huffington Post

Photo Credits

Who Would Jesus Vote For?

Harlequin — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:04:42 +0000

As the November presidential election looms closer, it’s time to pick these candidates to pieces with deeper fervor. And with only two that remain standing, Obama and McCain, it seems that in terms of women’s issues, it’s almost a case of, well…black vs. white. As Dollface explained, Obama addresses a myriad of women’s issues while McCain almost completely ignores them, save his section on “Human Dignity & the Sanctity of Life.” Now, of course the correlation between religion and politics has many factors besides the ever-popular abortion issue. But the mere title of this category just reeks of religious undertones, and it is aimed almost entirely at explaining McCain’s pro-life policies (a term that my own mother ranted about as she complained that having kids was an anti-life policy for any woman).

Polls show the obvious – that people who consider religion an important part of their daily lives support McCain over Obama, (50% to 40%, according to this study). And to me, McCain’s policies might support the organized Christian church’s stance on women’s issues, but he is flat-out wrong when he interprets what religion is really supposed to be about.

The glaring problem with organized religion that bothers me is the way in which people seem to forget what it is truly about. It’s not about making rules and forcing other people to bend to your will – spirituality is about people doing good, supporting each other and thinking in terms of acceptance rather than absolute morality. Coincidentally, Christianity tends to punish “the second sex” as most immoral, even using the Bible to assign blame to hotheaded sexpots like Eve and Delilah. I can not help but believe that this sexist and power-hungry stance is not the attitude on which Christianity, or any religion for that matter, was founded.

This is not to say that religion is necessarily a negative part of our world. It provides purpose and meaning for many people, and creates a supportive community. But so often this gets lost in the shuffle of political power plays. By all means, worships Jesus Christ, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit and the whole shebang – but if you are really going to get all Biblical about it, shouldn’t you at least hold true to Jesus’ teachings? Using religion as an excuse to halt the advancement of women’s rights is not justifiable. Nor is it an accurate depiction of the underlying theme of Christianity – and in fact of all religions – “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” Jesus preached about acceptance and equal worth for men and women long before the Bible was written. In fact, he even had people breathing down his neck for NOT excluding women from his teachings. His blatant refusal to subjugate women himself has been twisted and lost throughout the centuries, because above all, women should be allowed to make decisions for themselves – if indeed they do have equal status in the world.

Not to mention that the Bible makes no mention of abortion. It is probably for this reason that there have been varied stances on the procedure throughout Christianity’s existence. St. Thomas Aquinas and even some medieval popes believed that a fetus was not a person until “quickening” – when motion of the fetus can be felt and it is said to be showing signs of life. While this varies from woman to woman, quickening typically occurs around 5 months. Today a similar concept – viability – is used to determine the legality of abortions. Referring to the fetus’ ability to live outside of the mother’s womb, viability is the basis of most abortion laws; this is why most late-term abortions are illegal unless a health risk to the mother or child can be proven.

In the context of this type of religious subjugation, supporting McCain’s views on abortion just stems to the larger issue: that supporting religiously-motivated policies allows for the hindrance of our female rights – rights to our own bodies, our own biological needs and our own life goals. The doctrine of Christianity has proven that the church does not have the best interest of women in mind. Its dismissal of the female experience is a result of the gender power struggle, rather than a policy of holding fast to religious teachings. Even as supporters of McCain, women should be lobbying for him to include women’s rights in his political agenda.

Never mind that the Constitution above all stresses the separation of church and state. Does anyone else wonder why the inclusion of religious-based opinions in our legal system is even an issue? I don’t think most humans are so lost that they need a higher power to guide them around the universe of ethics. Our personal decisions should reflect the freedom of choice in a world where morality is relative, not absolute.

Photo Credit: Christian Martyr on the Cross by Von Max (1865)

McCain’s Armies of Compassion

Kelly — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:12:44 +0000

The first thing you may notice about Obama’s campaign site is that he has dedicated an “issues” page to Women. In this page he highlights a range of women’s issues, from domestic violence to healthcare. Needless to say, his stance on women’s rights is rather comprehensive.

However, on McCain’s website, there is a glaring deficit. There is no mention of women’s rights as an important issue. In fact, the only mention of women is under the category of “Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life” in which McCain’s pro-life (anti-choice) stance is explained.

Armies of Compassion?

Interestingly enough, the McCain site claims that,

“The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. “

Armies of compassion? First of all, what is with the military jargon? Is that an allusion to McCain’s stint as a Navy Pilot (he ranked 894 out of 899 in his Naval Class, but never mind that…). Either way, this phrase “armies of compassion” — which in this context is referring to “faith-based, community and neighborhood organizations” such as Family Research Council — makes it seem like other respectable organizations are not compassionate. What about Planned Parenthood, one of the “pro-choice” organizations that has been underfunded and stigmatized by the Bush administration? Are they not “compassionate”?

For those who are unaware of what Planned Parenthood’s mission is, I will direct them to their website. Since many Planned Parenthood facilities are not even equipped to perform abortions, it really seems ridiculous that this organization is persecuted by the pro-life neo-cons. PP provides a much-needed service to those who cannot afford expensive birth control, or who need more information and support. Regardless of whether you support premarital sex or not, it is important to have a place where our teenaged daughters and sons (and anyone else, for that matter) can go to test for STDs, AIDs, and learn crucial methods of contraception. I would argue that PP is more “compassionate” than its “faith-based” pro-life counterparts.*

*I am aware that the McCain campaign is using “armies of compassion” as a euphemism for “pro-life tendencies”. I just think it’s a load of crap.

McCain is not the only one to refer to these organizations as “armies of compassion”. In June 2008, George Bush used the phrase as well at the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives National Conference. Now, I’m sure there are many other ways in which Bush and McCain are similar, but this seems to be a rather blatant way in which McCain is perpetuating the Bush administration’s doctrine – even down to the jargon!