Killing in the Name Of
In November of last year, Nicaragua outlawed all abortions, even those deemed medically necessary. The Nicaraguan abortion ban was celebrated in "pro-life" circles, and supported by the Catholic and Evangelical churches.
The law has also killed at least 82 women since its institution. And it is just part of an international system of "pro-life" laws that are killing and maiming women, orphaning children, and turning ordinary citizens into criminals.
María de Jesús González was a practical woman. A very poor single mother, the 28-year-old's home was a shack on a mountain near the town of Ocotal in Nicaragua. She made the best of it. The shack was spotless, the children scrubbed. She earned money by washing clothes in the river and making and selling tortillas.
That nowast quite enough to feed her four young children and her elderly mother, so every few months González caught a bus to Managua, the capital, and slaved for a week washing and ironing clothes. The pay was three times better, about £2.60 a day, and by staying with two aunts she cut her costs. She would return to her hamlet with a little nest-egg in her purse. She bought herself one treat - a pair of red shoes - but she would leave them with her family in Managua, as they were no good on the mountain trails she had to go up to get home.During a visit to Managua in February she felt unwell and visited a hospital. The news was devastating. She was pregnant - and it was ectopic, meaning the foetus was growing outside the womb and not viable. The longer González remained pregnant, the greater the risk of rupture, haemorrhaging and death.
What González did next was - when you understand what life in Nicaragua is like these days - utterly rational. She walked out of the hospital, past the obstetrics and gynaecological ward, past the clinics and pharmacies lining the avenues, packed her bag, kissed her aunts goodbye, and caught a bus back to her village. She summoned two neighbouring women - traditional healers - and requested that they terminate the pregnancy in her shack. Without anaesthetic or proper instruments it was more akin to mutilation than surgery, but González insisted. The haemhorraging was intense, and the agony can only be imagined. It was in vain. Maria died. "We heard there was a lot of blood, a lot of pain," says Esperanza Zeledon, 52, one of the Managua aunts.
González was not stupid and did not want to die. She knew her chance of surviving the butchery was small. But being a practical woman, she recognised it was her only chance, and took it. The story of why it was her only chance is an unfolding drama of religion, politics and power that has made Nicaragua a crucible in the global battle over abortion rights. This central American country has become the third country in the world, after Chile and El Salvador, to criminalise all abortions. It is a blanket ban. There are no exceptions for rape, incest, or life- or health-threatening pregnancies.
González was told at the hospital that any doctor who terminated her pregnancy would face two to three years in jail and she, for consenting, would face one to two years. "Nicaraguan doctors are now afraid of going to trial or jail and losing their licence," says Leonel Arguello, president of the Nicaraguan Society of General Medicine. "Many are thinking that instead of taking the risk, it is better to let a woman die."
Leaders of "pro-life" organization have two responses to the epidemic of abortion-related deaths that kills some 70,000 women every year: Ignore and deny.
Abortion has long been illegal in Nicaragua but there had been exceptions for "therapeutic" reasons if three doctors agreed there was a risk to the woman's life. Those exceptions were no longer necessary, said the Nicaraguan Pro-Life Association, because medical advances obviated the need to terminate pregnancies. "The conditions that justified therapeutic abortion now have medical solutions," says a spokesman.
That must come as a surprise to the family of one Jane Doe, who was refused an abortion at Nicaragua hospital. One doctor there says:
Here [at this hospital] we have had women who have died.... For example, [name withheld] came here and had an ultrasound. It was clear that she needed a therapeutic abortion. No one wanted to carry out the abortion because the fetus was still alive. The woman was here two days without treatment until she expulsed the fetus on her own. And by then she was already in septic shock and died five days later. That was in March 2007.
A recent report by the World Health Organization proved what pro-choicers have been saying all along: That outlawing abortion doesn't end the practice, it just makes it more dangerous; that abortion is no less common in countries where it is illegal than in countries where it is allowed; and that the most effective way to lower the abortion rate is through contraception access and comprehensive sexual health education.
Thirteen percent of pregnancy and childbirth-related deaths world-wide are caused by unsafe abortion. The vast majority of these deaths occur in places where abortion is illegal. Countless women are injured and maimed during clandestine procedures. Because illegal abortion means that women who terminate pregnancies are criminals, many women are hesitant to go to the hospital after botched procedures for fear that they will be reported to the authorities. Doctors -- who often face even higher penalties for performing abortions than the women who procure them -- regularly refuse to administer any treatment that might get them mixed up in the anti-abortion crusade, even if the treatment is legally permissible. And so, as one Nicaraguan doctor told Human Rights Watch, "since the law was signed, [public hospitals] don't treat any hemorrhaging, not even post-menopausal hemorrhaging."
As a result, women are dying of treatable conditions. María de Jesús González, for example, had an ectopic pregnancy, a condition where a fertilized egg implants itself anywhere other than the uterine lining (usually in the fallopian tube). Doctors, scared of abortion-related charges, turned her away. Under Nicaraguan law, they technically could have treated her -- but even the treatment they're allowed to give may be questionable, and may be further compromised if anti-choice religious forces have their way.
According to the accepted Catholic doctrine (and adopted by other conservative religious groups), life begins at the moment of conception (when the egg is fertilized) and "direct abortion" -- ending the life of that the fertilized egg, embryo or fetus -- is impermissible. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, there is no hope for the egg to ever develop into a viable pregnancy. The easiest and often safest way to end an ectopic pregnancy is to administer methotrexate, a drug which ends the pregnancy. If that is not an option, surgeons can go into the fallopian tube and remove the pregnancy directly. But under pro-life doctrine, that egg is still a life and cannot be directly terminated. And so the acceptable alternative is to remove the woman's entire fallopian tube (or her cervix or whatever other part of her body holds the fertilized egg). That compromises her future fertility and is a much more serious surgery than the other two options, but from the "pro-life" view it's kosher because the intent wasn't to kill the egg, even though that was a known side effect and even though the egg's implantation was what threatened the woman's life. Simply removing the egg without taking out the whole fallopian tube is tantamount to abortion. And abortion, they say, is murder.
Who can blame doctors in anti-choice countries for being confused and scared?
In the meantime, countries with the most "pro-life" laws have higher abortion rates than the Western European countries with the most liberal abortion laws in the world. A large part of the difference is contraception -- Eastern Europe has seen a 50 percent decrease in its abortion rate since contraception became more widely available post-Communism. And yet contraception is something else that mainstream anti-choice groups oppose.
Yes, you read that right: Mainstream "pro-life" organizations are opposed to contraception as well as abortion. They're just keeping quiet about it because they know it's an unpopular position, and they know it outs them as hypocrites who put ideology over human life. But the fact remains that none of the well-known and influential national anti-choice groups have come out in support of contraception access. None of them promote the very thing that has been proven, time and again, to lower the abortion rate.
What do they promote? Abstinence until marriage and embracing pregnancy and childbirth. (Apparently, no married woman has ever wanted an abortion or experienced pregnancy-related complications). Other than that, anti-choice groups offer no real alternative to women who don't want to be pregnant, or women who don't have a choice to say no to sex, or women whose pregnancies threaten their life or their health. They offer no solution to the problem that kills nearly 70,000 women every year, other than "don't have sex outside of marriage; only have sex if you're willing to give birth; and abortion is wrong, don't have one."
That isn't working. It has never worked.
When you combine lack of access to reproductive health care with stringent anti-abortion laws, women die. That is an undeniable fact, and it's one that "pro-life" leaders refuse to look in the face. When South Africa legalized abortion, it saw a 90 percent decrease in its abortion-related mortality rate. By contrast, abortion remains the second leading cause of death for women admitted to Ethiopian hospitals. Uganda, a country that the religious right has advertised as an abstinence education success story, has an abortion rate twice as high as the one in the United States. In Brazil, where abortion is illegal except in very limited cases, the abortion rate is significantly higher than the rate in the U.S., and some 288,700 women were hospitalized for abortion-related causes in one year. Illegal abortion is the cause of 25% of all maternal deaths in Latin America, 12% in Asia, and 13% in sub-Saharan Africa.
Abortion is a difficult topic, and well-intentioned people fall on all sides of the debate. Most people, pro-life or pro-choice or somewhere in between, are repulsed at the idea of women dying for "pro-life" ideology. Most people understand that education and contraception are the most effective ways to prevent abortion. But self-identified pro-life people need to recognize what their leaders promote and what their movement currently stands for.
So far, "pro-life" groups have been non-responsive to the dead bodies in their wake. They are, however, mobilizing around the world to spread policies like Nicaragua's far and wide. They are actively seeking to outlaw abortion in the United States, and in the meantime trying to limit access to it. Right now they're in Aurora, Illinois, opposing Planned Parenthood. They're also the base of a Republican party that regularly launches assaults at children and families. The right-wing opposition to children's health care is just the start; 100 percent of the country's worst legislators for children are "pro-life." The global gag rule, which cuts off U.S. funding to any NGO that so much as mentions the world "abortion," ends up de-funding health clinics that provide contraception, condoms and HIV prevention. As much as anti-choice leaders claim to value life and dislike abortion, their actions don't back it up.
The message is clear: Women are just collateral damage in their ideological Culture War. Our right to life is negotiable.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I'll believe the "pro life" movement is sincere when they stop trying to outlaw abortion and, instead, start trying to hold men accountable and force them to support the woman they impregnated (financially, physically, emotionally); when the lobby for sex education in the schools and free birth control for everyone; when they commit to supporting a mother and her child with free health care and whatever the deadbeat dad is not providing; and when they leave it to women - not white males - to call the shots.
I agree with you except I think you're going too far with the "holding men accountable" line.
To an extent this makes sense, but true equality means giving women 50/50 responsibility when it comes to getting pregnant (I assume rape is not part of the discussion).
I say that because you used the word "impregnated" in that context.
At any rate, Jill's article is brilliant and so true. The blatant contradiction of being anti-contr
If you want to talk about who should provide financial support for "unwanted children" it should be anyone who claims to be "pro-life".
They should check an extra box on their tax-forms each year so that an additional large % of their income can go toward a fund to help pay for childcare expenses from conception (since that's where life begins of course) to age 18.
You don't think having to raise a child for eighteen years after putting your life at risk for nine months and during the labor is 50 percent of the responsibility and more? I've been pregnant and in labor and I've raised kids and I've also written checks. I'll tell you something, it's a LOT easier to write the checks.
I think it's time women defined what is fair and equitable, since men obviously don't have a grip on reality in this matter.
One comment I hear often is how people should not use abortions as a form of birthcontr
Unless the mother's health is at risk, one should live with their choices and give the baby up for adoption once it is born..I am not a pro-lifer but I do believe in taking responsibility for one's actions (this is an arguable point to be sure and it should be debated)..
On a recent edition of NPRs This American Life, a high school male states that he learned the most about sex by watching pornography since he couldn't get the information at school...i
http://www
I am not a teenager but a father of a daughter who will make sure that she is armed with the information that will allow her to life a fruitful life.
Of course, Dad, you know that in Nicaragua one in five women has been raped by the time she reaches adulthood. Is that the kind of "choice" you refer to? Is that the choice you'd want for your daughter?
As a man, DAD, you should have absolutely NO right to tell a woman whether she could or could not have a child. Until you make 70 cents for every dollar a woman makes and spit a baby out of your penis, you should stay out of it.
A child born into a fatherless world and to a woman who cannot support him/her is far more susceptible to becoming a victim of society than one that is born by choice.
It's funny when people say "but what about the child's choice?"
What, his/her choice to likely end up abused or molested in a foster home, only to "grow up" into gangs, drugs and other violence culminating in death or jail?
And no, that's not hyperbole, that's the often tragic reality of the situation.
People who claim to be "pro-life" should be spending a lot more money on making foster care a desired option.
Oh yeah, and how many lines do you see for eager parents waiting to adopt minority children?
The only thing I can add to your point is that "pro-life" is a total misnomer. "Pro-birth" is much more accurate. Foster care, welfare, preschool programs, things that actually help, would be more accurately titled "Pro-Life".
Dude, I am not a brood mare for infertile women, period. I am not here to make babies for someone else who can't have them. Furthermore, it's been documented that adopted children, even those adopted at birth, wind up with behavioral problems later on. Based on what I've read about babies hearing their moms' voices in the womb and observing my own daughter's behavior when she was brought in to me after her birth (she was crying, I spoke to her, and she quieted right down before I ever touched her), I think it is manifestly unfair to force the birth of an unwanted child and then to give it away like it's a financial commodity or something. They know. They are wounded by being removed from their mothers. It affects them later on in life.
Besides, we have six billion people and counting on this planet. Telling women they should just suck it up and have the kid because it isn't obviously going to kill them (not that health conditions in a given pregnancy can't change for the worse suddenly--ask anyone who's had pre-eclampsia) is manifestly irresponsible in ecological terms. I am not for FORCED abortion, mind you, but if a woman wants to get one anyway, I'm sure not going to stop her.
And finally, getting an abortion IS responsible. It's a way of saying, "I'm facing a situation that I cannot handle at this point in my life so I am going to do something about it rather than stick my head in the sand, put my own life at risk and then, after all that, traumatize a little kid just so I don't have to be inconvenie
"Escape the control of men"?
Now maybe its because I don't live in some backwoods part of Utah, but I don't know of ANY woman who is truly under the control of a man.
Even the most fundamentalist Christians I know of (some you'd call scary) know that if push comes to shove, there is a very finite level of authority a man is going to actually have in the home.
A good husband will know that most of the time its in his best interest to do it her way. Of course a good husband doesn't marry some TV- obsessed twit, who sits around a filthy house eating and spends all of the money on clothing and jewelry, bitching about how miserable her husband is and oogling the mailman.
Marriage is a partnership.
Most of the couples I know are mixed race - American husband and Filipina wife - and if you think she does not control the home (and as often as not the finances), you are nuts.
A man only has to take the reigns when wisdom demands that it is absolutely necessary to avoid disaster and by God you'd better be right if you do (as its unlikely you will be allowed a second chance if you are wrong!!).
Do you live in the Magic Kingdom...
I also do not live in the back woods of Utah, Alabama or Louisiana, yet I know MANY women who fall prey to charming men who woo them, marry them and turn on them. Why? Who knows. Maybe their acting out hate towards a less than perfect mother; maybe their mentally ill or perhaps just have control issues.
I know an equal number of wonderful men who fall prey to "twits" who sit around the house doing nothing but watching TV, spend their money as if it grew on trees and bitch about how pathetic their husbands are. Why? Who knows...bu
Both sexes were wonderful when courting and being courted...
Marriage is a partnershi
The funny thing is that the bible itself does not consider fetus as a human being. According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in many significant passages
If in your superstition you honor the Christian Bible -- it clearly and directly states that an individual human life begins at first breath.
If you honor the Moslem Koran -- it indirectly states that an individual human life begins at first breath.
If you honor the Jewish Talmud -- it clearly and directly states that an individual human life begins at birth
Many other verses can be cited as evidence that a fetus is not a living being. Life is equated with breath throughout the Bible, and this passage seems to suggest that a person is not living until he or she takes a first breath after birth:
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. (NIV, Genesis 2:7)
All together - what a joke of a discussion while we killed more than a million Iraqi children, first with sanctions and now with bombs
And remember:
Rupert Murdoch === William Randolph Hearst - both fascists
I never understood the stretch to a fetus being life. Potential life- yes - but to be alive - breath - is critical -as obviously the various religions understood long ago.
Birth & death are the frames for our lives & with the first you are alive at your first breath and the second you die with your last breath.
I find the pro-life people to be particularily unsupporting of any phase of life but the pre-life phase. They show absolutely no concern for mothers' in life threatening situations nor do they care whether the mother knows in her heart of hearts that she can not feed another.
In light of the above - their fight against contraceptives is beyond comprehension.
I suggest we start referring to them in more correct terms - Pro-Embryo or Pro-Fetus BUT definitely NOT as Pro-Life - because they do not support "life" after breath.
Politigal,
Well, unless you are a space alien, you were there once too!
Do yourself a favor and do some research..
A good starter would be a video, and I beleive it's still available, about the beginnings of LIFE from PBS!
I have no problem seeing a fetus as alive and even human. It has no bearing whatsoever on the right to abortion. Men and non-pregnant women do not have to be life support systems to any other born person; the law protects us from being forced to donate blood or organs. Pro-lifers say we should treat fetuses exactly the same as we treat born people. Fine. Then they can't use a woman's uterus against her will, nor hook up to her bloodstream and take nutrients from her without her prior and ongoing consent. Fair 'nuff. Pro-choicers, especially the radical ones, have been saying all along this is about a woman's right to control her own body. It never was about what a fetus is.
I love it when folks talk about the Bible...
which is usually means NOT the NEW TESTAMENT but ..
THE OLD TESTAMENT!
There IS a big difference, don't you know?
And let's call a spade a spade and ask a simple
question?
What the HECK did folks 4000 or 5000 years ago...
KNOW?
And much of the OLD TESTAMENT was handed down, by word of mouth, from generation to generation
BEFORE it was written down by Hebrew Scribes!
Yes, I beleive that it is the word of God but think a moment...
Was God going to tell his secrets to men who couldn't understand?
Heck NO...he would rather, inspire them to write down in language that THEY COULD UNDERSTAND!
Know what?
Even we, even we here in the 21st Century...
DON'T KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS!
You know what *I* love?
When some Christians dismiss Bible 1.0 (aka, The Old Testament) because it was replaced by Bible 2.0 (aka, The New--And Improved!-
Oh really, The Old Testament isn't relevant to you? Great, I always suspected some of those "Then Commandments" were overrated.
And I guess (since The *Old* Testament doesn't apply) the Christian Right should also lay off gay people since the passage they quote (something about "you shall not lie with a mail as one lies with a female") is from the OT.
The bottom line is, The Old Testament is perfectly relevant to some Christians when it's convenient, but perfectly irrelevant when it's not.
So how many babies have died from abortion?
How many women have died or been maimed in the abortion clinics?
Giving us one set of figures implies that the opposing numbers might be embarassing to your argument.
No babies die in abortion clinics. Fertilized eggs, maybe ( I hope you don't eat unborn chicks for breakfast!!)get destroyed, just as they will be when scientists are barred from using frozen embryos for stem cell research. At best most abortions involve a being so undeveloped only its DNA says it's a human. These are NOT children. The women, on the other hand, are real,living, breathing people with lives already underway. Some are frightened teens - in Nicaragua quite possibly the victims of rape - or mothers already overburdened with the children they already have, throw in some abused women whose husbands use pregnancy as a ball and chain.
I personally am quite close to a wonderful young mother who could very well have died from her last pregnancy. While these responsible young parents have "taken steps" to prevent any further pregnancies,there is never any guarantee against fertilization except total abstinance. Then there's that nagging rape thing again, isn't there?
Industriligion doesn't like when we're child-less.
It's much harder to intimidate us that way. Nobody to blackmail the future of.
Less soldiers falling for nothing two decades later. These "God-Fearers" hate the idea of having nothing to hold their captives with.
'Pro-Life' really means anti-women, anti-sex, anti-contraception. Its all about controlling women by controlling their bodies. Very sick stuff really. Of course most so called Pro-Lifers in America also support the usual right wing nutcase bullshit--War, pollution, prisons, gay-bashing, torture of Muslims, and on and on and on
ANd if you think their agenda stops once they make abortion illegal you are kidding yourself. Its all about control. They want to control your life
You have absolutely stated my opinions.
And quite succintly, too.
I forgot to mention that Nicaraguan has been assualted to right-wingers since Reagan sold weapons to the Iranians in order to pay the Nicaragaun contras.
I'm totally pro-choice, but you at least have to give the nicaraguans credit for consistency of applying a moral absolute, which is far more respectable than the wishy-washy american context of making exceptions for rape and incest -- if you're going to appeal to as elastic a notion as god's will, the circumstances of the paternity don't much matter; on the other hand it also helps to prove, in the american context, how americans are comfortable with squishy compromises between absolutes and reality as lived.
Memoirsofa
Additionally, if this is REALLY about the life of the "baby," why make those exceptions for rape or incest? Are they really saying that the life of one innocent is worth more than another?
No, just legalize it full stop and leave us women alone.
anti woman?
what if the unborn baby is female?
Unborn children is oxymoronic. Do you really see a little girl with her teddy bear and jump rope inside a uterus? What I've seen well into pregnancies is something dimly resembling a human being, but which is totally incapable of living on its own.
If you really think a six-week female fetus is a "woman," that explains a LOT about right-wingers. Also explains why they see no problem with molesting little girls or marrying off nine-year-olds.
Seriously.
Ah, but they're also pro-gun and pro-war. Somehow they don't see the inconsistency in that.
The Gods must be crazy.
If not the gods, then certainly the right-wing god people.
So much pain and suffering is justified by religious dogma, which is no different than the fear of getting on Santa's naughty list or not getting your nickel from the tooth fairy.
In 500 years, our society today will be viewed in much the same way as we view the years of the Inquisition and witch hunts. Utterly ridiculous and wasteful.
I am sure there are those who would return us to that archaic era. All societies since the 4th Century (when the bible was compiled) have interpreted the same doctrines.
I appreciate your optimism Rick but I can assure you that mankind will not be around in 500 years. Nuclear annihilation will occur long before that time.
SAdly very likely in our lifetime, especially if we're stupid enough to elect another Republican for president.
Actually abortion wasnt really the big deal it is now 100, even 500 years ago...peop
Many of these pro-lifers are also in favor of the death penalty, a dichotomy I can't even begin to understand. There's no reasoning with people like this, because there's no reason behind their position, just primitive, judgmental superstition.
How can you have a rational debate with people who have a giant, invisible imaginary buddy on their side? It's infuriating. The only way to counter it is with science and reason, which might explain why the Christian Right is trying so hard to push its stupendously moronic Intelligent Design concept at public education.
Apparently their morality doesn't consider human lives and tragedy. As long as their dogma is satisfied, that's all that matters.
"She's with God now." What a comfort.
Is the dichotomy any different with the pro-choicers? Don't they stand back as women kill their unborn and lead the charge to prevent murders and rapists from being put to death?
I know, who would want to run the risk of killing someone innocent? Well, how is that different than with the unborn. Has science yet proven the separation point between human fetus and human life? Certainly it is NOT viability, since we still allow the viable unborn to be killed.
The honest individual will admit that Roe v. Wade is scientifically out of date, based on changes in viability, fetal surgery, etc.
Frankly I find it hard to reason with you since your morality, whatever it is, is based on your own whims, absent of any solid foundation.
Please share with me how you give or receive comfort when a loved one dies. Since those of us with a belief in God are so backward and dim-witted, I'm sure someone as enlightened as yourself must know.
How can anyone reason with someone who believes that a world so complex, heck a galaxy so complex, simply appeared from nothing only to randomly result in what we view today? Friend it is time to drop your "primitive, judgmental", "invisible imaginary", and "stupendously moronic" rhetoric. It is in the eye of the beholder!
D.R.G., R.Ph., B.Sc.
We have a serious problem, that only Occam's Razor can solve: If God created the world, who created God? And who created the creator of God? And who created the creator of the creator...
Yeah, the world is complex, and so is the galaxy. But adding increased layers of complexity does no good at all in explaining it. Somewhere, somehow, creation just happened. Remember also Bacon's Law. You don't need to explain it. The universe is just there, self-demonstrating.
You're missing the point. An embryo isn't a fully-developed person. "Viability" is nothing but a buzzword anti-choice people use to try and confuse the situation. Yes, there are a handful of cases where children have been born outrageously early and survived. They are amazingly rare and exceedingly lucky. The vast majority of those who do come that early either die quickly or have massive physical and mental defects leading them to lives of misery and agony.
Roe v. Wade is hardly out of date. Twenty-six weeks is not enough time for an embryo to develop into a being that can survive outside the womb. And by the way...the number of abortions that take place that late are a tiny fraction of the total.
How does one give or receive comfort? By listening the person grieving and letting them be the ones to decide. Certainly not by forcing your choices upon them.
And by the way, the universe isn't "random." But just because it isn't random doesn't mean it was necessarily "designed.
Hint: Listing your degrees is known as "credentialing" and is naught but the logical error of "argument from authority.
drgrph,
That's a lot of wasted education.
That murderer or that rapist would not be using me for a life support system. I don't have to donate my blood or my organs unless I want to, even if it means someone will die--and someone always does, because there's never enough in the blood bank and never enough organs to go around. Why then do I have to "donate" my uterus if I don't want to?
I don't want the government to have the right to kill because the government operates under legal fictions. It can decide at any time to make some other crime worthy of the death penalty besides the obviously icky ones. If YOU are comfortable with it having that power, think about this: What if it was a bunch of radical liberals in power and they decided to make clinic-picketing a capital crime?
And you never know for sure that these guys even did anything. Whereas, you ALWAYS know the fetus in an unwanted pregnancy is there. It's ALWAYS guilty of using a woman's body for life support without her consent. What more do you want?
The dichotomy is explained by the fact that they believe the zygote is 'innocent' and the criminal, obviously, is guilty. As is the woman who is carrying that zygote, she obviously had sex and is therefore contaminated and sinful.
The incredible level of misogyny and anti-humanism inherent in the beliefs of the Christian Right is rarely recognized, but these people sincerely believe that ALL humans are at core evil and debased and that the purpose of society is to control their behavior so they don't all run amuck murdering and killing.
People mocked Pat Robertson for saying "Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." The scary thing is that he did and his followers actually BELIEVE that women who 'escape from the control of men' would kill their children, renounce their religion and destroy the country.
In order to hold the line against the anarchy they believe will ruin civilization, the deaths of a few women here or there are totally irrelevant. The important thing is to once again put women in a position where they can be CONTROLLED.
You've got it. If this was anything about children's lives, these hypocrites would be all over Bush for vetoing health care for poor children ( the same societal quadrant that most needs access to abortions). But in the end, they don't give a rat's ass about kids that are already born, especially if their parents are poor or minorities. They only care about those fertilized eggs and embryos. Real children don't matter, or these folks would be marching in DC against the war in Iraq and the killing of many babies, young and old. It's about controlling the women through their uteruses.
I'm not the first to say it, but xenubarb, it's actually not so difficult to understand. The idea is that "babies" are innocent (original sin aside) and must be saved, but criminals and women who seek abortions deserve to die. Those people say they promote a "culture of life" but what they truly believe in is a culture of deadly moral judgment.
Nicole,
There are some and believe me, I doubt much that Republicans who call themselves Christian
are only Christian in name only.
You see as Jesus said "Many are called but few
are chosen".
However, God, in his divine wisdom, wishes mercy for all of us but we must ask for it and we must be merciful to each other to earn it.
Xenubarb,
there is NO reason because there is religion..
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
