Do You Qualify For Full Freedom?

by angryhippie

Conditional freedom is not something that I would have thought I would ever be discussing in the United States, given the Civics classes of my youth instilling in me this idea that we are the country where everyone is free. It’s even like ‘guaranteed’ in the Constitution, or so we are led to believe in our formative years. But freedom, we find as we make our way in the world away from the biased books that littered our school days, is not fully granted to everyone in this country, no matter how much we posture and present quite an opposite face.

Freedom in the Real World

It’s not hard to find an example of, especially these days, but freedom seems more and more conditional for various groups in our society and the freedom gaps are only seeming to grow. Let’s take a look at Reproductive Freedom, for an example of this pervasive, oppressive problem that is on the verge of becoming a pandemic. Gender bias has long steered our society, from religious institutions to the corporate world, from Capital Hill to Hollywood, and not surprisingly on down into our homes. (With that much outside influence corrupting the dialog and molding the mindsets, it’s not surprising at all that it pierced the veil into nearly all of our homes.) Hell, it probably feels normal to you at this point. So much so, that you don’t even notice that you are taking part in it.

That’s right, as members of the public, unless we are actively campaigning and speaking out against this gender bias based oppression, also known as sexism, then we are passively partaking in it and allowing it to persist. And the Reproductive Freedom issue is a perfect example of this struggle being ignored as basic freedoms are being stripped from women across the nation. So many passively play into the limitation of freedom because we see it as not effecting us (males), or we believe we are entitled to take these rights away from women because our god has granted us the moral high-ground and we must force everyone to see this miracle through the same god-glazed gaze that we do (religious antis).

The heart of the matter

Either way, you are advocating that one group (fetuses) are more important than another group (women), because you are stripping personal choice and Reproductive Freedom from the entire female gender in order to protect the ‘rights’ and ‘freedom’ of the fetus. So in your eyes, freedom is no longer the guarantee that was once promised, it is conditional on whether or not you are 1) a female and furthermore 2) a pregnant female. Males are unaffected in this quest to control the female reproductive system, and therefore their freedom remains intact. In fact, Reproductive Freedom is an area where there is no counter legislation or issue that impacts the entire male populous in this same way. If there was legislation that forced sterility on males to help stem the overpopulation problem or something along those lines, or even just to prevent unwanted pregnancies, then society would be attacking male Reproductive Freedom, but we never see that.

Why? Because the gender bias that has flawed and fucked our societal foundation teaches us that women are somehow ‘less than’ men, and are not as deserving of full freedom and control of their bodies. We see women as incapable of making these decisions properly and morally (according to the moral code we think they should be aligned with and following) so we take those choices away and begin limiting their freedom, based only on this one factor, this one condition, because they are female. So this ridiculous ideologically and religiously charged ‘dialog’ begins over the reproductive rights of women, when it is solved by a much simpler question. Should freedom be conditional? And that answer is always, an unequivocal, No!

But what about the fetus’ rights? Doesn’t their freedom matter?

The short answer is this. No.

The Bill of Rights does not apply to the unborn. Until the time of birth, there is no guarantee of life, liberty, or the pursuit of any damn thing. Sounds harsh, huh? Well I’m sorry, but given that the laws regarding bodily autonomy are non-negotiable in my book, means to me that until the fetus can survive without using the female host’s body to keep it alive then the female whose body is being used has the right to determine whether or not she wants her body to be used in this way. Therefore, without ever having been a fully sentient, self-sustainable born being, this fetus is not recognized as having ever been, therefore no rights have ever been extended nor guaranteed it. That is not a matter of conditional freedom, given that freedom is not granted until the time of birth.