I'm conflicted about how to deal with the pro-birth forces

[cali]

On the one hand, I want all our legislators to fight like mad, obstruct any way they can. On the other hand, I want them to speak out, vote against any abridgement of a woman's right to control her own body, but not obstruct such things as the new spending bill that allows any hospital or group to opt out of providing abortions, counseling or referrals. The latter impulse comes from the school of give them enough rope etc.

I saw a piece a few days ago on kos that suggested that the way to deal with these reproductive nazis was to make them vote on a constitutional amendment defining life as beginning at conception, thus making all abortions, even in the case of rape or incest, illegal. Of course, this would never make it to the floor; the wingnuts aren't that crazy. They know the country would rise up in outrage.

The incremental steps the right are taking to diminish a woman's ability to choose, are like the proverbial boiling a frog starting in cold water. It's smart and it's devastating.

Having blathered on, I do urge everyone to call their Senators and let loose about the amendment to the spending bill. Do it now, even if you can't reach a real person. I believe the vote is imminent.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. You got step 1 right: calling them "pro-birth"

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Step 2: Tell the Pro-birth folk to remove the word "bastard" from the

dictionary.

It isn't enough that this demographic wants to curtail a woman's right to choose NOT to reproduce. They do not respect a woman who decides to carry to term and decides to raise that child without the "benefit" of marriage or "legitimacy".

Get'em on the bottom line: they are misogynist, afraid of sexuality of anybody, and want to change the mindset of the majority of Americans to theirs.

[cali]

4. You give them too much credit:

"and want to change the mindset of the majority of Americans to theirs."

They don't give a fig about changing anyone's mindset; they want to control women's sexuality and bodies against their will.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. I'm cynical. I don't believe that their goal is to only control women's

bodies and their choice to not reproduce.

I see it as a grander plan, so to speak.

It's two parts:
1. If women can't choose when to reproduce, then there are unwanted pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancies demand changes in women's lives, like curtailing, if not eliminating education (middle school, high school, college, graduate) and taking women out of the workforce, making their presence a minority again. Women will be forced to either compromise their careers or raising their children by the sheer timing of when they had to choose. (Remember, we aren't talking about PLANNED parenthood here.) The ultimate goal: to recreate the 50's where Motherhood was the norm and deviations from this norm were socially unacceptable, or undesired at the minimum.

2. If women can't choose when to reproduce, it isn't a far throw to expect birth control in general to come under attack. Without secure forms of prophylaxis (most for females, like the Pill), the risk of pregnancy from sexual activity significantly increases. And there will be an increase, especially among adolescents of all socioeconomic levels, of unwanted pregnancies from the status quo sexual behavior as it exists today -- in the beginning. Without the security of sex without safe and reliable birth control (read, unwanted pregnancy) and hence guilt, there will be a change in the culture as far as acceptance of premarital sex, extramarital sex, gay sex, etc. as far as violating the norm of sex within marriage (and I'm not sure that couples would be encouraged to enjoy it there too).
The ultimate goal: to encourage society to adopt a more "wholesome" attitude of sex, i.e., adhere to religious restrictions of procreation purposes and discourage sex as being seen as a healthy component of the human existence.

[seaj11]

12. I think you've hit it.

"Without the security of sex without safe and reliable birth control (read, unwanted pregnancy) and hence guilt, there will be a change in the culture as far as acceptance of premarital sex, extramarital sex, gay sex, etc. as far as violating the norm of sex within marriage (and I'm not sure that couples would be encouraged to enjoy it there too).
The ultimate goal: to encourage society to adopt a more "wholesome" attitude of sex, i.e., adhere to religious restrictions of procreation purposes and discourage sex as being seen as a healthy component of the human existence."

I'm writing an article on the gay marriage debate, and I made an argument along similar lines: the religious right fears the degradation of society, including, among other things, a change in cultural attitudes about sex. So they make a political issue of an event that is relatively unimportant to the health of the nation: in my article, it's homosexuality; in this thread, it's abortion.

[Catt03]

6. I think Josh is right

I am not in a good mood about this issue. I am very disgusted, in fact.

For years, I have supported, in every way possible, the right for a woman to have control of her own body. That is what this fight is about......a woman to have control over her own body...period.

I am old enough to have seen the effects of pregnancy through rape, incest or a husband demanding more children from women who were not healthy enough to continue to give birth. I also remember when contraceptions and tubal ligations were illegal unless the husband signed to allow them. And it was not that long ago that these rules for a woman's body were the law in many states.....1970s and early '80s.

I also have seen the pendulum swing to irresponsible behavior, where many women and men use abortion for birth control. Of course, it is difficult to preach responsibility to the poor and uneducated when sex education and contraceptives are deemed immoral.

In the last 15-20 years, men have made women's bodies a moral issue, not a health issue, not an individual right issue. This is what really disgusts me.....when almost one half the women who voted in this last election voted for George Bush to take the decision away from women and give it to the men in Congress.

Roe v Wade will be overturned, I am sure of it. Abstinence only will be taught in schools as it was in the 1950's and contraceptives will be difficult to obtain.

So be it.

[luaneryder]

10. My husband had to sign

for me to have a tubal ligation in 1976. I wasn't told upfront that his permission would be required and I furious when, just before the surgery, was informed that it was mandatory. He signed because he knew I wanted it, but how many husbands refused during those days?

And I don't hear anything about the responsibility of the male in the abortion discussions. What should be done about the male who planted the seed of the aborted fetus/embryo?

Men seem to be the most vocal and militant of the pro-birth shriekers. You're right, it's all about control of women and their bodies.

[Jackie97]

13. In theory....

The man's responsiblity (when he gets a woman pregnant) is to marry her and/or support the baby.

Notice there are no laws being enforced to make a man marry the mother of his children though.

A man also can't be forced to pay child support unless the mother presses the issue.

Even though a man is supposed to have responsibility, the law isn't pushing them nearly as hard as the women. What's so bad is that the responsibility of the man is more important in this case because a real baby has already been born.

[WildClarySage]

2. My gut tells me

TPTB do not want abortion decided one way or the other. People do, but politicians don't. They need those wedge issues to garner extremist votes, because their own records are so blah. If they can't get enough traction from abortion anymore, they'll be forced to start inventing wedge issues, like, oh, I dunno, gay marriage or something.

[recovering democrat]

7. drip, drip, drip

The incremental steps are becoming serious. Likely changes in the Supreme Court composition will happen with Bush; therefore, efforts to fight this in Congress and in 2006 congressional elections is critical.

Of course, proposing a "birth tax" would be interesting; we know how much Republicans love to be considered the anti-tax party!

[Jackie97]

8. I was given an analogy once.

If you try to get a frog to go into boiling water, it will jump out. On the other hand, if you put the frog in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, it won't know it's dying. The person who gave me that analogy was from Planned Parenthood. He said this is what the Republican Party has been doing for years with choice. I think it's very possible that we need to do the exact same thing.

I think a better term would be forced birth advocates.

[SemperEadem]

15. I think the term 'forced birth' is better than 'pro-birth'

because that's what it is: force and control. Pro has the connotation of 'support', which is not there in any measurable increment. In fact, the forced birth proponents are also those who adamantly refuse to allow their taxes to be increased for those 'precious babies' they want to force women to carry to term.

I say if you're not paying the bills, get your nose out of where it doesn't belong. When I see those bumper stickers that say "it's not a choice, it's a child", I want one to say, "still, it's none of your business unless you're directly subsidizing that child's life".

[iverglas]

16. Can't agree

"I say if you're not paying the bills, get your nose out of where it doesn't belong. When I see those bumper stickers that say 'it's not a choice, it's a child', I want one to say, 'still, it's none of your business unless you're directly subsidizing that child's life'."

I'm afraid that this is pretty much like saying that no one should have opposed slavery unless s/he were willing to do the plantation owner's field work.

Nooo ... I'm not saying that "abortion" is like "slavery". I'm saying that the arguments are equally specious.

Whether someone is willing to pay the bills has nothing to do with whether *I* can be compelled to endure a pregnancy I do not want and have a child I do not want. And it's very unwise to make an argument that links the two. Who knows; someone might just call one's bluff.

Hypocrisy is always fun to point and jeer at, but it actually has nothing to do with the merits of anyone's argument.

"It's not a choice, it's a child" is simply false, and that's all that needs to be said about it. Whether a woman continues a pregnancy and has a child is a CHOICE. Whether it's a choice that can be interfered in by the state is the issue.

[SemperEadem]

17. but it still boils down to sticking one's nose where it doesn't belong

The choice, in the end, remains with the woman---no one else.

if no one is helping me to run my household, pay my bills, etc., then what they think is inconsequential and irrelevant to me and to the issue of what my choices are. It's none of anyone's business who is not directly impacted or related to my situation.

[iverglas]

18. that's true ... but ...

"if no one is helping me to run my household, pay my bills, etc., then what they think is inconsequential and irrelevant to me and to the issue of what my choices are."

... what they think would be absolutely as inconsequential to you and to public policy if they were willing to support you in style for the rest of your life.

Saying that someone's opinion is inconsequential because s/he is not willing to foot the bills that would result if the person got his/her way amounts to saying that s/he does get a say if s/he is willing to do that.

And it disregards the fact that some women choose to have abortions for reasons that have nothing to do with the expense of having a child.

If someone chooses not to buy a car because s/he can't afford it, does anyone become entitled to compel me to buy a car that I just plain don't want, even though I can afford five cars, simply by paying for it?

The issue is not the expense of having a child. Yes, some women might continue their pregnancies if they could afford to have a child -- but that is simply their personal reason for having an abortion. Other women have other personal reasons. We are all entitled to have abortions for whatever reason we might have.

Offering women compensation that would result in some women choosing not to have abortions is *not* going to result in other women choosing not to have abortions. There is actually nothing that could persuade some women to choose not to have abortions.

"It's none of anyone's business who is not directly impacted or related to my situation."

And regardless of what arguments one might make to show that someone else is directly impacted by or related to that situation, that person would STILL have no basis for interfering in your decision. Because being pregnant and having a child impacts on the woman's own life in a way that outweighs any impact that her having an abortion could ever have on anyone else's.

They impact on women's lives in such a way that compelling women to submit to them against their will amounts to a violation of fundamental rights. And that's what nobody gets to do, whether s/he is willing to pay handsomely for it or not.

Just like we can't have slaves, no matter how well we pay them. ;)

[SemperEadem]

20. but they're not

... what they think would be absolutely as inconsequential to you and to public policy if they were willing to support you in style for the rest of your life.


But, they're not, and that's the point.

[Jackie97]

22. I was willing to pay you bills when I was anti-choice.

I believed that since I was anti-choice, that I should also be pro-welfare. Well, that was one reason I supported welfare. I used to argue that point to others. Poor people tended to agree with me on this type of stuff. Most poor people aren't liberal. Most are conservative. Seriously. Talk to them. You'll find out it's true. I remember on election night, it was told on the news that people of higher incomes were more often voting for Kerry, and that people of lower incomes were voting for Bush. Since most poor people aren't college educated, that makes sense to me.

You're going by what you see in the mainstream Republican Party, the mainstream anti-choice groups, etc. The mainstream Republicans do not represent the entire Republican Party. The mainstream anti-choice groups do not represent all anti-choicers anymore than the mainstream feminist groups represent all feminists.

hink about it. Most mainstream anti-choice groups are Catholic, and are against birth control. However, if you look this up, you'll find that Catholics are more likely to be pro-choice than evangelical Protestants (which are most Protestants in this country). Most Protestants are not against birth control. Therefore, the mainstream anti-choice movement probably does not represent the majority of anti-choicers on the issue of birth control. Since this is probably true, what makes you so sure that the mainstream anti-choice movement represents most anti-choicers on the issue of welfare?

You might think that these "others" don't matter since they're not the mainstream movement, but they do matter. They matter because they're doing their part to make choice illegal without joining the mainstream movement (such as voting, as over a hundred million Americans did this year).

Not to mention, human nature does change. That includes the human nature of a movement. Anti-choicers used to just scream out "baby killer" at women having abortions. Now, they've gotten smarter. Now, they pretend to have compassion on the woman and to love the woman. They pretend to care more about her than the pro-choicers do. Likewise, they can change in this area too. Anti-choicers in upcoming years will start catching onto the fact that many abortions are done because of poverty, and will do what they can to stop poverty because of it. Therefore, they probably will start supporting welfare in upcoming years. At that point, the Republican Party will probably have make a choice between supporting the anti-abortion agenda and staying the "less taxes" party.

I think that one of the main mistakes that progressives often make is assuming that because their opponents are one way today means they'll be the same tomorrow. That's not true and never has been. The conservatives *always* find new ways to change so they can be more appealing to the other side. ALWAYS. It. will. never. fail.

Sorry to keep butting in here. I guess the main points I'm trying to make is that

1) The mainstream anti-choice movement might be not be as representive of the entire movement as you think on the subject of welfare.

2) The anti-choice movement will change its tactics in time to better suit its purpose.

At some point, we probably will have a growing number of anti-choicers doing as iverglas calls "calling one's bluff". If that happens, we don't want to be caught having to shift directions to build new arguments.

I think instead of saying "You don't pay my bills, so butt out", we need to just say "I have nothing to explain to you, so butt out". We need to make it clear that we're for abortion rights for any woman for any reason. Let's stop using the reason of poverty. Let's stop using the reason of rape. Let's stop using other reasons that the anti-choicers might eventually counter. Let's just say "It's not a person. I support abortion rights. No apologies. I don't have to explain myself".

[Jackie97]

19. Here's another way of looking at it.

First, I want to express that I understand your annoyance with the hypocrisy.

However, would you tell a woman raising three kids that she couldn't kill her newborn baby if she consider it? I bet you would. That's because the born are real people.

So, the issue is not getting into your business. The issue is whether there's a child to intervene on behalf of. In the case of abortion, there is not one.

Since it's not a child, the government should have no right to place the embryo/zef before the woman legally; even if she's rich and has more than enough money to raise a child with.

That's food for thought. What if somebody said "Okay, we'll allow abortion for the poor, but the middle class and rich people have to give birth"?

[renaissanceguy]

9. Remember that they think much different than us...

the religious right actually believes that women should always marry the fathers of their chidren. Sounds like a "great idea" in the case where a woman is drunk, has sex, gets pregnant, and can't get an abortion (should Roe be overturned). They don't realize that such a situation (the two getting married) would be more harmful for the kid (seeing parents fight, or be unloyal to each other).

They think in very simplistic terms.

What we need to do, IMHO, is keep on calling a fetus what it is--a fetus, tissue, something that can't survive outside the body. Once we lose the battle over the word, we risk losing the pro-choice argument.

ALSO... I want to point out that these so-called "pro-lifers" who "always" choose "life" are the same people who support the death penalty. Why doesn't anyone point this out?

[luaneryder]

11. They are also the same types

who resent "welfare mothers," health care for all, food stamps, WIC any support for those with no or low income.

[SemperEadem]

14. ask them how much they want their taxes raised to pay to help the

mothers raise these children. since they choose to stick their noses in other people's business then that means we get to stick our hand in their pocket to tax them for their interest in what doesn't concern them. It cannot be a one way street with them getting their way.

[AndyTiedye]

21. We Have To Fight Them Every Step of the Way. Give them NO ROPE AT ALL

> On the one hand, I want all our legislators to fight like mad,
> obstruct any way they can. On the other hand, I want them to speak
> out, vote against any abridgement of a woman's right to control her
> own body,

So far so good....

> but not obstruct such things as the new spending bill that allows
> any hospital or group to opt out of providing abortions, counseling
> or referrals. The latter impulse comes from the school of give them > enough rope etc.

NO! Give them enough rope and it won't be themselves they hang.

> I saw a piece a few days ago on kos that suggested that the way to
> deal with these reproductive nazis was to make them vote on a
> constitutional amendment defining life as beginning at conception,
> thus making all abortions, even in the case of rape or incest,
> illegal.

They won't do it that way. They'll have their new Scalia Supreme Court
make such a declaration from the bench. Then we're stuck with it
unless WE can pass a Constitutional amendment -- also impossible.

It all comes down to the Supreme Court.


> Of course, this would never make it to the floor; the wingnuts
> aren't that crazy. They know the country would rise up in outrage.

That's why they'll do it with the Court. They present the country
with a fait accompli. Then it doesn't matter how outraged we get,
because we can't do anything about it.