Already a member?
Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
Chloe Angyal is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Chloe Angyal and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Chloe Angyal is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Chloe Angyal and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
I think you've made a faulty assumption here.
If the central tenet of feminism is conferring the same rights on women as are available to men, what right are you conferring in allowing women the right to abort their babies/fetuses (call them what you will). Men don't have this right (for obvious, practical reasons). But also they don't have the right to terminate their female partners' pregnancies either.
So I'm not sure if feminism, based on your distillation of its central philosophy, helps the pro-choice case at all.
Cameron's point is a good one. Also, you said: "I think that if Feminists for Life really cared about women, and really wanted to prevent abortions, they'd throw their efforts behind contraception and comprehensive sex education, not behind forcing young women to carry to term babies they aren't prepared to have."
When you phrase it as "forcing young women to carry to term babies they aren't prepared to have," you are essentially implying two arguments which are also highly debatable:
1) That babies do not deserve to live if their mothers deem otherwise.
2) That people should not have to face the consequences of their decisions.
I'm curious as to how you would defend those ideas.
Ryan
"...not behind forcing young women to carry to term babies they aren't prepared to have."
The above-statement, when considered in the light of the majority of abortion cases (not in the instances of rape/incest) is also flawed.
When a young woman willingly has sex - there is no issue of force. Any woman with even marginal education understands the consequences of sexual intercourse - to pretend a woman is being forced, through expression of her own free will, to carry a baby to term is preposterous and an incredibly weak argument.
Furthermore, to the issue of "violence," if a fetus is indeed a human, which I believe it is, the answer is obvious - terminating its life is a violent act. That said, someone who believes otherwise has to sufficiently explain at what point a fetus becomes a human - if not at conception. I've heard the 22 week argument before, for example, but it falls flat because the youngest delivery was at 21 weeks. By the 22 week logic, that child was not technically a human yet and a candidate for abortion? This is also in direct conflict with another pro-choice argument, that a fetus is a human once it can 'survive' outside the womb. You can see the obvious contradiction between the two stances.
Luckily, scientific advancements are turning the pro-choice arguments on their heads - though I think there isn't much to hold them up. I'm confident science will progress to a point where fetuses can be safely removed from the mother's body, and remain viable, and all the pro-choicers can find new efforts to focus on.
This is very interesting. I too wonder how a woman can be a feminist and against choice. More than anything, the ability to chose is fundamental to feminist ideas, and the inability to chose is contrary. In denying choice, someone is choosing for a woman. If this isn't against feminism, I don't know what is.
Feminism isn't just about equal rights. Feminism goes fundamentally beyond that, because things are not, and never have been equal. And when you do say equal, the next question is: equal to what? Feminism seeks to heal wrongs. And to do so, you can't just say: now you get the choices of men, but we still make choices for you that are women-specific. That is very problematic.
Feminism is also trying to eradicate a history of decisions being made for women. Abortion and contraceptive rights are fundamental to that equation. And, having sex doesn't mean that you want to have a baby. Making sex equal to child birth is a real step back in terms of women's rights to have fundamental control over your body. Furthermore (and I know this is difficult, but work with me) if, because of diet or otherwise, someone develops a tumor, we wouldn't make them live with it. We would allow them the choice to remove it. Why don't women have this same choice.
Also, the pregnancy debate often becomes an issue of whose rights are more important: the mother to have control over her body or the baby to live. My issue with this is, if I were pregnant and decided to remove the child from my body when a typical abortion occurs, the child would die. So, fundamentally, all I am doing is choosing not to support someone else, which is a right I have, in having control over my body.
As a final note: abortion is also a religious issue because it considers when "life" begins. It is a fundamental Christian view that life begins at conception. That is why people walk around saying abortion is murder. However, there is a more scientific view that life begins when an organism is able to function on their own. (ie the ameba which can survive independently). We don't think that, for example, it is murder to remove blood cells from our body. Without a Christian view of life, abortion is not murder. Because there is separation of Church and State (see the 1st Amendment), this issue really shouldn't be decided by the state, or federal government. And that is my two cents ;)
@Chloe
I also can never understand how women who claim to be feminist can be so anti-abortion, because its not so much defending the rights of a fetus but more removing the rights from the woman to make decisions that involve her body and the rest of her life.
the labels themselves are already flawed to make people feel they are either anti or pro abortion when that couldn't be further from the truth.
@Ryan
1) it has nothing to do with if a fetus (not a baby) deserve to live, but if you remove the right of choice then you are effectively forcing that woman to carry her fetus to term. It is saying that this woman has equal importance to this unborn child, and personally (i know you do not agree with this) I find this irrational on so many levels.
Your 2)like is absolutely ridiculous. No matter what your actions are you must face the consequences for them. Be it having the child or aborting it. But in the terms of abortion at least only the mother has to face the long-term emotional and possible health consequences, opposed to having an unwanted child, and raising it in a sub-optimal environment (in a vast number of cases). In the latter scenario, those consequences get passed onto the child.
I don't even know why men are allowed to vote on this issue at all. This issue affects women, let them decide.
@Milena
In terms of violence I just have a difference of opinion with yours. I don't see abortion as a violent act at all. I see domestic abuse, UFC, dog fighting, child abuse and NFL football as violent acts. I see abortion as a very sad and desperate act, something that is not taken lightly by anyone. Violence is just an injected adjective to vilify abortion without the proper examination.
If you think abortion is a violent act vs. a human, then you likely believe abortion is murder. So how do you wish to prosecute all of these "murderous" women? If a women is caught having an abortion, she obviously planned to have it, so is that 1st degree murder? Should she be sentenced to life in prison?
And what about miscarriages? The fetus you claim is human has likely died because of some malfunction within the mother's body, is that manslaughter then? I mean the mother was involved with the death of a human, lock her up right? Aside from that, prisons are filled enough as it is, and the increase would be directly passed onto tax payers.
Sexual education is of vital importance that is severely lacking at the moment. People understand the consequences, yes, but if there is not an adequate educational program in place it all falls apart.
Do you expect 16 year olds in a small town to go into their local store and buy a pack of condoms? Or a girl to visit the local doctor on her own and ask for birth control? This is much more likely if they have the proper sexual education behind them, and even then its a challenge. Just expecting people to take an interest in sexual education and hoping the “marginally educated” will do their due diligence is a lazy perspective.
If abortion is outlawed as you wish, what do you suppose will happen to the millions of children suddenly thrust into the economy? Do you think the women that would otherwise have had an abortion are economically stable to raise a child? What will happen to that family? The implications aren't that difficult to figure out, and their cumulative effects would be far reaching.
Since a number of highly populated states just made it illegal for non-married couples to adopt, outlawing abortion would create a definite boom in the orphanage market. So maybe its not that you are pro-life maybe you are just pro-orphanage; But hey, at least you'll have more soldiers right?
Thanks for your comment, Beth. Just a few issues that I'll note...
1. You wrote: "Furthermore (and I know this is difficult, but work with me) if, because of diet or otherwise, someone develops a tumor, we wouldn't make them live with it. We would allow them the choice to remove it. Why don't women have this same choice."
This is basically equating a tumor to a human life. I'm not even sure how to respond to that other than to weep.
2. You also wrote: "My issue with this is, if I were pregnant and decided to remove the child from my body when a typical abortion occurs, the child would die. So, fundamentally, all I am doing is choosing not to support someone else, which is a right I have, in having control over my body."
In the first sentence you said that you would remove the "child" from your body. In the next sentence you said you have "control over [your] body." But if you call it a child, doesn't that mean that it is NOT your body - and that it is in fact someone's else body (i.e the child's)?
Just some things to think about.
Ryan
I've been a pro-choice male for all of my adult life. However, listening to the discussion where abortion is likened to "removing a tumor from your body" and feminism is not complete without abortion makes me sick to my stomach.
I always thought that I should support women's rights because it was the "right" thing to do. Yet, the comments here sound much more like abortion means that a woman shouldn't have to take responsibility for her actions.
Ryan--
You must divorce yourself from emotional responses to have a really discussion about abortion issues, a legal discussion that is. You can cry if you want, but the real issue is that we force a woman to keep a baby and not a tumor, which is equally as much a living conglomorate of human cells, because we place a different value on the baby versus the tumor, even though neither will survive outside the body. That is the argument I am making.
And please re-read my statement about removing a baby from a body. I call it a baby because, personally, if I had an unwanted pregnancy, I would keep the child. I am at a position where I can easily make that choice. But I cannot, and will not, choose for someone else. The child is not my body, true. But the child needs my body to survive, just like a tumor, or parasite, or worse. You can be emotional about it if you choose. That is fine. But, and maybe this is just my "lawyer" perspective, emotions have nothing to do with the law. The law protects rights. And a fundamental right is control over your body.
I will put it another way. If I am walking by with a bag of food, and I see someone starving, I don't have to give him/her the food. I can keep walking. There is no legal obligation to feed the person. Is there a moral one? Well, that is up to the individual. Just like abortion.
Mike,
There are a million points to respond to in your comments - especially those directed at Milena - but I'll let her address those on her own for now.
As for your responses to my points, I don't believe either of us will convince the other on the fundamental issue here: when human life begins. If you don't believe a fetus is a human life then none of this matters. If it is a human life then it matters enormously and is one of the greatest atrocities being committed in this world. There is no middle ground.
On the issue of consequences, I believe we also have differing opinions on what a "consequence" actually is. You are making the argument that our consequences should only affect ourselves. But that's not what happens in the real world. If someone cheats on their wife, that affects both people. If someone drives drunk and slams into a 10 year old kid, that affects both people. If someone burns down a neighbor's home and goes to prison, that affects both parties. Consequences don't occur in a vacuum. We don't live in a utopia. What we do affects others. That is the nature of consequences. That is why we try to act responsibly and morally and decently - because we know that our actions have ramifications far beyond just our own personal lives. To deny that is to deny reality. So yes, included in the "consequences" category is the hardship (for both the parent and the child) that may be experienced as a result of having an unwanted pregnancy. I hate to break it to people, but that's just life. There's no way around it.
@Mike - for all your vitriol - there was little substance in your tirade. Also, your conception of "violence" is logically inconsistent, though I must admit the technique of creating ad hoc definitions is convenient.
I never mentioned trying women who have abortions for murder, nor did I propose most of the things you accused me of thinking - that was a manifestation of your own imagination. I sadly accept that the zeitgeist and the law finds abortion acceptable. However, that doesn't mean I cannot bring up objections and request logical evidence from abortion's supporters.
How would you logically explain your contradictory claim that a girl who isn't smart enough to go visit a doctor for birth control, or head to the store for condoms (outrageous expectations according to you) suddenly got her wits about her to go ask that same doctor for an abortion, and head to the drug store for the meds she'll need afterwards? Women who have sex are not animals - they are thinking, rational beings. I find it insulting that you claim they simply cannot "think" enough to protect themselves prior to intercourse. I think there is far more evidence to the contrary.
I think the pro-choice camp has considerable moral and ethical work to do regarding abortion. Your numerous examples served only to distract from answering my legitimate question: when is a fetus a human, if not at conception? If a scientist could adequately explain, beyond any doubt, the point at which a fetus is not a human, I'd support abortion prior to that point in time, because it would be no different than voluntarily removing any other body part. It's that simple.
Beth,
The line I wrote about weeping was in reference to the moral equivalency between removing a tumor and aborting a child. If we have come that far in our culture, then that is incredibly sad. So while my heart does break for children who are aborted and the women who choose to abort them, I was not injecting emotion into the actual point I was making - I was reacting to the lack of clear thinking in comparing a tumor to a human being.
In your response you wrote: "The child is not my body, true." You then wrote: "A fundamental right is control over your body."
Again (and I hate to sound like a broken record) but if the child is not your body, then the 'fundamental right to control your body' does not apply here. It's as simple as that. We both seem to agree that they are two separate bodies, so your logic breaks down entirely in this situation. I'm not sure how to make this any more clear.
Lastly, the analogy between feeding a starving person and having an abortion has quite a few holes. You wrote: "I will put it another way. If I am walking by with a bag of food, and I see someone starving, I don't have to give him/her the food. I can keep walking. There is no legal obligation to feed the person."
Okay, fair enough. But by not feeding this person, that doesn't mean that you will kill them and end their life on the spot. That person can still find other people to give them food and other ways to live. A baby inside your body cannot. If you abort a child - it's over. That's it. If you walk by a starving person and do not give them food, that is not the same as taking their life right then and there.
One more point about the 'starving person analogy.'
Keep in mind that you did not conceive the starving person. That is not your child. In the case of abortion, this is your child whom you conceived. Your responsibility to care for that life goes up exponentially.
OK--stick with me on this, it's going to get complicated before it gets--well, you know what I'm saying, really. I mean, just think. There's this baby, see, and then there's the woman with the baby thing inside her, and--wait! I know what this is, OK. Remember when you were in college and you got drunk a lot and then you were like "Hey let's have a baby together" and the girl was--wait, no. Not you. OK, then--consider for a minute that there's a theory--no, this isn't like that, this is--you know what stinks about this situation? OK here's the truth, the inside story behind this controversy--You could choose any three people, any three, really, and you wouldn't--well, that's not right.
Ryan,
You aren't making logical arguments. You are making moral ones. You assume, for example, that there is some responsibility for taking care of a fetus because they were conceived. I will make the "starving person" analogy more personal: you see someone drowning and you are the only person around. Furthermore, you are a life guard. Guess what? You don't have to save them. There is no legal affirmative duty.
Look, I completely agree with your moral arguments. I am just arguing that morality is personal, and not nearly as black and white as we would like to believe. And because it is personal, I cannot tell a woman she must keep a child inside of her body. It is her body, and she can make the choice not to take care of another living being. Just because you get pregnant doesn't make you any more liable, without a morality argument. And I think that morality makes for bad law, because it imposes someone else's views of what is or is not right, and does not give people the choice to make their own. And the law should not, and in reality under the constitution cannot, impose morality. And because of this, morality based policies that one wishes to give the color of law are equally as wrong.
Is a fetus like a tumor TO ME? Heck no! But if someone else feels that way, and doesn't want the legal obligations that come with child birth and the continued physical toll, who am I to tell her otherwise. Because guess what? It's not my body that must play host to another. And it isn't your's either.
Thanks so much for your reply, Beth. And you're absolutely right: this inevitably comes down to morality. But I think it is crucial to understand that virtually all major law (outside of process law) is based on morality. Murder, rape, theft, cheating on taxes, adultery, abuse, child molestation, etc. These are all moral issues. The law and morality go hand in hand. If they didn't we would have no laws.
This is one of the biggest misunderstandings in our society today and I think we seriously need to re-examine these issues before we start making claims about how law and morality do not belong together. They always have and they always will. We may not like it or agree with it, but that's how it is.
Thanks again for continuing the discussion.
It is violence against women IF (as in too many cases)
the woman or girl is coorced into the abortion by a
family member or boyfriend or husband.
Sometimes even threatened with getting kicked out of the
house and or the husband/boyfriend leaving them IF they
do not choose an abortion.
Also, it is violence to the body of a woman IF in certain
cases the uterus is punctured, the woman/girl hemmorages
because of botched abortions. These still happen in so-
called "safe" clinics.
It would be much better to allow abortions ONLY at hospitals
then you would not have crazy people singling out clinics
and there would be much better care for women if something
did go wrong during the abortion. The medical equipment and
staff in a hospital would ensure the best care for women.
Of course feminists can be pro-life. We realize that abortion hurts women and that there are millions of walking wounded who regret their abortions.
Ryan,
I think fundamentally we agree :) However, a caveat.
Law and morality work together, but only to a certain extent. Americans are outraged when a penalty for theft can be the loss of a hand, but in some countries this is moral. It is easy for people to make these assumptions, but the foundation of US law is fundamentally an issue of property rights. That is what is wrong with rape laws today; they were built up on the idea of a woman's chastity as property of the father/husband/man she belonged to. The real idea of a social contract, a-la John Locke, where the principles of life, liberty, and happiness come from exist regardless of your moral ideas. It is much more involved with what you and I must do around one another to co-exist. My summary: your personal rights end where mine begin, and vis-a-versa. That, for example, is what is wrong with murder. Whatever you believe about life, and the value thereof, murder is a problem because you enter the sphere of someone else's rights.
I am afraid of morality guiding law because history has shown us that such decisions have the capacity to go very wrong. Morality is closely tied to religion. One cannot exist without the other. The "rights" argument prevents us from doing unkind things to one another with the idea that it stops someone elses rights. With religious ideas, we run into all kinds of trouble. This is why, in countries where "god" runs things, things tend to be very bad for women and minorities, and not only is abortion out the window, but so is any alternative religious view.
Do I personally support abortion? No. I happen to be a very very conservative Christian. I also don't support killing animals for food, and several other things. But do I support reproductive rights socially? Yes. Because I enjoy the ability to chose my moral battlegrounds, and I want to give you the ability to do the same.
That said, abortion is a really hard issue, and there are great arguments against what I say even using the "rights" analysis. This is just the choice that I have made, and I equally respect your's.
Great response, Beth. Thank you very much. I think we are certainly in line on the majority of issues here. Especially when it comes to freedom of religion, God & morality, and some of the bigger topics that have been brought up.
My words were not meant to be harmful or demeaning in any way. I simply wanted to follow your line of thinking to its logical conclusion. I appreciate you taking the time to wade through some of the heavier stuff, as these are undoubtedly tough issues that need to be confronted.
Thanks again for sharing and I look forward to conversing again sometime down the road.
Ryan
I think you can be both feminist and pro-life without contradiction. I should point out first that I am not pro-life. If you believe that life begins at conception and taking that life would be wrong, then you believe abortion is wrong, just like going around killing people would be wrong. You can still be a feminist and believe in equal rights and treatment of women, but believe that if your body is host to another human life, killing that human would be murder. (Perhaps there could be a case for self defense or use of reasonable force to rid your property of a trespasser who is going to take over your life.)
@ Beth Harris - your so-called "legal" arguments could do with some work too....your arguments are just as moralistic, you are just showing your morals are orientated in a different direction (women's "rights").
@ everyone - why do people always presume a pro-life stance MUST be inextricably linked with religion? Why do people force an association of the pro-life stance with an absence of choice? Pro-life is ALL about choice, it is just the timing of the choice that changes. Barring instances of rape/incest/fatal and incontrovertible danger to mother's life, a woman has many choices. They just arise BEFORE she gets pregnant. She can be abstinent. She can have copious amounts of promiscuous sex with multiple partners (NOTHING religious about THAT), while using the contraceptive pill/injection or condoms. As Milena so eloquently pointed out, if she will later have the wherewithal to go get an abortion and post-abortion medication, condoms or the pill beforehand should not be a hill too steep.
Even after getting pregnant, there are still choices. Pro-choicers always operate on the flawed assumption of a welfare, crackhead mother / poor, naive young girl in small town America (the 2 favourite analogies by far) whose life will be irrevocably RUINED RUINED RUINED by the pregnancy because she'll HAVE to keep the baby. Hmmmm. Anyone heard of adoption? With current lifestyles, hormones/chemicals in food etc, infertility (especially among the well-off) is pervasive. Adoption's also a choice. Don't ASSUME a pregnancy changes the woman's life forever. Legislation is DRIPPING with all kinds of protection for pregnant woman, most especially in the workplace. So if she CHOOSES to place the baby up for adoption, those 9 months can't have irrevocably changed her professional life, and sans baby, it's as if it never happened. And if she has the strength to murder the baby through abortion, don't get started on the emotional pain of giving it up for adoption. Puh-leez.
And lastly -
@ Mike Cecchin: nobody, not even the most lunatic right-wing fringes, advocates trying aborters for murder. C'mon! There is such a thing as a statutory (i.e. legislative) crime, which can be created. Obviously it would not be retrospective in its effect (too many millions of aborting women to lock up), and could be administered at the state level.
And the manslaughter for miscarriage analogy? WEAK! Manslaughter requires negligence, and bodily exigencies beyond a woman's control would not fall under the definition of negligence. Just so you know.
Cameron
PS - sorry for the length of this comment
@cameron
firstly, "the strength to murder the baby through abortion?" really? You think women who have abortions are doing it out of strength? But there is that favourite word of the pro-lifers, MURDER.
My problem with the pro-lifers is the huge inconsistency in language I find huge chasms in logic. If you claim human life starts at conception and abortion is murder, then under those definitions you should automatically believe in trying aborters with murder. There is no way around this.
You can't use such strong words to define your convictions, and demonize anyone who believes in a woman's right to a choice and then not follow through.
So how do you plan to prosecute these "murders"? no jail time for "murdering" a human life? Will you be handing out fines? Perhaps demerit points off of your driver's license then? A higher interest rate on the mother's credit card?
What about the boyfriend or family member that willingly drives them to the clinic? are they not an accessory to murder?
the manslaughter analogy was hyperbole, but its funny how you need to stick strictly to the legal definition of manslaughter, yet the definitions of human life, murder, and murderer are flexible as it suits your point.
And it really is hilarious to me that the same people that believe adoption is the answer to everything are the same people banning gay marriages and are typically against homosexual adoption.
If you feel so strongly about this cause I think its only right that you adopt a few children yourself. Since apparently having children is no problem and would never ruin someone's life you may as well adopt two children. Just stand outside an abortion clinic with an "I'll adopt your child" sign and start saving lives today. You'll be stopping murderers Cameron. You'll be like Abortion Batman to the pro-life movement.
.thumbnail.jpg "Blake Sunshine")
