I've been protesting attacks on reproductive health for 30+ years, and spent the last eight years working for a company that focused on women's and children's healthcare. And no, it's not just a...
I've been protesting attacks on reproductive health for 30+ years, and spent the last eight years working for a company that focused on women's and children's healthcare.
And no, it's not just a "women's issue" - Planned Parenthood and other providers also support men's reproductive health, but you'd scarcely know it thanks to decades of budget cuts and loss of facilities that also provided abortion services.
The point is, a very long game has been played. The forces of reaction only needed to encourage the extremism of the few, and the apathy of many, to win. It's exhausting to stay angry and keep fighting, to know there are no permanent victories or defeats.
At the legislative level, even the liberals have backed off this fight, their resolve weakening as they try to win votes on faith rather than reason. There has been little change in the level of public support for legal abortion, but you'd never know that from the effort and emphasis on including anti-choice politicians in the Democratic party leadership.
I'm a fan of Planned Parenthood, I have to say; really wish they wouldn't do the whole abortion thing of course, but that's not federally funded, anyway. Shame it's getting caught up in the...
I'm a fan of Planned Parenthood, I have to say; really wish they wouldn't do the whole abortion thing of course, but that's not federally funded, anyway.
Shame it's getting caught up in the cross-fire of this, but ideally they'd put all of the other stuff in a separate agency, anyway, so I do think they kind of made a bet and lost there (that bundling separate things under one name would prevent trophy issue from getting taken out).
I'm sorry to be confrontational about this, but abortion is part of comprehensive reproductive medical care. There should be no need to set a necessary medical procedure aside in its own special...
I'm sorry to be confrontational about this, but abortion is part of comprehensive reproductive medical care.
There should be no need to set a necessary medical procedure aside in its own special shame factory, or deny funding for it, as a carve out to protect the sensibilities of the religious.
I'm saying they lost a bet. They tried putting it with things that aren't so controversial, so the likely outcome in-turn is the rest of the stuff getting fucked over, instead of just the...
I'm saying they lost a bet.
They tried putting it with things that aren't so controversial, so the likely outcome in-turn is the rest of the stuff getting fucked over, instead of just the controversial thing.
Sadly, those "other things", like oral contraceptives and IUDs, are now controversial as well based on the false insistence that they cause abortion. It's worth defending the whole package,...
Sadly, those "other things", like oral contraceptives and IUDs, are now controversial as well based on the false insistence that they cause abortion.
It's worth defending the whole package, because once you accept a premise like "life begins at conception", all kinds of atrocities become permissible. Ultimately, this is a strategy of the reactionary religious right, to discourage all forms of contraception, in service of current Catholic doctrine.
"Life begins at contraception" isn't one in the same with anti-abortion, though. EDIT: and on top of that, Planned Parenthood doesn't exclusively deal with reproductive health.
"Life begins at contraception" isn't one in the same with anti-abortion, though.
EDIT: and on top of that, Planned Parenthood doesn't exclusively deal with reproductive health.
I found this article a bit exhausting to try and read. Its constant segmentation of the population into either people who are wrong on the "Left," or people who are wrong on the "Right" is an...
I found this article a bit exhausting to try and read. Its constant segmentation of the population into either people who are wrong on the "Left," or people who are wrong on the "Right" is an oversimplification of a much more complex issue.
This is the biggest problem I see with "pro-choice" activism and why I have trouble taking it seriously. I think as a country, we need to do more to support reproductive health rights. I think we need to do more to provide women with care, education, and financial assistance, especially when a woman is pregnant at no fault of her own. I just don't understand why abortion has to be the only solution, and why being anti-abortion makes a person some kind of cold-hearted, naive Republican.
Most of my friends are super liberal, and one of them is also actively pro-life. She is one of the kindest people I know who truly wants to support women who are in need of reproductive healthcare. But she is also incredibly liberal in the rest of her political beliefs. This person is not evil, naive, or filled with rage. This person is a level-headed individual that is trying to build a better world.
I agree in that this is not a women's issue. This is an issue for all people. This shouldn't be a fight. Rage is nonsensical. Rage is limited. Rage doesn't make change. It certainly has its place. It may provide insight into someone else's experience. It gets attention. But it does not do good for our society.
It is okay, in fact, important, to feel angry. To feel terrified. But to channel that anger into hate towards the "Left" or the "Right" provides a limited perspective on the world that only creates regression. To create progress, we need to listen, not just react.
Being pro-choice is not being "pro-abortion". Being pro-choice is not claiming that "abortion is the only solution". There are plenty of pro-choice people who are personally anti-abortion, or who...
Exemplary
This is the biggest problem I see with "pro-choice" activism and why I have trouble taking it seriously. I think as a country, we need to do more to support reproductive health rights. I think we need to do more to provide women with care, education, and financial assistance, especially when a woman is pregnant at no fault of her own. I just don't understand why abortion has to be the only solution, and why being anti-abortion makes a person some kind of cold-hearted, naive Republican.
Being pro-choice is not being "pro-abortion". Being pro-choice is not claiming that "abortion is the only solution". There are plenty of pro-choice people who are personally anti-abortion, or who do not see it as desirable, who are nevertheless pro-choice because the alternative is monstrous.
Being pro-choice is saying "people should be able to decide, for themselves, what to do with their own body, and specifically whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not". Being pro-choice is exactly that: being for allowing people a choice, for not impinging on their bodily autonomy.
The alternative to that is not being anti-abortion. The alternative to that is saying "you, person who is alive and conscious, should not be allowed to decide that for yourself". It's saying "you, person who is alive and conscious, are worth less than the partially-differentiated, probably non-viable bundle of cells that resides inside your body". It's ignoring what pregnancy is, and the effects it can have on one's body, one's career, one's life.
That? That necessitates either being deeply ignorant, or being a cold-hearted, not-naive-at-all-but-an-asshole-all-the-way, person who probably leans Republican.
And frankly, if you can't "take pro-choice activism seriously", I'm not sure I can take you very seriously, either - you probably don't know what pro-choice is even about (see your own "why does abortion have to be the only solution?"), and/or you don't think bodily autonomy should be a right.
Rage is nonsensical. Rage is limited. Rage doesn't make change. It certainly has its place. It may provide insight into someone else's experience. It gets attention. But it does not do good for our society.
No. Rage very much effects change, and it can very much do good for our society. Progress doesn't come only from the "civil discussion" that the people in charge argue is the only possible, legitimate way to change things. Progress also comes from thrown bricks, from punched Nazis, and from the anger of minorities being trod upon.
"You, person who is alive and conscious, are not worth more than the partially-differentiated, probably non-viable bundle of cells that resides inside your body" is subtly different and more...
It's saying "you, person who is alive and conscious, are worth less than the partially-differentiated, probably non-viable bundle of cells that resides inside your body".
"You, person who is alive and conscious, are not worth more than the partially-differentiated, probably non-viable bundle of cells that resides inside your body" is subtly different and more representative of that mindset I think.
No, it's definitely "worth less". They might assert otherwise, but they don't see the rights of the woman as equally important to those of the foetus. They see them as inferior, as demonstrated by...
No, it's definitely "worth less". They might assert otherwise, but they don't see the rights of the woman as equally important to those of the foetus. They see them as inferior, as demonstrated by how they act and by the language they use.
"You consented to it by having sex", but consent can be withdrawn.
"It's an innocent baby, you monster!" - they always put the emphasis on the foetus, and never consider the impact pregnancy has.
"It's a person!" - implying that withdrawing support would be murder, in a world where not even dead bodies can have their organs harvested without consent, and where blood donation, or organ donation, is not mandatory even when it would save talking, walking people.
I wish they would be consistent with the latter, at least. You don't have a duty to retreat from your own body. It's actually impossible. If a foetus is really a person, then abortion would be self-defense.
Edit:s/can be harvested of their organs/can have their organs harvested/, s/dealing with/it would save/
Why does that matter in the slightest bit? Are we still blaming and punishing women for having sex? Either a zygote is a human life that should be protected at all costs and we should probably be...
especially when a woman is pregnant at no fault of her own.
Why does that matter in the slightest bit? Are we still blaming and punishing women for having sex?
Either a zygote is a human life that should be protected at all costs and we should probably be drafting "host bodies" to carry all those embryos that are a byproduct of IVF, or human uterus owners deserve bodily autonomy. This isn't supposed to be about slut shaming, as far as I gather. Or at least, you're not supposed to admit it.
I am saying, if a woman is raped, she is pregnant at no fault of her own. Those women need and deserve help especially. A victim-survivor of rape was forced into a traumatizing and unfair...
I am saying, if a woman is raped, she is pregnant at no fault of her own. Those women need and deserve help especially. A victim-survivor of rape was forced into a traumatizing and unfair situation, and as fellow humans, we owe it to her to provide her with care and respect.
But women who need reproductive health care services and weren't raped, do they just get told they should've kept their legs closed? I got an idea: let's treat all fellow humans with care and...
But women who need reproductive health care services and weren't raped, do they just get told they should've kept their legs closed?
I got an idea: let's treat all fellow humans with care and respect and not just rape victims.
Personally, I consider the pro-life stance to be inherently irrational. In that people are not willing to consider what being pro-life really 'means' in terms of legality, and often it's the...
Personally, I consider the pro-life stance to be inherently irrational. In that people are not willing to consider what being pro-life really 'means' in terms of legality, and often it's the result of them falling for the 'meme' of what it means to be pro-life. In that the the idea that they're saving a life ends up coming at the cost of almost everything else along the way. Which makes it a fight, because you have to argue against an irrational belief.
For example, there are multiple things which essentially compromise the pro-life stance
If you believe personhood begins at conception, then that means legally that person should be given the rights of a full citizen. They should have a social security number, be afforded all the benefits and protections that a state would normally provide and more. In the case of the US which is Jus Soli, then that means any immigrant who is pregnant within the US is protected against deportation, full stop, because otherwise you would be deporting a US citizen (but that likely won't stop the far right anyways)
What about in the cases of victims of rape? Especially underage ones? There are many, many complications that can occur during the course of a pregnancy which can threaten the lives of women. We're essentially saying that if you're pregnant and the chances are high that you won't survive, then you deserve to die.
Which speaking of, does this make miscarriage murder? Do we have to examine whether or not it was intentional miscarriage and then decide to jail people as a result? If a woman miscarries multiple times, does that make her a serial murderer? Should she be sterilized against her will because she's essentially killing people every time she tries to get pregnant?
Some of these may seem especially ridiculous, but that's ultimately what being pro-life means. It means not thinking about the women that are going to be unduly punished by the absolute legal clusterfuck it creates. Though for some that's a feature, not a bug because it's a way of punishing women.
Not pro-life myself but I live in a pretty red state (Kansas) and my parents are pretty right leaning so I've got quite a bit of exposure to this kind of thinking. And while there certainly a lot...
Not pro-life myself but I live in a pretty red state (Kansas) and my parents are pretty right leaning so I've got quite a bit of exposure to this kind of thinking. And while there certainly a lot of people who do fall exactly into what you described, there's a lot of people who aren't totally insane as well.
Lots of pro-lifers make exceptions for rape or when it endangers the life of the mother.
I can't say I've ever heard anyone discuss the last point so I can't parrot anything back here for this round of devil's advocate but it seems like miscarriage isn't murder by any sane person's standard, even when you're taking the pro-life stance that fetus = full human. Miscarriages are accidents. Now if someone purposefully induced a miscarriage, then that brings back the murder element, sure.
I really appreciate you sharing this viewpoint. I'd like to share my thoughts on the points you brought up. I don't know if I would say personhood begins at conception. I do believe, however, that...
I really appreciate you sharing this viewpoint. I'd like to share my thoughts on the points you brought up.
I don't know if I would say personhood begins at conception. I do believe, however, that life begins at conception. I believe that an unborn child is, in some ways, a "being" independent of their mother, in a philosophical sense. In a more practical, biological sense, they are still entirely dependent on their mother. I'm very much a pacifist, in that I feel that even killing insects is morally wrong. Likewise, I believe there are lots of ways we can provide care and support to a mother of a child that she cannot reasonably raise.
This is a challenging question. I believe abortion should be a last resort. I think blanket statements like, "abortion is always morally wrong," is shortsighted and self-limiting. Everything is circumstantial. I believe we need to recognize that abortion may have its place. The problem I see is deciding where to draw that line. When is abortion necessary, and when is another option reasonable? I don't know the answer to that question.
I certainly believe miscarriage is not murder. Imagine a person is caring for a loved one with a terminal disease, and the caretaker was doing their absolute best to care for the ill person, but I didn't know they had this disease. If the ill person suddenly died, I would not say the caretaker murdered them. I know this is a simplification, but I think that it illustrates the unpredictability of circumstance, and that we should never be blaming someone for matters that were outside their control.
people have already touched on the other points, but with this in particular i feel like you're assuming that pro-choice people actually like abortion being a thing when the reality is no, pretty...
I think we need to do more to provide women with care, education, and financial assistance, especially when a woman is pregnant at no fault of her own. I just don't understand why abortion has to be the only solution, and why being anti-abortion makes a person some kind of cold-hearted, naive Republican.
people have already touched on the other points, but with this in particular i feel like you're assuming that pro-choice people actually like abortion being a thing when the reality is no, pretty much nobody likes abortions! hell, the people who get abortions will probably be the first people to tell you that they suck, that they're exhausting and mentally burdensome, that the decision to get one is often quite hard and weighs on them, and so on. i feel pretty comfortable saying that most pro-choice people agree that in an optimal world, there wouldn't be a need for abortions in the first place.
but, the reality is, we don't live in an optimal world, and as long as we don't, it really makes no sense to more or less force people to bear children they don't want or which medically are not able to survive, or force them to give children onto other people who may not be able to actually care for them (many social programs aiding in this respect suck in the US), or force them to take care of those children themselves if they can't find a venue through which to give their child up, or whatever else. and in that regard, abortion should always be an option for people.
Well said. I can understand why it might seem that way based on what I said. That was not my intention. My point is moreso that I feel pro-lifers are often labeled as being callous and uncaring. I...
Well said. I can understand why it might seem that way based on what I said. That was not my intention. My point is moreso that I feel pro-lifers are often labeled as being callous and uncaring. I am well aware that an abortion can be a traumatic, emotionally trying experience for someone regardless of the situation. Thanks for bringing this up.
I've been protesting attacks on reproductive health for 30+ years, and spent the last eight years working for a company that focused on women's and children's healthcare.
And no, it's not just a "women's issue" - Planned Parenthood and other providers also support men's reproductive health, but you'd scarcely know it thanks to decades of budget cuts and loss of facilities that also provided abortion services.
The point is, a very long game has been played. The forces of reaction only needed to encourage the extremism of the few, and the apathy of many, to win. It's exhausting to stay angry and keep fighting, to know there are no permanent victories or defeats.
At the legislative level, even the liberals have backed off this fight, their resolve weakening as they try to win votes on faith rather than reason. There has been little change in the level of public support for legal abortion, but you'd never know that from the effort and emphasis on including anti-choice politicians in the Democratic party leadership.
I'm a fan of Planned Parenthood, I have to say; really wish they wouldn't do the whole abortion thing of course, but that's not federally funded, anyway.
Shame it's getting caught up in the cross-fire of this, but ideally they'd put all of the other stuff in a separate agency, anyway, so I do think they kind of made a bet and lost there (that bundling separate things under one name would prevent trophy issue from getting taken out).
I'm sorry to be confrontational about this, but abortion is part of comprehensive reproductive medical care.
There should be no need to set a necessary medical procedure aside in its own special shame factory, or deny funding for it, as a carve out to protect the sensibilities of the religious.
I'm saying they lost a bet.
They tried putting it with things that aren't so controversial, so the likely outcome in-turn is the rest of the stuff getting fucked over, instead of just the controversial thing.
Sadly, those "other things", like oral contraceptives and IUDs, are now controversial as well based on the false insistence that they cause abortion.
It's worth defending the whole package, because once you accept a premise like "life begins at conception", all kinds of atrocities become permissible. Ultimately, this is a strategy of the reactionary religious right, to discourage all forms of contraception, in service of current Catholic doctrine.
"Life begins at contraception" isn't one in the same with anti-abortion, though.
EDIT: and on top of that, Planned Parenthood doesn't exclusively deal with reproductive health.
I found this article a bit exhausting to try and read. Its constant segmentation of the population into either people who are wrong on the "Left," or people who are wrong on the "Right" is an oversimplification of a much more complex issue.
This is the biggest problem I see with "pro-choice" activism and why I have trouble taking it seriously. I think as a country, we need to do more to support reproductive health rights. I think we need to do more to provide women with care, education, and financial assistance, especially when a woman is pregnant at no fault of her own. I just don't understand why abortion has to be the only solution, and why being anti-abortion makes a person some kind of cold-hearted, naive Republican.
Most of my friends are super liberal, and one of them is also actively pro-life. She is one of the kindest people I know who truly wants to support women who are in need of reproductive healthcare. But she is also incredibly liberal in the rest of her political beliefs. This person is not evil, naive, or filled with rage. This person is a level-headed individual that is trying to build a better world.
I agree in that this is not a women's issue. This is an issue for all people. This shouldn't be a fight. Rage is nonsensical. Rage is limited. Rage doesn't make change. It certainly has its place. It may provide insight into someone else's experience. It gets attention. But it does not do good for our society.
It is okay, in fact, important, to feel angry. To feel terrified. But to channel that anger into hate towards the "Left" or the "Right" provides a limited perspective on the world that only creates regression. To create progress, we need to listen, not just react.
Being pro-choice is not being "pro-abortion". Being pro-choice is not claiming that "abortion is the only solution". There are plenty of pro-choice people who are personally anti-abortion, or who do not see it as desirable, who are nevertheless pro-choice because the alternative is monstrous.
Being pro-choice is saying "people should be able to decide, for themselves, what to do with their own body, and specifically whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not". Being pro-choice is exactly that: being for allowing people a choice, for not impinging on their bodily autonomy.
The alternative to that is not being anti-abortion. The alternative to that is saying "you, person who is alive and conscious, should not be allowed to decide that for yourself". It's saying "you, person who is alive and conscious, are worth less than the partially-differentiated, probably non-viable bundle of cells that resides inside your body". It's ignoring what pregnancy is, and the effects it can have on one's body, one's career, one's life.
That? That necessitates either being deeply ignorant, or being a cold-hearted, not-naive-at-all-but-an-asshole-all-the-way, person who probably leans Republican.
And frankly, if you can't "take pro-choice activism seriously", I'm not sure I can take you very seriously, either - you probably don't know what pro-choice is even about (see your own "why does abortion have to be the only solution?"), and/or you don't think bodily autonomy should be a right.
No. Rage very much effects change, and it can very much do good for our society. Progress doesn't come only from the "civil discussion" that the people in charge argue is the only possible, legitimate way to change things. Progress also comes from thrown bricks, from punched Nazis, and from the anger of minorities being trod upon.
Edit:
s/8/it's the only/is the only/"You, person who is alive and conscious, are not worth more than the partially-differentiated, probably non-viable bundle of cells that resides inside your body" is subtly different and more representative of that mindset I think.
No, it's definitely "worth less". They might assert otherwise, but they don't see the rights of the woman as equally important to those of the foetus. They see them as inferior, as demonstrated by how they act and by the language they use.
"You consented to it by having sex", but consent can be withdrawn.
"It's an innocent baby, you monster!" - they always put the emphasis on the foetus, and never consider the impact pregnancy has.
"It's a person!" - implying that withdrawing support would be murder, in a world where not even dead bodies can have their organs harvested without consent, and where blood donation, or organ donation, is not mandatory even when it would save talking, walking people.
I wish they would be consistent with the latter, at least. You don't have a duty to retreat from your own body. It's actually impossible. If a foetus is really a person, then abortion would be self-defense.
Edit:
s/can be harvested of their organs/can have their organs harvested/,s/dealing with/it would save/Why does that matter in the slightest bit? Are we still blaming and punishing women for having sex?
Either a zygote is a human life that should be protected at all costs and we should probably be drafting "host bodies" to carry all those embryos that are a byproduct of IVF, or human uterus owners deserve bodily autonomy. This isn't supposed to be about slut shaming, as far as I gather. Or at least, you're not supposed to admit it.
I think that’s probably more referring to women who get pregnant through rape, a situation which the Alabama abortion law provides no exception for.
I am saying, if a woman is raped, she is pregnant at no fault of her own. Those women need and deserve help especially. A victim-survivor of rape was forced into a traumatizing and unfair situation, and as fellow humans, we owe it to her to provide her with care and respect.
Edited grammar for clarity.
But women who need reproductive health care services and weren't raped, do they just get told they should've kept their legs closed?
I got an idea: let's treat all fellow humans with care and respect and not just rape victims.
I wrote "especially," not "exclusively." I believe you're misinterpreting my point.
Personally, I consider the pro-life stance to be inherently irrational. In that people are not willing to consider what being pro-life really 'means' in terms of legality, and often it's the result of them falling for the 'meme' of what it means to be pro-life. In that the the idea that they're saving a life ends up coming at the cost of almost everything else along the way. Which makes it a fight, because you have to argue against an irrational belief.
For example, there are multiple things which essentially compromise the pro-life stance
Some of these may seem especially ridiculous, but that's ultimately what being pro-life means. It means not thinking about the women that are going to be unduly punished by the absolute legal clusterfuck it creates. Though for some that's a feature, not a bug because it's a way of punishing women.
Not pro-life myself but I live in a pretty red state (Kansas) and my parents are pretty right leaning so I've got quite a bit of exposure to this kind of thinking. And while there certainly a lot of people who do fall exactly into what you described, there's a lot of people who aren't totally insane as well.
Lots of pro-lifers make exceptions for rape or when it endangers the life of the mother.
I can't say I've ever heard anyone discuss the last point so I can't parrot anything back here for this round of devil's advocate but it seems like miscarriage isn't murder by any sane person's standard, even when you're taking the pro-life stance that fetus = full human. Miscarriages are accidents. Now if someone purposefully induced a miscarriage, then that brings back the murder element, sure.
I really appreciate you sharing this viewpoint. I'd like to share my thoughts on the points you brought up.
I don't know if I would say personhood begins at conception. I do believe, however, that life begins at conception. I believe that an unborn child is, in some ways, a "being" independent of their mother, in a philosophical sense. In a more practical, biological sense, they are still entirely dependent on their mother. I'm very much a pacifist, in that I feel that even killing insects is morally wrong. Likewise, I believe there are lots of ways we can provide care and support to a mother of a child that she cannot reasonably raise.
This is a challenging question. I believe abortion should be a last resort. I think blanket statements like, "abortion is always morally wrong," is shortsighted and self-limiting. Everything is circumstantial. I believe we need to recognize that abortion may have its place. The problem I see is deciding where to draw that line. When is abortion necessary, and when is another option reasonable? I don't know the answer to that question.
I certainly believe miscarriage is not murder. Imagine a person is caring for a loved one with a terminal disease, and the caretaker was doing their absolute best to care for the ill person, but I didn't know they had this disease. If the ill person suddenly died, I would not say the caretaker murdered them. I know this is a simplification, but I think that it illustrates the unpredictability of circumstance, and that we should never be blaming someone for matters that were outside their control.
people have already touched on the other points, but with this in particular i feel like you're assuming that pro-choice people actually like abortion being a thing when the reality is no, pretty much nobody likes abortions! hell, the people who get abortions will probably be the first people to tell you that they suck, that they're exhausting and mentally burdensome, that the decision to get one is often quite hard and weighs on them, and so on. i feel pretty comfortable saying that most pro-choice people agree that in an optimal world, there wouldn't be a need for abortions in the first place.
but, the reality is, we don't live in an optimal world, and as long as we don't, it really makes no sense to more or less force people to bear children they don't want or which medically are not able to survive, or force them to give children onto other people who may not be able to actually care for them (many social programs aiding in this respect suck in the US), or force them to take care of those children themselves if they can't find a venue through which to give their child up, or whatever else. and in that regard, abortion should always be an option for people.
Well said. I can understand why it might seem that way based on what I said. That was not my intention. My point is moreso that I feel pro-lifers are often labeled as being callous and uncaring. I am well aware that an abortion can be a traumatic, emotionally trying experience for someone regardless of the situation. Thanks for bringing this up.