TRIGGER WARNING - RAPE, INCEST, MISOGYNY, AND ALL OTHER ISSUES ABORTION-RELATED

After seeing some anti-woman protestors on my former college campus today, seeing them use Nazi imagery and pictures of Pol Pot's Killing Fields to make their disgusting "point," I felt the need to express my rage with the following reasons why I'm Pro-Choice.

1) It's not my business what anyone else does with their body.
2) It's not anyone's business what I do with my body.
3) Savita Halappanavar of Ireland.
4) Beatriz of El Salvador - you can still speak for her.
5) Every woman who has ever died because of a "back alley" abortion.
6) The evidence supporting the idea that the crime rate drops when abortion is legal because wanted children are less likely to grow up in circumstances that lead them to become criminals.
7) Forcing a rape or incest survivor to carry her rapist's baby to term is a way of raping her all over again.
8) In 31 U.S. states, it is legal for a rapist to sue for visitation rights and/or custody of the child he fathered during the rape.  This is horrific on many levels, as it forces the woman to continue to have contact with the person who attacked her, which can be used as a way to leverage her into not pressing charges.  There's also the added horror of a convicted rapist being permitted to have a hand in raising the child to whom he donated genetic material during the attack.
9) The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Forcing a woman to carry a baby to term against her will is involuntary servitude and violates the very Constitution that most conservative assholes seem to worship. Women are human beings, not the property of the state.  Giving women control over their reproductive choices is a form of empowerment.  Conversely, taking away those choices turns women into second-class citizens.
10) Forcing a woman to complete a pregnancy risks her life.  Not to mention that outlawing abortion risks the lives of women who have wanted pregnancies that are non-viable (see 3 and 4).  To those who want to argue that a woman can give the baby up for adoption, there is a lot of evidence that it is more psychologically damaging to give up a baby after giving birth to it than having an abortion.  Yes, a lot of people want to adopt, but that doesn't mean that a pregnant woman should act as their handmaid unless it is 100% HER CHOICE to do so.

Having given the reasons I'm pro-choice, I'd now like to address the arguments against my feelings.

I thought about getting into the philosophical debate of whether or not a fetus is "alive" or should be considered a person, but I realized that it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person.  The woman was here first.  The rights of the born must outweigh the rights of the unborn, otherwise a woman is no longer legally a person the moment the sperm hits the egg.

When does the fetus start to have rights?  A lot of people say, "In the third trimester, once it's theoretically possible for it to survive outside the womb."  Let's examine that.  Under what circumstances would a woman carry a fetus for twenty-eight weeks and then decide she doesn't want it inside of her anymore?  I can't imagine a circumstance, but if a woman is in that position, I don't think that the state has a right to block her.  Do I find the idea of aborting a nearly full-term or full-term fetus horrifying?  Fuck yes! But I believe that the circumstances under which that would be necessary are so rare that they shouldn't even be included in any arguments against abortion.

What about gendercide, i.e. abortion of a female fetus because the parents want a male?  Fix society so that women are considered equal to men, don't deny a woman her right to choose.

Abortion as birth control?  If someone wants to go through the pain of multiple abortions rather than taking birth control, it's their body, their choice.  Especially since birth control, even multiple forms used in conjunction, can fail.  That and, like it or not, abortion IS a form of birth control.

There's also the "one penis, no vote" argument, which I find repugnant simply because NO ONE but the pregnant person gets a vote.  I have a uterus.  Having one doesn't give me more of a right to weigh in on this issue than someone who doesn't have one.

And now we've come to men's rights.  If you are a man and choose to have sex with a woman, you accept that whatever she decides to do after you put her penis close enough to her for your semen to get inside of her is her decision.  You accept child support.  You accept that she may abort a fetus that carries your genetic material.  You accept that it is her body and her decision as to whether she's going to risk her life to bring your child into the world.  If you don't think that's fair, don't have sex.  ANY sex, not merely protected sex.  Even if the woman stops taking her pills or pokes holes in the condoms, you're still choosing to have sex with her.

Which brings me to woman rapists.  They exist and I believe they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  That said, while I don't feel that you should have to pay child support if a woman rapes you, nor do you have the right to force her to have an abortion.  It's still her body in which the fetus is growing.  Is that "fair" when we chemically castrate some pedophiles and rapists?   Is it "fair" for a man to have that genetic link to a child that was conceived against his will?  No, but it's the woman's body in which said child grows, so sorry men, no forced abortions OR forced births, no matter what the circumstances.

Essentially, I'm pro-choice under all circumstances, with NO EXCEPTIONS.  Go ahead, come up with a scenario in which you think that abortion shouldn't be allowed and I'll tell you my reasoning for why it should be permitted.  I'll give you a hint: they're ALL going to start with, "It's not my business, nor is it yours." 

I was going to cut this, but couldn't decide where, so scroll if you don't want a rant with mentions of misogyny, homophobia, and racism.

You'll notice that I used AND instead of VERSUS in my subject line because unlike what seems like most of the rest of the Sherlock Holmes-loving world, I like them both.

Shocking, I know.  Blasphemy!  I, a woman of thirty-six years and reasonable intelligence, can actually like two shows about the same character who have completely different approaches AT THE SAME TIME!

My sarcasm, it is showing.  Mostly because I'm more than a little irritated that someone actually blocked me on Facebook over this shit (a while ago, actually, this rant has been building for that time - I figured I should get it out before it boiled over).  For that, I think they are an asshat.  They were also an LJ friend and guess what?  I blocked them from this journal.  Because I can be online petty too.

For the record, it took me a few episodes to get into the groove of "Elementary."  I wasn't sure about having Joan instead of John (for probably a lot of the same misogynistic reasons as those who absolutely refuse to watch it, even if I didn't want to admit it) and was even less sure about Jonny Lee Miller's ability to play Sherlock.  Guess what?  He pulls it off.  He is not Benedict Cumberbatch, but he's not TRYING to be.  Miller is is own version of the character.

I started to compare them, but there is no comparison - they might as well be playing completely different roles.  Well, what do you know?  They ARE playing two different roles, neither one doing a "better" job at it than the other.  They each capture Sherlock Holmes in the modern world, they simply approach it very differently.  And I like them both.

Did you hear that?  I.  Like.  Them.  BOTH!

It bears repeating, because I don't feel like I should be forced to choose here.  There is no "side," no "right" or "wrong."  They're both good in their own way.  They each have strengths and weaknesses, neither of which do I wish to discuss at length, mostly because I've seen "Elementary" more recently and so right now I like it more.  When "Sherlock" comes back, I'll probably like it more for while I have it.  It's a matter of changing gears, not fucking RELIGIONS.

Also for the record, I don't give a flying fuck about CBS "not being true to the character" by moving him to New York and giving him an amazing woman partner.  Nor do I give a flying fuck about those who say that CBS "just wanted to cash in on the popularity of BBC's "Sherlock."  Um, yeah - that's what TV networks do.  And sorry boys and girls (I would say men and woman, but the people in this "debate" have shown themselves to be little more than silly children), but neither concept is anymore "true" to Conan Doyle's work than Robert Downey Jr.'s version is.

Fact: John and Sherlock may be your slash OTP, but in the original, Victorian-era canon, they were friends and Watson was married.  To a woman. 

Fact: in the BBC's "Sherlock," both John AND Sherlock have shown attraction to women.  That's not to say that they can't also love each other romantically (hello, bisexual poly woman here), but they are not shown as sexual towards each other.  If anything, Sherlock is shown as being more asexual, with the exception of Irene Adler.  There have been a lot of jokes about John and Watson getting or being together in "Sherlock" canon, but as others have pointed out far more eloquently than I, "bromances" and "winks to the camera" do not equal gay inclusion. 

So sorry slashers, it's not homophobia to turn Watson into a woman for a new TV show.  For "Sherlock" fan fiction, I can see the argument because writers are changing the canon gender of a character because they don't like the idea of two cis-men together. 

For an entirely new show, no, though I do see where you're arguing from.  Your argument is flawed, but I see it.

Fact: the backlash of misogyny and racism against Lucy Liu since "Elementary" came out has been disgusting in the extreme, especially since she is made of total awesome in the role.  Martin Freeman can kiss her beautiful ass, as well.  Don't fucking tell me he was joking.  It was unfunny, m'kay?

To be honest, all of this bullshit (along with the mods of horror at the most popular "Sherlock" LJ site) have kind of turned me off "Sherlock."  I'm not saying I won't watch it (though it's now rather in the category of "liking a problematic thing"), but I'm avoiding the fandom even more ardently since I got blocked on Facebook for telling someone I felt they were missing out* to summarily dismiss "Elementary," because they were "completely opposed to Watson being a woman."

Why?  There is no answer to that question that I've seen so far that isn't rooted in misogyny.  Somewhere.  Yes, Watson was canonically male.  But canonically, both Holmes and Watson lived over 100 years ago, so canon is pretty much out the window the moment writers take a modern take on it.

Vaginas are icky, I guess.  And heaven forbid a vagina come anywhere near beloved characters that have been redone and remade so many times I think that only "The Three Musketeers" have them beat for variety of productions.

Finally, to be perfectly clear, I'm not saying that anyone has to watch or like either show.  However, I am saying that it's possible to enjoy both without it being some epic battle over who is more awesome.  And I also think it's wrong to judge something without having watched a single fucking episode.  Now, there are those who say that one can judge something by its previews ("Battleship," anyone?), but when most of the negative press has more to do with casting decisions than actual acting critiques, I start to smell a misogynistic, racist rat.

*The person argued that I wasn't respecting their judgment by saying they were missing out.  They're right.  I wasn't.  And I'm not apologizing for it, especially since they blocked me on Facebook over it because they didn't like my telling them (fairly nicely, I thought) that they were full of shit. 

...I also used to smoke pot to get high.  I don't do either anymore for reasons that are none of your business.  But then, it's not really your business that I did either in the first place.

What's my point here?  I'm just sick and tired of seeing posts floating around that say, "What about all of those women who have horrible periods?  Or bad acne?  Or ovarian cysts?  Are they whores and sluts too?"  Or with marijuana it's, "What about cancer patients?  Or people with glaucoma?"

Who gives a fuck WHY someone is taking medication?  Why does it need to be justified at all?

I took birth control because wanted to fuck and I didn't want to have an unplanned pregnancy.  I used it in addition to other methods because I REALLY didn't want an unplanned pregnancy.  

And again, I smoked weed because I liked the feeling more than I enjoyed the feeling of alcohol.  

But my feelings on these subjects don't count.  Never mind that it's MY body and I wasn't hurting anyone, my reasons for using these drugs aren't as socially acceptable, so I get to be shamed by even those who are ostensibly on "my side" for doing things that are no one's business but mine.  And yes, I do see it as shaming when someone says, "Well, what about those people with legitimate medical conditions who use these drugs?" because it's still playing into the culture that says that doing what one wants with one's own body is not okay unless there's a reason other than pleasure for doing it.

Well, fuck all of you who use this justification.  I liked fucking and being high.  I still like fucking, but I chose to stop using hormonal birth control. 

Because it's my fucking body.  Not yours.  And you don't get to have an opinion about what I do with my body so long as I'm not causing direct harm to you PERSONALLY. 

Oh, and before anyone says something about the Pill being legal and marijuana not being so, in states where the "personhood" bills are being passed, the type of hormonal birth control I was on would become illegal, so there you are.  The only drug that should be illegal is meth because it can endanger a neighborhood simply by making it.  Everything else should be legal and regulated.  Period.

I generally don't do book reviews - the "book review" tag was created for this entry - but in this case I'm making an exception.  Also, you'll notice that this is not so much a review as a comment on the reflections on society that this book has provoked within me. 


( Trigger warnings for references to things that happen to women every moment of every day.  )

If you consider yourself a feminist, whether you are male or female, I highly recommend "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo."  Not only is it a wonderful murder mystery, but it may provoke deep thoughts as it has for me, :).

This is the only trigger warning you're getting, because I absolutely REFUSE to cut this.  Scroll fast if you need to.  

Today is the two-year anniversary of his murder and I had no plans to blog about it beyond re-posting this tribute on Facebook.

All of that changed when I went to Hometown Buffet today and saw what shall furthermore be referred to as an "Abortion Bus."  It could have been a converted camper (it had one of those 'over-the-cab' camper-like attachments, but it was painted blood red and so covered in anti-abortion propaganda and PICTURES OF DEAD FETUSES that it was hard to tell for sure).

I went in and complained to the manager of the restaurant, that since it was on private property they shouldn't allow it there.  The manager tried to say it was a "First Amendment" thing and that he didn't want to get involved.  I only wish I hadn't already paid for our food, but we made the decision there and then - we'll never eat there if we see that bus in their parking lot.  I also wrote to Old Country Buffet, telling them exactly how I feel about their managers dismissal of allowing such horrific images to be displayed RIGHT IN FRONT OF A RESTAURANT where people are trying to eat.  I'm also seriously considering NEVER stepping foot in there again, given that their attitude and considering we've been eating there VERY often lately and have probably eaten there an average of once per month for the last fifteen years, that's pretty significant.

It's very, VERY lucky that I didn't know to whom the bus belonged, that I had no clue who they were in the restaurant, because I likely would have confronted them for being pro-slavery assholes.  And yes, I just said fucking SLAVERY.  Forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn't want sounds a lot like turning her into a broodmare and to me, that goes beyond a basic violation of human rights and says 'slavery' to me. 

I have to say, seeing that made me more Pro-Choice than ever, made me even flippantly remark that I'd like to go out and get an abortion just for spite.  Keep in mind, I WANT to have a baby, but with asshats like this trying to FORCE me into it, it makes me less than thrilled about the prospect of ever being pregnant, especially being high-risk and older, which leads to a greater chance that I would need the services of someone like Dr. Tiller.  

If you're reading this and are anti-choice in any way, shape, or form, go fuck yourself.  You can be pro-woman, in the sense that you are in favor of helping pregnant women have more options than just abortion, but if you are in ANY WAY in favor of overturning Roe Vs Wade or restricting a woman's freedom to choose what she may do with HER BODY, stay the fuck away from me and my spaces.   

You are not welcome here. 

87% of the counties in the United Fucking States of America lack an abortion provider.

87%

I just...

I give up.

Obviously, the religious extremists in this country have won and I should just accept my fate as a broodmare.

Neigh.

Oh, and I happen to live in one of the 13% of counties that actually has an abortion provider.  That doesn't make me feel anything but numb.

87%

Fuck me sideways.

Ohio “Heartbeat” bill could ban abortion just 18 days after conception

Quick show of hands, all you moms out there:

How many of you knew you were pregnant EIGHTEEN FUCKING DAYS after conception?

This is it.  I'm done.  From now on my stance on abortion is as follows:

My body, my choice.  Your body, your choice.  I don't care what you do with your body so long as you don't infringe on my body while you're doing it.  Every woman should have access to an abortion at any point during her pregnancy for any reason she chooses to have it.  PERIOD.  What is growing inside of her isn't alive until it takes a breath outside her body.  Until then, it is a fucking parasite and has ZERO rights that infringe upon the woman who is carrying it.   

No more fucking arguments about when a life becomes a life, because it leads to shit like this.  A life becomes a life when the woman carrying it CHOOSES to bring it into the world and not one moment before.  PERIOD. 

It only becomes a life when it is breathing outside of the woman.  NOT when it could theoretically take a breath.  When it is actually fucking BREATHING. 

If you don't like my definition of life, fuck off.  Seriously.  Fuck off.  Either I have the right to say what is done with my body AND WHEN or I don't.  If I do, I'm a human being.  If I don't, I'm a broodmare whose only purpose is propagation of the species.  If I don't, I should never be heard from and stay in my house, pumping out child after child with no other thought or reason to exist. 

The moment someone says, "Abortion should ONLY be allowed IF," it turns every woman into a beggar for basic human dignity and respect.  It makes female rights contingent upon what someone else feels is moral.  It takes my body and turns it into a vessel for someone else to fill with whatever they fuck they feel like putting in there.  

Either I'm a person or I'm an incubator.

Try and make me into an incubator.  I fucking dare you. 

Try. 

I didn't think it was possible for me to respect Sarah Palin less.  I was wrong

Palin defends use of "blood libel" phrase.

“Blood libel obviously means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands and in this case,” Ms. Palin said, “that’s exactly what was going on.”

Are you fucking kidding me?  Seriously?  On SNL last Saturday, Seth Myers said that he'd be incredibly offended if he thought Mrs. Palin actually knew what it meant.  Well, now it's time to be offended. 

Stupid, anti-Semitic, douchebag, asshat, jackass, asshole, look-in-her-eyes-and-see-the-back-of-her-skull, half-Governor, thank FSM she's not Vice President so she's nowhere near The Button, nasty, hope she loses her figurative voice forever, lousy excuse for a human being.  

If I left any out, please let me know.  

Oh, and in case you're wondering, I'm not letting this one go. 

Ever.

And here's Jon Stewart to play us out...

If you haven't heard, the BBC decided to interview a Christian who supports the execution of gays to comment on Sir Elton John's baby with his civil Partner David Furnish.

They are now defending this action, saying that it was required to 'balance' the coverage.

mercury_phoenix has sent a letter to the BBC in protest and sparkindarkness  has summed up the WTF far better than I ever could, so all I'm going to say is that having this asshat comment on a gay couple having a baby is offensive, disgusting, homophobic and generally makes me want to stop the planet so that I can get off.  

This is not a question of 'balance', BBC, this is a question of human rights, freedoms, and dignity, three topics that you obviously are as versed in as I am in Sanskrit. 

Seen on facebook today, the status of a friend of mine:

If you exclude people from your civil society, don't expect them to care much about its issues and/or pending demise...

All I could think was - THIS.  
( Cut for length and rage. )

I'm not going to beg heteronormative society for a place within it.  I'm happy living on the fringe if it means I don't have to hide who I am in the name of 'fitting in'.  And I can feel nearly-guilt-free Schadenfreude when discrimination and hypocrisy come back to bite the mainstream hard on its self-righteous ass.