Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: MN: Republican family values hypocrite Mark Olson - no shame Previous entry: “This” Is A “Post”

Gradations of an anti-choice wingnut

I’m so tickled about McCain’s inability to answer a basic question about Viagra vs. birth control pill, which is getting widespread coverage and is going to haunt him.  In fact, it’s so widespread that Bill O’Reilly decided he had to argue for the double standard on his show.  In doing so, he’s taking an enormous risk, because unfairness of it all is so evident that even his feeble attempts to defend it fall short, and he’s reduced (well, he likes it, so not reduced) to basically mocking women for having sex while simultaneously arguing that straight men have an enshrined right to have it.  His audience is pretty dumb, but even they might see the holes in his theory.

So the assault on contraception is getting more mainstream.  Anti-choice activists have had bans on contraception on their wish lists for years, which pretty definitively proves that they’re more anti-sex than “pro-life”.  Of course, every time I bring up the fact that the organized anti-choice movement is formally anti-comprehensive sex education and anti-contraception, some yahoo in comments will try to play gotcha by saying that some anti-choicers (no doubt himself) support the right to use contraception.  It’s of course up in the air if they agree with Bill O’Reilly that insurance companies should cover women who dare to have sex like dirty, dirty hoors. 

Which brings me to my larger point.  The existence of private, non-activist citizens who think abortion should be illegal but are tolerant of legal contraception doesn’t in any way prove that the debate is about the fetus more than it’s about women’s rights and women’s sexuality.  The fact of the matter is that anxiety about women’s liberation and about sex exists on a scale, and that scale determines where people stand in relation to their opinion on reproductive rights.  Let me describe the various spots on the scale as I see it to illustrate, starting on the right and moving leftward.

1) The American Taliban.  A combination of the treacly subculture of Catholicism that worships women who died in childbirth as saints and the fundamentalist Protestants who organized the religious right after schools were desegregated.  These folks are misogynists through and through, and think that a hardline patriarchy where women are channeled into wife-and-motherhood and nothing else, preferably at an early age, is what god wants.  They oppose any and all attempts to liberate people from calcified gender roles, including contraception, comprehensive sex education, and tolerance of homosexuality.  They’d like to see a return to throwing people in jail for sodomy and for distributing information about birth control or performing underground abortions.  They believe that women who have sex outside of marriage are hellbound Jezebels or, more often, childlike creatures who simply cannot handle liberation and need to be controlled for their own good.  They support chastity for men as well as women, but mainly because they realize that if men have sex outside of marriage, they’re defiling some other man’s virgin bride. The entire organized anti-choice movement is made up of these people, including Feminists For Life, who are left-leaning insofar as they lightly intersect with the next category.

2) The “Women You Fuck/Women You Marry” Brigade.  Still hard to the right, and usually anti-abortion rights, though they tend to be somewhat softer on contraception because there’s a special subcategory of the “Women You Marry” category, which is women you have sex with before you marry them.  They like the idea of virgin brides, in other words, but don’t think it’s mandatory.  They have no problem with straight male sexuality, even though they still think the penis has magical defiling powers to turn women into sluts.  These are the Bill O’Reillys and John McCains of the world, who tell unfunny rape jokes and think the double standard is obvious.  They have no problem expressing opinions against women’s equal access to the public sphere.  They might tolerate the right to contraception, but they’d easily be swayed against it, as Bill O’Reilly demonstrates, because they tend to think that it’s women’s lot in life to suffer.  Dirty whores deserve to be forced to have kids/get back alley abortions to teach them a lesson, and the girls you marry should be willing to endure unwanted pregnancy with saintlike feminine good cheer and the belief in a reward in the hereafter.

3) Women Grow Up By Submitting Crew. These are the people who really sit on the fence, and I believe make up the mushy middle.  They believe that teenage girls shouldn’t have sex, of course, but they’re also tolerant of pre-marital sex and don’t think that someone should have to suffer unduly forever for it.  They support contraception rights, and are probably increasingly convinced that it is in fact unfair to cover Viagra and not birth control—-at least the women see that as a blatant double standard.  They believe there’s a difference between a slut and a good girl, but they accept that good girls might date around some in their youth before they settle down.  The main thing is that women settle down and take part in the patriarchal marriage after a reasonable period of time.  They’re easily swayed by the argument that abortion shouldn’t be used as “birth control”, because they think that good girls, if they get pregnant on accident, make honest women out of themselves by marrying the father and having the baby.  They all too often see abortion restrictions as restrictions only on those women trying to escape this fate, which is why they like to entertain bans on abortion that make exceptions for rape.  They also don’t have a problem with male sexuality, and like group #2, tolerate sexist expressions of it as “boys will be boys”. 

4) I’m Gonna Fuck Random Bitches For The Rest Of My Life Dudes.  These are the guys that see Hugh Hefner as a role model. They’re pro-choice because they like to imagine that it makes their lives easier.  They’re not actually that big a group, but I’d be remiss not to mention them.  They don’t like women at all, are egotists and think pregnancy is something women do to trap them.  These are the guys won over by the idea that men should have a right to avoid child support payments by saying that they never wanted a baby and signing something.  They don’t get along with #6s too well, not because they’re promiscuous, but because they’re assholes.  They get on famously with men in #2 and even #3, because they can bond over a shared sense that bitches ain’t shit. (Except your own daughters, of course.)

5) Abortion Should Be Legal, But You Should Feel Bad Contingency.  Usually these are politically involved people who have moved up from group #3 because they’ve been educated on the facts about how women are going to get abortions no matter what the law.  They’re less sexist in general than group #3 in the sense that they don’t like the casual acceptance of male ruthlessness towards women.  They like to hear about how men should step up and take responsibility, and are turned off by some of the more mean-spirited porn and cheese sexism like Hooters.  That said, they still are wigged out by nightmares of sexual promiscuity and think the world would be a better place if everyone settled down and had babies and lived normal, middle-American lives.  They do like traditional gender roles, but tend to have an idealized version of them that comes with mutual respect and male devotion to wives.  They’re conservative Democrats/liberal Christians and the ones who are increasingly likely to support gay marriage because they see it as honoring their “marriage uber alles” morality.  They understand that life doesn’t always take you in the ideal direction, but figure if you find yourself in a position of having an abortion, it’s time you took stock and ask yourself what you’re going to need to do to get yourself into the ideal marriage-with-babies situation.  They like to hear about how abortion is a tragedy, because they do think it’s a tragedy that there are women out there who screw up the fall in love then get married then have babies life plan.  They support feminist goals like pay equity and subsidized day care much of the time.  Think: Amy Sullivan, William Saletan.  Unfortunately, they empathize with anti-choicers, though they shouldn’t.

6) Abortion On Demand Without Apology.  These are the people like me who scoff at talk abut how abortion is tragic.  Unwanted pregnancy can be tragic, but we believe that if someone makes a mistake with the contraception or it just fails, they shouldn’t beat themselves up about it.  We embrace sexual liberation and think that women’s liberation is incomplete if it doesn’t result in equality inside the home, in family life, and in sexual relationships.  We clearly see how pregnancy has traditionally been used to trap women, and we think that only by giving women complete control (without apology or guilt) over their reproductive capacities can they even begin to think of equality.  Many of us think the government has an obligation to make contraception and abortion free for everyone.  People in categories 1-3 and 5 imagine that a 25-year-old woman dating someone seriously who gets pregnant should suck it up and marry her boyfriend, even if she has doubts, and try to make a go of it.  #6 people tend to think that said woman should not feel bad if she decides instead to terminate and make her decision on who and whether to marry completely free of such pressures.  I would add that the people who like the frame “reproductive justice” instead of “pro-choice” tend to fall in this category as well, but take it a step further and look at ways to liberate women by making it easier to be a single parent, to be a gay or lesbian parent, etc.

I hope this clarifies things.  As you can see, the entire reproductive rights debate in this country can be outlined without a single reference to ensoulment of zygotes.  It really is about gender and sexuality.  I have no doubt that many of the people who oppose abortion do think it’s murder, but that’s a post hoc rationalization for beliefs that are rooted in ideas about gender, sexuality, and family life.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 12:38 PM • (74) Comments

Formatting on this post is a little messed up on IE.  The images and embedded video are stacking funny and the text is king of trying to wrap around the right side.

Using tables would probably fix this, but I’m not sure if you can do that in your blogging software.

MB

Comment #1: Mark B  on  07/23  at  01:04 PM

But where are the roving gangs of people who want to force christian women to have abortions so they can harvest stem cells from the fetuses to create a race of gay overlords?

Comment #2: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  07/23  at  01:07 PM

This post is made of win.  Bookmarked SO HARD.

Comment #3: Jackalopemonger  on  07/23  at  01:12 PM

I happened to catch this O’Reilly segment whilst flipping through the channels on a Frontier flight (they have TVs!).  Ironically, I was sitting right next to Ralph fucking Reed, who was watching it as well.
Appalling.  Setting aside the anti-womenhavingsex angle, does O’Reilly really not realize that many women take the Pill in order to alleviate symptoms of MEDICAL CONDITIONS?!?!

Comment #4: SarahMC  on  07/23  at  01:16 PM

Well, if I wrote up all the crazy stuff the American Taliban believes, that would take up the whole blog.  I thought I’d let other forms of sexists get a shot.

Comment #5: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/23  at  01:17 PM

I hope this clarifies things.

Yep, it sure as fuck does. It also points out one of the big contradictions in “big tent” visions of the Democratic Party. Are #5 and #6 ever going to be able to work together?

Comment #6: PhysioProf  on  07/23  at  01:21 PM

I guess I fall somewhere between #5 and #6.  I don’t think abortion is a tragedy, but I also think it should be prevented whenever possible.  If a woman gets pregnant while she’s dating someone, I think she needs to look separately at the questions of (a) do I want this baby? and (b) do I want to marry this guy?  Too often, the questions are conflated so that women who do want the baby but aren’t sure about the long-term health of the relationship think the solution is to get married.

I would call myself “Contraception On Demand Without Apology—Abortion If Necessary, But Not Preferred.”

Comment #7: Mnemosyne  on  07/23  at  01:31 PM

Appalling.  Setting aside the anti-womenhavingsex angle, does O’Reilly really not realize that many women take the Pill in order to alleviate symptoms of MEDICAL CONDITIONS?!?!

Of course not. That would involve actually knowing, speaking with, and understanding Real Life Women, and we all know O’Reilly can’t do that. They squick him out with their boobies and juices.

Comment #8: The One True Vegan  on  07/23  at  01:34 PM

Appalling.  Setting aside the anti-womenhavingsex angle, does O’Reilly really not realize that many women take the Pill in order to alleviate symptoms of MEDICAL CONDITIONS?!?!

You have a good point, but I would like to point out that “pregnancy is not a medical condition” is a fundamental part of their frame, and so “but some people take it for endometriosis!” falls squarely into their trap.

Code 650 in the DSM-IV: “Delivery in a completely normal case”. In other words, there is a medical code used for health insurance purposes to describe the outcome of a completely normal pregnancy. IT IS A MEDICAL CONDITION. Anyone who tries to claim that pregnancy is not a medical condition because it is part of the “normal” operating procedure of the body is a lying liar who lies. It can be a *desirable* medical condition, because the outcome is desired, but the medical condition of rapid blood loss can be desirable if the outcome of “I want to donate blood to my fellow humans in need” is desired, and that doesn’t mean it can’t make you pass out or go into shock.

Given that pregnancy can kill you and erectile dysfunction can’t (ED may itself be a symptom of a disease that could kill you, such as heart disease, but in such case ED is not the *cause* and treating it without treating the cause may actually make your medical outcome worse, as in with men who develop high blood pressure from taking ED and then have heart attacks during sex. Pregnancy is the *cause* of disorders such as gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, ectopic pregnancy, hyperemesis gravidarium, and needing to have the surgical intervention of caesarian section), people who claim that “Viagra treats a medical condition but birth control pills are a lifestyle choice” are full of shit. Viagra is also a lifestyle choice; if you were a celibate monk, you would not need ED medication. It is your free choice to have sex, and a disorder that prevents sex is something you wanna treat? Great! It’s women’s free choice to have sex too, and a medical condition that could threaten their lives that they could contract from sex is something that they want to prevent with medication. Sure, they could choose to have a baby instead. And you could choose to suck it up, and gratify your wife with oral and manual stimulation or swear off sex, but you don’t, because you want sex. SO DO WOMEN, and if you have the right to medical treatments that allow sex without complication, women have that right too.

In fact most insurance *will* cover your Pill if it’s for medical reasons not related to wanting to avoid pregnancy, so pointing this out is not only not a good retort to “logic” like BillO’s, but it also lets the notion that pregnancy isn’t a medical condition go zipping past unchallenged. Pregnancy is a very serious medical condition that, untreated, kills thousands of women a year. Pregnancy can also be a wonderful life-affirming experience and it can result in something that gives you enormous joy, but that does not make it not a medical condition. Anything that happens inside a human body and kills people *that* often and fucks up their bodies permanently even more often is a medical condition.

Comment #9: Alara Rogers  on  07/23  at  01:34 PM

I would call myself “Contraception On Demand Without Apology—Abortion If Necessary, But Not Preferred.”

Uh, then you’re squarely in #5, without one ounce of overlap. Sorry.

Comment #10: The One True Vegan  on  07/23  at  01:35 PM

I would call myself “Contraception On Demand Without Apology—Abortion If Necessary, But Not Preferred.”

Uh, then you’re squarely in #5, without one ounce of overlap. Sorry.

That’s ridiculous.  Just because I don’t think abortion is a preferable option doesn’t mean I don’t think it should be available to anyone who wants or needs one.  It’s perfectly possible to balance what I want for myself with my desire to let other people make their own decisions about their reproductive health.

Comment #11: Fashionably Evil  on  07/23  at  01:41 PM

But where are the roving gangs of people who want to force christian women to have abortions so they can harvest stem cells from the fetuses to create a race of gay overlords?

Shhhh. Beware the Red Hat Society.

Comment #12: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  07/23  at  01:41 PM

“but some people take it for endometriosis!” falls squarely into their trap.

Oh, I know, and I hate resorting to that.  But I know that O’Reilly isn’t going to acknowledge that pregnancy is a medical condition.  I was just pointing out that he doesn’t even acknowledge the basic fact that the Pill is not just used as birth control.

Comment #13: SarahMC  on  07/23  at  01:42 PM

Anyone who tries to claim that pregnancy is not a medical condition because it is part of the “normal” operating procedure of the body is a lying liar who lies.

My body’s normal operating condition is to have an extreme inflammatory response that results in rosacea.  It’s not a “disease,” because it’s just an annoyance that my body does all on its own and it’s certainly not going to kill me by any stretch of the imagination.  Am I supposed to give up my Noritate because I’m trying to thwart what my body wants?

Comment #14: Mnemosyne  on  07/23  at  01:43 PM

I don’t think abortion is a tragedy, but I also think it should be prevented whenever possible.

This is the kind of thing we have to be careful when we say because it *can* fall into the right-wing frame, but I agree with you. I don’t think open heart surgery is a tragedy, but I also think it should be prevented whenever possible, by using diet and medications to keep people from ever getting so sick that they *need* open heart surgery. If diet and medications didn’t work I would never want to shame someone out of open heart surgery or make them feel bad about the fact that they have to have it or put obstacles in their way. That’s how I feel about abortion.

I want to see abortion be safe, legal and rare, not because I think women who have abortions are dirty sluts, but because abortion is either a painful medical process or a surgical intervention, and if you could prevent a woman from having to go through such suffering by her using birth control to not get pregnant in the first place, then gravy. I also believe that we would have fewer abortions if we made it easier for women to take care of born babies, or deal with pregnancy—for example, a delivery with complications can cost so much money that a woman who would like to have a baby may feel forced to have an abortion because she has no health insurance, and $600 for an abortion is a hell of a lot cheaper than $14,000 for labor and delivery in a hospital. And a woman who fears losing her job if she has a baby also has cruel incentives to get an abortion that a woman who feels secure in her financial future would not suffer. So if we eliminated a lot of economic uncertainty in motherhood, guaranteed health care coverage to everyone, gave women more tools for escaping abusive relationships, and made sure all women had access to birth control, we could get the abortion rate way down without harming anyone or denying anyone a medical procedure they need.

I’m a 6 because I don’t think women should apologize or feel guilty for needing an abortion any more than a heart attack patient should feel guilty for needing open heart surgery. But I *am* in favor of making abortion rarer, just because I’m always in favor of prevention rather than cure when possible.

Comment #15: Alara Rogers  on  07/23  at  01:46 PM

Good analysis. I’m probably #5 FWIW. I wouldn’t call abortion a “tragedy” (too sentimental) but more “necessary evil”. Its better to use the pill or a condom, prevent pregnancy, and just never have to make that kind of decision. Which is why birth control should be absolutely covered, and there should be condom dispensers in every bathroom.

But if the condom breaks or you forget your pill or whatever, at the end of the day the decision to abort or not is the woman’s decision, nobody else’s. Not the boyfriend, not the husband, not the parents, and most certainly not the government’s, period.

I have no problem with #6ers because really, at the end of the day, we end up supporting the same public policy even if there are moral differences.

Comment #16: Ben D.  on  07/23  at  01:46 PM

You know, I understand the case, intellectually, for how the pill (for birth control reasons) and Viagra are “different”, when it comes to medical coverage. Not saying i agree, just that I understand the reasoning. However, most people don’t care for this nuance and merely intuitively understand both medications as part and parcel of “health care” and believe that they should be treated equally. The right-wingers are totally going to lose this argument, no matter how they try to reason their way out of it.

Comment #17: Tyro  on  07/23  at  01:47 PM

Uh, then you’re squarely in #5, without one ounce of overlap. Sorry.

So if I say it’s preferable for people to see their dentist twice a year so they can avoid getting a root canal, that means I want root canals to be banned?  I’m supposed to pretend that root canals are a great thing and there’s no reason to try and prevent them?

Abortion is minor surgery.  I prefer to avoid surgery, minor or otherwise, whenever possible, but if it’s your idea of a good time, be my guest.

Comment #18: Mnemosyne  on  07/23  at  01:48 PM

There are some people who form a footnote to #6. I don’t think casual pickups are a Good Thing in general, although other people’s casual pickups aren’t my problem as long as they practice safer sex and inform partners about any STDs beforehand. (I am in healthcare, and I do believe in promoting prevention.) My ideal is sex within a long-term mutually supportive relationship, ie, something similar to a truly egalitarian marriage. And yes, one typically has several tries before the desired long-term relationship happens.

On the other hand, I am shy, and that influences my outlook a lot.

And I know unplanned pregnancy happens to the best-prepared, and have no moral issues with any elective early abortions. I do think that people who can afford and schedule abortion in first trimester should do so, but don’t blame the slower folks who are young or poor. Third trimester abortions I consider moral for “non-elective” reasons, ie, maternal health, really major fetal anomaly, extreme youth of mother (often combined with rape). I do think that fetuses in the third trimester can feel pain, and even if you don’t count the fetus as human until its first breath, one should extend the third-trimester fetus the same consideration as an animal - don’t inflict pain without necessity.

Comment #19: NancyP  on  07/23  at  01:49 PM

which pretty definitively proves that they’re more anti-sex

Oh, no, no, no. Not O’Reilly. Bill-o likes sex. As we know in far-too-lurid detail from his multi-million dollar harrassment suit settlement.

Comment #20: Quaker in a Basement  on  07/23  at  01:52 PM

Yeah I thought Bill-o is more #4. Shouldn’t men who get married but have serial divorces (Rush Limbaugh) be #4 too?

Comment #21: Ben D.  on  07/23  at  01:54 PM

While I count myself under item 6, I am sympathetic to item #4 (and no, NOT from personal experience.)

Control of one’s body and control of one’s finances seem like two separate issues.  Men don’t have any right to coerce women into having a baby, that’s a given to me.  Not only is pregnancy potentially dangerous to a woman, but being stuck having to support a child for 18+ years could be well financially disastrous. On that latter point, assuming that women can choose whether to bear the financial responsibility, why don’t men get the same choice, at least during the same period of time (the first few month of pregnancy) that women get?  Please don’t say “well, they shouldn’t go sticking their dicks in women if they don’t want to deal with the consequences!” - that’s pretty much one of the main excuses anti-choicers use in regards to women and sex. 

I’m unsure how to resolve this.  I’m fully aware that women who do choose to bear the child make less money, and tend to have stunted career advancement.  I also have been around the block enough times to know that if abortion-on-demand and men-can-opt-out were implemented simultaneously, that abortion would tend to get undermined, while men opting out would conveniently stay in place.  Still, something sticks in my craw about this.

(By the way, your item #4 seems to imply that promiscuous men = bad.  You didn’t really mean to imply that, did you?)

Comment #22: PostingWhileIntoxicated  on  07/23  at  01:55 PM

I’m a 6 because I don’t think women should apologize or feel guilty for needing an abortion any more than a heart attack patient should feel guilty for needing open heart surgery. But I *am* in favor of making abortion rarer, just because I’m always in favor of prevention rather than cure when possible.

Part of my issue is that I think it’s silly to think that we’re ever going to be able to completely eliminate guilt from abortion, because people feel guilty about lots of medical procedures.  I felt incredibly guilty after 10 years of avoiding the dentist led to a broken tooth and two root canals.  I still beat myself up a little for falling off a stepladder and tearing my ACL even though it was an accident.  In fact, I probably feel guilty because it was an accident—I should have been more careful, I should have watched my footing better, I shouldn’t have been trying to carry so many binders all at once.

What we should be telling people is that it’s normal to feel a little guilty when an accident leads to minor surgery, but that guilt doesn’t necessarily mean they committed a great moral crime.  It means that they’re human and their human brain is trying to figure out how they could have avoided the accident in the first place.

But, then, I was raised Catholic, so I may have a different relationship to guilt than the rest of you.  grin

Comment #23: Mnemosyne  on  07/23  at  02:01 PM

How is someone going to the dentist twice a year something they should feel bad about?  Cause that’s the point of #5.  It’s the shame factor, which is completely irrelevant in preventative medicine.  So if your problem with abortion is the fact that it’s a medical procedure which could possibly having complications, that has nothing to do with #5.

Comment #24: Erin  on  07/23  at  02:05 PM

Excellent post, and elegantly written.  Although I have to think that I don’t quite fall under any of those categories, as an infertile man who doesn’t have a personal stake in the debate, it seems to me that how a woman feels about her abortion is none of my business at all.  I’m in favor of reproductive justice and unrestricted abortion rights for all women, and I don’t think anyone should feel obliged to apologize for exercising those rights.  At the same time, though, I don’t know anyone who has had an abortion who hasn’t wound up reflecting somewhat on her life as a result—even a woman who knows that an abortion is nothing to feel guilt over will put more thought into this decision than some other medical decisions, it seems to me.  Which isn’t to say that these women wind up feeling guilty, but the abortion (necessary as it was) does wind up making their lives more difficult, at least in the short term, because that type of reflection can be quite difficult and occasionally painful.  So I guess “abortion is tragic” is too strong a term—it’s not something that’s going to ruin a woman’s life or anything.  But it is a serious decision, and—despite the insistence of the righties who think that feminists get abortions because they don’t want to turn their sex room into a nursery—I don’t think it’s a decision that anyone makes without giving the matter a great deal of thought.

Which, I suppose, probably means I’m still falling comfortably in the realm of the sixes.  But I guess I can’t quite bring myself to “scoff” at the fives, either, because our differences of opinion might be more of a question of language and semantics.

Comment #25: Bradley  on  07/23  at  02:06 PM

SarahMC:

Ironically, I was sitting right next to Ralph fucking Reed, who was watching it as well.

Bullshit.  We didn’t hear about Reed being assaulted with sex toys on an airline flight by a completely hysterical woman.

.  .  .

Well, its what I would have done . . .

Comment #26: idiosynchronic  on  07/23  at  02:10 PM

Wow. This is really informative. Thank you for mapping out the terrain of the struggle so clearly. I am now mentally assigning various people to the appropriate group, and considering the true size of each group.

Comment #27: atheist  on  07/23  at  02:13 PM

Setting aside the anti-womenhavingsex angle, does O’Reilly really not realize that many women take the Pill in order to alleviate symptoms of MEDICAL CONDITIONS?!?!

Preventing pregnancy is a legitimate medical concern. 

The worst thing that could happen to a man who doesn’t have Viagra, biologically speaking, is sexual frustration.

The worst thing that could happen to a woman who isn’t using contraception, biologically speaking, is death.

Preventing pregnancy is a legitimate medical need.  I’m sick to death of people, however well-intended, trying to draw a distinction between preventing pregnancy and “medical reasons”. Preventing pregnancy—-a bona fide dangerous medical condition—-is a legitimate medical reason.

Comment #28: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/23  at  02:16 PM

Or what Alara said.

Comment #29: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/23  at  02:17 PM

(By the way, your item #4 seems to imply that promiscuous men = bad.  You didn’t really mean to imply that, did you?)

I think she’s saying that men who want to be promiscuous but do not believe that women should have reproductive rights are either unthinking or callous.

Comment #30: atheist  on  07/23  at  02:19 PM

Mnem, I think you’re more in #6 than #5, but really, I have to say that while I understand the urge to have a relationship-defining moment in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, I really do think for a lot of women, it would be wiser to get the abortion and let the relationship proceed at its own pace.  I think the only reason abortion would be a life-shattering decision in a non-sexist framework is if you couldn’t have another baby after you have one.  And you can, so that’s not a factor.  In a non-sexist framework, you shouldn’t have to have a come-to-Jesus moment because your body did something at the wrong time.

Comment #31: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/23  at  02:20 PM

Mnem, I think you’re more in #6 than #5, but really, I have to say that while I understand the urge to have a relationship-defining moment in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, I really do think for a lot of women, it would be wiser to get the abortion and let the relationship proceed at its own pace.

Assuming that the woman doesn’t want to have a child, or not have a child at that time, then yes.  But there will be circumstances where a woman decides she wants to have that accidental child at that time but isn’t sure that she wants to get married.  That’s why I think the decision to have/not have the child and to continue/not continue the relationship should be two separate decisions. 

You shouldn’t have an abortion to make your boyfriend happy any more than you should have a baby to make him happy.  That’s all I was arguing.

Comment #32: Mnemosyne  on  07/23  at  02:25 PM

I think that there’s a lot of men who think promiscuous sex is abusive to women, and not only don’t care, but think that’s the fun part of it.  They get off on the idea that they’re seducing women and leaving them wanting.  They don’t like the idea that women can walk away from sex as easily as men, because their egos won’t have it.  They’re big into expressions of sexualized sexism, like abusive pornography and visiting prostitutes, so that they can sexual encounters with unwilling women and get off on the pleasure of that.  They preen about their behavior to other men, and not only don’t care if women like it, but actually really hope women resent them, because they don’t like women and enjoy pissing them off.

Men who actually like women but just so happen to have had a lot of sexual partners are not the same thing at all.

Comment #33: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/23  at  02:27 PM

I’m not sure that guilt can be separated from abortion for some folks.  As someone with a two-year old and a DNC due to failed pregnancy and potentially facing a week 19 abortion dependant on amnio results, I will feel terribly guilty if I have to undergo an abortion.  I’ll do it if I have too, and if it was my first pregnancy, it probably wouldn’t bother me as much.  At this stage in the game though I can feel the fetus moving and have seen the ultrasound images.  It’s not something that is black and white - it’s potentially very emotionally scaring.  So yeah, I think women should be able to have an abortion if they need/want one, but do I think it should be treated as any other form of birth control?  Absolutely not. It’s just not that simple.

Comment #34: Melissa  on  07/23  at  02:28 PM

Yeah, of course not, Mnem.  I fully support a woman’s right to have the child against her boyfriend’s wishes.  At the end of the day, it’s her right.

But I do think that if women were completely, 100% liberated and respected, incidents where women get pregnant on accident and decide to go for it against their boyfriend’s wishes would probably dwindle to zero.  First of all, you’d be in communication with him about what will happen if you get pregnant before it happens, leaving him with the right to leave instead of risk having a baby he doesn’t want.  Second of all, you’d feel empowered to pursue non-man-based options for getting pregnant, like sperm banks.  You wouldn’t have to get involved in all that drama at all.

Comment #35: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/23  at  02:30 PM

But I do think that if women were completely, 100% liberated and respected, incidents where women get pregnant on accident and decide to go for it against their boyfriend’s wishes would probably dwindle to zero.

You have WAY more faith in human nature than I do.  Even if we got to 100% equality, we’re still dealing with the little bundles of irrational emotions and feelings that are human beings.  Note:  I’m not saying women are irrational and emotional.  I’m saying we’re ALL irrational and emotional beings at base and hundreds of years of trying to pretend men aren’t equally as irrational and emotional as women is part of the reason for the fix we’re in.

The more we study other animals, the more we realize our emotions are part of our animal nature, not something uniquely human.  So insisting that, absent societal pressures, people will act rationally and not emotionally isn’t, well, rational.

Comment #36: Mnemosyne  on  07/23  at  02:45 PM

Uh, then you’re squarely in #5, without one ounce of overlap. Sorry.

So if I say it’s preferable for people to see their dentist twice a year so they can avoid getting a root canal, that means I want root canals to be banned?

nowhere in the description of #5 is a “ban” ever mentioned, so Fail on that point. #5 explicitly Believes In Legal Abortion, but considers it a necessary evil that should prompt some kind of reflection/mourning/get yourself together!

To reiterate:

from #5: They understand that life doesn’t always take you in the ideal direction, but figure if you find yourself in a position of having an abortion, it’s time you took stock

From you: I don’t think abortion is a tragedy, but I also think it should be prevented whenever possible.  If a woman gets pregnant while she’s dating someone, I think she needs to look separately at the questions of (a) do I want this baby? and (b) do I want to marry this guy?

Hrm.

Comment #37: The One True Vegan  on  07/23  at  02:55 PM

er…having read Mnem’s last post re: guilt, I’m forced to say….please please please seek help…

Comment #38: The One True Vegan  on  07/23  at  02:58 PM

I feel pigeon-holed.

I’m with the ounce of prevention people.
Too bad some sectors feel that guilt and subjugation are better preventions than actually using effective tools we currently have.

But you know what they say about people who only have a hammer in their tool box.

Comment #39: cynickal  on  07/23  at  03:03 PM

Did you know that “The One True Vegan” is also The One True Authority on reproductive rights?

Comment #40: atheist  on  07/23  at  03:09 PM

er…having read Mnem’s last post re: guilt, I’m forced to say….please please please seek help…

Gee, Vegan, thank you for the insta-analysis.  I certainly had no idea that my mother’s death when I was 7 had led to mental health issues beyond my control that I’ve been dealing with ever since.  Thank you so much for pointing them out since I clearly had no idea that I had them until you said something!

You may not want to pre-judge people’s mental health issues.  Just a hint.

Comment #41: Mnemosyne  on  07/23  at  03:13 PM

And evidently the One True Authority on mental health issues as well.

Comment #42: Melissa  on  07/23  at  03:15 PM

idiosynchronic, I tell you the truth!  I did not let on that I knew who he was.  It was a long flight and I was sitting in the middle seat, so I did not want to make things more miserable.

Amanda, you know I realize that preventing pregnancy is a legitimate medical concern, right?  Like, not only do I realize it, I spend a considerable amount of time advocating that position.  It just seems like people are jumping on me as though I disagreed.

Comment #43: SarahMC  on  07/23  at  03:20 PM

I think that there’s a lot of men who think promiscuous sex is abusive to women, and not only don’t care, but think that’s the fun part of it

Ah - thanks.  I agree with that, and have known guys who expressed (however indirectly) opinions like that.  It’s yet another reason that I have considerably more women as friends than men.

Comment #44: PostingWhileIntoxicated  on  07/23  at  03:30 PM

As you can see, the entire reproductive rights debate in this country can be outlined without a single reference to ensoulment of zygotes.

Why do you insist on framing the debate only from the perspective of women’s rights? Aren’t there other issues to consider, like right to privacy, individual liberty, the right to life, and state versus federal legal determinism? I’ll agree, it’s a very important part of the debate. But why must it be either “abortion is perfectly okay” or “women should be kept in dungeons?”

Isn’t it possible to have at least some middle ground?

Comment #45: a yahoo (aka Joe)  on  07/23  at  03:33 PM

Good analysis. I’m probably #5 FWIW. I wouldn’t call abortion a “tragedy” (too sentimental) but more “necessary evil”.

Why is it “evil?”

Comment #46: Joe  on  07/23  at  03:35 PM

“Please don’t say “well, they shouldn’t go sticking their dicks in women if they don’t want to deal with the consequences!” - that’s pretty much one of the main excuses anti-choicers use in regards to women and sex.”

The idea that there’s some great unfairness in the possibility that a man who does not want a child can have protected sex with a woman who also doesn’t want a child but a) gets pregnant, b) carries to term, and c) keeps the baby and then be sued for child support seems a bit overblown, even if you ignore the conflicting interest at that point of the new human who has a legitimate claim to parental support.  Keep in mind that it’s not like women can prevent ovulation using just the power of their minds—women can choose not to become mothers if they don’t want to be, but even that choice requires money, effort, and the potential for serious physical problems.

Realistically, the best solution to the “zomg I can’t control my sperm!” problem is more and better birth control options for men.  The alternatives—giving men the authority to force or deny abortions for women they may have impregnated, instituting a much stronger social safety net that would see society in general stepping up to fulfill the financial obligations of men who for whatever reason don’t feel like contributing directly, etc.—either open entirely new and horrible cans of worms or have about as much chance of happening as McCain admitting that this whole Iraq thing is a criminal fiasco.  Fortunately, the male pill and various reversible vasectomy-type procedures (the intravas device looks particularly promising) should be available relatively soon, so men who want more direct control over their reproductive lives than condoms provide will be able to pick their proverbial poison.

Comment #47: preying mantis  on  07/23  at  03:45 PM

On that latter point, assuming that women can choose whether to bear the financial responsibility, why don’t men get the same choice, at least during the same period of time (the first few month of pregnancy) that women get?  Please don’t say “well, they shouldn’t go sticking their dicks in women if they don’t want to deal with the consequences!” - that’s pretty much one of the main excuses anti-choicers use in regards to women and sex. 

Because the reason you are allowed to get an abortion is not financial—it is the right to control your *own body*.

If you could abort for financial reasons, then you could kill a born baby because you can’t pay for it. Admittedly, as long as women have the right to abortion, they *can* abort for financial reasons, but that is not the *reason* they may abort. If the reason I want to drive a car is because I’m an asshat who likes lording it over people who walk on the sidewalk, and young teens would like the right to lord it over people who walk on the sidewalk, that is not justification for giving them the right to drive—the right to drive is based on your freedom of movement ameliorated by safety concerns for others, not on your desire to be an asshat. But that doesn’t mean I *can’t* be an asshat who mocks teens because they can’t drive; it just means that’s not what my right to drive is based on.

Women and men have exactly the same rights vis-a-vis reproduction. Both have the right to control what their body does to contribute to the creation of a baby. Men have a much narrower window of time to do this in, so the only right men have is to not emit working sperm into a woman’s vagina. Once they have emitted working sperm into a woman’s vagina, it is *her* bodily integrity that’s at stake, and they lose control. Then once the baby is born it is the baby’s bodily integrity that’s at stake and the mother loses control; non-custodial biological mothers must in fact pay child support to custodial dads, just like the other way around.

A woman loses the right to give up a child for adoption if the father is known and if he objects; she may give the child up *to* him but this does not terminate her obligation to pay child support. The fact that men can be uninvolved in a woman’s pregnancy and therefore unaware of her intent to give up the child is another unfortunate side effect of the man’s window for action being smaller; if a man has emitted sperm into a woman’s vagina and does not want a child of his to be given up without his consent, unfortunately he has to affirmatively protect that right by being present in the woman’s life. If he *doesn’t* want anything to do with the kid, well, tough shit. If the woman doesn’t want anything to do with the kid but cannot get an abortion, *she* is forced to deal with the grueling physical ordeal of pregnancy.

Basically, as long as you are a parasite living off another human being, as part of their body, they have the right to do what they want with you—let you live and grow, or eliminate you. Once you are born, you are a human being and you have the right to support from both parents, unless both agree to terminate their rights in the course of assigning you a different parent/set of parents. (Silence gives assent; if a man isn’t there to say no, he agrees.) The person who did all the work has more control of the situation, certainly, but that should be *normal*.

So this is kind of a bullshit comparison. The fact that a woman has to undergo surgery or take medication that causes severe cramping to get the same effect that men apparently want to get by signing a piece of paper should tip people off that there is in fact no parity here and the situations are not comparable. It is not an onerous burden on men to say “don’t emit working sperm into a woman’s vagina without understanding that you risk causing an 18-year financial burden on yourself” when you consider that for women the stakes are “don’t let sperm be emitted into your vagina at a time when you may produce an egg without understanding that you risk either having to undergo surgery, suffering painful cramping, or undergoing a debilitating medical condition that results in an 18-year financial burden on yourself and could possibly kill or permanently harm you.”

Comment #48: Alara Rogers  on  07/23  at  03:52 PM

Hey, you put it out there. And you put it out there in a lighthearted, “i feel guilty when minor things go wrong, oh, but I’m a catholic, what can i do?” way, not a “this is my tormented relationship to guilt” way. Go ahead and castigate me for not knowing your entire history by pure osmosis, it matter not. But if you don’t want people drawing incorrect or insensitive conclusions, may I suggest you not frame your issues as a joke in a public forum?

Probably not. But anyway…

I wasn’t aware that holding someone to the interpretations as given (#5 vs #6) is some kind of bludgeonly cardinal sin of arrogance. I just happen to think that this issue makes people squicky enough that they turn away from real self-scrutiny. If you think women should feel a little bad about an abortion, that’s fine for you. But don’t say, “no no, I’m not one of *those* people who thinks you should feel guilty! I’m a *different* kind of person who thinks you should feel guilty.” That’s just lying to yourself.

Comment #49: The One True Vegan  on  07/23  at  03:53 PM

Joe,

Its evil in the same way quadruple bypass surgery is. Because it sucks to have to undergo that and its best to prevent it.

I’m not going to sit on my ass and stuff my face with three pounds of bacon and smoke five packs of Marlboro Reds everyday saying “hey I can always get heart surgery, nothing wrong with that!”

Comment #50: Ben D.  on  07/23  at  03:57 PM

I think the distinction between #5 and #6 are very small. Its like Deism vs. Atheism. Sure, theres a difference, but in the real world it really doesn’t matter much.

Comment #51: Ben D.  on  07/23  at  03:58 PM

Isn’t it possible to have at least some middle ground?

No, not as long as the middle ground reads, as it does currently, “your body is your own except when the idea creeps us out a leeeettle too much.”

Comment #52: The One True Everything  on  07/23  at  03:58 PM

Go ahead and castigate me for not knowing your entire history by pure osmosis, it matter not. But if you don’t want people drawing incorrect or insensitive conclusions, may I suggest you not frame your issues as a joke in a public forum?

Ah.  Good to know I can be an asshole to people all I want as long as I don’t know their whole histories until I get called on it.  Otherwise, making fun of mental illness is A-OK.  Gotcha.

You might want to notice that I was not the only person who found that comment jarring.

Comment #53: Mnemosyne  on  07/23  at  03:59 PM

“Do I have to buy you dinner before you use the birth control?”

lmao I nearly choked on my tea.

Comment #54: banisteriopsis  on  07/23  at  04:03 PM

I agree with the categories, but I don’t see them as distinct sets of people. Rather, I see them as points on a continuum, with as many people lying on points somewhere between the main categories as there are people distinctly in the main categories. But that’s just me.

Men who actually like women but just so happen to have had a lot of sexual partners are not the same thing at all.

They don’t usually go around bragging about it, either.

Comment #55: Dweeze  on  07/23  at  04:07 PM

Hey, when I called Benjamin Franklin an ‘asshole’, I was only using what he’d said about himself. After all, didn’t he say “I am obnoxious” once? If he didn’t want to be called on it, why did he write it down?

Deists. What a bunch of compromisers.

Comment #56: the one true atheist  on  07/23  at  04:07 PM

As someone who’s frequently sought help, both for mental illness AND for issues that have nothing to do with mental illness,

1) it’s not really mockery to suggest that someone work through their shit. I read your comment and it was seriously jarring—speaking of jarring—to see such an unhealthy relationship with, well, everything. Your cavalier tone suggested that you considered it totally normal.

and 2) I never said it was a-OK. I agree it’s jerky. And you called me on being a jerk. What more is there to do about it? I admit to both being a jerk AND to being rather desensitized to mental illness, since I struggle with it daily.

3) (carryover from our last discussion, I believe) YES, people are assholes! Even and especially on the internetz. This is why maybe you don’t put things out there that you want treated with kid gloves.

I am, in fact, capable of reading despite my other faults, so I know that you weren’t the only one offended. Does the Internet require an apology? Fine, I apologize.

And if anyone wants to get off the hijack, I did mention the topic at the end of my previous post…

Comment #57: The One True Everything  on  07/23  at  04:09 PM

Why do you insist on framing the debate only from the perspective of women’s rights? Aren’t there other issues to consider, like right to privacy, individual liberty, the right to life, and state versus federal legal determinism?

Because the right of the pregnant person to not be pregnant *is* the right to privacy and the right to individual liberty, and if the state or the federal government can trump that for any reason then our Constitution is a sham.

As for the right to life, the whole phrasing of the right to life irritates the hell out of me, because it assumes that babies would just grow and live unless those mean aborting women kill them, and it ignores the fact that women have to do enormous amounts of work to make a baby live. Why do you think it’s called “labor”? It may be unconscious processes performed automatically by the body, but it is *work.* You must generate more blood volume, process more food and water, purify more wastes, grow more skin, manufacture more hormones, breathe more air, and if you can’t do any of those things you will get sick or the baby will die or both.

If your “right to live” is dependent on someone else’s hard physical labor in creating you, then you don’t really have a right to live, do you?

The question is “is there a class of people who can compel other people to feed and house them *with their own flesh and blood* in order that they might survive?” Because if someone is just going to automatically live unless you kill them, of course it’s wrong to kill them, but if you have to do extremely hard work to keep them alive, then forcing you to do that work is slavery. If any person can be enslaved by any other person, then we have no right to liberty.

(And before anyone wants to say that adults must provide care to their infants… no, they don’t have to. That’s the whole point of giving people up for adoption. In order to cease giving care to your infant, you must surrender it to a different caretaker, and if you could biologically cease being pregnant by surrendering your pregnancy to a different person, I might have a different opinion about abortion, but you can’t.)

Comment #58: Alara Rogers  on  07/23  at  04:15 PM

I am just a lurker here, but I wanted to say that Alara’s post @ 2:52 pm cut through my own bs regarding male choice in abortion. 

I got a vasectomy in order to never be in the position of becoming an unwilling father, but I always felt bad for those who were (including a friend of mine) and always wished that there were some way for men to decline to be a father after the pregnancy began.  This was unsettling, as I am a feminist and it is a very MRA kind of thought.

I guess I just wanted to express shock that a mind was actually changed by an argument on a discussion board, and gratitude that it was mine.

Comment #59: Fatman  on  07/23  at  04:32 PM

“if you have to do extremely hard work to keep them alive, then forcing you to do that work is slavery. If any person can be enslaved by any other person, then we have no right to liberty.”

This is the best argument, in terms of personal liberty, against forced pregnancy (which is
the effect of outlawing abortion and/or contraception).

I like to compare outlawing abortion to requiring kidney donation by law.  The religious don’t
like this comparison because pregnancy is “natural” and “normal” while donating a kidney
to your child, or even a stranger is not.  Also lots of people claim that pregnancy is “easy”,
while in truth it has higher injury and death rates than many surgical procedures.

However, they same religious don’t want to outlaw intervention to prevent other natural medical
conditions (like illness).

Lisa

Comment #60: LC  on  07/23  at  04:38 PM

Why do you insist on framing the debate only from the perspective of women’s rights? Aren’t there other issues to consider, like right to privacy, individual liberty, the right to life, and state versus federal legal determinism?

Actually, he does have a point.  Many issues can be tackled from multiple frames, but the freedom to choose one’s own medical outcomes (abortion) does seem to have more working frames from the anti- side than the pro- side.

I wonder though if that’s simple because reality itself is harder to frame?  By that I mean:  the conservative side has this whole father-knows-best picket-fences frame where everything has its place and anyone who doesn’t fit in is simply “wrong”, but the progressive side has lots of overlapping issues that require quite a bit more work to find the common elements.

Comment #61: KL  on  07/23  at  04:48 PM

I know you know that, SarahMC.  My concern is that when reproductive rights people automatically go to the “You know that some people take the pill for legitimate medical reasons,” though, you are suggesting, whether you wish to or not, that preventing pregnancy is not a legitimate medical reason.

Comment #62: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/23  at  05:14 PM

Mnem, I think most miscommunication in heterosexual relationships really does go back to the way the patriarchy fucks with our heads. Women are ashamed to tell men up front that they’d keep a baby if they get pregnant, because they know that they’ll fall into a stereotype about baby-crazed, desperate women.  If that wasn’t the case, there wouldn’t be so much fear.  Or they’d have more control over their future and could plan the baby instead of just hoping it happens by accident.

Comment #63: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/23  at  05:21 PM

O’Reilly’s own logic falls apart. Viagra does not treat a medical condition any more than birth control taken for the sole purpose of suppressing ovulation does. Both medications are requested in order to overcome a body’s natural processes. For men, this natural process is in place to prevent seriously old geezers from siring children when they’re too old to care for them or have viable sperm. For women, this natural process is in place because we don’t go into heat like other animals to procreate, so we just ovulate all the time and sex gives us orgasms which entice us to do it when we feel like it.

Now, there will be some men who will be in their sexual prime who can’t get it up, and that’s a “medical condition,” just like women who suffer from endometriosis, raging satanic periods, or severe acne use BC to control those conditions.

The point is that the majority of us are taking those meds because we want to have sex, sex, wonderful sex, and that might involve suppressing a “natural” process. For O’Reilly to declare that viagra treats a “medical condition” is bullshit. It’s only a “medical condition” because men have been told that there’s something phisiologically wrong with them if they can’t get it up. It has nothing to do with an actual “medical condition.”

Comment #64: Mighty Ponygirl  on  07/23  at  05:36 PM

Exactly, I really hate that these discussions generally devolve into women qualifying that they DO need their BC because of their medical conditions.

As far as I’m concerned, every woman should announce loudly and proudly that she takes BC so that she can enjoy sex without getting pregnant. And give the stink-eye to anyone who suggests that she should only have it because she’s a good virtuous girl who suffers from some hormone-induced illness, and not as a dirty slut who wants to get out of being punished with babies.

Don’t let the right wing bait you. Even if you’re a virgin with endometriosis, be a slut-in-name-only just for the joy of throwing your sexuality back in their faces.

(This is the same annoyance I get when people make some comment about how all feminists are fat/ugly/unfuckable and feminists immediately have to defend how hot and fuckable they are.)

Comment #65: Mighty Ponygirl  on  07/23  at  05:40 PM

Thank goodness I live in the only country in the world that is by law #6. There is NO abortion law at all in Canada. When the previous law was thrown out by the Supreme Court, and juries repeatedly refused to convict Morgenthaler of operating abortion clinics, the government of the day tried to bring in compromise legislation, but the hardliners on both sides ganged up on it until the gov’t finally said, screw it, we give up. And there’s been no law ever since.

The present level of support for making all abortions illegal in Canada is somewhere around 5%.

Last time I looked, the sky was blue and the sun shining here. Ask your wingnuts about that some time.

Comment #66: sunsin  on  07/23  at  06:52 PM

Sunsin-

You can brag when you kick out Harper.

Comment #67: Ben D.  on  07/23  at  07:28 PM

Alara Rogers, you ROCK!  You are right on all accounts. 

I see myself as a 7- Abortion As A Part Of A Rational Policy Of Self-Determination. These are the people who see abortion as problematic only in the sense that medical science has not focused on making it even safer and easier than it all ready is.  They believe that a woman’s bodily autonomy is absolute, and it is never wrong to assert control over your reproductive organs.  While they agree that prevention is always a better option than having to deal with an issue through direct medical or surgical intervention, they realize that most current forms of contraception and sterilization which are considered reliable actually do involve medical and or surgical intervention of some sort, creating a false dichotomy between “the evils of abortion” v. “the evils of tubal ligation” or the “evils of long-term chemical contraceptive use” or even “the evils of IUD placement and maintanance”.  They quite frequently believe that it would be in society’s best interests to not only fund and support access to contraception/abortion, but they believe society would be best served by direct governmental suppport of research into advanced contraceptive/ abortion techniques. They reject natalism entirely, and believe it is intimately intertwined with patriarchy and female oppression. People in categories 1-3 and 5 imagine that a 25-year-old woman dating someone seriously who gets pregnant should suck it up and marry her boyfriend, even if she has doubts, and try to make a go of it.  #6 people tend to think that said woman should not feel bad if she decides instead to terminate and make her decision on who and whether to marry completely free of such pressures. #7 people believe that such a woman, if chosing termination, should feel proud of making that decision, and realize that such a decision is right, appropriate, and in general, no more dangerous than deciding to undergo any other medical or surgical contraceptive proceedure.

I’m kind of an extremist, but I would go even further and say true bodily autonomy demands free access to abortion at all stages of gestation.  If, at any time, a woman decides she wants that fetus outta there, she should be able to do so.  After viability, that might mean inducing early labor, or c-section delivery, provided that would be in the best interests of the mother’s health.  If not… well, I guess I’m a nutter’s “partial-birth” abortion wet dream come true.  I honestly have no problem with that proceedure, because I have no doubt that no one would just do it on a whim, and even if they did-that’s their right.  Period.

Comment #68: Neko Onna  on  07/23  at  07:48 PM

Neko Onna, I completely agree with you.  Especially that last paragraph.  And I tend to be very vocal about that.  But it doesn’t make me very popular among wishy washy #5 friends and family sometimes.

Comment #69: ks  on  07/23  at  11:05 PM

Then once the baby is born it is the baby’s bodily integrity that’s at stake and the mother loses control;

Is this because the baby has its own inherent bodily integrity or because, once born, the baby is no longer specifically dependent upon the mother?

Comment #70: Joe Shaw  on  07/24  at  02:10 AM

You know, I’d really like to see some women who use hormonal birth control to treat periods that leave them throwing up repeatedly and unable to walk beat him over the head with that point several thousand times.  I’d like to see him try to prove that, even in the eyes of his audience, those aren’t medical conditions.

Comment #71: luzzleanne  on  07/24  at  02:22 AM

What we should be telling people is that it’s normal to feel a little guilty when an accident leads to minor surgery, but that guilt doesn’t necessarily mean they committed a great moral crime.  It means that they’re human and their human brain is trying to figure out how they could have avoided the accident in the first place.
I think this is an interesting point. I have some sympathy with it, but I think it’s more complicated than guilt being inevitable, but we shouldn’t let it get out of hand. I feel guilty about my sole filling. I am lucky to have strong teeth and said filling is due to a cracked tooth – a tooth in which every single member of my mother’s family including those who are otherwise filling-free, has a filling. Nonetheless I am racked with guilt about it – surely I could have chewed differently that day? However I don’t feel guilty about the incident 12 years ago in which I fell downstairs and damaging my coccyx, despite the fact that it resulted in a legacy of serious back pain and was in part due to my being careless going downstairs. Why is this?

Well, one reason might be that no-one has ever told me I ought to feel guilty about my back. The only response is “Oh, poor you”, or possibly “I’ve got that too, it’s a nuisance, isn’t it.” No-one says, “Well, I’m sorry for you, but next time you’ll be more careful on that carpet, won’t you?” or “Well, you chose to wear socks but no slippers, so you should pay for that physiotherapist out of your own pocket”* Regarding my teeth, on the other hand, I had years and years of guilt-tripping at primary school about how we had to brush our teeth, not eat sweets, use toothpaste, and if we didn’t our teeth would rot and turn yellow and then brown and then black and fall out and we would be disgusting and have horrible fillings and gaps in our mouths and it would be all our fault because we had been lazy and dirty and vile. So the fact that I have irrational guilt about a filling is not much of a surprise – nor is it in fact irrational guilt. It is guilt that a lot of people went to considerable effort to make sure that I had. And I’d bet a lot of women who have abortions and feel guilty feel this guilt not wholly spontaneously, but at least in part because of the overwhelming cultural pressure telling them that they are bad.

*NHS context.

Comment #72: Nineveh  on  07/24  at  12:20 PM

Great post, Amanda.

Comment #73: Hekie  on  07/24  at  10:00 PM

This is a good post and discussion overall, but I would like to state that I am especially in love with Alara Rogers.

Comment #74: Roov  on  07/26  at  06:02 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.