Abortion Debate Forum - Abortion Rights And Feminism Don't Walk Hand In Hand

Birch

replied on October 7th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

I have read this before, and it is quite a compelling argument for me. I have long said that women should not ever have to have an abortion because of money, she will be ostracized for single motherhood, her education will suffer, her career may be blown, etc. It should be a free choice of preference, such as, "I do not want to have a baby because I would be a bad mother or babies disgust me or whatever" period.

However, this point of view casually dismisses the fact that we do not live in this Utopian society. We are not gender equal, we are not paid equitably, women are ostracized for being single mothers, education and careers do suffer.

The solution absolutely is this: "The appropriate response to this difficult situation is to remove social and economic barriers that prevent or discourage women from bearing children while fully participating in the life of society" however we aren't there, we aren't even close, so now we have to have safe abortions available for women who choose it regardless of the reasons.

|

Verizon-y

replied on October 7th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

I didn't want to be poor and a single mother. I wanted to wait to have a family after I finished college and made money and got married. Which is exactly what I did. Now I have a husband and child and my life is exactly as I had hoped.

If I had instead had a child against my will, my life would have been over, and the child I have now would never have been born. I wouldn't trade her for anything.

|

trina1

replied on October 7th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

futureshock wrote:

I didn't want to be poor and a single mother. I wanted to wait to have a family after I finished college and made money and got married. Which is exactly what I did. Now I have a husband and child and my life is exactly as I had hoped.

If I had instead had a child against my will, my life would have been over, and the child I have now would never have been born.

You didn't have to be a mother against your will....you could have "chosen" adoption. JMHO

futureshock wrote:

I wouldn't trade her for anything.

I feel that way about all my children....even the one I gave up for adoption.

I hope your life always stays as happy as it currently is. Smile

|

trina1

replied on October 7th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

Birch wrote:

The solution absolutely is this: "The appropriate response to this difficult situation is to remove social and economic barriers that prevent or discourage women from bearing children while fully participating in the life of society" however we aren't there, we aren't even close, so now we have to have safe abortions available for women who choose it regardless of the reasons.

And put the money from abortions into the drs. pockets who profit from the womans body. Women haven't progressed....society has just found a new way for us to be slaves to men...by denying who we are and what our bodies do naturally.

|

nightangel73

replied on October 7th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

futureshock wrote:

If I had instead had a child against my will, my life would have been over

why would your life be over?

|

Birch

replied on October 7th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

trina1 wrote:

Birch wrote:

The solution absolutely is this: "The appropriate response to this difficult situation is to remove social and economic barriers that prevent or discourage women from bearing children while fully participating in the life of society" however we aren't there, we aren't even close, so now we have to have safe abortions available for women who choose it regardless of the reasons.

And put the money from abortions into the drs. pockets who profit from the womans body. Women haven't progressed....society has just found a new way for us to be slaves to men...by denying who we are and what our bodies do naturally.

Doctors deserve pay for their sought-after services.

They haven't created these societal problems that have plagued women for centuries.

What is your solution? Do you think outlawing abortion will automatically change these social injustices and raise the status of women?

|

trina1

replied on October 7th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

Birch wrote:

Doctors deserve pay for their sought-after services.

I never said they didn't....but few insurances cover abortion....and they aren't free....and many of the women who have abortions are in financial straights to begin with....so abortion is just another way that womens bodies are used to help finance a predominately male run business.

Birch wrote:

They haven't created these societal problems that have plagued women for centuries.

Pregnancy is not a "societal" problem. It is a problem of "choice." The woman chose to have sex and due to bad bc, misuse of bc, or no bc she becomes pregnant. This is not brought on by society....but by the woman and her partner. The result is....the abortion dr. capitalizes on the womans choice.....and profits. Of course these abortion drs. are not responsible for the womans less than stellar choices...but they sure are counting on her making them in order for them to stay in business.

Birch wrote:

What is your solution? Do you think outlawing abortion will automatically change these social injustices and raise the status of women?

My solution? Education...education...education. I believe women should be taught that they are wonderful, special, individuals. That right there would go a long way in lowering unwanted pregnancies. Too many young girls feel that the only way that a guy will care about them is if they have sex with them. Also....teach them how to avoid becoming pregnant...and don't be afraid to teach them about both abstinence and bc.
Abortion will never be outlawed....but it does need to be taken away from the federal government and become a state issue....where each state chooses whether to allow abortion or not.

|

Tylanas

replied on October 7th, 2007

Especially eHealthy

Because abortion is a human right, it cannot be state-mandated. That will only take women's rights backwards almost a hundred years. Just like right now, gay marriage is a state issue. It really needs to be a national one.

Your bodily rights should NOT be a state issue. As a woman, you are more important than that!

|

trina1

replied on October 7th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

Eiri wrote:

Because abortion is a human right, it cannot be state-mandated.

It is not a human right....it is a federal law. There are no true "human" rights. If there were....abortion would be illegal as it is a crime against human life. Human rights are not the same as legal rights. You have a legal right to an abortion...not a human right to one.

Eiri wrote:

That will only take women's rights backwards almost a hundred years. Just like right now, gay marriage is a state issue. It really needs to be a national one.

Again....you are incorrect. By allowing each state to vote on abortion....you are insuring the life of abortion....because there will always be more liberal states that keep it legal. By keeping it a federal law....there is always going to be the chance of a conservative Supreme Court over turning Roe v. Wade completely....thus making it illegal in all states. That is when pc would really start shedding the tears.

Eiri wrote:

Your bodily rights should NOT be a state issue. As a woman, you are more important than that!

As a human.....no one should have a right over your body but you. Unfortunately....many millions of humans both born and unborn have died because someone else stepped in and "chose" death for them....whether it be their mother, a court, or a complete stranger. As humans....we should always strive for life above death.....because ALL human life "is" that important.

|

Jincks013

replied on October 7th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

Actually Trina if you read up on the topic of abortion and the founding mothers of Feminism you will find their chief objection to abortion was the safety factor since few women survived the proceedure then.
As you said ; it's all about education.

|

Birch

replied on October 7th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

trina1 wrote:

I never said they didn't....but few insurances cover abortion....and they aren't free....and many of the women who have abortions are in financial straights to begin with....so abortion is just another way that womens bodies are used to help finance a predominately male run business.

You just implied it again. Your feelings towards abortion doctors is quite on display in your tone.

trina1 wrote:

Pregnancy is not a "societal" problem. It is a problem of "choice." The woman chose to have sex and due to bad bc, misuse of bc, or no bc she becomes pregnant. This is not brought on by society....but by the woman and her partner. The result is....the abortion dr. capitalizes on the womans choice.....and profits. Of course these abortion drs. are not responsible for the womans less than stellar choices...but they sure are counting on her making them in order for them to stay in business.

I think you are missing the 'subtleties' of the article. The reasons women seek abortion are societal. Change society, change abortion statistics.

You are putting your own slant on the article by making it about women's choice to have sex, instead of women's choice to have abortions. That's not what these feminists are talking about.

What do these feminists say about women having sex?

trina1 wrote:

My solution? Education...education...education. I believe women should be taught that they are wonderful, special, individuals. That right there would go a long way in lowering unwanted pregnancies. Too many young girls feel that the only way that a guy will care about them is if they have sex with them. Also....teach them how to avoid becoming pregnant...and don't be afraid to teach them about both abstinence and bc.
Abortion will never be outlawed....but it does need to be taken away from the federal government and become a state issue....where each state chooses whether to allow abortion or not.

I like your solution, and agree that women completely devalue themselves by making it all about their appearance and how worthy they are to men. I can't believe how little girls express themselves with clothing and the crapfest music they listen to telling them what they are. Parents need to get involved.

It's a fine line to tread because I hate hate hate censorship...so I think knowledgeable people need to be available to guide girls in life.

Why do you think it should not be a federal issue, and a state one?

|

Jincks013

replied on October 7th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

The Revolution, the radical feminist newspaper published by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, opposed abortion as a matter of editorial policy. The following was most likely authored by Stanton, the instigator of many other challenges to conservative religion.

Gage did not, however, object to the WCTU's urban shelters for unmarried mothers who might, without this support, be inclined to abort or commit postnatal infanticide. For most feminists agreed that if people acted out of their deepest, most authentic values, the oppression of women would end. What would the world look like then? Everyone agreed, of course, that women would have the vote, but there was another point of agreement: abortion would cease. Early feminists all believed passionately in what they termed a "woman's right to her own body," and "voluntary motherhood." source

|

trina1

replied on October 8th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

Jincks013 wrote:

Actually Trina if you read up on the topic of abortion and the founding mothers of Feminism you will find their chief objection to abortion was the safety factor since few women survived the proceedure then.
As you said ; it's all about education.

I have read up on the founding mothers of Feminism...and yes...they rightly so...had grave concerns about safety. The really sharp ones though...also saw the writing on the wall and realized that abortion was another way for men to capitalize on women. They could make money off unwanted pregnancies and they went for it. Today's feminist have watched what has happened since Roe v. Wade and many have realized that far from being a good thing for women...it is just another way for women to stay under the thumb of men.

|

trina1

replied on October 8th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

Birch wrote:

You just implied it again. Your feelings towards abortion doctors is quite on display in your tone.

I implied nothing. I don't hide my feelings toward abortion drs. I have known a few....and I have watched as they charged women that could barely put food on the table anywhere from $250-$1000 for abortions. Then they drive away in their high dollar cars and go to their gated communities where their multi-million dollar homes are....that have all been financed by women who felt they had no other choice. I have also seen one dr. in particular who has falsified information to give women "late-term" abortions and he has had way too many women leave his clinic in ambulances. So no...I don't feel that many of the abortion drs are in it to "help" women. For every 1000 abortion drs.....maybe 150 are truly in it to help women....the rest are there....to help themselves. JMHO

Birch wrote:

I think you are missing the 'subtleties' of the article. The reasons women seek abortion are societal. Change society, change abortion statistics.

It is not societal when a woman gets drunk....meets a guy.....has wild, unprotected sex....and gets pregnant and then wants an abortion. That is a choice she makes from the moment she picks up the drink until she is filling out paperwork at the clinic. That has nothing to do with society and everything to do with choice(albeit not good ones). All the changing of "society" in the world is not going to change the fact that human beings are going to make bad choices from time to time and look for a way out. Granted....I am not saying that this is how all women wind up at abortion clinics....but if you are honest....you and I both know that it makes up for a percentage....and society has nothing to do with that.

Birch wrote:

You are putting your own slant on the article by making it about women's choice to have sex, instead of women's choice to have abortions. That's not what these feminists are talking about.

What...women aren't making a choice to have sex? Unless they are raped they are...but that is not the issue here. The issue is that men are counting on women making (bad choices)....(and is a unwanted pregnancy anything but a bad choice in your book)....to keep the abortion business booming. Do you ever wonder how many multi-million dollar homes have been built from the abortion business? What about fancy vacations, expensive cars, and extravigant lifestyles? All this from women(many poor) who felt they didn't have any choice but to abort. That is what these feminist are talking about....womens bodies and reproductive systems being used to afford a life of wealth for men.

Birch wrote:

Why do you think it should not be a federal issue, and a state one?

I am no real lover of the federal government and as a rule....when the fg is involved....things usually tend to go south over a period of time. Anything that we can take away from the fg and make a state issue is fine with me.

|

Verizon-y

replied on October 8th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

[quote="trina1"]

Birch wrote:

You just implied it again. Your feelings towards abortion doctors is quite on display in your tone.

I implied nothing. I don't hide my feelings toward abortion drs. I have known a few....and I have watched as they charged women that could barely put food on the table anywhere from $250-$1000 for abortions. Then they drive away in their high dollar cars and go to their gated communities where their multi-million dollar homes are....that have all been financed by women who felt they had no other choice. I have also seen one dr. in particular who has falsified information to give women "late-term" abortions and he has had way too many women leave his clinic in ambulances. So no...I don't feel that many of the abortion drs are in it to "help" women. For every 1000 abortion drs.....maybe 150 are truly in it to help women....the rest are there....to help themselves. JMHO

[/q]

You are ignoring the alternative, which is women performing abortions on themselves in back alleys. That's where you are guaranteed to see women leave in ambulances.

[quote="trina1"]

Birch wrote:

I think you are missing the 'subtleties' of the article. The reasons women seek abortion are societal. Change society, change abortion statistics.

It is not societal when a woman gets drunk....meets a guy.....has wild, unprotected sex....and gets pregnant and then wants an abortion. That is a choice she makes from the moment she picks up the drink until she is filling out paperwork at the clinic. That has nothing to do with society and everything to do with choice(albeit not good ones). All the changing of "society" in the world is not going to change the fact that human beings are going to make bad choices from time to time and look for a way out. Granted....I am not saying that this is how all women wind up at abortion clinics....but if you are honest....you and I both know that it makes up for a percentage....and society has nothing to do with that.
[/q]
What percentage? Just roughly?
[quote="trina1"]

Birch wrote:

You are putting your own slant on the article by making it about women's choice to have sex, instead of women's choice to have abortions. That's not what these feminists are talking about.

What...women aren't making a choice to have sex? Unless they are raped they are...but that is not the issue here. The issue is that men are counting on women making (bad choices)....(and is a unwanted pregnancy anything but a bad choice in your book)....to keep the abortion business booming. Do you ever wonder how many multi-million dollar homes have been built from the abortion business? What about fancy vacations, expensive cars, and extravigant lifestyles? All this from women(many poor) who felt they didn't have any choice but to abort. That is what these feminist are talking about....womens bodies and reproductive systems being used to afford a life of wealth for men.
[/q]
Again,
You are ignoring the alternative, which is women performing abortions on themselves in back alleys. That's where you are guaranteed to see women leave in ambulances.
[quote="trina1"]

Birch wrote:

Why do you think it should not be a federal issue, and a state one?

I am no real lover of the federal government and as a rule....when the fg is involved....things usually tend to go south over a period of time. Anything that we can take away from the fg and make a state issue is fine with me.[/quote

How does making it a state issue prevent the fg from coming in and banning it?]

|

trina1

replied on October 8th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

futureshock wrote:

You are ignoring the alternative, which is women performing abortions on themselves in back alleys. That's where you are guaranteed to see women leave in ambulances.

I have a question that I have always wanted to ask when back alley abortions get brought up....and you are someone who seems both reasonable and respectful....so I choose you to ask. First.....what is your definition of a back alley abortion? My mind conjours up an unskilled dr. and a dirty warehouse floor. With medical technology what it is today though.....how could we ever go back to back alley abortions? We might have illegal abortions....but surely not the back alley abortions pre Roe v. Wade. For one....there is too much medical info out there now. There are drs. that would still do abortions....they would just do them illegally. And also....even with abortion being legal....there are still those hacks out there that do "legal" abortions everyday in an unskilled way and in dirty facilities...so legalizing abortion didn't necessarily make it safer for everyone. Just an observation.

futureshock wrote:

What percentage? Just roughly?

Oh...without looking up exact statistics and just guaging it by my own experience with some of the girls I have seen....I would say anywhere from 10-20%. That is just a rough estimate.

futureshock wrote:

You are ignoring the alternative, which is women performing abortions on themselves in back alleys. That's where you are guaranteed to see women leave in ambulances.

I didn't understand you talking about girls doing it to themselves. Okay...do you know that this still happens with abortion being legal. There are girls who get pregnant and are too afraid to tell their parents and try to take care of the problem themselves. We had a girl who almost killed herself by consuming some sort of herb that was toxic not only to the fetus but also to herself....and another girl in MI I believe swallowed clorox thinking that it would abort her fetus....it killed them both. Of course these were very young girls....but having abortion legal doesn't always make it safe for everyone.

Also....are you saying that if a woman leaves a legal abortion clinic in an ambulance after a botched abortion....that somehow that is less destressing than if a woman ended up in an ambulance over a botched illegal abortion?

futureshock wrote:

How does making it a state issue prevent the fg from coming in and banning it?

Now I am no student of law....but if I understand it correctly....if it is a state issue...the fg has no jurisdiction over it. As I said earlier....if it is a federal law (which Roe v. Wade currently is)....it is possible that at some point in time....a conservative SC could over turn it and it would be gone...period. If however....it becomes a state issue....some states would definitely outlaw abortion....but there would still be some that kept it legal...therefore insuring that abortion would be legal in the US...and the fg couldn't touch it.

|

Birch

replied on October 8th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

trina1 wrote:

I implied nothing. I don't hide my feelings toward abortion drs. I have known a few....and I have watched as they charged women that could barely put food on the table anywhere from $250-$1000 for abortions. Then they drive away in their high dollar cars and go to their gated communities where their multi-million dollar homes are....that have all been financed by women who felt they had no other choice. I have also seen one dr. in particular who has falsified information to give women "late-term" abortions and he has had way too many women leave his clinic in ambulances. So no...I don't feel that many of the abortion drs are in it to "help" women. For every 1000 abortion drs.....maybe 150 are truly in it to help women....the rest are there....to help themselves. JMHO

And yet again you state that abortion doctors should not get paid for their services...or that you should be able to decide what they do with the money they earn...what else are you saying in so many words?

trina1 wrote:

It is not societal when a woman gets drunk....meets a guy.....has wild, unprotected sex....and gets pregnant and then wants an abortion. That is a choice she makes from the moment she picks up the drink until she is filling out paperwork at the clinic. That has nothing to do with society and everything to do with choice(albeit not good ones). All the changing of "society" in the world is not going to change the fact that human beings are going to make bad choices from time to time and look for a way out. Granted....I am not saying that this is how all women wind up at abortion clinics....but if you are honest....you and I both know that it makes up for a percentage....and society has nothing to do with that.

I don't know about the percentage...I am hestitant to comment on that b/c I think it perpetuates a stereotype. But to play along, one must ask why are women performing these behaviors?

Is it self esteem? Then that is a societal problem. I think you have to look at the root causes.

Yes, people make mistakes...but when thousands of pepole make the same mistakes time and time again then you have a lot of pudding on the plate to deal with, and that is a societal issue.

trina1 wrote:

What...women aren't making a choice to have sex? Unless they are raped they are...but that is not the issue here. The issue is that men are counting on women making (bad choices)....(and is a unwanted pregnancy anything but a bad choice in your book)....to keep the abortion business booming. Do you ever wonder how many multi-million dollar homes have been built from the abortion business? What about fancy vacations, expensive cars, and extravigant lifestyles? All this from women(many poor) who felt they didn't have any choice but to abort. That is what these feminist are talking about....womens bodies and reproductive systems being used to afford a life of wealth for men.

Women choose to have sex...they do not choose to become pregnant.

trina1 wrote:

That is what these feminist are talking about....womens bodies and reproductive systems being used to afford a life of wealth for men.

I disagree. The prolife feminists are not solely referring to women's bodies being used to afford a life of wealth for men -that is but a minor aspect of the concept - but that women should not have to feel pressured into abortion because society makes it that way.

"A truly gender-equal society would make other accommodations for child-bearing by women, rather than making abortion one of the easiest means for women available to gain equality. The appropriate response to this difficult situation is to remove social and economic barriers that prevent or discourage women from bearing children while fully participating in the life of society."

"The existence of abortion only shows that women must be as child-free as men are to be equal. Legal abortion is one example of how oppression of women is codified into law. Abortion is a "band-aid" solution to major social ills that continue to flourish and that keep women in second-class status{13} and does not address basic inequalities, such as poverty and unequal pay, that lead women to believe they cannot have a baby."

" It is an offensive and sexist notion that women must deny their unique ability to conceive and bear children in order to be treated equally."

trina1 wrote:

I am no real lover of the federal government and as a rule....when the fg is involved....things usually tend to go south over a period of time. Anything that we can take away from the fg and make a state issue is fine with me.

I read your reply to Jinks about this...it sounds like you want to ensure that abortion remains legal by taking it out of the feds hands into the state's.

This way, the people will be deciding what they want (assuming it will be a voted issue). If you want people to be make a decision for themselves, then why not allow women the individual decision themselves?

|

Jincks013

replied on October 9th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

trina1 wrote:

Jincks013 wrote:

Actually Trina if you read up on the topic of abortion and the founding mothers of Feminism you will find their chief objection to abortion was the safety factor since few women survived the proceedure then.
As you said ; it's all about education.

I have read up on the founding mothers of Feminism...and yes...they rightly so...had grave concerns about safety. The really sharp ones though...also saw the writing on the wall and realized that abortion was another way for men to capitalize on women. They could make money off unwanted pregnancies and they went for it. Today's feminist have watched what has happened since Roe v. Wade and many have realized that far from being a good thing for women...it is just another way for women to stay under the thumb of men.

That is an interesting concept. How does aborting keep me under a mans thumb??
I enjoy a single lifestyle; I decorate my apartment to please myself: I have to check with no one if I want to buy furniture or pizza for dinner or do my nails then go shopping.. I have born two girls; I have aborted: I have miscarried.
How does this keep me under a man's thumb?

I'd think having access to a safe and legal abortion gives women far greater freedom because then a man cannot manipulate her using her children as my ex tried so vainly for years with me.
Please elaborate on how aborting keeps me under a mans' thumb.

|

Tylanas

replied on October 9th, 2007

Especially eHealthy

Birch wrote:

"A truly gender-equal society would make other accommodations for child-bearing by women, rather than making abortion one of the easiest means for women available to gain equality. The appropriate response to this difficult situation is to remove social and economic barriers that prevent or discourage women from bearing children while fully participating in the life of society."

"The existence of abortion only shows that women must be as child-free as men are to be equal. Legal abortion is one example of how oppression of women is codified into law. Abortion is a "band-aid" solution to major social ills that continue to flourish and that keep women in second-class status{13} and does not address basic inequalities, such as poverty and unequal pay, that lead women to believe they cannot have a baby."

" It is an offensive and sexist notion that women must deny their unique ability to conceive and bear children in order to be treated equally."

These quotes are absolutely beautiful! I couldn't agree more. A woman shouldn't have to avoid birth in order to assure her job is safe.

|

12 >>