Feminists for Life

[Big Lin]

" The abortion debate is full of horror stories on both sides of the
issue. Coercive and unethical counselors lie to vulnerable women and pressure them. This has happened in some abortion clinics as well as some pregnancy care centers. Women have died from botched abortions, both before abortion was legalized and after, when it is supposed to be safe. Fanatics resort to violence on both extremes of the pro-choice/pro-life spectrum.

Focusing on these isolated incidents and extreme cases makes for effective fund-raising. What it does not do is help women - which was what the original feminist movement set out to do. In the 1960's, certain factions of the women's movement made a drastic about-face.

The feminist movement was born more than two hundred years ago when
Mary Wollstonecraft wrote "A Vindication of the Rights of Women."
After decrying the sexual exploitation of women, she condemned those
who would "either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when
born." Shortly thereafter, abortion became illegal in Great Britain.

The now revered feminists of the 19th century were also strongly
opposed to abortion because of their belief in the worth of all
humans. Like many women in developing countries today, they opposed
abortion even though they were acutely aware of the damage done to
women through constant child-bearing. They opposed abortion despite
knowing that half of all children born died before the age of five.
They knew that women had virtually no rights within the family or the
political sphere. But they did not believe abortion was the answer.

Without known exception, the early American feminists condemned
abortion in the strongest possible terms. In Susan B. Anthony's
newsletter, The Revolution, abortion was described as "child
murder," "infanticide" and "foeticide." Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who
in 1848 organized the first women's rights convention in Seneca
Falls, New York, classified abortion as a form of infanticide and
said, "When you consider that women have been treated as property, it
is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property
to be disposed of as we see fit."

Anti-abortion laws enacted in the latter half of the 19th century
were a result of advocacy efforts by feminists who worked in an
uneasy alliance with the male-dominated medical profession and the
mainstream media. The early feminists understood that, much like
today, women resorted to abortion because they were abandoned or
pressured by boyfriends, husbands and parents and lacked financial
resources to have a baby on their own.

Ironically, the anti-abortion laws that early feminists worked so
hard to enact to protect women and children were the very ones
destroyed by the Roe v. Wade decision 100 years later - a decision
hailed by the National Organization for Women (NOW) as
the "emancipation of women."

The goals of the more recent NOW-led women's movement with respect to
abortion would have outraged the early feminists. What Elizabeth Cady
Stanton called a "disgusting and degrading crime" has been heralded
by Eleanor Smeal, former president of NOW and current president of
the Fund for a Feminist Majority, as a "most fundamental right."

Betty Friedan, credited with reawakening feminism in the 1960's with
her landmark book, The Feminine Mystique, did not even mention
abortion in the early edition. It was not until 1966 that NOW
included abortion in its list of goals. Even then abortion was a low
priority.

It was a man - abortion rights activist Larry Lader, who remains
active today - who credits himself with guiding a reluctant Friedan
to make abortion an issue for NOW. Lader had been working to repeal
the abortion laws based on population growth concerns, but state
legislators were horrified by his ideas. (Immigration and improved
longevity were fueling America's population growth - not
reproduction, which in fact had declined dramatically.)

Lader teamed up with a gynecologist, Bernard Nathanson, to co-found
the National Alliance to Repeal Abortion Laws, the forerunner of
today's National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
(NARAL).

Lader suggested to the NOW leadership that all feminist demands
(equal education, jobs, pay, etc.) hinged on a woman's ability to
control her own body and procreation. After all, employers did not
want to pay for maternity benefits or lose productivity when a mother
took time off to care for a newborn or sick child. Lader convinced
the NOW leadership that legalized abortion was the key to the
workplace.

Dr. Nathanson, who later became a pro-life activist, states in his
book, Aborting America, that the two were able to convince Friedan
that abortion was a civil rights issue. Later he admitted that they
simply made up the numbers of women dying from illegal abortions,
which had been a major point in their argument.

Lader's and Nathanson's strategy was highly effective. NOW has made
the preservation of legal abortion its number one priority. Its
literature repeatedly states that access to abortion is "the most
fundamental right of women, without which all other rights are
meaningless."

With this drastic change, a highly visible faction of the women's
movement abandoned the vision of the early feminists: a world where
women would be accepted and respected as women. There are now 1.3
million surgical abortions per year in the United States. The Alan
Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) reports
that women have abortions for two primary reasons: lack of financial
resources and lack of emotional support.

Feminists for Life of America recognizes that abortion is a symptom
of, not a solution to, the continuing struggles women face in the
workplace, at home and in society. Our emphasis is on addressing root
causes and promoting solutions - from prevention to practical
resources.

The first step is to empower young women and men to make life-
affirming choices. No compassionate person, pro-choice or pro-life,
wants to see a teenage girl drop out of school and face a lifetime of
poverty because she became pregnant. Nor do we want her to suffer the
pain and anguish of abortion. Public and private funding for
comprehensive programs that emphasize teen pregnancy prevention must
be increased dramatically. We need honest and unbiased evaluation and
replication of effective programs that include proven strategies such
as life-planning skills training and mentoring. Boys, as well as
girls, should be included in the remedy.

Groups like Feminists for Life and pregnancy resource centers
regularly get calls from women who are pressured by partners who say
they will pay $300 for an abortion but won't pay a dime in child
support. Men and boys need to know that, thanks to legislation
supported by Feminists for Life and other women's organizations that
strengthens child support enforcement and paternity establishment,
they can no longer coerce women into having an abortion by
threatening to abandon their children if they are born. But fathers
need to do more than make payments. Their presence is needed in their
child's life. For women whose partners are absent and who are unable
to provide for their children, assistance must come from both private
and public sources to protect children by providing the basis,
including affordable, quality child care, and education and
employment opportunities for the mother.

If we are serious as a nation about significantly reducing the number
of abortions, then established, credible pregnancy resource centers
should be eligible for federal funding. Nearly 4,000 pregnancy care
centers and maternity homes guide women in crisis through the maze of
available support services - food, clothing, housing, furniture,
medical care including high risk pregnancies, legal assistance, help
with employment and education, drug abuse and domestic violence
counseling, childbirth, breast-feeding and parenting classes - all at
no charge. Some specialize in bilingual/bicultural services, adoption
and/or post-abortion counseling. These centers are where many pro-
lifers "walk their talk" to help women in need. They leverage
financial and in-kind resources from individuals, businesses,
churches and communities across the country, yet they cannot
consistently meet the demand for services.

Although these centers are clearly listed in the yellow pages
as "abortion alternatives," some abortion advocates have resorted to
calling them "fake clinics" to discredit their efforts to give women
choices other than abortion. Coercive techniques, lies, and other
unethical practices should not be tolerated in abortion clinics or in
pregnancy resource centers. While the vast majority of pregnancy
resource centers such as those affiliated with Catholic Charities and
Birthright, and the vast majority of not-for-profit abortion
providers do not engage in these unethical practices - some for-
profit abortion clinics and unaffiliated pregnancy care centers may
stray from the ethical path. NARAL is currently working to expose
those anti-abortion centers that resort to lies and lurid pictures;
NARAL should also expose those abortion clinics that try to convince
women they have no choices other than abortion.

One model program is First Resort of California. Founder Shari
Plunkett approached HMO Kaiser Permanente with a plan to reduce the
number of abortions in the Bay area. After thoroughly reviewing the
program - even editing brochures - Kaiser agreed to refer clients who
were unsure about having an abortion to First Resort. Kaiser's client
satisfaction rate was 99.3%. When NARAL's California affiliate
(CARAL) succeeded in pressuring Kaiser to terminate the program,
women lost the ability to make an informed choice. CARAL ignored an
invitation to meet with staff and tour First Resort.

Across the country, Americans on both side of the abortion debate
agree that women have a right to make informed decisions about their
pregnancy. We can empower women to exercise this right by
passing "Right to Know" legislation. As with any other medical
procedure, women have a right to full disclosure of the nature of the
abortion procedure, risks and potential complications and alternative
support services, as well as the father's responsibility. A woman has
the right to know her doctor's name, whether he/she will be available
if a medical emergency emerges, any history of malpractice in any
state or revocation of a medical license; she has the right to a
fully equipped clinic and/or ambulance nearby in case of
complications, and the right to redress if she is hurt by the
abortion. Even veterinary clinics are better regulated than abortion
clinics, for which there are no uniform inspections or reporting
requirements. Doctors who have botched abortions, caused infertility
or death and lost their medical licenses have been known to jump
state lines to continue providing abortions and even open new
clinics. There are no regulations to stop them.

Employers and educational institutions can also implement policies
that ensure meaningful options for pregnant and parenting women (as
well as parenting men). Women in the workplace should not have to
choose between their child and their job. That is no choice at all.
Employers who have not already done so should consider flex time, job
sharing, on-site child care and telecommuting. Women need maternity
coverage in health care; men and women need parental leave. Living
wages would enable parents to support their children.

Similarly, women should not be forced to choose between their
education and life plans and their child. As Feminists for Life has
expanded its College Outreach Program in recent years, a number of
college counselors have told us the only choice they are aware of is
between various abortion clinics - as if women are not capable of
reading or thinking while they are pregnant or parenting. Feminists
for Life is leading forums on college campuses that challenge
university officials to provide housing, on-site child care and
maternity coverage within student health care plans, and inform women
about their hard-won right to child support. We have developed
comprehensive Pregnancy Resources Kits with the input of those on
both sides of the debate - including abortion doctors, pro-choice
clinic staff, attorneys and students - to give women the "rest of the
choices."

Even though Feminists for Life has reached out to pro-choice
activists to help provide more choices for women, ironically, Planned
Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, has called
Feminists for Life's solution-oriented program "anti-choice."

If providing practical resources that help women can be called "anti-
choice," something has gone terribly wrong. It is time to set aside
the rhetoric and horror stories and fund-raising tactics and think
again about how we can help women in need."

Serrin M. Foster, President, Feminists for Life

[iamjumbo]

in this day and time, there is NO legitimate reason for abortion whatsoever. if a woman wants to spread her legs, she has the absolute obligation to be using birth control unless she is trying to get pregnant.

[riotgrrl]

Jan 18, 2009 12:52:01 GMT iamjumbo said:

in this day and time, there is NO legitimate reason for abortion whatsoever. if a woman wants to spread her legs, she has the absolute obligation to be using birth control unless she is trying to get pregnant.

What a nasty little sexist post.

Even the terms you use ("If a woman wants to spread her legs . .") are demeaning.

Men, I suppose, are allowed to stick it where they like without obligation?

[iamjumbo]

Jan 18, 2009 15:01:28 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Jan 18, 2009 12:52:01 GMT iamjumbo said:

in this day and time, there is NO legitimate reason for abortion whatsoever. if a woman wants to spread her legs, she has the absolute obligation to be using birth control unless she is trying to get pregnant.

What a nasty little sexist post.

Even the terms you use ("If a woman wants to spread her legs . .") are demeaning.

Men, I suppose, are allowed to stick it where they like without obligation?

not at all, but, the simple fact is that birth control is the woman's responsibility. she also has the option to say "NO". most men are cretins, and it is unfortunate, but in the end run, the woman has complete control of her body.
isn't that what the whole thing is about?

[Big Lin]

I have to say that just because I am pro-life does NOT mean that I think the sole responsibility for contraception lies with the woman.

Quite the opposite, in fact. Leaving aside the question of pregnancy, men are perfectly capable of using a condom and (what with all the STDs and stuff nowadays) you'd think they'd at least have the gumption to do THAT much.

A woman might have the option to say no but then so too does the man have the option not to try and have sex. It takes two to tango and (unless we're talking rape) BOTH parties have an obligation to show some kind of responsibility.

I also agree with Riot that the words 'if a woman wants to spread her legs' were pretty much unnecessary and a bit nasty.

Come on, Jim, you can do better than THAT!

[iamjumbo]

Jan 18, 2009 17:32:03 GMT Big Lin said:

I have to say that just because I am pro-life does NOT mean that I think the sole responsibility for contraception lies with the woman.

Quite the opposite, in fact. Leaving aside the question of pregnancy, men are perfectly capable of using a condom and (what with all the STDs and stuff nowadays) you'd think they'd at least have the gumption to do THAT much.

A woman might have the option to say no but then so too does the man have the option not to try and have sex. It takes two to tango and (unless we're talking rape) BOTH parties have an obligation to show some kind of responsibility.

I also agree with Riot that the words 'if a woman wants to spread her legs' were pretty much unnecessary and a bit nasty.

Come on, Jim, you can do better than THAT!

you know that i NEVER demean girls.
of course men should be man enough to take some responsibility in preventing pregnancy. however, the fact is, there are very few real men. look at south central los angeles. why are there so many "women" with five kids by five different men? the men are trash, but that doesn't seem to stop the "women" from, you know

[trubble]

So the men are trash but it's still the women being blamed? !!!

As long as there are moral judgements being made about women who have their babies, there should be abortion available.

[iamjumbo]

Jan 19, 2009 8:39:18 GMT trubble said:

So the men are trash but it's still the women being blamed? !!!

As long as there are moral judgements being made about women who have their babies, there should be abortion available.

no. in the cases such as i cited, sterilization is the answer, for both, and certainly the males

[everso]

I heard a rather nasty little piece on the radio the other day about Nicaragua. I wasn't aware, but abortion for whatever reason is banned in that country.

So, regardless of how you get pregnant (yes, even rape) and regardless of whether you're likely to die in childbirth, you can't get an abortion.

Isn't religion wonderful?

[trubble]

It's hard to know what to say about Nicaragua, it sounds so backward to me, but I live in Ireland where pretty much the same rules apply.

[Alpha Hooligan]

Poland is the same...there was a young 11 year old girl who had been impregnated by her father who had to come over here for an abortion. And then there was the legal wrangling because the British doctor who carried out the abortion could've been arrested under the stupid EU arrest warrant thing.


AH

[riotgrrl]

Yet in Russia, the nation with the highest abortion rate in the world, abortion is considered a value-free, morally neutral method of birth control. I believe that, under Communism, it was found to be easier, cheaper and more effective (maybe more easy to get hold of???) than preventative contraceptive methods.

[trubble]

Our similar cases have also gone to the UK. Sometimes being arrested by the police as they boarded the plane.

[trubble]

Jan 19, 2009 19:15:57 GMT @riotgrrl said:

I believe that, under Communism, it was found to be easier, cheaper and more effective (maybe more easy to get hold of???) than preventative contraceptive methods.

That sounds a bit skewed.

[Alpha Hooligan]

Jan 19, 2009 19:15:57 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Yet in Russia, the nation with the highest abortion rate in the world, abortion is considered a value-free, morally neutral method of birth control. I believe that, under Communism, it was found to be easier, cheaper and more effective (maybe more easy to get hold of???) than preventative contraceptive methods.

Yep, the NHS stated that there was a massive increase in abortions when we opened the gates to the Eastern Europeans...several of these nations seem to use abortion as a contraceptive method.


AH

[riotgrrl]

Jan 19, 2009 19:16:57 GMT trubble said:

Jan 19, 2009 19:15:57 GMT @riotgrrl said:

I believe that, under Communism, it was found to be easier, cheaper and more effective (maybe more easy to get hold of???) than preventative contraceptive methods.

That sounds a bit skewed.

I believe that this is how it was.

I've never read up on it or anything, but it was how the Russians I was working with in St Petersburg for a week in 1999 explained it to me, and I have no reason to doubt their word.

[riotgrrl]

Jan 19, 2009 19:16:09 GMT trubble said:

Our similar cases have also gone to the UK. Sometimes being arrested by the police as they boarded the plane.

They used to get the boat to Liverpool for their terminations. There was a BPAS clinic and another clinic there to deal with the demand apparently, both from Scotland and the North of England, but also from Ireland. Liverpool was - maybe still is? - the hub of charitable abortions back in the 1970s/80s when the NHS was more arsey about it.

[iamjumbo]

Jan 19, 2009 19:19:15 GMT Alpha Hooligan said:

Jan 19, 2009 19:15:57 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Yet in Russia, the nation with the highest abortion rate in the world, abortion is considered a value-free, morally neutral method of birth control. I believe that, under Communism, it was found to be easier, cheaper and more effective (maybe more easy to get hold of???) than preventative contraceptive methods.

Yep, the NHS stated that there was a massive increase in abortions when we opened the gates to the Eastern Europeans...several of these nations seem to use abortion as a contraceptive method.


AH

and the FACT is that there is NO circumstance, under any conditions, in which abortion can ever be considered a legitimate method of birth control

[Alpha Hooligan]

It certainly shouldn't be used as a method of retroactive contraception on a regular basis, but there are times when abortion is 100% justified IMO.


AH

[riotgrrl]

Jan 20, 2009 15:37:18 GMT iamjumbo said:

Jan 19, 2009 19:19:15 GMT Alpha Hooligan said:

Yep, the NHS stated that there was a massive increase in abortions when we opened the gates to the Eastern Europeans...several of these nations seem to use abortion as a contraceptive method.


AH

and the FACT is that there is NO circumstance, under any conditions, in which abortion can ever be considered a legitimate method of birth control

That's not a fact; it's a moral position.

As I've said, the Russians approach it from a different starting point in that they do (or did) consider abortion an uncontroversial form of birth control.

Whether it stems from them not having any regard for human life, or from them considering a foetus to not be human life I cannot say.

[iamjumbo]

Jan 20, 2009 16:01:44 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Jan 20, 2009 15:37:18 GMT iamjumbo said:

and the FACT is that there is NO circumstance, under any conditions, in which abortion can ever be considered a legitimate method of birth control

That's not a fact; it's a moral position.

As I've said, the Russians approach it from a different starting point in that they do (or did) consider abortion an uncontroversial form of birth control.

Whether it stems from them not having any regard for human life, or from them considering a foetus to not be human life I cannot say.

that's not the point. how the russians chose, or choose, to approach it doesn't change the reality. it doesn't really matter whether abortion is wrong or not. you have NO right using abortion as birth control, period. you have a multitude of ways to prevent contraception, not the least of which is saying "no"

[riotgrrl]

Jan 20, 2009 18:57:30 GMT iamjumbo said:

Jan 20, 2009 16:01:44 GMT @riotgrrl said:

That's not a fact; it's a moral position.

As I've said, the Russians approach it from a different starting point in that they do (or did) consider abortion an uncontroversial form of birth control.

Whether it stems from them not having any regard for human life, or from them considering a foetus to not be human life I cannot say.

that's not the point. how the russians chose, or choose, to approach it doesn't change the reality. it doesn't really matter whether abortion is wrong or not. you have NO right using abortion as birth control, period. you have a multitude of ways to prevent contraception, not the least of which is saying "no"

Iamjumbo, you don't get to say what rights I do and don't have.

Rights are legal property, and are set by the Government and legal system under which I live.

Currently, you're right, I have no 'right' to an abortion. But should the UK Government change the law, I would have.

In Russia - it seems - they had the right to an abortion, and they used it.

[Big Lin]

There are lots of things which are 'sins' that are not crimes in the West.

There are also lots of things which are 'crimes' that should not be.

On the whole, I'm a libertarian who wants to see the State doing as little as possible.

On the other hand, sometimes a sin is also a crime.

Murder is a classic example; so's rape; so (IMHO) is abortion unless: a) the mother's life is in danger; b) the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.

I hate the fact that abortion has now become the method of choice for too many youngsters who are irresponsible about how they behave.

To get pregnant by accident once is one thing; to be a multiple aborter is sheer callousness.

[iamjumbo]

Jan 21, 2009 18:04:33 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Jan 20, 2009 18:57:30 GMT iamjumbo said:

that's not the point. how the russians chose, or choose, to approach it doesn't change the reality. it doesn't really matter whether abortion is wrong or not. you have NO right using abortion as birth control, period. you have a multitude of ways to prevent contraception, not the least of which is saying "no"

Iamjumbo, you don't get to say what rights I do and don't have.

Rights are legal property, and are set by the Government and legal system under which I live.

Currently, you're right, I have no 'right' to an abortion. But should the UK Government change the law, I would have.

In Russia - it seems - they had the right to an abortion, and they used it.

of course i can say what rights you have. there are some rights that you have simply by virtue of being born. the fact that those rights aren't recognized by some government does NOT change the fact that you have them.
at any rate, i actually do not know whether or not abortion is wrong. i do know that it is prima facie wrong if used for birth control, but, otherwise, i truly don't know.
i DO know however, that if it is wrong, you'll have to explain it to god, not to me.

[riotgrrl]

Jan 22, 2009 14:36:56 GMT iamjumbo said:

Jan 21, 2009 18:04:33 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Iamjumbo, you don't get to say what rights I do and don't have.

Rights are legal property, and are set by the Government and legal system under which I live.

Currently, you're right, I have no 'right' to an abortion. But should the UK Government change the law, I would have.

In Russia - it seems - they had the right to an abortion, and they used it.

of course i can say what rights you have. there are some rights that you have simply by virtue of being born. the fact that those rights aren't recognized by some government does NOT change the fact that you have them.
at any rate, i actually do not know whether or not abortion is wrong. i do know that it is prima facie wrong if used for birth control, but, otherwise, i truly don't know.
i DO know however, that if it is wrong, you'll have to explain it to god, not to me.

As you are neither my God nor my Government, you have no legitimate power to tell me what my rights are.

The English language is a precision tool; words mean what they mean, not what you would like them to mean.