Since I read this post a few days ago, abortion issues have been on my mind. After reading it, I came across an opinion article on the Ottawa Citizen's website, and I basically want to have a shot at the authors' throats.
They have a website, called ProWomanProLife , that is perpetuating the myth that one can be both pro-woman and pro-life - which, as all members of Feministing know, is fundamentally impossible.
My favourite parts of their site so far include the following two quotes (emphasis mine):
From "The Plan" page:
"In the long term, ProWomanProLife aims to develop a nationwide network of mentors, “big sisters,” who can speak confidently to their views on why abortion is not a woman’s right , and help other women to understand the same."
From "The Women" page (Brigitte Pellerin's bio):
"She refuses to be called a feminist but has never let her gender limit her ambitions. Being a woman is not a curse, so why insist on trying to behave like a man?"
There is so much wrong with Brigitte Pellerin's claim that I can't even touch on that right now.
Most importantly, how is it that they can claim that abortion is not a woman's right? It is our body, and abortion is an elective medical procedure that a woman can choose if she so wishes. No one forces Jehova's Witnesses to have blood transfusions, since it is against their religious beliefs. No one is forcing those who oppose abortion to have one. But it is legally available and covered by public health care for women who choose it, so that they won't die from using other means to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Without getting into a horribly long-winded post, the bottom line is this: the goal of ProWomanProLife is to reduce demand for abortions in Canada to zero. In order to do that in Canada (as well as in the States, where the abortion issue is far more pressing and controversial), we need two things.
The first is comprehensive sex education for all students in every school board . This means teaching them that condoms don't cause cancer/impotence, mean you're a slut, etc. It means not scaring them into abstinence until marriage, which will only last for a little while anyway.
The second is nationally available, affordable, and effective birth control for women, starting in their early teens and continuing until they decide they want to have children.
That is the only way you're going to redue the need for abortions in Canada to anywhere close to zero.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Oxymoron of the day: ProWomanProLife.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11227
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
While I do believe that feminism, as a term, entails gender equality -- and that, then, means equality without regard to gender -- the statement of "not letting your gender limit your ambitions" suggests that being a woman IS a curse.
Once someone stops making sense, I refuse to listen to whatever else they have to say.
That's a good tactic. I should try it sometime...it would save me a lot of unnecessary aggravation.
See, when I read the site, I took this to mean that while she does not choose to use the label of feminist, that she shares a lot of values in common with feminists. And obviously she differs on some really important values, but that's beside the point that I'm making.
A lot of people reading a site that about pro life ideas are probably the very conservative religious type who do view being a woman as a curse.
So while in most cases, an out-of-the-blue denial can imply that there is something valid to deny, I think that in this case it might make sense to spell it out. As in, ok I don't call myself a feminist per se, but I'm also not supporting the stay-at-home, quiverfull idea either, I'm still a female with (gasp!) ambitions and a life.
Poorly worded, probably. But I think the idea makes sense if you consider her likely audience.
"In the long term, ProWomanProLife aims to develop a nationwide network of mentors, “big sisters,” who can speak confidently to their views on why abortion is not a woman’s right , and help other women to understand the same."
I call bullshit. In R. v. Morgentaler, the courts decided that the existigng abortion laws were a violation of a womans Section 7 rights (life, liberty, and security of person). Thus, it follows that abortion is a right. So, what this group is trying to do is to lie to women about their rights, and they expect us to believe they're a pro-women group? Fail.
while i don't agree with the article or the website i just want to point out that you can be pro-woman and pro-life, if you don't see anti-abortion laws as taking rights, but as stopping murder.
I agree. The position pro-woman pro-life is not a contradiction, it's a different value placed on life.
If there was a national organization devoted to beating wives, you'd be opposed to it even if you yourself weren't being beaten. Saying "It's an optional procedure!" isn't going to placate a pro-life person who views the voluntary taking of another humans life as an atrocity.
Personally, I think we should protect sentience, not human life.
It's not stopping murder, for one thing; in 1989, the court ruled that a fetus has no rights, and is not legally a human (source).
In addition, it's still not pro-woman even if a person supports pro-life laws under the (false) premise that it's stopping murder, because it's putting the rights of the fetus- legally and, I would think, biologically, not a person over and above the woman's rights. So, ideologically, it's still anti-woman, and legally stupid.
You're right. Abortion is not currently murder, legally speaking. But people are allowed to *not agree* with the government. Someone can believe abortion is murder even though their government doesn't define it so, just like someone can believe that marital rape is rape, even though some governments might say it isn't
So if you define a fetus as a person, or a potential person, you are weighing the fetus's right to not be killed versus the mothers right to control her own body. With that mindset, it seems obvious that the right to life must come first.
Why? Why must my life be worth less than something that lives inside of me? Why does an embryo or fetus need to have the right to use my body against my will when no person has that right? I mean, I don't owe anything to my liver, and I can get shit-faced until my eyeballs are jaundiced. An embryo or fetus has no more a right to live in my body than my liver does (and at least my liver is useful to me). I owe nothing to an embryo or fetus. In fact, I wouldn't even owe anything to my child. If anything, the kid would owe me, because I could have aborted its ass so fast. I'm going to echo Amanda Marcotte and say that people do not behave as if life begins at conception except when they're talking about taking away a woman's right to decide whether to end a pregnancy or bring it to term. She gave examples such as not celebrating our conception day or not having funerals for tampons (just in case there was a zygote in that period). I'll extend that to using the phrase "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it." Mothers often talk about "bringing you into the world," particularly when their kids disrespect them. The kids are the ones who owe their mothers for opting to give birth to them. Pregnant women don't owe their pregnancies jack.
If someone is assuming that a fetus is a human life, than banning abortion is NOT MAKING YOUR LIFE WORTH LESS THAN A FETUS'S. Lilly already said this, it's comparing the right to life vs the right to control your body, not saying that one life is more valuable than another.
Please read my response to fionnabhair if you don't understand what I'm talking about.
And your liver analogy only works if there are people out there who say that livers have constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Link me to a protest site about this and I'll shut right up.
It is putting the life of a fetus over the life of a woman, because the fetus is occupying the body of a woman, and actively leeching off her. It's a parasite, in a way. A fetus arguably is harming a woman's body by growing inside her, and taking in nutrients. Then there's the birthing process, which is, I've been told, extremely painful. It's also potentially deadly.
A fetus isn't a passive occupant of a woman's body. A fetus harms a woman, and in giving birth, can kill her. So, banning abortion because of the belief that it prevents murder- even if a person believes that the fetus is a human being- puts fetalk rights over the rights of the woman carrying it, and pretty much says that the harm a fetus can have to a woman is irrelivant.
Exactly.
Also, I don't define "life" as "the absence of death." That's how anti-choicers define life, and I'm not an anti-choicer. Anti-choicers think it's okay for women's lives to be governed by their reproductive systems, essentially being slaves, and I don't think that's okay. Anti-choicers think any sort of life, even the life of being a sex slave who's worth comes from how many times she gives birth, is better than never existing in the first place, which is the stupidest-ass logic there is. So I don't even think anti-choicers have an argument, because they don't operate around logic.
Are you serious? A fetus as a parasite. If I remember rightly, a fetus even becoming a fetus is because of the actions of a woman and a man. The woman allowed that "parasite" to happen. And it isn't just some bug that crawled up there, it has actual DNA of the woman and the man. You guys are lying to yourselves if you really think this way.
If you're pro-choice, then at least be honest with yourselves and recognize that abortion is terminating a human being with it's own set of DNA. I respect Pro-Choicers so much more when they are actually honest with themselves and everyone else and recognize the truth rather than try to make up some bullshit about the fetus being a parasite and it's not human blah blah blah. That kind of talk just allows people to poke holes in your argument.
A bundle of cells is not a LIFE. If it can't support itself on it's own without being attached to another human being, it doesn't deserve rights. I have the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and not being able to have an abortion takes that away. It takes away my ability to have recreational sex (pursuit of happiness, liberty), to have certain jobs where getting pregnant will prevent you from moving up in your career, from not having another creature grow inside you and change your body forever, or even sometimes your life if the fetus causes complications (anemia, diabetes, or other pregnancy-related health issues, difficult labor, etc.). Now, I'm not saying that abortions are easy for women, or that they don't feel extreme emotions about them, but please don't make women who want to control our own bodily functions out to be heartless murderers. Instead of restricting access or denying women's rights, why not focus on how to prevent these unwanted pregnancies in the first place?
But your view only makes sense if we assume that fetuses are not people. And in the moral realm, rather than the legal, this is still debatable. It is useless to have an argument with someone, when all your points depend on an assumption that they do not accept, even if your assumption is legally correct.
To a person who views a fetus as a human life, they are not putting the fetus above the woman, they are holding the two as equals. So it would make sense that the woman's wish for the kind of life that she wants to have, does not get to override the fetus's right to have a life at all.
The only time that the issue of a fetus "outranking" a woman would even begin to be broached is if there were pregnancy complications that put the woman's life at risk. And that is something that even staunch pro-lifers do not agree on. There are many, many, people who advocate banning abortions except for when the pregnancy risks the woman's life.
This is the same with murder. You can't kill someone else, no matter how much of an evil scumbag they are, unless it is in self defense, which is the point when their right to life is infringing on your right to life. But their right to life gets to infringe on all of your other rights. This does not make other people more priveleged than you, it makes them equal.
So I would apply the "since when do we hold fetus's rights above women's rights" argument only to people who advocate no abortions for anyone, no matter what. Once you get away from the most extreme ends of pro life, that argument starts to make a lot less sense. I still agree with your argument on its own, I just don't think it really addresses what you're responding to.
And again, I am just explaining a viewpoint that exists, not agreeing with it. I happen to believe that a fetus is not a human life, based on a lot of time studying developmental psychology. But I really should not need this disclaimer to validate my point.
So if you define words to have whatever meaning you want, regardless of reality, you can avoid cognitive dissonance and the feeling of being an immense hypocrite. It's just that easy, folks!
wait wait wait...
The only thing all members of Feministing know is that one woman cannot speak for all women, and feminism is not a monolith, but in fact a collection of different viewpoints.
I say this as somebody who is hardcore pro-choice.
A person who is pro-life can be pro-woman, for example, if he or she decides to focus his or her effort on lobbying for things such as:
- comprehensive sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancy
- free or low-cost contraception
- free or low-cost healthcare
- free or low-cost childcare
- reasonable alternatives to abortion, such as adoption
I would call all of the above very pro-woman, but also pro-life, since all of the above would help reduce demand for abortion.
I kind of feel like not having the capacity to choose rather or not to carry a pregnancy to term would make equality among gender and all sexes impossible. I think that I define feminism pretty broadly, but how can you be a feminist if you don't believe in equality in that sense? It's something I have difficulty with. Some people argue that the fetus deserves equal rights, but I don't care about the fetus. I'm a feminist. I put women first, ideologically. I would love to hear what a supposed pro-life feminist (not a troll) has to say, but I doubt we'll find too many around here.
I agree with this. You can be a feminist and anti-abortion, but you cannot be a feminist and believe in outlawing abortion. Legal abortion has to exist, or else women's bodies are no more their own than slaves. Even with all that other stuff like better access to contraception and childcare, that doesn't mean women's bodies should become property of the government. If women don't have the freedom not to be pregnant, then they aren't free at all.
- reasonable alternatives to abortion, such as adoption
I just have to say that adoption is not an alternative to abortion. It's an alternative to parenting.
Abortion is an alternative to pregnancy. Other than prevention of a pregnancy in the first place, you're not going to find other alternatives.
Adoption does absolutely zilch for a woman who does not want to undergo a pregnancy.
I'm not trying to harp on you, personally. I just think this is a point that needs to be clarified in the overall debate.
On the topic: I think you can be (personally) pro-life and pro woman. That is: you are not anti legal abortion and you work toward reducing the number of abortions through the scenarios you described.
But to work toward making abortion illegal is not a pro-woman move. It does a disservice to women who do not want to to be pregnant or give birth. Even if we get better education, family planning, and more and easier access to contraception, there will still be women who do not want to be pregnant. And no contraception is 100% effective.
I agree with feminanimal's statement: "I kind of feel like not having the capacity to choose rather or not to carry a pregnancy to term would make equality among gender and all sexes impossible."
That is all true, and I agree with you. My apologies for projecting my views on anyone who doesn't share them.
I would like to clarify, though, what I was really trying to get at by saying that you can't be pro-life (meaning anti-choice/against abortion, only less harsh) and pro-woman. Being pro-life, and actively trying to convince people and the government to pass legislation that would restrict abortion (or worst case scenario, ban it) you completely devalue the lives of the women who will end up with unwanted pregnancies and fetuses using their bodies against their will for 9 months. Or, other end of the spectrum, you will end up with a sharp rise in cases of women dying or causing themselves serious and lasting bodily harm from trying to self-abort. That is not pro-life, and it certainly isn't pro-woman.
However, I do think that in the example you gave, where a pro-life pro-woman person lobbied instead for covered childcare, birth control, health care, etc. it would be possible to be both pro-life and pro-woman.
Can we please stop using the term pro-life?? I'd say I'm pro-life in that I am against the death penalty, murder, and war. However, I do not agree that a fetus constitutes a human life with human rights attached, so my pro-life stance does not extend to abortion. I am pro-choice AND pro-life. So let's please call out these people for what they are: ANTI-CHOICE.
That's the crux of it. They may see themselves as pro-life, but anyone who disagrees that a fetus constitutes a human life cannot reasonably call these people by that label, IMHO.
Furthermore, I would agree with several of the posters who have pointed out that you can view abortion as a bad thing and still be a feminist. For example, I have never seen the following scenario:
"Oh Sally, where are you skipping to?"
"I'm off to have an abortion - oh happy day!!"
There are also many people who would not personally undergo abortions because they're in a position (and want) to carry the pregnancy to term. These people may (personally) be against abortion, but still support women's rights. They are, therefore, PRO-CHOICE despite being anti-abortion. i.e. They don't like abortion, they may even think abortion is wrong, but they're not going to limit access because they are unable to judge other womens' positions in life.
To compare this to another medical procedure: I think personally think cosmetic surgery is a negative thing in our society, and would probably not undergo it myself (except for in extreme circumstances), but I also would not advocate banning it because I believe women should be in control of their bodies.
Not a perfect analogy, I know, but replace "cosmetic surgery" with "abortion", and you would have someone who is both anti-abortion and pro-choice, just as I'm anti-cosmetic surgery and pro-choice.
I should probably add that this hypothetical belief would also have to extend to not judging others for undergoing the procedure, but I think that goes hand in hand with believing women should have the right to choose for themselves.
Gah, another short post which ended up being long.
However, I do not agree that a fetus constitutes a human life with human rights attached, so my pro-life stance does not extend to abortion.
I LOVE LOVE LOVE this sentence. It cuts right to the chase, and clobbers a whole bunch of straw men on both sides of the debate. Please plaster this in as many places as you can.
I'm a feminist who favors banning (most) abortions. I realize that enforced pregnancies are a harm to women. But it also seems to me that abortions are usually a more serious harm to female fetuses. Just because a female is non-rational does not make her non-female. Nor does a lack of rationality make something worthy of being marginalized. I think that the feminist call for justice applies to all marginalized groups--homosexuals, people of color, the disabled (even those who are non-rational due to disability), animals, and fetuses. I'm not saying these things to be offensive or cause trouble, they are just where my mind and heart are at right now.