Being pro-choice: The “essence of misogyny”
… [I]t is not feminism to support abortion….
[T]o argue that women are unequal without the “right” to abortion is to believe that pregnancy is something that makes women less-than. But pregnancy is something that is both uniquely female and literally as natural as breathing.
To believe that abortion is necessary for women’s equality is to believe that women, without artificial intervention, really are less-than. That a woman, by herself, is a lesser human being.
And that is the essence of misogyny.
~ Commenter Alice, on Stanek Quote of the Day “Pro-choice pol: Pro-life women really men with breasts,” March 27
[Photo via ihijazi.com]
Mar.29, 2012 2:00 am |
Feminism |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
:) Author, author!!
Well done!
Rock on Alice!!
WOOT!!!
Congratulations, Alice!!!! You hit the nail on the head.
Thanks, y’all. :D
RIGHT ON!!
‘Men with breasts’
The first images that come to mind are Bella Abzug and Rosie o’Donnel.
What a disturbing visual.
If I wanted to frighten the vultures away from the road kill I would post their photos.
You have it backwards. It is *because* pregnancy is, as you put it, “uniquely female” that women (and other pregnancy-capable individuals) ought to have direction of it.
Intervening to deny women the right to direct their “uniquely female” bodily functions is misogynistic.
Also, is sex as natural as breathing?
umm…unless you’re absolutely unfamiliar with the process of sexual reproduction and have never heard of contraception, women already DO have direction of their bodily functions. Do you make a habit of running around naked, tripping, and landing on men randomly laying on the ground with erections bottom-first? I sure don’t.
We women have as much control as can be expected over OUR bodies. Abortion is actually denying someone else (not a pregnant woman) governance over THEIR body, causing a premature death on their part. That’s anti-human, forget just being misogynistic.
And yes, sex is as natural as breathing. Abortion is as natural as lethal injection.
“Abortion is actually denying someone else (not a pregnant woman) governance over THEIR body, causing a premature death on their part.”
Well, that’s where you’re wrong. Biology gives us flexibility. Part of a pregnant person’s body has the potential (except or when it doesn’t) to go on to become a separate human being, but it isn’t one. It is the arrogance of your movement to inflexibly personify *all* fetuses (and earlier), which in Alice’s terms can only ever be a part of female bodies, wishing to take for yourselves a choice that belongs to the people who are actually pregnant in each case. Feminism is not about helping women avoid a so-called scourge of pregnancy; it is about getting people to stop turning pregnancy and other things seen to be “uniquely female” into scourging experiences for women.
Abortion is a technology, which you can derogate as “unnatural” if you want to. Contraception is also a product of human artifice. So is the internet, and marriage, and printed Bibles, and agriculture, and hunting, and sex toys (as natural as breathing!), and iron lungs, the two-party system, and race cars.
Well, that’s where you’re wrong. Biology gives us flexibility. Part of a pregnant person’s body has the potential (except or when it doesn’t) to go on to become a separate human being, but it isn’t one.
And here’s where YOU are wrong. You don’t seem to have even a slight grasp of Biology. Biology doesn’t grant any sort of “flexibility” to deny basic science and ignore that gestating human beings are absolutely not simply a part of their mother’s body, and they are ALWAYS a separate human being, from the second the zygote is formed. The factors “giv[ing you] flexibility” are your ignorance and delusion. I have no such “flexibility”, because I am grounded in reality and knowledge.
Please start by reading this article by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html
It is the arrogance of your movement to inflexibly personify *all* fetuses (and earlier),
Umm…yes…because they are persons. They are living members of our species, which qualifies them as human beings, and “human being” is a synonym for “person”. You seem to be unfamiliar with the propensity of a movement to recognize fact. Perhaps you should abscond from yours and join us so that you might familiarize yourself with the practice.
which in Alice’s terms can only ever be a part of female bodies,
I’m sorry, but I didn’t see her say that, at all. You’re extending your faulty assumption with which you started (that the children gestating within the uteri of pregnant mothers are nothing more than a body part of theirs or some other such nonsense) and attempting to attribute it to Alice.
wishing to take for yourselves a choice that belongs to the people who are actually pregnant in each case. Feminism is not about helping women avoid a so-called scourge of pregnancy; it is about getting people to stop turning pregnancy and other things seen to be “uniquely female” into scourging experiences for women.
There is no physical condition which justifies or should make legal a parent killing their minor child. I’ve actually been pregnant. I’ve even actually been pregnant when I didn’t want to be. That wouldn’t have made it acceptable for me to end the life of my child prematurely. Feminism is not about helping women avoid a so-called scourge of pregnancy because you are the only one here calling it that. YOU are part of the problem, and demonstrably anti-feminist since you would even allude to pregnancy as a “scourge”. I definitely agree with you about pregnancy not being turned into scourging experiences for women…and do you know what would help that? Stop just accepting things like employers telling us to “abort or lose your job.”-that would help. Don’t just choke it down and do what he says when your child’s father tells you to “kill it” or he’s leaving. Don’t look at your child on an ultrasound screen and see the end of your educational opportunities/career. And don’t accept any of those things FOR A MINUTE when someone wants to tell you that everything that happens to you is YOUR FAULT because you should’ve aborted. Don’t just let society try and sweep people under the carpet by pretending they never existed shouting “OUR BODY, OUR CHOICE!” because they’re not OUR BODIES. Our children ARE NOT just choices! Stand up, and fight for the right of every human being to be born, because our rights are not contradictory to those of our children, they are complimentary!
Oh, and I only mentioned the “natural” thing because you brought it up. I’m not denigrating or venerating natural vs. artificial.
Xalisae–I can see you preaching all of this, surrounded by a heavenly glow behind a pulpit!! (Ironic, huh?) :) You are inspired tonight, girl!
To believe that surgery for uterine cancer is necessary for women’s equality is to believe that women, without artificial intervention, are really less-than. After all, men don’t ask for it!
Even if a pregnancy would kill a woman, let’s do nothing! Artificial intervention is for chumps!
Hey Anna,
When uterine cancer expels itself from your uterus, continues to grow on its own over years, and then asks you for a glass of water, I might take you seriously. Until then, you’re comparing apples and oranges, and you haven’t made a point. You have no leg to stand on. Neither does uterine cancer.
Oh, and please tell me where any Pro-Lifer here has said that a woman with a life-threatening pregnancy should be allowed to die.
Um, right in the article. There aren’t any exceptions made for the nice Christian married ladies who have sex with their husbands, get pregnant, then have the nerve to end up with a 20- week dead fetus through tragic health circumstances. I guess removing that fetus is the type of “artificial intervention” that women should do without. Suck it up, ladies!
See also: Georgia’s recent proposed law mandating that women can’t get abortions in that very circumstance.
As for the apples and oranges: uterine cancer is something that is (generally) uniquely female, like pregnancy. Natural as breathing, in fact. Thus, the conclusion that “artificial intervention” in that case just makes us less than men, according to the logic here.
I look forward to seeing this site advocate the non-treatment of endometriosis, ectopic pregnancy (which would also be an abortion), uterine cysts, any kind of female reproductive cancer, menopause symptoms, and lots of other mostly-female ailments. We’ve already started singling out women’s contraception, so let’s keep going!
which in Alice’s terms can only ever be a part of female bodies,
I’m sorry, but I didn’t see her say that, at all.
I’m sorry for the misunderstanding. In my head the emphasis in this sentence was on the word “female” (not the word “part”) in order to (unsuccessfully!) make room for the difference between a view that sees pregnancy as uniquely “female” (which is something Alice did say and which is relevant to the use of the term “misogyny”) and a view that understands trans men to be men, who are capable of pregnancy.
As for the article you linked, it is very detailed in the one small area it covers (I know, you called it a beginning, not a summation), but even scientists and/or libertarians can be misogynist. Sexism is old and venerable! People have enlisted not just science but also religion in its service. I recently came across a quotation attributed to Benazir Bhutto, who apparently said: Islam doesn’t oppress women—men do. Similarly, misogynistic readings of biology are widespread.
since you would even allude to pregnancy as a “scourge”
Hence I included “so-called”? I agree with most of what you say on this point, although to me it’s not so much the particular ways pregnancy can be used against pregnant people (coercion towards birth v. coercion towards abortion) as the fact that it is used against them at all.
There aren’t any exceptions made for the nice Christian married ladies who have sex with their husbands, get pregnant, then have the nerve to end up with a 20- week dead fetus through tragic health circumstances. I guess removing that fetus is the type of “artificial intervention” that women should do without. Suck it up, ladies!
That’s probably because we’re talking about elective abortion, which 98% of pregnancy terminations are. You see, our problem is with killing another human being-the pregnant woman’s child. That’s our problem with abortion. So, you’re really not going to see much here about objecting to care for the removal of a child who is already dead. The only objection I have is the failure of the medical community (oftentimes) to give children who die naturally in utero the respect they deserve. When my brother Christopher died in my mother’s womb at 7 months gestation, I’m not certain my parents were able to obtain a death certificate. He was a living human being just like we all currently are. He deserved to be recognized as one of us by society. Also, since I’ve never seen anyone here oppose saving the life of a pregnant woman (you guys REALLY don’t get this whole Pro-Life thing. Why would we let 2 people die, when we can save one? One life is more than zero lives. Math not your thing, either?), why would we need to make a special mention in a statement about elective abortion that has nothing to do with it? Life-threatening conditions are not unique to women. However, pregnancy-a condition that 99% of the time is of no harm to a woman, and is the first care and nurturing any child will ever receive-IS unique to us, as we get the opportunity to create a strong bond with our children long before their fathers do.
Oh, and please give me a source for “Georgia’s law”, because I’ve not heard anything about it, and I don’t frequent RHsurReality check.
By the way, what was that weird tangent when you mentioned “nice Christian married ladies”? I was pregnant with my first/gave birth unmarried, and I’ve not been a practitioner of any religion since 5th grade. It’s so odd that you would specify that when no one’s said anything about it.
As for the apples and oranges: uterine cancer is something that is (generally) uniquely female, like pregnancy. Natural as breathing, in fact. Thus, the conclusion that “artificial intervention” in that case just makes us less than men, according to the logic here.
I wasn’t aware that men were immune to being afflicted with cancer of their reproductive organs. Have you shared this knowledge nugget with the rest of the medical community, doctor?
I look forward to seeing this site advocate the non-treatment of endometriosis, ectopic pregnancy (which would also be an abortion), uterine cysts, any kind of female reproductive cancer, menopause symptoms, and lots of other mostly-female ailments. We’ve already started singling out women’s contraception, so let’s keep going!
I’d like to start by saying that there are plenty of Pro-Life/Pro-Contraception people in our movement. You happen to be talking to one of them right now.
Secondly, you really missed the point of my first post. Pregnancy is not a disease! It is not an abnormality or illness!!! It is not a scourge or malfunction!! It is a woman’s reproductive organs exhibiting healthy function after sexual intercourse. Attempting to treat it as an illness or malfunction hurts us as a gender, and pits us against our children-painting them as perpetrators who harmed their mothers-when that simply is not so.
I’m sorry for the misunderstanding. In my head the emphasis in this sentence was on the word “female” (not the word “part”) in order to (unsuccessfully!) make room for the difference between a view that sees pregnancy as uniquely “female” (which is something Alice did say and which is relevant to the use of the term “misogyny”) and a view that understands trans men to be men, who are capable of pregnancy.
Oh sweet! Trollbait! I don’t usually take this stuff, but you seem like fun, so ok! You really do suck at this Biology thing. A man has never been pregnant. A man will never be pregnant. So there’s your unsuccessful understanding at work. Pointing out that pregnancy is something that will never happen to a man is not “misogyny”. I really don’t get where your head is at here.
As for the article you linked, it is very detailed in the one small area it covers (I know, you called it a beginning, not a summation), but even scientists and/or libertarians can be misogynist. Sexism is old and venerable! People have enlisted not just science but also religion in its service. I recently came across a quotation attributed to Benazir Bhutto, who apparently said: Islam doesn’t oppress women—men do. Similarly, misogynistic readings of biology are widespread.
Sorry, but you can’t just label all biological facts that you don’t like (this was even presented by a woman, for f’s sake!) “misogyny” and disregard them. Please give me a sample of something from that article that is scientifically inaccurate. I don’t accept religious reasoning in regards to abortion debate because I am not religious. However, I’m pretty sure we all live in reality on planet Earth, and so science is not something that can simply be ignored and shrugged off if one doesn’t find it palatable.
I agree with most of what you say on this point, although to me it’s not so much the particular ways pregnancy can be used against pregnant people (coercion towards birth v. coercion towards abortion) as the fact that it is used against them at all.
Umm…there is no such thing as “coercion towards birth”. Birth happens naturally on it’s own, and is typically the culmination of a healthy gestational period. Nobody is using pregnancy/birth against women. Pregnant women are using abortion against their children in utero. You can kinda tell when you compare how many children end up dead via abortion vs. how many women end up dead due to pregnancy/childbirth (which are even then typically situations which could’ve been avoided with proper medical care. THE ENTIRE POINT OF ABORTION IS TO END THE LIFE OF A GESTATING CHILD.)
Xalisae, has anyone told you you’re awesome today? Because you are.
The article you linked is not so much inaccurate as it is irrelevant. As for the rest, pregnancy really is a concern for trans men, and pregnancy is totally used against cis women. Look it up. Read the news.
I came here to respond to the original post, so I’ll reiterate that part: The analysis Alice offered is mistaken; pregnancy and motherhood are perfectly compatible with feminist ideals.
Why thank you, JDC. You’re pretty neat, yourself.
I went to lapidarion’s blog, read it a little bit, and looks like his/her head is firmly lodged within the puckered rear entrance to Fantasy Land. They seem to operate under the blatantly false assumption that a gestating human being is nothing more than a part of his/her mother. Hence, the utter lack of rebuttal when I corrected them, and then nothing more than a response of “LIES! LIES! MISOGYNY! NANNY NANNY BOO BOO, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” when presented with a well-documented refutation of their erroneous position, crafted by a highly-qualified (female) expert. I don’t expect to make any headway with that one. XD
The article you linked is not so much inaccurate as it is irrelevant.
Irrelevant? How so? You thought debating that point was relevant enough to include stating the opposite in your very first rebuttal to me, so it can’t possibly be THAT “irrelevant”. I really wish you’d address the point instead of dancing around and flailing.
As for the rest, pregnancy really is a concern for trans men,
As I am certain the ongoing Civil War is of the utmost importance to those individuals in such a mental state they believe themselves to be Abraham Lincoln. I’ll somewhat concede your point by simply saying, yes, pregnancy IS a concern to women who think they are men (but they’re women). Personally, I’m more concerned about their mental state, but that’s just me (and the DSM. OHSNAP!). I really don’t care to chase you down this diversionary rabbit hole, so I will simply tell you this is the last I will talk about gender dysphoria with you.
pregnancy is totally used against cis women. Look it up. Read the news.
Honey, I don’t have to “Look it up.” or “Read the news.” to know this stuff. You really don’t know me. You really don’t know what my life has been like, so, let me tell you. I know DAMNED well that this sort of stuff happens, because in the course of splitting up with my abusive (now ex) husband, he told me himself he regretted pushing me to have a tubal ligation, because he would’ve tried to forcibly impregnate me against my will in order to try and get me to stay with him and to make my leaving him as difficult as possible. But, even then, you have your pro-abortion-baby-blinders on, and you can’t see the REASON this happens. It’s not the pregnancy, sweetheart. Pregnancy is transitory, it is not a permanent disabling condition (Michelle Duggar excluded, *rimshot*), and it alone certainly isn’t what is “used” against women. It is THE CHILD who is used as a weapon in those instances, and you’ve not only taken the bait, you’ve swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. How can you not see how men and society in general have successfully pitted abortion sympathizing women against their own children, and in turn, against their very own femininity?
If pregnancy and motherhood are completely compatible with feminist ideals, start acting like it. Stop acting as though we need some imagined “right” to end the lives of our children in utero to be equal. Stop fighting our children growing peacefully in the womb with mercenaries in labcoats. If a man rapes a woman, and she conceives, charge him not only with the rape, but with endangering a minor. The woman and child shouldn’t be pitted against one another at the cost of a child’s life. It is the man who is the one who is responsible for the harm-punish HIM.
Sheesh, I love me some Xalisae TODAY.
Wahat’s a cis woman?
Thanks, Courtnay! <3
“cis woman” = “heterosexual biological female”
JMJ
xalisae, I do think that some of your views about life are informed from a religious perspective. For example, life by itself does not have a value – something outside of creation has to give it meaning, something supernatural. If a person does not believe in a supernatural loving God who created human beings there is very little reason for that person to value human life. Without the belief in God, human life ends, and has no objective meaning outside of what meaning is internally generated by the said life. God, and our eternal life, give this earthly life meaning and value. We can discern from nature that there is a purpose and that therefore there is a God, and eternal life. It is only because nature points to this transcendent God, a meaning and purpose beyond nature, that gives nature and all creation meaning. The laws of nature that we are able to discern allow us to reasonably conclude that there is a God. Our reasonable understanding of who God is and must be, tells us that he values human life, and that human life has value, that he created human life out of an over abundance of love. If we divorce the value of human life from God, its creator, we are left with differing human opinions on the value of human life that fail to recognize the objective reality that life has a purpose beyond what one gives it in an instrumental or utilitarian fashion. Having a religious perspective doesn’t mean that you can’t utilize your scientifically based arguments in support of life, but it simply means that a religious perspective on life is the rational reason we ascribe meaning to scientific pursuits. If we did not believe in the intelligibility of the world science would not be possible.
xalisae, I don’t imagine that I’m here to teach or convince you. Even if you personally were in a place to change your mind, I don’t think that this blog is the kind of space that encourages people to change their minds, one way or another. I’m here to pick up what I can, when the occasion presents itself (so thanks for the link, but it’s not the first such article I’ve read), and I’m also here to contradict, to state opposition to what still seems to me to be an elaborate exercise in prejudice and misinformation—but not to lay it all out for you or for anyone. It’s easy enough to find, anyway. Just like it wasn’t hard for me to find this blog. I’m interested in seeing what you all have to say and how you conduct yourselves, including your responses to my occasional comments. You all just keep doing your thing.
You see, our problem is with killing another human being-the pregnant woman’s child. That’s our problem with abortion
Not according to the comment cited above. The quote is saying that women make themselves “less than” men by retaining the right of the “artificial intervention” of abortion. That if only women would stay pregnant when they get pregnant, which is “as natural as breathing,” women would be the equal of men. So, why not say that about other mostly-female health issues? After all, we don’t want a “special right” to be treated for menstrual cramps, or else we’re weaker than men!
(NOTE: some of the commenters above make the excellent point that Alice’s comment assumes pregnancy happens only to women. It does not, but for purposes of responding to her comment, I am phrasing my response along those lines.)
Also, since I’ve never seen anyone here oppose saving the life of a pregnant woman
Really? Read Alice’s comment. Again – there aren’t any exceptions. If only women would just go through their easy, breezy pregnancies, things would be OK? There would be no need for abortion? I guess the women I know who have needed life-saving abortions have been lying. You do note that “99%” of pregnancies aren’t life threatening. (A high estimate, especially in the developing world, but we’ll roll with it.) So – do the other 1% of women require abortions? Does that make those women “less than” men, for using an “artificial intervention” to save their lives? No? Well, then why applaud the comment?
Oh, and please give me a source for “Georgia’s law”, because I’ve not heard anything about it, and I don’t frequent RHsurReality check.
Do you frequent Google?
By the way, what was that weird tangent when you mentioned “nice Christian married ladies”?
Because this site totally celebrates when non-married, godless ladies get pregnant.
I wasn’t aware that men were immune to being afflicted with cancer of their reproductive organs.
I wasn’t aware that we were talking about men’s health concerns. Alice comment talks about a women’s health concern. So was I.
(Although it’s worth noting that no insurance company, ever, seems to have a problem covering health conditions that happen mostly to men. I assume this is because men are the default human beings, while women are a special interest group that’s always whining about things like maternity coverage.)
I’d like to start by saying that there are plenty of Pro-Life/Pro-Contraception people in our movement. You happen to be talking to one of them right now.
And yet, women’s contraception is also an “artificial intervention,” according to this site and a bunch of people who call themselves “pro-life.” And it’s being eliminated in the same way that abortion is, and many of the people on this site applaud that.
Secondly, you really missed the point of my first post. Pregnancy is not a disease! It is not an abnormality or illness!!! It is not a scourge or malfunction!!
Except when it kills a woman. Or severely maims her. Or causes her to have health conditions for the rest of her life. Or causes her to suffer chronic issues unrelated to the physical pregnancy, like extreme poverty or abuse. Does this happen to everyone? No, not by a long shot. But it happens frequently. I’m not on the side of the people who are trying to tell pregnant women in those situations that their issues are irrelevant, and that they either shouldn’t be addressed or that I know how to address them.
Pregnancy is transitory, it is not a permanent disabling condition…
Except when it is. I don’t need to cite all the permanent physical conditions that can be caused by pregnancy, do I?
A man has never been pregnant. A man will never be pregnant.
Trans men already have been. It’s not a hypothetical.
Umm…there is no such thing as “coercion towards birth”.
later…
in the course of splitting up with my abusive (now ex) husband, he told me himself he regretted pushing me to have a tubal ligation, because he would’ve tried to forcibly impregnate me against my will in order to try and get me to stay with him and to make my leaving him as difficult as possible.
I’m sure you can see the connection here.
Here’s the thing: I know that in my limited experience, I cannot speak for all women. I can’t take the experiences of my life, my body, and tell other women exactly what to do with theirs. That includes telling them to have or not have an abortion, even in medically fragile or otherwise non-ideal situations. Because as soon as I advocate that I or anyone else has the power to tell a woman she can’t have an abortion, I have also give others the power to say that she must have an abortion. Neither is acceptable, precisely because I accept the fact that I DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING, and neither does anyone else. I wouldn’t venture to tell people which heart medication to take, or which car to buy. So I certainly can’t tell them whether or not they should carry a fetus and give birth, as if it’s a passive and totally easy process that does nothing to one’s body or life.
My hope is that people here can actually talk to the 1 in 3 women who have had an abortion and hear, without judgement, how it came about. And if their stories distress you, why not do something that will actually lessen the need for abortions?
Personally, I’m more concerned about [trans mens’] mental state, but that’s just me (and the DSM. OHSNAP!).
(Michelle Duggar excluded, *rimshot*)
Honey, I don’t have to “Look it up.”
It’s not the pregnancy, sweetheart.
Math not your thing, either?
Somehow I think that isn’t going to happen, because it would take trust and good faith in one’s fellow human beings. Sigh.
Wow, Anna and lapras, are you guys joined at the hip, or what? With the patterns of your comments, it’s almost like you’re the same person!
lapband, if you have no intention of giving a lick of critical thought to anything presented, OR trying to add to the debate by adequately defending your side of the argument as you admitted in your post here, then wtf are you doing here AT ALL? Quit wasting your time and ours and go find your own echo chamber into which you may yodel. If you’re just here to make obtuse contradictory statements with zero grounds in driveby comments, then please, leave, because you add nothing to the discussion, you’re nothing but a troll.
x spots the mark. ;)
(Webmaster: Wow, now the comments are suffering bizarre elisions upon submission.)
Anna: “Not according to the comment cited above. The quote is saying that women make themselves ‘less than’ men by retaining the right of the ‘artificial intervention’ of abortion. That if only women would stay pregnant when they get pregnant, which is ‘as natural as breathing,’ women would be the equal of men.”
No, that’s a shallow, subtle (seems deliberate) and huge misrepresentation.
The quote is saying that certain representations of the issue make women out to be less than men. The writer isn’t in the least saying that a particular course of action actually makes women less than men.
You’re confusing — and it’s hard to believe it’s not intentional — a predication regarding beliefs about women with a predication regarding women. More properly speaking, the original quote is concerned with a perceived implication of a particular view of the importance of abortion. The inference may or may not be a good one, but you’d do better to argue with it, rather than with its misrepresentation.
@Anna & lapras: True, the quote is incomplete, though it’s not as incomplete as you two are making out. I was referring to the argument one frequently sees (in fact, I seem to have seen it all over the place lately, including in this thread) that abortion is “necessary for women’s equality.” The required assumption to accept that assertion is to believe that pregnant women are unequal in some way to something. Men? Abortion apologists don’t specify. Women who aren’t pregnant? Again, never made clear. But for some nebulous reason, unless women can get abortions, they are intrinsically “unequal” when they are pregnant. Even though pregnancy is ordinary and does not diminish a woman’s self or her freedom or her rights. It’s just a thing that women can do. Granted, it’s really cool and really important and sometimes really uncomfortable (all of which can also be said about breathing), but that’s it.
To view pregnancy as something that intrinsically reduces women is to view female biology as inherently wrong. And that you need someone to come along and fix it (which, by the way, is where you’re screwing up with the disease analogies, since in those cases, something actually has gone wrong, nor is cancer as normal and natural as breathing). No assumptions need to be made about the marital status of the woman in question. In every case where you encounter a pregnant woman, her pregnancy does not equate to a reduction in her status. And while there are those who would claim that it does, that does not mean that pregnancy reduces the pregnant in fact. It simply means that those who think that it does are wrong.
So, it is the view of pregnancy that must change, not pregnancy. To argue otherwise goes right back to believing pregnancy is a reduction in status and turns the whole feminism thing entirely around. Because now you’re not trying to change society to view women more rightly, you’re trying to change women so they better fit society’s view of what they’re supposed to be. I have two words for that. Anti. Feminism.
What bothers me somewhat, Alice, is that Ann is obviously bright enough to understand your point — and chose to represent it dishonestly.
There are other marks of bad faith in x’s pair of “joined at the hip” interlocutors…
Alice, I would agree with your statement that somebody ought not to be less equal when they become pregnant, though obviously we parse that differently.
I would say that people retain all their rights even if they become pregnant. They still have just as inalienable a right to self-determination as everyone else in society and that, for them, because pregnancy is physically part of who they are, equality naturally includes the right to make decisions about whether, when, and how to continue and ultimately to end their pregnancy, whether by abortion or by birth.
Your side, by contrast, says that someone who becomes pregnant may no longer make certain decisions and that this is in fact how things ought to be.
If you lose certain rights, it’s because somebody else is exercising them. Who would that be—fetuses? That’s what the ideology of your side says, more or less, but since, practically speaking, fetuses (or embryos, or earlier) can’t really exercise rights or make decisions of any kind, I end up wanting to look elsewhere: who is in fact exercising the rights to these decisions that pregnant people may no longer make?
That if only women would stay pregnant when they get pregnant, which is “as natural as breathing,” women would be the equal of men.
No, you’re misunderstanding. It’s that women are equal be default, and being compliant in something as cruel, barbaric, and heinous as abortion LOWERS us all as a gender. Because it does. It lowers a demographic when they participate in and support injustice against other groups, especially in a case like abortion, where the victims cannot defend themselves, and they happen to be the biological minor children of the one instigating the violence against them.
Again – there aren’t any exceptions. If only women would just go through their easy, breezy pregnancies, things would be OK? There would be no need for abortion? I guess the women I know who have needed life-saving abortions have been lying. You do note that “99%” of pregnancies aren’t life threatening. (A high estimate, especially in the developing world, but we’ll roll with it.) So – do the other 1% of women require abortions? Does that make those women “less than” men, for using an “artificial intervention” to save their lives? No? Well, then why applaud the comment?
Wow. Did you really seriously just take the first sentence of an explanation of WHY the exception wasn’t mentioned and then proceed to ignore the rest of everything I had to say on the topic and act like you just made some profound point or something? Funny stuff! Let me re-post the entirety of what I said since you obviously lack the reading comprehension skills to absorb it your first go-around:
That’s probably because we’re talking about elective abortion, which 98% of pregnancy terminations are. You see, our problem is with killing another human being-the pregnant woman’s child. That’s our problem with abortion. So, you’re really not going to see much here about objecting to care for the removal of a child who is already dead.
Elective abortion and therapeutic abortion are two entirely different things. Trying to conflate the two is something I’m really not surprised to see you do, though, because your side does it all the time, since the 1% of times a mother’s life might be at stake comes off with a lot more appeal than “Cindy wants to be able to compete in the rodeo this spring.” (yes, that was an actual reason for someone’s late-term abortion).
In summation: the reason therapeutic abortions were not discussed is because our problem is with elective abortion. I know therapeutic abortion is a lot easier for you to defend, but too bad, if you wanna take up for ALL abortions, then do it! Don’t just toss a hard case that we agree with you on out there, fold your arms, and say, “See? I win.” You DON’T win.
The point of Alice’s comment was not that women should never seek medical treatment for any condition. It is that we shouldn’t lessen ourselves by using the medical establishment to kill our children and call it equality instead of fighting for our right to nurture our children/bring them into this world, and the rights of our children to be born that every child should have.
Do you frequent Google?
Do you always expect your debate opponents to research YOUR ludicrous points for you?
Because this site totally celebrates when non-married, godless ladies get pregnant.
I do. I’m happy to usher new human beings into our world. They deserve a welcoming, and their mothers deserve support. I remember what it was like to be a “non-married, godless” pregnant lady. I enjoyed every bit of support I was able to get, especially when a lot of people were pretty catty to me, and now I’ll give out love and support like it’s nobody’s business. Sorry if I keep messing up your attempts at stereotyping. :(
I wasn’t aware that we were talking about men’s health concerns. Alice comment talks about a women’s health concern. So was I.
No, we were talking about a bodily process that is absolutely unique to women. You are talking about a medical condition which afflicts men and women. Unless you espouse the whole “gestating children = cancer” tripe. I’m afraid men have no analogue to gestation/childbirth. Alice speaks about the fact that pregnancy is something UNIQUE to women, and natural to women, because it is.
(Although it’s worth noting that no insurance company, ever, seems to have a problem covering health conditions that happen mostly to men. I assume this is because men are the default human beings, while women are a special interest group that’s always whining about things like maternity coverage.)
I know you’d like to think that it’s just that the world thinks men are so much better than us poor wittoo wimminz, and The Big Bad Man is just trying to get us down, but it’s nothing to do with that at all. It’s a logistical problem, since statistically, women of child-bearing age submit more claims than men in the same age bracket. Personally, I’d like to get healthcare prices down so that insurance would no longer be essential to many if not most people.
And yet, women’s contraception is also an “artificial intervention,” according to this site and a bunch of people who call themselves “pro-life.” And it’s being eliminated in the same way that abortion is, and many of the people on this site applaud that.
I am not “a bunch of women”, although, they are right in stating that contraception is artificial intervention-it is.
And oh yeah….9 bucks a month at both Wal-Mart and Target…they’re TOTALLY eliminating birth control. LMAO!
Wanting to protect religious liberties is not the same as wanting to totally eliminate the object that a religion finds to be a violation of its tenants.
I’m sure you can see the connection here.
No, I don’t. Insane abusers who want to use pregnancy as a weapon only do so because their own thought processes are so screwed-up that is how THEY see it. Even if he would’ve been able to impregnate me, all that would’ve done would’ve been postponing the divorce for awhile (which he was perfectly capable of doing anyway by clearing out my bank account and moving without giving anyone his address). Women have been facilitating men in treating pregnancy and childbirth like “a scourge” by acting like it is themselves. Would I have been upset at him? Absolutely, for trying to use our child against me. But as far as the pregnancy/childbirth itself, I’d just keep on sluggin’ it out like I’ve always been. Birthing a child is the natural progression of conceiving a child, and if I do one, I’m bound to do the other (barring something tragic like a miscarriage). No “coercion” about it.
Because as soon as I advocate that I or anyone else has the power to tell a woman she can’t have an abortion, I have also give others the power to say that she must have an abortion. Neither is acceptable, precisely because I accept the fact that I DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING, and neither does anyone else.
Nope. If you would keep in mind THE REASON women shouldn’t be able to legally abort healthy pregnancies of healthy children, it outright eliminates the notion that elective abortion should happen at all. It is the killing of the child that should be illegal, and as a consequence, abortion is eliminated as a legal option, because elective abortion kills a healthy child. Only one outcome of pregnancy is acceptable: giving birth to a child (miscarriage being and unacceptable and tragic outcome, yet unavoidable oftentimes).
You might not know everything, but I’d say you don’t even know very much at all to not be able to see why abortion should be illegal. I know enough to recognize that it should be illegal for a parent to elect to kill their minor child, and that elective abortion does this.
I wouldn’t venture to tell what sort of heart medication to take either because I am not a doctor. I wouldn’t recommend a car because I am not a mechanic. However, I have studied human development at length, and have been through a crisis pregnancy situation, so for both of those reasons I would say that it shouldn’t be legal to kill your child because 1.) they are your living child and 2.) it’s really not as bad as it seems right now-things will get better in time.
My hope is that people here can actually talk to the 1 in 3 women who have had an abortion and hear, without judgement, how it came about. And if their stories distress you, why not do something that will actually lessen the need for abortions?
I’ve talked to plenty, both here and on Twitter. I’m not the expert there, because I’ve never aborted, so I refer to Carla. She is our resident post-abortion expert here. And she can tell you how abortion killed her child who didn’t deserve to die and hurt her profoundly. And she doesn’t try to excuse it or sugar-coat things. She knows it was wrong. Not so much for those unrepentant ladies on Twitter. Trust me, I’ve TRIED talking to them, but they’re in so much denial abortion is the best thing they ever did to them, and there is no asking them for a reason, because there is no reason. They wanted to, so they did.
it would take trust and good faith in one’s fellow human beings. Sigh.
Sorry it’s so hard to have trust in fellow human beings when mothers are paying people to kill their own children. If you can’t trust your own mother, who can you trust?
If you lose certain rights, it’s because somebody else is exercising them. Who would that be—fetuses? That’s what the ideology of your side says, more or less, but since, practically speaking, fetuses (or embryos, or earlier) can’t really exercise rights or make decisions of any kind, I end up wanting to look elsewhere: who is in fact exercising the rights to these decisions that pregnant people may no longer make?
Really?! Who else besides a pregnant woman has the right to kill his/her minor child?! DO TELL!
@lapidarion: I was going to write my own response to your last post, but xalisae already covered it, so I’m she gets Quoted For Truth (bolding mine).
“…We shouldn’t lessen ourselves by using the medical establishment to kill our children and call it equality instead of fighting for our right to nurture our children/bring them into this world, and the rights of our children to be born that every child should have.”
Alice you are explicating the “No Shame in Pregnancy” campaign. Both Pro-lifers and Pro-choicers should be able to agree on fostrering a positive view about pregnancy.
“To view pregnancy as something that intrinsically reduces women is to view female biology as inherently wrong. And that you need someone to come along and fix it (which, by the way, is where you’re screwing up with the disease analogies, since in those cases, something actually has gone wrong, nor is cancer as normal and natural as breathing). No assumptions need to be made about the marital status of the woman in question. In every case where you encounter a pregnant woman, her pregnancy does not equate to a reduction in her status. And while there are those who would claim that it does, that does not mean that pregnancy reduces the pregnant in fact. It simply means that those who think that it does are wrong.”
In the past, some Christians viewed pregnancy in unmarried women negatively only because sex before marriage was considered a sin. Unfortunately, many women were led to believe that the pregnancy itself was the cause of the general public shaming them. This shame prompted the desire for abortion in the past, and to large extent, it still prompts many of the abortions today. Christians today are aware, however, that they need to reassure unmarried pregnant women that they and their child-in-the-womb are loved. Christians are aware that they can be against pre-marital sex but for the pregnant mother and child-in-the-womb.
Lap: “If you lose certain rights, it’s because somebody else is exercising them. Who would that be—fetuses? That’s what the ideology of your side says, more or less, but since, practically speaking, fetuses (or embryos, or earlier) can’t really exercise rights or make decisions of any kind, I end up wanting to look elsewhere: who is in fact exercising the rights to these decisions that pregnant people may no longer make? “
The embryo exercises their right to life by breathing. They do not need to make a decision in order to exercise that right just like you and I don’t to make a decision in order to retain our right to life. No other person is allowed to take our right to life away from us.
Lap: “I would say that people retain all their rights even if they become pregnant. They still have just as inalienable a right to self-determination as everyone else in society and that, for them, because pregnancy is physically part of who they are, equality naturally includes the right to make decisions about whether, when, and how to continue and ultimately to end their pregnancy, whether by abortion or by birth.
Your side, by contrast, says that someone who becomes pregnant may no longer make certain decisions and that this is in fact how things ought to be.”
The right to privacy is a civil right but the US has never authorized a right to a dead baby. Basically, the State has simply instituted a ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy with respect to abortion. The State is assuming that all abortions are being made for valid medical/health reasons. Unfortunately, we know what assumptions do.
Lap, in your argument with Pro-Lifers you should always assume that Pro-Lifers are referring to elective abortions and not abortions that are medically necessary to save the life of the Mother.
Lap: “If you lose certain rights, it’s because somebody else is exercising them. Who would that be—fetuses? That’s what the ideology of your side says, more or less, but since, practically speaking, fetuses (or embryos, or earlier) can’t really exercise rights or make decisions of any kind, I end up wanting to look elsewhere: who is in fact exercising the rights to these decisions that pregnant people may no longer make? ”
The embryo exercises their right to life by breathing. They do not need to make a decision in order to exercise that right-to-life just like you and I don’t to make a decision in order to exercise our right-to-life. No person is allowed to take away the right-to-life of another person by taking that person’s life. The protection of every individual’s right-to-life is the fundamental right that supports and establishes the justification for our criminal laws.
Sorry everyone, but I need to post this one more time for clarity’s sake. Corrections are in bold:
Lap: “If you lose certain rights, it’s because somebody else is exercising them. Who would that be—fetuses? That’s what the ideology of your side says, more or less, but since, practically speaking, fetuses (or embryos, or earlier) can’t really exercise rights or make decisions of any kind, I end up wanting to look elsewhere: who is in fact exercising the rights to these decisions that pregnant people may no longer make? ”
The embryo exercises their right to life by living. They do not need to make a decision in order to exercise that right-to-life just like you and I don’t need to make a decision in order to exercise our right-to-life. No person is allowed to take away the right-to-life of another person by taking that person’s life. The protection of every individual’s right-to-life is the fundamental right that supports and establishes the justification for our criminal laws.
There is an order or priority to the funadmental human rights, and specifically the three mentioned in both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. A person’s right to pursue happiness is less fundamental than another’s person’s right to liberty; and a person’s right to liberty is less fundamental than another person’s right to life. My happiness cannot infringe upon on your liberty and my liberty cannot infringe upon your life. This is why a woman’s right to privacy should not obviate the embryo’s right to life – a right to privacy is less fundamental than a right to life.
Alice, do you think the pro-choice movement and anti-life feminists are perpetuating the idea that it is shameful for a woman to be pregnant?
” But for some nebulous reason, unless women can get abortions, they are intrinsically “unequal” when they are pregnant.”
I do appreciate the clarification of your comment, Alice. Since no context was given, I was going by what was cited (accusations of bad faith by other commenters aside).
However, I’ve never heard an actual feminist say what you’re saying, that pregnancy makes a person less than anyone. Perhaps there’s a book, or a website, or something where someone said something that is being misinterpreted.
On the other hand, here are some of the things that actual feminists have fought for (some American initiatives, some worldwide):
– Laws against pregnancy discrimination in the workplace
– Breastfeeding protection in public places, and facilities for doing so
– Child support for single parents (fathers and mothers)
– The end to forced sterilization of people (men, women, and children) with disabilities, and of racial / ethnic minorities, among other groups
– Funding for maternal and child healthcare programs, including WIC, Medicaid, and (yes) Planned Parenthood
– Education of the medical community about the unnecessary medicalization of childbirth and its risks, and allowing pregnant women to make choices about how best to safely give birth
– Insurance coverage for pregnancy and childbirth
– FMLA leave for necessary time off due to pregnancy and childbirth
All of this sounds pretty pro-pregnancy, pro-child to me. I think it shows a profound respect for pregnancy, and a willingness to actually listen to what pregnant people need, and try to provide it to them (not tell them what they have to do).
Feminists do rightly note that there is nowhere else in the law where people are forced to use their body against their will for the benefit of someone else. Even in the case of a born child, that child’s parents are not obligated to even give a pint of blood to save the child, let alone bodily support that child for nine months. I know it’s an assumption, but that seems to be what’s advocated by most people on this site – that a pregnant person should have no legal choice but to bodily support a fetus (who doesn’t even have legal personhood), but that other parents and other people in general have no similar obligation, even parents to their children.
It is the law, in that case, that makes pregnant people less-than non-pregnant people. Legally, they cannot make the choice how to use their body, where others could never be obligated to do anything similar, even in the name of saving a life.
What’s worse, is that for their sacrifice, pregnant people face so many risks – physical and otherwise. We can talk all day about how people “should” act toward a single pregnant woman, but the reality is that many are shamed almost daily. Pregnant people are routinely fired from jobs, physically abused, and driven into poverty. And that’s even when the physical risks of pregnancy aren’t there.
And regarding those physical risks: if we start making laws about who can have abortions based on a set of medical criteria (imminent death?), then we have to start asking ludicrous questions like, “how close to death should she be before we let her get an abortion?” “If there’s no judge around to grant it, should we let her die?” “How disabled will she need to be by continuing this pregnancy?” Again, these aren’t hypothetical questions – they were routine questions pre-Roe, and they resulted in women dying.
One big difference that I see in the pro-choice and anti-choice movements is the disregard for women’s experience of pregnancy and childbirth. Even in this comment thread, it is staggering. I’m not citing you specifically, but there have been many comments basically saying that routine pregnancy and birth is not a big deal. But if women are actual living, breathing human beings – not objects in which to grow a baby – then those women are going to be profoundly affected by pregnancy. It’s not a passive process, and it can’t be handed off to someone else. If a person becomes a living organ donor, or makes some other heroic sacrifice, they’re lauded. But pregnant women are denigrated, when they’re not placed on pedestals. Either way, they aren’t listened to.
If the idea of abortion is objectionable to you, there are clear ways to increase the likelihood that a person will take on the burden of pregnancy and birth when given the opportunity. But the type of societal support required to make some people go through an unplanned pregnancy is truly staggering. And even then, it won’t happen for everyone, just like every parent wouldn’t be prepared to give up a kidney for their child.
In the end, if we want to start giving the government the ability to control how we use our bodies, then it should be done across the board – parents especially, since they voluntarily decided to bring a person into the world. But I can’t see any man being strapped down to have bone marrow extracted by a police state.
Again, Alice, I thank you for your clarification of your comment.
PS I’m signing off of this thread, and not addressing the other commenters. I don’t have time, and for some, I’m not going to waste time on disrespect and accusations of bad faith. (It would be nice, however, if the mod did indeed confirm that I am not the same person as lapidarion – not that his/her comments didn’t make some good points.)
Don’t let the door hit ya where evolution split ya.
@Anna: I don’t need you to tell me what feminists do. I am a feminist. And, like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul, I am pro-life. Respect for the right to life is not–contrary to what the faux-feminists who constantly advocate abortion seem to always be saying–contradictory to respect for women. And while you are right that it will be a great deal of work to see all societies view women, pregnant or not, equally, the fact that it’s hard for people to get women right is not an excuse to kill their unborn children.
Anna, are you a social worker?
I’m not especially interested in Anna’s sniffing at my claim that she’s posting in bad faith — especially when she thanks Alice for clarifying, in effect: ”I didn’t misrepresent, I misunderstood — because you’re a bad communicator, Alice. Thanks for comin’ around and being clear, finally.”
Sheesh.
As I said, “bad faith.”
Alice’s grammar and syntax were quite simple.
Anna, although I disagree with your position, your post on April 1, 2012 at 9:36 pm was the most articulate and reasoned pro-choice response I have read to date. You brought up the Violinist argument in a refreshing way that stressed the importance of having control over one’s own body. However, the Violinist argument fails to address the unique scenario of pregnancy and how it is a ”bodily” experience like none other. In truth, pregnancy can’t be compared to a situation where a parent is forced to give bone marrow for their sick child because, for one reason, there is, at present, no other way for the unborn child to gestate to the point of viability without the help of the Mother while bone marrow for the purposes of a transplant can come from other donors aside from the recepient’s parents.
Another reason I find the bodily autonomy argument insufficient is because it fails to recognize the bodily autonomy of the embryo. If the embryo is considered a person there is no way to decide whose bodily autonomy is worth more – indeed, from the pro-life perspective they are both infinitely priceless and should be saved. This last point leads me to your comments regarding the pre-Roe legal enivironment that caused the “resulted in women dying.” This is simply false – doctors can work to save the lives of both the Mother and the unborn child at the same time. Furthermore, it is factually incorrect many women did not die during the pre-Roe period – you only have to look at maternal death rates and factor in the advances in medicine. Finally, Doctorsnever asked the unethical questions you mentioned such as “how close to death should she be before we let her get an abortion?” or “If there’s no judge around to grant it, should we let her die?” “How disabled will she need to be by continuing this pregnancy?” I surmise that these questions are just inflamatory questions imagined by yourself.
Finally, due to some of your comments it makes me wonder if you ever carried a child to term and/or if you ever had an abortion. If you had an abortion, or counselled women to have abortions, there are groups available for women having difficulty dealing with their grief over abortion. Please see search Rachel Vineyards on the internet. Anna there is help and forgiveness for those who have had an abortion, and for those who have counselled other women to have abortions.
Anna,
I just want to clarify that the long laundry list of “feminist” achievements were actually accomplished by men and women and not only by the few women who called themselves feminists.
The different approaches of pro-lifers and pro-choicers:
Pro-lifer sees the pregnant mother as both attached to the child-in-the-womb and separate from the child.
Pro-choicer sees the pregnant mother as either autonomous or “forced to use their body against their will for the benefit of someone else.”
Well, the “forced to use” view is ad hoc. It was never a prior justification for a pro-choice philosophy. There is no pro-choice philosophy. By that I do not mean that some pro-choicers don’t think these things out. I simply mean that being pro-choice requires no more thought than simply doing whatever the hell you want to do, thought be damned. Its apologists rationalize abortion in its defense — not because anyone aborting would not consider doing so unless they were given positive ethical clearance to do so.
Abortion is about the self, and a self’s choices need no particular cogent set of reasons to do as the self wishes.
But there’ll always be someone around eager to justify the destruction of life on the grounds that the mother is the victim of the unborn child.
Of course we’re free to do as we wish if we have no obligations to the unborn, if we have no responsibilities, if we have no duties to them (whether society or the mother), if they merit no consideration, if they have no rights, if their value is entirely subordinated to a mother’s and society’s whim.
rasqual, are there then no areas where one may simply do “whatever the [I thought profanity was against the rules at this blog]” one wants? When it comes to which vulgarities you allow yourself to indulge in, which songs you sing in the shower, or whether you take the elevator or the stairs, how elaborate do you need your pro-choice philosophy be?
Why does being pro-life require any thought? Why should it require more thought than being pro-choice? Is it more natural to be pro-choice? Is it hard to be pro-life?
Lap, if the philosophy of the pro-choicer doesn’t deny that a Mother is killing a human being/legal person when she aborts then that pro-choicer is arrogant and should be locked up for being an accessory to 1st degree murder. If the philosophy of the pro-choicer denies that the embryo is a human being/legal person then that pro-choicer is simply ignorant of human development and should enrol in biology class.
FYI everyone – the “pursuit of happiness” is technically not a right listed in the US Constitution – however, I understand this pursuit to be a subset of the right to liberty. I believe the right to liberty includes many other rights such as “due process” etc… Also, the Declaration of Independence does not have the force of law that the US Constitution does.
Tyler: FYI everyone – the “pursuit of happiness” is technically not a right listed in the US Constitution
Right on – we tend to legislate against that which we fear. That which we desire – we more leave it open to the pursuit of them, i.e. we don’t make “stumbling blocks” in the law that hinder us in our efforts to gain them.
And of course – don’t forget about the classic Canadian rock band: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pursuit_of_Happiness_%28band%29
Stumbling Block #1: Abortion – denies a nascent human being from achieving happiness.
I think the legislation that is the US Constitution was an experiment to legisltate what the American people cherish, but fo sho, there are laws that prohibit certain activities so that the government can protect its citizens from harm.
A couple of other reasons why the autonomy argument doesn’t work;
– it is a euphemism for killing young human beings;
– there are other instances of the vgovernment “controlling” the bodies of individuals: criminals are jailed and some are even put to death; the government also controls the body of people who have not committed crimes – for example, motorcycle riders are required to wear helmets, the visually impaired are required to wear eye glasses if they want to drive a motor vehicle; the government restricts people from drinking alchohol until they reach a certain age; the government in times of war conscripts people into military service; etc….
I believe the Federalist Papers says “the pursuit of happiness” was meant to be a synonym for the owning of private property.