<p>LD, a fetus responding to stimulus doesn’t indicate anything beyond it being “life,” as opposed to “human.” Plants respond to stimulus, so what.</p>
<p>Your view of the fetus as a human being as opposed to potential human being is also rooted in an ultimately religious viewpoint. Fine for you, I have no problem with that. You just may not impose that viewpoint on anyone who doesn’t share it. </p>
<p>Funny how anti-Choice people always want a “compromise” that essentially locks in their beliefs.</p>
<p>That’s ridiculous! Do you think females are so weak that they cannot handle having a baby? Good heavens, females, even as young as 12-13, have been having babies for milennia! Why do you speak of ‘enduring’ a pregnancy as if it were a disease?</p>
<p>And it’s NOT life-long. It’s 9 months. She can give it up for adoption. 9 months. She can continue working or going to school. The adoptive family will usually pay her medical bills. Not anything devastating. Women ARE strong enough to do this, really they are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It was not other people who decided for her, but whatever being(s) that created this planet and the way things work here. Females have babies. We now have birth control, to reduce the chance of it happening, but guess what, that’s how life works on this planet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not more important than her LIFE, only more important than her CONVENIENCE.</p>
<p>There you go with the ‘Might is Right’ argument. Since when does size (or any other physical characteristic) determine value? By that logic, short people would have less value than tall people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well it’s certainly not a cow or a chicken. It does have human DNA even when it’s microscopic, after all. And by 10 weeks it has human characteristics like fingers and toes etc. There’s certainly more evidence than it’s human than there is that it isn’t.</p>
<p>I am not in charge of any membership lists. I just know a contradiction when I see on. Such as you can’t be a dictator and pro-democracy at the same time. You can claim to be one, but you can’t actually be one. So also, you can claim to be an anti-choice feminist but you can’t actually be one. </p>
<p>On the other hand some apparent contradictions are not really contradictions at all. For example, you can be an antisemitic jew, or a misogynic woman at the same time.</p>
<p>Not true. Just do a search on my previous posts. You will find that I am quite vehemently anti-religious. I dislike organized religion (though I respect people who are religious, as long as they don’t try to impose their religious beliefs on others).</p>
<p>Religion has nothing to do with it. In fact, I don’t even fit the mold. I’m mostly liberal, I’m a vegetarian, social activist, environmentalist, and I’m anti-war (as opposed to the stereotypical right-wing conservative ‘pro-lifer’).</p>
<p>Championing weak, oppressed people, abused animals, abused planet, abused babies…it’s all the same philosophy and has to do with HUMAN RIGHTS, and respect for living creatures, living earth, etc. It’s all the same philosophy and has nothing to do with religion.</p>
<p>As I said, I even believe that the aborted soul will just reincarnate again, so isn’t even harmed all that much. But it’s still WRONG because it’s anti-LIFE. Hey, a murdered adult will reincarnate too, but that doesn’t make murder ok. It’s still wrong because it’s stopping the natural flow of LIFE.</p>
<p>Well, I disagree. I am most definitely feminist and I am pro-life. But I consider feminism to be about empowering women to make full use of their power, not denying their female-ness by trying to be like men. That’s not feminism - that’s chauvinism.</p>
<p>In matriarchal societies, wise women had knowledge of herbs, fertility cycles, etc. and were in control of their own fertility. Due to patriarchal religion that viewed these ancient ways as ‘satanic’ and wise women as ‘witches’ so much of that knowledge was lost.</p>
<p>Women were a lot more empowered back then. They were considered powerful and to be revered by the men because they had the power to create life.</p>
<p>Contrast that with how weak women have become, dependent on a doctor to violently kill the life growing inside.</p>
<p>It’s sad, really.</p>
<p>So please do not tell me I am not a feminist. I just have a broader definition of feminism.</p>
<p>I particularly like the idea that MEN get to vote on and/or be judges that decide issues of women’s reproductive health. Seems to me that MEN who want to make women serve as baby incubators MUST really like the control over women that getting to vote in pro-life candidates and agendas gives them.</p>
<p>I say that a constitution that allows abortion (or not) at the choice of the female who is pregnant without interferance from MEN is pro-feminist and is a social compact that I am proud of.</p>
<p>Have a child, have an abortion, use BC, not use BC, be a stay at home mom, get higher education, get a demanding job, get married, stay single? ALL decisions each woman needs to make on her own.</p>
<p>While I disagree with you on the abortion issue, I am arm in arm with you on the BC issue especially since you and I agree that young girls, 12 years old as you mentioned, have always and do now (and always will) have sex and get pregnant.</p>
<p>If the “values” voter turned on Griswall v. Conn and we went back to allowing states to ban contraception, would that alter who you vote for on the issue of allowing the women (or young girl) the choice of a safe abortion?</p>
<p>“If the “values” voter turned on Griswall v. Conn and we went back to allowing states to ban contraception, would that alter who you vote for on the issue of allowing the women (or young girl) the choice of a safe abortion?”
How will you guarantee a safe abortion? I would support abortion on demand (actually I do support that) for women over the age of 18 and under the age of 18 with parental consent, provided that opt out provisions exist. Feel free to beat me up, but I’ll never budge on this. The greater good is for parents to parent their own children, not the state. In the event of extenuating circumstances (that dog collar monster-father, for example), then there are social services in place to protect the girls.</p>
<p>zm: I agree that it’s up to parents to parent their children and not the state, but in what way does allowing children to make their own choice qualify as the state parenting them?</p>
<p>Thanks, 07Dad. I am totally in favor of easy access to contraception.</p>
<p>Even for people who are against contraception, even they should be able to see that it’s far preferable (less violent, less invasive, less controversial, less harmful even to the woman) to abortion.</p>
<p>I don’t see how states could ever go back to outlawing contraception. The federal govt. exists to protect individual liberties, and practicing contraception is in that category.</p>
<p>Also, realistically, I don’t think any state would even try to do that. The idea is just too backwards. It would be like trying to outlaw women wearing pants.</p>
<p>Sure, some extremists will try to get their way. But they are so few in number. I guess we just really need to make sure they don’t get such disproportionate power. While the population is pretty much divided on the abortion issue, no so on contraception. By far the vast majority is ok with contraception.</p>
<p>I don’t mean to seem evasive, but I just really don’t see contraception being outlawed as a viable threat. It just seems way too unlikely to be concerned with right now.</p>
<p>“zm: I agree that it’s up to parents to parent their children and not the state, but in what way does allowing children to make their own choice qualify as the state parenting them?”</p>
<p>How is it not? A 15-year old has no business making medical decisions of any kind – not piercings, not tattoos, not abortions – and needs information, support and guidance which should be provided by parents unless there is some circumstance specific to an individual girl that would preclude that. As I said earlier in the thread, someone got that girl pregnant and there are very likely people with agendas other than her well-being who will step into the fray. Teenagers are also likely to have a skewed perspective. In their minds, they “can’t” tell their parents because the parents would be disappointed, are going through a divorce, or because the girls just don’t want the added stress, but only abuse in the home (or potential abuse) is a good enough reason for a child to have any medical procedure without parental consent. I would feel exactly the same way about any medical procedure. As I also said earlier, the young woman’s wishes should be paramount, but the parents have to be able to ensure
safe and appropriate medical care and also to recognize what it is the girl really wants without outside pressure.</p>
<p>You posed it in a way so as to put forward this ridiculous point as if it were my own. It would be like me quoting your text and then saying, “so you are saying that all women who have abortions are cruel murderers, and deserve to be hanged?” it was just a ridiculous assumption to make. You could have asked me “on what basis should a woman have the choice to abort her fetus?” but you had to add in your own little assumptions there.</p>
<p>And I would also like to know what all these so-called pro-life feminists are doing for the cause, and how they can view themselves as feminists. Because I have thoroughly read the “Feminists for Life” website, and I think it is a disgusting display of thinly veiled misogyny, and I see no mention of any sort of feminist causes that they are spearheading - only disgusting anti-choice, anti-feminist propaganda.</p>
<p>Did you really not get what vicariousparent was saying?? You used abortion as a sign of women’s weakness, because they need a doctor to perform it. vp said that this point is moot, as if the fetus is brought to term, the woman will still be dependent upon a doctor (or midwife), as they have for ages.</p>
<p>unregistered, I am guilty only of saying ‘you are’ when perhaps it would have been better to word it ‘are you’ - it was still a question. I was asking you to clarify your views, and I worded it the way I understood your views to be, based on your previous statements. Sorry if it offended you - no offense intended.</p>
<p>This is a very volatile topic, and so far most people have been pretty calm and respectful. No need to get all riled up. It’s difficult enough to discuss such a polarizing topic. I think we’ve all been doing pretty good, actually!</p>
<p>unregistered, if you get THAT from FFL, there is nothing else I could possibly say that would convince you otherwise. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on the feminism of FFL.</p>
<p>Nope, I understood it perfectly. It is you who did not get my point.</p>
<p>Please allow me to clarify:</p>
<p>Women have not been ‘dependent’ on midwives, historically. Women in primitive cultures would sometimes go out into the woods, alone, to birth their babies. Or, it would be a ‘women’s thing’ in which the women of the tribe would gather together in support of the birthing woman. Often it would be a spiritual ceremony. The midwife may have assisted the woman, but it was not nearly to the degree that is done today. The birthing woman was far more knowledgeable about birth as a natural process, herbs for assisting the labor, etc. Today’s women have lost that knowledge, that used to be passed on from mother to daughter. (Although there is certainly a very active movement to restore these traditions.) Today, it is ‘normal’ for the doctor to be in charge. Today’s birthing woman has lost her power. Sure, lives are saved with technology, but many births classified as normal are medicated and managed as though they were illnesses, instead of natural processes. This is less true with midwife-assisted births, but the mentality is still there.</p>
<p>So, while I do believe the perceived need for abortion is indeed a sign of the modern woman’s weakness, I also see the excessive use of invasive procedures in normal childbirth to be a sign of weakness as well.</p>
<p>I am NOT advocating zero technological intervention. Obviously, there are many times in which lives are saved by modern medical practices, and in ancient times those mothers and babies would likely have died.</p>
<p>But I do think we can work towards ‘the best of both worlds’ - more respect for birth as a natural process while being on standby with medical intervention only as needed.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, I have read the website a few times, and it is the most reasonable conclusion I can come to - they are anti-choicers who use a flimsy feminist guise to make their opinions more palatable to moderate women. I would love to know about what feminists causes they support, where the money is going, etc etc etc…but I found nothing on these matters. All they said was “the system is failing women” (of course it is! I won’t disagree with that, and I doubt that most reasonable people would, either). They didn’t mention how they want to improve women’s lives. The information was so biased, I’d assume you would at least admit that - they are implying that women are incapable of making autonomous decisions (come on, despite what you and a few other posters seem to have implied, we’re not baby machines!) I think one essential tenet of feminism is that women have the capability (and right) to make informed decisions about their lives. Whether that is the ultimate choice to stay home and cook all day long, give birth to 7 kids, or the choice to have an abortion, it’s theirs to make. This is why I find the FFL website so disgusting - where is the unbiased, comprehensive information? Where do they mention all of the lives lost in childbirth? In illegal abortions? Where do they mention all of the women who didn’t regret their abortions? All the sufferers of post-partum depression? This website is sick. </p>
<p>The really sad thing is, you’ve talked about the agenda of the “abortion industry”, but where is your evidence? Here is a concrete example of an anti-choice agenda, filled to the brim with propaganda, masquerading as an organization for the improvement of women’s lives.</p>
<p>To try and get some sort of idea of this “abortion industry propaganda”, I went to the Planned Parenthood website. The first thing I found were links to comprehensive information concerning parenting and adoption and abortion…and ways in which women can get birth control so that, hopefully, none of those will be options. So how can you speak about the propaganda on our side? How can you pretend to empower women, when you only trust them with one severely limited side of the picture?</p>
<p>As a side note:
Using “are you” would still have been unreasonable, but it’s not a big deal at all - it is, afterall, a messageboard, but in the future, please refrain from asking such loaded questions.</p>
<p>leal - if “originalists” like Scalia and Thomas have their way on the Supreme Court, where will we find the right to individual liberty that you say protects the right to contraception? They do not believe there is a right to privacy or to substantive due process in the Constitution. There would be nothing to prevent a state from regulating contraception. There would be nothing to prevent a state from making pre-marital sex a crime. It is very naive to think that there are states out there not conservative enough to consider these things.</p>