Skip to main content

Is Pro-Life Life-Revering?

In the Guardian today we are informed that an anti-abortion group has been drafted in as a sexual health adviser to the UK government.  This surprised me because I believed that the social sciences in Europe had not yet been dismissed in government - you know those stats that say there is less unplanned pregnancy when kids get good sex education. But I do sense a trend here, that Western democratic nations are closing the doors to science and nature, choosing power strategies that seem eerily familiar to the Victorian age.

In Victorian England women were reviled for having sex outside of marriage or raising a child alone, and imprisoned or hung for having an abortion, but the other half of that equation - the man - was seen as simply sowing his wild oats. A foetus then was a wild oat.

Is this what conservatism is?  A denial of the knowledge that disturbs us in favour of simplistic illusions that morality is a family value where father knows best, mother is the domestic servant, and children obey their parents?

If the anti-abortion narrative becomes the health policy of a nation, can we assume that the unborn will be protected after birth? Will women's groups and social workers receive support in their efforts to support women and their children?  

I know that many who join the anti-abortion movement believe that they are saving the unborn, but do they see how these movements, well-funded by wealthy interests, manage to focus on the deaths of the foetus rather than how we can design a world where mothers have access to what they need to raise a healthy child? That the rows of crosses supposedly revealing the numbers of  "murdered babies" are never compared to the numbers of children and their mothers killed in war and domestic disputes?  Within these groups you might believe that children are most at risk from their mothers.  

The anti-abortion movement is also against sex education, planned parenthood, the use of contraceptives and have not been too vocal in supporting women's shelters or women's health either. If it doesn't support women or children, then who or what does it support?

Now I agree that having an abortion is not a good thing, nor is sexual promiscuity. But we need to address these raging hormones with a little more insight than the instruction to abstain. We need to teach the young how to value themselves, their own bodies and to understand the consequences of their choices.

Women in the popular media are held up as sex goddesses or sluts, and our appetites, held up as the most sacred element of our lives, must be fulfilled.  So if we create government policies that make it illegal  or very expensive for a woman to have an abortion, or have sex, will the media be pressured into cleaning up their practice of using sex to sell products?  To put it simply - if women are to be controlled will  the corporate imaging of women also be controlled by government?  Not likely.

When women and children have choice, life is revered and society is healthier; power is more creative, less oppressive. In societies where women's bodies are the possessions of men, power is about punishment and control. 


Popular posts from this blog

The Ultimate Goal of Patriarchy is the End of Life

I want to clarify the line between men in general and patriarchal values propagated and imposed on human society.

In order for patriarchy to succeed, it had to kill more efficiently than the nine months gestation it took for a woman to give birth.  So the craft of war  became more than simply defending territory. It became the ritualized erasure of our human nature for the rule of centralized power. 

And no, it hasn't succeeded in diminishing the human population on this planet but it has succeeded in sustaining an ideology of what it means to be a man. 

Civilizations built on myths of great conquerors. Histories about the exploits of the greatest killers. Inventions of race, religious ideology and ritual that transformed the teachings of thoughtful prophets into crusades. Endless games of winning and losing.
Men who celebrate life through medicine, science, education, art, philosophy and poetry must be dismissed as soft, shamed as effeminate. 

Men who have been raised with love, love …

Anonymous Sources

Where does "Greatness" come from? The imagination? Facts? Confidence? A willing suspension of disbelief in a slogan that makes us happy? A capacity to judge well? An ability to observe and find solutions that benefit most if not all? Taking responsibility for the community? A masters degree from Oxford or Yale?

Let me offer the opinion that greatness comes from extraordinary effort or talent.  Greatness as it may exist in our anonymous ambitions does not win fame except in isolated circumstances.  That is to say, fame is not a realistic goal for an individual.

Greatness is like a dove in the imagination, an angel, a temporary insight, a fleeting epiphany. Something aspired to in the privacy of our minds.

Greatness was an ambition I held when I was a teen and had no proof that I was good at anything or useful to the world at all. After repeated criticism and dismissal from the community around me where I attempted to win something, anything, like a medal, a competition, or a…

Torturing Youth is Okay with us?

“More than two-thirds of Canadians feel Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the wrong choice in awarding a $10.5 million settlement to Omar Khadr, according to a new poll by the Angus Reid Institute.” CBC News
But we don’t see the survey questions in this article. How was the poll actually worded? Reading one article might make us believe we are well informed, but how does a single poll actually tell us how people feel?  
“And while the survey shows that a majority of Liberals and New Democrats are opposed to the government's decision, how the numbers compare to previous polling suggests that views on Khadr have hardened over the last decade — and that he remains a divisive figure.”
How can a single poll tell whether Khadr is a divisive figure or not? What information do respondents have to make such a claim? 
The article then switches to a former US special force soldier who was blinded in one eye during the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan involving Khadr.  Of course he would be critica…