Motherhood Changes You

Motherhood (and parenting) changes you.

One big difference I've noticed is, since the pregnancy, I crave chocolate. I know that this is nothing new, stereotypically; I've always had a sweet tooth (several, actually, and they match my collection of root canals), but I've always been much more into sweet, fruity candy (cherry Pull-n-Peel Twizzlers and gummy bears and Skittles and such) than into chocolate... but since the pregnancy, I've been in dire need of dark chocolate. And not so much the fruity candy.

The pregnancy somehow changed my genetic makeup.

But on a more serious note...

I've flow on planes loads of times. I like flying. I like turbulence -- it's like a little roller coaster during the flight. I love the way your stomach dips when the wheels of the plane lose contact with the ground, and the bump when they touch down again. I am not squeamish about flying AT ALL.

MonkeyBoy took his first ever plane ride last week.

On our last flight, the flight attendant came over and let us know the plane was equipped with an infant life vest, which was underneath the seat across the aisle on the row in front of us. The card with all the safety info had illustrations of an infant in said life vest, floating on the water -- ALONE -- in his glow-in-the-dark life vest.

I made Freddy put the card away, because looking at it made me feel nauseous. I hugged my chubby baby and tried really hard to ignore the flight attendant cheerily pantomiming the safety information.

A while back I went to see a play where the main character is a gay teen. On one scene, he calls him mom and tries to come out to her, but she won't let him say the words. Then she has a song about her baby boy growing up... can't remember what the song said exactly, but she was, obviously, sad (I haven't decided yet if she was upset that her son was gay because she thought it was a sin -- the poor guy was at a Catholic boarding school -- or because she knew how hard his life would be, the hate and discrimination he would face, because he was gay). I fine with all this until the stage behind the mom started showing a slideshow of the guy's baby and childhood photos. When I saw that first baby photo, I lost it. Gut? Wrenched. I wanted to be home, with my baby, hugging him, protecting him from all the hate and ignorance and bigotry out there.

I have a superhuman ability to survive and function on a ridiculously minuscule amount of sleep. And, most of the time, I manage to even be cheerful.

Motherhood changes you.

But you know what hasn't changed?

I still don't regret my abortion.

Tweet

On babies "choosing"

I had to share Tanya N.s comment from the Facebook discussion I was sort-of following:

If unborn babies could see into their future and decide if they wanted to be born or not, I would be all for letting them decide. Since they CAN'T, it's up to their mother to make the best decision they can for them.

No baby chooses to be conceived or born. And again, I don't believe that aborted babies CARE that they didn't "have a chance" or not. To me, that is a projection of feelings that just don't exist...

Exactly.

Tweet

"Selling" breast milk

From the weekly Our365 email I get about my baby's development (courtesy of the people who took newborn photos in the hospital):

Yes, of course. You'd find it right next to the gallons of blood and sperm.

First of all, we don't package and sell breast milk as if it were, say cow's milk. It's distributed by donor milk banks, you know, same as we do with blood. And sperm. 

Because there are so few donor banks (and the requirements are so strict -- I can't donate milk because I'm on antidepressants that are safe to take while nursing, but those meds prohibit me from donating), and because the fees to use donated milk are so steep and insurance companies put so many restrictions on who is "worthy" of receiving the little human milk there is available, some moms contribute to programs like Eats on Feets, or share their milk informally with a mom friend in need.

Yes, there have been instances of moms asking for a fee for this service (I don't have any links, but I saw people asking about it on one of the birth/parenting Facebook pages I follow, so it must have happened, at least once...), but it's not a money-making business, as Kristina C. makes it sound. It's "donating breast milk," not "selling" it.

And, Kristina C., if you're going to use an analogy... well... use the analogy. We donate and distribute human breast milk same as we do human blood or sperm: through banks, with medical screenings, and you must apply to receive the product. We don't sell blood or sperm at Stop & Shop either, so if your child is bleeding out after a car wreck, are you going to refuse the blood transfusion that could save hir life?

"Where your money is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:21

Hungerfast.org

The ELCA and abortion, courtesy of @justsnapd8

Last night I posted a link to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America's Social Statement on Abortion, since @KushielsMoon had asked me for it. I had heard a while back that the ELCA (Lutheran denomination of which I am a member) was pro-choice, but I had never looked much into it. Until last night.

Reading the statement, I was quite proud of my church. The wording, though cautious to make sure it doesn't tick off the antis, shows great respect for the woman, and an understanding of what pregnancy means for her. Every time the fetus is mentioned, the woman and her life and rights are also mentioned.

So I posted this:

@justsnapd8 decided to RT my Tweet, changing it to this:

As you can imagine, this yanked my chain. First of all, READ THE DOCUMENT. Second of all, READ THE DOCUMENT AND DON'T LIE. My church deplores the circumstances that lead a woman to be faced with an unwanted pregnancy, but it understands that abortion is a morally justifiable choice.

We went back and forth on this, but she wasn't able to follow the conversation. It was too taxing to be asked to back up her claims with, you know, accurate statements and facts (those silly things we pro-choicers always go on and on about).

So, I guess after she got some sleep, she wrote this blog post. Where she spent most of her time copying and pasting Tweets between @ProChoiceGal and me, instead of talking about the ELCA's statement.

The following is my response (which I copied and pasted here because I doubted it would survive comment moderation on her blog. Alas, it did, but I was going to write about the ELCA's statement anyway, and after writing my response I realized it said most of the stuff I was going to blog. So here it is):

The ELCA's statement is a 12-page document, and you quote three paragraphs? Don't you think you're missing something?

I know you're used to taking things out of context, but the second part of my Tweet to @ProChoiceGal, where we're talking about our church choices, is kind of relevant and important. If you're interested in truth and honesty, then post the second half of my sentence.

But since you like to deal in isolated quotations, let me give you a few more from the ELCA's statement (emphasis mine):

"The language used in discussing abortion should ignore neither the value of unborn life NOR THE VALUE OF THE WOMAN AND HER OTHER RELATIONSHIPS."

"A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born..." "The concern for both the life of the woman and the developing life in her womb express a common commitment to life. This requires that we move beyond the usual 'pro-life' versus 'pro-choice' language in discussing abortion."

The ELCA is NOT part of your "pro-life"/anti-choice camp. Even if you only read the quotes you cherry-picked, the church clearly accepts a woman making a choice to terminate a pregnancy. It does not say abortion should be avoided or outlawed, it says "Abortion ought to be an option only of last resort." It says abortion should be an option available to women! Does that sound like an anti-choice organization to you?

Now, to clarify, if you take the time to look at your Twitter stream, you will see that you are the only who told me to look at Section III. That section says (emphasis mine):

"We also deplore the circumstances that lead a woman to consider abortion as the best option available to her. We are moved particularly by the anguish of women who face unintended pregnancies alone. The panic and isolation of such pregnancies, even in the best of circumstances, can be traumatic. Poverty, lack of supportive relationships, immaturity, oppressive social realities, sexism, and racism can intensify her sense of powerlessness. The prospect of having and caring for a child can seem overwhelming.

"We confess our sin as a community of faith. We often have fallen short in respecting God's gift of life and IN PROVIDING CONDITIONS MORE CONDUCIVE FOR BRINGING NEW LIFE INTO THE WORLD."

Regarding sex, it does say, "Marriage is the appropriate context for sexual intercourse." Notice it says "appropriate," not "only." And it follows that with (emphasis mine): "We affirm that the goodness of sexual intercourse GOES BEYOND ITS PROCREATIVE PURPOSE." Alas! Sex JUST FOR FUN without the intent of conceiving IS ALLOWED!

"Whenever sexual intercourse occurs apart from the intent to conceive, the use of contraceptives is the responsibility of the man and of the woman." These statements go against your "pro-life"/anti-choice beliefs in several ways:

-sex outside of marriage is acknowledged and not condemned.

-sex for fun, too; it's not solely for procreation.

-birth control is encouraged.

-the use of birth control rests on BOTH parties' shoulders (i.e., the "blame" is not placed solely on the woman, like most anti-choicers like to do).

But there's more! If we turn the page, we find this:

"Our congregations and church schools ought to provide sex education in the context of the Christian faith." Wow! Sex ed! Look at that!

"It is especially important that young men and young women be taught to exercise their sexuality responsibly." Notice it doesn't say they should be "taught abstinence-only" -- it says they would EXERCISE their sexuality. They are allowed to be sexually active, but we must teach them how to do so RESPONSIBLY.

"It is important that those who counsel persons faced with unintended pregnancies respect how deeply the woman's pregnancy involves her whole person -- body, mind and spirit -- in relation to all the commitments that comprise her stewardship of life."

"This church recognizes that there can be sound reasons for ending a pregnancy through induces abortion." Doesn't this go against the "pro-life"/anti-choice core beliefs???

"What is determined to be a morally responsible decision in one situation may not be in another... We also need to consider the conditions under which the pregnancy occurred and THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PREGNANCY FOR THE WOMAN'S LIFE." (emphasis mine)

Regarding politics and law (emphasis mine): "What is legal is not necessarily moral, and WHAT IS MORAL SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE ENACTED INTO LAW. LAWS CANNOT ENFORCE CHRISTIAN LOVE, but in principle and application they should be just."

"In our attempts to influence the shaping of public policy, WE SHOULD NOT DISREGARD THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS, but work faithfully through the public process by which justice is sought for all."

"Prevention of unintended pregnancies is crucial in lessening the number of abortions. In addition to efforts within church and home, THIS CHURCH SUPPORTS APPROPRIATE FORMS OF SEX EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY PREGNANCY PREVENTION PROGRAMS, AND PARENTING PREPARATION CLASSES. WE RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR CONTRACEPTIVES TO BE AVAILABLE, FOR VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION TO BE CONSIDERED, AND FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW FORMS OF CONTRACEPTION." (emphasis mine)

Again, doesn't that sound like the OPPOSITE of what the "pro-life"/anti-choice side fights for??

"Because of our conviction that BOTH the life of the woman and the life in her womb must be respectd by law, this church opposes:

-the total lack of regulation of abortion;

-LEGISLATION THAT WOULD OUTLAW ABORTION IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES;

-LAWS THAT PREVENT ACCESS TO INFORMATION ABOUT ALL OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO WOMEN FACED WITH UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES;

-LAWS THAT DENY ACCESS TO SAFE AND AFFORDABLE SERVICES TO MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE ABORTIONS;

-mandatory or coerced abortion or sterilization; -laws that prevent couples from practicing contraception;

-LAWS THAT PRIMARILY INTENDED TO HARASS THOSE CONTEMPLATING OR DECIDING FOR AN ABORTION."

Again, I have a hard time hearing the "pro-life"/anti-choice argument there... because IT IS PRO-CHOICE.

It even addresses laws about spousal or parental notification or consent: "While we strongly affirm family communication and support, the law should recognize that in some cases husband or partner involvement in the decision could be unwise or dangerous (e.g., if the relationship is broken or violent). If the law requires parental consent when the woman is a minor, it should specify other trusted adults as alternatives if parental involvement is inappropriate or unsafe."

I recommend that anyone wanting to know the full story read the actual document, all of it; it can be found here. After reading the full document, can you honestly tell me the ELCA is not pro-choice?

A Verry Merry "Un"-Birthday: Give water!

My sister's having a birthday this month, and she decided to do something cool with it. This is the email she sent out:

Hi everyone,

Today I came across this great nonprofit called charity: water that works to help provide clean drinking water to those who don't yet have access to it. Turns out there's a billion people worldwide who don't have clean drinking water, and may even have to walk miles to access the bit of polluted water they are able to drink. Nearly 50,000 people will die just this week as a result of this poor water quality. This organization raises money to be able to go to these communities and build water wells, so they are able to get the water they need-- something so essential to life, yet that we take for granted every day as we turn on the tap in our kitchens and bathrooms.

Charity: water started 3 years ago, when one of its future founding members decided to "give up" his birthday (which was in September) and instead of asking for gifts ask everyone to donate $20, with the goal of helping with this water problem. He raised $1,400 and was able to build 6 water wells with it. The project has taken off since then, and has now provided something like 700,000 people with clean drinking water.

One of the ways they raise money is by asking other September birthdays to "give up" their birthdays in the same way. And that's what I'm doing this year-- instead of birthday gifts, I'm asking any of you who were planning on buying me something (or who simply want to help out) to donate to this cause. You can do this at the fundraising page I have set up here:

http://mycharitywater.org/mightymarce

I've set my goal amount to $400. Will you help me meet it?

Thank you! =)

Marcy

(Wish I'd heard about this in July! Maybe next year...)

Sadly, the issue is way more complicated than that...

[Edited to include the video and give the names of the people involved.]

Yesterday I saw a YouTube clip of some Congressguy Congressman Tim Ryan on some cable news show Hardball talking about President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, and his call to us to find common ground on the issue of abortion and provide access to birth control to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. The Congressdude Congressman Ryan was described as "against abortion rights" but he was working with, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, a pro-choice legislator to make birth control more affordable and accessible to women, specifically low-income women, to reduce the need for abortions.

I'm all for that, but one thing the guy Congressman Ryan said bugged me. He also went on about adoption and social services, to encourage women to carry the pregnancy to term. As I write that I realize that this guy did a lot of things I like (I might have to go find the video now); he used the words "carry the pregnancy to term" instead of talking about babies or other words that make the issue more emotional. He also pointed out that not having the abortion means carrying the pregnancy to term and needing social services to care for the child, so we need to provide appropriate health care for the infant and welfare for the mother and child. (So often in the abortion debate the anti-choicers scream and holler about the "baby" but forget to add its post-partum existence into the equation.)

But back to what bugged me -- I know he had very little time to make his points and the interviewer dude kept interrupting him and asking stupid questions he'd already answered, but I got the impression the Congressman thought the only reason a woman chooses to abort instead of carrying the pregnancy to term is economic restrictions: if we provide more info and support for adoption services, women will be convinced to carry the pregnancy to term; if we provide them with proper welfare and social services programs to help them care for the child, women will carry the pregnancy to term instead of abort.

Again, the issue is not that simple. There are many, many reasons why a woman would choose to terminate a pregnancy. This is not a minor inconvenience, this is a life-changing event. Even if she does not intend to keep the child, the pregnancy itself will have a huge impact on her life (and take a huge toll on her body). Think about it. Think about, every day of those nine months.

Going to work, pregnant. Dealing with morning sickness (that lasts all day long). Fatigue, because your body is taking every available ounce of energy to form the fetus growing inside of you. Showing.

Buying new clothes to fit your new body -- bigger bras, because your breasts will get bigger (they're making milk, remember?) And, in case you don't know, bras are effin' expensive. Buying new pants. Buying new tops. Buying new shoes because your feet and ankles have swollen that much.

Think about doing your job every day, pregnant. FOR A CHILD YOU WILL NOT KEEP. Are you on your feet all day? Are you talking to people who will ask you about "the baby"? (Most low-income women -- who have difficulties affording birth control -- don't have cushy desk jobs; they have more physically-demanding jobs. Do you want to wait tables or scrub toilets or restock shelves in your third trimester? Or maybe you have a customer service job, where people will ask you all kinds of baby questions and insist on touching your stomach. What fun!)

Can you afford maternity leave? Even one weekend, to give birth and allow your body to recover? What if there are any complications with the pregnancy, and you need bedrest? Can you afford the pre-natal care? Can you afford the time off from work for the pre-natal care doctor's visits? If you suffer post-partum depression, will you be able to afford more time off to go see a psychiatrist or psychologist? What about anti-depressants, will you be able to afford those?

How are you going to face all those people you interact with on a daily basis after the baby is born, and you don't have it? How are you going to deal with their questions?

And even that is not even scratching the surface of the reasons why a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy.

This is a deeply personal issue. The reasons I had for choosing to terminate my pregnancy are totally different from the reasons any other woman in the waiting room with me in the clinic that morning had. For some, the economic factor is a big deal. For others, money is not the problem -- the problem is much bigger than that.

This is why we need to leave the option open.

We need to do everything in our power to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place (birth control, comprehensive sex ed), but we need to leave the option open, for all the other reasons that your average Congressman can't even fathom.

Yesterday I used obesity as an analogy for the reproductive rights debate. I felt a little uneasy writing about it, because I am rather ignorant on the topic. Today, I read Julie Neumann's post on Change.org's Women's Rights blog, and I felt even more unqualified to have written what I did. Eating disorders are an extremely complex issue and the reasons why a person develops an eating disorder are very personal (unique to each person, there is not one easy answer); yesterday I reduced it to the stereotyped, simplified version (in my defense, I was not discussion the issue itself in depth, I was mentioning it as an example, but still).

Julie shares quotes from several people with eating disorders saying what their eating disorder is "all about" -- the reasons why they do what they do. I felt extremely narrow-minded and ignorant as I read; there is so much more to this issue that we don't even realize, because we are not there. (It's an excellent post, please read it.)

We're not going to fix it with a Band-Aid (eating disorders or reproductive rights). We need to do everything we can to fix the known causes and fix the stuff that we can fix (health care, access to birth control, comprehensive sex ed), but we're never going to make it go away completely. Which is why we need to allow each woman to make the choice for herself.

Some thoughts to share on Mother's Day

First of all, happy Mother's Day to all the women out there doing the hardest and most important job out there.

A special mention goes to all the non-biological moms: adoptive and foster moms, and all those other women who don't hold an official title other than friend or family member but who have seen the need and stepped in to the mother's role, for whatever reason.

But I also want to take today to say thanks to all the women who have taken pains to not become mothers -- either just yet or ever. Motherhood is the hardest thing you or your body will ever do; it demands everything from you. It is not for everyone, not matter what society or religious fundamentalists try to feed you.

No woman should ever be forced or shamed into motherhood. She doesn't deserve it and neither does her potential child.

Thank you to all the doctors and scientists who have developed medications and medical procedures to allow women to take control of if and when they want to become mothers. Thank you to President Obama for cutting funding for abstinence-only programs, so our young women can have the facts they will need to make choices about their bodies, and to take control of when or if they want to become mothers.

Thank you to all the women who came before us and fought the hard fights to win our right to make our own decisions about when or if to become mothers. Thank you to the women who keep fighting, so we can keep those rights.

And thank you to the women who have had to make an unpopular choice, because that choice was the right thing for them and their potential child.

Motherhood is not a job to be entered lightly. Motherhood is a big deal. It's not mandatory and it should never be a punishment. Our women don't deserve that, and our children certainly don't.

To all the mothers out there, raising our future generations, thank you.

But I have to also send a shout-out to all those women who know they're not ready for the job at this point in time, or who know they're not interested in the job at all, and have to deal with a society that looks upon them as three-headed lepers. 'Cuz that kind of sucks too.

Neil Gaiman on The Colbert Report

Frankly, I'm ashamed to admit I have not read anything by this gent* yet.



Video shamelessly stolen from Inkygirl.

*Gaiman, not Colbert.

An aside, in honor of Valentine's Day

Just in case anyone was wondering, I am married to the best husband ever. Who will be a great father, when the time comes.

Would he and I have dated if I had a child already? Would I eve have been free to date at all, had I born that child? The other responsible party in that affair made it quite clear that had I carried the pregnancy to term, he and I would have gotten married. Forever and ever amen, no way out, ever. (You see, his dad was a j@cka$$, and ex-boyfriend's parents' divorce was horrible, thanks to j@cka$$ dad. So he vowed never to get divorced, ever, period end of sentence. Even if he got his mistress pregnant, like his dad did, while his wife was expecting their fifth.)

Where would I be now, had I taken that path? Married to a pot-smoker with great ambitions and ideas but not an ounce of motivation to act on any of his ambitions. Guess whose fault his failure would have been? *raises hand* Oh, and *raises imaginary potential baby's hand*

Finding the strength to make the decision to terminate my pregnancy was a huge first step for me. I later found the strength to break up with this guy, instead of staying with him because he liked having sex with me. (Hated spending time with me other than when we watched his movies at home, or when I listened to his great plans and arguments and agreed wholeheartedly with every word, but golly when he snapped his fingers I'd better be ready to drop on my back -- or knees, whichever he was in the mood for.)

Later on I even found the strength to divorce my first husband. Which put me in a position where I could meet and date my current husband. And, having been with those other guys, I finally understood what I had in front of me, when I met this guy. We celebrate our first wedding anniversary a month from tomorrow.


As women, we are often raised to serve. To please others. To work for others. To put others' demands, needs, and wishes before our own. That's pretty much what motherhood is about: you've brought this other person into the world, it is your job to tend to its needs until it is capable of doing so on its own. We see our mothers model this behavior, and we internalize it.

This is why women are so easily roped into abusive relationships. We are raised to feel it is our job to make others happy, and when he isn't happy, and he tells us it's our fault, we believe him, regardless of the facts.

When I decided to terminate my pregnancy, instead of carrying the pregnancy to term because that's what the Catholic church told me I should do and because my family and my then-boyfriend's family (his dad's at least) had enough money that they could support us (since the then-boyfriend would, in the years to come, be fired TWICE from the same job for the same reason: smoking pot on the job), that was the first time I made a major decision based on what I wanted, not what someone else wanted or expected me to do. Same with the break-up, and the divorce. Baby steps, learning to put myself first when necessary.

The life experiences I've had thanks to making that choice have made me into someone who will be a much better mother, when the time comes, than that 22-year-old could ever have been.

THIS IS WHY I WANT TO PUT EVERYONE ON MANDATORY BIRTH CONTROL

http://jezebel.com/5153067/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-father#c10718696

I don't even have words.

I want to stab myself in the eye. And uterus. Just to make it STOP.

Do you know how many times I hear my students talk about "my kid"? I try to tell myself I didn't hear it. Especially not from that kid. I tell myself I misheard. Or that he's talking about his nephew, or cousin, or anything else.

The saddest part? Many of these girls are trying to get pregnant. Why? One of two reasons:

A) Because this way he'll stay with me. Because I love him so much that I want to have his baby.

or

B) Because they are so starved for love and attention that they decide to bring a baby into this world just so that baby will give them a child's unconditional love. They cannot get love from their parents, so they create a new person just for the purpose of receiving that person's love.

... the "RIGHT" to bear children (part 2): What about the rights of the child?

In yesterday's comments, Marcy wrote:

I often hear pro-lifers say that abortion is wrong b/c the child shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes of the parents, and that the parents (well, usually the mother b/c dad's gone, he doesn't have to do anything) need to "face the consequences for their actions." Yeah, well, a child should NEVER be a "consequence." It is a living, breathing being that will internalize how it is treated, and making him grow up in a home with parents that don't know what they're doing and who will neglect or even abuse him is so twisted it begs the question of what kind of a respect they truly have for "life" at all. Apparently quality has nothing to do with it.

Once again proving great minds think alike, as this was, pretty much, today's blog topic.

The pro-life/anti-reproductive rights side makes such a fuss about "the child" and "the baby" when it's inside the uterus... but what about once it comes out? (We all know Republicans/conservatives/the right are, generally as a group, opposed to A) comprehensive sex ed, B) access to birth control, and C) abortion; interestingly enough, they are also against providing social services to people -- including mothers and their children -- in need. So how exactly does that math work out?)

The idea that a woman should not have an abortion because she needs to face the consequences of her actions is flawed on many levels.

1) Two people did the deed. One of the two parties can walk away at any time (and generally does) unscathed, consequence-less.

2) The person who receives the brunt of the punishment is innocent of any "crime." That child never asked to be born, and never asked to be born to parents who didn't want it. How dare you condemn a child to that kind of life?

Pregnancy should never be a punishment. I don't know what kind of sick and twisted mindset someone would have to have to think that. Especially when the one person truly being punished is the one whose rights you seem so keen to champion.

Maybe some people have lived such sheltered, charmed lives that they truly do not understand what birthing an unwanted child entails for the child. For many of us, life is good. It is a wonderful life. But not for all of us.

Maybe you need to spend some time outside your white picket fence, and find out what happens to these children once they exit the uterus. Come see what I've seen (and I know what I've seen is very limited).

One of the women in One in 3 was a mother who already had four or five children at home (I can't remember the details). As she filled out the paperwork, the stage grew dark and a spotlight singled her out. On the screen behind her, we saw a sonogram, and she looked down at her abdomen and spoke to the potential child. I wish I had the text of her monologue, because (as was the rest of the play) it was brilliant. It explained this very point (remember, the playwrights interviewed several women about their experiences in order to write the play -- these are real women's words and experiences, not something flowery and propaganda-y they pulled out of their vaginas).

The mother explained to the embryo that terminating the pregnancy was the best thing she could do for it -- the potential child did not deserve the life it would be born into. "There's not enough food, not enough love to go around." This was the only way for the potential child to escape a life that was not good enough for it. "Or you'll grow up to be like him... and I can't allow that. That's why I have to do this."

This is where the anti-reproductive rights side will cry, "Adoption! Adoption!" as if it were duct tape or WD-40. Well, it isn't. For many reasons. But in this situation (I'll get to the others later): there's a father in the picture. The mother may have been willing to carry the pregnancy to term to give the child up for adoption, but would the father allow it? Would he let her do it? Or would he get mad at her for being pregnant -- again* -- and would he beat her? Or would he beat her for some other reason, harming the potential child and causing even more health hazards to the mother? There are too many layers, to many what-ifs... there is no easy solution, which is why we want to keep a variety of options open.

I can't speak for the whole movement, but I know at least for me (and Marcy), one of the reasons why I fight for a woman's right to choose is for the sake of that potential child. This issue doesn't end in the ninth month of pregnancy, because at the end of that ninth month you now have a human being -- an undeniable, unequivocal human being. Let's think about that human being when we talk about all this.

*Freddy just shared with me a story from his bygone days as a bartender, when one of the cooks came in complaining that his wife was pregnant again, saying, "I told her I didn't want any more kids!" he yelled... see? We're not making this stuff up! (Oh, and this guy was an alcoholic. So, you're telling me God wants another child to be born into this household?)

... the "RIGHT" to bear children (part 1.5): Biology does not a mother make.

I was going to hit the Big One today ("defining" life and all that), but yesterday morning I received this Direct Message on Twitter:

I'm really troubled by the idea that you need a "right" to be a mother. You are a mother, it's a biological fact.

When I replied with "Biology does not a mother make," the Twitterer wrote:

Yes it does. Check you biology text.

I think some of the links on yesterday's post (which was not up yet when this exchange took place) kind of prove my point.

But I see the root of the problem: we use one word to talk about two things that can be entirely different.

In Spanish, the word "aborto" refers to both an (elective) abortion and a miscarriage (spontaneous abortion). This infuriates me, because the two are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. (If this is not inherently obvious to you, then I'll go into the details when I write about when "life" begins.) We have the same problem here, with the word "mother."

Having the necessary working parts and possessing the ability to pop a baby out doesn't make you a mother. Yes, it makes you a biological mother, but it doesn't make you a mother.

Loving and nurturing that baby makes you a mother.

The girls in those links had the necessary biology. Would you call them "mothers"?

Limiting "motherhood" to something as simple and vacant as biology is also horrendously insulting to mothers who adopt. I'd like to see anyone go up to an adoptive mother and tell her she's not a mother simply because the child didn't come out of her own vagina.

Motherhood is a huge undertaking. It is the most important job in the world. Seriously. It is the beginning of everything.

And, unfortunately, too many people out there are doing an amazing job of screwing it up.

The influence a parent has over her child is immeasurable. (And, in my opinion, underestimated.) I seriously believe we could solve all the problems of the world if we found a way to give everyone caring, loving, nurturing parents.

Motherhood (and fatherhood; don't want to leave them out) is a huge undertaking. It is a huge responsibility. One that should be entered into when one is ready to do so.

Not something that you're stuck with because the condom broke or you missed your pill one day. Because that's just not fair to the child.

You may have the right to bear arms, but no one guaranteed you the RIGHT to bear children (pt 1)

As you can tell from yesterday's post, I have a lot of topics to cover. I fully intended to write about one of the many tangents I started yesterday, but two things happened. Rather, the same-ish thing happened, twice.

First, DailyCoyote Twittered a link to this post. (Beware of bile, and cuss words, spewing forth from the screen. But both are justified, so it's okay.)

Then, I read this post, which Marcy had shared yesterday (but my lunch twenty-seven-minutes was over so I didn't have time to read it then).

I don't know if I have it in me to write this post tonight. There's so much to say about this woman, and why she deserves to have her uterus ripped out through her nose. However, I think the two people above said it best. Please read the comments on A Little Pregnant's blog post -- I was a little lost on the jargon (I figured out IVF is in-vitro fertilization, but don't ask me what IUI or ART are... I assume HOM refers to using hormones, but don't ask me beyond that*), but you can follow along.

Children are not toys. They are not puppies. They are not conmemorative quarters you hoard in hopes of someday selling on Ebay for a $2 million profit.

I swear, sometimes I think we pro-choicers understand and value a child's life much more than some of these "pro-lifers" who babble on about "gifts from God" with complete disregard for the quality of life of that presumed "gift."

Children are not a right, and they are not a "gift." (Gifts are things, and they are often returned or regifted.) Children are a priviledge and a responsibility.

If you have 14 of them, and you are alone (and quite possibly mentally unstable), then you are not fulfilling the responsibility. I have a hard time not seeing having 14 children** as child abuse. How are these children NOT going to be neglected?

*Sorry, I'm too lazy to Google it. But you feel free to! :P

**And, before anyone gets upset: foster parents who have a large number of foster children in their home are a different situation altogether. First of all, it is highly unlikely that 8 of those foster children will be newborns at the same time, with the other 6 all being under the age of 7. And a foster parent is a different situation; the dynamics of those families are different. And, while I'm somewhat on the topic, foster parents are great people and I hope to be one myself, once I get my life together enough to be available to a foster child. And, have a bigger house.

Help save handmade toys

For the full story, go to Marcy's blog and read her post about it. For the jist, read below:

A new law will go into effect Feb 2009 giving strict guidelines for the manufacturing and testing of toys, to make sure they're safe. This is great, except that it will force small toy makers - especially handmade toy manufacturers, such as independent toy makers on Etsy - out of business, because they cannot afford all the third-party testing and labeling of the toys.

Small toy manufacturers in the US, Canada and Europe already comply with all the safety regulations, they just can't pay a third party to test all their toys to verify that their toys don't contain harmful chemicals used in large-scale (corrupt) toy-manufacturing.

To get more info, you can visit The Handmade Toy Alliance; on their site you will find a letter template to send to your Congresspeople, an online petition, and a proposal for safety guidelines for handmade toys that will not destroy independent toy makers.

If you're lazier, like I am, you can go here and enter your info, and they'll send the letter to your Congresspeople for you.

Thank you for taking action!

Change in POV

Twitter emailed me today, letting me know Heart_song was following me. So I followed back. And I found these two blog posts of hers, which I feel need to be shared:

Stop the Perfecution!
I don't want to be a groan up anymore!

I think I've slowly gotten over my perfectionism (I probably have NaNo to thank for that), but I could always use more help in letting it go. Now, the groan-up issue... this one is a bad weed. In early college, I think I was reading Don't Sweat the Small Stuff and read the chapter on negativity, where the guy suggested for every negative thought you have, you have to think of a positive one: if a guy cuts you off on the freeway and you call him a jerk, you have to think of three positive things to say about him. "He drives a fuel-efficient compact car, which is better for the environment;" "he might be late for work;" "his car is a pretty shade of blue." Yes, it can be hard to come up with three, but after a while your brain starts to think more positively (either that, or it learns to not think negatively, because then you have to pay for it with three nice things). I remember doing this and it working, but then I stopped... and went back to being my regular grumpy self.

The groan-up/grin-up thing is the same idea - replace your negative thought with a positive one. This is my challenge to myself. Lately, I've been griping about my job a lot. And it's easy to do, when other people gripe with you. But I like my job. I have fun there, most of the time. I like working with the kids, and I'm lucky that I do not teach a TAKS-tested subject, so admin leaves my department alone most of the time.

At times like this week, when grades are due, it can get hectic and stressful. Kids coming in Thursday afternoon or Friday morning, asking if there's anything they can do to bring their grade up... when the six weeks ends Friday at 3:45. Parents can see their kids' grades online, but not all of them know this or have signed up for it, so I need to call parents and let them know Johnny never turned in that big assignment. Do I have enough grades this six weeks? Do I have enough test grades? Did I call that parent to make sure she knows her daughter is failing because she sleeps in class or, when awake, plays Tetris on her computer? Why is it my resposibility to keep up with these things, when I have 179 students but the parents only have 2-4 kids each? Shouldn't it be the parents' responsibility to keep up with the kids' grades?

I get to work by 7:00 and usually don't leave until after 5:00, most of the time it's closer to 6:00. We do have meetings all the time (2-3 a week, most weeks). This cuts into grading/lesson planning time. There is not enough time in the day to do everything I want to do... Freddy and I had a more concrete (ie: we've set a tentative date) conversation about having kids; how's all that going to work, working this much (and still not getting it all done) and having a newborn? Will I be able to handle it? Will things get better next year, after I've taught a full year in this school, in this subject (I have a nasty habit of jumping grade levels or subjects every few years, which is starting over all over again)? Or am I just telling myself it will be easier?

It's easy to drown yourself in a glass of water... especially for me. I like drama. And personal pity parties. And I like to complain about injustices in the world, percieved or otherwise. The science department has to contact 2-3 parents a week, and TeleParent (and automated calling system with pre-recorded messages - student didn't turn in major project; sleeping in class; made an A on a test - doesn't count); the math department has to offer tutoring every day from 4-6 (don't know if they're getting paid extra; our contracts end at 4:00). My department doesn't have to do any of that, but I'll sit and whine about how unfair it is that they are required to do that - which is unfair, on top of everything else. And why doesn't TeleParent count as a way to contact parents about their kids' progress? The district is paying good money for it, we should use it! It's a great system/tool! Uh... but do I use it? It would be very easy to keep up with those parents (or cover my butt about keeping up with parents) if I used it, but I don't. Then, at the end of the six weeks, I complain that the parents should be checking up on grades, I shouldn't have to call each and every parent... when, really, all I have to do is click a few buttons on the computer. I focus on whining about things, instead of looking for solutions or focusing on the things that are going well.

And so we arrive at the end of my rambling. I should read over all this and check it for coherency, but I have to finish grading a few assignments for my level 3 classes, and I would like to hit 40K by tonight (probably won't happen; I'm at 34,356 at the moment). I'm still about a week ahead of schedule, but I want to keep my lead!!! (Have I mentioned how much I love my AlphaSmart? Because I love it lots.)

Palin, unplanned pregnancies, Planned Parenthood, and plans

I got a text message this afternoon from a friend - a young, unmarried friend - letting me know she's (unplannedly) pregnant.

This the day after McCain's brilliant choice for VP announced her seventeen-year-old daughter is also unplannedly pregnant. And, of course, just a few days before that, McCain announced that, as his VP, he had chosen a woman who had (unplannedly) had her fifth child at age 44, while serving her first year as governor of Alaska.

This woman, by the way, is supposed to be the female vote's consolation prize for losing Hillary. Regardless of the very obvious fact that this woman stands for the exact opposite of everything Hillary stands for - but that's a minor detail. Hillary and Palin both have vaginas and boobies (skip to 3:00), so they must be the same, right?

My friend said she skipped a couple months of birth control because she couldn't afford to pay for it. I can't argue with her on that; I've taken months off because I couldn't pay the $40+ my insurance charged me per month for the NuvaRing - and I'm a fully grown, adult woman with a full-time, full-paying job. She's a starving student how can she afford to play full price for birth control?

My first thought, when she told me she couldn't afford birth control, was DID YOU TRY PLANNED PARENTHOOD??? They charge for their services on a sliding scale, so people on low incomes (including students) can afford birth control. I used to get my pills for $10 a pack, if not less (they also allowed you to get several packs at once - I think they give you a discount if you buy "in bulk," and could get a whole year in one visit, so you don't have to worry about running out or having to find time in your schedule to get to a pharmacy or PP during their working hours, which always tend to coincide perfectly with my working hours).

I didn't voice that thought, because that little nugget of information was not going to help her in the least at this point in time. But I was filled with rage that the information was not so blatantly obvious to her when the information would have been helpful.

Why is this info not common knowledge for all young women?

Thanks to men like John McCain and women like Palin.

When you say "Planned Parenthood," there are people who hear "ABORTION." I don't have a number on this, but all the Planned Parenthood locations I have been to (in three different cities), none of them perform abortions. The only PP clinics that perform abortions are those in areas where there is no other abortion provider.

Planned Parenthood provides counseling on ALL the options available to you when you face an unplanned pregnancy. When I walked into my PP clinic, my mind was fully made up. I asked for information on getting an abortion, because that is what I had decided to do. I specifically asked for information on getting an abortion. They took me into a room, and the lady talked to me about ALL the options available to me. She told me about adoption services. She told me about government aid programs, to help single mothers. She made me take the information home. I almost felt that she was arguing with me, trying to convince me to change my mind and carry the pregnancy to term - I did not walk in undecided and receive information on ALL my options, I walked in FULLY DECIDED, specifically asked for information about the option I had already chosen, but they showed me ALL my options anyway. They made sure I had ALL the information.

Planned Parenthood also provides pre-natal care to millions of low-income women. This is pretty much the only medical care some of these women receive.

There is nothing "anti-life" about Planned Parenthood. They do a heck of a lot to improve and maintain the lives of women and children. How is that not "pro" life?

Birth control is a good thing. It is more than a good thing - it should be a damned right for every woman in this country. Every woman should have information and access to birth control - money should not be an obstacle to this aspect of basic woman's health care.

Sarah Palin is an adult woman. If she chooses not to use birth control (which I am extrapolating from the fact that her first three children are close in age, which would suggest they were planned; 6-7 years later, she has another child, randomly, and another 6-7 years later, when she is well past recommended child-bearing age AND during her first year in her first term as governor - a job that does not easily allow for maternity leave - she gets pregnant again, and then chooses to hide this fact from her constituency until the very last minute... does that seemed planned to you?), then that's her business and I have no right to say peep about it. I assume, because she is a 44-year-old adult, that she has the necessary information to make an informed decision on whether or not she wants to use birth control - if I personally disagree with her decision, who cares.

However, her poor planning resulted in the birth of a child. Another human being. (It also resulted in this pregnancy and birth taking place during her first year as Governor - if I were one of her constituents, I think I'd have a few choice words to say about her negligence. How well can you run the state when you're getting up 2-3 hours a night, for months on end, to feed your baby?) And neither she nor her husband have - from what I have seen, and I've been looking - taken responsibility for their action. She gave birth to the child, and now she's committing to running for Vice-President, and extremely time-consuming and stressful job. Who's left taking care of the baby?

Big Sis Bristol!

Which, as it turns out, might be a good thing - it's giving her some great training for her own child, which shall be arriving in about four months. It's almost too good to be true for Palin - since little Bristol will be home anyway, taking care of her own baby, Palin can go ahead and leave li'l Trig with Bristol and not even worry about day care! Now that's what I can some great social conservative family values.

Bristol's only 17. This child needed to be told about birth control. She needed to have a way to access information and acquire pills, condoms, Rings, whatever she wanted.

Instead, she was fed abstinence-only "education." Well, we can see how well that works!

When are you people going to wake up and realize that the kids who are going to have sex, are going to have sex whether we tell them about it or not. They're not waiting for our "permission." And, PLEASE, giving them information is NOT giving them "permission." It's giving them INFORMATION.

I have to admit I am disproportionately angry about these unplanned pregnancies. I should not care this much. It's not my problem, I should move on.

So why am I writing this eternally long blog post about it?

I have been waiting for a very long time to have a child. I have had several opportunities to get off birth control and get pregnant (and, at times, I have had to go through great pains to make sure I didn't get pregnant, because I could not access or afford birth control). But I have waited.

I've been waiting for so long, I'm getting pretty darn close to missing my chance (unlike certain people, I had comprehensive sex ed in school, and I realize that the older a woman is when she conceives the higher the risks of birth defects - such as Down's Syndrome - are, and I don't want to put my potential baby in that risk).

I also grew up with a mother who works with abused and abandoned children. I am too aware of what happens to unwanted pregnancies (not all unplanned pregnancies are unwanted, but all unwanted pregnancies were unplanned). I am too aware of the hoards of children out there waiting for a home.

The world is overpopulated as it is, and we're working so hard to deplete the resources we have left. So many people are bringing children into this world without thinking, why would I want to add to the insanity?

This is what I was thinking as I was driving home from work today, still texting with my friend. There are too many kids in the world already, I don't even want to be a part of that anymore.

Birthing and raising a child are hard. Part of me is thinking, with the excess of children already in the world, why do I want to go through all that work just to aggravate the problem?

What do I do with my students for the six weeks I'll be out on maternity leave (I wish I could take the full 12 weeks, but there's no way I can be out for two-thirds of the semester). Would I be able to breastfeed after I went back to work? Is there any way I could pump at work? (Yeah, that's going to work in a classroom of high-school boys...)

Part of me wants to give up on the dream I've had since I've been old enough to understand the concept. It's just too much. I can't deal with the irresponsible parenting, and I don't want to be a part of it.

But then, part of me want to scream, "When the fuck is it my turn, you damned people?"

How come everybody else gets away with it, and I'm sitting here, like an idiot, waiting until I'm in the right relationship and have my debt under control. Why am I still waiting? Is there even a point?

Unplanned pregnancies can work out. My sister did it. I don't know how; she has a strength I never knew, and I admire. She got pregnant in college, yet she gave birth and graduated without missing a beat. She was in a bad marriage, but she had the strength to get herself and her toddler daughter out of it. She's currently putting herself through law school as a single parent, and her daughter is one of the most well-put-together, smart, confident, well-behaved, mature kids I know. I don't know how she did it - how she does it. I'm in awe of her.

Hopefully things will work out that well for my friend. At least, unlike poor Bristol, my friend (and her parents) are smart enough to not aggravate an unplanned pregnancy by forcing her into a bad marriage, but the dad is going to be involved (so he says, now. Hopefully he'll be a man of his word, and one worth having involved).

It still makes me mad.

It can be avoided so easily. All we need is information - clear and accurate information - and a little bit of tolerance (yes, I recognize the hypocrisy of me asking for tolerance when I have been so intolerant in this post. But who ever said I was any sort of role model?)

Don't agree with abortion? Then don't have one. Also, give people birth control, so there won't be an unwanted pregnancy to abort.

Nobody wants to have an abortion. It is the lesser evil. Let's find a way to reach our common goal of no unwanted pregnancies.