Conservative Feminism: The Idea That Women Are Too Stupid To Know the Difference


The slightly higher-than-usual numbers of female candidates this election season’s crop of increasingly right-wing challenger candidates has created possibly the most irritating meme of 2010—that we’re looking at new kind of feminism, a “conservative feminism”. Never mind that this crop of politicians doesn’t actually have any feminist positions outside of the narrow belief that they personally should have power despite being female. Never mind that there’s nothing new about women using anti-feminism to advance their own interests.  Never mind that actual feminists find the whole thing incredibly tedious.  The idea that electing a few female conservatives to office should be the apex of feminism has even made its way into the editorial pages of the New York Times.

To be fair, there’s more to these conservative women’s arguments that they’re a new breed of feminist than simply pointing to their own briefcases and saying, “So there.”  The whole strategy of declaring obviously anti-feminist women to be “feminist” was started by anti-choice groups like the Susan B. Anthony List and Feminists for Life, and it was popularized by Sarah Palin. The argument is that there could be such a thing as “pro-life feminism,” i.e. a feminism grounded in the idea that women should be forced to bear children against their will. 

Common sense would demand that one not agree that there could be a kind of feminism that would declare the entire female sex incapable of handling the right to bodily autonomy.  But the anti-choice feminists swear they have an argument!  The argument is that Abortion Is Bad For Women, because it thwarts women from their true desires—so deep and true that many women don’t even realize they have them—to bring every pregnancy to term, no matter how much they think they don’t want it.  They marshal all sorts of made-up evidence to support this argument, claiming incorrectly that abortion causes depression and breast cancer and probably ingrown toenails.  The conclusion is that women have to be forced to bear children against their will for their own good.  They hope that if you squint at it sideways, this argument looks kind of like feminism.  After all, real feminists talk about real things that hurt women, so fake feminists pretending that things that don’t hurt women do could fool someone. 

The idea that abortion has to be banned to protect women fails on two counts—both because of history, and because there’s nothing feminist about suggesting that women are too stupid to handle basic rights.  Let’s take these one at a time.

The notion that banning abortion can be expected to save women’s health and well-being is simply and bluntly easy to disprove by looking at what actually happens when you ban abortion—desperate women seek dangerous abortions when safe ones aren’t available.  Not only is there a long American history of women ending up disabled or dead from botched self-abortions, but it’s still going on all over the world.  Unlike the claims from anti-choicers that abortion causes breast cancer or depression, pro-choice evidence showing that illegal abortion drives women to unsafe abortion is absolutely true.  The notion that women are better off with serious infections, disablement, or death from safe abortion is so laughable that it’s really not even up for debate.

But setting aside even these historical realities, the argument underpinning anti-choice “feminism” is one based on the very un-feminist belief that women are simply too stupid to know their own minds.  The narrative that suggests that women only think they want abortions, but will see the light if forced to bear children is to paint half of all adults as basically very tall children, except that it’s legal to have sex with them. In the anti-choice view, every single woman who enters an abortion clinic and asks for an abortion is really just a victim of her own stupidity and gullibility, and only after she has the abortion will she see how wrong she was.  (They need to believe this so badly they simply overlook the evidence showing that most women who have abortions feel relief, and even those who feel sadness often don’t feel regret.) Any feminism that starts with the premise that women aren’t equal to men, because women are too stupid to make their own decisions, is simply not a kind of feminism.  This is definitional—feminism starts with the belief that women are equal to men, especially with regards to intellectual and moral abilities.  A feminism that doesn’t accept this is like a humanism that believes that human beings are fundamentally wicked and undeserving of rights—that is, it doesn’t exist.

I can see how this can get confusing.  Conservatives put these “women are fundamentally too stupid to make their own decisions” argument in the mouths of women.  People expect that anti-feminists would generally distrust what women say, so when we’re being asked to trust what anti-choice women say, it seems a little like it’s not being anti-feminist.  Except that we’re being asked to trust women only when they say women are too stupid to be trusted.  Never mind that saying, “I’m female, so trust me when I tell you that women are too stupid to be trusted,” is a direct contradiction of itself, a meaningless statement.

If you find yourself getting a headache thinking about it, just remember that’s the point.  Anti-feminist women making anti-feminist claims while pretending they’re being feminist is about creating so much confusion about what feminism is that the public just gives up altogether.  But what it’s definitely not about is advancing the interests or equality of actual women that aren’t wealthy female conservative politicians.

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

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • nonviolent-humanist

    There is a lot I would like to write, but I will keep this simple.  You wrote that conservative feminism is “a feminism grounded in the idea that women should be forced to bear children against their wiill.”  I am a woman who is a strong advocate of women’s rights to decide what is best for their bodies – except in the case where it would harm the lives and bodies or other people.  And fundamental to my argument against abortion is that it is not just about the woman, it is also about the other human being in the equation, the one whose life is violently torn apart.

    I know most abortion advocates don’t believe that a human fetus is, in fact, worthy of any life until it comes out breathing on it’s own.  But there is a large number of people who do believe that that is an innocent, vulnerable human being who is being punished for the mistakes its parents made.

    (Ironically, I’ve noticed that it is also the strongest pro-choice advocates who also advocate against mutilating babies via FGM or male circumcision.  They don’t want newborn babies harmed in any way but have no qualms about them being poisoned and dismembered only a few weeks younger.)

    There will always be an inpenetrable divide between pro-choice and pro-life (or anti-choice, as you call it), that being the point at which a human life begins and has worth.  Pro-choice advocates may say that a baby in utero should have no rights because they belong to the mother’s body and she should have all say in whether it lives or dies.  But you know, slaves were once considered sub-human and given no rights -  they were the possessions of their masters, who could decide whether they should live or die.  I’m sure giving rights to slaves was very inconvenient to their masters, impacted the lifesyle of their masters.  The masters likely protested against government officials who “dared” give rights to their possession!

    Our society has (hopefully) seen the error of this egotistical point of view.  My future hope is that society will also one day fully recognise the humanity of every individual from conception – regardless of the circumstances – and treat each human in a nonviolent and respectful manner.  My short-term hope is that liberal activists will stop assuming that every “anti-choice” activist is trying to control woman and realize that some are trying to protect all humans.  Is your life more important than the person next to you?  Do they deserve to die because they make your life inconvenient?  Or do you both have an equal right to live?

    Some say that a society will be judged by the way they treat the weakest and most vulnerable among them.  If so, what does that say about the society you wish to create?

  • prochoiceferret

    I am a woman who is a strong advocate of women’s rights to decide what is best for their bodies – except in the case where it would harm the lives and bodies or other people.

    Oh, so you believe that some people (fetuses) can deprive other people (women) of their rights. In other words, you’re an anti-feminist.

    And fundamental to my argument against abortion is that it is not just about the woman, it is also about the other human being in the equation, the one whose life is violently torn apart.

    And the fact that that life needs the woman’s body to sustain itself, a mode of support that the woman may not necessarily be willing to give, is completely irrelevant.

    I know most abortion advocates don’t believe that a human fetus is, in fact, worthy of any life until it comes out breathing on it’s own.

    Sorry, but you’ve come to the wrong site. There’s no one here but pro-choice advocates. If you want to talk with abortion advocates, you may want to visit some of the anti-contraception sites out there.

    But there is a large number of people who do believe that that is an innocent, vulnerable human being who is being punished for the mistakes its parents made.

    Great! And in this country, they have the religious freedom to manage their uterus in a manner consistent with their beliefs. Ain’t freedom grand?

    They don’t want newborn babies harmed in any way but have no qualms about them being poisoned and dismembered only a few weeks younger.

    You don’t know much about how and why late-term abortions are performed, do you?

    But you know, slaves were once considered sub-human and given no rights -  they were the possessions of their masters, who could decide whether they should live or die.  I’m sure giving rights to slaves was very inconvenient to their masters, impacted the lifesyle of their masters.  The masters likely protested against government officials who “dared” give rights to their possession!

    It’s really funny that you should mention that, because there’s a strong parallel to this whole pro-choice issue. To wit:

    But you know, women were (still are) sometimes (when pregnant) considered sub-human and given no rights -  they were the possessions of their fetuses, who could decide whether they should live (as unwilling mothers) or die (from pregnancy complications).  I’m sure giving rights to women was very inconvenient to their fetuses, impacted the lifesyle of their fetuses.  The fetuses (or their self-appointed representatives) likely protested against government officials who “dared” give rights to their possession!

    =^_^=

    My future hope is that society will also one day fully recognise the humanity of every individual from conception – regardless of the circumstances – and treat each human in a nonviolent and respectful manner.

    Yeah. Maybe then, abortion will be finally enshrined as a woman’s right, “sidewalk counselors” will be just a bad memory, and the procedure will be easily available to all who need it.

    My short-term hope is that liberal activists will stop assuming that every “anti-choice” activist is trying to control woman and realize that some are trying to protect all humans.

    Well, all the ones we’ve come across have made a pretty glaring exception for pregnant female humans, so we’re still looking for those “some.”

    Some say that a society will be judged by the way they treat the weakest and most vulnerable among them.  If so, what does that say about the society you wish to create?

    Where women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term? That it would make for good dystopian literature.

  • colleen

    (Ironically, I’ve noticed that it is also the strongest pro-choice advocates who also advocate against mutilating babies via FGM or male circumcision.  They don’t want newborn babies harmed in any way but have no qualms about them being poisoned and dismembered only a few weeks younger.)

    Ironically I’ve noticed that the strongest ‘pro-life’ advocates advocate against policies that would aleviate poverty and child poverty, medical care for ‘the born’, decent housing, effective contraception, a reasonable minimum wage and a just legal system. What’s more, since the emergence of ‘Democrats for Life’ and the Third Way y’all have ‘won’.

     

     

     

    Some say that a society will be judged by the way they treat the weakest and most vulnerable among them. If so, what does that say about the society you wish to create?

    What does this say about republicans and conservative democrats, their social and fiscal policies and the morons who vote for them?

     

     

     

     

  • arekushieru

    I’ve met *one*, PCF, but only one. 

  • invalid-0

    Great! And in this country, they have the religious freedom to manage their uterus in a manner consistent with their beliefs. Ain’t freedom grand?

    Which religious dogma holds that the unborn are less human that you? 

    In any event, even if laws related to abortion somehow infringed on your religious beliefs, it would not be unconstitutional under Employment Division v. Smith.

  • prochoiceferret

    Which religious dogma holds that the unborn are less human that you?

    I dunno… doesn’t the Jewish faith say that a newborn doesn’t gain a soul until it takes its first breath of air?

    In any event, even if laws related to abortion somehow infringed on your religious beliefs, it would not be unconstitutional under Employment Division v. Smith.

    Great! So there’s no constitutional religious-freedom issue with crisis-pregnancy signage laws, or FOCA. Thanks for clearing that up!

  • prochoiceferret

    I’ve met *one*, PCF, but only one.

    And mainstream anti-choicers would probably nevertheless classify him/her as a “pro-abort.”

  • arekushieru

    Of course, you comPLETEly missed the fact that she was referring to another ProLIFER’s comments, in that regard, didn’t you?  Which was why she, y’know, brought it up.

     

    Besides, we are not the ones who think that a fetus is less than human.  We absolutely believe that a fetus deserves the same rights as everyone else, JUST as women do.  ProLifers are the ones who believe that women are non-human and fetuses are more valuable than any born human, as you would see if you had read her entire post.  …?

  • arekushieru

    Why would they classify him as a Pro-abort?  He wants to protect all human life by making organ donation mandatory, banning use of lethal force/self-defence, altogether and being anti-war, anti-death penalty, etc…?

     

    Unless I confused you by not quoting what I was actually referring to.  If so, sorry, again!  ^^;

  • prochoiceferret

    Why would they classify him as a Pro-abort?  He wants to protect all human life by making organ donation mandatory, banning use of lethal force/self-defence, altogether and being anti-war, anti-death penalty, etc…?

    Hmm… that’s a tough one. Does he support hormonal contraception? Or abortion when the woman’s life is in danger?

     

    Even if not, mainstream anti-choicers could always dismiss him when he starts talking about mandatory organ donation as a “commie pinko Islamofascist un-American terrorist-fist-bumping organ and precious bodily fluid filcher.” Where there’s a will, there’s a way….

  • invalid-0

    We absolutely believe that a fetus deserves the same rights as everyone else, JUST as women do.

    Really?  Is that true of the rest of you pro-choicers out there?

  • invalid-0

    Great! So there’s no constitutional religious-freedom issue with crisis-pregnancy signage laws, or FOCA. Thanks for clearing that up!

    Not if they are “neutral laws of general applicability”.  I’m not sure to which provisions of those laws you are referring.

  • crowepps

    Employment Division v Smith was a case in which a former drug-addict, a person working as a DRUG COUNSELOR, who was supposed to be helping other people STOP USING DRUGS, wanted to continue using ILLEGAL DRUGS himself, specifically peyote.  He got fired because the rules of the job were COUNSELORS CAN’T USE DRUGS and the Court refused to let him use religion as his excuse.  I find it hard to see any connection whatsoever because being pregnant is NOT A JOB.

  • crowepps

    I believe she’s referring to the laws requiring crisis pregnancy centers to put up signs stating “we are not a medical clinic” and “we do not provide or refer for birth control or abortion”. You know, where they are protesting that putting up a sign telling the truth infringes on their religious beliefs? Personally I think they ought to add one that says “all of the ‘counselors’ here are amateurs without any professional qualifications.”

  • invalid-0

    That has issues related to forcing non-medical providers to make mandatory disclosures, I suppose.  Those professional qualifications that you refer to are what allow the state to mandate that they make certain disclosures.  No real constitutional issues though.

     

    In both cases, there seems to be no freedom of religion issues.

  • invalid-0

    The original point made by your esteemed colleague was that current laws allow women to manage their uterus consistent with their belief system, which implies that pro-life legislation would be an unconstitutional mix between religion and the nation’s laws.

     

    Smith denies that possibility, standing for the proposition that neutral laws of general applicability will not be interpreted as infringing upon that important First Amendment right.  If the illegality of an abortion was a mandate by single religion (Catholicism, for example), perhaps you could make the argument that the law imposes Catholic doctrine on non-Catholics.  Unfortunately for you, there are people of all faiths on both sides of the life/choice argument including (as some of you love so often to point out) pro-choice Catholics. 

     

    Smith is directly on point.  No self-respecting constitutional lawyer would make the argument that abortion restrictions violate the First Amendment.

  • crowepps

    If the illegality of an abortion was a mandate by single religion (Catholicism, for example), perhaps you could make the argument that the law imposes Catholic doctrine on non-Catholics.  Unfortunately for you, there are people of all faiths on both sides of the life/choice argument including (as some of you love so often to point out) pro-choice Catholics. 

    I have no problem whatsoever with people who have moral objections to abortion not having abortions, and I don’t believe many other people do.  Nobody here is trying to mandate abortions for strangers.

     

    The point is, however, that it doesn’t matter if 99% of the people in the country are members of the SAME religion, in a secular democracy and under our Constitution that religious doctrine cannot be the basis of a law restricting the behavior of the remaining 1%.  It is therefore necessary to identify and advance some OTHER reason besides ‘God says’.

     

    Particularly when the idea being advanced is a total ban on abortions even in cases where they are necessary to save women’s lives on the predicate that respecting the religious beliefs of the treating personnel is more important than her life.  If adult people want to die for their religious beliefs, that is their right, but it is NOT okay for them to point to their religious beliefs as an excuse for allowing others to die unnecessarily.

  • crowepps

    Some say that a society will be judged by the way they treat the weakest and most vulnerable among them.  If so, what does that say about the society you wish to create?

    What does it say about the society we already have created that parenthood is such an unequal and onerous private burden on mothers. with so little social support provided that women avoid it?

     

    What does it say about the society we already have created that the surest indicator of living in poverty or being impoverished in old age is motherhood?

     

    What does it say about the society we already have created that ‘happiness’ rankings always have mothers in the position in the very bottom?

     

    Perhaps if people want to reduce abortions, instead of trying to prevent women from avoiding pregnancy, they might want to address some of the social, economic and marital inequities that, frankly, make motherhood a fool’s choice.

  • amanda-marcotte

    Many Christians are pro-choice, traditional Judaism mandates that a woman is more a human being than a fetus, and I do believe that neither Hinduism or Buddhism are particularly attached to the fetus. Many strains of Islam have no problem with early term abortions.

    Also, not everyone is religious. I think all religions are basically overgrown superstitions. I shouldn’t be required to follow your religious dogma any more than I should be required to believe in horoscopes.

  • bei1052

    Besides, we are not the ones who think that a fetus is less than human.  We absolutely believe that a fetus deserves the same rights as everyone else, JUST as women do.

     

    Which I suppose is why pro-lifers are so ardent about labeling one segment of the population as mere choices to be killed off at the discretion of another.

     

    …Oh, wait.

  • crowepps

     “the mother must, by position and by virtue, give up her life for that of her child.”

  • bei1052

    So your argument is, in essence, that if you don’t “trust” a woman when it comes to killing her unborn child that you somehow hate women/aren’t a feminist? Where are the straw men police when you need them? As it is, you said:

     

    This is definitional—feminism starts with the belief that women are equal to men, especially with regards to intellectual and moral abilities.

     

    And if you believe that there is no right to moral autonomy– especially when it comes to engaging in immoral activities– and hold both men and women to this standard then, hey!, you’re a feminist by your own definition. Who knew?

     

    Not you because, apparently, in your world you can only be a feminist if you somehow support an action which invariably leads to there being fewer women in the world tomorrow.

  • crowepps

    And if you believe that there is no right to moral autonomy– especially when it comes to engaging in immoral activities– and hold both men and women to this standard then, hey!, you’re a feminist. Who knew?

    If you believe there is “no right to moral autonomy”, that requires tyranny.  You might believe the population needs to be controlled by an Authoritarian Religion or yearn to live in an Authoritarian State, but most of the rest of us prefer, and can handle, reciprocal freedom, even if that means occasionally someone else uses their freedom to do something which we would not or of which we disapprove.

  • crowepps

    During the age of the Baby Boom, a plurality of Americans believed that the ideal family included four or more children. This ideal is now stuck in the past. A plurality of Americans (46%) now believe that two children is the ideal number for a family, as has been the case since the 1970s. Another 26% say three is the ideal number of children. Only 12% of Americans currently say that four or more children is ideal, while even fewer (6%) say that one or zero children is what’s right for a family. There is no significant difference of opinion on family size among men and women. Younger adults (ages 18-29), however are more likely to say three or more children is the ideal number than are adults ages 30 and older. Families with lower incomes and less education are also more likely to prefer large families. And Americans who attend religious services each week are more likely to deem three or more children ideal than are those who seldom or never attend religious services.

    http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1013

    Also:

    Facts on Contraception and Condoms

    • American women typically want two children, which means they will spend about five years either pregnant, seeking to become pregnant or recovering from pregnancy, and three decades trying to avoid becoming pregnant.
    • A third of women who practice contraception use the Pill; 18 percent rely on male condoms, and 15 percent combine the condom with other methods.
    • Fully 91 percent of voters believe couples should have access to birth control.
    • Eight of every 10 voters think government has a responsibility to ensure that birth control methods and emergency contraception are safe and available.

    http://www.birthcontrolwatch.org/press_room.html

    Why would we ban birth control because 9% of us think “birth control is wrong” when only 12% of us think “four or more children is ideal”?

  • colleen

    Which religious dogma holds that the unborn are less human that you?

    Catholicism believes women should die and, indeed, should be willing to die rather than be allowed a life saving abortion. That makes women less human than even a 150 cell blastocyst and makes Catholic hospitals dangerous places.

    I’ve even shown you evidence of this in the form of public statements by a Priest/’medical ethicist’ in Phoenix. Your reaction was silence and followed by ridicule and denial directed towards me when I mentioned this a few days later. That particular case involved an excommunicated and demoted nun in Phoenix who approved a life saving abortion for a woman who was 11 weeks pregnant. The Priest and the male hierarchy made it clear that the Catholic notion of health care includes withholding life saving medical interventions from women whose only fault is that their bodies cannot sustain a pregnancy. You yourself were arguing that perhaps there was a chance that an 11 week old embryo could have lived. I would find the quote again but you clearly didn’t read and/or comprehend it the first time so why waste the time.

  • colleen

    In both cases, there seems to be no freedom of religion issues.

    Besides the fact that they pretend to be constitutional scholars, the problem with the religious right is that the only notion of religious freedoms they acknowledge is their right to force the rest of us to live according to their doctrine and to make us pay for the privilege with our tax dollars.

  • saltyc

    I agree and I also want to add, perhaps non-apropos, a reminder that we also need to support the rights of women with moral or religious objections against abortion to get abortions. I’m talking about the many women who believe what they’re doing is the least wrong thing to do, who don’t want to have an abortion, but who don’t want to/can’t have a baby, give it up for adoption, etc more. I would also help them to get an abortion, and know that they need sympathy and a shoulder to get through a hard time. I’ve heard some say they wished pro-lifers wouldn’t get abortions, but the rights we fight for extend to even those fighting to end them.

  • saltyc

    You would stop engaging in acts that can likely result in putting a fetus in harm’s way. That means stop having non-procreative sex. You insist that women throw away their education, career, dreams and ambitions in order to rescue a fetus from harm, but what are YOU willing to sacrifice to protect feti. Bei? Are you willing to forego sex?

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Hey, look! Bei is back, with his logic-twisting shenanigans—just like I predicted. And he’s in fine form here!

     

    So your argument is, in essence, that if you don’t “trust” a woman when it comes to killing her unborn child that you somehow hate women/aren’t a feminist?

    Notice how he doesn’t even bother suggesting that abortion is equivalent to “killing [a woman's] unborn child”; he just takes it for granted as his premise. But of course, from a faulty premise arises a faulty argument, and so he fails to make much of a point other than reiterating that he really, really doesn’t like autonomous women. (Which he’s already made quite clear in the past.)

    And if you believe that there is no right to moral autonomy– especially when it comes to engaging in immoral activities– and hold both men and women to this standard then, hey!, you’re a feminist by your own definition. Who knew?

    Bei’s naive and simplistic equality was eloquently skewered by Anatole France in the late 19th century. To paraphrase, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids man and woman alike from terminating an unwanted pregnancy.” That he would not be aware of this basic criticism of his thesis hints at his lack of access to higher education, or at least his poor performance therein. (Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers reruns likely played a part in this.)

    Not you because, apparently, in your world you can only be a feminist if you somehow support an action which invariably leads to there being fewer women in the world tomorrow.

    Now he goes straight into non-sequitur mode, presuming that feminism includes taking all possible courses of action (some of which would infringe on the human rights of certain groups) to increase the number of women in the population. Of course, it’s a nonsensical argument, because it could be used to argue that straight-up abstinence is anti-feminist. It makes you wonder if he understands feminism to be “the philosophy of having unprotected sex with as many Womens’ Studies majors as I can.”

  • arekushieru

    Yup, just completely bypassed what everyone else said just like arex did.  You prolifers proclaim that everyone else can be ‘killed’ off as a choice.  It is ONLY fetuses that you claim cannot be ‘killed’ off in that manner.  That’s everything that we said in a nutshell.  See how easy it would have been to read that, now, before making yourself look unintelligent…?

  • colleen

    Bei has made it quite clear that he’s not  willing to consistently use a condom.

  • arekushieru

    Bei’s naive and simplistic equality was eloquently skewered by Anatole France in the late 19th century. To paraphrase, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids man and woman alike from terminating an unwanted pregnancy.” That he would not be aware of this basic criticism of his thesis hints at his lack of access to higher education, or at least his poor performance therein. (Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers reruns likely played a part in this.)

     

    Unfortunately, the burden placed on a woman for being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy far outweighs that of a man who is unable to terminate a pregnancy, right?

  • bei1052

    You would stop engaging in acts that can likely result in putting a fetus in harm’s way. That means stop having non-procreative sex. You insist that women throw away their education, career, dreams and ambitions in order to rescue a fetus from harm, but what are YOU willing to sacrifice to protect feti. Bei? Are you willing to forego sex?

     

    Only if I’m unwilling to take care of that which results from sex.

     

    (Yeah… This is fun.)

  • bei1052

    If you believe there is “no right to moral autonomy”, that requires tyranny.  You might believe the population needs to be controlled by an Authoritarian Religion or yearn to live in an Authoritarian State, but most of the rest of us prefer, and can handle, reciprocal freedom, even if that means occasionally someone else uses their freedom to do something which we would not or of which we disapprove.

     

    No. It requires one to not live in an anarchy (which, for the record, none of us do). To illustrate, do you think I should be able to rape someone in accordance with my own moral code, even though you’d consider that action immoral and would never do it yourself? …No? Didn’t think so.

     

    And, thus, why arguing that people should be able to do as they please according to their own moral code is fundamentally, and inherently, flawed. But I’ve pointed this out plenty of times before.

  • bei1052

    Hey, look! Bei is back, with his logic-twisting shenanigans—just like I predicted. And he’s in fine form here!

     

    And, as the saying goes, and as I’ve pointed out before, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

     

    Notice how he doesn’t even bother suggesting that abortion is equivalent to “killing [a woman's] unborn child”; he just takes it for granted as his premise. But of course, from a faulty premise arises a faulty argument, and so he fails to make much of a point other than reiterating that he really, really doesn’t like autonomous women. (Which he’s already made quite clear in the past.)

     

    And you’d be correct. Except I said that abortion is a woman killing her unborn child, not that it’s equivalent to killing a woman’s unborn child, which, last I checked, it is. Unless, of course, you live in fantasy world where that which is aborted doesn’t exist, in which case there should be no pregnancy as pregnancies only exist as a result of that which is sometimes aborted (about a third of the time, anyway), or that which is aborted is just the woman’s body, in which case she should be committing suicide, seeing as how she’s killing herself.

     

    …But you have no idea what the above means, so feel free to respond to something I totally didn’t write out instead.

     

    Bei’s naive and simplistic equality was eloquently skewered by Anatole France in the late 19th century. To paraphrase, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids man and woman alike from terminating an unwanted pregnancy.” That he would not be aware of this basic criticism of his thesis hints at his lack of access to higher education, or at least his poor performance therein. (Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers reruns likely played a part in this.)

     

    Not that you care or anything, but I’d like to point out how totally non-relevant the above was to that which you were supposed– yes, supposed– to be responding to. But you do it so often, it doesn’t surprise me.

     

    …And, fyi, I haven’t been watching the remastered MMPR:S1 episodes, due to me having seen those episodes hundreds of times already.

     

    Now he goes straight into non-sequitur mode, presuming that feminism includes taking all possible courses of action (some of which would infringe on the human rights of certain groups) to increase the number of women in the population. Of course, it’s a nonsensical argument, because it could be used to argue that straight-up abstinence is anti-feminist. It makes you wonder if he understands feminism to be “the philosophy of having unprotected sex with as many Womens’ Studies majors as I can.”

     

    So lemme’ make sure I understand this correctly. You, as you typically do, set up a straw man, only this time you don’t just set up a straw man, but you set up a straw man and then accuse me of engaging in a non-sequitur? For shame! But I’ll bite.

     

    Abstinence doesn’t involve killing females. Abortion, on the other hand, does. To somehow claim to be a feminist while supporting an action which, as I said, invariably leads to their being fewer women in the world tomorrow, seems to be the antithesis of feminism if there ever was one. You know, just like killing twenty girls today would mean that there will invariably be twenty fewer women in the world tomorrow would be the antithesis of feminism. Yeah… Just like that. 

  • bei1052

    You prolifers proclaim that everyone else can be ‘killed’ off as a choice.  It is ONLY fetuses that you claim cannot be ‘killed’ off in that manner.

     

    Methinks you need to acquaint yourself with the pro-life platform.

  • colleen

    Only if I’m unwilling to take care of that which results from sex.

     

    Bullshit. 

    If you’re not even capable of the very minimal self control and  responsibility involved in putting on a condom, if you can’t even muster up THAT much self control, you have no business claiming you are capable of doing a good job being a father to a child, much less a husband. Noone in her right mind would or should believe a word you have to say.

    Men like you are a much greater part of the problem than a woman who recognises that she isn’t in  a position to have a child and has an abortion. I can see why you avoid any serious discussion about male responsibility for unwanted pregnancies or, for that matter, male responsibility for anything else.

  • saltyc

    Only if I’m unwilling to take care of that which results from sex.

     

    (Yeah… This is fun.)

     

    This isn’t a joke. I can tell right off the bat that, not only have you not raised a child yourself, you haven’t done a whole lot of child-rearing outside of maybe staying home with a younger sibling, but that’s not the issue,

    You don’t get off by passing the buck to the woman.

    The fact is, abortion is the ONLY issue where you care about fetuses, and squirrellyGirl did a good job of surmising in another thread, that it’s not really about fetuses. It’s about controlling women.

    Because when you have sex, you are risking putting a fetus in a dangerous place, and just saying that it’s not your fault (I would have raised it, I swear) does not answer why you wouldn’t think twice before engaging in sex, knowing that a woman who doesn’t want a baby might get pregnant. And either her entire life is derailed (your preferred outcome) or she commits a heinous act (according to you). That doesn’t give you pause? It doesn’t put any gravitas into your fun?

    Considering the passion you pour into your words in defense of the “unborn”, it makes no sense that you would risk their lives for your fun, unless you, like the great number of Americans you say agree with you, are utterly hypocritical with regards to sex.

    The language you use is inflammatory, such as :  one segment of the population (pregnant women I assume) killing another segment of the population (fetuses?) (If only there were a way of keeping those poor fetuses away from those nasty selfish pregnant women!)

    But what about the segment of the population delivering those “poor unborn” to those nasty selfish pregnant women? And having a jolly time doing so. Do they bear any guilt? To use your holocaust analogy, aren’t you putting them on the train, with your dick? Knowing that you have no way of stopping the selfish pregnant woman from killing the poor innocent baby you handed over to her?

    I know this makes no sense to you, what with questioning your moral right to get your dick wet.

    But it does show the limits of your devotion to the fetus, the segment of the population that should reconsider whether you’re really their best advocate against their “natural enemy”– unwittingly pregnant women. Most of the born people here already see through your professed love for them.

  • arekushieru

    It’s so funny that you bring up moral codes in regards to a 2-hour rape then completely ignore the nine-month form of it that you promote, in that same regard.  If PLers were truly consistent in their beliefs, they would never disregard the latter as such.  However, it is inherent in our ProChoice beliefs that we apply moral codes in regards to both of the actions.

     

  • arekushieru

    Yup, it’s inherent in the ProChoice beliefs.  In the ProLife beliefs, it is inherent that NO one have the right to bodily autonomy but you only apply that to women and wonder why we know you think women are sub-human.

  • arekushieru

    He supports abortion when a medical professional has stated that the pregnancy can lead to the death of the woman.  He supports quantitative life, truly, meaning both age- AND number-wise.  I’m not sure about hormonal contraception.

  • arekushieru

    (Ironically, I’ve noticed that it is also the strongest pro-choice advocates who also advocate against mutilating babies via FGM or male circumcision.  They don’t want newborn babies harmed in any way but have no qualms about them being poisoned and dismembered only a few weeks younger.)

    Um, yeah, because there is that thing about the right to bodily autonomy and explicit consent? 

     

    And unwanted pregnancy is merely inconvenient?  Then I guess you think rape is inconvenient.  It has a much shorter duration, is not nearly as intimate of a violation as unwanted pregnancy and isn’t as harmful physically or death-wise, after all.

  • arekushieru

    Organ recipients are other humans.  It isn’t as if pregnancy is the only case involving bodily autonomy, where someone’s body other than the donor’s is included.  Yet, for some reason, you PLers always fail to realize exactly that when you bring this self-same topic up?

  • arekushieru

    I think Bei is suffering under a few illusions, that have continued from previous threads, that I think we need to clear up before we continue.

    A fetus is not aborted, a pregnancy is.  Abortion terminates the implantation of the fetal placenta into the uterus.  A fetus is removed and killed during the facilitation of an abortion but not the abortion, itself.  Maybe that’s why people don’t understand what you are saying, because you don’t understand the terminology…?  Just a thought….
     
    There is no ‘child’ involved.
     
    If there is no legal guardian present to give consent to an action once one has fallen unconscious, the one performing the service may take such action under law, thus explicit consent is inDEED given.  You think that no one can give explicit consent for another?  Then you have definitely never had children.  You would have to act as their medical proxy when they are incapable of giving or denying consent to a medical procedure, after all.  I haven’t had children (and have never been pregnant, so don’t go there) but I knew this, while you didn’t, weirdly enough. 
     
    Something becomes a right only when it is protected.  Nothing is protected ‘naturally’.  They CAN be protected by law.  Life is protected in the majority of circumstances so, yes, it is a positive right.  But a negative right countermands a positive right, which means that killing has to be protected by law under some circumstances, whereby one would HAVE to kill another.  The only time the law protects such a tenet, in that regard, is under the death penalty.  However, such singularity proves that it is an unconstitutional law.  Just as making solely the act of abortion illegal, would constitute such.
     
    The right to bodily autonomy is never contingent upon another right and it is a right since it IS protected by law, the latter of which is proven by the examples we gave you of organ donation, earlier.  Possession is inherently illegal.  Ingestion is not.  The former has nothing to do with bodily autonomy.  The latter does.  There are some caveats to ingestion that make it illegal, but, again, that has nothing to do with one’s bodily autonomy, because it doesn’t have anything to do with the actual ingestion of the substance.  Charging a person with attempted suicide is unconstitutional and it does have a component of the right to bodily autonomy.

     

    The old conjoined twin fall-back, eh, Bei?  That doesn’t prove anything on your part, it just shows your lack of understanding of the issue, OF course.  Self-OWNership.  Conjoined twins both own the organs they share because they both developed and grew the shared organs within BOTH of their bodies, equally.  However, there IS a case of Iranian conjoined twins where both initially agreed to be separated, but then one pleaded with the other to stop.  The procedure went ahead and the latter died.  Anyways, by taking one’s right to bodily autonomy, you have mandated that no parasitic twins or fetus in fetu can ever be removed, not only because their lives would be taken, but because they would have to be deemed persons, persons that human error would likely cause to be given more rights than any born person.    

  • bei1052

    Bullshit. 

     

    Oh? You’re psychic now? There seems to be a lot of those around here. Allegedly, anyway, ‘cuz they always seem to be wrong.

     

    If you’re not even capable of the very minimal self control and  responsibility involved in putting on a condom, if you can’t even muster up THAT much self control, you have no business claiming you are capable of doing a good job being a father to a child, much less a husband. Noone in her right mind would or should believe a word you have to say.

     

    Okay, so I lol’ed. A lot. I say this as kindly as possible, but the above is nothing short of insanely stupid. It really is. Tomorrow, I’ll be sure to tell a few of my friends that Colleen says they’re bad husbands/fathers. I’m sure they’ll get a kick out of that.

     

    Men like you are a much greater part of the problem than a woman who recognises that she isn’t in  a position to have a child and has an abortion. I can see why you avoid any serious discussion about male responsibility for unwanted pregnancies or, for that matter, male responsibility for anything else.

     

    A man stating that he’d take care of any children he fathers is a problem? Really…?!?!?! At first I thought some of you (usually the gals) suffered from some kind of disconnect with reality, but I was wrong. Apparently, you’ve never even heard of reality, and are living in some alternate dimension. Either that or senility has already started to kick in. But moving on.

     

    If I wanted to, I could point out that, as per your logic, since the women is the one who gets to decide what happens to the pregnancy, that she should also bear unilateral responsibility for the fact that the pregnancy exists, as unilateteral decision making power begets unilateral responsibility. Furthermore, if I wanted to, I could point out that you don’t get to discard the male’s role in that pregnancy existing when it suits you do so, as it’s nothing short of hypocritical. But I won’t, not because you’ll rant and rave about misogyny and the like if I were to point this out, even though that’s the necessary conclusion of your argument, but because these are things I’ve pointed out before, only to receive what amounts to the “Life isn’t fair” response. Which, oddly enough, is nothing short of ironic, considering the propensity of some to go on about feminism this and equality that. But I suppose equality and all that’s a one-way street.

     

    *shrugs*

     

    As it is, women should be held to the same standard as men, which means that you don’t have sex if you’re unwilling to raise any child resulting from the fact that you chose to engage in sex. Simple, really. Granted, that’s not nearly as enticing as talking around the point, creating different standards based on gender and cherry-picking when you’re going to apply your own arguments but, hey!, it works.

  • bei1052

    This isn’t a joke. I can tell right off the bat that, not only have you not raised a child yourself, you haven’t done a whole lot of child-rearing outside of maybe staying home with a younger sibling, but that’s not the issue,

     

    Well, that and taking care of this eight month old kid.

     

    You don’t get off by passing the buck to the woman.

     

    Try rereading what I wrote out again.

     

    The fact is, abortion is the ONLY issue where you care about fetuses, and squirrellyGirl did a good job of surmising in another thread, that it’s not really about fetuses.

     

    And in the same vein, I only care about that girl who lives 500 miles away when someone tries to abuse/kill/deprive her of her life.

     

    It’s about controlling women.

     

    Oh, dear. It’s the old “controlling women” line. And what, pray tell, would you say to me if I were a woman?

     

    Because when you have sex, you are risking putting a fetus in a dangerous place, and just saying that it’s not your fault (I would have raised it, I swear) does not answer why you wouldn’t think twice before engaging in sex, knowing that a woman who doesn’t want a baby might get pregnant. And either her entire life is derailed (your preferred outcome) or she commits a heinous act (according to you). That doesn’t give you pause? It doesn’t put any gravitas into your fun?

     

    Considering the passion you pour into your words in defense of the “unborn”, it makes no sense that you would risk their lives for your fun, unless you, like the great number of Americans you say agree with you, are utterly hypocritical with regards to sex.

     

    Number one, 2 + 2 =/= 5. Your line of thinking is missing a step (or two or three). Number two, and more importantly, I like how you’re trying to shift the “blame” squarely onto the man, where he not only has to prevent pregnancy from occurring, but he also has to accept whatever the woman decides to do. In this way, the women is absolved of any responsibility, and and the consequence solely the man’s. For example, if a woman gets an abortion and the man didn’t want her to, then following your logic, and the logic of a few other poster’s here, it’s the man’s fault, for he shouldn’t have been sleeping with someone who didn’t want to become pregnant. Of course, this totally requires one to ignore the fact that the woman shouldn’t have been sleeping with anyone if she didn’t want to be pregnant, but you and other like-minded individuals disregard this because it doesn’t mesh with your argument. I’d ask how it works, but it doesn’t.

     

    The language you use is inflammatory, such as :  one segment of the population (pregnant women I assume) killing another segment of the population (fetuses?) (If only there were a way of keeping those poor fetuses away from those nasty selfish pregnant women!)

     

    Pointing out that abortion allows one segment of the popularion (pregnant women) to kill another segment of the population (the unborn) at their leisure is inflammatory? Elle. Oh. Elle. The only people who could find that inflammatory are die hard pro-aborts (yes, I said it), for that’s what is it.

     

    (And I find your lack of wit when it comes to sarcasm disturbing.)

     

    But what about the segment of the population delivering those “poor unborn” to those nasty selfish pregnant women? And having a jolly time doing so. Do they bear any guilt? To use your holocaust analogy, aren’t you putting them on the train, with your dick? Knowing that you have no way of stopping the selfish pregnant woman from killing the poor innocent baby you handed over to her?

     

    What about them? As you’re so keen to point out, men don’t get pregnant, so they can’t have an abortion. And, as you’re also so keen to point out, only the woman can decide to have an abortion. So given those two things, then of course any topic about abortion is going to focus on the woman, for the she’s the one who’s pregnant and the only one who can get an abortion.

     

    You see, the above quoted is what I’d like to call a logical bait-and-switch (yes, I’m aware there’s no such thing). We start with the topic of abortion. Someone then screams, “But if the man would have kept his legs closed, then there’d be no abortions!” which, while true, is not only equally as true for a woman, but is totally irrelevant to whether or not abortions should be legal. In fact, it’s borderline a red herring for it tries to shift the argument away from abortion to who’s at fault for the pregnancy, which is moot because it takes two to tango.

     

    I know this makes no sense to you, what with questioning your moral right to get your dick wet.

     

    I lol’d. But, no, seriously. I think you really should try this again.

     

    But it does show the limits of your devotion to the fetus, the segment of the population that should reconsider whether you’re really their best advocate against their “natural enemy”– unwittingly pregnant women.

     

    Yeah, no it doesn’t. It’s some kind of pseudo-straw men/red herring. In fact, I’m not really sure what it is.

     

    Most of the born people here already see through your professed love for them.

     

    If by here you mean on this website well, gee… Considering how this is a pro-choice website, it’s not surprising that most people here think I hate women (after all, that’s a common accussation against pro-lifers) or whatever other fanciful accussation they can come up with. Now, if were to to go outside and ask every day Americans what they think, you might just find that your view is in the minority. But, alas, you won’t do that, because ignorance is bliss.

  • saltyc

     I like how you’re trying to shift the “blame” squarely onto the man

    I wasn’t doing that at all. And I wasn’t talking about whether abortion should be legal (which of course is a fundamental right). I was asking how you can engage in non-procreative, unprotected sex when you feel so passionate about protecting fetuses. So long as there’s sex, especially the kind you enjoy, there will be abortion.

    OK, let me try an analogy: If a person really strongly is against animal cruelty, and knows that dogs are treated inhumanely in dog racing, that person would not enjoy going to the dog races. It does not matter whose fault it is that the dogs are treated cruelly, or whether they would be treated better or worse if that person attended, and maybe that person thinks her position against the legality of harming dogs is enough to separate her actions from the harm. She can’t relax and enjoy the races without feeling like a hypocrite.

    I’m illustrating the point that you are a hypocrite, you enjoy unprotected recreational sex and condemn women for having abortions, you are having your cake and eating it too. whether or not you promise to make the huge sacrifice of actually raising an unexpected child yourself (not baby sitting.)

    People have sex for many many reasons, even when a baby would be impossible. I say great. But if you do, you should also support the fundamental human right to maintain one’s body’s healthy equilibrium, including the right of the woman you enjoy having sex with. (Abusing drugs, your favored example of how we shouldn’t control our own bodies, is risking and altering the healthy equilibrium of the body.)

  • marthaminn

    The prochoicer’s here are trying to make the issue simple but it is not.  I am prochoice.  Most everyone that is anti-choice is for religious reasons.  They believe conception creates a life with a soul and it is really, really, bad to terminiate that life.   Because of the strong religious component you get some women who believe in many feminist ideals but do not accept abortion. (Frankly, I have a hard time understanding how a woman can be a feminist and a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Hindu etc. as the texts on which these religions are based are so far from feminism it isn’t funny).  Because of this strong religious component to the issue arguments about forcing women to carry unwanted fetuses just don’t compute for them, as we all do things throughout life that we do not necessarily want to do.  We sacrifice for our family and they view carrying a baby no different from the sacrifices you make for your parents, spouses and children.

     

    For me it was easy because I view life as not flicking on a switch, but a developmental process.  So the Roe v. Wade compromise made sense to me from the get go. 

     

    But to be called a feminist is to support choice and the term should not be co-opted by those who have exceptions, even if they hold those exceptions for what the perceive as noble reasons.  

     

  • colleen

    As it is, women should be held to the same standard as men, which means that you don’t have sex if you’re unwilling to raise any child resulting from the fact that you chose to engage in sex. Simple, really.

    No, you don’t have unprotected sex with a woman who does not want to have a child with you. I’m not interested in the shallow, crappy self serving ‘standards’ or lectures from a hypocrite. go away and stop wasting our time

  • bei1052

    No, you don’t have unprotected sex with a woman who does not want to have a child with you. I’m not interested in the shallow, crappy self serving ‘standards’ or lectures from a hypocrite. go away and stop wasting our time.

     

    So lemme’ make sure I understand this correctly. You ignore 90% of what I type out (unsurprisingly), especially the part where I say that men and women should be held to the same standards (more specifically, women held to the same standards of men), instead choosing to argue that a man shouldn’t have unprotected sex with a women (hich, one, not only ignores the fact that women don’t just get pregnant from unprotected sex but, two, ignores the fact that no women should be having unprotected sex if she doesn’t want a child, insted choosing to call me a hypocrite while you, yourself, make up different rules for both men and women to adhere to?

     

    Ahahahaha!

     

    As I said, you can only rant and rave and try to make me out to be something I’m not, because you don’t have any argument against what I wrote out. Indeed, the only hypocrite here is you, but this isn’t any surprise. After all, why else would you fight against holding men and women to the same standards while going on about equality and the like if you weren’t? Ah well… I’ll be content to just lol @ you.

  • bei1052

    I wasn’t doing that at all.

     

    Yes, you were.

     

    (“No, I wasn’t!”. “Yes, you were!”)

     

    And I wasn’t talking about whether abortion should be legal (which of course is a fundamental right).

     

    No. Rather you were talking about something totally unrelated to anything which had been written out. And I humored it with a response.

     

    (And the part in parentheses is false. How can abortion be a fundamental right?)

     

    I was asking how you can engage in non-procreative, unprotected sex when you feel so passionate about protecting fetuses. So long as there’s sex, especially the kind you enjoy, there will be abortion.

     

    I don’t. Unless, of course, we’re going to start counting back the years, in which case I think it happened once with a sorta’-kinda’-not-my-gf-but-a-friend about, maybe, three or so years ago. See, you trying to pass that off as some kind of habit doesn’t bother me in the slightest, nor does you trying to harp on that particularly bother me (especially considering the fact that the only reason you know that is ‘cuz I told you). You see, people do dumb things. And if she would have wound up pregnant, I would have taken care of my kid. It’s really that simple. Now, of course, that doesn’t fit into your little man-hating world but, hey!, that’s reality. It seems to me that you, among others, are content to ignore what I’m typing out, that being that if you don’t want to have a kid that you shouldn’t be engaging in sex, and that if you do engage in sex, to be ready to take care of any child you produce. But it’s no skin off my nose, really.

     

    …Also, just to point this out again, since there will always be abortios for as long as there’s sex, and seeing as how only women get abortions, then it stands to reason that those women who don’t want to have an abortion stop having sex. Right? Right…?!?!?!

     

    OK, let me try an analogy: If a person really strongly is against animal cruelty, and knows that dogs are treated inhumanely in dog racing, that person would not enjoy going to the dog races. It does not matter whose fault it is that the dogs are treated cruelly, or whether they would be treated better or worse if that person attended, and maybe that person thinks her position against the legality of harming dogs is enough to separate her actions from the harm. She can’t relax and enjoy the races without feeling like a hypocrite.

     

    If a person is against animal cruelty and knows that dogs are treated inhumanely at dog races, (s)he advocates a change in laws as to how dogs are treated. For your hypothetical person to be a hypocrite, she would have to outwardly condemn animal cruelty while supporting the continued practice of animal cruelty. Enjoying dog races but not the fact that dogs are treated badly at these races does not make your hypothetical person a hypocrite.

     

    I’m illustrating the point that you are a hypocrite, you enjoy unprotected recreational sex and condemn women for having abortions, you are having your cake and eating it too.

     

    To be a hypocrite, I would have to argue that people should be held responsible for that which they create by choosing to engage in sex, but then allow one party to absolve themselves of parental duties through either the use of abortion or skipping town or something like that. And I’d ask you to prove as much but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say you can’t, as it’s basically an assertion you plucked right out of thin air. But, see, that’s all you’ve got, so it doesn’t bother me, really.

     

    As I’ve said about a bajillion times now, I don’t particularly care who you sleep with, how many people you sleep with or what protection you do or don’t use, but rather thatn when the girl wind’s up pregnant, both parties should be held responsible for that child which is the result of their actions. It’s amazing to me that no matter how many times I say this, it gets ignored. Why? Probably because there’s no way to misconstrue that into “hating women” or whatever you guys and gals favorite lines are.

     

    People have sex for many many reasons, even when a baby would be impossible. I say great. But if you do, you should also support the fundamental human right to maintain one’s body’s healthy equilibrium, including the right of the woman you enjoy having sex with. (Abusing drugs, your favored example of how we shouldn’t control our own bodies, is risking and altering the healthy equilibrium of the body.)

     

    So you’ve qualified the right to bodily autonomy by whether or not the action you engage in affects one’s own health? That’s utterly and completely ridiculous. If you truly believe that, then we need to bring Prohibition back (don’t want people to die of liver failure) and make smoking illegal (lung cancer is a killer). You’d agree with that, right?

  • arekushieru

    They believe conception creates a life with a soul and it is really, really, bad to terminiate that life.   Because of the strong religious component you get some women who believe in many feminist ideals but do not accept abortion.

    Unfortunately, they STILL believe it is acceptable to ‘terminate’ other lives that are born and have ‘souls’ (such as in organ donation) via the same right, so, tell me, again, how it is feminist to deny rights to one segment of the population (women) but not others (eg. Organ donors)?  You see, the religious ProLifers actually can’t claim feminism, either.  They are simply denying rights to women because they ARE women.  So I do believe it IS that simple….  Thanks.

    • paul-bradford

      Arekushieru,

       

      Is it your argument that if it’s wrong for you to have a fetus removed from your body for the purpose of pregnancy termination it’s wrong for me to have a kidney removed from my body for the purpose of organ donation?  In what way are those scenarios the same, and in what way are they different?

       

      I think that it’s significant that in the ‘organ donation’ scenario one part of a body is removed but the body itself survives.  In the other scenario an entire body is removed and that body perishes.  The number of living human bodies remains equal in one case, whereas the number of living human bodies is diminished by one in the other.

       

      The reason that abortion is wrong isn’t that it’s wrong to have human flesh removed from your body.  The reason abortion is wrong is that every human body has the right to remain alive.

       

      how it is feminist to deny rights

       

      Please don’t confuse me with people who want to take away a woman’s right to choose! I’m perfectly happy with the arrangement we have now which is that every woman decides whether or not her own pregnancy will be terminated or will continue.  That’s the ‘Choice’ position and I’m not going to oppose it.  Frankly, I don’t think the issue of choice is particularly important or interesting.  From my perspective it doesn’t really matter whether the mother decides, or whether her husband decides, or whether her doctor decides, or whether her priest decides or whether the governor of her state decides.  The decision is a complete no-brainer! Anyone with a lick of sense or decency can figure out whether to end the life of an innocent human being or whether to allow that human being to live.

       

      I don’t think the issue of choice is interesting or important.  What is interesting and important about the abortion debate is figuring out why so many people are stumbling around in such a dense moral fog that they have trouble getting this easy question right.

  • arekushieru

    Really?  I don’t see many ProLifers protesting outside of hospitals demanding that organ donors be forced  to give up their organs to save another’s life, while demanding the same of themselves.  Although, as to the latter concerning the abortion issue, most ProLifers would choose to continue a pregnancy, if they were ProChoice.  So they can convince themselves that force (if they haven’t falsely convinced themselves that they aren’t forcing anyone to do anything, already, that is), what they really advocate for as the strict definition of ProLifers, isn’t so bad.   Yet, still, few ProLifers believe that they, themselves, should definitely be forced into anything including pregnancy, even though those things would VERY likely be far less physically harmful or life-threatening.  For example, too few would even choose organ donation, so the majority would have to be forced, thus they don’t fight to make it mandatory. 

     

    And many ProLifers abort.  But guess what, I am 100% ProChoice, female and have NEVER aborted and, during the time I have been close friends with other women, have never had one who aborted.  They always continued their pregnancies.  Guess what?  I was so happy that they were able to make that, as a CHOICE, rather than be forced into it, like PLers would have.  So much for being Pro-Abortion, eh? 

  • crowepps

    When the kiddies are out of school –

  • crowepps

    Actually, we live in a secular democracy, which tries to balance the competing interests of all those involved, so we don’t live in either a tyranny (no moral autonomy) or in anarchy (moral autonomy without limits).  Your assumption that those are the only two choices available is an excellent example of the black/white thinking so common among those who hunger for an Authoritarian to force everyone to be exactly the same.

  • lbsimon

    pure emotional indoctrination. You actively chase any dissenters away, with insults and abuse. Then you tell each other what the opposition stands for.

    grinning-smilie-046.gif

  • ahunt

    Emotional indoctrination? How does that work…exactly?

  • paul-bradford

    I’m starting with the premise that feminism fails if it is only able to assert support for those policies that are good for females.  If that’s all it were, it would be no better than the patriarchy which is based on the idea of promoting policies that are good for males.  A power struggle between the sexes does nothing to advance humanistic goals and it does nothing to advance Pro-Life goals.  What is needed is a vision that is attractive to both men and women.  A vision of authentic human respect.  A vision of social justice.  An eradication of policies that benefit one sex to the detriment of the other and the introduction of sustainable policies that promote happiness for all.  In other words, a ‘feminism’ that men can enthusiastically endorse.

     

    It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Amanda Marcotte would challenge us to develop a vision that is free from confining and dehumanizing gender roles.  I’m pleased to participate in a conversation she initiates.

     

    Can we all agree that there’s no reason to believe a vision is ‘feminist’ simply because it’s promoted by a woman any more than it’s necessary to believe a vision is ‘anti-feminist’ simply because it’s promoted by a man?  A desire for justice can inform the behavior of a man as truly as it can inform the behavior of a woman.  With that in mind, I’ll respond to some of the more interesting points that Amanda has brought up.

     

    The argument is that there could be such a thing as “pro-life feminism,” i.e. a feminism grounded in the idea that women should be forced to bear children against their will.

     

    How would it be possible to discuss justice without discussing freedom?  Billions of feminists have pointed out that it is intrinsically degrading for the government to regulate the decisions women make about their own bodies.  “Keep Your Laws off My Body!”  Right?  I certainly wouldn’t want you to fashion laws to control my body, and I would object particularly to laws aimed at controlling my private parts.  A just society would, at minimum, respect the freedom of its citizens with regard to the disposition of their own bodies.

     

    Freedom is a necessary, but insufficient requirement for a just society.  Citizens must be free — but a just society can exist only where citizens are willing to respect each other’s rights.  In order to respect the rights of one person, other people have to make sacrifices.  No matter what sort of laws are adopted, no matter how formidable the penalties for transgression and no matter how attractive the compensations for compliance, you can’t possibly have a just society unless citizens buy into the idea that they have a responsibility to make the sacrifices necessary to respect the rights of others.

     

    Pro-Life feminism, or Pro-Life anything has to be grounded in the idea that everyone has a duty to respect other people’s rights.  You can’t force respect, but you can’t have justice without it.  It’s impossible to ‘respect’ a person against your will.  The woman who is ‘forced’ to bear a child isn’t respecting that child’s rights.

     

    The argument is that Abortion Is Bad For Women, because it thwarts women from their true desires—so deep and true that many women don’t even realize they have them—to bring every pregnancy to term, no matter how much they think they don’t want it.

     

    Is abortion bad for women? If it were, it wouldn’t be necessary for a woman to respect fetal rights in order for her to refrain from getting an abortion. Women would refrain from abortion out of self-interest. The undeniable truth, though, is that abortion is very often good for women. Women are constantly aborting out of informed self-interest. The question isn’t whether abortion is in a woman’s self-interest, it’s whether a just society can be formed out of citizens whose guiding motivation is self-interest.

     

     

    The notion that banning abortion can be expected to save women’s health and well-being is simply and bluntly easy to disprove by looking at what actually happens when you ban abortion—desperate women seek dangerous abortions when safe ones aren’t available.

     

    Undeniably true!  It’s beyond insane to try to eradicate abortion by eliminating access to the procedure.  The way to eradicate abortion is by eliminating the desperation that fuels it.  In order to respect the lives of the unborn, people have to make sacrifices; but unless a society moves to shift the burden of sacrifice off mothers and put it on fathers and the society as a whole women will be desperate.  A society that doesn’t insist on paternal support, and prenatal care, and assistance for poor families, and protection from domestic violence is a society of desperate women.  You can’t form a just society if women are desperate.

     

     

    In the anti-choice view, every single woman who enters an abortion clinic and asks for an abortion is really just a victim of her own stupidity and gullibility, and only after she has the abortion will she see how wrong she was.

     

    The unborn are at risk, not because mothers disrespect fetal rights, but because EVERYBODY disrespects fetal rights. Instead of trying to demonstrate to a woman how wrong SHE is, we need to concentrate on demonstrating to the society how wrong IT is.  Pregnant women don’t simply concoct the idea that the very young are somehow less-than-human on their own.  They get it from the society.  They get it from you.

     

    Pro-Life feminism is an acknowledgment of the fact that no class of people can have it’s rights respected unless all classes of people have their rights respected.  If you want women to be respected, you need to start by respecting every other class of disrespected individuals.

     

    This is definitional—feminism starts with the belief that women are equal to men, especially with regards to intellectual and moral abilities. A feminism that doesn’t accept this is like a humanism that believes that human beings are fundamentally wicked and undeserving of rights—that is, it doesn’t exist.

     

    Women aren’t inferior with regard to moral ability, nor are human beings fundamentally wicked, nor can you improve people by denying them their rights.  All human beings have rights because we all have lives that are equally valuable, but we don’t all ascribe to ideas that are equally true.  The belief that justice can emerge out of collective self-interest (think of Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’) is inferior to the belief that we must all be vigilant to promote a respect for all people.  Both women and men have to strive to uphold the rights of other people — or we have no justice.

  • ahunt

    The question isn’t whether abortion is in a woman’s self-interest, it’s whether a just society can be formed out of citizens whose guiding motivation is self-interest.

     

    Ohhhh….here we go again.

     

    Tell you what, Paul. When you can get US citizens to put aside their own self-interest and support policies that recognize and ameliorate the enormous personal, economic and social costs of pregnancy, labor, childbirth and “motherhood,” we’ll talk. K?

  • paul-bradford

    Notice how he doesn’t even bother suggesting that abortion is equivalent to “killing [a woman's] unborn child”; he just takes it for granted as his premise. But of course, from a faulty premise arises a faulty argument…


    Ferret,

     

    There is, of course, a premise behind the premise.  Abortion can only be equivalent to killing if the victim of abortion is equal to the victim of a killing.  Why discuss whether abortion, and murder, and killing, and dismemberment are similar when it is much more pertinent to discuss whether the recipients of these acts are similar?

     

    Whose rights do we respect, and how do we decide whose rights we respect?  Do we all have an equal claim on human rights, or are some of us superior with a superior claim to those rights?

     

    What criteria do you use to figure out whether a ten week old fetus has the same rights as a fifty year old man?  Does it have anything to do with the question of whether the life of the fetus is as valuable as the life of the man?  How do you evaluate human life?

     

    Do you agree with me when I say that an evaluation of human life can’t be done on an individual basis?  I say that a society will either value a human life or it will devalue it.  Our society devalues fetal life because so many individuals devalue fetal life.  I suggest that we all examine WHY we value or devalue fetal life.

  • paul-bradford

    Most everyone that is anti-choice is for religious reasons. They believe conception creates a life with a soul and it is really, really, bad to terminiate that life. Because of the strong religious component you get some women who believe in many feminist ideals but do not accept abortion.


    Martha,

     

    Who knows why people adopt the views they have on human rights issues?  You might want to declare that the reasons are ‘religious’, but what possible difference does that make?  Everybody who is human is affected by human rights issues so we have to find ways of discussing these matters that don’t involve folks jumping the hoop of accepting somebody else’s religious vocabulary.  We have to be able to communicate about these things with words everyone understands.

     

    Does conception create a soul?  What does that even MEAN?  To introduce the concept of ‘soul’ in a discussion about fetal rights only serves to confuse things.  Let’s discuss the question of whether or not conception creates a body.  We can discuss the body without ironing out our religious differences.

     

    You talk about the ‘strong religious component’ in the opposition to abortion.  I wonder if ‘strong religious component’ is code for ‘strong reliance on the authority of religious leaders’.  That’s no reason to oppose abortion!

  • ahunt

    Nature and “God” appear to do a fine job of devaluing BZEFs, Paul. As to the rest…you already know I am pragmatic.

  • paul-bradford

    Tell you what, Paul. When you can get US citizens to put aside their own self-interest and support policies that recognize and ameliorate the enormous personal, economic and social costs of pregnancy, labor, childbirth and “motherhood,” we’ll talk.

     

    ahunt,

     

    Let’s talk now!  Sacrifices need to be made on behalf of children but it is neither fair nor effective to put the entire burden of sacrifice on mothers.  The self-centeredness of ‘non mothers’ on this issue causes a cascade of disrespect — of mothers, of children, of the unborn.

     

    The discussion is about feminism.  You’re suggestion is one I can warm to in that you’re looking at ways to enable mothers to meet their responsibilities rather than sanctioning an approach that avoids responsibilities altogether.

     

    We need to get mothers to do their part, we need to get fathers to do their part and we need to get the society to do its part.  That’s the only way to respect life.

  • progo35

    “I dunno… doesn’t the Jewish faith say that a newborn doesn’t gain a soul until it takes its first breath of air?”

     

    No…

  • crowepps

    Who knows why people adopt the views they have on human rights issues?  

    I generally rely on what they state as the basis for their beliefs myself.  Many ProLife people explicitly state their views are based on their religious beliefs.

    You talk about the ‘strong religious component’ in the opposition to abortion.  I wonder if ‘strong religious component’ is code for ‘strong reliance on the authority of religious leaders’.

    No, I don’t think it’s code or that the problem is really “reliance on the authority of religious leaders”.  The problem is the inability of some people to accept that their particular religious views, whatever they are, cannot be privileged over those of others and the secular laws cannot be appropriately used to impose their religious beliefs on people who do not share those views.

     

    Leaving the issue of abortion aside to try to clarify the point, a person who sincerely and honestly believes “God doesn’t like gay behavior and therefore in order to ‘save’ gays they must stop acting gay” has every right to hold that belief – he or she does NOT have the right, based entirely on that religious belief, to interfere with the lives of strangers by harassing them, getting them fired, refusing them housing, taking away their children or insistently trying to ‘covert’ them to being straight, and yet people feel that BECAUSE their belief is rooted in religion, all those behaviors are ‘justified’ by their faith and ‘higher law’, etc., and that the human rights of gay people can be ignored.  THAT is the problem.  ‘If you’re not part of my religion, and won’t conform your behavior to those my religion teaches as appropriate, then you don’t deserve human rights.’

    • paul-bradford

      The problem is the inability of some people to accept that their particular religious views, whatever they are, cannot be privileged over those of others and the secular laws cannot be appropriately used to impose their religious beliefs on people who do not share those views.


      crowepps,

       

      What constitutes a ‘particular religious view’?  My religious view is that people are equal, that one person’s life and interests is as important as another’s, that our rights are rooted in an understanding of our equality.  Obviously, some people don’t share those views.  Are you telling me that secular societies shouldn’t ‘impose’ a belief (you might say MY belief) in equality on their members?  I honestly, honestly, honestly think that anarchy exists if some people operate on the principle that we’re all equal and others operate on the idea that certain people or certain groups of people are superior to others.

       

      Explain to me how we can endure religious pluralism if the religious doctrine in dispute is a belief in human equality? 

  • lbsimon

    That’s fallacious reasoning, if not utter fabrication Arekushieru. Careful …

    your indoctrination  is showing.

  • arekushieru

    Really?  Do show me instances of where ProLifers and other like-minded individuals protested at an organ donation clinic, demanding that others be forced to give up their organs to save another’s life, y’know the same thing that the former demands that women do…?  It should be simple to find, since it would be as prominent in the news as protests at abortion clinics are.  Oops, they’re not?  Looks like someone has no idea what the definition of indoctrination is….  Relying on hearsay without evidence.  Kinda like what, oh, say, YOU did…?

  • arekushieru

    Um, no, it is based on logic.  Obviously missed my post where I pointed out a ProLifer that I completely respect, because he is not hypocritical in any meaningful way, like most ProLifers are.  If you can read, you can find it, although I do have some doubts because this is twice you’ve misused the word, indoctrination, y’know…?

  • arekushieru

    Unless you can come up with a form of male pregnancy (y’know, where one doesn’t rely on a uterus) the burden will never be shifted onto men.  Or a way to transfer a fetus from a uterus into an artificial womb, at any point after the egg is fertilized, where the medical procedure is far less risky and invasive than abortion and society is on the hook for the majority of the financial support that will be required, with some other provisos, the burden will never be shifted onto society.  

     

    Also, there are some women, like myself, who will never want to carry a pregnancy to term.  I just don’t want to be a mother nor do I ever want to be pregnant.  Abortion would be my first choice and an easy one, although the circumstances that this decision ARISES out of, would be difficult.     

     

    NOone disrespects fetal rights, with the right to choose, paramount, for the reasons I outlined above in a similar topic on rights.  However, it could be said that ProLifers disrespect those fetal rights they would grant, because they would be so easily denied at birth by those self-same individuals.  And that they disrespect women’s rights (for which I have also outlined reasons why, several times above).

    If we followed the ProLife philosophy we would view feoti as ‘more-than-human’, but we wouldn’t view the feoti as ‘less-than-human’ following the ProChoice philosophy, it would be impossible.  See above.  

     

    The ProLife philosophy generally follows the idea that women’s rights alone can be disrespected while ProChoicers follow the idea that noone’s rights should be disrespected.  Again, see above.  

     

    A fetus is just as valuable as a woman?  And you say no one is disregarding a woman’s moral ability?  How can it not be when a woman has dreams, wants, hopes, wishes and desires plus moral, social, familial, intellectual, mental, physical and emotional agency, while a fetus lacks every one of those, especially to the same extent?  If you put a woman on par with one who simply does NOT have that capacity, you ARE disregarding that ability.  Btw, your hypothesis is contingent upon whether the life is human or not.  If you are advocating for those that lack consciousness and sentience, then you cannot have it simply rely on whether a life is human or not.   

     

    Who has ever said that justice arises out of collective self-interest?  I haven’t nor has anyone else.  I’ve simply said that we all are motivated by some form of self-interest.  

     

    Good thing, then, that both male and female ProChoicers are striving to be vigilant in the promotion of respect for all people and to uphold the rights of other people, then, eh?

  • arekushieru

    Okay, since I haven’t had the ‘pleasure’ of responding to one of Paul Bradford’s diatribes, directly, before, I will make the, probably futile, attempt, here.
     

    Feminism asserts support for those policies that are only good for women, because the patriarchy already supports those policies that are only good for men, and feminism is an attempt to equalize the rights of those women with the rights of those men, of the latter, of course.  Got it?  Good.  If we didn’t focus on the latter then we would never assert equal rights.  Got it, again?  Even better.
     

    What rights are you demanding that we ‘respect’?  The right to live at the expense of another’s right to bodily autonomy?  There is no such right, as it currently stands.  And in order for one to create such a right, one’s life at the expense of one’s bodily autonomy would have to be protected, ACROSS THE BOARD.  PLers fail to do that.  They expend so much energy trying to extend non-existent protection for others, to feoti, after all, while ignoring the former.  Then they wonder why they can’t call themselves feminist.  Boohoo.
     

    A woman who makes a sacrifice to continue a pregnancy will ALways make a more burdensome sacrifice than one who gives up an entirely different organ to save someone else’s life.  Since you are not a woman you will never have to make that kind of sacrifice.  How.  Convenient.  Since your body didn’t grow and develop that significantly higher physical burden against your volition, within itself and there is no such equally enforceable action on a man.  Plus, you will never have to face sacrificing your sexual freedoms in order to keep from said sacrifice.  
     

    So, a single woman who continues an expensive pregnancy to term at the expense of her ACTUAL children’s health and life, is not doing so entirely out of self-interest?  Why else would she continue such a pregnancy?  She’s not respecting her children’s ‘right to live’, obviously, at the expense of her right to bodily autonomy, after all.  Or, put another way, a woman who terminates a pregnancy in order to support her already existing children is doing so entirely out of self-interest? Here, she IS respecting her children’s ‘right to live’, maybe at the expense of her right to bodily autonomy (because she may have WANTED to continue the pregnancy).  Durrrr….  That narrow view of self-interest you expressed, where it is only applicable to women who have an abortion, since the same circumstances that underlie that view apply yet are ignored in BOTH examples and, thus, definitely beyond, just reinforces ProChoicers idea about the misogyny of Plers. 
     

    Plus, while remembering that the above was in pure reference to your idea on the matter (NOT my own), you also fail to realize that everything is done out of some self-interest.  It’s just the way life is. 

     
     
  • arekushieru

    ProChoicers do respect the lives of the unborn.  We respect the quality, as well as quantity, of life they and the woman will have.  After all, we support women who terminate because the fetus will not survive long, while suffering and in pain, outside of the uterus and those who terminate because they know they cannot provide a good life for a baby, amongst all the other various reasons.  ProLifers however respect only the quantity of life of the unborn, not those born and definitely not the woman.  Pregnancy is the second leading cause of death in women, worldwide, the status of second attributable only to false reduction of risk.  It would far outstrip all other forms of leading causes of death if we were able to completely attribute it to actual risk.  Plus, by the time that most complications towards a woman’s life and health arise, it is too late to save the woman and thus the fetus.  Then there are those PLers who completely disregard a medical professional’s advice even though, under any other circumstance, they would cheerfully follow it to the letter.  The ones who say the woman could have carried the fetus to term, against all expert medical advice.  And those who say the woman should die in order to carry the fetus to term, no matter that she didn’t want it in the first place and may have children, already (like I outlined in the examples above…?).   

  • arekushieru

    Okay, I apologize for the lengthy and rambling reply.  It’s all jumbled up but I DID try to put extra spaces in.  Just too long, I guess.

     

    Edit: I have edited content to make it more appropriate and readable for this forum.

  • princess-rot

    My future hope is that society will also one day fully recognise the humanity of every individual from conception – regardless of the circumstances – and treat each human in a nonviolent and respectful manner.

     

    Except when you’re pregnant. Then, you are just an incubator. Regardless of the cost to oneself, financial, mental, emotional, familial, health or bodily harm you must remain pregnant regardless of whether you want to be. Forcing women to have children they don’t want and cannot support is “respecting” life? It’s “respectful” to view children as punishment for sex?

  • julie-watkins

    A fetus is just as valuable as a woman?  And you say no one is disregarding a woman’s moral ability?  How can it not be when a woman has dreams, wants, hopes, wishes and desires plus moral, social, familial, intellectual, mental, physical and emotional agency, while a fetus lacks every one of those, especially to the same extent?  If you put a woman on par with one who simply does NOT have that capacity, you ARE disregarding that ability.

    Sometimes I find my conversations become more substantive if I include “poor families” Laws, discrimination that burden poor more than rich disvalue the anything other than the bottom line for the top 1%.

    Pregnancy is the second leading cause of death in women, worldwide, the status of second attributable only to false reduction of risk.  It would far outstrip all other forms of leading causes of death if we were able to completely attribute it to actual risk.  Plus, by the time that most complications towards a woman’s life and health arise, it is too late to save the woman and thus the fetus. 

    Something that makes me squicky is the trade-offs in human evolution. I’ve read a comparision (can’t remember where) of comparative maternal risks in human/primate births. There’s such an evolutionary advantage in a larger brain size but a larger head at birth makes birthing much harder/dangerous for the human mother compared to the primate. The bigger brain was such an advantage that a process that kills a significant fraction of mothers still breeds true. The mother’s genes are going to be passed down if she mannages, for instance, 4 live births before the 5th birth kills her. Even the genes that cause a woman to die with her first birth may be passed down if there’s another mother in the vacinity who’s still got milk and adopts the baby. That squicks me. Nature is Sexist (more biological burden on the female than the male) but Nature is also Sloppy: it’s very inefficient about conceptions. There’s many miscarriages. If the the woman is under a lot of stress, if the genes in the fetus aren’t good. Good outcomes, good timing, and good genes are more important than not wasting conceptions. So I think this is a biology-based support for the idea of [attempting to] give birth is a gift not an obligation.

    I don’t like that nature treats women as throw-away. It angers me that the patriarchy, churches & the top 1% go out of their way to treat women — and poor people — as throw-away. The way automation has made job experience and institutional memory less important — workers are fungible. Put in mechanisms that encourage high turnover, poor workers make less trouble. The way Big Business treats workers, that’s throw-away also. Grump.

    • paul-bradford

      Julie,

       

      I read your post this morning and I’ve been thinking about it, off and on, while I’ve been driving around in between client outreaches.  I know I mentioned this to you before, but I want you to consider ‘nature’ in a less anthropomorphic manner than you seem to be doing.  As I remember from previous conversations, you took offense at my suggestion that you were anthropomorphizing so I’m doing my best to find a kinder and gentler way to challenge your thinking.

       

      There are a lot of things that are vitally important to us humans that don’t exist in any way shape or form in nature.  These include intention, volition, design, evaluation, identity and consciousness.  You said, “nature treats women as throw-away”.  I really think you’re wrong about that.  If I threw away 20% of the food I buy, you would be able to make a judgment about the way I value food; but if one out of every five women die in childbirth, you can’t discern anything about the way nature values women.  Nature doesn’t have the characteristic of evaluation.  Nature has no identity.  We humans can evaluate women from the perspective of our own identity.  From the perspective of being a man, or being a woman, or being a child or whatever.  We have a perspective because we have an identity.  You say, “Nature is sexist”.  I say, “This is impossible.”  Nature has no perspective from which to evaluate women or to evaluate anything else.  Nature doesn’t even prefer life to death.  Nature is a complete zero when it comes to making value judgments.

       

      Human beings make value judgments.  I say, and the people who agree with me say, that every woman’s life is precious and valuable.  There’s no science I can point to for evidence that my judgment is true.  If I learn that 20% of women die in labor, or 1%, or 99%, I learn nothing whatsoever about the value of a woman’s life.  All I can say is that, since I value women’s lives, I want people to exercise their will-power to DECREASE the rate at which women die in childbirth.  I’m all for C-sections, and episiotomies and induced labor and any other sort of obstetric intervention that will save women’s lives.  I don’t give a flying fuck whether these interventions have an impact on evolution, or genetics, or nature because none of those things have the facility for making value judgments.  It is the domain of human beings, not nature, to establish a value for human life. 

       

      You say you’re squicky about evolutionary trade-offs.  Stop being squicky!  People make trade-offs and sacrifices and work-arounds because we have the capacity for design.  Not so nature.  No master plan.  No plan whatsoever.  From the non-existent evolutionary perspective, there’s nothing valuable about big brains, or big skulls to house big brains.  Nor is there anything problematic about the width of women’s hips.  No trade offs.  No rewards.  No punishments.

       

      It makes sense to ask, “why do computers have hard drives?” because computers are designed by people who have plans, and values, and aesthetics.  It bespeaks of anthropomorphizing to ask, “why do women have wide hips?”  There’s no answer to “why”.

       

      Every single woman’s life is precious and valuable.  Believing, or disbelieving this assertion has an impact on the way people behave and upon the lives of women.  You’re going to decide to agree with me because of your response to people who are making evaluations.  Don’t look to nature to settle the argument.  That will just make you squicky!

  • crowepps

    Nature is also Sloppy: it’s very inefficient about conceptions. There’s many miscarriages. If the the woman is under a lot of stress, if the genes in the fetus aren’t good. Good outcomes, good timing, and good genes are more important than not wasting conceptions.

    If a woman is not well nourished before conception and during pregnancy there is a far greater percentage of birth defects, and certainly it’s been shown that high levels of pollution have terrible effects.  The problem with the ‘it has unique DNA’ argument is that the DNA recipe cannot be constructed correctly without the correct ingredients, and poor quality ingredients produce a substandard ZBEF that is less likely to survive to adulthood and reproduce.

     

    Certainly the woman’s genes are less likely to survive if she invests 10 to 15 years devoting herself to carefully nurturing a disastrously damaged child who then dies and as a consequence doesn’t have the time, energy or financial ability to have other children. 

     

    I truly do understand the impulse to save every possible life no matter how feeble and unlikely to thrive, but the problem with the ‘save every zygote no matter what’ meme is that it comes not just at the expense of the woman to whom society assigns all the risk, cost and work but ALSO at the expense of the healthier siblings who may have already been born or whom she could have produced later if decisions about what should be done at the borderlines of viability were more practical.

  • equalist

    I dunno… doesn’t the Jewish faith say that a newborn doesn’t gain a soul until it takes its first breath of air?

    I heard or read somewhere that it can be up to a month after birth before the newborn gains a soul.  But then again, I can’t remember the source.

  • equalist

    And if you believe that there is no right to moral autonomy– especially when it comes to engaging in immoral activities– and hold both men and women to this standard then, hey!, you’re a feminist by your own definition. Who knew?

    The question is, what is the definition of immorality without bringing god or religion into it?  Most people can’t seem to talk about morality without bringing in some of their own religion, and as this is a secular nation, it is automatically against the constitution to pass laws based on what your particular religion believes is moral or not.  It’s the same as those in muslim countries passing laws that a woman must cover herself completely, or avoid all interraction with men who are not related to her.  It’s law based on religious morality, except that in this country, that kind of law has no place.

  • equalist

    Whose rights do we respect, and how do we decide whose rights we respect?

    How about we respect the rights of the pregnant women who are sentient enough to know that their rights are being violated?

    Do you agree with me when I say that an evaluation of human life can’t be done on an individual basis?  I say that a society will either value a human life or it will devalue it.  Our society devalues fetal life because so many individuals devalue fetal life.  I suggest that we all examine WHY we value or devalue fetal life.

    It’s not a matter of devaluing fetal life, it’s a mater of valuing the life of the woman who carries the fetus.  When it comes to a choice of abort the fetus and save the mother, or lose them both, who in their right mind would chose to allow both to die?  The fact is that an 11 week fetus cannot survive outside of the womb.  The fact is that a woman in severe medical distress caused by the carrying of that fetus will not regain her health without the removal of the fetus that is causing the distress.  Would it make you pro lifer’s happy if instead of an abortion, doctors were to induce (posibly additionally life threatening to the mother) labor to “give the fetus a chance at life” in order to save the life of the mother?  Either way, it would result in a dead fetus, and by forcing the mother, in her already weakened state, to go through labor, possibly a dead woman as well.  The difference is that by aborting the fetus, you now at least have a live woman to show for it.

  • equalist

    And, thus, why arguing that people should be able to do as they please according to their own moral code is fundamentally, and inherently, flawed.

    Then who’s moral code should we be forced to abide by?  Who is to say that your moral code is any more moral than anyone else’s, other than you?  You may view things as moral or immoral that others wouldn’t dream of regulating.  The other question is would you be fighting as hard for people to be regulated to a particular moral code if that code were not your own?  Again, going back to the strictist muslim countries (though please do not take this as an attempt to single out muslims in general, it’s simply the first set of laws that come to mind in this regard), a woman is to be punished severely if found in the company of a man she is not related to.  So yeah, that trip to the grocery store with the pimply faced male cashier young enough to be your son?  That’s out.  Chatting with the husband of your female friend while you wait for her to return from running errands?  That’s out too.  But hey, it’s only the moral thing to do, right?

  • equalist

    Why would we ban birth control because 9% of us think “birth control is wrong” when only 12% of us think “four or more children is ideal”?

    Because that 9% is really REALLY loud about it.

  • equalist

    If there is no legal guardian present to give consent to an action once one has fallen unconscious, the one performing the service may take such action under law, thus explicit consent is inDEED given.  You think that no one can give explicit consent for another?  Then you have definitely never had children.  You would have to act as their medical proxy when they are incapable of giving or denying consent to a medical procedure, after all.  I haven’t had children (and have never been pregnant, so don’t go there) but I knew this, while you didn’t, weirdly enough. 

    Not to mention that without explicit concent from a legal guardian, medical procedures on children, aside from stabilizing in a life threatening situation are a no go.  Case in point.  The younger sister of a friend of mine broke her arm in a fall.  The mother was at work, and at the time no one present had medical power of attorney.  Therefore, until the mother could arrive from work (nearly an hour away from the hospital the child was taken to) the child could receive no treatment.  No pain killers, no setting the break, nothing but to sit in pain and wait for her mother to arrive to sign a document.  After birth medical treatment of a child is ENTIRELY dependant on the consent of the legal guardian or parent.  It’s only before birth that the mother’s consent doesn’t matter.

     

  • equalist

    Paul, I rarely agree with you, but here is one instance where I do.  The fact is that if the pro lifers cared as much about the born as they do the unborn, no one would want for food, housing, or medical treatment.  Pregnancy, even for the very poor would become a joy of bringing a new member into the family, rather than the burdon of finding ways to support another mouth to feed.  If you want to make elective abortion a thing of the past, you have to find ways to support the women who are seeking them.  Is a woman seeking an abortion because she was unable to obtain proper contraception?  Then find a way to ensure that she has proper contraception before the pregnancy begins.  Is a woman getting an abortion because she cannot afford to feed and clothe another child?  Then find a way to help her feed and clothe the ones she has as well as the one she is carrying.  Is a woman getting an abortion because she’s afraid of getting trapped in an abusive relationship?  Then find a way to get her the support she needs to get out of the relationship.  Is a woman getting an abortion because she fears for her mental or physical safety if her family should find out she got pregnant in the first place?  Then find a way to support her and keep her safe from those who would harm her for carrying the pregnancy to term.  Granted, this would not be an end to all elective abortions, but it would certainly be a damn good start on some of them.  The problem is that many in the pro life crowd fight against these measures just as surely as they fight against allowing women to abort the children they cannot care for.  They want to stop abortion, but they don’t want to give women the means to avoid finding themselves in a position where desperation takes over, and abortion seems the only way out.  It always seems to be either an issue of money (“Don’t take money from me to give to people who can’t afford to support themselves and their families, that’s mine!”) or an issue of punishing women for having sex (“She made her bed, the dirty slut, so she can lie in it!”), but in reality, it is society as a whole that suffers the most.

    • paul-bradford

      The fact is that if the pro lifers cared as much about the born as they do the unborn, no one would want for food, housing, or medical treatment.

       

      Actually, the fact is that Pro-Lifers care very much about the born and are very concerned about the needs of those who don’t have enough food, housing or medical care. I think this fact is overlooked because so many who don’t care about the born, and who aren’t at all Pro-Life, like to call themselves Pro-Lifers.

  • paul-bradford

    Okay, since I haven’t had the ‘pleasure’ of responding to one of Paul Bradford’s diatribes, directly, before, I will make the, probably futile, attempt, here.

     

    You know, Arekushieru, I get to put up with a lot of accusations and a lot of ridicule on these boards but my aim has always been to promote respectful and productive conversation. If I say anything to you that you consider disrespectful or unproductive let me know.

     

    If you’ve been following my ‘diatribes’ you know what my issues are.  I’m in favor of strong laws to compel paternal child support.  I’m in favor of improved access to birth control and birth control information.  I’m in favor of affordable health care for all, particularly OB/GYN services and pediatric care.  I’m in favor of beefed up programs to combat domestic violence.  I’m in favor of improved financial support for poor and single mothers.  I’m in favor of efforts to protect women from rape and other forms of violence.  I’m in favor of better accommodations at work and school for pregnant women.  I’m in favor liberal policies for maternity leave.  All of these issues are issues that anyone who cares about the well being of the unborn should care about, because addressing any of them will reduce the abortion rate.  In fact, since 1980 we actually HAVE done a pretty good job of addressing these issues and the abortion rate has gone down 33%.

     

    When I’m off on a diatribe I often say, “You can’t be good to the unborn without being good to their mothers.”

     

    Feminism asserts support for those policies that are only good for women, because the patriarchy already supports those policies that are only good for men, and feminism is an attempt to equalize the rights of those women with the rights of those men, of the latter, of course. Got it? Good. If we didn’t focus on the latter then we would never assert equal rights. Got it, again? Even better.

     

    What you call ‘the patriarchy’ is a virulent form of sociopathology.  I’m familiar with that form of sociopathology because I grew up with it.  Feminism is an attempt to find an antidote to the patriarchy.  There’s still a long way to go, but things are much better than they were when I was growing up so, by my reckoning, feminism has been a success.  Trouble is, back in the ‘fifties and ‘sixties feminist leaders made the blunder of making abortion rights one of their issues.  They obviously made plenty of wise decisions but that one was a huge mistake.

     

    I’m going to put this in bold so you don’t miss it, abortion is a symptom of female subjugation.   The woman who aborts is a woman who has been mistreated or let down by others. Instead of accepting the slaughter of the unborn we ought to be addressing the issues that drive women to abort.

     

    Since you are not a woman you will never have to make that kind of sacrifice. How. Convenient. Since your body didn’t grow and develop that significantly higher physical burden against your volition, within itself and there is no such equally enforceable action on a man. Plus, you will never have to face sacrificing your sexual freedoms in order to keep from said sacrifice.

     

    Do you think you’re telling me something I don’t know? It’s as obvious to me as it is to you that respecting the rights of the unborn calls for more sacrifice from women than it does from men.  Are you proposing that we only respect the rights of those who burden others equally?

     

    There’s no selfish gain for me to uphold fetal rights.  As I’ve pointed out in previous diatribes, births of unwanted children are a terrible drain on the society — and, consequently, a drain on me.  If I were thinking selfishly I’d be pro-abortion.  Notice I didn’t say ‘Pro-Choice’.  If I were concerned about my own well-being I’d be actively encouraging poor, undereducated, unmarried girls and women to abort.  I’d be pro-abortion because it would mean less taxes, less crime, less drug abuse, a better educated population and less of a burden on our health care system.

     

    No selfish gain for me to uphold fetal rights, but there is a selfish gain for women to deny fetal rights.  I say that women will be happier and better off when they start insisting for better treatment for themselves and their unborn children.

     

    Your response?

  • arekushieru

    <<You know, Arekushieru, I get to put up with a lot of accusations and a lot of ridicule on these boards but my aim has always been to promote respectful and productive conversation. If I say anything to you that you consider disrespectful or unproductive let me know.>>
     
    I do believe I mentioned all topics I mentioned just below, several times, which you failed to address….  I would gather what I just said is one such case that I can bring up to you, in regards to being disrespectful and unproductive…?  Well, that, and your patronizing tone - don’t worry, I’ll talk about my reasoning on that, later -, perhaps …?   Just a thought….
     
    <<I’m in favor of efforts to protect women from rape and other forms of violence.>> 
     
    If you are in favor of denying the right to bodily autonomy (which is the only thing one can conclude when another insists on certain rights for feoti, as you have been doing, yet, as you should not be unaware of course, are non-existent, currently, amongst those born and that devalue the woman even if the feoti and born did have those same rights, a position of competing rights that she is placed in, against her volition, remember…?), then you are not concerned with rape or other forms of violence that affects/affect one’s body far less harmfully than pregnancy.  In fact they wouldn’t be issues for you, at all.  One’s bodily autonomy is (another) one of the major reasons why rape and all other such forms of assault are considered extremely dangerous to one’s well-being, after all.  (Oh, that ProLifer I mentioned earlier…?  The one that I highly respect…?  Has said that rape cannot be rape if there is a single, one-time consent to the action.  He is aware of how sick that can sound to others but he is also aware that a different line of thought would not conform to his own beliefs and would, therefore, result in forced ejection of the latter, completely.) 
     
    <<Trouble is, back in the ‘fifties and ‘sixties feminist leaders made the blunder of making abortion rights one of their issues.  They obviously made plenty of wise decisions but that one was a huge mistake.>>
     
    Medical abortion has been around for at least 5,000 years.  Miscarriages are spontaneous abortions and they have been around for as long as there have been males and females.  If just one such bodily function, and that only in human females, is excluded from the right to bodily autonomy, a right that all others, meaning all males, of course, may enjoy without fear of reprisal, even when that involves another’s life, then that is sexist and there is no mistake made on the parts of feminists to attempt to make that one of their issues.
     
    <<I’m going to put this in bold so you don’t miss it, abortion is a symptom of female subjugation.   The woman who aborts is a woman who has been mistreated or let down by others. Instead of accepting the slaughter of the unborn we ought to be addressing the issues that drive women to abort.>>
     
    Sorry, but I guess you missed the part where I said that I don’t ever want to be a mother or get pregnant?  Why don’t I?  Well, one major reason, because I would have to be forced into such a narrow, single-minded viewpoint of women, that is so commonly held by society (which you have just obviously confirmed that you hold, too, now, in part by ignoring my original comment), considering that there is no such identifiable and enforceable action that men are regularly held to in that manner nor is it a commonly held belief that there should be. (This is where your patronizing tone comes in, btw, since you should not be unaware of the latter, yet still fail to address it, just like the non-existent comparable rights of the born to those that you are requesting for the unborn, that I mentioned above.)
     
    I guess I’ve been mistreated by people such as yourself, then…?  Which makes more sense than what you propose, since those such as yourself are the ones that usually attempt to impose such ridiculous standards that are applied nowhere else, but it doesn’t coincide with your thought that abortion is a symptom of female subjugation.  …Does it, now?  Let me clarify:  It is the very force that I described in the first part that is a symptom of female subjugation.  Abortion and pregnancy, in and of themselves, are not.  

     

    I think you also need to look up the definition of ‘slaughter’.  Slaughter is by definition inhumane.  If one is anaesthetized prior to an invasive procedure, how is that inhumane? 

     

    <<Do you think you’re telling me something I don’t know? It’s as obvious to me as it is to you that respecting the rights of the unborn calls for more sacrifice from women than it does from men.  Are you proposing that we only respect the rights of those who burden others equally?>>

     

    It’s obvious to me that respecting the EXTRA (Why do you keep missing, or is it ignoring, that part of my statements?) rights of the unborn, that you are referring to, calls for more sacrifice from women than it does from men, yes.  Also, to reiterate, yet again, other comments I made, valuing feoti the same way a woman is valued, devalues her, because you are dismissing her moral capabilities since a fetus lacks those entirely, especially when it is an action that occurs entirely outside of a woman’s direct control and puts her in competition with the fetus.  Or the fact that pregnancy is the largest physical burden to be placed on anyone, something else I noticed you avoided at the point I brought up male pregnancy and artificial wombs.  Doing nothing to ameliorate that is sexist, even moreso when there are other biological functions that others could at least be held as morally in service to, yet aren’t. 

     

    <<There’s no selfish gain for me to uphold fetal rights.  As I’ve pointed out in previous diatribes, births of unwanted children are a terrible drain on the society — and, consequently, a drain on me.  If I were thinking selfishly I’d be pro-abortion.  Notice I didn’t say ‘Pro-Choice’.  If I were concerned about my own well-being I’d be actively encouraging poor, undereducated, unmarried girls and women to abort.  I’d be pro-abortion because it would mean less taxes, less crime, less drug abuse, a better educated population and less of a burden on our health care system.>>

     

    There is selfish gain for you to uphold extra fetal rights.

     

    <<No selfish gain for me to uphold fetal rights, but there is a selfish gain for women to deny fetal rights.  I say that women will be happier and better off when they start insisting for better treatment for themselves and their unborn children.>>

     

    There is no selfish (selfish, in this case, meaning that an individual cause is advanced ahead of EVERYone else) gain for women to deny extra fetal rights.  There is no selfish gain for women to be valued the way they were meant to be valued, as persons, just like anyone else, with hopes, dreams, wishes, wants and desires and moral, intellectual, mental, social, emotional and physical agency, something that, I repeat, a fetus lacks.  Placing equal value on a fetus grants something that the fetus lacks and denies the very thing a woman holds that makes her a woman. 

     

    Oh, btw, if you were to grant these rights to everyone, you would still have to extend them to parasitic twins and fetus in fetu.

     

    Again with placing women squarely in the role of mothers, only…?  You called feoti unborn ‘children’, after all, on top of everything you’ve been ignoring.

  • squirrely-girl

    … otherwise I might have missed the misogyny. Not.

    I’m going to put this in bold so you don’t miss it, abortion is a symptom of female subjugation.   The woman who aborts is a woman who has been mistreated or let down by others. Instead of accepting the slaughter of the unborn we ought to be addressing the issues that drive women to abort.

    Your description of abortion again ASS-umes that women are merely happily passive vessels through which other people enter the world. Women ONLY have sex because they (secretly) wish to procreate… whether they’re taking birth control or not. The ONLY reason, in your view, that a woman would choose to abort is because SOMEBODY ELSE mistreated or failed her… because apparently women can’t or don’t have opinions or make choices FOR THEMSELVES.  Do you just not understand that there are PLENTY of reasons that women abort besides mistreatment or being let down by others (birth control failure and just not ready/doesn’t ever want to be a parent, fetal conditions incompatible with life, etc.)… or are you just purposefully ignorant?

  • colleen

    I’m going to put this in bold so you don’t miss it, abortion is a symptom of female subjugation. 

    I’m going to put this in bold so you don’t miss it; bullshit. 

     

  • lbsimon

    An atheist cites the religious support for pro-choice (erroneously), then trashes religions in the classic way (superstitions), then makes the fallacious atheist  claim of being somehow forced (required) to follow religious dogma … as the summary statement for the paragraph in question.

    Should religious citizens be forced to kow-tow to atheist fallacies?

  • lbsimon

    … you never make a mistake or misunderstand something? Who cares about your previous post? That proves nothing, from the standpoint of logic. When you reply to my post, kindly leave the insults out. If you have doubts that I can read (and comprehend); so much so that you feel the complusion to notify me in writing, you’re coming across as being clinically inflated.

    [Hint: Your disagreement with my "choice" of the word indoctrination doesn't constitute a valid form of misuse on my part.]

     

     

  • lbsimon

    Feminist indoctrination – now, ask me how exactly THAT works.

  • arekushieru

    [Hint:  Um, yeah, it does.  Not using the word for it's DEFinition constitutes misuse.]

     

    And you haven’t been insulting…?  Hmmm….  Pot meet kettle.  Also, if you ARE going to be insulting wouldn’t you rather be truthful about it, as I was (after all, I used hypocrisy and inability to read, correctly, simply verified by the above paragraph]?  That MEANS caring about my previous posts.  BUHbye.

  • equalist

    Should religious citizens be forced to kow-tow to atheist fallacies?

    Another version of this question is should athiests be forced to abide by your religion’s definition of morality?

  • arekushieru

    I am Christian.  I firmly believe that Jesus was a feminist, not a misogynist, which is why I firmly believe that ProLifers cannot be Christian or only so fallaciously.

  • paul-bradford

    Arekushieru,

     

    I’m happy to talk to you about anything; but I must confess that a lot of what you wrote was unclear to me so excuse me as I ask some questions with the aim of clarifying my understanding of your thoughts and feelings.

     

    Oh, that ProLifer I mentioned earlier…? The one that I highly respect…? Has said that rape cannot be rape if there is a single, one-time consent to the action. He is aware of how sick that can sound to others but he is also aware that a different line of thought would not conform to his own beliefs and would, therefore, result in forced ejection of the latter, completely.

     

    I wish you would explain to me who “that ProLifer [you] mentioned earlier” is.  First of all, I don’t know what you’re referring to by ‘earlier’.  Second, I don’t know whether the ‘highly respect’ comment is intended as sarcasm.  (That’s the trouble with sarcasm, if the person you’re being sarcastic to doesn’t realize you’re being sarcastic s/he only gets confused.)  If you really are referring to a Pro-Lifer who you really do have high respect for I would like to know more about what it is that s/he does that you admire.  Now, as to the matter of whether a case of rape exists if there’s a one time occurrence and both sides consent, I don’t see how it could be rape.  On the other hand, if you’re referring to a situation that is ongoing and that is currently non-consensual but at one point it was consensual then of course it is rape.  Have I ever addressed this issue?  I don’t remember it if I did.  In fact, I don’t remember reading any posts about that issue.

     

    “A different line of thought would not conform to his own beliefs”.  Arekushieru, I have to admit to being completely at sea here.  First of all, I don’t know who we’re talking about although the fact that you even brought it up makes me think you’re talking about me.  A different line of thought from what?  The line of thought that if a woman agrees to have sex with a man once he has the right to have sex with her anytime he wants and she has no capacity to withdraw her consent??  Who would believe such a thing, and what ‘beliefs’ would require a man to take that attitude?

     

    I want to know your thoughts and feelings and beliefs about anything that’s important and relevant to my concern that we should all demonstrate more respect for the dignity of unborn life.  Really, I do; and if you would have some patience with my difficulty in understanding you we might have a productive conversation — which is what I want.

     

    You said, “[it] would therefore, result in forced ejection of the latter completely” Are we talking about a fetus that is ejected?  Would you be referring to abortion by talking about ‘forced ejection’?  I gather that you’re making a connection between rape and abortion.  Are you referring to the fact that I have asserted that rape is like abortion because 1) they’re both violent, 2) they both violate bodily autonomy, and 3) they’re both non-consensual.  (There are also ways in which rape and abortion aren’t like each other at all.  One act is criminal and the other is perfectly legal.  There are plenty of survivors of one of the acts who can testify to how horrible it is, there are no survivors to the other act.  Plenty of people justify one of those actions, but no respectable person would justify the other.)

     

    You’re complaint is that I have failed to address many of the topics that are important to you.  I would feel very frustrated if I were in your position, but I want you to know that I’m trying harder to understand you.  If I understood what you were saying, I’d be happy to respond to it.

     

    I’m particularly at a loss to understand where we disagree on the topic of a woman’s bodily autonomy.  My position on that issue — and I think this is yours, as well — is that a woman should have access to any medical intervention she chooses with regard to the management of her pregnancy.  A woman has the power to choose whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.  There’s no reason that power should be given to anyone but the woman who’s pregnant.  Even if a society attempted to pass laws that would place the power in the hands of others, most women would wrest power back despite what the law says.  I am opposed to any law or strategy that would restrict access to abortion and I am of the firm opinion that efforts to enact restrictions actually do more to put the unborn at risk than they do to protect them.

     

    Your response?

    • bj-survivor

      talking about you, as you completely ignore the numerous posts and explicit explanations of bodily autonomy and how there is no other instance in which one person can demand the use of another’s body without that other’s consent. Not one of you “pro-lifers” has ever provided an example of such. No, all of you merely drone on and one about how pregnancy is different and, therefore, women must be forced/browbeat to gestate every zygote, no matter what the outcome to her, her family, and the eventual actual child. Were you to be as vociferous in your support of mandatory/morally obligatory blood, bone marrow, and organ donation as you are to forcing/coercing women to adopt your view that zygotes have some inalienable right to be born (which is refuted by Nature/God in the fact that the vast majority of blastocysts fail to implant, as well as the very common phenomenon of spontaneous abortion, aka miscarriage). But no, you don’t even pay lip service to the idea.

      Are you referring to the fact that I have asserted that rape is like abortion because 1) they’re both violent, 2) they both violate bodily autonomy, and 3) they’re both non-consensual. (There are also ways in which rape and abortion aren’t like each other at all. One act is criminal and the other is perfectly legal. There are plenty of survivors of one of the acts who can testify to how horrible it is, there are no survivors to the other act. Plenty of people justify one of those actions, but no respectable person would justify the other.)

      And, once again, you completely disappear the woman, and I’m sure you’ll later whine about how misunderstood you are and how you don’t understand why we’re constantly offended by the patronizing, misogynistic offal you post. 1) Elective and even spontaneous abortion, unlike rape, is no more violent than many women’s experience of menstruation. It’s not violent to either the embryo or fetus, because the embryo/fetus is incapable of experiencing either pain or the condition of suffering. We have repeatedly pointed out that forced pregnancy is violent. And I have pointed out that labor and delivery, whether coerced or consensual. And the 2) Elective and spontaneous abortion do not violate anybody’s bodily autonomy, because only the woman has an autonomous, fully formed body and the capabilities of cognition, sensation and emotion. 3) Elective abortion is not non-consensual, though spontaneous abortion is. ZBEFs do not have the capacity for cognition, because the woman’s body hasn’t built those structures yet. Therefore, it is impossible to ask them what they might want. You anthropomorphize ZBEFs and continually project your existential crisis onto the bodies of women, presuming that every ZBEF would choose to be born, even though many of us have refuted that narcissistic, megalomaniacal assertion time and time again.

      I’ll give you credit for being one of the few “pro-lifers” who sometimes, briefly pays lip service to male culpability for unintended pregnancy, but lip service is all it’s proven to be. I have not once witnessed you take one of your forced-gestation brethren to task for “disrespecting the very young” by not taking any responsibility for where they shoot their wads or for their support of policies that make it more difficult for women to continue their pregnancies.

  • paul-bradford

    squirrely girl,

     

    You’re right to point out that not every instance of a woman getting an abortion is an instance of female subjugation.  If I thought that I would have said that abortion is a RESULT of female subjugation.  I don’t believe that it is.  I believe that it is a SYMPTOM of female subjugation.  How can you not notice that the countries that respect women and female autonomy (think Denmark or Belgium) are the countries where the abortion rate is low and that the countries where women are kept down (think Honduras or the Philippines) are the countries where the abortion rate is high.

     

    Most — not all — but certainly most abortions result from an unwanted pregnancy.  That means they result from a situation where a man impregnates a woman against her will.  That sort of behavior, on the part of men, is completely unacceptable and is a clear example of female subjugation.  A man should take responsibility for what his sperm do.  Anything that the sperm is responsible for doing, the man is responsible for doing.  If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant and a man impregnates her, he’s guilty of subjugating her.

     

    You talk about ‘happily passive vessels’.  That seems to be a role that many men are eager to assume and, since they imagine themselves to be passive, we get a situation where people talk about the “girl who got herself pregnant”.  There’s a common mindset that puts 100% of responsibility on the woman and 0% on the man.  The mindset is rampant on this ‘site.

     

     

    Your description of abortion again ASS-umes that women … ONLY have sex because they (secretly) wish to procreate… whether they’re taking birth control or not.

     


    I catch a lot of hell here because I gripe and gripe about being misunderstood. Your comment is a perfect example of the thing I gripe about. Women have sex for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with procreation, but procreation is an entirely possible and predictable result of sex. I have said that it is disrespectful for a woman or a man to have sex unless s/he’s ready to take responsibility for parenting, but my understanding of ‘responsibility’ doesn’t inform my belief that the unborn have a right to live.  A woman impregnated by a rapist has no responsibility whatsoever for the fact she’s carrying a child — but that child has as much of a right to live as she does.  

     

    I don’t consider pregnancy and childbirth some sort of punishment women endure to atone for their sins.  I consider them to be an enormous sacrifice women make in order for the unborn to live and continue to develop until they’re ready to live outside the womb.  I gripe about being misunderstood.  Can we all understand this?  It’s impossible to FORCE a woman to respect the life of her unborn child.  She’s going to have to be convinced, and she’s going to have to be supported.  If she respects the life of her child she WILL go to term whether she planned on becoming a mother or not.  We don’t have the technology, yet, to move a living fetus into an incubator to finish gestation; so, for now, there is only one way for the child to continue living.  Pregnancy is a great sacrifice that a woman is unlikely to make if she doesn’t value the person she’s sacrificing for.

  • paul-bradford

    Unless you can come up with a form of male pregnancy (y’know, where one doesn’t rely on a uterus) the burden will never be shifted onto men. Or a way to transfer a fetus from a uterus into an artificial womb, at any point after the egg is fertilized, where the medical procedure is far less risky and invasive than abortion and society is on the hook for the majority of the financial support that will be required, with some other provisos, the burden will never be shifted onto society.

     

    Arekushieru,

     

    I like to venture into ‘sci-fi’ scenarios as much as anybody and I particularly like the one you’ve dreamed up.  Let’s say we figured out a way that the burden could be shifted onto someone else besides the mother.  I like that, that’s fine.  Question is, does a fetus have a right to live once we make those scientific advances?  Are you going to agree to take your share of the financial burden?  I say, you WILL if you believe that a fetus has as much right to life-saving medical care as anyone else does.

     

    People have a right to live.  They have a right to clean water.  They have a right to sufficient nourishment.  They have a right to adequate housing.  They have a right to medical care.  There are billions of people who are having their rights disrespected because they’re not getting the things they need to sustain their lives.  Respect for their rights depends upon other people bearing a burden of sacrifice.  If a child dies of hunger, it’s as much of a sin as a child dying in an abortion.  Both are examples of disrespect for life.  In the abortion example, though, there is only one person who had the opportunity to make the sacrifice.  In the hunger example, we all dropped the ball.

     

    Respecting the person at risk for hunger, or at risk because s/he has inadequate health care, or at risk for dying in an abortion are all of a piece.  Respect comes with a price tag.  Sometimes the burden of sacrifice falls on one person (but even then it’s possible to relieve some of the burden) sometimes it falls on many, sometimes it falls on the whole world — but a person’s right to life doesn’t depend upon who has to make the sacrifice.

  • julie-watkins

    will, as always, be (pragmatically) placed on women and the poor, even if the rhetoric tries to claim otherwise. The Status Quo has had thousands of years to pratice how to convince everyone — especially themselves and the masses at the bottom — that the Proper Order of Things is that the poor will be disproportionally taxed in order to follow the agenda and fulfill the needs of the rulers.

    Same old, same old.

    It isn’t “justice” for the poor and women to be given a much higher “tax” burden than men or families with more resources. Anyone who demands (even through social coercion) specific sacrifices of specific other people for the sake of “the unborn” is supporting systemic class and sex discrimination.

    • paul-bradford

      Anyone who demands (even through social coercion) specific sacrifices of specific other people for the sake of “the unborn” is supporting systemic class and sex discrimination.

       

      Julie,

       

      Where do we agree?  Where do we disagree?  I’m in favor of requiring specific sacrifices (taxes) of specific other people (the rich) for the sake of “the poor”.  I say that the poor have a right to life and this right demands that they have food, and housing, and medical care, and education, and employment opportunity and none of those things are going to come about until the rich pony up some dough.  Obviously, in the United States, we’ve come to terms with the fact that the rich have to make some sacrifices for the poor.  It isn’t charity.  It’s justice.  But we’ve got a long way to go.  I’m hollering for more justice and more sacrifice.

       

      Now, you bring up the matter of coercion.  Good point!  When you ‘force’ folks to pay taxes they just end up voting Republican and the Republicans dismantle all the programs aimed at providing justice for the poor.  In the long run you get nowhere.  Somehow, we’ve got to do better than coercion.  Somehow, we’ve got to get rich people to realize that they have a MORAL OBLIGATION to help the less fortunate.  You can only force them so far before they bolt.  You’ve got to get them to buy into the plan!

       

      There are three reasons people will make a sacrifice.  One, is that they’re coerced to make the sacrifice — but that’s tough to implement in the long run.  Two, is that they sacrifice because of enlightened self-interest — but that never gets you all the way to justice.  Three, is that they actually value the people they’re sacrificing for.  As I’ve said many times before, “The hallmark of faith isn’t in the belief of the existence of a god.  It’s in the belief of the existence of other human beings.”

       

      When I talk about believing in your existence, I’m talking about believing that your interests are as important as mine are.  I’m talking about believing that your life is as valuable as mine is.

  • crowepps

    Unless you can come up with … a way to transfer a fetus from a uterus into an artificial womb, at any point after the egg is fertilized… 

     

    I like to venture into ‘sci-fi’ scenarios as much as anybody and I particularly like the one you’ve dreamed up.  

    Oh, golly, if we’re going to do ‘sci-fi’ scenarios, why limit this just to the occasional unwanted fetus?    Isn’t it obvious that under those circumstances, where there’s no cost to herself at all, that virgins who just allow their eggs to ripen and die when those eggs have a right to be fertilized and live are MURDERING potential children?  Shouldn’t women be REQUIRED to have sex and create a zygote for society every month?

     

    For that matter, why should only those eggs that happen to be fertilized during actual sex get to live? A woman at puberty has the potential to produce thousands of eggs.  In order to transfer the responsibility for reproduction to everyone, why not harvest ALL of those eggs, fertilize them and gestate them in those artificial wombs?  After all, every single one of those eggs is alive, human and has unique DNA even before it’s combined with a sperm. 

     

    Isn’t the only FAIR thing to do to give ALL of them an equal chance?  Just as you assert women have a duty and responsibility to complete all their naturally occurring pregnancies, wouldn’t a society with an artificial womb available have a duty and responsibility to maximize the number of lives created to the fullest extent possible?  I’m sure that advances in science and society and a promoting a real commitment to being ProLife would allow the rest of us, somehow, to cope with the resulting expotential population growth as we are buried under a tsunami of infants.

    • paul-bradford

      Just as you assert women have a duty and responsibility to complete all their naturally occurring pregnancies, wouldn’t a society with an artificial womb available have a duty and responsibility to maximize the number of lives created to the fullest extent possible?


      crowepps,

       

      Why limit it to eggs?  Surely we can figure out a way to allow every sperm cell to develop into a blue-eyed baby!  Exponential growth will mean that in a few centuries there will be a person for every cubic inch of the universe.  Ha Ha.

       

      Should we assert a right to life for ova?  Should we assert a right to life for zygotes?  Should we assert a right to life for infants?  Should we assert a right to life for adults?  Should we assert a right to life for anyone?????  Do you have any moorings at all?  Your imagination can push the line of discrimination back and forth between the extremes, but can your VALUE SYSTEM push the line anywhere you want to put it?

       

      It makes a hell of a lot of sense to me to characterize a zygote as a living human body.  It makes no sense at all to me to characterize an ovum as a living human body.  Do you believe that human beings have the facility to make judgments about the value of human life?  If you do, I’ll have to figure that you value CONVERSATIONS about the value of human life.

       

      Don’t you think it would be wise for us to promise each other that we’ll make SINCERE contributions to the conversation.  Answer to my charge that your last post was more about ridiculing me than it was about teaming up with me to look for the truth.

       

  • arekushieru

    Paul, you keep missing the point about the difference between value and rights, existing and non-existing rights, which, I’m sure, not only myself but others have outlined for you, which is why it is so surprising to me that you simply keep missing it.  Here, let me reiterate for you.  There is NO existing right that ProChoicers are NOT respecting for feoti.  There is NO right to live at the expense of someone else’s ability to determine, via ongoing, informed and explicit consent, who uses the biological functions their bodies grew, developed, contained and supported and when and how they are used.  By this logic, you want to grant feoti MORE rights than anyone born while ALSO VALUING them more than those born.  It’s like Equalist said.  It’s not about devaluing feoti but about valuing women.

     

    And many, if not most, ProChoice women DO make that decision to continue their pregnancies to term.  But convincing all women to carry to term devalues the woman and inherently puts that status, firmly and solely, in the niche of motherhood, especially considering the above paragraph.  Which inherently punishes women for having non-procreative sex, whether that is your intent or not. 

     

    Respecting the life of a child also means respecting the quality of life.  Do you think a poor, single woman who carries an expensive pregnancy to term at the expense of her actual children’s life and health is respecting the quality of the fetal or children’s life?

     

    You also continue to fail to realize that there is no enforceable corollary to pregnancy that one can place on men.  Put them on the hook for financial support?  Men can and have been able to avoid such, which is why there are such things as ‘deadbeat dads’.  Women however cannot run away from their bodies.  

  • prochoiceferret

    Oh, golly, if we’re going to do ‘sci-fi’ scenarios, why limit this just to the occasional unwanted fetus?

    Yeah. I’d like to think that well before we develop an effective artificial womb, we’ll have developed safe, reversible, 100% reliable contraception—for both sexes—as well as dropped the pretense that equating a fetus to a born person in value and autonomy is a reasonable basis for public policy.

  • crowepps

    It’s going to be difficult to develop “safe, reversible, 100% reliable contraception” so long as the various groups have a major hissyfit about every advance of same.  IUD’s approach that goal and yet it’s apparently difficult for women in the United States to access them unless they’ve already had children because doctors are unwilling to risk the potential liability of maybe being blamed for infertility later.  It’s interesting to speculate on just how much of the difference in teen pregnancy rates between Europe and here is because of the difference in access to IUD’s.

     

    And, yes, I am aware that IUD’s don’t provide protection against STDS, but I don’t see where it’s a huge advantage to have someone with an STD also be pregnant.  Obviously, if they’re pregnant, they weren’t using any protection against STD’s anyway.

  • arekushieru

    A fetus has a right to live when it no longer requires someone’s consent to facilitate that life.  The right to life, as noted, can be revoked completely when a body infringes upon another’s right to life, right to bodily autonomy and financial rights (case-in-point, here, those on life support).  That is why I have been saying all along that respecting fetal life in the way ProLifers would like it to be respected DEFinitely requires that one value fetal life more than all other life. 

     

    Right to life-saving medical care then you’ve denied the woman the same.  Pregnancy is the second leading cause of death and even reducing the risk falsely STILL means that you’ve ACTually denied her that care.  The only way to do so, ACTually, is by strengthening women’s bodies to bear a pregnancy more easily, which means only by pushing women further into the motherhood niche, anyways. 

     

    Disrespect for life comes when someone disrespects quality of life, as I pointed out, earlier.  Convincing someone to continue making that sacrifice doesn’t mean that one will intrinsically begin to respect that quality of life, either, btw.

     

    Abortion is not a sin.

     

     

    • paul-bradford

      A fetus has a right to live when it no longer requires someone’s consent to facilitate that life.

       

      Arekushieru,

       

      What to you say to my observation that every one of us requires the support, cooperation and consent of other people to facilitate our lives?  We are, as I like to remind people, at each other’s mercy

  • arekushieru

    Paul, others have explained what I have said numerous times, as well.  So, if you are not clear on what I said, someone else has probably stated it so that you will be.  There really shouldn’t be any reason that you aren’t clear, then.
     

    <<Second, I don’t know whether the ‘highly respect’ comment is intended as sarcasm.>>
     

    First of all, I am very aware how easily it is to mistake tone when not speaking.  So, if I am being sarcastic, or jesting, you will be left in no doubt.  Therefore, secondly, I was not being sarcastic. 
     

    You don’t need to know who he is but I will repeat that he believes that if single, one-time consent is given (meaning if the man consents to sex, then revokes it, but the woman does not and vice versa) it isn’t rape.  Consent is one of the things that are at the very heart of bodily autonomy issues.  Bodily autonomy is the reason why criminal rape is considered so serious.  It is a violation of one’s right to their body.  (This comment was in response to one you made about the reduction of rape and violence against women.)  You either believe that a pregnancy that is unwanted in some aspect isn’t a violation too strong to overcome or that it isn’t a violation, at all.  (No matter how much you speak about sacrifice, I don’t think you have truly grasped the idea behind it when you think it can deal with such a violation, in such a comparatively easy manner, here).  And that is what is wrong with what lies at the very heart of your argument.  You, apparently, simply cannot conceive that a woman’s body can be violated, or violated strongly enough, through the continuance of an unwanted pregnancy.  [Note:  I am not referring to the use of force, here, simply an unwanted aspect of pregnancy.  I am pointing out, as I have done before, that not all women would continue their pregnancies even if they were given all the support they would need to do so.  (I am one such.)  Convincing the latter to continue, however you may believe you can do so, does nothing to change the fact that it would still be unwanted.]  So, then, how can you conceive that one’s body can be violated, or violated strongly enough, through the continuance of unwanted sex, which is far less harmful, physically, and far less an intimate connection, than pregnancy EVER is?  Therefore, the male ProLifer I know is consistent.      
     

    He also believes that organ donation should be mandatory.  He is against all wars.  He is against the death penalty, etc, etc….  He is aware that those who would grant the so-called ‘right to life’ to feoti, are granting more rights to feoti than anyone born, as it currently stands.

     

    I do believe that I wrote that sentence around ‘forced ejection’ right after the one that I wrote about the ProLifer’s beliefs.  That is what I was referring to.  Forced ejection of his beliefs.

     

    I would, hesitantly, agree that both are violent.  However, as I outlined above, you can now see that I was not comparing abortion to rape.

     

    Abortion does not violate bodily autonomy.  When one infringes on another’s rights, as the fetus does on the woman, although their right to bodily autonomy is never completely revoked, it may be limited, and limited to the extent that it would exclude abortion as a violation of a fetal right to bodily autonomy, insofar as abortion would actually affect one’s body, as it is simply the removal of the implantation of the fetal placenta into the uterus.  But the medical procedures that facilitate abortion and do affect the fetal body, also facilitate the right to bodily autonomy and the right to medical privacy and would, therefore, also be excluded.

     

    The continuance of an unwanted pregnancy does violate bodily autonomy, since the woman never infringed on the rights of the fetus, prior to the decision she makes in regards to its continuance or termination.   

     

    Mutual consent is only required during sex and interdependent relationships.  Any other activity requires only singular, explicit, informed and ongoing consent.

     

    There are plenty of survivors to abortion.  And some do justify rape, just some explicitly, while others do so, inherently (which is along the lines of what I described above).

     

    However, I do have to thank you for a very respectful conversation, even though we BOTH have managed to rub each other the wrong way, at times.  Far more respectful than what I have encountered in other circumstances, even after being similarly provoked. 

  • lbsimon

    You prolifers proclaim that everyone else can be ‘killed’ off as a choice.  It is ONLY fetuses that you claim cannot be ‘killed’ off in that manner.  That’s everything that we said in a nutshell.  See how easy it would have been to read that, now, before making yourself look unintelligent…?”

     

    You just proceeded to set up a Straw Man argument that exposes your Blindspot. “Everyone else“? Like murder victims? Yeah, a defenseless fetus can be considered a murder victim. The murder of a pregnant woman entails penalties for both the woman and the fetus she’s carrying.

    • arekushieru

      Gee, maybe that’s because it wasn’t HER making the decision about HER body.  Someone else kills a woman, it’s against her bodily autonomy, the same person kills the fetus inside her body, at the same time, it’s not?  …. 

       

      Plus, where did I say I agreed with those laws?  Hmmm…?  Because, if I did, I was lying.  I absolutely DISagree with them.  :)

       

      A fetus canNOT be considered a murder victim.  They are infringing on the woman’s rights, first.  Just like an organ recipient is infringing on an organ donor’s rights, first.  And which is exactly the instance that self-defence/lethal force may be used. Regardless of the first person’s intent.  And abortion is legal, murder is inherently not.  And, even when/where abortion was/is illegal, it still wasn’t/isn’t murder.  Whoops!

       

      Feoti are not defenseless, btw.  Feoti are the ones who suppress a woman’s immune system.

  • lbsimon

    If you’re not a feminist, you’re a misogynist. There’s your first fallacy. If you are against abortion, you cannot be a Christian. That’s your second fallacy. And that’s putting it politely.

    • arekushieru

      Actually, since feminism inherently means the fight to gain equal rights, then, yes, one is misogynistic if they are not a feminist.  If you don’t fight to gain equal rights, how can you be anything else?  Hmmm…?

       

      And you didn’t suggest that your own “erroneously”  comment was similarly fallacious when I claimed that there is no religious support for ProLife, because I did provide support for my views (while you… did not) yet you wonder why I think you are ProLife…? 

       

      I happen to think it’s true just like the other person thought with Christianity and ProLife.  However, I think there is more support for my view, since abortion is not condemned in the bible and it has been around for at least 5 thousand years, the ‘anti-abortion’ passages that PLers quote are not actually anti-abortion but either pro-property rights with regard to feoti and women or used by a singular person, NOT a group of people, Mary chose to have Jesus, and many passages can be considered ProAbortion, if you don’t take into account the fact that the Bible was written over a thousand years ago and it was written mostly, if not all, by men (meaning these passages can actually be considered very ProChoice, since they could have been strictures conjured up by the very same men that conjured up the strictures in the passages used by the anti-abortionists, both sets of strictures being very anti-choice, of course)

  • lbsimon

    … he frequently points out the alarming fact that there are a number of bishops out there who are not following the Catechism of the Catholic Church and are allowing the promulgation of sheer horse manure as though it’s church teaching. You’ve been egregiously misinformed, colleen …

    “Catholicism believes women should die and, indeed, should be willing to die rather than be allowed a life saving abortion. That makes women less human than even a 150 cell blastocyst and makes Catholic hospitals dangerous places.”

    This is a false assertion.

    BTW, I love the way the line is always blurred here, between life-saving abortions and those performed for the sole sake of convenience, in one form or another.

     

    • arekushieru

      Abortion is ALways life-saving.  Pregnancy is the second leading cause of death in women worldwide.  There is NOT a 0% chance that a woman will die from pregnancy complications.  Often, when a woman does experience such complications, it is too late to save her and, thus, the fetus.  There goes your ‘convenience’ argument.  And there goes your argument that abortion is not always life-saving.

       

      Comparably, pregnancy is FAR less ‘convenient’ in ANY manner than any other burden, action-, life- and physical health-wise.

  • lbsimon

    Another  Straw Man argument-in-a-circle combo! Whoopdee-doo!

    Score:  Atheists – 14% of the population

                God-believers - 86% of the population

     

    Buddhists do not profess belief in God per se, nor do Jains. However, all Jains reject abortion and most Buddhists do. At least a percentage of agnostics also reject abortion, as do a percentage of the unaffiliated “spiritual” types.

     

    Too many commenters here like to get out the old roller and make some outrageously broad strokes in their arguments.

      

  • lbsimon

    The old “You-just-did-the-same-thing” defense. Uh-huh. Izzat right? 

    Arekushieru instead of using a passive-aggressive form of reply, why don’t you look up the word indoctrination. These trite and hackneyed retorts you’re using make you appear dull-witted. The last I looked, this article was attempting to establish a case for Conservative Feminism presuming the stupidity of women in general. You don’t want to confirm the validity of that presumption do you?

    • arekushieru

      Actually, my response was that I WASN’T doing it, while YOU were.  I still can’t reform my opinion on your reading skills.  Because what I ACTually said was entirely different from ‘you-just-did-the-same-thing’, y’know.  So what was that about me confirming a case for the topic, again?  Oh, wait, that wasn’t me you were referring to, I guess…. Sorry.

       

      And if my responses *seem* trite to *you* (in asterisks so you don’t miss the fact that I’m not saying you did the same thing AS ME, this time, at least….  Just sayin’…), maybe that is because I am responding to trite phrases from people like yourself?  Posting one-liners without really saying anything… sounds pretty trite to me. 

       

      Anything else completely off-topic, I WILL ignore.  Good riddance trolling behaviour.

  • lbsimon

    “Hey, look! Bei is back, with his logic-twisting shenanigans—just like I predicted. And he’s in fine form here!”

    What a passive-aggressive “Well Poisoning” maneuver that is!

    Dook-Dah-Dee-Dook-Dook … Dook-Dook! Ta-Dahhhhh!

  • lbsimon

    “…  to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view. (…)


    1.  brainwash, propagandize.”

    Random House Dictionary, 2010

     

    “(after all, I used hypocrisy and inability to read, correctly, simply verified by the above paragraph]?  That MEANS caring about my previous posts.  BUHbye.”

     

    I’m afraid no one will ever care for your previous posts the way you do, Ak.cheeky-smiley-031.gif

     

    • ahunt

      Thanks ever so much, LB. I’m sure this is covered in the latest Evil Feminist Cabal newsletter, but I didn’t get mine this month!

    • arekushieru

      Then don’t comment on them.  Oh, btw… (your hypocrisy is showing…), it really IS that simple.

       

      And, gee, what is that I see about indoctrination?  Biased belief or point of view, which is pretty much what I said.  Hmmm….  Bias which is based on lack of evidence.  Thanks for proving my point!

  • lbsimon

    “If you find yourself getting a headache thinking about it, just remember that’s the point.  Anti-feminist women making anti-feminist claims while pretending they’re being feminist is about creating so much confusion about what feminism is that the public just gives up altogether.  But what it’s definitely not about is advancing the interests or equality of actual women that aren’t wealthy female conservative politicians.”

    Did we prove this? Disprove this? Argue to a draw? Flesh out the topic? Veer off the original subject? Does it even matter?

  • colleen

    Obviously, in the United States, we’ve come to terms with the fact that the rich have to make some sacrifices for the poor

    It’s as if you’re from a parallel universe.

    I’m talking about believing that your life is as valuable as mine is

    But Paul, that’s such a low bar.

  • crowepps

    It makes a hell of a lot of sense to me to characterize a zygote as a living human body.  It makes no sense at all to me to characterize an ovum as a living human body.

    But whether or not it “makes sense to” you doesn’t mean a thing unless it also “makes sense to” other people.  It doesn’t make any sense to me to assume that the zygote, the precursor of the placenta, the amniotic sack, the cord AND the embroy, is “a living human body” since that isn’t what it is at all.  It hasn’t even proven its genetic fitness to attach at that point and another one will be along next month that might be a better DNA combination.  Certainly getting all misty eyed and sentimental about how this PARTICULAR zygote is a ‘person’ or a ‘child’ or a ‘baby’ is ridiculous, since the chances are it will never make it that far at all.

    Don’t you think it would be wise for us to promise each other that we’ll make SINCERE contributions to the conversation.  Answer to my charge that your last post was more about ridiculing me than it was about teaming up with me to look for the truth.

    Taking what I felt was a ridiculous meme to the next step in order to prove that the arbitrary line you’re enraptured with is indeed arbitrary isn’t just about ‘ridicule’, Paul.  It’s about trying to stretch the analogy to the breaking point in order to get through to you that life is a CONTINUOUS PROCESS and the lifespan of any individual DNA combination will always be limited by the resources available to sustain it, whether that resource is air, food, water, or a willing uterine host.

     

    I also would like to know on what basis you feel yourself entitled to “charge” me with anything?  What makes you The Authority to whom I am answerable?  Your repeated default to yourself as ‘The Authority’ or the tortured theology of your church as ‘The Authority’ makes it impossible for you to truly ‘partner’ with anyone OR to search for truth.  You believe you have already found it and now are searching instead for disciples and converts.

     

    You might be interested in the conversation here, which makes it clear that Catholic theology sees no problem at all with creating a sea of dead women in the hopes of salvaging one viable birth:

    http://www.fallibleblogma.com/index.php/pro-life-exceptions-is-late-term-abortion-ever-necessary/#comments

     

  • crowepps

    It bespeaks of anthropomorphizing to ask, “why do women have wide hips?” There’s no answer to “why”.

    Well, sure there is. Women have wide hips because human fetuses have large heads and therefore women with narrow hips die at first childbirth along with their possible genetic descendents.

     

    There isn’t anything “anthropomorphic” about that. Women STILL die because their hips are too narrow for their fetus to pass through and they happen to live where caesarians aren’t readily available.

  • cbarks

    Raising kids sucks ass, y’all. I’ve got four kids, and I’m telling you, it sucks. Nothing made me pro-choice like voluntarily birthing four people who will poop on your carpet and smear it on the coffee table with their own friggen fingers.

    I swear to God that motherhood is strictly for morons, which is perhaps why compulsory-pregnancy laws even exist– if word got out that this was really as bad as it is, nobody would bother anymore.

     

     

  • jrm83

    You didn’t?  Well, I’ll try to get that mailed to you as soon as possible.

  • equalist

    Methinks the poop on the cofee table event was experienced close to the time this post was made?

  • crowepps

    No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing. “

     

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

  • crowepps

    Except that you seem to be the only Catholic on Earth who believes that the Bible supports a belief that “people are equal”.

     

    I’m beginning to believe that you haven’t ever actually READ the Bible.  Is that just a protestant thing?

     

    The Bible makes it very clear that women aren’t equal – gays aren’t equal – people who have physical handicaps aren’t equal – ‘foreigners’ aren’t equal – people of other religions aren’t equal – for SURE the ‘slaves’ or ‘servants’ aren’t equal.

     

    The principle that “all people are equal” actually is a SECULAR view.  It doesn’t become Catholic just because you hold that view and you are Catholic.

  • arekushieru

    And what does that zygote ‘value’, hmmm…?
     
    I say NO one, not adults, not feoti, not zygotes, not ovum, not sperm should have the right to life at the expense of another’s right to bodily autonomy.  As it stands, now, no one does.  ProLifers would like to grant only feoti that right, though.
     
     
    Your question about support, co-operation and consent sound exactly like what I was talking about, so I have no idea what you are trying to say.

  • crowepps

    Actually, since feminism inherently means the fight to gain equal rights, then, yes, one is misogynistic if they are not a feminist.  If you don’t fight to gain equal rights, how can you be anything else?  Hmmm…?

    Misogynism is hatred of or contempt for women, and I’ll agree with you that’s largely the motivation behind the opposition to women having equal rights.  There are also those, though, who believe that women are a special and unique class who shouldn’t be burdened by equality since they’re so adorable and childlike and prone to nervous prostration under stress and all, and need big strong men to take care of them.  This isn’t hatred, and it isn’t exactly contempt, although certainly it verges on it.  I’d say it’s closest to ‘how can we have equal rights between two separate species?’

  • arekushieru

    I am NOT comparing a fetus to an organ.  I am comparing a fetus to an organ recipient.  Why is it that that is always the default assumption with so many PLers?  It’s REALLY confusing!  ><

     

    Why doesn’t that organ reCIPient have the same right to life that you would grant to a fetus?

     

    A fetus is neither innocent nor guilty.  Innocence is the default position of guilt not the lack of capacity to be guilty, otherwise one would have to say that guilt is the default position of the lack of capacity to be innocent.  Nor is a fetus a human being.  It is human life but it is not a human/human being.  Otherwise, parasitic twins and fetus in fetu would be considered human beings.

     

    And yet, you still think a fetus has a right to live that no one else has. 

     

    Why is it that so many people stumble around in such a dense moral fog that they can’t get the question right of whether or not to devalue women, by valuing feoti in the same way they would deny women that value?  Why is it that so many people stumble around in a dense moral fog that they can’t get the question right whether to value all aspects of life, meaning quantity and quality rather than just quantity?

  • arekushieru

    But, I’m speaking of the promotion of misogyny.  Denying women equal rights inherently holds them in contempt, whatever or whoever is doing it. 

  • crowepps

    I think the princiiple we’ve heard so much about in the cases of severe pregnancy complications is also applied here.  You know how when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy it’s not okay to outright actually KILL the fetus but it’s okay to accidently kill the fetus by removing a tube?  Well, when it comes to equal rights, some refuse to give them to women between they are misogynists who hold them in contempt and then there are those who think women are extra terrific and wonderful and put them on a nice pedestal which just sort of  accidently means they don’t get ‘equal rights’, being so special and all.

     

    All of which, of course, ends up at the same result – women with no rights.

  • julie-watkins

    to make women (& poor families) second class, even if there is all sorts of support promised — even more so if the support is stingy (more “in theory” than “in practicality”) … and that “double effect” isn’t really intended. (It’s just a cultural thing: pregnant women are public property; the job of the poor is to provide for the elites at the top of the pyramid.)

  • equalist

    It’s the majority of the pro-life crowd that doesn’t care about the born.  Those that would force a woman to carry a fetus to term regardless of her health or safety fall into this category.  Those who fight against programs to help parents with dependent children financially do as well.  This is not a small minority of pro lifers, this is the majority.  Yes, this group is wrong, and yes those who do fight for the rights of the born as well as the unborn are correctly termed as pro life, but that doesn’t make the majority into the minority, and it doesn’t make them go away.

     

    Edited to add: Pro life is a term used to describe those who are anti abortion.  There are those who are truly pro life, but really, we need to coin another phrase for them, as the term pro life has already been tainted by those who are simply anti choice.

  • crowepps

    Pro life is a term used to describe those who are anti abortion. There are those who are truly pro life, but really, we need to coin another phrase for them, as the term pro life has already been tainted by those who are simply anti choice.

    I have a suggestion — how about reviving the old word for those supporting social justice which has been stigmatized by the corporate hegemony: “liberal”?

  • equalist

    I have a suggestion — how about reviving the old word for those supporting social justice which has been stigmatized by the corporate hegemony: “liberal”?

    It sounds good to me.