The Truth Behind Choice: Part 1

Today is the 40th anniversary of the groundbreaking Roe v Wade decision that allowed women in America to legally obtain an abortion. The decision no doubt saved lives (which is slightly ironic) and provided a way for women to move up in society, rather than begrudgingly be burdened with a child she does not want or cannot care for.

You wouldn't know it, however, if you looked at politics today. For whatever reason, 40 years later abortion is a huge issue. People who have not had abortions, especially people who physically cannot have abortions, are trying very hard to dictate what those who need and want them can or not do. The amount of outright lies, in addition to the extreme ignorance surrounding abortions is disgusting. Men (and the women who back them, for whatever reason) who advocate abstinence only and pro-life in every scenario are at the height of hypocrisy: if over 95% of American adults have had sex and 20% of women (just women, mind you) are choosing to remain childless, that points to a bit of an overlap. That means there are women out there who are having sex without the intention of becoming pregnant (gasp!). In this day and age, too. Women are educated just as much as men are (sometimes more), are earning almost as much as men are, and are found in every manly profession. We're getting married later, making more important decisions, and are pretty much real people now. And some of us are having abortions. And those abortions are helping us maintain our status in life, which often is being in a position to care for the children we already have.

Today on NPR's Fresh Air two very different women were interviewed. The first woman decided with her husband that it was time to have a second child and became pregnant, only to discover halfway into the pregnancy that the fetus had a severe developmental problem that would lead to certain suffering. The second woman runs a pregnancy center called Involved For Life, which counsels pregnant women on every option except for abortion. Both women live in Texas, a state that recently made it mandatory for women seeking abortion to undergo a sonogram (women in early pregnancy endure a transvaginal sonogram because it picks up a better picture), wait 24 hours, and listen to government propaganda.

Here's a (pretty comprehensive) summary of both of the interviews:

In America there were more abortion restrictions passed at the state level in 2011 than in any prior year, and 2012 had the second highest number of state level abortion restrictions. This is a country that made it legal in every state for any woman to receive an abortion for any reason 40 years ago, and is now back tracking, making it harder and harder for women to do so. The first woman, a journalist named Carolyn, wanted her pregnancy. Thanks to modern healthcare she was able to plan when she got pregnant and made a conscious decision with the help of her husband to have a second child when they were both ready. When they went in for the sonogram (the "jelly on the belly" kind) that was supposed to determine the sex of the baby, the doctor noticed an problem. The fetus had a major neurological flaw that caused his brain, spine and legs to not develop correctly. The doctor said he wasn't sure the baby would survive. If he did, he would live a life of crippling pain and be in and out of hospitals until he died. He would always suffer.

Carolyn says in the interview that any parent understands the innate impulse to protect your child from any pain. She and her husband realized that by bringing this child into the world they would be causing him a lifetime of pain and suffering. She says that the decision to have an abortion was "a terrible, a heart wrenching choice, but also a simple choice." She wanted to prevent him from knowing a life of pain, which made it a relatively quick decision, an "almost instinctive response." But it was heart breaking.

Two weeks earlier Texas passed a law that required any woman seeking an abortion to undergo a sonogram first, and then wait 24 hours. It turns out that women seeking an abortion due to rape, incest, or medical necessity (as was Carolyn's case) do not have to endure a sonogram, though her doctor didn't know that at the time. But the rest of the state requirements still apply, no matter what reason a woman is seeking an abortion, and these include:

• a 24 hour waiting period
• requiring the same doctor to perform the sonogram and the abortion (which can create a scheduling nightmare, which can result in delayed abortions) 
• the doctor must describe the fetus' characteristics to the woman
• the doctor must play the heartbeat for the woman
• the doctor must read a state-written script about the risks of abortion (that includes two parts that have been discredited) 
• the doctor must read a script describing in graphic detail the abortion process
• the doctor must read a script that informs the woman that the father is required to pay child support even if he wants the abortion and that the state may pay for maternity care.

Quite a bit of effort, no? Could you imagine going through this if you'd been raped?

Carolyn said having to hear that her baby had 4 healthy heart chambers was traumatizing. It was the only part of him that was healthy and her doctor was required to describe it to her. She said nothing anyone said or could have said swayed her in the slightest - she was making the right decision by not bringing him into a world of nothing but pain and suffering. But she noted that politicians want women to have a sonogram so they can see the life they're about to end. It's completely ideological, has no medical purpose, and does not belong in the doctor's office. After a while she couldn't take it any more - she wanted her baby and was devastated to have to have the abortion, and these state laws were horrible. The nurse in the room noticed her distress and turned up the radio. The doctor apologized for having to follow these new orders - no one in the room wanted to do this. How could someone who has no say in her personal decisions invade her private life, reduce her dignity, and give her such injustice? It still makes her angry, and that's why she writes about it so openly.

Obviously the goal of all of these obstacles is to get women to reconsider abortion. Texas slashed the family planning budget to two thirds of what it used to be in order to try to starve out Planned Parenthood. Instead, 60 small town clinics that served the poorest Texans went out of business. These clinics didn't just offer abortion services or birth control, they provided women who had no other means of health care with breast cancer screening and well woman visits.  State legislators are budgeting for an extra 24,000 births for 2014 and 2015, and need hundreds of thousands of extra dollars in their budget. (That's saying nothing about the cancer cases that won't get caught in time...)

Instead, Texas is giving the funding it used to give to clinics that performed abortions to Crisis Pregnancy Centers, which are usually Christian run anti-abortion centers. These centers claim to provide women in need with alternative options. As if the first thing women think of when they find out they're pregnant is "must...get...abortion." The centers convince women (most of their clients are low income women 15-24 years old) to keep their unborn children rather than have an abortion, telling them that abortions aren't the right decision for them. Medical professionals criticize these centers for giving women incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete information in order to get them to keep their pregnancies.

The state of Texas takes money away from family planning centers and gives that money to centers that encourage more births to women of all ages, abilities and incomes. Oh, and those centers are not required to discuss contraception with women seeking abortion (whether or not they go through with it), and the centers most often do not provide any detailed counseling on birth control options. Seems totally counterintuitive. Abstinence is 100% effective, so anyone not willing to immediately give birth to a child should not have sex at all. Even married women.

The centers, one of which is run by the second woman (also named Carolyn), offer alternatives to abortion, counseling, ultrasound, STD screening and treatment, and parenting classes. They also have mobile sonogram units, which they park in front of abortion clinics, and offer free sonograms to women. The second Carolyn says their goal is to provide nothing but education for women. She says that often women don't know their options (a claim I find impossible to believe), and the centers provide the support these women so desperately need. I agree that women who find themselves unexpectedly and unhappily pregnant do need loads of support... but the misleading half-truths these centers are known for telling are not the kind of support women can rely on once that baby comes. Carolyn says "we do not ever mislead;" they are up front about their unwillingness to perform abortions or even refer women seeking one to a qualified doctor. In fact, she tells stories of women who become successful even after "unplanned circumstances." But a pat on the back and go-getem-girl does not raise a child...

One of the most surprising parts of the second interview was when Carolyn (the second one) said that they have to point out on the sonogram what is a baby. They actually point to the image on the screen (which she says the women say is blurry and not clear in the abortion clinics and hospitals) and tell them that is a baby. And apparently the women are surprised that that's what's growing inside them. If that's the case we need to put a lot more money into Texas schools... Carolyn seems to have her heart in the right place, which is wanting to help women, but her ideals keep getting in the way. She says, "I don't think the Supreme Court had any idea that there would be thousands and thousands of women who regret that they ever had an abortion." Yes, women must regret their abortions. If I had one I know I would. But it would be far more regret that the abortion had to happen, not that I had one. If I were in these women's shoes I imagine I would know it was the right thing to do, not just for me but for the child I would unfairly be bringing into the world. Of course there would be regret... I imagine that's almost unavoidable. But regretting the situation and regretting my actions would probably be two different things.

Carolyn, the journalist, talked about a pamphlet that these centers give out to women called "A Woman's Right To Know" which describes the abortion process in unnecessary, graphic, upsetting detail. Women are told that now that they're pregnant they're already a mommy.

Women may have a legal right to have an abortion, but those rights are being chipped away by the states. Federal funding is not allowed to go towards abortions (family planning clinics that provide abortions are in a pickle), so any clinic or center that does want to provide safe abortions to women must charge for it. Which puts the poorest women at a significant disadvantage. Oh, and birth control funding is cut, too. Carolyn, who runs the Crisis Pregnancy Center, applauds the "progressive" nature of Texas schools that make it easier for young single mothers to stay in school by providing day care, but is this not something that could be prevented with education and access to birth control? Is that not the type of information these pregnancy centers mean when they talk about providing women with resources?

The moral of the story, here, is don't have sex unless you actively want a child; don't get raped; and no matter what don't have an abortion.

Here's Part 2.

To Die Young And Unhappy

(Or, how misleadingly titled "studies" create sensationalism.)

Two flawed studies today revealed that if I keep to my way of life I will die young and unhappy. Or at least younger and less happy than others.

No, not because I have a crazy wild lifestyle and party hard and make risky choices, but because I am childless and non-religious. Apparently, not having children causes a death rate of two to four times as high as those who have children and not being religious robs me of happiness.

The first study: The one that says the childless have a higher death rate than the child-bearing looked at couples in Denmark treated for infertility, and collected data from birth and death registries, IVF records, hospital admissions, psychiatric services, and labor market statistics. During the 14 year study, a large number of women and larger number of men died and a very large number of women and slightly less large number of men were diagnosed with a mental illness. "Having a child cut the risk of early death, particularly among women." Childless men and women are 2 and 4 times more likely to die from circulatory disease, cancer, or accidents than those who conceive or adopt. To their credit, the study does end by saying correlation is not causation, so I guess there's that.

The flaws: First and foremost, the title of the study is quite misleading. Death is not 2-4 times more likely for childless couples because everyone dies. Obviously that wasn't the point, but I will still point out a second flaw in the title, which is acknowledged in the study itself: there is no differentiation between voluntarily childless couples and involuntarily childless couples. It also points out a glaring problem with the whole having children quest some people are on: if mental illness (depression) and a risk of an earlier than normal death is so prevalent among the involuntarily childless, why not adopt? The study recorded that only 1,500 of 21,000 couples treated for infertility adopted (15,000 conceived). This means there were 4,500 couples who were unable to conceive a child and chose not to adopt... I'm guessing these were the couples that were diagnosed with depression and died earlier than the others. The study showed that couples that adopted could halve their risk of mental illness, which makes sense: if you spend your whole adult life lamenting your infertility but don't adopt one of the very needy children in foster care because it's not your blood? I can see how you'd get depressed. And there was the awesome inclusion of "rates of mental ill health were similar between couples with and without children of their own, with the exception of those with drug and alcohol problems." Seems a little unnecessary to include that tidbit... 

The second study: The one that says religious people are happier than non-religious people looked at why this is found to be true ("considerable" research has been done on the topic). Turns out religion gives people a sense of purpose, is a resource for coping with life and fears, and provides them with a social network. Religion is a social activity and since social connectedness is a major contributor to individual happiness it stands to reason that the religious are happier. It's not just having a social circle, though, it's having the support of that social circle. Like the previous study, they do note that correlation is not causation and religion does not predict happiness by itself. (There was also mention of a separate study that looked at the repeal of blue laws, or laws that made it illegal for stores to be open on Sunday, and it found that women were happier when blue laws existed. In an almost funny manner, the writer of the study suggested that church makes women happier than shopping does.)

The flaws: The study points out that religion is only associated with greater happiness in countries where most of the people are religious, like in the United States (we also have the great fortune of equating Christianity with patriotism). The study is based on the premise that if most people form social ties through their religion, and you're not religious, you will have a hard time finding social support and will be less happy because of it. This also assumes that religious people won't want to befriend a non-religious person. The study does end by saying that it's not religion that makes people happy, it's the social ties religion facilitates that makes people happy, but I guarantee you a lot of people don't get past that goddamn sensationalist title.

My bottom line: Taking these titles to heart, I'll have a 4 times higher risk of death by cancer, an accident or circulatory disease if I remain childless and I'll waste away my remaining days unhappy with my life due to lack of social support. Which actually kind of makes sense: religious people have more kids than average, so if I'm childless I'm already kind of out of the loop, and if I'm childless and non-religious I'm pretty much just screwed.

One Is Not Like The Other: Part 2

I used this image because the images in my search were too horrifying.

In this installment of things that should not be compared as equal, we'll discuss how female circumcision is not the same as male circumcision. I'm not advocating male circumcision, I'm just frustrated at the prevalence of "yeah, I feel your pain because I was circumcised as an infant" talk from men in threads on female circumcision on Reddit. For the record, I don't have an opinion one way or the other about male circumcision. On the one hand, I can see the benefits (mostly from a female perspective which I discuss at the end), but on the other hand it is a little shitty to do something so permanent and altering to someone who can't make that decision for himself. 

How they're similar:

For one, they're both called circumcision (this isn't entirely accurate... I'll get to that in a bit). For another, both involve cutting off a part of the person's genitals.

How they're different:

In every other fucking way. Male circumcision is practiced widely in developed countries as a way of preventing specific health issues in both men and women. Male circumcision is usually performed by a trained professional (almost always a doctor, but some religious parents ask a trained Rabbi to perform the procedure) in a sterile medical setting with the latest tools and effective healing techniques to eliminate infections and reduce pain. Male circumcision is performed on days-old infants who will not remember or even realize what happened and almost always with anesthetics to reduce pain. Pardon the comparison, but breeders clip dog tails at the same age and in a similar way, and zoo keepers clip bird wings at the same age and in a similar way. I don't agree with clipping dog tails, but if it's going to happen it might as well happen when they're too young to realize.


As previously mentioned, I've read a few threads on Reddit related to female genital mutilation. In addition to general questions about the practice, there have been a couple of young women posting asking questions about themselves to gauge if they're normal, and recently one from a young man trying to figure out if what he's doing with his girlfriend is normal and what he can do to make sex pleasurable for her. One of the best explanations for the difference between male circumcision and female genital mutilation comes from a user called superdillin: 

I think the intent and damage differences between male and female genital mutilation does need to be pointed out. What we do to our baby boys, often with no medical reason, is bad. Very bad and we should stop. BUT, what was done to OP's girlfriend was done to take away her sexuality, and to control her. It has put her life at risk at worst, and at best has taken away her most sexual pleasure organ, and it was done with the intention of her becoming a breeding cow to be used for a man's needs for the rest of her life.

What we do to our boys is due to misinformation about health and hygiene, combined with unhealthy aesthetic expectations and tradition. What some cultures do to their girls is deliberate, controlling, life-threatening and inherently sexist. [Her emphases.]

Female circumcision is performed in developing countries, with inexperienced operators, a lack of medical equipment and sterilization when the girl is old enough to know what's happening to her but without her consent. The intent behind the procedure is what makes it brutality; the practice is illegal in many countries due to its horrific procedure, complete lack of health benefits and high risk of complication. Young girls, as in 7 years old, have their clitorises (the part of female genitalia that is exclusively for sexual pleasure) cut off to prevent them from having sex before marriage or experience sexual pleasure at all. It is often falsely assumed that removing the clitoris will prevent the girl from ever experiencing sexual desire. Some people even sew the labia together making penetration impossible, which requires that husbands use a knife to cut open their new wives on the wedding night, giving them the ultimate proof of virginity. For a long and horrifying list of complications, read this section of the Wikipedia article (and click on the links if you dare).

Back to the word circumcision: I've noticed an increase in groups publicly opposed to male circumcision (part of this was seen during our recent Gay Pride parade), and some argue that male circumcision should be called male genital mutilation, to more closely align itself with female genital mutilation. Although circumcision in both sexes involves the cutting of the genitals, and both procedures can be unnecessary at best, only female circumcision can actually be called butchering because of how it's performed and what its purpose is. It's called "circumcision" to make it seem more acceptable and to hide what it really is. (Hell, even the Wikipedia page for female circumcision is titled "female genital mutilation.") 

I wouldn't publicly advocate one way or the other for male circumcision because there are benefits and consequences of the procedure that must  be taken into consideration. I can, however, speak from the only experience I have, which is as a woman who has had sex with both circumcised and uncircumcised men. My experience taught me that male sexual pleasure has absolutely nothing to do with having been circumcised as an infant and that my own sexual pleasure had nothing to do with whether or not my partner was circumcised. However, if asked my opinion I might point out that even the cleanest of males can be less hygienic and more likely to spread a disease or infection with their foreskin intact, which from a female standpoint is a huge concern since an infection inside the vagina can be much worse than a topical penile infection. It seems to me like male circumcision has more benefits for a male's sexual partner than for the male himself.

I truly believe, when performed by a surgeon or urologist in a hospital with the proper tools, that male circumcision should be an option and that parents of sons should educate themselves on whether or not to do the procedure. But I also believe that even if female circumcision were to be performed in the exact same situations as male circumcision (on infants, by medical professionals in a sterile setting) that it would be genital mutilation. The intent automatically makes it wrong and the way a female's body is designed opens the poor girl up to dozens of complications, many of which are life threatening. Male circumcision and female genital mutilation are not the same thing.


For Part 1 of this small series, go to One Is Not Like The Other: Part 1.

Three Years of Blogging

I started this blog 3 years ago today (under a different name for a few days, until I settled on this) as a way to keep me focused and sharp during what would become a 3 month period of unemployment. There's certainly been a lot that's happened and changed in three years:


Got 2 jobs at the Wild Animal Park
Broke up with my long term boyfriend
Seriously doubted my faith
Collected unemployment insurance
Moved out of my wonderful studio
Changed my phone number
Lived with a friend
Lived with a crazy person
Had an amazing summer
Started running, seriously
Reevaluated my meat eating habits
Dated a friend, then ended the friendship
Used my Class B license for a job
Made a bunch of international friends
Had a shitty year
Said goodbye to a dog
Read a bunch of books
Remembered why I love living in San Diego
Was more or less dumped in favor of cocaine
Was more or less disowned by my father
Found a great roommate and a great apartment
Learned to love North Park
Got a writing job
Rediscovered my real passion
Celebrated 2 cousin's weddings
Ran 3 half marathons in 2 states
Made real friendships
Lost fake friendships
Fell deeply in love with a real friend
Traveled to San Francisco and Las Vegas
Sold a car
Bought a car
Started a new blog


This year has been amazing so far and the vast majority of last year was, too. I fully intend on enjoying the rest of it as much as I possibly can. Imagining what the next three years might hold is pretty exciting, too, especially (and this is where I get to be a girl) when I think about the amazing times in store with my boyfriend at my side. There's one thing that will always be certain in my life, in the next 3 years an beyond, and that is that I will always be writing. 

Abstinence>Birth Control

 Because if you aren't careful, one of these could be yours.

Abortion, birth control and how people have sex is, for whatever reason, big news in the Land of the Free, and the upcoming election (still 8 whole months away) will likely center heavily on these intertwined topics. And because women's issues are very near and dear to my heart and most certainly my body, I'm quite passionate and opinionated about them.


I've been having a difficult time trying to understand the purpose behind these ridiculous debates, and perhaps because I'm a woman, perhaps because I'm young, perhaps because I tend to think these types of things do not need to be legislated, I doubt I ever will. The most recent comment on the issue of birth control, who should be having sex and how consenting adults should go about having children comes from a Republican WOMAN, who said if married couples don't want to get pregnant they should not have sex. Married couples. Shouldn't have sex.


Unless they want kids.


According to Ms. Blankenbeker (I assume she's married because Republicans are all about the family, and I so want to know what her husband thinks about all this), abstinence is an affordable form of birth control that is available to everyone, regardless of insurance. She also reminds us that condoms are available over the counter to anyone, with or without insurance. So, condoms and not having sex are the only ways to prevent pregnancy, according to this woman. Married couples who love each other but who aren't ready for or don't want more kids better hope their condoms don't break...

Seriously.

I was always under the impression that the only right sex is the sex between a married man and his female wife. Unmarried sex is bad, as is homosexual sex, and any negative consequences that result from bad sex is the fault of the people involved. But a married man and married woman together having sex is now off the table unless they explicitly want to procreate? Now sex between man and wife is only for making babies? The Bible doesn't even advocate that. Who is this crazy woman?


Also, what about married couples who do not want to have kids? I have no intention of having kids at any point in my life, but I do hope that I'll be married at some point in my life, presumably while I'm still physically capable of conceiving. Does this mean I am not to have sex with my husband unless I change my mind about having kids? Relying on condoms isn't realistic for me because I'm allergic (or maybe just sensitive) to latex, and it can be very painful to use them.


These comments were made at a hearing designed to urge Obama to drop the requirement that insurance plans offer birth control, which makes me believe they're inflammatory and actually designed to encourage Obama to stick to his guns. Could she be saying such ridiculous things, things which Republicans don't agree with and the American public doesn't agree with, to ruin her party? A Republican in Democrat's clothing, perhaps? I doubt it, but I don't think this notion should be ignored.


At the same hearing, another Republican woman claimed that birth control pills lead to prostate cancer. Funny thing, though, is women don't have prostates and men don't take birth control pills (yet). So hooooooow would a medication cause a disease/side effect in someone who isn't taking it? It's not second hand smoke: men don't get second hand estrogen when their partners take hormonal birth control. This woman, a Ms. Notter (again, wonder what the hubby thinks), says she was referring to high levels of estrogen in the environment, which is actually true. Men, however, are not affected by it. Frogs, fish and other wildlife can be, but still not on a common or regular basis. So I'm not sure where she's getting her information. 


I've always felt fortunate to have been born at the time I was, rather than even just 20 years earlier when women were less able to live freely or openly. I'm glad that I can be 26 and unmarried and not be an outcast, that I can skip having kids without it being weird (it's still a little weird, but enough women are opting out now), that I don't have to live under my parents, that going to college wasn't to meet an eligible man who would make enough money to support me. But when my government starts deciding whether or not my access to birth control is valid, or having an opinion about my sexual activities, that's when I wish I was born later. I know, I have to believe, that when my generation is older and our kids generation starts learning about these fucking ridiculous legislative attempts and ask what we were thinking we'll have to shrug and say we tried, but people were still bigoted and sexist and puritanist back then, but at least now the country is a better place for all of its citizens, young and old, gay and straight, male and female. 

The Abortion Debate

A panel of men discussing the type birth control that women are responsible for.

I inadvertently sparked an abortion debate on Facebook a couple of weeks ago when I posted a link to an article in which a Republican presidential hopeful said that not only would he work to make abortions illegal but that women should view pregnancies that are the result of a rape as a "gift from God." People have very, very opinionated views on this topic, as can be seen by the 69 very informed comments that post garnered on my wall.

One of the people commenting later posted an unrelated link to a collection of interviews from abortion providers, asking them about their most memorable patients. They talked about the very religious/anti-abortion patients who were getting, that's right, abortions. Women who ran anti-abortion groups with their schools, pro-life parents bringing their young daughters in for abortions, even one woman who brought her (black) maid in for an abortion and sat in the lobby passing out anti-abortion pamphlets to the rest of the waiting patients made the memorable lists. Incredible stories.

The people most opposed to abortion in these interviews, the ones getting abortions, were convinced that their abortions were necessary. They were convinced that the abortion providers and other patients could never understand their reason, and some even called the other patients terrible names even though they were getting the exact same procedure. They did not thank the doctor who performed the procedure and some got snotty, as if it was the doctor's fault the woman was getting an abortion. Some of these women getting procedures they did not "believe in" blamed the abortion providers to their faces and said hurtful things (some of these women were turned away). But it made me wonder why people who are vehemently anti-abortion get abortions. Could it possibly be because they find themselves in the same position many women find themselves? None of the women in these interviews said their pregnancies were the result of a rape (and certainly none of them were life-saving abortions because they occurred in clinics), which leads me to believe these same women are having the same kinds of sex that every other woman has, with the same types of partners, and the same types of accidents occur.

However, people who are anti-abortion are generally (not always, please don't harp on this word) religious, believing abortions should not be performed on moral grounds for any reason. But these same people also generally believe that pre-marital sex is a sin, and a good portion of them believe that using contraception of any kind (which absolutely baffles me) is also a sin. However, my experience has shown me that even religious women have pre-marital sex: the Catholic basketball star in my high school class got knocked up our junior year because she had unprotected pre-marital sex. The women and girls who do so are obeying a very basic, very common and very powerful urge, and possibly some are giving in to boyfriends they don't want to lose. Now, a pregnancy is really the only sure indication that a woman has had sex, so I wonder if some of these anti-abortion women get abortions to save face. They can't exactly preach abstinence if they're knocked up and unmarried, can they? So they get abortions so that no one has to  know there was ever a pregnancy or even ever pre-marital sex. Their purity remains, their future husbands will never have to know, and they won't have to give up any position they've made for themselves. The only other options are to carry on with the pregnancy and have a child out of wedlock or marry the child's father immediately. However, these women are often in the same social and financial situations as the majority of the women who get abortions. They are not in a position to get married, do not have enough money to support a pregnancy or child, and would be condemned by family members and close friends for their actions. An abortion is a great way to save face, protect their reputations and allow them to carry on with their way of life.

Maybe anti-abortion women are less likely to have a second abortion, or maybe they're more likely to acknowledge their actions and tlearn to ake precautions, like using birth control the next time they have sex. But I also wonder if they might be more likely to get a first abortion.

The good part about that collection of interviews was that one provider shared a story of a woman who changed her mind after her abortion, acknowledging that if she could get an abortion she could no longer condemn other women for making the same choice. Gives me hope that people will eventually realize that abortion is a choice that needs to be on the table, for whatever reason. Which is why access to and knowledge about birth control is very important for men and women.

Illegal Abortion

I get to use this image again!

For whatever reason, whether or not women should be allowed to get an abortion is a political issue, and some people believe there is absolutely no reason abortion should be legal, even in cases of rape (fortunately, even the craziest people think an abortion can sneak by when the pregnancy will kill the mother, but if not that would be condemning a woman to death).

But all this got me wondering: what would I do if I were raped tonight and forced by law to carry a resulting pregnancy to term? For the sake of depression, and because the thing that started this was a presidential hopeful suggesting women view babies conceived through a rape as a "gift from God," which you surely wouldn't return, I'll include raising a baby bestowed upon me by the gift of rape.

Emotions:

First, going through a rape (something I fortunately have never experienced and hopefully never will) is one of the most traumatizing things a person can experience. Some statistics say between 15-20% of the population have been raped, but I'd be willing to bet it's more than that because men who are raped almost never report it and women who are raped are often too afraid, too traumatized or don't believe it's rape because the criminal was someone they knew. Even still, at least 15% of the population has been traumatized by rape. First off, if this were to ever happen to me I'd be at the police station and hospital to report it and have any evidence collected to catch the son of a bitch. But I would be devastated. I would replay it in my mind again and again, trying to come up with something I did wrong, some way I could have prevented it or stopped him. It would depress me intensely, most likely affecting my sleep, my day to day activities, and most certainly my relationship. As much as I can say now I wish I were stronger than that, sex would be entirely different after a rape, and there's no way that wouldn't be an issue. And if the rape resulted in a pregnancy and I was forced to carry it?

Money:

I currently make about enough to pay rent, utilities, car payments, car insurance, cell phone, food and gas with just enough left over to put aside for taxes in April and car insurance in July. Other than what I'm currently saving, which is already ear marked, I have no savings. I would have to keep my current job, even though it does not provide any benefits whatsoever, because no company would hire a woman about to need medical leave in 9 months. This would mean that any time I needed to go to the doctor or felt too sick to work would be unpaid, and my eventual maternity leave would be 1-3 months of no income. Plus, I would likely lose my job during the leave (they would have to replace me) and finding a job that paid decently or maybe even one that provided benefits would be next to impossible as a brand new, single mother who will need flexibility to care for her baby.

In addition, I have no health insurance so all those required doctor's visits would be debt under my name. Of course, I would have to have health insurance for myself and my baby once it's born, but I couldn't exactly go get pre-natal insurance after I got pregnant, now could I? My credit limit is $5k, which isn't anywhere near enough to have a healthy baby in a hospital. Actually having the baby would cripple me, and if there were any complications whatsoever I would never recover from the debt. Diapers, a car seat, baby clothes, and whatever else you buy for a baby (even Target maternity clothes are expensive) would be beyond my current budget, which would change to zero once I became unemployed.

I could cash out my stock, but it would only be a temporary fix and only enough to cover basic doctors visits or maybe the time I would be unemployed, if I somehow found a job soon enough. Plus, cashing out would affect me at tax time, so the benefit would be further diminished.

(Should I decide to give the baby up for adoption and happen to actually find a couple willing to adopt my rape baby, they would most likely pay for my medical bills and giving birth. However, they would probably not pay for sick days when I was puking or at the doctor or for maternity clothes. And they definitely would not pay for a gym membership so I could work on getting my body back and try going back to my normal life.)

Life:

I would be forced to move out of my current apartment and find a studio or 1-bedroom apartment, which is already something I can't afford, much less after at least a month of unemployment and thousands in medical bills. I could probably move back to my hometown and rent out a room in my mom's house, but I would still need a job to pay for rent (which wouldn't be much cheaper than a place in San Diego) and baby stuff (and like I said, I have no savings). Plus, it would involve leaving my friends, my boyfriend and my life in San Diego.

Speaking of boyfriend, that would most likely end. I feel fortunate to be with someone who feels the same as I do about having kids, but unfortunately for this hypothetical situation that's that we don't want them. Even if my boyfriend wanted to be supportive and helpful, I could never ask him to stay when I have a baby that belongs to a rapist, not to him. Being pregnant is enough of a strain when the baby belongs to both people in the relationship, but a rape and a pregnancy together would be too much.

Things I Would Give Up:

All hope of getting my Master's degree (student debt on top of medical debt? Yeah right.), my dream job (taking any job without considering the flexibility, the benefits, the day care), possibly freelancing, traveling, having a horse, spending any time taking care of animals for a living, and having anything else that goes along with the somewhat exotic lifestyle I want.

My whole life would be living so that a baby I never wanted would have a chance at a decent life because, despite it just being the right thing to do if you bring a child into the world, it's against the law to neglect it. I suppose I could just go on welfare. Let all the other taxpayers pay for me and my baby, and just not work. God, this is depressing.

I might also have to let go of what I hope a marriage would be like. Dating wouldn't be for me anymore, it would be to find a husband who would be a good father for my rape baby, who would not have a father. Not to mention, between working and raising a baby I'd never have time to actually date. Meeting a man who already has a child (and probably an ex wife) would most likely be my only option, and then date nights could be movies at home with the kids. Lounging in bed for hours, making brunch and mimosas on Sunday at noon, hanging out writing this blog, spending time on Reddit, and  staying out late at a bar will be things of the past. And forget reading. Well, forget reading anything at my reading level. 

Additional Comments:

Should I ever be raped (which I'm just going to hope never happens... keep my wits about me, stay out of creepy dark alleys...) I really hope the criminal wears a condom. Fortunately as far as pregnancies go I'm already on birth control and have access to Plan B, so the chances of me becoming pregnant are pretty slim. But there's sexually transmitted disease and the trauma to worry about, one of which I will most assuredly have to deal with. The bottom line is rape is something so truly awful and should never happen to anyone, but that's unfortunately not the world we live in. I just hope I'm never forced to bear the consequences of someone else's criminal actions.

Religious Questioning

First thing that came to mind when I did a Google image search...

Not long ago I had a random question about God being omnicient: if God is all knowing and knows what a person will do, what a person will be like and what will happen to a person before that person is even conceived, if God creates a person knowing full well that this person will be bad and will not repent or change his ways at any point during the person's life, why wold God make such a person?

As a Catholic I was raised to believe that all people have free will, and that's why bad things happen to good people, but that even the worst sinners can repent at any time, call Jesus into their hearts, and be saved and welcomed into Heaven with open arms as long as the repentance was genuine- even if it's on a death bed and likely fueled by fear of Hell (which, to hear many Catholics and Christians tell it, is a perfectly acceptable reason to believe in God). So Hitler, who lived with such hatred for a very large number of people, could have called out to God, sorry for the way he lived his life and sorry for the atrocities he caused, and God would have happily called his soul to heaven (I'm going to leave out the fact that most sects of Christians, including Catholics, are supposed to believe all other faiths are damned to Hell, so in that sense Heaven would actually be the perfect place for Hitler).

But there's a huge problem with that logic, if God knows what's going to happen to every person then He should know whether or not a horrible person would eventually repent, and if He knows if a person wouldn't repent why should that person be created in the first place?

Additionally, and this is my mere human logic, why not just not make a bad person, repentance or not? What if Hitler had a moment of clarity before his death and repented to God for his actions? What if Hitler is in Heaven? Leads me to believe, if repentance and turning to God at the last moment no matter what the sins is so important, that God is pretty selfish. Seems pretty human.

I've also been going through some Jehovah's Witness literature (not because I sought it out, because it's been sitting on my boyfriend's table after they talked to him, and he asked so many questions they ended up leaving). The material is supposed to explain why you should want to be a Witness, why it's best to devote your life to God/Jehovah, and what it is the Witnesses actually believe. Sex before marriage is a big no-no (it will undoubtedly lead to disease and an empty, vapid life), everyone should definitely get married, and all married couples should have daily prayer time. The booklet I read had a true life account from someone who grew up in a bad neighborhood (in an impoverished country), got caught up in gambling (he was "passionate about horses") and led a life filled with alcohol, women and bad decisions. He turned to Jehovah's Witnesses and is now married with a daughter. Ta dah! What a great life. Except in the story he says he doesn't hide anything from his daughter and tells her about his past in order to show her what a life outside the Jehovah's can be like. I'm not a parent, but I'm not so sure that's a great idea- all those "I used to be on drugs and was in jail but then I got clean and now my life is fantastic" presentations throughout school only shed light on the possibility that you can do whatever the fuck you want until you decide to adult-up and then everything will be ok.

These things just shed more doubt and uncertainty on the whole religious idea. I know it's the whole point of faith, but having blind faith without real or solid answers is a little difficult. Even when I was a kid I asked "why?" and "because I said so" never cut it. Why would I be different now?

Barbaric

It's not surprising to hear stories like Ethiopian tribes killing their infants and children for what seem like ridiculous and insignificant reasons.

Like when a baby is born to a woman who hasn't gone through the marriage ceremony rites, or when a baby's top teeth come in before his bottom teeth, or when a child is injured in certain ways. These babies, called mingi, are cursed, and must be killed in order to protect the rest of the tribal members from drought, famine and death. The tribes don't see it as murder, they see it as protecting the rest of their members. By sacrificing one infant they see it as a sort of insurance policy that must not be allowed to expire.

Naturally, the mothers of these mingi children are sad at the loss of their babies. The connection they have with their babies while they're still developing is understated, and even when the women know they must give up their babies (often without even being able to look at them before they're killed) they still want to keep them. But they don't because they don't have a choice.

What you don't expect to hear is stories of forced sterilization of children, teens and women in the United States.

North Carolina used to (as recently as 2003) legally allow the forced sterilization of people deemed to have undesirable genetic traits, which included poverty, alcoholism and promiscuity, in order to improve the genetics of the area. The state eugenics board (aimed at "improving the genetic composition of a population") was formed in the 1920s and tens of thousands of women and men were sterilized until the 1970s. Many of the victims had no idea what was happening to them. One woman was sterilized at 13, immediately after giving birth to the child she had after her rape, and didn't find out about it until she was married 6 years later and trying to have more children.

This is America. Things like that should never happen here. It should never happen anywhere, but we're supposed to be a country of educated, free people. These victims, the ones who are still alive, might not even be compensated. The state issued an apology a few years ago, which was seen as too little too late. Sad.

Still Here...

That was awkward. "No one knows the day or the hour..." Mathew 24:36

Well guys, it's the evening of May 22, 2011, more than 24 hours after the Rapture was supposed to have occurred. I saw no one raptured into Heaven, there was no discernible earthquake in my area, and nothing out of the ordinary whatsoever happened on May 21, 2011 (except for an insane amount of REM quotes on Facebook). At 6pm I was getting back to the hotel room in Pam Desert after an afternoon reading by the pool. No end of the world travesty. In fact, it felt a little like paradise.

Little surprise there. If I actually did feel an earthquake and people were suddenly recalled to Heaven I probably would have had a stroke. But what about all those "true believers" who were fully expecting to experience the second coming of Christ last night?

This is both depressing and hilarious.

Some felt confusion, some felt bewilderment, and all felt disappointed. I'm sure some also felt embarrassment for having believed some crazy whacko as strongly as they did, some even going so far as to give up homes, jobs and family to travel the country and spread the "awesome news" that the world would end May 21, 2011.

So, what happened to these people once they woke up on May 22, 2011 and realized they were wrong? Since there was supposedly "no Plan B," not even an obscure chance that May 22 would come for the saved, there's no turning back. Some will be destitute, some might go crawling back to the families they left behind. But there's a concern that these uber devout might turn to suicide as a means of coping with this severe loss and disappointment.

But there's a problem with this (and I realize it's a logical issue being applied to illogical people, but bear with me): Christians are forbidden from committing suicide. So no matter how bad their sorrow is at being wrong/left behind/whatever, they have to bear it until their natural or otherwise-not-self-inflicted deaths. This brings me to another logical problem I have with this whole rapture ordeal: some people truly believed this was God's telling them May 21, 2011 would be the date of the rapture, not a crazy old man who's been wrong before. And while I'm on my rant, the crazy old man who came up with this whole thing HAS BEEN WRONG BEFORE!

Harold Camping, however, isn't admitting lunacy. He says May 21 was an "invisible judgement day" and that the world will still come to an end October 21, 2011. And, of course, he's keeping donated money because he's not wrong.

Pretend War

And this was attached to an article on NPR censorship. HA!

It's becoming more and more difficult to believe the Westboro Baptist Church really is (or believe they are) an organization dedicated to God, and not just the biggest and meanest trolls in America. On the one hand, they're all members of the same inbred Kansas family so who knows what their collective IQ is and what they're brainwashed to believe, and if they really are the extreme extremists they present themselves as they could very well fully believe everything they preach. But on the other hand, they're so extreme extremists that it's absurd; there's absolutely no connection whatsoever between the Bible and the things they shout from the media rooftops. And I don't know which I hope they are: if they're retarded fundamentalists it's scary that one family can cause so much pain and suffering to other families and believe God will reward them for it, but if they're just trolling for funzies that would make them so very, very bad it's hard to believe.

The whole reason I'm starting to think the WBC might just be an evil troll is their most recent ploy for attention. A letter was posted at AnonNews.org addressed to the WBC essentially saying the collective people (anonymous) are sick and tired of the WBC hiding their atrocious actions behind free speech and it's time the WBC put an end to everything this year or else face being hacked into oblivion. Naturally the WBC posted a response letter saying "bring it" and citing a bunch of random Bible verses. And now God hates fags and lousy hackers.

And here's the kicker: both letters were written by Westboro Baptist Church to incite a war with the sole goal of being in headlines for a few weeks (and possibly sue potential hackers for money, but I have no idea how all that hacking stuff works). So Anonymous (the real deal this time) issued a statement saying nice try, "don't call us, we'll call you." Which is kind of too bad, because I was really looking forward to the WBC being hacked into oblivion. But I guess it's good, because Anonymous comes out better in the end. They've shown that the WBC is a lying sack of AWing shit and are going to ignore them and tackle some more important issues. Like how half the world is protesting their governments right now and millions are being killed.

Having just learned of Anonymous and its purpose, I'm proud that it exists. Go Internet underdogs! But at the same time I'm disappointed that it has to exist. Between WikiLeaks and the ongoing cover-up fiasco and large financial institutions deliberately falsifying information to embarrass rivals for financial gain (see here) it's embarrassing for Americans that the giant corporations that run our country are acting like 5th graders. Aren't we better than this?

Sex

Well this is just inappropriate.

I may never understand why people get so concerned about how other people have sex. It seems like everyone has an opinion on what everyone else should and should not be doing. Even corporations.

Chick-fil-A has come out against homosexuality. The restaurant chain is involved with several religious and family oriented groups (including Focus on the Family, which reminds me of Peta for kids) and has explicitly come out and said they "do not accept homosexual couples" at Chick-fil-A's charitable retreat.

But don't worry, gays, you can still order food from the restaurants. They're not going to refuse your money, after all.

And then there's the professionally religious. Bishops have warned married couples to not get too carried away by sexual pleasure, but to remember why you're having sex in the first place. And it's not because it's a way to express your love and passion for one another, unless that's just a byproduct of making babies. The article basically says "we know we said only sex outside of marriage was bad, but anal really isn't going to make babies, and that's our whole thing with the gays, so how 'bout you guys just stick to missionary?" It also describes how married couples should lead chaste lives. Not celibate, chaste. I can't help but picture those Mormon sex clothes that have small holes at the genitals so procreation can occur but you won't get a whole lot of mental stimulation from looking at your wife's naked body. 'Cause that's nasty.

Couldn't find the picture I wanted, so there's this. Also, there's a lot of mormon gay porn out there.

The bishop goes so far as to call pleasure a byproduct of sex:

"Though pleasure may be present, some acts are a misuse of sex when they fall short of what God intended."

Oh yeah? If God intended pleasure to be a mere byproduct of sex why would He have created an organ that does nothing but give sexual pleasure? Plus, certain foreplay acts make sex more enjoyable for each person and make the whole making babies part even better. How do we know God didn't intend that? Lastly, how is a bishop, a supposedly celibate and single individual, giving sex advice to married couples? Giving sex advice is hard enough (well, giving real sex advice is hard, not the bullshit opinions everyone and their mom seem to give out), and it has to be near impossible if you've never experienced it, especially as a married man.

I wish people would just leave others well enough alone. If someone is looking for help or advice he or she will seek it out. The rest of us don't need to go giving our 2 cents to anyone within ear shot. That's my 2 cents, anyway.

*I love the shout-out to Fark.