Pro-Choice: The Safer Option

The facts of this situation are pretty painful to read. But the truth of the matter remains that, whether the country in which they live permits it, the same amount of women are getting abortions. The New York Times reported on a study that concluded that about 20 million women get unsafe abortions. The main reason for this surprising amount of abortions in dangerous environments is because of legality. These are all done in countries in which abortion is illegal. Some of these countries, like Uganda, even have double the abortion rate of the United States.

With this knowledge in mind, why make abortion illegal? The number of women choosing abortion doesn't change, but their safety whilst getting the procedure does. Making the process illegal would do nothing more than increase the risk for women with unwanted pregnancies. 

And the risks would be great. The same study found that 67,000 women die from illegal abortions and their complications. These women could have been okay if they had a safe place to have the procedure and doctors who could properly perform it. But they could not. 

So what should be done? It's simple and requires only two things: 

1. Keep abortion legal. 
2. Make contraception widely and readily available

As long as abortion is illegal, people will continue to strive to find ways around the law. This, for many obvious, is not good.

The only thing that this study found to prevent abortions - to keep them from occurring as frequently at all - is more available contraceptives. In countries in Eastern Europe, the abortion rate has decreased by 50 per cent since contraceptives have been more broadly available. Even those who prefer pro-life must agree: This is a good thing. 

Again, as I've said, this is what being pro-choice is about. Readily give women the options necessary so that she will not have to come to the choice of abortion or not. And, should she come to that choice, give her safe options, so that she may be safe. Otherwise, it seems as though one would rather see more life lost than less. 

Is Twilight's "Breaking Dawn" Pro-Life?

L-R: Pregnant Bella Swan (played by Stewart)
with Rosalie (Nikki Reed)

In the most recent installment of the Twilight saga, the lead character, Bella, gets pregnant. Despite the fact that the child is legitimately killing her, she insists on keeping the child to full term. This could be seen - and has been by many - as a pro-life statement. But is it really?
In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, stars Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson both respond to this question - with a resounding "no. "
Stewart explains that it's not about not killing the child, but more about holding on. She said:

Not wanting to give up the baby is about her holding onto that last thing she would have to give up if she was not human anymore. Right after she and Edward sleep with each other for the first time, she says, "Oh, f***, I might want to be human for a little bit longer." The baby is just an even more intense version of that.

One could argue that she is just reading her own interpretation into the character. But Pattinson thoroughly agrees with her statement, and adds:

Even Stephenie [Meyer, author of the Twilight novels] said it doesn't mean any of that. It is based on a dream.  

Just because she wanted the family doesn't
mean it wasn't her choice.

So, there you go. It seems this is just another example of people getting pro-choice and pro-abortion confused. Just like pro-choice mothers, when a woman chooses to keep a child, it does not automatically make her "pro-life." Yes, this situation seems extreme, because the child in question would have cause the death of the mother. While in this circumstance, most people (like her loved ones in the film) who were pro-choice (and I would hope even most pro-lifers as well) would encourage her to have an abortion. But it is ultimately her choice, and that is the choice that is respected.

Hopefully each of us and our loved ones can aspire to be so supportive of a woman's choice, whether or not it is the one with which we agree.

Barack Obama Gets What "Pro-Choice" is About

Prior to being first elected, now-President Barack Obama was asked somewhat frequently about his views on abortion. He adamantly declared himself pro-choice - and for all of the right reasons. See for yourself in this CNN interview:

He gets it.
He understands, as I've stated before in this blog, that being pro-choice is not about being pro-abortion. It's about putting the trust in the women to make the choice for themselves. Women know what's best in their particular circumstances, and should be allowed to decide with that knowledge in mind.

Rightfully, he acknowledges that this is not an easy decision. I don't think any woman who has had a baby or an abortion would call their choice effortless. It requires a lot of talking, a lot of consideration, and sometimes discussion with a significant other or family members. No women turns to abortion lightly. It is only used when necessary.

Foremost, Obama understands that we need both means to prevent the unwanted pregnancy before it occurs, and make other options more available to women. This means proper and affordable birth control. It means appropriate sex education in schools. But it also means providing healthcare and inexpensive resources for single or low-income mothers, so that more women can honestly afford to keep the child if they desire.

Barack Obama understands that it really isn't about abortion: It's about Choice. 

When Choice is Taken Away

Infants with Tay-Sachs don't live past 5 years old.

At ProchoiceTruth's site, one women submitted her story of when her choice was taken from her.
This woman, Paula, and her husband were both Tay-Sachs carriers. Though they were careful to take plenty of precautions, they still had an accidental pregnancy. After getting it checked by her doctor, he said that the child was fine, and did not have Tay-Sachs.

But the child did have Tay-Sachs. It seems that the doctor, being pro-life, opted not to tell her so that she wouldn't have an abortion. She could no longer properly decide if she wanted to have the child or not. That choice was taken from her.

If she had been given the proper knowledge, she would have had an abortion. But this also means that her son with Tay-Sachs would not be suffering slowly as he died. Her daughter (from another marriage) of seven years old would not be suffering depression from the misery of her brother. Her husband would not have killed himself, not being able to suffer seeing another family member die from Tay-Sachs. (His brother had died at 4 years old). Paula herself would not have had to quit her job and no longer help the economy in that aspect.

Does this kind of suffering need to happen? Or did this happen needlessly?

If you think I am exaggerating the pain of her son or her life, read her words yourself:

Elijah [her son] has is the worst of all. He’s blind, deaf, and paralyzed. He cannot eat, so he needs to be tube-fed. He has seizures every day and is severely brain damaged. He cannot laugh or smile. My baby boy has no quality of life. If I was made aware of his illness, I would have had an abortion. At only 12 weeks, he wouldn’t have felt a thing. Now pain is all he knows and feels. I expect him to pass away within the next few months.

In this situation, either choice is painful. But isn't the "pro-life" option the worst of two evils?

(Interesting to note that "pro-life" doesn't concern itself with "pro-quality-of-life," as it should.)

Are You Really Pro-Life?

What is the real truth about and meaning of Pro Choice and Pro Life? One would think that at the least all or most Americans would agree that Pro Choice is part of our legacy of freedom rights. That goes hand and hand with the privileges that Democracy give us.  Unfortunately, there are many that do not agree that everyone is entitle to decide when is the best time to raise or not a family.  As we have decided to build this blog is to educate the public about what really Pro Choice is referred to.  With that said, the Pro Choice umbrella is not all about abortion, but also about prevention.  Preventive measures for women to get pregnant have been around for a quite a while. But in 1916, when Margaret Sanger opened the first Birth Control Clinic in the U.S.  in Brooklyn, it was shut down in 10 days.  She didn't give up so in 1921she founds the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.  She understood the necessity for women to be able to take care of themselves when it came to such delicate matter as having a baby.  Especially because in those days women only relayed on the men to withdraw on time not to get them pregnant.  Birth control gave women the power to choose when to get pregnant.  Of course the religious society didn't take it that well, in their male eyes, women just wanted to have something not to get pregnant so they could go around and have as much sex as they wanted...Like the men have already been doing for centuries? Wait a minute, what's wrong with this picture?  It certainly looks like a double standard for me... Well, women disadvantages in that area began to banish and men had and still have a hard time accepting that women are not just an acquisition but a person with a brain that is capable of thinking and making smart choices.  In many cultures women are the target of society that looks down on them if they get pregnant before marriage, but the guy is never at fault. He is a man, he has nothing to loose, in fact the more women he sleeps with, the more man he is.  So, why not give the women some protection against those kind of jerks?  Because on top of everything, these women, in some cases, are forced to marry these fools, just to keep the appearances, to save the family name, etc... These women could have been saved from a life of misery if birth control was available at the time.  Keep posted, next time will talk about the sadly unwanted babies...

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1983970,00.html#ixzz28rjYeqRR

Tax Increase 4 rich: Student, Taxes, Vote, Prop 30

Tax Increase 4 rich: Student, Taxes, Vote, Prop 30: In todays society it is hard to know what we're really voting for. It seems like we never get promised results. On top of that we think one ...