"A woman's choice starts before she spreads her legs..."

[Justvisiting]

I think the language in the original facebook comment is completely rude and inappropriate, but I think it's fair to chime in that I don't think this sort of pro-life mentality comes from an anti-sex mentality toward women, but a save-the-baby pro-life stance.

I think - for the most part - pro-life people really do think life begins at conception, which means that an argument like this - saying sex and procreation go hand in hand - isn't intended to punish women. The reality is that if a woman gets pregnant, the man can walk away without further thought. So it is ultimately the woman's choice. And for pro-life folks, a woman's choice extends only until the point where it infringes on the survival of the fetus.

I think any other pro-choice argument will always fall short, because the trump card is that a human life is at stake.

So while the fb lady was being a complete jerk in how she presented the idea, I think it does make logical sense given the pro-life starting point.

[TXDuck]

I think - for the most part - pro-life people really do think life begins at conception, which means that an argument like this - saying sex and procreation go hand in hand - isn't intended to punish women.

If this stance isn't intended to control women's sexuality, or punish them for trying to control it, then these same people would not have any issues with birth control. That they do is getting to be more and more telling.

[Guest Anonymous]

I think the language in the original facebook comment is completely rude and inappropriate, but I think it's fair to chime in that I don't think this sort of pro-life mentality comes from an anti-sex mentality toward women, but a save-the-baby pro-life stance.

I think - for the most part - pro-life people really do think life begins at conception, which means that an argument like this - saying sex and procreation go hand in hand - isn't intended to punish women. The reality is that if a woman gets pregnant, the man can walk away without further thought. So it is ultimately the woman's choice. And for pro-life folks, a woman's choice extends only until the point where it infringes on the survival of the fetus.

I think any other pro-choice argument will always fall short, because the trump card is that a human life is at stake.

So while the fb lady was being a complete jerk in how she presented the idea, I think it does make logical sense given the pro-life starting point.

Blah blah blah. No. If that was the case then anti-choicers wouldn't squirm so much when rape/incest comes up. If they really believed in life starting at conception then they would never support (as some of them do) rape/incest exceptions. If they cared about babies then the author of that comment would be happy that a woman was on welfare so that she could feed her precious children. Anti-choicers think babies are punishment for women who dare to have unsanctioned sex. If they didn't then misogynistic language wouldn't be such a huge weapon in their arsenal. That whole comment is a testament to why it's not about babies.

Are you anti-choice or just drinking their propaganda flavored kool-aid?

[wtfrenchtoast]

See, it kills me when I hear things like "Well you made your choice to have sex, you have to deal with the consequences." Um, hello. Choosing to have an abortion IS a method of dealing with the 'consequence' of unintended pregnancy. It just seems so logical to me. There are various methods of "dealing with it". I understand that these sorts of people only want to have THEIR choice be valid, but as it stands, abortion is also valid. It horrifies me that we seem to be going backward with reproductive rights.

[Dinorah]

[quote

I think any other pro-choice argument will always fall short, because the trump card is that a human life is at stake.

So while the fb lady was being a complete jerk in how she presented the idea, I think it does make logical sense given the pro-life starting point.

[wtfrenchtoast]

I think the language in the original facebook comment is completely rude and inappropriate, but I think it's fair to chime in that I don't think this sort of pro-life mentality comes from an anti-sex mentality toward women, but a save-the-baby pro-life stance.

I think - for the most part - pro-life people really do think life begins at conception, which means that an argument like this - saying sex and procreation go hand in hand - isn't intended to punish women. The reality is that if a woman gets pregnant, the man can walk away without further thought. So it is ultimately the woman's choice. And for pro-life folks, a woman's choice extends only until the point where it infringes on the survival of the fetus.

I think any other pro-choice argument will always fall short, because the trump card is that a human life is at stake.

So while the fb lady was being a complete jerk in how she presented the idea, I think it does make logical sense given the pro-life starting point.

I think that's pretty naive of you. The very language of this woman says that women shouldn't have sex if they don't want babies. Keep your legs closed, slut! Of course that's anti-sex. If she had said "How can you decide to kill your own baby?", I would be more inclined to agree with you. She would still be wrong, but I wouldn't see that particular statement as anti-sex. However, by referencing the sex act in such a negative tone, she definitely comes off as anti-sex for women.

[valsa]

I think it's fair to chime in that I don't think this sort of pro-life mentality comes from an anti-sex mentality toward women, but a save-the-baby pro-life stance.

Not only do I think this is a bold-faced lie, I don't think it's fair to imply pro-forced-birthers should get a pass on stripping actual human beings of their rights because of a stupid fairytale they may or may not believe about a blob of cells in that human being's body.

[Justvisiting]

[Justvisiting]

Not only do I think this is a bold-faced lie, I don't think it's fair to imply pro-forced-birthers should get a pass on stripping actual human beings of their rights because of a stupid fairytale they may or may not believe about a blob of cells in that human being's body.

I guess my point is that to them it's not a fairy tale. So they view it as speaking up for the unborn baby's rights. I get how if you remove that piece and say the fetus is not a human being, it seems all about repressing women. But if a pro-lifer really believes the baby is alive, then they feel compelled to save them. So, in their minds, not conceiving a baby is a much better choice than abortion.

[Minerva]

Gotta love the "except in the case of rape" people. What, are fetuses less precious when they were conceived that way? I assume she'd answer that rape survivors shouldn't have abortions either and she was just pointing out the obvious, but that doesn't make sense! If you're going to argue that all fetuses are sweet innocent little babies that shouldn't ever EVER be aborted, you can't back it up by saying "well most of the women carrying them deserve it." If you're making a statement about every single instance of a phenomenon, you need to back it up with an argument that applies in every single instance. I get it, they think fetuses are people, but just say that for fucksake and drop the "should have kept your legs closed" crap because not only is it misogynistic as fuck, but it doesn't work as an argument.

Why should someone getting a 1st trimester abortion have to watch a 3rd trimester procedure? Is this the same logic by which anti-choice people think putting pictures of newborns/toddlers/8-year-olds on their signs is going to convince anyone that abortion is wrong?

[Justvisiting]

It's kind of like how fundies dogmatically evangelize everyone. They really, truly believe everyone else is going to hell. So from that framework, the best thing they could do for everyone else, is tell them about Jesus, pass out tracts...insert whatever else here.

So while it may seem whacko, it's logically consistent. It wouldn't make sense to say that the fundies real agenda is to keep everyone from having fun (although that may be a byproduct - haha!)

I think that's a flawed but decent parallel. Saying that the pro-lifers real agenda is to keep women from having sex is a misunderstanding of how their logic works. It may be a byproduct, but the real agenda is to save the babies.

From their view: Sex isn't essential. And everyone knows sex can result in pregnancy. So if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have sex. In their mind, abortion looks like a woman choosing sex but not accepting the "consequences"

P.S. I know I'm speaking on behalf of the hard-core pro-lifers, so I could be all wrong, but I think it makes logical sense.

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm not trying to hijack the thread into a pro-choice/pro-life debate. I'm mainly just saying I don't think the response of: make the choice before having sex is somehow unusual for pro-lifers or specifically focused on restricting women's sexuality. I think the passion pro-lifers feel comes from their unequivocal belief that life begins at conception, so the stakes are super high for them.

I also tend to think most hard-core pro-lifers do not make exceptions for rape/incest. They may waffle around with saying how bad rape and incest are, but their logic compels them to say that it isn't the baby's fault and the baby deserves a chance at life.

As far as anti-birth control folks - I do agree that for them there seems to be an aim to restrict a woman's sexuality and somehow legislate morality. But with abortion, the differing view on when life begins seems to muddy up the waters.

And absolutely that lady is contradicting herself by saying "have the baby" and then "stupid welfare!" and misogynistic language is never appropriate - but I think you find that kind of thing on both sides of the issue. I do honestly think for most hard-core pro-lifers it is about the real belief that the baby begins at conception. As crass as this lady's comment about spreading legs is, I think this is her perspective: Sex is a choice made by a woman and a man. If a woman gets pregnant, her choice to have sex began a life (which, in her book, begins the moment of conception). So, with that logic, the choice was made at sex.

I guess my main point is that whether you feel the argument is compelling or not, it doesn't seem to me to be about: Don't let women have sex! As much as: if women have sex, they must be willing to factor in the babies. What do you think?

I think you haven't been here very damn long, because the anti-choice fundies that come post here have waffled on for pages and pages about exceptions and when an abortion is okay and when it's not.

I also think that whether or not you're anti-choice is relevant to the conversation.

**ETA: Also, you are bonkers if you think hardline anti-choicers are operating from a place of logic. Use the search function here and see what they have to say for themselves. Start with jericho, itsthatonegirl, and openmindheart.

[shesinsane]

See, it kills me when I hear things like "Well you made your choice to have sex, you have to deal with the consequences." Um, hello. Choosing to have an abortion IS a method of dealing with the 'consequence' of unintended pregnancy. It just seems so logical to me. There are various methods of "dealing with it". I understand that these sorts of people only want to have THEIR choice be valid, but as it stands, abortion is also valid. It horrifies me that we seem to be going backward with reproductive rights.

Me too. Do you also get irritated when they say "I don't want to pay for your birth control, be responsible!" when using birth control is being responsible?

But then again, we're using logic, and that has no place in the discussion of women's health. ;)

[TXDuck]

I think it's fair to chime in that I don't think this sort of pro-life mentality comes But if a pro-lifer really believes the baby is alive, then they feel compelled to save them. So, in their minds, not conceiving a baby is a much better choice than abortion.

Then don't stand in the way of birth control. And if they felt compelled to save them, shouldn't they support the mother? Honestly, if you want to reduce abortion rates, you're going to have to grant more access to birth control and maternal support. If you are unwilling to do either, you're not really about saving babies.

[valsa]

It may be a byproduct, but the real agenda is to save the babies.

No, it's not. If it were about saving babies, they'd be fighting just as hard to push social welfare programs and contraceptives as they do to outlaw abortion. Instead, they fight against programs that would allow women who abort due to finances (over 50% of women who get abortions) to keep their babies AND they fight against giving girls and women the tools they need to provent getting pregnant in the first place.

[Justvisiting]

Why should someone getting a 1st trimester abortion have to watch a 3rd trimester procedure? Is this the same logic by which anti-choice people think putting pictures of newborns/toddlers/8-year-olds on their signs is going to convince anyone that abortion is wrong?

I agree 100% I don't think anything will compel either side to think about the issue differently, because both are at fundamentally different starting points. Seeing an abortion won't change a pro-choicers mind, because to her the fetus is not an equal life. And hearing about women's rights won't change a pro-lifers mind, because to her the equal life of a human baby trumps a woman's opportunity. And until there can be something objective and conclusive regarding the definition of human life, I think women just keep demonizing each other.

[Guest Anonymous]

I agree 100% I don't think anything will compel either side to think about the issue differently, because both are at fundamentally different starting points. Seeing an abortion won't change a pro-choicers mind, because to her the fetus is not an equal life. And hearing about women's rights won't change a pro-lifers mind, because to her the equal life of a human baby trumps a woman's opportunity. And until there can be something objective and conclusive regarding the definition of human life, I think women just keep demonizing each other.

Well aren't you just so dispassionate and above it all. :roll:

[TXDuck]

Hint: it's not the pro-choice women demonizing people. I've had to say this twice in the same week, although on different boards and about different assholes. If you don't want to be called an asshole*, don't be an asshole.

*Asshole=sex phobic fundie

[Guest Anonymous]

Hint: it's not the pro-choice women demonizing people. I've had to say this twice in the same week, although on different boards and about different assholes. If you don't want to be called an asshole*, don't be an asshole.

*Asshole=sex phobic fundie

QFT.

Would I ever in a million years attempt to force a woman who was anti-abortion to have one? Hell no.

[formergothardite]

I agree 100% I don't think anything will compel either side to think about the issue differently, because both are at fundamentally different starting points. Seeing an abortion won't change a pro-choicers mind, because to her the fetus is not an equal life. And hearing about women's rights won't change a pro-lifers mind, because to her the equal life of a human baby trumps a woman's opportunity. And until there can be something objective and conclusive regarding the definition of human life, I think women just keep demonizing each other.

But like it has been said before, if it was really about saving the babies, most anti-choicers wouldn't be fighting to get rid of the government programs that help the babies after they are born. Most pro-lifers don't give a shit about the baby the second it exits the womb.

I have also found that most anti-choicers don't really want to treat a fetus like a baby. They don't want to put women who have abortions in jail for murder and they make exceptions for things like rape and incest. As much as the rant and rave about it being equal to a living baby, most of them don't treat it like that.

[Justvisiting]

Then don't stand in the way of birth control. And if they felt compelled to save them, shouldn't they support the mother? Honestly, if you want to reduce abortion rates, you're going to have to grant more access to birth control and maternal support. If you are unwilling to do either, you're not really about saving babies.

I agree 100%. Public health, family planning, and services for single-mothers would help everyone, regardless of their stance on abortion. I agree that it makes no sense why people would be super-pro-life and then not support services like these.

I have not been here very long, so I don't know what fundie pro-lifers have posted. I just think it's not quite accurate to say people who are pro-life are against women having sex. This fb woman's misogynistic language is inappropriate but the basic pro-life idea of making the choice to have sex means making the choice to potentially get pregnant is logically compatible with the prolife idea that life begins at conception.

And I suppose I should clarify that by "hard core pro-life", I mean mainstream prolifers who would be dogmatic and absolute about no abortion in any circumstance. I can't speak about fundie pro-lifers, and y'all are probably right that they would have an anti-women's-sexuality bent just because they tend to be anti-women. Maybe that's an important thing to note - what fundies say about birth control may only be a portion of the prolife voice.

I think it's fair to say both sides feel like they are being demonized. This thread shows that pro-choicers feel like pro-lifers are being misogynistic assholes who hate women, when pro-lifers feel like they are working to save a babies' lives. And I think it's fair to say that pro-lifers feel like pro-choicers are, by supporting abortion, responsible for the death of unborn children, when pro-choicers feel like they are protecting women's rights. It's definitely complex.

[valsa]

I agree that it makes no sense why people would be super-pro-life and then not support services like these.

It makes sense when you realize these people don't care about savings babies so much as punishing sluts.

[kb2]

I guess my point is that to them it's not a fairy tale. So they view it as speaking up for the unborn baby's rights. I get how if you remove that piece and say the fetus is not a human being, it seems all about repressing women. But if a pro-lifer really believes the baby is alive, then they feel compelled to save them. So, in their minds, not conceiving a baby is a much better choice than abortion.

The problem is that "she should have kept her legs closed" pushes responsibility away from the speaker and entirely onto the woman carrying the embryo/fetus/blastocyst making its way down the fallopian tube. It means that the speaker feels no responsibility, desire, or moral obligation whatsoever to extend help in promoting the supposedly sacred "life" a woman has inside her, and that the speaker believes all financial, emotional, and physical burdens are on that woman and that woman alone. It does not imply that the e/f/bmiwdtft has any worth as a human being or any worth at all--it is not worth protecting or supporting by the speaker or anyone else in society. "She should have kept her legs closed" doesn't say, "That's a sacred life you have in there," it says, "F this, I didn't make this happen, you did, so I have no obligation to help."

[valsa]

So, in their minds, not conceiving a baby is a much better choice than abortion.

Then why aren't they trying to make it illegal to not use contraception?

[Justvisiting]

I also think that whether or not you're anti-choice is relevant to the conversation.

I'm actually not quite sure where I stand. A few years ago, I would have said "anti-choice" without any hesitation. Which is why I feel somewhat comfortable talking about the thought process behind that.

I'm not so dogmatic on most things these days. I studied Sociology in university, which touches on a lot of the relevant public health/human rights issues and made me think that family planning, women's health, and everything connected is a lot more complex and less clearcut "right" or "wrong".

I also feel that religion should be kept out of the public sphere, so, even if I might eventually end up in the pro-life camp for religious reasons, I'm not sure where the lines of religion/moral lawmaking ends and basic human rights begin. I have three kids myself, and, while I can't imagine abortion at any stage in pregnancy, I'm not stupid enough to presume that my life is the standard for everyone else. Who knows what choices we would make in different circumstances? My mom had two abortions, and I've spoken with her a lot about that experience, and I think it speaks for both sides of the argument: women making the best choices they can for their children and the cost of that choice.

So all that to say: I'm pretty much not sure and I usually dodge these kind of debates for that reason. But I do think trying to understand both sides might help us not think of the other women (whatever their stance) as the enemy.