Gexx in Knoxville

This blog is about Gexx, in Knoxville

Roe Day – Blog for Choice

Posted by Gexx on January 22, 2008

Blog for Choice Day

On the 35th anniversary of Roe v Wade, NARAL asks “tell us, and your readers, why it’s important to vote pro-choice.”

“The right to swing my fist ends where the other person’s nose begins.” The one thing that I remember from 7th grade constitutional history. This view was expressed by one of America’s “founding fathers.” It is the basis for my political views.

“A girl scout leaves a place better than when she found it.” I was one. And yes, we did always strive to improve our surroundings, our situations, and ourselves. In order to do this, women can not be restricted in choice.

The importance of voting pro-choice is not related to the “for abortion or against abortion” arguement. Not all pro-choicers feel that fetuses (feti?) should be ripped from the mother’s womb and tossed into a barrel of burning bras. No, instead, it is, as the position states, a decision of choice. A woman has the option, if she decides it is best for her, to terminate a pregnancy. The interesting part here, is (while this might not stand true for everyone, I am going by common sense, which can be dangerous in itself), an individuals’ decision (here with this decision said individual will be female simply by anatomical and biological possibilities) will include more than just herself as in one singular person. It will include considerations abotu her extant relationships, her extant situation, how it will effect her future, and how her current situation will effect a completed pregnancy. It offers a choice, not a forced course of action. This is body politics, attempting to remove the ability to persue a medical procedure. An individual’s choice will not effect another’s morality. If an woman does not wish to terminate her pregnancy but will instead carry her child to term for any reason, even if she feels it is morally wrong to abort the fetus, that is her choice. Her decision will not in any way affect others, other than through example.

ProLife is not the opposing party to ProChoice. It is instead twisted rhetoric to avoid using “anti choice.” After all, wasent being for choices what America was based on? Why would any of these individuals, often chosing this topic because of a religously influence morality, want to be seen as anti-american. Instead, they choose to couch the arguement in terms of Choice and Life. But, to be pro-choice is not to be anti-life. Just as pro-life is not about allowing all to live. It instead revisualizes the mother as simply a “walking womb” where her personal needs are not the priority, including the at risk mother’s need to live without (possibly fatal)physical trauma, or even an abused woman’s right to live without psychological trauma.

When asked where I stand, I am strongly ProChoice. But, I could not imagine having an abortion. Not to say that I am against the procedure, but I have not been placed in a situation where I must make a decision to remove a fetus or keep a child. I simply can’t make that decision yet. But, I want the option there, in case that is in fact the best decision for me. I want the option there because it is, in fact, the best decision for others.

Comparing the procedure to others cheapens it. But to be anti choice can be compared to being anti-prosthesis or even anti implants (medical, not cosmetic). My second quote in the introduction: without this procedure, women are forced by structural violence to be

At the same time, body politics can be compared to piercings and other cosmetic procedures or personal substance use, sexual preference, or even a personal choice to not visit a doctor. It does not effect others. It is an individual’s choice. With these decisions, they are still functioning in society. My first quote in the introduction: the government was never intended to restrict the choices of the people. Instead, it provided a structure to facilitate orderly improvement and development of individuals.

Some individuals were escaping other structural violence. Why is the US government attempting to recreate this? Other individuals were willing to risk and postone typical family and social roles to seek their future. Why is the US governement attempting to stifle this?


I apologize if my commentary is not ground shaking. But, at least, it raised my voice, bolstering those with better narrative skills than myself.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: