Abortions: Females and God

Recently the State of South Dakota passed a law making abortion illegal - again. We have walked this path before when birth control (and the information about it) was also illegal, and women could not vote or own property. Women were the property - not unlike slaves (black women took a double hit). So were the children born of the women - property. In our contemporary ownership society, we forget that our history is a long, tumultuous road of inclusion. Through various laws, by 1900 every state consented to some form of married female's property control. Until those laws passed, females were not allowed control over their inheritances, or property of any kind. Their lands were managed by their husbands, fathers or some male appointee. To make a long story short: before a female married, she was under the control of her father. After she married, she was under the control of her mate. Legally.

We don't have to look far to see similar female ideas played out in our world. When the United States invaded Afghanistan, much ado was made of the plight of women: denied education, swathed in layers of fabric (male visual stimulation considered their fault), hidden from society. Or how about Pakistan where a woman who is raped may be stoned to death for adultery. She needs four witnesses to prove rape and other women or non-Muslim eye-witness testimonies don't count. Got that? The account of a woman is worthless, not just the woman who was raped, but any others who saw it occur.

Here is the crux of our problem. This isn't an issue of pro-choice versus pro-life as the spin doctors would have us believe. The issue is our collective ideas of femaleness. Womanhood. We forget that underneath the divisive talk we are resting on ancient attitudes about gender. Attitudes that claim females are without the ability to think, the strength to persevere, or even without souls. We are manipulative seducers unable to reason; our emotions lead us astray. Thus, we must be protected, guided, led, beaten, and most of all controlled. Sure we have laws today granting us freedoms previously denied, but look what happens to laws. They change.

One day in South Dakota, a woman can make a choice about her body and her life; the next day, after the law is enacted, the state makes the choice for her. The account of the woman is worthless. Which laws are next? What other "rights" previously granted are up for grabs? Perhaps it is community property rights in marriage. Perhaps it is legal rights to children. After all, we are getting pretty close to it: what difference is there between a state telling a woman she must give birth and a state determining who should be sterilized? Is that the ultimate goal?

This country has been down that road before too - sterilizing the unfortunate or undesirable. The United States was the first country to adopt compulsory sterilization at the beginning of the twentieth century. It wasn't female specific then: mentally retarded, mentally ill, deformed and orphaned topped the list. From the sterilization link above:

"After World War II, public opinion towards eugenics and sterilization programs became more negative in the light of the connection with the genocidal policies of Nazi Germany, though sterilizations continued in a few states until the early 1960s. Some states continued to have sterilization laws on the books for much longer after that, though they were rarely if ever used. In the end, over 64,000 individuals were sterilized under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States, with California leading the pack, itself responsible for over a third of all sterilization operations. Information about the California sterilization program was produced into book form and widely disseminated by eugenicists E.S. Gosney and Paul B. Popenoe, which was said by the government of Adolf Hitler to be of key importance in proving that large-scale compulsory sterilization programs were feasible. In recent years, the governors of many states have made public apologies for their past programs. None have offered to compensate those sterilized, however, citing that few are likely still living (and by definition would have no affected offspring) and that inadequate records remain by which to verify them."

The legal goal was prevention of undesirables reproducing. Who gets to decide what kind of person is undesirable? Obviously, the state.

Now anti-abortion enthusiasts would have us believe that their goal is more live births in our country. They don't want to prevent reproducing, but encourage it. I don't believe them. What they want is control over women's lives - again. We are not living, breathing, God-sponsored beings. We have no right to determine the best course of action in our worlds. Our innate sexuality and power to give birth necessitate control by others. The witness of a woman is worthless.

Religious mockery of the female is ancient. Today's version claims that life begins with conception in the womb. How fraudulent! Today's science also reveals that life resides in our eggs; life resides in sperm; life resides in petry dishes. Do we outlaw masturbation next? Or menstruation? Or invitro-fertilization ?

The energy of life is in all things. Potential is constant. The unspoken premise is the lack of trust in the female's connection to life - or the female's connection to God. The state must intervene on her behalf because her choice will be flawed if abortion is considered. Her relationship to the potential of life must be controlled. Once impregnated, by any means - violence included - she must carry the fetus to birth. The state must speak for God. Just like the state demanded sterilization of "undesirables." Just like the state denied female property ownership. Just like withholding voting rights for women.

Some people still believe their state, government, or religion has the obligation to determine the outcome of life for females - disguised as concern for life. Instead, it is disrespect clothed in finery. Whatever our views on abortion, we have no right to impose them on others. Females are individuals with life paths known only to them. Let them walk with God. Let them live with the consequences of their actions. Trust in God, not the state.