![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mahoganyThis was a comment that I wrote in response to a post about how the religious right was harming the pro-life movement. I am reposting here because it sums up my views on the issue:
I agree that judgemental pro-lifers are not helping, but I think the primary reason that the pro-life message is failing is that we (and I include myself in this because I have yet to come up with a good solution, and thus I too am failing women), as pro-lifers have failed to address the issues of genuine equality that women still face in the workplace; in the school place; in their family lives. Women are still vulnerable to sexual attacks. We have yet to address the fact that it is women who assume all of the responsibility of bringing a child to term. In some cases (cesarean, stretch marks), they bear the scars afterward. Any health complications arising from the pregnancy fall on the woman. In the case of teens, there is still the social stigma associated with teen pregnancy. The woman bears this. And I'm just talking about cases of pregnancy where the sex was consensual. I don't even need to go into the problems of rape and incest to show that the pro-life movement has work to do.
Abortion gives the illusion of a solution to these problems. As pro-lifers, we believe that this is not a solution. This is not an answer, but many people accept it as a panacea. This, I believe, is the real reason that the pro-life message is failing. Abortion has not made life any better for women. It has not solved their problems, but you know what? Neither have we! As feminists and pro-lifers, we need to come up with better answers than just, "Oh, you don't want the baby? Give it up for adoption." That's no more a panacea than abortion.
I agree that judgemental pro-lifers are not helping, but I think the primary reason that the pro-life message is failing is that we (and I include myself in this because I have yet to come up with a good solution, and thus I too am failing women), as pro-lifers have failed to address the issues of genuine equality that women still face in the workplace; in the school place; in their family lives. Women are still vulnerable to sexual attacks. We have yet to address the fact that it is women who assume all of the responsibility of bringing a child to term. In some cases (cesarean, stretch marks), they bear the scars afterward. Any health complications arising from the pregnancy fall on the woman. In the case of teens, there is still the social stigma associated with teen pregnancy. The woman bears this. And I'm just talking about cases of pregnancy where the sex was consensual. I don't even need to go into the problems of rape and incest to show that the pro-life movement has work to do.
Abortion gives the illusion of a solution to these problems. As pro-lifers, we believe that this is not a solution. This is not an answer, but many people accept it as a panacea. This, I believe, is the real reason that the pro-life message is failing. Abortion has not made life any better for women. It has not solved their problems, but you know what? Neither have we! As feminists and pro-lifers, we need to come up with better answers than just, "Oh, you don't want the baby? Give it up for adoption." That's no more a panacea than abortion.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 05:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 06:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 07:18 pm (UTC)The way I see it, unwanted pregnancies are a kind of Sophoclean tragedy: you have to betray one 'good' for another 'good', or do something 'bad' to prevent another kind of 'bad'. Which choice do you make, as an individual and as a society?
Personally, on balance, I don't think abortions are a good idea - I think the killing aspect is pretty powerful - but as you've suggested above, often there are understandable reasons why people make that choice, when given the choice, in the world the way it is. We could change things so the balance is tilted more favourably toward life more often.
I think another divide that's often going on between the pro-life vs pro-choice movements is about sex in general. There's a huge gulf between those who believe sex is sacred & should only happen within marriage and should always be 'weighted' with the possibility of pregnancy, versus those who see it as a normal biological impulse that should be as 'light' and risk free as possible (with pregnancy being just another of the manageable risks).
Unfortunately that divide also seems to get in the way of providing the information and medical assistance required to minimise the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 07:19 am (UTC)I think you're partially right, and I think this is one of the problems facing the pro-life movement at the moment. I must say, however, that there are plenty of pro-lifers who don't view sex as particularly sacred, and see it more as a biological impluse, however, they recognize pregnancy normal result of that biological impulse, and acknowledge that life in utero, should be protected.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 09:17 pm (UTC)I think it's obvious that the Republican "pro-life" movement is not truly pro-life, but only anti-abortion and anti-embryonic stem cell research (both worthy causes that I support). But they have no problem with war, they have no problem with the death penalty, and the party platform also has no problem placing the economy (MONEY) in a position of importance over human life (hate-mongering about how immigrants will make the economy tank and steal away our medical/educational/etc resources). Their platform doesn't seem to care about helping the poor at all, just keeping the middle and upper classes (of which I am a part) from having to SHARE their resources and capital.
I honestly agree that I'd like to have LESS governmental interference. In a perfect world, we and our fellow human beings would redistrubute our wealth freely, without forced taxes from the government, without control lying with any one group. But it disgusts me how Republicans (here in the US) are so against any kind of help to immigrants, and others that might take our "hard-earned money" away from us.
Ok, I'm just tangentially complaining now. But anyway: the political pro-life movement gives the true pro-life movement a bad name because they are not truly pro-life, and they have hijacked the these "causes" and turned them into political issues and are relying on the GOVERNMENT to legislate morality, all the while screwing people over money.
Don't even get me started on the Democrats. The democratic platform sucks, too. It's so very sad that a pro-life democrat can't make it two seconds in the party because of the pro-choice issue. I can't wait until the day when we are no longer a two-party system (and I don't count the supposed "Tea Party" - that's just a clever ploy by conservatives to get the attention of those of us who vote third party and feel disenfranchised by the two party system).
I think that we women who say this is a feminist issue are fooling ourselves. Feminism is a celebration of the feminine, a call to not descriminate against the feminine in favor of the masculine. That is not what modern-day feminism is, however. It is instead hell bent on equality, and in the process we've just forced women to become more and more like men in an attempt at this equality. How does killing someone within us make us "free" and "empowered"? I am a feminist, but not in the sense of today's socio-political feminism.
When it comes down to it, this IS a human rights issue, but not a feminist one. This should be a human rights issue in that every life deserves the opportunity to be LIVED.
.... ok, I'm totally soapboxing, so I will stop right here!
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 09:53 pm (UTC)But I must admit that I disagree with your remark that women shoulder all of the responsibility alone when it comes to pregnancy, birth, etc. I feel like this is only the case if we have a deadbeat husband, or have a deadbeat boyfriend or a one-night stand. We women are responsible for our sexual partners. We choose whether or not to date/marry/have sex/hook up with a *certain* guy (except in the horrific case of rape, obviously). If we women would choose better men, we wouldn't feel so alone in this world, we wouldn't feel like maternity is "all on us" and we would send the message to men that being a deadbeat won't get you ANYWHERE. But do we? No. We settle for men who are selfish and lazy instead of waiting for the man who tries his best to be unselfish and considerate and helpful. I can't even begin to express how much my husband was there for me and did his best to shoulder as much of my pain and grief as possible when I faced my meltdown over having an un-wanted Cesarean which caused low milk supply so that I couldn't exclusively breastfeed. Or his immense spiritual and emotional support when we faced the possibility of a Down Syndrome child and were counseled to abort.
This is why I think it will take a change of heart. I don't think that society will truly change until people stop being selfish, self-absorbed, etc - and start giving to others (their time, their effort, their love, their money, whatever).
Also:
There *are* those out there who offer crisis pregnancy resources, and counseling... but they are the target of pro-choice lobbyists and activists who are trying to shut them down. Unfortunately, the truly helpful pro-life organizations are being lumped in with those Christian pregnancy resource centers that proselytize, and so their help is not recognized and is ignored in favor of places like Planned Parenthood.
Birthright is an example of a crisis-pregnancy center that purposely stays out of politics, is volunteer-run, and non-proselytizing. The place offers tests, free maternity and baby clothes, and resources on everything from how to get help getting a car seat and other baby gear, to jobs, WIC, adoption, and abuse-counseling. How could you not want a place like that to exist? And yet there are so many "feminists" who don't want a place like Birthright to exist simply because they don't recommend, or help women procure, abortions.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 09:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 06:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 06:51 am (UTC)I actually called to volunteer at Birthright a few years ago for many of the reasons you cited above. There were two locations at the time. The first told me to call the other centre, as they had no need for volunteers. The second location told me that if I wanted to volunteer, I should bring a few really good books. Apparently, since the morning after pill became widely available, they hardly have anyone coming in anymore. She said, "We have the odd person coming in for the free baby clothes, but that's it. You're not going to be helping women keep their babies, if that's why you're hoping to volunteer."
I feel like this is only the case if we have a deadbeat husband, or have a deadbeat boyfriend or a one-night stand. We women are responsible for our sexual partners. We choose whether or not to date/marry/have sex/hook up with a *certain* guy (except in the horrific case of rape, obviously). If we women would choose better men, we wouldn't feel so alone in this world, we wouldn't feel like maternity is "all on us" and we would send the message to men that being a deadbeat won't get you ANYWHERE. But do we? No. We settle for men who are selfish and lazy instead of waiting for the man who tries his best to be unselfish and considerate and helpful.
I still think an examination of who bears the burden of responsibility (usually) is an extremely relevant point in a discussion of unwanted pregnancies, and one that as pro-lifers we must address. The fact is that men do not have to live with and experience pregnancy in the same way as women. Some choose to be part of the pregnancy and child rearing, but we need to acknowledge and address the fact that the ability for men to just walk away, more or less consequence free, is far greater than it is for women. This ability for men to move on, in a way that a woman cannot necessarily do, is what leads to the inequality, and that is something which the pro-life movement must accept. The fact that some men are wonderful, and some women are blessed to have found them, whereas others have not, is in my opinion a separate discussion from the one of equality.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 09:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 09:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 07:14 am (UTC)We've been reading each others journals for, what, seven years now? In that time, I'm sure I've written some stuff that makes you shake your head - maybe even scream at the computer screen. I know when you were still actively posting, you at least once or twice wrote some stuff that I really, really, disagreed with. It's bound to happen eventually, isn't it? I read stuff on my friends list at least once or twice a month that really upsets me because it's fundamentally against something that I hold true and dear. It's not a deal breaker for me, though, and I hope it won't be for you, either.
I know you're not the only one on my f/list that disagrees, or that is vehemently opposed to my views on this issue (though this post is about why I think the pro-life movement is failing, rather than about why I am pro-life, which is a subject I don't think I've posted on, and have no immediate plans to do, but anyway...)
This is a deeply held conviction that I have. I have always had it - even when I left the church, even when I was struggling to fit in with the strongly pro-choice, feminist academic crowd at university - I was still pro-life. It is part of who I am.
I don't expect you to agree. I don't expect you to engage (unless you really want to engage). I don't even expect you to read. I do, however, hope you understand why I leave posts such as these unfiltered and unlocked.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 09:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 05:32 pm (UTC)As you know I am learning a lot about adoption. If we can for the sake of discussion set aside the matter of they physical effects of bearing a child, I'd like to say that my observation about adoption is that it appears to be as gut-wrenching and terrifying a process for many families and women. BUT. I think it might be a more POSSIBLE-SEEMING option if people understood all that adoption entails and what to expect from that experience. I personally think that if adoption functioned differently, i.e. effectively, and in a way that allowed our culture to discuss adoption, we truly would see more children placed in loving homes. I've been so surprised to encounter so much adoption-stigma. It's rampant. It's unbelievable how offhandedly people reject this notion. "oh well then you're raising someone else's kid and you don't know what you're going to get". Pardon? Am I missing something, or do we NEVER know "what" we're going to "get"? The way children are objectified when adoption is discussed is almost as bad as all the messages I got recommending I end my marriage when we encountered the challenge we are now facing together.
.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-28 09:07 pm (UTC)I will be sending this to my mum. We were just talking about this Saturday.