I have too many thoughts about this crap. Basically, everyone's stupid, The End.
The group hosting the Sex Strike is incredibly dumb and extremely offensive, as I think everyone here agrees. First, it's kind of shitty that this is heterosexually oriented against men, further asserting/enforcing that they are the ones in power; second, this "if I can't then you can't" attitude is bs; and... fuck it -- just look at the first thing I read on their FAQ page:
No Access Sex Strike said:
The only reason that American men can enjoy their customary free, regular and safe sex with women is because those women have access to the contraceptives of their choice.
Holy. Shitfuck. My brain.
I actually first went to their facebook page to try to learn more, as google search news articles did little apart from highlight internet reactions along the lines of "y u no in kitchen". I didn't find info about what exactly they're threatened by. That's when I went to their website, and I'm currently browsing through their section under "Attacks". I admit that I didn't want to read ALL of them, so upon their advice, I read a Top 10 Why Shit's Crazy list by The Huffington Post.
What the shit. First of all, news writers, if you can, please link to primary documents. At least
read them. The Bills that I have read aren't as bad as the articles about them claim (granted, there have been some revisions made, in some cases). Some even appear to contradict them. I have specific comments for each of the ten points, but I'll spare you the rant. In overview, no, no one's saying that you can't have an abortion even if you're dying. Why does anyone think that this is happening?
---
Contraceptives (as contraceptives): I don't think women have a right to them, nor do I think they have a right to make other people pay for them. It's
nice if someone will, but if they won't, then go buy some yourself, or be otherwise responsible. I don't think that they're necessary in order to live a healthy life.
Religious freedom & employment: I would have to know more about the systems in place to make a better judgement on this, including provisions for employee's rights and protection from discrimination. For now I'd like to say that I regard this as a non-religious issue, granting a company the right to offer what they want, and if you don't like it, don't get into it. There are various plans that may be offered, aren't there? This is a variant. IF a company chooses to ask for medical information/verification of prescription birth control, I would like it if they had to advertise it well to potential employees. It looks like this was actually removed from one of the bills in Arizona, and I'm not sure whether or not it was adequately substituted with some other requirement of notice. Having women pay for the verification is bullshit, though, unless it is not a unique fee.
Abortion: I want to be guided by science. Everyone's crazy about what constitutes a person, right? This whole zygote business. I'm not comfortable drawing a line. I agree that after some months (20 weeks, in the bill in Georgia), it's probably too late to have an abortion. If you're using a morning after pill, though, that seems far less murderous. Somewhere in between there is a gray area. I sympathize with those who are asked to make a decision about this.
I think those who are protesting a mandatory ultrasound in order to request an abortion, which may possibly entail the use of a vaginal ultrasound, are being too sensitive. I see it as part of a medical procedure, and if they want an abortion done, then they better check on the thing that's being aborted. It's not rape -- if they call getting an abortion a choice, then they must accept the whole procedure as a choice. If they don't want a device in their vagina, then don't get an abortion. The doctor probably wishes he/she didn't have to do it, too. How do they expect someone to get rid of a thing when they can't even properly tell what that thing is?
The only really valid point I saw on that Top 10 list was in Texas, a women's health program/organization is being excluded from funding. That's pretty terrible, and they should be raising hell about that. I'm not saying that there aren't movements that attack women's rights and all that. I just think that there are far better ones to go after.
Eyebrowsbv31: There wasn't always a choice to have sex, right? Screw being pro-abortion; what you are is anti-life.
With regards to gender selection, I'm a little surprised that the reasoning for the abortion is so important to you. How would you determine which types of abortions were occurring?
For the record, I'm pro-choice, but would never encourage anyone to seek an abortion.
I'm not a fan of the Slut Walk, but I do find "They were asking for it" opinions to be disgusting. As Longo said, there -are- women who consent and just feel regret afterwards. There is also a level of precaution that should be expected from people in certain conditions (being alone, or in the dark, or in the middle of nowhere, or all of the above), for general safety reasons. However, asserting that a person's attire then makes that person responsible for the rape is ridiculous. You'd be saying that the rapist was rendered incapacitated, unable to do anything but rape. Well, we're all in trouble then.
