"Pro-Lifers" Please Please Please Read and Consider This

"People will go all out for the unborn, but couldn't care less about those who draw breath."
- Robin J. Landwehr (in this blog post)

So lately there has been a SLEW of news coming out of the US regarding abortion limiting laws getting, or getting close to being legislated. As a feminist, this abhors me, as a person, this truly, truly distresses me. 

Now I don't live in the States and so those laws probably wouldn't affect me, but this is still my problem, because if they can get abortion bans legislated in one country, the potential for abortion bans to get legislated in other countries increases; if it happens in one place it could happen everywhere. And then it WOULD affect me. 

Many people pushing for these laws limiting abortions are calling themselves pro-lifers, if you are one, or know someone who is I'm pleading you especially to read this and hear me out. 

I respect your point of view, I really do, but it's just not practical, it's not equitable, and yes I will even say it's not ethical for the way the world is right now. 

I get it, you want to save lives and that is a beautiful, good aspiration. But why are you so focused on saving a fetus' life? What about the life of the person that is pregnant? Because even if there are no medical complications that physically endanger the pregnant person, forced parenthood can be truly detrimental to somebody's life.

I recently read this article in which one woman shared her experience with abortion, and this one quote really struck me:

"[Having the abortion] saved my life, not from the pregnancy itself, but from what enforced parenthood would have meant for me holistically in body, mind and spirit as a woman and human being." - Linsey Rosenthal (find that blog post here)

What it all comes down to is this: Once you analyze and dig deeper into it, it becomes a question as to whether anti-abortion is really pro-life at all. 

I saw this comment on facebook, and the woman said it beautifully:

"In an ideal world abortions wouldn't be needed. All pregnancies would be planned and prepared for. Women wouldn't be raped and impregnated. Young girls wouldn't be molested and [made] pregnant. Mothers would never get sick and be at risk having to choose their life or the life of the fetus. [...] [But] that is not the world we live in. The world you are fighting for is one full of unwanted babies, neglected children and orphans.[...]" Her facebook name is 'Andrea E. Polite'.   

And so I have a couple questions for people to consider. I am not accusing anyone of anything, so please don't get defensive. I just want you to read these and reflect on your answers to them.

1) When there are medical complications, is it really pro-life to endanger the mother's life to try and save the fetus?

2) Is it really pro-life to mess up someone else's life, or a couple people's lives to protect the life of someone who has yet to know what it is to live?

3) Is it really pro-life to force a terrible life upon the very children you are trying to protect? 

4) If you are pro-life, pro children's lives what have you been doing for the 153 MILLION orphans worldwide? 

5) If you are pro-life, what do you plan on doing for the unwanted children you fought so hard to give a life to? 

My comments on some of the questions:

1/2) Think about it. A fetus has life and nothing else in their life to lose. Everyone else, be it just the mother, or the mother and the people who would help her with the child, they have lived. They have lived years of their lives and have gained experiences and memories and people they care for. The fetus has a life to lose yes, but the mother has a life, as well as everything she has gained in her life to lose.

3) Okay so the unwanted child is here because abortions are illegal. Now what? Best case scenario they might be adopted/fostered by a loving family, but that's not always going to be the case. Children that would have been aborted could be neglected, and/or abused. Isn't it more ethical to spare them that fate?

People don't make the decision to abort a child lightly. (An exemplary story of that can be found here) And the reality is, if people need something enough they are going to find other ways of doing it, so by restricting abortions all you're doing is taking away a safe place to have them done, only endangering the mother's life further. That doesn't seem very pro-life does it? 

There are already so many ways to be pro-life in this world - you could help those less fortunate than you, you could fight for social justice. When there are so many children in the world who are not cared for, it doesn't make sense to have more unwanted children be brought into the world. We already have so much we could do for children, so much we need to do, why add more to the problems? 

Finally, the world is having a hard enough time sustaining the people already on it in addition to different plants and animals. If the world gets seriously overpopulated, each one of the billions on Earth will suffer. How is that pro-life? 

It's not. 

At best it's pro living thing. At worst tt's pro putting a cluster of cells above the needs of full grown people.  It's pro "I want this and that's what I'm going to get". It's pro not being able to see past your own beliefs. It's pro not having foresight. 

If you are so pro-life why are you not advocating for the lives of people already here? 

Yes a fetus' life is a life, and all life is precious, but we need to focus on protecting and nurturing the lives of those that are already here. 

We should be protecting the lives that have so much more to lose than a growing bundle of cells in the womb. 

We should be allowing the lives that can only nurture and give a good life to a beautiful child when they are ready to the time to get ready, the time to grow. 

We should be affording women the right to choose when her body is going to carry a child or if it will ever carry a child at all. 

We should be working on the lives of those already here, making them as wonderful and fulfilling as they can be. Adding a child to the mix means you don't just have one life to try to make as great as possible, you have (at least) two. 

Life is a beautiful gift, but life is not a good enough by itself to merit "worth living" and forcing that on a mother and a child is not pro-life at all. 

Self Fulfillment in More than Just Body image.

"[... T]o all those who are judged, 

stay beautiful, stay you.

And don’t ever change,

unless you choose to.

You may feel like you’re broken, 

you may feel all alone, 

but you are something greater 

than you have ever known. 

- From "Controlled by What We Can't Control" copyright me.

 

Shout out to Sahar for liking my posts, and for being the first commentor on this blog! I appreciate it, girl! :)

So recently I've done a lot of posts about self fulfillment rather specific to body image. (If you haven't already, please check those blog posts out! Butts Part I, Butts Part II, Butts Part III, Selfish Not Immoral ) Here I want to talk about self fulfillment in more than just body image and why you shouldn't care what general people may think of you when making decisions about your life. 

Gender Roles in General:

Women! Cook clean, take care of the house etc. Men! Work, work, work, be the breadwinner support the family. Sound familiar? Sound as grating against who you are as nails on a chalkboard? Yes I am talking about the truly atrocious gender roles!

There is just so much wrong with them.  

First what they are based on is ridiculous. Gender roles are expected of us based on whether we are born male or female, something we have no control over, why do we think we can tell what a brand new person, a baby, will act like, enjoy, be able to achieve, etc. before we even get a chance to know them as a person?

The very heart of the matter is that Gender Roles limit us.

"Sexism is stupid

gender expectations make us small.
They confine us in a little box, 

and tell us that is all,

all we should be, all we can be,

and that we shouldn’t strive, 

to be more than what we’re told, 

To live, to dream, to thrive." 

- From Controlled by What We Can't Control, copyright me.

We are told what we should be often before being able to discover who we are. And because of that we think we can only be so much, achieve so much, but you can't know what you are capable of unless you try.

They dictate who should be taken seriously in different situations and base things all on what you are, not who. 

- From "You Are More" by Tenth Avenue North

I believe we are more, or can be more than what advantages and disadvantages we are born with. Maybe what you are can hinder or give you advantages, but with hard work and determination you should be able to achieve whatever it is you want. 

But unfortunately, it's not always up to you, because you can't do anything if others don't give you a chance, and it's incredibly unfair if that's based on prejudice, discrimination and stereotypes.

Career Choices:

For this point I'm going to focus on females' experiences, mostly because I don't think I'm qualified to talk about what males go through, but these are by far NOT the extent of what people may experience.

The fact of the matter is you can't win.

Women are often judged negatively no matter what they choose to do - If she wants to stay at home and be with her children she is often judged as "weak" or "lazy". (And might I say that's just ridiculous, housework and taking care of kids is really HARD); 

If she chooses her career over her kids or simply doesn't want kids, she's "selfish". And this one is ridiculous because first off, if we only focus on the next generation, we'd never accomplish anything now. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Brilliance does not care about gender or race.

"There are so many brilliant minds 
That have withered and gone to waste

All because some old idea says 

That because you’re different, brilliance is not your place"

- From Controlled by What we Can't Control, copyright me

Second, I refuse to be only a means to continue the species. Just because we have the biology needed to carry children, that doesn't make it a woman's duty to do so. It might have been important way back when there were very few people on Earth, but right now the Earth has plenty of people, several countries are overpopulated.

The fact of the matter is: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should or have to. (This goes for many situations, ie: freedom of speech; just because you CAN say something doesn't mean you should.) And really, is it wrong for me to want to do something great (that is unrelated to children) with my life?

We don't seem to have any problem with males doing that.

(And before you shout "man hater" I'm not hating on men, I'm hating on the fact that there is a double standard)

As I have discussed, I don't think equality is what we should be aiming for, there are definitely situations where I think equal treatment should apply, but I think the overarching branch we should be aiming for is equal respect, equal value and equity. 

Once you look deep into many (particularly social) issues they tend to come straight back to gender roles, this being no exception.  

I think the major reason women are judged negatively for choosing work over children is because they are being compared to gender roles by a person who holds gender roles as the way things "should be"

This idea that only women are suited to be caregivers is simply archaic, there are plenty of studies that suggest parenthood changes men to be better nurturers. (Two of which can be found here, and here) This still widely held belief harms women who want to do other things and it harms men that wish to be involved in their children's lives.

It's the same thing for the other side, women judged negatively for staying home with the kids are being compared to gender roles by someone who doesn't hold gender roles as the way things should be. 

This too, is a dangerous route because those that choose and want to go along with the traditional gender roles are marginalized. Which is not what we want either, we don't want to stop shaming the non-conformers by shaming the conformers.

All too often people who break away from what is traditional are heralded for doing so, but we should be praising people for daring to be who they are, because otherwise we're sending a message that we think there's something wrong with going along with the gender role, but there isn't.

I want, perhaps more than anything, to achieve a world where everyone can be themselves.

Thank you for reading and I'd love to know what people think so share your opinions with me in the comments. 

*** Also on a side note, if you enjoyed the snippets I posted from my poem, I'm thinking of putting it up as my next post, would anyone be interested if I did?

Please Please Please Don't Listen to Anything Anna Todd's "After" Series Tells You About Life

I found out about this book called "After" by an author named Anna Todd a few days ago and I can't stress what I'm about to say next enough: Please Please do NOT take the themes about relationships from that book and apply them to real life. 

I want to make it clear right here that I am not attacking Ms. Todd, her writing ability, or even her book. I am attacking the themes it presents.

Personally right away when I read the description I knew the book wouldn't be one that, would tell a story I wanted to read/fit my taste, but was curious about the whole "fanfiction" aspect of it and I wanted to know what it was a fanfic of and... two things: Fifty Shades of Grey and One Direction. 

Now I don't know about you, but when "Fifty Shades of Grey" comes up alarm bells start going off in my head. 

Then I read some more and all I can say is that it allegedly (since I haven't read it) portrays a MESSED UP relationship as love. Basically, it follows the story of a woman in her early twenties named Tessa and the relationship she develops with a "Harlin Scott". (Originally this character was named Harry Styles, being a 1D fanfic and all)

In this relationship there are components such as emotional abuse, obsessive-possessive behaviour, and manipulation. 

I just want to make it very clear that components like that in a relationship are NEVER okay, (no matter what may have happened in the person's past) and are NEVER  a part of love. (Or at least not love that's worth sticking around for)

From what I've seen of the series' book synopses, the series wraps up terrible behaviour, even cruelty, (After's book description actually says the word "cruelty" when talking about the characters relationship) and physical attraction and calls it love. 

The book just shoots off unhealthy messages in all directions such as "anything is forgiveable if it's "love"", (It is not, this all depends on how much the person feels right to forgive) that sabotage is okay, and just an unhealthy definition of love in general.

Why does this matter? Well first off the story started off on wattpad, and it's main readers were tween girls and the thing racked up a billion views. No matter what the actual numbers are, that is a LOT of young girls whose definitions of love are influenced by this totally wrong portrayal of it. 

It's already done a lot of damage, all we can do now is try to remedy that and try to keep any more from happening. But undoing damage is always harder than doing it, and just how many will we be able to reach in an attempt to undo the damage?

And things like this do cause damage. 

When people think it's okay for them to be mistreated, in a relationship that involves the word love or not, they're not going to be focusing on reaching their full potential, they are not going to be able to contribute to society to the best of their ability.  

So not only do they suffer, there's the potential for the rest of us to suffer, too. 

It's also important to note what the fact that this story exists alludes to. This book was written by a woman, and if it's presenting this kind of relationship as "love" that means she probably thinks it's okay for men to treat women this way, and if you broaden it some, the book can also be seen to mean that it's okay for people to treat other people this way. 

First, the fact that there is a belief like this out there is a problem.

Second, it gives the message to women that's it's okay for men to treat them badly, it tells men that it's okay to treat women that way, and most worryingly of all it tells men that women think it's okay for them to treat women badly. (But guys is ISN'T, so please don;t listen to that. Abuse is really not cool and never will be) And if people think it's okay, there's a lot less reason to not do it. 

There is nothing wrong with telling/reading whatever story you like, but when you're telling, it's never going to hurt to consider the consequences your story may have on other people, and when you're a reader, ALWAYS evaluate how appropriate things are before you take them into real life, and DON'T let fiction define what you believe to be true about real life. 

Fiction can represent situations in a way that may work in a story, but would not in real life -- that's why it's fiction. And feel free to disagree with me, but I definitely think this "After" series is a prime example of this. 

Read more about this issue here.

I'm not trying to get people mad about the books existence, I just don't want it's existence to affect yours.

(On a side note, if you want to look into a book I think handles an abusive relationship right, may I just recommend "The Taming" by Eric Walters and Teresa Toten? That book was magnificent. Here's a link to the book on Indigo, here's a link for Amazon US)

I'm not going to try to get people to boycott the book or anything, (that's a bit too extreme) but it's safe to say I would choose to cheer #WESSA (aka #Twill) over #Hessa any day.

#TheInfernalDevices #CassandraClare ;)