Monday, April 26, 2010

God has a plan for all fetuses.

(Possible trigger warning for miscarriages/stillbirth. I do not mean any disrespect or harm to any reader.)

It's true. God has a plan for all fetuses.

But not every plan includes being born.

Some fetuses are meant to be born, raised by loving and almost perfect parents, become doctors or scientists, find cures for diseases and save lives.

Other fetuses are meant to be miscarried, or born still. They are mourned or not mourned, always remembered or intentionally forgotten.

Why? We don't know why. God's plan is bigger than all of us, bigger than we can see. We don't know why God runs the world the way He does.

Abortion (the intentional termination of a pregnancy, not necessarily the current day procedure) is obviously a part of God's plan. There are cases in the Bible of God's chosen people killing pregnant women and their fetuses (Numbers 31:15-17, Genesis 38:24) and God's priests causing an abortion if a woman is pregnant after cheating (Numbers 5:11-31). If you can't believe that, one must at least recognize that miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) is a part of God's plan. God controls nature- he designed it, and us- and if He never planned on miscarriages happening, they wouldn't happen.

When antichoicers say "God has a plan for your [fetus]!" they're trying to trick women. Trick women into thinking that God always plans for a fetus to be born. Or that God plans for their specific fetus to be born, and the woman is going to mess up that plan. But God is smarter than that! He knows us; He knows what choices we will make in this life. God's plans coincide with the choices we will make. God would not put, say, the future curer of cancer inside a woman who plans to abort if she ever gets pregnant.

So don't think that you can't make your own choice because 'God has a plan.' God's plans work with you, not against you. Whether you abort or carry to term, God walking the path with you.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

"Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - by Tim Wise

I just read a beautifully written, eye opening piece by Tim Wise over here. I think you should go there to read it. However, I have also reprinted it here on my blog. Full credit goes to Tim Wise.


Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure - the ones who are driving the action - we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.

So let’s begin.

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.

Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.

Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.

Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.

Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.

Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.

Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.

Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.

Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”

Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.

In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?

To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.

Game Over.


This is something everyone should consider. Tea Party members are violent and angry, and their actions would *not* be acceptable if they didn't have the privilege of being white. One commenter on the original blog mentioned the Blank Panthers, and their actions & the reactions of other people in comparison to the teaparty members. I am sick of the teaparty groups being allowed to get away with doing ANYTHING just because they are white conservatives. The violence, racism, rude and offensive behavior and lies need to stop. Now.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

What Planned Parenthood does.

Many people have personal experiences from when they visited their local Planned Parenthood. Depending upon where we go, why we go, and when we go, we can each have a different experience.

Some people claim that Planned Parenthood only deals with abortions, and backs this up with a personal experience about how they went to their local PP and were counseled on abortion. For some reason, they seem to think that this means every single Planned Parenthood clinic and the organization as a whole only does what the one counselor they encountered did. This could not be farther from the truth.

Planned Parenthood is an international organization, yes. But their clinics are not franchises, where every "item" on the "menu" has to be exactly the same (such as a McDonalds does). Each Planned Parenthood has different services they are able to provide, based upon their location, the laws of the area and the doctors/nurses/workers available in the area.

For instance, some Planned Parenthoods perform abortions. Others do not. The one I visited the first time I needed a checkup does not perform abortions- they only deal with STDs, birth control and exams. Some PPs offer prenatal care- I have a friend who went to Planned Parenthood for all of her prenatal care during her first pregnancy as a teenager. Other Planned Parenthood locations have agreements with local adoption groups to provide resources and avenues for women looking to place a child up for adoption. Some PPs can even test you for fertility, and provide infertility treatments!

There are a whole range of services offered by Planned Parenthood as an organization. If you want to know which ones are offered at your local clinic, you can look it up here.

So next time, instead of making an assumption about what Planned Parenthood does based upon the one nurse you interact with, remember that you're seeing one small part of what Planned Parenthood is and does.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Not everyone cares

There's something I've been thinking about. I don't want to accept it. I don't want to admit it. But I think it's time I do.

Not every woman cares. Not every woman wants women to have equal rights.

This baffles my mind, at first. I can't imagine a woman who doesn't want equal rights. I can't imagine a woman who doesn't stick up for the rights of other women. But they're out there.

The latest example is @MrsDigger who got into a debate about women "exposing" themselves while breastfeeding. Excuse me? Breastfeeding isn't exposing anything. It's feeding a child. I was double surprised to learn MrsDigger, and the people I saw coming to her defense, are all conservative. I thought conservatives were in favor of family values? Isn't breastfeeding a family value? Taking care of kids?

Perhaps I don't really understand it.

I've never hated a woman for breastfeeding or wanting to sleep with her child. Before I became involved in women's rights, I didn't think of these things. They just, didn't appear in my mind. So at first, when I saw others saying rude and unsupportive things to and about women, especially new mothers, I thought "Oh, they just not be informed." Realizing that these people were informed, and just didn't give a darn, well, that was a shock. Especially when some of the people were involved in the birthing industry.

But I really shouldn't be surprised. Even when women were fighting for the right to vote, there was a group of women saying "No, women shouldn't have the right to vote."

Can you imagine being one of the women who stood up and said "No, I don't want the right to vote." ? I can't!

It scares me that we haven't moved past this "don't give me my rights" idea yet. Will we ever get past it? I hope so! I'll stand up and say "give me my rights!" for all issues- abortion, VBAC, breastfeeding, adoption, anything and everything. Will you?

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Breastfeeding in Public.

Why are people against breastfeeding? Why are people against breastfeeding in public?

I don't get it.

Adults go out in public and eat. That's why we have those things called restaurants and fast food joints. Do some people forget that infants and toddlers are human beings?

Newsflash: Newborns are human beings, and have just as much right to eat food as you or I do.

So if it's not the infant, what is it? The breast?

What do people have against body parts? You use your arm to pick up the fork and shovel food into YOUR mouth. What do you have against a breast?

I can see what you're thinking, reader: But breasts aren't the same as an arm!!

Yes, you're right. Breasts are so much better than arms. Breasts make food of their own accord! They provide all the nurishment that a young human being needs in the first 6 months of their life, if not longer. Breastmilk doesn't go bad, doesn't need to be warmed up, tastes sweet (so I've heard), helps protect young ones against diseases and illnesses and is what our bodies were made to do.

Breastfeeding should be the NORM of our society, not something we have to fight to protect.

There is nothing indecent about breastfeeding.
There is no inappropriate body part "exposed" during breastfeeding.
A breast feeding a child is not a sex object.
Seeing the skin of a breast while a child is being fed is no different than seeing the skin of your arm.


Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Blogs you should read!

Alright. Everyone seems to have this sort of "roundup" of posts or blogs they think others should read. Why not me too?

I actually decided to do this because of The Feminist Breeder. Her blog is so awesome, that it broke the internetz last night. That's just how important it is that you read her posts.

So here are a few which I think are "must reads:"
When it comes to Breastfeeding, We can't handle the truth.
Once a Cesarean, Rarely a Choice
VBAC Access is a Human Rights Issue
How to Have a Better VBAC
Full-time Worker, Full-time Student, Full-time Breastfeeder too

Actually, just read everything she writes.

Next blog: ProChoiceGal!

She writes wonderful posts about abortion rights and feminism and awareness of violence and assault against women.

"I Don't Support Roeder BUT..."
Hijacking Feminism: The Feminists Who Hate Women
10 Reasons Why Choice is a Good Thing
The "Pro-Choicers" Who Force Birth

I also really love the Abortioneers blog. Really. There are so many good posts there, that I don't know where to start. Read 'em.

Joyful Birth Services doesn't update as often as I like, but when they do update it's chalk full of useful information about birthing. I need to put in effort to go and back read her older posts.

MotherWit Doula had two posts that I really loved:
Doulas behaving badly
A Path to Good Doula/Midwife/Medical Professional Relationships

Lastly, Public Health Doula writes interesting things! Information about breastfeeding, hospital births, and other related information.

Honestly, there are a million blogs that I want to read. All day. All the time. But I don't have that much free time! Still, I love to hear of new blogs to read. Have any suggestions?

Friday, April 2, 2010

Baby vs Fetus & Human Beings.

Two things I've been seeing antis claim a lot lately, and I wanted to go over them.

1. If you think a fetus isn't a baby, then you're crazy.

Antis are pretty solid in this. If you don't use the word "baby" to describe, well, a fetus, then you must have either had an abortion you are trying to not think about, or you support abortion and don't want to think of the fetus as human.

Well, news for them. Fetuses are human. Fetuses are alive. Fetuses can be aborted.

I honestly don't care if an individual calls a fetus a baby, a peanut, a poopie, a butterfly, a clump of cells or a "unique, individual person with a life planned by God!" It can be aborted. Period.

Another thing I notice when antichoicers bring up this "baby" thing, is that they make a LOT of strawmans. For instance, if I say "it's a fetus, not a baby" then the antichoicer might respond, "Well, when does it come alive then!? Oh, you're crazy for thinking it's not human! What is it, a melon?" These are both strawmans. Calling a fetus a fetus does not mean you think it's dead (in fact, most prochoicers I know recognize that a fetus is living). Calling a fetus a fetus doesn't mean you think it's a zebra fetus; it's still a *human* fetus. But it's a fetus.

Fetus. fetus. fetus. fetus. fetus. fetus. fetus. fetus.

Baby is a word that can apply to any number of things. For instance, a 70 year old women can call her youngest son a baby, even though he's 40 years old. Or, a cashier in the grocery store can go "that customer was such a baby, they wanted ALL their groceries in individual bags" when the customer is 27. Babies can also be of other species- there are baby lions and baby zebras. Heck, I consider my cats to be my "babies."

So when an anti insists that a fetus isn't a fetus but a baby, I just shake my head. That's failure to understand science.

Of course, it should be noted that once you *do* convince the anti that a fetus is a fetus, they simply go "Oh, well that means 'young one' in Latin." You would think this definition would allow them to accept the word more often. Alas, not so much.

2. Antis also claim that if a person recognizes the fetus as a human being, then they must be antichoice. This is because, in their minds, human beings cannot be killed.

Of course, this is obviously wrong. Antis like to live in a pretend world when talking about abortion. For instance, a quote:

By the way, how can they believe in "rights" when they believe our entire lifespans can be taken from us, we therefore do not have a right to live our lives and therefore cannot have any "rights" at all?
By Joe at Jill Stanek's blog.

This above quote shows that the writer, an antichoicer, wants the reader to believe that he doesn't think that people can be killed. However, I'm willing to bet that Joe is either for the death penalty, supportive of war, or both. Or more.

See, antis have no problem with killing born people. It's just something about fetuses that gets them.

But back on topic. When one recognizes that human beings can be killed, then this entire argument falls apart. Especially when we see that human beings can be killed legally (outside of abortion, of course, since that is what we are questioning). I've already gone over this. More than once. But it just doesn't seem to stick.

Even if the fetus is a living person, it can be aborted. Alright? Got it? Thanks. Now try to make a new argument. Because I'm really tired of this one.