The Curious Case of Melinda Gates

Another Melinda Gates article came across my feed this morning with the typically headline “I wouldn’t be where I am without contraception.”  Which is odd, considering the lack of contraception is the reason why she's physically here.  But, I digress.  Her main point, as I understand it, is that unplanned pregnancies are huge financial burdens on women and families. To alleviate the burden, don't have the children.  And, without access to abortifacients and abortions, it's hard not to have the children.

Now, those of you who know me, are probably getting your torches and pitchforks ready, as you are assuming what's going to come out of my mouth and that you already know you aren't going to like it.

Before you flick your Bic to light up the blaze, let me be very clear about something: I don’t believe people who consider themselves pro-choice/pro-contraceptive are bad people.  I understand it comes from a place of pragmatism and an underlying want to help women.  I get it.  I'm not here to cast judgement (for once).

I just want to give a different perspective.  Long term, I believe, pushing this agenda is actually harming not just women, but our society without actually fixing the underlying issue.

I’m reminded of a conversation I had earlier this summer with a young girl.  She told me “I probably won’t have kids.”  Of course, my follow up question was “Why?”  I didn’t ask this to be judgemental, I asked out of curiosity.  Most young girls I’ve spoken to over the course of my life want to be moms in addition to being doctors, lawyers and veterinarians.  The toy market is still filled with baby-flavored dolls and accoutrements.

I’ll admit, one could have a chicken & egg argument at this point regarding what little girls want versus what they are taught to want in toy stores.

“It will interfere with my career.”

*insert jaw drop*

I was a little stunned.  I have friends who have made this decision as adults, and there isn’t anything intrinsically wrong with it. I was just shocked that someone so young would even be thinking about the effects of children on one’s career.  Especially since she’s too young to have even know what career she wants.  But, she's a smart kid who has been taught something by society.

When successful women, like Gates, take such public stances, young women (especially girls) are listening.  When friends and parents struggle, they are watching.  What they see and hear comes across as one very scary lesson:  “Children undermine your potential”.  “Having children is bad.”  “If you have kids, you will struggle.”

While I would wish it otherwise, we have a society where this lesson is largely correct for women - exceedingly so for women either in, or just above, poverty.

We've all heard of the gender pay gap.  But, there’s an additional tax if you have kids.  Listening to the The Mommy Tax episode of the podcast Stuff Mom Never told You, I was shocked to hear that mothers are affected by the gender pay gap 5 times that of women without kids.  FIVE TIMES.  Five times on top of the already existing gap.

And, by the way, men with children get a pay raise in comparison to childless men. *cough*

So wages start out lower and/or slow overtime for mothers.  Add in the non-recurring and recurring costs of rearing a child (or children) and you have a recipe for financial crisis, especially if she is single (side note: in 2013 CDC reported 85% of women who had abortions were unmarried).  When pregnancy happens, the woman ends up bearing the responsibility physically, emotionally and financially.  An unplanned pregnancy can push a woman over the edge into the pit of poverty, or dig her another 10 feet deeper into it.

I can agree with Gates that we have a global problem.  I don’t agree with how to address it.  Abortion and abortifacients are one way to cope with the issue, but this seems short sighted.  As I pointed out earlier, this approach seems to propagate the idea that women shouldn’t have kids and their base physiology is harmful to their prosperity.

At this point, you are probably thinking (or, more than likely, eye-rolling), “Well, Miss SmartyPants, what should we be doing?”

Why don’t we start by not placing (or forcing) all the responsibility on women?

Why aren’t we fighting harder for equal pay (especially for mothers)?  Why aren’t we fighting for better work-life labor requirements?  Why aren’t we fighting for paternity leaves that allow women to return to work while fathers stay home?  Why aren't we fighting harder for affordable quality healthcare so that the cost of having and caring for a child isn't a financial death sentence?

Did you know the US Military spends $84M on erectile dysfunction medications, annually? How about redirecting those funds to help continue to level out responsibility - such as more research in male contraception or tracking down deadbeat fathers?  How about removing some of the stigmas surrounding vasectomies?

Yea, I know I've lost a few of my Catholic peeps with that last one, but we have to remember, not everyone is Catholic.

In 2013, we spent $2 BILLION (globally) on male pattern baldness.  Why not provide those funds (or a portion) to global organizations that provide educational opportunities along with child care options in safe spaces?

How about working to create better economies where jobs are available that can provide for families? Or, funding startups run by women (or even men) in crisis?

Through our actions, let's teach our daughters that while motherhood is a life sentence - it isn't a death sentence.

Can An Intelligent Woman Be Pro-Life?

I’ve been writing this blog weekly for over a month now, and I’ve yet to explain my Pro-Life stance, specifically on abortion.  I mentioned I would at some point, so I figure now is as good a time as any.  If it wasn’t this, I’d be pounding my keyboard angrily complaining about the loss of 1st Amendment rights in this country.  *sigh*

Just to be unpredictable, I’m NOT going to use theology or religion in my argument.  Yeah, I bet you weren’t expecting that, were you?  I’m full of surprises.

If I look at the (albeit “controversial”), definition of life out on wikipedia, I see 7 basic items:  cellularly structured, requires/uses energy, grows, adapts, responds, reproduces and is able to remain consistent.  This is “controversial” because no one seems to want to put a stake in the ground.  Maybe people are concerned about making mistakes and not classifying things appropriately.  Seems like science worries that it’s defining something using undefinable terms.  Yeah, I had fun reading that abstract (Too cheap to actually buy the report).  People worry about fringe items like viruses and AIs.  Are they alive?  Do they have rights? Yeah, people are asking and waxing philosophic on these questions.

So what does it mean to be alive?  If you look at a fertilized human zygote, embryo or fetus, does it meet any definition of life?  

Does it require energy?  It has to attached itself to the uterine wall for nutrition, so … Check.

Is it cellular in nature?  Check.

Does it grow? Check.

Does it adapt?  Not sure when this starts, but eventually certainly does.

Does it reproduce?  It has cellular reproduction as it grows and changes, if we’re talking sexual reproduction, even out of womb children aren’t capable until a certain age.   So, kinda-Check.

Does it respond to stimuli?  Not sure when this starts, but eventually yes.  So, kinda-Check.

Does it stay cohesive?  Check.

So not a complete home run, certainly, but all of these come online during the gestation.  It’s just a matter of when.

So, why not wait to declare a human person until all items are met?  Let me respond with another question.  Why does the Migratory Boat Treaty and Lacey Acts protect bald eagle eggs?  

It’s “not” a bald eagle. The egg doesn’t fly around pooping on cars.  We don’t have images of eagle eggs painted on the back of redneck trucks.

Sure, bald eagles are an endangered species, but the egg isn’t an eagle yet if we use the definition of when does a human become a human (by pro-choice standards).

So, why can’t I have a bald eagle egg omelet?

Now, I really don’t want a bald eagle omelet.  I barely eat chicken eggs.  But, the point I’m trying to make here is that the fertilized egg, if left alone, will eventually result in an eagle as we visualize them today.  It, for all intents and purposes, is an eagle and is treated and protected as such.

So, why don’t we view zygotes, embryos and fetuses the same way?  Regardless of whether you believe life begins at conception, the mere fact that this is a human person in the early stages of development should provide some level of protection.

When discussing this view, I’ve gotten a few interesting challenges.  One of which is: “If I were to put the tissue on a petri dish, it wouldn’t survive”.  Well, if I placed a newborn baby on a lab counter without food and physical protection from the elements, it would die as well.  The only difference is the newborn probably would last a bit longer.  It would also communicate more through crying.  I doubt abortion would be allowable if the embryo or fetus could scream.  

I also feel this way about lobster restaurants.  No one would ever pick one out of the tank if they were cute, fluffy and screamed when placed in the boiling water.  We humans are weird this way.

Now, the other argument I’ve heard is whether the “tissue” is viable outside the mother’s womb.

THIS is what really scares me.  The idea of “viability” coming into play.  I get nervous when I hear it’s ok for someone to make a decision about life based on “viability”.

What is meant by viable?  In this context, it’s a statement of whether the child would survive outside the womb (which starts around week 22ish, I know someone will correct me here).  But, there’s another side.

Amniocentesis is a procedure which can detect chromosomal abnormalities (such as Down’s Syndrome) or other disorders (e.g. spina bifida).  The linked article calls out 200,000 procedures a year (not sure if that is worldwide or just in the US).  The mean abortion rate (across multiple studies) for those found to have Down’s Syndrome is 67%.

Wow.  It makes me sad to think people are aborted just because they have developmental issues.  I'm not trying to judge here, I can only imagine the difficulty with raising and caring for a child with birth defect or condition.  I just can't help but wonder about where the line is.  Who decides whose life is worthwhile?

At what point do we start crossing into aborting due to other birth defects?  When will we hit a line we won’t cross?  We have a VERY bad track record when deciding who has a right to live and who should die.  Eugenics, when taken to it’s farthest extreme, is what leads to Nazi death camps.

My other big fear is what are the next logical steps.  

Most people I speak with will tell me that don’t like or want abortion (even if they support a woman’s right to have one).  If “reproductive rights” advocates succeed, and abortion becomes an acceptable and normalized form of birth control, what does that mean for us 10, 50, 100 years from now?

Oh, and before you start to argue about how abortion will never become normalized, consider the recent case against a Washington florist who refused to make an arrangement for a same-sex couple's wedding.  What did the Washington Supreme Court decision say?  They said laws provide “broader societal purpose”.  Meaning, it isn’t about the explicit nature of the law, but the implicit reasoning behind the law.  Making a law provides (or even forces) societal changes.  Making abortion a “right” effectively uses the law to make a societal change in how abortion is viewed and treated.   Granted, I’m not a lawyer, so feel free to argue with me.

Going back to the longterm view, when will the first man challenge child support in court?  When will “her decision” to have a baby turn into “her responsibility to provide for the child”?  When will the argument of “I offered to pay for the abortion and she refused” become a legitimate defense?

Let’s look at it through a different lens.  When will the mantra of “If you can’t feed’em don’t breed’em” turn into policy?  When will subsidies be capped for households who need help?  Can’t feed them?  Well, I guess you should have thought about that before you had a kid.  Once abortion becomes acceptable in the mainstream, this isn’t an illogical leap to make.

Is this what we want for our future?  I surely don’t.  Which is why I believe we need to redraw the abortion line and act like we never stepped over it in the first place.

This is a veritable Pandora's Box of "we don't want to go there".

Now, before all you upset feminists burn my Vagina Card, let me make a disclaimer.  

I don’t want to see women stuck in situations they don’t know how to recover from.  I don’t want to “force” anyone into anything.  In my opinion, abortion is just an after effect of unprepared women being used, undervalued and thrown away.  

I want women to have choices.  I want them to have GOOD choices.  I want them to understand how NOT to get pregnant.  I want to help women get into positions where they can take care of themselves and handle what life throws at them.  I want to help women understand how not to date total douchebags.  

Instead of pouring tax money into “reproductive rights” policies that provide abortions, let’s spend our money, time and energy on building a society where women have more opportunities and success.  Let’s build a society that doesn’t penalize mothers (side note - want to know what is one factor in the gender pay gap?  Time away from work, which hits mothers hard). 

And, while we are at it, let’s teach men how to truly value women and enable them to be better fathers (paternity leave, anyone?).

Let's eliminate the root causes, not the children.

Why I’m Not Marching Today

I’d like to march for equality - pay, benefits, and opportunities.  I’d like to march for keeping America inclusive.  I’d like to march for a country that still believes in, and promotes, freedom.  I’d like to march to promote a society that values all people.  I’d like to march to keep America as a global beacon for hope in a world so afraid for its children.

But, I can’t.

Let’s look at https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/ for the 8 Principles of today’s event in DC (and various cities around the world):

• Ending Violence - I’m onboard, but it needs to be holistic, not just an attack on the 2nd Amendment
• LGBTQIA Rights - I’m onboard, as long as religious rights are kept in balance
• Worker’s Rights - I’m onboard, again, balanced along with keeping a healthy economy
• Civil Rights - I’m onboard
• Disability Rights - I’m onboard
• Immigrant Rights - I’m onboard
• Environmental Justice - I’m onboard, as long as we collaborate to find ways to help the environment while keeping businesses viable

And, of course,

• Reproductive Rights - and this is where I fall off the collective uterine soapbox.

Specifically, the site states the following:  “This means open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion and birth control for all people, regardless of income, location or education.“  The march itself is sponsored by and partnered with groups such as Panned Parenthood, #VoteProChoice, Emily’s List and NARAL Pro-Choice America.  Of the speakers, a couple of names popped out as extremely vocal pro-choice advocates.

Essentially, this morning’s activities will be, in part, to promote state funded abortion.  I can’t support this agenda at any level.  I’m not asking you to agree with me, just respect the fact that I have a respect for all life.  

There are so many other issues that I’m on board with here.  I’d like to be able to help give voice to help our communities move forward in a positive direction.  Maybe if abortion was a small slice of the overall agenda, maybe not so big of a deal to join in.  However, most feminist groups (and people) I’ve come across, seem to place “reproductive rights” as a cornerstone issue.  As a matter of fact, it’s the second issue listed in the march’s Unity Principles.

What would happen if I showed up today in a (possibly) emotionally charged situation and started a conversation about being pro-life?  Would I have been welcomed?  Should I have tried it?  In my experience, I often get shut down when the conversation starts, sometimes with hostility.

I’m not much on drama.  I've gotten to the point where I don't really talk about it much in public, face to face.  I just don't want to be attacked.  Instead, I spend my time helping with pro-life organizations, prayer and donations.

With discretion being the better part of valor, I decided it was best NOT to attend any of these marches.  I’m not sure my voice would have been welcomed. And, there’s a certain level of hypocrisy to that.

What the Pro-Life Movement Gets Wrong

What the Pro-Life Movement Gets Wrong

Let me be fully transparent here, I’m a pro-life advocate.  This hasn’t always been the case, but I’ve been for a couple of decades now.  I’m also the person who is considered the opposite of the political average in the group I’m in.  My conservative friends find me more liberal.  My liberal friends find me more conservative.  Me? I find myself just right J

I’m not looking to debate why I’m pro-life at this time.  I just wanted to give you a background on me, and where I’m coming from as you, hopefully, keep reading.  I promise to discuss this in more detail on a future date.

Now, this past weekend, KY politics went a bit sideways with bills passed affecting everything from bathrooms to unions.  One big-ticket item was the 20-week abortion ban.  We have some not so happy, and some happy, Kentuckians right now.  And, to be honest, I wasn’t 100% happy with the bill either (Civil action?  Really???  Thanks Obevin).

I’ve spent the past few days discussing this particular bill mostly with people who identify as pro-choice.

One particular conversation occurred (oddly enough) through an online dating site.  Well, I figured one way to get to know someone is to hit all the taboos upfront, right?

I asked one of the gentlemen what he thought of the past weekend.  He said of republicans, “they want government out of every aspect of their lives except for controlling their women.“  Huh, I know many conservatives and while the former is mostly the case, the latter hasn’t been.

Heading out to lunch with a friend a few days later, I mentioned the conversation.  Her response?  “He’s right”.  Double Huh.

My conservative, pro-life friends aren’t jerks (well, except for a few of you, but I love you anyway).  Why are they painted as women haters?

As I was re-reading the section of the bill that allows for fathers to pursue civil action, it hit me.  Somewhere along the way, we’ve lost sight of a very important person – the mother.  What levelheaded individual would allow for a mother to be sued by the father, especially in cases of coercion and force?  Apparently, our Kentucky Legislature and esteemed governor would.  Entirely the wrong message to send to women.

The pro-life movement dialog that I’ve run across in social media and the news is specifically, and solely, focused on the life of the child.  Not many pro-life advertisements really bring the well being of the mother into the picture (let alone to center stage). 

Women over the course of humanity have gotten a pretty raw deal.  While we’ve been around for millions of years (including our ancestors), we still don’t have equal pay.  We still carry pepper spray and Tasers when we walk alone at night (and sometimes during the day).  We still can’t drink from open containers we’ve left unattended at parties.  We still feel we have to achieve more in order to get the same level of respect.  And, we still receive mixed messages about who and what we should be:

·      ‘You can have everything, but you still better look pretty doing it!’

·      ‘Be a strong woman, but don’t be a bitch!’

·      ‘Be sexually liberated, but don’t be a whore!’

·      ‘Don’t eat animals treated with hormones, but take these pills to mess with your hormones.’

Hell, we’ve only been allowed to vote for less than 100 years.

We women have a lot of pent up anger and frustration. So, yeah, expect us to kick, fight, scratch to keep what we’ve been denied for so long – control of our lives.  This is what we pro-lifers forget when we start our rhetoric.  It’s about more than just the child – there’s another person involved who is completely losing their mind wondering what the hell they are going to do. Her life matters equally.

We need to send the right message to women, and to mothers – we care about you too.  We don’t want to control you; we just don’t want to see a unique person destroyed.  We want to help you as much as the child.  We have entire networks of ministries and organizations just for that purpose.

If we pro-lifers really hope to win the battle against abortion, we need to focus and communicate our entire story of love, hope and options.  We also need to be very clear about what we’re NOT about.  We aren’t about controlling, or limiting, anyone.  As a matter of fact, it’s just the opposite.  We want everyone to have the chance at reaching his or her full potential – including the unborn.

We also need to stop demonizing pro-choice advocates who are just trying to help women gain and retain control of their lives. While we are focused on the child, they’re just focused on the mother.  We can’t belittle people for that.

In fact, I’d argue we should be working together to help build a world where women feel valued and are able to achieve greatness.  I think we can all agree on that.