Science, stem cells, and suicide: what would Jesus do?

Today, I'm in Austin, with Planned Parenthood, asking my legislators to put science back in sex ed classrooms. Or, rather, to put the "ed" back in "sex ed."* So we can put an end to this.

Earlier this week, we got the good news that President Obama** lifted the ban on stem-cell research, his first step toward putting science back in science. To read the details, go here: Blog for Choice - Community, Connection, Change

Of course, this made the anti-choice side angry, because stem cells come from embryos. Now, I've already told you when life does and does not begin, so you know that, to me, an embryo does not mean "a life," unless the mother deems it so (and these are not the embryos whose stem cells are being used, are they?)

Stem-cell research can save lives. Extra-uterine, unequivocal lives -- those both sides of the reproductive rights debate all agree are people. These lives are connected to many other lives, who are also affected by what happens to that life with cancer, or heart disease, or Alzheimer's. Can the in-vitro embryos say the same? Yes, they are meaningful potential lives to the parents seeking the fertility treatments, but if that couple has already had one, or two, or three (or more) successful IVF pregnancies and they are not looking to have any more children, whose lives are going to be affected if those extra embryos never become babies, and instead are used for scientific research, to help save lives?

An interesting thought hit me the other day, when mulling all this over.

God is not against death (He's against murder, but not death). After all, He sent His son to Earth -- to die so others could live.

When you think about it, you could even say Jesus commited suicide (but He did it for a really good reason).

Jesus knew He was going to be crucified. He knew how and when it was going to happen, and therefore He knew how He could get out of it, if He had wanted to. The disciples told Him to get out of it. But He didn't -- He walked into His own death.

But He did it to save all of us. He sacrificed Himself, for us. For all of our lives.

So why are His followers so angry about a potential life doing the same thing Jesus did? God sacrificed His son for the good of the many; why can't we do the same?

What would Jesus do? Probably allow His stem cells to be used for life-saving research.


*As a friend of mine pointed out, the students are already "sexed." We need to get them educated about sex (and contraceptives).

**I'm sorry, but I just really like saying that. It makes me happy.

On Parenting Licenses (and Hypocrisy)

or

"The One Where Criss Is A Hypocrite."

I postponed this blog last night because I was scared -- I censored myself on my own blog, because I'm so proud that Planned Parenthood of North Texas has linked to my blog on its Facebook page. And that NARAL sent me a DM on Twitter saying I was writing "some great stuff" on my blog. And I don't want to make them mad.

Oh, and I reveal that I am, deep down, a hypocrite. Remember all that "choice" and reproductive rights stuff I was spewing a few days ago? I'm about to contradict it.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this post are Criss's and hers alone. She does not speak for the pro-choice/reproductive rights movement in any way, shape, or form. She speaks only for own, opinionated herself.

Because today I'm going to talk about Parenting Licenses.

Look, if you think about it, this isn't THAT radical. What do you think we do to parents who want to adopt?

How come they have to go through all this crap, all these background checks, and tests, and evaluations, and waiting, but nobody else does?

We already have a system in place to decide who is a "fit" parent and who isn't. All I'm saying is that we be fair, and apply this to everyone who wants to be a parent.

The biggest problem is how to stop people (who are not infertile) from having children without "permission." Psst! I have an idea... but don't tell anyone, this is a pretty new, radical thought... birth control.

I've given this quite a bit of thought. Because I've seen too much p!ss-poor parenting at my job. I've seen too many kids suffering under incompetent, uncaring, or flat-out stupid parents. When you stew as much as I do, well, turns out you find time to polish your hare-brained, borderline-communist plans.

(PS - remember, I grew up in a Latin American dictatorship. Maybe borderline-communist isn't that big a deal to me... I dunno. Either way, here goes.)

Just like you have to have your measles shot to go to school, girls ages 12 and older (we might have to start earlier, thanks to all the hormones and other crap we're eating these days) would have to have their IUD.* That stays in for either 5 or 10 years (if 5, they have to get a new one at 17 -- if not, no school and no driver's license), and at 22 they have another review.

Now, if I were Queen of the World, at 22 we'd stick another IUD in there, until the woman applied for a parenting license and was approved. Since I'm not Queen of the World, I probably will have to comprimise a little. If the review/evaluation at 22 brings up severe red flags, maybe she'd get another mandatory IUD. If not, she'd have the birth control of her choice. And, yes, all this would be paid for by the government.

Think about it -- what would you rather do, fork over $200-$500 for the IUD, or the thousands it would take to raise a child through welfare?

So who does the evaluations? The same people who do them now. We just won't discriminate against infertiles anymore; we'll apply the rules to everybody.

I am fully aware that forcing women to get on birth control contradicts the whole idea of choice. But we have to draw the line somewhere: it's not fair to those potential children that we let any irresponsible twerp bring them into this world, when they never asked to be born and they especially didn't ask to be born by mistake (or as punishment).

A few days ago, someone Twittered: Also, World? Re the Octuplets Lady? HER BODY, HER CHOICE. Stop with the witch hunt and public castigation. PLEASE.

Once it's in her body, AND IT HAPPENED BY MISTAKE, then it's her choice.

But when she goes THAT FAR out of her way to GET IT in her body? No, this was a completely different situation. This is a woman having children for all the wrong reasons (hoping to get a $2 million deal with TLC = ALL THE WRONG REASONS), first of all, and endangering the potential children when doing so. Multiple births are extremely risky, for the mother and the children; stuffing that many embryos in her uterus at once was her first Grossly Irresponsible Parenting move. Wait -- or was Grossly Irresponsible Parenting Move #1 stuffing any embryos into her uterus when she already had six young children, one a special needs child, at home already, and couldn't manage to raise them as it was?

I don't want to get into the octuplet lady, because her case is so extreme and rare to apply to any conversation on parenting and/or reproductive rights. So we'll just leave her there (without her ad deals and endorsements.)

"My body, my choice" means that after the sh!t has hit the fan I get to control what happens to my body. It doesn't mean I get to bring children into the world just because I don't have anything better to do.

Before it's in her body, that's when we can hold up the potential child's rights. The right to only be conceived if it's going to be wanted and properly cared for. Hormonal birth control actually carries health benefits for the woman (yes, if you're over 35 and smoke it can be harmful, but my mandatory birth control plan is for girls ages 12-22, and if you smoke you're dumb and have chosen to not care about your health anyway), so it's not harming her or causing her any undue stress. (Any "stress" caused to the woman by the mandatory bc is probably much less than the stress of being abused, neglected, or abandoned would cause the potential child.)

Alright, that's about as far as my brain is going to take me tonight. Bring it on: call me a communist, call me a hypocrite. I still stand by my Parenting Licenses.

Some info on IUDs, by the way:



*I need to double-double check that women who have never been pregnant can use an IUD with no problems. I'm pretty sure NOW it's okay (it didn't use to be), but I'm not 100% definite. If IUDs won't work, we'll go back to the Norplant plan.

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.