anniemiz

Blog for Choice Day 2008

Ack!  Apparently, I signed up to blog something on Blog for Choice Day 2008!  And promptly forgot.  Oops.  In the interest of putting up something, I'll repost my 2007 post below.

*****

So.  Today is Blog for Choice Day.  From the website:

On January 22nd - the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade - we asked pro-choice bloggers to join us in a day of activism for choice. Blog for Choice Day is a chance to raise the profile of reproductive rights issues in the blogosphere and the media, and to let everyone know that a woman's right to choose is nonnegotiable.

This year's topic is a simple one: tell us, and your readers, why you're pro-choice.

Why am I pro-choice?  Well, I wish I had something profound to write.  It all seems very obvious to me.

• I don't believe that life begins at conception.  I don't know exactly when I'd say life begins, but I'm leaning towards it being a good ways into a pregnancy.
• I would very much welcome a definitive, scientific answer wrt when life begins.
• I do not find religious explanations of when life begins to be very helpful or relevant when making public policy.  Of course, it might be helpful or relevant to a religious person making a choice wrt their pregnancy.  That's fine for them. 
• I do believe that people who are anti-choice for religious reasons should not expect others to conform to their view, nor should they expect public policy to express their view.
• I don't believe that there's some god(s) out there who will punish anyone in this life or any other life for having an abortion.
• I do believe that people should have the right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
• I do believe that the pregnant person has the ultimate choice wrt continuing or aborting a pregnancy.  Whether or not this person takes other peoples' concerns into account is up to her.
• I do believe that people who choose to abort should have access to legal, safe procedures and facilities.
• I do believe that if you are anti-choice, you should do whatever is in your power to do in order to avoid being in a position where you might consider an abortion.  If you do have an abortion someday, it'd be nice if you did something to protect the right to choose.
• Wrt those who are anti-choice for religious reasons and actively try to change legislation so that everyone is subject to their interpretation of their religion's view on abortion: I do wish they would worry about themselves more.  'WWJD?' is an excellent question, if you're a Christian.  I find it hard to believe that Jesus would behave as some alleged Christian, anti-choice people behave.
• I do believe that there might be a different, best reproductive choice in different situations.  Aborting a pregnancy can be a best choice, as can continuing a pregnancy.  Adoption can be a best choice.  One choice does not fit all situations.

I understand that the vast majority of women who have abortions in the U.S. experience no post-abortion problems.  I get very annoyed by people who wish to blame all of their - and others' - problems on an abortion.  The evidence doesn't support it.  Might a woman experience problems post-abortion?  Sure.  Might some of her problems be as a result of having an abortion?  Sure.  This possibility should not govern public policy for everyone.  A small percentrage of women who have had abortions experience problems of some form or other.  Women do not need to be protected from their own choices.

Click here for an interesting NYT Magazine article on those who wish to fabricate a syndrome when the evidence does not support their claims.  It includes a profile of a minister who attributes all her life's problems to an abortion she had in 1973, just after abortion became legal.  Somehow her problems do not derive in any way from the incest, rape, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, ill-considered marriage and suicide attempt she also experienced in her life.  All that is also a result of her first abortion (she had three subsequent abortions, all of which are a result of that first one).  From the article:

It’s a pattern she sees reflected everywhere: “In America we have a big drug problem, and we don’t realize it’s because of abortion.”

Also as a result of her first abortion:

“I remember having evil thoughts, about hurting children,” she said. “It was like I’d done the worst thing I could possibly do. A piece of evil had entered me.”

I imagine there might be much more plausible explanations for her thoughts about hurting children, none of which have anything to do with abortion.  I also imagine it can be very convenient to blame it on an abortion.

If you're going to go around making claims like the above, providing some support for your position would be in order.

Ms Magazine recently invited women to sign an 'I Had an Abortion' petition.  I believe the idea was to work toward removing the stigma associated with abortion.  I think they also wanted to make it plain how common abortion is across all population factors.  I had an abortion.  I am not ashamed.  I signed the petition.  I wish the dull stories of millions of women who chose to have an abortion and went on to lead happy, successful, fulfilling lives got as much attention as the dramatic stories of the relatively few people who wish to pin all their troubles on the choice to have an abortion.

*****

I have a reminder on my calendar to write something new in time for Blog for Choice Day 2009.

Ack!  Apparently, I signed up to blog something on Blog for Choice Day 2008!  And promptly forgot.  Oops.  In the interest of putting up something, I'll repost my 2007 post below.

*****

So.  Today is Blog for Choice Day.  From the website:

On January 22nd - the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade - we asked pro-choice bloggers to join us in a day of activism for choice. Blog for Choice Day is a chance to raise the profile of reproductive rights issues in the blogosphere and the media, and to let everyone know that a woman's right to choose is nonnegotiable.

This year's topic is a simple one: tell us, and your readers, why you're pro-choice.

Why am I pro-choice?  Well, I wish I had something profound to write.  It all seems very obvious to me.

• I don't believe that life begins at conception.  I don't know exactly when I'd say life begins, but I'm leaning towards it being a good ways into a pregnancy.
• I would very much welcome a definitive, scientific answer wrt when life begins.
• I do not find religious explanations of when life begins to be very helpful or relevant when making public policy.  Of course, it might be helpful or relevant to a religious person making a choice wrt their pregnancy.  That's fine for them. 
• I do believe that people who are anti-choice for religious reasons should not expect others to conform to their view, nor should they expect public policy to express their view.
• I don't believe that there's some god(s) out there who will punish anyone in this life or any other life for having an abortion.
• I do believe that people should have the right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
• I do believe that the pregnant person has the ultimate choice wrt continuing or aborting a pregnancy.  Whether or not this person takes other peoples' concerns into account is up to her.
• I do believe that people who choose to abort should have access to legal, safe procedures and facilities.
• I do believe that if you are anti-choice, you should do whatever is in your power to do in order to avoid being in a position where you might consider an abortion.  If you do have an abortion someday, it'd be nice if you did something to protect the right to choose.
• Wrt those who are anti-choice for religious reasons and actively try to change legislation so that everyone is subject to their interpretation of their religion's view on abortion: I do wish they would worry about themselves more.  'WWJD?' is an excellent question, if you're a Christian.  I find it hard to believe that Jesus would behave as some alleged Christian, anti-choice people behave.
• I do believe that there might be a different, best reproductive choice in different situations.  Aborting a pregnancy can be a best choice, as can continuing a pregnancy.  Adoption can be a best choice.  One choice does not fit all situations.

I understand that the vast majority of women who have abortions in the U.S. experience no post-abortion problems.  I get very annoyed by people who wish to blame all of their - and others' - problems on an abortion.  The evidence doesn't support it.  Might a woman experience problems post-abortion?  Sure.  Might some of her problems be as a result of having an abortion?  Sure.  This possibility should not govern public policy for everyone.  A small percentrage of women who have had abortions experience problems of some form or other.  Women do not need to be protected from their own choices.

Click here for an interesting NYT Magazine article on those who wish to fabricate a syndrome when the evidence does not support their claims.  It includes a profile of a minister who attributes all her life's problems to an abortion she had in 1973, just after abortion became legal.  Somehow her problems do not derive in any way from the incest, rape, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, ill-considered marriage and suicide attempt she also experienced in her life.  All that is also a result of her first abortion (she had three subsequent abortions, all of which are a result of that first one).  From the article:

It’s a pattern she sees reflected everywhere: “In America we have a big drug problem, and we don’t realize it’s because of abortion.”

Also as a result of her first abortion:

“I remember having evil thoughts, about hurting children,” she said. “It was like I’d done the worst thing I could possibly do. A piece of evil had entered me.”

I imagine there might be much more plausible explanations for her thoughts about hurting children, none of which have anything to do with abortion.  I also imagine it can be very convenient to blame it on an abortion.

If you're going to go around making claims like the above, providing some support for your position would be in order.

Ms Magazine recently invited women to sign an 'I Had an Abortion' petition.  I believe the idea was to work toward removing the stigma associated with abortion.  I think they also wanted to make it plain how common abortion is across all population factors.  I had an abortion.  I am not ashamed.  I signed the petition.  I wish the dull stories of millions of women who chose to have an abortion and went on to lead happy, successful, fulfilling lives got as much attention as the dramatic stories of the relatively few people who wish to pin all their troubles on the choice to have an abortion.

*****

I have a reminder on my calendar to write something new in time for Blog for Choice Day 2009.

Blog for Choice Day

So.  Today is Blog for Choice Day.  From the website:

On January 22nd - the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade - we asked pro-choice bloggers to join us in a day of activism for choice. Blog for Choice Day is a chance to raise the profile of reproductive rights issues in the blogosphere and the media, and to let everyone know that a woman's right to choose is nonnegotiable.

This year's topic is a simple one: tell us, and your readers, why you're pro-choice.

Why am I pro-choice?  Well, I wish I had something profound to write.  It all seems very obvious to me.

• I don't believe that life begins at conception.  I don't know exactly when I'd say life begins, but I'm leaning towards it being a good ways into a pregnancy.
• I would very much welcome a definitive, scientific answer wrt when life begins.
• I do not find religious explanations of when life begins to be very helpful or relevant when making public policy.  Of course, it might be helpful or relevant to a religious person making a choice wrt their pregnancy.  That's fine for them. 
• I do believe that people who are anti-choice for religious reasons should not expect others to conform to their view, nor should they expect public policy to express their view.
• I don't believe that there's some god(s) out there who will punish anyone in this life or any other life for having an abortion.
• I do believe that people should have the right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
• I do believe that the pregnant person has the ultimate choice wrt continuing or aborting a pregnancy.  Whether or not this person takes other peoples' concerns into account is up to her.
• I do believe that people who choose to abort should have access to legal, safe procedures and facilities.
• I do believe that if you are anti-choice, you should do whatever is in your power to do in order to avoid being in a position where you might consider an abortion.  If you do have an abortion someday, it'd be nice if you did something to protect the right to choose.
• Wrt those who are anti-choice for religious reasons and actively try to change legislation so that everyone is subject to their interpretation of their religion's view on abortion: I do wish they would worry about themselves more.  'WWJD?' is an excellent question, if you're a Christian.  I find it hard to believe that Jesus would behave as some alleged Christian, anti-choice people behave.
• I do believe that there might be a different, best reproductive choice in different situations.  Aborting a pregnancy can be a best choice, as can continuing a pregnancy.  Adoption can be a best choice.  One choice does not fit all situations.

I understand that the vast majority of women who have abortions in the U.S. experience no post-abortion problems.  I get very annoyed by people who wish to blame all of their - and others' - problems on an abortion.  The evidence doesn't support it.  Might a woman experience problems post-abortion?  Sure.  Might some of her problems be as a result of having an abortion?  Sure.  This possibility should not govern public policy for everyone.  A small percentrage of women who have had abortions experience problems of some form or other.  Women do not need to be protected from their own choices.

Click here for an interesting NYT Magazine article on those who wish to fabricate a syndrome when the evidence does not support their claims.  It includes a profile of a minister who attributes all her life's problems to an abortion she had in 1973, just after abortion became legal.  Somehow her problems do not derive in any way from the incest, rape, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, ill-considered marriage and suicide attempt she also experienced in her life.  All that is also a result of her first abortion (she had three subsequent abortions, all of which are a result of that first one).  From the article:

It’s a pattern she sees reflected everywhere: “In America we have a big drug problem, and we don’t realize it’s because of abortion.”

Also as a result of her first abortion:

“I remember having evil thoughts, about hurting children,” she said. “It was like I’d done the worst thing I could possibly do. A piece of evil had entered me.”

I imagine there might be much more plausible explanations for her thoughts about hurting children, none of which have anything to do with abortion.  I also imagine it can be very convenient to blame it on an abortion.

If you're going to go around making claims like the above, providing some support for your position would be in order.

Ms Magazine recently invited women to sign an 'I Had an Abortion' petition.  I believe the idea was to work toward removing the stigma associated with abortion.  I think they also wanted to make it plain how common abortion is across all population factors.  I had an abortion.  I am not ashamed.  I signed the petition.  I wish the dull stories of millions of women who chose to have an abortion and went on to lead happy, successful, fulfilling lives got as much attention as the dramatic stories of the relatively few people who wish to pin all their troubles on the choice to have an abortion.

Christmas In November

The Democrats control the House, they just might end up controlling the Senate (right now, it's 49R, 50D and 1 still counting) and Rumsfeld resigned!  Too little, too late?  Yes, he should have been long gone.  It's still satisfying to see him resign, though.

Meanwhile, who are these people who make up the 45% of South Dakotans who voted for that state's abortion ban?

Signed by Gov. Mike Rounds on March 6, the South Dakota law would have banned abortions at all stages of pregnancy, including cases of rape and incest, and offered no exception if a mother is in poor health. The law would have allowed a doctor to perform an abortion if a woman is dying but requires the doctor to try to save the life of the fetus as well as the woman.

I'm glad the ban was defeated, but still: 45% of South Dakotans voted for it?

"The church teaches it's wrong to kill no matter what," said 39-year-old Martha Fiegen, a Sioux Falls home maker who voted in favor of the ban. "I believe life is sacred and every life is worth living."

Listen, lady, I'm all for you following your religion's teachings, but leave everyone else out of it.

Sometimes opinioneers talk about 'two Americas'.  That's what I think of when I hear that 45% of people voting on the ban voted for it.  I wonder, 'Who are these people?  Why can't they see past the end of their nose?'  They may think the same of the 55% who voted against the ban.  Votes are private, of course, unless people choose to share them, like the voter quoted above.  But it is tempting to want to deny an abortion in SD to anyone who voted for the ban.  That will only screw women who voted for it.  Can't deny an abortion to a male pro-ban voter.  And it wouldn't be fair to their daughters to deny them abortions bc their dads voted for the ban.

The voter quoted above is only 39 yo.  I don't know if she has children, but she could easily have a child of reproductive age.  What would she (or others who believe as she does) do if her minor daughter comes home pregnant one day?  Or if her minor son's girlfriend gets pregnant?  I could see her sticking to her guns in those scenarios.  Or if her daughter is raped?  Or if she herself is raped?  Or if someone in the family is pregnant as a result of incest?  I find it a little harder to imagine her or others staying the course (gotta love that phrase).

I wish these folks who vote for things like the SD ban would put their money where their mouths are and take under their wings pregnant women who would otherwise have an abortion.  Or adopt one of these womens' kids.  Sure, they could think abortion is wrong without also thinking that they have any obligation to help women considering an abortion.  True, there is no such obligation, but it might make them think about the issue differently.  Plus, doesn't the church also teach a few things about helping others?  And if life is so sacred, wouldn't they want to help?  They might ask themselves, 'WWJD?'  If Jesus thought abortion was wrong, I think he would try to help any pregnant woman considering an abortion.

And BTW, is 'every life worth living'?  I'll guess that she feels her own life is worth living.  And that she also believes that the lives of those near and dear to her are worth living.  I wonder if she were, say, born in Africa to AIDS-infected parents; her parents die when she's very young; she's maybe 9 yo and raising younger siblings; maybe all of them were infected with AIDS during their births; trying to feed herself and her siblings from whatever she can scrounge; has no resources when there's no food or someone gets sick; watches a younger sibling die from something obscenely preventable; perhaps is caught up in civil strife; maybe kidnapped for slave labor or forced to fight or run drugs; raped and abused by whoever comes across her and wants to do so; and so on and so on.  Would that child be better off if she had never been born?  Personally, I would want to die.  I'd probably feel obligated to any other siblings, as long as they were alive, but, otherwise, I think I'd wish I were never born and would seek release in death.

Whew.  That was a depressing spiel on an otherwise happy day.  Maybe it's the pouring rain that's dampening my spirits.  Anyway:

/rant

Early and Often

Okay, people, get out there and vote today!  No vote, no kvetching about politics until you vote again.

Who Needs Enemies

Wrt Cheney's quail hunting accident, from Fanatical Apathy:

What it comes down to, I think, is this: While the Vice President is an avid hunter, he may not be particularly up on gun safety. After all, it’s not as though he’s had any military training.

Ever.

Yes, bc as Cheney himself said wrt his avoidance of military service during the Vietnam war (he had five deferments), 'I had other priorities'.  What an incredibly insensitive thing to say.  Even for Cheney.

Heh

Alan Greenspan stepped down as chairman of the Federal Reserve yesterday, after 18-1/2 years on the job.

Q: How many central bankers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: Only one - Alan Greenspan holds the bulb and the world revolves around him.

From yesterday's Star-Ledger.

Ba-Dum Tssssh

From my buddy Dorothy's email:

A man walks into a bar and orders a drink. The bar has a robot bartender. The robot serves him a perfectly prepared cocktail, and then asks him, "What's your IQ?"

The man replies "150" and the robot proceeds to make conversation about global warming factors, quantum physics and spirituality, biomimicry, environmental interconnectedness, string theory, nano-technology, and sexual proclivities

The customer is very impressed and thinks, "This is really cool." He decides to test the robot. He walks out of the bar, turns around, and comes back in for another drink. Again, the robot serves him the perfectly prepared drink and asks him, "What's your IQ?"

The man responds, "about a 100."

Immediately the robot starts talking, but this time, about football, NASCAR, baseball, supermodels, favorite fast foods, guns, and women's breasts.

Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robot one more test. He heads out and returns, the robot serves him and asks, "What's your IQ?"

The man replies, "Er, 50, I think."

And the robot says... real slowly..."So............... ya gonna vote for Bush again?"

Any Volunteers?

Received this in a friend's email:

George Bush has started an ill-timed and disastrous war under  false pretenses by lying to the American people and to the Congress; he  has run a budget surplus into a severe deficit; he has consistently  and unconscionably favored the wealthy and corporations over the rights and needs of the population; he has destroyed  trust and confidence in, and good will toward, the United States around the  globe; he has ignored global warming, to the world's detriment; he has  wantonly broken our treaty obligations; he has condoned torture of  prisoners; he has attempted to create a theocracy in the United States; he  has appointed incompetent cronies to positions of vital national  importance.

Would someone please give him a blow job so we can impeach him?

Oops! They Did It Again

'Vote early and vote often,' the advice openly displayed on the election banners in one of our northern citites. - William Porcher Miles, speech in the House of Reps., March 31, 1858

As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it? - William Marcy Tweed (Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall) on the ballot in NYC (November 1871)

Yes, I voted today.  If you voted, great.  If you didn't, you can keep your kvetchin to yourselves.

In other election news, Kansas does it again:

Risking the kind of nationwide ridicule it faced six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

The 6-4 vote was a victory for “intelligent design” advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Critics of the new language charged that it was an attempt to inject God and creationism into public schools, in violation of the constitutional ban on state establishment of religion.

...

The new standards say high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.

In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

This link doesn't say what is the new definition of science, but I am right curious about it.  I'd go looking for more info and write more about this, but Typepad ate the first attempt at this post and I don't feel like doing it all over again.

Katrina

I've been trying to write about Hurricane Katrina, just to write about how I feel about it (i.e., you won't learn anything factual here that you haven't or couldn't already easily read elsewhere).  I'm just going to put out there a bunch of random thoughts.  Please excuse the rambling...I'm having trouble pulling my thoughts together.

• It's probably very hard to have any idea of the magnitude of this problem if you're not anywhere near it.  It wasn't until Tuesday, maybe, that it started to hit me how huge this thing really is, and I'm sure it's bigger than I conceive, even after seeing/reading so much coverage.
• I'm embarrassed.  The U.S. is not supposed to have refugees.  We're the richest, most powerful nation in the world...we're supposed to help other countries...how and why is it that this slow, inadequate response is what the federal government is providing the stricken region?  It would be one thing if it were truly the case that it was a disaster of such great proportion, such enormity that it was truly inconceivable...but it was not.  I understand that the government received some kind of report in ~2001 (I don't recall who produced the report) that suggested three potential catastrophes: a terrorist attack along the lines of 9/11 (the report came out before 9/11), an earthquake of a certain size in LA and...a category 4 and/or 5 hurricane hitting New Orleans.  (Note: I'll update/correct this when I find the relevant link(s) again.  Please send them to me if you have them handy; I can't seem to find them now.  Thanks.)
• The following, which I believe is by Paul Krugman writing recently in the NYT about Katrina, expresses exactly how I feel about the inadequate response:

So America, once famous for its can-do attitude, now has a can't-do government that makes excuses instead of doing its job. And while it makes those excuses, Americans are dying.

• I don't know why the response to the hurricane has been so inadequate.  I don't know all the information and details that would be necessary to accurately and fully determine why better preparations were not in place, especially since this was a foreseeable disaster.  But is it possible that race is not a factor at all?  In a press conference today, Sec. of State Rice said she doesn't believe that any American wants any other American to suffer.  Unfortunately, I think there are probably plenty of Americans who would wish something like Katrina on black Americans and there are probably plenty of Americans who don't care that so many (and I don't know the demographics of the entire group of affected people) black Americans are suffering.  Of course, what else is Rice going to say?  I suppose she can't very well say what we all know is the case, i.e., that there are Americans saying/thinking, 'Good, let them all die.' 'Good, let them all kill each other.'  'Them' = black victims of Katrina.  But could she possibly be so naive as to think race is not a factor?
• Again with Sec. of State Rice: WTF was she doing going to Broadway shows and shoe shopping in NYC this week while Katrina's aftermath was beginning to play out?  And where's the Vice President?
• I've long lacked any respect for President Bush.  The U.S. is the strongest nation in the world; the leading democracy in the world; we deserve a leader worthy of that responsibility and office.  Bush is not that person.  How in the world that man was elected and then re-elected, I'll never understand.  Sometimes I feel like the whole country is getting more stupid right in front of our very eyes.  I can barely stand to listen to him on tv.  I really don't want to hear any more about: the folks who are working hard to help hurricane victims; that it's gonna take hard work to address the hurricane's damage; that there are good people working hard, working round the clock; and what a great porch Trent Lott is going to have when he rebuilds his house...oh, STFU, George.  We all know that's a line of BS.  And WTF do you know about hard work, anyway?  Could somebody in that administration please speak the truth for once?

Well, that's it...at least for now, maybe for good.  Like I promised, what I said wasn't very helpful, but it felt good to say it.

Edited to add the following links through which you can donate to these groups' hurricane relief efforts:

• American Red Cross
• ASPCA
• America's Second Harvest
• HurricaneHousing.org - a moveon.org endeavor; you can offer housing to hurricane evacuees or, if you're an evacuee, you can look for housing
• CNN's list of agencies that are helping with the relief effort