Abortion/Pro-"life"/Pro-"Choice"

On Alternet today they have an interesting article (originally from Bitch magazine) on the t-shirt controversy. The t-shirt apparently says "I had an abortion." I personally would never wear a shirt like that nor have I had an abortion. I take issue with the whole wording/framing of 'pro-life' and 'pro- choice.' These phrases have become those obnoxious orange cones meant to keep you in the lines of a pre-determined discourse. Not every woman (or man for that matter) who is pro-choice is "pro-abortion" as many on the "right" would like you to believe. Not every person who is "pro-life" are anti-abortion either. Think about it. Think harder. Think broader. Think about what these words actually mean. For example some who call themselves pro-life consider medically necessary abortions (i.e. to save the mother's life and in some states/religions/cases to abort a child that would be born dead or born so severly ill that the quality of life would be nonexistent) perfectly acceptable whereas they object to the "idea" of abortion as a low-income form of birth control. That's what it boils down to for many many people who have no understanding or education on the statistics of who's having abortions, at what rate, at what cost etc. etc. Likewise, you have some people who are pro-choice (i.e. they support whole heartedly a woman's right to choose to have the child or not) who would not choose to have an abortion themselves OR have not been put in a situation where they have HAD to choose. The little obnoxious orange-cone-phraseology becomes problematic because it takes a very personal issue (namely morality) which is quite grey and assumes it is a cut and dry/black and white issue. You are either this or that period. There are no exceptions to the rule.

The difficulty though, is that there ARE exceptions to every rule. The rules come from consensus. Consensus is determined by the way this issue is framed and it is significantly framed by the media which in turn controls/creates public perception. If YOU have not had to make the decision or even contemplate it, what possible right do you have to determine the morality of it for someone else?

Another example is that of rape. I've known many women over the years who've given birth to "rape babies" (i.e. children sired from the fact of their having been violently raped). Every one of these women have ended up having to raise that child on Medicaid or with state assistance. Would someone pro-life view a baby produced by rape and in hate differently if they knew that the child might end up becoming a "welfare" child? We have (thanks again to the media and politicians) such a skewed, laughable public perception of who ends up on welfare that the reality of the pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy is one, really, of pro-birth. What happens to the child after it is born, neither side really accounts for. The "pro-choice" camp better acknowledges the reality of classism, racism, sexism and sexual violence because it grounds the belief in a woman's sovereignty over her own body (AND her future for that matter) in the real understanding of what having a child, having to support that child, having to responsible for bringing a child into the world really means.

Does the pro-life camp do that? Do policies made by such strong pro-lifers support women and children? What a stupid question. If you don't know...NO, they don't. I think we need to drive those little cones flat and come at this from a new angle, a human angle, a responsible adult angle. Think about it. Men and women have a stake in this. The bulk of those on "welfare" (which is truly subsistence even in this country) are women and children. This is true worldwide. The bulk of those who can barely survive from day to day are women and children. The majority of those sold around the world into sexual slavery also happen to be women and young girls. So, who should be the one to decide what rights they have over their bodies? A white, male, moneyed politician with often questionable moral leanings or the women themselves?

If those who are so virulent in their pro-life stance claim to be concerned about the wellbeing of innocent children (unborn, that is) then why do they not make, support or improve policies that allow for women to better support themselves, better protect themselves and their children against violence, and have access to quality healthcare and health insurance. Why not make policies that protect life rather than just birth? Why are they instead constantly cutting the funding and programs that do serve women and children? We need to get beyond the rhetoric and the stupidity of allowing others to think for us or frame how we think on certain issues.

Here's a poem I wrote on the prolife/prochoice issue: (notice it really deals with hate and ignorance? These are the real killers in my opinion.)

"Speechless"
It was a perfect line

coiled

embryonic

waiting for the trip
from thought on pause
to life
bursting screaming
out of my mouth.

Then I saw the sticker
on the bumper of your truck
your fist in the air
the weight of your words
your hatred
god
your righteousness is everywhere

hit me so hard
my choked silence
aborted the thought
letter by letter
forming
an indistinguishable blob
of bone
metaphor
and blood
purged
by gasping sobs

...on a street corner
no one came to help
no one came to hold me up
they just walked quickly by...

This could've been a beautiful baby
if only you could've let it be
born
perfect except for the one fatal flaw:

its humanity.



peace!