Boston Walk For Choice

RSS

Posts tagged with "women"

subconciousevolution:

Queer Feminist & Pro-Choice

subconciousevolution:

Queer Feminist & Pro-Choice

muttandjeff:

Noam Chomsky Slams Anti-Abortion Hypocrisy

Aug 2
feministblackboard:

August first victory: Insurance providers will now be required to cover all contraception as well as well-woman visits, STD and pregnancy testing, domestic violence screenings, and family planning services as they all fit under the umbrella term of preventive care.
Methods such as voluntary sterilization will also be covered. All of the plans that began on/after August first will include this requirement.  From then, it will go into full effect January of 2013.
Also, did you know that birth control is already required to be covered by insurance in 28 states? True story.

feministblackboard:

August first victory: Insurance providers will now be required to cover all contraception as well as well-woman visits, STD and pregnancy testing, domestic violence screenings, and family planning services as they all fit under the umbrella term of preventive care.

Methods such as voluntary sterilization will also be covered. All of the plans that began on/after August first will include this requirement.  From then, it will go into full effect January of 2013.

Also, did you know that birth control is already required to be covered by insurance in 28 states? True story.

The Last Remaining Abortion Provider in Mississippi

michellehaimoff:

Two weeks ago, an anti-abortion extremist invaded the waiting room of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization in Jackson, Mississippi - the only abortion provider in the entire state of Mississippi.

The Feminist Majority Foundation’s legal coordinator traveled to Jackson to discuss ways to improve security, to assess legal needs and to devise new ways for the local community to support the facility. 

Now they’re asking pro-choicers around the country to make an emergency, tax-deductable contribution to keep the organization open and its patients, doctors and staff safe.

To donate, please click here.

Does The Bible Support the Pro-Life Stance?

depressingfacts:

One characteristic of many anti-choice images and posts on the internet is that they reference God or one’s religion as a reason for them being “pro-life”. God made everybody special and unique, what are we to deem God’s creations unworthy and abort them?

This brings one question into the picture then, does the bible support the pro-life stance?

The answer? A vague not really. 

The first thing to examine is does the bible straight out denounce abortion. With many issues, such as homosexuality, there are bible verses which will straight out ban or denounce such things. However, when it comes to abortion, there are no such bible verses.

So, what does the bible have to say about abortion or the value of fetuses. Quite a lot actually, but not in the way most pro-life people would assume the bible would.

First off, the bible, in Exodus 21:22-23 states that a fetus is not to be valued as equal to that of a human who has been born. 

This is further reinforced by Leviticus 27:6 and Number 3:15-16 in which God places no value on fetuses, instead, counting an individual as a child from the moment they become more than a month old (This is, because of the much less developed medical situations, speculated to be due to the fact that children under a month old were extremely vulnerable, and thus had a much higher mortality rate than current times).

Not only that, God sometimes approves of killing fetuses (Numbers 31:15-17, Hosea 9:14-16, Hosea 13:16) while also describing, in the bible, how to induce an abortion in a women who has been unfaithful to her husband (Numbers 5:11-31).

The most damaging verse to the pro-life argument that a sacred fetus should not have to die due to its mother’s choice though, is Genesis 38:24, where God approves of burning a pregnant adulteress, therefore demonstrating that a fetus is not a separate entity from its mother’s choice. 

So, how do priests and people who pour over the bible daily still claim that abortion is wrong?

The Sixth Commandment, Thou shalt not kill. Personhood is irrelevant, as a zygote or a fetus is life of human genetics, and therefore it is a sin to kill it.

Right?

Right?

Nope. 

The Sixth Commandment is actually one of those things which has been lost in translation and so the original nuance of the verse has actually been changed when the script went from Hebrew, was translated various times, and you read it in English.

So what did the Sixth Commandment ACTUALLY say?

It actually does say, roughly, Thou shalt not kill, but the keyword here is kill. When we trace the word back to the Hebrew manuscripts, the word is RASACH, or translating to roughly murder, or an illegal killing judged harmful to society, by society. How does this differ with the Sixth Commandment which most people know? The first one is an absolute denouncement of all killing, the original one is a subjective denunciation of killing which is harmful to society.

Even within the bible, God orders the people of Israel to kill other people, and this is not a violation of the Sixth Commandment because it was not deemed harmful to society (1 Samuel 15:3).

So what does this difference make to the pro/anti-choice debate?

Because fetuses are not considered people, an abortion can not be considered a murder, and therefore is not in violation of the Sixth Commandment. 

Not only that, if we are the descendants of Adam, as the bible claims, then God creates us in his image as he created Adam. The creation story of Adam is that his full form was created from dust of the ground, and only then was he given a soul. If we are to take this as a parable, or as an analogy of the birth of a child, then we can easily claim that the only fetuses who have souls are those which are passed the 8 months mark when all their physical organs and structures are fully formed and the fetuses begin to show signs of sentience.

So in conclusion, based solely on biblical evidence, no pro-life person can claim that having an abortion is a sin, nor can they claim that the bible says that abortion is wrong, evil, or murder. 

Panel Recommends Free Birth Control; Anti-Abortion Groups Flip Out

brittanibotulism:

Further proof that the Anti-Choice movement cares little about women.

Apparently the argument behind this is a concern that medical insurers will begin covering Plan B-type medications, and that these particular forms of birth control are, in fact, an abortion.

Uh. No.

An abortion is the termination, most commonly the deliberate termination however an abortion can technically be any expulsion of a fetus, of a pregnancy. In order for something to be called an abortion at all the woman must have been pregnant. To be pregnant, implantation must occur. A pregnancy begins with the implantation—if implantation never occurs, then technically, the woman was never pregnant. Generally, Plan B prevents the egg from ever being fertilized—sometimes, if the fertilization has occured, the pill irritates the uterus and inhibits implantation.  In both instances, implantation has been hindered.

The glob of cells that is headed towards implantation is not a human. It is not a person, it isn’t even really a thing. It has the potential, sure, but if we built all of our arguments on the potentiality of something we’d all soon grow hoarse. Furthermore, the potentiality of this bundle of cells in no way registers on the same level of the woman’s decision when it comes to the control of her own body.

Plan B does, usually, effectively prevent a woman from becoming pregnant from a situation in which she might have otherwise been at risk.

Plan B is not a method of abortion. It is not an abortifacient, because it does not induce an abortion, and if you’re dead-set on the idea that this is false, then I’d better start seeing funerals after every woman’s menstrual cycle, because think about all those eggs her wicked body is getting rid of!

Be straight across the board in your insanity, or realize the insanity, refute it, and accept rationality. You can’t have both.

Jul 8
feministblackboard:

I thought you all could use some humor today.Here is a link to the 70 best Walk for Choice Signs from across the Country! Click Here


For anyone who missed it the first time. :)

feministblackboard:

I thought you all could use some humor today.
Here is a link to the 70 best Walk for Choice Signs from across the Country!
Click Here

For anyone who missed it the first time. :)

Jun 9

Happy Birthday To Your Right To Birth Control

fistwavingfeminism:

It’s been been 45 years today since Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the U.S. Supreme Court saw in the Constitution a protected right to privacy — in that case, the right of married couples to use birth control.

The case would have major implications for later decisions affecting reproductive and sexual health, including Roe v. Wade and, in 2003, Lawrence v. Texas, striking down anti-sodomy laws.

Griswold challenged Connecticut’s law, on the books since 1879, banning contraception and prohibiting the dissemination of information about contraception. Estelle Griswold of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a faculty member at Yale Medical School, were convicted under the law for operating a family planning clinic. From the decision on June 7, 1965:

he present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a “governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.” NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307 . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

It was all downhill for America since then, give that the right has totally given up on searching bedrooms for telltale signs of whatever it is they disapprove of. Joke! As Jodi Jacobson points out at RH Reality Check, the rights recognized by Griswold have continually been under assault, despite massive public opinion in favor of contraceptive access. For example, though the right lost its fight to defund Planned Parenthood, the final spending deal “cut funding for Title X by $18.1 million at a time when more and more low-income women are seeking care and services from this program than ever before.” For now, we have an issue of access to rights already recognized by the nation’s highest court, but the stated right-wing agenda isn’t terribly far from trying to undermine those rights altogether. 

Jun 7

Hey pro-life, listen up.

heyprolife:

Here’s the thing, all you people who believe that abortion is murder.

That’s your opinion.

Other people have different opinions.


And given that this is all taking place inside a living, autonomous, sovereign human being’s body, that human being’s opinion is the one that matters.

Once a fetus is born, it’s a separate entity, and society’s laws apply. But as long as it’s physically connected to another’s body, living off of that person’s body, that person is not obligated to support it.

We don’t legally require people to donate organs to save the lives of those in need of them, either. You may think it’s a good idea, but to legally require such a thing - the subordination of one body to support another - is to say that one person is intrinsically worth more than another, and that is at odds with fundamental human rights.

Jun 3

Yeah, you read that right. Last Tuesday, the Louisiana Health and Welfare Committee passed, with a 10-2 vote, a bill that would make abortion provision illegal, with exceptions to save the life of the woman, but no exception if the woman was pregnant as the result of rape or incest. HB 645 (formerly known as HB 587), would send doctors who perform abortions in Louisiana to prison for up to 15 years.

-

Louisiana moves to outlaw abortion entirely -click through to read the rest (via meisterj)

RAGE.

(via propaganda-for-life)