So, recently I've been following Meghan McCain. I didn't really pay much attention to her during the campaign; I had heard she was writing her Blogette, but I didn't know much about her besides that she was John McCain's daughter. But when she spoke out against Laura Ingraham's comments about her weight, I started to pay attention. As a young woman writer who is about my age, I thought it was pretty cool that she was pro-body image and so secure with herself. I know that we differ a lot of many issues, but I still think she's a cool and admirable gal.
I began following her on Twitter and saw that she was guest-hosting the view, so I made sure to catch that episode. They asked her if she was pro-choice and she said that she was pro-life, but then said she doesn't plan to have children. Assuming she is not abstinent, wouldn't that mean she is pro-birth control? If she wants to decide for herself when and if she wants to have children, shouldn't she be supportive for other women to have those same choices?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Meghan McCain, Pro-Life?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13275
I think that's just a difference between whether she thinks abortion is killing a person or not. There are a lot of pro-life people who believe that birth control doesn't count as murder, and who might be on the pill but if something went wrong would not have an abortion.
I personally am pro-choice, because I think a woman's body is her body. Just stating what I think she's probably thinking.
Indeed, the general understanding of the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" really refers only to the termination of pregnancies. Birth control is an entirely different issue, though if you are anti-birth control, it may not be surprising you would try to conflate that with abortions.
If we are reasonable, honest people, I would expect we can all agree that before fertilization, anything that avoids fertilization should be morally fine (realistically, it is impossible to avoid disgarding a lot of sperm and eggs anyhow), and that (assuming you are in a society where children can easily be given away for adoption, such as the one I am in) once the child is an entity onto itself, that terminating it is not an ethical option. Between these points, we can disagree as reasonable people. That I could have no problems with condoms, but be very uneasy about an abortion after contractions have begun is not ethically inconsistant. Dividing people into two diametrically opposed camps will necessarily end up mispresenting them.
"and that (assuming you are in a society where children can easily be given away for adoption, such as the one I am in) once the child is an entity onto itself, that terminating it is not an ethical option."
I don't see why reasonable, honest people have to agree with that. I don't think an "entity onto itself" has any right to use another's body, and forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she likes it's just unethical, it's downright amoral.
Please read more closely what I have said. It should be clear that "an entity on to itself" is being contrasted to "still dependent upon another body". At least coarsely speaking, I am talking about after the child is born. This may seem like an unnecessary distinction to make, but I am talking about what the limits off what can be considered reasonable, so (many) people may find them a bit silly to set out. The overall point is more or less when the child just does not need you any more (so I contrast this societal settings to others, where the child might be necessarily dependent upon the parents after birth).
I'm really diggin' Meghan McCain lately- she sounds like a voice that could really finally bring the Republican party out of the Stone Ages and into reality, which is something I really hope for. I've been driven away by all this religious-right crud that's taken hold, but she and I are on the same page.
Anyways, as per reproductive rights:
"McCain said she thinks the 'morning after' contraceptive pill should be readily available, along with education about birth control in general. She said the Republican Party needs to accept people with similar positions if it is to thrive, the newspaper said."
From: http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2009/04/24/Meghan-McCain-to-Karl-Rove-Go-away/UPI-73041240548633/
I myself am not really decided on abortion (though I tend more towards pro-choice), but I respect anybody who is pro-life and also wholeheartedly pro-birth control and pro-comprehensive sex-ed.
The only reason anyone cares what Meghan McCain thinks about politics is because her father is John McCain. Maybe if she had emerged sometime other than right after Sen. McCain's failed presidential bid she could be taken seriously, but as it is she's just riding his coattails. See also: Caroline Kennedy.
It's probably true that the reason she's getting attention is because of her dad, but does that invalidate her words and actions?
Its not like she had any say what family she was born into, anyways. What's she supposed to do, never leave her house so people can't say "she's just taking advantage of who her family is"?
Ms. MCCain's right to be Pro-Life is a choice. I think no one knows for certain whether she is sexually active or if she practices abstinence.
( please link if she has been quoted )However, I do know I have heard /read her comment on the importance of the morning after pill and birth control.
Sophia
She is having sex and using birth control. See her semi-awkward conversation with Stephen Colbert on being "pro-sex."
(I liked the moment on the show where she was like "Oh my god, my dad is going to watch this..." and Stephen Colbert was like "No, he doesn't watch this show.")
She doesn't believe abstinence as the only option is realistic for the Republican Party and is very pro birth control and comprehensive sex ed.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/228068/may-18-2009/meghan-mccain