A bill being considered in South Dakota would allow the murder of abortion providers, by pardoning the crime as “justifiable homicide.” The re-defining of terms, that have been forever clear and understood, by the GOP continues; previously it was rape and what constituted the act, now the conservative forces are reconsidering murder.
The language being added to the definition of what constitutes justifiable homicide would be altered to allow immediate family members and others to murder anyone attempting to provide an abortion to a woman, even if the woman herself wants the medical procedure.
House Bill 1171 is cleverly worded to allow would-be assassins to circumvent the fact that abortion is legal in this country. Normally justifiable homicide applies only to acts which are illegal, so proponents claim this would not provide motivation for attacks on abortion providers. But this simply is not true, as the language being added states that murder would be justifiable if it is committed in an attempt to prevent harm to someone who would harm another; clearly a fetus would fall under the category of life for Anti-choice militants.
This once again provides not only opponents of the bill, but any who observe or may be affected by it, with the opportunity to see that America’s “Pro-life” movement is no more than an anti-choice crusade against women and the development of rights progressing toward equality.
Once again Pro-life (really Anti-choice) fights back with feelings instead of facts with its attachment of the “Protect Life Act”, a provision recently added to H.R. 358, which was introduced by Representative Joe
Pitts of Pennsylvania. The act will effectively allow doctors to refuse medical aid (abortions) to pregnant women even if in doing so it is understood the mother will die.
Perhaps ultra-conservatives need another science lesson after last term’s blatant obstinacy of reality, with recurring incidents such as Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s (MN) declaration that carbon dioxide is in no form harmful; except for Carbon Dioxide Poisoning, which causes minor afflictions like death, and ironically SIDS (Sudden infant death syndrome).
So here it is in nine words; if a pregnant woman dies the fetus cannot live.
Simple, right? Not so for conservative supporters. The proposition will allow doctors to refuse aid and treatment to women if they believe that care will kill the fetus. The idea is to allow women to die, to protect unborn life, which will quickly imitate the mother’s condition.
The cruelty of writing into federal law that it is permissible to leave women to perish because of religiously motivated beliefs and apathy has begun to spark responses from groups such as Feministe, “That is truly
sick — and shockingly cruel, even for the usual “pro-life” suspects who regularly use their ideology as a tool to punish women.”
This is a prime example of the necessity of abortions to save lives that are currently in jeopardy, but Pro-life’s vision fails to carry past their ideologies which care for life only when it dwells unconsciously within a
fetus. Once you’re born, you’re past their compassion and consideration; as many who have worked at women’s health clinics have realized, with attacks (almost entirely under the motivation of Pro-life propaganda) still occurring despite cries from Pro-lifer’s for an “open debate” whenever a liberal member of congress introduces a measure to improve and develop equality.
As usual the introduction of this proposition is made by male proponents who lack the physical attributes (such as a uterus) to be affected themselves by a measure that will harm and eliminate others (women).
This mirrors the Right’s Pro-life opposition to stem cell research suggested in previous years that could cure diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. But these attempts have flunked almost entirely, shot
down by members of Congress and the House, who not surprisingly, do not suffer from any of the conditions mentioned; such as George W. Bush, who proposed anti-choice legislation immediately upon obtaining office and worked tirelessly to limit stem cell research.
Bush also established himself as a bastion of hope for Pro-lifer’s during the last administrations eight year reign, and then ordered the torture of other human beings, while igniting two wars; acts which have recently forced him to cancel his trip to Switzerland due to liberal and conservative groups in the country calling for his arrest and scheduling mass protests to demonstrate their lack of indifference toward violence and ignorance.
Many other members of his party who still retain office, such as Senator John McCain (AZ), a two time presidential candidate, have committed themselves to this misinformed and often hostile perspective of only
respecting life that, while in the womb, is unaware and incapable of understanding its own existence.
Also of note, McCain and other Pro-life advocates have tediously and hypocritically opposed sex-education and birth control funding simultaneous to their denial of the reproductive rights of others.
Progress in women’s rights, stem cell research, and other areas of science and politics has been slow and obstructed passionately by Pro-life members and supporters who ferociously defend the “miracle” of birth. And so we are left with this ironic observation, that America’s Pro-life movement has become so fanatic and obtuse it is motivated and willing to kill.
But perhaps more intellectual and open-minded thinking could alleviate the conflict that currently obstructs equality for women and mother’s hoping to flourish in America. Abortion is far from immoral, because it does not destroy a person, but a mere chemical reaction occurring within a woman’s stomach, comedian/philosopher Bill Hicks noted in the early 90’s, and that pregnancy and birth are no more a miracle than putting food in your mouth and transforming it into the by-product that inevitably follows.
To be considered a person, one must possess a collection of experiences, thoughts, and aspirations, and the individual must recognize themselves as such, thus separating one from being an engine of nature driven only by predestined instincts and impulses. An individual that accomplishes this is miraculous and is a form of life worth protecting, and should not be murdered by the homunculus drones of banality that swell our nation’s
conservative faction and its “Pro-life” platoons.
Typically when one thinks of a gamer (and I don’t mean the person who plays an occasional game on their console), they think of a nerdy, unkempt, male. The key idea here is that it is typically a male being thought of as being a gamer. A quick image search of the word ‘gamer’ turns up pictures of the previous description, with the occasional picture of a female playing a game. It’s very rare that a woman is thought of, or associated with being a gamer and when she is she doesn’t always have the most “feminine” qualities attributed to her; her friends and fellow players tend to see her as ‘one of the boys’. On the other side of the scale are the female gamers who, maybe to the untrained eye, don’t seem like they would be interested in playing a game targeted towards men or any game at all. If there is a woman playing a game, who doesn’t fall into the ‘typical’ category of a gamer, it’s assumed she isn’t playing the game because she enjoys it, but more so to get something (i.e. attention) in return for playing. I happen to consider myself a ‘gamer girl’, even though I don’t fall into the stereotypical role that would be expected. I have quite feminine tastes when it comes to other activities in my life, and it shocks people when I tell them that I love playing a game such as Call of Duty online. When I started playing video games online it was mainly to spend time with a long distance boyfriend. Once I learned how to mute everyone else or speak my mind when they said something offensive, I really enjoyed playing first person shooting games, along with many others, with a group of other people (and I’ve made some friends while doing so). I was welcomed into the group of online guys because of my boyfriend, not because of the skills I had while playing the game(because to be honest, I had zero to none), and when we broke up I was annoyed, to say the least, at how little of a group I had left. But being the independent woman I am, I played by myself finally showing others I could carry my own weight on the team, now I have a group that I play with on a regular basis. Playing online with people I don’t know has it’s down sides, besides the constant derogatory comments being spewed from the mouths of players, I feel a need to hide the fact that I’m a girl playing their game. I have to admit, there are times that I keep quiet so people on the other team won’t want to target me as the person they go after(though I don’t think it happens all that often, I wouldn’t put it past anyone). I also get the occasional “oh my god there’s a girl in the room!” or creep trying to hit on me but I find ways to deflect what they are saying or to ignore them all together. There are positives though, I think when women play a game online or off, they are proving to men that we too have the ability to be successful in that arena. The more females there are interested in playing games, the more support we can lend one another in breaking down the stereotypes in the gaming world.
Click this link and.. Stand With Planned Parenthood
Come to: The Vagina Monologues !!! We would love your company and your help reaching our goal of $6,000!
Check out vday.org for more information on The Vagina Monologues in general or follow our link above to our facebook page!
Auditions will be in Campus Center Room 007
Wednesday Jan 26 7pm-10pm
I hear it every semester in at least one of my classes, “raise your hands if you consider yourself a feminist”. Immediately, as if without thought, my hand shoots into the air before my professor can get the words out of their mouth. I glance around trying to see which of my fellow classmates are willing to raise their hands proudly (usually a small percent) and which much to my chagrin, keep their hands low by their sides, while the rest don’t raise their hands at all. The following discussion, about why people didn’t raise their hands, often leads into stereotypes about what a feminist is, or what you have to do to be considered a feminist. Things like you have to hate men, you must want women to have special privileges, you must be a woman, etc. None of these statements are necessarily true in order for someone to call themselves a feminist; by the most basic definition, a feminist is someone (no matter what sex, gender, sexual orientation, or identity) with the belief that men and women should be treated equally in all aspects of life (politically, economically, socially); if you agree with this statement then you are a feminist! Being an activist isn’t a requirement for being a feminist. There are of course, feminists who are more active than others, they may attend protests, marches, or conferences trying to make a difference in the lives of women, but there are also feminists who commit small, daily acts of feminism by simply speaking up against something they don’t agree with, then of course there are all the feminists in-between and beyond that don’t simply fit into one category or the other. What it means to be a feminist changes from person to person just as any other part of an identity does, but we all have common goals in mind. While at Umass Dartmouth I have discovered more of who I am as person and being a feminist is an important part of my identity. For me it has become a way of life. Although I am involved in many different aspects of the ‘feminist world’, I also make sure that I speak up in class, become involved with different activities on campus through the Women’s Resource Center, and try to educate people in my life who don’t know as much about a subject as I do. If more people were willing to listen to what being a feminist truly is, then we might be able to break down those stereotypes and show them they are probably a feminist too.