#yo soy la provida generacion

[that-devout-catholic-woman]

Hot take on abortion for you all

Part of the reason abortion is so highly contested is because of the various "kinds" of abortion that exist but that are all lumped into the one category of abortion

1. One aspect of it is the removal of already deceased babies from the womb, which is a valid thing in the eyes of the Church since the baby's soul is already in the loving hands of God.

2. A second is a life-threatening illness/injury to the mother or fetus which will result in a non-viable pregnancy or spontaneous maternal abortion (aka a definitive miscarriage), which is allowable only if doctors can convince clergy that there is 100% no way to save the baby. 

3. A third is if the mother's life is in danger (ectopic pregnancy, for example) but a miscarriage may or may not happen, and this is highly contested in the Church as to whether it's okay or not in this situation to allow an abortion and is usually determined by clergy on a case-by-case basis. Even in cases like ectopic pregnancy, as long as the procedure is meant to save the mother’s life rather than end the pregnancy (aka treatment such as removing a Fallopian tube is acceptable as long as it isn’t a direct abortion) it is generally deemed okay in the eyes of the Church. Obviously this is a very sad case and the women who have to make these choices and undergo the loss of a wanted but non-viable pregnancy deserve love and support, not chastisement.

4. The fourth is the termination of a healthy pregnancy or a pregnancy with a livable disability (Down Syndrome, for example) and is obviously wrong and is never supported by the Church. Termination of a pregnancy where the baby has a disability solely because the baby has a disability is eugenics at worst and is ableist at best.

Obviously the fact that all of these are medically and colloquially considered to be abortions is highly problematic in discussing why the Church is vehemently against certain forms of abortion. Pro-choice people and uneducated pro-life people assume we're against all of them, which is untrue. There are special councils of clergy made to hear the cases of mothers and babies in crisis and they are not unsympathetic to the plights of those mothers and families.

For anyone who is pro-life, I beg of you to look into the truth of what is taught as acceptable vs not so that we can make sound arguments to help save lives.

For anyone who is pro-choice, please understand that what many pro-lifers are arguing for is actually a misrepresentation of what the pro-life movement is actually supposed to be. Being pro-life in the context of abortion means standing up for women and children both, in all stages of life, even and especially when it’s hard. Those who are truly pro-life and are educated on the subject have genuine empathy and compassion for where these women come from when they are considering abortion (or not) and we do our best to help them make healthy choices for themselves and their babies while also providing for their other needs. If you want to see what an actual pro-life crisis pregnancy center looks like and offers (in contrast to PP), feel free to look up the Alpha Pregnancy Clinic of Northern California; you’ll find that a lot more services are offered and all are 100% free to women in need. THAT is what it looks like to be pro-life.

[menstruadora]

14 de junio

Hace algunas semanas me preguntaban en un taller si es posible ser feminista y ser antiaborto. La respuesta es no. Y se las voy a compartir:

- Desde la fundación del patriarcado, la relación que impusieron los hombres sobre nuestros cuerpos sexuados con «presunta capacidad paridora» (término de Karina Vergara), es la de apropiación, esa es la relación que hay de hombres sobre mujeres. Lo que hicieron fue apropiarse de nuestro cuerpo para explotarnos, hacernos parir bajo sus intereses y educarnos en el trabajo no pago en los hogares, lo que incluye, limpiar, planchar, cocinar, cuidar bebés, cuidar personas enfermas y ceder nuestro placer en nombre del coito, así como atender problemas emocionales de los hombres con nuestra escucha. Si una analiza esto no es posible ser feminista y ser antiaborto porque ser antiaborto significa que reafirmamos que nuestros cuerpos no pueden sino existir a la disposición de los intereses de los hombres, a sus necesidades y a sus deseos. Y ser feminista es afirmar y luchar por todo lo contrario, porque nuestros cuerpos sean nuestros, para que volvamos a tomar posesión de nuestra propia vida, eso significa.

- El aborto es una ruptura con ese uso de nuestro cuerpo, una ruptura importante. Es la toma de posesión de nuestro cuerpo por nosotras. Sí, mira, este cuerpo y este útero son míos y yo decido si quiero que esto sea un embarazo o no, porque además, te cuento, estos órganos no están separados de mí, estos órganos soy yo, este cuerpo soy yo. El argumento más común desde lo religioso es que el producto ya es una persona, bueno, no, es un embrión que depende de mi cuerpo para existir como 2 cm de tejido. Si ese embrión flotara en el espacio en una burbuja que no depende de mi cuerpo ni de mi energía ni de mi vida, podríamos hablar de otra vida, mientras tanto no, es solo un conjunto de tejidos a los que puedo desechar si en mis planes no está un embarazo.

- Las mujeres durante toda nuestra vida somos forzadas a tener coitos dada la violencia sexual depredadora en la que vivimos. Así que embarazarnos al lado de hombres, incluso en aquellos embarazos planeados y deseados, no es una decisión a final de cuentas. Así que decir "no" al crecimiento de algo que una no decidió, es y será una decisión feminista siempre.

- La religión al contrario de lo que creemos no tiene tanta injerencia en lo político como sí lo tiene lo económico. Por eso en los debates de Argentina, era un triste puñado de personas provida la que se manifestaba, el poder de lo religioso ha sido sobredimensionado, no es tal. El verdadero problema que enfrentamos al abortar es despertar un monstruo poderoso llamado capitalismo.

- Sobre los cuerpos de las mujeres latinoamericanas empobrecidas se deposita el deber de parir para producir a las siguientes generaciones de trabajadoras y trabajadores. En el caso de los hombres serán mano de obra barata. En el caso de las mujeres, serán mano de obra gratuita debido a la explotación naturalizada sobre nuestros cuerpos. ¿O cómo creen que se sostiene el capitalismo? ¿Quién hace tu ropa? ¿Quién limpia tus calles? ¿Quién alimenta a los trabajadores? Exacto, esto lo hacen las mujeres, que nacen en contextos empobrecidos en sociedades jerarquizadas, la producción de tantas trabajadoras (y trabajadores) es un tema de índole económico.

- Para el día de hoy amanecemos en México con una nota que avisa que tenemos el primer lugar en embarazo de mujeres niñas y adolescentes en todo el mundo. Algunas feministas consideran que esto es producto de una mala educación, lo que yo veo son políticas neoliberales muy claras, en este tiempo que vivimos las más jóvenes (racializadas y empobrecidas) serán obligadas a parir porque para 2050 según estimaciones del Banco Mundial, la población latinoamericana corría el riesgo de tener una gran población adulta mayor y si envejecemos ¿quién llenará las filas del narco, las filas de las redes de trata, la explotación en las maquiladoras? No es un negocio ¿cierto? quedarse sin el producto que exportas que es la explotación humana, así que por eso veremos estos años cifras y cifras de niñas embarazadas y ante esto, las feministas tenemos mucho qué hacer. Ahora bien, en este panorama ¿por qué te opondrías al aborto? ¿Quién desde una conciencia feminista decidiría que su lucha es a lado de los intereses económicos de los hombres que están forzando embarazos y no a lado de las mujeres que a pesar de toda la educación patriarcal quieren abortar?

- Para cerrar, yo tengo mis reservas en considerar que es la única lucha como algunas pudieran llegar a creer. ¿Por qué digo esto? Porque si no cambia la estructura que es el patriarcado, éste vuelve a comerse las reivindicaciones feministas. He acompañado en los últimos años muchos abortos en un contexto donde está despenalizado hasta la semana 12 (ciudad de méxico), he acompañado en clínicas gratuitas y también en hogares, y el aborto en muchos casos fue una dádiva para los hombres para seguir violando mujeres. Lo vi, lo escuché, lo sentí, a mí nadie me lo cuenta. Con aborto o sin aborto, las violaciones continúan, la diferencia es que con el aborto no hay un embarazo de por medio y las posibilidades para esa mujer se amplían, en teoría, pero aquí es donde entra el trabajo de las mujeres. Por eso las radicales luchamos además por la abolición de la heterosexualidad, escapar al coito que siempre es forzado y encaminarnos al amor entre mujeres. Pero entendemos que vamos lento pues esto es un sistema de opresión y al serlo la violencia no la elegimos, la padecemos y salir de ahí conlleva lucha colectiva que tiene que iniciar de alguna manera, por eso no nos frenamos de seguirle diciendo al aire para que lo tome quien pueda, que alesbianarnos es una posibilidad, por eso no nos frenamos en trabajar con grupos exclusivos de mujeres para ir dibujando respuestas.

De mientras, hacer lo posible para que las mujeres no mueran por un aborto inseguro es y seguirá siendo una victoria feminista.

[live4ya-blog]

LAS FEMINISTAS PROVIDAS SÍ EXISTEN

Con su conferencia “Más allá de la indignación y la rabia: sexualidad y género, el debate actual” de la Doctora Diana Ibarra, su público quedó agradecido y perplejo ante el nuevo panorama que expuso. Ella se declaró como feminista provida y aunque aseguró que para muchos sonaba como contradictorio, la realidad es que es una postura existente y que defiende a la mujer pero también al hombre.

Ibarra, caracterizada por su abundante sentido del humor, destacó que es imposible creer en la ideología de género. Esta ideología, comentaba, promueve que cada uno puede creer lo que sea acerca de su propio cuerpo y sexo. En pocas palabras, uno decide si ser mujer u hombre. Por lo cual bromeó al decir “ahora yo podré decir que soy un afroamericano de 15 años”, y la audiencia irrumpió en risas, pues la conferencista es una mujer rubia y de tez blanca. De hecho afirmó que “si no vamos a reconocer el sexo, tampoco la edad” y fundamentó su frase con el tratado de la ONU que señala que hay 112 identidades de género distintas.

Para esta reconocida consultora, la ONU sí tiene aportes objetivos y ricos en información para la filosofía y la ética. Sin embargo, recordó a la audiencia que “la ONU es un foro de negociación” que busca privilegiar sus intereses. De ahí proviene toda la propaganda y publicidad que promueve la ideología de género.

Un clima de tristeza se contagió en la sala cuando Ibarra pausó su discurso, después de haber mencionado que el 35% de las mujeres han experimentado violencia sexual por parte de su pareja. Sin embargo, no es suficiente con denunciar la violencia contra la mujer sino flexibilizar las estructuras de los roles de género en casa y en el trabajo. La catedrática dijo que soñaba con el día en que “el hombre pueda participar en las actividades del hogar y la mujer trabajar sin tener ningún tipo de discriminación”. En ese momento se vio cómo dos mujeres que estaban en sus cuarenta y tantos años se voltearon a ver para asentir la afirmación de Ibarra. “Porque los hombres también pueden llorar” y nuevamente asintieron ambas féminas.

    Finalizó su conferencia a las 14:20 horas la invitación de “no ver a la sexualidad cuando la ofrece un hombre como trofeo y en una mujer como castigo”. Puntualizó que el espacio de preguntas estaba abierto en ese momento, y los presentes escribieron sus preguntas en pequeños papeles blancos que llegaron hasta la conferencista.

Cuando se le preguntó acerca de las posibles soluciones para la imperante ideología de género, Ibarra aseguró que es necesario apoyar la maternidad, alejarse de los discursos de odio que separan al LGBT de la comunidad, y sobre todo apuntó que es imperante buscar en qué se complementan los hombres con las mujeres en lugar de usar la lógica de exclusión. Como recomendación final dijo que era necesario “educar en una sexualidad a futuro” con respecto a las nuevas generaciones para que deje de ser un tema tabú.

La Dra. Diana Ibarra Soto se despidió con una ligera reverencia y agradeció con su característica sonrisa la invitación para estar en la UPAEP. Una vez que dejó el micrófono en manos de los asistentes, el público aplaudió calurosamente para ella y algunos se acercaron a tomarse fotos con la reconocida catedrática.

  s. Si��:D.<

[that-devout-catholic-woman]

Alright, look. I’m willing to engage in respectful dialogue with you on the subject of abortion because I know at the heart of it we both want what’s good for people. But in order to do that, it requires you to show me the same amount of respect and empathy that I am showing you. If you can’t handle that, honestly there’s nothing stopping you from just calling it a day and not responding. I posted this to my blog to try to educate people about the nuances that exist within the abortion argument and what being truly pro-life looks life. If you don’t want to see the nuance and the gray areas and instead only want to look at it in extremes despite the materials given to you, that’s on you.

Part 1:

1.      Considering I’m 25% Pueblo I feel like it’s my right to compare. Just because I’m white-passing doesn’t mean I’m ancestrally a 100% white person and doesn’t mean that I don’t know what I’m talking about. I am a white-passing woman of color. But anyway, both are atrocities against human rights. For my fellow indigenous women, they’re being ripped from their homes and killed while a ton of people stand idly by and don’t really care. Sound familiar? Just because you can’t see the comparison doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Also. Puebloans have a deep respect for the family unit and families are often tight-knit groups. Puebloans have a deep respect for ancestors and lineages, and we know that without future generations, those lineages will stop and the deep sacredness of our ancestry would stop along with it. The only way Puebloan traditions can continue is by having children and teaching them to the children. Even among families of the same tribes, it’s not uncommon to help other families in need. You ever hear the term “it takes a village to raise a child”? These are the same reasons that having our women kidnapped is so awful, they had their own ancestry from which they came and had a future to which they belonged, they had a community who helped raise them and who love and care about them and miss them deeply. Abortion is a very Western and white ideology and that is why in addition to many Native American tribes, many African peoples are vehemently against abortion too since it goes against everything tradition has taught us/them about what is important in life. Don’t try to speak for those whose culture you obviously know nothing about. Speaking truth about my culture is not racism and I get to decide where the line gets drawn. A fetus is not simply a “creature,” it is a human. It has all the parts of a human and has the DNA of a human, therefore it is human. That’s just science and truth and definition. You can’t argue their humanity away no matter how hard you try. And if you want to get into the nitty gritty of the science, let’s do it. Sentience means having the ability to perceive or feel. Fetuses do. They are sentient whether or not you want to admit that to yourself. Fetuses have been shown to move away from noxious stimuli from very early stages of development. If you want the lit, I’d be more than happy to provide you with it.

2.      Bodily autonomy is not one of the rights guaranteed by our national constitution here in America, but the right to life is. Therefore bodily autonomy is not the top right guaranteed to humans but life is. Again, stop referring to fetuses as imaginary persons, they are humans with all the rights afforded to humans even when they are small and defenseless and just getting their start in life. And it’s not about consenting to let the fetus live there, it already is living there by the time that women figure out they’re pregnant. It’s already a living, moving, sentient being at that point in time. According to the Mayo Clinic, “Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby's back is closing. The baby's brain and spinal cord will develop from the neural tube. The heart and other organs also are starting to form and the heart begins to beat. Structures necessary to the formation of the eyes and ears develop… five weeks after conception, your baby's brain and face are growing.” So right about when a mother discovers she’s pregnant, the baby is forming all of its vital organs. This doesn’t mean they’re fully formed, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is alive and able to take in information.

2a. No, they are not autonomous. But neither are children from ages 0-18, so what’s your point? Autonomy is just the ability to legally do things for yourself, big whoop. It’s not legal to kill children after they’re born so what’s the difference between that and an unborn baby? People who are severely disabled sometimes need caregivers to help them and legally don’t have autonomy either. It’s still not legal to kill them either. Your argument about autonomy is thus invalidated.

2b.  This analogy is a flawed one and one that has been debunked by many other intelligent pro-lifers but I’ll relay their argument here to you: the organ “donation analogy fails adequately to represent the case of abortion. If having one’s kidney inside another person is analogous to being pregnant (as the story implies), then donating the kidney is analogous to becoming pregnant. Thus, all it proves is that the government should not forcibly impregnate anyone—an assertion with which everyone agrees.”

3. According to Cornell’s law school, “At common law, murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought.” Therefore, if you follow the logic, a fetus is a human (you can’t argue that away)—check. Forethought being making an appointment and talking to an abortion counselor or doctor—check. Malice is the intention with full knowledge of what you’re doing, doctors get this informed consent before the abortion—check. Therefore all 3 criteria are met for abortion being murder. Meanwhile, manslaughter is the unintentional killing of someone. Again, abortion requires informed consent and thus cannot count as manslaughter. And I think it’s readily apparent that self-defense killings do not fit the criteria for abortions.

Part 2:

1.      As I stated above, no one’s life is in danger from the way that the Church views abortion. That was literally the whole point of my first post, which you seemingly missed and thus should go back and reread. The only scenarios that the Church is vehemently against in all cases is when the pregnancy is viable but unwanted.

2.      Yet again, you bring up the right to bodily autonomy and yet that is not a constitutional right, but the right to life is. Life starts inside a womb and thus is to be protected.

2a. Once again, the form of abortion that they are referring to is not #4 from my above post, but is #1-3. Denying life-saving medicine to someone in need is indeed its own form of torture. Which, again, the Church agrees with you about.

3. We do believe in bodily autonomy. However, we also believe in the right to life. And we believe the right to life always has and always will trump the right to bodily autonomy, and per my points above, I think you’ll see the rationale behind why we hold it in such high regard. If you want even more evidence we can get into the pathos of the arguments, but pro-choicers like to stick with cold, hard facts so that’s what I tried to give you.

In conclusion:

In cases where the mother’s life is at risk, it is allowable to continue with procedures that save the mother’s life. Only in cases of an unwanted viable pregnancy do pro-lifers think abortion is wrong. I have answered this before, the right to bodily autonomy is not as important as the right to life. You keep wanting a yes or no answer but I told you that the actual question behind your question is complex and so is the answer, so I’m not going to give you a straight yes or no answer like you want. Regardless of how black and white you think the argument on abortion is, it’s not, and you thinking it’s black and white shows your naïveté.

Hot take on abortion for you all

Part of the reason abortion is so highly contested is because of the various “kinds” of abortion that exist but that are all lumped into the one category of abortion:

One aspect of it is the removal of already deceased babies from the womb, which is a valid thing in the eyes of the Church since the baby’s soul is already in the loving hands of God.

A second is a life-threatening illness/injury to the mother or fetus which will result in a non-viable pregnancy or spontaneous maternal abortion (aka a definitive miscarriage), which is allowable only if doctors can convince clergy that there is 100% no way to save the baby. 

A third is if the mother’s life is in danger (ectopic pregnancy, for example) but a miscarriage may or may not happen, and this is highly contested in the Church as to whether it’s okay or not in this situation to allow an abortion and is usually determined by clergy on a case-by-case basis. Even in cases like ectopic pregnancy, as long as the procedure is meant to save the mother’s life rather than end the pregnancy (aka treatment such as removing a Fallopian tube is acceptable as long as it isn’t a direct abortion) it is generally deemed okay in the eyes of the Church. Obviously this is a very sad case and the women who have to make these choices and undergo the loss of a wanted but non-viable pregnancy deserve love and support, not chastisement.

The fourth is the termination of a healthy pregnancy or a pregnancy with a livable disability (Down Syndrome, for example) and is obviously wrong and is never supported by the Church. Termination of a pregnancy where the baby has a disability solely because the baby has a disability is eugenics at worst and is ableist at best.

Obviously the fact that all of these are medically and colloquially considered to be abortions is highly problematic in discussing why the Church is vehemently against certain forms of abortion. Pro-choice people and uneducated pro-life people assume we’re against all of them, which is untrue. There are special councils of clergy made to hear the cases of mothers and babies in crisis and they are not unsympathetic to the plights of those mothers and families.

For anyone who is pro-life, I beg of you to look into the truth of what is taught as acceptable vs not so that we can make sound arguments to help save lives.

For anyone who is pro-choice, please understand that what many pro-lifers are arguing for is actually a misrepresentation of what the pro-life movement is actually supposed to be. Being pro-life in the context of abortion means standing up for women and children both, in all stages of life, even and especially when it’s hard. Those who are truly pro-life and are educated on the subject have genuine empathy and compassion for where these women come from when they are considering abortion (or not) and we do our best to help them make healthy choices for themselves and their babies while also providing for their other needs. If you want to see what an actual pro-life crisis pregnancy center looks like and offers (in contrast to PP), feel free to look up the Alpha Pregnancy Clinic of Northern California; you’ll find that a lot more services are offered and all are 100% free to women in need. THAT is what it looks like to be pro-life.