Worthless women and the men who make them

 TheQuietQuirk If it's human, it has unalienable rights as a human, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Abortion is a medical procedure that intentionally destroys a life, or "potential" life if you prefer.

The choice belongs to women to create life, they can engage in coitus til their little hearts are content, but to destroy life? Abortion is a means to escape consequences, but the procedure comes with hefty consequences itself (which have been previously mentioned by a MrThere). "If a woman wishes to have an abortion, that is between her and the person she had sex with. If she wants an abortion and the man doesn't-- well, it's still her choice." You contradict yourself; its both of their choice, but only the woman's? Don't turn this into some feminist "men try to control my ovaries" argument. I'm a man, I believe in equal rights, but somehow I fail to see how a woman's definition of human life justifies murder. A hundred years ago, I could have beat you with a belt because, as a woman, you were thought of as less of a person. A hundred years ago,  I could of killed an African American just because he was thought of as not human or less of a person.

Women, as a gender, are the most kind, accepting, and selfless individuals I've ever met. Abortion is a selfish thing, giving yourself a higher status than a thing you created (which you seem perfectly okay with) is selfish. Abortion can be needed, but it should be much rarer than it is today. And as for your analogy, if you find it reasonable to equate the consequences of a car collision with the miracle of childbirth, you probably shouldn't have children. Use contraception, not abortion. And to extend that heavily flawed analogy; if the man died because he couldn't receive an organ transplant and you were liable for the accident you could be charged with homicide. If you purposely chose to  run that old man down, because abortion is not only "a choice" but "your choice", not only would you be a highly deranged individual facing substantial prison time, but you'd be a murderer. Abortion is murder, sugarcoat it anyway you want.

 TJ Jones It has human DNA, but it doesn't think, and it doesn't feel. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I do not consider it a person. Potential life is not actual life. Do we call an acorn a tree? Is cracking an egg considered killing a chicken?

Yes, to destroy potential life, because what seems to escape you is the fact that in order to live, that potential life has to be INSIDE us. And some of us just don't like that, for various reasons. It poses health problems, economic difficulties, obstacles to academic or career success, or can result in social ostracization. As a man, you don't seem to realize the full magnitude of what a pregnancy does to a woman. I don't give a damn if you call yourself a feminist or not-- if you place the life and survival of the fetus over that of the woman, you clearly care more about what her body can provide than about anything she might have to say on the matter.

A hundred years ago, African-Americans and women were politically unrepresented. But there's a distinct difference-- they were not bodily depending on the people who abused or partook in violence against them. An African-American man didn't need a white man's heart to beat in order for his to do the same-- a woman didn't need her husband's blood to provide nutrients for her. For those two groups, it was a fight for independence and freedom from oppression. Here? Not remotely the same. You have something that parasitically feeds off of a woman's body for nine months, depends on her for its survival, and who is at her mercy. She is under no obligation to prioritize it over her own life, needs, etc. Just as no man is obligated, in the normal course of things, to place another man over himself.

Ah, yes. The usual argument of "You're selfish!" I will admit that, personally, yes. I am selfish on this matter. At least, my reasons are probably somewhat selfish. Such as the fact that I wouldn't want to raise a child I didn't care for and would only resent, nor that I would want to risk a child inheriting my hearing loss, or the fact that I don't believe in having a child only to put it up for adoption and foist him/her on someone else. Such as the fact that I am seventeen, and I have my whole life ahead of me, and want a career. I don't want to stay at home and spend my life looking after someone else, which is what motherhood amounts to. It's not that motherhood is bad, but that it is simply not for me, nor what I see myself doing. But I also know a number of women who have had abortions, and their reasons were far less selfish than mine probably are to you. One lived in relative poverty and could not possibly afford to care for a child, nor could she afford to go through with the pregnancy to put it up for adoption for various reasons-- that's an example for you. 

If a man has a child-- that is to say, if he impregnates someone-- it is low risk for him. He's not going to lose his job. He's not going to have to share his body for nine months. He's not going to have to pay pregnancy bills, or go through labor. He's not going to have to worry about the effect the pregnancy is having on his bodily health. He simply doesn't have to deal with the enormous variety of very real variables that a woman must consider when she's pregnant. 

"Use contraception, not abortion." Certainly. That's a blatantly obvious given, for me. But contraception does fail, you realize.

That was not an analogy, but rather a legal example of a precedent that no one can be compelled to give their body to another to preserve the other's life. Abortion is not murder, because murder implies killing a person-- and without the capacity to think, nor with developed nerve connections to feel... I don't consider it a person any more than I consider a single-cell zygote a baby, and certainly no more than I consider an acorn to be a tree.

Your whole argument is based off the emotional statement that you consider a fetus to be a person capable of conscious awareness, and lacks any consideration for the overarching consequences a pregnancy may have for the woman.

 TJ Jones Furthermore, I don't consider childbirth to be a miracle.

I consider it to be a screaming, traumatic, painful experience that someone only goes through because they're at peace with the means it takes to achieve their goal-- of having a child. There is nothing at all miraculous or magical or the least bit lovely about giving birth. When you've taken developmental anatomy and studied the evolution from egg to marsupium to placental/eutherian mammal, there is nothing miraculous about giving birth, unless it's the fact that nature itself is miraculous. But childbirth itself is nothing special on that scale. 

What I see is that you are in effect trying to take away a woman's choice to NOT have to let a parasitic growth make itself at home in her body for an incubation of period nine months, with all the risks it comes with, because you think it has more of a right to continue to full development rather than the woman's right to continue her life as she pleases.

If you had to give up YOUR body for nine months, too, I'm sure you'd feel at least a little bit differently.

 TheQuietQuirkYou are a teenager, a virgin. You don't know what it's like to be pregnant, to have an unwanted pregnancy, or to have an abortion. I don't know what it's like to be pregnant either, my point being YOU don't know what it's like to give up YOUR body for nine months.

I'm not "taking away a woman's choice to NOT have to let a parasitic growth make itself at home...". If you find babies to be parasitic, then you might want to gain a better knowledge of parasites and human reproduction. Women have reproductive rights; they can choose to have sex, they can choose to get pregnant or to not get pregnant, (under Roe v. Wade they can have an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy), what I have a problem with is murder. A murder of the voiceless. If you don't want to deal with the consequences of sex don't have sex. You live this principle, and for that I commend you. 

As for your blatant accusation that I value the life of the fetus over that of a woman; I said no such thing. I said that abortion can be justified in some cases, one of those cases would be if the life of the fetus or the pregnant woman is at serious risk. I recognize the risks of pregnancy; women I've been close with have miscarried and some women have come very close to death during delivery.

And just a point of clarification, if a man impregnates a women, he's still the father. He does have to pay to support the child. I would also like to point out that a man is not obligated to place himself over another man; during pregnancy a woman creates life. It was her CHOICE to do so, or at least to engage in activities that would create life. That's something very distinguishing between the two, killing a person dependent on you( I also think involuntary euthanasia is murder, cuz it is). If you are responsible for that thing being dependent on you, it is your problem - killing an old man at the crosswalk is murder.

I hope that one day, you'll experience the joys and hardships of motherhood. I hope you find a supportive man and are able to create a beautiful family with him. I hope you have children, and that one day you'll understand the blessing children can be.

 TJ Jones Yes, a teenager, a virgin, who has grown up very aware of the fact that she has a vagina, and in an environment where she was well-educated on that fact-- in some ways, more than she would have liked to be. You've never grown up having to contemplate that bit of space in your body and what it's there for. It's also well-known that women have a greater capacity for cognitive empathy, so forgive me if I've managed to glean some rather visceral experience by observation and assistance.

Don't tell me that I might want to "gain more knowledge" simply because you don't like my description. I've taken human developmental anatomy, so believe me, I've got a well-rounded and in-depth understanding of it. That doesn't change the fact that the fetus is a foreign organism attaching itself to the wall of the uterus, and is literally leeching nutrients off of the mother (host).

Again, I don't consider it murder, and no one has yet convinced me otherwise. It lacks the capacity for self-awareness for most of the duration it is in the womb, and it is not a fully-developed and born human. With those things in mind, it is simply not a person. Murder would be if the fetus was aware, thinking, able to reflect upon its own death and feel pain. Until much later in the pregnancy, it is capable of none of these, and even then, it is limited.

That's fine. But you still clearly place the fetus over the mother as long as the fetus doesn't present any verifiably serious risk to the mother. My impression of your stance is that a woman shouldn't be allowed to have an elective abortion unless it's for reasons YOU find justifiable.

Sure, he's still the father, but I'm not a huge fan of child support as it is. The way the system's set up is all wrong-- in many cases, the women who need that money the most never get it because the father is either too poor to pay or takes jobs that pay in cash and therefore fall under the radar.

A woman does not CHOOSE to create life. She does not choose to have an unplanned pregnancy, which is essentially what you're implying. Just because there is the potential for her to get pregnant by having sex does not mean she elected to get pregnant. And still, just because she "created it" still does not mean she's under any obligation to place its needs over hers. If she created it, she can destroy it too, before it reaches personhood. Because it is in her body, and if she doesn't want it in there, she doesn't have to.

I will say, however, that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. It should be a safety-net for when birth control fails.

Involuntary euthanasia is an entirely different matter, and a whole different ballgame. I have mixed feelings on the matter.

I don't plan on becoming a mother-- at least, not a biological one. If I want kids, I'll adopt. There are too many unwanted ones anyway. I already KNOW that children can be a blessing-- I'm not blind!-- but that doesn't make me more sympathetic to an anti-abortion position. It just makes me more sympathetic to women who want kids and are being pressured to abort, who already have my support. But nothing will convince me that someone else should be able to decide whether or not I do or don't keep something growing in my body.

 MrThere It's been awhile since I've been on this thread, and it's kind of weird that we've all of a sudden moved to the abortion issue, but I have to say something.  I consider myself morally pro-life, but I am uncomfortable with the idea of making abortion illegal since abortion is a. not an "easy" decision for most women, b. will not stop or if we make it illegal, and c. will be a logistical nightmare.

I think that what you've created is an argument that isn't rooted in reality.  The woman *should* choose because in reality, pregnancy involves the woman's body, not the man's, and the woman has more at stake than a man does when it comes to pregnancy and childbirth.  The man's health is not on the line, the man's not in danger of getting ill or losing his job due to pregnancy.  He is not on the hook for the doctor bills incurred due to pregnancy.  He is not in a particularly vulnerable position due to being pregnant, whereas women are most at risk of being killed when they are pregnant.  Generally speaking, it's a lot easier for a man to walk out on his child and eschew responsibility than a woman, and it is more likely to happen.  Biologically, financially, and socially, the stakes are simply higher for a woman than they are for a man when it comes to pregnancy. 

So when you talk about women being selfish or narcissistic, I wouldn't go that far but even if it were true they are the ones with more at stake, not men.  It's not *fair* that a man can't choose, but there is no such thing as fair when it comes to biology.  Is it really about the unborn for you, or is it about you having a say in what happens to a woman's body?

"If you want to claim that your rights are more important than the unborn's, then back it up with your money and your lifestyle."

That goes both ways.  The main reason I cannot stand the pro-life movement is its hypocrisy and selfishness.  Most of them will say that they care so much about the child and his/her life, but once the child is in the world and is in need of actual resources (read: stuff that costs tax dollars), then they whine about their money going to "socialist" programs.  To me, the pro-life movement is just a bunch of people who call themselves moral without sacrifice, without putting their money where their mouth is.  It's more about punishing women for "bad" life choices than about the child's life.  Life begins at conception, but it doesn't end at birth.

 marinabreeze  MrThere Well said, Marinabreeze. I tip my hat off to you.

I understand your arguments and have heard all of them before. And of course, it's easier for a man than a woman to walk away, I get that and have railed against men who leave women in the lurch. But, with all due respect, your arguments seem to come down to you needing to get out of the house more. The prolife movement is not all made up of conservative tightwads, it has literally thousands of members who have supported women in crisis pregnancies (in fact you're debating one). And it was the Democrat Party that drove liberal prolifers away, not the other way around. It was Bill Clinton who told Gov. Casey he couldn't speak on abortion at the Democratic Convention. In fact, there are Wiccans for Life, a ProLife Gay and Lesbian Alliance, etc. and Atheists for Life. Not all of us are biblical fundamentalists who vote Republican. And it's a phony argument, anyway, to claim you believe in social justice unless you back it up with you own money and/or your time. Not your taxes. We all have to pay taxes, so there's no heroism in that. And ultimately,  the related issues you bring up, while important, are no different than the ones people used to keep women from voting and out of the workplace and blacks enslaved.  The fetus is weaker than you, so it can be eradicated. What else is new in human history? For reasons of your own, you've ruled a portion of the human race unfit for protection. Fine, you have millions of allies, I'm sure people will keep aborting long after you and I are gone, and from the tone of most of the threads here, I have a feeling that doesn't seem to even bother some people. But face it for what it is, if you're going to dehumanize the fetus, you shouldn't be surprised when some of us who don't exclude people just because of their condition or stage of development fight  back. And one final point -- if women can't respect the rights of their own flesh and blood, why should their rights then be respected by those of us who aren't related?  The whole reason I respect people's rights is I know we all need each other for protection. If we start picking and choosing who's to be protected in the end only the strongest will remain.

 MrThere "if women can't respect the rights of their own flesh and blood, why should their rights then be respected by those of us who aren't related?"

You cannot judge a woman for being selfish or not "respecting the rights of their own flesh and blood," because you are not nor will you ever be in her shoes.  You are oversimplifying a very complicated and personal issue.

"And ultimately,  the related issues you bring up, while important, are no different than the ones people used to keep women from voting and out of the workplace and blacks enslaved."

If you can't elaborate on this, you may want to try again, because abortion is not the same thing as women not having the suffrage, much less slavery.

"But, with all due respect, your arguments seem to come down to you needing to get out of the house more."

I wasn't born yesterday. I have plenty of friends and associates on all parts of the spectrum. 

I'm specifically talking about the pro-life movement, which, whether you like it or not, are led by those who make the argument that government should be involved in protecting life, as long as it's not outside of the womb.  The numbers are on my side with this - this is part of what I actually study (I'm a researcher). 

So you may want to actually argue my points instead of dismissing them just because you don't like the implications.

"Not all of us are biblical fundamentalists who vote Republican. And it's a phony argument, anyway, to claim you believe in social justice unless you back it up with you own money and/or your time. Not your taxes. We all have to pay taxes, so there's no heroism in that."

Your argument is a nonstarter.  What is it at issue is government intervention, not heroism.  When you talk about "who's to be protected," that is an argument for government intervention in the abortion issue, and government intervention in *anything* equals tax money.  The pro-life movement is led by those who advocate government intervention for abortion, but then don't advocate it for children once they are born.  As a matter of fact, the arguments usually center on "personal responsibility" and "let churches/charities handle it."  Yes, we all pay taxes, but we also vote on proposals and elect officials who decide where said tax money is going.  What we advocate says a lot about ourselves.  Is it really about the babies, or about bashing women for making "immoral" sexual choices or daring to take control of her sex life the way a man does?

I never said that all individual pro-lifers are right-wing Christians.  I already knew about the history of how it's played out politically, and I sure didn't need the skewed history lesson (in which you conveniently missed that the GOP culled their cattle also when it came to abortion).  And btw, there are still pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, they're just a dying breed.

My argument has nothing to do with personhood of the fetus. My argument is this - if you are against abortion, fine.  But if you care all that much, advocate for something that will actually cut it down or end the need for it, such as stronger anti-gender discrimination and anti-domestic violence laws, more funding for social services and public assistance, education reform, things that will eliminate the real reasons why most women obtain abortions.  Simply making it illegal is just calling yourself doing something without actually helping the children you claim to care about.

 marinabreeze Hoo boy, you weave good and bad points together so well, it's difficult to unravel them.

So why don't I just toss my credentials your way, and see if that works.

First off I HAVE walked in the "unplanned pregnancy shoes" it's why I'm a dad today. I realize that's not enough for some people, fine, but I know, at least from a male perspective, what it's like to suddenly find out that you're going to be parent.

Two, I HAVE offered my home and what little money I have to help out more than one woman in a crisis pregnancy. I agree, you must walk the talk.

Three, I HAVE voted for and advocated for policies to help the born, heck I was a Democrat for years until I actually researched the shit they pull -- I taught inner city kids how to write and have worked on a volunteer basis with people who have HIV/AIDS. I'm not saying that for you to praise me, I'm saying I simply don't discriminate between the born and unborn in my circle of concern.

Fourth, I have a feeling you think being a social welfare state supporting Democrat somehow means you're working for the "born" so to speak, probably the most infuriating implication many pro-choicers make on a regular basis. Beside the fact there are far better working models of the welfare state that could be implemented than the intrusive, incompetent one we have now, the Democrats have undermined their alleged commitment to social justice by supporting every single war this nation has needlessly started, (and I'm a fierce anti-war opponent) and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have actually attacked marijuana smokers MORE aggressively than the Bushes ever did. And Obama just signed a law (the NDAA) that allows the government to detain political dissidents! The Democrats have stonewalled countless attempts at reform of our public schools and locked poor blacks into them by fighting vouchers and empowering incompetent admins. and teachers. I worked as tutor, I'm not talking out my behind, the Democrats SUCK!!! It's a party dominated by hypocrites who preach social justice but rake the poor over the coals. Because they occasionally throw their sheeplike followers a bone, they keep winning. I would respect a leftist more who votes Communist or Green, at least those parties actually want to do something, not just take contributions from Wall Street, then go join a drum circle at an Occupy event to look good.

Fifth, you note the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant to your argument. Fair enough, but I wouldn't even raise the argument if I didn't think it was a person, and contrary to some of the commentators on this site, there are thousands of scientists and doctors worldwide who agree with me, including many former abortionists who regret their pasts. I have no desire to "control women's bodies," or "wage a war against women," or all the other offensive bullshit rhetoric I hear on this issue. I'm concerned we're doing something wrong, that doesn't seem to sink in.

Finally, per the relation of the fetus to slaves and women -- Pro-slavery folks would often argue the slaves were too poor, too uneducated for freedom and therefore needed to be kept slaves. Similar arguments were advanced to deny women the vote. Similarly people deny the humanity of the fetus because it's dependent on the mother. Who the heck isn't dependent on someone at some point? Name one six month old child who could survive on its own.

Are there qualitative differences in all these situations, yes, of course, I've never said abortion was a black and white issue, but I've said you can't keep denying the argument the fetus is a person just because it doesn't suit you. No scientist or activist has a right to tell anyone who a person is, a person is a genetic combination of a human mother and father, that's it, and that's why I think it's wrong to needlessly destroy it in the womb or out.

Look, I don't think every woman who has an abortion is "selfish," heck most of them are scared or anxious, and I don't blame them, remember, I've been there. But maybe they wouldn't be so scared if people would stop acting like an unplanned pregnancy is this horrific thing. I heard that shit when my girlfriend was pregnant and it was so far from reality that I wonder why anyone would buy into it. The fetus isn't the problem, it's how we react to it, just like blacks were never the problem, it was the whites who enslaved them, and women aren't the problem, it's the men who don't see them as equal. I'm just saying I don't need to have to kill someone to prove I have rights, I'm just asking pro-choice women to consider that argument. I don't know what else to say, and I don't want to beat this to death, but at some point the prochoice movement must confront the callousness of its belief system or it will never understand why it encounters such resistance. It is not a humane movement, it is perpetuating the idea that the strong must always rule over the weak, whereas I'm saying our society only gets better when the strong realize they are here to serve the weak.

 MrThere  marinabreeze Speaking as a woman, I would like to say that for me, an unplanned pregnancy WOULD be a horrific thing. Not every woman has that outlook, and not every woman who has an abortion has that outlook. But that is definitely mine, because of what that fetus means to me. It means expulsion. It means I may not go to college. It means pain. It means my life as I know it is over. 

Of course, that's the reason I haven't had sex yet. If I got to a school where playing with fire will get me third-degree burns, I'm not gonna play with fire. But even after I'm out of school, in an economy where kids are expensive AND jobs are hard to come by-- especially for the young and those new to the workforce, and ESPECIALLY someone who has big plans for college-- it's a nightmare.

Look, the fetus is NOT a person. This may seem callous to you, but you have to face facts. It isn't remotely sentient until a certain point in the pregnancy, and very few women get an abortion beyond that point anyway. How can it be a person if it is not self-aware? How can you look at that glob of dividing cells that looks like the embryo of every other chordate in the animal kingdom, and say it's somehow more special just because it has half it's host's DNA?

No six-month-old child is independent and survives like one, but that kind of dependency is VERY different from this one. Your body is connected to this thing growing inside you by a cord. It is taking your nutrients. It is making itself known by weight and occasionally knee-jerk movements. That kind of dependency is very different from the kind you're talking about. Radically different. It is in a whole different ballgame. It is in the ballgame of having someone have a constant flow of blood cycling to and from their body to another's so that other someone can live. That takes a certain kind of voluntary altruism that not everyone has nor should be required to give.

As for your efforts-- they're heroic, and walk your talk, but they are NOT ENOUGH. They're not enough to change the social stigma, they're not enough to protect against discrimination in the workplace, and more importantly-- and to the point-- absolutely nothing you can do will alleviate the temporary and permanent effects the pregnancy has on the woman's body.

Your mandate is admirable, but naive and just on this side of ignorant regarding a few select (but very important) aspects of the issue. You oversimplify things, to the point where they appear reduced to you and dismissed and brushed aside when examined by others.

Unacceptable resolution. 

 TheQuietQuirk  marinabreeze Dear QQ, you have raised some good points, and I'm glad you're being sensible about your sexual choices. If only more people thought like you did, we wouldn't even be having most of this debate.  However, it's one thing to foresee how an unplanned pregnancy can make life difficult for you, it's another to actually live through it, as I have. Sure, it made life hard, but it also made it better, and at a certain point, you're essentially arguing for people to take a rather cowardly approach to life. I suffered the stigma, I actually have gone through discrimination for being a single dad (which is why I'm a fierce advocate of maternal and paternal leave), but you know what? I'm alive. Does it suck when people tell you should've had an abortion or gotten married to spare everyone embarrassment? Yes, it's lonely and depressing and it makes you wonder who your real friends are. But so is sticking up for an innocent person when all others think they're guilty. So is fighting for a million other just things, from ending racism to ending homophobia. But if you're going to live your life being afraid of what the world will do to you, you're going to wake up one day having not lived at all. I didn't get kicked out of school for having a kid, but I did get kicked out of some people's lives, but that's what develops your character. Not to mention I don't have to regret having tried to pressure my girlfriend into an abortion just because I was scared, which so many guys do.

One minor point -- what is your definition of person? Born people are not always sentient. Neither, for that matter do they always feel pain. And I'm at a loss as to how our resemblance to other creatures in utero somehow diminishes our humanity -- seems to me it should enhance it! We're part of the Web of Life. And I'm glad of it. And finally, it's precisely when we think we have the right to determine who is and who isn't a person that we take the first step on the road to diminishing everyone. I refuse to take that step, because it leads to a world where women fear telling their bosses they're pregnant, gay people fear coming out of the closet, soldiers fear disobeying an unjust order to shoot, and on and on. Maybe that's why I hate abortion so much -- it seems every argument advanced in its favor promotes fear as opposed to courage.

You're a thoughtful young woman, and I appreciate your responses.

 MrThere  marinabreeze 

It's true that not everyone who's born is born with the same level of awareness, but short of being born with a non-functioning brain, they're sentient. They have been fully developed (please don't get into the argument of "what if they're missing an arm, a leg, or half of their body?" because that's not what I mean.) By fully developed, I mean that the fetal development is complete, and the variety of unique characteristics are present-- such as no longer being attached to the mother by an umbilical cord. Also, such things as being able to respond are also present. They will register the environment around them and respond to it, even when faced with a disability or obstacle that impedes it (e.g: a baby who cannot see nor hear will still perceive taste, feel, touch, smell, etc.) None of those things which are necessary, and some of which are deliberately blocked off, while in even the latter part of development. Even a severely autistic person is self-aware, even if they don't perceive or react to the world the way "normal" people do.

I'm being sensible and responsible about my choices, but there are some other things that need to be faced. I won't even bring up the rape issue in this argument, because those cases are in the minority, and I'm sure you would be sympathetic to a woman in such a position. But you do have to consider that when two adults have sex consensually, even if they use birth control, it can and does fail. Sometimes, it's product error-- condom broke, etc. Other times, it's simple human error-- they put the condom on incorrectly or it was the wrong size, or the woman accidentally took a medication that conflicted with her pill. It can and does happen. I also think that a woman in an impoverished neighborhood, with several kids already who she's struggling to support, should have access to abortion services. Perhaps she wasn't as responsible as the adults in the earlier scenario, but with other mouths to feed, I can see her electing to have an abortion because she simply can't afford it.

What you have to understand is that most women-- and I say most-- treat abortion the same way a fox will gnaw its own leg off to escape from a metal trap. And when you think about it-- when you really think about it-- it's easy to understand why those women would view a pregnancy in that light. Even the best preparations can go wrong, and then you have people who have to make a choice between the kids they already have and feeding another mouth. And even further, you have women who can't afford to be pregnant-- job discrimination, social situation, medical bills, and adverse health effects can't be brushed aside. And where employers can interrogate and discriminate against women for using contraception, or refuse to include it in their insurance. We live in a very inflexible society, and no amount of wishing or wanting will change that right now. If and when it changes, fewer women may choose to have an abortion. But for now, stopping abortion is like trying to haphazardly cover-up the symptom of a larger problem. And furthermore, it strips women of a fundamental right-- the right to control their reproduction.

And no, it doesn't diminish it. It makes it clear that while in the womb, it is not that much different from the developmental forms of other animals, and is no more or less developed, nor is it somehow more "special". The only significant difference is in what its final form will be. Until then, honestly... I see it as a conglomerate of cells that make up a unit, but are not sentient.

I realize you've gone through this, and I commend you for that-- but you've also gone through only half the story. I will never be able to go through your half, and you will never be able to go through the half of a woman actually pregnant.

I support abortion or going through to term as being the woman's choice. I find guys who pressure women to have an abortion as abhorrent as I find ones who try to get a court order to stop her from aborting.

I fight to end homophobia and racism too-- proactively-- but I also feel it is taking a step backward to take away a woman's choice about whether or not to let the embryo/fetus in her body mean something more to her. 

 MrThere You’re throwing the kitchen sink at me!  I’ll try to address your responses.

Firstly, you haven’t walked in the shoes of a woman who is facing an unplanned pregnancy.  Nor can you.  I am not discounting your experiences as a father, but what I and TQQ are both getting at is that women simply have a lot more at stake – health-wise, life-wise, safety-wise, career-wise, etc.

Secondly, it’s great that you walk the walk in your own life.  That’s awesome, seriously.  But there are many that do not.  The issue I have is with the movement, not you personally.  The movement is hypocritical.

Thirdly, you may not want to assume my political allegiances or my stances on all political issues.  You would do well to just ask.  While I tend to vote Democratic, I by no means agree with them on all of the issues nor trust their motives any more than the Republican Party.  My husband is a Republican, but is fundamentally pro-choice, and we’re probably more alike on the issues than people within the parties we lean towards.

I’m not touching war, marijuana and NDAA – I agree with you on NDAA, and as far as war and marijuana, the GOP has done their share of chickenhawking and supporting a failed drug war, but that is for another discussion. 

On education, vouchers do not fix the overall problem, it’s just a band-aid.  It only takes a few kids out of bad educational situations, but does not deal with those left behind.  The fact is that in most school districts, schools are funded by property taxes.  That means that schools start out with an inherent economic class and racial bias.  It means less support to schools in impoverished inner-city and rural areas.  It means inferior supplies and programs, and less to draw in quality teachers.  Due to underfunding and overall neglect and mismanagement, administrators can thwart even the best teachers.  In a capitalist system, you draw the brightest and best on all levels – teaching, leadership, administration - through better funding, and that’s just not happening.  My sister has taught in two inner-city schools in Philadelphia over the past couple of years, and my pastor was a former teacher in a Cincinnati inner-city public school.  I also have other friends who are teachers, and I’ve tutored and been a substitute teacher in two school districts over the past several years.  Also, as a college instructor, I’ve seen the products of failed school systems in my intro courses.  So I know what I’m talking about. 

The problem with education isn’t as simple as you think.   Vouchers are simply an easy way out and are not a real solution.  The solution is more equitable resources – in a society that claims that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, the starting line should be the same, but to do that, resources need to be equitable, but the GOP doesn’t want to do that because it’s “socialism” and “redistributing wealth.”

And that’s the problem with the Republican Party.  They talk morality all day long.  They’ve co-opted the Religious Right and poor whites to vote for them because they claim that they care about morality and that vulture capitalism will benefit them.  Abortion is still legal and there is still separation between church and state, and with Bush as president for eight years, and a GOP-led US House, the economy went so far into the tank that it will probably take more than an Obama presidency for it to fully recover. 

The Republicans claim to be against social welfare, but were quick to bail out Lehman Brothers and much of the financial sector, so they’re fine with social welfare only if the beneficiaries are wealthy corporatists, not people who actually need it – instead, they get scapegoated as “welfare queens” and “freeloaders.”  They are blowing smoke up people’s behinds by shuffling money to the rich and then blaming feminists, gays, blacks, illegals, poor people, and other convenient targets for endemic problems the GOP have no intention of fixing. 

I will say that neither party is perfect – not by any means.  But what is most infuriating about the Republicans, and I say this as a Christian, is that they claim to be moral, but reduce said morality to abortion, same-sex marriage, and support of Christian symbolism in government – when the Bible itself mentions social responsibility, especially to the poor and oppressed, much more often than any of those above issues combined.  They claim to be the “Christian” party, but function based on social Darwinism.  Democrats don’t claim to be moral nor Christian – at least they’re honest.

I agree that both parties can do better, but you have not advocated a social welfare model that works better than what we have now.  And that’s the problem with many Republicans – they will say that the current “welfare state” (which is a joke, btw) doesn’t work, but don’t give real solutions besides let everyone fend for themselves and let the strongest survive.  You have to start somewhere, and if you’re going to replace something, don’t just chop off your nose to spite your face.

Lastly, you cannot control how individual women see pregnancy.  A child is a beautiful thing, to be sure.  But pregnancy *is* horrific for some women, or at least dramatically life-altering for the worse.  For many women, pregnancy means a life of ill-health, poverty, danger, and abandonment by family and peers.  There is something self-serving in the argument that "the strong should protect the weak” when you can never be in the position to have to face that choice.

 MiriamJane Have you ever actually taken a human developmental anatomy and physiology course? =/ Because they don't feel pain until around 26-29 weeks-- they aren't even capable of thinking, at that point-- and most women get an abortion before then. A heart beat doesn't do anything for me, since you can make a heart pump whether something is alive or not, using the right machinery. Scientists have taken a rat heart, cleaned it out, and then hooked it up to machinery that pumped it. Obviously, that rat heart is not alive.

You know what? Sure. Maybe I would change my mind! Maybe I would be super-excited! It's possible. But I think I know myself fairly well, and my circumstances. I'm not that great with kids (there's a reason I've never been hired as a babysitter), I have some physical problems I wouldn't want to pass on to any child (hearing loss is expensive in time, energy, money, and social connectivity), and I go to a school that would expel a girl who came up pregnant. Which means that, all things considered, I really don't think I'd change my mind about abortion if it came down to it right now. I'm so close to college, and have a lot going on. A baby would literally turn all of that upside-down, irreparably. To me, an abortion is worth not ruining my academic prospects.

But the point I'm making is that no, they do not feel pain before 26 weeks. And the heartbeat indicates nothing.

I'm glad you wouldn't verbally or physically harm someone who made that choice, because most people I've met fiercely declare that they would, which is... disturbing. >.>'

 MiriamJane  TheQuietQuirk "funny i girl i worked with said the same thing. shes 12 weeks along now and super excited."

I have nothing to add, except that anecdotes don't really prove anything.  I knew someone in high school who said that she was hardcore pro-life and would never have an abortion ever, ever in life, thought it was murder, the whole nine yards.  Then she went on to not only have one or two, but several - probably the only person I've ever come across to use abortion as a form of birth control (which btw I do have a problem with).

Personally, I am of the opinion that we don't really know what we will do unless we're faced with the possibility of it happening, whether we identify with pro-choice or pro-life sides.  As someone who has had a couple of pregnancy "scares" in the past and is a little bit older (I was in my late 20s when they happened, I'm now in my early 30s), I know that when confronted with it, abortion was not an option for me.  Even though I wasn't in a good position financially and I wasn't married at the time, I could not do it.  I even told my then-boyfriend exactly that (he's now my DH), because it was something I felt strongly about.

That said, I cannot in good conscience lobby to take the right to make that decision away from another woman.  The fact is that at its core, it really is a personal issue.

 TheQuietQuirk 24, I've said no less than 24 of these things to myself or to others.

 SwirlUp I've only ever said them to myself.

I've thought about a few of them of others.

But I don't really say this stuff to other people. But it hurts the most when it comes from others.

we are our own worst enemies because the world is ruled by men. the entire life of a girl is hearing about  finding a MAN, about what's necessary to atract a man. a lot of religions says that woman must serve her man, being housewives, and one religion says that women are born sinners. then that makes a guy think since he was born that HE is special, that the things and the girls must happen/be the way him want it to. sexism. then, girls have receive some rights, like vote, and some artists like madonna have been fight to set women "free". but unfortunately we get labelled now as a sexual object. and men are used to this (being the special owners of women) and it happens for decades . husbands already used to talk things like that to their women decades ago, calling them worthless. men they don't fight against what gives them "power". they should. some guys aren't sexist and want equal rights. what i meant was that men still command the world. and this is just a "modern" way to show their "power", their sexism. 

i think we should talk to girls/women about that. i've never seen a black people insulting themselves, a jewish talking nazi is right, or gay people talking straight is right about them. but i see women insulting themvelves every day! i hope in the future we get better as a human being. =/  

well, sorry for my poor english but i needed to tell these things xD

Bye! to all!

 Nathyrays You are absolutely right and you see it very clearly.

 4 under 5 I have had the SAME problem! I'm 5'1 and have ALWAYS been stuck at 100lbs, I am usually able to push myself to 105 but once summer hits (I live in the Las Vegas area) I drop back to 100... I've had negative comments from both men and women, all of my life. In school, I was called anorexic by girls that I didn't even know. I've been told by both men and women, that I have known and did not know: Are you anorexic? You have no butt, you have no breasts, well once you hit 30 your metabolism will slow down and you'll probably blow up, you're not going to just go and throw that (meal) up in the restroom are you? you wouldn't be able to wear that (shirt or dress) because your boobs can't fill it, your so thin, do you not eat?(no, I don't eat, I survive off of sunshine and rainbows) your so thin, where do you put it all? (when they see that I actually do eat!) why do you have so many freckles?You have no curves. Your flat as a board. Your flat chested. One of my "friends" gave me a birthday card that said "25 and you still have no boobs." I've also had boyfriends, some who meant well and others who were just idiots.. who have said that yes, I am pretty but.. they always point out my small boobs. I come from a long line of runners and fishermen from Sweden, I currently manage a farm, where I raise poultry, goats, and horses. Even before all these animals came into my life, I've been very physically active. However, I've gone through periods where I've tried heavy protein shakes daily to even taking prescriptions in hopes that I would gain weight. After making myself sick each time, I've given up and settled for the body that I have. I do have to eat a lot, 6 meals a day, to keep myself going. But all together I take care of 90 animals each day. Which adds up to a lot of feeding, watering (hauling buckets) and I'm working on starting in produce crops. Yet I have grown up with this bitter attitude towards both men and women... Sometimes it's like waiting for your own body to somehow become "acceptable" in society. Oh my, I might have come off a little steamed there! It is upsetting to think of though. Yet, it was very refreshing to hear from someone who has gone through the same..Your comments were all right on, especially the false compliments that women give.

 Aithley  4 under 5 I had a similar problem in my teens and through my mid-twenties. Thankfully, my metabolism DID slow down a bit when I hit 25, and I managed to gain about 20 pounds, so I no longer get the "anorexic" and "you're so thin" and "you should eat something" comments. But it's ridiculous I ever got them in the first place. People still tell me I'm thin, like it's a compliment...and, okay, it's great they like how I look, but I was no less healthy before I added the weight. If anything, I'm less healthy now, not because I gained weight but because I'm stuck at a desk job and don't exercise nearly enough, so I don't have the muscle I used to. =(

 justrosy Ah, but see, here's the thing. (several things, in fact)

1) Clothing and promiscuity don't match up. I tend to dress modestly (dresses not much above the knee, not too much cleavage, easy to walk in shoes, usually slacks and a sweater) and I have had numerous partners outside of marriage, and plan to continue doing so until I meet the right man and settle down with him. A good friend of mine who likes to wear tight, short skirts has only ever been with one person, and will probably be with him for the rest of her life. You can't look at a woman and tell how promiscuous she is.

2) Clothing certainly does send a message. If you are a straight woman, wearing jeans and a flannel shirt sends the message "I am working in my garden, or at my construction job" while wearing a miniskirt sends the message "I am going out on the town." However, I don't know of any woman who puts on a certain outfit because she wants to be catcalled, groped without her permission, and even raped. She might put on a certain outfit because she wants men to admire the way she looks, but this brings me to point #3:

3) It is possible to appreciate someone's beauty without treating them badly. I see attractive guys all the time, running without their shirts on, or in tight jeans, or snappy fedoras, and I don't make it a habit of catcalling them. Heck, I live with a cute guy, and I manage not to make inappropriate comments when he walks around the apartment in a towel. I have no interest in a world where men don't tell women "you look lovely" or "I really like your dress" or "that is a fantastic hat" (or where women don't appreciate other women's attractiveness, or men don't appreciate other men's attractiveness, or whatever). Rather, I expect that people who think I am attractive to enjoy how I look and not say anything, or that they express that the think I look cute in a respectful way.

 MarleyWeiner  justrosy Not to mention widely differing ideas about what consitutes "provocative".  In very strict Islamic communities, letting your burqah veil slip a bit is absolutely brazen!  While for, say, a modern European woman used to topless beaches, "skimpy" is probably overdressed in hot weather.  And interestingly, the more permissive the society is wrt sex, clothing etc, the less violent and sexist, so the "women need to civilise men" argument just doesn't wash. 

But Justrosy, the biggest problem I have with your argument is that it uncritically assumes that what you want is the norm. 

"Save the titilating for the man who has devoted his life to you. Believe me, you're more likely to have a guy comit his SOUL to your happiness if you do. Treat yourself like the prize you are.... not like a party favor."

Suppose I don't want a man devoting his life to me, and would rather be a party favour?  How is being a financially independent, career-oriented woman with no permanent man, and a few lovers for when the mood suits, a less valid choice if it works for me?  And how does that make me deserving of harassment from men who are complete strangers?  (At my age my cleavage is somewhere round my knees, but believe it or not, it still happens occasionally.)

This is still a very patriarchal argument - that men can't be civilised or behave well unless women train them to.  First of all it's extremely demeaning to men, as you point out - it says they can't handle being treated like an adult and expected to behave like one.  (It's unfortunately true that many men can't, but that doesn't make it ok.) 

Secondly it's demeaning to women in that is assumes that we have nothing better to do and no bigger purpose in life than training men to be people, and no way of defining ourselves except in terms of the men in our lives. 

"They argue that it's the man's responsibility to be civilized."

Well, yes.  It's called being a grown-up.  And that includes not reacting like a testosterone-poisoned chimpanzee when they see a bit more skin than they're used to.

"...men in general are only as moral as society in general and their women in particular demand. It's called "the natural man". I wish more girls would figure out that they hold so much power over men."

Thanks, but no thanks - I think that's the crux of true feminism.  I am not interested in having power over men, simply in ensuring that they don't have power over me.  And no way am I interested in taking on the project of socialising a man if he is so immature that he can't do it for himself and needs uber-Mommy (which is the role you're describing) to do it for him.

We've got too much to do building our own lives, being true to ourselves and hopefully making a difference in the world, so the emotional crutch that far too many women still automatically provide to men, and which men rely on women to provide, just isn't available any more -  nor should it be.  Men need to do their growing up, their civilising of themselves, on their own. And this invariably produces accusations of "selfishness" from men, who feel they're being unfairly deprived, although it's only what men have taken for granted for themselves for centuries.

And that, of course, is why men hate feminists - because we refuse to put them first. ;)

 Jesmcalli I think you're totally right. In fact, I believe that Dan has a post about that very topic! It is pernicious, the way that conditional love can poison people's self-esteem.