[msp]

I know what you mean, but (and keep in mind I worked at NARAL for some time) I don't worry about that so much. They'll make shit up to use against us. Whether it's this case or something else. Those signs are fairly easily defused with, "Good! Nobody should. You're absolutely right - it was her decision to continue this pregnancy." Bonus points for making their heads pop off at the notion that we agree on something.

[pollystyrene]

All I'm saying is that the anti-choice side will use something like that against the pro-choice side without seeing what was really going on(like that's something new). I certainly don't identify the movement with people like that, but I'm sure you'll see them holding up posters "I wouldn't kidnap my daughter to force her to have an abortion".

[msp]

This does not make us look good. What a bunch of nuts!

Nooooo, no no. What's this "us" business? Those story has nothing to do with reproductive choice and abortion rights. This woman (from the sound of it) chose to continue her pregnancy. That should have been the end of the story. And? What kind of doctor did they think was going to perform an abortion on a woman who'd been dragged there against her will? "Um, never mind the rope marks around her wrists and ankles, doctor."

[pollystyrene]

This does not make us look good. What a bunch of nuts!

[erinjane]

Exactly, greenbean. Well said.

[sybarite]

That's it, greenbean. Every child a wanted child.

[greenbean]

My friend the dancer was young when this happened, and had just gotten a great oppurtunity to travel with a company. She plans on being a mother years from now, it just wasn't the right time. If she chose to stay pregnant, even if she gave the child up for adoption, the pregnancy would have really set her back right as she was embarking on her dream. It was a tough decision for her, especially because the 'accident' was made with a long-term boyfriend, who was willing to parent the child with her if that was what she chose. But he knew it was her choice and her life,..they are still together and happy.

I do agree that office buildings should have nurseries for new moms, and some do,..in fact my cousin works in daycare at a medical building. I'm just saying that not all women are in careers that can make accomadations for their pregnancy,..and again, its the womans choice in those situations if they want to leave the job to be a mother, or switch to a job that is more accomadating to mothers, etc.

Most importantly, I think women should only have babies because they want to. Not because society or their parents or because they got accidently pregnant and figure they should just have it. It really saddens me that there are so many kids in foster care. Its NOT that I'm suggesting those kids should have been aborted,..I just wish family planning was stressed more in our culture than this arcaic idea that we all should be breeding like crazy.

[erinjane]

I agree with you Katze that there have to be changes made to legislation for families. There is such an emphasis on family values, and yet so little money is devoted to issues like that. I mean, here in Manitoba the liberals had set up a 5 year deal for childcare, and now instead we have the stupid conservative tax credit and the previous promise is flushed down the toilet.

But I feel like some of your suggestions, for the ballet dancer, for example, aren't really feasible. We'd have to live in a Utopia to allow for such things, and the truth is, some women who are dancers may not feel like it's such a sacrifice. Part of the reason for avoiding children for dancers (just an idea, someone correct me if I'm wrong) might be trauma on a woman's body.

I understand wanting more options for family life at a job that's in an office but jobs like acting, dancing, etc are in a much different field that I think would be harder to legislate. At this point in time, I think it's just smart to concentrate on better things like maternity leave, childcare spaces, etc. at large in our own communities.

It's also difficult to talk about people in such specific situations because we don't know their feelings or opinions.

(Sorry if that was muddled, writing kinda fast here.)

[pepper]

still, i think that's the exception to the rule. when i was dancing it was totally engrossing to say the least.

[roseviolet]

um, no. for a ballet dancer no accomodations can be made. that isn't a career, it's your LIFE. there is absolutely no room for children in a dancer's life.

That is an incorrect assumption, Pepper. I know a very successful ballet dancer who has had a long, prosperous career ... and also has twin 6-year-old boys. Let's not cloud this issue with sweeping generalizations, please.

[pepper]

um, no. for a ballet dancer no accomodations can be made. that isn't a career, it's your LIFE. there is absolutely no room for children in a dancer's life.

[katze]

See, I don't agree with that analogy, because we NEED food to survive but we dont need to give birth to survive. And as far as abortion being violence on a womans body, I argue that pregnancy is as well.

I already pointed out this problem with the analogy. The point was not about needing to have a baby, it was about the disrespect of something distinctive to women's bodies. Imagine if men could get pregnant. There would be a standard minimum of six months maternity leave (possibly even up to a year with no interruptions in career advancement), nurseries would be in all offices (just like kitchens are now) and breast feeding during meetings would be acceptable.

We can all agree that its hard to be a working mother, particulary if one is single,,but that doesnt mean that accomadations CAN be made for these mothers...for instance, I have a friend who had an abortion because she is a professional ballet dancer who was just accepted to a great ballet company. No accomadation is possible in that situation: you cant be a pregnant ballet dancer! You just cant!! Its not anyones fault that this job cant accomadate her pregnancy, and she ultimatly chose the ballet over having a baby.

Accomodations could be made. Just because they aren't currently, doesn't mean it has to be this way. Sure, a ballet dancer would have to take some time off if she wanted to have a baby, but it should be an option to be both a ballet dancer and a mother.

[greenbean]

See, I don't agree with that analogy, because we NEED food to survive but we dont need to give birth to survive. And as far as abortion being violence on a womans body, I argue that pregnancy is as well.

We can all agree that its hard to be a working mother, particulary if one is single,,but that doesnt mean that accomadations CAN be made for these mothers...for instance, I have a friend who had an abortion because she is a professional ballet dancer who was just accepted to a great ballet company. No accomadation is possible in that situation: you cant be a pregnant ballet dancer! You just cant!! Its not anyones fault that this job cant accomadate her pregnancy, and she ultimatly chose the ballet over having a baby.

In other related news, heres a funny/maybe not funny article: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...INGEJL45D11.DTL

[erinjane]

http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/local_story_259154909.html

This is so horrible.

[pepper]

well, that i agree with. (the analogy could have been about menstruation instead of eating. and we DO take a pill for that, don't we? there's even a pill to stop it altogether, but that's another thread...)
so, while i don't disagree with the arguement below, i also don't agree that the solution is to decrease access to abortion. we're talking about a whole cultural attitude adjustment here. this a culture of selfishness in the extreme, we have at the expense of most of the rest of the world. there is a big problem, i think, with the idea that a baby is an inconvenience instead of a natural occurence. sure, there are women who don't want kids, but there are many, so many who DO want them and put it off, waiting for some 'perfect' moment when they're 'more secure', whatever that means, and end up on fertility drugs 'cause they waited so dang long.
this culture isn't supportive of pregnancy and childbirth outside of that perfect, financially secure marriage, does that stop some people from having kids? i'm sure it does. does it push some women to look at abortion as their only option? i'm sure it does that too. but it doesn't stop everyone anymore than every woman who has an abortion being a woman with no other choice.

that's the issue right there, cultural attitude or no, it's all about choice. i WANT to have that choice, personally. sure, it would be terrific to have a better support system in place for moms and dads and kids, but not at the expense of having that choice in the first place. i say that as a mother and as a woman who has had an abortion herself.

[katze]

Hi Gals,

Apparently I need to re-emphasize that I'm not saying that a woman's worth is based on the ability to have children. I'm not saying that all women should have children. I don't even know if I will ever have children.

Of course it is very socially acceptable for a married woman to be a mother and housewife. I'm not concerned with fighting for that right. What I am concerned about the general respect for the way a woman's body functions. Sure the female reproductive system is respected within a stable and financially secure marriage. In any other case it is not.

I'll see if an analogy works to get my point across. All people eat, this is a natural functioning of the human body. Because of this we have times set aside for eating, often stopping work to eat. This is all considered normal and our society is set up to accomodate it. But what if only women ate and men didn't. Would the society on the whole be set up to accomodate women in this way? Might women not be hired for jobs because they would need to take a break and eat? Might men say "you're hungry again, just take a pill so your life won't be interrupted by needing food."

This is how I see abortion. Sure women don't have to have children like they need to eat, but it is still just as natural as eating. Every accomodation should be made for women who do want to have children. Women shouldn't have to choose between having a life or having a baby. Women should not have to make the hard choice of abortion because they want to continue to have a life. When abortion as a choice and solution is the focus, it takes the focus off of a woman's ability to have children and be good mothers in spite of the difficulties women face.

And I wouldn't assume that the militant pro-lifers out there really respect women or their ability to have children. They are more driven by an attitude of righteousness than that of love and respect.

katiebelle,
Who are these 50% of women who shouldn't have children?

[snafooey]

Thanks, Lucizoe.

[anarch]

Hiya greenbean!
/waves

I should add, Katze, that like you, this exchange is helping me to understand more why some people on the "other side" (but yes I understand you personally are not pushing for abortion to be illegal) believe what they do. I don't agree with the priorities, but it's illuminating. Thanks.

[ginger_kitty]

While I wouldn't want to deny the right to abortion, I feel that promoting it does not empower women to be all that they can be. Abortion halts the functioning of a woman's body (at least temporarily). To have this be the standard practice in a culture says that this is not a woman's world.

I just find this statement incredibly troubling. Let's make it very clear, feminist do not going out publicly pushing abortion. We don't hassle pregnant women to have abortions. Most of us do support the choice. It's all about choice not 'promoting'.

Like everyone else has said we do, desperately, need better sex ed in our country(not to mention the world as a whole needs it) but I and most, would back up causes to help sex education reform just as quickly as we would back up Pro-choice causes.

I can't help but get the feeling you consider bearing children an important measure of a woman's worth. It seems insulting. The facts that we have never had a female president, women get paid less than men on average, the fact men even consider debating control over female reproductive rights, and a ton of other things say it's not a woman's world. But to me, part of being feminist is fighting for all of those things. We don't have to fight to become mothers, it is socially acceptable to be a mother.

I hope this makes sense and I didn't go off on a long rant.

[greenbean]

"Feminists ARE the ones I hear advocating for "better health care, better child care options, more education on reproduction and fertility, more flexibility with careers and jobs for mothers, etc", alongside freedom to choose abortion or see a pregnancy through."

Exactly Anarch!

"I find it interesting that this discussion has remained so polarized with many (or all) of you feeling like you are on the opposing side of my position. I'm only arguing for true respect for women and our bodies and thier natural functions. I'm advocating focusing on celebrating this in all women, regardless of race or income. I'm advocating valuing this in addition to all the other qualities women have to offer. Yes, a woman can be a great mother in addtion to other callings or responsibilites she might have. I believe true empowerment for women comes with supporting and promoting this.

Katze, when put this way, no, I don't feel as if you are the opposing side. I also agree that giving birth is an amazing thing and is something that only a woman can do...but that doesn't mean every woman HAS to do it. In an earlier post you asked why abortion was heavily promoted by feminists, that is something you and I disagree on. All the feminists I know and observe promote the CHOICE of abortion, but we also promote (maybe more so) access to sex education and proper contraception so that there will be fewer abortions.