ravan: by Ravan (Default)
( Feb. 9th, 2012 10:53 pm)
As in "your doctor should respect your womb integrity," (ie not be willing to remove it if you have fibroids) "or you should get a new doctor."

I'm sorry, but that is so breeder-centric, woman-as-baby-machine, psuedo-feminist claptrap that it makes me sick. Like a sane 40 some old year old woman is going to be obsessed with being able to bear children, "because that's her whole life, all she's meant for, if you take that away she has nothing" bullshit?

Nearly every woman I know hates menstruating, hates being chained to an expensive and messy set of feminine supplies, hates the prob associated with hormonal birth control, does not want to be defined as a walking "womb" and the only reason they don't want menopause is because of the other crap that goes with the hormone loss. This is even women who've had kids.

I've had a hist, I was thrilled. The ovaries remain, they were unaffected by the fibriods, there was no cancer. I am pleased as hell that my doctor didn't give me a lot of "but you could still have kiiids" crap at over 40. Sure, some folks do, but I think they're slightly nuts.

Yeah, I get the "if it isn't broke, don't fix it", which is why I wasn't seeking a hist at 20. But if it's broke? If it's causing pain, anemia and may be cancerous or pre-cancerous? Don't do a half-assed job of fixing the problem (D&C), and have to come back and do it again in 5 - 10 years.

Seriously "womb integrity??" How about quality of life, overall? How about me as a person, not me as a host for a fucking "womb". Should my doctor also have been respectful of my "appendix integrity" when it was about to burst? I don't think so! But because it involves producing children, it suddenly becomes *more* important than my health or comfort? It's now a sacred "womb". They can fuck that shit with a rusty chainsaw.

Every woman, whether she is a parent or not, is much, much more than just a potential producer of children. Her integrity as a person, her health and happiness, are far more important than her "womb integrity". It doesn't get a fucking say, it doesn't define her.

Don't fucking define women by the presence or functionality of a uterus. It's just wrong.
Politically motivated "studies" that have been biased and loaded with a religious agenda have been trotted out for years to "prove" that abortions harm mothers, bah, blah. It's one of the few non-religious arguments that is used against allowing abortions.

But it's false.

The reality is the opposite:
Abortion not seen linked with depression, and
New moms at risk for range of mental problems.

Having kids is actually more likely to cause or exacerbate depression than having an abortion.
This is prompted by an otherwise valid rant on kinky/oversexualized behavior/dialog in general public spaces. While I don't believe that kids should be exposed to sexuality before they are ready (as determined by their parents and/or biology), I don't think that kids should be the "most sacred thing" in any religion.

Children are the most sacred element of your religion.

It may be a blow to some people, but the most important element is NOT THE SELF, maybe the self is the most important part of your spiritual journey (although I pity you if it is), but your religion is nothing, absolutely nothing without a generation to hand it off to.

No, they aren't. Each person's "most sacred" element is different. It's not a "blow" to me, it's a stupid pronouncement that bears no damn obligation on my part.

I hate to tell this guy, but kids aren't the center of everyone's universe, nor should they be. Really. He is welcome to take his stinking pity and tuck it. I don't need to breed a "generation to hand it off to" in order to have a valid religion. My religious views definitiely do not include forcible indoctrination of children, and/or requiring children to indoctrinate. I would much rather support those who chose to have children, than feel compelled to produce my own, no matter how unwanted by me.

Children should have a place in our religion(s), but should not be the center of it. They should be protected, but our rites should not all be dumbed down to what children can handle. Adults only spaces should be honored, as well as general or "child safe" spaces. IMO, if it is *NOT* designated "adults only", then it should be able to be assumed child/abuse survivor safe.

What's so hard about that? Why does the cult of the child have to be dragged forth? Why does someone feel the need to tell me and everyone else that, essentially, my religion is invalid unless I consider the most sacred thing in it to be completeing a simple biological act? Yuck!


ravan: by Ravan (Default)


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags