Monday, May 7, 2012

Get In My Va-jay-jay!

Okay that is not my usual post title :) But it goes along with this clip starring Kate Beckinsdale etc etc http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/87be7156f5/republicans-get-in-my-vagina . I actually laughed, it's quite funny. I don't think the govt should be in women's vaginas either.

However - there were some other subtle remarks in the video that raised my eyebrows - such as talk about govt providing access to affordable birth control. If the govt does that, is in charge of that, resposible for that - guess what? The govt is STILL in your vagina. All the way, way up in there. Maybe in the form of an IUD that is paid for with tax dollars. Or maybe in the form of a cervical cap. Or maybe it's in your blood stream via the pill or shots, making it's hormonal way to your vagina. But it's still in there. The govt. And my money...but hey that doesn't matter, right?

I do not believe that the govt should be legislating on what we do with our bodies in pretty much any way. Our own bodies. We can argue all day about the abortion side of the issue - whether we have the right to determine what happens to the being growing inside the womb - but to me, this video is solely about govt involvement in our lives. It appears to be against that.

Or is it? Mention of govt providing access to affordable care would actually be the govt meddling in affairs anyway, would it not? Even if it comes in the form of funding a clinic you can get birth control at, or book an abortion at, the govt still determines who gets that funding, how much is given, how often it is given, and still ultimately has a decision over your womb - whether to pay for it or not, how much to pay, etc. Guess what - the govt is STILL in your vagina. In another way to think about things - the govt also determines what kinds of birth control are acceptable (brands, types, etc via the FDA) and also decides what kind of procedures are done and how they are performed and who can do them (via the big govt health dept). Is it really your doctor that helps make those decisions, as the clip seems to portray? Is it really you? The govt has a say at every step of the way whether it is the Dems or the Repubs at the helm. That means - the govt is still in your Vagina and it probably always will be.

Again, I support the right to choose. I personally cannot stand the thought of abortion in most cases, especially after the first trimester and seriously cannot tolerate the thought of a healthy viable fetus being aborted - but I am not going to try to take that choice away from you. But again, the video mentions rape and incest, making it out like that happens quite often. Are they seriously trying to say that the 30 million +++ abortions performed in the US in the last 40 years included a very high number of those reasons for abortion? I think you will find that it is predominantly high with couples that did not use protection (I say couples because even if it's a one night stand, HELLO, there were two people there - a man and a woman, so both should be responsible for that). I know it doesn't always work even if you use it properly - I was using TWO methods when I got pregnant with my third child and trust me - I was completely shocked and taken aback. I made my decision to keep the baby while someone else may not have. That's fine and dandy - but to pretend that the republicans (Romney perhaps directly) are the only ones in your vagina is ridiculous. They all are. The whole dang lot of them.

So all I can see from this video is that it's Okay for the govt to be in your vagina if they are helping to insert an IUD, but it's not okay if they are NOT going to put it in there. It's okay for the govt to be in your Vagina if you are getting their help to pull a fetus out of there, but it's NOT okay if they are not going to pay for it or don't want to do it.

I'm sorry but as funny as this clip is, and I do see the point they are trying to make, they are actually advocating for the govt to BE in their vagina rather than staying out of it. Why is it so hard for people to see that?? The vid is making it's way around the net like wildfire but I see very very very few people reading between the lines. Yes it's true, if the govt decided to make it illegal to have an abortion, then they are right back in your vagina again. But if they are simply saying there should not be govt funding for birth control and abortions, they actually want OUT of your vagina, not in it. Geezus. Why is that so hard to see???

4 comments:

  1. How is giving someone the right to choose letting the government choose/meddle/in?

    You may have a point about government funding health to be a bad thing, but it is a very different and separate thing. You are mixing apples and oranges since no one is requiring anyone to take birth control or have an abortion or attend a government funded hospital.

    ReplyDelete
  2. the first time I listened to the clip, I agreed with all of it because I was focused on the very in-your-face argument of it being my vagina, not your's. however, when I listened for the second time, I focused more carefully on each word and realized that there was equal mention of two subjects - the right to choose, and govt provision affordable access to birth control. The right to choose argument is not what I have a problem with and you should see in my original post that I outright said if the govt tried to ban abortion, they would be right back in the vagina and I do not agree with that. I also said I do not believe that the govt should legislate on this issue.

    But funding is what I concentrated on because there were two mentions of it in the video, along with two mentions of 'choice' - a 50-50 split. Having the govt decide what it's going to fund, how much, where, what kind, etc etc etc is still allowing the govt to have some say in your vagina, plain and simple.

    the video is quite clever, it gets a message out there for sure - but interlaced is the message that govt should PROVIDE birth control, which is not the govt staying out of our business, but in fact allowing the govt to remain in. If you start demanding things of the govt, they have more control. History has certainly shown that so why do we never learn?

    If the video had simply said that the govt should provide access to birth control, or better yet, not block access to birth control, then I could have let that slide. But it didn't. It said provide access to AFFORDABLE birth control. The only way that can be achieved is if the govt got it's hands right in there and put controls, checks and balances, paperwork, personnel, committees, etc in there along with money from the tax coffers to pay for all of the above. That's govt involvement in the vagina, in women's lives. They like it if they get what they want, but don't like it if they don't. How about NO govt involvement in personal matters? that should be the ticket - but it never is.

    Because funding is used for this stuff now, the taxpayers DO have a say in what is done with the money, as do the politicians. That's how I look at it and I have talked about that on this blog before. If someone does not have interest (money) in an issue, they don't have much say. They can have an opinion, but they don't have any control. Start throwing money at an issue, and it becomes EVERYONE'S issue. That is how these things work.

    bottom line, if you don't want anyone having a say in what you do with your vagina, stop expecting people to pay for it. Seems simple to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't want to belabour the point but I just don't see how someone paying for something or subsidizing something is giving them any say in what you choose to do.

    It may make it easier for me to make a choice one way or another, but it's still my choice.

    For example, the Canadian government heavily subsidizes the very profitable oil industry and is gutting environmental regulation to help the oil industry. This makes it a lot cheaper to drive my car, but it is still my choice whether to drive my car or take the bike or walk to work. No one is "having a say" in how I choose to go to work.

    Same with the many many many tax credits the Conservatives have brought in (and others have brought in before them). Would you say that the Conservatives are "having a say" in my choice of sports camp (tax credit) over computer camp (no tax credit), or are they just trying to influence individual behaviour but ultimately they don't really have a say?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes it is still a choice, but you are talking about driving a car (or not) as opposed to surgically removing a living being from a uterus. You are also talking about tax credits for sports that you may or may not choose to put your children into. You are receiving a tax credit, tax back from the income tax that you already paid to the govt in every pay cheque and get a little tiny bit back in return (or a lower looking income total and then you might qualify for a rebate). That is a totally different kettle of fish than someone receiving an entirely free abortion - and if you are to believe the media supporting this like in the ad, then you would know that they say most people who have abortions cannot afford to have a child and therefore this helps in the long-run too. If they cannot afford to have a child, chances are they did not pay much, if anything, into the tax system so they are not even getting anything 'back' by using this service.

    And I also think you will find an awful lot of govt involvement in future 'green' energy. My city is planning a giant wind farm that we have already been charged for in our utility bills for over a year, despite the fact it hasnt even started yet. The city is putting a big chunk of money down and that is govt, last time I checked. There has been a windmill farm in the Pincher Creek area for well over a decade, also partially subsidized. The city of Calgary boasts that it's C-train line (govt subsidized at 2 or 3 levels) is 'wind farm energy' because the city buys invisible credits from that wind farm to equal the amount of energy used on the ctrain system. And those are just examples from Southern Alberta, the gas and oil capital of Canada. Imagine what green energy subsidies go on in other provinces.

    What my point was in the original post is that the video is saying to get the govt out of women's personal business, while at the same time demanding that they get INTO it by providing affordable access to it. Um okay. Get out, but gimme the money. Isn't that always the way? If the govt was to say that no more women were allowed to have abortions at all, or use the pill, or the morning after pill combo - then THAT is something to scream about. But if it is to say 'stop regulating, but give us the money for it', that is still govt involvement no matter what. People may choose to use the system, but they are not choosing to pay for it like you are in your examples. You choose to buy a car but do not get a subsidy to pay for the whole thing. You choose to put kids in sports camp or music or dance, and pay for it up front, and get a few pennies back from what YOU paid in yourself. I do not see how that compares to a woman going to planned parenthood and booking a medical procedure and not paying a dime, or paying a token amount. In the city near DC where my friend lives, women pay $16 total for the coun.selling and abortion. Or they pay about $4 or less for the pill each month, if not getting it totally free. They are not paying up front and getting a bit of a rebate, they are relying on you to fund their choice almost entirely. And then crabbing if someone says they should not receive that full funding anymore (as per govt heads talking about cutting funding to planned parenthood)

    ReplyDelete

*Disclaimer

These are my views and opinions. If you don't agree or think I am sadly misguided, that is your view. Feel free to share your thoughts but I also reserve my right to moderate content (IE foul language, excessive flaming, etc).

Financial Center Live Stock Ticker