Zatera Ul

What She Said, a feminist blog, has made it onto my “Ew, gross!” list for this statement opposing John Roberts. Not for opposing Roberts, but for completely misrepresenting the pro-life movement. (The “anti-choice” label is one of the reasons that I vehemently refuse to be called a feminist. I only oppose immoral and stupid choices.)

In their own words:

The current anti-choice movement has revealed itself repeatedly as uninterested in preventing unwanted pregnancies or reducing the number of abortions performed in this country. If this were truly their goal, they would be anxious to make “Plan B” contraceptives readily available. We know it is not an abortificant, and merely prevents pregnancy from taking place. If the goal was to protect young women’s lives, they would encourage educating women about the use of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV and other venereal diseases, and the prevention of unwanted pregnancy

Women are more likely than men to contract HIV through sexual encounters and about 42 per cent of all persons infected with HIV are women.

Cancer of the cervix, the most common form of cancer in developing countries, is often linked to the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus. There are already moves to block the availability of a vaccine being developed which could prevent this form of cancer.

To withhold this information to young women is to literally condemn some of them to death. Those who oppose women’s reproductive autonomy oppose all of these things that could make having a child or even having sex a safer experience. It is clear that they are not interested in the healthy births of healthy children, but in controlling sexual behavior of women by codifying a particular, restrictive religious view in the laws of our country. It is not the place of government to legislate morality for its citizens. It is the place of government to insure the health and well-being of its people. It is clear that if women’s reproductive freedom is restricted that women will die needlessly and many women and their children will suffer unnecessarily.

It is not the place of government to insure the health and well-being of its people–even God doesn’t guarantee that!

As far as I know on Plan B, it may or may not work as an abortifacient–it’s one of those things where it works, but they don’t entirely understand how. Part of my objection to Plan B being available over-the-counter was that most women would need a doctor to help them figure out if they really needed it. (Another reason to educate women in NFP fertility awareness methods. Good to know about.) Also note that feminists typically define pregnancy as beginning with implantation, rather than conception. Pro-lifers consider conception the more significant event, since that is where the new life starts. I should add that it is rare to see feminists who object to treating a perfectly healthy woman’s fertility as a disease. Chemical contraception is fixing something that ain’t broke.

The general view of the “anti-choice” crowd is that abstinence until monogamous marriage is best. This is not to “oppose women’s reproductive autonomy”, but because in many ways this is the healthiest for all. Minimizing the number of sexual partners reduces the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Conducting a thorough character and background check of a potential sexual partner weeds out users and losers. Holding out for a loving relationship that is worth a lifelong commitment greatly increases the probability that you will find one. Abstaining from sex until that commitment is made forces you to spend time on other important parts of the relationship, such as communication, which helps put the relationship on a solid footing. (Also, abstinence is the best way to prevent pregnancy. And it results in a much more interesting honeymoon.) Saving sex for marriage means that you sexually (and emotionally) bond exclusively with your spouse, and have a decent hope that that bond will hold for life. Getting married before you start making babies leads to more economic security. Having an education and some economically viable skills before you get married helps too. More economic security means better access to health care. End results: better physical and emotional and economic health.

It is very hard to watch women throw all these benefits away for short-lived pleasure and end up with panic pregnancies, diseases, and all sort of heartache. Not that I don’t know that abstinence is very difficult; it was a long, hard wait for MFH. (I finally told God that He was going to have to knock some guy over the head, to make him notice me, because no one was. Not long after, MFH got a nudge from God to consider me as a possibility.) Also, I had God to turn to when I was lonely (a lot), and the Holy Spirit to encourage me to continue hoping that God would provide a husband for me. Non-Christians are at a distinct disadvantage here, and it’s no surprise that sinners sin, but it’s still possible and extremely wise to choose to wait until marriage.

I should add that the lonely years have largely faded in my memory, as I am now married and my husband is my best friend, and crazy about me. Worth every stinkin’ minute of the wait.

That’s why I get so steamed at feminists who would (and sometimes do) happily pass out condoms and birth control pills and “abortion rights” like candy and say that that is what will keep women healthy and free. Women deserve so much better!