The Face of the Movement


About a decade or so ago, there was a popular pro-choice advertisement in circulation drawing attention to the fact that the vast majority of "pro-life" leaders were men. The more recent version is to show this picture of President Bush signing the Partial Birth Abortion Act while surrounded completely with fellow middle-aged men. It's a powerful statement from pro-choicers about the reality of the anti-choice movement, and how it's not only about controlling sexuality, but about the patriarchal grasp over women's autonomy.

Anti-choicers, while detached from reality, aren't stupid, of course, and eventually they figured out how bad it looks to have a bunch of men at the front of misogynist organizations trying to put on a smiley face. Which is why I suspect we're seeing more and more female faces as the representatives of anti-choice organizations. It goes hand-in-hand with the jaw-droppingly ridiculous attempts by anti-choice groups to argue that abortion and contraception are actually bad for women, and that these things need to be banned to protect women from the possibility of regret and the predatory male sexuality. Women like Leslee Unruh of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, Judie Brown of the American Life League, and all the female figureheads at Concerned Women for America (who only partially conceal the male leader of the organization) gain their prominence no doubt because it's a tactical advantage. Even some ladies want to give up their rights, so why can't you all just hand them over and quit fighting, the argument goes.

Still, having a bunch of post-menopausal ladies wag their finger at the young sluts these days doesn't provide that much of a tactical advantage. These women are by and large open to the same criticism that anti-choice men are, which is that it's really easy to be against a right you don't need for yourself. You can probably toss in a soupcon of accusations of jealousy if you're so inclined, as well. Which is why my eyebrows shot straight up when I saw that the leader of the organization trying to get an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining fertilized eggs as human beings is 20-year-old Kristi Burton. Now we have someone advocating forced birth who could actually be forced to give birth! That's a new wrinkle in anti-choice advocacy.

True, this isn't exactly new. Putting teenage girls front and center at anti-choice rallies has been a favorite strategy for a long time. One gets the impression that it's as much about giving the male leadership some eye candy as anything else, but it doesn't hurt to imply that you have an army of virgins prepared to sacrifice their own rights for the almighty patriarchy. Of course, "virgin" is the key word there. A lot of young women find that reproductive rights become more understandable when they themselves become sexually active. Still, giving very young women leadership roles seems to be a new twist, though the logical next step in trying to create the illusion of a softer, friendlier, less misogynist anti-choice movement.

I just so happen to be reading a book by historian Mary Beth Norton called In The Devil's Snare, after reading about it in Susan Faludi's new book The Terror Dream. The book is about the famous Salem witchcraft crisis of 1692, and the ideas Norton puts forth are relevant to this modern day tactic of putting female faces onto patriarchal organizing. Norton points out that most feminist scholarship on the witchcraft crisis dwells on the highly gendered nature of the victims. Men were accused and executed for witchcraft, but most of the accused were women. What Norton finds interesting is how gendered the accusers were, as well, with most and probably all of the accusations of witchcraft coming from women, mostly young, unmarried women, to boot.

Norton points out that the accusers were the bottom of the totem pole in their communities and families. As young women, they existed to serve and not be heard, to attend to the needs of everyone but themselves and never to be attended to themselves. All that changed when the accusers began to act as if they were afflicted by witches. Between the drama of their sufferings and the fact that they were telling powerful men in the community what they wanted to hear–that the community was awash in evil brought in by uppity women and a few suspicious men–the girls went from being near nobodies in their community to the main attraction. Their households were rearranged to suit them. They were sitting in court wielding as much, if not more power over the proceedings than the magistrates. Power corrupts both old men and teenage girls, it turns out.

Three hundred and sixteen years have passed, but for some women living in more conservative communities and families, things haven't changed that much. For many women, a life of servitude is the expectation from birth on. Turning your back on the expectation of an adult identity built around being a wife or a mother to pursue an exciting career in the field of say, politics, is usually discouraged. But you can create an exception for yourself if you perform the modern day equivalent of accusing someone of being a witch, which is of course, telling conservative men what they want to hear about women's rights and sexual freedom.

Of course, the nice thing about being young and anti-choice but not in a leadership position is that you have some wiggle room to change your mind when you grow up and learn the ways of the world a little more. Now if Kristi Burton wises up and realizes she would like that right to control her fertility after all, she has to turn her back not just on previous beliefs, but a handsomely-paid career in activism, too.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • invalid-0

    I really don’t have more to add to your post except to say that is just great! I never looked at it this way but it makes alot of sense your comparisons to the witch trials and the anti movement. Brilliant!

  • emily-douglas

    I’m with Liz — this is an absolutely terrific post. There are many contexts in which women make an understandable grab for whatever power is available to them, but that doesn’t make their work any good for women as a class, or even for those women in specific.

  • invalid-0

    “…if Kristi Burton wises up and realizes she would like that right to control her fertility after all…”

    So only when women have sex do they want reproductive rights and fertility control? That’s dumb.

  • invalid-0

    I love the analogy, I had not thought of that but it is so true. I’m willing to bet “Miss” Burton has a change of heart if she ever gets hit with an unwanted pregnancy. They usually do. Then they sneak in the back door of their local clinic and take care of business. When they’ve recovered, they are back on the picket line. I truly hope God/Goddess dislikes the hypocrites most!

  • http://www.ravingatheist invalid-0

    Now we have someone advocating forced birth who could actually be forced to give birth! That’s a new wrinkle in anti-choice advocacy.

    Not that new. Don’t forget young anti-choice UCLA student Lila Rose, who exposed Planned Parenthood’s cover-up of child rape and its embrace of racist donors who want to earmark funds to abort black fetuses.

    But Ms. Rose aside, there are millions of fertile anti-choice women — many of them even pregnant, however surprising that may seem to you. As you must well know, polls consistently show that women tend to be slightly more anti-choice than men. There are plenty of reasons to oppose the killing of human fetuses other than one’s anatomy or gender. And the physiological ability to have a child is as likely to create an aversion to killing it as not.

    But even granting your premise that all anti-choice organizations and led by misogynist men or their female puppets, how do you explain that the majority of their supporters are women? Are they all mindless sheeple who “can’t be trusted” and gullible, non-autonomous fools? Or could it be that they simply have a rational, scientific objection to killing a human being in utero, similar to that shared by the vast majority of people with respect to fetuses in the later stages of development?

  • amanda-marcotte

    I find myself utterly unsurprised that you keep careful records of how many young women there are in the movement, even if you dose it with some weird crankery. The idea of the perfect young bride, glowing eyes and her will to independence constrained by an oppressive church, certainly has its hold on some men. The kind of lady who, should you be so fortunate as to impregnate her, would have to grit her teeth and marry you out of duty, giving you a lifetime of sexual access because Jesus said so. For an "atheist", you're sure happy to let Jesus be your bro on this one.

  • invalid-0

    “And the physiological ability to have a child is as likely to create an aversion to killing it as not.”

    Wrong.

    Here’s another rationale for you: lots of women, even some of them pregnant, oppose choice because they didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to go against the patriarchal expectation that woman=mother themselves.

    They rationalize that if they had to go through the danger, pain, and expense of childbirth and childrearing for a pregnancy that they didn’t want, then why should those slutty feminists have the option of avoiding it by means of an abortion.

  • mellankelly1

    As you must well know, polls consistently show that women tend to be slightly more anti-choice than men

    Where did you get that information?  I had a difficult time finding recent poll results with regard to gender but a CBS poll done on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade states that "There are no major differences between mens' and womens' stands on the issue."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml

  • invalid-0

    The Raving Atheist,

    You wrote, Or could it be that they simply have a rational, scientific objection to killing a human being in utero, similar to that shared by the vast majority of people with respect to fetuses in the later stages of development?

    Assuredly yes, it logically could be that they have such an objection. Well, what is it? What’s the content of this allegedly rational objection to a woman’s having the right to abort her fetus (kill a human being in utero, in your language)? And how does it come to terms with the fact that the human being in question exists in someone else’s body?

    Also: You referenced the alleged misbehavior of particular pro-choice individuals or groups, but what do these claims prove about the justice of the overall position? What is their relevance to the abortion debate? Your choice to raise them casts in doubt your implicit claim to be arguing from a standpoint of reason. Like your handle “The Raving Atheist,” this rhetoric suggests you are quite taken with emotional appeals that are not germane to the core issues in the abortion debate. Of course partisans of this issue tend to feel strongly, but if you’re going to suggest you believe in rational argumentation, you might want to try to keep the non sequiturs in check. Or don’t you believe the pro-life side wins in a debate confined to the merits?

  • invalid-0

    “Where did you get that information? I had a difficult time finding recent poll results with regard to gender but a CBS poll done on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade states that “There are no major differences between mens’ and womens’ stands on the issue.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.sht

    Right, but you have just validated The Raving Atheist’s point, and ably debunked the entire premise of Marcotte’s column. Good work. Of course, soon some pro-choicer will come in and say something sexist in response, like women are easily manipulated sheep, or by nature moral scolds, but there is no convincing way to explain away those numbers as consistent with the column’s argument.

  • mellankelly1

    Right, but you have just validated The Raving Atheist's point, and ably debunked the entire premise of Marcotte's column

    Really?  I've debunked the entire premise of this column by posting the only relevant poll I could find to rebutt the claim by Raving Atheist that "women are more anti-choice than men?"  The CBS Poll (had you actually read it) reflects that the majority of both men and women support abortion remaining legal which, in no way, "debunks" Amanda Marcottes column which states that the anti-choicers use women in "leadership roles" in order to "create the illusion of a softer, friendlier, less misogynist anti-choice movement."  It also states that there is no difference in regard to gender (meaning women are not more anti-choice than men – both the majority of men and women are pro-choice) when it comes to abortion. Next time perhaps "anonymous" could try reading all of the relevant information in lieu of jumping to conclusions.

  • http://www.ravingatheist invalid-0

    Unanswered Question,

    You should read much, much more carefully before posting. Marcotte’s post did not address the central moral question of the pro-choice/anti-choice debate, but merely promoted the (undocumented and unsupported) ad hominem that all women who oppose abortion are either at an infertile age or dupes. My response merely focused on that narrow issue as raised by her post, which is what comments are supposed to do. My example regarding Ms. Rose addressed notion that young fertile women can’t oppose abortion, and the rest of my comment pointed out that many women oppose abortion out of intellectual conviction.

    If you’re truly interested in “rational argumentation” on the actual merits of the abortion debate, you can peruse the thirty or so posts on the topic abortion archives on my blog. I presume that you’ve made similar scholarly contributions to the discussion, and would be glad to read them if you’ll provide me with the links.

  • http://www.ravingatheist invalid-0

    Mellankelly,

    The CBS Poll (had you actually read it) reflects that the majority of both men and women support abortion remaining legal

    Completely false. The poll concluded that “40% of men believe abortion should be generally available, and 37% of women think it should be.” In other words, 60% of men believe abortion should NOT be generally available,” and 63% of women believe that. The poll also indicated that 20% of men believed abortion should be banned under virtually all circumstances, a view shared by 24% of women.

    Yes, it is undoubtedly true that the majority of Americans believe that abortion should remain legal under SOME circumstances. But that is true of the majority of anti-choicers as well. But the majority of Americans do not believe that elective abortion should be legal.

  • invalid-0

    This poll says ‘the majority of Americans do not believe that elective abortion should legal’? I can’t find that…only one category about ‘stricter limits’ which could include parental notification or 24 hour waiting periods where not in place or a narrowing of the trimester framework for later term abortions…still allowing for many elective abortion. The poll simply doesn’t define what ‘stricter limits’ includes.

    I for one am a woman who believes if a fetus has the right to my body then it is a even greater moral imperative to support the right to life of the born over my body – therefore, there are very good reasons for not giving a fetus a monopoly over a pregnant woman’s body, and for enacting protection for other competing human rights.

  • mellankelly1

    Yes, it is undoubtedly true that the majority of Americans believe that abortion should remain legal under SOME circumstances. But that is true of the majority of anti-choicers as well. But the majority of Americans do not believe that elective abortion should be legal.

    Yes, it's true that 77% of respondents said abortion should either be generally available, or available but with stricter limits than now. Just 22% said abortion should not be permitted.  Here's the thing… this poll doesn't indicate under what circumstances they would "allow" a woman to terminate her pregnancy nor does it indicate, in any way, that anti-choicers believe that abortion should be legal under "some circumstances".  Anti-choicers believe that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a "baby" or a "child" and that a woman shouldn't be allowed to "murder" their "children" this is why they indicated that abortion should not be permitted… now please explain under what circumstances these same anti-choicers would consider it perfectly acceptable for women to "murder" their "children".  I find your statment that anti-choicers believe that abortion should be legal under "some circumstances" particularly difficult to believe after reading this statement that you made on a previous post "Or could it be that they simply have a rational, scientific objection to killing a human being in utero" – so, under what circumstance would the fetus not be considered "a human being in utero"?

  • mellankelly1

    Marcotte's post did not address the central moral question of the pro-choice/anti-choice debate, but merely promoted the (undocumented and unsupported) ad hominem that all women who oppose abortion are either at an infertile age or dupes

    And I never indicated that it did address the central moral question of the pro-choice/anti-choice debate, not once.  As a matter of fact, the quote I used from her column states that anti-choicers use women in "leadership roles" in order to "create the illusion of a softer, friendlier, less misogynist anti-choice movement."  And my response was a direct result of having read your false statement that "women are more anti-choice than men" (and my point was made).

  • invalid-0

    The sample sizes are often too small to be indicative of a proper core group of Americans. Plus, the WAY a question is (or questions are) asked can skew results (such as in “push polls”). You are likely to get similarly accurate results by sacrificing a goat and interpreting its steaming entrails.

  • invalid-0

    I’m against abortion–so according to some I could be considering a pro-lifer, but I’m pro-choice. I think abortion is painful, but that we should all have the option to do it. I’m at the point of having a tubal so I never have to have one myself, but I haven’t quite decided whether I ever want to have children yet.

    I think that our first duty is to present women with CHOICES. If that choice is to give birth child she doesn’t want to raise and put it up for adoption, then she should be supported.
    If that choice is to keep a child she can’t raise without assistance, she should be assisted.
    If that choice is to have an abortion, she should have the right to a safe, non-blaming, and supportive abortion.

    How does outlawing abortion protect children, or women? Especially when the women having children are children themselves, or will die.

    Against abortions? Don’t have one.

  • mellankelly1

    Very good point Ruthless!  I dig the sacrificial goat analogy.

  • http://www.ravingatheist invalid-0

    Yes, it’s true that 77% of respondents said abortion should either be generally available

    No, the statistic was that “40% of men believe abortion should be generally available, and 37% of women think it should be.” Assuming the male v female population is approximately equal, that means only about 38.5% of the respondents thought abortion should be generally available. (Adding 40% to 37% to get 77% was an error; if 50% of men and 50% of women voted for Obama, you wouldn’t say that 100% of respondents voted for him, would you?).

    Most anti-choicers accept an exception where the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the woman’s life. You may quibble endlessly about what constitutes “serious”, but the simple fact is that most pregnancies don’t and even Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher Institute knows what “serious” means while it compiles its stats on reasons for abortion. Anti-choicers still consider it killing a human being in utero but allow it on general self-defense principles. In that connection, most people would find it acceptable to kill an ex-utero child if he or she was pointing a gun at them and there was no safe way to escape.

  • invalid-0

    As far as the excuses for which they would allow it… self-defense does not allow one to kill an innocent person to prevent oneself from dying a natural death…add to it that the woman claiming the self-defense excuse is the one that took the risk that led to the life threatening situation. Pregnancy is not the only risk of sex, death of the woman or fetus are too. So they still accept actively ‘dehumanizing’ the fetus in this circumstance where they wouldn’t a child.

    There is no indication from the polling that the ‘stricter limits’ group is just made up of these anti-choice people that would allow abortion solely for this reason…or for rape. There are a wide variety of limits that can be placed on abortion, as any other medical procedure. The pollsters, who are closest to the information, instead interpret it for broad support for abortion rights. They could have erred but there is no way to twist this into an anti-choice view with the rape/or life exception without further information.

  • mellankelly1

    (Adding 40% to 37% to get 77% was an error; if 50% of men and 50% of women voted for Obama, you wouldn't say that 100% of respondents voted for him, would you?).

    What the heck… do you not know how to read a poll?  For crying out loud, Raving, CBS actually spells it out for you…

    ABORTION SHOULD BE:
    Generally available
    Now: 39%

    Available, but with stricter limits than now
    Now: 38%

    See… 39+38=77.  Are we done yet? 

     

  • invalid-0

    I don’t see the relevance the poll has to this thread. The popularity of an opinion does not make it “right” or “wrong.”

    The Raving Atheist ought to realize this. 82 percent of Americans believe in God, and 61% the devil, but you’d never try to argue that these groups were right just because they were the majority, would you?

    (Also: “Serious” is subjective. And besides, those who support rape exceptions are hypocritical. How can a fetus conceived through rape be any less important than one conceived through consensual sex? It’s not really about the fetus then, is it? It’s about punishing the woman.)

  • invalid-0

    Turning your back on the expectation of an adult identity built around being a wife or a mother to pursue an exciting career in the field of say, politics, is usually discouraged. But you can create an exception for yourself if you perform the modern day equivalent of accusing someone of being a witch, which is of course, telling conservative men what they want to hear about women’s rights and sexual freedom.

    You’ve hit the nail on the head with this one!

    It sure explains women like Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly.

  • invalid-0

    Did you ever stop to think about that name, “Anti-choice”? It wins the battle of nomenclature, until the “Pro-choice” camp is renamed the “Anti-life” movement. Anti-choice is a misnomer, anyway. The “Anti-choice” movement affirms the right of a woman to do as she wants with her body. What they deny, though, is that a woman may do what she wants with that other body inside her.

  • janine

    They don’t affirm the right of the woman to do what she want with their own body. Its like claiming a woman has choice over her own body while also banning her from doing what she needs to stop a mans body when he’s violating her. That ‘other’ body is violating and using the woman’s through pregnancy, which does deny her the right to do what she wants with her own body if her only desired choice is to not gestate and maintain the fetus life while its incapable of life, such is the case of pre-viability abortion bans.

  • invalid-0

    How many abortions are performed in response to rape? According to scholarly research, about 1% (Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998). The argument that pregnant women need abortion to protect themselves from pregnancies resulting from rape or incest is essentially non-valid. If you use that argument as your total justification for abortion, then you must concede that abortion should be illegal in the other 99% of cases. And don’t argue that men force themselves on women in cases that aren’t called rape. If a man does force himself on a woman, then that action is defined by law to be rape. If the woman does not consider it rape until she finds out that she is pregnant and wants to kill her child, then she is a hypocrite. If a woman consents at the time of intercourse, then she must be prepared to accept the consequences. Otherwise, “Just say no.” I know that that phrase has become cliche, but it is true. If a woman refuses to have sex, then she cannot become pregnant.

    Secondly, you state that it is not wrong to end a life “while its incapable of life”. I assume you mean that a tissue which is not capable of sustaining its own life is not deserving of the right to be supported by others. If that were true, then it would be legitimate to let infants, the severely mentally retarded, and the very old die, simply because they are inconvenient. That is wrong and false. The group of tissues which make up a human person does not become any more viable simply by being born. Birth does not give it the power to support itself. Therefore, birth should not be the deciding factor in whether we are allowed to kill it.

  • janine

    I didn't talk about abortions in the case of rape. I'm talking about not giving the fetus rights to violate a woman in order to maintain its life …an infant does not have that right. My "while its incapable of life" comment is completely relative to the fetus using the woman body to maintain its life, its part of the same sentence. Severely mentally retarded infants are not given rights to violate a womans body if needed. Also, a woman can give birth and immediately refuse the further violation of her body to maintain an infants life even if it still needs this type of support – this is not considered infanticide even though infanticide includes other act of omission. She no less/more decided to have sex when an infant needs to violate her body after birth too. If these rights are to be given, then I would find them more morally compelling for young children before extending them to fetuses.

  • invalid-0

    What is a fetus before it is born? Is it human or not? If a fetus is not human before birth, why does birth grant it the status, rights, and privileges of being human?

    I don’t mean these questions to be combative, I am just trying to start at the beginning.

  • janine

    I actually believe life is continuous, prior to conception. Human rights do not include the right to violate and harm another to maintain ones life. No one is protected in this manner – not even a newborn infant. Again, if these rights are considered protectable – I'm more willing to start protecting young children over their parents bodies first.

  • invalid-0

    Thank you, Mellankelly1 and Sayna. Maybe the Atheist has left for now to go make some more “scholarly contributions” to the debate on his/her blog.

  • invalid-0

    How many abortions are performed in response to rape? According to scholarly research, about 1% (Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998). The argument that pregnant women need abortion to protect themselves from pregnancies resulting from rape or incest is essentially non-valid.

    Since women HAVE used abortion to end pregnancies caused by rape or incest, the argument is perfectly valid.

    If you use that argument as your total justification for abortion, then you must concede that abortion should be illegal in the other 99% of cases.

    To me,it is just part of the justification for women having the ability to decide.

    And don’t argue that men force themselves on women in cases that aren’t called rape. If a man does force himself on a woman, then that action is defined by law to be rape. If the woman does not consider it rape until she finds out that she is pregnant and wants to kill her child, then she is a hypocrite. If a woman consents at the time of intercourse, then she must be prepared to accept the consequences. Otherwise, “Just say no.” I know that that phrase has become cliche, but it is true. If a woman refuses to have sex, then she cannot become pregnant.

    Oh,great googlie mooglies, the “accept the consequences” argument again. The favorite one of those who want to punish women for having recreational sex. Choosing abortion from the short list of options (abortion,adoption,parenting) IS one way of accepting the consequences.

  • invalid-0

    Sex is not recreational. I don’t want to “punish women for having recreational sex,” I want to protect human life. And if a fetus is human, then it has a right to life, no matter what the inconvenience to anyone else. This right is unimpeachable until it infringes on someone else’s right to life. If it is legitimate to kill a human fetus for convenience, then it is legitimate to kill anyone else for convenience. That logical end seems incorrect and dangerous to me, so therefore the logical antecedent must be incorrect.

  • janine

    The fetus does not have rights over another persons body to maintain its life. That right does not exist for human beings. If its legitimate for a fetus to violate a womans body to maintain its life, its legitimate for anyone else to violate the woman for this reason too. Behaving like a fetus would not be unethical. If a fetus is granted rights over my body the only pro-life thing to do is to allow a person to use my body while I’m pregnant, impacting the pregnancy/fetus just as I'm impacted by the fetus. The fetus should not have a monopoly on my body that denies a person their right to life when they need the same resources. Any act I take to stop them for my ‘convenience’ would be an act of killing – I have no more right to the resources in my body that can sustain life if a person is violating me rather than a fetus.

  • invalid-0

    Thanks for showing us what it’s really about: Your desire to punish women for having sex for non-procreative reasons.

    The truth is, sex is recreational. The vast majority of sexual activity is intended for pleasure, not reproduction. If you don’t think sex should be recreational, you have every right to have joyless sex for reproduction only. You don’t have a right to apply your personal standards to our lives.

    Your attempt to discount abortion in the case of rape is very telling. On one hand, you want abortion illegal. On the other, you know that advocating forced childbirth for rape victims is not a very popular position. So what did you do? You tried to argue that since very few abortions are the result of rape, the subject is completely irrelevant. Way to dodge the issue!

    On subjects like this, I prefer brutal honesty to a nice white lie. If you think abortion is unacceptable in any non-life threatening circumstance (or “inconvenience”, as you like to call anything short of killing the woman) because the fetus has an absolute right to be born that trumps the woman’s rights, at least be consistent about it. A fetus conceived through rape is no less a fetus than one conceived through consensual sex. Either admit that you advocate forcing rape victims to carry to term and give birth, or you are allowing them to murder their child for a crime its father commited.

  • invalid-0

    fetuses and born human beings. Plus I disagree with this statement:

    fetus is human, then it has a right to life, no matter what the inconvenience to anyone else. This right is unimpeachable until it infringes on someone else’s right to life.

    The fetus does not have the right to deny the woman’s bodily integrity if she doesn’t want to be pregnant.

  • http://km.adamsspace.com invalid-0

    I didn’t talk about abortions in the case of rape. I’m talking about not giving the fetus rights to violate a woman in order to maintain its life …an infant does not have that right. My “while its incapable of life” comment is completely relative to the fetus using the woman body to maintain its life, its part of the same sentence. Severely mentally retarded infants are not given rights to violate a womans body if needed. Also, a woman can give birth and immediately refuse the further violation of her body to maintain an infants life even if it still needs this type of support – this is not considered infanticide even though infanticide includes other act of omission. She no less/more decided to have sex when an infant needs to violate her body after birth too. If these rights are to be given, then I would find them more morally compelling for young children before extending them to fetuses

    Oh,great googlie mooglies, the “accept the consequences” argument again. The favorite one of those who want to punish women for having recreational sex.

    I’m really sorry. I couldn’t force myself to read through all of the victim-fantasies that are in the comments. I just chose a couple from near the beginning.

    What the hell are you talking about with the fetus “using” the mother’s body to maintain life? That’s what the womb was designed for, believe it or not. The fetus didn’t choose to be there. The fetus is an innocent bystander, brought into existence by the carelessness of two people, but mostly the mother. If you don’t want to have a baby, hon, use one of the before-conception modes of birth control. Using abortion as contraception is so horrible I can’t even imagine it.

    I wonder if you women who fight so strongly for the right to abortion-at-whim have ever been pregnant? If you have, then you’re bigger monsters than I thought you were. Having carried two children to term, neither of whom were conceived before planned, I’m here to tell you, those little “blobs” are alive. Whether you believe they’re alive before birth or not, how can you take that chance, merely for convenience sake? How incredibly selfish can you be?

    And what’s this about “punishing women for having recreational sex”? Are we asked to wear a scarlet “A”? Are we pilloried, or sold into slavery, or stoned to death for spreading our legs every time we get the itch? Where do you get off even making a statement like that? No one is punishing you. Just like anything in life, we have to take the responsibilities along with the rights. With the amount of contraception available, “surprise” pregnancies should be nearly non-existent. There shouldn’t even be any need for abortion, aside from the exceedingly rare case of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or if the mother’s or child’s life is in danger from it.

    For the record, I’m not a Christian, nor am I even especially religious. I’m against legislating this issue. I think the government has far too much control in our lives. But if you’re going to be sexually active, you have to accept the risk of pregnancy. If you really think that being pregnant and giving birth are so horrible, then take advantage of one of your abundant choices and prevent it from happening in the first place.

    Women who use abortion as birth control should have their tubes tied while they’re on the table.

  • invalid-0

    ..that you and I could sit down to lunch one of these days. You might be surprised if you got to know one of the young women passionately involved in the pro-life movement. I read this blog with interest(and a slight amount of pissed-offness, heh) and sadness to see how you have pigeonholed women to suit your preconceived ideas of what a pro-life woman looks like.

    I’m not sure where you’re located, but the offer of lunch is open if you’re interested in leaving stereotypes at home. We’ll undoubtedly always disagree about abortion, but perhaps you could let go of this deep resentment you have towards intelligent, independent, pro-life women.

    :)

  • invalid-0

    It’s the rhetoric, it’s the draconian restrictions anti-abortion politicians have enacted, it’s the junk “science” that makes wild claims even after they have been discredited, it’s the pigeonholing of pro choice women and/or women who’ve had abortions as “immoral”, or “sluts” or “heartless” or “coldhearted” or “pro-murderers”, or “borts”,et al.
    Lunch sounds good,a face-to-face meeting with lots of honest talk to (finally) clear the air. We may never find common ground, but if we can manage to dissolve some of the hostile rhetoric from both sides…
    Well,at least we can be halfway civil to each other then. I am in southeastern Wisconsin, where are you?

  • janine

    Many people who need anothers body to maintain their life didn't choose their circumstances either. Newborns didn't choose to not have rights over your body after birth yet they have no right when needed even though parents have responsibilities after birth. There is no law or moral/social pressure to provide this level of support. As far as your exceptions – fetuses that result from rape or when the mothers life are in danger aren't guilty either -yet you punish these fetuses for circumstances they did not create. Also your vagina was meant for sex – better not say 'no' or use some victim fantasy. There are many risks in life – so accept the consequences such as the fact that driving includes accidents, take responsibility for the risk you chose and don't sue. If you bother to read my other posts I do believe life is continuous, even prior to conception and I've stated I would feel more morally compelled to give a child rights over a parents body if this is level of responsibility desired – so no, I don't have a lack of responsibility or have a victim mentality.

  • invalid-0

    I’m in Virginia… hmm. A bit of an expensive lunch, eh?

    This isn’t about sex for me. I don’t call women sluts because they live differently than I do. Do I agree, no. Do I judge them.. I try my hardest not to. Do you judge me? heh, based on the blog, I’d have to say absolutely yes.

    Some of my closest friends are those I disagree with strongly. Is it that unlikely that we could be civil or even *gasp* pleasant?

    Let me know if you’re coming my way. I’ll even treat. sg1girl2000@yahoo.com

  • invalid-0

    not me.