Lest we forget what it was like. Some examples: a woman’s success in terminating a pregnancy often depended more on her social networks (i.e. in the absence of institutionalised facilities) which could mean several weeks or even months of delays; the rate of unsafe, harmful procedures was shocking – approx. 20% of abortions were septic or incomplete while 10% of women required further hospitalisation; and/ or the psychological effects of negotiating such a risky process without assistance, and under the expectation that no one should or could know, were immense.
More on alternet (based on Nancy Howell Lee’s 1969 book, The Search for an Abortionist):
The four years since 2010 have brought us a resurgence of antiabortion legislation, with hundreds of restrictions enacted at the state level. The guiding theory of this renewed anti-abortion activism is that abortion is the source of social ills, and that the way to end abortion is to make it illegal. Yet we know from long experience that criminalizing abortion neither ends the practice nor alleviates social ills. That, at any rate, is the timely and provocative lesson to be drawn from Nancy Howell Lee’s 1969 book, The Search for an Abortionist: The Classic Study of How American Women Coped With Unwanted Pregnancy, which was originally published by University of Chicago Press and was recently reissued by Forbidden Bookshelf, a division of Open Road Media.
A demographer and sociologist, Lee taught at the University of Toronto for 30 years; the book is based on her PhD dissertation, which she obtained from the Harvard University Department of Social Relations in 1968. Back then, Lee asserts, having an abortion was one of the most common form of illegal activity practiced in the U.S. Though the numbers are hard to specify, between 200,000 and 1 million women obtained abortions every year. Abortion was quiet, inconspicuous, and yet widespread. Howell Lee put flesh on these statistical bones by closely investigating the stories of 114 women who sought abortions.
There is a concept called body autonomy. Its generally considered a human right. Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. Its why you can’t be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead. Even if you’d save or improve 20 lives. It’s why someone can’t touch you, have sex with you, or use your body in any way without your continuous consent.
A fetus is using someone’s body parts. Therefore under bodily autonomy, it is there by permission, not by right. It needs a persons continuous consent. If they deny and withdraw their consent, the pregnant person has the right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I need someone else’s body parts to live, they can also legally deny me their use.
By saying a fetus has a right to someone’s body parts until it’s born, despite the pregnant person’s wishes, you are doing two things.
1. Granting a fetus more rights to other people’s bodies than any born person.
2. Awarding a pregnant person less rights to their body than a corpse.
Hannah Goff (x)
The only pro-reproductive rights argument you’ll ever need.
Being a writer myself, I tend to the read the comment sections as much as I read the story. I see these types of comments a lot, where commenters will, innocently enough, fuel the fire of the shamers, in this case Mohr. When you say, "Oh, no, she's not even fat!", you're pretty such saying "DON'T WORRY! She's not one of the fat ones."
Whether or not Milano is "fat" (overweight on a medical body-mass index scale, or otherwise) is irrelevant to the discussion. When you say "she's not even fat," all you're doing is reinforcing the notion that it is okay to shame people who are actually fat (or not up to whatever standard they were criticized for in the first place). What if the actress were overweight? Would it then be okay for Mohr to make remarks on her body or tell jokes at her expense? Those comments could just as easily be reworded to, "Save those fat jokes for the real tubbies!"
The part that bothers me the most is when commenters give an extended to response to the entire "She's not fat!" scenario. "She's not fat, on the contrary! She's actually BEAUTIFUL!" A few reply responses even mention that it is hypocritical to note how NOT fat she is by saying how attractive she IS. But taking Alyssa Milano out of the scenario completely, why is it up to the average person sitting at home on his or her computer to clarify beauty standards? I'm going to say about as much business as it is of Jay Mohr's.
In June 2013, I lost my job, along with about 14 other members of my company. I was exactly, to the day, one month short of reaching my one-year anniversary as a full-time salaried employee in an entry-level position.
In the six months between losing my job and losing my unemployment benefits, I have also lost three full-time employment opportunities, while simultaneously spending roughly 720 applying for jobs, 600 hours working freelance (which comes out of my unemployment), and 480 hours watching other people's children.
About three months ago, I went a successful round of job interviews, receiving three full-time offers within one week of each other. For the unemployed, there is no greater feeling than the burden of unemployment melting away so quickly. A majority of those jobless in the workforce are ready, able, and willing to work, but the longer we are unemployed, the harder it is to find work (WasPo).
With this offer, I was so willing, in fact, that the offer I accepted was closer to my unemployment wage than my salaried wage with benefits, but that is to be expected at my career level. I essentially chose to be underemployed, just to be employed. Of course, when I accepted the job offered, which had a similar compensation as the other offers, I had to turn down my two other opportunities, both of which would have been equally as beneficial to my career path.
In coordinating my start-date with my chosen offer, I had difficulty getting a clear response from the company. I was eventually notified, after pushing back three start-dates, that the company was not ready to begin establishing my department, and that I would be their "first call when [they were] ready" in two to six months. In one conversation, I was back to my Day One of unemployment. I felt as though I had forfeited my own right to work by choosing the wrong company. It was a harsh blow, and one I have still not gotten over, especially now that, back home with my family in Ohio on Christmas, I am more concerned about my next paycheck than seeing my friends or engaging with my family.
Like most people at the year's end, I am reflecting back on the past 12 months on everything that has happened in my life this year. I nearly lost my father to a home accident, my company closed not long after, then I lost three job opportunities. I am now losing out on further wages because I am seen as a government mooch.
What I feel worst about, however, is that there are far more people in worse off positions than myself. I am two and a half years out of college, with one full-time job to my name. My student loans are manageable, at least for now, and I do have a family to help, if it comes down to that. The last thing I want to do, however, is be 24 years old and still reliant on my mom, who already works more than 50 hours a week to pay half of my student loans. I am lucky to have a back-up plan, and I am lucky to have a four-year college degree. There are more people struggling just as much, if not more, than myself, who do not have either to their name.
I, along with a majority of the unemployed in this country, do want to be in this position. I've worked so hard this year not working. And it is only about to get worse.
vaporwave
gummygunk
annaxmalina
janainaart
