I've always been conflicted about abortion.

Seems an odd statement coming from me if you know me well, yes? Well, probably not to the people who really know me.

The conflict come from this: to me, sex is something you have to make an adult decision about. In the event that a woman and a man, each possessing 50% ability to create a child, decide to have sex with each other, it becomes an "if-then" statement: IF you decide to have sex, THEN you should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

The only instance in which I disagree with abortion is when a woman uses it as birth control, when it's a decision based out of irresponsibility instead of necessity. Still, that doesn't affect my voting choice when the issue comes up in the realm of politics.

What is necessity? That could be so many things. I have always adamantly supported a woman's right to choose because what right is it of mine to tell someone else what to do with their uterus? I know what I would do with mine, and that's my only concern.

One necessity I have been immediately reminded today of is that of rape. Rape warrants a woman's right to choose in every instance. Rape is wrong, always, no exceptions. Why in hell should a woman be forced to have the biological product of being traumatized by some disgusting man? How is it fair or acceptable to force her to have that trauma grow inside of her body for nine months and then have to take care of it, more than likely without the raper's help, afterward? That is where CHOICE and NECESSITY come into play.

Currently, some congress members (namely the crazy Bible-thumping ultra right-wingers) are trying to "redefine" rape. This astounds me immediately, due to the pure and simple fact that if a woman is in any way coerced or forced, whether through blunt physical prowess or something more indirect like drugs, to have sex with a man WITHOUT GIVING HER CONSENT, that is RAPE. It is WRONG. These Congress members are trying to pass an amendment to say that abortion should not be legal in the case of rape IF the woman was date raped (i.e., raped through drugging or alcohol). This, ladies and gentleman, is your result when old crazy men, who have no fucking clue what it feels like to be sexually assaulted or raped, try to keep the votes coming to their table. This is the grand disgusting result of the political game and patriarchal society at its finest. I wonder what would happen if their wives or sisters or daughters got raped? Maybe they'd behave like Dick Cheney does with his anti-gay stance (even with a lesbian daughter) and still be all for limiting choice for "non-forcible" rape (whatever the fuck that means).

The issue of this bill is the use of federal dollars: i.e., it would be ok to use federal dollars ONLY for instances of forcible rape: therefore, sorry ladies, if you get drugged into having sex with someone and get pregnant, you're paying out of pocket for THAT abortion.

I laugh when I hear people say that we no longer live in a patriarchal society. When you have a situation in which it's actually acceptable to tell a person what is legally defined rape and therefore when it would be acceptable or not to receive an abortion after being raped, you can tell men still rule the world.

Sign this petition if you're kind of sick and fucking tired of a few old men attempting to decide where federal dollars go when it comes to aiding women in rape situations:

http://pol.moveon.org/smithbill/?rc=fb.share.smithbill.0.1