November 10, 2005

On Rednecks and Reproduction

Light blogging this week as the real world makes repeated demands on all of us. In the meantime, via Twisty, a post by Redneck Mother about the stupidity of thinking about pregnancy as a linear process. A sample:

I think about all this in the context of pharmacists presuming to tell women whether they can prevent a pregnancy or not, of legislators trying to ban "unauthorized reproduction," of Sam Alito and all the other conservatives who want women to answer to men about what's going on in their own bodies. And I say this: You have no idea what you're trying to control, no right to do it and no way to do it to your misguided satisfaction anyway because women are not machines and reproduction is not an industrial process. Pregnancy is unpredictable, carries infinitely variable risks, and is so private that it is in many ways a closed book even to the woman herself. If she and her obstetrical team can't shoehorn it into neat, predictable processes, why do you presume you can? No one has the right or authority to compel any woman to go through what I chose for myself, and no one has the right to judge any woman for choosing not to do so.

If you want to control an organic process, brew your own beer. If you want to protect babies, tell Bush to pony up for the UN Population Fund. If you want to preserve respect for and dignity of men in our society, work to stop the government-sanctioned torture that diminishes us in the eyes of the world and endangers our troops.

You want to regulate my uterus? Step off, and take your simplistic hubris with you.

Hope to be back soon. xoxo, B.

Posted by binky at November 10, 2005 10:18 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Gender and Politics


Am I to take it that you support this idea that "Pregnancy is unpredictable, carries infinitely variable risks, and is so private that it is in many ways a closed book even to the woman herself." If so, why don't you support this mystical defeatism when it comes to all scientific inquiry and application, or maybe you do? And if you do, doesn't this fit you in completely with the conservatives when they argue about historically varying patterns of global climate change making it impossible to predict whether a current warming trend is explained by the influence of burning fossil fuels? And do you agree with the conservatives who make this point when it comes to the lack of scientific evidence to fully explain human existence and evolution? If you're going to sign up to teach the possibility of intelligent design at your university and embrace a life based on faith, I fully support you. It does seem a little inconsistent with some of your stated positions in the past.

If your interest is, in fact, scientific, and you really want to look at risks that are predictable and not infinitely variable, look at survival rates of developing children during abortion: They aren't so good.

Posted by: Morris at November 10, 2005 07:03 PM | PERMALINK

hee hee hee, ha ha ha, oh, wow good one Morris. [wipes eyes]

Posted by: binky at November 10, 2005 07:09 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment

Remember personal info?