I support a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. What I don't support is the Federal government forcefully seizing the hard earned money of its citizens to redistribute to women who wish to have an abortion. The citizens of the United States should not be held fiscally liable for other peoples' right to choose.

Of course, I'm a classic feminist (http://www.ifeminists.com) who believes that a strong independent woman and her partner (if willing) should be able to fund their own abortions without having to rely on a paternalistic Federal government for assistance. How does teaching women to rely on the Federal government for assistance help to achieve independence?

Okay, psyber, let's come to an agreement, then. No more of the very rare government funded abortions to placate you and no more Iraq war to placate me. Deal?

Sounds like a win-win situation to me. Especially considering that I've been against the war in Iraq since day one. I'm glad that we are able to see eye-to-eye on so many issues. It's refreshing to know that there are others who support a woman's right to choose without using other peoples' hard earned money to subsidize the actual procedures. I look forward to your support on this issue.

Personally I think choice without access/means is no real choice at all. It simply becomes a hypothetical choice.

Western countries where there are low abortion rates as well as having wide abortion services provisions, also have assistance with funding. Maybe it's because I'm a foreigner here in the states, but this seems like a no-brainer to me. The US is the exception in this regard.

And, for the record, I've always thought Madeline Albright rocked :)

Choice and means are mutually exclusive. I have a choice to buy a Ferrari. However, not having the means to purchase one doesn't mean that I can enlist the power of the federal government to forcefully seize money from those who earned it to give to me so that I may buy one.

Finally, how is it furthering women's equality if we teach women that it's ok for a paternalistic state to treat them as children or "lesser" human beings who need state assistance in order to obtain a medical procedure? That seems counter-intuitive to promoting our independence.

Ah, but you don't have a right to a Ferrari, you do have basic human right to reproductive choice, and that includes abortion. Reasonable people can make this distinction, and that's the measure used in law.

Now, I'm taking the fact that your view on a social-democratic state providing for it's members to ensure a minimal level of life standard isn't all that positive, given your definition of it as 'paternalistic'. Hence I am not going to answer your question on those terms, as it's playing the same game as those that try to play by the language of the religous right.

If a state has as one of its mandates (which, honestly, I think it should) to ensure a basic standard of living, giving its members the abilty to access things that they wouldn't be able to otherwise, then how is this curtailing independence? It's providing the ability to increase one's independence. It's not about treating anyone as children, it's about acknowledging that society isn't a level playing field.

You're confusing positive "rights" with inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are those which we possess that have no bearing on the inalienable rights of others (life, liberty, property). Positive "rights" most certainly do have bearing on other peoples' inalienable rights (inalienable meaning rights which cannot be taken away). The "right" to an abortion is a perfect example of a postive "right". Reasonable people understand the proper definition of a "right".

A woman's choice to have an abortion ends at my purse/wallet. I support the right to control one's own reproductive choices but it's not my financial responsibility to provide someone else with the means to have an abortion.

Now, I'm taking the fact that your view on a social-democratic state providing for it's members to ensure a minimal level of life standard isn't all that positive, given your definition of it as 'paternalistic'. Hence I am not going to answer your question on those terms, as it's playing the same game as those that try to play by the language of the religous right.

I understand. It's much easier to use an ad hominem than it is to debate a perfectly valid point. Many feminists see dependence on men as wrong but see dependence on the state as being perfectly ok. I'm not one of those feminists. In my opinion, that's not only oxymoronic but counter-intuitive to our fight for true independence.

...giving its members the abilty to access things that they wouldn't be able to otherwise, then how is this curtailing independence?

There is no "giving" involved here. Money is taken, at gunpoint, from one citizen and redistributed to someone else. Secondly, everyone has access to the same services. Whether or not someone can afford those services is another story. Forcing taxpayers to provide services for others through garnished wages is slavery, plain and simple.

Finally, the way to increase one's independence is to become dependent on the state for the most meager of living standards? That simply does not compute.

Reasonable people understand the proper definition of a "right".

Actually, reasonable people realize that there's no consensus on the proper definition of a right.

It seems to me that ifeminists only care about "dependence" on the state and are completely oblivious to the kinds of dependencies that privitized solutions breed. For instance, our current healthcare system breeds dependence on employers and in some instances on spouses. I have an expensive pre-existing condition, and that means that if my boss tells me to do something demeaning or illegal, I cannot defy him or quit my job, because I am dependent on him for health insurance. Keeping my job comes before everything else, including my safety, my morals, and my dignity. To me, that's a much more problematic form of dependency than relying on the state to provide universal health care.

A woman who can't afford an abortion will not be able to afford to raise a kid. Chances are she'll end up "dependent" anyway: maybe dependent on the state, but maybe dependent on a guy who she'd be better off having out of her life. Like the health insurance example, this is an instance in which state intervention can protect people from much more dangerous and far-reaching forms of dependency.

thank you Sally, those are precisely the points I was going to make :)

But more than that, I don't see the point in the "redistribution at gunpoint" argument. Taxes are what you pay for the privilege of living and working in a country. It isn't 'your' money and it isn't 'my' money. It's the country's, and providing that to the least fortunate of us seems to me to be one of the highest of possible goals. You aren't being asked to pay for an abortion, being made a slave, or forced into anything.

And yes, actually, that last point does compute. It isn't about being made dependent, it's about providing opportunity; ways out of poverty cycles.

Living and working in this country is not a "privilege", it's a right as an American citizen. There are many, many people who pay NO income taxes and they are still able to live in this country.

You are simply wrong when you say that taxes are not "my" or "your" money. We earned that money. It is ours. That is, until it is taken from us by force and redistributed. But of course, that's my point.

The "country" you are speaking that now "owns" the money is run by a government created by the people and for the people. Since the government is "of the people" then it only follows that taxes are the peoples' money. And no, "for the people" doesn't mean that the government is there to solve the private problems of its citizens when basic inalienable rights are not being violated.

You aren't being asked to pay for an abortion, being made a slave, or forced into anything.

Sure I am. You're suggesting that the taxes that I pay out of my hard-earned money should fund services for other people. How can you see it any other way? Money is a product of my labor. Some of that money is being seized to redistribute to others. It follows then that my labor is being used to provide for others.

It isn't about being made dependent, it's about providing opportunity; ways out of poverty cycles.

Not when it's on the taxpayers dole. It's redistribution of income no matter how much of a pretty picture you try to paint on top of it. The best way out of poverty is to eliminate the state in the private affairs of its citizens. The state breaks your legs, hands you a pair of crutches and says 'see! without us you wouldn't be able to walk!'. And you've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

Sally, you are using the definition of dependence out of context. Of course we are dependent on private institutions. I depend on my grocer to have groceries when I'm hungry. I depend on my doctor when I get sick. There is a distinct difference in depending on someone for services that you have contracted with them and depending on the only entity in the country capable of using force to FORCE others to "give" you a service. Once is a voluntary contract between two consenting parties while the other is not. There is a BIG difference.

I think your problem, psyber, is that you don't realize that your ideology is an ideology. You just think it's truth. And it's not. Your ideology says that it's ok to be dependent on a private entity but not the government. Your ideology says that it's "force" when the government comes and takes something from you but it's not "force" when you're faced with the choice of doing something or starving to death. Your ideology says that the only right is the right to property. None of those things are natural or obvious. You're not going to convince anyone by repeating them as if they are.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Independence is the ability to provide for one's self through voluntary contractual agreements with other consenting parties. Dependence on taxpayers is not voluntary for the taxpayers.

We all feel "trapped" at some point or another. I know many people that feel trapped in their job because of family obligations. But that's life. I have my own problems to worry about. I can't afford the excessive tax rates that I have to pay now. When nearly 40% of your income is taken from you it makes it difficult to get by. I would be much more able to deal with my own problems and make more charitable contributions if I was able to keep more of the money I earned.

Finally, you are confusing being "forced" to do something because of limited options and being forced to do something against one's free will. I'm forced to wash clothes tonight because I am out of socks. That differs from being forced into having sex at the threat of violence. Another BIG difference there.

I've made my point and you have made yours. All we're doing now is spinning our wheels. I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to shed light on a different perspective of feminism. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

Independence is the ability to provide for one's self through voluntary contractual agreements with other consenting parties.

That is what your ideology says is the definition of independence. As I said earlier, nobody is going to be converted to your ideology just because you repeat it a lot of times.

I'm forced to wash clothes tonight because I am out of socks. That differs from being forced into having sex at the threat of violence.

That's a silly comparison. Do you think there's a big difference between being forced to have sex because if you don't you'll die of a gunshot wound and being forced to have sex because if you don't you'll die of starvation? Some people sell their daughters into prostitution because it's literally the only way to raise money to feed their other kids. Do you really think that's a choice?

Of course there is a difference. One is being forced against her will and the other is willing to sleep with someone for money/food. Equating the latter with the former is a slap in the face to the millions of women who have been raped.

That is what your ideology says is the definition of independence.

No, that's what it means to be independent. Not relying on someone else to provide you with the basic necessities in life. Regardless of whether or not it's your parents, your government (taxpayers), or a man. Isn't this what we, as feminists, have been fighting for? Defining independence as self-sufficiency requires no stretch of the imagination. Could you please share your definition of independence?

Of course there is a difference. One is being forced against her will and the other is willing to sleep with someone for money/food. Equating the latter with the former is a slap in the face to the millions of women who have been raped.

And your inability to recognize the fact of economic coercion is a slap in the face to the women and girls who live with that kind of coercion. It's spitting in the face of every 14-year-old girl in Congo who is forced to barter "survival sex" for food, for instance.

According to your "feminism," those children trading sex for a soda or a dollar are feminist icons. They've achieved complete independence at such an impressively early age! Why should we discipline the soldiers who are taking advantage of their desperation to get access to their bodies? After all, those soldiers are just helping them be independent!

No, that's what it means to be independent. Not relying on someone else to provide you with the basic necessities in life.

And again, repeating the ideology isn't going to convince anyone to believe in it.

Your strawman is outside the scope of this argument as it relates to independence of American women.

My feminism does not hold that American women are the only women who matter. My feminism doesn't write off desperate, suffering children as "strawmen."

There are women and girls in the U.S. who face similar choices. And the only reason that there aren't more such women and girls is the existence of the welfare state that you want to abolish.

Nice try. But I'm not falling for it. I believe that even you can understand what "scope of this argument" means.

If you want to support a welfare state that treats women like children who need to be taken care of, that's fine. It belittles the accomplishments of other women who have fought through similar circumstances without the need to become dependent on their Sugar Daddy Government. IMO, welfare == bondage and control. Example, "vote for us or we'll take your welfare away".

When women who have been abused by men keep running back to them in hopes of redemption we call it "battered wife syndrome". What do we call it when women who have been abused by government for thousands of years do the same thing?

Nice try. But I'm not falling for it. I believe that even you can understand what "scope of this argument" means. /i>

I understand what "scope of the argument" means. I just don't believe that you get to arbitrarily set it. The example I gave matters for two reasons. First, feminism is a global movement, and decent feminists do not write women out of the movement just because those women don't have the good fortune to live in wealthy countries. Secondly, it demonstrates a point: the welfare state exists to protect people (women and men) from dependence. People who have no safety net are more dependent than those who have one. They have less autonomy. They have fewer choices. They are more open to coercion.

I understand why you don't want to confront this point. And I'm glad that you at least have the decency to avoid defending the sexual exploitation of children. But it's a relevent point, and I believe that you're avoiding answering it because you don't really have an answer.

IMO, welfare == bondage and control. Example, "vote for us or we'll take your welfare away".

How is that worse than "fuck me or I'll fire you, you'll lose your insurance, and you won't be able to pay for your kid's cancer treatments"?

Of course feminism is a global movement. I never said that it wasn't. But that has nothing to do with the debate at hand. Which is why I refuse to respond to your strawman.

the welfare state exists to protect people (women and men) from dependence.

This is a contradictory statement as I've said time and time and time again. Welfare state IS dependence.

"fuck me or I'll fire you, you'll lose your insurance, and you won't be able to pay for your kid's cancer treatments"?

Besides being a very contrived hypothetical situation, it is perfectly clear that bondage and control takes many forms. This one happens to be very ILLEGAL in all of our 50 states. However, substituting one form of bondage and control for another doesn't solve anything.

This is one of the problems with modern day feminism. It has become infested and pretty much overrun with neo-socialists. We are told that if you don't believe in the welfare state then you cannot possibly support women's rights. Likewise, if you do support women's rights then you must support the welfare state.

Why the obsession with the welfare state? Private charities are much more efficient and are better able to provide services for those in need than some bloated bureaucracy. If getting people on their feet is your concern why not work to promote a charitable solution rather than a government one? We both have similar concerns. It's just a matter of opinion as to what will best address them.

wasn't. But that has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

As I explained, it has everything to do with the debate at hand. You brought up a silly comparison: your "having" to wash your socks vs. a woman being raped at gunpoint. I brought up a more accurate analogy to rape: desperate girls who are forced to have sex because it is their only way to get food. You refuse to engage this analogy because it would force you to own up to the reality of economic coercion. And it would force you to admit that in your libertarian distopia, American children would face a similar desperate "choice," just as many American women and girls did before the existence of the welfare state.

This is a contradictory statement as I've said time and time and time again. Welfare state IS dependence.

You have said it time and time again. But saying something a lot of times doesn't make it true.

You're aware, right, that in the 19th century a lot of people took for granted that working for wages was dependence and that only "independent" (which is to say property-owning) men should be able to vote. People who worked for wages were dependent on their employers, who could influence their voting choices. That seemed perfectly obvious to a lot of early-19th century folks, just as your definition of dependence seems perfectly obvious to you. I promise you that neither definition of dependence is obvious to anyone else. It's not enough just to state a premise over and over. If you're going to win anyone over, you're going to have to attempt to support your premise using actual arguments.

Besides being a very contrived hypothetical situation, it is perfectly clear that bondage and control takes many forms. This one happens to be very ILLEGAL in all of our 50 states.

The fact that you consider it a "contrived" situation suggests to me that you are very sheltered. And the fact that you think it matters that it's illegal suggests the same thing. No legal system is perfect, so there is always a chance that if you report the abuse, you will not be believed. When you report abuse (or anything else, as all sorts of whistle-blower cases show) there is always a chance you will lose your job. If you have a safety net, you can take that chance. If your life or the life of someone you love is on the line, you can't. Sexual abuse of employees is fairly routine in places where there is no safety net, despite laws against it. If you achieve your libertarian distopia, it will be routine here, too.

Why the obsession with the welfare state? Private charities are much more efficient and are better able to provide services for those in need than some bloated bureaucracy.

The state is answerable to citizens. Private charities are answerable to people with money. Many people with money are just like you: they are utterly incapable of conceiving of the conditions in which less-privileged people live their lives. There are lots of problems with state-sponsored welfare agencies, but ultimately they are more responsive to the people they serve than private charities. And to me, that makes them superior.

You have said it time and time again. But saying something a lot of times doesn't make it true.

I've already proven it true using propositional logic. A -> B -> C If A->B and B->C then A->C

You still have not provided me with YOUR definition of independence.

the reality of economic coercion

An economy is not an entity capable of human acts such as coercion. This is an attempt to displace responsibility for making very, very difficult choices. We all have to make tough choices. Making a tough choice doesn't somehow entitle you to other peoples' hard earned money. That's what charity is for. Do you not think the people who originally earned that money have their own needs for it? Do you not think they have their own sick children to care for?

The fact that you consider it a "contrived" situation suggests to me that you are very sheltered.

If you can find an example of someone who was forced to have sex or lose their job and subsequently their health insurance that was paying for his/her child's cancer treatment I will willingly concede that it is not contrived. Until then...

The state is answerable to citizens. Private charities are answerable to people with money.

That simply makes no sense. The role of the state is protect us from people like you who think it is their right to enlist the state to seize from them the fruits of their labor to redistribute to others. There are 1000's of charities who work to help those in need. I contribute to many of them every year.

There are lots of problems with state-sponsored welfare agencies, but ultimately they are more responsive to the people they serve than private charities. And to me, that makes them superior.

If that's the case then you shouldn't have any problem listing 3 government functions, complete with examples, that are performed more efficiently than its private counterpart. Government welfare is MUCH more likely to be abused by both politicians and citizens (see FEMA).

The "war against poverty" has been fought since 1968 and has made no headway whatsover. Why? Because the rich keep doing things to make them rich and the poor keep doing things to make them poor. You could give $500,000 to every poor person in the United States and in 6 months the VAST majority of them would be poor again. They make poor CHOICES while people who become successful make good CHOICES. With the power of choice comes responsibility. You seem to want the former without the latter.

I have many friends who were raised in absolute squalor and they found the strength within themselves to put themselves through college and eventually earn a PhD. I also have friends who were born into families where the parents worked very hard to succeed in life and those kids pretty much ruined their life. The point is, success is much more dependent on self determination than it is "privilege". Those who succeed in life most likely got where they are because of their effort not because of their luck.

If success was based on "privilege" then no one would ever break out of poverty and become successful. But this is not the case and thus "privilege" cannot be applied to everybody who becomes successful. Success is an individual effort.

In reality, there is a very small minority of people who are unable to provide for themselves either because of their age or because of disability. Rather than wasting resources on those who are able but refuse to help themselves we should focus on charitable efforts on those who are unable to provide for themselves.

For more information on replacing welfare with charity:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html

Let me ask you this: If I could convince you that private charity does an equal or better job than the state at helping those who are in need would you abandon your support for a welfare state? This isn't a trick question. I'm genuinely curious.