Abortion
The question has been asked (and, in other threads, many things have been implied), so I will give my answer, quite definitively I hope, the question, "Can you be anti-abortion and still feminist?"
My not so definitive answer is that it depends on your definition of "anti-abortion".
I don't like the polarization of the abortion issue into two camps. In order to be "pro-life" you must be opposed to all abortion and want it outlawed. Yet, if this is not your view, you are instantly thrown into this pot of people who believes that sexual promiscuity is okay, all abortions no matter what are okay, etc. Basically, you are either morally good or a moral heathen.
Bullshit.
I believe that the traditional pro-life camp (as described above) is about as immoral as anyone who believes that abortions are a-okay. (I have yet to meet anyone from the latter group who really thinks that way, despite the fact most pro-choice people are characterized as such.)
My definitive answer is this: If you want to make abortion illegal, then you are not a feminist in my book.
Reason: No man ever died from a botched abortion, and no man ever will. Anyone who closes their eyes to the fact that women die because of botched abortions is no more pro-life than someone who is okay with letting babies die. They're just selective about which lives are important, and obviously it is not that of young women.
Until men "suffer" the same consequences for pregnancy that women do, I will think of outlawing abortion as an oppression of women.
There are a lot of things that can be done to reduce abortion, but no one ever wants to do those things because they require time, effort, and most importantly, money...and may not always have the desired outcome. There is this initiative, for instance...which, as far as I know, never went anywhere. Probably because it advocates birth control which we all know encourages promiscuity. And if people are using birth control, they're going to get pregnant anyway because birth control doesn't work 100% of the time. However, many of the same people who oppose sex education and contraception will swear by things like natural family planning. When the issue of its failure rate comes up, then they will say, "It works almost 100% when it's done properly." No shit. Contraception works almost 100% when it's used properly, too...and better than NFP when it's used improperly.
In the page I cited above, they make a point which needs to be thrown on the very top of the issue:
"The Federal government has made a commitment to support prevention efforts and allocated a record $288.3 million in FY 2005 for family planning under title X. The program provides access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them. A priority is given to low-income persons.
The Federal government has not made that same commitment to those who wish to carry their children to term." (Bold emphasis mine.)
Not only that, but what happens after these children are born? When I was living in CA, the welfare reform act was taken by the state to mean that if you were pregnant and receiving welfare, you would not receive any additional welfare if you had any additional kids. So, even if you can get help with the prenatal planning, our country is not going to make sure these children are cared for once they are born. Supposedly young mothers (and fathers) will suddenly have all the support and money to take care of kids once they are born. That is naive, and unfortunately, just plain wrong.
In all honesty, it would be great if our nation didn't have to put a whole bunch of money into supporting children...but if our nation isn't going to take care of them after they're born, then we certainly shouldn't be forcing people to have kids when they don't think they can take care of them on their own in the first place. (Yeah, I know it would be better if they didn't get pregnant. See above, keeping in mind that it will happen anyway.)
Interestingly, in several European countries, there are much lower levels of abortion than in the US. The cause could be a couple things, but it's a good bet that it has to do with either better sex education and/or more comprehensive social programs.
People who talk about abortion when it was illegal will talk about the issue of class. In the "old days", when abortion was illegal, middle and upper class girls could receive "on the sly" abortions from reputable doctors. On the other hand, poor girls had no such access and often died from infections or some other complication from a messed up procedure. Not only is class still an issue, but the even more important issue is this: abortions will still happen if it's illegal.
I generally consider myself "anti-abortion"...that is, I personally think it's wrong. On the other hand, I don't think it should be illegal and can understand why some women do it. I'm not willing (at this point) to take on someone else's child if they don't want it, so I feel I'm not justified in telling them to have the kid.
I also have been through the experience of dealing with a special needs kid, one who probably is a lot less special needs than other kids, and I couldn't imagine what people do when they have kids who are a lot more emotionally and physically demanding. I'm sure raising such a child must be emotionally rewarding, but I also know from experience that there are days where it nearly kills you. Raising a child like this when you didn't want it to begin with will have disastrous consequences for a child, and I would hate for any child to go through the potential abuse that occurs in those situations. There are already enough "wanted" children who are abused, and special needs children are those at the highest risk.
Scientifically, I don't agree that conception is the beginning of life. Life begins when the child can live outside the mother's womb. I disagree with the definition of life beginning at conception because it leads to the path of believing that, when a natural abortion occurs (which is about 1/3 of pregnancies), it is the mother's fault. Yeah, I know it may seem ridiculous, but historically, this wasn't so far-fetched. Practically everything about a baby was the mother's fault.
That isn't to say that I'm fine with abortions up to the point where life is capable of living independently. I don't like it because I still see it as a potential life. But again, unless I'm willing to be responsible for that life once it's in the world, it's not my place to tell a woman that she must have the child.
All in all, I think this is a horribly complicated and emotional issue, not one where you can simply say it is "right" or "wrong". I honestly would have to squint my eyes really hard to get the idea that this is anything resembling a dichotomy...it's all grey. However, until both the needs of the mother and potential life are of equal concern and validity, abortion will be, to me, a fundamentally feminist issue.
Feel free to comment. I will feel free to ignore it if I don't like it. (Cuz it's my LJ, and I can do that.)
My not so definitive answer is that it depends on your definition of "anti-abortion".
I don't like the polarization of the abortion issue into two camps. In order to be "pro-life" you must be opposed to all abortion and want it outlawed. Yet, if this is not your view, you are instantly thrown into this pot of people who believes that sexual promiscuity is okay, all abortions no matter what are okay, etc. Basically, you are either morally good or a moral heathen.
Bullshit.
I believe that the traditional pro-life camp (as described above) is about as immoral as anyone who believes that abortions are a-okay. (I have yet to meet anyone from the latter group who really thinks that way, despite the fact most pro-choice people are characterized as such.)
My definitive answer is this: If you want to make abortion illegal, then you are not a feminist in my book.
Reason: No man ever died from a botched abortion, and no man ever will. Anyone who closes their eyes to the fact that women die because of botched abortions is no more pro-life than someone who is okay with letting babies die. They're just selective about which lives are important, and obviously it is not that of young women.
Until men "suffer" the same consequences for pregnancy that women do, I will think of outlawing abortion as an oppression of women.
There are a lot of things that can be done to reduce abortion, but no one ever wants to do those things because they require time, effort, and most importantly, money...and may not always have the desired outcome. There is this initiative, for instance...which, as far as I know, never went anywhere. Probably because it advocates birth control which we all know encourages promiscuity. And if people are using birth control, they're going to get pregnant anyway because birth control doesn't work 100% of the time. However, many of the same people who oppose sex education and contraception will swear by things like natural family planning. When the issue of its failure rate comes up, then they will say, "It works almost 100% when it's done properly." No shit. Contraception works almost 100% when it's used properly, too...and better than NFP when it's used improperly.
In the page I cited above, they make a point which needs to be thrown on the very top of the issue:
"The Federal government has made a commitment to support prevention efforts and allocated a record $288.3 million in FY 2005 for family planning under title X. The program provides access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them. A priority is given to low-income persons.
The Federal government has not made that same commitment to those who wish to carry their children to term." (Bold emphasis mine.)
Not only that, but what happens after these children are born? When I was living in CA, the welfare reform act was taken by the state to mean that if you were pregnant and receiving welfare, you would not receive any additional welfare if you had any additional kids. So, even if you can get help with the prenatal planning, our country is not going to make sure these children are cared for once they are born. Supposedly young mothers (and fathers) will suddenly have all the support and money to take care of kids once they are born. That is naive, and unfortunately, just plain wrong.
In all honesty, it would be great if our nation didn't have to put a whole bunch of money into supporting children...but if our nation isn't going to take care of them after they're born, then we certainly shouldn't be forcing people to have kids when they don't think they can take care of them on their own in the first place. (Yeah, I know it would be better if they didn't get pregnant. See above, keeping in mind that it will happen anyway.)
Interestingly, in several European countries, there are much lower levels of abortion than in the US. The cause could be a couple things, but it's a good bet that it has to do with either better sex education and/or more comprehensive social programs.
People who talk about abortion when it was illegal will talk about the issue of class. In the "old days", when abortion was illegal, middle and upper class girls could receive "on the sly" abortions from reputable doctors. On the other hand, poor girls had no such access and often died from infections or some other complication from a messed up procedure. Not only is class still an issue, but the even more important issue is this: abortions will still happen if it's illegal.
I generally consider myself "anti-abortion"...that is, I personally think it's wrong. On the other hand, I don't think it should be illegal and can understand why some women do it. I'm not willing (at this point) to take on someone else's child if they don't want it, so I feel I'm not justified in telling them to have the kid.
I also have been through the experience of dealing with a special needs kid, one who probably is a lot less special needs than other kids, and I couldn't imagine what people do when they have kids who are a lot more emotionally and physically demanding. I'm sure raising such a child must be emotionally rewarding, but I also know from experience that there are days where it nearly kills you. Raising a child like this when you didn't want it to begin with will have disastrous consequences for a child, and I would hate for any child to go through the potential abuse that occurs in those situations. There are already enough "wanted" children who are abused, and special needs children are those at the highest risk.
Scientifically, I don't agree that conception is the beginning of life. Life begins when the child can live outside the mother's womb. I disagree with the definition of life beginning at conception because it leads to the path of believing that, when a natural abortion occurs (which is about 1/3 of pregnancies), it is the mother's fault. Yeah, I know it may seem ridiculous, but historically, this wasn't so far-fetched. Practically everything about a baby was the mother's fault.
That isn't to say that I'm fine with abortions up to the point where life is capable of living independently. I don't like it because I still see it as a potential life. But again, unless I'm willing to be responsible for that life once it's in the world, it's not my place to tell a woman that she must have the child.
All in all, I think this is a horribly complicated and emotional issue, not one where you can simply say it is "right" or "wrong". I honestly would have to squint my eyes really hard to get the idea that this is anything resembling a dichotomy...it's all grey. However, until both the needs of the mother and potential life are of equal concern and validity, abortion will be, to me, a fundamentally feminist issue.
Feel free to comment. I will feel free to ignore it if I don't like it. (Cuz it's my LJ, and I can do that.)