Does the fact that South Dakota has passed a no abortion bill scare anyone else? A young girl who's carrying her brother, uncle, or father's child MUST have that child. A woman who's been raped MUST have that child and the rapist has all parental rights to that child, thus ensuring she has to endure her rapist for the rest of her natural life. Just think of how most people deal with ex-spouses they used to love. I don't want to make a woman deal with a man who's beat and held a knife to her throat while raping her, for the rest of her life. Or to make a woman play nice with a male relative who's abused and molested her for the rest of HER life, too. Isn't that cruel and inhumane? There might be a short time that the offender is incarcerated, but look at your own zip code (US only, sorry!) to see how long it lasts.
Personally, I think the younger generation can be a little too fast and loose with abortion, tending to use it as a form of birth control. I don't think they appreciate the fight our forebears had to keep contraception out of the back alleys and legal. I'm glad my birth control held out over the years and I've never had to face the choice. However, that's the nice thing, I do have a choice. Men have the choice to abandon their children. I've know of many single mothers who receive no child support. Everyone fights against abortion, but I don't see anyone fighting to support these children once they're born. Even though I am a "Just this once" baby, I've always been very wanted and adored by my parents. I can't imagine what it would be like; going through life knowing my parent(s) never wanted me and resent my birth. It'll be interesting to see the stats on newborn abuse in a year. My money is on the figures spiking.
Even worse than all this is the proposed ban on the day after pill here in Missouri. It's not an 'abortion pill' like our governor believes, but a pill that prevents Egg from meeting Sperm. If that method of birth control is made illegal, why should condoms, the Pill, male or female tube tying, and anything else be permitted? With a world population nearing if no over seven BILLION, is rampant reproduction a good idea? Besides that, I'm happily married. Our government is edging toward telling me the only form of birth control I can use is abstinence if I don't want more children than we can afford to have? What point is there to be married, then? (Other than that true love stuff, of course.)
I'm sorry, but if I were raped, I want the day after pill, an abortion, the anti-viral regimen, all the antibiotics available, and a Lysol scrubdown. That nuclear radiation leak shower they give as in Silkwood would be ok, too. A 100 proof alcoholic drink would be nice, just to make sure every tiny germ is gone, inside and out.
As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay more taxes because all these babies were born from other people's fun. I want to spend the money on my own child, not theirs because they couldn't keep their pants zipped or because our government makes us pay for their mistakes.
Bringing a baby into the world is serious business, something you're responsible for all your life. I think men have an easier time of it, not having that maternal instinct making a child the most important thing in a person's life. I feel like, as a woman, the legislative body of the United States is telling me that I must have every child I conceive, no matter what the circumstances and that I have no way to prevent such conception. There are no laws being written at the same time that any man who also conceives a child has a life-long financial, physical, and emotional responsibility to the child as well. If a woman MUST have a child, so should a man MUST care for that child.
Sorry for the rant, but this IS my blog and I'll get to more fun knitting news and cute Fry stories maybe later today. The second Relpax is working (Yay!), so I'm needing to catch up on all the stuff I've ignored so far today.