Excellent post, Shuamort! The woman always seems to be the forgotten, overlooked part of this story.
Katha Pollitt writes, in her essay "Virginity or Death!" (in 'The Nation', May 30, 2005):
"As they flex their political muscle, right-wing Christians increasingly reveal their condescending view of women as moral children who need to be kept in line sexually by fear. That's why antichoicers will never answer the call of prochoicers to join them in reducing abortions by making birth control more widely available: They want it to be *less* available. Their real interest goes way beyond protecting fetuses -- it's in keeping sex tied to reproduction to keep women in their place. ..."
Actually, what she wrote echoes what I've been suspecting for a long time now -- it's not about kids, it's never been about kids, or their welfare. It's about keeping women controllable through compulsory pregnancy.
To all those women who want to outlaw all reproductive freedom for other women, I have a couple of questions: why aren't you ladies lined up around the block outside those clinics, offering your willing wombs to accept a pregnancy transplant (the technology exists today to make it work) from a woman who doesn't want to carry to term? Since you can't force your religious beliefs down someone else's throat (however much you may want to), why not do the Christian thing instead and offer unwanted fetuses the loving shelter of your uterus? Instead of forcing the social and legal responsibility of parenthood on an unwilling woman, why not accept yourself to raise, house, clothe, feed and educate an unwanted fetus for the next 18 or more years? Put your money (and your uterus) where your mouth is. Yeah, anatomically grisly, but morally, it would make you such great witnesses for your god and your religion...
