"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast" -Oscar Wilde |
"The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself." -- Proverbs 11:25 |
I would argue that if they actually believe that a fertilized egg is a baby and that it’s a tragedy if a fertilized egg meets its end on a tampon, then they should support, not oppose the pill. There’s no evidence that the pill makes it more likely that an already fertilized egg isn’t going to implant. However, there is plenty of evidence that the pill is extremely effective at preventing fertilization from occuring in the first place because the pill works by blocking ovulation. There is also evidence suggesting that 50% of fertilized eggs will die all on their own.
What we have then is a numbers game–if you are truly concerned about not having fertilized eggs die, then it’s a far superior choice to be on the pill than to avoid using contraception. I’ve been on the pill for the majority of my adult life and I’ve probably never had an egg get fertilized in the first place, thus I’ve never had one slough off and die. But your average woman who’s not “contracepting” and having as many babies as god gives her or whatever the sappy patriarchal phrase of the moment is probably has “killed”, bare minimum one fertilized egg for every actual pregnancy, much less birth, she has. Basically, an evil single pill-popping feminist like me is far less the baby-murdering monster than your average contraception-rejecting submissive godly woman.
I will predict right now that any wingnut who reads my irrefutable by-the-numbers argument in favor of using contraception or, better yet, just getting sterilized and removing all possibility of every killing a “baby” through carelessly menstruating will reject my suggestion and continue the process of killing “baby” after “baby”. I know–bold statement and I definitely invite any and all wingnuts who are prepared to quit killing “babies” by sterilizing themselves or at least using the pill to step forward and declare they are about to stop their murderous ways this minute.
In lieu of this, it’s time to start asking why wingnuts insist on equating the pill with abortion, since not using contraception has more in common with abortion than using contraception, since putting yourself at risk of pregnancy means you’re taking a chance of killing a “baby” whether you mean to or not. From the “baby”-danger perspective, the pill isn’t aboriton. But if you define “abortion” as the actual or symbolic rejection of a man or his sperm, then the pill fits the definiton, at least to people who are crazy enough to think that refusing to get pregnant at every opportunity is rejection of a man.
Which of course is exactly how wingnuts use the word “abortion”–as a way to indicate that a woman has been willful and refused to submit to male power/virility. Pam’s post today is a classic example of a wingnut using the word “abortion” in just this way–”abortion of marriage” is a nonsensical phrase to most people but to people who view female control over our own lives and bodies as an abhorent instrusion on male property rights to female bodies, then divorce is just another version of abortion.