U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) was removed from the Democrats For Life of America's advisory board because he supports contraception.
Upset by what is sees as U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan abandoning his pro-life position, Democrats For Life of America removed the congressman from its national advisory board."DFLA gave Congressman Ryan ample opportunities to prove he's committed to protecting life, but he has turned his back on the community at every turn," said Kristen Day, the Washington, D.C.-based pro-life organization's executive director.
Ryan of Niles, D-17th, insists he's still a strong pro-life advocate, but grew frustrated with Democrats For Life of America and other pro-life groups that refuse to accept contraceptives as an option to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
"We're working in Congress with groups that agree with preventative options while [the DFLA] is getting left behind," Ryan said. "I can't figure out for the life of me how to stop pregnancies without contraception. Don't be mad at me for wanting to solve the problem." (Emphasis mine)
Ryan says he was "booted" from the board - of which he was a member for four years - after trying to convince the group to support contraceptive use as part of a plan to stop unplanned pregnancy. And this is why we call anti-choicers 'anti-choice': because they're not just about making abortion illegal. They don't women to have access to contraception either - something that 98 percent of American women will use at some point in their lives. Common ground, my ass.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Democrats For Life of America ousts member who supports contraception.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14975
Oh, so sensible and yet so frustrating at the same time. Yay for understanding about contraception! Boo for being pro-life. Maybe if more pro-life people were this sensible, there'd be fewer people needing abortions at all.
As a lifetime Ohioan, I am incredibly proud. I hope more "pro-life"-identified people can begin to see the light with contraception, whether they back down on abortion or not.
I agree--as a lifetime Ohioan and a constituent of Tim Ryan, I am proud to identify my Congressman as someone who is able to balance his personal [religious] beliefs with good old-fashioned logic.
I don't understand the argument against contraception? They are against abortion but they won't let you keep from getting pregnant? So what do they want? A lot of unloved babies and orphans? I get the abortion thing as a moral issue. I do not agree at all, but I at least go "fine, whatever." But no contraception? I just..... why? What is the point other than to take away my ability to just have sex and enjoy it? And if that is the only reason then me and my girl bits are saddened because we thought we had gotten somewhere over the years when it came to women and sexuality. -_-
In the words of Monty Python, because "every sperm is sacred."
The idea behind it is that nobody should have sex outside of marriage and once you are married you automatically want to have lots and lots of babies. So there will be no unwanted babies, just hundreds of happy loved two parent family babies
Part of this aversion to contraception is based on Catholic theology, a number of Democrats for Life being Catholic. For the Protestants in the group, yes, as you write, they have an aversion to sex. And certainly an aversion to sex outside of marriage. It is modern day Puritanism. Anything that reduces the inherent risk of sex (such as condoms) is a problem for them. These reasons are also why they dislike comprehensive sex ed.
I suspect if more Americans knew how "out there" these groups were they would lose all credibility.
I am happy that he remains Pro Life in that he considers the life of the mother, and THEN a prospective child. I dont agree with his anti abortion sentiments however his practical approach to contraception is so lucid and rational that I think he may be better off without that group anyway.
So , without any contraception including condoms,people are supposed to NOT have sex unless they get married-heteronormative marriate at that? Deny ALL natural hormones and human sexual inclinations that are neither bad nor shameful? FML this is sooo frustrating. I know this is their central argument but it is so irrational and frustrating . Excuse me while I go scream in my building bathroom.
Does anyone know if this "democratic" group receives federal funding?
Sophia
It is simple. They are anti-sex. Sex is evil (I learned this from two crazies on another blog) and so should be punished unless it is within marriage and it is between 2 opposite sex people.
Contraception takes away a potential punishment--which would be pregnancy. How can you properly shame a girl or woman if she is on the Pill? She won't get pregnant. And therefore, you'll never know what a dirty filthy whore she is.
Also, they're not pro-life, they're pro-birth. I only call them "so-called 'pro-life' people" or "pro-birth people" because that is technically what they are. And I strive for accuracy.
that's a good one, "pro-birth" sounds much more accurate than pro-life.
This comment seems very ignorant. I am sure there are plenty of people who identify as "pro-life" who also are "anti-sex" and think of women as whores. But I have never known anyone like that. And I know a lot of pro-life people.
I'm guessing Jeana's comment is directed at the many people who identify as pro-life while seeking to restrict access to contraception, not every pro-lifer. While they may not make outright statements about being anti-sex or women's sexuality being shameful, that doesn't mean the sentiment isn't there. How do you explain the disconnect between wanting to reduce or outlaw abortions and simultaneously denouncing practical methods that will reduce the need?
It's nice for them to hold the idealistic view that no one will ever have sex outside of God-approved heterosexual marriage, but people have always and continue to have sex outside of their ideal. One would think they would permit the lesser evil of allowing greater access to birth control to the heathens who engage in pre-marital sex if it meant preventing the "destruction of innocent life", but that would take away the element of punishment discussed in the comment above. It's not as if pregnancy-as-punishment is a rare concept in some parts of the pro-life movement, just look at how many people support rape and incest as an exception.
The last time I tried to explain pro-life thinking on this, I got called a "concern troll", so I very much doubt there is any point...but, what the hey; I am a glutton for punishment! So:
Again, I will have to take it as probable that there are people out there who have significant interest in restricting contraception like condoms and diaphragms, for a variety of stupid reasons...but I also can't think of more than one or two people whom I know personally who would actually argue that the government should restrict access to contraception. Most prolifers I have ever met see this (not using contraception) as a religious discipline and not an issue for the law. (But maybe I have strange friends & relatives?)
The only exception to this is birth control pills which, at least according to the life-begins-at-conception crowd, could potentially end a life, and is therefore fair game in the abortion debate.
There is probably confusion over this issue because some religions like Catholicism say the point is moral behavior, from beginning to end of our lives. It's not just about "getting down the numbers," and therefore if they are against contraception for some other theological reasons, they can't go back on that just because it would mean fewer abortions. That would be intellectually dishonest.
Sorry, despite our desire to make the world fit into easy little categories (so as to require less thought), when it comes to people who are against abortion, it isn't easy to stereotype.
You must know smarter pro-life people, because very few people I know (in Arizona) believe that birth control is a viable option and should be used to prevent pregnancies and hence, abortions.
What about abstinence-only "education"? What about people who don't allow their teens to have birth control or who won't talk about it or let them know how to get it? What about Democrats for Life? The article that is the subject of this thread is about so-called "pro-lifers" who are against contraception.
I think you are mixing up what people publicly say and how they vote with what they do privately. Privately they use birth control and have abortions. Publicly they pretend they are against it and vote as such. It's hypocritical.
"You must know smarter pro-life people, because very few people I know (in Arizona) believe that birth control is a viable option and should be used to prevent pregnancies and hence, abortions."
I am not sure what you mean here by "smarter"; if you are referring to the people in Arizona who don't use birth control then that is another issue entirely. I think it is as rude and wrong to judge those who don't use it as those who do. Some people don't like it, some people avoid it for religious or environmental reasons.
So what? Does that automatically make them dumb?
"What about abstinence-only "education"? What about people who don't allow their teens to have birth control or who won't talk about it or let them know how to get it? What about Democrats for Life? The article that is the subject of this thread is about so-called "pro-lifers" who are against contraception."
Actually, I just looked up the Democrats for Life site and I couldn't find any position that they take on contraception. I think that is standard among the non-religiously affiliated pro-life groups like Feminists for Life, too. They aren't necessarily against it or for it; they just aren't taking a position. Unless I am wrong, which I could be... But this is pretty standard politically, because there are prolife people of every faith and none, and likewise different opinions on the use of contraception and therefore differing opinions about whether they should be promoted. And it's why I wondered if they booted him out for trying to get them to take a specifically "pro" position on birth control.
"I think you are mixing up what people publicly say and how they vote with what they do privately. Privately they use birth control and have abortions. Publicly they pretend they are against it and vote as such. It's hypocritical."
I am sure there are some people who confuse me in this way, and are confused themselves, lol. That whole "Against it until it's my daughter who is knocked up" thinking is familiar to me for different reasons; aren't lots of human beings just hypocrtes like that? (Prolifers don't have the market on taking whatever is offered when they are scared shitless.)
BUT when I try to explain my experience with thoughtful prolife arguments, those coming from people of real integrity, I AM talking about how people vote. I know prolife friends of mine who would vote against being compelled to pay for abortions and birth control with their tax money, but they would never vote to outlaw birth control. Some would want their representatives to leave bc pills off the list, but could care less about public health programs that also provide condoms to those who need them, and wouldn't object. It's just the aspect of being personally *compelled* to support something that they feel could destroy human life.
Yes, SaintCatherine, not using birth control is dumb UNLESS YOU WANT TO BECOME PREGNANT. And if you are anti-abortion, you cannot be anti-birth control as well unless you want to see every female with 8-10 kids. Which is also dumb.
"Actually, I just looked up the Democrats for Life site and I couldn't find any position that they take on contraception."
Did you read the main article at the beginning of this thread? Did you even read the title? I will help you out: "Democrats For Life of America ousts member who supports contraception". What about that makes you believe that they don't take a stand against birth control?
Pro-lifers can be anti-birth control all they want, but it only weakens their position, in my opinion. If you really want to decrease the number of abortions, then you must decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies. It's that simple. How do you do that without using contraception?
I've never really understood why people are adamantly against paying for abortions (which only a few scant states even provide, and that’s for their poorest people) AND they don’t want to pay for birth control. AND they don’t want to pay for public services to help poor females and males survive with a child. AND they grumble about Medicaid. I’d like to understand why having sex is supposed to be for the well-to-do only. I mean, if you can't afford to be on the Pill, then how can you afford to have a baby? People have a right to consensual sex, even if they're poor. You may not want to pay to keep them from having kids they don't want or for helping pay for kids they do want). Something has to give.
Your response is also riddled with stereotypes. The last paragraph is a good example of how you must assume the politics & ideology of everyone who is prolife.
You think that someone HAS to use contraception if opposed to abortion? Why not let people choose for themselves?
Some people wouldn't want to pay for abortion because they *think it actually takes someone's life*. If we disagreed with that conclusion, we could certainly also be progressive enough to understand that they wouldn't want their tax dollars to kill people, right?
Anyway, you are also being rude in your tone. I hope you are just passionate/annoyed and not just supremely ignorant and intolerant.
I'm sorry if you think I'm being rude, but you don't make a whole lot of sense. If you don’t use contraception, then you are pretty much ok with getting pregnant, I guess. So where’s the choice there? If people choose not to use contraception, they are, in effect, choosing to get pregnant. It’s not really even a choice. You seem to be implying that if you are anti-abortion and don’t use contraception, you are some kind of empowered female. I won’t say what I think you are. But empowered is not the word I’d use.
Again, I’m willing to bet you don’t pay for abortions. At all. So you can stop fretting about that.
And what am I supremely ignorant about? That being anti-choice and anti-birth control is a good thing? Nope, it’s not. It’s a hypocritical thing. I think you are the ignorant one. Or one of those people who think you have no right to decide if and when you become pregnant, which is kinda sad. But that is your choice, isn’t it?
*Personally* not usng birth control and also not being willing to have an abortion is not hypocritical; at least not in the way you suggest. It just means that you have either 1)not really thought through the reality & implications of having sex, or 2)decided that you are willing to hve a baby if it happens.
My comments were not about pulicy-making. They were an attempt at clarifying how some people think. You accused me of confusing personal and political decision-making above, but I think that is exactly what you are doing here.
Also, you should re-read my posts. I stated that I was wondering if the DFLgot rid of the guy NOT simply for his pro-contrception stance, but for trying to get the group to take up (or take it up again, if what another poster says is true) the official pro-contraception stance.
If you want to argue that a prolife organisation should always actively campaign FOR contraception if they are going to be against abortion, that is another argument entirely from what I originally took up with you. I was taking issue with your stereotyping of individuals who call themselves pro-life. Not to pick on you personally, though, because your knee-jerk name-calling is kind of common around here.
Having unprotected sex and then having a baby if you get pregnant is your choice. If you want to have 4 kids by 4 different guys, you go ahead. That’s what you get when you don’t use birth control and you don’t have abortions. You’re right; it’s not hypocritical; it’s just not very bright. Hypocritical is being anti-abortion and wanting to prevent others from accessing birth control.
I don’t really see the difference between DFL getting rid of the guy for being pro-birth control or for wanting them to be pro-birth control. To me, it’s functionally the same thing. Their stance is no birth control and they will not tolerate someone who believes opposite.
And I wouldn’t think that the so-called pro-life people are anti-sex and anti-birth control if they did not constantly present themselves as such. It’s not a stereotype if it’s true.
Exactly. This is exactly what you learn when you peel back the layers of the anti-choice movement to find out what their motive REALLY is. They care about punishing people, particularly women, for sex. Because sex is ICKY.
Not because sex is icky-- because female sexuality is not a valid part of their worldview unless it is contained within a particular type of relationship. Their patriarchal religious values are deeply threatened by the perfectly normal and natural biological fact that the majority of human females have sexual desires of our own-- beyond men, beyond marriage, beyond any desire for children.
Hence masturbation being a problem.
No. Most evangelicals do not even address women's masturbation. Some of them don't believe it exists (view penis as the defining element for sexual activity). Others believe that the Biblical admonitions against masturbation would not include female masturbation. The actual verses reference "spilling the seed," which most evangelicals view as semen. *That* is why these people believe masturbation is wrong - because it's denying the possibility of procreation and destroying God's creation by allowing sperm to die outside the male body.
Interesting. Thanks, Brandi. I was indoctrinated differently during many years in Catholic schools.
More specifically, I was told that female masturbation was a misuse of "god's gift" of sexuality because female sexual urges were only validly expressed for good when contained within Catholic marriage vows. Ah, they reached me too late, though. The masturbation lesson wasn't till fifth grade and I'd taken it up on my own in fourth.
And this is pretty interesting, because I don't know what the official doctrine might be nowadays-- or even what it was then. The nuns who taught my classes, though, seemed pretty damn sure that female sexuality existed and that the devil was using it to tempt us away from the one true catholic apostolic god. Sexuality was to be suppressed like hell or subsumed within religious fantasy until marriage within the church, when all of sudden the suppression could stop. Talk about mixed messages. Sex is glorious and holy and that's why it will feel good. Sex is demonic and sinful and that's why you'll turn into an unloved diseased teenage mother. No wonder I had some crazy issues as a teen.
It's good to hear that DFLA is getting "left behind."
Also, as a side note, I am curious how many women are all anti-contraception. With the high percentage of women who have used contraception in their lifetime, they can't all have never used contraception before. So I guess I just wonder if anti-contraception is mostly a male driven thing, and if not I just wonder how another woman can just say "I will deny myself the option of contraception, too."
And also, what about the helpful period controlling effects of the pill? I use mine for baby free sex but honestly, if my boyfriend was out of the picture, I'd still take it 'cause damn if I don't love my four periods a year. I know people don't always use things like the pill just for the helpful period stuff, but I do know a couple of people who do so what about that? Is that a none factor in this issue then? This is just such a strange issue to me. I knew the new emergency contraception was a big deal, but I never thought people could have a problem with regular contraception people use everyday.
You know, I have been trying to figure out why every woman on the planet is not on those period-reducing pills. So far the best answer I've gotten is that your period can help you tell when you're pregnant. So on the normal pill, you get pregnant, and within a couple weeks at most, you know you're pregnant.
But if you're on four periods a year...then it could be months before you realize. Of course, this ignores other symptoms of pregnancy, but lack of period is perhaps the most obvious? And the severity of the other symptoms varies greatly among different women as I understand it.
That's the only good reason I've gotten so far but I think it's a pretty good one.
I've had that same question and received the same answer from my friends. I figure it's a fair enough concern, although some of them seem to think that being able to check their periods once a month means they're less likely to get pregnant than if they can't, which seems a little backwards to me, 'cause if it doesn't come, you're already pregnant...
I think another "good reason" for not being on the pill is because it makes me feel like shit. Dunno if that qualifies as a "good" reason, lol.
Personally, I wouldn't take that crap because I don't like poisoning my body--or the environment-- with artificial hormones. I prefer to work with what I have naturally.
But, everybody's different. I recognize that I am lucky to have regular cycles, although an atypically heavy flow.
Apparently you also don't suffer from completely debilitating cramps like I do. :x The pill doesn't lessen the pain but it does make the come less often. The pill is a much better alternative to incredible pain, I didn't sign up for that, lol. But to each their own. :) It's great to be able to choose what you wanna do to your body based on what you need or want as an individual.... and I will probably Hulk out if anyone takes that choice away from me. D:
I choose not to take the pill, but my period cramps are absolutely horrible. The pill did help with my cramping a little bit, but it also made me feel like crap the rest of the time.
Some women aren't bothered by the pill at all, but I can't stand the side effects. This is why I wish I had the choice of getting a tubal ligation, because I can't put up with the side effects of any other birth control.. I can't find any doctors willing to do the procedure. :(
But yeah, like you said. It's the beauty of choice, to each their own.
Sheesh, I don't even have bad cramps, or any issues. (I have been on the pill since I was 14 and I am 23 now) I straight up don't want to get pregnant, and taking the pill is the easiest option for me. The way I see it is I shouldn't have to explain myself to anyone as to why I take it. As for the environment? Pshh. Whatev. I'm not pregnant, and that's positive for my own personal environment.
I wasn't say the pill is ONLY good for the period benefits. I was just saying that along with making me baby free I also use it as a way to control my periods which tend to be quite hellish. While the pill is mostly a way to control pregnancy (since I know first hand the pill does not always make your period livable even if it diminishes how often it happens), I think it's odd that these pill period benefits never come up. They do exist, even if they aren't the main attraction to everyone. And we all know those large amount of ridiculous commercials that ONLY highlight the pills period benefits and leave the 99.9% effect against pregnancy info as a tiny printed footnote.
And no, you should never have to explain yourself. :P I wasn't making excuses or saying we should explain ourselves, just saying that I wonder if those benefits aside from no babies is ever thought about by these people.
Hey, I had a friend of mine who talked about this same thing. Is it a Catholic thing? Where does the idea that hormones are bad and poisonous to the body come from? What reasoning or evidence is this belief based on?
I remember a couple very religious girls (don't think they were Catholic) in my sorority saying the same thing. You have to scare females away from the Pill some way; so you say it'll give them cancer or hurt them. It's odd that, even though there's no medical proof that Pills are dangerous but there is proof that they protect against different things that people would still believe that propaganda.
I would suggest reading information from reputable sources, like the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and not Dr. Dobson.
Would you also not take other medicines like chemo because they poison your body and the environment?
Actually, how do BCPs poison the environment? You do know you're supposed to ingest them and not plant them in your backyard, right? :)
I've read that chemicals in birth control pills-- and in many other medications-- are excreted, enter sewage treatment plants, and then pass into the waterways where they have effects on frogs, fish, and single-celled organisms alike.
Of course, the chemical byproducts of manufacturing and animal waste from factory farms aren't helping the waterways either.
So why this attack on birth control pills alone? Why not get pissed at all the Viagra that's poisoning our lakes and rivers? That's an interesting question, I think.
I was using the term "poison" somehwat loosely; I took some antibiotics recently and the side effects on my system made me feel as if it was "poison" to me, too...meaning, that it destroyed the healthy bacteria that my body needs to regulate itself while getting rid of my bad ones.
What I meant was that I am reluctant to take doses of artificial hormones that force my body's chemical-producing centers to be different, when they already work just fine.
I would take chemo if the risks of not taking it far outweighed the benefits. Which, in the case of chemo, the risks of not are usually a quicker and more ravaged death.
Someone else posted about environmental effects, which I think are also very real. (Hello: the And for the record, I aso feel this way about excessive amounts of viagra hormones come out of your body as waste and pass into the ecosystem!!)
And for the record, I also view Viagra, other kinds of medications, plastics, styrofoam, and many household cleaners with the same suspicion and disgust.
Hmm, this is where messages are more confusing than real time face-to-face conversations... I used your specific comment as a way to think more broadly about the articles and news-bites I've read/heard. When I said "why this attack on birth control pills alone," I totally meant in the broader societal context. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
As long as you understand that not everyone's bodies work just fine without birth control pills. I went from extremely heavy bleeding to none. Horrible cramps to none. Plus my husband now has sex without a condom and he is gleeful.
Birth control pills rock. The danger to the environment from any number of substances is very real, but there's far worse things than BCP.
I started taking birth control pills because I had horrendously painful cramps. I went off of it for a month and was out of commission for two days while I curled up in a ball and popped six+ ibuprofen. The fact that it prevents pregnancy didn't even factor in until I had been on it for some time. I don't know how people would feel if it was being used for other reasons than actual pregnancy prevention...I feel like some people still wouldn't like it.
Also, as a side note, I am curious how many women are all anti-contraception. With the high percentage of women who have used contraception in their lifetime, they can't all have never used contraception before. So I guess I just wonder if anti-contraception is mostly a male driven thing, and if not I just wonder how another woman can just say "I will deny myself the option of contraception, too."
I wish I had statistics to offer you, but I don't. What I do have is some slightly rambly thoughts on the matter.
You've heard of the concept of "the only moral abortion is my abortion," right? You know, cases where a vehemently anti-abortion woman goes and gets an abortion herself (or helps her daughter get an abortion, or something similar)? And of course there are also cases of women who have abortions and THEN become strongly anti-abortion. I have to wonder if something similar could be at work with women who are anti-contraception (and I'm sure they exist). Some of them may have used contraception in the past, and then somewhere along the line something happened to cause them to change views. Or some of them may be against birth control but are using some form of it anyway or aren't opposed to using some form of it for themselves in the future. The point being, you don't have to be against using contraception in your own life to be against contraception in general.
Personally I can't imagine how someone could manage that sort of "the only moral contraceptive use is my contraceptive use" worldview. The mental gymnastics involved in just trying to figure out if such a position is possible nearly gave me a headache. But I also have a hard time believing that anti-contraception women don't exist or that the only women who are anti-contraception are also not using it themselves.
I am wondering if he could have been "ousted" for pressing/demanding that they take a "pro" position on contraception, which I know that a lot of pro-life organizations do not want to do.
I can't deal with this anti-contraception crap. Don't these people realize that contraception is the hugest preventer of abortions?? People get so outraged over Planned Parenthood, but that organization does more to prevent abortion (through contraceptives) than any "Pro-Life" agency does.
Sigh. Indeed, as long as abortion debate is about imposing conservative "sexual morality" (it's not even related, let alone relevant!) and not about simply debating when human rights start to apply for the youngest forms of human life, the "anti-choice" label does seem to fit. And I am pro-life. I'm for every single reproductive choice (birth control, sterilization and all) that doesn't involve youngest human life that already exists - since IMO new DNA = new human being. And THAT'S the ground for debate. Making it about anything else is annoying at best and dangerous at worst.
One of the few pro-life sites that I visit at all (and agree with) is http://nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com - pro-contraception, pro-lgbt, vegan, very sex-positive... overall awesomeness. :)
As far as I'm concerned, if you believe that women should be forced through pregnancies then you are JUST as anti-choice as the "Democrats for Life".
"I'm for every single reproductive choice (birth control, sterilization and all) that doesn't involve youngest human life that already exists"
And what about the lives of WOMEN that already exist? Are women not human? Or are we human until we get pregnant? Then we're just walking incubators for nine months, right? If we get pregnant, we should be forced to change every damn aspect of our lives for the fetus- that's apparently your line of though. So basically, we should be SLAVES.
IMO, being pro-contraception, pro-lgbt, vegan, and "sex positive" doesn't make you a half decent person if you're anti-choice. As far as I'm concerned, you're a misogynist. I don't even give a crap if I get attacked for saying that.
Why are you calling her names? Are you just trying to silence her because she doesn't happen to completely subscribe to your way of thinking?
I'm pro-choice but I don't insult other feminists who are not. I applaud those who would frame the debate around the right to life rather than around the morality of sex. The balancing of rights (should any be awarded to a fetus) should truly be the subject of the debate.
Legislators around the world are exploring the idea of making laws that pertain to fetal rights. Consequently, this will have an effect on women's rights. It is an important debate to prepare for if we wish to continue to justify abortion as a viable option to pregnancy. We must always be prepared to debate the issue so that we are not left in the dust.
Pro-life feminists should be allowed to speak without being called names to shame them for their ideas or to shut them up. Responding to their thoughts in a rational manner will help to improve your own arguments. A thoughtful discussion where both sides are truly listening might even end up changing someone's mind.
Anti-choicers are absolutely NOT feminists. The fact that they want to take away the rights of women makes this clear.
I don't have to respect a person that thinks I should be a slave just because I own a vagina. I don't have to be "nice". If I believe that they're a misogynist, I'm going to call them a freaking misogynist. Especially if I find them in a place like Feministing. Yes, believe it or not, it bothers me when I find misogynists and anti-womanists on one of the few places that I consider to be "woman friendly".
I agree with Siby and I'll go one step further. I think that until the baby learns to talk, you should be able to abort it. I mean, what if the woman births the baby and after a year, she realizes it's really ruining her life. The financial burdens, the parental responsibility, the immense time committment. I mean, do these Patriarchal assholes expect us to be a SLAVE to our own children? So what if it's been born - does the life of the mother mean nothing? IS SHE NOT FUCKING HUMAN?! Women stop being human just because they've given birth?!?!
And quite frankly, anyone who disagrees with me is a misogynist and therefore there is no point in debating them. They are clearly male-identified collaborators - stooges of the pornographers and pimps. I refuse to recognize their agency. As a result, I can judge their entire worth as a human being based on their professed difference of opinion (aka trying to ENSLAVE WOMEN). I don't care if they manage to single-handedly stop domestic violence across all societies, if they won't let me abort my one year old son, they're NOT feminists and they're NOT human beings.
To quote the best feminist of our generation, Andrea Dworkin, "When world hunger is discussed, is it necessary to have the pro-hunger side present?" Ah, if only Dworkin were here - her rabid demagogery would surely put a stop to the dangers of rational, dispassionate discussion!!
Um, no. After the baby is born, it's independent from the mother. Obviously not financially or emotionally, but physically it is. You can give the baby up for adoption when it's no longer physically dependent on you. No slavery, there..
Funny... I didn't read the comment where Patti said that she is anti-choice. I also seem to have missed where she demanded that you be a slave. Perhaps you could point out where she said that. However, I did read the comment where she said that she did not care to fight to outlaw abortion rights.
You seem to be misunderstanding what we are saying. Someone who has pro-life views but is not seeking to restrict abortion rights and not trying to force her views upon you is not an anti-choicer. Neither has she demonstrated any misogyny.
I agree with you that this is a "woman friendly space." So why are you being unfriendly to another woman who has acted with absolutely no malice? If you take the time to read on, you might note that she managed to respond to your name-calling in a dignified manner without resorting to the same. She has been respectful to you. She deserves the same.
Why are you calling names instead of responding to the issue? Name-calling only serves to encourage hostility and make the place less friendly.
Why not drop the hostility and get into the debate for real? Listen to what the other side says. Find holes in their argument and point them out in a respectful manner. Actively try to understand their train of thought. Maybe they are absolutely bonkers but maybe they have a good point. You never know until you listen. If you don't understand what they mean, ask in a non-hostile manner and then let them do the same. You have nothing to lose by being polite. And before you go off on a rant, politeness is merely about being civil. It does not mean allowing yourself to be taken advantage of or silenced.
She stated that she was anti-choice here..
"And I am pro-life."
Those are her words. Whenever I've heard people say that they're "pro-life", they mean that they're anti-choice. To me, saying "And I am pro-life" is like saying "And I hate women" or "And I am a racist". When someone says something like that, of course I lose my respect for them. I've never met a "pro-lifer" that was ACTUALLY pro-life, because if they were pro-life they'd give a shit about womens' rights. They give a crap about the women who don't want to give a chunk of their lives to a pregnancy.
"However, I did read the comment where she said that she did not care to fight to outlaw abortion rights."
And this is where I chose not to respond to her, because she was vague and I have no idea what she means. I don't know if she means that she votes for anti-choicers but doesn't make a huge deal out of it, I don't know if she means that she's pro-choice politically but would never have an abortion herself. She could have meant a lot of things by that, but when I hear "pro-life" I think of anti-choicers who seek to end womens' basic rights to their own bodies. I considered those two statements contradictory. When I read that post, I had the idea that she was using the wrong term to label herself. It's be like saying "I am a racist....but I don't hate anyone, and I believe that all races are completely equal."
"So why are you being unfriendly to another woman"
By "woman friendly" I don't mean that I'm going to be nice to people just because they have vaginas.. By woman friendly I meant pro-womens' rights and pro-womens' equality. Anti-choice is neither of those.
I have no respect for anti-chociers. How can I respect a person who wants me to be a forced child incubator?
"Civil" and "polite" are completely different. I'm being civil. I'm not threatening to hurt her, I'm not calling her names without reason. I don't have to be polite without reason. When someone says to me that they're "pro-life", they might as well tell me that women should not have the right to vote, because the right to vote and the right to your own body are basic rights that I consider to be just as important as eachother. This is why I consider her a misogynist, I didn't call her a misogynist without reason.
""Civil" and "polite" are completely different. I'm being civil. I'm not threatening to hurt her, I'm not calling her names without reason. I don't have to be polite without reason."
From the Random House Dictionary 2009 via www.dictionary.com:
ci?vil?i?ty
??–noun, plural -ties.
1. courtesy; politeness.
2. a polite action or expression: an exchange of civilities.
3. Archaic. civilization; culture; good breeding.
From the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed also via dictionary.com
ci·vil·i·ty
n. pl. ci·vil·i·ties
1. Courteous behavior; politeness.
2. A courteous act or utterance.
"I'm being civil. I'm not threatening to hurt her, I'm not calling her names without reason. I don't have to be polite without reason."
Is there a reason in particular why you feel that behavior must escalate to the point of criminal activity in order to not be civil?
"And this is where I chose not to respond to her, because she was vague and I have no idea what she means."
If you cannot comprehend the meaning of what she says, why not ask instead of attributing all of these negative things to her? She has already proven that she will respond to you politely.
"By "woman friendly" I don't mean that I'm going to be nice to people just because they have vaginas.. By woman friendly I meant pro-womens' rights and pro-womens' equality. Anti-choice is neither of those."
She has not said that she is anti-choice. Of course "woman friendly" does not mean being nice to people because they have vaginas but it should mean being polite to other feminists on the board even when they have views different than the majority. The safeness of the space does not just apply to you.
"Whenever I've heard people say that they're "pro-life", they mean that they're anti-choice. To me, saying "And I am pro-life" is like saying "And I hate women" or "And I am a racist"."
Your life experience, while sad, does not mean that everyone who says that they are pro-life are anti-choice. Saying pro-life means anti-choice makes about as much sense as saying that pro-choice means pro-death.
My line of thought is that every human being, no matter how developed, has the same right to life, and right to life comes first. Here's the point where we disagree, I believe, but I don't intend to attack you or even argue. (By the way it's THE SAME right to life, so letting the fetus die so that the woman can live is the best solution of health related tragic circumstances, unless the woman herself chooses otherwise of course.)
In fact I couldn't care less about the fight for outlawing abortion (the "forcing" you talk about) when there are so many real pressing issues, like making pregnant women's and mothers' and born babies and childrens' lives easier in so many ways, or promoting other reproductive choices and comprehensive sex education, or even wondering about "sci-fi" ideas like prenatal adoption that would make abortion obsolete (the pregnant woman would have one abortion-like procedure and walk away unpregnant, and the waiting woman would have a series of IVF-like procedure and would accept a fetus instead of an embryo).
Hi Patti,
I just wanted to say that while I am pro-choice myself, it is good to read someone who has an opposing view that is obviously well-considered, clearly thought out and mature. The blog that you linked was also quite interesting, and I hope that some of the other posters here take the time to take a look.
Patty,
I have also thought about the more sci-fi ideas. I wonder if there is any research being done on the topic.
In the spirit of healthy debate and to better understand your position, I pose the following question to you:
Should right-to-life trump other rights every time or are there certain rights that you would consider equal to it in importance?
I ask for your view on this because I come from a country where three rights (life, liberty, and security of person) are equal in importance and therefore must be balanced against each other and it has always seemed to be a wise choice.
I'm sorry I'm so late, I had to wait for internet connection on my new laptop because I only had cellphone browser and it didn't work that well with this site. I'm glad I have the connection now and that it's before the comments on this entry closed, because I liked your question and I really wanted to reply. :)
I'd say that yes, right to life is the most important one, because without right to life you literally have no rights, even if you do have a lot of other rights on paper - once someone takes your life you simply cannot benefit from them.
It is an interesting question though, and even with all the time I had to think about it I still feel it's worth reconsidering once in a while - maybe simply because I like to have everything fully thought-out. :) And I don't think there's an "always", not because I believe in relativism (I don't), but because I think considering things case by case is much better than generalizing and that when you do that you see that the vast majority of cases aren't black or white. Self-defense would be the main example showing that there can't be an "always"... it's the only example I have really, but it doesn't mean there can't be more.
I have also thought about the more sci-fi ideas. I wonder if there is any research being done on the topic.
I wonder - if the mainstream pro-life movement was actually about life and not about sexual morality and sometimes indeed about seeing pregnancy as a punishment for sex (it's vile in so many ways and actually anti-life), would we maybe have prenatal adoption already? I mean, I know how difficult it would be, even IVF's success rate is relatively low and this would involve even more hormones etc. + changing the whole "abortion" procedure so that the fetus survives it - but on the other hand we can perform such incredible surgeries already, all kinds of transplantations, removing organs and putting them back, artificial hearts... it even sounds amazing, even if I don't know much about medicine at all! :) With the strength of mainstream "pro-life" movement at least some progress in this direction could be made by now, but no, they'd rather fight against birth-control or sex ed and do other silly/unrelevant/unhepful/dangerous stuff.
(I posted my last comment in reply to Siby, but for some reason the site or my browser didn't count it as such.)
Until a few years ago, DFLA was pro-contraception. They weren't terribly vocal about it, but they included contraception in their "95-10" plan. And then suddenly, they just dropped their support for it without a word of explanation. I wish I knew exactly what happened.
I know Tim personally through the Ancient Order of Hibernians, an Irish Catholic charity. I spoke with him when he was in town for St. Patrick's Day last March, and he was expressing concern at how the Democrats for Life have been growing more and more intractable on the issue. (He used the word "conservative", though they're essentially the same.)
I am a pro-life Catholic as well; as far as I can tell, the only Catholics opposed to the use of contraception/-ives are those insular old codgers running the Vatican. To forgo contraception -- preventing conception in the first place -- is an endorsement of the millions of abortions that result from unwanted pregnancies each year. Thus it is gravely immoral for ANY pro-lifer to oppose contraception.
It is this sort of short-sighted recalcitrance that gives Pro-Life a bad name.
It is kind of heartening to see someone say that they are pro-life and ok with contraception and understand the connection between no contraception and abortion.
To me, someone who is pro-life should always use contraception (except when trying to conceive) and then if they become pregnant accidentally, they go through with the pregnancy because that's their belief system. They shouldn't go out of their way preventing other people from having access to birth control. It's such a private matter.
""Civil" and "polite" are completely different. I'm being civil. I'm not threatening to hurt her, I'm not calling her names without reason. I don't have to be polite without reason."
From the Random House Dictionary 2009 via www.dictionary.com:
ci?vil?i?ty
??–noun, plural -ties.
1. courtesy; politeness.
2. a polite action or expression: an exchange of civilities.
3. Archaic. civilization; culture; good breeding.
From the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed also via dictionary.com
ci·vil·i·ty
n. pl. ci·vil·i·ties
1. Courteous behavior; politeness.
2. A courteous act or utterance.
"I'm being civil. I'm not threatening to hurt her, I'm not calling her names without reason. I don't have to be polite without reason."
Is there a reason in particular why you feel that behavior must escalate to the point of criminal activity in order to not be civil?
"And this is where I chose not to respond to her, because she was vague and I have no idea what she means."
If you cannot comprehend the meaning of what she says, why not ask instead of attributing all of these negative things to her? She has already proven that she will respond to you politely.
"By "woman friendly" I don't mean that I'm going to be nice to people just because they have vaginas.. By woman friendly I meant pro-womens' rights and pro-womens' equality. Anti-choice is neither of those."
She has not said that she is anti-choice. Of course "woman friendly" does not mean being nice to people because they have vaginas but it should mean being polite to other feminists on the board even when they have views different than the majority. The safeness of the space does not just apply to you.
"Whenever I've heard people say that they're "pro-life", they mean that they're anti-choice. To me, saying "And I am pro-life" is like saying "And I hate women" or "And I am a racist"."
Your life experience, while sad, does not mean that everyone who says that they are pro-life are anti-choice. Saying pro-life means anti-choice makes about as much sense as saying that pro-choice means pro-death.
Apologies... that was meant to be a reply to an above post by Siby.
Okay, so I guess you got me there on the definition of civility. But either way, I'm not going to respect her. Since we're using the dictionaries, here's the dictionary definition of "pro-life"
–adjective
opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life.
(dictionary.com)
When she says that she's "pro-life", I'm going to assume that she's using the term as most people mean it, and as the dictionary defines it. As you can see above, according to dictionary.com, pro-life means that they are "opposed to legalized abortion". This is the SAME THING as anti-choice.
–adjective
opposed to the concept that a pregnant woman has the right to choose abortion
There's your definition of anti-choice. I don't see much of a difference between saying "I'm against legalized abortion" and "I think that women shouldn't have the right to choose abortion" other than wording.
"If you cannot comprehend the meaning of what she says, why not ask instead of attributing all of these negative things to her?"
Because when she said that she intended not to argue, I decided not to argue with her. It wasn't until other people started to debate with me that I started to post again. The fact is is that she said she was "pro-life". I've already given you the dictionary definition, so maybe you'll understand my line of thinking a little better when I say this:
Pro-life=anti-choice=against womens rights= misogynist.
And there's the reason I called her anti-choice and a misogynist.
I try to be nice to other feminists. Sometimes I seem rude when I don't mean to be, but really, I try. However, anti-choicers are NOT feminists. They're against our rights.
Pro-life is anti-choice, and that is that. Someone who is against legalized abortion, is against our choice to abortion.
"When she says that she's "pro-life", I'm going to assume that she's using the term as most people mean it, and as the dictionary defines it. As you can see above, according to dictionary.com, pro-life means that they are "opposed to legalized abortion". This is the SAME THING as anti-choice."
This is an excellent argument on your part. Your explanation in the last post was well thought out and you've got me partially convinced (about the anti-choice thing - not about politeness). Now let's muddy the waters a little bit for the sake of seeing where it takes us.
What do you think of people who call themselves pro-life because they believe that abortions are morally wrong (due to the belief that the fetus is a person), but, instead of fighting to restrict abortion rights they instead choose to attempt to reduce the number of necessary abortions through comprehensive sex education and encouraging the use of contraception? Are these people somewhat friendly pro-lifers or are they merely misusing the term and are actually pro-choice?
Is this a legitimate effort by a group to claim a name (pro-life) for its own use or are they merely fooling themselves and making things confusing for the rest of us?
Personally, I'm not sure what to think.
I think that they're misusing the term "pro-life". I am a vegetarian, and I think that eating meat is wrong. However, I'd never try to force my opinion on people who eat meat. I'd never try to limit their choices as to what they can eat, no matter how wrong I think it is. That's a different issue, but I think this logic can apply to abortion as well. I have a friend who thinks that women should never have an abortion, but he is still pro-choice (and considers himself pro-choice) because he, legally, supports a woman's right to choose.
I've heard some people call themselves personally pro-life but legally pro-choice, meaning that they're like my friend that I mentioned earlier. I think that's a decent way to put it.. Although, if they went around calling themselves "personally pro-life but legally pro-choice", they'd probably get a lot of questions from confused people, lol. I would personally just use the term pro-choice, because there are a lot of pro-choicers that say they'd never have an abortion themselves, or they'd never want their spouse/someone close to them to have one, but who still support the right.
Someday, the definition of "pro-life" may change. Maybe it will be adopted by a group that has more of a concern for life than our current anti-choicers. But, for now, when someone says "pro-life" I assume that they mean it as most other people mean it.
I apologize if I sounded very hostile to you yesterday. Sometimes, it's just too easy to sound like a jerk in writing.. And that wasn't helped by the fact that I was stressed out. Although I can be intentionally hostile to anti-choicers, I didn't want to do that to you.
We're cool. No worries. I actually enjoy bantering with you. You're smart.