Can you be feminist and pro-life?
I often get asked where the demarcation lines for feminism are. Do you have to hate men? Do you have to refuse to shave your legs? Do you have to work in a male dominated field? Do you have to eschew marriage and motherhood?
My answer to all of those questions has always been no. Modern feminism is all about creating options for women to make their choices openly and unfettered. So if you’re someone like me who loves high heels and knitting I can still have my feminist card, as long as I’m the one choosing the high heels and knitting. If I wear them because my husband insists, or if I knit because I was trained that a “good” woman does it, that’s the problem. Not the shoes or hobby themselves.
I often refer people to this essay, because it is a spectacular summing up of the situation. People who are uncomfortable with the label “feminist” usually don’t understand what the movement really means. Either they’re getting their information from someone else who doesn’t understand (often willfully so), or they aren’t aware of how things have changed since 1980. Which isn’t an insult. I’m hardly up on all the nuances in fields I’m not invested in either. Here’s Sars’ definition of feminism.
If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
By this definition, you don’t need to be rich or poor, religious or non, republican or democrat. You just need to be invested in equality of the sexes (and equality does not mean sameness).
So now let’s discuss the big hot button topic. Where does this leave abortion? Do you have to be pro-choice to be a feminist?
Here are my thoughts, but I’d love to hear yours:
I think to qualify as a feminist, you can be pro-life, but you *cannot* be anti-choice. What I mean is, if you want to work to reduce abortions, let’s do it. I think nearly everyone on the planet wants that. But the methods you use cannot involve restricting a woman’s options. Fund pre-natal care for birth mothers. Support sex education. Support access to contraception. Support women’s shelters or abuse programs. Mentor young women and give them the confidence they need to make wise sexual choices. Agitate for day care programs or more benefits for children. Work with all your heart and might to give mothers the support they need to be able to care for their child. You can hate abortion. You can even view it as a lost life.
But as soon as you start trying to restrict the actions of a full grown woman, that is sexist. The laws we’ve been hearing about requiring women to view an ultrasound of the fetus assumes that a woman seeking an abortion is too dumb or ignorant to understand that when she is pregnant there is a living thing inside her. It assumes the decision was made casually and can be changed back as soon as she really sees what is going on. Laws requiring consent of the father of the child or the mother take away a woman’s freedom and gives it to a man to decide her fate. It is different from legislating against other actions - like murder - because it involves the woman’s body, her freedom, and since birth is dangerous, her health and very life. Efforts to restrict abortions create a situation where the government knows better than a woman what is best for her. That is sexist and paternalistic. And totally anti-feminist.
Any time we start discussing abortion around here, things go kerflooey really fast. So before anyone asks, here’s how you can be a good Mormon and be pro-choice. 1) The church’s position is pro-choice. Health of the mother, rape or incest. Limited circumstances, but abortion is still an option. and 2) There are many people in the church, like me, like Harry Reid, who don’t think it’s right to legislate our beliefs for the general public. So while I *personally* don’t imagine ever getting an abortion, I don’t think it’s right to force every other woman to make that same decision. That takes away their free agency.
That last paragraph pretty much exactly describes my own stance on this issue.
Personally, though, I find the need to “define” labels as “this, not that” troubling, even though I can see why it’s necessary. Maybe necessary.
I think I’ve met feminists who I would define as feminists, but they would never define themselves that way (they have a different idea of what the word means than I do) who are also strongly pro-life. While I don’t agree with these positions I can respect the fact that their opinions come from the place of trying to protect the innocent (unborn), not necessarily based upon a desire to belittle and reduce womens’ rights.
But like I said, after weighing everything I have to stand with you, Reese, because I am a practical person and realize that to legislate morality is impossible and really ought not be attempted, and that if there must be a choice to abort or not, that choice belongs in the hands of the mother. NOt her doctor, not her husband, not her boyfriend, not her father if she’s underage (though I would hope in that case she’d be getting a lot of good counsel from her parents.)
Comment by sare — January 29, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
“There are many people in the church, like me, like Harry Reid, who don’t think it’s right to legislate our beliefs for the general public.”
I would add that it doesn’t do ME any good to judge (or put down) those who believe something different whether it is the law or not.
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 1:18 pm
I have to meet this other britt sometime…
My own problem with identifying as a feminist is people tend to assume baggage that isn’t true…My own personal philosphies are too complex so fit in any box. I’m also tired of being looked at with my 8 + children, sahm and happy homemaker and thus being automatically denied a feminist card. Then if I say I’m not a democrat-though my poitical views are all over the chart, I’m not republican)-it’s still considered another strike.
I don’t see how the anti abortion stance fits in the never restrict a woman’s choice–because frankly if you believe it’s murder, you would restrict it. I can understand how some people dont’ see it as murder, and I understand why we currently can’t do enything drastic in banning abortion. I’m big on the education /prevention side. There are lines there though-what about late term not medically necessary abortions? still just the woman’s choice? all the way to when? 30 weeks? 40?
I personally don’t think feminism will ever succeed until it embraces motherhood and that makes me okay on this site but not a single other feminist site that i know of.
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
I like the way you define feminism. So many times when I tell people I am feminist they cringe, for some reason it carries a negative connotation. Even worse if when my husband tells his peers he is feminist they act like, “What are you thinking?” but those same people when asked if they believe in or hope for equality in the sexes, they say Yes. I love the way you described this. As for abortion, my view points could not have been expressed any more eloquently than the way you summed it up. I also agree with Britt that regardless of the law “it doesn’t “ME” any good to judge those who believe something different…” Thanks for the post!
Comment by Sara M — January 29, 2010 @ 1:29 pm
“I think to qualify as a feminist, you can be pro-life, but you *cannot* be anti-choice.”
That about sums it up for me too.
The whole abortion argument gets real sticky because many pro-choicers (myself included) still think abortion is unpleasant, or horrible, or something along those lines, and those who think abortion is straight up murder can usually be persuaded to admit there are “in this case, it’s OK” scenarios.
This post hit the nail on the head for why I am pro-choice, there are a lot of grey sticky areas. We could go over scenario after scenario where it may be OK for a woman to get an abortion, or where it may be considered selfish still to some.
But the point is this:
I can think of very, very few circumstances under which I would consider an abortion personally. However, if I am ever faced with the gut wrenching decision of cutting off my body as a life support for a fetus (which to me is my child from the moment of conception) or losing my own life and abandoning my other children, or perhaps giving birth to a person with little chance of survival and a great chance of suffering while he/she is alive, I would want that to be a decision I made with my husband, my conscience, etc. and NOT have the government involved in determining the greater good for my body/family. And I certainly would not want to open my personal medical or family hardship up to the public for scrutiny and judgment. I don’t think any woman in should have to. EVER.
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
Add me to that list along with you and Harry Reid.
I don’t really understood how any woman who has ever been pregnant can stand in judgment of another woman’s decisions about her own body. We all know what it is to have that pregnancy scare where the timing of a nine-month pregnancy and another mouth to feed is absolutely terrifying. Maybe impossible. And even if you think you know what you would do in that situation, I would at least think there is enough empathy in our common experience as women to understand how someone might turn to abortion. And to understand that that option just has to exist. Because those situations will ALWAYS exist; accidents will always happen, circumstances will always be bad for someone, birth control will fail that tiny percentage of the time. Whether it is legal or not, desperate women will seek abortions. The least we can do is make it safe and pass on giving judgment to women who already feel terrible about their situation.
I want the comfort of knowing if I face an absolutely impossibly difficult pregnancy, that I have choices to make and options to choose from. Maybe my choice would never be an abortion, but I certainly don’t want someone else making that choice for me. And I don’t really understand how anyone who is a self-proclaimed Feminist, who believes in giving women the freedom of options in life can think otherwise. I will be very interested in the rest of this discussion, as well. I’m definitely open to hearing how that works.
Comment by Alyssa — January 29, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
Re: Britt #3
I agree that there is DEFINITELY discussion to be had about late-term abortions. I don’t know where you draw those lines, either because situations with the mother’s health often come into play in those situations. And I don’t know where the line between “fetus” and “person” should be drawn exactly. And it seems to me that women who just don’t want to have those babies have so many more preferable options for early abortions. I think many of us who are pro-choice have issues with late-term abortion, as well.
Comment by Alyssa — January 29, 2010 @ 1:44 pm
I don’t want to weigh in on abortion at all. But I would like to comment on this oft-used argument. May I suggest you find a stronger argument than this? The problem with this argument is that our entire justice system is based on legislating our beliefs.
We believe stealing is wrong so we create laws to forbid it. Same goes for all sorts of things like assault, maiming, murder, rape, blackmail, etc.
The crux of the abortion issue is NOT whether we should legislate according to our beliefs. Of course we should do that. The issue is whether whether we as a people believe aborting fetuses is morally wrong or not. (And then the details of when it is acceptable anyway as the lesser of two evils must be considered too)
Comment by Geoff J — January 29, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
One thing I wonder, you mentioned that some people think that you can’t be pro-choice and a good Mormon. You also mentioned that the official church stance is that abortion is an option in the case of rape, incest, and health.
I have always wondered about this stance. Not just by church members, but by anyone who is opposed to abortion being legal (or says it’s immoral) except in those circumstances. Isn’t the reason to oppose abortion based on the believe that it is effectively killing an innocent and defenseless human life? Isn’t the argument for making it illegal that it is murder? So why is it not murder if the mother is raped? You would not kill a baby if you discovered it was the product of a rape? So isn’t allowing and abortion for the reason of rape a suggestion that the fetus is NOT the same as a post-birth person? And if this is the case, then what leg to people have to stand on when the law should regulate a woman’s choice to have an abortion?
So if you really want to oppose abortion on the grounds that killing a fetus is exactly the same as killing a child, you probably have to disallow it in the case of incest or rape too. Which opens up a Pandora’s box of issues about what happens to people when the government starts exercising domain of our bodies.
And in the case of the woman’s health, who gets to decide when mother’s health concerns are greater than the child’s right to life? Is it when she might suffer permanent health damage, when she could die, when she probably will die, when she for sure will die? When?
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 1:53 pm
Geoff, I think this argument is perfectly valid for any behavior where there is not a clearly delineated victim and perpetrator. Every behavior you described is clear cut. And yet every issue where you’ll hear this argument - gay marriage, liquor use, abortion - is not. Those issues involve the person making the choice and the consequences they’ll face for their own behavior. That’s when legislating behavior removes free agency.
Comment by Reese Dixon — January 29, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
Exactly Zara. Ditto to everything.
Comment by Reese Dixon — January 29, 2010 @ 1:59 pm
Sigh. The current US law concerning abortions is governed by the Supreme Court decision in “Planned Parenthood v. Casey,” decided in 1992 which states unequivocally that fetus viability may occur as early as 22-23 weeks, and after that it’s banned completely “except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”. So just stop it with the discussion of “late term not medically necessary abortions.” They don’t exist. Here in the real world.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 2:10 pm
Reese, the whole point of morals is to help when it’s not clear…that’s where we most need beliefs to help us.
Zara…the church is recognizing the grey areas of abortion…the areas people most flaunt…what about incest-these cases are a small percentage of the real problem. Most abortions are elective…that is where the churches stand is…when you chose to have sex, that’s your choice. The consequence is yours also…when a pregnancy goes really unusually complex and could be medically disastrous (I think the church is vague here on purpose) again-that’s a horribly difficult situation so the church lets the woman decide there.
Circumstances are always taken into account with other actions, why woudln’t the church be allowed to take them into account? Self defense and mansalughter have different names for a reason…there is only one word-abortion…and it applies whether the woman was raped, drugged, about to die, very conflicted, or just can’t be bothered….
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 2:13 pm
djinn…isn’t that the point though…most pro choice people have a line at which it isn’t just the woman’s body..a baby should be considered… the difference between the sides is when the baby shoudl be considered, not that the baby should be considered
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 2:15 pm
Yes. To help *us.*
In cases where there is no victim, we should each be free to apply our own morals to help us make the decision. And not be forced to use someone else’s morals.
Comment by Reese Dixon — January 29, 2010 @ 2:15 pm
Response to Geoff in #8
I think you are over simplifying this a bit. (I admit the following comment is an oversimplified summation of American History and Government too, but I think it’s accurate.)
Yeah, most societies’ mainstream moral conscious is reflected in the laws of the society. You see this in extremes in states that enforce religion and religious customs (i.e women forced to cover their faces and hair in Muslim ruled states.) But I think the concept of religious freedom people in this country hold dear is that the “morals” or one religion, even a predominant one, should not be imposed on all people of the state.
That said, I think the purpose of American laws should not be to protect Morals but to protect rights. In other words, rape, theft, and murder are not illegal because they are immoral but because they infringe on the victim’s rights to choose who has access to her body, possess personal property, and exist.
If you are arguing that laws are and should be based on “morality” then shouldn’t a Christian state impose the law of charity and force anyone with a home and food to share it daily by inviting the poor and sick in to sleep and dine? I assume you don’t want that forced upon you.
So I disagree with the summation of your point, that the abortion question boils down to “do we think abortion is immoral?” I think the real crux of the question is “do we think the fetus has rights?” I think answering yes to that is the ONLY leg anyone has to stand on when arguing the legality of abortion.
But when you compare those rights to the rights of the person carrying the fetus, when you consider the question of when it becomes human and so on, the issue becomes very sticky. I think the point you just dismissed (that you can have a moral belief but not feel entitled to impose it on others) is very valid when you are trying to consider the whole complicated abortion issue and all the little moral issues that go with it.
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
Zara, you’re on fire. Excellent.
Comment by Reese Dixon — January 29, 2010 @ 2:22 pm
Brit,
Do you have statistics on abortion? I mean of course abortions are generally “elective” since woman, to my knowledge, are rarely if ever forced by the medical community to have them.
But do you mean to say they are mostly used for no other reason than the woman is using them as birth control? I would be surprised of you had a valid source on that.
Anyway, you ignored my overall point, which was a question. Is abortion murder in the eyes of the church or not? If so, how is the fetus less human, and less murderable if the mother was raped? (I don’t think this is the same as a “self-defense” argument in murder cases, since rape victims are not aborting the fetus to prevent it from killing them.)
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 2:24 pm
Reese, I think we were responding to Geoff at the same time!
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 2:24 pm
#12 Djinn- Not necessarily. “health” in this context includes both physical and mental health. Thus, “mental distress” can qualify a woman for a late term abortion. If anyone has ever researched how a late-term abortion is performed, I don’t understand how they can see it as anything but murder.
Comment by RJ — January 29, 2010 @ 2:31 pm
ANY vote is forcing our morals…any vote. What we tax to where we draw fine lines are all a reflection of our morals…that’s the problem here. The fact that people feel very differently is precisely because there isn’t a clear cut right and wrong so people have to go with what they think is right.
Harm is defined so differently by people we can’t decide solely on harm…when is the harm done? immediately, in 100 years? what if your beliefs say it’s wrong?
Can people vote on the Bible when they agree with you (murder)? How about when they don’t agree with you? If they can’t, can they vote based on another book? Is it just how they form their beliefs that makes the differences? If it’s religious related they can’t? If it’s philosophical they can? What’s the difference there?
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 2:32 pm
Reg #7
I agree Alyssa, I would think most woman “aborting” beyond 20-30 weeks are doing it for extreme health reasons. This is just a guess, but having been pregnant a few times, I would suspect women don’t often carry a baby that far and then decide “naaaaahhhhhh.”
Also, I have delivered (not by choice) at both 20 weeks, and 33 weeks, and I would assume that if a woman HAD to choose to deliver that early, every attempt would be made to save the baby.
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 2:32 pm
Reese #10, I think most of the people who are against these things would argue there is a victim and a perpetrator. They may be wrong(and the may be right), of course, but that is still the case. Abortion is a pretty simple example of this. A large number of people would consider the unborn child the victim. Of course, another group(you, for example) disagrees. Both groups are large enough to make their voices heard, and thus we have a troubling situation which appeals to things like feminism can not resolve.
Also, most legislation is not designed to prevent abortion in cases of rape, Incest, or health issues, which are a pretty limited subset of all abortions. Wrongly or Rightly, Most legislation is designed to combat the number one cause for abortion, unwanted pregnancy in teens. Personally, I think a better (and more winnable) approach is probably within the realm of preventing unwanted pregnancies, but I can definitely understand the feelings of those who oppose women killing their fetuses to avoid pregnancy.
But anyway, I consider myself a pro-life feminist. Are you kicking me out of the club?
Comment by Matt W. — January 29, 2010 @ 2:34 pm
Reese (#10) — I don’t think we are disagreeing. My point is that when there is a “clearly delineated victim and perpetrator” we legislate according to our beliefs. So legislating beliefs is not the problem. The problem is deciding where the victim and perpetrator lines lie in the case of abortion.
Zara (#16) — I agree that my #8 is oversimplified. As I said, I was only pointing out the inherent weakness of the “you shouldn’t legislate beliefs” argument. To the contrary, we always legislate according to our beliefs
Comment by Geoff J — January 29, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
Zara, I have two categories for abortions if you noticed….first we have the teensy category of rape, incest, medically necessary…then we have the large grey category of conflicted(vague), and the what I call elective (birth control)….
I dont’ think it’s as simple as the teensy category and birth control….
Zara, why do you get to decide how the church applies it’s concept of murder? Why do you demand that they not allow for difficult gray areas?
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
RJ, “partial birth abortion” is not a legal term. Women die in childbirth. Women have severe medical issues late into pregnancies. Back when the standard was “no abortion unless the women’s life was endangered” that meant that the woman had to be pretty near death before an abortion could be performed. Including bleeding out for 13+ hours in one case that I remember reading about. Without the “health” in there, childbirth suddenly becomes much more dangerous.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
I’m pro-choice for sure. You run into problems when you give the fetus more rights than the woman. For example, there is the case of a woman who was hospitalized against her will at 25 weeks so that she was forced on bedrest. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/medical-kidnapping-rogue_b_434497.html
You run into things like court-ordered cesareans and even police coming to intimidate women who are “overdue” (and how accurate are due dates, anyway?) http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/overdue-pregnant-nsw-woman-gets-police-check-up/story-e6freuzr-1225820277538
I also feel that “health of the mother” extends to emotional and mental health. And while someone might not physically die from a pregnancy, perhaps it will bring debilitating trauma to their life. And who are we to judge on that? That is why women are encouraged to pray and counsel with leaders to make the individual choice that is right for them.
Comment by Heather — January 29, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
Check out Feminists for Life
Comment by ECS — January 29, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
Zara: rights are defined by what we believe is moral/ethical, so comment #16 argues for a distinction without a difference, I’d say.
Comment by Matt W. — January 29, 2010 @ 2:39 pm
I don’t see how someone can be a feminist and anti-abortion. The anti-abortion stance (aside from endangering women’s health and lives) states unequivocally that a cell/blastomere/fetus is more important than a living, breathing woman. If you view women as merely vessels, then no, you are not a feminist.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
I am not sure why the whole pro-choice thing is viewed so closely with feminism. In fact, I am not sure why the whole abortion discussion is so big. I guess I just don’t know that many people who have ever gotten one.
I used to be extremely anti-abortion because I didn’t like kids being killed. But then I read an interesting book called Freakonomics and one of the interesting correlations was the increase of abortions is directly tied to the decrease of crime. So now I have changed my view point on it. My view now is that if you determine that the world is better off without your offspring, who I am to disagree. But I still don’t really see that as directly tied to feminism other than the fact that women are the ones who get abortions.
Comment by StillConfused — January 29, 2010 @ 2:41 pm
I looked at the “Feminist for life” site and couldn’t see anything feminist about it. It’s a straight-up anti-abortion site.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 2:45 pm
no it doesn’t djinn…it doesn’t say it’s more important than her. It won’t kill the woman to be pregnant, (we aren’t talking about that extreme)…so it’s not a life by life comparison anyway.
If the woman chose to create the fetus prolife is just encouraging the woman to take care of what she created, even if it’s inconvenient. If it’s life threatening-obviously not-if she didn’t choose to create it-obviously a different question-
I’ve seen the court cases heather points out and they are crazy-not even really medically supported just controlling craziness.
Here’s one site with abortions…1.1 after 20 weeks-it doesn’t indicate reason there. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 2:46 pm
I’m completely in agreement with you last paragraph, Tresa. I can’t envision a scenario where it would be ever right for me, but I think that each woman/couple/family should have the right to choose whether it’s right for them, without interference from me or my government.
Comment by Shelah — January 29, 2010 @ 2:46 pm
Question:
I have noticed a couple of comments saying “most abortions are elective” and abortions in the case of incest or rape are “a small subset” of all abortions.
Is there any real data on this? I don’t believe in most places where a woman can procure and abortion she is required to write an essay on her reasons. Because of privacy laws, I wonder how real data on the most common reasons could be collected or how it could be objectively collected. (who gets to determine and record the official reason).
I don’t KNOW the most common reasons for abortion. I think that when you comment, if you feel you do know, you should probably cite a trustworthy source other than your own feelings.
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 2:47 pm
You mean feminists don’t have to be Democrats??!! Is this the same fMh I know and love??
Comment by themisfitconservative — January 29, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
I consider myself to be a feminist. I would even say I am pro-choice but I don’t like where the lines have been drawn; I think that every woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body but that in many cases that choice occurs when she chooses to have the sex that gets her pregnant (It’s no secret that that’s how you get pregnant, right?). I think she should be able to choose an abortion if she is the victim of rape or incest or if the pregnancy endangers her life, but that otherwise abortion should be restricted (although I don’t see how such restrictions could be enforced, but that is another discussion).
The laws we’ve been hearing about requiring women to view an ultrasound of the fetus assumes that a woman seeking an abortion is too dumb or ignorant to understand that when she is pregnant there is a living thing inside her.
Women are also not too dumb or ignorant to understand that when they have sex they could get pregnant.
Comment by Megan — January 29, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
I’m a member of the safe-legal-rare club but am personally very pro-life (life begins at conception, but not necessarily the joining of the body and spirit… that’s a different topic), but I have two quibbles:
That’s way too broad a stroke for me. I’m in favor of the current late-term abortion legislation, and would not want to see it loosed.
Also, there’s a lot of talk about the woman’s body and a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body. I can’t quite put my finger on why, but that argument makes me a little uncomfortable. Do we legislate over other things that prevent the way you “use” your own body? (I’m thinking outloud, well on the keyboard, here) Seat belt laws? They still apply if you’re single and care for no one but yourself… Indecent exposure? I guess that would qualify as harming others, although not physically.
Maybe it’s just that it seems dismissive of paternal rights? I’m not arguing that a woman should be forced to get pregnant or carry a child, maybe I’m just looking for more nuance in the discussion?
I don’t really know what it is. But that particular language emotionally pushes me into the pro-life camp…
Comment by Enna — January 29, 2010 @ 2:54 pm
I think it is more like a blastomere/fetus is as important as a living, breathing woman.
Comment by Enna — January 29, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
Britt, you asked: Zara, why do you get to decide how the church applies it’s concept of murder? Why do you demand that they not allow for difficult gray areas?
Umn.. I don’t know that I asked to decide? I was merely asking IF the church equates abortion with murder. (Do they? I genuinely don’t know.) And then my second point was IF abortion = murder to someone, how can they argue later that it is NOT murder if the mother was raped. How does that change what is being done to the fetus or what the rights of the fetus are?
As to your categories on abortion, you can ague there are 2, 3, or500. I just was asking you where you are getting your statistics on what types of abortions are the “norm” or most common.
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
We talked about this in my Art Historical theory class a few weeks ago. What does it mean to be a feminist or not a feminist? Can you be a non-feminist if you feel like women should have the right to vote? Are you a feminist if you beleive men and women are fundamentally the same, or do you have to belive that there is some mystical difference that makes a woman a woman?
The evidence suggests that there is not one brand of feminism but multiple feminisms. Some glorify traditional motherhood while some shun it. Some think that pornography is liberating to women and others think it enslaves women. These are just a few examples.
This is part of the reason why it irks me when people insist that they are not feminists. Whether you are militant or not, if you share any brand of American values of freedom and equality for all, you are probably a feminist to some degree.
Comment by AllieKay — January 29, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
Zara (40),
I don’t believe the church believes that abortion = murder. At least I haven’t heard language that direction. When I hear it discusses, it’s always in language like, “respect life”, “prayerfully decide”, etc. It seems like there is quite a bit of lee-way balanced with the church ideals of accountability and the need for spirits to come to earth…
Comment by Enna — January 29, 2010 @ 3:01 pm
From lds.org:
Comment by ECS — January 29, 2010 @ 3:02 pm
They are never arguing that abortion is not similar to murder just that certain circumstances make it more understandable or justifiable. Doesn’t that make sense?
on statistics…did you check the link?
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 3:02 pm
Let me make sure I understand this. Kids have value unless their parents deem they don’t have value. Then, you deem they don’t have value either. So, the only valuable kids are the ones whose parents want them. Because they are the ones who won’t grow up and shoot you?
Comment by Stephanie — January 29, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
Zara:
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/17/Third_Way_Policy_Memo_-_The_Demographics_of_Abortion.pdf
Here is some fantastic data from Third Way.
Comment by Matt W. — January 29, 2010 @ 3:05 pm
ECS - thanks for that. That’s much stronger language than I’ve heard…
Comment by Enna — January 29, 2010 @ 3:05 pm
From the Vatican’s website:
Comment by ECS — January 29, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
Stillconfused:
RE Freakonomics
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113314261192407815-HLjarwtM95Erz45QPP0pDWul8rc_20061127.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
Comment by Matt W. — January 29, 2010 @ 3:08 pm
Matt: “Zara: rights are defined by what we believe is moral/ethical, so comment #16 argues for a distinction without a difference, I’d say.”
I thought the difference was implied. I can see it may not be entirely spelled out. And on this point I may have to concede there is not always a clear line. But I think Reese went further into it saying roughly, that a “right” indicates there will be a victim if it is trounced on.
For the record, I did not argue the fetus cannot be the victim in the case of abortion. I just argued that the real argument surrounds whether or not it is.
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 3:10 pm
I really have nothing to add. Just wanted to say I agree with you, Reese.
Comment by mk7 — January 29, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
That’s cool Zara- Ultimately, I think we can all agree it’s a pretty sticky issue. I just hope we can also agree that we shouldn’t unilaterally alienate people who consider themselves to be pro-lifers (and thus, due to the false dichotomy, are anti-choice) from feminism. No matter how much you say otherwise, I think statements like like the one in the OP that “Efforts to restrict abortions [are] totally anti-feminist.” tend to drive wedges. I do agree that the best scenario is to realize the false dichotomy and thus not dehumanize either group. Neither side is anti-choice nor anti-life. Until we (as a society) can get past this, we will never reach an agreeable solution.
Comment by Matt W. — January 29, 2010 @ 3:22 pm
I’m curious to know whether people commenting here believe the following;
(1) That human life begins at conception. Meaning, that a human embryo is an actual person - just like all the actual people walking around outside their mothers’ uteruses (uteri?).
This is what the Catholic Church says.
(2) That an embryo deserves the same rights as any other living person walking around outside his or her mother’s uterus.
Again, this is the Catholic Church’s position.
Comment by ECS — January 29, 2010 @ 3:22 pm
That last comment by me sounds a little too judgmental and holier-than-thou, now that a proof read it. I want to apologize.
Comment by Matt W. — January 29, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
Britt,
“They are never arguing that abortion is not similar to murder just that certain circumstances make it more understandable or justifiable. Doesn’t that make sense?”
NO. That’s my point. If someone believes it is akin to murder, then I don’t see Rape making the murder of a child ok. What would make sense is that they DONT equate it with murder. Which, according to some of the responses I see (thank you Enna) is probably the case.
Anyway my point was never that I think it’s murder or not murder, or that the church is right or wrong. Just that the whole issue is huge and has too many twists and turns for there to be a “right” answer. Which is why I am pro choice. Let the woman decide her “right” answer and deal with her God.
on statistics…did you check the link?
I did. (a couple of links were posted I think) and what I saw was data like “these are the ages, salaries” and so on of women. What I did not see was “these are the verifiable reasons.” There were vague reason categories, and no details really of HOW they got the information for them, or how the categories are defined. 1% of all abortions are incest, 3% health reasons…those were what women reported. And of those that the women didn’t specify how many were there for reasons they didn’t/couldn’t report.
This is my point. It is impossible to chart How many abortions are “justifiable” and how many are not?
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 3:02 pm
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
But Matt W, I’m specifically trying to avoid the false dichotomy by using the additional term “anti-choice” and giving examples of the difference between being pro-life and anti-choice.
As I described, there is a huge amount of activism that can be done for pro-life believers. But once the activism begins to limit the choices of an adult, it crosses into the line of anti-choice.
I recognize that there is not a monolithic Pro-Life movement that everyone must adhere to, and that is what I’m trying to distinguish.
Comment by Reese Dixon — January 29, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
Reese we’ve already covered that you can’t say limiting the choice of an adult, because there are all sorts of legitimate reasons to limit the choices of adults.
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 3:33 pm
No, Britt. we haven’t “covered” that.
Some people have expressed that, but several others have expressed why that is a fallacy, particularly in this scenario.
Comment by Reese Dixon — January 29, 2010 @ 3:36 pm
Matt #51:
Well thanks. I did leave a hole in my logic in #16 and I can take a friendly challenge.
Also I never responded to you in #24, but I agree we legislate to beliefs. It’s unavoidable. I just think we should always be vigilant about where the line is of protecting rights or taking them away. It’s a hard line to find. And we should TRY to avoid basing laws on moral opinions if the actions we consider “immoral” do not infringe on other rights. (Which is where I think the abortion arguments starts, where does the simple “morality” issue end, and the “right to life” issue begin?)
And I agree that we agree it’s a sticky issue. Almost too sticky to ever come up with a solidly and valid answer. But I agree there are no “bad guys” on either side of the issue, most of us are not black and white, and I never felt that ALL regulations of abortion are anti-feminist in nature. And yet regulating what a woman must do with her body carries with it implications that her body becomes a vessel the moment she is impregnated. And what do we do with that? But I admit that the counter mistake is to disregard any right to life the fetus has.
I think this original post made a good point we can all agree on. let’s put more into education, birth control availability, and reduce the number of people who find themselves in the position to exercise their right to choose.
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
Reese — Great post.
“I think to qualify as a feminist, you can be pro-life, but you *cannot* be anti-choice. What I mean is, if you want to work to reduce abortions, let’s do it. I think nearly everyone on the planet wants that. But the methods you use cannot involve restricting a woman’s options. Fund pre-natal care for birth mothers. Support sex education. Support access to contraception. Support women’s shelters or abuse programs. Mentor young women and give them the confidence they need to make wise sexual choices. Agitate for day care programs or more benefits for children. Work with all your heart and might to give mothers the support they need to be able to care for their child. You can hate abortion. You can even view it as a lost life.
But as soon as you start trying to restrict the actions of a full grown woman, that is sexist.”
Well said.
Comment by Heidi — January 29, 2010 @ 3:47 pm
And Reese, ditto. I don’t remember covering that either. At least I don’t recall there has been a consensus that we ought to limit choices of adults in this case.
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 3:47 pm
Reese I was speaking about the after 20 weeks thing…apparently after 20 weeks most people agree it is okay to limit the rights of the women (except in the medically necessary cases).
Do you agree with that? Do you see how saying anyone liimiting rights of the women is bad, is too general?
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
Ah.. the “when does life begin” question. This is something I used to be strict on (at conception) until talking with friends about their miscarriages, and being pregnant myself.
Some of my friends felt that when they lost their baby at 8 weeks, they lost any chance to be with that person in this life and they’d have to wait until later to meet them. I have other friends, who’ve lost babies at various stages, but feel that the spirit came back during a different pregnancy and is with their family today. There isn’t any doctrinal guidance around this at all- and I don’t see why both of those things can’t happen.
During this current pregnancy, I spent some time early on trying to get a feel for the person I’m carrying. But even up until 12 weeks, I don’t think the spirit was in there. In fact, in a comfort blessing I received in my first trimester, my husband started a sentence, “The spirit in you…” then paused and changed it, “You are building the body for a spirit who…” I think some spirits come later and some earlier and I don’t think there is necessarily a set time for each one.
Is it possible that those miscarried children came back to their families? I think so. Do I think a spirit connected with an aborted fetus can come back at a different time? Probably. I don’t see why not and I haven’t heard anything that says it can’t happen. It’s probably case-by-case which is why women are instructed to pray about it. Each situation is going to be unique and different.
Comment by Heather — January 29, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
This is maybe unorthodox for fmh, but I’m wondering if this is wrong/bad? What if a woman is a vessel. Not only a vessel, with her own rights, etc., but once she is impregnanted, one of those roles becomes being a vessel to bring forth life. Is that so horrible, really?
Comment by Enna — January 29, 2010 @ 3:58 pm
I like that enna…it changes the concept of vessel from a sentence to a role of power with responsibility.
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
Well shoot Britt, if I had to add every single qualification every single time I were to make a comment, none of us would have any fortitude to make it through the whole thread. Grant me the benefit of the doubt that I have some common sense, please. Obviously I’m not trying to argue for anarchy here.
I delivered my son at 28 weeks, so the 20 week line seems perfectly appropriate to me. Whenever I’ve used a shorthand to discuss the complexities of this issue, I thought it was a given just how complex this issue was. And when I talk about restricting the rights of women, I’m discussing a *further* restricting, since the 20 week mark is already in place.
Comment by Reese Dixon — January 29, 2010 @ 4:01 pm
sorry reese…other people seem perfectly happy to argue for anarchy, I shoudl have known you weren’t one of them…you’re normally reasonable.
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
I don’t think it’s unorthodox Enna. I think all of us could discuss how pregnancy and creation is sublime and a divine calling. But the problem for me comes when that one role overshadows the autonomy a woman has over her body, when that role becomes more important than her health and safety and her legal authority over her own fate.
Comment by Reese Dixon — January 29, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
I haven’t seen the polling data on this specifically, but most women seeking abortions after this time are either prevented from seeking an abortion earlier or have been given devastating information about the health of the fetus. It’s not as if pregnant women are choosing to abort a fetus well into the second trimester because they just haven’t gotten around to it yet.
Also, keep in mind that some hospitals won’t perform D&C’s or “abortions”. If your insurance provider contracts with hospitals run by the Catholic Church, for example, you may have to seek services at a women’s health clinic. A friend of mine (a faithful LDS woman - not that it should matter) found herself in this situation after miscarrying her child at 19 weeks. She had to wade through the protesters waving gruesome pictures of fetuses in her face in order to get the proper medical treatment inside the clinic.
Comment by ECS — January 29, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
We talk a lot about education and support for working mothers, etc. I wonder if part of what we need to increase the “rare” part of the abortion debate is to change motherhood from a life sentence to something that is noble and powerful. Maybe women would be more willing to have children be a part of their fate, if we simply respected the role more.
Comment by Enna — January 29, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
Abortions only happen in extreme cases in the US when the fetus is older than about 20 weeks. Take a look at this chart.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
Enna said “I think it is more like a blastomere/fetus is as important as a living, breathing woman.” But, Enna, isn’t your position that the blastomere/blastoclast/fetus trumps the woman’s choice? The woman, if she has no choice, loses and is of less import than that clump of cells. When I was just a wee djinn, it seemed to me that even Mormons should feel that females should be allowed to be aborted, because their only value was as a carrier of babies; that is they have no intrinsic value, unlike males.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
oy ECS and DJINN, I’m not talking about this huge number of people seeking abortions after 20 weeks-there is the law already…I’m jsut saying that people in general feel okay about limiting a woman’s rights at that point…it’s not a case of never limit a woman’s rights…it’s a case of when is it okay-what is the balance.
Enna-I 100% agree!
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
britt - right, but these difficult cases should be decided on their own merits without an appeal to a general sentiment that women’s rights should be “limited”.
Comment by ECS — January 29, 2010 @ 4:21 pm
Reese, I love Tomato Nation! It’s a little weird to see my blog worlds colliding, though.
How does the church view miscarriages? I know my aunt had one when she was fairly well along (I don’t remember the exact details), but not long enough that she legally had to name the baby. She didn’t name him, but I wonder if that baby is considered part of her eternal family? I know my mom had a miscarriage at about 8 weeks and there isn’t some extra brother/sister spot on our church records.
I know this is a sensitive subject, and I certainly don’t mean to imply that babies miscarried early aren’t people. Whether or not the church keeps record is hardly a definitive proof of what happens when spirits come to earth, but I do think it’s relevant to this discussion.
Bottom line for me, is that there is so much I don’t know. Until just recently, I considered myself pro-life. I remember listening to a news report of some state court that wanted to require a women to file a police report if she wanted an abortion on the grounds of rape. As I was listening, I was thinking… what if the woman, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to or can’t report the rape? What if she can’t prove it? Is she denied a legal safe abortion? It dawned on me in that moment: I have to be pro-choice. I don’t know why anybody does anything, and it’s not my place to make judgments that affect other people’s lives. I don’t know when a fetus becomes a person, but I do know that a woman is a person.
Comment by Jamie S — January 29, 2010 @ 4:23 pm
djinn,
I’m pro-choice, for the record.
I guess I was just arguing the position (because this is what I believe for my personal self) that the blastomere trumps choice, yes. The woman does not lose and does not have less import just because she lost that choice. There is nothing about carrying a baby to term, in and of itself (social factors aside) that is degrading to women that would lower their intrinsic value.
If the blastomere and the woman have the same value, the question only comes up if both lives are at stake.
Comment by Enna — January 29, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
No time to read it all, but “I think to qualify as a feminist, you can be pro-life, but you *cannot* be anti-choice” is a minimal condition. I’d like to see pro-life be more about supporting (socially, psychologically, financially, etc after AND before conception) and less about restricting access to abortions.
In the last few years, I have been privy to enough of the “exception” cases within my circle of friends (not just acquaintances) to confirm that an outright ban, even on late-term abortions, is not something I can ever support. In one case, a friend’s husband left her after finding she was pregnant with their second - he was handling being a father to their first one but said when faced with the reality of a second, that was the last straw on the camels back. In another, a friend was hospitalized for severe late onset PPD only to find out in her stay that she was 12 weeks pregnant; treatment to stabilize contradicted pregnancy and somehow it didn’t seem right on many fronts to spend the pregnancy in and out of a hospital in order to try a lesser treatment. Another particularly heart-breaking case was a close LDS friend who RUSHED to decide to end her very much wanted pregnancy within 2 weeks because a standard mid pregnancy ultrasound taken late at 21 weeks showed severe deformities. My heart broke for her in general but I was angry that she and her husband had to feel rushed in this decision due to 3rd trimester laws.
Now, in all of these cases, most pro-life mormons would at least consider the notion that abortion might be appropriate. But the thing is, who am *I* or anyone else for that matter to decide for a woman on these heart wrenching decisions? That said, I think EVERYONE can agree that abortions are something we should work to minimize.
Comment by Nicole — January 29, 2010 @ 4:29 pm
Enna (Reg. 53 and 64)
#53 You know the Catholic church used to regard a fetus as a human after “quickening” which they believed was the entry of the spirit. It was believed to be around 14 weeks. That is neither here nor there really. I just think it’s interesting.
#64 Yes and no. Personal secret for the blogosphere. I am 10 weeks pregnant. I saw my little inch long child in an ultrasound yesterday just wiggling around. That is my baby. And from the day I found out I was pregnant, (with this one and clear back to my first) my choices for my body were as based on the health of my child as I could make them. I believe I have been entrusted with a gift from the lord, I feel unworthy and so blessed and powerful at the same time. I have a college degree, that I earned by working 50-80 hr work weeks and attending classes when I could. I worked my butt off for my career and nothing makes me happier, or prouder, or gives me more of a sense of purpose than being my kids’ mom. I do feel like with this life inside of me, I have a sacred purpose and duty. I am proud to be the vessel carrying this precious, precious thing.
That said. I don’t want to be seen as a “vessel” by the state, one that’s purpose is to carry this child, under the terms they direct, nor would I want to appeal to them if for any reason I didn’t think I could do this, or should do this.
I would not want others judging me for eating too little, too much, the wrong thing, for the supreme health of the child. (I know that is extreme but if gov can regulate to the rights of the child, how far do we want it taken?) If the government takes on the role of regulating what I must and must not do for something growing inside of me, what does that say my body is in the eyes of the government?
Sorry to get bumper stickery here but: Keep your laws off my body
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 4:31 pm
After the last abortion topic, I was a little hesitant to read this post. All I have to say is ditto to everything Reese said in the OP.
As an Adoption/Birth Parent caseworker I try to do everything I can to accomplish what Reese said in this paragraph:
Can I add, do everything in my power to educate the public at large about the miracle and absolute responsible choice of adoption in a crisis pregnancy?
I’ve worked with a few women who were raped, carried the baby to term, and then made an adoption plan for the baby. Their courage and resilience is absolutely breath-taking to me. Would I be able to make that same choice in their situation? I don’t know. What surprised me though, was that those women love their babies just as much as any other woman who’s baby was conceived out of consent and not force.
People at work often ask me why I’m pro-choice when a) I’m Mormon and b) I work in adoption. I believe that the govt. shouldn’t be dictating women’s reproductive choices. Once they start limiting choices, who’s to say some anti-adoption nut wouldn’t take away that choice as well. I couldn’t call myself a feminist and think that I have the right or any say on anyone else’s reproductive choices. Those are personal, private, sacred, and should only between the person affected and God.
Comment by Risa — January 29, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
You just linked to Sars and Tomato Nation!! I love her! That made me so thrilled that I forgot to read the rest of your post. Sorry, I’ll go back and do that now.
Comment by Rechabite — January 29, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
You must have the easiest pregnancies and births on the planet, Enna; I’m guessing you’ve never had post-natal depression and have never known anyone who died during childbirth. There are serious costs for a woman associated with childbirth; maybe I’m misunderstanding you?
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 4:39 pm
Oh, and never known anyone who had severe, life-long health problems from childbirth.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
Never mind, Enna. I’m really just glad that you are pro-choice. I have daughters. I want them to live, you know, if they have complications in childbirth. I want them to have a choice.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 4:43 pm
Risa, that was beautiful.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 4:44 pm
Do parents have the “choice” to not pay child support? No.
A father (or mother) is required to pay child support and does not have a choice in the matter.
So we do have some sort of standard that once you have chosen to have sex that results in a life, you no longer have certain choices.
You can only give up a child for adoption if both of you agree to it. If the other one does not agree to it, one of you cares for the child and the other pays support or you both care for it.
It is legitimate to question the situation in its various stages.
1. During pregnancy the woman has lots of choices. The father has none.
2. After birth or abortion, the father’s only choice is dependent on the mother’s choice (and vice versa).
This means that adoption is often off the table. So a woman’s choice becomes abortion or keep the baby.
For a man it means he can’t choose adoption instead of abortion unless the woman agrees. And if she decided to keep it he has no choice of adoption and no choice of abortion.
Everyone has limited choices.
Comment by jks — January 29, 2010 @ 5:33 pm
It’s PLACED for adoption. Babies are not given up. And your statement is not true. At least, not in Utah.
Comment by Risa — January 29, 2010 @ 5:39 pm
That said. I don’t want to be seen as a “vessel” by the state, one that’s purpose is to carry this child, under the terms they direct, nor would I want to appeal to them if for any reason I didn’t think I could do this, or should do this.
The inverse of this is equally scary to me. Say the state decides that it is a waste of vessel space to carry that particular baby because it is disabled/non-white/poor, so we’ll just get rid of that one, and and make some room for a non-defective/white/upperclass baby. Forced birth and forced abortion are opposite sides of the same coin. I’d like to just get rid of the whole coin.
Comment by Starfoxy — January 29, 2010 @ 5:40 pm
Isn’t the law in Utah that the father has 3 days to contest an adoption?
But I think in many states the father that never signed away his rights still has them after years, especially if he didn’t know the child was born. And in that case, I think the Utah 3 days thing open a whole other can of worms on fathers’ rights.
Comment by zara — January 29, 2010 @ 5:43 pm
#88 - It’s one business day. So if the baby is born on Friday, yes they have 3 days AFTER the baby is born. But they have a whole freaking 9 months BEFORE that to assert their rights. And it’s not to contest an adoption…it’s to be notified that an adoption plan is in place. Birthmothers in Utah have to wait 24 hours after the baby is born to terminate their rights. They can do this in front of a notary or 2 witnesses. They can, of course, also do this in front of a judge. Once termination papers are signed, there is no legal recourse. It’s irrevocable. Other states give some birthmothers up to 90 days to change their minds.
However, I can’t speak for other states. I only know Utah’s adoption laws. And even those are constantly changing.
Comment by Risa — January 29, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
I hope this isn’t too big of a thread-jack, but I’m wondering what everyone thinks of this new law. Are pro-lifers more likely to support it? Do all pro-choicers hate it? I think it goes along with the discussion of abortion and a woman’s right to her body.
Comment by Bewitched — January 29, 2010 @ 5:55 pm
I hate that being pro-choice implies I’m not pro-life. I am pro-life but I’m anti-rape, anti-incest, anti-no available birth control, anti-all the miserable conditions that coalesce around an unwanted pregnancy. Do you think I could fit that on a bumper sticker?
I also hate that this is completely spun as a woman’s problem. Girl got herself pregnant, she should be responsible. GAG.
Comment by Lupita — January 29, 2010 @ 5:59 pm
If limiting a woman’s choice is the final arbitrator as to who is and isn’t feminist, then I would expect feminists to support gun ownership, legalized drugs, legalized official suicide, and prostitution, at least for women.
Otherwise, a woman’s choice can’t be the final arbitrator for feminism and have it be consistent.
Comment by Martin — January 29, 2010 @ 6:00 pm
I meant assisted (not official) suicide. I don’t know what the Freudian would be for that slip-up…
Comment by Martin — January 29, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
Martin-
Are you figgin’ kidding?
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 6:06 pm
Absolutely not.
Comment by Martin — January 29, 2010 @ 6:08 pm
We were discussing this subject a bit in my Feminism class the other day. I believe very firmly that you can be all sorts of things and still be a Feminist, and that includes staying at home with your children, as long as you’re making the decision for the right reasons. Unfortunately, there are a few people in my class who seem to think there is no way a woman can stay at home with her children and still be “free.” It’s true you can argue that the woman’s desire to stay home could very well be the result of social influences and upbringing, but does that disqualify being a SAHM as an “equal” option?
A few of us even brought up choosing the spouse with the highest wage potential as being the main earner, and these people even thought THAT was sexist. Once again, I can see that many women (LDS especially) might be raised to choose educations that will provide less money, leaving them as the default at-home parent, but seriously, what are we, still stuck in the second wave? I don’t see how splitting the child care, house work, and wage work exactly down the middle (which seemed to be what was being advocated here, but I don’t know, maybe that’s sexist too :P) should be considered the Only Right and True Feminist Option for Everyone. When you create ANY structure that you want to force a woman into, and devalue her if she doesn’t fit, that is wrong.
Comment by ifrit — January 29, 2010 @ 6:10 pm
Right Martin. I have seen the error of my ways. Dang femi-nazis! They think they should get to choose what they do with their bodies so naturally they are saying that women can CHOOSE to run around doing anything they like!
Let them women fold talk in public, and see what happens? Sheesh dern!
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 6:17 pm
Zara, Anytime anyone starts using “choice” as the be-all end-all arbitrator for anything, I start to go nuts. Almost every choice affects someone else.
I think a woman’s choice is extremely important. But I think other factors matter too. I think feminists can legitimately consider other factors. If they can’t, then “femi-nazi” is a fine description.
Comment by Martin — January 29, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
Actually sarcasm aside Martin, I recognize that some of the pro-choice arguments could be applied to suicide, prostitution, or drug use. And I think each one of these has a whole world of debate to it. I don’t think we can lump them all together as one issue really. There are probably LOTS of times when there is no clear cut right or wrong to some of these things.
But abortion is an obviously distinctively feminist issue because the body involved is female. And there are very personal, private and anguishing reasons why a woman may feels she needs and abortion and may be entitled to one. And I think most pro-choicers are arguing it’s a personal, not a public decision.
Can we say the same for like…selling heroine?
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
I’m not arguing this at all. But how does this lower a woman’s intrinsic value? I’m not saying there’s no costs or risks to carrying a child or child birth. I’m saying that that does not make women less valuable then men… which is what I got from your comment in 72.
Comment by Enna — January 29, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
Zara,
If whether a baby is carried to term is exclusively a woman’s choice, then I should realize that if I impregnate her, and I consider a fetus a human, then she has the right to murder my child. I have no recourse, no matter how devastated I feel.
To be fair, then, if I consider the fetus not to be human, but the woman does and chooses to deliver the child, I should therefore not be required to support that child — the child was strictly the woman’s choice. She turned the fetus into a baby, not me.
Healthy attitude for society? What happens if everyone gets it into their minds that babies are exclusively a woman’s game?
I’m well aware that women sacrifice far more to bring a child into the world than a man. thus, her “choice” carries great weight. But if it’s the ONLY factor, that way lies danger.
Comment by Martin — January 29, 2010 @ 6:36 pm
That last comment makes me sound “anti-choice”. I’m not. The church supports abortions in specific cases, and I do as well. The “pro-life” movement generally wants to close those “loopholes”.
The argument that abortion is a personal choice and not a public one makes sense only if you agree prostitution, heroin use, suicide, and gun ownership are “personal choices”.
Comment by Martin — January 29, 2010 @ 6:45 pm
I never comment this much. Something about this issue really got under my skin. I keep coming back to it today.
Martin, sorry for the “tone.” It was my knee jerk reaction because I took sudden offense to your comment because I believed your intention was to say that arguing women be allowed to have an abortion is the same as allowing a woman to go do any thing she wants.
I agree that you can’t just say “choice” and have that make anything OK. I think “choice” is just the best word available for trying to figure this topic out. No I don’t think we should let people of either gender run amok because they choose to. I also think that people have a valid point when they say abortion has a victim and therefore it’s a little …I don’t know …”icky” to say “sure, it’s the mommy’s choice to kill that baby.”
BUT
I don’t know the real abortion situation in the world. I don’t think anyone really does. I know there are some people who don’t see a fetus as a life, who will abort for the mere reason that they don’t want stretch marks. There will be some that abort because they got pregnant and don’t want to be.
But I think there are enough women, I venture to say MOST women, who morally or even just instinctualy, would prefer to protect their unborn children if at all possible. I think that many, if not most of us, would risk health, life, limb, and then face hardship and poverty after the birth, to bring our children into being. And some of us, who feel this way, will face situations where we will have to weigh one horrible thing against another, and maybe the lesser of those two horrible things will be to have an abortion. And in those cases, it should be OUR choice, and not the government’s.
I think it’s a valid word to use.
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
Zara, in the end, I pretty much agree with you. It’d be ridiculous to have some judge decide on individuals cases whether the woman’s choice outweighed the interests of others (family members, boyfriend, etc.) on a case-by-case basis.
But that said, some of the rhetoric that’s used in these discussions is infuriating.
I believe a feminist should be able to keep her label even if she includes other factors other than “a woman’s choice” in determining her stance on abortion.
Comment by Martin — January 29, 2010 @ 7:03 pm
I think I covered this in a previous comment, but I have to say that while there are similar arguments to use for these things, your statement as a whole I don’t agree with.
You state:
“The argument that abortion is a personal choice and not a public one makes sense only if you agree prostitution, heroin use, suicide, and gun ownership are “personal choices”.”
I think there are arguments in each of these cases that distinguish them from abortion and each other. Actually, I think YOU COULD argue that yes, these are “personal” choices since for the most part, the person doing these things is his/her own victim. But then you can also argue various reasons each of these things should be illegal because of their potential to harm people who dont want t be involved (i.e. a woman forced into prostitution, a person shot at by a gun owner, whatever).
I think abortion is a separate issue from these and “choice” in the case of abortion is not a catch all.
As to the rights of the father you mentioned, I hear you. I think it is a bit unfair that a man’s child might be aborted by a woman. I am sure that would be very painful to a man who genuinely believed that was a child. I imagine to avoid this situation, men know the woman’s position on abortion as birth control prior to entrusting her with his seed. Hmnnnnn?
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 7:04 pm
I think that one can be a pro-life feminist. But in my view, a pro-life feminist would not be dismissive of the choice issues involved in the whole abortion rights issue. If you see it as a balance of rights, you could end up on either side of the pro-life/pro-choice divide.
Comment by Xtian — January 29, 2010 @ 7:12 pm
Yep. And women should know they get pregnant from sex. Wait…. I think someone’s said that before….
Comment by Martin — January 29, 2010 @ 7:13 pm
Martin (#104)
I think we are mostly on the same page. And I think we are both exhausted by the complexity and emotional severity of the issue.
And I suppose it’s fair to say that you can consider other angles and still be a feminist. But I don’t think Reese’s intention was really to say that you can’t be a feminist if you aren’t totally 100% on board with abortion. She can weigh in later for us. I think part of the problem with this debate is that there are vocabulary limitations to expressing a very complex issue with little subsets of complex side issues.
I think the spirit of Reese’s message (I hope she will correct me if I am wrong) is that feminism isn’t a self serving-I-can-do-what-I-want platform. To be a feminist I think she is implying we must be humanists, and that if we as human beings want to be treated as human beings with brains and rights, then when our sisters’ rights are being impeded we need to try to stand together against it. And we are not doing that if we don’t question the idea that our bodies functions can or should be regulated for us based on an ideal that can’t really every fairly be applied to the masses.
But you know, I tried to get it out. I am sure I didn’t say it quite right. I will probably over think it and come back and try later.
Comment by Zara — January 29, 2010 @ 7:18 pm
I’m not sure what that means in this context, or in others. How is protecting fetal life any more a question of imposing beliefs, than say, prevention of infanticide? Many civilizations have not believed that a newborn infant is a person, and would be appalled that we prosecute teenage mothers that abandon an infant to death by exposure.
Is animal rights legislation imposition of one’s beliefs?
For me, choice isn’t about denying, marginalizing, or excluding the pro-life concern for fetal life, or about denying humanity of personhood of the fetus. It’s about a woman’s sovereignty over her body, and the whole notion of limited government. If the almighty state can tell a woman when she can or must menstruate, then exactly what can’t it do?
Why can’t choice be about choice? Why does it have to be about a denial of life?
Comment by Xtian — January 29, 2010 @ 7:21 pm
When you grow the blastomere/blastoplast/fetus in your own body for nine month then you get to have the say, Martin. Otherwise, not so much.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 7:31 pm
Xtian, Zara and I were having that one out. “Choice” isn’t the only factor.
The whole point of having societal laws is to limit people’s choices that affect other people in order to balance vested interests. In the case of abortion, those most invested are the fetus/baby, the pregnant woman, the father/sperm donor, relatives, etc., in that order. Consequently, it matters a great deal whether the fetus/baby is a member of society (ie., human). If the fetus is considered human, it’s vested interest is greater than that of the woman’s. Otherwise, the woman’s interest would generally trump that of the others, but her’s is still not the only interest.
Comment by Martin — January 29, 2010 @ 7:41 pm
Well said, ifrit.
Heather #63 - I believe the same thing. Actually, given that we need to exercise agency in all things, I believe that each spirit gets to choose when they enter the body, so some might enter earlier and some later depending on when they are ready. Just my opinion.
I like britt’s suggestion of a different word for abortions in special circumstances. I don’t really like the terms pro-life or anti-choice either.
I think that for me, I’ve concluded that women need to be able to choose if they are in a situation that requires abortion. Any restriction that is imposed (even to limit it to rape, incest, etc.) requires someone making a choice of whether the abortion meets the criteria, and there will be women violated by that. So, with a heavy heart, I have to conclude that I don’t support abortion restrictions.
However, I really, really, really get irritated when fetuses are dehumanized. They are not just a lump of tissue or cells. They are little lives. Sometimes there are justifiable reasons for destroying those lives, and the women carrying those lives should be able to determine when those are, but I just can’t stand hearing the pro-choice side dehumanize fetuses. I think we need more reverence and respect for life in our culture.
Comment by Stephanie — January 29, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
Djinn, our relationship is improving! You still don’t listen to what I say, but at least this time you didn’t question my humanity, just my relevance. You having a good day?
Comment by Martin — January 29, 2010 @ 7:47 pm
Bewitched #90 - that law makes no sense to me. Why would destroying a fetus be okay in a doctor office but not at your own hands?
Comment by Stephanie — January 29, 2010 @ 7:49 pm
Martin, the state of Utah, and by implication, the Mormon church, disagrees with you. A pregnant woman can fly to Utah, immediately give birth, and then give the child up for adoption. If the father from anywhere else in the United States hadn’t the foresight to register in this little state Utah beforehand and didn’t know that a child had been born, that father has no rights whatsoever. What do you think of that?
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 7:54 pm
Fetuses (feti?) are lumps of cells. Up until around 20 some-odd weeks, as the law of the United States states. At that point, the rights of the fetus should be balanced against the rights of the living breathing human being that is pregnant. Unless you really hate females. Which I doubt, mostly.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 7:56 pm
ECS-I just wanted to say I’m reading all the feminists for Life stuff and find it fascinating. What a great resource. I love their outreach and efforts at education…and the speech “Women deserve better…than abortion” what a great speech. Very interesting.
One of the issues with pro life and pro choice is there are some crazies on both sides…there really needs to be another option…a more individualized option that implies personal responsibility, respect for the life of the parents and the child AND respect for a woman’s knowledge and care of her own body.
Thanks for that link
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 7:57 pm
Djinn, I did not know that. Makes sense, though, because the State of Utah likewise could not require anything of that man either.
But that wasn’t the point. Things get messy. But you want to exclude men from the baby game entirely? Healthy attitude for society? (I mean men other than me)
Comment by Martin — January 29, 2010 @ 7:59 pm
djinn, I’m not talking about the law’s definition. I don’t know at what point life enters the fetus, but I’m fairly confident it’s before 20 weeks. I think most people probably do, and I think that we should respect that life. But, like I said, I still heartbreakingly don’t want to restrict a woman’s right to choose whether she needs to terminate that life within her. It doesn’t mean I hate females.
Comment by Stephanie — January 29, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
Djinn, the government established that life begins at 20 some-odd weeks? I’m glad that’s settled.
Comment by Martin — January 29, 2010 @ 8:01 pm
britt 117, I wholeheartedly agree.
Comment by Stephanie — January 29, 2010 @ 8:01 pm
Yes, Martin, the current law guiding abortion is the supreme court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey which puts viability at about 20-24 weeks. However, I extremely strongly feel that my daughters shoudn’t die if they have complications of pregnancy after that point. An adult woman’s life is more valuable than a fetus. If you don’t like this, I pity your daughters and your wife.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 8:05 pm
Or husband that will raise your children motherless. This happened to the cousin of a friend of mine. His wife didn’t have the abortion that would have saved her live and consequently died. I doubt he bragged about this at church.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 8:08 pm
Yes, Martin, it’s (Planned Parenthood v. Casey) has been the law of the land since 1992.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 8:11 pm
Martin, I don’t get your point. I don’t want to exclude men from the baby game entirely. Of course not. But there is a difference between getting violently ill for 9 months and putting your future health at risk (talk to me for details) and just standing around on the sidelines. Don’t you see this?
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 8:14 pm
Djinn, we obviously operate on different wavelengths or something.
Sorry. Got to go.
Comment by Martin — January 29, 2010 @ 8:17 pm
Don’t worry, all you FMH fans; I’ll soon be too sick to post again for a month or three. Just hold your breath.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 8:19 pm
Several thoughts:
I think “potential” for life begins at conception. In an ideal world, every woman who became pregnant would do what was best for her child.
In an ideal world, teenagers wouldn’t be having sex. In a more realistic, ideal world, teenagers would know about birth control. I was reading about the Utah legislature wanting to pass a bill after a teen girl was not prosecuted for hiring a boy to beat her up (trying to cause a miscarriage). If the legislature wants to really prevent things like that from happening they’d pass laws about sex education and access to birth control.
I think that in the scripture that talks about murder…or anything like unto it- abortion falls under the “anything like unto it”. I can’t remember specifics, but talking to my dad about it once, there are things a person who has committed murder can’t do ever again, as far as church activity, and those do not apply to someone who has had an abortion.
Elder Oaks, quotes someone (unnamed) in a talk called “Weighter Matters”. Forgive the length, but I’m going to post it.
I’ve talked here before about being pro-responsibility. We need to teach our children to be responsible, and WE need to be responsible and make sure that no matter what choices they make, that they have access to what they need to keep them safe. I don’t like the pro-life or pro-choice terms.
I’ve had a miscarriage at 8 weeks, I don’t feel like that was a baby that was mine. I’ve had friends who have had early miscarriages who feel like they’ll get to raise that baby later. I figure it’s a personal thing and Heavenly Father will work it out.
Comment by Alliegator — January 29, 2010 @ 8:21 pm
I’m sorry to hear that, djinn. I hope you get better soon.
Comment by Stephanie — January 29, 2010 @ 8:22 pm
I’m curious Martin. More about the wavelengths, please.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 8:22 pm
Don’t pretend to be nice, Stephanie, I grew up with it and I don’t like it. Just dislike me. I’d much prefer it.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 8:27 pm
Oh, and someone above said that this was the only feminist site where they had ever seen motherhood being compatible with feminism. Is that true? Am I just kidding myself that I can be a feminist anywhere outside the Mormon realm?
Comment by Stephanie — January 29, 2010 @ 8:28 pm
If I got you wrong Stephanie, and you are genuinely wishing me the best, then I apologize. Every Mormon is not my relative. Must repeat this. Sorry sorry sorry.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 8:29 pm
djinn, I don’t dislike you. I disagree with probably 80% of what you say, but I don’t dislike you.
Comment by Stephanie — January 29, 2010 @ 8:29 pm
Okay, djinn, I genuinely was wishing you well. I don’t want to see you sick for several months. I do rather enjoy arguing with you (most of the time).
Comment by Stephanie — January 29, 2010 @ 8:30 pm
Stephanie, the idea that women with children matter is a feminist idea. OK, shutting up.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 8:30 pm
djinn - that’s sort of right. Casey eviscerated Roe’s trimester framework and established the current undue burden standard. A state may not place an “undue burden” upon a woman’s right to an abortion, but what this means exactly has never been articulated. What it does mean is that states have more flexibility after Casey to impose stricter laws regulating abortion.
Comment by ECS — January 29, 2010 @ 8:43 pm
We shouldn’t have laws for child abuse either. That would restrict a woman’s right to choose to abuse their children.
Comment by Rick — January 29, 2010 @ 9:14 pm
No Stephanie, that’s not right at all. Motherhood is a feminist issue and it has been since the beginning. With a bit of a gap in the late 70’s and 80’s depending on who you listened to.
But today it’s absolute. Anyone who gives grief to mothers is either 1) uniformed 2) naive in their feminism or 3) an a$$hole.
So much more to comment on but I have to leave right this second to go ride a trapeze with Bobby Pin Natalie. A blogger’s work is never done.
Comment by Reese Dixon — January 29, 2010 @ 9:17 pm
Woah! Martin!
#111 you said:
1. If the fetus is considered human, it’s vested interest is greater than that of the woman’s.
Why “greater” and not equal to?
And does this only mean the fetus’s right to life is greater than her will? Or that she should be forced to risk her health for the benefit of the fetus? Will you clafifying what you mean by that one.
2. Otherwise, the woman’s interest would generally trump that of the others, but her’s is still not the only interest.
If you do not consider the fetus a person, how can you argue that ANYONE should have any control or say in the matter? I know you have talked some about father’s rights/responsibilty but in the case that the fetus is not a child, then if a man wants to grow his sperm into a child, he needs to find a willing child grower.
I mean (remember, this is based on the premise the fetus is not a child, whcih is the premise you based your statement in number 2 on) to me this argument is similar to if you were to plant a garden in my yard and then say I have to tend it, prevent it from meeting harm, do the labor to water and protect and raise the fruit, and then you will help me after I go through the labor of the harvest. And because the garden is planted, I am NOT allowed to remove ir from my garden because you want it to grow.
Comment by zara — January 29, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
My husband got his girlfriend pregnant in high school, and he was upset but wanted to be a father. She knew he was against abortion, so told him that it was an ectopic pregnancy, and she needed money for the surgery. When he found out the truth he was devastated. I don’t know if we would have our own beautiful family together if he already had a child, but I saw him go through agony that his unborn baby’s life had been ended. I want more education, in general, and more adoption, but I see the necessity to have choices available in some cases. I do struggle, however, with the absolute lack of even mentioning the fathers in discussions of abortion. Is there a place for them in this discussion?
Comment by anon this time — January 29, 2010 @ 9:52 pm
I’m really trying not to post, but I’ll address ‘anon this time’’s post. Your husband’s girlfriend, if she carried to term would have been labeled a slut by all and sundry. You know it. C’mon. She would have suffered devastating consequences, which your husband, by not appearing pregnant totally bypassed. Have some compassion.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 10:40 pm
I’m really trying hard, ‘anon this time’ to not say “you really get off on other people’s pain and your corresponding righteousness” but have failed. I’m outer darkness (according to my father in law (former). At least the music will be awesome.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 10:44 pm
Sorry for the double post. Also, on a second read, as is normal, I’m being much too harsh (but I have nothing else to do on a Friday night.) I acknowledge that your husband was devastated. But you have to balance his emotional and secret devastation with the girl’s physical and public devastation, should she have carried the ***** to term.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
Even if I was willing to concede that the fetus’s life was equivalent to an infants, I still fail to see how that matters. I can think of no other circumstance where I am legally required to allow another human being to act as a parasite on my body. The most direct analogy I can come up with would be I am driving and accidently hit someone. They need a blood transfusion and I happen to be a match. I can still say no- even if I am the reason that they need it and they’ll die without it. Or bone marrow, or a liver or anything else (including things where there is more specificity required for a match and another person would not be as good as me). So, if I can cause someone to need some body part of mine and then legally deny that to them (even something as simple as a blood transfusion which requires less then an hour of my time and just a little bruising max), why should the government be able to force me to allow another human 9 months of leaching off my body. My body, even for someone else’s life, even for someone whose life I am responsible for- it is still my body. When it is a fully formed, developed human being, we are all good with this concept. Why should this fetus get more rights then we grant to an independent human?
If we want to talk moral obligations, that is a whole different question and I would come to different conclusions. But this debate is legal, not moral.
Comment by tami — January 29, 2010 @ 10:47 pm
Plus, c’mon, anon this time. Your husband’s girlfriend quite possibly faced getting thrown out of her house, getting excommunicated, and other serious serious consequences, while your now-husband faced NOTHING. Have some compassion. I’m totally sick of typing that last sentence. I should just give up. Mormons are mean. Except me. But that doesn’t quite work. So, again, have a modicum of kindness, b***(*= (totally a Chris Rock reference.)
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 10:55 pm
Tami,
Hu. Very interesting way of looking at it.I have not thought of it from that angle. But I can see how the argument works. Harsh. but logical.
Comment by zara — January 29, 2010 @ 11:14 pm
Dijinn-i think maybe your reaction to Anon this time was a little knee jerk. All i think she was trying to get across was that sometimes these decisions can devastate the potential father-to-be. I don’t think she ever said she didn’t have any empathy for the girlfriend. She even admits
she admits there are times when the choice needs to be there and doesn’t say that the situation with her husband and his girlfriend when he was younger was one of these occasions or not in her eyes. Being his wife inclines her to be more favorable to his point of view than the girls simply because she loves him and may or may not even know the girl.
Comment by April — January 29, 2010 @ 11:24 pm
I am a feminist. I wear cute bras (that look ridiculous over G’s but… ), I wear lipstick, I match my shoes to my belt if I wear a belt. I get highlights, I buy MAC makeup, I love my man, I shave, I love PINK but booooooy am I as feminist (but pro-life) as they get. I am not a contradiction, I am a woman who was the first in her FAMILY- both sides- to graduate HIGH SCHOOL (and now I am a professor at a great university) and an adult convert.
Do the mollys at church like me?]
NOPE. Do I like them?
notsomuch
But I am a nice feminist and if Molly chose herr husband by his major at BYU and his life-plan so she can drop out and not get her domestic arts degree, whatev.
I also have the distinct experience that every MAN in my life (yes, every) has let me down in REALLY BIG ways, so… I am a feminist. I dont stand up to pee (and no, I have not tried) but I am also very, VERY Mormon (except in all the molly ways)…
Comment by Crystal — January 29, 2010 @ 11:31 pm
Thank you April, for realizing, what djinn is obviously blinded to - that there are always two sides of a situation. Any compassionate person can see how awful it would be to face public scorn for one’s choices. I have seen up close friends that kept babies, who love their children but are not happy. Friends FORCED to give up babies they were way too young to have, but have regretted the decades since. And those that chose abortion suffer with agonizing loss. I myself have had a D&C, necessary but painful in so many ways.
djinn made serious (and completely wrong) assumptions, by the way, which I won’t bother addressing or she’d only make more.
So I will make an assumption - I am so sorry djinn, that you have suffered such pain in your life, and either cannot forgive or won’t, that you project your hatred on all those around you who come to the table with honest ideas and feelings that differ from your own. As a feminist and a Mormon, I cannot see how you can treat others with such a lack of respect or courtesy and claim to be either.
Comment by anon this time — January 30, 2010 @ 12:10 am
i think that yes i am a feminist, as i agree with sars definition. i am also pro-choice in the rape, incest, or health of the mother situations.
but i do agree with megan back towards the beginning that when you choose to have sex, especially unprotected sex, you risk getting pregnant. it is not that babys fault that the parents werent smart enough to take precautions or even, to not have sex at all. i think it is an irresponsible choice to abort a baby in this circumstance. and that adoption (or keeping the baby if the parents of the baby can take care of the baby) is the responsible choice. I will do my best to educate those young people (as it is not just the girls that need the education) about sex and the responsibilites and consequences that come with that. i have often thought about what i would do if my daughter became pregnant as a teenager (or as a young adult). and while it would break my heart, i would encourage her to place the baby for adoption.
a little over a year ago, i found out my baby did not have a heartbeat. i delivered my baby boy just shy of 17 weeks. i held that baby. i know it is more emotional than logical, but i just cannot support a womans choice to abort for any other reason than what i mentioned above. it was clear to me that there was life in that small body before 20 weeks. perhaps it is different, as someone mentioned earlier, in each case. i dont know if we will ever know. i just dont know that we are even qualified to know the answer to that question.
Comment by Terina — January 30, 2010 @ 1:07 am
Reese - this was a beautiful and well thought out post. I pretty much agreed with everything that you stated. My life experience over the last few decades have really caused me to look at abortion as an ‘necessary evil’. I lived on the west coast when I was younger and I worked with at risk youth in a runaway/detox center. The more time that I spent working in social work plus my experiences as a parent have really caused me to look at abortion in a more permissive light (not sure if permissive was the word that I wanted. I truly believe that we as a society have to have abortion because of other failures in our society. There are so many to list, but the pnes that come to mind right off are
1. Society punishes women/girls for getting pregnant, but typically the males get off scot free and rarely are punished. (I am not advocating that both groups be punished… just pointing out the discrepancies.)
2. Our society has not set up enough support or social networks to give women more choices and make options other than abortion easier. Some women that I have known have gotten an abortion for what many would think are poor reasons (like financial), but as I watch them in their lives I can see what the forces were that drove them to this decision and I realize that if our society had more safety nets, there decisions might have been different. I have also watched women struggle for months to get an abortion so that a late term abortion ends up being the only choice if they are truly determined. And I have friends who have permanent medical problems stemming from past pregnancies. Some of these women have been members of the church-some have not… all found a lack of support, social networks, financial problems, family problems, etc.. So I think I used way too many words to try and express what I am feeling (hey, this post made me stop lurking!), but I hope I got it out OK.
I also need to state that in my experience, almost all the of the women that I have known in these situations do not have support from the father. I am sure that there are a small number of men who do wish that they had more rights so that they could have more influence over a woman’s decision, but in my experience, most men and most of society leave the female hanging out to dry whatever decision they make. I once heard a statement that I thought was interesting -” Individuals that are pro-life tend to believe that life starts at conception and ends at birth.” I recognize that this is a very offensive statement, but this statement really encompasses some of my thoughts. Society punishes women, makes abortions difficult, but doesn’t make any other option any easier. To end abortion or make it very rare, we have to make it an unattractive and useless option and the easiest way to do that is to change things in our society. When a single female who becomes pregnant is able to say “Hey, I’m pregnant and have few if any supports, but financially, emotionally, physically, etc I will be OK…then and only then will abortion become a rarity imo.
Comment by Sonia — January 30, 2010 @ 1:48 am
My opinion is that this issue is so incredibly complicated that I don’t feel like there is some sort of perfect law about it. Therefore, I consider it a non-issue when I vote. I do not mind laws that restrict abortion somewhat, and I do not mind laws that make abortion legal. I fail to see that the constitution guarantees the right to abort and I fail to see that we should make all abortions illegal.
I think I am like most people. Firmly in the middle about abortion. As long as we don’t let either extreme take over, our laws should end up in the middle…..where they probably belong.
Comment by jks — January 30, 2010 @ 2:07 am
I loved your comment Tami. I think that is a really good analogy.
Comment by Reese Dixon — January 30, 2010 @ 2:19 am
Some of the greatest feminists I have known were Catholic nuns.
Comment by L. — January 30, 2010 @ 4:17 am
I so love your opening paragraph, and in my own little music major head, I felt a song coming on.
It’s to the tune of “To Be a Pioneer”
Ahem.
“You don’t have burn your bra straps,
Hate the men in your career
Or walk in heels for the man who deals
To be a Femineer!”
Okay so the rhyme scheme could use a little tweaking, but doesn’t it feel like a multi-verse fMh company production number for the Bloggernacle road show?
Comment by Carrie — January 30, 2010 @ 4:24 am
I agree with every word you said except in regard to mandatory ultra-sound laws which I view as benign and more akin to sex education than an abortion ban. It may be slightly ‘patronizing’ but it does not involve any deep violation of freedom. Moreover, it allows some women to come to a greater understanding and sense of peace. I am also not in theory opposed to 24 hour waiting periods except that they logistically impose an undue burden ( women often have to travel very far to the nearest clinic). I don’t see why arming a women with more information or time to consider is on face abusive or sexist…
At it’s core, the pro-choice argument rests on the idea that in an area of moral grey and uncertanity the choice should remain with the agent that is ultimately most in control and most affected by the process.
Comment by Daniel Ortner — January 30, 2010 @ 7:10 am
Someone had asked about abortion statistics. The Guttmacher Institute gathers/researches/has information on abortion.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
Many of them are for “elective” reasons, they’re in bad relationships, they’re in no financial position for a pregnancy, they already have dependents, etc. Multiple reasons can be given in the survey for what motivated the woman’s decision.
12% cited a problem with their own health, 13% cited a problem with the health of the fetus. Those two areas could overlap.
Comment by barnetto — January 30, 2010 @ 10:14 am
#140 Zara,
If the fetus is considered human, then the fetus’s vested interest exceeds that of the woman’s. The consequence for the woman for not having an abortion falls somewhere on the spectrum from inconvenience to death. The consequence for the fetus is always death.
Even if the fetus is not considered human, there are others with vested interests, most especially the father. Regardless how traumatized he may be about the abortion, most would consider the woman’s interest to be greater. But to simply say “well, if he’s so traumatized he shouldn’t have had sex with her” is the same argument as the other sides “well, if she didn’t want to get pregnant, there are ways to prevent that — she didn’t control her own body before, so she shouldn’t get to control it now that it affects others”.
Tami’s argument that even if a fetus is a human, it should have no claim upon her body is simply a moral value judgment, similar to whether the fetus is human or not. There are a lot more things that affect a human being besides her body: her privacy, her capital resources, her time, her freedom of movement, etc. However, many of the same people who consider the body sacrosanct are willing to violate her in other ways when interests collide: privacy — force her to testify in court, capital — taxation, time — jury duty, freedom of movement — quarantine for infectious disease. It’s a moral judgment to say the body has precedence over everything else.
Tami’s garden analogy is fine. She has inviolable property rights. Her garden is hers, and no one else’s. She can pour pesticides on it. She can leave it barren and let the dust blow all over her neighbors. She spread manure all over it. She can grow allergy causing plants. She can let the weeds grow and spread their seed. Why? Because her society makes a moral judgment that property rights take precedence over all others.
I find abortion repugnant, but I do not consider it murder, and in some choices I consider it the best option. But that wasn’t the point of the post. The question is whether one has to be pro-choice to be feminist, and I say no — other values and people matter too.
It drives me batty that people who cry “you can’t legislate morality” and don’t realize they’re doing exactly that. I fume when people claim their “rights” trump everything and everybody.
I maintain that if feminists consider a woman’s moral right to control her own body as paramount, they must also support prostitution, suicide, and drug-use rights. Either that, or they have to agree that other interests matter too.
Comment by Martin — January 30, 2010 @ 10:43 am
Another reason I am pro-choice is because I want to still have choices when I reach 40 weeks (or 43 weeks as the case was the first time). We chose to have an unassisted pregnancy and unassisted birth where I did my own prenatal care and my husband caught our baby. Yes, I know some people thought we were setting ourselves up to be maternal/infant mortality statistics, but it was something we decided with a lot of prayer and study. It was a wonderful experience and we’re planning on doing that again.
Now, if after 20 weeks, my fetus has more rights to my body than I do, do I get to make that choice at 40 weeks? Could I be forced to give birth with people I don’t want near me and at a place I don’t feel comfortable? After all, some would say it’s in the “best interest” of the fetus/baby.
I want to give women the choice to when and how their fetuses exit their body because I want the same choice and not to be bullied by a system that doesn’t take the prayers and study and priesthood blessings I’ve received into account when they decide what’s “safe.”
Comment by Heather — January 30, 2010 @ 11:04 am
In my opinion women now have so many contraceptive options (the patch, the pill, IUD, the shot, condoms etc.) that the choice is whether or not to have unprotected or risky sex, not whether or not to keep a baby which results from that. Obviously the oft-discussed exceptions of rape, incest and endangering the mother stand outside of that. I believe that is is morally wrong to kill a fetus regardless of the stage. However, I think abortion needs to be legal for several reasons.
Criminalizing abortion did not stop abortion from happening, it just made competent doctors and desperate but otherwise law-abiding women into criminals. Illegal abortions became progressively more expensive and more dangerous as trained doctors refused to do it because of the liability, leaving the field open to untrained individuals interested more in the money than the woman’s health. Making abortion illegal penalized poor or minority women more than it did the rich and/or white, who could pay any price including going abroad for a safe abortion. Abortion needs to be legal because many women will make the choice anyway, only instead of doing so in a sanitary safe environment they could try to self-induce with a hanger.
I don’t think you have to label yourself “pro-choice” to be a feminist, because I feel that you can choose to be on the pill and use condoms and the odds of you getting pregnant are really, really small. This isn’t 1880, when women had no reproductive options whatsoever. I am pro-life, but I am as much pro the mom’s life as I am the baby’s life. A woman should not be forced by a cabal of doctors and law makers into making a choice that threatens her life even more than actual childbirth, which is typically fairly safe in a hospital. What good does it do anyone to have a mother rendered infertile or die from a botched abortion? The fetus is dead anyway, and so is a woman who contributed or could have started to contribute to society in a positive way. Like prohibition, criminalizing abortion just feeds organized crime and removed any safety restrictions on the process.
Comment by Mhana — January 30, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
Feminist Mormon Housewives???? I’m stooped over in uncontrolable laughter! That’s kind of like Jew Loving Nazis right? Using a little applied logic and justification you can always spin anything into your paradigm. You can always talk yourself into believing and reconciling until things fit neatly into the comfort zone that is your life (your comfortable, neat little box). The facts are that the feminist movement proper would not recognize you fine folks as feminists just as the Christian movement doesn’t recognize you as Christians. Try as you might you can try to label yourselves as feminists, Christians, and pro-choice, but your beliefs at their core run counter no matter how much you attempt to justify otherwise. I wonder what the Prophet or Quorum of the Twelve or even your own Bishops would say about your “feminist” and “pro-choice” views. Would the Prophet say the Church is pro-choice? Do the scriptures support this? Does God? That’s really the core of the matter when you get right down to it. Do you hold the Priesthood? True feminists would say it’s your right despite God’s opinion. Is the Mormon Church Patriarcal at it’s core? Where are the female Bishops? What about obedience to your husbands and Priesthood holders? Do you really believe they know what’s best all the time? I admire your opinions and attempts to reconcile your progressive beliefs with your religion, but the fact is that if your heart truly believes these things, you should be looking outside the Mormon paradigm for the answers. Don’t just follow the traditional beliefs/routine because it’s what you’ve always known (you’re no better than modern secular Jews - they’re Jews in name only following little of their true beliefs and recognized as heretics by true Orthodox/Hassidic Jewry). As uncomfortable as it may be and as threatening as it might be to destroying your little boxes, you need to look for the truth outside of the Church. It’s there, it’s the only way to be truly liberated, and life will not end. Truth has no secrets and Christ said it will set you free. Stop being victims and Free yourselves and quit labeling yourselves as something you just can never be in your current circumstances. Angela
Comment by Angela Shields — January 30, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
Everytime I’m ready to take that leap . . . someone just slams me down again.
Comment by Stephanie — January 30, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
Hi, Angela - thanks for stopping by. If you stick around here long enough, you’ll see that the bloggers and commenters here don’t fit neatly into the little box you’ve drawn for us.
Stephanie - don’t take Angela’s opinion to heart. First, it’s filled with unhelpful stereotypes. Second, it makes no sense. Feminists can work within patriarchal structures to effect real change. If they couldn’t, women would never have been granted the right to vote (among other things).
Comment by ECS — January 30, 2010 @ 2:47 pm
Right, ECS. And Angela isn’t accurate in either her speaking for feminists or speaking for the church. I think she fits into one of the three categories I spoke of earlier in the thread.
Comment by Reese Dixon — January 30, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
Martin - there are many feminists who do support all the issues that fall into that enormous “choice” category. But none of those are on the “platform” for lack of a better word (because such a platform largely doesn’t exist) I think because of the effect they have over the largest number of women.
Namely, this is a matter of degree, and priority. Most feminists are more concerned with getting autonomy over their wombs before starting a bunch of new fights.
I personally don’t support the issues you list for a whole number of reasons that aren’t worth getting into now because they’re each worthy of their own thread.
But I support legal access to abortion because every single woman has to deal with her reproductive rights, and there is nothing more personal than carrying a child, which I don’t think the state should be involved in.
To be clear, I should probably refine the position that I stated earlier in support of the 20 week ban on abortion as a compromise I can live with. If I was the one writing the laws, the only people involved in reproductive decisions would be the woman and her partner.
Comment by Reese Dixon — January 30, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
In #161 Mhana addressed the issue of contraception and I whole-heartedly believe comprehensive contraception education will prevent a lot of abortions and crisis pregnancies. However, those in my camp who believe that also face a lot of obstacles. Sex education in the Bush administration? Non-existent. I would love it if we could stop hiding our heads in the sand that people are going to have sex. It’s a biological instinct. We might put moral/religious/cultural restrictions on it, but it’s gonna happen. We need to EDUCATE our children about how not to get pregnant, how not to contract a disease, and how to engage in sexual relationships responsibly, whether that means within the bounds of marriage or not. My parents were very capable of articulating their standards for me, but also educating me about sex and contraception. Telling your kids about contraception does not equal giving them permission to have sex.
Furthermore, I’m really sick of hearing about a woman’s responsibility when it comes to contraception. When did it become only the woman’s responsibility? As far as I know the only sex that can get you pregnant involves 2 or more people. Why are we not holding men up to this standard and expecting them to buys condoms, make sure their partner is on some type of hormone birth control, etc.? Why are we not demanding the male birth control pill from the drug companies (they have, they just won’t market it). Why do mean get to experience all the fun of sex while women are expected to bear all the responsibility for the outcomes of said sex? It’s really frustrating to me.
And while I’m on my soapbox, let me talk to you about girls who have sex because they’re seeking male attention because their father never gave them any. And she’ll let any guy treat her how he’s wants because at least someone is validating her existence. I work with these girls every day. Most of them come to me with little or no self-esteem. Why are we beating up these girls and not their emotionally or physically absent fathers? Why aren’t we beating up the boys who prey on the emotional frail girls? Instead of yelling at them about contraception or the lack their of, instead of yelling at them for having choices and options, instead of tearing them down, how about we change this social paradigm in this country that says a woman’s worth is in direct proportion to how attractive a man finds her? How about we work harder when girls are pre-teens to shore up their self-worth? How about we stop buying the magazines that put Paris Hilton and others of her ilk on the covers? How about we stop giving talks in church about how girls are responsible for boys’ chastity? That would do A LOT in this realm.
Jumping off soapbox now.
Comment by Risa — January 30, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
As a frequent reader and occasional commenter––and with confidence that I have nothing productive to add to the discussion––I will just say this:
I have considered myself a little feminist. I certainly believe in equal rights. I am politically moderate. I will also never be a parent, to my sorrow. I am not a female, and so have no personal experience dealing with the issues discussed in this thread. I had thought I was somewhat logical, preferring analysis to knee-jerk or intuitive responses.
In spite of those factors, I can honestly say that I have never had such a visceral response to an article or other reading as I am having to this discussion. The intensity of it is as surprising to me as the reaction itself. I feel like I’ve been gut-punched. I won’t be back for a while.
Oh.
Oh God.
Comment by Anon for today — January 30, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
Wow, I missed out on some fun here. I am pro-choice. The pro-life arguments just do not resonate with me anymore. I was quite the anti-abortion activist as a teenager (was kicked out of sociology class for wearing a rather agressive pro-life t-shirt once).
For me, it come down to me no longer thinking that abortion is in any way murder. I just don’t (could try to explain, but I am not in that kind of mood).
Can a feminist be pro-life? Sure, my definition of feminist is broad enough to accept that a feminist can be pro-life. However, the feminist arguments for a pro-choice approach are very convincing (and satisfying) to me.
Can a Mormon be pro-choice? Of course. I really like how Mitt Romney, while explaining that he was no longer pro-choice, went to bat for pro-choice Mormons when being interviewed at a radio talk show in Iowa. It made me realize that he had some integrity after all.
Comment by Chris Henrichsen — January 30, 2010 @ 4:49 pm
Re 167 (Risa)
Can I just say Amen!?
We have a long way to go as far as sex education goes. It is also helpful to remember that there are other issues in play.
Comment by Alliegator — January 30, 2010 @ 5:12 pm
Wow! Angela Shields (162) you are obviously not familiar with this blog, nor its authors and contributors. That’s why a little research can go a long way before just spilling so much blabber. It can at least help you not make a fool out of yourself.
Anyway, Reese Dixon, your post resonates with me, but I believe you left something important out, which is usually a core argument for some pro-life people. That argument being that the unborn child IS a victim in the case of abortion. Many pro-life advocates view abortion as the deliberate killing of another human being, who had no chance at life nor any say in his/her future. This is, I think, the issue you are leaving out. If legislation should not decide what a woman should do with her body, why should a woman have the right to decide to terminate the life of another human being? That is usually the core of the debate.
Then comes all the circumstantial mess. The mess that is fueled by what type of circumstances could validate abortion. Should a woman that knowingly but neglectfully got pregnant be able to terminate the life of her unborn child? Should a woman who was a victim of rape or incest? Is it OK for women who knowingly and neglectfully get pregnant to simply “erase” the consequences of their actions because they turned out to be inconvenient? When is it ok to terminate the life of the unborn child, early pregnancy, late pregnancy and why or how do we delineate this lines?
One thing is certain to me, we all have to face the consequences of our actions once we have crossed the point of no return. If I point a gun at someone, I can still decide not to kill that someone, once I have pulled the trigger, I have crossed the point of no return. I can’t go back and say, well that is inconvenient, let’s reverse that. I know this analogy is not terribly adequate and it certainly does not cover the complex circumstances of unwanted pregnancies, but I do think there is a legitimate value in it. I believe abortion is trying to disregard or reverse an already crossed point of no return. (or what in my opinion should be a point of no return)
I was raised by an OB-GYN father and a pediatrics nurse mother; a home in which (although not LDS) maternity and conception are valued with utmost sacredness, and the life of an unborn child is viewed no different that the life of any other human being. Notwithstanding this background, I am not a woman, and I don’t want to claim in this comment any specific position regarding the issue of the baby being a powerless victim in the case of abortion. But I cannot deny I do have strong feelings about it.
Therefore this is my contribution. You stated the following:
That is my comment. For most pro-life people, abortion does create both, a clearly delineated victim and a perpetrator. For some of them, it is very serious because just like kindergarten teachers are in a position of trust when it comes to crimes against children (which makes the crime more serious), some pro-life people believe motherhood is the ultimate position of trust, and the unborn baby the ultimate helpless human being.
Having said that, I believe this issue should be considered when weighing in personal morals.
Comment by Manuel — January 30, 2010 @ 5:51 pm
Hey Manuel, the fetus is just removed from the Mother’s body. It’s a parasite. Harsh word, but scientifically accurate. That’s why it’s not murder. That’s also why viability is so important in determining the rights of the fetus vs. the rights of the mother. Etc. etc., etc.
Comment by djinn — January 30, 2010 @ 5:54 pm
Yes djinn I am very familiar with those arguments. I just made my comment because I believe the original post seems open to all stances. Pro-life people would argue that what you just said is a simple game of semantics to justify a cause. But you are right, the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother have to be defined. Some people could also argue that a nursing baby is a parasite. And while a fetus may be accurately labeled scientifically a parasite, this parasite, unlike most parasites, was produced by the mother.
Comment by Manuel — January 30, 2010 @ 6:02 pm
True, djinn, that the dictionary definition of parasite fits the fetus.
noun 1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
However, that is only the first definition - the second definition of parasite could apply to any dependant child or other dependant person. Everyone in comas, or who is disabled. Those who are uneducated or don’t work to support themselves. All “technically” parasites. Harsh, but that is the actual definition.
Comment by SarahJane — January 30, 2010 @ 6:24 pm
djinn,
Sheesh. Not helping.
Comment by Chris Henrichsen — January 30, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
Actually, I like the definition posted by SarahJane. Note that in definition number 1 (the biological definition) it clearly states that it is an organism that lives on or in an organism of “another species.” Not the case with regular mammal reproduction.
Additionally, the biological parasitic activity of mammals is only a stage, not the ultimate way of life like true biological parasites. Removing a fetus is not like removing lice, crabs or ticks.
Comment by Manuel — January 30, 2010 @ 6:30 pm
Comment by Manuel — January 30, 2010 @ 6:31 pm
re 168 - I’m sorry you feel that way, though I can understand the reason that you do. I hope that you still come and visit and read other threads, even if not this one.
I truly wish that more people would give the benefit of the doubt, but I think much like common sense it has started to be ignored. I wish all would try to respect each other views (religiously, politically, etc), and talk civilly and respectfully without demanding that others always agree with them… unfortunately many do not afford others this courtesy while still expecting others to do the same for them.
Comment by April — January 30, 2010 @ 6:44 pm
Manuel, obviously you’re right that the life of a baby/fetus is a consideration. And I did mention that a pro-life feminist could consider an abortion a lost life.
But I think that if someone is so concerned with the cases where women “abuse” the option of abortion for reasons other than what that someone would approve of that they want to legally restrict access, then their priority is the fetus, not the woman, and therefore not a feminist.
No one is denying that people exist in the world who are irresponsible and make horrible choices. But there are as many reasons to get an abortion as there are women who get them, and some people are not going to be OK with any reason. Not to mention the burden of proof that places on the woman.
I have to admit, the vehemence some LDSaints express on this issue confuses me a little bit. Particularly when we have so little doctrine concerning the state of souls pre-birth. And the fact that we have a perfect Judge who will make sure we all reap the consequences we deserve for our actions. No one’s going to get away with anything, here.
Comment by Reese Dixon — January 30, 2010 @ 6:48 pm
I think the main reason for the vehemence is ignorance. Many LDS (at least in “Mormonville”) are unaware of the Churches stance on abortion not being strictly black or white. I choose to believe that they don’t realize that even the Church doesn’t say ALL abortion is off-limits. I think if they knew this they might be a little more open-minded on the issue instead of having the knee jerk reactions that they do so often have…
Comment by April — January 30, 2010 @ 6:54 pm
Sorry I missed the whole debate so far. I generally agree with Reese and Zara in both content and tone. I hate that an issue so clearly fraught with unique situations and grey areas has become so black and white, and I really hate that abortion becomes the deciding factor for so many people in terms of who they vote for. I hate that a lot of people who are “pro-life” are anti- sex education, welfare, housing assistance, and other social programs that people who have babies they can’t care for will ultimately need.
Basically, regardless of people’s personal beliefs about it, I think abortion needs to be legal. For one thing, making it illegal will only mean that women will get unsafe illegal abortions, as they have throughout time and as they continue to do in all countries where it’s illegal. For another thing, even if you agree with the Church’s stance–i.e., it’s only okay in cases of rape, incest,or health risks–it still needs to be legal. I cannot imagine anythin worse than being raped and then having my pregnancy scrutinized and examined to determine whether I would be forced to go through with having the child. And that includes being scrutinized by my local religious leaders, as the Church policy dictates. This is an incredibly personal issue, and I believe only the woman herself can decide whether the sex that led to her child’s conception was consensual and whether she is mentally and physically healthy enough to carry, deliver, and (unless she decides on adoption) raise a child.
My cousin, who was adopted as a baby, was raped in college. It was date rape, and her boyfriend was the perpetrator, and she had invited him into her apartment at a late hour when she was alone. She felt ashamed and guilty after it happened, and she didn’t file a police report or take the morning-after pill. She became pregnant and decided to have an abortion. It was obviously a complicated decision, given her own history. Luckily, she didn’t have to worry about proving it was rape, about being scrutinized and examined to determine whether the sex was consensual or not. But I can easily imagine that, if abortion were legal only in cases of rape, hers would be a difficult case to prove.
Having been through an extremely traumatic (and very much wanted) pregnancy and childbirth experience, I would never, ever wish that on someone who didn’t want it with all her heart. Yes, fathers have an important role and a say in their children’s lives. But ultimately it is the mother who risks her life to bring the child into the world and, in most cases, the one who bears the lion’s share of responsibility for it thoughout its life.
Comment by Sofia — January 30, 2010 @ 7:04 pm
I agree that it should be legal… while saying that I think it should also be regulated so that it is, indeed, safe. While I personally support the Churches view on abortion, I do not want it in the form of a law. I feel the gray area is just too big and I feel that putting a law on that would not only prove to be difficult but also would be abused on one way or another.
Comment by April — January 30, 2010 @ 7:12 pm
Blabber eh??? OK, Well here’s some more for you…
From the official LDS Church website: “Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.”
Are you still a Mormon when that happens?
Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS Church stated in 1999:
“The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Our members are taught that, subject only to some very rare exceptions, they must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. That direction tells us what we need to do on the weightier matters of the law, the choices that will move us toward eternal life.”
Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints’ First Presidency issued a statement on abortion in 1973. It restated the historical LDS Church’s position on abortion.
“The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer.”
“Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality.”
“Members of the Church guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion must be subjected to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant. In dealing with this serious matter, it would be well to keep in mind the word of the Lord stated in the 59th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 6, ‘Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it’.”
In 1983, the LDS Church’s General Handbook of Instructions changed church policy towards abortion:
It added pregnancy caused by incest as one more ground for abortion.
It dropped the necessity that a pregnancy caused by rape or incest produce “serious emotional trauma in the mother” before an abortion was acceptable.
It clarified who should seek counseling, and from whom.
The handbook states:
“The Church opposes abortion as one of the most revolting and sinful practices of this day. Members must not submit to, be a party to, or perform an abortion. The only exceptions are the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or health of the woman is in jeopardy or the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape. Even then, the woman should consider an abortion only after counseling with her husband and bishop or branch president, and receiving divine confirmation through prayer.”
Interesting…. Husband, bishop, branch president and confirmation through prayer. A lot of men involved in that “choice”. Kinda shoots some holes in the whole pre-existence/pre-destination idea. Pre-born John was destined from pre-existence for Reese’s womb, but she decided to abort him. Oh well…
Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty—death—for someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as for someone who commits murder. This clearly indicates that God considers a baby in the womb to be as human as a full-grown adult.
Bottom line: You either follow the teachings of your church, follow the commandments and believe in God’s divine guidance in your life….. or you don’t.
Mormon or Christian, belief and obedience is where the REAL, TRUE question of “Choice” resides. True feminists don’t really care about any of that. SO what are you really??? You follow the Patriarchal rule set and make the Mormon choice, or you follow the Feminist line and make your OWN choice….are you still a Mormon?….I guess you can tell yourself you are.
God knows what/who you are. In the end your conscience makes the choice that determines if you are a spiritual being in tune with God’s will for you and your life, or you are a secular being that cares only about your own little self absorbed existence (your comfortable little boxes). God must be in charge regardless of whether you’re a Christian or Mormon. Is that in line with Feminist thinking?
Your opinions spoken in thought, word and deed right here, determine what camp you’re truly in. Angela
Comment by Angela Shields — January 30, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
Angela, you need to breathe deeply, calm down, and go read the article that is linked to in the OP. For you to declare that you have determined the one true way to practice feminism, and to be demand that others follow suit or be denied the label, is dramatically anti-feminist.
Comment by Natalie K. — January 30, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
I’m probably about to make myself very unpopular here, but here goes.
First things first: as a historian I always chuckle at the assertion that pro-life women cannot be feminists. Wonder what Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Mary Shelley would say to that.
I understand that feminism is about choice, and I understand that abortion is a choice. But so is robbing a convenience store and pumping the clerk’s face full of lead. Should we make that legal so that the female crooks can have more choice? Point being, there is nothing about feminism that says I have to give women choices that result in violence to other human life. I believe human life is worth protecting. I believe that the state has an interest in protecting human life. Therefore I believe there is a legitimate argument for making elective abortions illegal on those grounds.
The real problem comes because in this case, the life of one human being is causing bodily inconvenience to another. I’d still rather preserve the life of the fetus at the cost of inconveniencing the woman. Abortion always results in the death of that human life (except for in those rare cases where the fetus survives the attempt at abortion and is born alive). Death due to pregnancy & childbirth is very rare, and I’m all for abortion staying legal in cases where the permanent health of the mother or the life of the mother are in danger. I do not put the life of the baby above that of the mother, but I definitely am not putting the mother’s convenience over the life of the baby.
I understand the “my body, my choice” argument. Really, I do. But I suspect that isn’t the only reason the feminist movement is so interested in keeping abortion legal. I can’t help but feel that part of this is so that we have a failsafe so that we can sleep around just like the men do. My problem with that is, we aren’t men. Our bodies are more susceptible to contracting STDs than theirs are, there is a greater range STDs that effect us, and we have that pregnancy thing to worry about. It isn’t fair and I hate it too, but that’s life. We have every reason to be more cautious about sex than men are, and we shouldn’t be using violence to compete with them and neutralize the pregnancy problem so that we can be sexually liberated.
There’s one last factor that has influenced my feelings on this matter. Abortion was almost unanimously opposed by the earliest Christians. Mormons may or may not give a damn what the earliest Christians thought on the matter, but I definitely care what the earliest Christians thought. This is from Abortion and the Early Church by Michael J. Gorman (1982), p.49:
I used to be a typical pro-life, pro-death-penalty, pro-war Republican. In light of how the early Christian church felt about human life (they were opposed to abortion, the death penalty, and war), I’ve begun to reconsider my position on the last two. I’m still doing a lot of thinking on the matter.
Anyways, I get that this is a volatile topic, and I was reluctant to speak up given how many people here have expressed that they’re pro-choice. I hope we can respect each other in spite of our disagreements.
Bottom line, I support all non-violent choices for women. If I have to turn in my feminist card just the same, so be it. At least I’m in good company.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — January 30, 2010 @ 9:32 pm
Just out of curiousity, Ms. Jack Meyers, where were the early Christians opposed to abortion? My understanding was that they kept the Jewish idea that a baby wasn’t human until 8 days after birth, not to mention the general ancient idea, and so a baby could be exposed at birth without heavenly consequences; also they strongly believed “Jesus is coming back any day now so sex is off the table for married folk” thing.
Comment by djinn — January 30, 2010 @ 9:58 pm
I think this is a defining statement for me. In order for women to have the maximum amount of choices and freedom, we must have reproductive freedom. Admittedly, there will be some poor choices and some terrible consequences…there will be examples of bad judgment and the occasional abortion of afterthought or convenience. Each case is individual and it is those directly concerned who will live with their own decisions in whatever way they can manage.
Of course you can personally be pro-life and be a feminist…as long as you aren’t imposing your own decision on someone else. The fact of the matter is that women bear the brunt of the consequences of unplanned pregnancies it is only right that she has the right post coitus to decide in the event of a pregnancy, if she commits to raising a child. In the eyes of equality, just like a man, a woman having sex for pleasure has, in reality, only consented to exactly that decision…an orgasm (if she’s fortunate…she may not even get that out of the encounter).
In many ways, the argument over who gets to be a feminist under which conditions is as divisive as who gets to claim to be a Christian. Not focusing on the basic tenants, such as supporting equality for women or belief in Jesus Christ as a personal Savior- but the splitting of hairs, does nothing but cause resentment and in the end, detracts and distracts from the greater and more noble cause.
Comment by Kimberly — January 30, 2010 @ 10:00 pm
#183 - Angela, if you’re going to start quoting scripture, might I remind you of “judge not, lest ye be judged.” Now, who was the guy who said that? Oh yeah, Jesus!
There is so much more I want to say, but I’ve decided to stop wasting any time and energy on any more twits. Please return to under the bridge and continuing playing with billy goats.
Comment by Risa — January 30, 2010 @ 10:01 pm
I’m LDS and I’m pro-choice.
At the end of the day, I believe in the a woman’s right to choose what she ants to do with her body. Plain and simple. And it’s something that I’ve reflected on a lot.
I’m married but I my husband and I aren’t ready for kids yet- but it’s a possibility. I have a blood disorder that make birth control pills lethal for me (pregnancy itself has almost killed two of my sisters- pulmonary embolisms), condoms break, etc.
This is why I reflect. What would I do if I got pregant? Keep it? Not? I don’t know and may not ever know unless I get into such a situation but at least my choice is there.
Comment by Bethany R. — January 30, 2010 @ 10:03 pm
It was very easy for me to agree that abortion should be strictly prohibited until I actually knew and talked to women facing the situation personally. I’m still anti-abortion–but I believe it should be legal. As an active LDS mother of five, I would never have an abortion, but I self-identify as a feminist, (which is a surprise to some).
I also suspect that we all know women who have had an abortion. It is not something most women find safe to talk openly about.
Comment by psychedaisy — January 30, 2010 @ 10:09 pm
Bethany- I used to feel the same way, in some situations, I agree, that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body, but I also think we need to be much more careful about choosing to have sex. Generally, I think once you’re pregnant, you’ve made your choice and you have to take responsibility for it.
I think abortions should be legal, but not in all cases. (although before I tried to limit the instances where abortion was legal, I would want to make sure we were doing a much better job of education and access to bc and services.) I’m also a little uncomfortable with exactly WHAT legal language would say- I think it’s something we’d have to be very careful with to make sure that we’re encouraging responsibility and not hurting people who don’t have other options.
Comment by Alliegator — January 30, 2010 @ 10:21 pm
#185, Jack - Thanks for expressing that so well. I completely agree.
Comment by Melanie2 — January 30, 2010 @ 11:05 pm
My problem with the hard-line no exceptions, women have 100% choice to keep or abort the baby without input from the father - lets say the condom broke or she forgot to take her pills, whatever - then if she makes the choice to keep the baby, a father has no choice to abort his child support payments. If we are using the argument for women that they shouldn’t have to restrain themselves sexually, we can’t blame men for obliging them. (Of course, I think this is silly, it goes back to responsibility for both parties)
Comment by SarahJane — January 30, 2010 @ 11:05 pm
Angela,
You don’t actually have to sign your name to the end of your angry rants. The little comment window thingy will automatically do it for you.
Comment by zara — January 30, 2010 @ 11:17 pm
See, my sister was married then was divorced with three kids- her husband owed child support but never paid it. They went to court several times over this.
It’s another thing that stays with me, remembering that. One more reason why I am pro-choice; at the end of the day, the women really get all the consequences from the action.
I’m not saying that a man couldn’t raise the child alone- but how many do? I know a few single dads myself. But I know even more single mothers and many get ZERO support from the father.
And I’m not trying to argue for people to have sex without protection and the like but accidents still happen, whether you use contraceptives or not, are married or not. And I think that the woman deserves a choice as to what she wants to do and that such a choice shouldn’t depend solely on whether she was raped, dying, or incestuous.
Comment by Bethany R. — January 30, 2010 @ 11:30 pm
I won’t add much to this discussion, except to say “Hear Hear!” to Reese…I agree completely.
Additionally, has anyone read “The Handmaiden’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood? To me, that sort of sums up what a slippery slope it becomes when we take away people’s agency (who may or may not believe as we do) in the name of our own religious beliefs……
Comment by Dancer 007 — January 30, 2010 @ 11:30 pm
Some more food for thought:
My eldest sister (before she was diagnosed correctly) wasn’t expected to live long and was recommended to abort her baby. Now, she didn’t (and not for religious reasons either because we are both pro-choice) BUT… IF she had died, the baby and all her other children would have been in the custody of their father.
My sister married a nice LDS boy, but she divorced an excommunicated jerk. He never holds a job for long, uses women, has sired many illegitimate (still doesn’t pay the child support), and has recently landed himself in prison. For a long, long time.
I love my niece and I’m glad that my sister had her. But if she had been left to her father…well I shudder to think.
So it’s also a choice of trust- do you trust yourself to do right by the child? And do you trust your partner to do right by the child? And also remember to ask yourself if you could do right by the child ALONE.
Comment by Bethany R. — January 30, 2010 @ 11:54 pm
I must admit, I cringe whenever I hear pregnancy and childbirth (in my case, c-sections) dismissed as mere “inconvenience.” Sure, there are plenty of women for whom the reproductive process is feeling a bit uncomfortable and under the weather for a few months, then going through just a few hours of intense pain and being fresh as a daisy a day or two later after a good rest. But for many of us, it involves a lot more.
Now, some would still say that even a potentially life-threatening experience needs to be weighed against the baby’s inherent right to life — fine. Just please, don’t use the word “inconvenience” in the argument, or some of us might miss the rest of what you have to say because our cringing is interfering with our concentration.
Also, along these lines, I worry about the application of the “life-of-the-mother” exception. Does if have to be an immenent life-or-death situation? What if a woman will just probably die, but there is still a tiny chance she might come through it okay? How big a chance is necessary to force her to carry to term if she decides herself the risks are too great?
Comment by L. — January 31, 2010 @ 12:28 am
Ms jack- I totally get where you are coming from and understand it. While I have a different end view than you do I think we share much in common on this topic.
In my mind responsibility should not be sacrificed because of inconvenience. I just don’t think that the law would be able to define responsible vs irresponsible in a satisfactory way in most cases. It would be a bit like using a tourniquet when a good piece of gauze would probably do. There is too many “exceptions to the rule” to even make the rule in the first place IMHO.
But that is my opinion, and you have yours. All good
Comment by April — January 31, 2010 @ 12:40 am
Sorry L was commenting while you were… what word would you like us to use? “inconvenience” is just… well, convenient.
Comment by April — January 31, 2010 @ 12:42 am
If you can think of a better term I, for one, would be happy to consider using it.
Comment by April — January 31, 2010 @ 12:43 am
Interesting point, Sonia. I also like jks’ point.
Got a kick out of your song, Carrie.
I think this is an excellent summary.
Heather #160 - that’s a really interesting point, too.
Jack, is this the earliest Christians during New Testament times? In the church that Christ’s apostles established before they were all killed? If so, then we should give a da*n because we believe that we are essentially the same church, right? Just the Latter-Day version?
This thread has a lot of food for thought. I think I can sum up my train of thought like this:
1. Is abortion ever “acceptable” under any circumstances?
2. If yes, then who should be the person to decide if it is appropriate given the circumstance?
3. If it is anyone other than the mother, there is room left open for abuse.
4. Therefore, the decision must rest with the mother, and in order for it to rest with her, she must have the legal right to make it.
5. Therefore, abortion must be legal.
However, like I mentioned above, I am very concerned about dehumanizing the fetus. I just don’t think I can call myself pro-choice because I really hate so many of the pro-choice arguments intended to devalue the life of the fetus. I would rather call myself pro-life. I value life. I value the life of the fetus, and I value the life of the mother. I just value life. I think that part of sex ed needs to include teaching that sex creates a life - that you are responsible for that life. That if you choose to abort, you may be destroying that life. I think abortion should be legal, but I also think it should be a big deal.
I like the lessons in the YW manual 2 that relate to this. The first is called The Importance of Life. The second is called The Sacred Power of Procreation. They teach reverence for life and that sex is a big deal and a big responsibility. I like that to be the basic foundation for any sex ed.
Comment by Stephanie — January 31, 2010 @ 12:54 am
Yikes. I swear these comments never look as long in the box.
Comment by Stephanie — January 31, 2010 @ 12:55 am
#200: 40 weeks of misery and suffering that no man can ever understand?
Comment by tami — January 31, 2010 @ 12:58 am
Re 204 simple term please? I’m not typing 12 words when one will do. While inconvenient may sound harsh the definition of it fits. While it might be uncomfortable, painful, irritating, and even sanity trying there is not a better term in the English language that i know of. If you can find one, again, I would be happy to consider it.
Comment by April — January 31, 2010 @ 1:07 am
how about misery?
Comment by tami — January 31, 2010 @ 1:13 am
Maybe I can help answer my own question…
vexatious, laborious
I will try to remember those.
Comment by April — January 31, 2010 @ 1:15 am
#185- Ms. jack meyers- You said it better than I could. Wish I was as eloquent as half the people on this site.
“there is nothing about feminism that says I have to give women choices that result in violence to other human life.”
I believe that in this life, the most sacred and divine gift we are given is the power to bring life to this world. It’s as close to experiencing God’s glory we can get (in my opinion). I have nothing but compassion for a woman facing pregnancy unexpectedly. However, I simply can’t justify abortion as I have a hard time seeing it as anything but the taking of an innocent life. I consider myself feminist, because I am all for birth control, sex education, equal rights for women, and for women to have the right to do what they want with their body. But, if I see a fetus as a living being, then who am I to allow that fetus to be terminated? I consider the fetus/baby to be a silent victim with no voice and no rights.Women should have the right to do what they want with their body, yes, but not when their rights infringe on another’s rights. What about the fetus/infants rights to its own body? How is that fair? Where is the choice/equality in that?I just can’t justify it in my mind. If my choices infringe on another’s rights, then I do think limiting choice is justified.
For people who consider the life within a womb to be just as sacred as life outside of a womb, abortion becomes such a sticky subject. Rape, incest, and all of those other issues make it even more difficult to navigate (although, the majority of abortions statistically are not a result of these things).
Despite my anti-abortion stance, I have a hard time seeing how it could be successfully legislated and enforced without a tremendous shift in our society and its values.
Comment by RJ — January 31, 2010 @ 1:26 am
The problem with “inconvenience” is that it doesn’t recognize the potentially life-threatening aspects of pregnancy/childbirth complications, and I’m not sure there is one word that does.
Maybe “mortal risks?” It is still possible to argue that the inherent right to life of one human outweighs any mortal risks to the other.
Comment by L. — January 31, 2010 @ 2:01 am
How many women should die or be permanently maimed, April. because of your fetization of the fetus? Numbers, please.
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 2:05 am
I may be guessing totally incorrectly, but are you anti gay marriage and anti gay adoption April? Because gays adopt many babies that would otherwise be left to languish in foster care or worse.
Is your position that you only care about fetuses (with some spin that allows you to live with your (presumed) cruelty? When they, the conveniently packaged feti turn into babies that need actual care what do you do for them?
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 2:08 am
Besides, don’t aborted fetuses (being younger than
go straight to the celestial kingdom? So why isn’t abortion a kindness?
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 2:33 am
djinn, not really sure why April triggered this response. She’s the one who said
Which is pretty much my whole point.
I think a great tragedy in this debate is that it’s difficult for many pro-choicers to discuss the real human cost they *do* view the life of the fetus to be without giving up moral ground.
Jack - I always enjoy hearing your point of view. Although I will defend myself from your historical accuracy by saying that I did write “modern feminism.”
Because this is such a volatile subject, people from opposing ends of the scale often hold to their anecdotes as being what abortion looks like. Pro-choicers discuss life of the mother, Pro-lifers discuss life of the fetus, as if this was a remotely black or white issue. The truth is neither of these things and both of these things. I’ve stated many times in the past that I recognize there will always be people who make choices that would make a feeling person shudder, but there are also a million reasons that would make a feeling person support that action.
The problem for me comes in when someone else has to approve that action. When is it ever reasonable to rob a liquor store and shoot someone? But there are times when the vast majority of people believe it’s reasonable to seek an abortion. Whenever we pass laws that ask a woman to prove her reasons for needing to not be pregnant, it means that the government has to give her permission. And I do not want the government deciding when someone has or has not been raped. Or when her life is or is not in danger. Or the degree of deformity that is acceptable for life.
I really do view every single abortion as a tragedy and a life lost. But I also believe that the times when it is necessary are important enough to allow some abuse of the right. Particularly when I also believe that we will be judged accordingly for our actions.
Comment by Reese Dixon — January 31, 2010 @ 2:54 am
April (182),
I support your statement:
“I agree that it should be legal… while saying that I think it should also be regulated so that it is, indeed, safe. While I personally support the Churches view on abortion, I do not want it in the form of a law.”
The Church should have the right to guide their members on how to use their agency, but that agency should not be restricted by law.
Comment by Manuel — January 31, 2010 @ 3:55 am
L. (209) and djinn (210)
“The problem with “inconvenience” is that it doesn’t recognize the potentially life-threatening aspects of pregnancy/childbirth complications, and I’m not sure there is one word that does.”
This is where the statistics and the actual regulation come in. How many abortions are performed as a result of the above mentioned circumstances and how many are simply the (yes) “inconvenience” of an irresponsible couple?
I don’t know that the answer to that exists, and we can all speculate, but one thing is for sure, all those circumstances do exist and one size does not seem to fit all.
Comment by Manuel — January 31, 2010 @ 4:01 am
Manuel — the “inconvenience” of an “irresponsible couple” includes one member of that couple undergoing pregnancy/birth.
When I think of “inconvenience,” I think of people saying, a baby would interfere with our financial/educational/career/family size goals.
But even in cases of wanted, planned pregnancies, there are woman who face life-threatening high blood pressure and other real medical risks — and these days a high (some say too high) percentage of births are c-sections, which is major surgery — a bit more than an “inconvenience.”
Comment by L. — January 31, 2010 @ 8:00 am
djinn- thank you so much for going rabid on me. You assume quite a bit. How about looking through the comments to find mine and then reading them to get a full view of my stance on this before freakin out? Maybe learning to hold your tongue until you have had a chance to fully contemplate a comment might be wise?
Just because I don’t support abortion to the extent you do does not make me a monster. Just because I value that little life within doesn’t mean I don’t see reason for abortions that are fully just or wish harm on the woman.
I have no problem allowing you your stance and I expect the same in return. Your opinion is NOT the end all be all. Get over yourself.
Comment by April — January 31, 2010 @ 10:53 am
Oh and djinn, You are one of the reasons that these posts have a difficult time remaining civil…. you yourself are not civil.
Comment by April — January 31, 2010 @ 10:54 am
One thing that needs to be done is to make pregnancy the responsibility of both partners. But whatever happens, the induced abortion takes place with the woman.
A quote from the site already referred to( http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html ):
Who knows what the reasons are? The women filling out the forms would know, but are they giving the real reason?
Oh, and BTW, in the stats there’s an interesting tidbit about abstinence education: 32% of women, who don’t use contraceptives, cite concerns about contraceptive method. Since a good deal of abstinence education is scaremongering about contraceptives, that is understandable.
Oh, and fifty per cent of abortions are performed to women who used no contraceptives.
I wish more of these condom-shy teenagers (who are not too shy to have their “hookups”) got told about adoption. Many couples would be happy to help in other ways besides paying for the prenatal care. OTOH, that could lead to “farming” babies on gullible teenagers… sigh.
I’m feminist by its less controversial definitions. Then, I’ve been told I’m an abortionist when I’ve said that I don’t think adoption should be completely outlawed, citing Church position. (I don’t have to bend over backwards to adopt it as mine!)
I think a fetus should be considered fully a person. I consider someone a person after birth, although I must say I don’t know when exactly a fetus becomes an independent organism. Conception is not a viable idea for such a standard, since it’s been estimated that around four-fifths of them never attach to the inner lining of the uterus.
Comment by Velska — January 31, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
I really hate it when someone tries to persuade/convince people to their political point of view by saying that if you don’t agree with them, then you can’t call yourself [whatever]. It is lazy namecalling in the place of an argument, and it is unpersuasive. It assumes too much - that you have the right to decide on a definition, and then use that definition to shut out everyone who disagrees with you.
In other words, you most emphatically can be a feminist without being in support of non-health-related abortion. It means putting females on par with males, but not putting the convenience of adults ahead of babies’ lives.
Comment by Katie P. — January 31, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
Anyone who wants can call themselves a feminist. Why does this subject make me angry? Abortion providers (and receptionists) are killed. Dead. Women’s lives (and future fertility) are put at actual risk because of ill-conceived anti-abortion laws. Anti-abortion political forces are also largely anti-contraception and pro abstinence-only education, demonstrably making the problem worse.
Women against abortion appear just about as likely to get an abortion as those that are for it.
Looking at the Guttmacher site, its pretty clear that the easier it is to get an abortion in a country, the fewer of them are performed, except for the former Soviet bloc. Working to make abortions illegal paradoxically has the effect of not moving the number of abortions performed (or raising the number) while putting more actual grown-up females’ lives in danger.
What is the Mormon theological reason to be against abortion, anyway? When is the fetus ensouled?
I noticed April didn’t answer my question of what she did to help kids without families find them. April, you are against Gay adoption, aren’t you?
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
I suppose its a plus that being called a ‘feminist’ is assumed to be a good thing on this thread.
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
Katie P., the title of this post is “Can you be a feminist and pro-life?” Presumably, one gets to answer it.
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
OK, April, I missed your comment 182, and so I apologize. And grovel.
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
My experience is that most people who identify as “pro-life” have not carefully thought through the ramifications of forcing all women to carry a pregnancy to term without a doctors or judge’s permission to do otherwise. Have you not seen in your mind’s eye the calamitous outcome if such a thing were to happen today? The tremendous burden on our social systems, courts, etc., requiring massive tax hikes to make sure that ALL moms and ALL babies are fed, nourished (body and soul) and sheltered? Are you ready to put your MONEY where your mouth is? Most conservatives (e.g., pro-lifers) HATE tax hikes and increased social programs (without calling yourselves hypocrites), but that’s exactly what you’re asking for.
Comment by Rich — January 31, 2010 @ 2:05 pm
djinn- apology accepted. I think Gay adoption is another post completely so I won’t go into it here… that being said I’m not against it, though I can understand the concerns (founded or unfounded) of those who are.
Rich- I have to agree to some extent. I think that many who say they are “pro-life” often want to be seen as for life, not against it. My problem is when I have to choose one or the other… pro-life or pro-choice. I want to be neither all one way, or the other. I don’t want women to not have a choice. I also don’t want the unborn to be trivialized. So where does that leave me? Because I don’t want laws made to prohibit choice those in the pro-life camp would label me a “baby killer”, and because I find value in the life of the unborn and don’t think they should be taken lightly when it come to discarding them many in the pro-choice camp would call me a “women hater”. There seems to be no middle of the road on this one, and I wish there was.
Comment by April — January 31, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
Oh, and BTW I do lean conservative on many other things…
Comment by April — January 31, 2010 @ 3:25 pm
April- the middle road is “pro-responsibility”.
Comment by Alliegator — January 31, 2010 @ 3:28 pm
I like pro-responsibility-specially if we place the responsibility firmly on both parents-then also on society. On the Feminist’s for Life site, they made and interesting point-in many cases an abortion is evidence of society failing a woman (and child). Do we support pregnant women in the workplace, at home, at school? How is child care? How is adoption viewed? How do we view the sacrifice of a birth mother? How is our health care? How can we improve the birth experience for all women?
Comment by britt — January 31, 2010 @ 5:00 pm
This kind of answers or encompasses Rich’s comments in #225 and all of Britt’s comments. I, too, like pro-responsibility. And I especially like anti-hypocrisy (not directed at you Britt).
Just some interesting facts:
Teen pregnancy is the number one single reason for teenage girls to drop out of high school in this country. Less than one-third of teenage mothers receive any kind of child support from the baby’s father, vastly increasing the number who will rely on the government for assistance (Pregnancy, Poverty, School and Employment at Minnesota Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Prevention and Parenting). More research has shown that 50% of teen mothers will seek some sort of social assistance within the first five years of the baby’s life (The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2002). One-fourth of teen mothers will get pregnant again within 24 months of the first pregnancy (Kalmuss, D.S., Namerow, P.B. (1994). Family Planning Perspectives, 26 (4), 149-53, 159).
Widespread poverty can prevent families from obtaining adequate food, housing, educational, and health care and from participating in a broad range of community activities. These limitations can impede progress along a path of sustainability by making it harder for the children reared in these families to realize their full potential or to experience a true sense of community.
One of the greatest concerns regarding births to young, single women is that the children of these women are more likely to be reared in poverty. In 2005, 32% of female heads of households with children under 18 years old and no husband present were below the poverty line. In addition, teenage mothers, particularly those who are single, often have a very difficult time in pursuing their education or job training because of the costs and responsibilities of caring for their children.
In 2004, the median income for a two-parent household was $45,041. In contrast, the median income for a single-parent household led by a woman was $19,872. (For black and Hispanic female heads of households, the median income was $14,650 and $13,200, respectively.)
The number of births to all teenage mothers decreased from 656,000 in 1970 to 500,000 in 1997; however, the number of births to single teenage mothers increased from 200,000 in 1970 to 390,000 in 1997. In 1970, 30% of the teenage females who had children were single; but by 1997, this percentage had increased to 78%. And just recently we have seen that teen pregnancy has increased after a decade of declining numbers.
Pregnancies among teenagers can have serious implications for the health and future well-being of the children born. For example, teenage pregnancies are more likely to result in the birth of low birth weight infants. In 1996, 6.9% of all of the infants born to non-smokers had low birth weights (under 2500 grams); but for mothers 15 to 19 years old, 9.3% of the babies born had low birth weights; and for mothers under 15 years old, 13.2% of the babies born had low birth weights. Low birth weights can be associated with a range of medical and developmental complications.
I agree that that it is a failing in society that so many abortions take place and I like the idea of promoting adoption. However, even on this blog I have encountered many uneducated and ignorant attitudes about adoption. I find that interesting when the church actively promotes adoption, provides adoption services, and the First Presidency has on more than one occasion expressed support for birth parents and adoptive families.
Interesting enough:
From a 2000 study, the National Council for Adoption reports:
44% of girls who chose to parent were on food stamps vs. 18% who placed for Adoption.
40% of girls who chose to parent were living below the poverty line vs. 18% of those who chose Adoption.
Effects on the child’s psychological development is noted as well. Developmental disabilities and behavioral issues are higher with children born to teen mothers than non-teens. One study even found that teen mothers are less likely to give their baby the affectionate stimulation that a developing baby needs (touching, smiling, talking) and that teen mothers are less likely to be sensitive and accepting towards the baby’s needs (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001. Pediatrics, 107 (2), 429-434. Hofferth, Sandra L. & Reid, Lori, 2002. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34 (1)). These children are more likely to achieve poor academic performance, more likely (than the average) to drop out of high school, be held back a grade and/or score more poorly on standardized tests. Baby girls born to teen moms are more likely to become teen mothers themselves and baby boys are three times more likely to serve time in prison (Maynard, Rebecca A. (Ed.). (1996). Kids Having Kids).
So I find what Rich says especially true. Those are usually pro-life are very anti-help from the govt. It is so infuriating to me to deal with people who demand demand demand that a woman brings a baby to term, and then screams at her for using govt. resources to care for the baby. Oh and being blamed for all social ills (we’ve all heard the lies told about welfare mothers). So basically when I say I’m anti-hypocrisy, I want all the pro-lifers to put their money where their mouths are. You don’t want babies to be aborted and yet you don’t want to pay higher taxes to help support these babies. Yes, I can do all I can do to promote adoption and to help birth parents but only 1% of pregnancies end in adoption. One percent! Clearly we have societal issues we need to work out before legislating women’s choices away.
Sorry, my comment could have been a whole post on it’s own.
Comment by Risa — January 31, 2010 @ 5:22 pm
I glad you mentioned this fact, Risa, Having been one of those children, I can assure people that a mother who is considering the fact that she cannot afford to rear a child and may decide to get an abortion - it is not merely an inconvenience. It can be devastating, for both mother and child to carry a child to term and try to make it without a lot of help. Yes, in a perfect world, it would be great if that had been considered before she had sex…but, in reality, mistakes are made. Raising a child is a commitment on so many fronts; it may be a very thoughtful and heartbreaking decision for a woman to decide that for whatever reason, she may not be able to handle that role at a certain time in her life and the complexity of that decison shouldn’t be underestimated by judging it an abortion of convenience.
Comment by Kimberly — January 31, 2010 @ 5:38 pm
I think looking at the differences between what happens when a women chooses the birth mother option is amazing Risa…thanks for that.
I’m also interested in the consequences of abortion-honest discussion about emotional, mental and physical risks and how to counsel, medically aid and reduce the risks however possible.
I don’t think government programs are the only way to help single mothers. I think someone not willing to help a single mother yet anti abortion si a hypocrit, yet I don’t think you can state the ONLY way to help a single mother is government programs -thus anyone who doesn’t fully support government programs and is anti abortion= hypocrit.
Comment by britt — January 31, 2010 @ 5:46 pm
britt - please identify for me the specific resources a young woman can use if she chooses to parent her child outside of the govt. help. What if she has no family support? What if she has no education? What if she is not involved in a church? These are girls I work with every day. So yeah, to me being absolutely prolife no exception + absolutely against govt. intervention = hypocrite in my book. Unless of course you’re donating your time at private charity organizations aimed at helping young single mothers.
Comment by Risa — January 31, 2010 @ 6:09 pm
Just wanted to say, thanks for the replies to my comment. I will try to get back to you all tomorrow after my classes—I may be too busy though (the other reason I was reluctant to comment on this thread . . .)
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — January 31, 2010 @ 6:12 pm
I like the term pro-responsibility, too.
Comment by Stephanie — January 31, 2010 @ 7:17 pm
britt:
Here’s a peer-reviewed study on the effects of abortion on a woman’s well-being. Bottom line, about 67% positive. Here’s another, the most complete study I found, showing 66-odd percent of women feel better, 13% or so feel considerably worse. Women who’ve had miscarriages also have psychological problems, but those who had abortions have more feelings of “guilt, shame, and relief,” according to one study referenced in the second article, above.
The numbers are reversed, basically, for adoption. Women recover at much lower levels. (I was astonished when I found this out.) Here’s a study from Australia showing that provides evidence that shows that somewhere around 66% of birth mothers suffer “pathologic grief reactions.” Here’s a peer-reviewed study abstract that states: “The relinquishing mother is at risk for long-term physical, psychologic, and social repercussions. Although interventions have been proposed, little is known about their effectiveness in preventing or alleviating these repercussions.”
Here’s a summary of studies from Canada showing serious long-term negative consequences (to quote one study) 82% of mothers suffered depression after the surrender, 80% had feelings of inadequacy, 68% had trust issues, and 57% had anger.
The actual scientific studies are stark. For 80-some-odd percent of actual living women, adoption is much much more damaging than abortion.
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 7:31 pm
Risa, frist I am not absoltuely pro life with no exception-so I don’t know that person…but…I’m just thinking
what about outreach like feminists for life?-education and options and resources pamph;ets provided especially at the dr office so the point of pregnancy test (focusing specifically on college campuses-really check out their site- (their goal is to make abortion a choice-not a desparation I see no option thing)
What about non for profits (which the governmetn supports, but they work differently than a standard federal one size fits all )-I’m not an expert here I’m jsut wondering-I don’t know what this is like… http://www.charities.org/hp/index.cfm?fa=MembrInfo&id=196525
http://www.wenhouston.org/?nd=charity_luncheon
Using government programs creatively-my sister in law rana day care and would hire single mothers who could pay for their child’s daycare using goernment money, have a job and get paid themselves AND be with their child- Some women used this oppotunity beautifully-developed great work skills and grew into management positions as the daycare (and their children) grew.
When a woman is pregnant and in crisis, it’s most likely not going to be them who is going to be creative, inventive, industrious, resourceful…. frankly she’s doing a lot to deal with what she’s already got going…I think we need to find out more about the young women who get pregnant-find out where they are most likely to find out they are pregnant-and get pamphlets with resources to them there (like FFL does on college campuses). We could always look at how planned parenthood does it-they seriously court college health center employees-who else do they court and why and how can we get other information there as well?
Comment by britt — January 31, 2010 @ 7:33 pm
Just so you know, I’m not in any way anti-adoption. No way, no how. But, adoption hurts the women who give their kids up for adoption in ways that abortion doesn’t. It’s just what happens, whether we like it or not.
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 7:35 pm
“Whether you **or I**”
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
I’ve definitely seen what djinn describes, the not-talked about damages of adoption. In my experience, it affects girls much more who are “pushed” to give up their children, no? When the info is laid out in a comprehensive, loving way, and the girl chooses to give her child to a family, I think things seem to work out better than if she is shamed or forced. Did they studies you mentioned evaluate whether or not the parents were supportive or shaming?
Comment by SarahJane — January 31, 2010 @ 8:19 pm
Actually, SarahJane, the most comprehensive study I saw was out of Great Britain, and I can’t locate it currently. But I’m still looking. I believe (from what I remember) that shaming made things worse, but, essentially, birth mothers suffer deeply no matter the circumstances.
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
britt, your sister’s solution is brilliant. And kind.
Even though I didn’t look at this issue today, as I recall, women who kept their kids, no matter what the circumstances, did better than woman that gave them up for abortion. I realise this is a problem because of all the wonderful people out there trying to adopt a baby. But, that’s where the data leads. There’s always foster kids.
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 8:41 pm
#238 - Where is your proof of that? Longitudinal research suggests otherwise. Birthparents in open adoptions who seek post-placement counseling fare very well, thank you very much. I love it when people come on here acting like experts when it comes to adoption and birthparents when they know absolutely nothing. Please, come and speak to the women in my birthparent support group telling them how damaged they are. Most of them speak to the rightness of their choice, and how happy they are.
Comment by Risa — January 31, 2010 @ 8:47 pm
The implication of having adoption actually be harmful for a teen mother is very interesting to me.
My best friend was a teen mom (14 via rape) and put her little boy up for adoption. Now that she is older (35) she often found herself wondering about him and if his little brother looks like him or not etc etc. Recently her first son sent her an email, letting her now she is a grandma (at 35!!!) and inviting her to his wedding.
It’s intriguing to watch her reaction to this. She is planning on going to the wedding because (in her words) “I at least owe that to him.” My response to her was that she already gave him all that she could. She “owes” him nothing. She gave him a great home and a wonderful life… much more than she could have given him as a 14 year old girl that was still going through surgeries etc to repair wounds that were received when she was left for dead.
I truly admire her. I don’t know if I would have had the strength as a 14 year old to choose not to abort the baby. By making this choice she also choose to possibly not be able to have any more children. She considers her 6 year old her “miracle baby” because all being considered, medically she should not have been able to carry him to term.
Yet knowing the likely consequences of her actions (choosing to put him up for adoption) she says she would still make the same choices if they were put in front of her today.
How sad that she still feels that she “owes” him though…. when she was the one that chose to give him the opportunity for life.
Comment by April — January 31, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
#244 - April, I would argue that she does owe him the gift of knowing who she is and where he came from and why she made the choice for adoption. I agree that she gave him a powerful gift - the opportunity of life and one that was lived with a loving family. However, as Troy Dunn says (”The Locator”) you can’t have peace until you have all the pieces.
This is why I will only work in open adoption situations. They are better for birthparents, adoptees, and the adoptive parents.
Comment by Risa — January 31, 2010 @ 8:55 pm
The thing is when a women gets pregnant by accident it is a hugely traumatic situation-add any other complicating factors and it is devestating. There isn’t any easy way out-we are looking for the best option in a horrible situation.Every choice is going to be life altering.
Abortion, single motherhood, adoption-any way she chooses the mother is changed forever by that one positive pregnancy test.
I have a suer hard time thinking with any sort of logic that a mother giving her baby a shot at a good life with two parents who desparatekly want her…would later have been better had she killed a potential life. That’s just crazy to me.
Comment by britt — January 31, 2010 @ 9:08 pm
Risa, feel free to cite your own peer-reviewed studies. I don’t have a point of view here, believe it or not. I’m just reporting where the science leads. If I’m wrong, good.
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 9:09 pm
Britt re 245 - They have been in contact via email. I’m pretty sure he knows the surroundings of his own birth and that it was because she loved him that she gave him more than she could have done herself. So to me… she really doesn’t owe him anything. I do see your point though.
Comment by April — January 31, 2010 @ 9:11 pm
oops lol Risa re 245
Comment by April — January 31, 2010 @ 9:12 pm
britt, you said (I have a su(p)er hard time thinking with any sort of logic that a mother giving her baby a shot at a good life with two parents who desparately (sic) want her…would later have been better had she killed a potential life. That’s just crazy to me.) That’s your opinion. Many many studies of woman in many different circumstances show they feel differently. I was surprised, too. Like you (I think?) it’s not a decision I’ve had to make, so I’m somewhat hesitant to impose my uninformed feelings on someone else.
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 9:16 pm
I think I know myself enough to know that if I had to make the choice between 1) abortion and being treated as a 2) slut/whore by my whole family, and give the kid up for adoption with all the grief I’d experience, I’d choose 2. However, I also strongly believe that abortion should be an option, and that we should have at least a modicum of respect for other women who make a different choice.
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 9:21 pm
I’d probably cry every night, because, well, I know from personal experience.
But kindness, people. Women are more important than a microscopic bit of tissue.
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 9:23 pm
Perhaps reading this article is on topic:
http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleHardyFeminism.html
Comment by M — January 31, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
“The feminism I embrace aims to raise the heroic women and men who sacrifice everything for others through parenting and nurturing to the apex of societal appreciation where they belong, in contrast to some of the self-serving cultural trends of the past.” Quoted from the article you recommended, M. So, if women are totally and completely self-sacrificing (referencing, among other problematic quotes “who sacrifice everything for others”), they win some prize? No thanks.
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 10:08 pm
djinn - you and I have had this argument before. I just did this really long comment with lots of links to articles and blogs, both scientific and anecdotal, but for some reason it did not post. I’m not going through all that work a second time. What I will tell you is this, you admitted in in #247 that basically you don’t have a dog in this fight. Well, I do. If you’re going to repeatedly purport adoption myths about birthparents than I’m going to dispute you at every turn. I don’t know about the research you have done about adoption and the long-term emotional and psychological effects on birthparents, but I can guarantee I have done more.
I can tell you one thing, birthparents who are forced or shamed into adoption, or birthparents who do not seek or receive post-placement grief counseling will have psychological/emotional problems. However, DO NOT use this one small subset of a population to characterize or make generalizations about the entire population of people. I would hate to think that someone considering an adoption plan would read your untrue statements and then decide against it because they don’t want to be damaged.
Because I left the window up on this video, I will put a link to it. I have seen Tamra present on many birthparent panels and know her through the adoption community. I can tell you, almost 14 years after placing her son for adoption, she is anything but damaged.
Comment by Risa — January 31, 2010 @ 10:19 pm
Sorry Reese for the threadjack. Everyone can go back to discussing feminism and choice.
Comment by Risa — January 31, 2010 @ 10:21 pm
M 253 - Thank you SO MUCH for linking to that article. It is exactly what I have been waiting for and looking for. I wish we could post it as an OP on FMH and discuss it.
I am going to bookmark it, print it out, email it to all my friends so that they will understand why I am starting to self-identify as a feminist. For so long, I’ve felt that it is this dark secret in me that will render me unfit for callings, etc. (not because I feel I am - just because of the stigma attached to “feminist” in the church). But, that article gives me a lot of good proof as to why feminism is compatible with the gospel. Thanks!
Comment by Stephanie — January 31, 2010 @ 10:50 pm
May I ditto Stephanie and say thank you, M? My favorite part was “I am a feminist because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it.” I might have to post this to my facebook
Comment by Risa — January 31, 2010 @ 11:03 pm
Risa, I was just referencing the actual scientific data. If you don’t like it, then you don’t like it. Cite some other peer-reviewed data if I’m wrong.
Plus one non-damaged woman does not a trend make.
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 11:26 pm
The world is so so so so so not the way I would prefer it. This does not mean I get to ignore reality for happy, pleasant, fluffy, comforting lies. Darn.
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 11:31 pm
Risa, the point of me not having a dog in this fight (except for the opposite way i’m guessing you’re assuming) is that I’m open to my mind being changed, as the implications from my understanding of the actual reality concerning adoption and abortion are troubling to say the least. But just implying that I’m a very bad person (which I’ll grant you–you can’t call me anything anywhere near as bad as my family has–for the sin of thinking the wrong thoughts) doesn’t address the actual issue of how actual women react.
Change my mind. Where’s that post with the links? I love links.
Comment by djinn — January 31, 2010 @ 11:36 pm
M,
thanks for that link. It was an awesome read.
Comment by mfranti — January 31, 2010 @ 11:38 pm
djinn
1 - I never called you a bad person or even implied it. I’m just getting exasperated that every time adoption is brought up in any thread you assert because you read somewhere once that birhmothers never recover from placing. This is categorically untrue and I’m sick of you saying it. I spent a fair amount of time while in school researching adoption, knowing I was going to specialize in the area, and I’ve read lots of research and I’ve seen with my own eyes birthparents and how they react. I’m telling you how it is and you just don’t want to listen. I’m not going to reiterate over and over and over and over again until you get it, because you just don’t.
2 - Tamra is just one woman, yes, but she is representative of thousands of women. I could link about 1,000 more positive videos and blogs from birthmothers who have good reactions to placing. However, I doubt this would ever be good enough for you.
3 - I tried to post links to blogs, scientific research, etc. and it didn’t post…I’m not going to retype it just to prove I’m right over you. I’m tired and I just don’t care anymore.
You obviously are very concerned with being right even when experts in the field of the area are telling you you’re wrong. I don’t know what I can say or do to convince you. It’s funny, because I usually agree with a lot of your comments on different threads but you’ve done a very good job of pushing me away today. And with that I’m done.
Comment by Risa — February 1, 2010 @ 3:49 am
M- What a wonderfully thought out argument for LDS feminism. I’ve put it in my Favorites folder.
I love this thought…and it articulates my resistance over the years to take on the label of feminist, precisely because I emphasize my separation from the man-hating brand of feminism. So, when I’m forced to declare myself something, I say humanist. But I really like the fact he addressed the reluctance to be associated with a faction that seems to have embedded itself into the psyche of people’s perception of feminism, including my own. (Maybe because the craziest faction of any issue tends to be the loudest, or gets the most coverage?) In the media wars, I think there is a tendency for each side to hold up either side’s nuttiest faction to demonstrate why either side is more correct. It doesn’t do much for thoughtful debate because it’s scare tactics.
Comment by Kimberly — February 1, 2010 @ 10:41 am
This seems like fraud to me. Does the owner pay herself for caring for her own children? Why can’t the child care worker just bring their child and have a waiver for the fee? This owner is milking the government - being able to pay her employees less taxable income (because she knows their childcare is paid for by the government) and having guaranteed income from the government for the employee’s children. I assume the government program is to support women and men getting careers they otherwise couldn’t because they can’t afford child care while they are at work. (A program I completely support, by the way.)
Sorry for the threadjack… but it’s been bothering me since this was posted.
Comment by overly concerned taxpayer — February 1, 2010 @ 11:26 am
It’s not fraud, should she pay someone else to watch her child at a different day care center? keep in mind this is a huge center-250 children-each adult is responsible for so many children- It’s not as if the mother is watching her two children and getting paid for it..Most mothers choose to be with their younger child-then on the same schedule (same meal and snack times) as the older child. With the younger child they may have 3-6 other children to care for…
Comment by britt — February 1, 2010 @ 11:31 am
britt, it sounds like a wonderful solution to me.
Comment by Stephanie — February 1, 2010 @ 11:42 am
There’s a big difference between creative and fraudulent- and that day care situation is definitely in the former catagory. There should be more sensible solutions like that.
My single step-sister, however, purposefully decided to get pregnant, deliberately went on welfare, worked under the table housecleaning for $25/hr and lived in her mother’s apartment building rent free, while pocketing Section 8 housing money for herself. That’s fraudulent and ticked me off to no end that she was able to buy and do things my own family were unable to afford while we raised small children and paid our taxes to fund her baby project.
Comment by Kimberly — February 1, 2010 @ 11:51 am
Call and report her - it is illegal to withhold income, or to live in a residence owned by a close relative (like parent, child sibling, etc) There are huge waiting lists for section 8, and she obviously doesn’t deserve it. Just call the housing office. We needed Medicaid/housing and food stamps for a while, and it was a huge blessing, but we were so careful to report accurately what we earned in the income checks like every other month…
Comment by SarahJane — February 1, 2010 @ 5:00 pm
On the daycare question- for every child that is there, the daycare worker should be paying for food and insurance. And having those kids take a spot means the spot can not go to a paying child. And states regulate pretty closely how many kids are there. I don’t think you could legally just have extra kids running around- all need to be registered. I would hope that the woman is paying the same rate whether they have kids there or not- esp since daycare workers usually make ridiculously low amounts.
Comment by tami — February 1, 2010 @ 5:37 pm
I just saw this article on a new pseudo-reality show. You get to decide if the women should get an abortion. I seriously think I am going to vomit.
Comment by Stephanie — February 2, 2010 @ 12:37 am
Stephanie, Is that a joke?????? It is right?
Comment by CZ — February 2, 2010 @ 12:50 am
Stephanie ,To be clear, no one is really pregnant. BUT still it is so unethical….
Comment by CZ — February 2, 2010 @ 12:52 am
and weird…. what is even the point if no one is really pregnant? Even if it is an exercise, people know they aren’t preggo so doesn’t that negate anything anyone might learn?
Over the line IMHO.
Comment by April — February 2, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Right, CZ, that’s why I called it a “pseudo-reality” show. It is supposed to mimic reality. Way over the line, IMO. I think it is a sad reflection of our culture - the fact that a show like this is “entertainment”.
Comment by Stephanie — February 2, 2010 @ 3:17 pm
I agree with Stephanie. Even a show where the situations are “hypothetical” nauseate me to the core. Abortion is now fodder for entertainment? Sickening.
Comment by Risa — February 2, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
As I understand it, the purpose of this show is to try to encourage people to have more sympathy for women in situations where they have unwanted pregnancies. By showing these scenarios they are hoping to persuade people to be pro choice I guess.
Disturbing nonetheless.
Comment by Roxanna — February 3, 2010 @ 11:16 am
How about a different show based on what would you be willing to do to help this young woman? I think it is good to get to know who these young people are who are getting pregnant-I’d love for the guy to be included in the show or getting to know process.
Comment by britt — February 3, 2010 @ 11:23 am
Ah, so abstinence? I understand that usually but…who wants to be abstinent if they are married?
I am married and I want kids…when I am ready to take the risk. And pregnancy for me will be a big risk- I’ve said it before but I have two sisters who have almost died when they had children. These two sisters and I have a genetic blood disorder that makes us more way more likely to form abnormal clots than the average person. Pregnancy and oral contraceptives only increase this risk.
One sister had a pulmonary embolism and the other had 3 major DVTs which resulted in her having a permanent IVC filter. Both are on blood thinners for life. Both have had problems since even AFTER the pregancy/childbirth was past.
I have had issues with clots and I’ve never been pregnant.
My husband and I aren’t ready for the risk yet and we do use preventative measures but I could still get pregnant, even while playing it safe.
I hate that all this medical stuff which help only to reinforce my opinion also puts me in the “exceptions” category for many pro-lifers because it’s one of those if-the-mothers-life-is-in-danger kind of thing.
*sigh*
Comment by Bethany R. — February 9, 2010 @ 10:53 pm
It seems to me that, in an important sense, being a “feminist” is defined by a negative reference - not “negative” with some moral valence, but merely in terms of the absence of something. In other words, “feminists” seem to be those fighting for “gender/sex equality”, but in order for that to be meaningful, there has to be some sort of gender INequality as the status quo against which we (yes, I throw myself into the fray) are fighting. Hence, a feminist is defined against this absence or lack of equality.
But that doesn’t do justice to the idea. I think the real goal seems to be to render gender/sex as lesser factor in defining individual identity – to break the hegemony gender/sex has over issues of identity. We don’t want to eliminate gender/sex from identity considerations, mind you, but at least open the possibilities for gender/sex to be only one of many diverse aspects of individual identity that have legitimacy and credence. In short, it seems we want to break the “labels” associated with gender/sex that really blind us to one another’s ultimate authenticity (can I throw that word in here without having to unpack it… yet?) as unique individuals.
Does that resonate with anyone, or have I just been looking at this screen too long tonight?
Comment by Daniel — February 9, 2010 @ 11:15 pm
Sorry, my post became truncated and I neglected to address the issue of abortion. Once again, however, the “labels” of pro-choice / pro-life / anti-life / anti-abortion (or whatever) are abstract, general categories into which we try to cast others and ourselves for the sake of identity (e.g., “Are you a ‘good person’ or a ‘bad person’? If you are ‘pro-choice,’ you are ‘bad’…). These general, impersonal, abstract categories run rough shod over individual identity and authenticity in a way that ignores unique, individual circumstances and situations. When my wife and I faced a unique situation dealing with our unborn child, high-sounding abstract labels such as “pro-choice” or “pro-life” were irrelevant and useless for all practical purposes. In consultation with several doctors and other close, trusted friends, we made our decision. As a general statement (invoking some labels for convenience, but little meaning), we are as “pro-life” as anyone I know. But it is never that simple. Never.
Comment by Daniel — February 9, 2010 @ 11:54 pm