Friday, October 06, 2006
Abortion-The Board Game
This coming election year, there will be the dependable percentage of both Democrats and Republicans who will be single issue voters. In some cases, those single issues will come in bundles, known as values. But an appreciable percentage will be bona fide numbskulls who will vote solely on how politicians and, in a great many if not most cases, a political party in general, is perceived on one issue.
Perhaps the largest and most obvious example of single issue voters are those whose vote is based solely on the abortion issue. Republicans, of course, are the "Pro-Life" party, while Democrats are seen as the party which is "Pro-Choice".
So controversial and divisive is this issue there seems to be no chance for common ground when it comes to single issue voters, and the subject of abortion is certainly no exception. Conservatives for the most part insist there is no legitimate reason for an abortion whatsoever. Rape, incest, the life and health of the mother, or severe deformity of the fetus in question is no excuse.
The most liberal Democrats and their supporters are no better. If they had their way there would be no controls, no regulations whatsoever, on a womans right to seek a safe and legal abortion at any time or place, during any period of her pregnancy. Nor is age a factor, to them any young girl should have the right to get an abortion and be under no compunction whatsoever to receive parental consent, or for that matter to provide notification to said parents of her intentions.
Politicians for the most part are brought and paid for by the proponents of one side or another, and are dependent on the voting drive efforts put forth by the supporters/opponents of the various positions, to say nothing of financial contributions to the coffers of the various candidates.
As such, it is not unusual to see a politician spend a great amount of time demagoguing this subject. Nor does it stop after the election cycle. Then it moves into the stratosphere of court appointments. Republicans are determined to appoint conservative activist judges who would, if they got their way, overturn Roe v. Wade. Liberals of course oppose the appointment of such judges, in fact during confirmation proceedings, this seems to be their main area of concern. If they had their way, they would insure that Roe remained the law of the land.
It has, in effect, become a game. As such, I propose just that. Let's turn it into a board game, one that I would call, "Abortion: The Game". For players from 8 on up, and from four to eight players, I believe it would be a great educational tool, and fun for the entire family.
Here's how it would work. No player gets to choose what role he plays in the game, this would be determined by the random drawing from a specific deck of pre-shuffled cards. These cards will be used only once, for the purpose of assigning roles. These roles would be as follows:
1. One pregnant woman, who is unsure as to whether to get an abortion. She feels she should get one because
a. She has been raped
b. She wasn't aware the man who seduced her was, in reality, her long lost half brother
c. The child will be deformed
d. Her health, possibly her life, is at stake
e. The child is not her husbands
f. The child is her husbands, but he is a louse and she wants a divorce
g. She is poor and cannot provide for the child
h. It would interfere with her career and educational pursuits
i. She just doesn't want to have a baby yet, she's just not ready for that kind of responsibility
j. She is unmarried and wants to stay that way, and does not want to have to be a single mother
k. She is a young girl, too young to have a baby, and is also afraid of getting in trouble for being sexually active
l. She and her family are pillars of the community and she fears the scandal of giving birth to what is actually an interracial child.
One of these twelve choices will be determined by a roll of the dice within a marked area on the back of the board. If both die remain on the board she (or he) must combine the numbers, giving her a choice of from seven to twelve. If only one of the die remains on the board, the other will be excluded, giving her a choice of from one to six. If no die remains on the board, the toss is repeated for a total of three times, after which the number showing on the die closest to the board will be chosen. The dice should be tossed by a person other than the person playing the role of the mother.
The other characters are as follows:
2. The potential father of the child, the first players husband (or lover, half-brother, rapist, etc.).
3. A Pro-Choice politician
4. A Pro-Life politician
5. An abortion provider
6. A conservative minister
7. Pro-Choice protestor
8. Pro-Life protester
All these characters will be assigned a specific pack of cards appropriate for their roles. The game then starts. The object of the game is for each character to make it from the beginning to the end-"The Abortion Clinic".
Every move by each player will be determined by a toss of the dice. However, there are four spots on the board marked "Danger". If you land on one of these spots, you are relegated from that point on to the use of only one die.
Also along the way, there will be spots on the board which require you to draw a card from your appropriate pack. Every such deck will contain some cards which are similar in nature. For example, one will say, "on your next roll you must move backwards the number of spots equal to the number you roll." Also, each will have one card which will say to "Advance four extra spots.
These are the "Draw A Card" spots, and each player will as I said draw from a card which will contain instructions appropriate for their particular characters. Examples of these might be:
The woman-"Describe how you felt when you were raped (or discovered you were pregnant by your half-brother, or was pregnant with an interracial baby, etc.) At this point, she has to draw from a different set of cards before she can advance, when it comes her turn. The correct card will be marked, and she must read it, after which she advances off the square the number of points on the die or dice she has rolled. She can not advance for example if she draws a card that says, "I felt like baking a cake".
Or the preacher might draw a card that says "Give an example of a Biblical verse that justifies your position". He then as well must when it comes his turn cast the die or dice, and draw a card, after which he advances the number of moves only upon drawing the appropriate card. "Blessed are the peacemakers" ain't going to cut it.
The husband or whatever is in a peculiar position. A toss of the dice will determine as to whether he is in favor of or opposed to the womans actions, and a particular set of cards will be appropriated him accordingly. He might well draw a card that says, "You have been accused of spousal abuse, go back twelve spaces."
All characters as well might land on a space that will require them to draw a card, which might well inform them they have now been arrested for this, that, or the other. They are stuck there until they roll doubles.
The object of the game is to make it to the abortion clinic, which requires a specific roll of the dice or die from any one specific point on the board. Players also can land on the same spot. However, if two characters from opposing teams land on the same spot, they are in opposition, and are fighting to advance, which will be determined by which character rolls the largest number on the dice or die. If one character has been relegated to one die and the other hasn't, then the one die player is of course at a disadvantage. Also, though neither player can move until both have rolled, they still must take their time in the appropriate order. What is more, the person who rolls the least amount, must after both rolls have been made, move backward according to the number he or she has rolled.
If the doctor and the woman both make it to the clinic, then she has had her abortion and wins the game.
Finally, there is one spot that is critical, the last spot before reaching the abortion clinic. If you land here and are using both die, you must then go backwards your next roll.
If two of the opposing teams players make it inside the abortion clinic, and the doctor is there, then they "kill the abortion doctor" and the game is over. Similarly,if they make it to the abortion clinic before the doctor, then they "bomb the abortion clinic" and likewise have won the game.
If the woman is there, however, then all four opposing players must make it there before the doctor in order to win the game.
If the doctor along with the woman makes it there before all four of the opposing players, they have won the game. Likewise, if one or more of her teammates,including the doctor, makes it there, they nullify the effects of the corresponding opposing player.
If the woman makes it there before the doctor, then she must wait for him or her. However, she blocks the path of the opposing players, until they roll doubles. If two or more opposing players finally make it in with her before the abortion doctor, then they talk her out of having the abortion. Game over.
Needs some work, maybe, but like I said, a fun way to learn the ins and outs of both sides of the issue, which is why, natch, nobody can arbitrarily choose the roles they want.
The picture at the top is of an aborted fetus, which I propose for the front cover of the box for "Abortion:The Game", courtesy of Phatmos.com.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I’ve watched people come to near blows over a game of monopoly... imagine what this could provoke...
This said, I like the concept, particularly the part of not being able to self-select your identity. But I have to know why you propose that picture for the game box?
Not really, I just wrote it on the spur of the moment, more or less, and pretty much made it up as I went along. I just noticed upon rereading it that a couple of the last instructions are contradictory.
As for the picture, it was the best I could find. The goal of the game is to make fun of and offend both extremes. The Far Right is portrayed as winners if they "murder the abortion doctor" or "bomb the abortion clinic". The Far Left gets to look at a bloody picture of a butchered fetus.
A slight deviation, but I’d be remiss if I neglected to express dissatisfaction with the language we use to talk about abortion. ‘Life’ (its definition, when it begins, etc.) receives considerable airtime, so I’m not going to revisit it here, other than to reinforce that the ‘life’ of the woman (in its broadest definition) is unattended to.
My struggle has always been with the word ‘choice’. It implies the opportunity to select freely and/or with ease. While from a legal standpoint this may be appropriate, it hardly depicts the emotions and experiences leading up to the decision to abort. For some women, it doesn’t feel like they have a ‘choice’ at all. For others, the ‘choice’ is certainly not an ‘easy’ one. I’m not saying anything that hasn’t been said before.
But language does shape perception.
"Pro-Choice" is a euphemism. So is "Pro-Life". Both are meant to appeal emotionally to people that might not be comfortable with the terms "Pro-Abortion" or "Anti-Abortion".
So "Pro-Choice" becomes a standard frame of reference to people that might otherwise be convinced that any abortion is murder, while "Pro-Life" is meant to be a way to insist that it is murder, while at the same time attempting to discourage and minimize arguments in which there is just cause for the proceedure.
I know it’s semantics, but that doesn’t preclude us from re-fashioning the debate with language that more accurately depicts the issues.
Semantics isn't the problem though, semantics is just a reflection of what the real problem is-an unwillingness for compromise. If I had my way about it, the euphemisms would be dropped. You are either pro-abortion rights, anti-abortion rights, or you are somewhere in the middle, where I am. But it's the two extremes that have hijacked the debate, and they are the ones that have applied the euphemisms.
I've been alive through Reagan, two Bushes, and Clinton's administration. No Republican has actually stopped an abortion. They don't want to actually. Abortion will never be ended by a Republican. The conservative women and their daughters also have abortions. It is an issue for the marks only. It is a wink, wink issue.
Republicans won't end it. Nothing would split the party more. Dems know that and use the issue for fundraising.
Your post was very good.
Thanks for the compliment, Ren, but I disagree with your assessment, which I think is based on a false assumption. The Republican goal, which they hope to implement through the courts, isn't actually to "end" abortion, but to overturn Roe v. Wade, thereby putting the decision back into the arena of the varied states.
This would result in a plethora of ballot initiatives in a majority of states, some of which would doubtless uphold abortion rights, but many if not most of which would outlaw the procedure. However it would turn out it would amount to a hijacking of the different state political porcesses by the advocates of both sides of the issue. This would tranlsate into tens of millions of dollars per state poured into the various PACS, both for and against, which would in the meantime be funnelled to a grat extent into the various candidates campaign committees.
It's a business, like any other, and this is as true of one side as the other. Think of how much money churches and folks like Falwell and Dobson rake in based on this issue, from their parishioners and other supporters, and how much of this money goes to Pro-Life candidates, and you begin to see the picture.
Besides, if a wealthy Republican wants to get his daughter an abortion, do you really think a little thing like the law is going to stop him? Not as long as he can afford a vacation to Denmark, it's not.
oh my god! i'm so not strong enough to look at that picture. i don't know whether i should admire the fact that you could post that pic without being affected by it (is it a guy thing of being unaffected at the sight of that?).. or curse you for shattering my mental peace.
its strange you should post this coz my very close friend is facing just this dilemma..
so what's your stand on the issue? (i'm sorry if it was clearly stated in the post. my brain is a li'l fried at the moment) :(
I'm a moderate on this issue, I would prefer some kind of reasonable compromise be reached. However, failing that, and given a choice between the two extremes, I would have to be "Pro-Choice".
The Pro-Life fanatics can bitch and moan until they are blue in the face, I will never support a position that requires a young teenage incest victim, or rape victim, etc, etc, to not be allowed an abortion.
And before somebody chimes in with some suppossed statistic that such incidences are exceedignly rare, that's beside the point. If it has ever happenned once, then that justifies my position. The fact that the potential is there that it could happen is even more justification.
Still, a person should enter into a decision like this with their eyes wide open, and should know the facts on both sides, something the Pro-Choice crowd doesn't seem to support. That's the reason for the picture. Regardless of what anybody tells you, it is a human being being, yes, killed.
Plus, there are health reasons to consider, and emotional ones, ones that in some cases follow some women for a good many years, if not the rest of their lives.
As for your friend, if she is feeling conflicted about it, my immediate advice is that she probably shouldn't have one, unless there is a major health or other such reason that she should.
As a pagan, one who for want of a better word "worships" nature, my first inclination is to convince any woman against this proceedure, unless there is a valid reason for it. Still, it is up to her. I just wish the Pro-Choice side would be more open about the potential consequences. But, it is a business, after all.
hmm.. yeah i think our thoughts are pretty alike then. nth would ever go out of my womb in an unnatural way, but i wouldn't dare 'impose' that on any woman.
reg my friend the problem is she is 28 and has no real reason why she shouldn't have tht baby except that she's not ready for a baby just right now. but her husband is a staunch 'no abortion' kinda guy. *sigh* life.. oh and she has decided to have the baby btw.
but i must tell you this.. the picture.. my god.. i cried for half an hour after i saw it (not kidding). i was surprised at the extreme strong emotion it evoked.
as usual a very interesting post :) be back for more. cya
I'm glad she decided to have it, mainly for the sake of her own peace of mind. She was obviously having a problem with it, and had she gone through with it, if she is like a good many women, the emotional pain wouldn't have gone with the baby, if anything it would have magnified.
I'm sorry the picture affected you so strongly, but think about it. If it affected you that strongly, how much greater would such a picture affect a woman who actually went through with an abortion, though she was having problems with it? This is a decision that should never be taken lightly. The long term implications can be devastating.
Congratulations. But no, I had never heard that. I can't speak for all of them of course, or for the one on the post, but I would doubt they all are. Couldn't swear to it though, one way or another.
I do believe that I am literally "Pro-Choice".
I believe a woman should have the right to continue a pregnancy, or to not continue said pregnancy.
It seems that the Anti-Choice people only see the "Yes, I will have an abortion" choice, and condemn those of us who believe that no man, no government, no judge and certainly no religious fanatic, should come between a patient and her doctor in matters regarding a medical procedure.
I understand where you're coming from. The main thing with me is, this is an issue that is more of an interference than it is anything else. That's why I would like to see some kind of compromise so we can move on to other more important things.
Plus, most people that are Pro-Choice don't want to inform the woman of the potential consequences. The emotional trauma, the very real potential medical problems on down the line. Plus, I'm sorry, but there's just no way I'm going to support allowing a thirteen or fourteen year old girl to get an abortion without her parents knowledge, like most Pro-Choice advocates seem to want to insist is proper.
Plus, frankly, I don't want to see white Americans and Europeans reduced to a minority due to the overbreeding by Hispanics and Muslims. That might sound prejudiced. Maybe it is. But that's just the way I feel.
Post a Comment