Because of a comment I made at Shakesville offering up my personal experience with abortion, I’ve now had a wave of lovely “Christian” types flooding my blog from a forced pregnancy advocacy site.

Now let’s all remember that with just ONE kid, we are broke. And the link from the forced pregnancy site goes to my most recent blegging post. Our cabinets are empty. Our rent is still late. I have NO IDEA how we are going to get through this. If I had more than one kid- they would be starving by now. And we would most certainly be homeless.

But none of that matters cause I’m a bad whoring mommy.

It does, however, prove the point that forced-birthers don’t care about children and they certainly don’t believe in Jesus and his message, despite their protestations. Not a single one of the asswipes haunting the place can be assed to give a thin dime, but they can spend a whole lot of time worrying (fantasizing) about my sex life.

They have a kid right in front of them who doesn’t have enough of anything, but rather than do what Christ would have them do and help out, they slut shame.

This is also a huge part of the reason why I am agnostic. I don’t have a problem with most of the message. I have a problem with (most of)the people who claim to believe in it. ( The message being anything religious, from Christ to Buddha). If believing in god and Jesus means I have to become a hate-filled, judgmental asswipe too busy claiming moral superiority to show a bit of kindness, I want none of it. If that’s what god means, I’ll pass.

Update- since posting this I’ve had 2 small donations from people that I know are pro-choice (Thanks to both of you- we’ve got dinner covered for the next 3 days). But still not a thing from the people who claim to love Jesus and the little children.

Renee at Womanist Musings (must remember to put her in the blog roll next time I retool) has a post up about the horrors of hymenoplasty and a woman who has it done EVERY YEAR so her husband keeps getting the “thrill” of fucking a virgin for his birthday.

(Yes, that made me throw up a little in my mouth just typing it)

That post and another I read the other day about mail order brides has got me thinking about women as the sex class, a concept that is difficult for a lot of people to grasp, even women, because we do so much more than spread our legs for the patriarchy.

One of the little mental exercises I use for figuring stuff out is to imagine the opposite of whatever I’m mulling over (I’ll get to that part later). In this case, there was a line in the mail order bride story about how for many women their survival depends directly on being able to sexually satisfy a man. (I wish I could remember where I read it, I think it was the NYTimes, but fuck em, they get enough press already)

My brain took that one sentence and pushed it around for awhile. Sex workers, obviously, are women who rely on their ability to sexually satisfy a man for their survival. Traditional, stay at home wives too (if they slack off their husband can replace them with a younger version and they are financially devastated) which might explain little miss colluder’s willingness to have her bits sewn shut once a year rather than having hubby run out and find an actual virgin to terrorize. But that’s not where it ends. If we are to believe the evo-psych blowhards, then men are programmed to run around fucking everything with a hole. So why do we women have to spend so much time and energy on beauty products and clothing and maintenance in order to be fuckable? It doesn’t make any sense to me.

So what’s the opposite?

Imagine a world where a man’s ability to sexually satisfy a woman directly correlated to his success. I know, that made you chuckle didn’t it? Every single woman I know has at some point faked it with a dude, either to spare his feelings or to get it over with cause it was taking too long or whatever. Can you imagine a world where women’s orgasm’s weren’t some mystical, mercurial thing but were as guaranteed as men’s are now (I think this is entirely possible, btw. Just cause you don’t know how to drive a stick shift doesn’t mean that it can’t be driven.)A world where penis enlargement is as common place as breast enlargement is now and every man in the country aspires to a perfect swimmers build through massive caloric restriction and grueling exercise regimes. A world where women catcall construction workers, men who are just trying to go about their work but instead become eyecandy (or fodder for ridicule) for lusty females. A world where men are warned about walking home alone at night or having a few too many drinks in a bar. Hell, we already make jokes about how if men got pregnant abortion would be available at drive-thrus, and how many crappy movies have been made about Mr. Moms taking care of the kids for comedic effect?

Yep- it sounds pretty ridiculous to me. So if it’s opposite is ridiculous, then the current status quo is too. (Opposites is a fun game to play- imagine a world where ONLY gay people can get married or where Africa was the continent that white slaves were imported to. It’s a really good tool for figuring out your own prejudicial hold backs).

So if women aren’t the sex class, then there would be no need for all the little (and big) things we do every day to be attractive. Cosmo wouldn’t keep running stupid articles about how to please your man in bed with a scrunchie to the nutsack. Women wouldn’t risk toxic shock to have their bits waxed into virginal smoothness and the worst thing you could say about a women wouldn’t have anything to do with how fuckable she is or isn’t.

is still an unwanted baby.

William Saletan, Supreme conserva-douche at Slate, thinks that us little wimmins would have to think twice about abortion if we stopped calling it a fetus and started calling it a baby. Oh and we should all look at the ultra sound so we understand exactly how grave abortion is.

But here’s something to blow Mr. Saletan’s tiny brain.

I am a woman. I’ve had several abortions. I saw the ultrasounds. I still choose not to have a baby. I choose to abort a baby.

And the child that I did choose to have, despite my obviously homicidal tendencies as stated above, is now 14 and healthy and has never been at risk of infanticide.

Now how other women choose to deal with unwanted pregnancies is up to them. It’s a difficult decision to begin with, and I don’t think forcing women clockwork orange style to view ultrasounds or playing semantics police over terminology is they way to go. if you need to call it a fetus, call it a fetus. If you don’t want to see the ultrasound, you shouldn’t have to see it. Whatever you have to do to get through it is for you to choose. Not me, and certainly not some dude who will never know the joy of an invasive medical procedure with you legs akimbo in stirrups on a cold table.

The right to choose is not about whether a baby/fetus is a living being or not a living being. It’s about whether a woman wants or can afford to play a life support machine to another person. At some point, 40% of women in this country can’t afford to be a life support machine and choose to abort a baby to save their own lives from physical, emotional or financial doom. (In that case- abortion is closer to self defense than murder, but I am pretty sure a douche like Saletan thinks women aren’t capable of defending themselves.)

So call it what you will, but I don’t think treating women like infants who can’t figure out right from wrong is doing a damn thing to prevent more abortions from happening.

Most things are a spectrum of grey. Politics, economics, environment, even free speech all have a grey scale.

But there is one that is soooo black and white, either good or bad. And it’s the one we have the most trouble with.

Bodily autonomy. The idea that any and every single person on the planet has the right to do with their own body whatever they want, so long as it doesn’t harm another living, autonomous human being.

This idea that ownership of ones body is flexible is the reason for drug laws, prostitution laws, abortion laws, slavery, the prison system, torture, rape, executions, child abuse, domestic violence, human trafficking, “honor” killings, and a whole host of other horrific things. We come down hard on people using their own bodies for survival (prostitution) or self medicating their own bodies in the only way they can (drug abuse) while ignoring or excusing the thousands of ways we allow people to abuse another body with violence, abuse or exploitation.

You either believe that your body is the one true thing that any of us ever get to own in this world, or you don’t.

It is the most basic of property rights. You don’t have to be rich, or have good credit, or be educated, or straight, or white, or male, or able-bodied, or even an adult. As soon as you are born, as soon as you no longer require another person’s body as a life support system, you have the right to your own body. But before that, you are relying on the good graces of your mother, because she gets the same rights to her body as you get to yours, once you are born.

It’s black and white. There is no middle ground on this. The middle ground means that there is justification for rape, for child abuse, for slavery. The middle ground means there are enough good things that come from these atrocities to make it okay. And there isn’t (if almost 40 years of the War on Drugs hasn’t shown you that criminalization is a racist means of control minority populations then you’re a hopeless idiot).

People who don’t understand this fundamental right are the people who kill doctors, or bomb buildings, or make new categories so that they can claim they have a sex life and not a rape record. People who don’t get this explain child abuse as discipline. People who don’t get this treat women like children and take away the availability of medical procedures. People like this are always coming up with new reasons to justify their own violence.

But they almost never apply those same justifications to themselves. For whatever reasons, they believe that they are more autonomous than others.

I’ve been watching a lot of crime tv lately. I saw (back to back) a show about Fritzel, the fuckwad in Germany who held his daughter in the basement for decades, and another show about a rich American who also held several different women in an underground dungeon for years at a time. Neither one of them thought what they were doing was wrong. I saw another guy, who raped his stepdaughter, who didn’t think he was as bad as his cellmate. What he did was okay, but his cellmate raped little boys and that was really wrong.

And I think about the talking heads like O’Reilly, who spout off venomous attacks on others, inciting violence and even stalking opponents. They don’t think what they are doing is wrong either. Because, just like those horrible men mentioned above, they believe that some bodies are not fully autonomous.

But they are just trying to find a shade of grey in a black and white issue, and there isn’t one. Ever.

Since there seems to be a shit ton of denial going on as to whether the assassination of Dr. Tiller was a terrorist act or not, I thought it’s time to clear up some things regarding the definition of terrorism.

Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

and the definition of terror is:

1: a state of intense fear
2 a: one that inspires fear : scourge b: a frightening aspect c: a cause of anxiety : worry d: an appalling person or thing ; especially : brat
3: reign of terror

4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

bolds mine

So murdering a doctor in order to intimidate other doctors and government officials into outlawing abortion is an act of terrorism. Publishing the names and addresses of doctors and clinic workers so that they fear for their lives and safety and cannot perform the job that you hate is an act of terrorism. It is “using a destructive act in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands” and “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion”.

But maybe you fucksticks need more. Certainly I’ve heard a a bunch of talking heads whine about how this is “just a murder, not an act of terrorism according to the law”.

So let’s look at how the US federal law defines a terrorism:

(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.

(bolds mine again)

Neither the legal nor the English definition of terrorism include phrases like scary Islamofascist or dark skinned foreigner. Terrorism is not a crime committed only by people of a certain race or ethnicity or religious persuasion (though if you can find an atheist terrorist group I’ll eat my shoe). Terrorism is very simply an act of violence committed by a non governmental group or person in order to intimidate or coerce.

The person that killed Dr. Tiller is a terrorist. The groups that organize to terrorize doctors and nurses and clinic staff by publishing their addresses are terrorists. The people who recruit others into doing violence (I’m talking to you Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin) are terrorists. Eric Rudolf was a terrorist.
So was Timothy McVeigh. So are the right wing militia groups plotting to violently overthrow the government.

If you don’t like being called a terrorist, then stop using or excusing or promoting acts of violence meant to intimidate or coerce the population into doing your will.

then why do they celebrate killers? Or threaten clinic workers. Or bomb clinics and shoot doctors and post home addresses so that other people can do violence?

If it is all about the babies, then why don’t they adopt them? Or make sure that their are support services to make it easier for their moms to keep them, or advocate for universal health care so they can be born healthy?

If they aren’t trying to control women’s bodies, then why do they lie about birth control? Or rip out IUD’s without consent? Or block access to clinics? Or eliminate funding for family planning? Or forbid even talking about abortion if you want governmental funding to deliver healthy babies?

Why do they treat children as a just punishment for having sex? If they love children so much, why would they want those children to be born to mothers that don’t love them or can’t care for them?

The bible, which most of these people claim to follow, says “Know them by their fruits”.

Their fruits are rotten.

You cannot negotiate with people who are not acting in good faith. Lying about their goals by claiming to be pro life is bad faith. They aren’t concerned with saving lives. Actually, without birth control and abortion the maternal death rate would sky rocket.

So why does our president keep giving credit to liars and terrorists when he says that abortion isn’t really about a woman’s right to control her own body?

Rest in peace Dr. Tiller. You were a braver person than most of us can ever hope to be. Your tragic end shows them for what they are, murderers and misogynists and terrorists.

We should not negotiate with terrorists. Why should we negotiate with them?

It’s nearly Mother’s Day, a holiday that I hate with the fiery fury of a blazing sun.

First- a rant about women who buy into the whole mommy fetish bullshit.

Our house is across the street from a very popular local park. On sunny days, there is no street parking. Lucky for us, we have a driveway that will fit 2 cars in tandem. It means there is a lot of parking hokey pokey when the roommate parked at the back needs to get out, but we deal and the street is left to the park goers.

Friday, Ruth had to go to work (and just to make this story a little more tragic- her job is scribing for disabled people on college math tests) and found that our driveway had been completely blocked in by a fucking Prius. (Now I’m as green as any poor person can be, which is greener than even your biggest eco-snob, but Seattle Prius drivers are a bunch of sanctimonious turds). She called to have the car towed and got to work late on the bus.

Several hours later (at least 3) and a pregnant blonde rings the doorbell.

Pregnant Blonde: Was there a problem with my Prius?

Me: Yeah. You blocked our driveway and my roommate was late to work.

PB: (giggling) Sorry, must be pregnant brain.

Me: I’ve got a 14 year old, I’ve been pregnant. It never made me thoughtless and stupid.

And then- just because I am a bitch but not really cruel I asked if she’d called someone for a ride and shut the door on her when she said yes.

I get bitchy with women mothers who buy into the mommy fetish bullshit. Women who act like the miracle of pregnancy (not really a miracle with current population levels) makes them special little snowflakes of purity and bliss and unaccountability to anything but their stomach. I want to punch in the face of women who act like the one true calling of everywoman is to be a SAHM. I get bitchy when people call me “Kid’s Mom” or refuse to acknowledge my last name (different from the Kid’s). I get bitchy with people who want to put me on a pedestal of martyrdom because at one point I chose to give birth. If I were a little less white looking or had a slightly more urban (or rural) speech patterns, those same people would be tisk tisking over my being a mother.

So for mother’s day- skip the cards and the flowers and the brunch (though I’ll take the mimosas, thankyouverymuch). Those crappy items don’t make up for the real harm we do in treating mothers like precious little flowers one day of the year and unpaid idiot servants for the rest of it. Here’s my wish list for a REAL Mother’s day.

1. An end to the mommy wage gap.

2. Universal preschool and college

3. Paid parental leave and sickdays for everyone.

4. Child support enforcement that DOESN”T leave 70% of cases in arrears

5. Universal healthcare that includes birth control and abortion services

6. For mothers to succeed in their careers the same way fathers have been able to.

The title for this post came from this post about the women currently being looked at for the Supreme Court. All are childless and single. Some of my favorite heroines of history (Tina Modotti and Dororthy Parker and Jane Austen) couldn’t or didn’t have children. And that may be a huge reason why they were able to have careers when others didn’t. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had the same kind of options for parenting and working that men do? Wouldn’t it be nice if we could do both and be properly compensated for it?

But first WE have to stop buying into our own bullshit. No using pregnancy as an excuse for stupidity. No accepting faux glorification instead of cold hard cash for staying home with the kids. We have been too good at making the best of a bad situation for way too long. Time to make the situation good for all mothers (and fathers too).

Obama is going to overturn the horrible HHS conscience clause that Bush enacted shortly before leaving a flaming reenactment of Rome under Nero the White House. But not completely.

The Bad News: Team Obama reportedly does not want to jettison the idea of a conscience clause altogether

The problem with a conscious clause is that it makes one person’s opinion more important than another person’s health. It’s kinda the opposite of the idea of free speech. Free speech is the idea that you can have any opinion that you want, and you can say anything that you want, but you cannot cause another person physical harm to do so. It’s why yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is illegal.

But perhaps the only way to show rethuglikans and forced pregnancy blow hards that a conscious clause is a really bad idea is to offer up some examples of how this could go badly for them:

Example 1) Let’s pretend I am the only pharmacist in a small rural town. I am also a eco-warrior who believes that overpopulation is killing the earth. And this woman comes into my store with her 19th pregnancy. Can I refuse to to provide her with pre-natal vitamins because I believe she should have used birth control or had an abortion instead of killing the earth with more babies?

Example 2) I am a receptionist for a GP and this man and his doctor have decided that the man should have a gastric bypass. I am a firm believer in HAES and fat acceptance and I believe it is both cruel and negligent to perform surgery on someone simply because they don’t look like a model. Will I get fired if I refuse to submit the referral to a bariatric surgeon?

Example 3) I am a bleeding heart feminazi drug addiction counselor and this man has enrolled in a 28 day program at my clinic to kick a drug addiction. Can I refuse to treat him because as a feminazi straw woman I believe that all men are rapists and he should be left to stew in his own addle brained morass?

People’s ability to get the care they need is more important than the opinions of other people. Period. If dispensing birth control is against your beliefs, don’t be a pharmacist (or a nurse who pulls out IUDs for fun. Your freedom of speech ends where someone else’s body starts. And you wouldn’t want it any other way, or someone like me might refuse to give you treatment for a reason you find unbelievably stupid.