fairyrune: (Default)
fairyrune ([personal profile] fairyrune) wrote2010-01-22 03:40 pm
Entry tags:

Apparently it's blog for choice day?

I decided to write this post while in line at the supermarket last night, and then found out that it's blog for choice day. What a coinkydink!

Last night, while waiting in line at the supermarket while the poor cashier had a disagreement with a customer over a coupon for aluminum foil, I was perusing the covers of the tabloids and magazines.

On the front cover of last week's In Touch Weekly was a photo of Sarah and Bristol Palin holding their respective babies. Emblazoned above them was the headling, "We're Glad We Chose Life!" Cheery color, happy font, smiling faces.

My immediate thought was, "Yeah, it was your CHOICE to have those babies. That's the whole point!"

Then I started thinking about privilege.

The Palins are and upper-middle class white family. They have access to better-than-decent healthcare; they have a nice house; they have money. They have the resources to care for those babies, and that's fine.

What bothers me is that they make such a big deal about how happy they are that they chose to have their children. Well, yes, that was a great choice for you. You have the resources to deal with that decision.

Please note that I am not saying that raising a special needs child or being a teenage mother is easy for anyone, because that is not the case. I am saying that the Palins have certain advantages that other people might not necessarily have access to.

It bothers the crap out of me that the Palins are being held up as these bastions of the anti-abortion movement, without any acknowledgment of the fact that they are more privileged than the average person who might be considering an abortion.

Lots of people do NOT come from upper-middle class white families. The do not have access to better-than-decent healthcare; they do not have nice homes; they do not have money. Those people would not have the resources to care for those children, and whatever decision they made for themselves would be fine, too.

You see, other people's reproductive choices are none of my business. My reproductive choices are nobody's business but mine (and Rich's, by virtue of the fact that he would be involved, but that's tangental to this discussion.)

This is why America needs to remain a country where abortion is legal. Because other people's reproductive choices are none of your damn business.

Oh, and as for the public option? I would rather my taxes go towards the safe ending of an unwanted pregnancy, than having to pay for pre-natal care, the birth of an unwanted child, and then have that child end up in the foster system or something.

But that's just me.

[identity profile] toosha.livejournal.com 2010-01-22 09:09 pm (UTC)(link)
Thank you for that last part. While giving a child up for adoption is certainly a great thing to do some people cannot afford or take the responsibility to have a healthy child.

[identity profile] justducky2204.livejournal.com 2010-01-22 10:33 pm (UTC)(link)
AMEN!

:)

(and when i saw that article i also latched onto the word "choice." after all, choice is the whole point!)

[identity profile] undergreenlight.livejournal.com 2010-01-22 10:59 pm (UTC)(link)
The fact that no rich guy is gonna wanna pay for some 16 year old out of work girls health care anyway fucks it all up for the things they both want and don't want. And does it bother anyone besides me that the retarded kid is the poster child for this? Was having a retarded baby a harder "choice" for them? Were they thinking about terminating the baby? Would the same conversation be circulating if it was perfectly healthy? Do people only terminate retards? Because lemme tell you working at faires I saw an awful lot of them walkin around!! >.< I ascertain from this that the Palin's are not anti abortion. They are anti retards!!!

[identity profile] mistress-kath.livejournal.com 2010-01-23 06:45 am (UTC)(link)
The thing is, this just isn't a cut and dried, yes or no issue, no matter what people try to tell you. A very dear friend of mine is very active in the Right to Life movement and takes her children to demonstrations. There's something you'll notice in those pictures, though...all those people holding their babies very obviously WANT those babies. They're clean, and nicely dressed and well cared for. And that's a wonderful thing...but it makes me think, if someone doesn't want a child to the extent that they want to have an abortion, are they going to get appropriate medical care, and eat right, etc. to bring that child safely to term? Not who's going to pay for it...are they going to do it? And as you mentioned, what about the baby after it's born?

Another point is there are alot of different procedures covered in the abortion on demand ruling, such as incomplete abortion, which is the removal of a baby's remains after a miscarriage.

[identity profile] manwe-iluvendil.livejournal.com 2010-01-25 06:00 am (UTC)(link)
I remember when Juno came out, one of my Republican friends referred to it as a pro-life movie, and my instant reaction was "why?" Because she ended up having the baby? All she did was come to the conclusion that she didn't want to have an abortion. She didn't turn around and talk shit about how awful the abortion clinic was and how she couldn't believe she considered such an abominable thing. She just didn't want to do it. She made a choice.

All these fucking anti-abortion people seem to think that pro-choicers want to abort every baby that comes down the pike, that if a woman decides to abort her unwanted fetus, it's a carefree decision she comes to lightly and quickly, like whether she's going to have Chinese or Mexican for dinner. And that many pro-choice women would never want to have an abortion themselves. I hate when women say "Well, I'm pro-life for myself, but pro-choice for everyone else." No. You're just pro-choice. That's what pro-choice is, you stupid twat.