Pages

Monday, September 29, 2014

The feminist movement cannot afford to ignore pro-life concerns

Emma Watson at the United Nations, via CBS News
[Today's guest post by Victoria Godwin is part of our paid blogging program.]

Emma Watson. Who doesn’t love her? Emma Watson seems to be strong lady who has carried herself with poise and grace even whilst being in the spotlight. I love her acting, applaud her drive to get her university degree, and truly respect her quest to make a difference in this world by serving as the U.N. Women Goodwill Ambassador. Needless to say, she has certainly always been at the top of my “celebrity girl crush” list! So when I started listening to her HeForShe speech at the U.N. headquarters, I was very excited and was nodding enthusiastically (watch/read the transcript here). But when she said the line, “…I should be able to make decisions about my own body,” my heart and excitement plummeted.

Now, in theory, that line could have many innocuous meanings. Decisions about one's body might include, for instance, the decision to abstain from sex until you feel you are readya serious international concern, given the startling number of child marriages. It might also refer to decisions about contraception, confidential mental health treatment, and even what clothing to wear. But in practice, "decisions about my body" is coded language for the dismemberment of unborn children.

Assuming she is referring to the legal right to abortion, I’m going to also assume that she does not realize that over 200 million girls are missing in the world due to legal abortion and infanticide, a phenomenon explored in depth in Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn’s Half the Sky. I’m not here to lecture you all on how I feel about the legality of abortion, but I firmly believe that gender equality can only be reached if we address what is occurring worldwide: prenatal sex-selection and female infanticide. Gender equality begins at conception, but on this, Ms. Watson not only has missed the mark, but has ignored what the anti-abortion feminists have been fighting for for years.

As Emma points out later in her speech, “…not all women have received the same rights that I have. In fact, statistically, very few have been." However, this statement doesn’t necessarily only cover inequalities in wages, education, and general respect for women. This especially rings true in countries such as China and India, whose regional birth sex ratios can reach discrepancies of ~120+ male births for every 100 female births. This skewed ratio of male to female births is not just seen in countries such as India and China where in some parts cultural traditions have made it preferable to have male children; it is seen in the US and the UK as well. Sex-selective abortion is currently illegal in the United Kingdom, where Emma calls home. Despite its illegality, studies have discovered a skewed birth sex ratio among the second children of some immigrant families in the UK. It is currently estimated that between 1,400 and 4,700 girls are missing from the UK.

On the other end, sex-selective abortion is legal in the majority of the states in the US, where a woman can get an abortion on-demand and for any reason. Unfortunately, prenatal gender discrimination is evident in the US. Forms of gender preference were shown in a 2011 Gallup poll where 40% of Americans reported that they would prefer a boy if only allowed one child, in contrast to the 28% who would prefer a girl, statistics that are shockingly similar to those found in 1941. This opens the door wide to sex-selective abortions that are still legal in 42 states. Also in the US, parents are allowed to choose embryos by sex through in vitro fertilization, an option that 40% of Americans believe is appropriate. This suggests once again that gender preference is a serious issue that ought to be addressed as IVF technology advances and abortion remains on-demand.

Now that being said, do I think that making sex-selective abortion and IVF sex selection illegal is (by itself) going to fix this issue? No, it’s much more complex than that, as shown by attempts to restrict sex-selective abortions in India. But after listening to Emma’s speech, I was left wondering why the “hard questions” like sex-selective abortion and female infanticide are frequently left out of feminist discussions. While her efforts are indeed commendable, discussions on the gender wage gap and gender stereotypes tend to be much more palatable than discussing why being a girl can mean a death sentence. Most of all, I want to see more “nontraditional” feministsnamely men and pro-lifersstep up, get involved, and talk about these uncomfortable issues and to push the boundaries of what it means to be a feminist. Using Emma’s words, “If not me, who? If not now, when?”

At the end of the speech, Emma invites men to participate in the fight for female equality. But in her comment alluding to abortion rights, she has perhaps inadvertently excluded anti-abortion feminists from this “HeForShe” discussion for gender equality, exactly the opposite of what she claims her goal is: a united front. My fellow anti-abortion feminists and I desire the same things that Emma Watson states in her address. We fight for maternity leave, we fight to close the wage gap, we volunteer our time at domestic abuse shelters and pregnancy centers, and we spread awareness about gender discrimination across the world and close to home. We want females to have the same rights as males; but first, we have to let them be born.

683 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   601 – 683 of 683
secularprolife.org said...

Also, even if abortion was banned, miscarriages would not be criminalized. See here: http://www.l4l.org/library/fetalrts.html

secularprolife.org said...

I'm going to assume you meant "drives drunk."

Is driving drunk a medical procedure? I thought that's what we were discussing.

secularprolife.org said...

Clearly, you are lying when you say that you care about protecting 'innocent life'

Because your utter lack of concern for women who die from pregnancy or infants who die from circumcision is evident.

Rape victims are innocent. Yet you would sentence random rape victims to death from un-predictable and un-preventable pregnancy deaths.

secularprolife.org said...

Explain what you are doing to end circumcision and every other thing that could potentially end in the death of a person.


I'll wait.

secularprolife.org said...

You said that killing is acceptable if the intent is not to kill.

secularprolife.org said...

Where are you working to ban circumcision? And wisdom tooth extraction? And biopsies? All of those things have the potential to kill.

secularprolife.org said...

Is the intent of circumcision to end the life of another human being? The AAP doesn't think so.

secularprolife.org said...

Is driving drunk a medical procedure? I thought that's what we were discussing.

secularprolife.org said...

Is the intent of all those procedures to kill another human being?

secularprolife.org said...

So killing to you is acceptable as long as there is no intent to kill?


So a drunk driver, or a speeder, should away with no punishment if they kill your kid because they did not *intend* to kill, right?





So like, by that logic, abortion should be completely acceptable as the intent is not to kill, but to end the pregnancy. If a woman induces a miscarriage by taking a pill, the intent is to remove the embryo from her body, not kill it. No different, really, than fallopian tube extraction in an ectopic pregnancy. The prenate dies because it has been separated from the woman's body.

secularprolife.org said...

Is drunk driving a medical procedure?

Birth ends a pregnancy too. The intent of abortion is to end a pregnancy BY KILLING THE UNBORN CHILD.

secularprolife.org said...

testing

secularprolife.org said...

I agree that is unjust, and should be changed.

secularprolife.org said...

Was it just killing, or unjust killing?

secularprolife.org said...

It is STILL a delivery. The fetus may indeed never be viable. But terminating a pregnancy at 20 weeks is never viability. Zero percent will survive without a placenta. That fact alone doesn't make delivery an abortion. Different medical sources say that it's only abortion up until 20 weeks, others say at viability. In nursing school, we were taught that abortion is any pregnancy that terminates prior to viability, whatever the cause of termination is. Oh and that's without regard to whether the fetus is alive at the time of termination. In essence, the termination of a 17 week pregnancy because of ruptured membranes is abortion. Of course the fetus cannot survive at 17 weeks, or 20 weeks.

secularprolife.org said...

Fat lot of good that does.

secularprolife.org said...

Do you see a distinction at all between direct abortion and indirect abortion?

secularprolife.org said...

Well, if you can show me how to single-handedly change the laws of Chile so they are more just, I'd be interested to know how. While we're at it, lets end China's forced abortion policies.

secularprolife.org said...

"If a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be" - do you see the world in such black-and-white terms consistently?

Well, JoAnna, as has famously been said, there's no such thing as "a little bit pregnant". Pregnancy is a "you are or you aren't" situation.

And, though obviously as a prolifer you will ignore/deny/flout the lived experience of other women, many women say quite definitely: they knew they were pregnant, they knew they didn't want to be. They knew they needed an abortion.
And no, women don't "need" the ability to kill other innocent human beings.

Then you don't "need" the ability to protest free access to safe legal abortion, do you? Since you know that denying innocent human beings safe, legal abortion will kill them. So, since you don't need this ability, why do you keep using it?

Too bad for you about Moms Rising. I read their mission statement too, and saw nothing to indicate they oppose free access to safe legal abortion on demand - a basic legal right already achieved in the US, and therefore not one they'd need to campaign for. Your notion that they're a "prolife" organisation is clearly mistaken.

A woman in a crisis pregnancy doesn't have years to wait for Congress to implement paid maternity leave.

Quite, with all of those prolife politicians in Congress who'd vehemently oppose it, just like they all opposed better access to healthcare, too. It's interesting that you acknowledge it would take years to get any legislation to help women past prolife barriers in Congress, isn't it?

Also, did you know that paid time off of ANY kind is actually not mandated by the federal government?

Yep. Shameful, isn't it? And pity is that there are so many prolifers who are so absolutely indifferent to the welfare of working mothers that they just won't bother campaigning for anything to help them. Your going on about it's not worth doing because it would take so long - JoAnna, prolifers have been campaigning to shut down free access to safe legal abortion in the US since 1979. They've been killing doctors, attacking clinics, harassing staff and patients, trying to shut down Planned Parenthood, and lobbying to make access to abortion more and more difficult and expensive. Yet in all that time - over 30 years -, no prolife organisation has ever found the time to campaign for anything to help women who want to be pregnant but can't afford healthcare, or mothers with children who need paid maternity leave, higher minimum wage, better sick leave.

Shows where prolife priorities lie. Not in helping women and children: only in force, violence, and intimidation.

And I'd still like to see your proof that SPL doesn't advocate for paid maternity leave


I read the Volunteer Opportunities page. There's absolutely nothing there inviting people to lobby politicians for paid maternity leave. Writing letters to your Congressional Representative or Senator is something anyone can do. Yet it's not something SPL wants people to do. So, clearly, SPL does not advocate for paid maternity leave.

secularprolife.org said...

"no prolife organisation has ever found the time to campaign for anything to help women who *want* to be pregnant but can't afford healthcare, or mothers with children who need paid maternity leave, higher minimum wage, better sick leave."

Prove it.

Furthermore, let me offer you the list of pro-choice crisis pregnancy centers offering tangible help to women in crisis pregnancies who choose not to abort:





Oh wait, there aren't any. Funny how that works.

secularprolife.org said...

You can start by NOT EMULATING THEM. It isn't rocket science, cupcake.

secularprolife.org said...

No. It's abortion. There is no such thing as "indirect abortion." That's some papist nonsense cooked up to control people.

secularprolife.org said...

Um, we're not emulating them, sweetie-pumpkin.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, except for the forced abortion part. That does happen, unfortunately. But at least it's not at government behest.

secularprolife.org said...

Wow, nice example of anti-Catholic bigotry there. How open-minded and tolerant of you.

I'm sorry you can't see a distinction between an action with the intent to kill a child, and an action with the intent to save the mother by treating her condition (even if the treatment results in the unintentional, if foreseeable, death of the child).

Moral distinctions are important, otherwise atrocities can be justified.

secularprolife.org said...

Is drunk driving a medical procedure?

And your point is? Because I thought you were explaining your beliefs in regards to a general principle, the principle being that killing is totes ok if the intent is not to kill.

The intent of abortion is to end a pregnancy BY KILLING THE UNBORN CHILD.


Nope. The intent of abortion is to end the pregnancy. In the case of a viable fetus, all attempts will be made to deliver it alive, even in cases of medical necessity. It is *impossible* to deliver an embryo alive, no matter how hard you try, because it cannot survive without use of the woman's body - a body that it has absolutely no claim to. Aborting a non-viable embryo is like unplugging the violinist.

secularprolife.org said...

Why won't you answer my question? Is drunk driving a medical procedure?
The intent of abortion is to end the pregnancy *by killing the child.* That's why abortions in which a child remains alive or is born alive are referred to as "failed abortions" or "botched abortions."

And speaking of the violinist: http://www.str.org/articles/unstringing-the-violinist#.VC3L5mddV8E

secularprolife.org said...

And your point is? Why won't you get to your point? You keep trying to move the goalposts, very very dishonest Joanna.

The intent of abortion is to end the pregnancy *by killing the child.*
That's why abortions in which a child remains alive or is born alive are
referred to as "failed abortions" or "botched abortions."



In many early term abortions the embryo is expelled in one piece. It dies because it is incapable of surviving outside the uterus. The method of removal is irrelevant, as it cannot survive without access to the woman's uterine artery.


And yes, abortions where it is alive after being expelled are referred to as botched abortions because the *law* has been pretty clear that it must die while still inside the woman. How it dies doesn't matter, though, because it cannot survive without being plugged into her artery - an artery that it is NOT entitled to.

secularprolife.org said...

Who's moving anything? I'm asking you to answer a very simple question, which you refuse to do. I wonder why?

"It dies because it is incapable of surviving outside the uterus."

Yes, and if someone drowned me, I would die because I am incapable of surviving in the water. Does that mean that the person who drowned me did not kill me? He just expelled me from my natural environment?

Your logic doesn't work at all.

Why is a child not entitled to nutrition and shelter from his or her parent?

secularprolife.org said...

Who's moving anything? I'm asking you to answer a very simple question, which you refuse to do. I wonder why?

You keep saying that where the intent is not to kill, killing is ok. So I asked you a simple question, and now you are trying to talk about medical procedures.

You really need to get to your point, the sooner the better.

Yes, and if someone drowned me, I would die because I am incapable of surviving in the water.

Well then, I guess that makes fallopian tube removal in the case of ectopic pregnancy direct killing, does it not? It dies because it is removed from it's natural environment.

Would it be wrong to drown you to save a life? Then why is it wrong to 'drown' an embryo to save a woman's life?

Why is a child not entitled to nutrition and shelter from his or her parent?


It is not entitled, not if that 'nutrition' and 'shelter' involves a violation of the parent's bodily integrity. Unless of course you are suggesting that if one of your kids is unable to breathe or eat, that you should be legally obligated to breathe and eat for them, and the nutrients/oxygen go from your body to theirs through a plastic tube? Would you be in favour of such a law?

secularprolife.org said...

"You keep saying that where the intent is not to kill, killing is ok."
But I'm speaking in a very specific context, and you're taking my words out of that context. Once again, is drunk driving a medical procedure?

"Well then, I guess that makes fallopian tube removal in the case of ectopic pregnancy direct killing, does it not? It dies because it is removed from it's natural environment."

No. The reason salpingectomy is an indirect abortion is because the intent is to remove the pathology (the tube) causing the problem. The fact that doing so may result in the death of the child is a tragic, unintentional (if foreseen) side effect, not the direct intent of the procedure.

However, if you're expelling the child with the intent of killing the child, and if your chosen method of killing the child is to expel him/her out of his/her natural environment, plus deprive him/her of access to nutrients so that it cannot survive, then that is direct abortion.

"It is not entitled, not if that 'nutrition' and 'shelter' involves a violation of the parent's bodily integrity."

I take it you are opposed to breastfeeding, then. If I was stranded in a blizzard with my newborn child and had no formula accessible, and I decided I did not want to use my body to breastfeed my newborn, would I be obligated to do so? Or could I let my newborn die?

secularprolife.org said...

JoAnna, as a recovering Catholic, I am well aware of what you speak of. I'm simply saying it's a simple-minded notion that is unscriptural and harms women. Here's the best example I can think of to illustrate both "the doctrine of double effect" and the reason why it's simple-minded. The case of ectopic pregnancy. By definition, the pregnancy is non-viable, nor can it ever result in a baby. Now the doctrine of double effect says you must mutilate a woman surgically and rob her of half her fertility by removing the entire fallopian tube, but you cannot give her methotrexate, or perform a salpingectomy and remove the embryo because that would constitute a "direct" abortion. Now let's think about that for a second. Either way, the result is the same for the embryo. There's no hope for it. The only *real* difference in outcome here is harm to the woman. She has been subjected to surgery that shouldn't be necessary because we have safer methods of treatment. And you have mutilated her and robbed her of fertility. That's the very definition of simple-minded, hard-headed, archaic, bone-headed, misogynistic thinking. Medical practice is not in the realm of religion. It's in the realm of science. Practice has always been based on what provides the best possible outcome given the state of our knowledge and technology. Surgery was once the only option, but that has changed. What HASN'T changed, and never WILL change, is the outcome of a tubal pregnancy for the embryo. The Catholic church will get no place fast ignoring facts and harming women.

secularprolife.org said...

But I'm speaking in a very specific context, and you're taking my words
out of that context. Once again, is drunk driving a medical procedure?


Be clear and make your point, please. I'm still waiting.

No. The reason salpingectomy is an indirect abortion is because the
intent is to remove the pathology (the tube) causing the problem.


The embryo is the cause of the problem, and it can be dissolved using an abortion drug. The reason it dies from salpingectomy is because it is removed from the woman's body. If according to you, the drug = direct killing, and drowning = direct killing, then removing it within the fallopian tube and starving it to death/suffocation also = direct killing.

and if your chosen method of killing the child is to expel him/her out
of his/her natural environment, plus deprive him/her of access to
nutrients so that it cannot survive, then that is direct abortion.


Yeah, a salpingectomy will do ALL of that! It's direct killing! It's murder!

If I was stranded in a blizzard with my newborn child and had no formula
accessible, and I decided I did not want to use my body to breastfeed
my newborn, would I be obligated to do so?



If you were stranded in a blizzard, and you had no breastmilk to give, would you be obligated to cut your leg off so that it could eat?

secularprolife.org said...

Forced abortion doesn't happen here. The patient MUST consent, or the doctor will be sued. It happens in China, and that is every bit as anti-choice as abortion bans. But here's something to think about and ponder the consequences. A government with the power to force gestation on women also has the power to force abortion on women. I don't believe anyone ought to have that kind of power.

secularprolife.org said...

You certainly are.

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, in my experience, people who identify as "recovering Catholics" are the least informed of Catholic moral theology and doctrine.

Please read the following: http://johnpaulbioethics.org/FinalProofs.pdf
I have a friend who had an ectopic and underwent salpingectomy. She's now pregnant with her third child. So no, salpingectomy does not "destroy a woman's fertility." Otherwise my friend would not have 3 children.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm waiting for you to answer my question. Then we can continue the discussion.

The embryo is not the cause of the problem, unless you are trying to claim that it has deliberately implanted itself in the fallopian tube with the express purpose of harming the mother. The problem is that the tube itself has become infected because it is not, biologically, the proper receptacle for implantation of an unborn child. The tube itself is the pathology and the disorder, not the child.

A salpingectomy removes the tube. The fact that the child in the tube is an unintended but foreseen side effect. It's a crucial distinction that is really too complex for a combox, so I direct you to this link: http://johnpaulbioethics.org/FinalProofs.pdf

Cut off my leg for whom?

secularprolife.org said...

Forced abortion doesn't happen here? Not by the government, perhaps, but by others. http://stopforcedabortions.com/forced.htm

secularprolife.org said...

Really? Please quote where I said miscarriages should be criminalized.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm waiting for you to answer my question. Then we can continue the discussion.

You're shifting goalposts and I am not gonna play your game. Suffice to say, you seem to be implying that killing people through medical procedures is A OK as long as it's not done with intent to kill. Hilarious.

The tube itself is the pathology and the disorder, not the child.


Bullshit. The problem is that the embryo, willful or not, implanted in the wrong spot, and your method of removal kills it by suffocating it and denying it food and shelter.

secularprolife.org said...

No, just waiting for you to answer the question that you are repeatedly avoiding.
The death of the child is a side effect, not a means to an end. Read the link I gave you. Goes into more detail than a combox can handle.

secularprolife.org said...

So it's acceptable, in your opinion, to indirectly kill people through medical procedures. Got it.

I'll just go with that, since you continue to play games.

Joanna thinks that it is ok to indirectly kill people as long as it is a medical procedure. Which means you are pro-choice, because the point is to end the pregnancy, and the death of non-viable prenate is just a regrettable side effect.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes. Indirect abortion is sometimes, tragically, necessary. always as a last resort, if there is no other option.
I am not surprised that you see no logic in having moral distinctions. No doubt you believe the ends justify the means in every case. But without moral distinctions, anyone could justify committing atrocities in the name of doing good.

secularprolife.org said...

There is another option - dissolve the embryo using methotrexate. But you oppose that. Why?

secularprolife.org said...

How many deaths from lightning strikes are acceptable to you?

secularprolife.org said...

That's what happens where abortion is illegal. Just as here in the USA, where women are in jail facing "fetal homicide charges" that are never meant to be applied to actions taken by the mother. Ambitious prosecutors and poor women who suffer miscarriages or stillbirths. Don't take my word for it. Look it up yourself. Most of the time, the charges are eventually dropped. After the woman's life has been ruined, of course. How much worse do you suppose it will get when abortion is illegal and all pregnant women who go to hospitals for treatment of a miscarriage are treated as potential criminals? After all, an abortion is medically indistinguishable from a routing miscarriage, and the treatment is the same. Don't put ANYTHING past evil politicians, or you'll be sorry.

secularprolife.org said...

There is simply no such thing. Grow up. If someone doesn't consent to an abortion, it just isn't done. Try that on someone who doesn't know how medical care gets done!

secularprolife.org said...

People are advised to go to the doctor before starting exercise regimens. Kids aren't even allowed to engage in school athletics without a physical exam. Athletes frequently desire or require medical assistance, if not always intervention. Does that make sports and exercise medical conditions?

Prenatal care is for monitoring and medical assistance. There is no actual medical intervention unless complications arise, just like a sports physician doesn't splint a leg unless it's injured.

secularprolife.org said...

It's still not a disease.

secularprolife.org said...

Read the link I provided, it explains it great detail. Again, it directly attacks the child, not the pathology.

secularprolife.org said...

Didn't happen prior to Roe v Wade in states where abortion was illegal. Doesn't happen in Ireland where abortion is illegal in most cases.

secularprolife.org said...

I've been exercising for 2-3 hours every day for the last three years honey, and I never went to the doctor before starting.


I am now building trails through the woods, lifting heavy rocks all day, and cutting down trees, and you know what? I never went to a doctor, and won't unless I cut my foot off with the chainsaw.

secularprolife.org said...

Wow, that is awfully naive. You should read some of the testimonies of post abortive women sometime. Many were forced or coerced by partners or parents, or abusers.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah? Well, I taught catechism to teens who hadn't attended regular classes when I was in high school. I was recommended to do so by my priest, so don't go making any assumptions about my grounding in the Catholic faith. Also I meant to say salpingostomy, not salpingectomy. The spell check doesn't like that word for some reason. They are two different procedures, and removing a fallopian tube DOES rob a woman of half of her fertility. A woman can still get pregnant with one eighth of one ovary as long as she has a functioning fallopian tube. She will be infertile more than she was with both ovaries and tubes. It's a fact that women who have one tubal pregnancy have a much higher risk of a repeat performance. Without fallopian tubes, pregnancy just isn't going to happen without invitro. So don't go telling me it doesn't MUTILATE the woman and rob her of half her fertility. Besides which, there is no good REASON to do that.

secularprolife.org said...

So they claim. You really are that gullible, aren't you?

secularprolife.org said...

We didn't have "fetal homicide" laws prior to Roe. And in Ireland, women leave. Or they die, like poor Savita.

secularprolife.org said...

Pregnancy isn't a state of wellness. It's not the default condition of a healthy female. You know nothing about pregnancy and it's effects on the body. On the immune system. On the circulatory system. On the kidneys. On the woman's blood sugar regulation. Stop proselytizing. You picked the wrong medical professional to do that bit with.

secularprolife.org said...

So then you don't oppose contraception, right, because it doesn't 'directly attack the child?'

You also shouldn't oppose a woman having a hsyterectomy whilst pregnant, since it acts on her body, not that of 'the child'.

secularprolife.org said...

A dampened immune system isn't healthy. Neither is having your bodily resources leeched from you.

secularprolife.org said...

It's my experience that those who went to Catholic school, and have to brag about their Catholic credentials, are the ones least informed about their faith (or former faith as the case may be).
A woman can retain her fertility with one tube, yes. That's exactly what I said.

secularprolife.org said...

I have no reason to believe they're lying. Why would they?

secularprolife.org said...

Savita was thrown in jail for her miscarriage? Do tell.

She died of sepsis by the way & abortion does not cure sepsis.

My point stands that Ireland does not criminalize miscarriage, so your assertion is false.
Yes, we did have laws prohibiting the killing of unborn children prior to Roe

secularprolife.org said...

If the uterus is cancerous, and the intent is to remove the cancer and not kill the child, then that may be acceptable.
I oppose contraception because it essentially divorces sex from procreation, and gives people a false sense of security.

secularprolife.org said...

So it does not bother you if a blastocyst cannot attach to the uterine wall because of BC?

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, that bothers me.

secularprolife.org said...

You really only think sex should be used to make babies?

Now I get why you are so bitter...

BTW BC is a good thing.

secularprolife.org said...

No, I think that people should respect the fact that the primary purpose of sexual reproduction (in a biological sense) is to make babies. I also think that people need to realize that all birth control has both a method and user failure rate and is not infallible.

secularprolife.org said...

The primary purpose of sex is NOT to make babies for people who want a child free life.

Yes BC does have a failure rate and that is why abortion is needed sometimes.

secularprolife.org said...

Biologically speaking, that's exactly what sex is for. Your body doesn't really care if you don't want children, it will still engage in the biological process of reproduction if the conditions are right. Certainly it isn't the child's fault that your birth control failed, so it really doesn't make sense to punish him or her with death for the egregious crime of coming into existence after a sexual act.
But, while debates are fun, my worldview is so wildly different from yours that this is just a waste of time. I'm going to respectfully bow out of this discussion. Be well.

secularprolife.org said...

Realistically speaking that is NOT what sex is for. My mind cares that I don't want kids and it will make sure that my body doesn't ever have to suffer the misery of pregnancy.





I agree our views of women and their place in their world are way too different and we will never chnage the other's mind.

secularprolife.org said...

**There is never a medical reason to kill an unborn child, especially after viability.**


So, you are trying to claim that NO women, EVER, die in childbirth. Or to put it simply, you're either a sociopath who doesn't care if women die, a complete idiot who is ignorant of the facts, or a flat out liar.


Which is it? Are you a sociopath, an idiot, or a liar?

secularprolife.org said...

**Plus, if a woman does not want to get pregnant, she can abstain from participating in the act that causes pregnancy.**


In other words, you're admitting in a roundabout way that your real goal is punishment for sex.

secularprolife.org said...

So, by that standard, if you choose to get in the ocean, I have the right to force you to stay in the ocean until a time of my choosing, even if you see a shark, because, after all, you weren't FORCED to get into the ocean.

secularprolife.org said...

In other words, you live in a fantasy world and think that if abortion is illegal, angels will descend from the sky with harps, and all women will carry unwanted infants to term, and there will be no illegal abortion clinics.


How well did that work out when tried with alcohol during prohibition? Did angels float out of the sky, and everyone stopped drinking? Or did people continue drinking illegally, resulting in gangsters and speakeasies?


God, you're dumb.

secularprolife.org said...

Were they forced to get the abortion? Otherwise your question is nonsense.

secularprolife.org said...

I am a pro life feminist so naturally I am pro reproductive privacy and the full range of reproductive care medicine has to offer.
You are simply pro birth. And if you want to criminalize abortion, you are pro death.

secularprolife.org said...

And yet you claim to be unable to distinguish between a 'person' without a functioning brain, and one with a functioning brain, or a person living on their own, and a 'person' occupying someone else's body.

secularprolife.org said...

The point is that as soon as the sacred fetus has been born, and thereby served JoAnna's real purpose of punishing the mother for sex, then all the rights JoAnna claimed it had just a few seconds before birth instantly vanish in a puff of smoke, and it's just fine to perform dangerous mutilations on it without it's consent.

secularprolife.org said...

I found this interesting webpage, JoAnna: in 2003, the abortion rate in the US was 4.17 per 1000 population. But in Canada, it was 2.23 per 1000.



Just think of all the abortions prevented if the prolife movement had, instead of trying to make abortion difficult/expensive to access. had campaigned for socialised healthcare and excellent paid maternity leave.

secularprolife.org said...

Prove it.

*shrug* You want me to list you every single prolife organisation in the United States in order to prove to you that none of them do anything to help women who *want* to be pregnant but can't afford healthcare, or
mothers with children who need paid maternity leave, higher minimum
wage, better sick leave...?

Somehow, I think you already know this will come up a big, fat negative.

Furthermore, let me offer you the list of pro-choice crisis pregnancy
centers offering tangible help to women in crisis pregnancies who choose
not to abort:,


Oh dear, you didn't bother to do any research at all, did you?

Just off the top of my head, here's some of the largest:

The Task Force For Global Health, which helps under-served populations in more than 50 countries, including the US.


Feeding America, which

provides "nutritious, fresh foods to Americans
struggling with hunger; safe and nurturing places for children to have a
meal; a chance at
self-sufficiency for adults trying to break the cycle of poverty and
hunger."
And of course, Planned Parenthood, which provides pre-natal care to women at health centres in many states across the US.


Funny you didn't know about any of these prochoice charities offering tangible help to women in crisis pregnancies - and to mothers and children, too.

secularprolife.org said...

Thank you for your comments, Joanna. I appreciate you standing up for women AND children. I appreciate that you have a heart for ALL life and are able to articulate both heart and logic accurately. I'm with ya, girl!

secularprolife.org said...

Sorry, dear. Actual unbiased, legitimate sources give the lie to your assertion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271

Quote: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of
death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than
that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with
childbirth exceeds that with abortion.

You're welcome.

secularprolife.org said...

"However, this statement doesn’t necessarily only cover inequalities in
wages, education, and general respect for women. This especially rings
true in countries such as China and India,
whose regional birth sex ratios can reach discrepancies of ~120+ male
births for every 100 female births."

No, this isn't actually true.

The discrepancy is not in the number of births - most families in India or China couldn't afford ultrasound screening or sex-selective abortion.

Here's why those girl-children go missing, and it's not because they're aborted before they're born:

" Up to 5 years of age, girls in India have a 75% higher mortality rate than boys the same age. Studies conclude that
this is because girls are subjected to lethal domestic violence that
boys are not. Also, the parents deliberately starve them or don’t give
them medical care when they need it, because they don’t think a girl is
worth it! Due to chronic malnutrition about 90% of girls in India are anemic." http://genderbytes.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/a-report-on-the-state-of-indias-girls/

Feminist campaigners work to improve the lives of girls and women and uphold the value of a girl.

Prolife campaigners ignore the lives of babies once they've been born, and focus exclusively on making abortion difficult, illegal, and expensive.

That's why you can't be both a prolife campaigner and a feminist campaigner: they're mutually exclusive goals.

«Oldest ‹Older   601 – 683 of 683   Newer› Newest»