I know that there are at least a few members of this community who identify as both feminist and pro-life, so I'm hoping this will be an interesting debate
( Read more... )
As a pro-choice feminist I think it is important that all choices are available to women, both in theory and reality. All women should have access to legal and cheap abortions, but all women (and men) should also have access to cheap (or as I prefer free) day care, cheap or free pre and post-natal care, paid parental leave and so on. No one should be forced to abort an otherwise wanted pregnancy because she can't afford a child. Therefore I can find some sympathy (I can't believe I wrote this) for groups like Feminists for Life, because at least they are trying to make the choice to be a parent a bit easier for women. In this sense I also find Feminists for Life better than the main stream pro-life movement(However, I do think it is really, strange, stupid and un-feminist to not support contraceptive and sex ed).
BUT, I don't think that making things easier parents will have any significant impact on abortion rates. Where I live we already have a lot of benefits for parents -I think some report from the UN once said that Sweden was the best/one of the best countries to be a parent in -and still every fourth pregnancy ends in abortion.
Is it actually possible for there to be a time when abortion is so unnecessary that criminalizing it will have little effect?
Maybe, but not by making it so easy to be a parent( I base this on my experiences from living in a country with both benefits for parents and a high abortion rate) but by having some kind of (magic ;-) ) contraceptive that is 100% effective with 0 side effects that everyone would take regularly as soon as they reach puberty. (And no, I don't think abortion should be made illegal in a situation like that either.)
Of course not and that is why I AM trying to help them out:-) I am active in the swedish feminist movement and right now we are trying very hard to improve the swedish parental leave system, so that more fathers will stay at home -and stay at home longer-with their children.
When I vote, I also vote for parties that want to have free day care and free health care (day care in Sweden isn't free at the moment, but so heavily subsidized that everyone can afford it. Still, I want it to be free). If I had more time I would also become active in of those parties. (And if you also refer to "the abortion part" I am also lobbying for a change in the swedish law, that would make it possible for women from countries where abortion is illegal to come here to have a safe abortion).
So, what do YOU do to help these women? Or if you have any other suggestions of things I can do, please let met know!
Basically, what you do is lobbying the Swedish government to use taxpayer money to reward women for irresponsible choices, i.e. having children they could not afford without government subsidy.
I assume dubhouse was suggesting that you donate your own time and money to provide daycare and/or financial aid to women who can't feed/clothe/house their little preciouses, instead of everyone's money.
FREE daycare, FREE extended parental leave for both parents, FREE healthcare... sounds nice. Really. There is, however, no such thing as a free lunch. That money you would like to be so generous with has gotta come from somewhere and last time I checked, it didn't grow on trees.
The part about paid parental leave is particularly insane. You want to use tax money to pay people to stay at home not pay taxes? Really?
Besides, do you really think that giving women incentives to become and stay dependent on goods and services provided by someone else (i.e. the state) is particularly feministic?
Huh-- an interesting question. At first I agreed with this "what? Subsidize child-raising?" and I admit I still have questions about where that money would be coming from... but then I thought, I believe education should be free, because when I'm older I want to live in a country full of well-educated people (who will be my doctors and so forth some day).
So-- what if society views childcare as another investment in its own future? I'm amazed at the idea of free- or even subsidized daycare-- such a thing is relatively rare here in the USA, and I think that many families, and the jobs those families do, suffer because of it. Free daycare means the parents can return to the workforce (and paid parental leave when the child is young means a mentally healthier child who will be less of a burden on society later-- read up on your child neurology!).
Maybe a certain investment should be required on the parents' part first, though. A sort of "parent insurance" that you pay into from your job, and that money contributes to childcare costs when you do have a kid? I'd love to see more well-planned pregnancies on the whole.
In response to notsoholyvirgin's original comment, it occurs to me that maybe the high abortion rate in Sweden is exactly what allows the country to provide such good conditions for those who do chose to become parents. Without the vast quantity of unwanted pregnancies, the welfare system can offer more quality care to fewer parents. I think this sounds like an excellent idea.
This is getting OT. The question is not "would socialist daycare improve society as a whole" but "would socialist daycare reduce the number of abortions".
I'd love to see more well-planned pregnancies on the whole.
I can agree with that. Well-planned pregnancies are usually carried to term if at all possible. Consistent with pro-life and pro-choice ethics. Well-planned pregnancies also almost invariably happen in the context of a financially and socially secure couple, usually married and heterosexual. Consistent with pro-life and pro-choice ethics (although pro-choicers are often more tolerant about the married-and-hetero part).
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, you need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, not raise the affordability of unwanted pregnancies.
fair enough. And I realize my comment went a bit OT, but I wanted to respond to some of the stuff you said. *sigh* I think changing people's mentality is of bigger importance than any financial adssistence or lack thereof. I don't know if anyone decides to have an abortion because they can't afford to care for the baby-- and sometimes I wish more people would. I don't think you do anyone (including the child) a favor by having a baby you can't afford to care for properly.
First, sorry for my bad, bad, bad English here. I am writing this first thing in the morning, while anxiously looking for my supervisor to return :)
Basically, what you do is lobbying the Swedish government to use taxpayer money to reward women for irresponsible choices, i.e. having children they could not afford without government subsidy.
That is correct. Only I don't see these choices as necessairily irresponsible. I just don't think that no one should be forced to have an abortion just because they can't afford a child.And in either case, children shouldn't be punished just because the parents behaved irresponsible. And also, I want some of my tax money - and the pro-lifers tax money-to go to abortions as well so that no one is forced to carry to term against their will just because they couldn't afford. Even if someone made the irresponsible choice of not using protection.
I assume dubhouse was suggesting that you donate your own time and money to provide daycare and/or financial aid to women who can't feed/clothe/house their little preciouses, instead of everyone's money.
I could do that as well, if I knew about a good organization. However, I don't like charity. I don't think no one should be forced to beg or being dependent on the kindness of someone else. I think the state has a respnosibility to care for the people and to make sure that no one is so poor that they have to be dependent on the kindness of someone else.
You want to use tax money to pay people to stay at home not pay taxes?
Correct as well!!!!! Actually we already have this system in Sweden -13 months paid parental leave- and it works very well. I would say most people are happy with this. I saw from your userinfo that you are from Germany. Don't you have a similar system there?
There is, however, no such thing as a free lunch. That money you would like to be so generous with has gotta come from somewhere and last time I checked, it didn't grow on trees.
Well, as stated mine -and everyone else's-tax money will pay for this.
What all this boils down to I think is that you and I (and dubhouse) have different views on taxes and the responsibilty of the state. I am all for high taxes, if that could help people, while you and dubhouse much rather see independent organizations provide for these things.
I just don't think that no one should be forced to have an abortion just because they can't afford a child.And in either case, children shouldn't be punished just because the parents behaved irresponsible.
I don't think women in western countries are really forced to abort because they cannot afford to raise the child. They mostly choose to abort because they don't want to be pregnant.
[...]I don't like charity. [...] I think the state has a respnosibility to care for the people and to make sure that no one is so poor that they have to be dependent on the kindness of someone else.
You prefer to use money that was just taken out of everyone's pocket over money that was given freely? How morally bankrupt can you get?
Who the mothers (or families) are dependent on doesn't matter from a feminist POV. They are still dependent on other people's money.
Actually we already have this system in Sweden -13 months paid parental leave- and it works very well. I would say most people are happy with this. I saw from your userinfo that you are from Germany. Don't you have a similar system there?
We do. And at only a casual glance, it appears to work. For example, the company I work with was hiring a few weeks ago. From a chat with the HR lady during lunch, I happen to know that all married women (also any single women who mentioned a partner) aged late-twenties to early-thirties were categorically discarded because the company assumed they would go on maternity leave in only a few years.
If you use the law to give women benefits they did not earn, you do not treat them equally. And if that is not un-feministic enough for you, the practice of doing so invites discrimination from potential employers, which again makes women in general more dependent on other people's money. How is that a goal of feminism?
Or, more generally speaking, how does does the state help the people by making the people more dependent on the state?
Well, as stated mine -and everyone else's-tax money will pay for this. [...] I am all for high taxes, if that could help people, while you and dubhouse much rather see independent organizations provide for these things.
Feel free to do with your own money as you please. I would appreciate it, though, if you were a little less generous with the redistribution of my property. Thank you.
I don't think women in western countries are really forced to abort because they cannot afford to raise the child. They mostly choose to abort because they don't want to be pregnant.
Agreed. I just want to make sure that thise situation never arises.
How morally bankrupt can you get?
A lot more. I could for example try to force women to stay pregnant against their will (which I assume your are against as well since you are child free). OR I could prefer to keep some extra crowns of my salary over having a working welfare system and a working social network for all people. To me it is more moral bankrupt to abandon people, and leave them to their destiny just because they once made a bad choice than to try to get a working welfare system for all. Even if that means that I get to keep less of my precious money.
late-twenties to early-thirties were categorically discarded because the company assumed they would go on maternity leave in only a few years.
Yupp, that is a problem! And a BIG problem too. And that is what I -and other swedish feminist- are trying to work against by making sure that the father takes his responsibility and stay at home as well (remeber that I mentioned this briefly in my first comment). The problem here in Sweden is not that we have paid parental leave, the problem is that women takes 87% of that leave (and hence men only take 13%). Right now we are trying to change the system so it will be easier to make the fathers stay at home as much as the mothers.
Feel free to do with your own money as you please. I would appreciate it, though, if you were a little less generous with the redistribution of my property.
Now, you don't live in Sweden so I am not using your precious tax money at the moment;-) However, if you feel that way I strongly suggest that you continute to vote for the parties that support your views (I guess that you vote for a liberitarian party). I however, must follow my beliefs and I will continue to vote for parties that advocated high taxes and a weldfare system FOR ALL and PAID by us all together.
To me it is more moral bankrupt to abandon people, and leave them to their destiny just because they once made a bad choice than to try to get a working welfare system for all. Even if that means that I get to keep less of my precious money.
As I and others have pointed out, tax money is not the only kind of money. No one is talking about abandoning people.
I'm sure you and others like you (hell, maybe even me if I wasn't already taxed to death) would be happy to donate time and/or money to helping poor people. You say you don't like charity because people who get free money as a gift should not be required or expected to (*gasp*) say "thank you". The way I understand it, if you want others to help you out after making a bad choice (your words), a bit of grovelling is perfectly in order. And charities (with the possible exception of catholic charities) don't even require that.
Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly aware that contraception can fail. That's part of the reason why I support the right to choose. However, if you choose "life" and still don't want (or can't afford) to get pregnant, you might want to put your money where your mouth is and reconsider abstinence.
I fail to understand why I should be required by law to "donate" money to women who find double contraception (hormonal + barrier) too inconvenient AND who don't want to lose what they perceive as the moral high ground AND who still want to "make love" like bunnies. A woman who is old enough to have sex is old enough to know that pregnancy can result from it and that raising children comes with an obligation or two. And if they don't know that, then that's what you should strive to change.
A socialist system like you propose is like pouring oil into the fire. You can't reasonably expect more responsible behavior from people if you take the responsibility for their own actions and choices from them.
Right now we are trying to change the system so it will be easier to make the fathers stay at home as much as the mothers.
Good plan. Then companies will be reluctant to hire anyone of that age. Well, when everyone is equally screwed, women are at least equal, right?
Making people dependent on others is not empowering them.
Your preference to use tax money over donated money is comparable to me offering you 100 Crowns/Euros/Dollars while you ignore the money I offer, reach around, take out my wallet and say "Thanks, but I'll rather help myself."
Or you taking the offered money AND helping yourself.
Why does it have to be women's irresponsible choices? I mean, women don't spontaneously become pregnant too often last time I checked. Since we're talking about feminism.
Because when it comes to biology, all that pretty talk about equality means nothing at all. At the end of the day, it is the female who gets pregnant, never the male.
I'm not saying that men should not carry responsibility. They should. But if they don't and say "Oh, no, I'm allergic to latex. And to polyurethane, too. Plus, I just don't like 'em", it is the woman who says "Okay, let's do it anyway!"
Is that fair? No, absolutely not. And it's not like I don't care. I feel for you. I really do. And I honestly wish there were other options for men than just condoms and sterilization.
Depending on your situation, it can be either a blessing or a curse, but the truth remains: You, ladies, are the final arbiters over what happens to your bodies.
That, by the way, is what feminism is all about. Women being in control of their own lives.
Therefore I can find some sympathy (I can't believe I wrote this) for groups like Feminists for Life, because at least they are trying to make the choice to be a parent a bit easier for women. In this sense I also find Feminists for Life better than the main stream pro-life movement(However, I do think it is really, strange, stupid and un-feminist to not support contraceptive and sex ed).
BUT, I don't think that making things easier parents will have any significant impact on abortion rates. Where I live we already have a lot of benefits for parents -I think some report from the UN once said that Sweden was the best/one of the best countries to be a parent in -and still every fourth pregnancy ends in abortion.
Is it actually possible for there to be a time when abortion is so unnecessary that criminalizing it will have little effect?
Maybe, but not by making it so easy to be a parent( I base this on my experiences from living in a country with both benefits for parents and a high abortion rate) but by having some kind of (magic ;-) ) contraceptive that is 100% effective with 0 side effects that everyone would take regularly as soon as they reach puberty. (And no, I don't think abortion should be made illegal in a situation like that either.)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
When I vote, I also vote for parties that want to have free day care and free health care (day care in Sweden isn't free at the moment, but so heavily subsidized that everyone can afford it. Still, I want it to be free). If I had more time I would also become active in of those parties.
(And if you also refer to "the abortion part" I am also lobbying for a change in the swedish law, that would make it possible for women from countries where abortion is illegal to come here to have a safe abortion).
So, what do YOU do to help these women? Or if you have any other suggestions of things I can do, please let met know!
Reply
I assume dubhouse was suggesting that you donate your own time and money to provide daycare and/or financial aid to women who can't feed/clothe/house their little preciouses, instead of everyone's money.
FREE daycare, FREE extended parental leave for both parents, FREE healthcare... sounds nice. Really. There is, however, no such thing as a free lunch. That money you would like to be so generous with has gotta come from somewhere and last time I checked, it didn't grow on trees.
The part about paid parental leave is particularly insane. You want to use tax money to pay people to stay at home not pay taxes? Really?
Besides, do you really think that giving women incentives to become and stay dependent on goods and services provided by someone else (i.e. the state) is particularly feministic?
Reply
So-- what if society views childcare as another investment in its own future? I'm amazed at the idea of free- or even subsidized daycare-- such a thing is relatively rare here in the USA, and I think that many families, and the jobs those families do, suffer because of it. Free daycare means the parents can return to the workforce (and paid parental leave when the child is young means a mentally healthier child who will be less of a burden on society later-- read up on your child neurology!).
Maybe a certain investment should be required on the parents' part first, though. A sort of "parent insurance" that you pay into from your job, and that money contributes to childcare costs when you do have a kid? I'd love to see more well-planned pregnancies on the whole.
In response to notsoholyvirgin's original comment, it occurs to me that maybe the high abortion rate in Sweden is exactly what allows the country to provide such good conditions for those who do chose to become parents. Without the vast quantity of unwanted pregnancies, the welfare system can offer more quality care to fewer parents. I think this sounds like an excellent idea.
Reply
I'd love to see more well-planned pregnancies on the whole.
I can agree with that. Well-planned pregnancies are usually carried to term if at all possible. Consistent with pro-life and pro-choice ethics. Well-planned pregnancies also almost invariably happen in the context of a financially and socially secure couple, usually married and heterosexual. Consistent with pro-life and pro-choice ethics (although pro-choicers are often more tolerant about the married-and-hetero part).
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, you need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, not raise the affordability of unwanted pregnancies.
Reply
Reply
Actually, financial assistance or lack thereof does quite a lot to change people's mentality.
Reply
Basically, what you do is lobbying the Swedish government to use taxpayer money to reward women for irresponsible choices, i.e. having children they could not afford without government subsidy.
That is correct. Only I don't see these choices as necessairily irresponsible. I just don't think that no one should be forced to have an abortion just because they can't afford a child.And in either case, children shouldn't be punished just because the parents behaved irresponsible.
And also, I want some of my tax money - and the pro-lifers tax money-to go to abortions as well so that no one is forced to carry to term against their will just because they couldn't afford. Even if someone made the irresponsible choice of not using protection.
I assume dubhouse was suggesting that you donate your own time and money to provide daycare and/or financial aid to women who can't feed/clothe/house their little preciouses, instead of everyone's money.
I could do that as well, if I knew about a good organization. However, I don't like charity. I don't think no one should be forced to beg or being dependent on the kindness of someone else. I think the state has a respnosibility to care for the people and to make sure that no one is so poor that they have to be dependent on the kindness of someone else.
You want to use tax money to pay people to stay at home not pay taxes?
Correct as well!!!!! Actually we already have this system in Sweden -13 months paid parental leave- and it works very well. I would say most people are happy with this. I saw from your userinfo that you are from Germany. Don't you have a similar system there?
There is, however, no such thing as a free lunch. That money you would like to be so generous with has gotta come from somewhere and last time I checked, it didn't grow on trees.
Well, as stated mine -and everyone else's-tax money will pay for this.
What all this boils down to I think is that you and I (and dubhouse) have different views on taxes and the responsibilty of the state. I am all for high taxes, if that could help people, while you and dubhouse much rather see independent organizations provide for these things.
Reply
I don't think women in western countries are really forced to abort because they cannot afford to raise the child. They mostly choose to abort because they don't want to be pregnant.
[...]I don't like charity. [...] I think the state has a respnosibility to care for the people and to make sure that no one is so poor that they have to be dependent on the kindness of someone else.
You prefer to use money that was just taken out of everyone's pocket over money that was given freely? How morally bankrupt can you get?
Who the mothers (or families) are dependent on doesn't matter from a feminist POV. They are still dependent on other people's money.
Actually we already have this system in Sweden -13 months paid parental leave- and it works very well. I would say most people are happy with this. I saw from your userinfo that you are from Germany. Don't you have a similar system there?
We do. And at only a casual glance, it appears to work. For example, the company I work with was hiring a few weeks ago. From a chat with the HR lady during lunch, I happen to know that all married women (also any single women who mentioned a partner) aged late-twenties to early-thirties were categorically discarded because the company assumed they would go on maternity leave in only a few years.
If you use the law to give women benefits they did not earn, you do not treat them equally. And if that is not un-feministic enough for you, the practice of doing so invites discrimination from potential employers, which again makes women in general more dependent on other people's money. How is that a goal of feminism?
Or, more generally speaking, how does does the state help the people by making the people more dependent on the state?
Well, as stated mine -and everyone else's-tax money will pay for this. [...] I am all for high taxes, if that could help people, while you and dubhouse much rather see independent organizations provide for these things.
Feel free to do with your own money as you please. I would appreciate it, though, if you were a little less generous with the redistribution of my property. Thank you.
Reply
Agreed. I just want to make sure that thise situation never arises.
How morally bankrupt can you get?
A lot more. I could for example try to force women to stay pregnant against their will (which I assume your are against as well since you are child free). OR I could prefer to keep some extra crowns of my salary over having a working welfare system and a working social network for all people.
To me it is more moral bankrupt to abandon people, and leave them to their destiny just because they once made a bad choice than to try to get a working welfare system for all. Even if that means that I get to keep less of my precious money.
late-twenties to early-thirties were categorically discarded because the company assumed they would go on maternity leave in only a few years.
Yupp, that is a problem! And a BIG problem too. And that is what I -and other swedish feminist- are trying to work against by making sure that the father takes his responsibility and stay at home as well (remeber that I mentioned this briefly in my first comment). The problem here in Sweden is not that we have paid parental leave, the problem is that women takes 87% of that leave (and hence men only take 13%). Right now we are trying to change the system so it will be easier to make the fathers stay at home as much as the mothers.
Feel free to do with your own money as you please. I would appreciate it, though, if you were a little less generous with the redistribution of my property.
Now, you don't live in Sweden so I am not using your precious tax money at the moment;-) However, if you feel that way I strongly suggest that you continute to vote for the parties that support your views (I guess that you vote for a liberitarian party). I however, must follow my beliefs and I will continue to vote for parties that advocated high taxes and a weldfare system FOR ALL and PAID by us all together.
Reply
As I and others have pointed out, tax money is not the only kind of money. No one is talking about abandoning people.
I'm sure you and others like you (hell, maybe even me if I wasn't already taxed to death) would be happy to donate time and/or money to helping poor people. You say you don't like charity because people who get free money as a gift should not be required or expected to (*gasp*) say "thank you". The way I understand it, if you want others to help you out after making a bad choice (your words), a bit of grovelling is perfectly in order. And charities (with the possible exception of catholic charities) don't even require that.
Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly aware that contraception can fail. That's part of the reason why I support the right to choose. However, if you choose "life" and still don't want (or can't afford) to get pregnant, you might want to put your money where your mouth is and reconsider abstinence.
I fail to understand why I should be required by law to "donate" money to women who find double contraception (hormonal + barrier) too inconvenient AND who don't want to lose what they perceive as the moral high ground AND who still want to "make love" like bunnies. A woman who is old enough to have sex is old enough to know that pregnancy can result from it and that raising children comes with an obligation or two. And if they don't know that, then that's what you should strive to change.
A socialist system like you propose is like pouring oil into the fire. You can't reasonably expect more responsible behavior from people if you take the responsibility for their own actions and choices from them.
Right now we are trying to change the system so it will be easier to make the fathers stay at home as much as the mothers.
Good plan. Then companies will be reluctant to hire anyone of that age. Well, when everyone is equally screwed, women are at least equal, right?
Making people dependent on others is not empowering them.
Reply
Your preference to use tax money over donated money is comparable to me offering you 100 Crowns/Euros/Dollars while you ignore the money I offer, reach around, take out my wallet and say "Thanks, but I'll rather help myself."
Or you taking the offered money AND helping yourself.
Rather insulting.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm not saying that men should not carry responsibility. They should. But if they don't and say "Oh, no, I'm allergic to latex. And to polyurethane, too. Plus, I just don't like 'em", it is the woman who says "Okay, let's do it anyway!"
Is that fair? No, absolutely not. And it's not like I don't care. I feel for you. I really do. And I honestly wish there were other options for men than just condoms and sterilization.
Depending on your situation, it can be either a blessing or a curse, but the truth remains:
You, ladies, are the final arbiters over what happens to your bodies.
That, by the way, is what feminism is all about. Women being in control of their own lives.
Reply
Leave a comment