Chris Jepson: Some life

I do not have any qualms agreeing with the pro-life position that life begins at conception. It would be disingenuous to argue otherwise. But I would ask: Is that moment more or less significant if that life, say, six years later is one of torment, abuse and neglect? If life is sacred as pro-life advocates contend, why are the lives of America’s impoverished children, for example, somehow of lesser importance (less sacred)? Life the size of a pencil-point has pro-life advocates in tears of reverence, yet America’s impoverished, mentally ill, homeless veterans, etc. are too often marginalized, dismissed or neglected.

Requiring a life requires responsibility.

To say that all life is sacred as pro-life advocates maintain is belied by the reality that some life (to them) is more revered (see Pencil-Point Life).

This issue pivots for me on female rights. I’ve acknowledged that I subscribe to the fact that human life begins at conception. What then? Pro-life advocates would strip women of autonomy . . . for all the years they are fertile. Regardless of that individual woman’s rights, her uterus would be subject to government authority and regulation.

The irony is frequently noted that the far-right pro-life movement finds “large” government an obstacle to “freedom,” yet thinks stripping America’s women of their autonomy perfectly acceptable. Do they not comprehend the inherent contradiction of their position?

One of the most revolutionary achievements of the 20th century was the development of safe, accessible and affordable birth control for women. No longer would women have to relentlessly bear child, after child, after child. This one advance changed the course of our species. Birth control (and accompanying female education/empowerment) offers humanity our best (safest) prospect for getting Earth’s population to a sustainable level – but that’s a different issue.

I am of a mixed-mind as to understanding why any Westerner (historical Western European culture) would resist the trajectory of our citizens — toward individual autonomy and freedom. For all. Is it mere coincidence that the preponderance (leadership/spokespersons) of those in the pro-life movement are noisy males, “authoritatively” advocating for the management of a woman’s body?

And what does it say about the women of the pro-life movement? This boggles my mind. How can it be that any woman — knowledgeable of the undeniable 10,000-year history of male oppression of women — would advocate the renewed oppression of their sex? (Oh, that boot heel feels so necessary, a little firmer, please.) What is the definition of masochistic?

The predominantly male legislators of Arkansas and North Dakota rush to define life beginning at conception so as to ultimately outlaw abortion (and certain forms of birth control).

Rather than marginalizing America’s women by restricting their autonomy and freedom, I advocate we respect every woman’s right to manage her own life in accord with her wishes and plans. Not every session of coitus plans for a conception. Let the individual woman privately decide for herself what happens next. To interject the state in such matters is an historical step backward for women.

These last few words are for young women: If you do not speak up, what you take for granted — your right to manage your own body — will be stripped from you (and any daughters you may someday choose to conceive). Call Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando at 407-246-1788. Get involved. Volunteer. Your freedom may very well depend on it. And it doesn’t get any more personal than that.