The Center for Reproductive Rights this week announced a new campaign they are running called Draw the Line. The campaign shows us a number of headlines (including “Woman Arrested for Using Birth Control,” “The Last Abortion Clinic,” and “Roe v Wade Overturned”) that could soon become reality if the current trend in anti-choice legislation continues. In the end, it asks readers to sign the Bill of Reproductive Rights, which has three main components:
1) The right to make our own decisions about our reproductive health and future, free from intrusion or coercion by any government, group or individual.
2) The right to a full range of safe, affordable, and readily accessible reproductive healthcare, including pregnancy care, preventive services, contraception, abortion, and fertility treatment, and accurate information about all of the above.
3) The right to be free from discrimination in access to reproductive healthcare or on the basis of our reproductive decisions.
These are extremely fundamental and important rights. In deciding to create this campaign, Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told Mother Jones, ”We knew it was time to not only continue defending in the courts, but to begin a very aggressive campaign with a clear articulation of what it is that we are seeking to establish.” In other words, this is not to replace the hard work being done across the states to stop current anti-choice legislation, but it is a way for people across the movement to come together and take a stand for the future.
After signing the Bill of Reproductive Rights, I decided to take a stand of my own, and draw a line in my conversations on Twitter. In the past, I’ve tried to inform antichoicers why abortion would still be legal even if a fetus was considered a person. Our rights do not allow us to use the body of another human being without their consent–if a woman didn’t want to be pregnant, she could still end the pregnancy. However, I’ve found that the most common response I get is for the anti-choicer to start questioning my humanity, by calling me cruel and claiming I have no heart. Since this tactic is obviously getting me nowhere, I’ve decided to draw a line and stop letting anti-choicers control the conversation. I will no longer let their assumption about fetal personhood into the conversation. This is one way I can work towards a world where language is led by reproductive justice advocates.
So how will you take a stand? Will you sign the Bill of Reproductive Rights? Will you call your local legislator and tell them to support abortion rights? Will you make a donation to a local Abortion Fund? Will you do all these things and more? Let us know in the comments if you’ve learned of other ways we can Draw the Line and take a stand against anti-choice attacks!
There is no such thing as a christian who supports the murder of a child. You are not a christian. You are lying to yourself if you claim to support murder of children vs a child's life.
ReplyDeleteMay God help you.
Of course I don't support murder! What an awful thing.
DeleteI do support abortion, though. Which has nothing to do with murder. And I am a Christian.
Wow... I've got 2 observations.
ReplyDelete1. You have previously acknowledged both the "life" and "personhood" aspects of a developing baby (by whatever label) in the womb. But now, because you don't get the intended response from anti-abortion people, you are labeling "fetal personhood" as "their assumption" (even though you also previously claimed to hold it). You are admitting that your acknowledgement of the personhood of a developing baby/fetus was merely a "tactic". And now that your tactic has been roundly ineffective, you are kicking the kids out of your sandbox who won't play right. You have now committed to a militant approach of trying to control LANGUAGE when the control of IDEAS has failed. Wow!
2. In your 3 demands regarding reproductive "rights", it is evident that you only have concern for adult women, and not for future developing women who happen to currently be in the womb. For example, I notice your funding concerns fail to mention adoption. Are you concerned that in many cities a poor woman can eliminate her unwanted child for free; while, if a woman unable to bear children would love to adopt that child - that in many cases here costs might be $10k, $15k or more for the "right" to become the loving mother that the first women is unwilling to pursue. Any economic justice concerns here?
I am afraid that in your fighting, you have utterly become inhumane, and are now focused merely on winning in the legal world. This is tragic, and certainly reflects not the love of Jesus.
Sorry, but your first point is incorrect. My point in talking about fetal personhood previously was to point out that even if antis were correct, they were still wrong. I never said I agreed with or believed in fetal personhood.
DeleteAs for your second point, there are no women in the womb. I'm not sure where you got the idea that adoption isn't included in "a full range of safe, affordable, and readily accessible reproductive healthcare," because it is included. Of course there are a lot of things that need to be fixed in our current adoption and foster system.
Sorry if I misunderstood your acknowledgement of personhood was only for discussion purposes. Your phrasing however is interesting: "even if antis were CORRECT they were still WRONG." That's an interesting juxtaposition of reality.
ReplyDeleteMy statement which you truncated was "future developing women who happen to currently be in the womb." You cannot truly deny this, can you? If the natural course of events is not externally truncated via fetal destruction - a live human female would arrive within months in far more than 50% of cases. Just a matter of time until these young females become women capable of also destroying their daughters.
I drew attention to adoption because in your extensive listings of full range of available healthcare for women - this very practical solution was omitted. Can you not see that your argumentation fully focuses only on the adult woman, and not on the developing person inside, nor on other adults of interest (i.e. fathers and potential adoptive parents). While I understand your point, can you also understand that your "full range" is still necessarily limited?
Your statement on "future women" makes no sense and is incorrect because there are no women in the womb. Antichoicers enjoy making up fake names and misusing words, and it's past time to stop that.
DeleteAs this is a list of Reproductive Rights, yes, I would say it's probably good that we're focused on sexual mature adult human beings. Because to talk about the reproduction of fetuses makes no sense; fetuses don't reproduce.
Again, you seem to think that because this does not list word for word every item and person, that those persons are not included. This is untrue. Men and adoptive parents should also have these rights.