Why doesn't he just say "No one's gonna buy the cow when they can ge the milk for free" and just be done with it?

why oh why do people keep doing all these elaborate things denouncing feminism when they obviously have NO clue what it is? i mean shit, if your gonna write all that, at least have read ONE book, yes a whole book, about feminism. it baffles me how it seems like the only research this guys done on feminism is talking to random frat boys and paris hilton or something. altho this gave it away that hes just pulling it all out of his ass: "Every study on the subject has shown that women who buy into the inner-slut mentality of neofeminism are devastated. They suffer from depression, low self-esteem, STDs, single motherhood and they generally feel rejected in life."
um studies? where are all these magical studies people like this pull out of no where to prove idiotic points? not to mention how offensive "suffering from single motherhood" is.

What a tool. Yeah, that's why prostitutes ask for money, all that self-respect.

Good God.

Did it ever occur to this guy that maybe the MEN he's talking about are the problem, and not the feminists?

If all these "men" are so great and don't see us as just vaginas (as opposed to the evil feminists who, um, only want to get into our pants), then why do they treat us like dirt?

I mean, seriously, the segue from "women, you are more than your vaginas" to "men want pussy, women have it" is priceless. I guess by his own definition, Bambenek is a feminist.

Welcome to the (non-existent) club, Johnny!

i dont think we need to attack prostitutes here. there is ALOT of stuff behind why people become prostitutes without condemning them.

in any case, it seems like there have been lots of "women cant enjoy sex unless its with a loving partner" articles this week. which really just translates to "men dont want women who have sleot around and clearly enjoy sex for just sex" so, watch out ladies, dont end up USED.

things like this are why i hate this world sometimes.

Spot on elektrodot. And here I was thinking that aging and feminism had led to more self-respect, and less thinking I needed a guy (any guy) to validate myself. Silly me.

It has lead to the rejection of the biggest trait distinctive of women - motherhood. The senseless slaughter of children for the sake of sexual convenience (about 99 percent of all abortions according to the Guttmacher Institute) ranks first among the horrors in the history of humanity. More children have been murdered through abortion than any other genocide in human history. Abortion makes the Holocaust look like a petty crime in comparison.

Don't forget the other point of his ridiculous post: to save all those poor, victimized babies that are losing out on life because their would-be mothers are neofeminist whores. Cause, you know, women are more than their vaginas. ::rolls eyes::

I went to his biography page and I notice he is married, which always makes me wonder, "What kind of woman would marry a man like this". Not only that, the underlying meaning of the post that divides women into either mothers or whores makes me think he's dipping into the syphillis buffet himself, ala Ted Haggard.

senseless slaughter of children for the sake of sexual convenience (about 99 percent of all abortions according to the Guttmacher Institute)

The Guttmacher Institute says women have abortions because 1) a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for other children (74%) 2) they cannot afford a child (73%) and 3) they do not want to be single mothers or are having relationship problems (48%) so sexual convenience would better describe men faced with unwanted pregnancies than women.

I also love it when some variation on the phrase "women are human beings, too, and deserving of dignity" is considered some kind of boldly progressive statement.

If I met this fella in a bar and he was spouting this crap I'd definitely kick him in the nuts.

I will gladly join in.

I was looking through Blog Critics yesterday because I sometimes post there, and came across the same article.
“You Are More Than Your Vagina, No Matter What Neofeminists Tell You.�

I couldn't help but comment, although I am not much of a feminist. I merely stated that he was out of line for writing the article, and asked to show me the studies he mentioned - that was my opinion - I never said he didn't have a right to his opinion. He commented - “How fundamentally un-American for you to tell me what I can and cannot say�

He did not however ever answer my question as to the studies he was referring to.
I never did bother to comment back, I know a lost cause when I see one.

This guy's profile says that he has a B.A. in theoretical astrophysics and is now getting some divinity degree. That's a sure sign of quackery right there. Unfortunately, there is a certain type of retard who mixes math with Platonism and ends up with a bunch of ridiculous ideas. It seems highly likely this man is one of those retards.

aliceinwonderland, you say you are "not much of a feminist", what do you mean by that?

donna darko - amen to what you said.

This is a little off-topic, but since he made that ridiculous comment, I'll digress for a moment. I always wonder why the "pro-life" folks don't work on the real issues. I mean, gee, if women had access to things like equal pay, equal opportunity, affordable quality child-care, and woman-friendly work-places (lactation lounge, anyone?), maybe some folks would make different decisions. This reveals that the real agenda is to control women, rather than reduce abortion. But hey, at least a pro-life, right wing, mother/whore jerk-wad says I'm not just my vagina. But I'm still just my uterus, right?

I'm getting the image of a t-shirt that just says "Sex toys and genitalia" in block letters.

I'm also getting the image of this guy having a mustache and wearing a Cosby sweater.

I don't suppose it's worth even discussing, but I was under the impression that most feminists, however neo they might be, would be more like "If you want to go to the Syphillis buffet, okay" then "You must go to the syphillis buffet. Obey! Obey!"

Question: Where can I get that vagina costume?

:)

aliceinwonderland:

Just curious here. If you don't consider yourself a feminist, what exactly do you define feminism as?

Great smackdown. I did one myself before I found this one.

Bambenek's article was also published as a letter in the Daily Illini, the university paper of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where we both work. Bambenek's blog says that it was a "guest column", though. He's sort of the local arch-conservative. Some of the stuff he writes about seems near-crazy to me, but people seem to like it.

Witless Chum, I think it would be more like, "You REALLY want to go to the Syphilis buffet? Seriously? Are you sure you're not drunk? Okay... please take these condoms and use them."

It would be like a friend telling me she wanted to drink from the Cholera water fountain. Because the evil liberals had brainwashed her into thinking that she was no more than her digestive tract.

Also, you have to love how, once again, this makes everything the woman's fault. If too much sex is going on, clearly it is because the evil feminists have convinced women they are nothing more than vaginas, and has nothing to do with the fact that society has brainwashed men into thinking they are walking penises with no other place to go.

No, no, because everyone knows that men are physically and mentally incapable of controlling their sexual urges. Those beasties need women's forbearance or we'll all get AIDS!! Feminism will kill us all!

JESUS CHRIST ON A STICK. Men should grow a pair and take responsibility for things that are their fault instead of blaming women all the time.

Maybe Alice does not call herself a feminist because of the bad PR feminism gets but is a feminist by definition.

umm...too bad that's not a vagina...that, as I believe I learned in grade school, is labia. a vagina, being an internal part of female genetalia, is much harder to take a picture of...

MikoMonkey

The labia are featured in the picture, but I believe the word you're looking for is "vulva".

donna darko, well, i'd prefer aliceinwonderland reply for himself / herself rather than speculating.

I first suspected that by "sexual convenience" he meant "the pregnancy was not the result of rape, nor was it an intended pregnancy that became dangerous"
Then I checked the numbers on that study. Abortions where the pregnancy was the result of rape: 1%
I guess he just classified everything else as "sexual convenience", i.e. "I want to have sex even though I'm not trying to concieve". (I'm not sure what he thought about that 13% citing "possible problems affecting the health of the fetus" or the 12% citing health problems of their own. Perhaps he just zeroed in on the rape number and subtracted it from 100%, not even thinking about unexpected health issues.)

See, unlike those filthy rotten feminists, he sees women as more than vaginas. They're WOMBS too, guys!!!!

More children have been murdered through abortion than any other genocide in human history.

Actually, 78% of all concepti fail, so an environmental effect that would increase conceptus failure rate by only a few percentage points will kill more embryos than induced abortion.

*sigh* I'm sad to say that I know this guy in meatlife. His "background" is an overstatement at best, & he's well established locally as a seasoned troll. If you're ever in the mood to view some pretty extraordinary wignuttery, ask him his opinion about contraception use between married couples. Pure entertainment.

This is about as stupid as him saying "haha you have a vagina, your missing a penis haha". I also don't get why he keeps referring to college aged women? What are women who don't go to college and women who have already graduated, not feminist?

I'm kind of wondering however, what IS the point of people posting statistics on why women have abortions? Regardless of what this guy says or thinks a woman's decision to have an abortion should remain private and the reason for such should be between her and her doctor. Posting these statistics only helps vilify abortion as a selfish act women commit in order to avoid the responsibilities that come with being a parent. I don't think we need to embrace that kind of thinking to dispel the myth that abortions are not done for sexual convenience.

Posting these statistics only helps vilify abortion as a selfish act women commit in order to avoid the responsibilities that come with being a parent.

I disagree. I think that most reasonable people would find most of these reasons as perfectly reasonable. Especially when you pair them with the statistics about how many women seeking abortions already have children.

It's the attitiude that women who don't want children are being "selfish" that needs to change. Or, if you can't let go of that gem, at least that it's not really our business if our neighbors are selfish about their blastocysts.

PS: Reasonable, reasonable, reason reason reasonable reasonliscious.

Sorry. My brain is fried today.

dhsredhead:

I'm kind of wondering however, what IS the point of people posting statistics on why women have abortions?

In complete agreement, there. All those "why did you have an abortion?" surveys ought to have a box for "that's none of your fucking business."

Saturday night herpes disco jam

I think I just found the theme for my 30th birthday party.

You're right that it's no one's business, but if women are willing to share, that does make for a powerful message. The anti-choice tenets hold specific strawmen (women) about why abortions happen, and the more data that can refute that, the better. It can change people's minds when they see real examples of the difficult decisions that are made by actual women.

dhsredhead, perhaps the reason he keeps referring to college women is because the article was published in a college newspaper (and, it saddens me to admit, it happens to be my college's newspaper).

As for the actual article, what a load of incoherent nonsense. Anyone who uses the phrase "world's oldest profession" seriously, as if it's some sort of fact, does not have anything intelligent to say.

See, unlike those filthy rotten feminists, he sees women as more than vaginas. They're WOMBS too, guys!!!!

Hahaha, yes, that pretty much approximates his argument...
At the same time, however, women are apparently in no way connected to clitorises, of course. Those aren't even real. ;)

At the same time, however, women are apparently in no way connected to clitorises, of course. Those aren't even real. ;)

But if it were, Bambenek wouldn't know where to find it.

Posting the reasons why women have abortions was for myself and other women. The study concludes women have abortions because of existing children, financial constraints and lack of a supportive partner.

John Bambenek is the local community uber-conservative. (We work at the same university, though I've never had any contact with him.) This screed is really the sort of thing we have come to expect from him.

This blog entry was also published in the Daily Illini, the university newspaper and at blogcritics.org, where a number of people call him out.

I responded myself, and he visited my blog long enough to call me an intellectual lightweight and a child. Sigh.

I went to his biography page and I notice he is married, which always makes me wonder, "What kind of woman would marry a man like this".

Feminists don't understand that a lot of conservative men aren't acting out of pure, unadulterated hatred for women; they are acting out of pure, unadulterated selfishness. Marriage in general, and especially traditional marriage, is GREAT for men. The psychological, social, and physical benefits of marriage accrue disproportionately to men.

Conservative men also seem to like women in ways that liberal men don't. This is just my personal experience, but I've found that liberal men want me to think and act like the horniest of fifteen-year-old boys. I've been told that I'm "repressed" for having sexual morals that are within that broad range of normal behaviour - because, to liberal men, any woman who isn't having lots of sex is clearly repressed. Conservative men seem to get the fact that I have those pesky emotions.

(Rant over. :) )

Of course men are the problem. But feminists don't have level the field by fighting for our right to act just as badly... feminism could make its raison d'etre to tell men to shape up.

I always wonder why the "pro-life" folks don't work on the real issues.
You mean people like Feminists for Life?

1) Why don't I blame men? I do.

2) Oenophile, largely my point.

3) Why don't pro-life people work on real issues... what makes you think we don't? We just consider the right to life sort of a prerequisite, to say, health care. Not much point in getting free cold packs if you're dead.

oenophile:
Please don't use a wide brush. I'm about as liberal as it gets, and I'm also a bit of a prude (in my own life).

I do not understand your comment oenophile. I have been in a committed relationship with a (very) liberal man for the past four years and we act like old people. The point I was getting at was what kind of woman marries a man that reduces a women to a body part and categorizes women as either one thing or another. The person I am in a relationship with views me as his partner, not a weak little woman. I am sorry you have had that experience with liberal men, but I have always found that the more conserative a man is, the more likely he will have a strange, unresolved sexual proclivity. Of course, that's just my opinion, just like yours is an opinion.

jcb -
1) Based on your link, it seems more like you're blaming feminists for encouraging a "Man Show" mentality in men than blaming the men themselves (although you do appear to be chiding men for so greedily swallowing this alleged "feminist propaganda.") Both you and the author of the above article really need to do some research into what feminism actually is, since you clearly haven't got a clue. What you're blaming "the feminists" for is actually what feminists are against--for future reference, it's called "the patriarchy."

2) Re: Why don't pro-life people work on real issues...what makes you think we don't? We just consider the right to life sort of a prerequisite, to say, health care. Not much point in getting free cold packs if you're dead.

You do realize it's also not much use to save a child from abortion, if a month later they starve to death or die from various preventable childhood ailments their impoverished mothers couldn't afford to have them immunized against?
There's little point in saving lives you can't actually sustain.
You do care about what happens to all the lil babies once they're outside the womb--right?

All of the religious right, anti choicers rhetoric leads back to the same thing. They want women to be forced into marriage. They push it with the abstinence only education, purity balls, anti-abortion, anti-birth control and cutting public assistance. Look at the crap people like Dobson and Feminists for life spew. All of these groups prey on women's insecurity and self doubts by telling them that they are ignoring their natural instincts or believing the wrong thing because they are simply too stupid to know better and must have someone (male) who is obviously smarter than them to point this out for them.

It works on many women who already doubt their own abilities due to being told they were all those bad things their entire life.

See cause your too stupid to know that you don't really want a career or freedom in your life. You really want to be June Cleaver in one of those baggy calico fundamentalist dresses with some sensible shoes and spit out a kid a year. How could I have been so wrong :-P

"Why don't pro-life people work on real issues... what makes you think we don't? We just consider the right to life sort of a prerequisite, to say, health care."

jcb, can you give us one example of what prolife groups have done to make the lives of “born� children better? Those who grow up in the ghetto, those who end up in jail, those who are regularly beaten and abused, and those who end up on death row because they took a life? Or can you give us an example of what you pro-lifers do for pregnant mothers who don’t get the nutritious food and healthcare they need to deliver healthy babies? In this country infant mortality could be reduced by one fourth to one third if the mother could afford proper prenatal care. If the pro-life movement is more than about controlling women why don’t they seem to care about those numbers?

Vervain, I believe jcb and the author of the above disaster of an article are one and the same.

Well, jcb, please explain: how on earth does anybody's "right to life" allow them to use my body against my will?

I don't care if you spend all weekend every week providing free prenatal care. When a man uses my body for his own purposes against my will, it's called rape. If he needs my kidneys in order to survive, he nonetheless may not have them unless I agree. Why do you want to give fetuses more rights than living human beings?

Apparently it doesn't occur to this dude that advocating for an active sex life and a career are not mutually incompatible forms of feminism.

He's still not as funny as that Bush appointee who once wrote that casual sex "wrecks cities."

Tabitha - my point was that a sane, healthy woman could want to marry a guy like that. I read nothing in Bambeneck's article that reduces a woman to a body part... there's a distinct difference between his opinions about women and society's opinions thereof (i.e. if men discard women who have slept around, he is not endorsing that, just pointing it out).

Bearcat: when I say, "Just my experience," I'm not using a wide brush. If you disagree, fine - but your complaint misses the mark.

Take a look around the Feminists for Life website. Their model of an ideal university and working environment is about as pro-woman and pro-family as you can get.

EG - to answer your rhetorical question... depends on the situation. Philosophically, there is no justification for requiring a woman to remain pregnant if she was raped; however, by having sex, you are consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. You created that child who is in need of your life and the situation in which the child depends on you.

That is the origins of the child's right to your body. Whether or not that right should trump your right of bodily integrity, convenience, etc., is a matter of deeply personal opinion.

oenophile, if you'd like to see how "pro-woman" Feminists for Life really is, I would suggest you check out Amanda's series of posts on the organization.

Oenophile, the same could be said of any existing child. My mother created me. And still, if I need her kidney, I could not force her to give to me against her will.

When I have sex, I consent to having sex. Nothing more. An accidentally fertilized egg, a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, doesn't have a "right" to use my body. I fail to see how my decision to have sex entails relinquishing any rights to my body at all.

Further, you are veering into the "pregnancy is punishment for sex" camp. Women who are raped don't owe their blastocysts anything, because they didn't consent? But women who have sex, even if, like me, they have sex full in the knowledge that if they find themselves knocked up, they'll abort, "owe" that same clump of cells their bodies? I fail to follow your logic. If it is horrible for a man to put his penis in a woman's vagina without her consent, why isn't it horrible for a fetus to seize control of a woman's entire reproductive, digestive, and other systems against her will? Pregnancy is work: we outlawed compulsory labor for free men and women in this country many years ago.

Thanks, Jessica - looking through those posts (although I find them to be unpersuasive, to say the least). She pretty deliberately skews the FFL position to suit her own agenda. Sad, because the pro-life feminists have a lot to contribute, if only y'all would let them.

EG - pregnancy is the logical, natural consequence of sex. That's kind of how the human race continues its existence. When you have sex, you know that there is a chance that you are creating a person. Sure, if you don't particularly want to be pregnant (quite understandably), this is an unfortunate side effect, but that doesn't make it any less the natural, logical sequence of events.

I do not think that babies are punishments, but I absolutely abhor the idea that women are weak and should be shielded from the logical consequences of their actions (we only allow children this advantage). Sex causes pregnancy. The two people who had sex created the human who is in need of the woman's body. All but the most ignorant of people know that this happens.

The baby has a right to use your body because you created it inside of your body, with no options save your body for its source of sustenance.

It completely sucks that women alone have to bear this burden for nine months, but that doesn't change the fact that Mother Nature wasn't exactly non-discriminatory when handing out the benefits and burdens of sex. After birth, we (to the best of our ability) socially even out those burdens, requiring both parents to financially and physically support their children. What gives a newborn a right to your bank account?

Women who are raped don't owe their blastocysts anything, because they didn't consent?
LMAO!!! Would you prefer me to say that even raped women owe their children their bodies?

Pregnancy is work: we outlawed compulsory labor for free men and women in this country many years ago.
Ah, I take it that you are against men paying child support for children that they don't want, since that amounts to compulsory labour. :) (See, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=39297).

I do wish that such smart, talented young women as yourselves would figure out better feminist arguments.

“Sad, because the pro-life feminists have a lot to contribute, if only y'all would let them.�
Yeah because I am sure Jessica and others who run this website go out of their way not to let pro-life feminists make their valuable contributions. (I know this is a popular weblog but I didn’t know that these girls are so very influential!)
Anyways, I just think anti-choice feminist is an oxymoron.

“The baby has a right to use your body because you created it inside of your body, with no options save your body for its source of sustenance.�

Oenophile, you didn’t respond to EG’s excellent argument that “the same could be said of any existing child. My mother created me. And still, if I need her kidney, I could not force her to give to me against her will.�. I am waiting to hear your response.

Oh, and by the way, a fetus is not a baby.

Rock on, sojourner.

"“The baby has a right to use your body because you created it inside of your body, with no options save your body for its source of sustenance.�

Leaving aside the fact that, as sojourner said, a blastocyst, zygote, embryo, fetus is not a baby, nothing you've said constitutes it having a right to my body. A need is not a right. Further, you're ascribing agency and needs to a non-sentient pre-organism that cannot perform basic life functions. Not only is a need not a right, but a potential is not a need.

"Would you prefer me to say that even raped women owe their children their bodies?"

I can't imagine what you mean. I was pointing out that if what you're really concerned about is the embryo's "rights," than why would its method of conception matter? I don't believe that anybody owes anybody else their bodies.

"Ah, I take it that you are against men paying child support for children that they don't want, since that amounts to compulsory labour."

Nope. It's not. It's compulsory payment. The law doesn't care whether you work for the money, inherit it, reap dividents, or pull it out of your ass. Last I checked, writing a check is not work.

"When you have sex, you know that there is a chance that you are creating a person."

When I have sex, I acknowledge the fact there is a slim chance that I may become pregnant. But "acknowledge" does not mean the same thing as "consent." I do not consent to pregnancy. Abortion is a pretty strong message of non-consent. If sex is consent, then abortion is withdrawal of consent. Which, last I checked, one is allowed to do (except, apparently, in Delaware).

"I absolutely abhor the idea that women are weak and should be shielded from the logical consequences of their actions."

Where did you get this nonsensical idea? Pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex; abortion is a possible consequence of unwanted pregnancy. It takes a special kind of biased thinking to imagine that deciding to get an abortion is evading responsibility for one's actions. Rather, it is taking responsibility.

"I do wish that such smart, talented young women as yourselves would figure out better feminist arguments."

Cut the patronizing, condescending crap, oenophile. I wish that such patronizing MRAs as yourself could figure out that my uterus isn't public property.

"“Sad, because the pro-life feminists have a lot to contribute, if only y'all would let them.�
Yeah because I am sure Jessica and others who run this website go out of their way not to let pro-life feminists make their valuable contributions."

Heh, sojourner--didn't you know? Jessica et al are the super-secret presidents of the feminist cabal! Before they let anybody write a check to NOW, or attend a rally, or lobby for feminist legislation, or volunteer at a domestic violence shelter, Jessica and her army of pro-choice minions do a thorough background check and force the applicant at gunpoint to take a blood oath vowing to uphold abortion rights. The dastardly evil of it all--preventing pro-life pseudo-feminists from working for feminist goals!

Oenophile, you have made a long and interesting list of reasons that YOU should not have an abortion. You feel that sex means babies. I don't. The notion that it "logically" leads to babies is illogical when you have contraception and abortion so that it never has to lead to babies outside of your will. Reality has managed to overcome your appeal to "logic".

Your argument that women must have babies if they have sex is based in a most unfeminist bout of gender determination. The word is not "logically" that you're casting around. Your argument actually resembles the notion that there are "natural" fates. But since everything is "natural", so are abortion and birth control.

So really, you're arguing from authority. Women were somehow made to have babies, by some god, and even those of us who don't share that religious conviction are to be made to abide by it by law. How un-American.

By the way, Wine Lover, where's your proof that I skewed anything? I point out, one letter at a time, what the results of their beliefs are, and assuming they're not stupid, I point out that they are probably intending those results.

You, however, think we're stupid.

I do not think that babies are punishments, but I absolutely abhor the idea that women are weak and should be shielded from the logical consequences of their actions (we only allow children this advantage).

So in order for women, who you appear to think are slow and stupid, to understand how one gets pregnant, they have to have a few babies? Do you think a woman who has an abortion doesn't realize she's pregnant? I do believe the vast majority of women are quite aware how they came to be having an abortion. And it's not up to you or the law to force them to have a baby just in case they don't get that.

Oenophile, you didn’t respond to EG’s excellent argument that “the same could be said of any existing child. My mother created me. And still, if I need her kidney, I could not force her to give to me against her will.�. I am waiting to hear your response.
If your mother kills you, she will be charged with murder. If your mother does not feed you, she will be charged with neglect. If your mother refuses shelter to her child, she'll be thrown in jail.

For nine months, a fetus/embryo/zygote/baby needs its mother to survive. The mother & father created the condition (i.e. pregnancy) which requires use of the mother's body. It's not like the mother created the disease that would require a kidney transplant - which is why she isn't required to give the child her kidney.

That is the philosophical basis of the pro-life argument. As an atheist, I completely ignore the religious implications thereof, as I don't agree with them and don't think they have any place in the public sphere.

Sojourner & EG - I didn't say that you gals are running the world... just trying to point out that, in a country deeply divided over the abortion debate, that pro-life feminists (please note that there's almost no gender divide on the abortion issue) are a large voting bloc. They have some valid points - that abortion really isn't a great solution, that our rate of unplanned pregnancies is pathetic, and that there is a moral implication in abortion. Given other choices (never getting pregnant in the first place, financial support, adoption, emotional support), fewer women would choose to abort.

You can solve the abortion problem by outlawing it, but the woman problem will remain. Solve the woman problem, and you solve the pregnancy problem. Wow - that's the goal of the pro-life feminists!

The sarcasm coming from y'all is really unsettling. Are y'all so pro-abortion that you see it as morally equal to, say, a condom?

OMG, I remember that jackass from undergrad at uiuc.edu. He used to troll the local usenet groups, and even had a column in the daily illini, IIRC. He was sort of a crazy libertarian/dominionist cross that would go into full-on persecution mode at the slightest argument. Some things never change, I guess.

EG - try reading the Michigan Dubay case. The pro-choice argument needs to be articulated in a way that allows for sane policy, giving both men and women some control and without implicating an Equal Protection issue. I sincerely doubt that the day is far off when men will argue for the legal right to force their girlfriends to abort against their wills... and the day in which men will argue for the right to stop their girlfriends from aborting. The "control over my own body" argument ignores the very large issue of the soon-to-be baby.

I'm actually marginally pro-choice. Consider two things:
1. Roe v. Wade isn't going to last much longer; and
2. If the S. Dakota abortion ban allowed an exception for rape and incest, exit polls say it would have passed.

Ladies, abortion on demand isn't supported by the majority of Americans. There are fewer abortion doctors and clinics every year. The long-term survival of ANY abortion right or availability depends on the articulation of moral arguments for abortion and an acknowledgement that, once conception occurs, that it's not just about the woman. You can feel worse for the woman; you can think that her rights trump; but you can't ignore the blastocyst/embryo/fetus.

Writing a check is still a removal of property, which is protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. :)

A mother is required to do work to support her child - such as feeding it, keeping it clean, sending it to school (consider as well that we require forced attendance at school until age 16), and otherwise providing for its well-being.

Yes, she may withdraw consent at any time, but there are acceptable and unacceptable methods of doing so. One acceptable method is to change custody - either giving the child to the father or giving it up for adoption. Killing the third-grader is not a civilised method of revoking her consent to care for it.

Philosophically, why SHOULD you be able to revoke consent to care for the child via abortion, when you cannot revoke consent later by murder? The baby/fetus/zygote has no other options (unlike my hypothetical third-grader). The fact that the child has no other options is not its fault; that situation was caused by the person seeking to revoke consent. Therefore, why can you revoke consent, when doing so causes such harm? Even if you could revoke consent, why is abortion the correct method? Even if it is the only available method, does that make it morally correct? Civilised? Legally the best option?

When I have sex, I acknowledge the fact there is a slim chance that I may become pregnant. But "acknowledge" does not mean the same thing as "consent."
Legally, you're not correct. In criminal law, there are various levels of intent: knowingly, purposefully, recklessly, and negligently. You do not need to want or desire the logical consequences of your actions in order to be held responsible for them. "Held responsible" has various meanings, depending on the context. In tort law, mere negligence is sufficient for responsibility and "owing" another human.

Cause and effect. Sex causes pregnancy - not all the time, not every time - but I'm not really sure, outside of IVF, how else people get pregnant. The deeply voluntary nature of sex and the fact that women are NOT stupid and know that they could get pregnant is the philosophical basis for nine months of use of her body.

I've noticed that modern sex ed seems to teach kids that pregnancy doesn't happen as a result of sex. (Oh, my dear Miss Marcotte, I am an atheist and not arguing from any natural law or "authority." Just cause and effect, which you should have learned the first time you touched a hot stove! :) ) Y'all seem to reinforce that.

modern sex ed meaning abstinance education? cuz if youve ever been to a high school in the past few years youd realize feminist "propahganda" hasnt even come close to infiltrating the sex ed lessons (unfortunatly)

im not even gonna touch oenophiles posts because 1) obviously a troll and 2) his faulty logic and just plain assholery are doing a good job of refutting everything he says anyway.

but i am gonna say:

does britney spears immediatly pop into anyone elses head whenever they hear the word "y'all"? or is that just me haha

Ah, Miss Marcotte.

If you would like me to respond to your anti-FFL diatrabes, I will do so. I just don't think that this is the proper place for it.

I don't think that women are stupid or that you are stupid (although your last post is the epitome of irrationality); just that women, not being stupid, know that they could get pregnant as a result of sex. Cause and effect! Complaining about pregnancy is like complaining about lung cancer after smoking. Let's not patronise women and pretend that they don't know that sex causes pregnancy.

So when they are enjoying themselves in bed, they know that they might be making a baby. Hell, a lot of women have sex for this purpose!

Once they are pregnant, there is this human being who has rights. (If you disagree with me... how do you feel about the Laci Peterson case, or any other time in which a man deliberately kills the woman's baby? If only the woman can assert the right against her attacker, what about a case in which the woman is also killed by an unknown assailant and the husband/father is grieved?)

There's something fundamentally different about preventing conception via birth control and ending a life that you've created.

As I've said before... and as I truly believe... where you come down on the issue of the rights of the baby v. the woman is a personal belief. My beef with the ladies here is that they pretend that a pregnant woman has a frog or a spare leg growing inside of them, not a human.

If everything were as easy as y'all pretend it to be, there wouldn't be an abortion debate. Feminist women like myself wouldn't cringe at the idea that abortion is the best we can offer. HRC wouldn't be saying, "Safe, legal, and rare," to cheering crowds.

The pro-abortion movement will not last a nanosecond longer than Roe v. Wade if that is the best you've got.

"Feminist women like myself wouldn't cringe at the idea that abortion is the best we can offer"

o man! your a woman?! jesus. sorry lady i dont think your convincing anyone that a fetus has more rights than the woman its inside..which is what your saying when you say zygotes have rights, obviously there going to trump the womans.

oenophile - you are conviently forgetting somethings about conception/pregnancy, the like -

1) only a fraction of fertilized eggs implant.

2) a fetus is not viable outside of the mother's body before 24 weeks, so your comparison with killing a third grader is not really accurate.
Your contention that the abortion rights argument could lead to men demanding that their girlfriend get an abortion is bullshit, since the whole idea behind the prochoice philosophy is that women have control over their reproductive capabilities.

Elektrodot - I'm very sorry. I thought I was clear when I said that it is a PERSONAL matter of whether you think that the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the woman. My beef is with people who are so blinded by their "feminist" ideals that they pretend that the fetus lacks ANY rights. Fewer rights doesn't mean no rights.

Tabitha - why should ONLY women have control over their reproductive capabilities? Why should men's control be limited to condoms but women get control that extends to abortion? Equality can be a bitter pill to swallow. Even my uber-liberal con law professor mentioned that the Jaycees case could be used to prevent women from having all-female groups.

You might not like the end result of an argument, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad argument - it just mean that you don't happen to like the result. :)

Only a fraction of smokers get lung cancer. I, however, was taught to not smoke because it could make me sick. You do not need a 100% chance of something happening to know that it is an effect of that action. I might not die if I run across the street and get myself hit by a car, but that's still a stupid idea and I should still have to deal with the consequences.

Why is viability the standard for protection? The comparison is valid... you just happen to think that anything that isn't viable lacks any rights. The problem with that reasoning, as said by O'Connor in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, is that Roe is on a collision course with itself. The point of viability will continue to be pushed back as technology advances. A 23-week fetus in 2006 may have no rights, but a 10-week fetus may be viable (and therefore have rights) in 2050. If that's your argument aganist pro-lifers, they will win in the end - it's just a matter of technology and time. (Then again, you guys keep calling me an a-hole when I point out that feminists need a new set of arguments. Sigh.)

feminists dont need a new set of arguments. i think the one about um, women are human beings is a good enough one. cant refute that. altho i do have the feeling you'll try.

sorry for troll feeding guys, i just hate it when people feel just cuz they got the last word that there right or something. which is definatly what this guy is doing (im sorry, im not convinced your a woman)

Last time I checked, I'm a woman. I'm not sure why you wouldn't think so... not enough smileys? Drop an email and, if you are a Facebook addict, find my profile. :)

i think the one about um, women are human beings is a good enough one.
I'm completely confused as to how women being humans would lead directly to abortion on demand.

The theory justifies a LOT of other feminist ideals - non-discrimination in the workplace, access to contraception, women in all sorts of jobs, the right to not live like women in Saudi Arabia or under the Taliban... because women are demanding that their social, political, and legal systems grant them identical rights to those granted to men.

Abortion on demand gives women rights that men do NOT have. It also accomplishes those rights by infringing on the rights of the embryo/fetus. That is why your arguments don't hold water.

Maybe abortion on demand is, philosophically and morally, indefensible. Maybe some of us are reluctant pro-choicers because the REALITY of illegal abortion (although I doubt that any of you know what a septic ward is) doesn't justify the moral and philosophical ideals, but we get pissed off when "feminists" yell about "bodily integrity" and "reproductive freedom" while ignoring the fact that said reproductive freedom can be accomplished in other ways and the method of acheiving bodily integrity involves the severe violation of the bodily integrity of another.

My bad, oeno. I thought you were a woman, and usually women need some sort of outside authority like a god to be snookered into believing that men are superior to women. But you're obviously a man, so all you need is your own huge ego to believe that men deserve more rights to bodily autonomy than women. I find I have no common ground with supremacists of any sort to discuss things with. I'm working under the banner of equality enshrined in the Constitution. If you're not on board with that, then we don't have anything to discuss. Thanks, though! It's always fun having a myopic man tell women that real feminists are all for female subservience!

"Abortion on demand gives women rights that men do NOT have"

hahahahaa. last time i checked only women got pregnant, hence why only women had the right to an abortion.

and to be considered an individual/human being generally doesnt include having part of your anatomy owned and regulated by the goverment.

but yea, im with you amanda. im always so naive as to think i can actually knock sense into people like that. but no more! ive definatly got better things to do today.

This discussion is a prime example of why I have a hard time supporting either the pro-choice or pro-life position, or at least their respective organizations. I'm really starting to believe that, in general, neither side gives a crap about women or children - just as long as they get in the best personal dig and unflattering generalizations.

well then dont listen to everyone else manda and make your own assumptions on why women should or should not have a right to bodily autonomy. shit its just a blog for chrissake.

For nine months, a fetus/embryo/zygote/baby needs its mother to survive.

Do you know how many cockroaches are squashed for purely selfish reasons? People don't want cockroaches in their apartments, so they squash them. Where will it end? Where is the concern for life?

Gee, thanks electrodot. I couldn't figure that out for myself. And since it's just a blog there's really no need for you to get so bent out of shape over my personal feelings.

your welcome

:)

“People don't want cockroaches in their apartments, so they squash them.� I agree. Why is the life a fetus so much more important than the life of a roach? A fetus has as much feeling, thought, aspiration, as a roach.

“I'm really starting to believe that, in general, neither side gives a crap about women or children - just as long as they get in the best personal dig and unflattering generalizations.� I don’t get this. Pro-choicers don’t give a crap about women?! So why are they pro-choice in the first place? I just can’t see how there can be any comparison between the two sides. One side wants to force you to carry a pregnancy to term even though you don’t want to. The other side wants you to have the “option� of aborting it if you wish to. What “unflattering generalizations� are you talking about? I am pro-choice first and foremost because if I should get pregnant, despite all the precaution I take, I don’t want to be forced to carry it to term. I don’t want that to happen to my sister either, or to my girlfriends, or to anyone. I think that means I care about women.

i know the trollishness has folks a little riled up, but let's try and keep it kind, yeah?

oenophile -
You may very well be a woman. Personally I'm betting you're a white middle class one. You believe that abortion ends a life. That's all good. I think so too. However, I also acknowledge that what I think is irrelevant, if it's not my decision, not my body that will spend 9 months being pregnant, not my financial burden to support the child, nor my other children who will have food taken out of their mouths to support an unwanted sibling.
That is why I fall on the pro-choice side of the fence--because I recognize that the world doesn't revolve around my opinions, and that what might be a feasible option for me (ie adoption) might not be a feasible option for someone else. You've been arguing that women should accept the consequences of their actions in the form of sex equalling possible babies. Would you then argue it's also fair to force ALL women to accept the consequences of YOUR beliefs--that is to say, not to have the option to have an abortion, because YOU think it's morally wrong? That is essentially your argument, is it not? Don’t you think it’s just a teeny bit arrogant to assume that what's right for you should be good enough for everyone?

Then again, I suppose arrogance and condescension are pretty familiar companions for you. You see, I’m quite aware of what a septic ward is. You seemed pretty certain only you had the feminist historical chops to know that one. So sorry to disappoint.

(if men discard women who have slept around, he is not endorsing that, just pointing it out)
In my experience, this is very much a myth used to keep women chaste. Of the two ex-boyfriends who wanted to talk about marriage, and my current boyfriend, who also wants to talk about marriage, none of them cared/care how many people I have been with. Pointing it out is, in fact, reinforcing the myth in an attempt to control women’s sexuality.

“You can solve the abortion problem by outlawing it, but the woman problem will remain. Solve the woman problem, and you solve the pregnancy problem.�
What is, exactly, the woman problem? You absolutely cannot solve the “abortion problem� by outlawing it. Do you think that outlawing murder, rape and drugs have solved these problems? You allude to the problems of outlawing abortion yourself. Maybe some of us are reluctant pro-choicers because the REALITY of illegal abortion (although I doubt that any of you know what a septic ward is) doesn't justify the moral and philosophical ideals,

The only way to “solve the abortion problem� is to completely eliminate unplanned, unwanted pregnancies. In order to do that we must elimiate rape, any form of intimate partner abuse, molestation, human error (i.e. forgetting to take a pill, not using a condom properly), scientific error (the .2% chance of getting pregnant even if you are using the most reliable form of birth control perfectly, condoms that break or slip off), poverty (offering free contraceptives will not do because there are extenuating circumstances associated with poverty that cause “human error� and other problems), lack of education and plain irresponsibility (on the behalf of men and women). It would be easier to sterilize all men and women of reproductive age. Wait, sterilization isn’t even 100 percent effective. I know, let’s advocate for only oral and anal sex until you want children because for the majority of the population (at least the U.S. adolescent and adult population) abstinence is not a viable option.

Ladies, abortion on demand isn't supported by the majority of Americans. There are fewer abortion doctors and clinics every year.
This is due to funding (or lack there of) and pressure from the federal government. Considering the government’s choices in funding is not an indication of what the majority of Americans support, this is not an indication that the majority of Americans do not support “on demand abortion.�

“Abortion on demand gives women rights that men do NOT have. It also accomplishes those rights by infringing on the rights of the embryo/fetus.�
As far as I am concerned, men who rape, coerce, use alcohol or drugs to gain consent (rape, just wanted to point it out separately for those who don’t consider this rape), abuse or simply neglect their partner’s emotional needs, voluntarily give up their right to have a child with that woman. Men who do not fall into these categories, I’m sure, take part in the decision to abort a pregnancy. In that case, it is their right along with their partners’. Furthermore, most rights infringe on some rights of someone else. My right to be in a smoke free environment infringes on someone’s right to smoke (when this is enforced by regulating smoking). On the other hand, someone else’s right to smoke infringes on my right breath to clean air. For that matter, someone else’s right to drive a car infringes on my right to breath clean air. I should have the right to