Thursday, March 29, 2007

On Compromise. . .

So many times in a pro-choicer's life, they will be told by pro-lifers that they need to compromise. While the first question that comes up, of course, is "WTF do you think The Prevention Act is?", there's something else that always comes to mind for me as well.

When pro-lifers say "compromise", what they really mean is "give in". There's really no way for pro-choicers to compromise with pro-lifers unless pro-lifers finally buy a clue and realize that prevention is the only way to preserve fetal life and women's rights, and thus is the only compromise that's viable (well, to any pro-lifers who aren't only interested in punishing women for unauthorized sex, how few there are). However, prevention is a pro-choice goal, so that would just mean that compromising would mean that pro-lifers would become pro-choice.

So when pro-lifers say compromise, always know that, like many other things, that's not really what they mean.

I was recently told that I needed to compromise by a quasi-choicer. I was told that I only care about the women, and that I need to consider the fetus.

I don't think I understand this mentality. I consider the fetus. I consider it medical waste if the woman doesn't want it inside her, because what's inside her is hers. Her uterus is hers no matter what's residing in it. If this is true, then the only thing that I'm being asked to compromise is the human rights of women.

That's a compromise that I'm unwilling to make. I'm not sorry for that, either.

Oh, speaking of compromise and double-binds, here's a great post by Amanda over at Pandagon about the ERA and how conservatives may react to it.

It's spring break and I'm being a lazy blogger. Cut me some slack.

1 comment:

FEMily! said...

I have no idea why he's even arguing about this. He can talk all he wants about dollar signs, but he really has no sense when it comes to social issues. A couple of years ago, I got into an argument with him about homelessness and how it's not really something that people can help getting into (which is obviously contrary to his view). I told him that, in a few years, he would be at the age of onset for schizophrenia, which is arguably the most debilitating mental illness. A lot of people who live on the streets are deinstitutionalized schizophrenics who never received the proper treatment. But since he doesn't have to deal with serious mental illness (yet), he could care less about it. And the same goes for women. He'll never be one, so what's the point in caring about them? For someone who claims they hold human life in high regard, he sees all of us as dollars and cents, particularly the most vulnerable among us.