Dear Pro-Life Community: We Don’t Trust You. That’s Why.
Posted by madamab on July 6, 2009
Sorry, Sarah
At Violet Socks’ place, there is an incredible discussion going on regarding why mainstream feminists trashed Sarah Palin so viciously, and even made up lies about her to justify their hatred. There are about 300 comments in response. I highly recommend that you read it if you have the time.
Make no mistake, soon-to-be-ex-Governor Palin can easily be legitimately criticized on the issues. As a liberal, I don’t agree with her on much. But the amount of manufactured outrages that were passed around, from Trig’s parentage (still going on, at least in Andrew Sullivan’s diseased mind) to the rape kit smear to the banning books smear, all passed on by feminists…it is utterly baffling to Dr. Socks. Why all the hatred and vitriol for this woman? Why couldn’t they just tell the truth about her and have done with it?
Although there was no doubt some elitism involved (her accent! her lack of Ivy leage education! that hair!), to me, the answer is clear, and comes down to one word: Pro-Life.
It is an unfortunate reality that people in the pro-life movement have been the source of a great deal of pain for American women in the past few decades. They are the ones who develop smear campaigns to label us pro-abortion (we are not; no one is!) instead of pro-choice; and of course, there is a whole “abortion is murder” meme that has been extremely successful, even to the point that people in the pro-choice community believe it.
But the name-calling is not the worst of it; not by a long shot.
Legislatively speaking, the pro-life movement has done its very best to make it impossible for women to control their own reproductive organs, and they continue to do so at every opportunity. From attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade and return us to the days of the coathangers and back-alley abortions, to their latest crusade against contraception (falsely conflating it with abortion) and pushing abstinence-only education (which, ironically, has led to more unwanted pregnancies and STD’s), to the heartless lies the Pope recently told about condoms and AIDs, to the senseless murder of Dr. Tiller (which the lovely Ann Coulter has characterized as “termination in the 203rd trimester“), the pro-life community has been utterly consistent in its refusal to see the massive amounts of harm it is doing to its own sisters and brothers; real, fully adult sisters and brothers who have to live with the consequences of their moral myopia.
I honestly do not see how in the world a woman can call herself a feminist, and still reserve the right to meddle in and ruin the lives of other women (and the men who love and support them). Bearing an unwanted child can be immeasurably harmful to a woman, especially if it is a child of rape. (One in every six women will be raped in her lifetime in America, so please do not tell me this is a rare occurrence.) By contrast, despite the pro-life community’s attempts to “prove” that abortion causes mental and physical harm to women, no scientific study has actually done so. I am very sorry that the pro-life movement sees abortion as murder, but it’s not. I am very sorry that the pro-life movement values the potential life of the baby over the life of the mother; however, to say I think this is ethically wrong would be an understatement.
Do I think Sarah Palin deserves the misogynistic treatment she has gotten from the feminist movement? Of course not. I have defended her from it and will continue to do so. Moreover, I like soon-to-be-ex-Governor Palin’s straightforward personality, and the only “pro-life” action she has taken as governor is to support an initiative for a parental notification law for children under 17. Given that many pro-choice people approve of parental notification (I don’t, by the way), this is hardly the action of a right-wing ideologue.
But because of the pro-life movement’s malicious intent towards me and my pro-choice sisters and brothers, I don’t blame any pro-choice person for not trusting Sarah Palin on this issue; and on a visceral level, I simply do not trust anyone who calls herself a feminist and is pro-life.
I want to; I really really want to. I would love to believe that, as the New Agenda is doing, we can put abortion and reproductive rights on the back burner and take on other issues, such as the ERA, for example. Surely if one is a feminist, one can work towards the passage of the ERA?
But not so fast; the passage of the ERA will enable women to become fully-enfranchised citizens, like men; no longer considered sub-human and subject to the whims of their “betters” in the government and in church. Just as the State would never be allowed to control a man’s reproductive organs, so then would any State control over a woman’s reproductive organs be unthinkable and illegal. Do we really believe that the pro-life movement would fight for something that would make it obsolete? I certainly don’t.
Are there pro-life men and women who think it is wrong to impose their beliefs on others? I believe that there are, and I would absolutely welcome them into any women’s group I belonged to. I personally don’t care that I disagree with them, as long as they realize that it’s none of their business what I do with my own body (and it’s none of my business what they do with theirs, either). But is there room in today’s feminism for the type of pro-life men and women who think God has given them permission to misinform my children about sex (sometimes with deadly consequences) and to prevent me from deciding whether or not I get pregnant or have an abortion? In my opinion, hell fucking no. We’ve suffered enough at their hands, haven’t we?
If pro-life and pro-choice feminists are ever to unite, then, I believe, it is the pro-life feminists who must change. As feminists, they should accept the ability of their sisters to own their bodies, and respect their rights to make their own decisions about abortion. They should stop pushing for the total outlaw of abortion, and the institution of abstinence-only education, and the ability of doctors and pharmacists to refuse healthcare to their sisters. They should condemn those in their number who murder abortion doctors and bomb clinics. And, they should stop using terms like “pro-abortion” and “murderers” to describe their pro-choice sisters and brothers.
Will they be able to do that? I hope so. After all, the pro-choice community doesn’t lobby the federal government to control the amount of children women can bear. We may find the “Quiverfull” crowd misogynistic in the extreme, but we recognize that this is a free country, and we, as a movement, don’t try to pass legislation to push our beliefs onto them.
It is they who should do the outreach, because after more than thirty years of malicious aggression against pro-choice women and men, we don’t trust them. And we shouldn’t.
Pro-life sisters and brothers, you have a lot of work to do. Are you up for it?
helenk said
I thought this post would fit right it. It is from the new agenda.
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/07/06/taking-sexism-seriously-feminisms-crash-of-2008/
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
SHV said
regarding why mainstream feminists trashed Sarah Palin (Hillary Clinton) so viciously,
******
Until “feminists” figure that out, 51% will just be a number.
madamab said
Well, SHV, there are certainly a lot of hypotheses out there. What’s making me a bit upset is that in our zeal to chastise the horrible sexism unleashed on Palin, we seem to be forgetting that we who are pro-choice have very real problems with the pro-life community. Those problems will not go away because we ignore the issue. They will only go away when the pro-life community stops attacking us and our rights to control our own bodies.
I won’t be holding my breath on that one.
taggles said
Yes, I have seen pro choice women willing to cave on this issue for the sake of what, I have no idea.
but you are absolutely right, the compromise must come from both sides and I can’t ever see the pro life side ever ever helping us with issues that have helped women.
Controlling our own bodies is the only victory we have had in 30 years and to just let that go away because it’s divisive is giving into the fundies.
They will never work on the ERA with us. They believe it will codify abortion and gay marriage!
What are we doing? We need to re think this entire 4th wave thingy!
Thanks for the great post, MB!
SHV said
our zeal to chastise the horrible sexism unleashed on Palin,
***********
I was thinking about the sexism unleashed against Hillary which I have watched since 1982. And at least early on, women were as bad as or worse then men. “Her hair, her glasses, her eye-brows, she doesn’t look like a governors wife, she is a terrible mother…blah..blah..”
As far a choice goes, it’s going. It may not be the only issue for “feminists” but the new “touchy-feeleeee” that there is “common ground and we can agree to disagree” with “pro-life” (gag me) women is the path to disaster for reproductive rights and will lead to the re-establishment of state mandated, forced child birth.
These topics are very thin ice for a male to be skating on. :>)
madamab said
You’re welcome, taggles!
I have nothing against Republican women being feminists. Many of the more libertarian ones (like Afrocity) are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. I think Meghan McCain might be in the same mode. I would be thrilled to see the Repubs throwing the fundies out and embracing equal rights for all Americans. The problem is, the fundies will probably land in the Dem Party – especially with Obama at the helm!
madamab said
That’s okay, SHV – skate away! You are absolutely right. (The reason I was talking about Palin and not Clinton is simply that the discussion at Dr. Socks’ place is about Palin.)
If we don’t acknowledge that men who support us can be feminists too, we are excluding a lot of wonderful allies and friends. IMHO.
taggles said
I am not speaking of republican women who are pro choice. there are some. they are not the people we would be trying to work with in this strategy.
The ONLY people we are trying to shelve the choice issue for is the pro life camp.
And it is a terrible strategy!
la-t-da said
I have made my peace and piece. They are down thread. My Scorpio has spoken and I can’t deny her anymore. She has been with me since day one.
la-t-da said
I’m going to read your thread now, MB, and ponder it as I do may errands for the day. Everyone take care out there. Sarah team and all.
SHV said
If we don’t acknowledge that men who support us can be feminists too
********
I think men can be “fellow travelers” with feminism but can’t be a feminists, anymore than I, as a male, can “really” have an opinion on abortion. (If that makes any sense)
carolinenotakennedy said
I will not stop speaking up for choice. Maybe the pro-life group should shelf their own agenda so we could work together.
My pro-choice agenda is just as much apart of my belief system as their pro-life agenda is to them.
There is much work left to do on pro-choice, especially at the state level. The fundies are coming after choice through the back door of the states and also by keeping access to providers and clinics near non-existent.
Great post madamab!
Pat Johnson said
As an older version of feminist, I am probably too stupid to be able to properly address this issue. But the differences between pro lifers and pro choicers is vast and there is no common ground and I don’t care how delicately or well meaning it is characterized.
Pro life means just that. No excuses, no reasons legal or otherwise, no inch given if they had their way. They may appear to offer a “sliver” of consideration now and then but it is all for show but it is nothing but a show of political expediency.
Whereas pro choice offers the option to set the course of your own destiny, either to terminate or go full term. The decision rests solely with you and your medical provider. No interference or provisions allowed.
As I see it, there really is no “blending” of the positions since one is established on the grounds of liberalism and the other is faith based. For so called liberal women, who have fought for the right to choose their own reproductive rights, it is a sad and dangerous course to think for a minute that an mutual agreement can be hatched out of these two groups coming together.
They are forfeiting the one thing that allows them a sense of domination over their own bodies and thinking otherwise is a giant step back IMHO. Pro lifers have an agenda and they are never going to give ground. Pro choicers are deluded into thinking otherwise.
taggles said
Palin on the choice:
http://www.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/44943.html
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/130090
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5789483&page=2
http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/ffl-member-sarah-palin-vp.htm
Fredster said
That discussion over at Reclusive Leftist has been fascinating to say the least. I was reading it last night and they were up to 240+ comments. I see I’ll have to go back to catch up.
madamab said
Thanks, CarolineNAK!
Helenk – thanks for that link to TNA. It was a good article, although my anal Virgo side was wishing for better editing.
JeanLouise said
madamab, I’m pro-choice but I think you’re asking the impossible of anti-choice women. Just as I would never accept the right of a woman to kill her two-year-old child, those who believe that a fetus is the same as a child will never cave on the issue.
Zee said
Madamab, you left out one of the worst aspects of this multi-faceted front, and that is the “church rule” —the pharmacists who “object” on grounds of “conscience” handing out legal contraceptives and morning after pills.
in fact, things like the morning after pill could make abortion “rare and safe.”
There are some socially “liberal” republicans who are for gay and reproductive rights.
then there are a few of us older dems, who were tossed out as unnecessary who are not “capitulating” on the reproductive front…we’re dumping it on the laps of those who were sooooooooo sure we’re living in a post-sexist world and that obama is what a “feminist looks like.”
it’s the young folks battle, i’m no longer lifting one finger for the generation which has made MTV reality shows their priority.
Zee said
one more thing…yes, maybe there are those trying to say women could unite if they set aside this one issue…and yes, maybe it’s a delusion…but it’s worth noting that the LEADERS of the militant “pro-life” movement, and the doctor-murderers are invariably men.
madamab said
JeanLouise – no, I am not asking them to give up their beliefs. I am asking them to stop imposing their beliefs on ME and my sisters.
If they can’t stop attacking my right to control my own body, then they are my enemies and I will treat them as such.
taggles said
So, pro choice women should cave, Jean Louise??
That is the question I have been asking, and to achieve what?
SYD said
For me, the problem of the day is NOT that I don’t trust “pro-lifers.” I never have. So that one’s easy.
The problem is that I trust “pro-choicers” even less. Day by day, they are giving away my daughter’s rights to fair, just, and equal treatment … as they promote that the only right she now (or will ever) need, is the right to an abortion.
This is new for me. I used to be of the mind that “pro-choicers” had their heads on straight…..
Quite frankly, it is painful to lose who I believed to be my life long allies in the struggle for equality.
taggles said
There are an awful lot of men, Zee, but there are just as many militant anti choice women. Give me a second I’ll go dig up the story on the woman who shot Dr. Tiller in both of his arms.
samanthasmom said
Some thoughts -
My daughter is a grown woman and a mother in her own right. As a minor she needed my permission to get her ears pierced or a tattoo. (I said yes to the pearl studs, no to the butterfly. By the time she was old enough to get the tattoo herself, she had changed her mind.) The doctor couldn’t have taken her tonsils out without my permission. Given that an abortion is a medical procedure that might require follow up medical care, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for parents to expect to be notified if their underage daughter has had an abortion. I didn’t say give permission – I said be notified. I know that many young girls fear telling their parents, and may be justified in that fear, but I don’t think we solve that problem by performing medical procedures on minors behind their parents’ back. I don’t have any friends with minor daughters who support their having an abortion without notification, and I don’t think I live in a vacuum.
As far as pro-choice vs. pro-life feminists goes, there is a broad spectrum of pro-choice women. I personally believe that abortion is taking the life of a child, and I can think of few instances where I would have made that choice, but I respect another woman’s right to make that choice for herself. I do think that many women refuse to accept that an abortion is taking a life because it is a way of rationalizing doing it, but for the most part I keep those thoughts to myself. That being said, I am turned off by “feminists” who believe that the right to have an abortion is the cornerstone of feminism. I would work hard for women to have access to safe, reliable, easily affordable contraception, but I would also expect them to use it so that abortion did indeed become rare. I wouldn’t work to ban abortion, but I wouldn’t work hard to make abortion easy either. The thrust of the second wave of feminism was parity in the workplace, education, and public policy. For women to achieve that, we needed control of our reproductive systems. Given the state of contraception at the time, access to abortion was critical. Roe v. Wade was a means to an end – not the end in itself. Controlling our own bodies is not the only victory we’ve had. Title IX was a big boon to women. If you went to school pre-Title IX, cheerleading was the only varsity sport for girls in many high schools and colleges. Women didn’t have access to credit in their own names, and good luck buying a house if you were a single woman.
If the main focus of the fourth wave of feminism is focused on abortion rights, then I’ll be sitting this one out. I fought for something I really didn’t believe in personally the last time to get to the things that did matter to me. It’s been pissed away and used as a dividing tool by both political parties. I’m not going back there. I’m long past needing an abortion myself, have pro-life children, and have retired from the workplace. I’ll happily fight for the ERA with you, but it’s becoming clear that you don’t want help from anyone who is not totally on board with abortion on demand. Be afraid of us if you must, but some of us are not as militant as you think we are, and it will be your loss. BTW -The ERA does not guarantee a woman’s right to have an abortion. That was one of the talking points of the Phyllis Schafly brigade 40 years ago. (That and no separate sex public bathrooms.) The ERA would guarantee that if abortions were outlawed, then men couldn’t have abortions, either. It might make same sex marriages legal, but that’s going to happen long before we get the ERA passed. The public is more ready for that than giving women equal rights.
taggles said
SYD, it’s one thing to be critical of women’s groups for not defending Sarah Palin against sexism. It is an entirely different animal to forego choice to try and work with people who will NEVER work with you on the ERA in exchange for shutting up about choice.
Zee said
“Quite frankly, it is painful to lose who I believed to be my life long allies in the struggle for equality.”
What SYD said. Not only am i not lifting one finger for the young women who will be impacted by the erosion of these rights but i’m going to be right there by their side saying, where is the Hopebringer on choice? where is he on the church rule? Maybe you’d better turn off the bridezilla shows and get a clue.
taggles said
Samanthas mom, you are leaving out one very important fact. These pro lifers, don’t want stem cell research, they don’t want sex education taught in schools, they want to limit access to contraception.
janicen said
I went to dictionary dot com and looked up “feminism”. The first definition listed says, “…the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.”
With that definition, I don’t see how it’s possible to separate the right for women to be able to make medical decisions about their bodies from other rights. “…and ALL other rights of women…”
If the word “life” in the name of the organization, Feminists for Life, means making it unlawful for women to have the freedom to make their own decisions about medical procedures, then “Feminists for Life” is an oxymoron.
madamab said
Zee, I have written countless posts on the conscience rule. I agree 100% that it is horrible, and I am furious with Obama for not signing FOCA as he promised, which would have made the “conscience rule” null and void.
Pat Johnson said
Education over the last 30 to 35 years has been derelict in preparing kids in history, social studies, and civics. They have no clear idea of how the government runs. No intuition on what went on before when it comes to feminism just that it has always been there in their time.
Few read, less more so now that the “social networking” has captured their attention and as far as technology has advanced and brought them along faster than us “older folk” they are lacking in the background and how the world actually works outside their iPOds, Blackberries,and Facebook pages. Many of these kids are unable to even name some of the elected officials in their own states let alone who sits on the SC or how a bill is passed.
What happens to fill that void is the opening that these right wing groups welcome. The ability to scare the population in assuming the loss of control over their futures and the ability to act on their own behalf. Critical thinking has been replaced by a fundamental desire to be “controlled” by a message since they have not been subjected to thinking things through on their own. The shorter the message, the easier to hold the attention span.
Right wing talking points are easier to digest since they play on the emotion rather than the cerebral so when these “new feminists” approach the issue of combining the pro life and pro choice positions as a new wave of feminism, they do so without applying logic to an emotional message.
Therefore, it is possible to be educated and ignorant at the same time if your reasoning powers have been stunted to match the curriculum. It is going to take a lot of effort to change that.
Pat Johnson said
Zee: Sorry to admit but I am addicted to Bridezilla. And Family Guy. Which just goes to show how easy it is to entertain me.
jules said
Madamab, excellent post. Your point about the ERA is a good one and I agree with Janicen. Equal rights for women cannot be achieved if women do not have reproductive freedom. Really, you hit it right on the head with this one, madamab.
taggles said
Samanthas mom, you do not understand. I would be more than willing to shut the fuck up about abortion if the anti choice crowd would, but NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! They will NEVER shut the fuck up the way I am being asked to STFU!
So to turn this around and make it look like pro choicers who believe in every womans right to make her own decision on abortion are the ones who aren’t inviting women into the movement is a downright LIE.
If pro choicers shut up, we lose! PERIOD and that is exactly what the anti choice crowd is hoping for. I am NOT falling for it.
Zee said
Yes, taggles, i’m sure there are women militant enough to shoot abortion doctors…but my point is that it’s actually a MAN’s movement. Back when I attended NOW meetings, they were always protested by and interrupted by those “fathers rights” groups. there was always a woman or two amongst them, but essentially it’s a man’s movement.
I think samantha’smom articulates best the type of women who do want to build bridges. We need to recognize that the militant, violent and yes, legislative-agenda pro-life movement is a MAN”S movement. Their poster boy is Bob Barr who advocates that everyone involved go to jail for baby-killing…but who drove his second wife to get an abortion and paid for it when it suited him to dump her and their unborn offspring so as to move on to wife #3.
taggles said
Zee, samantha’s mom does not want to build bridges. She suggests that abortion be put on the back burner. For what and for whom???
Please answer me thsse questions.
They will not work for ERA. They believe it codifies abortion and gay marriage into the constitution. It will be framed that way and we will be where we were at the beginning, but probably in a worse spot, because we would have given up the fight as to not seem so divisive and one issue oriented.
Pat Johnson said
Why is it so difficult to understand that what might not work for you but could work for me is something that needs discussion? Don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. But if I need one I should have that right without getting the permission of anyone outside of my physician.
To impede my choice, which is something that should never be made public in the first place, that should not require a stamp of approval by anyone else.
I am unable to understand that simple reasoning. I refuse to be enslaved by the thinking of people who “don’t approve”.
madamab said
Samanthasmom, if you accept the right of others to have an abortion, then you are pro-choice enough for me, personally.
If the current “pro-life” initiative succeeds, there will be an increase in abortions, because they do not want access to contraception.
As for the ERA, it would prevent discrimination due to gender. If preventing women from controlling their own bodies isn’t discrimination due to gender, then I don’t know what is.
Zee said
oh, Pat. oh, no. not family guy, too.
well, well, we all have our junk “comfort” food and also our junk comfort viewing, too. For me it’s vienna sausages.
madamab said
To me, there is no “moral” position that justifies the State being able to control my body. Trust me, there is no way in h*ll that the “pro-life” community would accept the State telling them how many children they can have. It is a civil rights issue, and the ultimate one, IMHO.
Zee said
taggles…we are going so far backwards that our society’s fabric is made up of fratboys who see nothing wrong with reducing female politicians to their body parts — i am speaking of mainstream media newsrooms.
Who elected Obama? the bridezilla generation. Who did he appoint as HEAD OF DNC? A prolifer! Who just recently approved the state of VA to issue “choose life” license plates!
Who the HELL is going to fight this fight? The older progressive women who are menopausal anyway? Why the dipshits who elected obama buy magazines that thrill “this is what a feminst looks like????” the very sexist pig who partners with prolifers and antigay activists?
I will stand by the gay community and fight alongside them, and i will denounce ALL of the sexism that got us into this mess in the first place, but i’ll be damned if i stir my aching bones for the young brats who still have no clue that obama is not going to “save” choice…far from it! obama quickly threw a sop on the global gag rule, but after that, choice and equality are “not a priority.”
it’s up to the ones whut brought him to dance with obama. they broke the progressive unity, they can fix it.
if they want control over their own bodies, let them do the work to preserve choice. they didn’t get all a-twitter over pro-life kaine being appointed to head of DNC did they? they must be a-ok with it then.
looks like they MADE their “choice.”
Pat Johnson said
madamab: Exactly. Human rights is civil rights is equal rights. If that theory was just outright accepted we could all live in peace. Instead we have to constantly be on guard from the “Mrs. Kravitz’s” of the world peeking through the blinds and telling the rest how to control their bodies.
If only we could have a Samantha who could just “twitch” her away.
Zee said
oopa..”while the dipshits….”
taggles said
Yeah, no kidding Zee, that is why we have to be ever vigilant about choice. I see people whom I know are feminists ready to walk away from choice to work with people who would never dream of giving up their morals.
It is a way to work their way into the pro choice community and minimize choice for women. We must be very careful not to do that in the name of doing something good, which is defending every single woman from sexism, black, green, white, yellow, republican, democrat, libertarian.
That doesn’t mean we become weak on choice.
madamab said
Hee, Pat – I loved “Bewitched!”
And I love “Family Guy” too. The sheer ridiculousness of the show tickles my funny bone.
;-D
Pat Johnson said
taggles: Or set aside our vigilance and not raise the questions. Silence in the face of appeasement is the surest way to outlawing what has been won.
No way!!
taggles said
what’s really funny here, is that if you take a jaunt around our familiar blogs, you will see that if you have this opinion, you are the one who is no longer a feminist, because you can see what a failed strategy this could turn out to be.
It is awful. If you are pro choice and you see the importance, you are the stubborn, unwilling one. Not the anti choicer believe in just one choice, their choice and want to force that on every single other woman.
Pat Johnson said
madamab: And so, so irreverent! I just ordered a set of pajama’s for my step grandaugher who loves the show. They are stamped all over with “Stewie”. She is a 26 yr old clinical pharmacist whom until this past Christmas never revealed her love of that awful showm when we both admitted our “guilty pleasure” to one another.
Hilarious!
madamab said
As many know, I posted at The New Agenda for a while. However, that group is intent on putting the issue of reproductive freedom on the back burner. After a while, I felt like there was a hand over my mouth every time I wanted to say something. I couldn’t even mention birth control!
I personally think they are on the wrong track. I tried to work within that framework, but found that I was being asked to give up too much of myself in order to appeal to people who think I am an amoral murderer.
Sorry, no can do.
helenk said
One thing that always scared me as the mother of daughters that they would not come to me if they got pregnant. What I explained to them was ” God forbid that it would happen but if it did they needed medical attention”. When we got past the yelling stage we would work together so that if they wanted an abortion we would get a good medical doctor to perform it operation. If they wanted to have the baby they would have good medical attention during and after the birth. The baby would be loved, welcomed and taken care of from birth on until the parents were in a position to take care of the baby.
I have seen teenagers so afraid to tell parents that they had the baby at home and that is when the parents found out. This is dangerous to both mother and child.
How many babies are discarded at birth by mothers too afraid to ask for help.
Some states now have a safe haven law where babies can be taken to hospitals or fire houses and they will be taken care of but not all states have that law.
When I was in school abortion was not legal and a girl in classes ahead of me was taken for an illegal abortion by her mother, the girl died because it was not a safe procedure in a sterile environment.
When children are taken care of by society when parents for some reason can not take care of them then maybe we will not need abortion. But for now the pro-life want the birth but condemn the child.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
taggles said
mb, i understand. I at one time thought this could be a way to get women to work together on the ERA. But I do not believe the New Agenda will be able to do that, because it will put abortion back on the burner in their organization.
I do not think their strategy is a good idea any longer.
Asking one side, who has won one of the most important feminist battles to shut up and work on other things, that the other side will not work with us on is mind boggling.
taggles said
Did TNA even come out with a statment on George Tillers murder??
madamab said
Amen, Helenk!
Zee said
Actually, taggles, I think we’re caught in a social riptide that can’t be directly fought or we would exhaust our resources and die. It’s not “going along to get along”—it’s sidestepping the current. If you know the analogy i’m making you have to swim parallel to your goal (the shore) to get out of a riptide.
The obots are letting themselves be carried out to sea because they are that clueless they don’t even know they’re in a riptide that is NOT going to bring them the to the shore of change and progress they thought they were headed for. they aren’t even fighting it because they think they’ve done their part by defeating the evil mccain and palin (and inexplicably before that, the evil hillary clinton).
Did Rick Warren and Tim Kaine give them a clue? nope.
But thanks to them we’re all in this riptide together and the ONLY thing that will kill you is fighting it. The only way to survive one is to swim parallel to the shore or let it carry you out to sea….then you have a long haul back, but you will at least be free of it.
now why should we fight for rights that OBAMA is eroding? i say, let the obots get swept out and eventually even they will realize they can’t see the shore anymore. those of us who realized early on and swam sideways will be waiting on shore for them and then we can say to them “what took you so long?”
It’s futile to blame palin for a MAN’s movement…and it is a man’s movement, from the doctor-murderers and bob barrs to the obamas and kaines.
you can’t fight what you can’t even see…you have to know the big picture. And the big picture is that the young obots think they’ve done their part and saved the world by installing a man whose opening salvos were direct hits to gays and choice. helping them “fight” sarah palin is not going to save choice.
taggles said
I will not chance it zee, you cannot get rights lost back easily.
I am NOT blaming Palin for a man’s movement. Palin belongs to Feminists for Life. She gets votes using these issues.
I am not going to give Sarah Palin breaks that I wouldn’t give Barack Obama.
The similarities in their strategies are very cunning.
taggles said
I am every single day fighting obama on these issues. the gay community has seemed to re awakened. I can hope the women’s groups will as well.
The battle is not giving up. It is fight for what’s right.
taggles said
I saw through barack obama on women and LGBT issues. I read, listened, watched.
Many like us, chose to do the right thing. And we protest voted.
I can see through Sarah Palin on these issues. I read, listen and watch.
She has got conservative christians, a huge voting block convinced she is their saviour.
She has got feminists convinced that she is lying to the conservative christians.
Sounds a lot like Barack Obama to me.
madamab said
Taggles – I don’t know. I am on my BB here.
I don’t think Palin has an Obama strategy. She is upfront about what she believes. Her statements are unequivocal. Not so Obama, who has said one thing and done the exact opposite so many times, it’s just exhausting to contemplate.
It is his strategy to obfuscate and confuse so much that no one knows where he stands on anything, in order to remain that “blank screen upon which others project their desires.” I don’t see that from Palin.
chatblu said
I am conflicted about this> I am absolutely pro-choice. I do, however, have a number of friends who are as absolutely pro-life as I am pro-choice. I have worked with them on a number of economic issues that could only be described as “equal” and “feminist”. I think that there has to be some wiggle room in the definition of feminist, and that it cannot be pro nor con based solely on abortion.The feminism that I worked on in the k\le sixties and early seventies was economic in its basis.
Zee said
We must be very careful not to do that in the name of doing something good, which is defending every single woman from sexism, black, green, white, yellow, republican, democrat, libertarian.
That doesn’t mean we become weak on choice.
=================================
This is very important, taggles! you are dead right here….but i still think you are underestimating the possibility of redefining “choice”so that it truly evolves for these other parties. how many libertarians, male or female know that Ron Paul, for all his big talk on small government and defending the constitution is for AMENDING the constitution to give embryos “personhood?”
I think eventually the young Republican women, like Meghan McCain will come around to socially accepting gay marriage, choice, etc.
I’m not so sure we have to maintain “vigilant” opposing camps. And after the revolting behavior from the progressive youth and their utter blindness, deafness and mute acceptance of their Hopebringer’s alliances with antigay and antichoice factions…a LOT of it implemented into policy by his expanded faith-based office!…i’m certainly in no mood to hold the line and fight for THEM. When they’ve come to their senses and start to fight for themselves….and fight the right targets, i’ll be there.
Besides, it’ll be so much more fun when they’re pulling their own weight…and when they KNOW we told them so, whether it’s ever admitted or not.
taggles said
Zee, people who believe in choice are our friends. I am not talking about them. I am not talking about pro choice republicans, pro choice democrats, or pro choice libertarians.
I am talking about a huge mass of people who want to do away with choice and make their one choice my only option.
Again, by shelving choice who are we looking to attract? If all these other groups believe in choice, no problemo, right? So why go soft on it?
taggles said
MB, if she is so upfront, why do I hear people saying she will not force her will on us and people are ready to accept the status quo on this while others savage our rights?
Zee said
ok, people…enough of all these important and interesting conversations on the engrossing issues facing us these days!
dang, why can’t we all agree to discuss this at 4 am instead?
Zee said
oh, darn you taggles!!!! hold on….i hear you….
taggles said
chatblu, remember pro choice means a woman can believe and do what she wants with her body.
no one will force them to have an abortion, no one will tell them they can only have two children, a boy and a girl and if they don’t have that specically they must abort until they reach the desired quota.
taggles said
Also, if the debate on ERA heats up and all your pro-life friends decide that it will put abortion into the constitution what will happen then.
What are we looking to work with them on?
madamab said
Sorry, chatblu, I think that focusing only on economic issues is missing the boat.
Everything stems from the Constitutional recognition of our personhood: I.e., the ERA. I have to admit that I see the failure to focus on the ERA as a huge failure of feminism so far.
And Zee, you are a lot more optimistic than I am. I don’t know if the Obots will ever fight for their rights without being led to it by us!
JeanLouise said
Sorry for the delay in responding but I’ll try to clarify my point, madamab. If there existed a law that made it okay for women to kill their children up to two years of age, I would work against that law with all of my heart and ability. I’m saying that that’s how anti-choice people feel. They are not going to change their minds unless they are personally confronted by the situation and have an epiphany.
Taggles, I’m not suggest that pro-choice women cave on anything. I am pro-choice but I don’t need everyone that I work with to agree with me on this issue. I understand that control of our reproductive system is basic to our freedom. I also understand that women who disagree with us on that issue can be powerful advocates for fair pay and representation in government and policy. I don’t care if the person who is proposing affordable child care is pro- or anti-choice. I care that the person agrees with me on the need for affordable child care.
Refusing to work with people who are anti-choice on issues which we share is a mistake, imo.
JeanLouise said
That should be “suggesting”.
taggles said
But in order for them to work with you, they must believe you are not a murderer louise. And sorry, they will not work with you on issues if they feel you are their enemy because you believe in pro choice.
Now other pro choice women, women who would never have an abortion themselves, but allow for the choice of other women to have them will. And that is the definition of choice.
taggles said
That is the reason for TNA. Shelve choice to work on other issues.
I disagree with that strategy immensely and I think it is a death knell for feminism. I believe the right to have autonomy over my body the most important issue and we have won it and we are now looking to negotiate it away for legislation, not a constitutional amendment, legislation that can be re written and fought about for the ages to come.
chatblu said
mad, I do not disagree with you on the importance of choice., I lost a sorority sister to a backstreet ab and I’ve cared for my fair share of women with florid infections from same. I can, however, work with people on purely economic issues whether they are pro-choice or pro-life. I guess that you could call it co-belligerence. I can work with them on some issues without agreeing on all issues.
chatblu said
Mad, please release me from moderation. (singing) Please release me, let me go-ooo-ooooo!
SHV said
Zee, I have written countless posts on the conscience rule.
*************
President Barack Obama said today that he still favors a “robust” federal policy protecting health-care workers who have moral objections to performing some procedures, even though he plans to roll back a Bush administration rule that expanded such protection.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/02/president_voices_support_for_c.html
This is almost worse than “anti-abortion”…..No health care personal are going to be forced to perform abortions…never has, never will happen.
What I have seen happen is a woman needs an emergency C-section at night and also want her tubes ligated at the same time…the on-call anesthesiologist won’t put a patient to sleep for a tubal…the woman is SOL and has to come back for another surgery or more likely has another pregnancy.
The ER Doc won’t give Plan-B to the rape victim, the pharmacist won’t fill BC ’script, won’t fill Methotrexate ’scprit to treat ectopic pregnancy, and on and on.
There is no compromise with these people, for them the goal is 100%.
samanthasmom said
I made a point of saying that I’m for safe, reliable, accessible, and affordable contraception, and I bet there are more women who are anti-abortion, but pro-contraception, than the media lets on. Remember, this is “divide the women any way you can” at work. I’m excited about the possibilities that stem cell research provides, but do not want to see a day when babies are routinely conceived and aborted to provide stem cells. I hope that never happens so I support some government regulation, but not a ban. My son is a cancer survivor, and after the book “My Sister’s Keeper” came out, friends asked me if I would have had another child if he needed a bone marrow transplant and had no match. I’m glad to say that it didn’t come up because that would have been a very difficult decision. My husband and I were certainly past wanting another child at that point, but it would have been doable. Would it have been the right thing to do? I don’t know. How would it feel to be a child 17 years younger than your closest sibling and know you were born for the parts you could provide? How could I not have done everything in my power to save my son? I think that most women have had to make decisions that are difficult. We shouldn’t let how we decided divide us.
I personally believe that if we make support for abortion on demand the litmus test for the next “feminist club”, we’re going to lose the ERA again. Even Hillary Clinton says she wants abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare”. I bet you could sell that to a lot of conservative women. You work on safe and legal, and let them work on the supports needed for more women to be able to choose to have their babies. Together we could work on passing the ERA. The more I read blog entries from traditional pro-choice feminists, the more I shrug my shoulders and think, “The definition of insanity is doing things the same you’ve always done them and expecting different results.” Divide and conquer the women lost us the ERA last time and the White House. Yea, let’s do it some more.
taggles said
Samanthas mom, who is dividing women on choice?
fuzzybeargville said
I want to thank all of you for presenting you opinions about choice. this is a great discussion I wish the militants on the anti-choicers side would realize thay are all “Mrs Kravits” and MYOB.
Their position is illogical and devoid of critical thinking. If they have want, desire, or need to force their beliefs on others/us then they cannot complain when others force their beliefs on them even at the end of a bayonet point.
Such intrusions are the first step to tyranny and injustice and totalitarianism. I can bet they, The Militants anti-choicers are for that.
These groups are for less government in liberal social issues and for more goverment involvment in moral issues. Again Illogical.
Wonda Sykes said “If you dont like gay marriage then do not marry a gay man…” the same could be said for pregancy termination(the medical term of the procedure). To me using the word Abortion is giving into the anti-choicers who wish, desire, and need to turn a medical procedure into a moral conundrum.
We need to attack back saying we dont belive in Abortions either(the moral term) we believe in the medical right of a woman to pregnancy termination(again the medical term for the procedure). We do not accept the anti-choicers stance this is a moral issue that is emotional and illogical.
What this really is about is preventing women from having access to a safe legal medical procedure as part of a quality healthcare system. that is all this is. It is not emotional on my part I would hope it would not be emotional on any of our parts
Our Opponents wish to do prevent womens access to this procedure for their own petty reasons. reason which are emotional and again not logical…
I hope I got this right Taggles Pat and Madamab.
madamab said
JeanLouise, will they stop trying to take my rights away?
If they will do that, I’ll work with them. Otherwise, they are the enemy and I refuse to pretend otherwise. Of course, anyone who is pro-life and understands that it’s none of their business what I do with my body, is all right with me.
Honestly, if I believed the moon was made of green cheese and tried to get that belief codified into law, would you support that?! But you’re fine with honoring the ridiculous and anti-scientific insistence of the pro-life community that birth control is abortion? On what basis do they get to make that decision for me? Separation of church and state ring a bell?
I just don’t get it.
Taggles – I am not responsible for what they think. I do know that her record is not anti-choice so far, so there is that.
taggles said
she is not anti choice??? She belongs to feminists for life?? That is a group that lobbies congress against choice. She has stated that she favors over turning roe v. wade and letting states decide.
Oh yeah, i’m all for letting states decide what I do with my body.
madamab said
Fuzzy and SHV – very well said.
Samanthasmom: safe, legal and rare has failed to attract pro-lifers in the past. Although I think it’s a great frame, one which I agree with, I don’t see it attracting them today.
You are right that we women end up having to make agonizing choices. That is why it’s so frustrating when other women try to take those choices away.
taggles said
Also, her definition of feminism is fighting for the rights of those littlist sisters – in the womb!
helenk said
While we are discussing this issue backtrack is trying to sneak another through.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negotiators-under-the-gun-might-temporarily-bypass-senate-ratification-for-treaty.html
Once become a precedent.
also I now know why obots are like shrimp.
real fact #41 on my snapple cap
shrimp can only swim backward
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
taggles said
She does not support abortion in cases of rape and incest. The only time she makes allowances for it is if the life of the mother is in danger.
She opposes the use of public funds for abortions.
I happen to believe her when she spouts this garbage.
madamab said
Taggles, that’s not true. Sorry. She has talked about feminism in terms of running for office and Title IX. Yes, she is anti-choice, but what has she done to legislate that belief in Alaska? That parental notification thing is supported by many pro-choicers.
Do I want her as President, and do I trust her to have that mch power? No. I’m just saying I’m not sure how far she’d go to restrict my right to choose.
I would not vote for her for President.
taggles said
She thinks Roe v. Wade should be reversed.
What am I missing here? I think all of those statements pretty much lead to the conclusion that she is anti choice…..
I am not going to pretend that those statements mean nothing coming from her. I am not going to try and convince myself that she is playing the social conservatives. I am not going to believe that she doesn’t mean it and that she would never force her will on us.
At the very best, the status quo would remain and all the same old fights and arguments would still be operable.
taggles said
Madamab, she has no record, sound familiar????
Believe her when she tells you who she is.
Zee said
I’m long-winded, and usually think in “analogies” so i know I can be hard to “understand” especially online—but it seems I know and even agree with what you’re saying, taggles, but am either not conveying what I mean, or …you don’t get that i’ve answered this?
of course, my answer is not the same as The New Agenda’s stance. they drive me just as crazy as the Obama-loving NOW and MS magazine do.
But anyway, let me put aside my reason for shelving the issue— which is i’m cranky as hell and i’m not lifting a finger for these brats who not only installed a man who is setting women and gays back, but they’re still making excuses for him and think they’ve already done their part for a brave new world and can now sit on their stairmastered asses while the menopausal women with arthritis do all the work for the future rights of these oblivious, sneering lackwits.
Here are some less cranky reasons why it’s an ok strategy to “shelve” choice as a prominent issue:
1. no one person and no one group can cover every topic exhaustively. Should Greenpeace use their speedboats and bullhorns to shout about reproductive freedom? if a women’s group wants to focus on war (CODEPINK) or women candidates (EMILY”S LIST) are you going to demand they make abortion a prominent issue just because those are all progressive groups?
you know, that alone is enough of a reason. I personally thought The New Agenda was nuts to try to make AIDS one of their issues. hello! yes, it’s a women’s issue, but there are already groups which focus on AIDS.
likewise, if you want to work on reproductive rights, join NARAL or planned parenthood.
If a group wants to shelve differences in order to work on a narrower agenda they have in common, why not. it’s done all the time. think of the religious discussion we had here…altheists vs people of faith. another opposing ethos where the adherents will never see eye to eye, yet we can work together on other things.
2. i disagree with the idea that we can “lose” something “forever.” our rights are inherent. society always progresses. it’s not a straight line…freedom has to be fought for over and over. And yet, even so, eventually it gets to the point where humanity progresses beyond the idea of (for instance) human slavery. so it will be, one distant day, for women’s rights. Sadly distant, as two women journalists languish in a North Korean jail, for trying to spotlight human trafficking of sex slaves…something that doesn’t seem to be a “priority” in eradicating even in the so-called enlightened societies.
3. i also disagree that opposing camps always stick to a one-way street. I think people can learn from one another.
i do think that gay rights is an example of this. gays coming out of the closet, and their friends and family have wrought a change in thinking that in the long run will be taken for granted by the majority. i think the political parties will drop these divisive social issues once this happens. as far as prop 8 goes, sometimes losing a battle galvanizes a movement…and can cause those on the fence to come to new realizations as well.
So, I’m not afraid of shelving, working with others of opposite views, or even losing a battle now and then. And,
#4 —we really do need for the obots to wake up and fight their own battles. if you want it stated in a less cranky way, it’s tough love and it’s necessary for our own well-being. We need our allies to grow the frick up and fighting their battles for them while they jeer at us because an older white woman won the NOW election instead of the younger black woman is only enabling them to remain hateful and blind.
I’m gonna quit now because i can feel myself shifting into metaphor-think….
#5 ok, one more…the woman-bashing and woman-hating HAS to stop and i think that’s a priority…without the basic respect as human beings, we’re objects…and objects will never have control over their bodies if all those bodies are to the vast majority are tools for their pleasure and to sell products and to ridicule when they no longer give pleasure or sell products. Do you think we can be heard and enact change while we’re all, left and right, objects of scorn?
You shelve a divisive issue in order to work together on the most basic of rights : recognition as human. the rest will evolve. yes, it will involve fighting and a longterm fight at that, but fighting doesn’t always mean be on the constant offensive.
la-t-da said
“Zee, I have written countless posts on the conscience rule. I agree 100% that it is horrible, and I am furious with Obama for not signing FOCA as he promised, which would have made the “conscience rule” null and void.”
I didn’t read all the threads to see if anyone responded to this. (You all have been chantin’.) From the post I did the other day and did not get into enough was that parts of The Church Amendment would still be in place even with FOCA. I want to research that more. It was a male democrat who wrote that legislation and it passed 92-1. I couldn’t find out who that 1 was. Where is SHV when I need him! LOL
madamab said
Gotta go, folks – thanks for the lively discussion!
madamab said
La-t-da, that was the Bush conscience rule I was talking about. Sorry for the confusion!
fuzzybeargville said
look what the prolifers have wrought an over populated resourse depleted world…yeah I want to give them control of the moral argument.
I have come 180 degrees on this and I thank all of you for that. Believe it or not at one time I was anti-choice. When that militant killed my friend outside the Ladies Center in Pensacola and wounded my other friend his wife June Barrett I turned against them….
My reasoning was eventually based soley on logic even if at first it was based on anger and hatred and emotion. I realized that the emotional nature of the anti-choice movement would be its eventual downfall.
does this make sense?
Zee said
“But in order for them to work with you, they must believe you are not a murderer ”
this is how atheists feel around people of faith….they believe you are going to rot in hell for eternity. It’s not only offensive but it’s comical. but we’re not allowed to offend them or laugh at them.
But you know…Maragaret Atwood said it best….we got along by ognoring. ignoring is not the same as ignorance…you have to work at it.
And if you ignore the fact that religious people think you will rot in hell (well, unless they are mormon and believe they can convert you after you’ve already died) you can get along and even adore people of other faiths. But i wouldn’t marry one.
I should be careful what i say…just my luck i’d fall in love with one..!
Anyway, so WHAT if some other people think you’re a “baby-killer?” they’re also supposed to love sinners, so it’s all good!
We can work together with people of opposing views. Just don’t ask me to endure any Glenn beck groupies….!!!
taggles, i think the problem is that our progressive identity was shattered by the Trojan Ass, the fake lightbringer.
much worse to be back-stabbed by supposed allies than to warily work together with people of opposing views.
Actually, i’m grateful for the chaos, as unsettling as it’s been. we can all learn something…and i think we have a unique opportunity here. i don’t mean here, as in specifically the widdershins…i mean here at this shifting and dangerous point of time.
personally, i would’ve prefered living in boring times, starting with al gore presiding in 2000….because i prefer indolence and easy times. but given what happened it’s obvious we have a long ways to go before all the new alliances shake out.
And Sarah Palin is helping to clarify that. it would be one thing if everyone was arguing on her views…but taggles, you’re one of the only ones I’ve seen even do that. And until the raving about her body parts and the other rabid attacks die down, we can’t say it’s because she’s “dumb” and “prolife” etc— that isn’t what’ happening here.
if only…
taggles, you may take the high road, but you’re one of the only ones on it. Everyone else, from Anderson Cooper and Paul Begala on down, are on the road to idiocracy…a movie that is fast supplanting the handmaiden’s tale as our probable near-future.
Pat Johnson said
All I can add to this is that I wish we could all be in one room discussing this important issue rather than being scattered throughout the country as each voice here offer arguments based on reason as opposed to emotion.
I can only say that if I have no control over my own body than I am enslaved. Period. No other issue being brought forward, economic or otherwise, will change that or better my position unless I have first and foremost the right to choose my own place in the world.
Michael: You can always sit by me. Anytime.
Pat Johnson said
For taggles: Nomar just came to the plate and received a 5 minute standing ovation from the crowd. I had tears. Wonderful display of a sincere appreciation for one of their former best players ever to wear a Sox uniform. Very touching!
Then he was struck out by Smolz who so far is pitching a no hitter.
JeanLouise said
madamab says: But you’re fine with honoring the ridiculous and anti-scientific insistence of the pro-life community that birth control is abortion? On what basis do they get to make that decision for me? Separation of church and state ring a bell?
I just don’t get it.
************************
You don’t get it because I didn’t say it. I said that I didn’t have to agree with someone on every issue in order to work with them on issues on which we do agree.
Pat Johnson said
Zee: Just a clarification. taggles and I each share a piece of that high road.
janicen said
I agree with you, Pat. J. Well said.
I would add however that, as feminists, we should defend all women against misogyny and sexism whether the women are for or against women’s freedom to make their own healthcare decisions.
helenk said
What I see is people stuck in a quagmire of one issue that is being used to divide.
As long as we do not work together on other issues such as keeping the Constitution intact, ERA and women’s issues as well as American issues many things can be done to hurt this country and her people.
I am pro-choice just like millions of others. I want women to have the right to an safe legal pregnancy termination. I want women to have the right to carry the baby to full term. But I also want that child to have a decent life and a good future.
We can work together on some things and not on others when we can walk freely together and not be stuck in a quagmire that divides and conquers.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
taggles said
helen, who is dividing women??
Zee said
“look what the prolifers have wrought an over populated resourse depleted world…?”
fuzzybear, that’s another can of worms entirely and a very very crucial topic that is so UN+PC to mention that even Al Gore left out the #1 reason why we’re depleting the world….overpopulation.
Because if we bring it up the religions who are out to take over by out-populating us must be discussed.
Pat Johnson said
helen: Until a woman has the full right to decide for herself than comparable pay means squat. Without full equality that equal pay can be “disappeared” just as quickly since the decision making overall has been taken out of her hands.
The freedom of choice dominates all other issues and should not require a collective consent from third parties. Unless and until that right is secured and protected, a woman is at the mercy of the “intruders”. As it stands now, this right is being quietly subjected to modification and erosion in many states which is the advocacy that Sarah Palin promoted.
In other words, going through the back door to achieve their goal. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
helenk said
Taggles
maybe I misunderstood but did you say you will not work together on other issues than abortion with women who are not pro-choice?
If I misunderstood I am sorry.
Why can’t pro-choice be on the front burner along with not just instead of other issues.
Yes pro-choice is a very important issue and I am not saying it is not.
But right now you have backtrack trying to by pass congress on making treaties.
You have fisa We have a weakening economy that effects all Americans mostly women. Why can not all women work together on these issues?
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
Zee said
pat, i know! i was just talking to taggles, so i said she was “one of the few.”
everyone knows that I prefer the low road of mocking and fighting fire with fire and giving a taste of one’s own medicine back to them and seeing how they like it.
Tn Guerilla Women shamed me out of some of that…I no longer mock Ann Coulter’s mannishness…but i still can’t resist teasing the male trolls about their “manhood” when they swoop in to lecture the little wimmin on what to think.
And so help me, i hope one day to have Anderson Cooper answer for his boorish misogyny…which came into crystal clear focus before sarah palin even hit the scene.
clowns like keith ubermann and glenn beck are one thing….but Anderson Cooper is accepted as some sober thoughtful spokesperson for American views.
We need to bust open the very medium we operate in — the thoughts of the majority on health care, choice, equality, warmongering would rally to the common good….except for the constant mind-numbing chatter that brings us the nonstop Michael Jackson family saga and, yes, the Palin family show.
I was almost impressed that Governor Sanford’s saga was going to bring out some thoughtful national discussion, but no such luck.
And now with the jackson and palin soap operas they needn’t even make an effort to squeeze Secretary Clinton off the stage.
la-t-da said
I work really hard to take the high road, Pat. The irony: I worked hard on that even when I was in the evangelical church (born and raised). I preached against prejudice that I heard in sermons to the youth groups. I confronted gossip, what we call “the tearing down of each other”.
I saw women standing my the hand of their man. I spoke out. The youth minister supported me. The youth could hear me. A few years later I was being asked to come up to the front of the church so they could “lay hands on me”. I guess the read letter words that I always focused and preached on about in the bible finally hit a nerve.
Oh I know. I know. The personal isn’t supposed to be political. Good luck telling me that my experiences in the evangelical church have not me the feminist and activist for social justice that I am today.
madamab said
If I am going to set the issue of choice aside, then what is the anti-choice movement going to give up in return?
If the answer is “nothing,” then how is this a good bargaining strategy? This is a war, folks. If the anti-choicers gain territory and we do not, there is a word for that. It’s called “surrender.”
I’m not built for surrender.
la-t-da said
sorry…”red-letter words”. The ones that are considered to be the words of Jesus.
madamab said
Helenk – women are always told to put other issues first.
After this past year, it is clear to me that none of the issues you mention will be fixed until we address the rampant misogyny in American society. After all, without that misogyny, we would have had a more rational election season and Obama would never have gotten away with the massive fraud he perpetrated on the electorate. And you know who’d be President!
Thus, I would not be willing to put any other issue before the ERA. And I don’t think the pro-life community will support me on it. So, I’m out of options in that department.
taggles said
I am finding it very interesting and perplexing coming from pro choice women that they see the issue as a division that is keeping us from other great successes.
It saddens me, it really does. It is self defeating and it is a very bad strategy for the very reasons you have outlined madamab and that I outlined over a week ago in my I have a question thread.
I feel that people who feel like we do are in the minority in this new 4th wave of feminism and are not welcome. i see fatal flaws ahead.
Pat Johnson said
I think that Palin became a symbol as the stand in for Hillary Clinton who had suffered the sexist commentary right up until the day she conceded the nomination. When the MSM began taking swipes at Palin as well, this only acted to recharge their batteries in defense of another female who was being handled in much the same manner.
I also believe that as a result, the women who rallied to Palin’s defense did not clearly appreciate where she was coming from as a “feminist”. In attempting to reach those disaffected women who had supported Clinton, she did a little tapdance around her position, but it was out there that she was a member of the “Feminist for Life” organization, one that is clearly pro life without question. By failing to research this they began to portray her as someone who was the antithesis if the scourge, Obama. It made it easier to defend her, even when there were times when it became evident that she was very likely over her head politically. Excuses could be made for her unpreparedness and appearing out of her depth on policy, but little of that changed during that last charge toward election day. Each was exclusive of the other.
This is something these supporters refused to examine. Instead they continued to avoid much of her inept responses and chose to put the whole blame on the corrupt media by comparing her to Hillary Clinton. Questioning her positions, or the possibility that perhaps she really was not ready to step into the lead should something happen to McCain, was forbidden.
Much of the tripe that was leveled at her personally was unfair. But I honestly believe that although there were two separate issues at work, the bias of the press along with her own lack of knowledge, became entwined.
But to my way of judging what she had said regarding reproductive rights, there was no way I could reconcile that position with reproductive rights. This was not the position maintained by the “Feminists for Life” movement.
Had she been selected to run against the candidacy of Hillary Clinton I personally believe that those very same women supporting her today would have behaved much less kindly than what they do now.
As a woman she was villified. As a candidate, out of her depth.
Pat Johnson said
REMINDER: Mark Sanford has just returned for “purgatory” to the governor’s mansion in SC.
I have Tuesday afternoon as the date of his “resignation” speech. Just to let you know I have not given up!
taggles said
LOL pat! I thought about that today! I was waiting until the time passed for your bet and then I was going to start a new pool. You just may win!
la-t-da said
((((Fuzzy)))) No come sit by me first. (Not that Pat lady. LOL) We can discuss overpopulation and the theories that this would happen from way back.
“Because if we bring it up the religions who are out to take over by out-populating us must be discussed.”
That is why I like Hillary’s language (the reframing) of Reproductive Rights. Anti-choice women would loose their choice too (China and other countries considering population control) The morning after pill would be looking pretty good about that time.
madamab said
Has anyone gone to the anti-choice groups and asked them if they’ll work with us on the ERA?
This whole thing is a huuuuuuuge mistake. I agree, taggles. Nothing good will come of it.
Ah well. I’d better hope I don’t get raped and become pregnant with my rapist’s baby. I won’t be able to get emergency contraception or an abortion, but hey, I’ll know that I was “inclusive.”
Sorry, getting too sarcastic. I will try to tone it down.
helenk said
I am not asking to put other issues first. I am asking put other issues along with.
Pro-choice is very important but so are some of the other issues. Why can’t we multi-task?
What I am hearing here is that if women are not agreeable to abortion, we will not work with them on other issues.
http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/06/health-care-reform-house-dems.shtml
This is an health care bill in the house now. Why can’t we read it see where it needs improving or if it needs to be scrapped and rewritten. Make sure freedom of choice is part of it but make sure people will really benefit in other areas covered in it.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
la-t-da said
As an intuitive…I just can’t wrap my head around 4th wave. Seems more like some 2+3=5 wave. I don’t see that many 2, and the hypothetical 4, willing to embrace the 3.
Pat Johnson said
A stroke of the pen would solve a lot of these issues. FOCA would no longer be the biggest obstacle faced by women who find themselves at war with one another over this right. But of course, in casting one’s eyes toward DC and expecting President Wait Forever to act accordingly is asking a little too much.
There are donors and the Faith Based voters to consider first and foremost. Until then, keep up the good fight!
Pat Johnson said
la t da: That last sentence sounds like a “walk down memory lane” of one of taggles convoluted theories from the past.
I will take your word for it though!
la-t-da said
Hey, taggles, doesn’t get to have credit for everything. I just made that up…hence the “intuitive”.
taggles said
Helen, womens groups who are pro choice work on many other issues.
I wonder why haven’t these pro life groups joined??
They won’t!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So why is this division thing touted like it’s the choice women who are so single issue and focused on abortion that they are alienating all of these wonderful other women and holding women back?
janicen said
Pat J., as a candidate, Palin was over her head, I agree with that. I won’t cop to being ignorant of her positions regarding women’s healthcare rights just because I’ve defended her against the assaults from sexists and misogynists. She’s a member of the Republican party whose platform clearly states that they are against a women’s right to make her own healthcare decisions.
To my mind, the fact that Sarah Palin is almost the antithesis of Hillary Clinton, highlighted the fact that what was thrown at Clinton was pure misogyny. So many Hillary haters tried to claim that it wasn’t that they had a problem with a woman running, it was THAT woman they hated. Then along came Sarah, the opposite of Hillary, and lo and behold, they rained the same hate bombs on her too. I feel it would have been hypocritical of me to complain about Hillary’s treatment but not about Palin’s only because I didn’t agree with Palin’s politics.
la-t-da said
Though I could have been channeling her.
taggles said
I agree Janicen. Defend the women, damnit, defend her from sexist attacks! That doesn’t mean full throttle support and giving up everything gained from centuries and decades worth of blood sweat and tears!
I know you agree, the way this whole thing is playing out has got me very concerned.
taggles said
i think you were channeling some of my most convoluted meaningful insightful haywire barely grammatical thought processes.
la-t-da said
What Pat said about FOCA and MB says about ERA. Those are the most readily available issues to address. We and legislatures wouldn’t have to re-write the book. FOCA has been sitting in Congress since 2004. Boxer and Clinton and the other co-sponsers would probably like to see the bill they sponsored and co-sponsored move along. Where were the anti-abortion women for them over the past 5 years.
la-t-da said
I have them all the time, taggles. Posits, napkins, fast food bags collecting dust all over my life.
taggles said
but it was very profound!
la-t-da said
I have them all the time, taggles. Post-its, napkins, fast food bags collecting dust all over my life.
madamab said
Word, janicen! That’s exactly right.
I bought that “it’s cause she’s Hillary” crap for a while too. Palin showed that two entirely opposite women get entirely similar treatment. For that, I am grateful to her. She showed the Obot fauxgressives for the hypocrites they are, both male and female.
Pat Johnson said
The MSM consists of a bunch of Fruit Loops, enchanted by President Cool and totally against a female candidates. Thus the over the top coverage of her personal life coupled with the insane bloggers braying through the net and you have a deadly combination of frat boys at play.
Women need to defend women from that treatment regardless of the position she takes on issues. Attack her rightfully on those issues but leave the rest alone.
fuzzybeargville said
Madama {{{{hugs}}}} when you are hot you are hot….
Helen thank you for using pregnancy termination….what we are talking about is a medical procedures.
If the “misogynist” men folk all woke up tomorrow pregnant and having to go to the bathroom every five minutes and lugging an extra 45 lbs around with stretch marks where their 6 pack abs or potbellies are now….swollen feet and cravings for pickles and rockyroad Icecream…
We ould have safe legal abortion safe effective birth control sex education in schools and the idea of anti-choice would disappear.
I think that if this happened as the goddess’ punishment on the patriarchy we could be spared this argument….and even Pat may come to believe in the goddesses exsistence…
I just got a chuckle at the thought of the widow Ratzinger (Pope Benedict the clueless) lugging around a 3rd trimester set of twins…with the other 112 “red hat” ladies LOL!
la-t-da said
Oops. I can also get into to repeating myself. Usually that only exist silently in my head though.
Pat Johnson said
I am none too happy right now. It is the top of the 8th and so far the Sox are scoreless with 5 runs already in Oakland’s column. If Sanford does not step down tomorrow I will not be fit to leave with.
I pretty much wanted to issue fair warning.
Pat Johnson said
How about Octo Dad?
fuzzybeargville said
Pat that is almost to dreadful to think of-ROFLMAO in my own pee….
janicen said
I know you agree, the way this whole thing is playing out has got me very concerned.
——————
I do agree, taggles, and I am delighted and grateful that you have been so forthright about your feelings. You have enlightened me. But I’ve read you ask, several times, “Who is dividing us?”.
Isn’t it obvious reading through the comments here and on RL that there is a division? I don’t really know who or what is responsible, but I can see that it exists. I think that we need to acknowledge that there is a division among otherwise like-thinking women when it comes to abortion. Next we need to figure out how to come together. That’s why, when I comment or talk about the issue, I try to couch it in terms of woman’s right to make her own decision about her healthcare. I think if people start thinking about it in terms of women’s rights, even the anti-choice people will (maybe?) start to think about what it is they are actually supporting.
helenk said
Taggles
I am going by what I understand is being said here.
We should not work with women who do not believe in pregnancy termination.
I can not speak for women who are against abortion, I am not one of them. But if one of those women wants to work with us on ERA – better health care – better education- improve the economy why would I refuse to work with her?
I do not want pro-choice women to have to give up anything.
I want women to work together on issues that affect all people of America and issues that make things better for all.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
fuzzybeargville said
Pat then if you are in a foul mood tomorrow were really need an Obot to come out of the woodworks for you to make short shift of them/(him)!
madamab said
Amen, Pat!
Remember, if you win the pool, you get to say “neener neener!”
Valhalla said
madamab — you always write what I wish I’d written. I don’t think anti-abortion groups are trustworthy. But I do think there are probably lots of women who are personally anti-abortion and perhaps even fairly conservative politically who could be attracted to working on other issues critical to women’s equality. Esp. economic issues, since even anti-abortion women grow old (Soc Security, Medicare), need healthcare for themselves or their families, need jobs with fair wages, and are adversely affected by the rampant, disgusting misogyny so magnificently on display this year.
Maybe a group like TNA can attract them, I don’t know. Besides the no-abortion, no-reproductive rights talk thing I have reservations about TNA. I support them in principle but have a hard time supporting them in fact.
I think it’s important to sort out who exactly it is some of us think we can’t work with. I don’t trust, and can’t see working with any groups whose raison d’etre is anti-abortion activism; there’s just no putting aside disagreements and pulling together with them. Part of it is that most of the time avid anti-abortion people also hold a slew of other political opinions antithetical to other feminist issues (not a lot fundies calling for single-payer, for example). To try to make friends with them even for common areas (on, say, healthcare for kids) is really going after the highest-hanging fruit (to invert a metaphor) and not worth the effort. The effort that’s worth it is probably finding those people who may oppose abortion but who are not politically dedicated to that. Of course, there aren’t a lot of people in identifiable groups who are personally anti-abortion but not going to make a big deal out of it, so it’s not easy finding them.
Pat Johnson said
Anyone heard from DYB? I hope his leg is all right.
fuzzybeargville said
Bob Barr as Octodad….and lets make sure he has no option of a C-section or an epidural….Natural childbirth for these guys!
fuzzybeargville said
Congressman Barr I am sorry Male Pregnancy is not covered in the congressional health plan…. you are going to have to go to the same “La manZ” class as Steny Hoyner Jon Faveraue….
taggles said
I say embrace the division and fight the fuckers who want to send us back to the dark ages. That’s just me.
The anti choicers are too well versed and believe that abortion is baby killing. I do not see any hope for them, Janicen.
I do not see them working with womens groups that have pro choice as part of their platform. It doesn’t matter which issue we try to address. We are their mortal enemy.
This is like laying down our arms and surrendering.
Molly Pitcher said
When did pro-life get equated with no contraceptives, no morning-after pill, and more babies, please? There are two groups of pro-lifers: the protestant fundamentalists and the Catholics. My niece belonged to the first group, was pro-life, had 2 kids, and when she got tired of the spector of pregnancy, her husband had a vasectomy.
To my mind, safe, legal, and rare is guaranteed by 2 things: pro-choice AND/OR reliable contraception. I don’t think it is correct to say that pro-lifers are totally opposed to ERA (and when we tried to get that passed, uni-sex bathrooms were a bigger bugaboo than abortion).
Since I first started reading the political blogs, I have picked up on quite a lot of folks with Catholic backgrounds of which they seem to be derisive. I went to Catholic schools during the ‘confirmation years’; I appreciated the teaching sisters and learned a tad of Latin, but I was never cajoled to change my protestant stripes (or spots). So–to mangle an old saw–I would not have wanted my daughters to marry one and promise not to use contraceptives. But I cannot see equating the two groups of pro-lifers, because contraception, to this ancient party, seems preferable to abortion, when it comes to the health of the woman.
Let’s get ERA operative!!!
la-t-da said
I just have such devilish thoughts tonight. Anyone know the line from a movie “How sexy am I now fucker!”. I just can’t get that out of my head tonight with all the energy swirling around.
taggles said
Helen, that is the problem, you think I am saying that I will not work with anyone who is not pro choice!
That is not so and it is framing the argument in a way that casts the blame on women who believe in choice.
In doing so, we are being asked to quell our concerns in order to advance something at the risk of remaining silent on choice.
Can you see that pro life women will not want to work on the ERA with us because they believe it will put the right to an abortion in the constitution??
madamab said
Valhalla – I’m a big fan of yours too. I agree with what you said about who we can and can’t work with.
Helenk, as Valhalla said, I just don’t know if enough of those people exist to be worth it.
la-t-da said
“I say embrace the division and fight the fuckers who want to send us back to the dark ages.”
I ponder every day about what Hillary was really saying. “When you hear the dogs, keep running.”
taggles said
I googled pro life and the equal rights amendment, take a gander at this:
http://www.prolifelouisiana.org/era
http://www.nrlc.org/federal/era/index.html
http://www.missourilife.org/legislation/era.htm
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3002.html
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/13163/CWA/life/index.htm
http://www.nevadalife.org/
if anyone thinks the debate will not be framed like this may need to rethink that position. Christians of every stripe will be opposing the ERA.
taggles said
maybe this is where we got the idea that pro lifers were anti contraception:
http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/index.shtml
http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/contraceptionwhyoppose.htm
http://www.feministsforlife.org/FAQ/index.htm#contraception
Their agenda is much more than just anti choice on abortion!!
Pat Johnson said
la t da: I can see that scene in my head too. It took place just before a rape or seduction and was uttered by the female character. It eludes me right now.
helenk said
Taggles
As I said up post if I misunderstood I would say I was sorry. So I am Sorry.
I want a whole lot better for all women than what we have now. I think you all do to.
Just what needs to happen to get all women to work together on issues that make the quality of life better in this country for all.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
madamab said
Molly, do you spend a lot of time at pro-life sites? The new frontier is contraception. They all say it. On the Catholic front, the Pope came out and said that condoms don’t stop AIDs and only make the problem worse. He said this in Africa, where 22 MILLION PEOPLE have HIV! The Bush “conscience rule” was applauded by pro-life groups. Its sole purpose is to prevent women from having access to contraception.
I don’t think the two groups are as separate as you think.
janicen said
I just have such devilish thoughts tonight. Anyone know the line from a movie “How sexy am I now fucker!”. I just can’t get that out of my head tonight with all the energy swirling around.
—————
latda, “Natural Born Killers”
taggles said
I think a good one is fighting sexism where ever it’s ugly head rears it assholish self is a good start, helen. I hope the anti choicers can bring themselves to do the same for someone like Hillary!
That doesn’t mean I support anti choice women for office. It doesn’t mean I lay down my arms or that they lay down theirs.
This is a fight, it will be a fight, it will never not be a fight and I am not going to lie down and let them get the upper hand while other “feminists” decide to shut up about choice because it makes other women uncomfortable.
SHV said
On the Catholic front, the Pope came out and said that condoms don’t stop AIDs and only make the problem worse. He said this in Africa, where 22 MILLION PEOPLE have HIV!
*********
Also cervical cancer, most of which is caused by HPV infection (an STD).
“Cervical cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide, and 80% of cases occur in the developing world. It is the leading cause of death from cancer among women in developing countries, where it causes about 190,000 deaths each year.”
Advanced cervical cancer is a particularly bad way to die.
madamab said
I agree, Taggles – that is a good place to start.
la-t-da said
Thanks, Janice.
lililam said
I recently returned from a family get together where many were/are conservative Republicans. I was speaking with some uncles and cousins whom I had not seen since the election- they knew I was an ardent Hillary supporter due to my many phone calls to remind them to vote for Hill, despite their persuasion. Some actually did. Anyway, one uncle acknowledged the sexism and misogyny directed at Hill and voiced his sadness and disappointment that none of the feminists came out in defence of Palin (of course, his info was all via MSM). I informed him that some groups were actually just as appalled and were very supportive of Palin, and many voted for McCain, etc, etc, explaining the whole evolution during the election. I also told him how I see the former/current Hillary camps fleshing out, with some working on misogyny/gay rights issues, some turning into reactionary right wingers, others passively succumbing, etc. He was very pleased to hear of the shared disgust at the misogyny and many avenues of discussion were opened. I see this as a teachable moment if we can even convince some middle aged/elderly conservative men that we are cohesive in our concerns.
lililam said
sorry for being a bit OT
la-t-da said
With the condom stance and HIV and Cervical cancer, kinda makes one think how much is pro-life really valued. The inconsistencies in that terminology has always dumb-founded me. Also when consider the death penalty. For anti-choice women. I would be pleased if they would even begin to talk about these inconsistencies aloud (as well as issues of over population and how many people and animals that kills) and start consider the language of reproductive rights. Has that happened yet?
helenk said
Taggles
I come from an era when the Catholic Church taught that if it was the mothers life or the baby’s life you save the baby and let the mother die. They did not care if there were other children and if anyone would take care of them or the new baby.
Sex before marriage was a sin. Hell impure thoughts were a sin. Marriage outside the faith was a sin. Divorce was not recognized. Children of a second marriage were considered bastards. At one time a woman was considered unclean after childbirth and had to be churched before she could receive Communion. If a woman died in childbirth she could not be buried in consecrated ground.
As a child I knew that those teachings were wrong. I saw first hand the results of those teachings.
I never want to go back to that and I never want a pro-choice woman to have to give up her rights to a safe termination of pregnancy.
But I do want many other rights and freedoms along with freedom of choice.
I will work with people who will help me attain those freedoms.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
madamab said
SHV – that is excellent information.
Lililam – I believe that a lot of conservative or moderate Repubs can be reached when it comes to sexism. Are they willing to go along with us in our fight to get the ERA ratified? That remains the 64,000 question IMHO.
From the links taggles posted above, I don’t think the pro-life community will be coming to our aid.
SHV said
Don’t forget that pro-lifers usually have a much broader agenda then just “ant-abortion”. Such as:’
“Talk of Dunbar’s potential role draws cheers, jeers
Conservative Christian may be in running to lead state education board”
“In a book published last year, Dunbar argued the country’s founding fathers created “an emphatically Christian government” and that government should be guided by a “biblical litmus test.”
(snip)
“Also in the book, she calls public education a “subtly deceptive tool of perversion.”
“The establishment of public schools is unconstitutional and even “tyrannical,” she wrote, because it threatens the authority of families, granted by God through Scripture, to direct the instruction of their children. ”
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6514838.html
or in La-t-da’s neck of the woods:
Arizona state senator Sylvia Allen thinks the earth is 6000 years old
Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen (R-Snowflake), arguing in favor of a bill to allow uranium mining north of the Grand Canyon, casually says that the earth is 6,000 years old, and therefore a little uranium mining isn’t going to hurt anything.
Snowflake, the home of the logging team that included claimed UFO abductee Travis Walton, also has a large Mormon population, and Mormons have power in the Arizona legislature far beyond their numbers.
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/07/arizona-state-senator-sylvia-allen.html
SHV said
I was bad…two links….I ended up the the litter box!!!
Pat Johnson said
As one who was born and raised in the Catholic Church, I can say without prejudice that the pope is an idiot!
lililam said
madamab- I think they would, with the exception of their misgivings if they see any link to gay marriage. For some reason, they seem to bring that up as a concern. I don’t understand it, as I am referring to non-fundies here. Otherwise, the people I am referring to seem to be quite progressive re: women’s rights.
Pat Johnson said
la t da: They “value” life not the woman. She is merely a vessel.
madamab said
Ha! No kidding, Pat!
Helenk – I won’t work with someone who is trying to deny me my civil rights. I certainly won’t call them feminists! I think it is beyond foolish to include anti-abortion/contraception activists in any feminist movement. It is like including the KKK in an civil rights movement!
Molly Pitcher said
No time at all on pro-life sites! But I know my niece was pro-life after joining a fundamentalist church and turning Republican (the family black sheep). I attend church, live in the benighted South (college town, but still benighted to BO), and take it for granted that only the Catholics (and maybe only some of them) pay any attention to the Pope. What I can’t guess is which ones or how many might be pro-choice or pro-life. I turned out to be pro-life for myself, having found a Downs daughter to be a delight, but insist that others have the option for termination. Babies deserve to be born to those who will love and care for them–not think of them as a punishment (sorta agree with BO there). If the pill and altrnatives are no longer ubiquitous, then I am seriously out of date!
madamab said
Now see, Molly, yo are the kind of pro-lifer I can easily work with. You recognize the importance of choice, just as I do. You are not trying to take away my civil rights, merely making a 100% personal, none-of-my-business choice for yourself.
Unfortunately, the anti-contraception crowd has taken over the movement. It is truly scary!
taggles said
lililam, these same pro lifers won’t support the ERA because they feel it will put gay marriage into the constitution.
I just cannot and will not succumb to people who want to deny rights to others.
taggles said
Molly is pro choice! That’s the definition of pro choice.
Don’t want an abortion for religious reason or whatever reason, don’t have one.
But she believes other women can make their own decision and she will not impose her personal beliefs.
Problem is, Molly is not the type of person we are talking about here.
We are talking about pro-lifers, who believe no woman should ever have an abortion under any circumstance.
We have to get the language correct here.
taggles said
and i hate using the term pro-life! but that’s what they call themselves so I have to use it to avoid confusion.
SHV said
Re-post:
Don’t forget that pro-lifers usually have a much broader agenda then just “ant-abortion”. Such as:’
“Talk of Dunbar’s potential role draws cheers, jeers
Conservative Christian may be in running to lead state education board”
“In a book published last year, Dunbar argued the country’s founding fathers created “an emphatically Christian government” and that government should be guided by a “biblical litmus test.”
(snip)
“Also in the book, she calls public education a “subtly deceptive tool of perversion.”
“The establishment of public schools is unconstitutional and even “tyrannical,” she wrote, because it threatens the authority of families, granted by God through Scripture, to direct the instruction of their children. ”
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6514838.html
Cinie said
Taggles, I agree that a woman who chooses not to consider abortion for herself, but respects the right of other women to choose differently, is by definition, pro choice. Pro-life is a hard line position that brooks no compromise. As long as the meaning of the terms are being fudged, confusion will abound. The goal of pro-lifers is to squash choice. There really is no middle ground.
madamab said
You are right, taggles. Molly is pro-choice.
Heck, I don’t know if I’d ever have an abortion. That’s not the point. It is a civil rights issue.
Pat Johnson said
Molly fits the definition of most of us here. And yes, it is just a civil rights issue. Plain and simple.
madamab said
Amen, Cinie!
madamab said
Night all…thanks for the wonderful discussion!
Molly Pitcher said
PS: “Life begins at conception” has never been a big mainline protestant slogan, so the use of contraception tends not to trigger any guilt or sin reflex. And I never noticed my niece parroting the phrase either, for that matter–actually it occurs to me that that particular group of church folk tend to think of the Rome as the Scarlet Woman, so to speak.
Pat Johnson said
When I worked in the hospital near the Pedi ward they would treat some kids as outpatients. A certain day was set aside for kids who were born brain damaged. Some to these poor honey’s were strapped to a wheelchair, their heads encased in helmets, some blind and unable to speak. The poor Mom often looked much older than her years probably due to the constant attendance needed to care for these children who showed no signs of discernible life.
Faced with that knowledge I wonder if she chose to bear this child or was forced by other circumstances.
la-t-da said
I am for life! I even know what anthropomorphism means. Most of us do. Questions of “life” go well beyond what they want to frame “pro-life” as. How do we take back the language. “I am for life”
Molly Pitcher said
Might as well add one last word before bed-time. In addition to my 52-year-old Downs daughter, I have a gay son who is married and lives in MA. And by getting married, he presented me with a wonderful new son-in-law–my third!
SHV said
Re-post for la-t-da:
or in La-t-da’s neck of the woods:
Arizona state senator Sylvia Allen thinks the earth is 6000 years old
Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen (R-Snowflake), arguing in favor of a bill to allow uranium mining north of the Grand Canyon, casually says that the earth is 6,000 years old, and therefore a little uranium mining isn’t going to hurt anything.
Snowflake, the home of the logging team that included claimed UFO abductee Travis Walton, also has a large Mormon population, and Mormons have power in the Arizona legislature far beyond their numbers.
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/07/arizona-state-senator-sylvia-allen.html
lililam said
sorry, taggles, I was away from the computer, I meant many repug.conserv/men, not pro-lifers per se. I wasn’t referring to madamab’s last sentence way above.
taggles said
I had a hard time following. thanks lililam!
la-t-da said
I know, SHV. Who’s going to come down here and help us with ERA. I have thought though maybe McCain would help…Megan. There might be a way. Get McCain to see if he will help us before he leaves office. I wouldn’t even know how to approach that with him. Maybe Megan doesn’t know the ERA has not been ratified here??? Just musing out loud.
taggles said
you can read about john mccains feminism here. and all the wonderful explanations given for his voting record and political stances:
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/johnmccainontheissues/a/McCainFemRace.htm
lililam said
Pat, oftentimes, especially many years ago, there was no way to gauge potential birth defects pre-birth, so most of those mothers likely had no choice. I have spent the majority of my life working with disabled children and adults, and there is a mix. Most of the parents seem to rise to the challenge and love their children, stating they would never have done anything differently. Some, particularly Catholic Hispanics, consider their severely disabled children to be angels sent down from heaven. Some give their children up for an institutional upbringing or leave them for grandparents to raise. It runs the gamut. I believe we all should have the well informed choice to do what we think is right, but i worry when people start diminishing the value of the disabled. They are people and they bring joy and heartache to many, throughout the spectrum of their disability severity. In this way, I share Palin’s acknowledgement of Trig’s wonderfulness. Of course, to each their own.
la-t-da said
I wonder if Megan would go against her father on ERA. Isn’t see for gay marriage? I should just google. I really don’t keep up with the right wing blogs too much. Maybe I should.
SHV said
Just musing out loud.
*************
How do you get people to vote for their and their families self-interest and not for their prejudices?
The last few times that I have driven by or to the “North Rim”, they have been logging the crap out of the National Forest. I presume W’s “Safe Forest” program. There is a little store at the turn-off to the North Rim and they have signs “please call your congressman to stop logging”. All that I can think is these people more than likely vote Republican and for “W” twice and now they are complaining.
Pat Johnson said
lililam: You are absolutely correct. I often speak without thinking and put my own feelings ahead of someone else in a rush to respond. I have no reason to judge those decisions.
lililam said
Thanks, Pat. I just am a bit sensitive on that subject!
la-t-da said
I tolerate handicapped people.
la-t-da said
I can’t hear Palin say I tolerate gays ever again. Feels pretty bad doesn’t it Sarah.
lililam said
They both sound pretty bad, Latda, and hopefully someone will point that out to her someday. Maybe you could write to her and let her know? Hillary used to answer her mail, maybe Sarah does as well.
la-t-da said
I’ve put it on the blogs enough after I decided not to do the protest vote. I’m sure that right-wingers that we’re in those blogs could have relayed it to team sarah. I haven’t seen it addressed yet. They can thing it through for themselves, can’t they.
la-t-da said
Just to let you know, lilliam, I was not be defensive with you in that last statement.
lililam said
Thanks, Latda, you sound rightfully pissed, as you should be. The reason that I suggested writing to her is that it may make more of an impression from someone who feels the slight as acutely as you do. It would be interesting to see if she responds. It would say a lot. Hillary once wrote a touching letter to me about my concerns on UHC, as it was close to my heart at the time, because of my late husband’s insurance rescission. I think it would be a good gauge to check Palin’s genuineness or not and at least be a partial release on your part. I need to go now. Nite, Latda.
la-t-da said
Perhaps, lilliam, we bumped fist on an issue or topic that could make for a good discussion that might help, if it is possible, to bring women together on “life” issues. So much more we all need to discuss and educate and “hear” each other on before kumbaya is, might, might never, maybe, one day, be possible.
EricaLeigh said
What the Pope said about condoms and HIV is unforgivable. It is so untrue, and to be repeated by a person of his stature will give his words a veracity that will claim lives. So much for “pro-life.”
What the radical religious right did around the HPV vaccine, Gardasil, is equally unforgivable. First time ever that we’ve had a vaccine to prevent cancer and what does the radical right do? They lobbied the FDA relentlessly to try to prevent Gardasil from being approved in the U.S. When that failed, they began a campaign of misinformation designed to convince parents that the vaccine would promote promiscuity. For parents who saw through that, they made false claims that the vaccine was dangerous. The fallout from this is evident every single day in my office.
You are all right when you say reproductive rights are central to our civil rights. The ultra religious right knows that to control our bodies is to control our lives. If they can’t control our sexuality, they would prefer that we women get cancer, and that includes their own daughters. They are shameful to the extreme.
I generally believe that looking at the complexity of a situation and seeing the gradations of people’s positions is important. One of the things I loved about Hillary was that she doesn’t shy away from that process, she embraces it. But when it comes to the ultra right, I don’t think there is common ground. B0 is lying about that. He is an appeaser without Hillary’s sense of nuance or strength. His audience with the Pope is completely suspect. He will sell us further down the river, and we should be vigilant. As MadamaB said, at some level, this is a war. We acquiesce at our own peril.
Fredster said
This has nothing to do with the current topic. I got it in an email from a friend and laughed my ass off.
angiencpets said
Although there was no doubt some elitism involved (her accent! her lack of Ivy leage education! that hair!), to me, the answer is clear, and comes down to one word: Pro-Life.
I could not disagree with you more on this. The vitriol directed toward Palin has absolutely nothing to do with her “pro-life” beliefs. Tim Kaine is “pro-life” and I have never once seen anything even close to resembling the kinds of attacks & smears directed toward Palin directed toward Kaine. There are numerous other “pro-life” politicians in this country as well, and again, none of them have been attacked & smeared as Palin has.
That is not to say that I disagree with you that being “pro-choice” is the “correct” position, just that I disagree with your rationalization that “feminists” attacked Palin on the basis of her “pro-life” position. Those same “feminists” attacked Hillary too & actually said that we couldn’t trust her on the choice issue either.
I don’t believe Palin’s “pro-life” position had a damn thing to do with it other than a pretext. The fact is, they couldn’t attack Palin on her actual positions because she enjoyed great bipartisan support in Alaska based on her record. She is pro-sex ed; she doesn’t believe in ever criminalizing the actions of a woman who gets an abortion; she is “pro-contraception.”
The fact is, the only reason Palin was attacked the way she was is because she is a woman who went to public schools and, like it or not, she actually does have the “star power” that Axelrod has worked so hard to manufacture for Obama. She, like Hillary (who also had real “star power”), posed a threat to Obama & had to be destroyed. It is no more complex than that.
As to my personal views on choice, I’m pro-choice but only because I believe that women are human beings and, like every other human being on this earth (i.e. the MEN), they are entitled to personal autonomy. However, I have quite frankly become sick of the the entire choice issue as it has become overblown & overly emotionalized by both sides. Yeah, that’s right, I said it. And it has become overblown because the focus has become on the procedure or the fetus itself instead of where it should be: is a woman a human being entitled to personal autonomy or not? That’s it. Until pro-choice women understand how to frame the question & where to put the focus, they are going to continue to be hamsters running around on wheels while women’s rights as human beings continue to be ignored. By keeping the focus on the procedure itself, pro-choicers are going to always lose the argument because like it or not, most people (i.e., the MEN who are the default human beings) don’t like “killing babies.”
And yes, since I’m on the subject, there are more important “feminist” issues imo than the right to an abortion and that is two words: economic parity. When women have the same economic opportunities as men they will be better equipped to make decisions that benefit all other aspects of their lives, including reproductive choices.
SHV said
Until pro-choice women understand how to frame the question & where to put the focus,
***********
In a recent discussion that I had with a female Obot, who thought it was just fine that Obama back off from FOCA and the conscience clause, because “She didn’t like abortion either”. So I said, “I guess you are in-favor of forced child birth?” That ended the discussion; but that is the dichotomy; reproductive choice or state forced child birth. A very simple frame or I have a very simple mind.
madamab said
Hi Angie – I’m sick and can’t sleep!
I think that economic parity will be more achievable when women’s full enfranchisement as human beings is recognized at a federal level. That is how civil rights generally work in America. Nothing really happened, legislatively speaking, for AA’s until LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. Poor Hillary tried to point that out herself and of course, was called a racist for it. GRRRRR!
The same feminists who excoriated Palin and made up BS about her did not do the same for Hillary. They may have damned her with faint praise or failed to stand up for her, but her candidacy did not cause their brains to explode. Again, I am not defending their actions, which I found reprehensible, but I do think they have good reason to mistrust a woman who belongs to the pro-life movement.
I agree 100% that pro-choice women have framed the issue completely wrong. The issue is civil rights and control of our bodies. You cannot win a “moral” argument with a person who believes you are a murderer for using birth control. Once you allow them to label you a murderer, they win.
I am beginning to see why women are still being treated as sub-human in America. The latest Wave seems to be on the wrong track too. If they truly think that pro-life women will work with us on the ERA, they are fooling themselves. Once again, emotion trumps logic. They are selling our civil rights down the river, and why? What guarantees have they received in return?
I hear crickets chirping.
Zee said
very well put, angie.
we can NOT get bogged down in conversations on the procedures— it drives me wild when people bring up “partial birth” abortions as if late term abortions are some mere whim on the woman’s part. it’s NONE of anyone’s business but the woman and her doctor….but “choice” is going to lose if we even discuss anything besides a woman’s right to privacy and autonomy over her own body.
but I keep seeing people in this thread contend that pro-choice women are “forced” to “give up” something while prolife women are free to promote their agenda. This seems to be the bone of contention: “Has anyone gone to the anti-choice groups and asked them if they’ll work with us on the ERA?”
What does that have to do with groups like The New Agenda? Has anyone gone to NARAL and asked them if they’ll work on banning stem cell research? it’s an absurd question. No one has asked pro-choice groups to “give up” any of their goals! We’re talking about new alliances with their own focus!
At least I have—-I’ve been talking about independent groups who make their OWN goal of putting aside the topic of abortion in order to work on other goals, such as getting more women in office. THAT is equal. People are asked not to make choice a topic, and EQUALLY no one is expected to talk about “partial birth” baby-killing, etc.
It’s EQUAL. What is so hard to understand? The women on BOTH SIDES voluntarily set aside that difference in order to work on a different, common goal. These are individuals coming together to form a new alliance. it has nothing to do with groups dedicated to abortion, pro or con!
I mean, earlier today samanthasmom said as much…she said she was very willing to work on ERA but was uncomfortable with hearing that no one wanted to work with someone who sees herself as pro-life. She is an individual, not an “anti-choice group.”
NO ONE is asking NARAL or Planned Parenthood to set aside choice and put it on a shelf, so why the hell should it matter what groups dedicated to an antiarbortion agenda do or don’t do? I thought we were talking about individuals who come together for a common goal, but who are perfectly free to promote their own agendas on their own time, with other like-minded individuals.
No one, on either side is asked to give up their beliefs or give up working on their goal….elsewhere. The past political season simply shone a light on the ugly fact that women from both sides of the aisle are getting trashed and that we have a common goal in fighting that one issue. Therefore SOME women have come together to do just that. It’s not a gag order on one side while the other side is free to use that group to advance their agenda.
What is so difficult to see about this? The New Agenda does have problems with coddling trolls and obsessing with making men “feel included” —- to the point they stifle some voices on the grounds that pointing out misogyny is “attacking” other “members” —- but they’re not guilty of allowing “prolife groups” freedom to advance their agenda while asking prochoice members to “give up” anything more than a prolife member does, too.
The Widdershins was a necessary and welcome offshoot given that on some sites the rightwing faction of the alliance tends not only to dominate but also to pitch fits if questioned or countered in any way.
But we’re very very splintered right now, and there is no automatic alignment even amongst traditionally cohesive groups. Groups like The New Agenda, and support for the likes of Sarah Palin, are not the most dangerous threats to reproductive freedom.
The number one threat right now is the stupidity of bridezilla generation who installed Obama and is ignoring completely his placement of prolifers in positions of power, both in the Democratic Party and in the government itself, by his expansion of the Faith Office, which he is also stuffing with antiabortion activists.
Zee said
hey, madamab! Another late night for me, too…! Sorry you’re not feeling well, tho.
Upthread, pat mentioned the Church considered the woman the “vessel.”
This is not only the Church view. If you look at human awareness over the ages, in ancient time “when god was a woman” men feared woman’s power of creation. Once animal husbandry began and they figured out their sperm played a role, they seized power and saw themselves as the creators and women simply the vessels they planted the offspring in.
In those terms, it’s only been recently that it’s been acknowledged that men and women each contribute half of the chromosomes to form a new human…so I do believe that society will eventually follow suit and men and women will rightly “rule” side by side.
The neanderthals are kicking up quite a fuss, tho, as to be expected. They can’t be too happy about giving up feelings of superiority and positions of power.
We probably won’t see it in our lifetime, tho, especially with such depraved lines of “reasoning” that infect so-called modern thought as “some women WANT to wear burqas” and should be “free” to do so.
Zee said
I remember your mentioning that conversation before, SHV. So sad. “Reasoning” has become deranged by all the Hopium.
Fredster said
Oh my effin’ Gawd! It’s 3:45 a.m. CDT and Obie is on the cable newz!! Can he puhleeze give it a break!! AARRRRGGHHHHH!!!
taggles said
I do not agree that pro choice women are framing the issue wrong. We are being framed though! And the minute you start blaming the ones who fought and continue to fight for your rights, you have given up the high ground and have basically agreed to let others frame your argument for you.
Calling someone a baby killer is not conducive to making friends to work on other issues with. They have framed the argument that way. Abortion has always been about the right to choice (autonomy over our own bodies to have or not have an abortion), not killing babies. And there is an argument as to when life begins. A clump of cells is not a baby. So, to just shut up about it and let them have the high ground on that argument to be sensitive to people who don’t want women to have autonomy over their own bodies because it offends them is wrong. They are not willing to budge!
Why is it the pro choice women who are the ones expected to get over themselves and work on other important issues like economic parity. I will not work with those fundie fuckers get their noses out of my body and they will not work with me until they convince me I am killing a baby….. STALEMATE.
Secondly, Sarah Palin describes herself as pro life. She is a member of that community. Believe her when she says it. You want people to not listen to her words and believe a measley thin record where the supreme court ordered her to do things. That doesn’t cut it with me. That’s like asking me to overlook Barack Obama’s present votes and make excuses for his waltzing around with mcclurkin and his own words regarding women and abortion. Screw that! It didn’t work on me with Barack Obama and it won’t work on me with Sarah Palin. I believe people when they tell me who they are and I suggest others do the same. Even if people are right that she would never infringe on the rights already won, she is a status quo candidate like Barack Obama who will not advance our rights.
Thirdly, the pro choice movement is not asking anyone to give up anything. It is they who demand that pro choice give up their hard fought victories. I provided links above to pro life groups and their stance on the ERA. Please read them if you have any doubt from which angle they are coming.
Fourth, I am not talking about groups who work on singular issues not relating to choice. We are talking about pro life groups here. If not, why all the hoopla in the fourth wave about shelving choice? Who would we be doing this for and for what???
Fifth, Do not make the mistake in defending women from sexism as support for their policies or turn them into some feminist saviour because they are victims of it. We all are. That doesn’t mean I agree with Sarah Palin politically, just as I don’t agree with a lot of women politically. It doesn’t mean I hate Sarah Palin. But it does mean I wouldn’t support her candidacy.
taggles said
Zee, Barack Obama’s policy is exactly what some here and elsewhere are asking us to do. Shelve choice to get other things done.
Look at the danger, see the danger, can you recognize it?
taggles said
Removing choice from the feminist platform is the pro lifers ultimate goal.
And it seems many are willing to do this in an effort to try to make the choice position less divisive.
It aint asking much of the pro lifers to work with pro choicers when it fits so well with their end goal now, is it?
angiencpets said
taggles — who is saying Palin isn’t pro-life? I’m saying she isn’t anymore “pro-life” than a lot of other politicians (including ones who are in the Democrat Party) & hence I don’t agree with MB’s premise that she was so reviled by “liberal feminists” was because of her pro-life stance.
taggles said
have you read the excuses about her position. she wouldn’t force her opinion on us etc. first, she lives pro life. Secondly, why would we want another candidate like obama, with the best outcome possibly the status quo and or a weakening of our rights? Thirdly, she has stated her view that roe v. wade be overturned, also she supports a constitutional amendment to out law abortion. Name a democrat that says that. thats not to say they aren’t a pain in the ass and not very helpful, but she is not in the same class as they are although a few of them are in the same class she is in.
AstroTurfing AntiFeminism: The Myth Of Feminist Self-Destruction « Cinie’s World said
[...] line between feminism and anti-feminism can be frighteningly thin, with abortion being the icy forked road leading one way or the other that could cause the most resolute traveler to slip, trip, and lose [...]
What? Another repost? – Dear Pro Life Community: We Don’t Trust You. « Dead Wild Roses said
[...] The entire article can be found at madamab’s the Widdershins blog. [...]