Katherine has again inspired today's blog. She forced me to come to grips with this little tidbit -- http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2006-03-0322-003.shtml. Yes, folks there is a sculpture right here in Williamsburg, Brooklyn that depicts the birth of Sean Preston Federline. Why? As a statement in favor of the pro-life movement. Sculptor Daniel Edwards says that Britney Spears is the "ideal" poster child for the pro-life movement seemingly because she has the most Google hits. While I do agree with Mr. Edwards that "people are inspired by the beauty of a pregnant woman" does anyone else think this is an entirely separate phenomenon from being pro-life? I certainly do. Pregnant women ARE beautiful and inspirational, there is no doubt about it. And when someone is pregnant because they CHOOSE to be, there is no happier woman in the world. But that is not always the case.
Britney Spears had a baby because she wanted to. I wonder what she would think about being made into a pro-life role model? I wonder how she feels about a sculpture of herself squatting on a bear skin rug? If she was unmarried and not rich and famous would she have been as happy to have a baby at this point in her life? Most pro-choice people I know are not anti-baby. If they had as comfortable a life as Ms. Spears they would probably be ready, willing and able to have a kid.
This is my absolute favorite passage from the article. Wait, get ready, it's a good one… "The artist admits to using references that include the wax figure of a pole-dancing Britney at Las Vegas' Madame Tussauds and 'Britney wigs' characterizing various hairstyles of the pop-princess from a Los Angeles hairstylist." So wholesome! Pole dancing and that pregnant lady glow are so rarely mentioned in the same breath.
Speaking of the pro-choice movement, I just read this AMAZING book (again at the inspiration of Katherine!) called How the Pro Choice Movement Saved America by Cristina Page She makes a lot of great points in this book – and she got through to me, a person who has always approached the pro-choice movement with a great deal of suspicion, mostly because I think they tend to bundle a bunch of causes together and not get to the meat of the matter. Anyway, she says that the pro-life movement, while obviously being anti-abortion, is more importantly anti-sex. Which is why so many of them are on the bandwagon to ban health insurance coverage for birth control. You would think if they wanted to prevent unnecessary abortions, birth control would be right up their alley. You don't want people terminating pregnancies but you are making it impossible for them to have sex without getting pregnant. In a world without legalized abortion those children may well turn out to be unwanted and uncared for, because lord knows our nation's social services can't handle the strain of so many children up for adoption. I've always had the motto: "If you can't handle getting pregnant, don't have sex." But at the same time, the idea that there is a whole contingent of people who are anti-sex… at least when it comes to sex for pleasure, not for babymaking… well that just bothers me.
For those of you who have been keeping up with my extensive fantasy life, here is the link to a play starring Kate Moennig that is going on this week -- http://www.cultureproject.org/guardians.html. As many of you know, in my sick little mind, Ms. Moennig and I will be married someday. Actually the play looks really good. It is about the whole Abu Ghraib thing. Come with me! Maybe I'll get up the nerve to propose! Probably not but you can hope.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment