What Does it Mean to Be “Pro-Choice?”


A version of this article appears in the forthcoming issue of Conscience magazine.

What does it mean to be “pro-choice?”

And what does it mean to be a pro-choice politician today?

These are two questions that are far from academic at a time when the main focus of the majority of state legislatures and governors, the U.S. House of Representatives and a substantial number of U.S. Senators is not on jobs, deficits, the economy, the environment, the health of educational systems in the United States or the health and well-being of the U.S. population writ large, but instead on incessant, invasive, prurient, and often pornographic efforts to monitor the vaginas and wombs of the country’s female citizens, the loss of freedoms resulting from which indeed negatively affect the basic human rights, health and well-being, economic prospects and educational attainment of women as a class and a demographic group and hence of their children and families.

This article explores what I believe to be the most basic attributes of being “pro-choice” in a political sense and within a reproductive and sexual justice framework. It is the first in two articles examining the issues, the second of which will focus on President Obama’s record on the most fundamental of women’s rights.  I recognize that some may take issue with, or wish to expand upon, my own thinking on this issue and I welcome and indeed encourage debate about it here.

What Does It Mean to be “Pro-Choice?”

In its most narrow sense, the term “pro-choice” is short-hand for a group or individual who believes a woman should be able to choose an abortion if and when she desires to terminate a pregnancy that is either unintended and untenable, or simply untenable.  And certainly, the anti-choice community focuses solely on this aspect of the pro-choice agenda.

But in the fullest sense–and in the political sense–it means much, much more because in truth being “pro-choice” is a political worldview that sees women as equal actors and full participants in society and is based on the belief that every born child should be a wanted, loved, cared-for child. Being pro-choice means understanding that the condition of pregnancy is not an obligation to parenthood and that unless women have the means to achieve sexual and reproductive health, effectively manage their fertility and plan their families, neither of the above conditions can exist.

Being pro-choice means believing in the right of women to choose whether, when, and with whom to bear a child and to determine whether, when, and to whom make a lifelong commitment to becoming a mother for the first time, the third time, or the seventh time; whether to become a mother not now but later, or never to become a mother at all; whether or not to become a parent to an apparently healthy child or give birth knowingly to a profoundly disabled child; whether to become a mother in spite of health risks or to avoid or terminate a pregnancy because of health risks; whether to freely decide to carry to term a pregnancy resulting from such profound human rights abuses as marital or stranger rape or incest; whether to carry an unintended pregnancy to term and give a child up for adoption or to decide to carry to term and raise a child resulting from an unintended pregnancy. 

These are all choices women with agency and freedom make.

Being pro-choice means understanding abortion as a moral choice among numerous moral and morally defensible choices about pregnancy, childbearing, and parenting. It means understanding that some women–the majority of them already mothers–will make a moral choice to have an abortion when they do not feel ready or willing or able to carry a pregnancy to term, when a pregnancy is untenable for any number of reasons, when an additional pregnancy and a potential additional child threatens their own lives or the well-being, food security, educational attainment, or social development of living children and an established family. And, unequivocally yes, when the birth of a child or another child threatens the ability of any given woman to participate in society–whether by achieving an education, engaging in employment or otherwise deciding that “now is not the time” to bear a child or additional children.

It means recognizing that public and media hand-wringing about “injecting morality into the abortion debate” is profoundly dismissive of the reality that its already there, and that women are moral agents making moral choices about when and how to build their families and whether or not they are equipped to make the lifelong and all-encompassing commitment necessary to parenting a(nother) child.  Being pro-choice means recognizing that no one religious tradition has a lock on what is moral, and that others can not decide for any individual woman how best to balance lifelong responsibilities. Being pro-choice means recognizing and respecting any given woman’s right to decide that she could never terminate a pregnancy under any circumstance and any other woman’s right to decide to terminate a pregnancy under circumstances not “acceptable” to others.  Being pro-choice means recognizing that sensationalized examples of women who have abortions “we don’t like” do not give us permission to regulate the bodies of all other women or deny them their rights.

Being pro-choice is profoundly “pro” life and is about being concerned as much or more about living and sentient women, and the safety and well-being of children actually born into and living in this world as it is about ova, sperm, fertilized eggs, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses.  Being pro-choice means understanding that healthy women and healthy pregnancies are both independent values in society, and that women who choose to be pregnant or to carry a pregnancy to term deserve quality pre- and post-natal care, choices in childbirth, and choices in childcare in accordance with their life decisions.  Being pro-choice means recognizing–and working to remedy–the inherent injustice in the fact that women of economic and social privilege by definition have far greater access to the most basic sexual and reproductive health care than do women who are economically or socially marginalized or suffer race and class discrimination.  Being pro-choice also means understanding that abortion is a fundamental component of health care and of the health services to which women need access whether or not they need or choose to terminate a pregnancy at any time in their lives.  Being pro-choice means understanding that efforts to separate, marginalize or otherwise undermine insurance coverage for abortion, contraception or other reproductive and sexual health services or treating these differently than other medical procedures is fundamentally discriminatory to women and undermines their health and well-being.

Being pro-choice in the fullest sense means understanding there is no justifiable “trade-off” or “common ground” in denying some women access to contraception, abortion, or any other form of reproductive health care as part of some “sensible” political compromise (sensible only because it serves a particular politician’s political interests), just as there is no justifiable trade-off in allowing citizens of one economic class or state to exercise their rights to vote, to freedom of speech, or to bodily integrity, for example, while denying the same to citizens of other states or economic classes for reasons of political expediency.  There is, therefore, no justifiable reason for undermining the most fundamental rights of the women of the District of Columbia whose bodies were used as political pawns in the recent fight over the government shutdown. Being pro-choice means understanding it is never ok to use any faith tradition, ideology or personal belief to deny women as a class or individual women their rights.  Ever.

Being pro-choice means understanding that self-determination for women regarding sex, sexuality, reproduction and motherhood is a fundamental precursor to womens’ ability to achieve their own educational, economic and familial aspirations, a fundamental precursor to the health and well-being of individuals and families, and a core condition of the long-term stability and health of society.  It therefore also means understanding the profound connections for women–supported by more than ample evidence–between economic and educational status and unfettered access to comprehensive sexual health education, contraception, family planning services, and abortion care.

Finally, it bears repeating again that being “pro-choice” is a political worldview that sees women as equal actors and full participants in society and is based on the belief that every born child should be a wanted, loved, cared-for child. This alone is a moral position, and unless and until these conditions are fulfilled, we can not achieve justice, no matter how many other deals we strike on other issues.

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

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • beenthere72

    Very well stated and worth sharing.

  • arekushieru

    Just a few clarifications needed: Are you saying that healthy pregnancies are an individual subset of healthy women?  One other thing: I think it’s perfectly fine to say that you have never considered or will never consider terminating a pregnancy under a certain set of circumstances, but flat-out saying never undermines the whole Pro-Choice movement.

    Other than that, I agree 100% with what beenthere72 is saying!  

  • jodi-jacobson

    your request for clarification?

    :>)

    I am not sure what you mean by healthy pregnancies as an individual subset of healthy women. 

    Trying to suss it out, my answer to what I think you are asking is that I believe that healthy pregnancies at the societal level depend on the health, well-being, and agency of women in deciding whether, when and with whom to bear a child.  Individually, a woman might face a health problem, such as HIV infection or high blood pressure or some such, and that may complicate her pregnancy, but it is her decision whether and when to take the risks involved in becoming pregnant, or with an unintended pregnancy, to remain pregnant and give birth.  Does this make sense?  And is this what you are asking?

    I don’t think it undermines the whole pro-choice movement if someone says: I don’t see myself ever terminating a pregnancy, but I don’t wish to impose my personal choices on someone else or predetermine what is right for them.  I completely respect that position, as long as the person in question understands that there are many conditions under which their choices can’t be imposed on others.  Again, is that what you meant? And can you explain more why you see it as undermining the whole movement?

     

    thanks!

     

    Jodi

  • arekushieru

    This statement:

    Being pro-choice means understanding that healthy women and healthy pregnancies are both independent values in society

    is what confused me. Do you mean to make a distinction between medical and societal health, then?

    As for my second contention, I believe it does undermine the Pro-Choice movement because it makes abortion seem like an immoral choice.  Especially when many women have claimed that they would never seek an abortion themselves, but have gone on to do exactly that.

  • crowepps

     I think it’s perfectly fine to say that you have never considered or will never consider terminating a pregnancy under a certain set of circumstances, but flat-out saying never undermines the whole Pro-Choice movement.

    It’s possible for someone with preexisting strong religious beliefs underlying their decision making to flat-out say never, which would be their choice and one that should be respected.  It doesn’t undermine the ProChoice movement because women are entitled to their individual choice.  I would agree that it’s inappropriate to ever IMPOSE ‘never’ from outside.

  • jodi-jacobson

    My point there was to say–clearly in shorthand, which was not very clear–that the health of women is in and of itself important, not just as it pertains to their reproductive capacity, but their total health including their reproductive and sexual health, irrespective of their choices in reproduction. But that ensuring women access to health care when they are pregnant also is critical because too few women have adequate pre-natal care (or post-natal care for that matter) and that ensuring that chosen pregnancies are healthy pregnancies is also an important societal value.

    If you extrapolate this out globally, it is clear that when women lack access to nutrition, healthcare, rest, workplace protections, etc, they grow from childhood to adulthood with diminished health prospects, which affects them individually and affects them as individuals, but also affects infant and child outcomes.

    So the two are intimately tied together, but ensuring women have access to health care throughout their lifecycle is to me a core independent value, and one connected again to economic and social indicators not to mention human rights.

    does this make sense?

    Apologies, because this piece was not intended to extrapolate or go deeply into different points, but to lay out a framework for pro-choice politics writ large.

    Thanks for making–and helping–me clarify.

    jj

  • jodi-jacobson

    As we all know, what people say and what people do can be diametrically opposed, as evidenced by the many anti-choice protestors who find themselves seeking safe abortion care from clinics they otherwise spend their days trying to close down.

    My point here is that individuals can hold a wide range of positions and beliefs and that, to me, being pro-choice means respecting and supporting those beliefs as they pertain to the person, whether they change their mind in one circumstance or another later on notwithstanding.  It is the imposition of their views, values, and situation and the projection of their choices onto others as a matter of law which is profoundly objectionable.

    As an example, Will Saletan argues for limits on later abortions without real consideration of who seeks these procedures and why they do.  I have no doubt whatsoever that were his wife to be faced with a life and death choice to continue or to undergo late termination of a failed pregnancy that threatened her health and/or life, he and she would choose her life over that of the fetus.  But since he isn’t in that situation it is easy to prognosticate and pontificate and encourage limiting other people’s rights.  That–the imposition of restrictions on the life and health of another person in any current or future situation in the abstract–to me is unacceptable to me.  I’d feel differently if he or others said: I don’t see myself or my wife terminating a pregnancy even if it threatened her life but I can’t impose that on others, even if he and she later changed their minds when they found themselves in that situation.

    I hope that makes  sense.  It is about respecting that you are not omniscient or omnipotent and you can not choose for others what the fundamental framework of their lives will look like or what choices they make.

     

    jodi

     

  • elburto

    That’s one thing I can never seem to get the antis to answer – why don’t they want all children born to someone who loves them, wants them, and is able to give them a good life? Why do they insist on quantity, rather than quality?

    I firmly believe that there are no ‘bad’ abortions if they’re that woman’s choice. The problem is that women can never win. Refusing sex with people who can get us pregnant means we’re either deviants or frigid. Enjoying sex makes us sluts. Keeping an unwanted pregnancy leads to accusations of doing it to trap men, or get welfare benefits. Terminating that pregnancy means we’re evil. Not wanting kids means we’re broken or mentally unstable, having one is selfish, having a few leads to “Haha haven’t you figured out how that happens yet?”. We just cannot win.

    I’m terrified for the future ahead of my american ‘sisters’, seeing their rights and choices scaled back or removed on a daily basis. I feel utterly powerless and wish I could help.

  • arekushieru

    But that isn’t the choice they generally make.  So when they do say they will never have an abortion and then go on to have one, they make abortion seem like an immorally bad choice.

  • arekushieru

    That actually coincides with an answer to my original question.  So, I would have to say… Yes!… it does make sense.  Thanks!  :)

  • arekushieru

    But your statement doesn’t even imply never.  It (as you said), instead, implies that you don’t know what your circumstances will be from one given moment to the next!  :D 

  • jodi-jacobson

    and if I am responding to the right things, but basically, the point I think I am trying to get at is this: Pro-choice is about individual choices given individual circumstances around profound life issues.  As one example, the anti-choice community claims, erroneously, that the goal of pro-choice professionals is to promote abortion, which is ridiculous.  It is first and foremost to promote health, primarily reproductive and sexual health, and within that, when it comes to pregnancy to either help women achieve a desired pregnancy and healthy outcome or assist women facing an unwanted/unintended/untenable pregnancy in whatever decision they might make, e.g. carry to term, terminate, or decide to give a baby up for adoption.  it is not about promoteing a specific choice, it is about helping women realize their own goals.

    I can respect a person whose position is that they would never want to terminate a pregnany–whether or not they ultimately find themselves in a position to do so–but simultaneously is “pro-choice” in that they do not want to impose their views on the lives and health and freedom of others. 

    Moreover, I do think one can recognize and appreciate and respect that their *are* different moral positions/traditions on this, but the issue is that no one position supercedes the other, there are individual and diverse faith moral positions and traditions and teachings, and we should not impose one by law because in effect that is an abrogation of religious and moral freedom.

    And because as we know, even Catholic women don’t agree with the Catholic Church hierarchy on this issue….

     

    anyway…just some thoughts.

  • arekushieru

    It’s pretty self -explanatory, I thought….  ‘Never’ implies that abortion is an immoral or ‘bad’ choice because it automatically asSUMEs that that person knows each and every circumstance in their life and would never consider it even under those circumstances.  Which leads one to question why they would never choose it, then.  That leads to the answer that they consider abortion a morally ‘bad’ choice.  And when the anti-choice movement holds that person up as an example of the ProChoice movement (because they are almost always likely to use one exceptional circumstance to promulgate their viewpoint), it certainly doesn’t help the ProChoice movement.  More likely, it hinders it. 

    I think anyone who promotes forced gestation as a moral tool for punishment and control of other women, is both anti-choice, politically and ProChoice personally.  After all, at the same time, they approve of forced gestation as the more moral path to take than disagreeing with a choice someone else makes yet deciding that it is not their job to impose that on others, but also deciding that their abortion is the only moral abortion.

  • crowepps

    ‘Never’ implies that abortion is an immoral or ‘bad’ choice

    Some people will continue to consider abortion an immoral or bad choice for themselves, even an immoral or bad choice for others, and yet want it to remain legal because they realize that illegal abortion is worse.  I can think of a few types of abortion that I personally would consider immoral/bad choices, but I still consider myself ProChoice because I feel MORE strongly that I have no right to impose my beliefs on others.

     

    I don’t think it’s reasonable to insist ProChoice people all think all abortions are a good thing and morally acceptable – I would be satisfied with people continuing to believe it was terrible so long as they also grasped their beliefs can inform only their own behaviors and that other people’s choices weren’t any of their business.

     

    It’s not the belief that abortion is a tragedy that is the problem, it is the relentless propaganda campaign to PROSELYTIZE that belief to others, particularly when the message is coming from MEN who use it to try to impose a guilt trip on the WOMEN they promiscuously impregnate, because it’s so clear that their aim is to use pregnancy and motherhood to restrict women to the home where they can be controlled.

     

    Personally, any group that believes women need to be locked up and restricted, whether in the home or in a cloistered ‘contemplative order’, has some major unhealthy issues with women and should be the last people whose opinion should be listened to regarding laws or customs for women.  All women need to be imprisoned for their own good isn’t exactly rational.

  • jodi-jacobson

    you were far more articulate than me and i agree 100 percent with how you have framed this.

  • crowepps

    I think it is pointless to get into discussions about is abortion moral/immoral, is abortion good/bad, is the fetus human/is the fetus a person/what rights should the fetus have, because in a diverse country with many different religions and no religion, there are all kinds of opinions on those issues and the answers to them are really irrelevant.  The REAL issue is who decides?

     

    In individual cases, is the decision imposed from outside by those who don’t know the individual circumstances, grossly ignorant of the biological facts of reproduction and obstetrics, who make stupid statements like “it’s always possible to save both”, and who want to sweep aside the religious freedom of others and impose their own black/white personal religious views?

     

    Or is the decision made by those most intimately involved, those who will bear the psychological and spiritual consequences of the decision, those whose actual lives are on the line?

     

    SOME people seem to believe that we should all be the same, think the same way, believe the same things, and live identical lives.  Amazingly, those people think all of us should be More Like Them.   SOME people seem to think that an authoritarian government is the only way to have a stable society, and unfortunately, those people have lied and fear mongered their way into the ascendancy right now.  Their arrogance has lead them into hubris.  They have overreached, they are ignorant of economic realities, their greed has been made manifest, and they don’t bother to hide their disrespect of and contempt for ordinary americans.  The recall petitions have started, and I truly do not believe they will be running things much longer.

  • arekushieru

    I did point out that I believe that the belief that an option is immoral for others as well as themselves, is just as bad as saying that that option should be illegal for others as well as themselves.  Especially if one is going to make a statement to that effect.  Since words have power.  I am sure we can all agree on this.  Many things have been undermined simply by this ‘power’.  And that can be used to make a leap towards the proselytization of that belief towards others and the dichotomous belief that abortion is about immorality vs morality.  I actually want to keep discussions of immorality/morality out of the debate around abortion….

    Besides, do we really think it is an immoral/bad choice, when we make those same choices every day, in our lives, by deciding not to donate blood, not to donate organs… or tissues? And does it really help to relegate abortion to what we think is a ‘special’ moral position simply because it involves what we think is a ‘special’ organ?  I don’t think that helps in any way, shape or form. In fact, I believe it hinders us, just as much as, if not more than, thinking it should be illegal for all.  

  • jodi-jacobson

    Many people would never and don’t engage in organ donation because they don’t want to. It is considered “moral to do so” and a choice not to do so and there is no stigma to it. Just one example. Others just don’t ever give blood and don’t think about it. Some of course can’t.

    Some don’t want to donate organs, but then faced with the untimely death or brain death of a loved one, make a different decision for different reasons.

    I guess what I was driving at is that in a really pro-choice world we can have lots of individual opinions, and having that world means not separating out abortion socially as a special moral position, but allowing for diverse opinions as we do on all other issues, because people’s actual opinions and actual choices will change and evolve.

    I know that, having had an abortion earlier in my life, I would have thought differently while I was married and after having two kids about my ability to accommodate an unplanned or unintended pregnancy and therefore an additional child were I to have become pregnant. That doesn’t mean it is any more or less moral to make one choice over the other because my circumstances were completely different and my abilities completely different.

    jj

  • crowepps

    The average person has absolutely no problem at all setting up a two-tier system of morality with one set of rules for ‘us’ and harsh judgments for ‘others’.  Planned Parenthood staff actually facilitate this by providing nonjudgmental, compassion care to the very protesters who call them murderers.  In light of the tactics of Lila Rose and her ilk, this is to say the least chancy.

     

    I don’t remember all the details, but quite a few years back there was a large law firm down south that specialized in suing obstetricians for malpractice on the flimsiest of grounds.  In frustration the local obstetricians announced they no longer were willing to accept the lawyers, their wives or staff as patients.  The lawyers were outraged that they were being ‘discriminated against’ but they eventually changed their business practices.

  • ack

    I did point out that I believe that the belief that an option is immoral for others as well as themselves, is just as bad as saying that that option should be illegal for others as well as themselves.  Especially if one is going to make a statement to that effect.  Since words have power.

     

    I don’t think I agree with this. If all the people who think abortion is immoral stopped trying to make it illegal or limit access, we would be in an infinitely better position as far as reproductive rights. (Point of clarification: I think that people standing outside clinics screaming about abortion are absolutely trying to limit access, whether they’re lobbying or not.) Words do have power, and when they state that they think abortion is immoral, it increases stigma. But if that’s as far as it went, we could work with that. The person who thinks abortion is immoral and says aloud to a group, “I wouldn’t have an abortion,” doesn’t have the same negative impact as the person running an anti-choice group lobbying for bills to decrease access or make abortion illegal.

  • forlife

    I do not understand the “every child a wanted child” type arguments, that state every child born should be wanted by his mother so he is not abused. Abortion is legal, so shouldn’t there be no child abuse anymore? I have volunteered at my local Child Protective Services, and in my opinion there is an epidemic level of child abuse.

  • forced-birth-rape

    “Abortion is legal,”      ~ It is not free!

     

    I was abused and so was many other children and so-called unsubmissive women in my family by our christian pervert “I love for all females to be barefoot, pregnant and submissive to men) male family members.

     

    A lot of christian men like to keep the women pregnant, to prove to themselves and other christian men that their penises work, even if they are going to beat their wives and rape little girls.  ~

  • carolyninthecity

    I don’t think anyone at any point argued that keeping abortion legal and accessible would completely eradicate child abuse. There will be people who plan their children and still abuse them which is the sad reality. But wouldn’t you agree that forcing a person to give birth and raise a baby they never wanted is unhealthy and possibly has greater potential to become an abusive situation then if the baby were planned and wanted? 

  • forlife

    “It is not free!”

    What a weird argument. Are you implying only poor people abuse their kids? Last time I checked, child abuse is rampant in middle and upper class families as well.

    I am not sure what the point of your abuse story was, or how it is revelant. But I was raped by a guy who wanted to keep abortion nice and legal. I got pregnant by a different man (not rape), who tried to get me to stick a freaking vacuum up my vagina to kill his kid so he would not have to pay child support. Rapists and irresponsible men generally want to keep abortion legal so they can use girls and women. Then just request that she has an invasive surgery on her genitals to kill their own offspring. And repeat!

  • forlife

    No one has to raise a baby if they do not want to. And even if a child has a miserable life, it is not up to me or anyone else to say they would be better off dead. Tons of planned children have awful lives as well. There is also not evidence that unplanned children have worse lives than planned children, or are abused more.

    I was abused myself. I realize that child abuse is the sadistic, pure evil torture of some of the weakest, most vulnerable human beings. But I am in awe of my life and greatly appreciate it, and it is offensive that some think we should just be discarded because of our crap upbringings (though I am not saying that is what you were implying).

  • prochoiceferret

    I got pregnant by a different man (not rape), who tried to get me to stick a freaking vacuum up my vagina to kill his kid so he would not have to pay child support. Rapists and irresponsible men generally want to keep abortion legal so they can use girls and women. Then just request that she has an invasive surgery on her genitals to kill their own offspring. And repeat!

     

    Things can get pretty ugly when womens’ wishes regarding their own bodies aren’t respected, don’t you think?

  • prochoiceferret

    And even if a child has a miserable life, it is not up to me or anyone else to say they would be better off dead.

     

    What does the killing of born children have to do with anything on this site?

     

    There is also not evidence that unplanned children have worse lives than planned children, or are abused more.

     

    You’re the only one talking about unplanned pregnancies/children. A pregnancy/child can be both unplanned yet wanted (“our little ‘oops!’ baby”). We’re talking about unwanted pregnancies/children. Bit of a difference there.

  • jodi-jacobson

    Every child a wanted child. Its simple.

    It does not mean that alone will end child abuse–and that was never said, but I realize with no counter arguments except blind ideology you need to make things up.

    It does not mean no child will ever go hungry, be poor, or otherwise suffer. It does mean there will be a lot fewer children born who will experience these conditions because, for example, in a country like Uganda where women have on average two more children than they want to have in their lifetimes, parents will have more resources, time, energy and ability to raise, educate, feed, and care for the children they do have.

    The same goes for any single woman or man wanting to plan their families. Its really pretty simple. And it really is profoundly moral, compassionate, and sane.

  • beenthere72

    Because child abusers want children too.   To have something to abuse.   Animal abusers get pets for the same reason.

  • forced-birth-rape

     

    ~ People who cannot afford abortions cannot afford safe childcare like my aunt, and leave the kids with who ever will keep them, which in my cousin’s situation was child rapist.

     

     Abortion is not murder.

     

    Any man who does not want to pay child support is not going to protect his kid, but that might make more sex victims for all those anti-abortion priest.

     

    “Rapists and irresponsible men generally want to keep abortion legal so they can use girls and women.”    Not true!

     

    Rape is supposed to be against the law, so those rapist will have no problem taking the girls and women to get a unsafe back alley illegal butcher job abortion, if it kills or maims her he can always go out and collect another girl.

     

    The catholic church the biggest child rape organization on the globe and is pro-forced-birth. They want to force raped nine and ten year old little girls into giving birth.

     

    The southern Baptist convention is pro-forced birth.

     

    TIME ranks Southern Baptists’ rejection of sex-offender database as a top “underreported” news story of 2008

     

    StopBaptistPredators.org

     

    ~ If you want to force or harass girls, women, raped girls, and raped women into having something or someone in their body against their will, use their body against their will, terrorize them for nine months with worry and dread of having unwanted extreme vaginal pain they have already said they do not want against their will. You do not care about girls and women being used, no you do not.

     

    ~ Forced birth is sexually vicious, hateful, abusive, and disrespectful to women and girls.

     

    No one should be allowed to involve themselves with women and girls pregnancies like women and girls are nothing but breeding chattel, every one gets to go to the livestock auction and discuss and make decisions on like they are animals here for breeding.

     

    People who involve themselves with women and girls pregnancy decisions think females are just breeding stock, nothing more nothing less. ~

  • arekushieru

    I’m saying that it’s all connected.  Proselytizing comes from believing something is immoral, trying to make something illegal or legal comes from the continuous indoctrination into those same beliefs from birth to adulthood.  

  • arekushieru

    Although, I think a more analogous circumstance would be to compare someone who doesn’t want to consent to organ donation to a woman who wants an abortion.  However, that’s all the quibbles I have for you….  Your explanation was much appreciated, after all.  :D

  • arekushieru

    I am aware of this catch-22, however, the less fuel we feel able to use to feed the ‘fire’, the better, no?

  • arekushieru

    Even unwanted pregnancies can be brought to term.  But very few women do that, even ProLifers.  The only difference?  That ProLifers would like to deem it an immoral choice but ProChoicers aren’t that hypocritical.

     

    If consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, then why shouldn’t pregnancy be consent to motherhood?

  • james-crowe

    What does it mean to be “pro-slavery?”

    And what does it mean to be a pro-slavery politician today?

    These are two questions that are far from academic at a time when the main focus of the majority of state legislatures and governors, the U.S. House of Representatives and a substantial number of U.S. Senators is not on jobs, deficits, the economy, the environment, the health of educational systems in the United States or the health and well-being of the U.S. population writ large, but instead on incessant, invasive, prurient, and often pornographic efforts to monitor the homes and farms of the country’s white citizens, the freedoms resulting from which indeed don’t affect the basic human rights, health and well-being, economic prospects and educational attainment of Negroes as a class and a demographic group and hence of their children and families.

    This article explores what I believe to be the most basic attributes of being “pro-slavery” in a political sense and within a workable and justifiable framework. It is the first in two articles examining the issues, the second of which will focus on President Obama’s record on the most fundamental of white’s rights. I recognize that some may take issue with, or wish to expand upon, my own thinking on this issue and I welcome and indeed encourage debate about it here.

    What Does It Mean to be “Pro-slavery?”

    In its most narrow sense, the term “pro-slavery” is short-hand for a group or individual who believes a white man should be able to choose to own a slave (or slaves) if and when he desires to. And certainly, the anti-slavery community focuses solely on this aspect of the pro-slavery agenda.

    But in the fullest sense–and in the political sense–it means much, much more because in truth being “pro-slavery” is a political worldview that sees Negroes as 3/5ths actors and 3/5ths participants in society and is based on the belief that every slave should be a wanted, owned, and nourished slave. Being pro-slavery means understanding that the condition of slavery is not an obligation to own slaves.

  • prochoiceferret

    What does it mean to be “pro-slavery?”

    And what does it mean to be a pro-slavery politician today?

     

    Forcing unwanted labor on women seems like an obvious upshot. Why focus on “Negroes” when there’s lots more females around who can be denied their basic human rights?

  • colleen

    This article explores what I believe to be the most basic attributes of being “pro-slavery” in a political sense and within a workable and justifiable framework.

     That ‘framework’ is not justifiable or workable. Yours is the argument of a  loon.

  • arekushieru

    It means to believe that one group of humans deserve fewer rights than all others, simply because of the presence of certain organs, because of their skin color.  It means to treat them as inferiors, deny them the same rights as everyone else because of their physiognomy, even though they aren’t infringing on others rights.  It means to grant more rights to a superior clase because, or deSPITE the fact, they ARE infringing on someone else’s rights. ProLife = ProSlavery because they grant fetuses more rights than anyone born and deny rights to women because they have uteruses.  Just like slave-owners granted more rights to themselves and denied rights to slaves just because they were black.

  • wendy-banks

    The recall petitions have started, and I truly do not believe they will be running things much longer.

    I truely hope you are right… Things are getting crazy where the Tea Party and the far-right-wingers run things :(