And I'd also like to add that there's places that'll help pay for your abortions as well. I just don't want to pay for that kind of thing, and I shouldn't be forced to.
While I am 'pro-choice', I agree with this. It's not my concern if some girls are inconvenienced by having to give birth instead of being able to have an abortion paid for by tax payers.
In no way, shape, or form would the original healthcare bill have used taxpayer money to fund abortions. Zero. Also curious to hear about these mystery-charity places who throw money around for these poor, "inconvenienced" girls.
And maybe this is just me, but what makes taxpayer money used for a nearly decade-long war (costing billions to trillions, killing thousands...) so much more attractive than using it to protect women's bodily autonomy?
If it's not coming from taxpayer money, where would it come from?
As far as war goes, I am against the war in Iraq but not Afghanistan, which was a breeding ground for terrorists arrayed against the U.S. It's completely justifiable to occupy Afghanistan on those grounds after the occurrence of 9/11. Iraq is another matter altogether, like I said I'm against the war there.
As to your point about protecting female bodily autonomy, I'll just quote myself from another post I just made:
"Being forced to have a child because they can't pay for an abortion is not some kind of abomination. Sex isn't a one way street, girls should be held accountable for their actions, and society shouldn't have to bail them out.
Now, having said that, I would definitely not be against publicly funded abortions for rape victims."
Lol, that's not really what I am saying. Babies of course can be blessings, but the opposite can also be true. I'm just saying that people need to be accountable for their actions, for better or for worse.
I am not being purposefully condescending or insinuating that the people who need abortions are under 18. I had no express intent in using 'girls' instead of 'women' or 'female', it's just the result of writing a comment on an internet blog where I don't obsess over word choice.
I agree, getting an abortion is one way of dealing with it. The only issue I have is when tax payer money becomes involved. It isn't like being pregnant is akin to having a disease that can be cured. With that in mind, I don't think it should be automatic that in a universal health care system this type of operations should be automatically payed for.
I agree that word choice can be very telling, however this is not one of those cases. It is 'telling' that, as I stated in my previous post, I do not always heavily concentrate on word choice for comments on the internet.
In a sense, it is also 'telling' in that it somewhat points to my age. Without going into a drawn out biography that you are most definitely not interested in, I am in college, and not light years removed from a time when the females I associated with were in fact girls, under the age of 18, including my one time long term girlfriend.
So, in short, I am not being condescending, consciously or sub consciously.
Of course, the question remains: if a woman needs taxpayer assistance to fund an abortion, doesn't it follow that she might need taxpayer assistance to bring a pregnancy to term (not to mention raise the unwanted child if adoptive parents are not available)? I'm not an expert on the subject, but I think the latter costs quite a bit more.
Also, you could say the "not a disease that can be cured" bit about a lot of things. I don't consider baldness a disease, but plenty of insurance policies will cover Rogaine. Some insurance plans will cover hormone therapy, too, although menopause isn't a disease either.
In saying that, you're *also* ignoring those of us for whom being pregnant *could* cause significant health problems, or aggravate problems we already have. Pregnancy may be a natural state, but that doesn't mean it doesn't (often negatively) impact one's health. (Another reason I hate hearing pregnancy referred to as an "inconvenience," but that's another story.)
I don't consider baldness or similar ailments to be a disease either, and I don't care if they are covered by insurance or not. If there was public funding for something like baldness, I would be very upset.
You make a really good point about pregnancy and influencing health. I shouldn't have left that aspect out of my reasoning. Still, I think this is an exception, and if public funding was available only for a few women it could be broadened to cover those would have negative health implications from being pregnant.
Nope. It doesn't "help" women buy them, unless you mean indirectly by lowering healthcare costs for everyone. The bill (excluding Stupak) would have simply allowed insurance plans to coverage abortion if they choose, which is the way things are now.
I know! Giving birth costs way more + the struggles that come with being pregnant, if she cant afford an abortion, how in the world would she afford to give birth (+ the fact that its against her will)?
Being forced to have a child because they can't pay for an abortion is not some kind of abomination. Sex isn't a one way street, girls should be held accountable for their actions, and society shouldn't have to bail them out.
Now, having said that, I would definitely not be against publicly funded abortions for rape victims.
I survived a rape. And I really don't understand how this "abortion's okay for rape victims" thing would work. So, in your preference, in the first months after this traumatic crime, I not only have to prove my case to law enforcement (almost never successful), but also to whoever's going to perform my abortion and the health insurance bureacracy that's going to pay for it? Or else, get the abortion and face some sort of criminal penalty if/when I can't prove my rape? What if I'm the victim of marital rape? Have you *remotely* thought through this?
Not to mention how confusing it is that life created out of rape is worthy of death when a life created by a woman choosing to have sex deserves to live.
I know it means little to nothing coming from a stranger on the internet (with numbers as his name to boot), but I am sorry to hear that you were raped. Also, I'm not trying to be sarcastic either, nor am I 'pitying' you. With so much room for misinterpretation online I probably shouldn't say anything at all, but against my better judgement I will anyways.
You make some very good points, and no, I have not considered marital rape. I wish I had definitive answers to the problems you raise but I don't.
Perhaps public support groups that encourage women to be more open about rape and that could assist women with the legal difficulties surrounding the abortion and whatnot might work.
If some sort of "Public funding for Abortions in the case of rape" law was passed, perhaps language could be added to it that would prevent criminal punishment for someone who gets an abortion and is later found by the courts to not be a victim of rape.
Last time I checked, it takes a man and a woman to conceive, I see you absolving men of all responsibility.
Why?
Women may be the ones with the physical obligation, BUT men need to take responsibility, as well.
"they can always be put up for adoption, where they have a fairly good chance of finding loving parents that do in fact want them."
Do you have any idea what kind of state our nation's adoption system is in? Because I have to tell you, it sure as hell isn't pretty. And I have to echo SaraLaffs in one of her comments in reply to Brittany - your (and other anti-choicers) rather flippant attitude about "oh, you can just put it up for adoption, no big deal!" is just incredibly privilege-blind.
Not only that but you cant put a baby up for adoption without the fathers permission. That happened to a friend of my mothers. Her daughter wanted to put her baby up for adoption but couldnt because the father wouldnt sign the contract. He is a very irresponsible person and the girl (she was 16) did not want to give it up to him. She was forced to keep it and the baby who had been staying at the adoptive parents house had to be given back. quite a debacle. The daughter is very unhappy today and cannot seem to get her life together. All at a time when most young adults are going to college and having fun.
I am not anti-choice, I am pro-choice, but I still think that women should be held accountable for their actions, and that abortion should not be viewed as a 'one size fits all' solution to unwanted pregnancy.
If what you say is true about adoption, there should be a push to change it. There shouldn't be huge obstacles in place stopping women from giving up their baby for adoption.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you refer to people who want to put abortion rights into the bill. Who? And where?
The only place where abortion was even mentioned in HR 3962 prior to the Stupak amendment were two sections, 258 and 259, which (1) stated the bill would have no effect on preexisting abortion laws, and (2) restated the government's commitment to nondiscrimination against medical providers based on whether or not they give abortions.
The bill preserves the status quo. The Stupak amendment is regressive; it would take rights away from women.
Regardless of your personal views, abortion is currently a legal medical procedure. As such, there's no logical reason it should be excluded from a health care bill.
I'm opposed to the war in Iraq, abstinence-only education, and the incarceration of non-violent drug offenders, but my tax dollars pay for all of these things. If everyone got the chance to opt out of paying for government programs they didn't like, nothing would ever get funded.
It's already against the law for the federal government to pay for abortion in most circumstances (it's called the Hyde Amendment -- look it up).
The abortion bill was never going to have the public option or subsidize abortion care through private insurance.
All of that is the status quo. The bill wasn't going to change it.
The question is whether the bill will ALSO essentially eliminate abortion coverage from most private insurance plans, which is what the House bill basically would do if it becomes law as it now stands (you can read more about how that happens elsewhere on this site, or here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10tue1.html?_r=1&hpw).
Please educate yourself. Your tax dollars aren't going to fund abortion either way.
The health care bill was never going to have the public option pay for abortion, or subsidize abortion through private insurance (except in protected cases like to save the life of the mother).
Good for fucking you. I don't want my tax dollars to go to fighting foreign wars. Abortion, foreign wars. One out of two of those things are necessary for women to be equal to men in this society. Guess which one!
"And, might I add, while it "benefits" the mother of the baby, it certainly doesn't benefit the baby."
Well, that'd be true, if there was a baby. But there isn't. There's a fetus. A non-sentient lump of cells that cannot even feel pain until it's 20 weeks old (whereas 90% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks). It doesn't know it exists, it'll never know that it had a chance to exist. So who cares if it is benefited or not? I am a person, I exist, I know it, and I have rights. The lump of cells that could one day wind up in my uterus does not take precedent over me.
"Feels a little like funding genocide to me.
That is a slap in the face of everyone who has been a victim or genocide. What a disgustingly, insensitive thing to say.
"I'm a pro-life feminist, and a little sick of the fact that people think that being pro-life = not being feminist. I'm also sick of the flaming and aggression towards anyone that disagrees with abortion."
I haven't seen anyone in this thread question your feministyness, but I have little doubt that your allegience has been called into question over this issue. A lot of feminists today forget that many of the founding mothers of feminism were anti-choice. This is more than likely due to the fact that at the time, what an abortion entailed was not common knowledge. Regardless, it doesn't make you less of a feminist.
But you're going to have to prepare to defend your position vehemently, because the majority of feminists now DO know what an abortion entails, why it is a medical necessity, and why a fetus does not deserve to have more rights than a full-grown woman. So stand your ground if you can, because complaining about people wanting you to defend an unpopular opinion isn't going to make anyone go softer one you.
"And, might I add, while it "benefits" the mother of the baby, it certainly doesn't benefit the baby."
Well, that'd be true, if there was a baby. But there isn't. There's a fetus. A non-sentient lump of cells that cannot even feel pain until it's 20 weeks old (whereas 90% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks). It doesn't know it exists, it'll never know that it had a chance to exist. So who cares if it is benefited or not? I am a person, I exist, I know it, and I have rights. The lump of cells that could one day wind up in my uterus does not take precedent over me.
"Feels a little like funding genocide to me.
That is a slap in the face of everyone who has been a victim or genocide. What a disgustingly, insensitive thing to say.
"I'm a pro-life feminist, and a little sick of the fact that people think that being pro-life = not being feminist. I'm also sick of the flaming and aggression towards anyone that disagrees with abortion."
I haven't seen anyone in this thread question your feministyness, but I have little doubt that your allegience has been called into question over this issue. A lot of feminists today forget that many of the founding mothers of feminism were anti-choice. This is more than likely due to the fact that at the time, what an abortion entailed was not common knowledge. Regardless, it doesn't make you less of a feminist.
But you're going to have to prepare to defend your position vehemently, because the majority of feminists now DO know what an abortion entails, why it is a medical necessity, and why a fetus does not deserve to have more rights than a full-grown woman. So stand your ground if you can, because complaining about people wanting you to defend an unpopular opinion isn't going to make anyone go softer one you.
Oh wah wah. You cannot be a feminist and be against women having control of their own bodies.
Know what I'm tired of? Women like you who pull a persecution act because, oh noes, everybody is mean to me because I want to force them to carry ANY pregnancy to term! Why can't I be a feminist too?
Bodily autonomy is a basic principle of feminism, and as far as I'm concerned neither I nor anybody else owes you any kind of consideration or welcome to the 'club'.
And are you going to reply to people who took down your bizarre rape victim caveat? And would you mind explaining why, when you say you're pro-life, a fetus that is there due to a rape is worth less than a fetus that's there due to consensual sex? Surely in your logic, they're both babies who don't deserve to be murdered?
The fact that you back down and say "Oh, I'd let rape victims have an abortion." shows that you understand on some level that being made to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is harrowing, seeing as this caveat is not based on the worth of the fetus but purely on the feelings of the woman. You're not even following your OWN logic.
Feminism is a political movement for equality and women's rights; it is not a social club.
There are some beliefs and actions that are against the interests of feminism. Attempting to deny women the right to control their own body is one of them.
I am well aware and accepting of the fact that there are many feminisms and womanisms. THIS, though, the right to control my own body is an issue on which I will give no quarter and do not think anyone else should.
What's ridiculous is denigrating people who say "Hey, you're not a feminist if you deny women the right to control their own body and put the rights of a fetus above theirs!" as trying to be the 'feminism police'.
Letting anti-abortion sentiments being accepted as feminism is utterly stupid and dangerous. I do not feel the need to be polite to "pro-life feminists" or to make them feel accepted. They SHOULDN'T feel accepted, because their views work against women's rights and equality.
Ok, I agree with you in theory. I believe that abortion rights are a cornerstone of feminism. However, it is not helpful to tell Brittany that she isn't a feminist, not just yet. Not until all other avenues of explaining the importance of abortion rights have been exhausted.
For all we know, Brittany is brand spanking new to feminism. I know when I first started out, I said some pretty un-feminist things. Like "I hate women, it's their fault that people think they're stupid because they're all so vapid and petty." Yeah, I actually said that shit while still thinking I was a feminist.
There is a lot of growth that comes with signing up for this whole womens' rights movement. Brittany may have never considered both sides of the issue. Or, she may have considered being pro-choice but has not yet reconciled that with her religious beliefs. Maybe instead of telling her she should take her toys and go home because she can't play with us anymore, we should extend an olive branch and share with her what we know about abortion rights and how important they are to us.
To me, the belief that women are equal to men and should be treated as such and an agnosticism about when life begins are not, and should not be, mutually exclusive. One is, most would agree, a large part of the definition of feminism. The other is a philosophical position that some people are not comfortable making. That does not preclude them from being feminists.
And what's ridiculous is making the statement "Hey, you're not a feminist!" Because that's policing. Period. You do not control the distribution and the revocation of Feminist Cards.
Because all the other surgeries a woman might need don't primarily benefit her?
By the way, I have to point out that cosmetic surgery probably isn't the best procedure to compare to pregnancy and birth. If I don't get a tummy tuck, the only thing that might suffer is my emotional health. If I have to bear an unwanted child, that will impact both my mental AND my physical health, and may even kill me. Kind of an insulting comparison, honestly.
What the fuck? There is a COLOSSAL gap between expressing anti-choice views online, regardless of whether you or I may disagree them, and bombing people.
People don't always get to fund things they like. I wish that my tax dollars could go more towards education than the military. But I don't get a say in how the money is divvied up. Why should you?
You mean like the people who are upset about their money going to arts endowments? "Oh, you want your share back? Here it is, and don't you just love the jingling sound it makes?"
As noted by ScottRock before, the bill didn't even mention abortions except for preserving the status quo on them, and the Stupak amendment is regressive in this regard.
My tax money goes to plenty of things that run counter to my religious and moral views: elective wars, for one thing. Funding prehistoric superhighways. Corporate farm subsidies.
But the bottom line is that health care which disproportionally affects women has been separated off for too long, and I'm sick of it. It's already prohibit for federal money to fund abortions through any HHS program, including Medicare. The House bill goes beyond that, including any private insurance company that gets federal subsidies for low-income patients, which will be pretty much all of them if all Americans are mandated to buy coverage. It's an unfair intrusion into my right to obtain the medical procedures that my doctor deems necessary (ironically, exactly what the Glenn Becks of the world have been afraid of). Health care should be health care should be health care.
And I'm sorry, but your "put the baby up for adoption" argument is so privilege-blind that I don't even know where to begin. I suppose you could start with every other discussion of abortion and reproductive health that's ever taken place on this blog ever.
I'm going to get flamed to high hell for this, but if the health care bill tanks because of those signatures, I will NOT be happy. The Republicans put it in the bill for precisely this reason: they weren't going to, and didn't, vote for the health care bill even with the Stupak Amendment. They were hoping to get enough Democrats to say no to the bill that it won't pass. They want to stop ALL national health insurance, period. It looks like it's working.
I wish I had the economic privilege to be in favor of a perfect bill that guaranteed abortion coverage, but I doubt I'll live to see the day the whole country agrees on the abortion issue. And that sucks shit. I'd want to get an abortion if I got knocked up, and I'd have a really hard time scrounging around for the money to pay for it. It is possible I'd have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. I'm fully aware of how fucked up it is. It would be shitty beyond belief, especially since three of the medications I take have warnings about dangers to a fetus. I am not someone who takes abortion rights likely, and I don't feel like I'm talking out my ass when I say that I'd be in dire need of one should I get pregnant.
HOWEVER, and it is a VERY big however, it also looks like I'll never see the day I'll get any kind of government health insurance at all. I cannot ever get private insurance on the open market. I posted ad infinitum about my financial and health care situation in the cluelessly titled, "Whose victory?" comment thread. To wit: bankrupt at 27 due to $29K in medical bills, prescriptions currently cost $13K a year, can't get my ass off disability because I'll have to wait a full two years for my Medicare to be reinstated if I relapse and have to reapply for SSDI again. I have three different chronic, incurable 'pre-existing' medical conditions that preclude my ever getting private insurance if I lose my government insurance and can't get a full-time job at a company that offers insurance. I'm screwed in a way that goes way, way beyond having to scrounge for the funds for one, or two, or three, or even ten abortions in my life. I imagine my lifetime medical costs exceed the cost of raising a child.
Do people seriously think a health care bill guaranteeing abortion coverage is going to pass at this particular moment in time, when there is far from universal agreement that the idea of national health care is a good one? Do you really think it's better to have no health insurance at all? Really? The health care billed passed by FIVE VOTES, people! Three dozen people refusing to sign it again mean the whole thing sinks.
So thanks, middle-class and rich people! I'm touched by the concern of those who already have health insurance and get to pick and choose what kind of coverage they get. I appreciate it. Really. Now I still can't afford any kind of private insurance for any kind of medical procedure whatsoever. For all the 'concern' about poor women not being able to afford abortions, I'd think somenone would be concerned about my inability to afford any other kind of medical procedure, either.
I guaranteed if this bill tanks, I'll be moved to tears, and not for the same reason you will.
"I'm going to get flamed to high hell for this, but if the health care bill tanks because of those signatures, I will NOT be happy. The Republicans put it in the bill for precisely this reason: they weren't going to, and didn't, vote for the health care bill even with the Stupak Amendment. They were hoping to get enough Democrats to say no to the bill that it won't pass. They want to stop ALL national health insurance, period. It looks like it's working."
Ugh, this. Republicans keep setting these obstructionist traps, and Dems keep falling into them...
"I'm going to get flamed to high hell for this, but if the health care bill tanks because of those signatures, I will NOT be happy. The Republicans put it in the bill for precisely this reason: they weren't going to, and didn't, vote for the health care bill even with the Stupak Amendment. They were hoping to get enough Democrats to say no to the bill that it won't pass. They want to stop ALL national health insurance, period. It looks like it's working."
Ugh, this. Republicans keep setting these obstructionist traps, and Dems keep falling into them...
(Although the Republicans didn't technically put in Stupak, as he's a Dem - but still.)
Actually, the Republicans didn't add this amendment. The Democrats did. This, in many ways, makes it worse. It sucks that "our" (meaning pro-choice) party betrayed us like that. But let's be clear about the motive - it wasn't at attempt by the GOP to derail the bill. It was an attempt by conservative Democrats who are worried about 2010 to pander to their districts.
The healthcare bill, minus the Stupak/Pitts amendment, does not "guarantee" abortion coverage by any stretch of the imagination. It makes abortion coverage as available as it currently is now, which of course varies state to state. The amendment goes above and beyond the Hyde Amendment and further restrict's women's access to reproductive care.
I have mixed feelings about what I want to happen should the final Senate bill have Stupak-esque language attached. I definitely try to see the positive aspects of the healthcare bill, and I agree that it's much easier for the privileged (like...congresspeople) to grandstand about wedge issues within it. The thing is, the Stupak/Pitts amendment hurts lower to middle class women the most. And for once, it would nice to not have a "woman's issue" thrown under the bus with the hopes of reaching the "big picture." My life is part of the big picture too.
So all I can say is that I'm REAL glad that pro-choice Congresspeople are posing a threat. Whether they'd actually vote against healthcare in the end is questionable (and I kind of doubt it), I fully support the threat to derail the bill, if that's what it takes.
As for Barbara Boxer, I'm not out to shame her or to demean her, but I saw that soundbyte when it happened and it did seem rather undiplomatic and tactless on her part to respond as she did. It's a petty and juvenile tactic, however, for her opponent to use said statement against her by deliberately painting the statement as somehow anti-military and anti-American.
"Ma'am", at least where I'm from, is a term of respect granted for every woman over the age of two and a half that is so common it is almost reflexive. I actually felt sorry for the military officer who, in my honest opinion, meant no disrespect. Senator Boxer has every right to be called "Senator" but the way she went about it seemed really curt to me. Again, this is an example of another instance of where it's not about WHAT you say as HOW you say it.
And if a male Senator had done the same thing, asking to be called "Senator" instead of "sir" and adding a wry comment that he worked really hard to earn the title...would there be ANY kerfluffle? Would anyone have commented on it at all?
I've always liked Boxer, voting for her when I could, and contributing to her PAC when I couldn't. I saw her deliver that comment & I was ashamed for her. Is anyone really surprised that someone in the military uses the terms, "ma'am" and "sir"??? And, yes, it would be equally smug arrogant, and condescending coming from a male. I'm frankly surprised that its coming up this late because at the time I saw the comment I don't recall any uproar. I wouldn't support Fiorina, but I'm glad to see this getting the treatment it deserves. I've been disappointed with Boxer the last 18 mos.
"Women involved in Iran's "One Million Signatures Campaign" accept a 2009 Glamour Women of the Year award during the magazine's annual award show in New York November 9, 2009. The campaigning women joined U.S. first lady Michelle Obama, British fashion designer Stella McCartney and nine others on Monday to be honored as "Women of the Year"."
A lot of these comments are making me very, very angry.
So somebody's anti-choice and you disagree with that. That's fine. But those are NOT grounds to say she isn't a feminist or, for heaven's sake, accuse her of shooting and/or bombing people. I'd say these statements are personal attacks, except they go beyond that. They're downright slanderous, and you all know better.
Being against women's right to control their own bodies is anti-feminist. Again, feminism is NOT a social club, it is a political movement with basic tenents. Winning the right of women to control their bodies, to decide when they will have babies, was a major feminist issue, and a major victory in places where it has been achieved.
You cannot be a pro-life feminist, and I will not say otherwise just to be 'nice'. It's not a personal attack and it's not slanderous. The commenter in question is anti-abortion and espoused some ill-informed and abhorrent views on the subject. I was not attacking her by saying she's not a feminist; I'm making a statement based on her political beliefs.
So, hypothetically speaking (before you accuse me of being a proto-bomber), what happens if somebody does believe, deep in her heart, that life begins at conception? Many religions and philosophical belief systems have this as a central tenet. (And I'm agnostic, so don't you dare play the religious-zealot card on me.) And suppose this person believes, deep in her heart, that women should have equality and that misogyny is wrong.
Which belief is supposed to take precedence? Why can't a person believe both things? And what gives YOU the right to make sweeping statements about someone's personal belief system, one that she's likely thought long and hard about?
Thank you, Katemoore. My first comment was about me not feeling comfortable supporting abortions. It was not vicious or slanderous, but it turned into a flame war as I had suspected.
I should know better by now than to state that I'm pro-life. :I
You espoused anti-abortion views on a feminist blog and tried to claim the title feminist. You were offensive, talking about how it's not YOUR problem if "some girl" gets pregnant. You trotted out tired anti-choice arguments and you were viciously attacked, your views were criticised and rightly so. Deal with it.
I know this might get me flames, but I don't like the fact that people want to put abortion rights into the bill.
I don't want my tax money to go to another woman's abortion when my religion AND personal views go strongly against it.
A woman can pay for her own abortion or put the baby up for adoption.
And I'd also like to add that there's places that'll help pay for your abortions as well. I just don't want to pay for that kind of thing, and I shouldn't be forced to.
While I am 'pro-choice', I agree with this. It's not my concern if some girls are inconvenienced by having to give birth instead of being able to have an abortion paid for by tax payers.
In no way, shape, or form would the original healthcare bill have used taxpayer money to fund abortions. Zero. Also curious to hear about these mystery-charity places who throw money around for these poor, "inconvenienced" girls.
And maybe this is just me, but what makes taxpayer money used for a nearly decade-long war (costing billions to trillions, killing thousands...) so much more attractive than using it to protect women's bodily autonomy?
If it's not coming from taxpayer money, where would it come from?
As far as war goes, I am against the war in Iraq but not Afghanistan, which was a breeding ground for terrorists arrayed against the U.S. It's completely justifiable to occupy Afghanistan on those grounds after the occurrence of 9/11. Iraq is another matter altogether, like I said I'm against the war there.
As to your point about protecting female bodily autonomy, I'll just quote myself from another post I just made:
"Being forced to have a child because they can't pay for an abortion is not some kind of abomination. Sex isn't a one way street, girls should be held accountable for their actions, and society shouldn't have to bail them out.
Now, having said that, I would definitely not be against publicly funded abortions for rape victims."
Ah, another page from the "babies are not blessings, they are dire consequences of having teh secks" playbook.
Also dig the repeated use of "girls." Are you insinuating all folks needing abortions are under 18, or are you being purposefully condescending?
Lol, that's not really what I am saying. Babies of course can be blessings, but the opposite can also be true. I'm just saying that people need to be accountable for their actions, for better or for worse.
I am not being purposefully condescending or insinuating that the people who need abortions are under 18. I had no express intent in using 'girls' instead of 'women' or 'female', it's just the result of writing a comment on an internet blog where I don't obsess over word choice.
You mean like take responsibility for the situation they're in? I think getting an abortion is one way of doing that.
Also, we crazy feminists may be obsessive about this stuff, but your choice of words ("girls") is very telling.
I agree, getting an abortion is one way of dealing with it. The only issue I have is when tax payer money becomes involved. It isn't like being pregnant is akin to having a disease that can be cured. With that in mind, I don't think it should be automatic that in a universal health care system this type of operations should be automatically payed for.
I agree that word choice can be very telling, however this is not one of those cases. It is 'telling' that, as I stated in my previous post, I do not always heavily concentrate on word choice for comments on the internet.
In a sense, it is also 'telling' in that it somewhat points to my age. Without going into a drawn out biography that you are most definitely not interested in, I am in college, and not light years removed from a time when the females I associated with were in fact girls, under the age of 18, including my one time long term girlfriend.
So, in short, I am not being condescending, consciously or sub consciously.
Of course, the question remains: if a woman needs taxpayer assistance to fund an abortion, doesn't it follow that she might need taxpayer assistance to bring a pregnancy to term (not to mention raise the unwanted child if adoptive parents are not available)? I'm not an expert on the subject, but I think the latter costs quite a bit more.
Also, you could say the "not a disease that can be cured" bit about a lot of things. I don't consider baldness a disease, but plenty of insurance policies will cover Rogaine. Some insurance plans will cover hormone therapy, too, although menopause isn't a disease either.
In saying that, you're *also* ignoring those of us for whom being pregnant *could* cause significant health problems, or aggravate problems we already have. Pregnancy may be a natural state, but that doesn't mean it doesn't (often negatively) impact one's health. (Another reason I hate hearing pregnancy referred to as an "inconvenience," but that's another story.)
I don't consider baldness or similar ailments to be a disease either, and I don't care if they are covered by insurance or not. If there was public funding for something like baldness, I would be very upset.
You make a really good point about pregnancy and influencing health. I shouldn't have left that aspect out of my reasoning. Still, I think this is an exception, and if public funding was available only for a few women it could be broadened to cover those would have negative health implications from being pregnant.
In no way, shape, or form would the original healthcare bill have used taxpayer money to fund abortions. Zero.
Wouldn't it have helped women buy insurance plans that covered abortion?
Nope. It doesn't "help" women buy them, unless you mean indirectly by lowering healthcare costs for everyone. The bill (excluding Stupak) would have simply allowed insurance plans to coverage abortion if they choose, which is the way things are now.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/aug/07/abortion-and-health-care-reform-bill/
"It's not my concern if some girls are inconvenienced by having to give birth instead of being able to have an abortion paid for by tax payers."
So it's not "your concern" if women are essentially forced to have a child due to their inability to pay for an abortion? Wow. Just...wow.
I know! Giving birth costs way more + the struggles that come with being pregnant, if she cant afford an abortion, how in the world would she afford to give birth (+ the fact that its against her will)?
Being forced to have a child because they can't pay for an abortion is not some kind of abomination. Sex isn't a one way street, girls should be held accountable for their actions, and society shouldn't have to bail them out.
Now, having said that, I would definitely not be against publicly funded abortions for rape victims.
I survived a rape. And I really don't understand how this "abortion's okay for rape victims" thing would work. So, in your preference, in the first months after this traumatic crime, I not only have to prove my case to law enforcement (almost never successful), but also to whoever's going to perform my abortion and the health insurance bureacracy that's going to pay for it? Or else, get the abortion and face some sort of criminal penalty if/when I can't prove my rape? What if I'm the victim of marital rape? Have you *remotely* thought through this?
Not to mention how confusing it is that life created out of rape is worthy of death when a life created by a woman choosing to have sex deserves to live.
That argument has always confused me.
I know it means little to nothing coming from a stranger on the internet (with numbers as his name to boot), but I am sorry to hear that you were raped. Also, I'm not trying to be sarcastic either, nor am I 'pitying' you. With so much room for misinterpretation online I probably shouldn't say anything at all, but against my better judgement I will anyways.
You make some very good points, and no, I have not considered marital rape. I wish I had definitive answers to the problems you raise but I don't.
Perhaps public support groups that encourage women to be more open about rape and that could assist women with the legal difficulties surrounding the abortion and whatnot might work.
If some sort of "Public funding for Abortions in the case of rape" law was passed, perhaps language could be added to it that would prevent criminal punishment for someone who gets an abortion and is later found by the courts to not be a victim of rape.
Yes, it is an abomination. Nobody should be forced to carry a child they don't want. No child deserves to be born unwanted.
This comment has been deleted because it violates our comment policy.
Last time I checked, it takes a man and a woman to conceive, I see you absolving men of all responsibility.
Why?
Women may be the ones with the physical obligation, BUT men need to take responsibility, as well.
"they can always be put up for adoption, where they have a fairly good chance of finding loving parents that do in fact want them."
Do you have any idea what kind of state our nation's adoption system is in? Because I have to tell you, it sure as hell isn't pretty. And I have to echo SaraLaffs in one of her comments in reply to Brittany - your (and other anti-choicers) rather flippant attitude about "oh, you can just put it up for adoption, no big deal!" is just incredibly privilege-blind.
Not only that but you cant put a baby up for adoption without the fathers permission. That happened to a friend of my mothers. Her daughter wanted to put her baby up for adoption but couldnt because the father wouldnt sign the contract. He is a very irresponsible person and the girl (she was 16) did not want to give it up to him. She was forced to keep it and the baby who had been staying at the adoptive parents house had to be given back. quite a debacle. The daughter is very unhappy today and cannot seem to get her life together. All at a time when most young adults are going to college and having fun.
I am not anti-choice, I am pro-choice, but I still think that women should be held accountable for their actions, and that abortion should not be viewed as a 'one size fits all' solution to unwanted pregnancy.
If what you say is true about adoption, there should be a push to change it. There shouldn't be huge obstacles in place stopping women from giving up their baby for adoption.
Nobody is saying that abortion is "a one size fits all solution to unwanted pregnancy."
All we're saying is that abortion should be a safe, legal, and affordable option for women who choose it.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you refer to people who want to put abortion rights into the bill. Who? And where?
The only place where abortion was even mentioned in HR 3962 prior to the Stupak amendment were two sections, 258 and 259, which (1) stated the bill would have no effect on preexisting abortion laws, and (2) restated the government's commitment to nondiscrimination against medical providers based on whether or not they give abortions.
The bill preserves the status quo. The Stupak amendment is regressive; it would take rights away from women.
I worded it wrong.
Abortion rights meaning it'll now be paid for.
Regardless of your personal views, abortion is currently a legal medical procedure. As such, there's no logical reason it should be excluded from a health care bill.
I'm opposed to the war in Iraq, abstinence-only education, and the incarceration of non-violent drug offenders, but my tax dollars pay for all of these things. If everyone got the chance to opt out of paying for government programs they didn't like, nothing would ever get funded.
It's already against the law for the federal government to pay for abortion in most circumstances (it's called the Hyde Amendment -- look it up).
The abortion bill was never going to have the public option or subsidize abortion care through private insurance.
All of that is the status quo. The bill wasn't going to change it.
The question is whether the bill will ALSO essentially eliminate abortion coverage from most private insurance plans, which is what the House bill basically would do if it becomes law as it now stands (you can read more about how that happens elsewhere on this site, or here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10tue1.html?_r=1&hpw).
Please educate yourself. Your tax dollars aren't going to fund abortion either way.
Woah, replace that second paragraph with:
The health care bill was never going to have the public option pay for abortion, or subsidize abortion through private insurance (except in protected cases like to save the life of the mother).
Good for fucking you. I don't want my tax dollars to go to fighting foreign wars. Abortion, foreign wars. One out of two of those things are necessary for women to be equal to men in this society. Guess which one!
This comment has been deleted because it violates our comment policy.
This comment has been deleted because it violates our comment policy.
"And, might I add, while it "benefits" the mother of the baby, it certainly doesn't benefit the baby."
Well, that'd be true, if there was a baby. But there isn't. There's a fetus. A non-sentient lump of cells that cannot even feel pain until it's 20 weeks old (whereas 90% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks). It doesn't know it exists, it'll never know that it had a chance to exist. So who cares if it is benefited or not? I am a person, I exist, I know it, and I have rights. The lump of cells that could one day wind up in my uterus does not take precedent over me.
"Feels a little like funding genocide to me.
That is a slap in the face of everyone who has been a victim or genocide. What a disgustingly, insensitive thing to say.
"I'm a pro-life feminist, and a little sick of the fact that people think that being pro-life = not being feminist. I'm also sick of the flaming and aggression towards anyone that disagrees with abortion."
I haven't seen anyone in this thread question your feministyness, but I have little doubt that your allegience has been called into question over this issue. A lot of feminists today forget that many of the founding mothers of feminism were anti-choice. This is more than likely due to the fact that at the time, what an abortion entailed was not common knowledge. Regardless, it doesn't make you less of a feminist.
But you're going to have to prepare to defend your position vehemently, because the majority of feminists now DO know what an abortion entails, why it is a medical necessity, and why a fetus does not deserve to have more rights than a full-grown woman. So stand your ground if you can, because complaining about people wanting you to defend an unpopular opinion isn't going to make anyone go softer one you.
"And, might I add, while it "benefits" the mother of the baby, it certainly doesn't benefit the baby."
Well, that'd be true, if there was a baby. But there isn't. There's a fetus. A non-sentient lump of cells that cannot even feel pain until it's 20 weeks old (whereas 90% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks). It doesn't know it exists, it'll never know that it had a chance to exist. So who cares if it is benefited or not? I am a person, I exist, I know it, and I have rights. The lump of cells that could one day wind up in my uterus does not take precedent over me.
"Feels a little like funding genocide to me.
That is a slap in the face of everyone who has been a victim or genocide. What a disgustingly, insensitive thing to say.
"I'm a pro-life feminist, and a little sick of the fact that people think that being pro-life = not being feminist. I'm also sick of the flaming and aggression towards anyone that disagrees with abortion."
I haven't seen anyone in this thread question your feministyness, but I have little doubt that your allegience has been called into question over this issue. A lot of feminists today forget that many of the founding mothers of feminism were anti-choice. This is more than likely due to the fact that at the time, what an abortion entailed was not common knowledge. Regardless, it doesn't make you less of a feminist.
But you're going to have to prepare to defend your position vehemently, because the majority of feminists now DO know what an abortion entails, why it is a medical necessity, and why a fetus does not deserve to have more rights than a full-grown woman. So stand your ground if you can, because complaining about people wanting you to defend an unpopular opinion isn't going to make anyone go softer one you.
Oh wah wah. You cannot be a feminist and be against women having control of their own bodies.
Know what I'm tired of? Women like you who pull a persecution act because, oh noes, everybody is mean to me because I want to force them to carry ANY pregnancy to term! Why can't I be a feminist too?
Bodily autonomy is a basic principle of feminism, and as far as I'm concerned neither I nor anybody else owes you any kind of consideration or welcome to the 'club'.
And are you going to reply to people who took down your bizarre rape victim caveat? And would you mind explaining why, when you say you're pro-life, a fetus that is there due to a rape is worth less than a fetus that's there due to consensual sex? Surely in your logic, they're both babies who don't deserve to be murdered?
The fact that you back down and say "Oh, I'd let rape victims have an abortion." shows that you understand on some level that being made to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is harrowing, seeing as this caveat is not based on the worth of the fetus but purely on the feelings of the woman. You're not even following your OWN logic.
You're not a feminist. End of.
Must you play the "you're not a feminist" card? You're not the Feminism Police.
Feminism is a political movement for equality and women's rights; it is not a social club.
There are some beliefs and actions that are against the interests of feminism. Attempting to deny women the right to control their own body is one of them.
I am well aware and accepting of the fact that there are many feminisms and womanisms. THIS, though, the right to control my own body is an issue on which I will give no quarter and do not think anyone else should.
What's ridiculous is denigrating people who say "Hey, you're not a feminist if you deny women the right to control their own body and put the rights of a fetus above theirs!" as trying to be the 'feminism police'.
Letting anti-abortion sentiments being accepted as feminism is utterly stupid and dangerous. I do not feel the need to be polite to "pro-life feminists" or to make them feel accepted. They SHOULDN'T feel accepted, because their views work against women's rights and equality.
Ok, I agree with you in theory. I believe that abortion rights are a cornerstone of feminism. However, it is not helpful to tell Brittany that she isn't a feminist, not just yet. Not until all other avenues of explaining the importance of abortion rights have been exhausted.
For all we know, Brittany is brand spanking new to feminism. I know when I first started out, I said some pretty un-feminist things. Like "I hate women, it's their fault that people think they're stupid because they're all so vapid and petty." Yeah, I actually said that shit while still thinking I was a feminist.
There is a lot of growth that comes with signing up for this whole womens' rights movement. Brittany may have never considered both sides of the issue. Or, she may have considered being pro-choice but has not yet reconciled that with her religious beliefs. Maybe instead of telling her she should take her toys and go home because she can't play with us anymore, we should extend an olive branch and share with her what we know about abortion rights and how important they are to us.
To me, the belief that women are equal to men and should be treated as such and an agnosticism about when life begins are not, and should not be, mutually exclusive. One is, most would agree, a large part of the definition of feminism. The other is a philosophical position that some people are not comfortable making. That does not preclude them from being feminists.
And what's ridiculous is making the statement "Hey, you're not a feminist!" Because that's policing. Period. You do not control the distribution and the revocation of Feminist Cards.
Because all the other surgeries a woman might need don't primarily benefit her?
By the way, I have to point out that cosmetic surgery probably isn't the best procedure to compare to pregnancy and birth. If I don't get a tummy tuck, the only thing that might suffer is my emotional health. If I have to bear an unwanted child, that will impact both my mental AND my physical health, and may even kill me. Kind of an insulting comparison, honestly.
She's gone all anti-choice crazy on us!!! HOpe she's not near nay fire arms/bombs!
I'd say the anti-life one is the one we need to worry about with firearms, since they're already prone to killing.
That's why the National Right to Life organization and abortion protesters are the ones who get bombed and shot at, right Brittany?
How did Dr. Tiller die then?
How did Dr. Tiller die then?
That's why the National Right to Life organization and abortion protesters are the ones who get bombed and shot at, right Brittany?
This comment has been deleted because it violates our comment policy.
What the fuck? There is a COLOSSAL gap between expressing anti-choice views online, regardless of whether you or I may disagree them, and bombing people.
Three words: Legal. Medical. Procedure.
Whether you like it or not.
Yes? Doesn't mean it should be funded forcibly by people who abhor it and consider it inhuman.
People don't always get to fund things they like. I wish that my tax dollars could go more towards education than the military. But I don't get a say in how the money is divvied up. Why should you?
You mean like the people who are upset about their money going to arts endowments? "Oh, you want your share back? Here it is, and don't you just love the jingling sound it makes?"
As noted by ScottRock before, the bill didn't even mention abortions except for preserving the status quo on them, and the Stupak amendment is regressive in this regard.
But were not a theocracy and women need abortions in the case of health problems.
My tax money goes to plenty of things that run counter to my religious and moral views: elective wars, for one thing. Funding prehistoric superhighways. Corporate farm subsidies.
But the bottom line is that health care which disproportionally affects women has been separated off for too long, and I'm sick of it. It's already prohibit for federal money to fund abortions through any HHS program, including Medicare. The House bill goes beyond that, including any private insurance company that gets federal subsidies for low-income patients, which will be pretty much all of them if all Americans are mandated to buy coverage. It's an unfair intrusion into my right to obtain the medical procedures that my doctor deems necessary (ironically, exactly what the Glenn Becks of the world have been afraid of). Health care should be health care should be health care.
And I'm sorry, but your "put the baby up for adoption" argument is so privilege-blind that I don't even know where to begin. I suppose you could start with every other discussion of abortion and reproductive health that's ever taken place on this blog ever.
I'm going to get flamed to high hell for this, but if the health care bill tanks because of those signatures, I will NOT be happy. The Republicans put it in the bill for precisely this reason: they weren't going to, and didn't, vote for the health care bill even with the Stupak Amendment. They were hoping to get enough Democrats to say no to the bill that it won't pass. They want to stop ALL national health insurance, period. It looks like it's working.
I wish I had the economic privilege to be in favor of a perfect bill that guaranteed abortion coverage, but I doubt I'll live to see the day the whole country agrees on the abortion issue. And that sucks shit. I'd want to get an abortion if I got knocked up, and I'd have a really hard time scrounging around for the money to pay for it. It is possible I'd have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. I'm fully aware of how fucked up it is. It would be shitty beyond belief, especially since three of the medications I take have warnings about dangers to a fetus. I am not someone who takes abortion rights likely, and I don't feel like I'm talking out my ass when I say that I'd be in dire need of one should I get pregnant.
HOWEVER, and it is a VERY big however, it also looks like I'll never see the day I'll get any kind of government health insurance at all. I cannot ever get private insurance on the open market. I posted ad infinitum about my financial and health care situation in the cluelessly titled, "Whose victory?" comment thread. To wit: bankrupt at 27 due to $29K in medical bills, prescriptions currently cost $13K a year, can't get my ass off disability because I'll have to wait a full two years for my Medicare to be reinstated if I relapse and have to reapply for SSDI again. I have three different chronic, incurable 'pre-existing' medical conditions that preclude my ever getting private insurance if I lose my government insurance and can't get a full-time job at a company that offers insurance. I'm screwed in a way that goes way, way beyond having to scrounge for the funds for one, or two, or three, or even ten abortions in my life. I imagine my lifetime medical costs exceed the cost of raising a child.
Do people seriously think a health care bill guaranteeing abortion coverage is going to pass at this particular moment in time, when there is far from universal agreement that the idea of national health care is a good one? Do you really think it's better to have no health insurance at all? Really? The health care billed passed by FIVE VOTES, people! Three dozen people refusing to sign it again mean the whole thing sinks.
So thanks, middle-class and rich people! I'm touched by the concern of those who already have health insurance and get to pick and choose what kind of coverage they get. I appreciate it. Really. Now I still can't afford any kind of private insurance for any kind of medical procedure whatsoever. For all the 'concern' about poor women not being able to afford abortions, I'd think somenone would be concerned about my inability to afford any other kind of medical procedure, either.
I guaranteed if this bill tanks, I'll be moved to tears, and not for the same reason you will.
"I'm going to get flamed to high hell for this, but if the health care bill tanks because of those signatures, I will NOT be happy. The Republicans put it in the bill for precisely this reason: they weren't going to, and didn't, vote for the health care bill even with the Stupak Amendment. They were hoping to get enough Democrats to say no to the bill that it won't pass. They want to stop ALL national health insurance, period. It looks like it's working."
Ugh, this. Republicans keep setting these obstructionist traps, and Dems keep falling into them...
"I'm going to get flamed to high hell for this, but if the health care bill tanks because of those signatures, I will NOT be happy. The Republicans put it in the bill for precisely this reason: they weren't going to, and didn't, vote for the health care bill even with the Stupak Amendment. They were hoping to get enough Democrats to say no to the bill that it won't pass. They want to stop ALL national health insurance, period. It looks like it's working."
Ugh, this. Republicans keep setting these obstructionist traps, and Dems keep falling into them...
(Although the Republicans didn't technically put in Stupak, as he's a Dem - but still.)
Actually, the Republicans didn't add this amendment. The Democrats did. This, in many ways, makes it worse. It sucks that "our" (meaning pro-choice) party betrayed us like that. But let's be clear about the motive - it wasn't at attempt by the GOP to derail the bill. It was an attempt by conservative Democrats who are worried about 2010 to pander to their districts.
The healthcare bill, minus the Stupak/Pitts amendment, does not "guarantee" abortion coverage by any stretch of the imagination. It makes abortion coverage as available as it currently is now, which of course varies state to state. The amendment goes above and beyond the Hyde Amendment and further restrict's women's access to reproductive care.
I have mixed feelings about what I want to happen should the final Senate bill have Stupak-esque language attached. I definitely try to see the positive aspects of the healthcare bill, and I agree that it's much easier for the privileged (like...congresspeople) to grandstand about wedge issues within it. The thing is, the Stupak/Pitts amendment hurts lower to middle class women the most. And for once, it would nice to not have a "woman's issue" thrown under the bus with the hopes of reaching the "big picture." My life is part of the big picture too.
So all I can say is that I'm REAL glad that pro-choice Congresspeople are posing a threat. Whether they'd actually vote against healthcare in the end is questionable (and I kind of doubt it), I fully support the threat to derail the bill, if that's what it takes.
yay MIT! I wish more teachers would realize that the Y chromosome does not code for a "math gene".
As for Barbara Boxer, I'm not out to shame her or to demean her, but I saw that soundbyte when it happened and it did seem rather undiplomatic and tactless on her part to respond as she did. It's a petty and juvenile tactic, however, for her opponent to use said statement against her by deliberately painting the statement as somehow anti-military and anti-American.
"Ma'am", at least where I'm from, is a term of respect granted for every woman over the age of two and a half that is so common it is almost reflexive. I actually felt sorry for the military officer who, in my honest opinion, meant no disrespect. Senator Boxer has every right to be called "Senator" but the way she went about it seemed really curt to me. Again, this is an example of another instance of where it's not about WHAT you say as HOW you say it.
And if a male Senator had done the same thing, asking to be called "Senator" instead of "sir" and adding a wry comment that he worked really hard to earn the title...would there be ANY kerfluffle? Would anyone have commented on it at all?
I've always liked Boxer, voting for her when I could, and contributing to her PAC when I couldn't. I saw her deliver that comment & I was ashamed for her. Is anyone really surprised that someone in the military uses the terms, "ma'am" and "sir"??? And, yes, it would be equally smug arrogant, and condescending coming from a male. I'm frankly surprised that its coming up this late because at the time I saw the comment I don't recall any uproar. I wouldn't support Fiorina, but I'm glad to see this getting the treatment it deserves. I've been disappointed with Boxer the last 18 mos.
http://www.daylife.com/photo/04nJ7cxcM9er3
"Women involved in Iran's "One Million Signatures Campaign" accept a 2009 Glamour Women of the Year award during the magazine's annual award show in New York November 9, 2009. The campaigning women joined U.S. first lady Michelle Obama, British fashion designer Stella McCartney and nine others on Monday to be honored as "Women of the Year"."
A lot of these comments are making me very, very angry.
So somebody's anti-choice and you disagree with that. That's fine. But those are NOT grounds to say she isn't a feminist or, for heaven's sake, accuse her of shooting and/or bombing people. I'd say these statements are personal attacks, except they go beyond that. They're downright slanderous, and you all know better.
No. I do not accept this.
Being against women's right to control their own bodies is anti-feminist. Again, feminism is NOT a social club, it is a political movement with basic tenents. Winning the right of women to control their bodies, to decide when they will have babies, was a major feminist issue, and a major victory in places where it has been achieved.
You cannot be a pro-life feminist, and I will not say otherwise just to be 'nice'. It's not a personal attack and it's not slanderous. The commenter in question is anti-abortion and espoused some ill-informed and abhorrent views on the subject. I was not attacking her by saying she's not a feminist; I'm making a statement based on her political beliefs.
So, hypothetically speaking (before you accuse me of being a proto-bomber), what happens if somebody does believe, deep in her heart, that life begins at conception? Many religions and philosophical belief systems have this as a central tenet. (And I'm agnostic, so don't you dare play the religious-zealot card on me.) And suppose this person believes, deep in her heart, that women should have equality and that misogyny is wrong.
Which belief is supposed to take precedence? Why can't a person believe both things? And what gives YOU the right to make sweeping statements about someone's personal belief system, one that she's likely thought long and hard about?
Thank you, Katemoore. My first comment was about me not feeling comfortable supporting abortions. It was not vicious or slanderous, but it turned into a flame war as I had suspected.
I should know better by now than to state that I'm pro-life. :I
Yes, because pro-lifers are so persecuted.
You espoused anti-abortion views on a feminist blog and tried to claim the title feminist. You were offensive, talking about how it's not YOUR problem if "some girl" gets pregnant. You trotted out tired anti-choice arguments and you were viciously attacked, your views were criticised and rightly so. Deal with it.
Why are we feeding trolls?
Folks this thread has gotten out of hand and is beyond moderation. I'm shutting it down.