Good Girls and Hot Messes: Abortion Doesn’t Hurt Women


Some time ago, probably while
cooking up the oxymoron "compassionate conservatism"
in the propaganda dungeons of the right, it occurred to anti-choice
forces that their image was suffering from the (correct) perception that
they want to curtail women’s rights because they don’t have very
warm feelings for women.  Clearly, they needed to put some lipstick
on that pig and convince the public that, all evidence to the contrary,
they do give a damn about women.  It was a momentous task indeed. 
After all, women themselves–with their paychecks, right to vote, and modern ideas
about controlling their own lives–were the problem.  

The solution, as it
has been throughout history, was to construct a mythological Good Girl
to defend against all those Bad Girls, with their sex-having, paycheck-drawing
ways.  The Good Girl is sweet, submissive, religious, maternal,
and self-sacrificing.  She doesn’t like sex and doesn’t want
to be in that scary world of work.  But she does love marriage
and babies, and is willing to tolerate sex to get the marriage and babies.  Bad Girls
like sex, and want to have it even if they can’t get pregnant. 
Bad Girls think about other things besides marriage and babies, even
if they do want to get married and have a baby or two.   

The clever contribution anti-choicers
made to this millennia-old Madonna/whore dichotomy was the theory that
all women are, deep down inside, baby-loving, sex-reluctant, marriage-crazed
Good Girls.  Bad Girls only exist because they’ve been broken
by feminism and legal abortion.  Bad Girls are mentally ill, and
just need to be forced into motherhood by losing access to abortion
and contraception to turn them into Good Girls, who may not be happy,
but are well — in the sense of functioning properly.    

Because this is a silly theory,
there’s been a long-standing hope that science would come in and save
the day, by proving once and for all that women who have rights and
use them are broken, especially if they use their right to abortion. 
Anti-choicers concocted a fake mental illness called "Post-Abortion
Stress Syndrome," and hoped that the psychological establishment would
one day validate it, and their beliefs. The idea was that Bad Girls
who do the most Bad thing you can do — get an abortion — would be
more likely to be mentally ill than other women, demonstrating that
having rights is damaging to women. 

Well, anti-choice activists,
who are well-stocked with science-wary fundamentalist Christians, will
be telling themselves that they should have known those liberal college
science types were never on their side, because the American Psychological
Association has once again determined that abortion poses no risk to
women’s mental health.
 
The reality of the Madonna/whore dichotomy was not discussed in the
report, but it was implicitly debunked.  It turns out that women
are actually not stupid or crazy as a rule, but perfectly capable of
making their own decisions.  Like men.  Like citizens. 

It was clear to me that if
the APA had found anything for anti-choicers to cling to, they would
have immediately moved on to creating a mental illness to describe women
who use contraception.  Artificial Infertility Disorder, maybe? 
Symptoms: Sleeping through the night, a bank account of an unseemly
size for a woman, a stunning lack of shotgun weddings, an unfeminine
enjoyment of her sex life, and a really unfeminine loss of stress in
her sexual relationships with men.   

It’s hard to celebrate this
news, though, because the idea that women are, as a class, less competent
than men and unable to make important decisions about child-bearing
without threatening their especially fragile mental health has taken
off in the mainstream discourse even as the APA finds it scientifically
unsound.  Women-as-fragile-incompetents instead of as citizens
has been enshrined in the Supreme Court
decision Gonzales v Carhart.
  

Even, distressingly, pro-choice
politicians are beginning to feel they have to pay lip service to the
idea that women are especially incompetent and that our rights have
to be considered in that light. Linda Hirshman counted
out the ways.
 

    The Hyde Amendment pulled
    Medicaid financing for the poorest and most desperate women. In 1992,
    the Clinton campaign reframed abortion as an unpleasant last resort.
    Last term, the Supreme Court finally broke, affirming the criminalization
    of certain late-term abortions. And Democratic candidate Barack Obama,
    in The Audacity of Hope, compared women’s regrets over their past abortions
    to white people’s regrets about past bigotry. This Clintonian compromise–that
    abortion was a necessary moral evil–had become the most progressives
    could hope for. 

Every time a pro-choicer tries
to appeal to the "mushy middle" with these tactics, they reaffirm
the idea that there are Good Girls who have lots of children and not
lots of sex, and Bad Girls who are just Good Girls who’ve lost their
way.  It might win votes–no one could accuse Barack Obama at
this point of having a poor political compass–but it ultimately comes at the cost of undercutting
abortion rights.  Because if abortion is always wrong, always the
bad choice, always a regretful action–that is, if there are so many
broken Bad Girls out there–then it becomes impossible to really defend
women’s rights. 

How?  Well, Good Girls
are fundamentally defined as those women who realize that they are powerless
to run their own lives and have to submit to men and to their traditional,
submissive roles in order to hold their fragile female selves together. 
Bad Girls are hot messes, who didn’t submit and therefore are falling
apart.  What they have in common is that they, being women, can’t
make their own decisions, and only do well when controlled by others.   

In other words, every time
you wax poetic about women’s regret, or frame abortion as the terrible
last resort of the terminally incompetent, then you’re reaffirming
the belief that women can’t handle freedom, and therefore shouldn’t
have it.  And the first freedoms to go will be reproductive freedoms.   

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

    But killing is wrong so what you’re, in effect, saying is that we should be allowed to kill because that is our Freedom! Are you hearing what you are saying?

    How does taking someone else’s freedom equate to obtaining your own freedom? That has never worked in history. In fact, this usually has the opposite effect and you are likely to give yourself a bad name.

    A better way to help women is to educate them on the consequences of having intercourse. Think of the negative ripple effect that killing has had and does have on our entire society – especially women.

  • amanda-marcotte

    Still an ineffective persuasion technique.  But I’m sure it felt good for you.

  • harry834

    women are murderers and that they should be punished equivalently, correct?

  • harry834

    Do you?

  • invalid-0

    I’d rather be a Hot Mess than a Good Girl any day, but then I don’t consider it a crime to think independently.

  • invalid-0

    what anyone is saying but those who puke up the right wing talking points.
    >Think of the negative ripple effect that killing has had and does have on our entire society – especially women.

    SO you’re anti-war then? Why aren’t you talking about the negative effects that killing over a million Iraqis in an illegal war is having on “society”? Why not talk about how lack of adequate health care is having an effect on the soldiers coming back from Iraq with mental illnesses and disabilities.

    Oh wait I forget- your kind only likes the fetus but as soon as they’re born they’re on their own.

    You’re so worked up about ONE area that you’ve tunnel visioned everything else that happens in society.

    You’re nothing but a concern troll.

  • marysia

    Amanda,

    don’t assume that everyone who regards abortion as lifetaking/violence does so because they are afflicted with the Madonna/whore complex and are devotees of the double standard.

    I for once have publicly for decades denounced this division of women into "bad" and "good"–among many, many other inhumane effects, it *causes* abortion.  still…

    because many women don’t feel entitled to sexual pleasure, and so many men are just thinking about their own wants…women end up not exploring sexual practices which have no risk of pregnancy, and/or not contracepting…and so end up with unwanted pregnancies, which they then feel they must abort because they fear being shamed for the very public evidence of their sexuality that a continued pregnancy would become.  or someone else doesn’t want to be "contaminated" with the "shame" and pressures the women into having an abortion.

    i get weary just thinking about all the women i know that this kind of sh*t has happened to….

    anyone who is serious about opposing abortion and alleviating its root causes of abortion has to be serious about *dismantling* this whole setup, which does persist in the US and many other places.  and i for one am *damned* serious  about that. i’m not the only one, either….

  • marysia

    ..I can’t speak for the above poster in particular, he or she will have to speak for him or herself.

    but….please don’t assume that because someone feels abortion is unjust lifetaking, they don’t also vigorously oppose other forms of lifetaking, and even more try to supplant them with nonviolent alternatives.

     

    I along with a bunch of folks I know opposed the War even before it began as well as the inhumane denial of veterans benefits and health care that we saw coming…along with the death penalty, and just about anything else you could name….

    So please don’t leap to conclusions about people who oppose abortion.  Many of us believe that concern for any one group of people, whether born or unborn, requires equal and parallel concern for every other group of humans.  Concern expressed in active responsibility taking.  For example, if one opposes abortion, one must fight (nonviolently) for complete contraceptive access and universal maternal child and all other health care (to mention just a few of the measures one must work for).

     

  • invalid-0

    OMG do you honestly think that ALL people who oppose abortion care squat for post-birth life? Do you know any pro-lifers “in real life,” or do you live deep within a bubble of people who think the same as you do?

    /rant.

    What’s a concern troll?

  • invalid-0

    The core issue you seem to be attempting to address is that our society has a serious DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE in all of its stages. You accuse me of being focused only on the fetus. Would you rather me argue the point from euthanasia to abortion? It’s all the same argument. War falls in between abortion and euthanasia so should we start there? I thought the beginning was a good place – FROM CRADLE TO GRAVE. Just because something IS doesn’t mean that it SHOULD be that way. I hear a lot of your arguments, and they are defeatist arguments. You’ve already given up on the Truth so you stand for nothing. Like a scarecrow. You’re there but there is no substance. Most of you, save HARRY so far, only focus on the symptoms of the disease instead of the disease itself. Once society begins to respect the DIGNITY OF HUMAN LIFE in all of its stages, we can begin… Search for the Truth ardently – you will find it if you are truly open. Many of you have been hurt, and I can sense this but you are responsible now to seek on your own – no excuses.

  • invalid-0

    Greetings,

    It is not at variance for a woman to have a huge bank account, the greatest job in the whole world, and also have children. Nor have I heard of any social conservative of intellectual and political consequence (and I personally know plenty of them) that favors suppressing a women’s transcendence. Women are not salves. As far as the sexual revolution goes, women are viewed by men as being incapable of satisfying their desires because of the deadening of the male libido in relation to what real women look like because of all the alternatives for men in the sex industry. Moreover, men treat women as a mere means to a sexual end because of the liberation that contraception and abortion affords men. The suburban home is not a concentration camp, nor are men rapists. Children are not intolerable burdens that are to be viewed as parasites to choose to remove just because you are a big girl and can choose to do so. The choice that social conservatives seek to revoke has not a thing to do with your current legal rights as they correspond to your enlightened thinking about how women will be presumably treated if they do not have that choice. Men are not unreliable, and you have the ability to choose a reliable one who will let you respect life, including yours. Contraception and abortion may allow you to choose, but they also let men rampantly consume without consequence. Moreover, they perpetuate the idea of the unreliable man by letting him treat you as you claim social conservatives call those of you who enjoy sex. There is nothing wrong with enjoying sex, but contraption and abortion paradoxically allow men to disregard women’s emotional and physical equilibrium and think just of theirs. How lonely of a choice to have for women to concurrently and to preeminently just think of theirs. Anyway, the choice we seek to suppress, revoke, and otherwise repeal is the choice that you have to end what would be there if you could not choose. That being said, enjoy sex, be president, and have a separate bank account or choose a man that you can trust because you can and are strong enough to do so. You have the power.

    Timothy+

  • mellankelly1

     A better way to help women is to educate them on the consequences of having intercourse

     Oh, do you mean consequences  like these:

    The orgasm itself begins with strong muscle contractions. These contractions can be finished within four seconds or last up to about 15 seconds. They tend to occur at intervals of 0.8 seconds. Also, the inner two-thirds of the vagina usually open up even more, while the uterus contracts.

    During orgasm, skin flushing generally reaches its maximum. Muscles may keep contracting, while blood pressure, heart rate and respiratory rate continue to rise. Some women make sounds reflecting the pleasure they are experiencing

  • amanda-marcotte

    I can’t speak for everyone, but you’ve made it clear that your main concern is that women are having sex with men that are not you, and not getting punished for it.  I’m sure some nimrods out there believe the "life" story, but you aren’t one of them.  Why are you appealing to a group you don’t belong to?  Since you’ve already established that what makes you angry is women having sex without punishment, why hide behind the skirts of people that might be morally superior to you, if a little slow?

  • amanda-marcotte

    Of people who do get distracted by fetal life, and forget that this is, and always has been about hating sex.  But I’m not interested in what the slow-witted followers believe.  The leadership is focused like a laser on women’s rights, and the whole "fetal life" lie is mainly there to attract the guillible and silence the qualms of those who realize that murder sentences for women who have sex might be a tad severe.

  • invalid-0

    Just out of curiousity, how many of you flat out oppose abortion, no matter what the circumstances? If you oppose abortion under all circumstances, I have another question…have you ever been raped? Or molested? Have you ever known someone who became pregnant before they were ready to have/care for a child?

    Because I personally don’t particularly like the idea of having an abortion, but I’m still pro-choice. Because I have been a victim of rape and molestation, and I can tell you right now that if I had become pregnant from that experience, I would not have had the mental stability to carry that child for 9 months. Most victims of rape wouldn’t be able to handle it. In fact, I would guess that it would increase the chance of suicide for a rape victim if they had to carry the resulting child for 9 months. Then two lives would be taken.

    As for having a child at a young age, do you really want some incompetent, selfish 16 year old raising a child? And do you really want people giving birth to children they don’t want, and may very well despise???

    Think twice before you try to take away every woman’s reproductive rights just because you’re ignorant/brainwashed/protected enough to think that every impregnation will result in a wanted, loved child.

  • invalid-0

    You’re not proving a point by stereotyping and mislabeling those who disagree with you. In as much, if you can prove that my main concern is that “women are having sex with men that are not [me] and not getting punished for it,” then I’ll have to believe you (but you can’t because its not true). Until then, you’re offering no more intelligence to this debate than I am with my snarky comments.

    Teehee. :)

    PS what’s up with that final line? I can’t seem to wrap my morally inferior mind around it.

  • invalid-0

    1 – I do.
    2 – No (but a family member was molested – she’s still pro-life). Several friends have been raped, the only one to become pregnant did not abort.
    3 – Have you ever met a 16 year old who got pregnant? I have met a few around that age, and all appeared more mature and capable than the current crop of Cold War aficianados in the White House.
    3 – I thought twice, and now I’m anti-abortion/pro-life/anti-choice
    4 – If reproductive rights are a diverse range of issues, then taking one away (abortion) won’t take away them all.
    5 – Thanks for the compliments :) Its rare for an atheist to be called ignorant, brainwashed, or protected….usually its the other way around ;)

    ——–
    By the way, I dont’ think Amanda is gonna like that you referred to a sexually aware and active 16 year old female as “incompetent” and “selfish”….do you hate sex or something?

  • marysia

    Speaking as one human being at whom they are targeted…your allegations are really nonsequiturs….I for one am *no one’s* "slow-witted follower" who is stupidly "distracted by fetal life" into forgetting that what I am really and truly about is punishing women for sex!!  Same with the many other folks I know whose opposition to abortion stems from an overall ethics and politics of genuine, well thought out respect for all lives.

     And why do you leap to the conclusion that we do not vigorously challenge those who do forget about life after birth, especially the sacred lives and rights of women?!!  We’re at it all the time, thank you very much…no matter who does or does not want to see or hear it.

    I could amass and present to you considerable evidence to susbstantiate these claims. 

    But I suspect, unfortunately, that you would find none of it to be admissible…analogous to the way that some avowedly progressive whitefolks will not admit any evidence that they have any biases, conscious or unconscious, towards people of color…

    I do not understand why you cling so assiduously to these adhominem attacks to the degree that you just totally overrride the real motives, intentions, and actions of human beings who, just like you and other prochoicers are trying to make and do their best with a very complex issue that has no easy or obvious or simplistic answers.

     Just as there are intelligent, thoughtful, and compassionate arguments for prolife, there are for prochoice.  One of the mysteries to me about the abortion debate/discourse in the US is that there is so much mutual slinging about of demonizing stereotypes…when in fact each "side" has its own valid insights and we could all build a much better society if we could learn to listen to the unique insights and contributions that everyone has to make.  

     So, Amanda, what have you got to lose from acknowledging the possibility that maybe not everyone who disagrees with you on this particular issue is how you assiduously portray them to be?

  • invalid-0

    I find it amusing but also sad that everyone here has to resort to name-calling and ridiculous stereotypes in order to get their point across. What ever happened to having a civilized conversation? Anyway, I thought this might be a good website for anyone to check out–I think it gives a fresh take on women’s rights relating to abortion, etc. http://www.feministsforlife.org/

  • invalid-0

    Timothy…whether you realize it or not, your post is predicated on the concept that women are responsible for the behavior of men, and specifically, the bad behavior of men. If men are in fact CHOOSING to disregard womens’ emotional and physical wellbeing…well, this says more about men than it does about the availability of contraception and abortion. Are you sure you want to go there?

  • invalid-0

    http://www.afa.net/womansrights/index.html

    Watch these and then tell me that abortion doesn’t hurt women.

  • invalid-0

    Unbelievable- some of the people writing into this blog. Are you for real? You can talk out both sides of your mouth until you are blue in the face. Abortion is total dismemberment. You are willing to exchange utter selfishness for acting out like Jack the Ripper on your own kid? How would you like to have your arms & legs torn off of your body and bleed to death or get sucked into a vacuum tube in a bunch of pieces? Open your eyes blind people! Go watch what an abortion is in person and then get back to me…or are we talking about two different things here? Stop lying to yourself already…

  • marysia

    Anonymous–first of all, may I please ask that you not refer to people who disagree with you on this issue as "antichoice"?  Most of us aren’t any more "antichoice" than you and other prochoicers are "antilife."

    Yes, I have been raped and molested.  It happens to prolife just as much to prochoice–to one in three female human beings globally.  I’m glad I never conceived from that, but if I had, I can only hope that I would have the courage and the ability to separate out my feelings of hatred towards the perpetrator and not let them sabotage the child’s need for life and wellbeing.  And that the child and I would have received the full support necessary for *both of us* to live and thrive despite the cricumstances that brought us together, whether I raised the child myself or someone else did. 

    My family is interracial (black/white), and black history is full of courageous women who somehow managed to love and raise the children they conceived from white rapists, or if they could not, to find another family who would love and welcome that child.

    Yes, I have known many, many women with unintended/crisis pregnancies.  I was one myself.  It was not easy to bear and raise my daughter, but I did it.  Because of this experience, I became a professional maternal child welfare worker, until disability forced me to retire young, to help women and children find other and better options.  And now I am the grandmother of a disabled child who was conceived unintentionally.  I am trying to give all the support I can here, while advocating simultaneously for *all* human beings involved in difficult rpegnancies and beyond.  I don’t have any money or much energy, but I am trying the best I can.

    One reason I balk at the epithet "antichoice" is that I realize full well that if one defines abortion as violent lifetaking and therefore to be ruled out in all/most/almost all circumstances, then one must comprehensively advocate, at every level from one’s personal life to the global level, for positive options.  That means the full range of prevention options–most certainly including the prevention (and prompt, effective treatment) of any form of sexual violation to any human being.  And it means the full range of social supports for girls and women who experience unintended/crisis pregnancies anyway to make the decisions they would prefer regarding parenting, adoption, or some other care arrangement like guardianship.

    Whatever the law does or doesn’t say about abortion, pregnancy prevention and all manner of help for women and girls in crisis pregnancies and ever after birth are vitally necessary human rights–in their own right and for their value in reducing/eliminating abortion.  There are no easy or simple answers.  please don’t assume that just because someone is prolife, they aren’t aware of all these difficulties and complexities, or that they don’t want as much as you to find humane, compassionate solutions to these problems.

  • invalid-0

    You have no respect for the HUMAN LIFE OF WOMEN so why would we listen to you?

  • invalid-0

    Too bad there is not one single anti-choice organisation that shares your beliefs. But there are plenty of pro-choice organisations that do. Would you support a presidential candidate who shares all those same beliefs except about abortion? Or will you let your unrealisitc bias cloud your mind from making the best possible choice for the MOST peoples benefit?

  • invalid-0

    I’d like to dismember you. Maybe then you wouldn’t spout nonsense.

  • sayna

    If you want to stop hearing the stereotypes, stop living them. You claim you’re one pro-life person who’s not a hypocrite and not just following the herd or falling for sentimental nonsense, act like it. There are currently NO pro-life groups that support the prevention of abortion by preventing unwanted pregnancy. No pro-life groups support contraception or comprehensive sex-education. Want to stop being called a hypocrite? STOP GROUPING YOURSELF WITH THEM.

    • invalid-0

      ….its called planned parenthood. you know, the places prolifers protest and bomb?? they have fully been, ever since the program was instated, been for preventing pregnancies and comprehensive sex education.

  • sayna

    Feminists for life are. not. feminist. Get that through your head right now. Denying women the right to make their own decisions based on stereotypes about women and the idea that you know more about what they want than they do is insulting to women. It treats them like they are idiots. They use the word "feminist" in an effort to promote oppression and make it look empowering. It’s like how the Lifetime, Oxygen and We networks claim to be geared toward what women want, but the shows are mostly about weddings and the commercials are almost exclusively about cleaning products. Only this time, it’s not just misguided marketing. It actively seeks to curtail women’s rights.

  • sayna

    The choice that social conservatives seek to revoke has not a thing to do with your current legal rights as they correspond to your enlightened thinking about how women will be presumably treated if they do not have that choice. Men are not unreliable, and you have the ability to choose a reliable one who will let you respect life, including yours.

    This makes no sense whatsoever. Are you trying to say that it’s okay to take away the option of abortion because women have a chance of finding a male who will take care of them and their kids? Abortion isn’t just about not becoming a parent. The social dependency (child depending on parent) isn’t the issue, because that can be resolved through adoption. The problem is the physical dependency a fetus has on the woman’s body. If you outlaw abortion, you are forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. That’s the problem. Until women can transfer their pregnancy to a man, these "reliable men" do not solve this problem.

    Contraception and abortion may allow you to choose, but they also let men rampantly consume without consequence.

    Are you implying that women who use contraception are just passively letting men "consume" them? So much for dismantling that notion that you have a Madonna/whore complex going on!

    Moreover, they perpetuate the idea of the unreliable man by letting him treat you as you claim social conservatives call those of you who enjoy sex. There is nothing wrong with enjoying sex, but contraption and abortion paradoxically allow men to disregard women’s emotional and physical equilibrium and think just of theirs. How lonely of a choice to have for women to concurrently and to preeminently just think of theirs.

    Again, you’re not making any sense. In an egalitarian relationship, both partners pitch in to provide the contraceptives (and, if that fails, the abortion). You say that men are reliable, but here you are acting like the ones who sleep with women who use contraception and/or have abortions treat them like, well, "what-social-conservatives-sometimes-call-women-who-like-sex"! (Again, Madonna/whore dichotomy!) On one side of your mouth, you’re saying that men are reliable and decent, but on the other you’re saying that they just use women for sex. And you’re acting like no woman could POSSIBLY enjoy sex and not want to be pregnant! Like women don’t use birth control because THEY like sex! As another poster has already said, you’re still putting the responsibility on women.
    Perhaps contraception and abortion, by taking away pregnancy as a punishment/deterrent from sex do help men to escape the punishme– I mean,"responsibility" that comes with sex, but it’s not as if men didn’t just use women for sex and then abandon them before contraception and abortion were invented. If anything, the women who do have the misfortune of sleeping with a man who just uses them have a way out. If it weren’t for contraception and abortion, these women would be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. And most likely, they would be doing it alone. I don’t want to go back to those days.

  • invalid-0

    …and they are ANGRY, SAD, TIRED, HURT, LONELY and VENGEFUL. They want to kill. It’s unbelievable, but that is our society today. Legal murdering, degradation of our bodies, minds and ultimately our souls. The moral decay of civilization. Rome, baby, Rome!

    I don’t see how any of them can live with themselves after so much innocent blood has been spilled by their hands.

    Keep fighting for the TRUTH.

  • invalid-0

    Have you looked at their website?

  • invalid-0

    Have you looked at their website or even comprehended the stupidity surrounding their stance?

  • invalid-0

    Yes I have, and I think they’re true feminists, respecting women to the utmost, and their children.

  • sayna

    I almost cannot believe the level of hypocrisy that I see from Feminists for Life.


    How on Earth can anyone say that they respect women and claim that women are incapable of making decisions for themselves? To say that you know women better than they know themselves, to say that you, a stranger, are more qualified to make a woman’s most private medical and moral decisions is the epitome of insulting. Feminism is about freedom, and freedom means choice. It means having control over your life and making your own decisions based on your personal beliefs and accurate information.


    Plenty of anti-feminist groups try to co-opt the language of equality and words associated with the women’s rights movement in order to promote and agenda that is anything but feminist. Plenty of women make successful careers out of convincing women that they are incapable, dependent, and incompetent. Plenty of groups insist that they are starting a brand-new revolution when in reality they are just reverting to archaic customs of the past. "Feminists" for Life is no different.

  • sayna

    Does it feel good to go on and on about how evil and wrong we are right to our faces? Do you enjoy putting others down this much?

     

    And tell me, do you honestly think that insulting people is a good way to change their minds? Or do you just come here to grind that axe of yours.

     

  • invalid-0

    Only TRUTH! It is not my job to change your mind or your heart. My job is only to voice TRUTH. Sometimes the truth is very hard to accept, so I am sorry if you feel badly after reading the truth. The one thing about the truth that I love so much is that you have to either ACCEPT or DENY because the TRUTH just is – ya know?

    Try on the TRUTH for a change, and see how it works for you. No politics, no lies, no spinning… If everyone does this our world will be a better place. We have allowed lies for so long that we think its normal.

  • marysia

    Sayna,

    there are plenty of people like me who are prolife, pro contraception, and pro comprehensive sex education, not to mention pro everything that would help both the women and babies involved in unintended pregnancies actually find other ways than abortion. 

    do you think we blindly follow and join the organized antiabortion movement as such?  no, we tend to back what we consider good and wise on both "sides" of the debate.

     

    you can’t brush all people who identify as prolife with the same brush–just like people who identify as prochoice. tarring every single prolifer as a "hypocrite" undercuts any possibility for identifying and acting on common ground issues.

      i have been actively working for decades for all of the above measures, and how that’s being a hypocrite, i don’t know….

  • marysia

    Clara,

    I actually support prochoice organizations in the nonabortion/abortion-reducing work that they do, just as I support the prolife efforts that really do offer substantive help to women during pregnancy and beyond.  And I wish I wasn’t too sick and poor to start an organization for prolifers like me–there are enough of us to support such a group.  I did help to start Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.info, which brings together abortion-reducing resources from both "sides" and neither.

     

    I vote like a lot of folks I know, when it comes to abortion: the critical question is not whether the candidate will make it legal or illegal, but what will they do (whether by intent or in effect) that will make abortion *unnecessary.*  And then of course, there are other life and death issues to consider, such as the environment, the war, poverty, violence against women.

    So much for "unrealistic, mindclouding" bias that hijacks the entire public good?

     

  • invalid-0

    Here’s a question for you – do you believe that full equality for lesbians is a major tenent of feminism? Would her dismissal of the “lavender menace” mean that Betty Freidan wasn’t a feminist for a while? Or how about the inherent racism and classism that still is being purged from the ranks of modern day feminist circles?

    Feminism isn’t just about freedom, and freedom isn’t just about choice. The issue is too complex to be turned into a bumper sticker, and for you to so easily dismiss an entire group of women – many who have done more to further feminist goals than you ever will – is out of place.

    You do have one (small) thing right. Feminists for Life, in great detail, documents their connection with feminists and suffragists of the past, who were more often than not ardent opponents of abortion.

  • invalid-0

    “Truth” is no good unless it affects or changes minds. Just spouting “truth” isn’t good enough; you always gotta be acting in a way that puts your message out in the best way possible, with the intent to influence people, not just have them hear your voice.

  • invalid-0

    You are exactly the kind of person I can respect.

    By unrealistic and mind clouding i mean of course the fact that EVERYTHING DIES. Wanting to prevent death is detrimental to life. Things must die so others can live. The food you eat, yes, even if you eat vegetables were once alive but they died so you could eat and continue living. Theres nothing wrong with respect for life but you have to consider the reality that is: everything dies.

  • invalid-0

    This site is full of truth and “Truth Returns” is full of crap. I don’t think this person knows at all what “truth” means. But i will agree with pro-life atheist that unless your truth is heard spouting it benefits noone.

  • marysia

    Sayna,

    I think it’s entirely possible to be a feminist and prolife in the sense of opposing abortion.  It’s been done throughout history and remains possible, if difficult (because abortion is such a polarized issue) now.

    Having researched, edited, and wrote for the book ProLife Feminism (both editions, the 2nd one is definitely better)…

     

    But it is a fair question, whether or not the organization Feminists for Life represents prolife feminism, and as comprehensively as a prolife feminist stance needs to be….

    I first joined Feminists for Life in 1986, when their mission was much more comprehensive and was open to advocacy of contraception, sex education, and a complete social welfare system.  But I quit in recent years because they remain narrowly focused on marshalling local resources for pregnant and parenting students, and so much more is required of a prolife feminist stance.

     

    Their work for college campus pregnancy and parenting resources is  good as far as it goes.  There is a need more However, I think prolife feminism requires doing, and doing, and doing a *lot* more to help alleviate the root causes of abortion….opposing abortion while supporting women’s rights brings with it a giant range of responsibilities, none of which can be neglected….

    • invalid-0

      i have always looked at abortion as the ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT.
      you make a mistake; you dont wear a condom or the piece of rubber BREAKS, or you took the wrong pill, or your doctor put the iud in wrong, or you were only dry humping and your boyfriend is a premature ejaculator, or you were raped, or you and your dad have unprotected sex; you get pregnant at a stage in your life where it is NOT A RESPONSIBLE DECISION to keep and raise a child…for the fetus OR for yourself (for MULTIPLE REASONS, especially the dad scenario…yikes)…you have this last resort. like having your parents bail you out of jail. if they are any kind of intelligent, balanced parent (hopefully not the same dad as before), they will only do it for you ONCE. did you learn from your mistake? yes? okay, heres the money.

      i dont know, maybe my parents raised me right, or something, but i, along with (I HOPE) most people, can learn from a mistake and not make the same damned mistake again.

      there are people out there, as in all situations, that will TOTALLY ABUSE THE SYSTEM…

      so my question is can you be prochoice and still oppose abortions???

  • invalid-0

    There is no substance here – save a few. I am very surprised at the arguments I have heard on this site. My own 15yr old son read a couple of blogs and asked if the people on this site were educated. I told him that today the academic world doesn’t teach the logic of sound and valid arguments because they have already made up their minds as to their political agenda and logic might not agree with it so they just throw it out altogether. Most of you, save a few, have obviously done this. It’s unfortunate, but that is our world today. Logic need not apply.

  • marysia

    Well, I am glad that *somebody* around here has some bit of positive feeling in my direction (: 

    I am well aware of the fact that everyone and everything dies.  I have lived since childhood with more than one potentially lifethreatening disability.  Young people in my neighborhood are killed because of gang violence continually.  Among other inescapable exposures to death.

    However, as far as I see it, there is an enormous difference between acknowledging death as a reality and engaing in or advocating some form of generally preventable lifetaking as necessary (let alone as a human right). 

    As a vegetarian who grows a lot of her own produce, I am well aware that eating plants takes their lives.   I feel sadness and gratitude towards the plants. But I don’t think the need to eat plants for survival translates into a right to eat animal flesh, especially in a society and a climate where other food possibilities are readily available even, sometimes, to the poor.  It means I have a responsibility to limit the harm  my eating does to other sentient beings.  Meat eating is a big way to do that along with some other practices I try to follow.

     

    To me, the reality of death inspires wonder and reverence for the preciousness of every life, and the desire to offer positive alternatives to the preventable harms against humans (born and unborn) and other living beings that people engage in.  I’m not the only one who seest abortion in such a context, either!

  • invalid-0

    “My own 15yr old son read a couple of blogs and asked if the people on this site were educated”
    You are DELUSIONAL. I have respect for some religious belief but you are clearly a loon. “If only the world were as educated as our religion, they’d see how logical it was that we were right”.

  • invalid-0

    Not really sure what you’re trying to say but there’s no religion to logic.

  • invalid-0

    i can only assume that when your son asked if people on this site are educated, he meant educated as far as your warped concept of religion. what about this site comes across as uneducated? oh wait – maybe he meant the many comments left by anti-choicers and/or fundies? all the countless comments from people who refuse to learn the truth. just ONE example – how many idiots have commented on birth control being the same as abortion, been given a link to MANY scientific/medical sites explaining how birth control works and how it is NOT the same as abortion, only to have the commenter return to say, “it’s still abortion ‘cos it stops the egg from becoming a baby”. those are the only uneducated people i come across on this site.
    and let me guess, you’re the same kind of person who “insults” barack obama by calling him an elitist, huh? so, what is it then – bad to be intellectual, or bad to be ignorant? fundies and conservatives need to make up their minds.

  • invalid-0

    Very well put, Clara.
    A lot of good-hearted people get manipulated into voting Republican by their antiabortion religious leaders. That is how we got involved in a national discussion about us, good, God-fearing Americans, torturing people.

  • invalid-0

    Rome did not fall because of moral depravity. You can’t drink wine loaded with lead salts for generations, or even for a year or two, and not suffer certain neurological consequences.

  • invalid-0

    Rome however had a great idea about throwing xians to the lions.
    Freaking religious whackjobs.
    Perhaps we can allow them to split off the south and make their own theocracy since that’s what they all really want.

  • invalid-0

    You are right. America has no regard for human life at all. Two wars and televised glorification of bombing campaigns that destroy human life for money and oil. Tens of thousands of nuclear warheads on our soil. Corporate polluters allowed to turn the sky green at night and poison our kids with childhood asthma. No basic healthcare that all humans need to have a decent life. No regard for the planet without which, we would not even have human life to begin with. Or any life for that matter. We evolved late in the game and deem ourselves “precious” while the ecosystem that supports us all is denigrated by overconsumption, pollution and overpopulation.

    Yet, here you are telling us all that more babies are the answer when it’s clear we already don’t pay for the ones that actually do need clean air to breathe and enough food to eat. Your tired, old, backward looking messages on these boards only prove that we have not educated our people to the extent that we should be, nor have we appointed the appropriate psychiatric help to those such as yourself who need to be de-programmed from harmful organized superstition that has no relevance here in the real world.

    • invalid-0

      wow.
      really…seriously…*stands up and applauds*

      no sarcasm here, this is genuine. that is a very VERY good argument.

  • invalid-0

    Christians need to have their own crap shoved right back at them, totally, and then we’ll all get to observe how much they like it.

    • invalid-0

      …yeah right. they will just see it as more religious persecution and force their political party affiliates to pass more laws and amendments to the constitution to make their faith law. they have jesus on their side, remember?? nothing can stop them.

  • sayna

    If there are a lot of pro-life people like you who support sex ed. and contraception, why aren’t all of you talking to the leaders of all pro-life organizations and telling them to change their stance? Why am I not seeing pro-lifers actively campaign for these abortion-reducing measures?

  • sayna

    The feminists of the past [i]were[/i] heavily racist, homophobic and anti-abortion. They were limited by the ignorance of their time and of their limited worldview. They were often privledged, white, straight women who had no idea of what struggles women who were less wealthy, non-white, and L/B/T were going through. They were wrong, but they had an excuse.

    Nowadays, we know better. Women of color and queer women have become more widely recognized in the feminist movement. They have shared their stories and we now understand that sexism, homophobia, racism and classism all work together to oppress people. We know much more in these modern times than those early feminists ever could. Therefore, if you call yourself a feminist but want to exclude non-white and non-heterosexual women, you are a hypocrite.

    The same goes for pro-life “feminists”. Many early feminists opposed abortion because they lived in times when even the best available abortion methods were extremely dangerous. They also lived in times when female sexuality was barely understood and reliable contraception was not available, so childbirth was basically mandatory. Times have changed now. For all you know, if these women were born in our time, they would be pro-choice.

    How convenient it is that these women who started the feminist movement were as ignorant as you! And how convenient it is that they can’t defend themselves, change their minds, or clarify what they meant because they’re dead.

  • sayna

    There is no way to oppose legal abortion and support women’s rights.

    You can personally oppose abortion, you can want to reduce the amount of abortions, and you can seek alternatives to abortion. But when you take your personal beliefs and attempt to make them law for everyone else, you cross the line.

    By supporting the illegalization of abortion, you are hurting women. You cannot claim to respect them as equals and expect them to surrender their bodies, their futures, and their very lives to your whim.

  • sayna

    You’ve shown no respect to anyone who doesn’t share your particular religious and political beliefs. You don’t seem to be able to accept that people have used logic and reason to arrive at different conclusions than you. You treat differing opinions as invalid solely because they are different.
    To us, these actions make you look brainwashed. Your ranting about "TRUTH" comes off as delusional, close-minded, totalitarian and propaganda-pushing as the Ministry of Truth in the book 1984, which was basically meant to brainwash people.

  • invalid-0

    Sanya you can’t say its not relevant then go and make a similar point. Are you saying that the early suffragists aren’t feminists? Are you saying that Betty Freidan was during her anti-gay years? Granted there were a lot of scummy ideas held by early feminists, but if that invalidates their pro-life views, wouldn’t it also invalidate their support for women’s equality?

    If you read their statements that were made regarding abortion, more often than not the reason expressed had to do with the life of the prenatal child, not the danger of the procedure. We do know more now, including advances in science and technology that have given us more information about the life of the embryo/fetus. That understanding of prenatal life is what most pro-lifers base their opposition to abortion on, and had these foremothers known more about this, they most likely would have continued in their opposition to abortion. If they were pro-life at a time when abortion was more dangerous and contraception wasn’t readily available, then logic follows that they would be just as pro-life now that it isn’t as dangerous and contraception is more available.

    You can go ahead an say that pro-life feminists aren’t feminists, but it makes no difference. They’ll continue to do what they’re doing, and you’ll continue complaining about it. Marysia’s track record speaks volumes, and if you won’t consider her a feminist, there are plenty of others out there who would.

    Under what basis are you charging me with ignorance on this issue? If someone really has an uninformed position, then I’m all for them being referred to as ignorant; but where do you get that with me? Do you seriously believe I’m flippant in my stance, or are you just throwing that word around because you think those who have different opinions are less intelligent than you?

    While we’re at it, do you think I am a true atheist for holding an anti-abortion viewpoint?

  • invalid-0

    Above comment at 12:43 AM was me

  • invalid-0

    one of my favorite quotes:

    “and what is truth, is truth un-changing law? we both have truths, are mine the same as yours?”

  • http://www.tonalbliss.com/ invalid-0

    Regarding the APA’s report that there is no significant psychological damage from abortion: the conclusion was made based upon a single research study. To make a conclusion takes many research studies to determine what the trends are. I guess the APA doesn’t want to delve that deeply into the subject and are willing to take their chances with one pro-choice leaning study.

    Regarding poor knowledge of Christian ideology: women are more than just baby making machines. A good girl can love sex within marriage. The same goes for a man. A good girl can have a job as long as her children are well raised. The same goes for a man. This is the Christian idology. The idea that women should only be making babies, stay home all day, and dislike sex comes from culture, NOT IDEOLOGY. In fact, you might want to look into the Theology of the Body. I am a man who will most likely be home more often than my future wife. This is due to our career choice differences. My parish priest certainly hasn’t said that we are evil heathens…

    segamon

  • invalid-0

    that women are baby making machines, stay home all day, and dislike sex comes from culture? PUH-LEASE. you people always seem to want it both ways when you argue. so, secular culture is to blame for homosexuality, porn, drug addiction – but, now suddenly the submission of women is secular? HA! i grew up around fundies/evangelicals & heard all about male dominion over females & the role of the wife in a family. and i’ve certainly known enough catholics to know that the view of wives is pretty much the same.
    but, at least i’ve gotten quite a few good laughs the past few days, coming across this new argument/myth of female liberation via contraception/abortion is what makes men objectify women. hilarious, as i see zero difference between being seen as a “fuck”, or being seen as a wife/baby-maker.

  • sayna

    A good girl can love sex within marriage.

    Women can enjoy sex, but only with your seal of approval and only on you and your church’s terms. Not to mention only for reproduction, and only sex to please men.

    You’ve just proven everything that Amanda has said about religious conservatives’ trying to subjugate and regulate female sexuality, lumping women into the two categories of Virgin/Madonna and Whore.

  • sayna

    Are you saying that the early suffragists aren’t feminists? Are you saying that Betty Freidan was during her anti-gay years? Granted there were a lot of scummy ideas held by early feminists, but if that invalidates their pro-life views, wouldn’t it also invalidate their support for women’s equality?

    You’ve missed my point. I’m not saying that their ideas were wrong just because they’re outdated, I’m saying that the homophobia, classism and racism present in some early feminists was due, like their opposition to legal abortion, to ignorance. They still had some great ideas about equality and I’m greatful that they acted on them. But they were not right about everything.

    If you read their statements that were made regarding abortion, more often than not the reason expressed had to do with the life of the prenatal child, not the danger of the procedure. We do know more now, including advances in science and technology that have given us more information about the life of the embryo/fetus. That understanding of prenatal life is what most pro-lifers base their opposition to abortion on, and had these foremothers known more about this, they most likely would have continued in their opposition to abortion.

    Fetal life isn’t the only issue in the abortion debate. Really, it’s not even the main issue. The question is when, if ever, does a fetus have a right to be born that overrides the woman’s right to make decisions about her own body? In other words, when do the basic human rights of a fetus trump the basic human rights of the woman? If two living things in the same body could have equal control of that body, there would be no issue.

    I don’t think that anyone who believes that a fetus’ right to be born overrides a woman’s right to life, liberty, and bodily domain truly respects women as human beings. I don’t see how anyone could who advocates legally forcing women to endure unwanted pregnancy and childbirth is respecting women’s autonomy or working in their best interest.

    Under what basis are you charging me with ignorance on this issue? If someone really has an uninformed position, then I’m all for them being referred to as ignorant; but where do you get that with me?

    Frankly, yor inability to even comprehend the other side’s argument or empathize with what it’s like to experience pregnancy and childbirth–let alone be FORCED to experience them–comes off as ignorant.

    While we’re at it, do you think I am a true atheist for holding an anti-abortion viewpoint?

    Irrelevant. There is no uniting set of beliefs between atheists other than a lack of belief in a deity or deities. Some of my fellow atheists seem to understand me and my beliefs, others either do not and/or are simply opposed to them. The long list of atheists contains some of my most loved and most hated people.

  • invalid-0

    I do understand your position – for years I was pro-choice. I did extensive research, re-evaluated my position, and joined the short line of atheists who oppose abortion.

    That’s hardly ignorance, and you only think that because you don’t understand where I’m coming from or what my thought processes on this are. You do have a habit of jumping the gun on folks; or at least you did when I observed your posts in various pro-choice groups on MySpace.

    Should you truly understand the pro-life position, then you may see where Marysia, Jen R, and I am coming from and understand why we believe the ethical wrong of ending a perceived life trumps bodily integrity.

  • sayna

    Tell me: How does what you call "perceived life" trump the rights of a living, thinking, feeling human being’s right to decide what happens to her body.
    Calling it "perceived" life is confusing. A fetus is not just perceived life. It is life. It’s alive, as were the sperm and egg that created it, as are the billions of animals we kill and eat, and as are tumors that we excise. I don’t understand why a fetus’ life is more important than a woman’s life to you. I don’t understand how you can justify saying that that life must be protected at any and all costs when no other non-sentient life is.
    I’m also kind of curious… most lifers are motivated by religious and supernatural beliefs. Like, "God made HUMAN life sacred, we have dominion over the Earth", or "God made women to have children, they have to accept the place he made for them", or "the fetus has a soul", or sometimes even the blunt "unwanted pregnancy is a punishment for sex outside God’s plan". …As I’ve said, atheists have all kinds of different beliefs. But it’s a little hard to see how one justifies opposing abortion to the point of making it illegal without religion. I’m not saying that religion is essential for being insensitive toward women’s rights, but it sure does seem to help.

  • invalid-0

    Ok, for one, I think abortion should be a choice for women. What if a twelve year old girl is raped by a stranger, and let’s remember that abortion is illegal in her life, and having the baby could be so much strain on her that she has a heart attack and dies. She could of had an abortion early, to were the baby hasn’t formed any organs, isn’t breathing, and doesn’t have a brain (counts as an organ but I’m just stating). The doctor would just be taking out a collection of cells. No body parts formed. Sure, Christians and other religions believe the soul is there, but science says that the baby wouldn’t feel anything, and isn’t technically a human baby yet.

    I think having sex for fun, getting pregnant, then getting an abortion when the baby is fully formed, or even when it’s just a collection of cells, is wrong. I believe abortion should only be a choice if you’ve been raped, or the baby is going to kill you at birth. I don’t think the child of the mother would want him/her, and their mother to die. Because technically, the baby would be taking the mother’s life. So, abortion, in my opinion, is bad and good. There is no straight answer.

    As for it hurting women, that just depends. Some women can take things better than other women. Some women are able to get an abortion and walk away, while others could be hurt emotionally forever. It just depends.

    • invalid-0

      the straight answer would be to find a “happy medium”. now, im not an EXPERT on pregnancy, but ive been in the delivery room and been through five of my friends’ pregnancies BY THEIR SIDE. i paid attention in biology and read several articles and websites on the development of a fetus and listened to the doctors, as well as one of my friends that was pregnant is a stuanch, southern baptist…so i also have heard the many views from the religious sect on baby life.

      you have it right, if you are thinking REALISTICALLY and not IDEOLOGICALLY, there is a TIME PERIOD where its just a clump of cells (much like a tumor…but im also being a tad morbid there. but somewhere within the comments, someone compared fetus life to a tumor and a plant, so im rolling with it)and WILL NOT FEEL ANYTHING. it cant think or feel or eat or breath on its own IT HAS NO BRAIN OR HEART OR LIMBS, its ALL DUE TO THE MOTHER. its living, feeding, off the woman. after the development of a brain and a beating heart, it would, to put some rest in the prolifers’ hearts (their god knows they cant be convinced), be unfair and ‘hurtful’ to the unborn child. so, limiting the time frame on abortions seems to be the answer, which they have already done. this way, everybody’s opinions are seen and heard, taken into consideration and applied. not everybody is happy…but they are satisfied. it would be the fair thing to do…but this is america. fairness is often seen as communism here. and communism is baaaaaaaaaad…

  • invalid-0

    Yes Mellankelly1, I think women ought to be educated about those consquences of intercourse. Other “consequences” are the ability to compare the quality of those orgasms when they are delivered by different lovers. Women should learn that some lovers — especially those that are very scared by women who prefer to have sex for pleasure and not always for procreation — tend to not be very good at creating the orgasmic response in women and, drawing from their limitedexperiences and ineptitude, have developed a view that women either do not enjoy sex or should not enjoy the sexual act unless it is intended for making babies.

  • invalid-0

    Hey, “anonymous” you gutless wanker, how about you watch some childbirth in person and get back to ME about mutilation and disfigurement. How about some level 4 tears, yanno, the type that rip a woman from her twat to her arse? The type that make her incontinent for the rest of her life? How would YOU like some of that action? How would YOU like it if you were FORCED to have your genitals mutilated by an obejct the size of a watermelon pushing its way through a hole the size of a plum?

    I know what you’ll say, like all the others who chorus your forced-birthers’ mantra; “oh but she should not have had sex if she did not want to have a pregnancy”. Ergo, little whore should have kept her legs closed.

    Fine then. Let’s avoid pregnancy. Teach the up and coming young men to keep their impregnating organs in their pants and how use their tongues instead.

    You of the so-called pro-life crowd are not interested in “life” at all, you are really anti-sex but hide cowardly behind your faux morality and crocodile tears for widdle babeez. You are clearly either a man who cannot get a woman off or you are a woman who cannot get off. Your sexual insecurity will not be cured by stopping other people from having sex and talking oh-so-piously out of your backside. Stop lying to yourself already.

  • invalid-0

    “please don’t assume that because someone feels abortion is unjust lifetaking, they don’t also vigorously oppose other forms of lifetaking, and even more try to supplant them with nonviolent alternatives.”

    The fact of the matter is that those who most ardently support the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the torture of it’s citizens are those people on the religious right who also identify as ‘pro-life’. Those on the so called ‘pro-life’ movement who likewise oppose torture and the dangerous foreign policies of the right are few and far between, a tiny, tiny minority who do nothing whatsoever to change any of the priorities of the pro-non breathing life movement.
    I’m surprised your head hasn’t exploded from cognitive dissonance but, still, the basic questions in this discussion is, “do you wish to recriminalize abortion?”

  • invalid-0

    Yes, They are not feminists anymore than Concerned Women for America are feminists. They’re a republican front organization.

  • invalid-0

    “I think it’s entirely possible to be a feminist and prolife in the sense of opposing abortion.”

    Sorry but no, it is not and particularly not in the present day political climate.

  • harry834

    "You cannot claim to respect them as equals and expect them to surrender their bodies, their futures, and their very lives to your whim."

    Whether or not I want human life growing inside me is MY choice, because I am the vessel for the life THEY want to protect.

    I get to decide whether or not I want my body to be that vessel.

  • harry834

    can be a glorious thing – IF the pregnant woman is the one to make that choice for herself

    When it’s forced on by others, it’s the cruelest of burdens.

  • invalid-0

    “Feminism isn’t just about freedom, and freedom isn’t just about choice.”

    The thing is that socially conservatives such as yourself do not define feminism. Folks like you or the poorly named ‘Feminists for Life’ are about the last people with any knowledge about what feminism is and is not. It’s like talking to Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich

  • invalid-0

    Anonymous’s post should win something, even if it’s an award for failing hard.

    “I think abortion should be a choice for women.”

    Indeed. You are correct. Let’s continue reading.

    “What if a twelve year old girl is raped by a stranger, and let’s remember that abortion is illegal in her life, and having the baby could be so much strain on her that she has a heart attack and dies.”

    That statement reminds me of what the extremely creepy Senator Bill Napoli said the the conditions of a woman seeking an abortion should be… but I digress. So she has to have been raped AND her life has to be endangered by her pregnancy before you’ll let her have any agency? Charming.

    “She could of had an abortion early, to were the baby hasn’t formed any organs, isn’t breathing, and doesn’t have a brain (counts as an organ but I’m just stating). The doctor would just be taking out a collection of cells. No body parts formed. Sure, Christians and other religions believe the soul is there, but science says that the baby wouldn’t feel anything, and isn’t technically a human baby yet.”

    So it’s all right for this hypothetical rape victim to end her pregnancy as long as the fetus “doesn’t feel anything”, but after the point where it develops limbs she has to birth it, because her rights, her feelings and her life don’t matter and a potential child’s rights trump those of an actual living child who is the victim of a violent crime? Just who are we punishing here? Let’s not forget that in your scenario, abortion in general is illegal and the mitigating circumstances would have to be proven, thus delaying the time in which a raped girl would have the right to make her own choices as you would have them. Your black-and-white view just does not cover the hundreds of potential variables, and punishes the victim.

    “I think having sex for fun, getting pregnant, then getting an abortion when the baby is fully formed, or even when it’s just a collection of cells, is wrong.”

    Whoa, whoa… what? That doesn’t even square with your first statement that medical science agrees that a blastocyst is not a baby. Who are you to decide if and when another woman has children? Who is this straw-woman who gets knocked up, endures eight months of pregnancy then skips off to the abortion clinic when she wakes up one morning and decides being pregnant sucks? I think you’re pulling this out of your ass, really.

    Let’s apply Occam’s Razor to your statement:

    I think having sex for fun, getting pregnant, then getting an abortion/ is wrong
    /
    I think having sex for fun, getting pregnant/ is wrong
    /
    I think having sex for fun/ is wrong


    And there it is. That’s the real reason. Abortion is a medical procedure and it costs a lot, especially to those who may be too poor to afford reliable birth control or health insurance (thus, the demographic that needs access to safe abortion the most). I doubt anybody uses it as their primary form of birth control. That’s ridiculous anti-choice spin.

    “I believe abortion should only be a choice if you’ve been raped, or the baby is going to kill you at birth.”

    Ah, I see. You think abortion should only be a “choice” if it’s within the narrow boundaries of what *you* define as acceptable, since *your* morality is universal, and one everyone should follow, regardless of their circumstances. That’s not a choice, Anon. It’s forced pregnancy unless you can prove to other people that you have a right to own your body in extenuating circumstances set down by other people who think you’re so morally deficient you don’t deserve to have rights. I repeat, that is not a choice.

    “I don’t think the child of the mother would want him/her, and their mother to die. Because technically, the baby would be taking the mother’s life.”

    Where the hell is the woman in all of this? Why fantasize about what you think a fetus would think? Again, we come back to what *you* think ought to be done and that *your* opinion is the ultimate decider.

    “So, abortion, in my opinion, is bad and good. There is no straight answer.”

    You’re damn right there isn’t, at least not in your case. You haven’t written a single coherent sentence.

    “As for it hurting women, that just depends. Some women can take things better than other women. Some women are able to get an abortion and walk away, while others could be hurt emotionally forever. It just depends.”

    Indeed it does. Which makes me wonder why you’re so scared of the latter eventuality that you would take away the option from those that require it. Newsflash: women are not mental children, and we don’t need you to do our thinking for us. To be honest, your entire post is made of such garbled nonsense that I cannot tell whether you’re coming or going, and it’s clear you don’t have a damn clue what you’re talking about either, you flip flop more than the shoes of the same name. All I’ve managed to get out that word salad is that you are astoundingly arrogant and/or ignorant and you think abortion should only be available to little girls who get Napolied and even then they must be shamed for having the temerity to have been raped. I also got that you are vehemently anti-sex, especially when it’s women having sex, and thus they should be punished accordingly – again by your standards – for being such slutty sluts and not copulating in the way you approve of. That women don’t figure into decisions regarding their bodies, that everything hinges on a weird fantasy of what the hypothetical child may or may not “think”. That all decisions regarding the reproductive rights of others should be held to your standards, and screw all else.

    In short, I cannot tell if your opinions stem from ignorance , idiocy, arrogance or all three, but I certainly can tell that they are misogynistic.

  • http://forum.al-wlid.com/t7489.html invalid-0

    and I think they’re true feminists, respecting women to the utmost, and their children.

  • invalid-0

    and you have helped me out A BUNCH! you know how you get those things that you just cant get out properly…thanks! this post was awesome and very enlightening. im glad i stumbled it :)