Secondly, thanks to nearly everyone who has posted here for being polite, if not always thoughtful. There have only been a couple of posters who were openly hostile and prone to name-calling. I think, given the number of comments, that's a pretty good average. It says a lot about the people who came here!
Third, I have to say I was pleased and surprised to have so many guests. If I'd known that pissing off a feminist blogger by calling a spade a spade would get me so much traffic, I would have done it a while ago.
Finally, some notes from the comments:
1. Language is key and language is loaded. Baby, fetus, punishment, consequences, sex, intercourse, patriarchy, anti-woman, phallic worship, choice, responsibility. There was a lot of loaded language in the comments. Few issues that I can think of will cause this kind of war of words the way abortion does. This is because it is a debate where the language is everything. Pro-choice advocates like medical terminology because they think it makes them look neutral and above the fray, but will use emotional language when their other arguments fail. Pro-life supporters use emotional language first because of the imagery it brings up. They will resort to more legalistic language from court cases that have given them at least some support when more emotional images fail.
2. Some people need to learn to read instead of reading into things. There were numerous times in Amanda's "rebuttal" to my post where she misquoted me (I'll give her the benefit of the doubt whether that was intentional) or implied things from other things I said. On my own blog, at least one poster couldn't read simple English and instead complained that I didn't write clearly. What I wrote was plain enough...if you just read it instead of reading it to argue with it. When I wrote that it's only been in the last 100 years that sex has been separated from its procreational function, that didn't mean that people didn't have sex for fun before 1900.
3. At least one person got really hung up on me saying "sex leads to babies." In fact, that person was hellbent on coming up with all sorts of sex that doesn't lead to having children. Of course, that was beside the point, since the discussion was about abortion. I'm sure in some debating circles pointing out that not all sex leads to children would score some points, but when the main discussion is abortion, it's just argumentative.
4. Having said that, there were a couple of interesting side issues that came up, namely that there are actually pro-choice advocates who support informed consent. That's the first time I've seen any poster from a liberal website say that there was a restriction on abortion they could back.
5. Some people need to look up the meaning of the words "punishment" and "consequence." A punishment is a penalty afflicted on someone for an offense or fault. A consequence is the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier. A woman having a baby after having consensual sex is not a punishment. It's a consequence. There were several people who thought that "sex leads to babies" meant either "sex instantly leads to babies" (a bizarre notion if one thinks about it) or that "sex inevitably leads to babies." Neither statement, of course, is true and I didn't say or mean either one. What I meant (and I think finally got someone to agree) is that "babies are a normal and predictable consequence of sex." Even with that being said, there was at least one poster who felt compelled to argue with that point. But to no avail.
6. Only one person argued hard cases, which surprised me. I fully expected a lot of people to make arguments about rape, incest, and the life of the mother, but evidently for a lot of people who posted, the idea that their personal feelings trumped any other reasoning seemed to be ok. It doesn't bother me, since I adhere to that old addage that hard cases make bad law, anyway.
7. When you're stuck arguing about the patriarchy and phallic worship to make your argument, you've lost. From what I've read at Pandagon, Amanda likes using ye old traditional feminist talking points about patriarchy. I dislike that language, largely because it has become a parody of itself. To be more blunt, being pro-life doesn't make a person anti-woman, nor does it make her a phallic worshipper. It just means that she recognizes that there's more than one interest where abortion is concerned.
8. Most of the early posts confirmed the point I'd originally been making about Amanda's version of self-centeredness in feminism and that it is the face of the pro-choice argument that abortion advocacy groups don't want the public to see. The entire point of my original post, complete with quotes from various commenters was that these were the thoughts and opinions of pro-choice supporters we don't usually see. Thus, when I quoted from NARAL's mission statement, it was to contrast the statements from real women giving their (somewhat) harsh but honest opinions about abortion versus the clipped, neutral, and professional-sounding statement from NARAL. I bet you won't see anyone on Nightline saying things like "Trust me, there’s even some who call themselves pro-choicers who will get uncomfortable if a woman is happy about getting an abortion. Many otherwise well-meaning people (*cough*hillaryclinton*cough*) will say that abortion is a “tragedy that no woman wants to experience.” No, it’s a twenty-minute surgical procedure* that saves someone from a lifetime of misery." But it would be fun to watch.
Again, I'd like to thank everyone who posted. I hope you will keep reading and commenting. :)
i WISH somebody would say that on nightline! i keep saying that to people. it pisses me off that, at the national level anyway, the only pro-choice narrative about abortion is the "regrettable but necessary" or "very painful decision" story. obviously no abortion is FUN -- they may be uncomfortable or painful, and they always cost a lot of money -- but from there to "it's a painful decision" is quite a generalization and, just as i don't want to speak for other women who choose or don't choose abortion, i don't want others to speak for me re: how i would feel about abortion. so i keep saying this. i'm sure they just mean to say "well we wish we didn't have to deal with unplanned pregnancies," but why can't hillary clinton also mention all the women who DON'T regret their abortions, just to be clear that that's what she means?
ReplyDeleteanyway, i was recently fired up about this because zoe williams of the guardian was addressing the very same question. she's a good writer with a good sense of humor, so i was happy to see she was writing about it.
I think there's a difference between doing something that is beneficial for oneself as well as another person and doing something completely for oneself. There's no way you can say that having an abortion is beneficial to the baby.
ReplyDeleteAnd there are other options besides keeping the baby if you don't want to. That's what adoption is for. I think this argument is a red herring designed to excuse doing something completely selfish and self-serving versus doing something that is beneficial to someone else.
how do we know that bringing a pregnancy to term is "beneficial to the baby"? if the mother is a heroin addict and were going to bring the baby into an abusive home, maybe sparing a child from a world like that would "beneficial" in that particular case.
ReplyDeleteThere's no way you can say that having an abortion is beneficial to the baby.
ReplyDeleteThat depends. Sometimes there is a baby involved. A woman who has a baby already (the majority of women in the US who get abortions already have at least one child) and knows she's not capable of taking care of two babies at once, can decide - rightly - that if she gets pregnant, she will terminate the unwanted pregnancy. That's absolutely beneficial to the baby - the baby who's already born.
On an earlier discussion on Pandagon, a woman mentioned her younger brother, born in the late 1960s, when abortions were only legal for medical reasons. He was conceived within a month of her mother deciding to abort a fetus diagnosed with Downs Syndrome. If this woman hadn't terminated her pregnancy, her brother would never have existed. As the woman herself pointed out, when pro-lifers argue her mother should never have been permitted to make that decision, they're arguing that her brother shouldn't exist.
And there are other options besides keeping the baby if you don't want to. That's what adoption is for.
There are already over a hundred thousand children in the US who need adoptive parents and can't get them. If a woman consciously decides to add to their number, that's her choice and I support it: I am pro-choice.
But while I don't know a single woman who terminated an unwanted pregnancy who regretted her abortion, I also don't know even one woman who gave up a child for adoption who didn't regret that choice every day of her life thereafter. And - because I am pro-choice and believe in informed consent - I would tell any woman who seemed to think she could just "give the baby up for adoption" this. No good soothing her with pro-life lies.
Oh yes, and in response to your somewhat sarcastic point 3 asserting that you know that sex doesn't always lead to babies, only a specific sexual act at a specific time leads to babies:
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that Amanda, who supposedly is so knowledgable in the area, thinks that sex doesn't lead to pregnancy.
Amanda was right, as you yourself have just (sarcastically) acknowledged. Sex doesn't "lead to pregnancy": only a very specific kind of sexual act, at a very specific time, can ever "lead to pregnancy".
Arguing that since you said "sex leads to pregnancy" it should have been obvious that you meant to say that only the specific act of heterosexual intercourse at the right time in the woman's cycle can lead to pregnancy is circular.
anonymous asked:
ReplyDeletehow do we know that bringing a pregnancy to term is "beneficial to the baby"? if the mother is a heroin addict and were going to bring the baby into an abusive home, maybe sparing a child from a world like that would "beneficial" in that particular case.
This is one of the arguments I see frequently, and I find it both self-presumptuous and false.
We have all said, at some time or other, "I'd rather be dead than a (fill in the blank: papaplegic, quadraplegic, blind, just a whole bunch of things)," That's easy for people to say -- when the consequences of such a statement do not mean that you are going out to commit suicide.
Trouble is, the actual suicide rates for handicapped people, the ones who satisfy the fill-in-the-blank condition, are only negligibly higher than those for people without handicaps. As easy as it is for us to say we'd choose death over certain handicapped conditions, the people who actually have to live with those conditions simply do not choose the option "normal" people think they would -- or should.
Simply put, healthy people somehow seem to arrogate to themselves the power to decide when someone else's life is not worth living.
Who are we, who is anyone, to decide that a certain child, whose mother might be a herion addict, or who might be born into poverty, wouldn't want to live?
Who are we, who is anyone, to decide that a certain child, whose mother might be a herion addict, or who might be born into poverty, wouldn't want to live?
ReplyDeleteA fetus aborted before it reaches consciousness cannot "want to live" - it never reaches the stage of wanting anything. It's false logic that argues that if only the fetus had developed into a baby and been born, the child once it developed consciousness would want to live - of course. But that doesn't make it wrong for a fetus that might have become a baby to be aborted before it is one, any more than it's wrong for a woman to menstruate. It's lost potential, not a lost life.
A woman, on the other hand, is an adult human being with a life to live and lose: she gets to decide.
how do we know that bringing a pregnancy to term is "beneficial to the baby"? if the mother is a heroin addict and were going to bring the baby into an abusive home, maybe sparing a child from a world like that would "beneficial" in that particular case.
ReplyDeleteThere's a presumption that life is better than no life. Most people prefer to be alive.
i WISH somebody would say that on nightline! i keep saying that to people. it pisses me off that, at the national level anyway, the only pro-choice narrative about abortion is the "regrettable but necessary" or "very painful decision" story. obviously no abortion is FUN -- they may be uncomfortable or painful, and they always cost a lot of money -- but from there to "it's a painful decision" is quite a generalization and, just as i don't want to speak for other women who choose or don't choose abortion, i don't want others to speak for me re: how i would feel about abortion. so i keep saying this. i'm sure they just mean to say "well we wish we didn't have to deal with unplanned pregnancies," but why can't hillary clinton also mention all the women who DON'T regret their abortions, just to be clear that that's what she means?
ReplyDeleteRoula,
I would love for abortion rights people to say this. If they did, they would be much more likely to lose the argument because to most Americans abortion isn't a situation to be "happy" about. It is something to feel sober, sad, remorseful, and somber about. Because most Americans do think you're taking a life during abortion, whether you call it a baby or "potential life" (whatever that means). Seventy percent of Americans favor more restrictions on abortion, and I'm willing to bet that a lot of that has to do with the "whoopee! I'm so happy I had an abortion!" aspect of the pro-choice movement. If you want to think that 70% of the country is anti-woman, phallic worshippers, etc., fine. But you don't win the argument that way.
There's a presumption that life is better than no life. Most people prefer to be alive.
ReplyDeleteBut a person who never existed can have no preferences.
That depends. Sometimes there is a baby involved. A woman who has a baby already (the majority of women in the US who get abortions already have at least one child) and knows she's not capable of taking care of two babies at once, can decide - rightly - that if she gets pregnant, she will terminate the unwanted pregnancy. That's absolutely beneficial to the baby - the baby who's already born.
ReplyDeleteThere's always a baby involved or else there wouldn't be an abortion. And having children closely together can be difficult (I know) but killing one is a barbaric answer, particularly in this country. Try adoption if it would be just too difficult. The baby would thank you.
On an earlier discussion on Pandagon, a woman mentioned her younger brother, born in the late 1960s, when abortions were only legal for medical reasons. He was conceived within a month of her mother deciding to abort a fetus diagnosed with Downs Syndrome. If this woman hadn't terminated her pregnancy, her brother would never have existed. As the woman herself pointed out, when pro-lifers argue her mother should never have been permitted to make that decision, they're arguing that her brother shouldn't exist.
This is a deceitful argument because if anyone's mother had decided not to have them then that person wouldn't exist. And we wouldn't think or know anything about them. But I can turn that argument on its ear. What if Abraham Lincoln's mother had aborted him? Then we wouldn't have had the finest president our country has ever produced. But I guess that would have been her choice, eh?
There are already over a hundred thousand children in the US who need adoptive parents and can't get them. If a woman consciously decides to add to their number, that's her choice and I support it: I am pro-choice.
So, your argument is better dead than not adopted? That's some argument.
But while I don't know a single woman who terminated an unwanted pregnancy who regretted her abortion, I also don't know even one woman who gave up a child for adoption who didn't regret that choice every day of her life thereafter. And - because I am pro-choice and believe in informed consent - I would tell any woman who seemed to think she could just "give the baby up for adoption" this. No good soothing her with pro-life lies.
Well, as I've told you, you either haven't talked to enough women, they haven't been honest with you, or you're lying. I'll leave it up to you to decide which. When a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy, IT'S PAINFUL. Any decision she makes will leave her with emotional scars. The difference between a woman who gives her child up for adoption is that the child at least has a chance for a better life as opposed to just ending up in a black garbage sack. Maybe that's the problem. I guess I just think women should actually be concerned about the baby as opposed to just worrying about whether it's going to mess up their plans for Saturday night.
Arguing that since you said "sex leads to pregnancy" it should have been obvious that you meant to say that only the specific act of heterosexual intercourse at the right time in the woman's cycle can lead to pregnancy is circular.
ReplyDeleteThis is a thread about abortion, right? Which would mean that we are talking about sex in the way that sex leads to babies. I apologize if that is too deep for you. I thought anyone who had read Amanda's references to "Teh Sex" knew what THAT meant and what "sex leads to babies" means. But at least you aren't arguing that it isn't a baby again.
A fetus aborted before it reaches consciousness cannot "want to live" - it never reaches the stage of wanting anything. It's false logic that argues that if only the fetus had developed into a baby and been born, the child once it developed consciousness would want to live - of course. But that doesn't make it wrong for a fetus that might have become a baby to be aborted before it is one, any more than it's wrong for a woman to menstruate. It's lost potential, not a lost life.
ReplyDeleteBoy, you really have to work yourself around to this logic. I guess by the same token you would agree that if the woman's mother had killed her brother before he reached consciousness then it wouldn't have been a loss, eh?
A woman, on the other hand, is an adult human being with a life to live and lose: she gets to decide.
Under some circumstances, yes, and in others, no. That's what the law is for. That's what we as a society are deciding. And that's what abortion supporters are afraid of.
Seventy percent of Americans favor more restrictions on abortion
ReplyDelete53% of Americans consider themselves to be pro-choice (and more might, if not for pro-lifers lying about the pro-choice position - since when the question is rephrased, 74% to 77% favor the pro-choice position); 51% of Americans oppose a ban on all abortions even with the caveat that life-saving abortions could be performed, and only 11% take the pure pro-life position that women should die rather than allow abortion to be legal.
Admittedly 11% is still way too high - but at least it's a definite minority.
In a rather horrible sense, the pro-lifers who pushed through the infamous South Dakota amendment, forcing a near-complete abortion ban on all women who can't afford to travel out-of-state, made a political mistake - the South Dakota law was so explicitly evil in its disregard for the humanity of women living in that state, that it has proven unpopular even with some of those who consider themselves to be pro-life, once the consequences were made clear.
Abortion is legal in civilised countries around the world for the simple reason that the consequences of making it illegal are too barbaric for people who deal with reality to support. The facts are clear: making abortion illegal does nothing except ensure illegal abortions.
That pro-lifers work both to ensure that more women need abortions and that abortions are harder to get is consistent with nothing but hatred for women who want control of their fertility: it is not in least consistent with any notion that pro-lifers want there to be fewer abortions.
There is so much politically that pro-lifers could do if the pro-life movement genuinely wanted there to be fewer abortions in the US (down to the Netherlands level, perhaps): but in fact pro-lifers tend to oppose those measures, rather than support them.
I guess by the same token you would agree that if the woman's mother had killed her brother before he reached consciousness then it wouldn't have been a loss, eh?
ReplyDeleteWell, I take it that your position is that the brother should never have existed at all. Right?
And that's what abortion supporters are afraid of.
You mean pro-lifers? The pro-life movement is the main reason the US has the highest abortion rate in the Western world: pro-lifers work hard to ensure that it stays that way. Why are pro-lifers - the real abortion supporters in the US - afraid of women having the right to make decisions about her own body?
Well, I take it that your position is that the brother should never have existed at all. Right?
ReplyDeleteThat's your position, right?
You mean pro-lifers? The pro-life movement is the main reason the US has the highest abortion rate in the Western world: pro-lifers work hard to ensure that it stays that way. Why are pro-lifers - the real abortion supporters in the US - afraid of women having the right to make decisions about her own body?
Speaking of nonsensical arguments. Virtually every comment on abortion here has been something to the effect that pro-life supporters are trying to stop women from exercising "her right to choose" (choose what?). How do you square that logically with your statement from above? And, btw, I have no problem with a woman deciding what to do with her body. It's what she decides to do with the baby's body that I have a problem with.
53% of Americans consider themselves to be pro-choice (and more might, if not for pro-lifers lying about the pro-choice position - since when the question is rephrased, 74% to 77% favor the pro-choice position); 51% of Americans oppose a ban on all abortions even with the caveat that life-saving abortions could be performed, and only 11% take the pure pro-life position that women should die rather than allow abortion to be legal.
ReplyDeleteWhich pro-choice position are you talking about? The one discussed at Pandagon? Or the face given abortion rights by Planned Parenthood and Hillary Clinton? And please read what I said: 70% favor more restrictions. That's not "banning."
In a rather horrible sense, the pro-lifers who pushed through the infamous South Dakota amendment, forcing a near-complete abortion ban on all women who can't afford to travel out-of-state, made a political mistake - the South Dakota law was so explicitly evil in its disregard for the humanity of women living in that state, that it has proven unpopular even with some of those who consider themselves to be pro-life, once the consequences were made clear.
Actually, you're wrong. What it showed was that 45% of South Dakotans were willing to ban almost all abortions. With a few exceptions, the law would have passed. That's what abortion rights supporters are afraid of.
Abortion is legal in civilised countries around the world for the simple reason that the consequences of making it illegal are too barbaric for people who deal with reality to support. The facts are clear: making abortion illegal does nothing except ensure illegal abortions.
Well, I guess if making murder illegal ensures that murders are illegal, that's true, right? Any activity made illegal, when done, is illegal.
There is so much politically that pro-lifers could do if the pro-life movement genuinely wanted there to be fewer abortions in the US (down to the Netherlands level, perhaps): but in fact pro-lifers tend to oppose those measures, rather than support them.
I'm assuming that now you are going to go down the "government supporting" nannystate road, right?
This is why you are accused of hating women. When you, as "society," advocate laws that take away women's bodily autonomy, you are saying to women, "We will use your bodies as we see fit, even if it is not what you want. Your bodies are worth more than your personhood."
ReplyDeleteSaying that this is what society is deciding isn't "hating women." Societies have always made decisions about what people can and cannot do with their bodies, whether those bodies are male, female, child, or adult. Society isn't using a woman's body when she freely decides to engage in sex and becomes pregnant. Maybe you've spent too much time with The Handmaid's Tale.
Like I said in my first post, your gender essentialism is showing.
Yes, yes, I know. I hate women. Which would be kind of funny if you didn't actually think it.
Actually (and I'm slightly startled by this) though abortion rates in Western Europe are low compared to the US (in Eastern Europe, pro-life campaigners have succeeded in keeping abortion rates high) Sweden has an abortion rate near US levels: 20.3 per 1000 in 2005 (cite) where the US had 20.9 per 1000 in 2002 (cite). Norway also has a higher abortion rate than the Western European average (12.9 per 1000, cite), and Denmark about halfway between Norway and Sweden.
ReplyDeleteI've never looked into the pro-life movement in the three Scandinavian countries, but it would not surprise me if Sweden (95% Evangelical Lutheran) had a stronger pro-life movement than either Norway or Denmark, and therefore a higher abortion rate. The one leads to the other fairly directly.
Which pro-choice position are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteThe pro-choice position: women get to make decisions about control of their own fertility.
Well, I guess if making murder illegal ensures that murders are illegal, that's true, right? Any activity made illegal, when done, is illegal.
True. If we made eating illegal, people would become criminals because they'd still need to eat. Making abortion illegal makes women who need abortion criminals because they still need to have abortions.
I'm assuming that now you are going to go down the "government supporting" nannystate road, right?
Well, it does seem odd that pro-lifers actively don't want to prevent abortions, doesn't it? Your opposition to the idea that the government should support low-income women - in ways I described in considerable detail in a previous comment, and you ignored - - suggests strongly that your right-wing politics are much more important to you than preventing abortions.
You argued that women ought to be "persuaded" not to have abortions. But evidently, that's not as important to you as opposing the feminist/socialist solution - supporting women who have children.
Do you recall an instance last year or the year before where a Catholic school in the US proved how important being pro-life was to them: they sacked a teacher because she made the mistake of not having an abortion before her pregnancy started to show. For the future teachers at that school will know: it's a choice between staying pregnant or keeping their job.
If pro-lifers were serious about supporting pregnant woman, that would be a start: begin a campaign for a law making it illegal, no matter what the religious justification of the employer, to sack a woman for being pregnant: and, while pro-lifers were at it, they could campaign for six months of paid maternity leave and the right to her job back for all mothers.
That this has never been an issue for pro-lifers proves that all talk of children's lives mattering, wanting to prevent abortions, is pure hypocrisy.
Yes, it is. It's using a woman's body as an incubator for something 'society' wants but she doesn't. And you are falling back on the refuge of choice. If a woman chooses to have sex, then she can also choose how to direct the outcome of that sex. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that her body is being used, which of course you just claimed it wasn't. You've directly contradicted yourself.
ReplyDeleteWell, sometimes she can and sometimes she can't. Again, the choice should come at the sex part, not the baby part. At that point she's making a choice about someone else.
You do. That's what gender essentialism is all about.
Yes, yes, thank you for making the choice for me about what I think. I know it makes you feel better.
jesurgislac,
ReplyDeleteI know you like this argument, but unfortunately for you, it's not what the vast majority of abortions are like (see Amanda's article link as well as the various posters both here and at Pandagon). There's not been a one of them who said they had an abortion because they didn't get paid maternity leave. No, they approve of abortion because they don't feel like having the baby. That's it. No hard luck stories or worse alternatives.
And as much as you think it is hypocritical for one to be pro-life but oppose government programs, there are people in the world who don't think the government is the best vehicle for dealing with every problem presented by human kind. If a person works in a crisis pregnancy clinic, for instance, or donates money to pro-life groups, it isn't hypocritical for them to think the programs you think they should support would be ineffective (as government programs tend to be). That's not hypocrisy.
em,
Is there a logical statement in anything you posted? I certainly didn't see anything. When I say "sometimes she can and sometimes she can't," I'm stating the law. You can look it up. There are a variety of things you are not allowed to do with your very own body. Like sell your organs. Or sell your baby. Or commit suicide. Or reclaim parts extracted during surgery. Go look it up.
Second, I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or don't understand what I meant by "the choice comes at the sex part." I'll spell it out for you: a woman has a choice whether or not to engage in activity which could result in having a child. Is that simpler for you? If you get that, then everything else you wrote should strike you as nonsense, because I didn't separate the sex from the baby.
No, they approve of abortion because they don't feel like having the baby. That's it. No hard luck stories or worse alternatives.
ReplyDeleteSo? What gives you the right to tell women that they have to nurture a parasite living within them? Because they had sex? If so, you merely want to punish women by taking away their bodily autonomy on the mere fact that they had sex.
Oh, and any specific reasons why a fetus isn't a parasite? (Cancer also has human DNA, by the way.)
Is there a logical statement in anything you posted? I certainly didn't see anything. When I say "sometimes she can and sometimes she can't," I'm stating the law. You can look it up.
You know, damnedest thing, but I personally can't find any argument that you have made that isn't petitio principii. You say that women who get pregnant, by virtue of the fact that they had sex, deserve to accept the consequences of sex, which you define as only pregnancy. Never mind the fact that they can get an abortion, since you say that they have to deal with the consequences of sex (pregnancy, and only pregnancy). No other consequences exist, since the fetus is a baby. Even though, scientifically, a fetus is different than a baby. You said before that no obstetrician would argue that a fetus isn't a functional human being. You then say that it is impossible for a fetus to exist and grow outside of nature's incubator, the woman. So, I say, cool. Let's take that little womb-baby out of the woman who doesn't wish to carry it and stick it in an incubator. It'll grow into a functional human being, right? I mean, that is your basic argument, that a blastula/fetus is a functional human being. I say, let's put that functional human being thing to the test. After all, your argument is totally logically consistent.
Actually, I will say that you have been consistent. You've been anti-women, anti-feminism, and pro-patriarchy. These positions, however, are not logical. They are hateful though, so at least you've got hate going for you. Oh, you don't like our definitions? We;;, I personally can think of nothing which furthers the patriarchy more than punishing women for having sex, since many women have heterosexual sex and you can oppress a majority of them by forcing them to give birth to the precious blastulae. YMMV.
Is there a logical statement in anything you posted? I certainly didn't see anything.
ReplyDeleteYou know, Pandagonians, it should be pretty clear at this point that Sharon has long since descended into the tried-and-true, and obviously very successful, wingnut tactic of shoving her fingers in her ears and screaming "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" over and over again at the tippy-top of her lungs.
Can we all just agree to let her temper tantrum run its course until she runs out of energy and passes out on the floor?
but unfortunately for you, it's not what the vast majority of abortions are like
ReplyDeleteDid I say that? I said that 23% of abortions (according to Planned Parenthood cites) are carried out because the woman can't afford a child (or can't afford another child). You're right: 77% is a majority.
But, what you're saying that it's less important to you to prevent a substantial number of abortions by removing the economic reason for deciding to abort, than it is to uphold your right-wing principles that it's wrong to provide a decent level of support for people who need it. Your anti-abortion principles fall down before your conservative principles.
If a person works in a crisis pregnancy clinic, for instance
Whose job (or volunteer work) it is to lie to pregnant women who want abortions? Hm. Well, no, I can't expect such a person to want to support pregnant women or children. When a person is so lost to decency that they work in a crisis pregnancy center, it would be kind of futile to complain that they're also hypocritically opposing real help for pregnant women and children.
, or donates money to pro-life groups, it isn't hypocritical for them to think the programs you think they should support would be ineffective (as government programs tend to be).
Ineffective as opposed to what? You're arguing that a legal right to retain your job (and, unless you're a single mother, a legal right to have the child's father's support) would be "ineffective"? You were trumpeting in another post that it was wrong for parents to have children unless they were in couples: yet you think that men having the legal right to paid paternity leave is "ineffective"?
Your notion that it's "ineffective" in supporting motherhood for women to have a legal right to paid maternity leave also seems backwards, just from plain common sense.
While deploring the tone of Dan's aggressive comments towards you, it is evident by this time that while you feel free to complain that women have abortions just because they don't want to have a child (surely the best of all reasons to terminate an unwanted pregnancy) you don't give a damn about any woman terminating a pregnancy because, even though she might like to have another child, she can't afford it. That may be a minority of abortions, but it's a minority you have just made clear you support.
Which leaves you in the odd and inconsistent position of arguing that it's unimportant if women who want to have children but can't afford to are forced to choose abortion, but vitally important that a woman who doesn't want a child shouldn't be allowed to abort.
jesurgislac,
ReplyDeleteThe problem with your argument is that it demands government intervention to support women so they won't have abortions. You want that support through a variety of regulations from mandated paid maternity leave to laws revoking religious freedom for churches, schools, and other religious organizations.
Government programs tend to be rife with waste, fraud, and abuse (to use a more hackneyed term). We have stories every year about them. That waste isn't merely in defense programs, however; there is fraud in government housing programs, food programs, and other kinds of assistance. Now you want to add even more bureaucracy which will inevitably lead to more waste, fraud, and abuse. That's why I oppose government intervention.
You also, of course, are not worried about what these government mandates will do for employment and the economy. In most of the industrialized countries where there are these types of benefits, the unemployment rate is much, much higher. That's because if I'm paying you for a six-month (or 2 year) maternity leave, that's money I can't pay someone who is actually working for me. You think that's inconsistent with a pro-life perspective, but it's just a fact. Try running a business if you have to pay a lot of people for not working.
Finally, you mischaracterized people who work in crisis pregnancy centers. I'm sure there are some who "lie," but given the elastic meaning of that word these days, I have to assume you mean they don't spend time talking about how simple, easy, and unstressful having an abortion will be. You've stated that you don't know any woman who regretted an abortion, but there are literally thousands, perhaps millions of women who have done so and many of them work in those centers. Not because they don't care about pregnant women, but because they do.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteJudging from the arguments you and others here have used, I would say the ones sticking their fingers in their ears would be all you Amanda hangers-on.
You want that support through a variety of regulations from mandated paid maternity leave
ReplyDeleteYes: and your objection to this is...?
to laws revoking religious freedom for churches, schools, and other religious organizations.
Woo. Are you now saying that there are religions in the US that regard it as part of their religion to fire pregnant women for being pregnant? Which religions are these?
Now you want to add even more bureaucracy which will inevitably lead to more waste, fraud, and abuse. That's why I oppose government intervention.
Ah: so your contention is that the US just can't govern itself competently? Okay. Because you know other countries manage this kind of support for motherhood without "waste, fraud, and abuse", so I guess your argument is that Americans just aren't fit to govern themselves.
Try running a business if you have to pay a lot of people for not working.
I guess it just depends on how important you consider it is to support women rather than force them to have abortions out of economic necessity. To you, business comes before being pro-life: it really is all about being anti-choice for you, isn't it?
I have to assume you mean they don't spend time talking about how simple, easy, and unstressful having an abortion will be.
No, I mean that "pregnancy crisis centers" commonly present themselves as if they were health clinics providing medical services, including abortion. That is itself a lie, and people who lend themselves to that lie are liars.
But it's a good point you make that some of them may well be women who have been brainwashed by pro-lifers into thinking they shouldn't have terminated an unwanted pregnancy, and who are now passing on what's been done to them. The cycle of abuse goes on and on, and not everyone involved at every stage of the cycle deserves blame.
I notice you're saying nothing about the women who regret surrending a child for adoption. You don't care about those women either, I suppose, any more than you care about women who've had abortions from economic necessity.
Yes: and your objection to this is...?
ReplyDeleteWho's paying for this?
Woo. Are you now saying that there are religions in the US that regard it as part of their religion to fire pregnant women for being pregnant? Which religions are these?
You talked about the woman who got pregnant out of wedlock. She was a private school teacher who signed a contract which contained a stipulation about not doing this because the Catholic church teaches against non-marital sex. She was fired because she violated the contract by getting pregnant and not getting married. To say that it is a part of certain religions to fire women for being pregnant is a bit obtuse. To say that some religions regard it as a moral violation to be pregnant out of wedlock and not to get married is more accurate.
Ah: so your contention is that the US just can't govern itself competently? Okay. Because you know other countries manage this kind of support for motherhood without "waste, fraud, and abuse", so I guess your argument is that Americans just aren't fit to govern themselves.
Yes, and other countries have very high tax rates to cover the waste, fraud, and abuse in their bureaucracies, as well. And no, my argument is not that Americans aren't fit to govern themselves. My argument is that there are issues which are dealt with more efficiently by private enterprise.
I guess it just depends on how important you consider it is to support women rather than force them to have abortions out of economic necessity. To you, business comes before being pro-life: it really is all about being anti-choice for you, isn't it?
You like setting up a lot of false arguments, don't you? This is one of the worse ones. So, let me get this straight: if I'm running a small business that would be overburdened by paying someone full pay for six months maternity leave, then I'm supposed to do what precisely? Go out of business to prove my sincere convictions that abortion is wrong? That's not very logical, is it?
No, I mean that "pregnancy crisis centers" commonly present themselves as if they were health clinics providing medical services, including abortion. That is itself a lie, and people who lend themselves to that lie are liars.
Oh, I see. And it isn't deceitful at all when abortion clinics advertise themselves simply as "reproductive health facilities," right? Or when abortion supporters talk about "choice" and they really mean the right to kill their children at any point before the first breath? And, btw, the pregnancy crisis centers are health clinics. CareNow doesn't do abortions, either.
But it's a good point you make that some of them may well be women who have been brainwashed by pro-lifers into thinking they shouldn't have terminated an unwanted pregnancy, and who are now passing on what's been done to them. The cycle of abuse goes on and on, and not everyone involved at every stage of the cycle deserves blame.
Brainwashed? I doubt the women who feel that way would say they were brainwashed, unless it's by pro-abortion supporters who spend a lot of time talking about why the baby is a parasite and similar to cancer.
I notice you're saying nothing about the women who regret surrending a child for adoption. You don't care about those women either, I suppose, any more than you care about women who've had abortions from economic necessity.
Yes, life is full of regrets, but some are probably easier to deal with than others. Are the women you are talking about regretful that they didn't kill their babies instead? Because, according to you, women never regret having abortions. They are really happy about it! And that's the most pro-woman position of all; ensuring that women never have to regret offing their offspring.
So, let me get this straight: if I'm running a small business that would be overburdened by paying someone full pay for six months maternity leave, then I'm supposed to do what precisely?
ReplyDeleteSo, what would you do under those circumstances? You're against the idea that you should be able to apply for government support, which is what would happen in all countries with government-mandated maternity leave.
Suppose you could afford to give the woman six months paid maternity leave, but only at the cost of half your annual profit - though you and your other employees took the same salary out of the business as before.
Supposing the woman, knowing that you wouldn't allow her any paid maternity leave, tries to work up to the last minute? Suppose that this permanently damages her health? Suppose that she wants to breastfeed for a few months at least after birth, but the job she does for you won't permit that, and you won't permit her paid maternity leave, and this permanently damages her child's health?
Would you sack a pregnant employee and feel no guilt when, since she now didn't have a job and didn't have health insurance, she had an abortion?
Would you, in short, be prepared to make any real sacrifice yourself to your vaunted pro-life principles? Or do you feel that all the sacrifices should be borne by other people?
And it isn't deceitful at all when abortion clinics advertise themselves simply as "reproductive health facilities," right?
No, of course it's not deceitful. All reproductive care facilities provide abortions - that's a necessary part of reproductive care. (Or they should: I understand that thanks to pro-life terrorist attacks and pro-life mob harassment, many such in the US don't.) What is deceitful, purposefully so, is to describe reproductive care facilities as "abortion clinics" as if that's all they do.
Contrariwise, "pregnancy crisis centers" provide no health care facilities - only "counselling" and sonograms.
Are the women you are talking about regretful that they didn't kill their babies instead?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand: we weren't talking about infanticide. "Killing their babies" was never an option.
Some of these women lost their babies or young children before abortion was legal: some, after. At least two of the women who discussed their lifelong regret about adoption said that if abortion had been possible, they might well have decided to abort rather than have a child they couldn't care for - though one woman said it had never occurred to her at any point to abort. Of course I never asked: that would have been a very rude inquiry. This came up in spontaneous conversation.
But I know enough about it to know that when someone says women can always give up an unwanted baby for adoption it means they have never once thought yourself what that would be like: it's a part of the mentality that thinks women are incubators who won't really miss their offspring once gone. That's understandable in a man, but distinctly odd in a woman who has children - you're saying that you'd have no regrets and no pain if someone had taken each one of them away from you on the day they were born, and you'd never see them again? That you'd have been quite contented and cowlike through all of your pregnancies knowing that at the end of each one, you'd lose your child?
Or is this just something you think that other women should do? Effectively, this is an argument for surrogate motherhood, with the only difference being, the surrogate mother isn't paid for it. It was a pattern for black women in slavery days - having children only to have them taken away and sold, never to see them again. It's a typical pattern for domestic animals now. It's very telling that this is what you think of other women.
jesurgislac,
ReplyDeleteAnswer my question. if I'm running a small business that would be overburdened by paying someone full pay for six months maternity leave, then I'm supposed to do what precisely?
And I am very disappointed with the hysteria on display in most of the rest of your comments. You leap from one bizarre conclusion to the next with absolutely no proof to base any of it on. And the conclusions you draw are equally self-serving and strange. To leap from "you must not know what it's like to give up a child for adoption" (something you neither know nor could possibly know) to a comparison with slavery is both ridiculous and dumb. Try thinking a bit harder and writing a bit less and you might make points instead of hurling a lot of wild accusations which truly do weaken any real point you might have been able to make.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteif I'm running a small business that would be overburdened by paying someone full pay for six months maternity leave, then I'm supposed to do what precisely?
ReplyDeleteI did answer your question. But let me repeat my answers in simplified style.
You could - if you were living in a country where paid maternity leave is mandatory - apply to the government for financial help. But, you seem to think that would be wrong and "ineffective".
You could sack the woman. This would be legal in the US. (And I asked you, If she then has an abortion because she's jobless and has no health insurance, would you feel any guilt?)
You could decide to make financial sacrifices so that you could afford to let your pregnant employee have six months paid maternity leave.
You could require your employee to work her usual hours, permit her to count her time off to give birth as sick leave - if she's worked long enough to get that - and then require her to come back to work as soon as her sick leave as expired, if she expected to keep her job. (And I asked you - would you feel any guilt at all if this damaged her health or her child's health?)
You didn't answer any of my questions: I answered yours.
"you must not know what it's like to give up a child for adoption" (something you neither know nor could possibly know)
What, you have given birth and given the baby up for adoption, and you still think it's a mere nothing? Frankly, I don't believe you - I've never known any woman who did that who regarded it as a "they can always give the baby up for adoption" simple solution. Whenever I see anyone write that, I know - not guess, know - that it's not something they've ever had to do. If you're claiming you have actually done that, and still think it's nothing, well, you are unique among women - and not in a good way.
You can't fire someone in the U.S. for being pregnant. There are laws against that.
ReplyDeleteDepending on the size and financial ability of my business I would certainly work with my employee so that she would remain with my business because it's better to retain good employees than have to keep retraining. Virtually all your other questions are either (a) situations which parents must figure out how to deal with or (b) have been answered by the above statement.
You seem to think that all decisions are made on the basis of personal happiness and fulfillment. To say that giving a child up for adoption is better than killing it isn't saying there is no pain, regret, or remorse for having to do so. But I've NEVER talked to a woman who gave her child up for adoption who said she wished she'd killed it instead. And emotions are not "on-off" switches, but you seem to spend a lot of time at the extremes.
You can't fire someone in the U.S. for being pregnant. There are laws against that.
ReplyDeleteYou can: a Catholic school did just that not so long ago.
You seem to think that all decisions are made on the basis of personal happiness and fulfillment.
Er... yes. You seem to think that too. At least, you were certainly arguing for that in your post on 20th November.
I do believe that personal happiness and personal responsibility are the two best reasons for doing anything. So did you, as recently as five days ago, or so you claimed.
The idea that women should have children as a dreary duty is appalling to me. Is this how you feel about your own children? No sense of personal happiness, no personal responsibility, you just had them, miserably, because you don't think it's right to use contraception or to abort?
I don't believe it: I think you were sincere on the 20th, and you're arguing that women should have children as a dreary duty because it's a last-resort argument for a pro-lifer, not because you really believe it.
But I've NEVER talked to a woman who gave her child up for adoption who said she wished she'd killed it instead.
I'm glad you've given up trying to pretend that you know from personal experience what it's like to give a baby up for adoption.
Given what I've heard from other pro-lifers about the thought-police attitude towards women, and given your fairly obvious lack of sympathy/empathy, I suspect that the women you talked to, knowing you weren't sympathetic or empathic about any woman in a situation of which you had no experience, were not about to admit that they'd considered abortion. Especially not to someone who would refer to abortion as "killing babies"!
You can: a Catholic school did just that not so long ago.
ReplyDeleteYou may not understand employment law. First, the woman violated her employment contract by becoming pregnant. And it is a private school, private employer. So, you might not understand why I say she wasn't fired for being pregnant but for violating her contract.
Er... yes. You seem to think that too. At least, you were certainly arguing for that in your post on 20th November.
I didn't make my decisions simply based on my personal happiness. It was a decision made with my husband about what was best for us as a family. And honestly, it's a bit of a stretch to compare deciding not to practice law with killing one's children. Can't you even admit that much?
I do believe that personal happiness and personal responsibility are the two best reasons for doing anything. So did you, as recently as five days ago, or so you claimed.
Yes. Personal responsibility. The kind that says, "It's not convenient for me but I will deal with this situation." Not the kind that says, "I don't feel like it."
I don't believe it: I think you were sincere on the 20th, and you're arguing that women should have children as a dreary duty because it's a last-resort argument for a pro-lifer, not because you really believe it.
I don't think children are a "dreary duty." Maybe that's the problem. You do.
I'm glad you've given up trying to pretend that you know from personal experience what it's like to give a baby up for adoption.
I never claimed that I had done this. You have tried diligently to ascribe behaviors, opinions, and thoughts to me that I haven't said. The latest, of course is this nonsense. Again, you know nothing about my life. I think it's about time you dropped this.
Given what I've heard from other pro-lifers about the thought-police attitude towards women, and given your fairly obvious lack of sympathy/empathy, I suspect that the women you talked to, knowing you weren't sympathetic or empathic about any woman in a situation of which you had no experience, were not about to admit that they'd considered abortion. Especially not to someone who would refer to abortion as "killing babies"!
Given your complete ignorance about U.S. law, your inability to read and comprehend, your insistence on misquoting and mischaracterizing things I have said, I have no doubt you think any of this.
I really must insist that you stop this line of commentary. Consider this a warning.
You may not understand employment law. First, the woman violated her employment contract by becoming pregnant. And it is a private school, private employer. So, you might not understand why I say she wasn't fired for being pregnant but for violating her contract.
ReplyDeleteI see. So, it's not illegal to make a female employee sign a contract that says "You're not allowed to have premarital sex" and then, if it's known she's violated the contract the only legal way the employer could know such an intimate thing - when her pregnancy becomes visible - she can legally be sacked for violating the contract. Yes: I can see there's a legal distinction to be made there.
But there's no ethical or moral or practical distinction. Women can be, and have been, fired for getting pregnant in the US - where most countries in the West have laws protecting pregnant from that kind of mistreatment. The fact that it was a Catholic school that sacked her for wanting to have the baby rather than abort to keep her job (no one would ever have known she'd had pre-marital sex if she'd had an abortion in the first few weeks, and the other unmarried teachers at the school now know that if they don't abort as early as possible, they'll get the sack) just adds irony to the mix. It would have been a terrible thing to do to a woman regardless of who did it.
Personal responsibility. The kind that says, "It's not convenient for me but I will deal with this situation." Not the kind that says, "I don't feel like it."
Pregnancy is in fact a situation where, regardless whether or not it's "convenient", the pregnant woman has to deal with the situation. She may choose to deal with it by having an abortion or by having the baby. Arguing that if she deals with her pregnancy by having an abortion she hasn't really "dealt" with it at all just isn't true.
I don't think children are a "dreary duty."
Good. Glad to hear that the 20th November post represented your real feelings, rather than your present arguments that women ought to see having children as a dreary duty they ought to perform, rather than (as I see it) a choice that they are glad to have.
I described upthread a woman in the 1960s who'd aborted a pregnancy because the test came back positive for Downs syndrome. The story was told on Pandagon by her daughter, who added that a month after her mother had the abortion, the mother conceived her brother, and that she made a point of telling pro-lifers who argued against a woman's right to choose that they were arguing that her brother should not exist.
You seemed to have misunderstood that story and thought I was taking the position that the woman's brother "shouldn't exist". Nope.
You asserted that when I said: "you must not know what it's like to give up a child for adoption" that was something you neither know nor could possibly know.
ReplyDeleteExcept that would be wrong. I did know, from the dismissive way you wrote about it, that you had never given birth to a baby that was taken away from you and given up for adoption. Not a guess: certainty. So, because you have no experience of this, and insufficient empathy/imagination to think what it would be like, you can casually write "she can always give the baby up for adoption". Now, you say you don't want me to pursue that line of discussion. Fair enough - I respect that wish well enough to put this in a separate comment so you can delete it if you choose - but if you don't want to sound inexperienced, unempathetic, and unimaginative, never say casually that the solution to a woman who can't afford to support herself and a child (or another child) is for her to give the child up for adoption. (Mind you, a woman who argues without shame that a rape victim should be further punished by enduring unwanted pregnancy and childbirth is probably not going to worry that people will think she lacks empathy and compassion.)
What I object to is the cavalier way you set up straw man arguments, then expect me to defend myself against them. Using that logical fallacy shows how shallow your arguments are.
ReplyDeleteFirst you knew and know nothing about me. You made assumptions based on your idea of what a woman who has given a child up for adoption would feel and think. A simple statement, "she could give the child up for adoption," has no emotion attached either positively or negatively. It's simply a statement of fact, and a statement about something that many women do.
What is absolutely and totally twisted is that you think killing one's baby would be easier. Granted, the sample of women from Pandagon would suggest that there are an awful lot of women who have no respect for life, but I don't usually assume self-identifying people are good statistical samples (although they do make great examples of what pro-abortion supporters look like, in my opinion). What is sick is that you seem to think making a sacrifice for the benefit of one's child is too difficult to bear, but selfishly deciding that not wanting a child is a morally acceptable reason to kill him/her. There's something you should try to defend.
I see. So, it's not illegal to make a female employee sign a contract that says "You're not allowed to have premarital sex" and then, if it's known she's violated the contract the only legal way the employer could know such an intimate thing - when her pregnancy becomes visible - she can legally be sacked for violating the contract. Yes: I can see there's a legal distinction to be made there.
ReplyDeleteIt's not illegal for a person to enter into an employment contract which spells out one's responsibilities. Your arguments fail because the woman knew she was not supposed to become pregnant as an unmarried female teacher. She KNEW. And unless she takes the rather twisted view of sex that has been displayed by the Pandagonistas, she knew that if she had sex it was a normal and predictable outcome for her to become pregnant.
This is considerably different from a person taking a job in which there's no statement about pregnancy and then getting sacked for being pregnant. Here in these United States, we don't have indentured servitude. The woman was free to work somewhere else if she wanted to engage in sex. She was not forced to work for a Catholic school. Yet you are suggesting that she should not only be allowed to work in a religious school, but be able to publicly flout basic tenets of that religion without the administrators doing anything. Why is the school not allowed to fire employees who violate their contracts?
Pregnancy is in fact a situation where, regardless whether or not it's "convenient", the pregnant woman has to deal with the situation. She may choose to deal with it by having an abortion or by having the baby. Arguing that if she deals with her pregnancy by having an abortion she hasn't really "dealt" with it at all just isn't true.
Do you undestand English? I ask that because we've discussed this before and your approach this time looks like a lot of hair-splitting. So, you think a woman saying "she doesn't feel like it" means she didn't "deal" with the baby? No, "she doesn't feel like it" means she doesn't want to deal with the responsibility of the consequences of her behavior. So, in order to "deal" with them, she kills the baby then spends the rest of her life trying to say why it wasn't a baby and she couldn't afford it.
Good. Glad to hear that the 20th November post represented your real feelings, rather than your present arguments that women ought to see having children as a dreary duty they ought to perform, rather than (as I see it) a choice that they are glad to have.
This is a perfect example of the straw man arguments I was talking about. This is the last comment I will allow that uses one, ok? If you can't make your arguments without trying to put words in my mouth to support your theories, then you won't be able to comment any more.
I have NEVER said children are a dreary duty. Not once. That some women are unwilling to face their obligations to their children is not the same thing. But killing your offspring isn't simply a choice for a woman to make, not morally or ethically, at least. And the way you try to twist words to support this theory is disgusting.
I described upthread a woman in the 1960s who'd aborted a pregnancy because the test came back positive for Downs syndrome. The story was told on Pandagon by her daughter, who added that a month after her mother had the abortion, the mother conceived her brother, and that she made a point of telling pro-lifers who argued against a woman's right to choose that they were arguing that her brother should not exist.
You missed the point, which is we don't get to select the children we have. Did the woman ever bother to think about the terrific sibling she didn't get to know because her mother had that abortion?