Beloved readers, I am stumped.
Over at Facebook, someone posted an update (an update!) with her case for being a pro-life feminist.
I’m too chicken shit to repost her words via cut and paste, so I’m going to do a screen cap below the fold. If you make it through it, I’ll be somewhat surprised.
I likely won’t respond in public to this person, but maybe send a personal message. I would love some feedback from you all to see what you might include in a response.
In the text, you’ll find such gems as:
It is not surprising that the Playboy Foundation is a major supporter of abortion rights, because abortion is a natural consequence of the Playboy’s ideal of uncommitted, anonymous sex without consequences.
And (emphasis mine):
But, considering the basic ethic of the value of all individuals that feminism is based on, there is nothing contradictory about a pro-woman, pro-prenatal rights stance. In fact, most early feminists, such as Susan B. Anthony, were strongly and vocally pro-life. Both supporting women’s rights and opposing abortion uphold the standard that every individual is deserving of respect.
For more on Susan B Anthony’s view on abortion, see this wiki.
Should you want the original text of the uneducated ranting diatribe essay, I’ll email you it. Contact me here.
I was thinking about starting the message with, “Sheee-it, bitch … you cray cray!”
Read on (click to enlarge):
First of all, the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are kind of useless. I’m both: I’m in favour of life, and in favour of choice. Who wouldn’t be? But these tell you nothing about my views on abortion, which are too complex to be expressed in a catchy two-word label.
Her last sentence (“Abortion does not – and will never – liberate women”) could be debated on both sides. However, if you changed it to: “Having access to a safe abortion, if circumstances were such that it made it the best option, does not – and will never – liberate women” – could it still be seriously defended? I doubt it.
I liked your response to the last sentence.
And I’m pretty sure most of us around here are in the same boat, a torn mix of “pro-choice and -life” that’s hard to get one’s arms completely around.
Gosh, I find the rant oppressively ignorant.
I mean, I’ve never met a “pro-choice” advocate who holds their fist up and says, “Holy crap! Abortions are AWESOME!!!”
There aren’t many people that I know of who would be thrilled to have an abortion. They don’t come to the conclusion lightly.
And this person above seems to be exploring abortion only as some sort of contraceptive, and not some kind of health-related issue.
Thanks for weighing in.
My brain hurts. I literally feel dumber having wasted the last 4 1/2 minutes of my life reading that. I thought that among her points was the belief that women “reject the male world view that accepts violence as a legitimate solution to conflict”. This cannot be so, given how thoroughly the female author abuses logic, twists facts, violates reason, and murders honest discourse. She tyrannically wages war on human dignity by laying waste to the assumption that not all persons are mentally inept. She says she is against abortion, yet has gladly aborted her critical thinking skills.
Abortion is not a tool of the patriarchy. If this were so, it would seem reasonable to assume that abortion would be most popular among those less invested in the progress of feminism- you know- men. If it is a tool of the patriarchy, you might expect that the more patriarchal a society is, the more likely it is to have liberal views on abortion. Anyone want to guess what the statistics bare out?
The whole essay rests on the premise that all women want to be pregnant, and that men just want zero committal sex. It assumes that every pregnant woman would choose to have as many babies as her sex life allowed if only men had not convinced her otherwise. It ultimately rests on the concept that women are incapable of deciphering what is best for their own bodies- and Big Government needs to step in to prevent the sly manipulative patriarchs from tricking poor helpless women into making coerced healthcare decisions. Yes, yes, all very feminist ideas.
The concept that abortion subjugates women because it treats them as unequal is as ridiculous as calling a PAP smear a tool of subjugation, or breast exams- or claiming that our goal should be routine prostate screening for patients regardless of gender. As in those examples, the equality rests not in the access of the procedure by all people, but the access of the procedure to all people who require it.
I would support the right of men to have an abortion if they found themselves unexpectedly carrying a child.
You don’t battle a patriarchal ideal of “wombless women” by defining women only by their ability to bare offspring. That concept demeans both women who wish to choose a different path and women who wish desperately to be able to choose to to have children but are not able.
The answer to her whole argument is that you don’t increase the choices available to women by limiting their choices. You increase the choices of women by increasing their choices. You fund social programs that make prenatal screening and care free to all women. You mandate day care programs for women in the workplace or in school. You fight the patriarchal religious sensibilities that shame women for premarital pregnancy, fight access to birth control, and insist that sex should always carry the risk of pregnancy. You change the culture, not the symptom.
If you agree that social policy is part of a robust pro-life strategy- and I can’t see how you might disagree- then ask yourself why the same people who fight to ban abortion are the least likely to support social programs, sex education and birth control.
I’m with G Dub on this one.
Abortion is hardly a patriarchal “tool”. If anything, it gives more power to women to control the reproduction, if they so choose.
George’s response must have worked. The author deleted her post today.
I watched her wall, and nobody commented.
I think she needs a blog. Surely she’s so forward thinking that none of her current batch of friends understand the depth of her intellect.
Is she following this blog?
I was joking, though, I fear she might. Maybe she did read it. She hasn’t deleted me yet.
She was the one I referred to before I left on this post.
The thing is, I like her a lot. She did a lot to help me understand my biological family. She a beautiful person, and I think she means well, somehow. But George is right, she’s got a limited understanding of the topics she’s covering.
If I thought she read this blog I might have deleted the opening paragraph. I might have.
I’d actually love to engage this lady in a conversation about her views. If someone is seriously interested in the goals of feminism, and not just trying to hijack the concept to justify a predetermined outcome, then I think there is room for discussion. If you are not prepared to take the classical anti-abortion stand that abortion is murder- period- full stop, then I think you must in some sense realize that there is more to this discussion.
To create a simple dichotomy, there are two possible reasons why someone might argue as she has. Either
a) She sides philosophically against abortion but embraces an otherwise feminist worldview. She has suspended her critical thinking in an effort to resolve her cognitive dissonance.
b) She sides philosophically against abortion and realizes that the major weakness of her view is that it stands diametrically opposed to human equality. She attempts to abuse and subvert critical thinking in order explain away the contradiction.
The third rail, of course, is that she is no patriot of feminism at all, and instead is purposely trying to misrepresent feminist thought in an effort to undermine it.
I’d like to believe that this is not the case.