![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptSo, the land of up until recently Palin just affirmed that teenagers do not have the same rights as adults, and teenage girls have no right to receive medical reproductive services involving their own bodies without parental notification. They did not go so far as to say that if parents don't approve of the procedure, then it doesn't happen, but there is an additional two days that the teenager has to wait, so that their parents, protestors, and any other moralizer with a soapbox that takes delight in tormenting a teenage girl more than she already is, in this situation, can have their crack at her. Or, in the case of the parents, forbid and prevent her from getting that medical procedure. The only way of getting around the notification is, from my guess at the poorly-worded sentence, is to prove that the parents are abusers.
Elsewhere, an attorney general overtly hinted to his state board of health that they should treat abortion clinics like hospitals and subject them to the same regulations, which, if adopted, would likely bankrupt most of those clinics and force them to close.
In both of these cases, the intended idea is to block access to abortion without actually blocking access to abortion. Since the Roe v. Wade decision, the anti-abortion front has been carefully changing their tactics, maintaining a small front against the Roe decision, doing things like passing trigger laws, in case by some court case, the Roe decision is overturned, or a constitutional law passed outlaws abortions, but the grand majority of the effort has been shunted toward finding ways of working within the law to undermine it. There's no laws stopping someone from getting to an abortion clinic. However, if there's no doctors around to perform it, or all the doctors around have "moral objections", and you can't go past where the bus line goes, then you can't get access. If going to the clinic means that you get shouted ay by people about how you're going to hell, are a sinner, to the point where they crowd around you and make it seem like you can't get through, then you might not go. If you know that stepping into a clinic means that you might be the target of a domestic terrorist, you might not go. And especially if you find out that the attorney general is poking around for your name and your age, ostensibly because he wants to investigate whether you fall under child rape, but then handles the records in such a way that they could be exposed to any crusader who wants to go picket your house, then there's a good chance you won't go.
If every clinic has to operate as if it were a hospital, then many clinics shut down - they can't afford to raise millions to renovate and retrofit their spaces. there's nothing illegal about it, but access it cut off all the same. If the law requires the doctor to tell you about how you're making a grave mistake and you could potentially suffer complications for your evil act (and those required-by-law statements never mention the percentage of actual incidents), then you might not go. If you're suckered in by a "crisis pregnancy center", which makes it sound like they'll counsel and help you, they won't even mention abortions and will tell you you're going to hell if you even think about it. If the state has a vested interest in trying to shame you as much as possible before letting you get your procedure, then you might not go. If you have to tell your parents about it, then they can stop you from getting it, whether because they believe the same things the protesters do, they want to punish you for your decision, or they fear the social scandal. If you have to wait before receiving the procedure, it gives the people arrayed against you more time to convince you, either by force, by threat, by social scandal, by guilt trip, or whatever means they deem necessary, that what you are doing is wrong, and you might not go.
And then there are the candidates who say that even if you're raped, or it's a case of incest, you have to carry your child to term, with no exception. They won't even give you the choice to go. You're just not going.
So, tell me truthfully. Why would you want to subject someone to all of this extra pain, wait, anguish, and the rest? Why try to get rid of options? Especially when there isn't enough of a system on the other side of birth to make sure all those children who would be born have at last a fighting chance at being cared for and provided for. We understand the principles involved, and the sanctity of life, but a lot of people who are for not having abortions seem curiously silent for the social net needed to help those mothers and fathers survive and thrive. It almost seems like they want it as a punishment for youthful indiscretion, rather than in supporting the miracle of life.
It seems to be a major speck-plank problem, and I wish there were more people interested in resolving it, instead of just continuing on their current path.
Asilyena_sylph points out, though, the previous sentence assumes that those people promoting these ideas see their stance as a problem that needs to be resolved. This is not necessarily the case - if you believe that Divine Writ has said that all life is sacred from the moment of conception, and God visits terrible judgments, trials, and disasters on those who disobey Him, then banning abortion is a protective measure, to keep the country in God's favor, rather than to keep poking him with a stick to see if he'll do anything. Furthermore, if you also take seriously the command that The Poor Will Always Be With You, So Take Care Of Them, then doing charitable work, like in soup kitchens, food banks, and other places that help the poor, and in counseling abstinence until marriage to young women and men, you can feel like you're helping out those children whose life you want to save, by helping their mothers stay alive, as well as getting a healthy dosage of The One True God's Word, so that their souls as well as their bodies can be saved from the ravages of life here on Terra. Though it seems like madness, there is method to't.
Where the weird happens, more often than not, is in saying how unqualified the government is to provide these kinds of services to everyone (being intrusive in their lives, being wasteful of resources, not giving them a good churching while they get their food, etc.), the opponents point out the very reasons that government should have a safety net. I can be snarky and say that having Jesus (or "Jeezis" as![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
hybridelephant.myopenid.com often uses to refer to the warped and twisted parody of the Christian savior used as a justification for very un-Christ-like things by his followers) thrown at you every time you have to go get food to survive is fairly intrusive into your life, the truth of the matter is there needs to be services in place for the poor where they don't have to weigh whether they're up to being aggressively witnessed to as they're just trying to feed their family. Private organizations, as all churches and charities are, have finite resources, and rely on the generosity of their members to continue operating and to have their pantries stay stocked. When everyone gets slammed with a recession, especially when firings are rampant, more and more people will stop being producers and start being consumers. Everyone will share to the best of their ability, but at some point there are just too many people and not enough loaves. Regrettably, we have not yet perfected the art of feeding five thousand with five loaves of bread and two fish. The government's taxing authority can be seen as imposing on the freedoms of the market, but it also means that everyone is able to sustain their neighbors when they have plenty, and be able to rely on their neighbors when they do not. (You could make the argument that taxes are more like the rich men giving from their surplus than the poor woman giving all she has, but people get fed, either way.) It will look, at times, like those who are completely undeserving of assistance are getting more than they should, but the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. If you open your papers up or turn on your news broadcasts, you see what happens to people who don't have a safety net - those children that someone worked so hard to bring into existence die. Their mothers die. With no church group around to support and sustain them, they die. With no government support for them, they die. Until someone can prove that private citizens will stay charitable to all the organizations around them to support everyone who needs a hand and every child that will be born from the outlawing of abortion, that every child that needs a home and family will be adopted, that every mother will have support and the means to care for herself and her child, there has to be a backstop somewhere. It's cruel to say that every child must be born, but it's okay if some of them die because they couldn't get the support they needed. Or worse, they could have gotten the support they needed, but there was no-one there to tell them, no social worker or government agent making the rounds and offering their support as well as the support of private citizens, no clergyman who visits the places where the poor are to minister to them and to tell them of the help they can receive.
It seems very much against the message of the religion that there is such a thing as an acceptable casualty rate for mothers and children. So why does it seem like the crusaders for life are only focusing on one half of the equation, pouring their time, money, and effort into making sure all those children are born, but not pouring time, money, and effort into demanding that there be something in place that will take care of them afterward?
Elsewhere, an attorney general overtly hinted to his state board of health that they should treat abortion clinics like hospitals and subject them to the same regulations, which, if adopted, would likely bankrupt most of those clinics and force them to close.
In both of these cases, the intended idea is to block access to abortion without actually blocking access to abortion. Since the Roe v. Wade decision, the anti-abortion front has been carefully changing their tactics, maintaining a small front against the Roe decision, doing things like passing trigger laws, in case by some court case, the Roe decision is overturned, or a constitutional law passed outlaws abortions, but the grand majority of the effort has been shunted toward finding ways of working within the law to undermine it. There's no laws stopping someone from getting to an abortion clinic. However, if there's no doctors around to perform it, or all the doctors around have "moral objections", and you can't go past where the bus line goes, then you can't get access. If going to the clinic means that you get shouted ay by people about how you're going to hell, are a sinner, to the point where they crowd around you and make it seem like you can't get through, then you might not go. If you know that stepping into a clinic means that you might be the target of a domestic terrorist, you might not go. And especially if you find out that the attorney general is poking around for your name and your age, ostensibly because he wants to investigate whether you fall under child rape, but then handles the records in such a way that they could be exposed to any crusader who wants to go picket your house, then there's a good chance you won't go.
If every clinic has to operate as if it were a hospital, then many clinics shut down - they can't afford to raise millions to renovate and retrofit their spaces. there's nothing illegal about it, but access it cut off all the same. If the law requires the doctor to tell you about how you're making a grave mistake and you could potentially suffer complications for your evil act (and those required-by-law statements never mention the percentage of actual incidents), then you might not go. If you're suckered in by a "crisis pregnancy center", which makes it sound like they'll counsel and help you, they won't even mention abortions and will tell you you're going to hell if you even think about it. If the state has a vested interest in trying to shame you as much as possible before letting you get your procedure, then you might not go. If you have to tell your parents about it, then they can stop you from getting it, whether because they believe the same things the protesters do, they want to punish you for your decision, or they fear the social scandal. If you have to wait before receiving the procedure, it gives the people arrayed against you more time to convince you, either by force, by threat, by social scandal, by guilt trip, or whatever means they deem necessary, that what you are doing is wrong, and you might not go.
And then there are the candidates who say that even if you're raped, or it's a case of incest, you have to carry your child to term, with no exception. They won't even give you the choice to go. You're just not going.
So, tell me truthfully. Why would you want to subject someone to all of this extra pain, wait, anguish, and the rest? Why try to get rid of options? Especially when there isn't enough of a system on the other side of birth to make sure all those children who would be born have at last a fighting chance at being cared for and provided for. We understand the principles involved, and the sanctity of life, but a lot of people who are for not having abortions seem curiously silent for the social net needed to help those mothers and fathers survive and thrive. It almost seems like they want it as a punishment for youthful indiscretion, rather than in supporting the miracle of life.
It seems to be a major speck-plank problem, and I wish there were more people interested in resolving it, instead of just continuing on their current path.
As
ilyena_sylph points out, though, the previous sentence assumes that those people promoting these ideas see their stance as a problem that needs to be resolved. This is not necessarily the case - if you believe that Divine Writ has said that all life is sacred from the moment of conception, and God visits terrible judgments, trials, and disasters on those who disobey Him, then banning abortion is a protective measure, to keep the country in God's favor, rather than to keep poking him with a stick to see if he'll do anything. Furthermore, if you also take seriously the command that The Poor Will Always Be With You, So Take Care Of Them, then doing charitable work, like in soup kitchens, food banks, and other places that help the poor, and in counseling abstinence until marriage to young women and men, you can feel like you're helping out those children whose life you want to save, by helping their mothers stay alive, as well as getting a healthy dosage of The One True God's Word, so that their souls as well as their bodies can be saved from the ravages of life here on Terra. Though it seems like madness, there is method to't.Where the weird happens, more often than not, is in saying how unqualified the government is to provide these kinds of services to everyone (being intrusive in their lives, being wasteful of resources, not giving them a good churching while they get their food, etc.), the opponents point out the very reasons that government should have a safety net. I can be snarky and say that having Jesus (or "Jeezis" as
hybridelephant.myopenid.com often uses to refer to the warped and twisted parody of the Christian savior used as a justification for very un-Christ-like things by his followers) thrown at you every time you have to go get food to survive is fairly intrusive into your life, the truth of the matter is there needs to be services in place for the poor where they don't have to weigh whether they're up to being aggressively witnessed to as they're just trying to feed their family. Private organizations, as all churches and charities are, have finite resources, and rely on the generosity of their members to continue operating and to have their pantries stay stocked. When everyone gets slammed with a recession, especially when firings are rampant, more and more people will stop being producers and start being consumers. Everyone will share to the best of their ability, but at some point there are just too many people and not enough loaves. Regrettably, we have not yet perfected the art of feeding five thousand with five loaves of bread and two fish. The government's taxing authority can be seen as imposing on the freedoms of the market, but it also means that everyone is able to sustain their neighbors when they have plenty, and be able to rely on their neighbors when they do not. (You could make the argument that taxes are more like the rich men giving from their surplus than the poor woman giving all she has, but people get fed, either way.) It will look, at times, like those who are completely undeserving of assistance are getting more than they should, but the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. If you open your papers up or turn on your news broadcasts, you see what happens to people who don't have a safety net - those children that someone worked so hard to bring into existence die. Their mothers die. With no church group around to support and sustain them, they die. With no government support for them, they die. Until someone can prove that private citizens will stay charitable to all the organizations around them to support everyone who needs a hand and every child that will be born from the outlawing of abortion, that every child that needs a home and family will be adopted, that every mother will have support and the means to care for herself and her child, there has to be a backstop somewhere. It's cruel to say that every child must be born, but it's okay if some of them die because they couldn't get the support they needed. Or worse, they could have gotten the support they needed, but there was no-one there to tell them, no social worker or government agent making the rounds and offering their support as well as the support of private citizens, no clergyman who visits the places where the poor are to minister to them and to tell them of the help they can receive. It seems very much against the message of the religion that there is such a thing as an acceptable casualty rate for mothers and children. So why does it seem like the crusaders for life are only focusing on one half of the equation, pouring their time, money, and effort into making sure all those children are born, but not pouring time, money, and effort into demanding that there be something in place that will take care of them afterward?
thank Ghu for the DW comment limit
Date: 2010-08-27 05:04 pm (UTC)Most of the people I know who are adamantly pro-life are also against the social safety net (as provided by the government) in both theory and practice, so of course it doesn't enter into their thinking. They tend to think it's wrong (and damaging).
Before I go any further, I have to make some things clear. I don't have enough experience with US-minority pro-life people to make any statements about their opinions, or about any other religious tradition's views, but I know one specific set of pro-lifers. They're my former extended church family, they're my friends, they're people I lived with almost all my life and who I deeply love even when they're making me absolutely furious (I'm pretty sure you know how pro-choice I am).
But anyway, on to talking about my particular people, and only my particular people. They are conservative to moderate Christians (most of mine are Southern Baptists – the US's largest protestant denomination, last I checked) of the kind that believe that the interlinked governments of our nation and states should deal with national defense, law enforcement and criminal law, some civil law and contract enforcement, and maybe physical infrastructure; and other than those functions, it should not have any role in people's lives. Limited government isn't a slogan to them, it's a deeply held real belief -- however, they have a logical fallacy that I don't think they can see in this. They believe in keeping the government out of people's lives… except where harm to those who cannot defend themselves comes in; or, more expansively, except where things that threaten the security of the population comes in. There are, in their view, some things that have to be actively forbidden by the government because no other force can exert this control.
They believe in -- not entirely in self-sufficiency -- but in the idea that people's needs and struggles are better dealt with by the church and the community, not by the government. To the infinite relief of my blood pressure -- mostly -- my own particular family is Democratic Party loyal enough that they've gotten mostly behind several of the big social programs, but that doesn't mean that they're not still religious people in a relatively Biblically Literal way -- except, of course, for the part where they're very selective in what they choose to pay attention to. (Talk to me about my fights with my family about evolution some other time.) But a lot of the people I grew up with… are, well, Republican.
No matter which party they adhere to, I find the pro-life crowd to be totally illogical and un-American in their attempts to block other people from acting in ways that are the best for them. That said, I'm going to try and explain it, as someone who lived immersed in it for most of her life. I'm going to be tossing some Biblical quotes around, just the ones I could think of off the top of my head (years and years of Bible Drill). Also, I'm working off my child and teen training, it's not my current belief and some of it is probably warped by that blasted "holy" book's multiple poor translations through several millennia, but it's what I was taught.
I think you have to start with Genesis 2:7 "the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Really the entire creation narrative, but especially that bit. Most Christians of this stripe believe firmly that humans are special and unique, deliberately made by the Godhead in His image. This is expanded on in Psalms like 139: 13-16 "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body." This is a lot of where the 'life from conception' argument comes from. Humans are special and sacred, and they are from the moment they are begun in the womb.
And then there's Exodus 21:22-23 "If men strive, and hurt a women with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.", which lays out some pretty obvious major consequences for those who harm the unborn, or their mothers. See the previous verse and also Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man", for an explanation of why most pro-life people are also pro-death penalty.
In the Biblical narrative of the establishment of historic Israel, one of the reasons God gave for sending them with 'fire and sword' against the people there was that they practiced child sacrifice. How true that was, I have no idea, but. There it is, in the translations I was raised on. And then there's 2 Kings 17:17-18 "They mutilated their sons and daughters by fire…till the Lord, in his great anger against Israel, put them away out of his sight". This verse presages the Biblical narrative that God abandoned Israel and allowed it to be destroyed because they had offended Him by turning from His ways, and one of the ways they did that was by harming their children.
This is a real and desperate fear of most of the people I grew up with. That God will (is, to some) turning against us and sending trials and disasters and pain because we as a nation are committing the various crimes that caused the destruction of previous nations that offended him. So -- of course -- those actions should be illegal, they are active threats to the security of the country and to everyone's safety. On the progressive side of the fence, we say "you don't get to vote on rights, they are not negotiable" re: gay and minority equality, and other social issues. On the other side, I think it goes "you don't get to vote on lives, they are not negotiable".
What happens after the child is born… well, that's in God's hands, and God will make the best of it. That's not a trite statement, that's a fundamental belief among these people, that the Lord Almighty has a plan for each person and all that person has to do is listen to that ‘still, small voice' to know what it is. It is their comfort and their safety and the way they get through the struggles of their life. Aren't you the one that linked the great piece on the resurgence of fundamentalism a few weeks ago?
But the other thing you're missing is that the kind of people being manipulated by the likes of Palin do a metric ton of charity work, because of your percieved speck-plank problem. IE, my old church & its association: I'll give you the list from last year that I know. They fund food banks and run food drives, help at outreach centers, volunteer in health clinics, help with after-school programs, provide supplies to poor school-children in the area, send aid to African AIDS victims, raise money among themselves for people in their community that suffer illness or injury, and go to minister to and aid the elderly… and that's how they think it should be done. By people, to people, and without the government. Now surely, they'll likely be proselytizing at the people they're aiding (which infuriates me), but… from their point of view they're commanded and compelled to evangelize, because otherwise they leave the rest of the world to damnation. They believe they have THE TRUTH and THE WAY, and all they have to do is tell you it in the right words and of course you will listen, because it is True, and why wouldn't you want to be saved and rescued and provided for by (The One True) God (Amighty, may He reign for ever and ever)?
I can go on about this, both how toxic I find it and where it comes from, for ages. But I think I'm close to the comment limit (and I really ought to do some work today).
Re: thank Ghu for the DW comment limit
Date: 2010-08-27 06:13 pm (UTC)I'll go back and add things in as I ponder how this missing piece fits into the puzzle.
Re: thank Ghu for the DW comment limit
Date: 2010-08-27 09:13 pm (UTC)Cool.
Your piece is a good one -- I think I forgot to mention that.
Re: thank Ghu for the DW comment limit
Date: 2010-08-27 10:07 pm (UTC)I think I'd like to see more of the free-flowing rant. You've provided me with valuable perspective.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-27 10:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-27 05:39 pm (UTC)I suspect that clinics also still have to be clean according to medical regulations as it is - women developing complications or infections from the use of impure tools or poor environments are death sentences for clinics, I'm guessing.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-27 05:51 pm (UTC)