I was recently sent an email that enclosed a copy of Eve Ensler's (the creator of the Vagina Monologues) thoughts on Sarah Palin. In it she pits Palin against feminism even going so far as to call her an anti-feminist. For Ensler, feminism is inherently connected to issues like racism, environmental protection, and the eradication of violence and war as well as to more conventional feminist ideals like birth control and abortion. In terms of these problems that we face as an international community, Palin seems like a barrier to freedom and safety instead of a proponent of change and hope.
It is incredibly difficult as a woman to accept a female pro-life candidate. I don't codemn Palin for not aborting her own pregnancy or her daughter for choosing to keep her own child, but I do condemn the idea that anyone should not be able to make the same choice for themselves. The control over reproduction is essential to the freedom of women as it is unique to that gender. To take away this control puts a woman's body under the control of the goverment which is incredibly demeaning. In addition to this, Palin is supportive of abortion only if the mother's life is in danger. This has always seemed like the most supreme arrogance on behalf of some pro-life proponents. Only they can say when it's acceptable to abort a child right? Where does this moral superiority come from? What about pregnancies that result from rape and incest?
Ensler also discussed the "Drill Drill Drill" chant that rose up at the RNC as well as Palin's adoration of guns and hunting. In essence she is in support of ruining a pristine landscape while also killing the unique wildlife that resides there; and she wants to do it with her bare hands. If she wants to use God as a justification for ending abortion rights because it entails the murder of one of God's creations then isn't hunting somewhat contradictory to that belief? Although I am fully aware of the fact that animals are different than human beings are they not God's creatures as well? Are they not innocent bystanders in their own murders much like an unborn fetus?
Perhaps this use of religion as justification for policy is one of the most baffling of Palin's beliefs. While we all know that religion is inherent in our political system (although we preach the separation of church and state) making it a blatant explanation for specific political action is unfair and intolerant. In the article Ensler says that "when war is declared in God's name, when the rights of women are denied in his name, that is the end of separation of church and state and the undoing of everything America has ever tried to be." It is clear that Palin is a Christian and is deeply influenced by the religion and the belief system behind it. In no way does this reflect poorly on her as a human being. But as a politician, her ties to religion have the tendency to turn God into law. We cannot do this in a country that has such diverse religious affiliations. We cannot invoke religion as a reason for war and abortion. To do this is not only to ignore the fact that we have a difference of opinion in our country but also to turn God into a somewhat violent being in naming him as a proponent of war. And let me just be clear, I do not condemn religion because I know the meaning that it can carry for those who follow it. It just does not seem responsible to tie one religion to an entire policy initiative. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/drill-drill-drill_b_124829.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
In regards to your comment about the separation of church and state, in accordance to your argument, I feel that preaching to the country isn't necessary because of the diverse array of religions and beliefs, but in contrast, when someone is religious, just because they have this moral obligation to themselves as well as they way they behave, doesn't make law into God, or God into law... As much as people preach that there is a separation between Church and State, it’s inevitable and impossible to do. I base my actions and beliefs on what I've come to learn from my religion, it's the way I was raised and the way I live my life. Without religion, whose to say people would or would not have certain morals. The way Palin carries herself personifies what she believes in and I don't think she should be condemned for that. I could understand where you are coming from if she tried to convert Americans or preach to them, but I don't think that’s the case. To have a representative that has no belief system or belief system incorporated into the way they think is to have someone without any values.
On another note, the comment you made about abortion and arrogance seemed a bit daft. On behalf of an actual pro-life advocate, most believe, Palin obviously an exception (and I disagree with her stance on rape/incest as stated here http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Abortion.htm), that abortion is necessary or reasonable, not only if the mother’s life is in danger but also during cases of rape or incest. It’s not about saying when it’s acceptable to have an abortion, it’s about saving a human life, and doing what’s right. It’s not a case of moral “superiority” as you call it but morals in general. While I understand the civil issue of privacy in terms of women, murder is illegal and aborting a baby is parallel to this. And you touched on the fact that hunting is analogous to abortion, and I respectfully disagree. Making that argument might work if you thought eating meat or any of “God’s creatures” was morally wrong, but it’s not. Eating meat is ok, fishing is ok, and hunting people is definitely not. A woman’s body is under the control of the government insomuch as she didn’t control her own body. She made the mistake and actions are always succeeded by consequences. Religion is not made as justification, but rather principles behind the act. If I choose not to have an abortion, I’m not going to say because God doesn’t want it, it’s going to be because I’m morally opposed. And an end to that will not be the fall of America. American was founded on religious principles. There is a difference between having control over being able to reproduce and ending a pregnancy because of some mishap you can’t take responsibility for.
I think that perhaps there was some of my post that may have been misunderstood considering your response. It says explicitly in the text that I DO NOT condemn Sarah Palin for her deep connection to her religion and I made it very clear that I have the utmost respect for those who hold religion in high esteem. My particular point in that matter was that I don't think that this religious mindset should necessarily be employed in politics considering the fact that not everyone in this country believes in the same morals or values. I'm sure you are not suggesting imposing one religion over another through policy correct? It is also stated very clearly that in no way am I under the impression that our country is not inherently tied to religion. However, this connection was from the beginning of our country's foundations but need not continue to be emphasized today.
I also feel that it is necessary to clarify that by arrogance I meant that to assume that YOUR (and I do not mean yours personally) morals are above others is arrogant. To assume that you have the right to EVER tell someone what to do with their body solely on the basis of your own belief is indeed arrogant. Pro-choice does not seek to force people to have abortions or to encourage unsafe sex but it allows for the choice that all women should be allowed to make. Abortion may be one of the most influential birth control processes we have. Besides the few women who are incredibly irresponsible and have many abortions, for most women the horror of the experience (both the physical and emotional pain) is indeed a deterrent to unsafe sex.
I would also like to mention that fact that I was highly offended by the fact that you referred to my comments as daft, instead of using a more appropriate and respectful word. In addition, to imply that without religion, people may not have morals does not sit well with me either. As someone who does not follow religion I consider myself an incredibly moral individual with a legitimate interest in what is good and right. There are many people in our world who have proven that religion does not equal morality in every sense. To imply that an absence of religion could mean an absence of values is unfair to those people that employ their own value systems outside religion.
Although it wasn't referring to your comment as a whole, just your use of the word "arrogant," I apologize for using the word "daft," I just don't understand how you can implicitly place a woman's right of choice over a baby's right to live. In terms of pro-choice, I know it's not the woman's intention of killing a baby but rather her right to do so, I just don't think it's right. I wasn't trying to offend you, I just tend to get a little worked up every so often.
In response to your other comment, you said you didn't condemn Palin for not aborting her pregnancy and what I was trying to get at was that she shouldn't be condemned for what she believes in, not necessarily the actions she's taken. I don't really appreciate the sarcasm, as I at no point in my post implied that one religion was more important than another. Merely, that people, for instance Palin, derive their actions and beliefs from certain things (such as religion) and if she were to become vice president, those would be what would guide her behavior. She shouldn't have to abandon what she believes in because others agree. If she were to be elected, the point is, she was elected and thus is trusted to run the country in the way she, as vice president, deems apprpriate.
On another note, I explicitly didn't use the word religion when describing values because I know that not everyone is religious. So maybe there was some misunderdtanding there. I'm fully aware of the fact that people who are atheist or agnostic or just indifferent have values. And you're values are based on whatever your belief system is... So there isn't really any reason for you to be offended by that. You base whatever you hold to be moral or whatever you value on your belief system whether it come from religion, experience, knowledge, other people, etc.
Stephanie, I'm curious how you rationalize that "A woman’s body is under the control of the government insomuch as she didn’t control her own body." It seems like you are insinuating that every who has had an abortion lacks complete self-control and acted irresponsibly. You might want to consider the various circumstances under which abortion is a much more beneficial choice for the mother and the eventual child. For example, she could choose to keep this baby, or rather, embryo, and raise it in painful poverty not even able to meet its needs, because she chose (or, and I hope this never happens, was forced by the government) not to have an abortion. She never had the opportunity to get an education, and therefore will likely never be able to get a job that can support a family. People may speak of lovely adoptions and Hollywood sure does glamorize them, but realistically adoptions are expensive and require an intense process. If abortions were illegal there would certainly be more unwanted pregnancies than adoptive parents waiting for them, so this the reality.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by a "belief system." If (and I understand it might not be) this refers to a religious basis of beliefs, then to say that "To have a representative that has no belief system or belief system incorporated into the way they think is to have someone without any values" could be quite offensive to those without religious affiliation, as many of these people are perfectly moral individuals. If a "belief system" simply refers to a set of beliefs by which that person lives, I don't think that anyone, except perhaps those with severe mental disabilities or young children, could be said to completely lack a system of thoughts and beliefs which dictate their life. As a principle, every person has values, they just might be incongruous with your own. This certainly does not make them incapable of making value judgments and making "good" moral decisions.
I intentionally didn’t use the word religion in assessing values because I know not everyone is religious, instead I used “belief system”. What I meant by that was more attuned to your latter definition in which it is “a set of beliefs by which that person lives”. I was trying to relay the fact that someone who doesn’t believe in anything (and by anything I am not referring only to religion) can’t have values. Everyone has certain beliefs, but not everyone uses those to guide their behavior and I was simply trying to state that Palin does.
To comment on the other aspect of your post, most abortions are performed within 4 to 12 weeks after conception, where this baby, or I’m sorry, “embryo” (I’m not sure if this word was used to ease your conscience) has already developed a heart, spine, arms, legs, etc. You guys rely on the fact that it is the woman’s body to do with it what she pleases and since they baby is inside of her, it’s like her property or something, but it’s not. A life can’t be owned because who’s to say the child will ever stop become the property of their mother, would it be ok to end the pregnancy if it was in its 30th week or to kill the child when it was 2 years old? Didn’t think so…
And I AM insinuating, and more appropriately stating, that they acted carelessly. Although using the excuse that the condom broke or there was some slippage is perfectly reasonable, there are such things as the pill or Plan B. If they weren’t ready for the consequences, once again, they shouldn’t have acted. If they’re not responsible enough, or willing enough, or more importantly, mature enough to have a child, they should be responsible when having sex, or abstain altogether. It’s appalling to hear that women become pregnant due to rape or incest but the fact is that of those who had abortions, 1% of women were pregnant due to rape and 0.5% because of incest. Although those numbers aren’t to be taken lightly, they’re nothing compared to the staggering 90+% who did it because of personal and social reasons.
What I understand you guys suggesting is that in essence, the right of the baby is forfeited to the right of the mother, even though she’s the one who acted irresponsibly. I think that’s completely egotistical and rather selfish of the woman to think that it’s ok for her to choose a life of convenience over the life of a child. And you’re completely right, there are several cases who use financial obligations and relationship issues as reasons for having an abortion, but in my personal opinion, it isn’t justified. You also assume that if abortions were illegal, people would put more children up for adoption, but in reality, if abortions were illegal, it would most likely make people more responsible while having sex knowing that that option is no longer available. According to your example, because a woman is poor is a valid reason to no longer have a child. Ok, but are you also implying that if someone does have a child and is poor, it’s ok for them to just get rid of their child because they don’t have an education and can’t get a decent job? I assume not because that would be ridiculous!
Post a Comment