Slog
News & ArtsThursday, June 23, 2011
2012 / Politics / Sex An Abortion Pledge for the Rest of Us
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:20 PM
You may have heard about the "The Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge" that's "dividing GOP hopefuls." It's a promise, if elected, to only appoint anti-choice justices, defund Planned Parenthood, and work to ban abortions in what could be interpreted as all instances—no exceptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother. Santorum signed, Bachman signed, Newt signed, Pawlenty signed, Paul signed. Romney and Cain haven't. They're both under pressure to cave and sign. Cain won't because he's not a serious candidate and ultimately won't have to because pretty soon he'll be out. But Romney will eventually cave & sign because that's how Romney rolls.
In response Jocelyn, one of the sharp folks blogging at the new Spreading Santorum site (check it out!), created the "The Abortion Pledge":
I pledge the following...
1. If I get pregnant before the age of 21, I will have an abortion.
2. If I know anyone who gets pregnant before the age of 21, I will strongly suggest that they have an abortion.
3. If I get pregnant while still pursuing my education and cannot feasibly financially support a child, I will have an abortion.
4. If I get pregnant and am a current heavy drug user, I will have an abortion.
5. If I get pregnant and discover that my unborn child has a defect that will cause him or her [to have] a short life of unbearable pain, I will have an abortion.
6. If I am in a situation where not terminating my pregnancy is likely to kill me, I will have an abortion.
7. If I am in any other situation where I feel like an abortion is the best course of action, I will have an abortion.
8. If I am in any of the aforementioned situations and opt not to have an abortion, I will remember that my choice would have been meaningless without the right to choose and will continue to defend that right.
9. If I have the ability, I will donate to Planned Parenthood and/or other organizations that defend a woman's right to choose.
Read about "The Abortion Pledge" at Spreading Santorum. Sign "The Abortion Pledge" by clicking here. (Donate to Planned Parenthood here.)
2
i am pro choice all the way but by the time i got to item #2 i realized that this pledge is really, really stupid.
this is totally dumb. to be stating that we should all have abortions regardless of context if pregnant before 21 is really really stupid.
have i said how stupid this sounds yet?
this sounds stupid.
this is totally dumb. to be stating that we should all have abortions regardless of context if pregnant before 21 is really really stupid.
have i said how stupid this sounds yet?
this sounds stupid.
5
this basically amounts to saying that no one under 21 should ever have children, under any and all circumstances. that is stupid.
and i don't care what any of the items below 1 and 2 say. it still sounds stupid.
and i don't care what any of the items below 1 and 2 say. it still sounds stupid.
6
As the loving parent of an adopted child who's mother violated many of the articles of this "pledge", you must object on some level, right Dan?
7
Keep reading, folks:
8. If I am in any of the aforementioned situations and opt not to have an abortion, I will remember that my choice would have been meaningless without the right to choose and will continue to defend that right.
9
you can still write #8 without writing all those other stupid items.
you look ridiculous for plugging this. there is many other much better and less stupid ways of writing such a pledge. what a disappointment.
you look ridiculous for plugging this. there is many other much better and less stupid ways of writing such a pledge. what a disappointment.
13
I'm as pro-abortion as they come (the more the merrier!), but even I'm not going to "strongly suggest" to a 20-year-old that they get an abortion. I will trust in their decision -- isn't that the point?
14
I feel like Planned Parenthood has spent every dollar I have given them on sending me mail asking for more money.
15
@7, I read the whole thing, and it sounds like a terrible idea. Why call it a pledge at all if the pledge is "I will do these things, unless I don't want to." A more sensible pledge might have been an actual one supporting actions that might keep abortions legal and available, but this was no sensible pledge, just a petulant joke.
17
Whatevs... pledges are meaningless. I said the pledge of allegiance to the U.S. countless times in grade school. Meaningless.
18
The fact that number eight is way down at the bottom makes it read like an afterthought, when it's really the only part of this list that makes numbers 1-7 remotely palatable. The list has all the creepy insistence of a virginity pledge.
20
Yeah...I'm pro-choice, too...and I wouldn't sign this. Number 8 is all well and good, but the stuff that comes before it is pretty horrible.
And @15 makes a really good point.
I will donate to Planned Parenthood, though.
And @15 makes a really good point.
I will donate to Planned Parenthood, though.
21
#8 is meaningless crap.
You've already PLEDGED to abort if under 21 /still in school/ etc etc and then you say "if I violate my solemn PLEDGE I solemnly pledge blahblahblah..."
You've already PLEDGED to abort if under 21 /still in school/ etc etc and then you say "if I violate my solemn PLEDGE I solemnly pledge blahblahblah..."
22
I'm appalled at both the original presidential pledge, and at this. #8 is really the only relevant one. Though I do see the *point* of it. I'm with @15, and I keep tossing my spare change at PP.
23
Pro-Choice means all the choices.
Not just abortion, but also adoption or raising it yourself or with a partner.
So, on that grounds, this pledge isn't Pro-Choice.
Not just abortion, but also adoption or raising it yourself or with a partner.
So, on that grounds, this pledge isn't Pro-Choice.
24
The ad for Roanoke Park Place on slog's pages uses a copywrited image of 'Buzz' the mascot of Georgia Tech without permission.
25
K I'm not gonna get in a comment fight, but I do feel compelled to mention that I wrote this pledge with the wishy-washiness of pro-choice Americans in mind. The fact is that I think that abortion SHOULD be an option in case of unwanted pregnancy, not just for people who have a valid medical/psychological reason. That's why I worded it in such a way to go beyond the regular rhetoric of the pro-choice movement. The fact that you're all up-in-arms speaks volumes about how successful the pro-lifers have been at scaring people out of seeing abortion as a viable option.
I also think you'd be hard-pressed to find a sexually active adult who uses abortion as their only method of birth control, if for no other reason than it can be fucking expensive.
I also think you'd be hard-pressed to find a sexually active adult who uses abortion as their only method of birth control, if for no other reason than it can be fucking expensive.
26
... bit of an own goal there guys.
This does nothing other than play to the prejudices of the pro-life lobby.
There are so many ways this could have been written better.
This does nothing other than play to the prejudices of the pro-life lobby.
There are so many ways this could have been written better.
27
you fascist homoliberal pigs give yourselves away with #9...
You've sworn that PP is not about abortion and only uses a teeny tiny percentage of its resources slaughtering babies but here in the Remorseless BabyKillers' Manifesto you go whoring for funding for PP.
You've sworn that PP is not about abortion and only uses a teeny tiny percentage of its resources slaughtering babies but here in the Remorseless BabyKillers' Manifesto you go whoring for funding for PP.
28
Not a fan of the pledge.
I get that #8 is supposed to shift the focus back to choice, but that's several sentences after asserting somewhat questionable pledges. For instance, we could add:
I get that #8 is supposed to shift the focus back to choice, but that's several sentences after asserting somewhat questionable pledges. For instance, we could add:
#7a: If I get pregnant in winter, I will have an abortion so I can look cute in a two-piece come summer.Etc. Yes, I would defend the right to choose even when exercised callously. But that doesn't mean I have to approve of such behavior, which is what #1-7 of the pledge require.
#7b: If I get pregnant by an ugly boy, I will have an abortion so that I don't bring ugly people into the world.
29
So Danny how old was DJ's mom?
Did you STRONGLY SUGGEST she have an abortion?
Could she feasibly financially support a child?
How much drugs was she using?
.
Have you asked DJ to sign the pledge?
Did you STRONGLY SUGGEST she have an abortion?
Could she feasibly financially support a child?
How much drugs was she using?
.
Have you asked DJ to sign the pledge?
30
Okay, my first reaction was exactly the same "this is a horrible and stupid pledge." On second thought, I think that's the point. It's meant to suggest how horrible and stupid the extreme and inflexible anti-choice pledge is, by offering an equally extreme and inflexible pro-abortion pledge.
Maybe all the other commentators already got that and stil hate it; it's not an especially *good* satire. But hey, I bet at least a few other person reading this are as dumb as I am and thought the writer was actually advocating this policy.
Maybe all the other commentators already got that and stil hate it; it's not an especially *good* satire. But hey, I bet at least a few other person reading this are as dumb as I am and thought the writer was actually advocating this policy.
31
I pledge to pay at least half of the cost of any abortion a partner of mine chooses to get that isn't covered by medical insurance.
33
@28: Let me rephrase: "which is what #7 could require."
And FWIW, scenarios #1-3 point toward adoption, not abortion. It's important to remember that many pro-choicers are also anti-abortion. That's why "pro-choice," unlike "pro-life," accurately describes the position held by its adherents.
And FWIW, scenarios #1-3 point toward adoption, not abortion. It's important to remember that many pro-choicers are also anti-abortion. That's why "pro-choice," unlike "pro-life," accurately describes the position held by its adherents.
34
Eight strong relentless calls for abortion and one mealy mouthed weak qualifier;
and not a mention of adoption-
gee Danny,
having buyer's remorse?
and not a mention of adoption-
gee Danny,
having buyer's remorse?
36
@30: I don't think it's satire. The pledge writers are listing circumstances under which they likely think an abortion is the best course of action, and ending with a request to support PP. A satire would be clearly over-the-top, like "I pledge to get an abortion if suggested by my horoscope."
37
@25: You say: "I do feel compelled to mention that I wrote this pledge with the wishy-washiness of pro-choice Americans in mind."
I hear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me_E5Kl6E…
I hear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me_E5Kl6E…
38
Have you signed the pledge, Danny?
Did you STRONGLY SUGGEST DJ's mom abort him?
Are you a cold blooded murderous bastard?
Or a hypocrite?
Or is that just how you roll?.....
Did you STRONGLY SUGGEST DJ's mom abort him?
Are you a cold blooded murderous bastard?
Or a hypocrite?
Or is that just how you roll?.....
39
@36 Gee, I was so sure I had figured out a way that this wasn't horrible... trying to think the best of Dan, I guess. But now that we have a comment from the writer herself @25 and she's not saying "DUH YOU GUYS IT'S SATIRE," maybe you're right.
40
This thread is bad, and you should feel bad.
The list sucks. I am strongly pro-choice but strongly anti-abortion; it's traumatic (to varying degrees) to the woman concerned, and should really be an emergency option for when things go wrong. A better pledge would be:
1. If I am pregnant and am not comfortable with carrying to term, whether for medical or personal reasons, I will get an abortion.
2. If I am pregnant and feel comfortable with carrying to term, but do not feel that I could properly raise the resulting child, I will either get an abortion or put the child up for adoption.
3. If I do not feel comfortable with raising a child, I will put forth my best honest effort to avoid pregnancy, via use of contraception and other responsible sexual practices.
Dan, you're all about responsible sexuality, right? Show it here, will ya?
The list sucks. I am strongly pro-choice but strongly anti-abortion; it's traumatic (to varying degrees) to the woman concerned, and should really be an emergency option for when things go wrong. A better pledge would be:
1. If I am pregnant and am not comfortable with carrying to term, whether for medical or personal reasons, I will get an abortion.
2. If I am pregnant and feel comfortable with carrying to term, but do not feel that I could properly raise the resulting child, I will either get an abortion or put the child up for adoption.
3. If I do not feel comfortable with raising a child, I will put forth my best honest effort to avoid pregnancy, via use of contraception and other responsible sexual practices.
Dan, you're all about responsible sexuality, right? Show it here, will ya?
42
just a fyi: according to yelp, proof that you at anytime took a virginity pledge will get you a mango smoothie in the food court, a whopping 40% discount on your procedure, & parking validation at the Topeka KS Abortionpex.
wurd.
wurd.
43
Wow. Just wow. I think I am as prochoice as they come. I even provide abortions for fuck's sake but that pledge is messed up. And you know it isn't about choice at all. Choice is definitely about safe, legal, dignified and funded abortions. But it's also about supporting parenthood for those who choose it & supporting adoption plans for those who choose them. It's also about daycares, and rehab centers and education and decent housing and food to support women and kids and men too. There is good evidence to show that when women have access to those things they choose to continue unplanned pregnancies more often. But like birth control, these measures won't fly with folks who say they'd do anything to prevent abortion. Murder a doctor? Hell yeah! Daycare and financial aid to get a young mom thru school? Fuck no!
44
this is ridiculous. and it is clearly not satire.
and number 8 does not refute numbers 1 through 7.
people who are pro-choice are not wishy washy. plenty of us pro-choice people HATE abortion.
Jocelyn failed and Dan spread the fail.
and number 8 does not refute numbers 1 through 7.
people who are pro-choice are not wishy washy. plenty of us pro-choice people HATE abortion.
Jocelyn failed and Dan spread the fail.
46
@39: First, please calm down and try to tone down the snarkiness. We're all on the same side here.
Second, note how many people are offended by the pledge, think it's a bad idea, and or do not perceive it as satire. Since all those people are allies, that makes this a bad pledge. @25's comments don't help your case: her smug sense of superiority at labeling the pro-choice, anti-abortion folks as "wishy-washy" shows that the pledge is clearly meant to agitate. And what's the point of that?
Second, note how many people are offended by the pledge, think it's a bad idea, and or do not perceive it as satire. Since all those people are allies, that makes this a bad pledge. @25's comments don't help your case: her smug sense of superiority at labeling the pro-choice, anti-abortion folks as "wishy-washy" shows that the pledge is clearly meant to agitate. And what's the point of that?
47
@46 If I came across as snarky, that's not what I intended at all. I was being serious -- that I thought/hoped it was satire, but now I think you're right and it's not. I agree with everything in your second paragraph, so I'm not sure what you think "my case" is!
49
I went to sign up for the pledge, and it said: "Eligible signatories: Ladies only, please"
why?
That's confusing, and possibly not at all what I thought I was signing up for.
Please explain, Susan. B. Anthony Co.
why?
That's confusing, and possibly not at all what I thought I was signing up for.
Please explain, Susan. B. Anthony Co.
50
1. If I am in any situation where I feel like an abortion is the best course of action, I will have an abortion.
2. If become pregnant and opt not to have an abortion, I will remember that my choice would have been meaningless without the right to choose and will continue to defend that right.
3. If I have the ability, I will donate to Planned Parenthood and/or other organizations that defend a woman's right to choose.
There. I fixed it.
2. If become pregnant and opt not to have an abortion, I will remember that my choice would have been meaningless without the right to choose and will continue to defend that right.
3. If I have the ability, I will donate to Planned Parenthood and/or other organizations that defend a woman's right to choose.
There. I fixed it.
51
@46 The pledge really wasn't meant to agitate the left, though. I have to admit that I'm surprised by this reaction (though there are more people who have signed the pledge than who have criticized it on here). This is the attitude toward abortion that I grew up with, and I assumed that this was what pro-choicers believed, even if they weren't saying it.
I doubt, however, that all of the critics on here are allies. After all, @28 says that numbers 1-7 require defending "the right to choose even when exercised callously." I really don't think 4-6 require that at all; do you? And as for the rest, have you ever met someone who had a kid young, kept it, and turned out to be a good mother? I have not. I have, however, known girls that age who decided to give the baby up for adoption rather than abort, and then decided to keep it upon giving birth. And it's pretty fucking tragic when a girl ends up giving up her future to have a kid.
I doubt, however, that all of the critics on here are allies. After all, @28 says that numbers 1-7 require defending "the right to choose even when exercised callously." I really don't think 4-6 require that at all; do you? And as for the rest, have you ever met someone who had a kid young, kept it, and turned out to be a good mother? I have not. I have, however, known girls that age who decided to give the baby up for adoption rather than abort, and then decided to keep it upon giving birth. And it's pretty fucking tragic when a girl ends up giving up her future to have a kid.
52
@49 Yeah, that was a mistake. Just sign it anyway. And I have no affiliation with Susan B. Anthony and her group of Planned Parenthood haters.
53
As someone who is strongly pro-choice and anti-abortion, the fight needs to go to the self-inconsistency of the Right.
If you really believe that life begins at conception, and that destroying that life is wrong, then you goddamn fucking well better fund fucking planned parenthood, provide access to contraception, and teach actually informative sex-ed!
It must be hammered home that the dogmatic, delusional twits that are against PP/contraception/sex-ed are trying to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions!
Fuck.
If you really believe that life begins at conception, and that destroying that life is wrong, then you goddamn fucking well better fund fucking planned parenthood, provide access to contraception, and teach actually informative sex-ed!
It must be hammered home that the dogmatic, delusional twits that are against PP/contraception/sex-ed are trying to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions!
Fuck.
54
#8 does not accomplish what it is apparently intended to accomplish.
If it's satire, it isn't very effective as satire. For starters, one would need greater familiarity with the original that's being satirized, but most who encounter this won't have that.
#'s 1 through 3 are really vile things to say. Some of the other lines make sense, but that doesn't redeem it. Instead, you just made an effective caricature of all the false, distorted things pro-lifers like to say about pro-choices. You just ensured that they will print your failed effort as part of their PR, to shock all their followers into thinking that pro-choice really DOES mean pro-abortion. Thanks for setting the cause back in this idiotic way.
If it's satire, it isn't very effective as satire. For starters, one would need greater familiarity with the original that's being satirized, but most who encounter this won't have that.
#'s 1 through 3 are really vile things to say. Some of the other lines make sense, but that doesn't redeem it. Instead, you just made an effective caricature of all the false, distorted things pro-lifers like to say about pro-choices. You just ensured that they will print your failed effort as part of their PR, to shock all their followers into thinking that pro-choice really DOES mean pro-abortion. Thanks for setting the cause back in this idiotic way.
55
@51: I'm @28 as well. I rephrased the point @33, after re-reading and realizing that it could be interpreted in exactly the way you suggested.
There are lots of pro-choicers who are anti-abortion, meaning that they would never get an abortion themselves, or at least not get an abortion unless they're in position 6. You might also be surprised to learn that lots of pro-choicers are religious. It's not just a "liberal" position, which is a good thing given how few people consider themselves "liberal" these days.
As for knowing someone who had a kid young and kept it and ending up being a good mother-- my mom was 20 when she got pregnant with me. :) She went back to school when we were in grade school, got her law degree, and made partner at a rather large and prestigious term. Of note, her female colleagues were all envious of her for already having her kids, so she didn't have to take repeated maternity leaves at the time when associates are typically up for partner.
Just saying... having kids when young is not always a bad thing, and it's possible it can actually help your career.
There are lots of pro-choicers who are anti-abortion, meaning that they would never get an abortion themselves, or at least not get an abortion unless they're in position 6. You might also be surprised to learn that lots of pro-choicers are religious. It's not just a "liberal" position, which is a good thing given how few people consider themselves "liberal" these days.
As for knowing someone who had a kid young and kept it and ending up being a good mother-- my mom was 20 when she got pregnant with me. :) She went back to school when we were in grade school, got her law degree, and made partner at a rather large and prestigious term. Of note, her female colleagues were all envious of her for already having her kids, so she didn't have to take repeated maternity leaves at the time when associates are typically up for partner.
Just saying... having kids when young is not always a bad thing, and it's possible it can actually help your career.
56
Jocelyn,
As a man who became a father when he was barely 20, fuck you for comment 51.
As an ex-Catholic – I like your picture.
As a man who became a father when he was barely 20, fuck you for comment 51.
As an ex-Catholic – I like your picture.
58
And Jocelyn @52, I think we can assume that the majority of regular Sloggers _are_ pro-choice allies. The fault is not with the feed-back but with your pledge.
If you can actually offend a significant percentage of Dan-fans through pro-choice activism...you are doing it wrong.
If you can actually offend a significant percentage of Dan-fans through pro-choice activism...you are doing it wrong.
59
Also, I know a lot of women that had kids in high school (I'm from rural Wyoming super-Baptist/Mormon territory), and most of them are great mothers.
60
Making the first three parts of this pledge absolutes is just plain wrong, not to mention stupid and politically counter-productive.
Any pro-choice pledge MUST have #1 be "If I do not want a child or otherwise feel unable to raise a child at this point in my life I pledge to use effective birth control during every sexual encounter."
Any pro-choice pledge MUST have #1 be "If I do not want a child or otherwise feel unable to raise a child at this point in my life I pledge to use effective birth control during every sexual encounter."
63
And I agree with #56. My mother had my brother when she was 18 and putting herself through college (which she completed on time). He, I and my two sisters all have advanced degrees and are living successfully thanks to her mothering.
So yes, I agree with #56 and fuck Jocelyn for her myopic worldview. It's people like her that ensure that liberals lose so many rhetorical battles.
So yes, I agree with #56 and fuck Jocelyn for her myopic worldview. It's people like her that ensure that liberals lose so many rhetorical battles.
64
@Jocelyn re: 51
I am strongly pro-choice. I've never been anything else. I give to advocacy organizations that have the sole purpose of defending a woman's right to choose and everything. But I was offended by this list on its face. I would not sign it as it stands. (I think #7-9 could be lightly modified to make a very decent sort of pledge, as I posted @50)
I think you are very wrong in thinking that this is just what most pro-choice people are thinking. Pro-choice is pro-choice. Yes, some/many people who are pro-choice would act in some/many of these ways themselves, perhaps. But by turning it into a pledge you are making a prescription for how ALL women ought to behave in these circumstances, irrespective of their own wishes, and that's not okay. And #8 does not cancel that out.
In fact, the undertone of the list is that is just sets up another way to judge women's choices. "Young and pregnant? You're not having an abortion? There's something wrong with you."
I am strongly pro-choice. I've never been anything else. I give to advocacy organizations that have the sole purpose of defending a woman's right to choose and everything. But I was offended by this list on its face. I would not sign it as it stands. (I think #7-9 could be lightly modified to make a very decent sort of pledge, as I posted @50)
I think you are very wrong in thinking that this is just what most pro-choice people are thinking. Pro-choice is pro-choice. Yes, some/many people who are pro-choice would act in some/many of these ways themselves, perhaps. But by turning it into a pledge you are making a prescription for how ALL women ought to behave in these circumstances, irrespective of their own wishes, and that's not okay. And #8 does not cancel that out.
In fact, the undertone of the list is that is just sets up another way to judge women's choices. "Young and pregnant? You're not having an abortion? There's something wrong with you."
65
Can I sign the new revised pledges? The old one really sucks. Abortions CAN be very traumatising IF the person is conflicted, which it sounds like many of these women would be. Choices like this are delicate and require a lot of thought for many of us. I am pro-choice, but I could never have an abortion myself. If I have a child, and then get cancer during my pregancy with the second, I would have to make a very sad choice either way. Pledges like this make things black and white, instead of a forgiving grey. I don't like that at all. The right thinks we're baby hating bigots trying to enforce abortions on any women we think should have them. We're not. I don't see how this pledge is supportive of *true* choice.
66
@51 Your age cutoff for "young" mothers in the pledge is 21. So yes, I've known two great moms who had kids when they were "young": my mom and grandma. They were both married and financially stable (though perhaps grandma was technically poor). Don't expect any of the three us to sign your offensive pledge. We all support every woman's right to make her own choice, not the notion of insisting that anyone conform to anyone else's ideas of when it is best to choose to have an abortion.
Sadly waiting for this pledge to show up on conservative blogs and Fox news in the next few days.
Sadly waiting for this pledge to show up on conservative blogs and Fox news in the next few days.
68
@51 I missed the last part of that comment until everyone else pointed it out.
All I can say to it is "wow."
All I can say to it is "wow."
70
@54: "#'s 1 through 3 are really vile things to say."
no, not really.... they maybe shortsighted, overly dogmatic, and counterproductive, sure. but vile? no.
not at all, if you want to see vile--- i'm sure all you gotta do is look at the lifers rhetoric, it's frickin' rife w/ the vile.
they don't care about the age of the mother, the circumstance of the pregnancy, or the actual life conditions of any child. & that's what is what's sick/vile.
this is just another dumb ideological "pledge", file it away w/ the same veracity as all the others have been taken.
no, not really.... they maybe shortsighted, overly dogmatic, and counterproductive, sure. but vile? no.
not at all, if you want to see vile--- i'm sure all you gotta do is look at the lifers rhetoric, it's frickin' rife w/ the vile.
they don't care about the age of the mother, the circumstance of the pregnancy, or the actual life conditions of any child. & that's what is what's sick/vile.
this is just another dumb ideological "pledge", file it away w/ the same veracity as all the others have been taken.
72
@70: I hate it, but I need to clarify one thing:
this should read...
"they don't care about the age of the mother, the circumstance of the pregnancy, or the actual life conditions of any child. and under ANY situation is always EVIL, WRONG WRONG, and never accepted & that notion is what is truly sick/vile.
this should read...
"they don't care about the age of the mother, the circumstance of the pregnancy, or the actual life conditions of any child. and under ANY situation is always EVIL, WRONG WRONG, and never accepted & that notion is what is truly sick/vile.
73
@50: I like. I would also add provisions that highlight the respect for choice-- not just mine, but everyone else's. E.g.,
4. I respect a woman's right to an abortion, even in circumstances where I would not have an abortion.I might also throw something in about contraception to highlight the pro-lifers' massive inconsistencies. Something like "While I believe abortion should remain legal, I also believe it should occur as infrequently as possible. Accordingly I believe contraception should be cheap and readily available to anyone who decides to engage in sexual activity."
5. I respect a woman's right to remain pregnant, even in circumstances where I would not remain pregnant.
77
@74: Since many people do not seem to understand the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion, let me use a less charged analogy:
I am anti-tobacco. I do not smoke, and I think smoking is a tremendous health hazard. I would advise any smoker to quit immediately, and advise any non-smoker against taking up the habit.
However, I am pro-choice with regard to tobacco. I do not want tobacco to be illegal: I respect people's rights to make decisions regarding the integrity of their bodies that I would not make. And I believe that making tobacco illegal would only drive its production and distribution underground, to the detriment of society overall. Just like Prohibition did with alcohol.
So I will protect people's right to smoke tobacco, even though I myself will never smoke tobacco.
Am I suggesting that smoking is equivalent to abortion? Of course not. I'm just pointing out how someone can be personally opposed to X but in favor of keeping X legal.
I am anti-tobacco. I do not smoke, and I think smoking is a tremendous health hazard. I would advise any smoker to quit immediately, and advise any non-smoker against taking up the habit.
However, I am pro-choice with regard to tobacco. I do not want tobacco to be illegal: I respect people's rights to make decisions regarding the integrity of their bodies that I would not make. And I believe that making tobacco illegal would only drive its production and distribution underground, to the detriment of society overall. Just like Prohibition did with alcohol.
So I will protect people's right to smoke tobacco, even though I myself will never smoke tobacco.
Am I suggesting that smoking is equivalent to abortion? Of course not. I'm just pointing out how someone can be personally opposed to X but in favor of keeping X legal.
82
'Always abort' is just as stupid a stance as 'Never abort'. Would you approve of the parents of teenage girls dragging them into clinics and forcing them to have abortions? Would you approve of the standard practice in the 50s and 60s of sending pregnant teenagers away until they gave birth and forcing them to give their newborns up for adoption? Choice means choice.
No, I will not sign that stupid pledge.
No, I will not sign that stupid pledge.
83
We need room in this country for a more nuanced view of abortion; everyone has their own story, and each person's circumstances are different. This pledge is like a caricaturization of the crazy lefty baby-killer rhetoric that you might see generated by pro-life groups.
The worst part is about "strongly suggesting" or pressuring anyone else to have an abortion. That's preachy at best and abusive at worst.
The worst part is about "strongly suggesting" or pressuring anyone else to have an abortion. That's preachy at best and abusive at worst.
84
@74, 77 We can also continue the metaphor by adding the example of a smoker - someone who uses tobacco, and thinks it should remain legal, who nonetheless doesn't go around insisting that everyone should begin using tobacco. Many pro-choice people fall into this category as well. You can be very glad that abortions are legal, have had one or would consider having on yourself, and still respect that other people might make a different choice about their own bodies. (Again, not comparing abortion to smoking. Different things.)
"Pro-choice" works as an effective political position/coalition because it has room for:
a) people who are pro-choice but anti-abortion in their personal lives
b) people who don't think about it much, but like people being about to make choices about their bodies for themselves
c) people who are pro-choice and pro-abortion in their personal lives
People who are so pro-abortion that they loop around being anti-choice (in t'other direction) threaten that coalition, in my opinion.
"Pro-choice" works as an effective political position/coalition because it has room for:
a) people who are pro-choice but anti-abortion in their personal lives
b) people who don't think about it much, but like people being about to make choices about their bodies for themselves
c) people who are pro-choice and pro-abortion in their personal lives
People who are so pro-abortion that they loop around being anti-choice (in t'other direction) threaten that coalition, in my opinion.
85
One day, Daniel Savage will stand before the Throne of the Almighty God, the Creator of the Universe, Maker of All, who sent His Son to be butchered so that Daniel Savage could get to know Him. He, God, will look at Daniel Savage and quote, word for word and line for line, every single syllable of the above article.
I will not want to be Daniel Savage, licker of doorknobs and cheerleader of evil, at that moment.
Neither will Dan Savage.
I will not want to be Daniel Savage, licker of doorknobs and cheerleader of evil, at that moment.
Neither will Dan Savage.
86
I think most women should have abortions. People are the one thing of which there is not a shortage.
I wish most of your mothers had abortions.
I wish most of your mothers had abortions.
88
Nobody should pledge to have an abortion in advance of being pregnant.
Nobody should ask others to pledge to have an abortion in advance of being pregnant.
Nobody should ask others to pledge to have an abortion in advance of being pregnant.
89
As a former nurse at a major university health center, I would say that #2. If I know anyone who gets pregnant before the age of 21, I will strongly suggest that they have an abortion.
is spot on.
not so much because every 21 year old should have an abortion, but because everyone handles abortion with a ten foot pole and the pole is covered in shit.
When I had to tell young women that they were pregnant, I always mentioned abortion first. NONE of these girls were planning a pregnancy and by speaking openly and matter of factly about it as a choice, it normalizes and take some of the loaded stigma away from it. Any woman under 21 who is pregnant is not improving her life by making a baby at that age and are NOT planning it. If they are planning a baby at that age, then they are way too dumb to actually have a baby.
is spot on.
not so much because every 21 year old should have an abortion, but because everyone handles abortion with a ten foot pole and the pole is covered in shit.
When I had to tell young women that they were pregnant, I always mentioned abortion first. NONE of these girls were planning a pregnancy and by speaking openly and matter of factly about it as a choice, it normalizes and take some of the loaded stigma away from it. Any woman under 21 who is pregnant is not improving her life by making a baby at that age and are NOT planning it. If they are planning a baby at that age, then they are way too dumb to actually have a baby.
90
@59 you said: Also, I know a lot of women that had kids in high school (I'm from rural Wyoming super-Baptist/Mormon territory), and most of them are great mothers.
and I say unto to you: bullshit.
They ruined their life potential. They are not great mothers. They do not have enough life experience to be great mothers. they have never nurtured a project to fruition, they have never experienced a healthy break up of a relationship; they cannot be good mothers without some life experience, they are just practicing on a live kid stuff that might make them a good mother by their 3rd or 4th kid.
and I say unto to you: bullshit.
They ruined their life potential. They are not great mothers. They do not have enough life experience to be great mothers. they have never nurtured a project to fruition, they have never experienced a healthy break up of a relationship; they cannot be good mothers without some life experience, they are just practicing on a live kid stuff that might make them a good mother by their 3rd or 4th kid.
91
Offensive to the core. Sorry Jocelyn. I'm pro-choice to the max.
I hope that no one has an abortion, personally. But more important, I hope for a world where no one HAS NEED for an abortion because all pregnancies are planned for and wanted.
Until that day, it is nobody's business but the woman who is pregnant what she does with her body. I, too, sadly await the RR's trumpeting of this pledge as what pro-choicer's think.
I hope that no one has an abortion, personally. But more important, I hope for a world where no one HAS NEED for an abortion because all pregnancies are planned for and wanted.
Until that day, it is nobody's business but the woman who is pregnant what she does with her body. I, too, sadly await the RR's trumpeting of this pledge as what pro-choicer's think.
92
Nobody should ask others to pledge to have an abortion before they are pregnant.
I pledge the following to the members of the Susan B. Anthony List:
1. If I become pregnant, I will consider continuing the pregnancy to term and terminating the pregnancy as two binary options, with no inherent moral inequality between them.
2. I will consider the effects of my possible and optional pregnancy, followed by adoption or the responsibilities of parenthood, on aspects of my life including but not limited to the following:
- my capacity and desire for self-advancement.
- my capacity and desire for personal responsibility.
- my capacity and desire to have children when and how I want to (if I want to), and to have the resources to raise them that I want.
3. In choosing whether or not to continue a pregnancy, I will consider the health of the fetus, my health, and my ability to maintain a healthy pregnancy, as valid factors in my decision.
4. When seeking advice for or help with my decision, I will go to resources that are neutral or pro-choice. I understand that they seek to empower me, whereas pro-life groups seek to make my choice for me.
5. When friends turn to me for help with this decision, I will respect their right to a decision based on their unique situation and desires.
6. If I can, I will donate to Planned Parenthood or other similar institutions, so I can support all those who turn to them for help.
Not sure if this is done, but I'm sure it's better.
I pledge the following to the members of the Susan B. Anthony List:
1. If I become pregnant, I will consider continuing the pregnancy to term and terminating the pregnancy as two binary options, with no inherent moral inequality between them.
2. I will consider the effects of my possible and optional pregnancy, followed by adoption or the responsibilities of parenthood, on aspects of my life including but not limited to the following:
- my capacity and desire for self-advancement.
- my capacity and desire for personal responsibility.
- my capacity and desire to have children when and how I want to (if I want to), and to have the resources to raise them that I want.
3. In choosing whether or not to continue a pregnancy, I will consider the health of the fetus, my health, and my ability to maintain a healthy pregnancy, as valid factors in my decision.
4. When seeking advice for or help with my decision, I will go to resources that are neutral or pro-choice. I understand that they seek to empower me, whereas pro-life groups seek to make my choice for me.
5. When friends turn to me for help with this decision, I will respect their right to a decision based on their unique situation and desires.
6. If I can, I will donate to Planned Parenthood or other similar institutions, so I can support all those who turn to them for help.
Not sure if this is done, but I'm sure it's better.
93
Guys, the pledge has gotten a fair amount of signatures, with a lot of supportive comments. That said, I get what you're saying. Perhaps you should start your own pledge. I don't have a patent on anti-pro-life pledges or anything like that. Make one that's not so abhorrent to you. The website I used is free and shit.
http://www.petitiononline.com/
http://www.petitiononline.com/
95
Suport Planned Parenthood for sure! And I'm 100% pro-choice (and that does mean any choice).
But how about pledging not to get pregnant without wanting to? WIth a very few exceptions it's really quite easy. I've been sexually active for 20 years now and have never even had a pregnancy scare because I had access to education and prevention (thanks in part to PP).
But how about pledging not to get pregnant without wanting to? WIth a very few exceptions it's really quite easy. I've been sexually active for 20 years now and have never even had a pregnancy scare because I had access to education and prevention (thanks in part to PP).
96
@71 dwightmoodyforgetsthings: The part where I "strongly suggest" they get an abortion and the 20-year-old figures I must know what I'm talking about and maybe regrets it later and blames me. For myself, lending moral support and helping to evaluate options = okay. Recommending a course of action = not okay.
97
Dear Jocelyn @51,
Fuck you, you vapid judgemental fucking cunt.
" And as for the rest, have you ever met someone who had a kid young, kept it, and turned out to be a good mother? "
Yes. Allow me to introduce myself. My oldest daughter was born when I was 19, I had been married for a year and a half. Her father and I are still married, our other daughters were born when I was 25 and 29, respectively. My oldest daughter is now 19 herself. For being so woefully disadvantaged by having such a clearly unfit mother due to your criteria of age, she has grown into a remarkable young woman. Her sisters show every indication of being much like her. So my youth at the time of her birth was not a detriment at all. But, according to you, I should have had her scraped out.
Fuck you.
Fuck you, you vapid judgemental fucking cunt.
" And as for the rest, have you ever met someone who had a kid young, kept it, and turned out to be a good mother? "
Yes. Allow me to introduce myself. My oldest daughter was born when I was 19, I had been married for a year and a half. Her father and I are still married, our other daughters were born when I was 25 and 29, respectively. My oldest daughter is now 19 herself. For being so woefully disadvantaged by having such a clearly unfit mother due to your criteria of age, she has grown into a remarkable young woman. Her sisters show every indication of being much like her. So my youth at the time of her birth was not a detriment at all. But, according to you, I should have had her scraped out.
Fuck you.
98
@93 "People keep supporting me!"
Yeah, I'm sure Maggie Gallagher, Tony Perkins, Rick Santorum, Peter LaBarbera, Dave Vitter and MANY others can say the same damn thing.
You can cover your ears and scream all you want; I think it reflects badly on you that you refuse to even consider what many of us here are saying.
Look, I support completely legal abortion, with no restrictions whatsodamnever, and I refuse to stop any single woman from getting an abortion if she deems it necessary for herself. To do otherwise makes women into slaves. And I *still* think you and your pledge are full of shit.
So there you have it. Geeze, what a cluster.
Yeah, I'm sure Maggie Gallagher, Tony Perkins, Rick Santorum, Peter LaBarbera, Dave Vitter and MANY others can say the same damn thing.
You can cover your ears and scream all you want; I think it reflects badly on you that you refuse to even consider what many of us here are saying.
Look, I support completely legal abortion, with no restrictions whatsodamnever, and I refuse to stop any single woman from getting an abortion if she deems it necessary for herself. To do otherwise makes women into slaves. And I *still* think you and your pledge are full of shit.
So there you have it. Geeze, what a cluster.
100
Obama's mom was a teen when she had him.
@ 90. If you don't know any good formerly teen mothers, I think you're the one who needs more life experience.
@ 90. If you don't know any good formerly teen mothers, I think you're the one who needs more life experience.
101
I need to figure out a way to make a drinking game out of Republicans saying ridiculous anti-abortion things. Better yet if with every drink, an amount of money matching the cost of the drink gets donated to either Planned Parenthood, or better yet, a strictly designated fund for the abortions of women who otherwise could not afford them. Maybe every time a candidate says "abortion" in a debate?
102
Okay, I hate this pledge. Items 1 - 5 are entirely unacceptable,as they negate a woman's right to make her own damned decisions about her life and her medical care. That said...
The folks who are insisting on adding a lign about "using effective birth control" seem to my ear to be saying that responsible people should be able to avoid the whole issue. That would be nice, but it just ain't so. Birth control fails, even when used correctly (not often, but it does). Rapes happen. And sometimes, stupid mistakes just happen. So the question of birth control doesn't really come into this debate, which comes down to, "If the unthinkable were to happen, what options are legally, morally and emotionally available to me?"
The answer to that question is different for every woman at different stages of her life. I've had stages when my best answer was adoption, other times when it was abortion, even times when it was "keep it", and I value absolutely my right to make that choice for myself at every life stage. So, yeah, death to this anti-choice pledge, but let's also avoid the "avoid the choice" rhetoric.
The folks who are insisting on adding a lign about "using effective birth control" seem to my ear to be saying that responsible people should be able to avoid the whole issue. That would be nice, but it just ain't so. Birth control fails, even when used correctly (not often, but it does). Rapes happen. And sometimes, stupid mistakes just happen. So the question of birth control doesn't really come into this debate, which comes down to, "If the unthinkable were to happen, what options are legally, morally and emotionally available to me?"
The answer to that question is different for every woman at different stages of her life. I've had stages when my best answer was adoption, other times when it was abortion, even times when it was "keep it", and I value absolutely my right to make that choice for myself at every life stage. So, yeah, death to this anti-choice pledge, but let's also avoid the "avoid the choice" rhetoric.
103
I get that the pledge is satire, but it's not funny and not everyone will pick up on the satire. Right wing people have been known to not pick up on satire, as in the instances of people railing against Planned Parenthood based on an Onion Article that people didn't get was satire. The Onion Article was over the top ridiculous and everyone should have been able to tell it was satire. This, it's harder to tell it's satire and still seems to endorse bias against who should be parents. I know what you're trying to say. Look how horrible it is not to have a choice, what if the no choice was having to have an abortion, wouldn't that be wrong? But the message just isn't very clear because many might get so upset they stop reading before number 8) and 8 is worded strongly enough to really drive the message home, in my opinion.
I'm pro-choice. I am the child of a drug addict, I was born with drugs in my viens and raised by my mother in poverty until she lost custody when I was 14 after relapsing into addiction when I was 12. I have no idea why she decided to take the pregnancy to term, but for 12 years of my life she was a good mother. My experiences make me who I am today.
I get angry when people say certain people shouldn't be allowed to have children. I understand that this isn't what you're saying, it's satire, but people do say it. Instead, I wish people would do more to help the children who exist. Instead of saying poor people shouldn't be allowed to have children, why not do more so those children have access to health care and education. So that everyone has opportunity regardless of background.
I know child abuse exists. I know many children grow up in homes that aren't ideal. But to say those children shouldn't exist? Do something about the situations, make CPS better, make adoptions easier, do all the things that could be done, but don't even joke about requiring abortions.
Because you know what? Maybe growing up in these situations makes some people who they are. My background wasn't ideal at all, but you know what, I graduated cum laude from University, I start Law School in the fall and my first novel is being published within the year. My boyfriend's mom got pregnant while in high school, her boyfriend's mother pushed her to have an abortion and kept her son from having any contact with her. My boyfriend had a rough childhood. My boyfriend wants to be a pediatrician because he likes working with kids, because he was so miserable as a kid he wants to work in a field where he can help kids and he likes science and medicine so that's what fits him.
I know there are lot of horror stories of kids from rough backgrounds growing up to be criminals. I'm not trying to imply that kids should have to grow up with less privileges and no child should have to endure abuse. What I'm saying is I don't like it when people imply that anyone should have an abortion or that someone shouldn't be allowed to have kids. Sure, if someone is a bad parent their kids should be taken from them, but I don't think parenthood should be a privilege. I don't think people with backgrounds like mine shouldn't exist. I don't think the suggestion is something to joke about.
Yes, if someone is using drugs throughout a pregnancy they should be forced to go to rehab if they're set on keeping the baby. I'm not saying what my mother did was right. I hate her for what she did. There are times I wish she'd given me up for adoptions, and darker times where I wished I had never existed because my mother abandoned me and my guardians didn't particularly want me. All the same I am glad to be who I am today, and I think that my background is part of me and I'm all right.
More...
I'm pro-choice. I am the child of a drug addict, I was born with drugs in my viens and raised by my mother in poverty until she lost custody when I was 14 after relapsing into addiction when I was 12. I have no idea why she decided to take the pregnancy to term, but for 12 years of my life she was a good mother. My experiences make me who I am today.
I get angry when people say certain people shouldn't be allowed to have children. I understand that this isn't what you're saying, it's satire, but people do say it. Instead, I wish people would do more to help the children who exist. Instead of saying poor people shouldn't be allowed to have children, why not do more so those children have access to health care and education. So that everyone has opportunity regardless of background.
I know child abuse exists. I know many children grow up in homes that aren't ideal. But to say those children shouldn't exist? Do something about the situations, make CPS better, make adoptions easier, do all the things that could be done, but don't even joke about requiring abortions.
Because you know what? Maybe growing up in these situations makes some people who they are. My background wasn't ideal at all, but you know what, I graduated cum laude from University, I start Law School in the fall and my first novel is being published within the year. My boyfriend's mom got pregnant while in high school, her boyfriend's mother pushed her to have an abortion and kept her son from having any contact with her. My boyfriend had a rough childhood. My boyfriend wants to be a pediatrician because he likes working with kids, because he was so miserable as a kid he wants to work in a field where he can help kids and he likes science and medicine so that's what fits him.
I know there are lot of horror stories of kids from rough backgrounds growing up to be criminals. I'm not trying to imply that kids should have to grow up with less privileges and no child should have to endure abuse. What I'm saying is I don't like it when people imply that anyone should have an abortion or that someone shouldn't be allowed to have kids. Sure, if someone is a bad parent their kids should be taken from them, but I don't think parenthood should be a privilege. I don't think people with backgrounds like mine shouldn't exist. I don't think the suggestion is something to joke about.
Yes, if someone is using drugs throughout a pregnancy they should be forced to go to rehab if they're set on keeping the baby. I'm not saying what my mother did was right. I hate her for what she did. There are times I wish she'd given me up for adoptions, and darker times where I wished I had never existed because my mother abandoned me and my guardians didn't particularly want me. All the same I am glad to be who I am today, and I think that my background is part of me and I'm all right.
104
@60 "Any pro-choice pledge MUST have #1 be 'If I do not want a child or otherwise feel unable to raise a child at this point in my life I pledge to use effective birth control during every sexual encounter.'"
That's just what I was thinking. If the Repubs really cared about stopping abortions they would welcome a gesture like this. I feel like it's the pro-choice crowd who really wants to decrease the number of abortions in a real way. I love that we're saving more babies than they are, and that those babies are healthier and precious and valued. The staunch Right must be shitting their pants.
That's just what I was thinking. If the Repubs really cared about stopping abortions they would welcome a gesture like this. I feel like it's the pro-choice crowd who really wants to decrease the number of abortions in a real way. I love that we're saving more babies than they are, and that those babies are healthier and precious and valued. The staunch Right must be shitting their pants.
106
Wow Jocelyn - way to not get the point of CHOICE. Booo. Bad liberal! Bad!
Your pledge appears to want to force women to follow your "left" agenda as much as the right wingers want to force women to follow their "right" agendas.
Both are an "I know what's best for your honey, don't trouble your pretty little head" approach that is offensive, demeaning and disrespects women's intelligence.
At least you give lip service to actual CHOICE at #8. Too little too late.
Booooooo.
Your pledge appears to want to force women to follow your "left" agenda as much as the right wingers want to force women to follow their "right" agendas.
Both are an "I know what's best for your honey, don't trouble your pretty little head" approach that is offensive, demeaning and disrespects women's intelligence.
At least you give lip service to actual CHOICE at #8. Too little too late.
Booooooo.
107
@93 It has 160 signatures. That is not very many at all, really. And I honestly think it will do more harm than good in its current form. I would like to calmly request that you take it down, reword, and re-post. I am seriously considering making one myself, as per your instructions, but considering the visibility of your original petition, I would like you to consider taking the advice of the Savage Love crowd and replacing your original petition. Everyone makes mistakes, but I honestly feel like you are misrepresenting the pro-choice movement and position, in a way that will be detrimental to the cause.
Here's a new (crowd-sourced from the thread) pledge.
"The Pro-Choice Pledge:
1. If I become pregnant and I feel like an abortion is the best course of action, I will have an abortion.
2. I will respect any woman's right to a safe and legal abortion, even in circumstances where I would not have an abortion.
3. I will respect any woman's right to remain pregnant, even in circumstances where I would not remain pregnant.
4. If become pregnant and opt not to have an abortion, I will remember that my choice would have been meaningless without the right to choose and will continue to defend that right.
5. If I have the ability, I will donate to Planned Parenthood and/or other organizations that provide women with access to affordable contraception, with the full knowledge that such contraception will not in all cases be effective.
6. If I have the ability, I will donate to Planned Parenthood and/or other organizations that defend and facilitate a woman's right to choose."
Comments?
Here's a new (crowd-sourced from the thread) pledge.
"The Pro-Choice Pledge:
1. If I become pregnant and I feel like an abortion is the best course of action, I will have an abortion.
2. I will respect any woman's right to a safe and legal abortion, even in circumstances where I would not have an abortion.
3. I will respect any woman's right to remain pregnant, even in circumstances where I would not remain pregnant.
4. If become pregnant and opt not to have an abortion, I will remember that my choice would have been meaningless without the right to choose and will continue to defend that right.
5. If I have the ability, I will donate to Planned Parenthood and/or other organizations that provide women with access to affordable contraception, with the full knowledge that such contraception will not in all cases be effective.
6. If I have the ability, I will donate to Planned Parenthood and/or other organizations that defend and facilitate a woman's right to choose."
Comments?
108
@93 It has 160 signatures. That is not very many at all, really. And I honestly think it will do more harm than good in its current form. I would like to calmly request that you take it down, reword, and re-post. I am seriously considering making one myself, as per your instructions, but considering the visibility of your original petition, I would like you to consider taking the advice of the Savage Love crowd and replacing your original petition. Everyone makes mistakes (Dan has made a few himself and we still love him), but I honestly feel like you are misrepresenting the pro-choice movement and position, in a way that will be detrimental to the cause.
Here's a new (crowd-sourced from the thread) pledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pro-Choice Pledge:
1. If I become pregnant and I feel like an abortion is the best course of action, I will have an abortion.
2. I will respect any woman's right to a safe and legal abortion, even in circumstances where I would not have an abortion.
3. I will respect any woman's right to remain pregnant, even in circumstances where I would not remain pregnant.
4. If become pregnant and opt not to have an abortion, I will remember that my choice would have been meaningless without the right to choose and will continue to defend that right.
5. If I have the ability, I will donate to Planned Parenthood and/or other organizations that provide women with access to affordable contraception, with the full knowledge that such contraception will not in all cases be effective.
6. If I have the ability, I will donate to Planned Parenthood and/or other organizations that defend and facilitate a woman's right to choose."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments?
More...
Here's a new (crowd-sourced from the thread) pledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pro-Choice Pledge:
1. If I become pregnant and I feel like an abortion is the best course of action, I will have an abortion.
2. I will respect any woman's right to a safe and legal abortion, even in circumstances where I would not have an abortion.
3. I will respect any woman's right to remain pregnant, even in circumstances where I would not remain pregnant.
4. If become pregnant and opt not to have an abortion, I will remember that my choice would have been meaningless without the right to choose and will continue to defend that right.
5. If I have the ability, I will donate to Planned Parenthood and/or other organizations that provide women with access to affordable contraception, with the full knowledge that such contraception will not in all cases be effective.
6. If I have the ability, I will donate to Planned Parenthood and/or other organizations that defend and facilitate a woman's right to choose."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments?
109
@53 Yes. Exactly.
@Jocelyn, all this makes me really uncomfortable. Especially the way you're disregarding all criticism by saying, "oh hey look, the religious right is doing a great job, b/c you all think this pledge is inappropriate" and in response to the Susan B. Anthony Co. questions you say to "just sign it anyway"? Really Jocelyn? I don't think this is the best way to go up against an effed up but powerful group of people claiming to be Pro-life as a guise for really being Anti-Women and Anti-Choice. Again, see @53.
@Jocelyn, all this makes me really uncomfortable. Especially the way you're disregarding all criticism by saying, "oh hey look, the religious right is doing a great job, b/c you all think this pledge is inappropriate" and in response to the Susan B. Anthony Co. questions you say to "just sign it anyway"? Really Jocelyn? I don't think this is the best way to go up against an effed up but powerful group of people claiming to be Pro-life as a guise for really being Anti-Women and Anti-Choice. Again, see @53.
111
@110 :)
I got confused about the post editing process and had some premature-posting going on....
I got confused about the post editing process and had some premature-posting going on....
112
I agree with @2. This pledge is no good. For options 1, 2, and 3, adoption is almost as good as abortion at allowing the woman to get on with her life.
113
I don't see the pledge as satire, but I can see the point of it. It's an attempt at goalpost-shifting, to counteract the extreme rightward pull of the crazies on the other side. The right wing is pretty good at this, tolerating their extreme crazies (and subtly encouraging them), which makes the people who say, "well, I don't want to kill gays, but marriage should only be between a man and a woman" or "well, maybe there should be exceptions for rape and incest, but only if you submit documentation, and every kid needs parental notification" seem reasonable. And they're not. They're actively working to oppress people. But put them next to Michelle Bachman, and they seem relatively sane, so the middle is swayed.
Or PETA. I hate PETA. But I also appreciate that PETA makes groups like the ASPCA completely mainstream, and so we have a lot of anti-cruelty to animals laws.
I have been lucky enough to never need an abortion. I'm glad. They look painful. But I think that anyone should be able to have an abortion if they feel they should. And yet I know a lot of people who, even though they are pro-choice, feel like they have to defer to the sensibilities of people who want to ban abortion (while also banning contraception and sex-ed and dismantling social safety nets). So I'm glad someone is trying to pull back the goalposts. I'll roll my eyes at some of them, but I'm glad that there are people actively working to make being pro-choice a moderate stance again.
Or PETA. I hate PETA. But I also appreciate that PETA makes groups like the ASPCA completely mainstream, and so we have a lot of anti-cruelty to animals laws.
I have been lucky enough to never need an abortion. I'm glad. They look painful. But I think that anyone should be able to have an abortion if they feel they should. And yet I know a lot of people who, even though they are pro-choice, feel like they have to defer to the sensibilities of people who want to ban abortion (while also banning contraception and sex-ed and dismantling social safety nets). So I'm glad someone is trying to pull back the goalposts. I'll roll my eyes at some of them, but I'm glad that there are people actively working to make being pro-choice a moderate stance again.
114
"it's pretty fucking tragic when a girl ends up giving up her future to have a kid."
Really? being a mother/parent is giving up your future? Maybe it's getting a different future, one where you will learn to love somebody more than yourself, which judging by the Slog crowd and Jocelyn, might be a useful trait to develop.
Proud parent. Pro-choice. Fuck you.
"it's pretty fucking tragic when a girl ends up giving up her future to have a kid."
Really? being a mother/parent is giving up your future? Maybe it's getting a different future, one where you will learn to love somebody more than yourself, which judging by the Slog crowd and Jocelyn, might be a useful trait to develop.
Proud parent. Pro-choice. Fuck you.
115
Bitter, militant, college educated, middle class white womyn in their 'I had an abortion!' t-shirts want women to feel having an abortion is no more a moral dilemma than flossing some meat out of their teeth. They are militant, unpleasant, angry misanthropes. Bitter bourgeois bitches.
Fuck u Jocelyn.
Pro-choice parent.
Fuck u Jocelyn.
Pro-choice parent.
117
@Dan. What the FUCK were you thinking, endorsing this?
Ugh. I am pretty damn pro-choice -- I certainly haven't been "scared out of seeing abortion as a viable option" by prolifers, I've had one myself and have no regrets, in fact I'm still deeply thankful several years later and tell people so when the topic comes up -- and this pledge absolutely disgusts me. Like, makes me feel physically ill. There is no way I'd sign it. As @54 said, #s 1-3 are vile, and #8 is not having whatever softening effect you think it's having. Black and white pro-abortionism is no better than the black and white of anti-choicers and it deeply saddens me that someone who considers themselves pro-CHOICE could have even written something that reads so pushy and proscriptive.
The pledges @15, @40, and @50 are much, much better. I would sign any and all of those proudly.
@58 hit the nail on the head - if you're offending this many die-hard pro-choicers on Slog of all places, you are doing something terribly, terribly wrong.
I pretty strongly identify with @98's opinion of your response to criticisms. If you're truly trying to be a positive force in the pro-choice movement, I hope you'll follow @107's suggestion.
Ugh. I am pretty damn pro-choice -- I certainly haven't been "scared out of seeing abortion as a viable option" by prolifers, I've had one myself and have no regrets, in fact I'm still deeply thankful several years later and tell people so when the topic comes up -- and this pledge absolutely disgusts me. Like, makes me feel physically ill. There is no way I'd sign it. As @54 said, #s 1-3 are vile, and #8 is not having whatever softening effect you think it's having. Black and white pro-abortionism is no better than the black and white of anti-choicers and it deeply saddens me that someone who considers themselves pro-CHOICE could have even written something that reads so pushy and proscriptive.
The pledges @15, @40, and @50 are much, much better. I would sign any and all of those proudly.
@58 hit the nail on the head - if you're offending this many die-hard pro-choicers on Slog of all places, you are doing something terribly, terribly wrong.
I pretty strongly identify with @98's opinion of your response to criticisms. If you're truly trying to be a positive force in the pro-choice movement, I hope you'll follow @107's suggestion.
118
@ 67 and everything venomlash said.
Jocelyn, your comment @51 shows you live in an insular echo chamber. You will form zero coalitions with this. You are alienating the "moderate" people who support choice that are absolutely necessary to a majority that would keep abortion above ground and safe. Your pledge is doing a disservice to your cause. How can you not see this?
Jocelyn, your comment @51 shows you live in an insular echo chamber. You will form zero coalitions with this. You are alienating the "moderate" people who support choice that are absolutely necessary to a majority that would keep abortion above ground and safe. Your pledge is doing a disservice to your cause. How can you not see this?
119
@117 -- I would note that while Dan endorsed this pledge in this post, my criticisms at @98 were directed toward JOCELYN who wrote the pledge and has been defensively defending it in this thread (@93, etc). Dan hasn't -- that I've seen yet anyway -- responded to the points raised in this thread.
120
@Jocelyn: Regarding young motherhood in post #51, see this article at Scarleteen. In some circumstances, motherhood at younger ages is better for mother and child, and in some circumstances it's worse.
I'm going to apply the same ethical framework for sexual activity to reproduction: everyone has the right to NOT reproduce, but everyone does not have the right to reproduce (guaranteeing everyone the right to sexual activity would necessitate a violation of the right to not have sex in the case of persons with whom no one wanted to have sex - it would necessitate rape in some cases; similarly guaranteeing the right to procreate would result in forced procreation). Once we accept that everyone does not have an intrinsic right to reproduce, the discussion of the right to reproduce becomes a discussion of when we think people should have that right i.e. what are the appropriate conditions for reproduction. The most liberal view - the one overwhelmingly reflected here - is that reproduction should require (and only require) the desire of the woman who will be growing the fetus and giving birth to reproduce. I think, from an ideal philosophical standpoint, that this one criterion is woefully insufficient for two main reasons: 1) procreation is the single most selfish act one can undertake, as one is making the single most important decision in the life of the child, that of existence, without any ability for the child to object or consent (my view requires one to accept that existence is not necessarily preferable to non-existence in all circumstances, which is another debate, though perhaps one that should be had); and 2) procreating is an imposition on every other person to whom one is socially and economically linked, without taking their consent or objection into account. That said, I recognize that from a practical standpoint, legislation governing reproduction (or non-legal coercion; see biopolitics) is extremely problematic, as the biases of dominant social/cultural groups invariably result in sexist, racist, classist, anti-specific-religion, anti-specific-ethnicity, etc. policies. From a practical standpoint, at this point in time and in this culture, I think the least-problematic public policy is to allow women to govern their reproductive capacities as they see fit, but I flatly reject the arguments (which I'm seeing a lot here) that it's unethical to try to convince others to exercise far greater restraint with respect to/put much more though into procreation than most people currently do or to err on the side of non-procreation, a la item #2. I think it's highly unethical to NOT do so.
I don't think the pledge is all that great, but for rather different reasons than many people here.
@40: Abortion is in no way intrinsically traumatic; what might be traumatic are particular cultural constructions of the meaning surrounding abortion, and anti-abortion assholes (like you, apparently) are responsible for the most trauma-inducing cultural constructions. I agree that abortion should be a final option for when other methods of birth control fail, as it's more involved, more likely to cause complications (though these are still extremely rare), and more expensive than other options.
@106: "Choice" is only a good thing when it's as fully informed/though out as possible and doesn't allow for extensively negative results from one's actions to be visited on others (this is the Socialist perspective vs. the Classical Liberal/(actual) Libertarian perspective); reproduction is often not well-informed and can have terrible consequences for others, so I reject "reproductive choice" as an ideal; rather, it's simply the least-worst option for legal policy we have available right now.
More...
I'm going to apply the same ethical framework for sexual activity to reproduction: everyone has the right to NOT reproduce, but everyone does not have the right to reproduce (guaranteeing everyone the right to sexual activity would necessitate a violation of the right to not have sex in the case of persons with whom no one wanted to have sex - it would necessitate rape in some cases; similarly guaranteeing the right to procreate would result in forced procreation). Once we accept that everyone does not have an intrinsic right to reproduce, the discussion of the right to reproduce becomes a discussion of when we think people should have that right i.e. what are the appropriate conditions for reproduction. The most liberal view - the one overwhelmingly reflected here - is that reproduction should require (and only require) the desire of the woman who will be growing the fetus and giving birth to reproduce. I think, from an ideal philosophical standpoint, that this one criterion is woefully insufficient for two main reasons: 1) procreation is the single most selfish act one can undertake, as one is making the single most important decision in the life of the child, that of existence, without any ability for the child to object or consent (my view requires one to accept that existence is not necessarily preferable to non-existence in all circumstances, which is another debate, though perhaps one that should be had); and 2) procreating is an imposition on every other person to whom one is socially and economically linked, without taking their consent or objection into account. That said, I recognize that from a practical standpoint, legislation governing reproduction (or non-legal coercion; see biopolitics) is extremely problematic, as the biases of dominant social/cultural groups invariably result in sexist, racist, classist, anti-specific-religion, anti-specific-ethnicity, etc. policies. From a practical standpoint, at this point in time and in this culture, I think the least-problematic public policy is to allow women to govern their reproductive capacities as they see fit, but I flatly reject the arguments (which I'm seeing a lot here) that it's unethical to try to convince others to exercise far greater restraint with respect to/put much more though into procreation than most people currently do or to err on the side of non-procreation, a la item #2. I think it's highly unethical to NOT do so.
I don't think the pledge is all that great, but for rather different reasons than many people here.
@40: Abortion is in no way intrinsically traumatic; what might be traumatic are particular cultural constructions of the meaning surrounding abortion, and anti-abortion assholes (like you, apparently) are responsible for the most trauma-inducing cultural constructions. I agree that abortion should be a final option for when other methods of birth control fail, as it's more involved, more likely to cause complications (though these are still extremely rare), and more expensive than other options.
@106: "Choice" is only a good thing when it's as fully informed/though out as possible and doesn't allow for extensively negative results from one's actions to be visited on others (this is the Socialist perspective vs. the Classical Liberal/(actual) Libertarian perspective); reproduction is often not well-informed and can have terrible consequences for others, so I reject "reproductive choice" as an ideal; rather, it's simply the least-worst option for legal policy we have available right now.
121
Jocelyn: you made some mistakes. Now make the responsible choice that causes the least damage. Abort this awful, I'll-conceived pledge before it gets too far along. I know it's hard, but you know it's right.
123
I'm with historygirl @108. print!
jocelyn, let me add to @108 and @121 respectfully requesting you abort your current petition and change to history girls @108. And jocelyn-haters, how about some more constructive comments? yes, she's managed to offend us with her righteousness, but again, we are on the same side. hmm. sorry, joss, there's no way for me to say that without sounding condescending. apologies.
jocelyn, let me add to @108 and @121 respectfully requesting you abort your current petition and change to history girls @108. And jocelyn-haters, how about some more constructive comments? yes, she's managed to offend us with her righteousness, but again, we are on the same side. hmm. sorry, joss, there's no way for me to say that without sounding condescending. apologies.
124
Fully agree with 98 and 117. I am pro-choice, without any anti-adoption caveats to add to that label, and this pledge is extremely offensive to me. I would never make the blanket judgment that any women under 21 should abort. And I would never encourage any women to make choice. "Strongly encourage" is just another word for coerce and it's not good and it's not choice no matter which option you're advocating.
@112 adoption is nowhere near as good as abortion at letting a woman get on with her life according to all the studies. You can find tons of research on the trauma and loss birthmoms feel. The prolife movement keeps trying and failing to prove that there's such a thing as "post abortion syndrome." The majority of women who give up a child for adoption struggle with grief and loss. The majority of women who have abortions name relief as their predominant emotion. I've both given up a child for adoption and still feel pain over it 18+ years later and had an abortion that never caused me to lose a night's sleep. I wish people weren't so quick to depict abortion as harmful, but adoption as not life-changing for the woman who gives up her child.
@112 adoption is nowhere near as good as abortion at letting a woman get on with her life according to all the studies. You can find tons of research on the trauma and loss birthmoms feel. The prolife movement keeps trying and failing to prove that there's such a thing as "post abortion syndrome." The majority of women who give up a child for adoption struggle with grief and loss. The majority of women who have abortions name relief as their predominant emotion. I've both given up a child for adoption and still feel pain over it 18+ years later and had an abortion that never caused me to lose a night's sleep. I wish people weren't so quick to depict abortion as harmful, but adoption as not life-changing for the woman who gives up her child.
125
@118 Here's how:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/s…
Click on any of the numbers under the ad and read the comments. I don't know why these people aren't commenting on Slog, but it's an interesting comparison between the reaction the pledge has gotten here and the reaction on the pledge itself. I think you just want it to be something it's not.
I know I shouldn't be commenting on here. I should just let this play out. But I'm honestly surprised by this response and am glued to the comments. It's a really interesting dialogue.
Ultimately, though, I think that there's something you're missing: pride events have normalized the most stereotypical of gay people, thereby slowly making life more comfortable for less noticeably gay people. I don't think it's crazy to assume that the same strategy can be applied to pro-choicers.
Look, if you don't like the pledge, don't sign it. There: pro-choice. What I'm trying to do, however, is get a group of people together who openly admit that they want and will exercise the option to have an abortion in more than just the most extreme of circumstances. If this is a vocal and sizable chunk of the population, then those who simply want the right to abort when health or psychological reasons make it detrimental not to will have an easier time with it.
And, with that, I'm out. Carry on with the "Jocelyn is a vapid cunt" party.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/s…
Click on any of the numbers under the ad and read the comments. I don't know why these people aren't commenting on Slog, but it's an interesting comparison between the reaction the pledge has gotten here and the reaction on the pledge itself. I think you just want it to be something it's not.
I know I shouldn't be commenting on here. I should just let this play out. But I'm honestly surprised by this response and am glued to the comments. It's a really interesting dialogue.
Ultimately, though, I think that there's something you're missing: pride events have normalized the most stereotypical of gay people, thereby slowly making life more comfortable for less noticeably gay people. I don't think it's crazy to assume that the same strategy can be applied to pro-choicers.
Look, if you don't like the pledge, don't sign it. There: pro-choice. What I'm trying to do, however, is get a group of people together who openly admit that they want and will exercise the option to have an abortion in more than just the most extreme of circumstances. If this is a vocal and sizable chunk of the population, then those who simply want the right to abort when health or psychological reasons make it detrimental not to will have an easier time with it.
And, with that, I'm out. Carry on with the "Jocelyn is a vapid cunt" party.
126
@96- Recommendations are just your opinion on what someone should do. It's called being forthright. What it certainly is NOT is controlling another's choices.
127
You know why this pledge really fucking sucks?
it basically says only rich older ladies should have children.
Is this eugenics to get rid of the 'poor class' again?
Fuck that. Why can't poor people have kids? I thought the US had a shrinking population problem. This and that I anon that he approved about how parents of kids with disabilities should be financially unsupported is bullshit. Capitalism fucking sucks.
it basically says only rich older ladies should have children.
Is this eugenics to get rid of the 'poor class' again?
Fuck that. Why can't poor people have kids? I thought the US had a shrinking population problem. This and that I anon that he approved about how parents of kids with disabilities should be financially unsupported is bullshit. Capitalism fucking sucks.
128
@85- God doesn't exist. Now stop being an idiot and work out how to be a moral person without relying on fear of a judgment that will never come.
129
@127- The USA and the world do not have a shrinking population problem. (Some people think we have a shrinking white person population problem; they're racists.) Having babies young and poor makes it much harder to be anything but poor for the rest of your life. Delaying having a baby is one of the best ways to move yourself into the middle class.
130
Jocelyn,
I don't think most of us would disagree that abortion is an option for less than extreme circumstances. What I disagree with is that you seem to think having a child is not an option. Your point of view is as messed up as the never have an abortion crowd. You're not pro choice. Or at least this petition is not.
So have an abortion, or don't have one. It's the pregnant woman's choice.
I don't think most of us would disagree that abortion is an option for less than extreme circumstances. What I disagree with is that you seem to think having a child is not an option. Your point of view is as messed up as the never have an abortion crowd. You're not pro choice. Or at least this petition is not.
So have an abortion, or don't have one. It's the pregnant woman's choice.
131
"Click on any of the numbers under the ad and read the comments. I don't know why these people aren't commenting on Slog"
The people commenting on the petition are the morons going there to sign it. The 'abortion should be the same as flossing meat out if you teeth' crowd. Sorry ur too stupid to see that.
The people commenting on the petition are the morons going there to sign it. The 'abortion should be the same as flossing meat out if you teeth' crowd. Sorry ur too stupid to see that.
132
"If this is a vocal and sizable chunk of the population"
Well it's not. Many pro choice people like myself can't stand privileged white women who callously think abortion should be little less morally troubling than a tooth extraction. You are only helping your extremist equivalents on the other side.
Well it's not. Many pro choice people like myself can't stand privileged white women who callously think abortion should be little less morally troubling than a tooth extraction. You are only helping your extremist equivalents on the other side.
133
Jocelyn @125 - Even those whose don't agree with the petition appreciate your taking the time to respond here. So thanks for checking in and articulating your rationale.
You are very passionate re abortion rights. Most of this board is essentially on your "pro-choice team." Most think your petition does a complete disservice to the cause of maintaining reproductive choice. If you managed to enrage a bunch of left leaning sloggers, do you recognize this is probably not playing well in Peoria? If your blog post manages to turn more people away from the pro-choice position, does that matter to you?
Dan Savage has made this point with overt sexuality being displayed at Pride parades. If your goal is for mainstream acceptance of gays as non-threatening to mainstream society, you are hurting your cause by holding an event that is not appropriate for underage viewing. Or something like that.
If your point was to appear radical, then you have succeded. But @25 you said you wrote this towards the wishy-washy pro-choice crowd.
You are very passionate re abortion rights. Most of this board is essentially on your "pro-choice team." Most think your petition does a complete disservice to the cause of maintaining reproductive choice. If you managed to enrage a bunch of left leaning sloggers, do you recognize this is probably not playing well in Peoria? If your blog post manages to turn more people away from the pro-choice position, does that matter to you?
Dan Savage has made this point with overt sexuality being displayed at Pride parades. If your goal is for mainstream acceptance of gays as non-threatening to mainstream society, you are hurting your cause by holding an event that is not appropriate for underage viewing. Or something like that.
If your point was to appear radical, then you have succeded. But @25 you said you wrote this towards the wishy-washy pro-choice crowd.
134
THIS UNDERMINES THE ENTIRE PRO-CHOICE CAUSE. I AM PRO-CHOICE BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT EVERY WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT HER OWN BODY AND I KNOW THAT HER CHOICES MAY BE DIFFERENT AT DIFFERENT POINTS IN HER LIFE AND MAY BE INFLUENCED BY HER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES. IT WAS HUGELY IRRESPONSIBLE FOR A PRO-CHOICE PUBLICATION TO PRINT THIS. IT GIVES THE ANTI-CHOICE BIGOTS FODDER.
135
I love the fact that pro-life leader refers to her pledge as a "modest proposal." Makes me wonder what she plans to do with all those non-aborted babies....
136
Well-done, Jocelyn. I think many pro-choicers tend to be weenies, because they speak strongly about "choice" and "women's rights" but they don't talk about the realities of abortion and how strongly it's looked down upon by the "it's murder" camp and the "it's a difficult decision" camp. The "choice" to have an abortion is framed as such a depressing thing, but it doesn't have to be. It's technology that has allowed women to be unshackled (to a degree) from their biology, giving women more opportunities for happiness. I wish women could enjoy their freedom without being weighed down by public opinion.
I have close friends who are all over the spectrum in belief, including one born-again who is repenting for her 4 abortions. Myself, if I turn up pregnant (despite all my precautions against pregnancy), I will as quickly as possible pop a Plan-B (or whatever the kids are using these days). If it fails, I'll schedule a suction procedure. I have a child, whom I love dearly, but omfg they are a lot of work and deserve the best parents in the world (and I am the best parent in the world for my offspring). I am too damn tired to have any more children, so hell yeah! I'd have an abortion party and thank the heavens that abortion is legal in this county.
I totally agree we need to be more open and even cavalier about this. Wild, crazy, and a bit over the top. Just like you said with gay pride making it better for the less noticable gays. The "shame" of abortion sticks to the ordinary woman and that isn't right at all.
I have close friends who are all over the spectrum in belief, including one born-again who is repenting for her 4 abortions. Myself, if I turn up pregnant (despite all my precautions against pregnancy), I will as quickly as possible pop a Plan-B (or whatever the kids are using these days). If it fails, I'll schedule a suction procedure. I have a child, whom I love dearly, but omfg they are a lot of work and deserve the best parents in the world (and I am the best parent in the world for my offspring). I am too damn tired to have any more children, so hell yeah! I'd have an abortion party and thank the heavens that abortion is legal in this county.
I totally agree we need to be more open and even cavalier about this. Wild, crazy, and a bit over the top. Just like you said with gay pride making it better for the less noticable gays. The "shame" of abortion sticks to the ordinary woman and that isn't right at all.
137
@125 / Jocelyn:
Then howzabout adding some of the modest proposals I suggested waaay back @28/33?
The reason you don't, I'd wager, is that you see 7a and 7b as ill-conceived, ethically questionable, providing ammunition to the pro-lifers, or all of the above. Even though you are as pro-choice as they come, you couldn't support a petition that included 7a and 7b. What you fail to understand is that your list as-is evokes the same reaction in other people who are just as committed to keeping abortion legal.
Look, if you don't like the pledge, don't sign it. There: pro-choice. What I'm trying to do, however, is get a group of people together who openly admit that they want and will exercise the option to have an abortion in more than just the most extreme of circumstances.
Then howzabout adding some of the modest proposals I suggested waaay back @28/33?
#7a: If I get pregnant in winter, I will have an abortion so I can look cute in a two-piece come summer.That would create an even more hard-core group of pro-abortionists, right?
#7b: If I get pregnant by an ugly boy, I will have an abortion so that I don't bring ugly people into the world.
The reason you don't, I'd wager, is that you see 7a and 7b as ill-conceived, ethically questionable, providing ammunition to the pro-lifers, or all of the above. Even though you are as pro-choice as they come, you couldn't support a petition that included 7a and 7b. What you fail to understand is that your list as-is evokes the same reaction in other people who are just as committed to keeping abortion legal.
138
#51, have I ever met someone who had a kid young and turned out to be a good mother? Yes - my mom. She had my brother just before she turned 16 and me right after she turned 19. She and my father have been happily married for 47 years.
And her mother had her at 16 and was as good a mother as she possibly could be.
So .... you're wrong. And while I am adamantly pro-choice, I would never sign your pledge for reasons already cited here.
And her mother had her at 16 and was as good a mother as she possibly could be.
So .... you're wrong. And while I am adamantly pro-choice, I would never sign your pledge for reasons already cited here.
139
#51, have I ever met someone who had a kid young and turned out to be a good mother? Yes - my mom. She had my brother just before she turned 16 and me right after she turned 19.
She is an incredible friend to me and an amazing mother who (along with my father, to whom she's been married for 47 years) is also a foster parent. They have cared for more than 20 babies over the past 18 years.
My mom's mother had her at 16 and was as good a mother as she possibly could be. They are very close.
So .... you're wrong. And while I am adamantly pro-choice, I would never sign your pledge for reasons already cited here.
She is an incredible friend to me and an amazing mother who (along with my father, to whom she's been married for 47 years) is also a foster parent. They have cared for more than 20 babies over the past 18 years.
My mom's mother had her at 16 and was as good a mother as she possibly could be. They are very close.
So .... you're wrong. And while I am adamantly pro-choice, I would never sign your pledge for reasons already cited here.
140
" I totally agree we need to be more open and even cavalier about this. "
Exactly! Think of it as little more than flossing out a piece of meat! Hell, I'd get mine done in public if i could.....lookame!
Exactly! Think of it as little more than flossing out a piece of meat! Hell, I'd get mine done in public if i could.....lookame!
141
" I totally agree we need to be more open and even cavalier about this. "
Exactly! Think of it as little more than flossing out a piece of meat! Hell, I'd get mine down in public if i could.
" I totally agree we need to be more open and even cavalier about this. "
Exactly! Think of it as little more than flossing out a piece of meat! Hell, I'd get mine down in public if i could.
143
"What I'm trying to do, however, is get a group of people together who openly admit that they want and will exercise the option to have an abortion in more than just the most extreme of circumstances."
Right, and you're suggesting that the "proper" circumstances would include being a young and/or financially unstable parent. That's not pro-choice; that's just offensive. When you prize only the opinions of those who have signed your petition, you're letting your choir preach back to you. It would be wise to open your eyes to all of the committed pro-choice people on this thread who think your pledge is a disaster. I really hope that it doesn't simply become media fodder for the militant pro-lifers. They will love to quote your nonsense as further evidence that all pro-choicers are really pro-abortion, not to mention snobs who think young and poor people aren't good enough to have babies.
Right, and you're suggesting that the "proper" circumstances would include being a young and/or financially unstable parent. That's not pro-choice; that's just offensive. When you prize only the opinions of those who have signed your petition, you're letting your choir preach back to you. It would be wise to open your eyes to all of the committed pro-choice people on this thread who think your pledge is a disaster. I really hope that it doesn't simply become media fodder for the militant pro-lifers. They will love to quote your nonsense as further evidence that all pro-choicers are really pro-abortion, not to mention snobs who think young and poor people aren't good enough to have babies.
144
I don't know why I'm surprised that Slog is going negative on this, a lot of this negativity seems to be "this is yucky" or "abortion is only okay as the worst case scenario" - well, fuck you if you think abortion is only okay in theory. Fuck you if you're only pro-choice if the choices are stay pregnant or adoption. Fuck you if you think that being pro-choice means you get to judge women's choices. And a double fuck you if you think that being pro-choice is a judgement on your mother's choice to have you.
I don't fucking care if you like abortion or if you think this pledge is in "poor taste" - I only care that abortion is safe and legal and available to every woman who wants one. END OF DISCUSSION.
I don't fucking care if you like abortion or if you think this pledge is in "poor taste" - I only care that abortion is safe and legal and available to every woman who wants one. END OF DISCUSSION.
145
@144: Like the pro-lifers, you need to learn the difference between being OK with something and wanting that something to remain legal. This isn't a theocracy, and true liberals are not in the business of legislating morality. If you want abortion to remain "safe and legal and available to every woman who wants one," then schisming the pro-choice movement is probably not the best way to go. Nor is handing the pro-lifers a loaded gun in the field of public opinion and pointing it at our collective heads.
Also... metaphorically crossing your arms and stamping your feet? Has that ever convinced anybody?
Also... metaphorically crossing your arms and stamping your feet? Has that ever convinced anybody?
146
@144 I hear you sister. An abortion is like removing a piece of tough meat stuck between your teeth. Any woman who thinks it's worse than flossing after a chewy steak isn't radical enough.
147
@90: "They ruined their life potential."
@129: "Delaying having a baby is one of the best ways to move yourself into the middle class."
And isn't that just the most important thing in life? It is imperative that everyone be able to buy as much crap at the mall as they want. I'll see you one better: the best way to move up from being stuck in the pathetic middle class is not to waste your time and money on kids. Work your ass off and get rich. Then maybe think about kids. That's the only way to live a fulfilled life and not throw your potential as a woman away: be super fucking rich.
To everyone arguing here that women should wait until after college or a career to have kids because well, you know best what women need, fuck you. Some women (and some men) don't want to go to college or have fancy careers. They want to have kids and a simple life, and that's their choice to make. If they want to have an abortion instead, that's their choice to make, too. Don't belittle one choice if you demand the other not be criticized.
@129: "Delaying having a baby is one of the best ways to move yourself into the middle class."
And isn't that just the most important thing in life? It is imperative that everyone be able to buy as much crap at the mall as they want. I'll see you one better: the best way to move up from being stuck in the pathetic middle class is not to waste your time and money on kids. Work your ass off and get rich. Then maybe think about kids. That's the only way to live a fulfilled life and not throw your potential as a woman away: be super fucking rich.
To everyone arguing here that women should wait until after college or a career to have kids because well, you know best what women need, fuck you. Some women (and some men) don't want to go to college or have fancy careers. They want to have kids and a simple life, and that's their choice to make. If they want to have an abortion instead, that's their choice to make, too. Don't belittle one choice if you demand the other not be criticized.
148
@144: I believe what many of the commenters here find "yucky" is not abortion -- it's that someone else thinks THEIR opinion about OUR (hypothetical) abortion is the only correct one.
149
@147-
A: Fuck you.
B: Most poor people don't want to be poor. Most poor people don't want their kids to be poor.
C: I'm poor, my parents were poor most of my life (mom slipped into the middle class late in life thanks to a union job.) I have chosen my lifestyle. If I had a kid at 18 I certainly wouldn't have had as many choices. As it is I sometimes regret the things I can't do with my kid because I can't afford to take the time off work or the travel expenses. My sister works like a dog because she doesn't want her kids to suffer from the poverty we had as kids. That's her choice. She gets paid well because she got an education and delayed having kids until she was in her early thirties. That was her choice.
D: I want women to have choices.
E: Fuck you again.
F: I would recommend that a teenager not have a kid. I wouldn't make any laws against it. Am I not allowed to have an opinion or make a recommendation? Why?
G: And for a third time: fuck you.
A: Fuck you.
B: Most poor people don't want to be poor. Most poor people don't want their kids to be poor.
C: I'm poor, my parents were poor most of my life (mom slipped into the middle class late in life thanks to a union job.) I have chosen my lifestyle. If I had a kid at 18 I certainly wouldn't have had as many choices. As it is I sometimes regret the things I can't do with my kid because I can't afford to take the time off work or the travel expenses. My sister works like a dog because she doesn't want her kids to suffer from the poverty we had as kids. That's her choice. She gets paid well because she got an education and delayed having kids until she was in her early thirties. That was her choice.
D: I want women to have choices.
E: Fuck you again.
F: I would recommend that a teenager not have a kid. I wouldn't make any laws against it. Am I not allowed to have an opinion or make a recommendation? Why?
G: And for a third time: fuck you.
150
@147: Also, I don't see why having your kids in the prime of your career-- at the time when most people are busting their butts to make VP/partner/whatever-- is seen as a universally better option than having your kids before your career. I get that "kids later" is how today's generation rolls, but women from prior generations generally had their kids in their late teens / early twenties, then went on to do great things afterwards. Women in many other countries still go that route.
151
Jocylyn, I'm yet another vehemently pro-choice young parent who needs to weigh in. There are a lot of commenters who have very eloquently described why your pledge is missing the target. I just want to say that I come away from your pledge, as well as your comments through this thread, feeling really judged. Which is bullshit. I got pregnant when I was 20. I'm happily married, in a stable financial situation, with a fulfilling job and two happy, healthy children that have had an exponentially positive effect on my life. I don't understand how you think you are helping a pro-choice movement by being dismissive towards those that hold the same political stance. Fuck you for judging me for the choices I've made.
153
@150- Because it means you've got a career. Having a kid takes a lot of time, money, and effort for at least a decade or so. You can coast a lot better at mid-career (and hell, maybe you'll end up never moving up from mid level) than you can at the beginning. It's a lot harder to start when you're already middle aged and you work experience is a bunch of part-time zero skill jobs. Especially if you don't have a support network of middle-class family members to fall back on.
"..but women from prior generations generally had their kids in their late teens / early twenties, then went on to do great things afterwards."
Define "great things."
The majority of women from prior generations worked as child-rearers and farm laborers for most of their lives. After the industrial revolution many women got to work in factories which were Dickensian nightmares and would fire an employee for getting pregnant. Of course during the fifties and sixties (middle-class) women were generally shut out of the labor market except in a few fields. It wasn't until the 70s that women were able to participate in the economic or political playing field with anything that even resembled equality to men, and women (especially the middle class ones) have generally been having children later and later ever since then.
"..but women from prior generations generally had their kids in their late teens / early twenties, then went on to do great things afterwards."
Define "great things."
The majority of women from prior generations worked as child-rearers and farm laborers for most of their lives. After the industrial revolution many women got to work in factories which were Dickensian nightmares and would fire an employee for getting pregnant. Of course during the fifties and sixties (middle-class) women were generally shut out of the labor market except in a few fields. It wasn't until the 70s that women were able to participate in the economic or political playing field with anything that even resembled equality to men, and women (especially the middle class ones) have generally been having children later and later ever since then.
154
How about this. We're all prochoice. You choose to have an abortion, cool good on you. I'll pat you on the back. You choose to judge me and my college girlfriend's choice to keep the baby, I tell you to fuck yourself.
Go fuck yourself.
Can we all agree on this?
Go fuck yourself.
Can we all agree on this?
155
#153, it's also very, very hard to have a baby when you're in the early stages of your career, which is right about the time people are having them nowadays, and probably around the time Jocelyn would start to think we don't necessarily have to abort. Having a baby when you're trying to make partner at your law firm? Get tenure? Finish your residency? In many cases I'd say it's easier to deal with the infant and toddler years before you're in that career situation.
I worked a lot less hard in highschool, college, and grad school than I did later on, and I was a lot better at foregoing sleep, too! Now, having made all the "smart" choices, I'm still having kids at 40, which makes it harder to conceive and more risky to bear the child. What I gained in financial stability, I'm losing in other ways, so I'd say it's a tossup. If I had a baby at 20, I would have partied a lot less in college, but I doubt my performance would have suffered, and I'd be enjoying a lot of benefits from that situation today.
I worked a lot less hard in highschool, college, and grad school than I did later on, and I was a lot better at foregoing sleep, too! Now, having made all the "smart" choices, I'm still having kids at 40, which makes it harder to conceive and more risky to bear the child. What I gained in financial stability, I'm losing in other ways, so I'd say it's a tossup. If I had a baby at 20, I would have partied a lot less in college, but I doubt my performance would have suffered, and I'd be enjoying a lot of benefits from that situation today.
156
One last time.
I think we can all agree that saying no woman under the age of 21 should ever be able to get an abortion is wrong, and takes away her choices.
Equally, therefore, saying no woman under the age of 21 should ever carry a pregnancy to full term TAKES AWAY HER CHOICES.
In either case, you have made slaves of women by taking away their bodily autonomy.
That is why I think this pledge is plain wrong.
Now, is it generally "better" for women to delay childbearing? Yes, in general. Does that mean any woman having a child under 21 is doomed to utter poverty and misery? Clearly not -- plenty of counter examples have already been given here.
In any case, the point that advocates of EITHER position have completely missed is that the choice is solely and only up to the pregnant woman. Not me, not you, not Jocelyn, not Rick Santorum. And *that* simple fact is why this pledge is wrong.
I think we can all agree that saying no woman under the age of 21 should ever be able to get an abortion is wrong, and takes away her choices.
Equally, therefore, saying no woman under the age of 21 should ever carry a pregnancy to full term TAKES AWAY HER CHOICES.
In either case, you have made slaves of women by taking away their bodily autonomy.
That is why I think this pledge is plain wrong.
Now, is it generally "better" for women to delay childbearing? Yes, in general. Does that mean any woman having a child under 21 is doomed to utter poverty and misery? Clearly not -- plenty of counter examples have already been given here.
In any case, the point that advocates of EITHER position have completely missed is that the choice is solely and only up to the pregnant woman. Not me, not you, not Jocelyn, not Rick Santorum. And *that* simple fact is why this pledge is wrong.
158
@125 (Jocelyn) - "What I'm trying to do, however, is get a group of people together who openly admit that they want and will exercise the option to have an abortion in more than just the most extreme of circumstances. If this is a vocal and sizable chunk of the population, then those who simply want the right to abort when health or psychological reasons make it detrimental not to will have an easier time with it."
I'm starting to better understand what you were trying to do here, so thanks for sticking around to explain it. But I still think it was poorly executed. I can understand your desire to get women to sign on to a document that expressed that they would have an abortion in a range of cases that are not strictly the oft trotted-out "rape/incest/death" reasons given for safe and legal abortion. I get that. The problem is that you picked cases in which women already experience a tremendous amount of judgement around any decision to become or remain pregnant. To do what you set out to do, it might be better to have just gone father afield of the society-accepted (mandated by social judgement, in some cases) reasons for abortion and had the list read with items like this:
"If I find myself pregnant, at the age of 33, and I have no intention of becoming a mother and do not have the emotional resources to carry a baby to term and give it away, I will have an abortion."
The problem with the items with you selected is that they are already very much in currency culturally as times when women *should* have abortions - to the point that women who choose not to in those cases often experience judgement and a lack of social support (Because they *could* have chosen to have an abortion, so why should anyone socially/financially support their choice to remain pregnant.). In this way, your pledge actually appears to be picking on the vulnerable.
What you have tapped into, without really realizing it, it the other side of reproductive un-choice. It has a long history and it runs deep. While white, middle-class women (I'm one of these, so this isn't really my story to tell, but I'm doing it to make a point) were fighting for the right to say 'no' to childbearing and child-rearing (i.e. access to contraception and abortion), poor, racialized, and indigenous women were fighting for the right to bear and rear children (i.e. fighting forced sterilizations, abortions, and/or child removals). The problem with your list is that it seemed to run uncomfortably close to a list of people who shouldn't become mothers, and babies that shouldn't be born. It appears that this was not your intention when writing the list, but that was how people reacted to it. (And your initial comments that young mothers were not good mothers did not help alleviate these concerns.)
The thing of it is that most of us, for example, are not under 21 (for example), so signing that we would have an abortion if we became pregnant under 21 has no personal meaning or resonance. It just seems like we are signing on to a prescription for the behavior of others (which the second point seems to make clear). I personally probably would have had an abortion if I had become pregnant before I was about 23 or 24. I was not personally equipped to be a mother at that time, and I know that I would also not have been able to give a baby up for adoption. If someone I knew who was under 21 confided in me that they were pregnant, I would also make sure they knew that they could have an abortion, that it was a choice I would support if my support mattered to them, but I would stop short of telling them they should have an abortion - it would be their choice.
So again, I get what you were trying to do, but I don't think it works. It appears to pick on women who are already vulnerable to judgment for choosing to remain pregnant.
@144 - Re: "Fuck you if you think that being pro-choice means you get to judge women's choices. And a double fuck you if you think that being pro-choice is a judgement on your mother's choice to have you."
None of the pro-choice/anti-pledge women who have been commenting here think that being "pro-choice means you get to judge other women's choices." I personally would be fine with women having abortions in any or all of the cases named. There appear to be two overlapping camps of pro-choice women who object to this pledge - the women who are pro-choice, anti-abortion who would not choose to have abortions themselves in some or all of these cases and who therefore don't want sign the pledge, and the women who are pro-choice and totally fine with abortion and who specifically have a problem with the pledge because of the was it appears to *judge women's choices*.
None of the pro-choice/anti-pledge women who have been commenting here "think that being pro-choice is a judgement on your mother's choice to have you." We know it doesn't. What does appear to constitute judgment of various people's mother's choices is Jocelyn's statement @51 - "...have you ever met someone who had a kid young, kept it, and turned out to be a good mother? I have not." That's was the bat taken to that particular wasp's nest.
More...
I'm starting to better understand what you were trying to do here, so thanks for sticking around to explain it. But I still think it was poorly executed. I can understand your desire to get women to sign on to a document that expressed that they would have an abortion in a range of cases that are not strictly the oft trotted-out "rape/incest/death" reasons given for safe and legal abortion. I get that. The problem is that you picked cases in which women already experience a tremendous amount of judgement around any decision to become or remain pregnant. To do what you set out to do, it might be better to have just gone father afield of the society-accepted (mandated by social judgement, in some cases) reasons for abortion and had the list read with items like this:
"If I find myself pregnant, at the age of 33, and I have no intention of becoming a mother and do not have the emotional resources to carry a baby to term and give it away, I will have an abortion."
The problem with the items with you selected is that they are already very much in currency culturally as times when women *should* have abortions - to the point that women who choose not to in those cases often experience judgement and a lack of social support (Because they *could* have chosen to have an abortion, so why should anyone socially/financially support their choice to remain pregnant.). In this way, your pledge actually appears to be picking on the vulnerable.
What you have tapped into, without really realizing it, it the other side of reproductive un-choice. It has a long history and it runs deep. While white, middle-class women (I'm one of these, so this isn't really my story to tell, but I'm doing it to make a point) were fighting for the right to say 'no' to childbearing and child-rearing (i.e. access to contraception and abortion), poor, racialized, and indigenous women were fighting for the right to bear and rear children (i.e. fighting forced sterilizations, abortions, and/or child removals). The problem with your list is that it seemed to run uncomfortably close to a list of people who shouldn't become mothers, and babies that shouldn't be born. It appears that this was not your intention when writing the list, but that was how people reacted to it. (And your initial comments that young mothers were not good mothers did not help alleviate these concerns.)
The thing of it is that most of us, for example, are not under 21 (for example), so signing that we would have an abortion if we became pregnant under 21 has no personal meaning or resonance. It just seems like we are signing on to a prescription for the behavior of others (which the second point seems to make clear). I personally probably would have had an abortion if I had become pregnant before I was about 23 or 24. I was not personally equipped to be a mother at that time, and I know that I would also not have been able to give a baby up for adoption. If someone I knew who was under 21 confided in me that they were pregnant, I would also make sure they knew that they could have an abortion, that it was a choice I would support if my support mattered to them, but I would stop short of telling them they should have an abortion - it would be their choice.
So again, I get what you were trying to do, but I don't think it works. It appears to pick on women who are already vulnerable to judgment for choosing to remain pregnant.
@144 - Re: "Fuck you if you think that being pro-choice means you get to judge women's choices. And a double fuck you if you think that being pro-choice is a judgement on your mother's choice to have you."
None of the pro-choice/anti-pledge women who have been commenting here think that being "pro-choice means you get to judge other women's choices." I personally would be fine with women having abortions in any or all of the cases named. There appear to be two overlapping camps of pro-choice women who object to this pledge - the women who are pro-choice, anti-abortion who would not choose to have abortions themselves in some or all of these cases and who therefore don't want sign the pledge, and the women who are pro-choice and totally fine with abortion and who specifically have a problem with the pledge because of the was it appears to *judge women's choices*.
None of the pro-choice/anti-pledge women who have been commenting here "think that being pro-choice is a judgement on your mother's choice to have you." We know it doesn't. What does appear to constitute judgment of various people's mother's choices is Jocelyn's statement @51 - "...have you ever met someone who had a kid young, kept it, and turned out to be a good mother? I have not." That's was the bat taken to that particular wasp's nest.
159
"Having a baby when you're trying to make partner at your law firm? Get tenure? Finish your residency?"
....and who says American feminists are a bunch of bitter, privileged, upper middle class white womyn?
....and who says American feminists are a bunch of bitter, privileged, upper middle class white womyn?
160
#159, those are examples of professional careers that a young, poor mother presumably is shutting herself out of by having a baby instead of an abortion. The suggestion was that it's much harder to have the baby young, rather than waiting until your career has been launched later, and I think these examples show that's not necessarily the case. You can feel free to substitute any sort of career you like, but the above lent themselves to brief descriptions of the "difficult period" that often coincidides with childbearing years.
Why you choose to stereotype people who might want such careers in the way you do? No idea. I guess no young Latina mother should aspire to getting a medical degree? Or maybe that's where the abortion has to come in? Please.
Why you choose to stereotype people who might want such careers in the way you do? No idea. I guess no young Latina mother should aspire to getting a medical degree? Or maybe that's where the abortion has to come in? Please.
162
" those are examples of professional careers that a young, poor mother presumably is shutting herself out of by having a baby instead of an abortion"
You're pulling my leg right? All that keeps poor people for being doctors, professors and lawyers is having kids? I imagined it was the $200,000+ needed to get to that level of education, plus the involved parenting needed to even get into college, plus the piers and adults around you showing you how it's done. You know, about 10% of the US population at the top.
"you can feel free to substitute any sort of career"
Career? You don't know many poor people do you.....?
You're pulling my leg right? All that keeps poor people for being doctors, professors and lawyers is having kids? I imagined it was the $200,000+ needed to get to that level of education, plus the involved parenting needed to even get into college, plus the piers and adults around you showing you how it's done. You know, about 10% of the US population at the top.
"you can feel free to substitute any sort of career"
Career? You don't know many poor people do you.....?
164
" I guess no young Latina mother should aspire to getting a medical degree? Or maybe that's where the abortion has to come in?"
So all a poor, Catholic latino girl needs is a quickie abortion and, whammo, she's off to Brandeis for a Women's Studies degree and then law/med school and a stellar career.
That's one hell of an amazing abortion!
" I guess no young Latina mother should aspire to getting a medical degree? Or maybe that's where the abortion has to come in?"
So all a poor, Catholic latino girl needs is a quickie abortion and, whammo, she's off to Brandeis for a Women's Studies degree and then law/med school and a stellar career.
That's one hell of an amazing abortion!
165
Not that you'd know, but a young, poor Latino girl is more likely lving in an extended family so would have more family support to help with a kid while going to college. How would I know? Because I've met and worked with some poor Latino and Asian women in that situation. I'm pretty sure they were happy with their CHOICE to keep their lovely children.
167
The assumptions some of you are making about me, rather than addressing the actual argument, are both amusing and false. Do what you need to feel good, I guess, in your own ignorance.
The abortion pledge suggests that young, poor women should get an abortion. Others have argued for the reasonableness of this position, given how difficult it is to have babies when you're young and poor, if you want to complete your education or have a successful career. My point is that it can be easier than assumed to have a baby under those circumstances, compared to waiting until you are actually finishing an education or launching a professional career. So if the question is, should you have a baby or abortion at 19, if you want to e.g. finish school and become a lawyer, I don't think abortion is the obvious answer that some might say it is.
Many factors hinder economic or educational success. If people want to argue about how hard it is to get through school and launch a successful career, great, but that's not the issue. The argument is that we should pledge to have an abortion under those circumstances, or strongly suggest that others who are either young or poor should have one. It's not easy to have a baby when you're in school, but it's also not easy to have one when you're a young medical resident or law associate. What, you don't think those are realistic career prospects for a young, poor, non-white woman? Why not? That's your problem, I'm afraid. Blaming that on me, the supposedly wealthy white feminist cunt, is not exactly solving your problem.
The abortion pledge suggests that young, poor women should get an abortion. Others have argued for the reasonableness of this position, given how difficult it is to have babies when you're young and poor, if you want to complete your education or have a successful career. My point is that it can be easier than assumed to have a baby under those circumstances, compared to waiting until you are actually finishing an education or launching a professional career. So if the question is, should you have a baby or abortion at 19, if you want to e.g. finish school and become a lawyer, I don't think abortion is the obvious answer that some might say it is.
Many factors hinder economic or educational success. If people want to argue about how hard it is to get through school and launch a successful career, great, but that's not the issue. The argument is that we should pledge to have an abortion under those circumstances, or strongly suggest that others who are either young or poor should have one. It's not easy to have a baby when you're in school, but it's also not easy to have one when you're a young medical resident or law associate. What, you don't think those are realistic career prospects for a young, poor, non-white woman? Why not? That's your problem, I'm afraid. Blaming that on me, the supposedly wealthy white feminist cunt, is not exactly solving your problem.
168
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is not only a stupid pledge, but it severely hinders the pro-choice movement.
169
This thing is a fucking joke. It makes the pro-choice crowd sound exactly like the rampaging baby-killing monsters that the pro-life crowd paints them as. It sounds exactly as if you were suggesting abortion as a form of birth control.
I'm a guy, and a gay one at that, so I'm quite well aware that any opinions I have should be taken with a pillar of salt, but it seems to me that ending a pregnancy is not something that should be approached lightly or without deliberation or without a thorough consideration of the options. We are talking about a genetically unique organism here after all.
What's most appalling about the list is that the alternatives are not even considered or discussed. Given the number of couples (gay and straight) interested in adopting infants, for example, I'd like to see at least a thought given in that direction.
I'm a guy, and a gay one at that, so I'm quite well aware that any opinions I have should be taken with a pillar of salt, but it seems to me that ending a pregnancy is not something that should be approached lightly or without deliberation or without a thorough consideration of the options. We are talking about a genetically unique organism here after all.
What's most appalling about the list is that the alternatives are not even considered or discussed. Given the number of couples (gay and straight) interested in adopting infants, for example, I'd like to see at least a thought given in that direction.
170
Jocelyn: Thank you! So good to hear someone else say this.
Yes, of course you shouldn't have a kid unless you're in a stable relationship and financially able to support a kid. That's just common sense. And yes, you should be judged if you decide to have a kid when you're not in a position to do so. Poor people should not have kids. They should get abortions. It's not fair to the kids.
I would also add:
1a) If I am not married (or as close to marriage as the law allows, in the case of same-sex relationships) and I get pregnant, I will have an abortion.
1b) If I have an unplanned pregnancy, I will have an abortion.
2a) If I know someone who is pregnant and not married (or as close to marriage as the law allows), I will strongly encourage her to have an abortion.
2b) If I know someone who has an unplanned pregnancy, I will have an abortion.
Yes, of course you shouldn't have a kid unless you're in a stable relationship and financially able to support a kid. That's just common sense. And yes, you should be judged if you decide to have a kid when you're not in a position to do so. Poor people should not have kids. They should get abortions. It's not fair to the kids.
I would also add:
1a) If I am not married (or as close to marriage as the law allows, in the case of same-sex relationships) and I get pregnant, I will have an abortion.
1b) If I have an unplanned pregnancy, I will have an abortion.
2a) If I know someone who is pregnant and not married (or as close to marriage as the law allows), I will strongly encourage her to have an abortion.
2b) If I know someone who has an unplanned pregnancy, I will have an abortion.
171
Let's not confuse what's best politically with what's right. This pledge is probably not great politically. On one hand, this could be used against the pro-choice movement, but on the other hand, it makes the mainstream pro-choice movement look more central and mainstream. It shifts the window of discourse.
But this pledge isn't intended as political strategy. It's an honest expression of a viewpoint that isn't really heard very often, and should be: the idea that abortion is a legitimate form of birth control. That not everyone who's pro-choice is anti-abortion, or wants to reduce the number of abortions, or thinks abortion is an unfortunate situation that's the best of bad choices.
I'm honestly surprised this is so controversial among pro-choice people.
@169: That's exactly the point. Abortion is, and should be, a legitimate form of birth control. That's the whole point of this pledge. It shouldn't be seen as something tragic or bad or something that should be avoided.
But this pledge isn't intended as political strategy. It's an honest expression of a viewpoint that isn't really heard very often, and should be: the idea that abortion is a legitimate form of birth control. That not everyone who's pro-choice is anti-abortion, or wants to reduce the number of abortions, or thinks abortion is an unfortunate situation that's the best of bad choices.
I'm honestly surprised this is so controversial among pro-choice people.
@169: That's exactly the point. Abortion is, and should be, a legitimate form of birth control. That's the whole point of this pledge. It shouldn't be seen as something tragic or bad or something that should be avoided.
172
Heh, correcting #169:
2b) If I know someone who has an unplanned pregnancy, I will strongly encourage her to have an abortion.
2b) If I know someone who has an unplanned pregnancy, I will strongly encourage her to have an abortion.
173
"young, poor women should get an abortion."
Gotta agree. The last thing we need is the poor people breeding.
Gotta agree. The last thing we need is the poor people breeding.
174
"Poor people should not have kids. They should get abortions."
Hell, they should be really pro-choice and sterilize themselves. Save taxpayers a bucket load in welfare and prison costs.
Hell, they should be really pro-choice and sterilize themselves. Save taxpayers a bucket load in welfare and prison costs.
175
"Poor people should not have kids. They should get abortions. It's not fair to the kids."
Blackrose, I believe you're the reason the word 'cunt' was invented.
Blackrose, I believe you're the reason the word 'cunt' was invented.
176
BlackRose, I'm just wondering, how wealthy does one have to be to legitimately have kids, in your eyes, as opposed to an abortion? What if they're poor but have a reasonable expectation of good future job prospects? What if they have no career or education, but are relying on their spouse's career to fund the childrearing?
Why does a person have to be married to have kids?
And why does the pregnancy have to be planned?
Doubtless you realize that many people who are unmarried or who have a surprise pregnancy end up going on to raise wonderful, happy children. So why the insistence on both of those things?
Personally, I've had nothing but planned pregnancies in marriage, but I can tell you there is never an ideal time to have babies. The life-transformations and responsibilities that go along with kids are also very hard to imagine beforehand. You can work very hard to make conditions right, but nothing is perfect. I think if you love your children completely and treat them well, the rest is just gravy. There is no circumstance under which I'd recommend or insist on abortion, except the one in which the mother felt it was the right thing to do. My judgments about ideal conditions are worth shit.
Why does a person have to be married to have kids?
And why does the pregnancy have to be planned?
Doubtless you realize that many people who are unmarried or who have a surprise pregnancy end up going on to raise wonderful, happy children. So why the insistence on both of those things?
Personally, I've had nothing but planned pregnancies in marriage, but I can tell you there is never an ideal time to have babies. The life-transformations and responsibilities that go along with kids are also very hard to imagine beforehand. You can work very hard to make conditions right, but nothing is perfect. I think if you love your children completely and treat them well, the rest is just gravy. There is no circumstance under which I'd recommend or insist on abortion, except the one in which the mother felt it was the right thing to do. My judgments about ideal conditions are worth shit.
177
@BlackRose
Have you had an abortion?
I know many women who have, including my sister, and for all of them it was heartrending. An abortion is, for many, many women who have them, a painful, gutwrenching thing to do.
The reason why your point of view is so controversial among the pro-choice crowd is because conception is not inconsequential. And the decision to end what has the potential to become a human being is not inconsequential either. That is not a blasé choice that's made off-the-cuff.
The reason I am pro-choice is because I believe that the mother, who has a stake in the world, is more important than the fetus, who doesn't. And I believe she should be the only arbiter of her own autonomy and personal decisions.
The reason why I am not pro-abortion is because I have respect for human life in all of its stages. Your stance seems to me to be the moral equivalent of pissing on a corpse as a joke. The indifference to human life that you indicate by saying "not everyone wants to reduce the number of abortions" is disturbing.
Have you had an abortion?
I know many women who have, including my sister, and for all of them it was heartrending. An abortion is, for many, many women who have them, a painful, gutwrenching thing to do.
The reason why your point of view is so controversial among the pro-choice crowd is because conception is not inconsequential. And the decision to end what has the potential to become a human being is not inconsequential either. That is not a blasé choice that's made off-the-cuff.
The reason I am pro-choice is because I believe that the mother, who has a stake in the world, is more important than the fetus, who doesn't. And I believe she should be the only arbiter of her own autonomy and personal decisions.
The reason why I am not pro-abortion is because I have respect for human life in all of its stages. Your stance seems to me to be the moral equivalent of pissing on a corpse as a joke. The indifference to human life that you indicate by saying "not everyone wants to reduce the number of abortions" is disturbing.
178
@177:
I don't have the equipment to have an abortion. So I can't speak from personal experience. But it is certainly true that many women find it personally gut-wrenching. And many don't. But although abortion can be painful for women who have one, abortion isn't something that's objectively terrible and sickening and wrong. The reason I found this pledge so meaningful is that I feel like the other side of it -- the women who don't feel like it's particularly painful and gut-wrenching -- doesn't get discussed for political reasons. Pro-choice people are so careful to say that abortion is a painful, difficult decision, and that no one does it lightly, and that it shouldn't be used as birth control, and this ignores the fact that not everyone feels that way.
I respect your friends and family who found abortion painful, and I'm sorry they didn't have an easy time with it. I disagree that that's some sort of universal experience or that it says something generally applicable about abortion.
I respect human life, but not in all of its stages. A fetus is not of any moral significance, though I grant that it has emotional significance for some. Same goes for a corpse, for that matter. Unlike an actual person, a fetus can't understand its surroundings, have feelings, think, empathize, participate in a community, tell stories, have conversations, or engage in human interaction, and these are the things that make human life worthy of value and respect and dignity. I'm not indifferent to the life of an actual person; I am indifferent to the life of a fetus. The two are so different that I don't understand how anyone could equate them, and to do so seems like pro-life rhetoric.
I'd like to increase availability of contraception. And contraception can certainly be easier and less troublesome than abortion, so if that decreases abortions, great. But I don't see why decreasing the number of abortions should be an end in itself.
More...
I don't have the equipment to have an abortion. So I can't speak from personal experience. But it is certainly true that many women find it personally gut-wrenching. And many don't. But although abortion can be painful for women who have one, abortion isn't something that's objectively terrible and sickening and wrong. The reason I found this pledge so meaningful is that I feel like the other side of it -- the women who don't feel like it's particularly painful and gut-wrenching -- doesn't get discussed for political reasons. Pro-choice people are so careful to say that abortion is a painful, difficult decision, and that no one does it lightly, and that it shouldn't be used as birth control, and this ignores the fact that not everyone feels that way.
I respect your friends and family who found abortion painful, and I'm sorry they didn't have an easy time with it. I disagree that that's some sort of universal experience or that it says something generally applicable about abortion.
I respect human life, but not in all of its stages. A fetus is not of any moral significance, though I grant that it has emotional significance for some. Same goes for a corpse, for that matter. Unlike an actual person, a fetus can't understand its surroundings, have feelings, think, empathize, participate in a community, tell stories, have conversations, or engage in human interaction, and these are the things that make human life worthy of value and respect and dignity. I'm not indifferent to the life of an actual person; I am indifferent to the life of a fetus. The two are so different that I don't understand how anyone could equate them, and to do so seems like pro-life rhetoric.
I'd like to increase availability of contraception. And contraception can certainly be easier and less troublesome than abortion, so if that decreases abortions, great. But I don't see why decreasing the number of abortions should be an end in itself.
179
"for many, many women who have them, a painful, gutwrenching thing to do"
Not for heartless, callous cunts — for people like Blackrose, apparently, it's no different than flossing meat out of their teeth. I hope Blackrose never 'incubates', for the sake of any 'spawn' she might have.
Not for heartless, callous cunts — for people like Blackrose, apparently, it's no different than flossing meat out of their teeth. I hope Blackrose never 'incubates', for the sake of any 'spawn' she might have.
180
@176:
Having kids means creating a new life. If you're going to do that, rather than adopt one of the many kids who needs a home, you damn well better make sure you can provide for them. If you're gonna bring them into this world, they deserve a lot more than a "reasonable expectation" that they'll be provided for. Deciding *not* to have an abortion is a huge choice. You don't have to bring someone into this world: it's done voluntarily (assuming access to abortion). There's no downside to never having existed, whereas there are a lot of potential downsides to being raised by a single parent, or a family that can't afford to provide for kids (statistically, having two parents significantly increases one's chances of success).
You asked how wealthy parents should be, so I'll refer you to the average cost of raising a kid: $222,360. (http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/…) There's a good argument that parents shouldn't have kids at all while there are kids needing to be adopted, but at the very least you should have that money available as disposable income.
As you say, there's never an ideal time to have kids, it's never perfect, and it's always harder than you think. So why burden kids with the additional problems of growing up in a household that can't provide for them?
Having kids means creating a new life. If you're going to do that, rather than adopt one of the many kids who needs a home, you damn well better make sure you can provide for them. If you're gonna bring them into this world, they deserve a lot more than a "reasonable expectation" that they'll be provided for. Deciding *not* to have an abortion is a huge choice. You don't have to bring someone into this world: it's done voluntarily (assuming access to abortion). There's no downside to never having existed, whereas there are a lot of potential downsides to being raised by a single parent, or a family that can't afford to provide for kids (statistically, having two parents significantly increases one's chances of success).
You asked how wealthy parents should be, so I'll refer you to the average cost of raising a kid: $222,360. (http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/…) There's a good argument that parents shouldn't have kids at all while there are kids needing to be adopted, but at the very least you should have that money available as disposable income.
As you say, there's never an ideal time to have kids, it's never perfect, and it's always harder than you think. So why burden kids with the additional problems of growing up in a household that can't provide for them?
182
Sorry, this pledge is stupid. Just because I support the legal right of women to choose whether or not to abort doesn't mean I would make that choice myself for every possible situation in which I might become unintentionally pregnant. Unplanned does not necessarily mean unwanted. This pledge is an insult to every woman who chose to raise a child over the objections of a clueless man who tried to pressure her into an abortion, which is just as wrong as the government trying to pressure a woman not to have one. Prochoice means SHE gets to choose. It does NOT mean pro-abortion!
183
@172 (Blackrose) wrote: "2b) If I know someone who has an unplanned pregnancy, I will strongly encourage her to have an abortion."
Why is it any of your business? The whole point of the pro-choice movement is to tell the government, "it's none of your fucking business." But you know what, it's not just the government who needs to butt out, so unless you're the one who is pregnant, it's none of your fucking business either. It's a personal decision, and you should have no say about it unless it's a friend who is specifically asking for your advice.
(To the people wondering if the man who got a woman pregnant should have a say...it would be polite to hear him out, and how much weight his opinion has may vary with the nature of their relationship, but he has no right to veto her decision, whatever it may be.)
Why is it any of your business? The whole point of the pro-choice movement is to tell the government, "it's none of your fucking business." But you know what, it's not just the government who needs to butt out, so unless you're the one who is pregnant, it's none of your fucking business either. It's a personal decision, and you should have no say about it unless it's a friend who is specifically asking for your advice.
(To the people wondering if the man who got a woman pregnant should have a say...it would be polite to hear him out, and how much weight his opinion has may vary with the nature of their relationship, but he has no right to veto her decision, whatever it may be.)
184
@144, No, fuck YOU up your ass with a cactus for judging MY choice to keep my child while I was unmarried, over the objection of the bio-father who tried to pressure me into an abortion, and while I was still in college. I later finished college (and a few years of grad school) and have been married for 13 years to a man who has been a wonderful step-father to my 15-year-old son, and BTW we have plenty of money to raise him and the daughter we had together. So you see, not every unplanned pregnancy results in disaster. Realizing that truth does not do any damage to the principle that the government (and other people) should BUTT THE FUCK OUT!
Pro-choice means you respect the right of women to make their own choices, regardless of whether that choice is abortion, adoption or keeping the child. It does NOT mean you get to make a fucking list of instances in which women MUST get abortions in order to meet your twisted definition of "pro-choice". Again, fuck you.
Pro-choice means you respect the right of women to make their own choices, regardless of whether that choice is abortion, adoption or keeping the child. It does NOT mean you get to make a fucking list of instances in which women MUST get abortions in order to meet your twisted definition of "pro-choice". Again, fuck you.
185
Sorry, last comment. @107's pledge is lovely. That's one I would sign.
And I like family doc's comments @43.
And I like family doc's comments @43.
186
@144, @184 pwned you.
and yeah, this pledge aint gonna get you what you want. it is just going to alienate a lot of reasonable people on both sides of the argument.
and yeah, this pledge aint gonna get you what you want. it is just going to alienate a lot of reasonable people on both sides of the argument.
187
Oh goodness.
@ BlackRose 170, 171
You say "Let's not confuse what's best politically with what's right." But there is absolutely NOTHING RIGHT about your statement that "Poor people should not have kids." Middle-class people have been taking up this kind of idea since the 19th century. Seriously. I could write a tidy little essay here about how prevalent this kinds of ideas have been over the last 200 years, but that wouldn't make them any less wrong.
@ Corydon 169
I think you mean well, and I agree with you that the pledge as written is offensive on its face. I've tried to explain why in detail @125 and proposed a different pledge @108. However, I think you are wrong to suggest that the adoption option actually needs to be represented in the pledge. Women, I think, are well aware of this option. While I don't think anyone should dictate the terms upon which women should have an abortion, and I recognize that there are many women who would not make the decision lightly at any point in a pregnancy, I don't think we should assume that it would necessarily be a wracking or even particularly difficult decision for some women, some of the time. I don't think anybody make the decision thoughtlessly, but I am sure that for some women it would be a relatively easy decision to make early in an unwanted and unexpected pregnancy. And I don't we should suggest that it be harder, or be made harder. The situation in which it would become a difficult decision for any woman would be a variable and unique as that woman and her circumstances. I think the point is that we need to trust women to know what is best, and to take the time and thought with the decision that is exactly in proportion to her unique situation. That is why I suggested changing #7 of the above pledge to #1 of a new pledge - "If I become pregnant and I feel like an abortion is the best course of action, I will have an abortion." (@107/108)
The long and short of it is that if a woman does not want to be a mother, and does not want to be pregnant, and has no philosophical objections, an abortion (probably medical rather than surgical) early in the first trimester would almost certainly be less traumatic and medically safer than feeling a fetus quicken, carrying a child to term, delivering it, and letting it go to another family. I think giving a child up for adoption (even the open ones Dan so touchingly described in The Kid) takes a certain kind of internal strength that not all women posses. I certainly wouldn't. While it is heart-wrenching that many couples, gay and straight, want to raise children from infants but don't have the capacity to have biological children, I don't think it should be expected that any individual woman would factor these couples' desires into her plans. I am sure, however, that the existence of these families is a great comfort to any women who do decide to carry their pregnancies to term and give the babies up.
More...
@ BlackRose 170, 171
You say "Let's not confuse what's best politically with what's right." But there is absolutely NOTHING RIGHT about your statement that "Poor people should not have kids." Middle-class people have been taking up this kind of idea since the 19th century. Seriously. I could write a tidy little essay here about how prevalent this kinds of ideas have been over the last 200 years, but that wouldn't make them any less wrong.
@ Corydon 169
I think you mean well, and I agree with you that the pledge as written is offensive on its face. I've tried to explain why in detail @125 and proposed a different pledge @108. However, I think you are wrong to suggest that the adoption option actually needs to be represented in the pledge. Women, I think, are well aware of this option. While I don't think anyone should dictate the terms upon which women should have an abortion, and I recognize that there are many women who would not make the decision lightly at any point in a pregnancy, I don't think we should assume that it would necessarily be a wracking or even particularly difficult decision for some women, some of the time. I don't think anybody make the decision thoughtlessly, but I am sure that for some women it would be a relatively easy decision to make early in an unwanted and unexpected pregnancy. And I don't we should suggest that it be harder, or be made harder. The situation in which it would become a difficult decision for any woman would be a variable and unique as that woman and her circumstances. I think the point is that we need to trust women to know what is best, and to take the time and thought with the decision that is exactly in proportion to her unique situation. That is why I suggested changing #7 of the above pledge to #1 of a new pledge - "If I become pregnant and I feel like an abortion is the best course of action, I will have an abortion." (@107/108)
The long and short of it is that if a woman does not want to be a mother, and does not want to be pregnant, and has no philosophical objections, an abortion (probably medical rather than surgical) early in the first trimester would almost certainly be less traumatic and medically safer than feeling a fetus quicken, carrying a child to term, delivering it, and letting it go to another family. I think giving a child up for adoption (even the open ones Dan so touchingly described in The Kid) takes a certain kind of internal strength that not all women posses. I certainly wouldn't. While it is heart-wrenching that many couples, gay and straight, want to raise children from infants but don't have the capacity to have biological children, I don't think it should be expected that any individual woman would factor these couples' desires into her plans. I am sure, however, that the existence of these families is a great comfort to any women who do decide to carry their pregnancies to term and give the babies up.
188
Sorry, Corydon @ 169 - I tried to explain why it was offensive at 158, not 125 - I was responding to 125. (Numbers are confusing me...)
189
@183- I'd say it's a friend's business to advocate the pro-abortion point of view because the Religious Right has saturated our society with anti-abortion rhetoric.
191
BlackRose/180: The number you cite is not the cost of raising a child. That number is the average amount spent per year, x18, in a two-parent middle class family (i.e. making above 56k or so per year). So, again: how wealthy does one have to be to provide for a child adequately rather than being, in your view, morally compelled to have an abortion instead? Should everyone making minimum wage get an abortion? Should people making even higher amounts, if they live in expensive areas e.g. on the coasts, choose abortion? What if their extended family can provide some child care or cash--how would that change the abortion calculation?
I ask these questions because I doubt that it's easy to calculate the proper economic circumstances for having a baby, in the way you're demanding of people. "Reasonable prospects" of employment or improving finances are the best one can expect in most situations. Nobody is guaranteed a job into the future, or freedom from unexpected illnesses or disability that could affect ability to raise or pay for children. Your blanket demands that "poor people" shouldn't breed therefore don't make much sense, and are incredibly ill-defined, even if we decided to overlook how basically offensive the idea is.
If you want to argue that nobody should have kids while there are children awaiting adoption, that's fine, but that's a separate issue. You'd also have to make a case that it's relatively easy for all the people who want kids to find children they can adopt.
I ask these questions because I doubt that it's easy to calculate the proper economic circumstances for having a baby, in the way you're demanding of people. "Reasonable prospects" of employment or improving finances are the best one can expect in most situations. Nobody is guaranteed a job into the future, or freedom from unexpected illnesses or disability that could affect ability to raise or pay for children. Your blanket demands that "poor people" shouldn't breed therefore don't make much sense, and are incredibly ill-defined, even if we decided to overlook how basically offensive the idea is.
If you want to argue that nobody should have kids while there are children awaiting adoption, that's fine, but that's a separate issue. You'd also have to make a case that it's relatively easy for all the people who want kids to find children they can adopt.
192
@183: It's my business because we live in a society where people's actions affect each other, and unwanted kids, single-parent kids, and kids without good parenting cause all sorts of social problems. (Yes, of course there are exceptions. Not every single kid who falls into one of those categories causes social problems, obviously.)
@187: My point was that people were criticizing this pledge for being politically unwise, when the whole point of the pledge was that the pro-choice movement has moved too far to the anti-abortion side for political reasons. See the pledge writer's comments at #25 and #125.
Hopefully the obvious idea that people should not have kids if they're not in a position to support them goes back well before the 19th century, since contraception has been around in various forms for thousands of years. I just don't see what's so wrong about saying that if you're going to have kids, you should have the resources to do it right. And rich people who can't or won't take the time to read to their kids and play with them every day shouldn't have kids either, for the same reason -- this isn't a class issue.
@187: My point was that people were criticizing this pledge for being politically unwise, when the whole point of the pledge was that the pro-choice movement has moved too far to the anti-abortion side for political reasons. See the pledge writer's comments at #25 and #125.
Hopefully the obvious idea that people should not have kids if they're not in a position to support them goes back well before the 19th century, since contraception has been around in various forms for thousands of years. I just don't see what's so wrong about saying that if you're going to have kids, you should have the resources to do it right. And rich people who can't or won't take the time to read to their kids and play with them every day shouldn't have kids either, for the same reason -- this isn't a class issue.
193
@191: No, look at the pdf that was linked to again, specifically pages iii, 1-4, and 20-22. The number only counts child-related expenses, not all expenses. But if you disagree with the methodology and think the amount should be different, that's ok. The precise number is not the point. The point is: before a couple decides to not have an abortion, they should look at their financial situation carefully, and if there's any doubt about their future financial ability to provide for a kid, don't have one. You're right that this is not an easy calculation to make, or an easy decision, and the future is always more unpredictable than you think, which is why you shouldn't have a kid if you're not sure you can provide for one. But when you get a mortgage or a loan, you and the bank need to make sure you'll have the future income needed to keep up with the payments, and no one should have a kid without taking at least as much care in their financial analysis.
It's hard enough to provide for yourself on minimum wage (see "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich) so I doubt that anyone making minimum wage would have the resources to give kids as much as they deserve.
Adoption is a separate but related issue: it's currently very difficult and expensive to adopt, and I'm all for trying to fix that as well.
It's hard enough to provide for yourself on minimum wage (see "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich) so I doubt that anyone making minimum wage would have the resources to give kids as much as they deserve.
Adoption is a separate but related issue: it's currently very difficult and expensive to adopt, and I'm all for trying to fix that as well.
194
@Soupytwist - the problem with your post is that you lumped all of us that are reacting negatively to this pledge and that consider this pledge to be "yucky" in with those who "only agree with abortion in theory." That is seriously not fair.
On the contrary, I've been sitting here for a year seriously considering getting an abortion in the event that my fetus would test positive for a serious, debilitating, genetically inherited disease. If I get pregnant, I have a one in four chance of marching off to a Planned Parenthood for an abortion. This is not a "worst case scenario" and it also would put me high up on the hate-list of many anti-choicers. I also would totally support any 21-year old's right to choose abortion for whatever danged reason she pleases. But not if she is forced to by the agenda of others.
The problem with this pledge is it makes all pro-choicers sound like fanatics or extremists who want to force their opinion on others. It is this Fanaticism that makes the stand of the rabid anti-choicers to be abhorrent.. We will only win the fight and maintain our rights by presenting an argument full of reason and choice.
This pledge can be (and seems to have been already) rewritten to get all your and Jocelyn's good points across without the forcefulness and fanaticism.
Oh - I almost forgot! Fuck you too!
On the contrary, I've been sitting here for a year seriously considering getting an abortion in the event that my fetus would test positive for a serious, debilitating, genetically inherited disease. If I get pregnant, I have a one in four chance of marching off to a Planned Parenthood for an abortion. This is not a "worst case scenario" and it also would put me high up on the hate-list of many anti-choicers. I also would totally support any 21-year old's right to choose abortion for whatever danged reason she pleases. But not if she is forced to by the agenda of others.
The problem with this pledge is it makes all pro-choicers sound like fanatics or extremists who want to force their opinion on others. It is this Fanaticism that makes the stand of the rabid anti-choicers to be abhorrent.. We will only win the fight and maintain our rights by presenting an argument full of reason and choice.
This pledge can be (and seems to have been already) rewritten to get all your and Jocelyn's good points across without the forcefulness and fanaticism.
Oh - I almost forgot! Fuck you too!
195
@ 192 (BlackRose)
The ideas underlying your statement that "Poor people should not have kids" found their first legal expression (as far as I know) in England in the New Poor Law of 1834 (you can read about it here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_Law_Am…). The ideas popularized by this law (less eligibility, for example) eventually came to influence much policy and law in the US, but were not fully entertained until after the closing of the West.
Believe it or not, but the idea that "Poor people should not have kids" really didn't exist before the 19th century, but not for the reason you might think. In order for it to exist, it needs to be accepted that there is a set of people - "the poor" - who do not and will never possess the means of supporting children. In early modern Europe (c. 1500-1800), people would have agreed with the statement that "people should not have kids *until they are* a position to support them." Peasant farmers did in fact delay childbearing and marriage, often in that order, until they could support children (about age 25 for women and 27 for men). However, this poverty-motivated delay was a matter of life-course, rather than a permanent halt to reproduction. The idea that there was a large segment of the population who might never be able to support children without outside assistance did not arise until the dislocations of the Industrial Revolution had begun. Before that, even the poorest of the poor usually had some means of feeding their children off the land.
Protestations about "the American Dream" notwithstanding, the society in which we now live is more unequal than (for example) Medieval society. (I would refer anyone interested to Neil Brooks and Linda McQuiag's book, The Trouble with Billionaires - which is a bit broad but completely fascinating.) There are certainly people who are so poor that they wouldn't be able to support their children without some form of outside assistance, but this situation is the result of long-standing structural developments in our society, rather than any personal moral failure (as neo-cons and the Poor Law Commissioners before them would have had it). To suggest that people in this situation forfeit their right bear and rear children is inhumane in my book. Of course, there are many people who agree with you - but I think they are wrong, and you are wrong. If it were up to me, we would live in a society in which any adult person *would* be able to support children.
[As a side note, it is the common currency of the ideas expressed by BlackRose that caused me to be seriously P.O.'d by Dan's post a while back entitled "Poor People Shouldn't Have Kids" or something along that line. Dan didn't mean it, he was making a point through the use of satire, but he did so by stepping on people who are already placed at a disadvantage in our society. It wasn't cool, but I was too lazy to say anything about it at the time.]
(I answered this comment with reference to European (especially British) history, because I am most familiar with that scholarship in reference to this question - but I don't want anyone to get the idea that I think it represents all history and all people.)
More...
The ideas underlying your statement that "Poor people should not have kids" found their first legal expression (as far as I know) in England in the New Poor Law of 1834 (you can read about it here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_Law_Am…). The ideas popularized by this law (less eligibility, for example) eventually came to influence much policy and law in the US, but were not fully entertained until after the closing of the West.
Believe it or not, but the idea that "Poor people should not have kids" really didn't exist before the 19th century, but not for the reason you might think. In order for it to exist, it needs to be accepted that there is a set of people - "the poor" - who do not and will never possess the means of supporting children. In early modern Europe (c. 1500-1800), people would have agreed with the statement that "people should not have kids *until they are* a position to support them." Peasant farmers did in fact delay childbearing and marriage, often in that order, until they could support children (about age 25 for women and 27 for men). However, this poverty-motivated delay was a matter of life-course, rather than a permanent halt to reproduction. The idea that there was a large segment of the population who might never be able to support children without outside assistance did not arise until the dislocations of the Industrial Revolution had begun. Before that, even the poorest of the poor usually had some means of feeding their children off the land.
Protestations about "the American Dream" notwithstanding, the society in which we now live is more unequal than (for example) Medieval society. (I would refer anyone interested to Neil Brooks and Linda McQuiag's book, The Trouble with Billionaires - which is a bit broad but completely fascinating.) There are certainly people who are so poor that they wouldn't be able to support their children without some form of outside assistance, but this situation is the result of long-standing structural developments in our society, rather than any personal moral failure (as neo-cons and the Poor Law Commissioners before them would have had it). To suggest that people in this situation forfeit their right bear and rear children is inhumane in my book. Of course, there are many people who agree with you - but I think they are wrong, and you are wrong. If it were up to me, we would live in a society in which any adult person *would* be able to support children.
[As a side note, it is the common currency of the ideas expressed by BlackRose that caused me to be seriously P.O.'d by Dan's post a while back entitled "Poor People Shouldn't Have Kids" or something along that line. Dan didn't mean it, he was making a point through the use of satire, but he did so by stepping on people who are already placed at a disadvantage in our society. It wasn't cool, but I was too lazy to say anything about it at the time.]
(I answered this comment with reference to European (especially British) history, because I am most familiar with that scholarship in reference to this question - but I don't want anyone to get the idea that I think it represents all history and all people.)
197
I hope you guys are still checking this comment thread, because http://blog.spreadingsantorum.com/2011/0…
199
Jocelyn - hey I went and read the new one. Didn't comment there..have too many web IDs already so I am commenting here. Potentially much to Soupytwist's dismay, I like the new pledge. Only comment is that #5 is a little vague. I wonder if everyone would "get it." In fact, I wonder if I get it.
But other than that, love it. Sorry if it makes you feel like you are an apologist, or are pandering to wimps like me. But on the bright side, this is a pledge that a greater number of people would support. More is better. Thanks for taking input.
But other than that, love it. Sorry if it makes you feel like you are an apologist, or are pandering to wimps like me. But on the bright side, this is a pledge that a greater number of people would support. More is better. Thanks for taking input.
200
I'm largely OK with the new version of the pledge, and would probably sign it. A couple nits:
1. The third point appears to be missing the word "I": "If become pregnant and opt not to have an abortion..."
2. I understand what you're trying to do with point 5, but I would limit it to the abortion issue. E.g., "I refuse to let a abortion issue, no matter how important to me, define the way I vote." I can think of single issues that would define how I vote. For instance, were I able to vote in 1860, their abolitionist stance would force me to vote exclusively for the Republicans rather than the pro-slavery Democrats.
Ah, how times have changed.
1. The third point appears to be missing the word "I": "If become pregnant and opt not to have an abortion..."
2. I understand what you're trying to do with point 5, but I would limit it to the abortion issue. E.g., "I refuse to let a abortion issue, no matter how important to me, define the way I vote." I can think of single issues that would define how I vote. For instance, were I able to vote in 1860, their abolitionist stance would force me to vote exclusively for the Republicans rather than the pro-slavery Democrats.
Ah, how times have changed.
201
@onion - I'm "whacko" for thinking abortion is okay? Whatever. I don't think women should have to justify having an abortion and I don't think women are special in anyway for the reproductive choices that they make. I think that the compulsive need some people have to explain their pro-choice stance down to the minutiae is pathetic. Either you're pro-choice or you're not. That's where the discussion should begin and end.
202
@195 (historygirl):
If you'd like, I'll adopt your rephrasing: "People should not have kids *until they are* a position to support them." That's all I meant. I wasn't making any statements about class mobility, or why there are poor, or whether or not there is a set of people who will never be able to support kids.
I also think we should live in a society where any adult would have the resources to support children. However, I disagree that having kids is a "right." Creating a new human being is a social action that affects all other human beings who exist, not a right that anyone who is able should be allowed to freely exercise. Society should be able to control and regulate the population size, for the same reason that society should be able to regulate pollution or medical care. Having an abortion is an individual right, because it's a woman controlling her own body. Creating a new human being is not, because it involves another person.
(By the way, thank you for the information and references! Interesting stuff.)
If you'd like, I'll adopt your rephrasing: "People should not have kids *until they are* a position to support them." That's all I meant. I wasn't making any statements about class mobility, or why there are poor, or whether or not there is a set of people who will never be able to support kids.
I also think we should live in a society where any adult would have the resources to support children. However, I disagree that having kids is a "right." Creating a new human being is a social action that affects all other human beings who exist, not a right that anyone who is able should be allowed to freely exercise. Society should be able to control and regulate the population size, for the same reason that society should be able to regulate pollution or medical care. Having an abortion is an individual right, because it's a woman controlling her own body. Creating a new human being is not, because it involves another person.
(By the way, thank you for the information and references! Interesting stuff.)
203
@194:
I don't understand how the original pledge is fanatic or extreme. It doesn't talk about "forcing" anyone to do anything. No one has to sign the pledge, and no woman has to have an abortion or listen to anyone telling her that she should have an abortion.
The rewritten versions of the pledge do not get the same point across, regardless of forcefulness or fanaticism. The main point of the original pledge, as I see it, is that abortion is a legitimate option for birth control, is morally neutral, and should be the preferred choice when someone is pregnant and not in the ideal position to raise a kid.
I don't understand how the original pledge is fanatic or extreme. It doesn't talk about "forcing" anyone to do anything. No one has to sign the pledge, and no woman has to have an abortion or listen to anyone telling her that she should have an abortion.
The rewritten versions of the pledge do not get the same point across, regardless of forcefulness or fanaticism. The main point of the original pledge, as I see it, is that abortion is a legitimate option for birth control, is morally neutral, and should be the preferred choice when someone is pregnant and not in the ideal position to raise a kid.
204
Since it hasn't actually been mention on this post, I thought I'd point out that there is a new pledge available at http://blog.spreadingsantorum.com/2011/0…
I pledge the following to the members of the Susan B. Anthony list and the citizens of the United States of America:The pledge is currently in the process of being edited to account for feedback. FWIW, I would sign the current pledge without reservation:
1. If I become pregnant and decide that ending the pregnancy is the best course of action, I will have an abortion.
2. I respect every woman's right to a safe and legal abortion, even in situations where I would not abort.
3. If I become pregnant and opt not to have an abortion, I will remember that my choice would have been meaningless without the right to choose and will continue to defend that right.
4. I will support universal access to affordable contraception and accurate sex education, with the full knowledge that it is easier and safer to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to end one.
5. If I am able, I will donate to Planned Parenthood and/or other organizations that defend a woman's right to choose.
205
The only thing wrong with this pledge is that it doesn't say "I will have an abortion if I should ever get pregnant." it is always wrong to force consciousness or existence on another being, as it is equally wrong to force another person to have painful, nonconsensual genital contact. Pregnancy and birth is about the most physically intimate one can be with another person. Nonconsensual intimacy=violation. I've been raped, and I've been born. No big diff.
206
@204: Jocelyn just mentioned it in #197.
The new pledge, which is totally lame and wishy-washy, is not intended as a replacement for the amazing awesome kick-ass other one. It's just another pledge on a different subject.
The new pledge, which is totally lame and wishy-washy, is not intended as a replacement for the amazing awesome kick-ass other one. It's just another pledge on a different subject.
207
I've read that report on the cost of raising children before this particular discussion, and it isn't saying what you claim it is, period. The number you're citing is tied to middle income--over 56k or something--dual parent families, and it's about what THEY spend, as opposed to what it would actually cost to provide what the child needs. People with less income spend less than that amount.
If you think that people earning minimum wage should have abortions instead of having children, I think our discussion is over. I hope someday you'll pause to consider what a completely morally bankrupt position you have there, but I doubt anything I say would prod you out of it. You already know that people earning this much, or less, go on to have children who are well-loved and provided for. I assume you know about the vast and growing economic inequality in this country, and realize the social consequences your position would have if everyone lived by it. What else do you need to learn? I can't help. Cheers.
If you think that people earning minimum wage should have abortions instead of having children, I think our discussion is over. I hope someday you'll pause to consider what a completely morally bankrupt position you have there, but I doubt anything I say would prod you out of it. You already know that people earning this much, or less, go on to have children who are well-loved and provided for. I assume you know about the vast and growing economic inequality in this country, and realize the social consequences your position would have if everyone lived by it. What else do you need to learn? I can't help. Cheers.
208
"Creating a new human being is a social action that affects all other human beings who exist, not a right that anyone who is able should be allowed to freely exercise"
Let's repeat that:
"not a right that anyone who is able should be allowed to freely exercise"
And again:
"not a right that anyone who is able should be allowed to freely exercise"
SO, how do you propose that right be taken away?
Again Blackrose, you are the very essence of what reasonable people would call a 'cunt'. I hope you never have kids. In fact, get yourself sterilized.
Let's repeat that:
"not a right that anyone who is able should be allowed to freely exercise"
And again:
"not a right that anyone who is able should be allowed to freely exercise"
SO, how do you propose that right be taken away?
Again Blackrose, you are the very essence of what reasonable people would call a 'cunt'. I hope you never have kids. In fact, get yourself sterilized.
209
@207: The number is what they spend on a kid. Not what they spend total. Yes, you're right that there are different numbers for lower and higher incomes. I'd think that if parents spend a lot less than average on their kid, their kid will be worse off than the average kid.
You seemed to have turned this into some sort of class issue, when all it's about is not having kids if you can't give them the best chance to succeed. If it is possible to do so on $14,000 a year, fine, but as far as I know that's not what the statistics say. I may well be factually wrong about the numbers or the circumstances in which it makes sense to raise kids, but it's very clear to me that you shouldn't have kids unless you're ready and willing to devote the time and energy and resources it takes to raise kids right.
Please tell me: why is my position "morally bankrupt," and do you think having kids you can't support isn't? And what social consequences are you thinking that there would be? The only one I can see is that there would be fewer kids, but they'd be better taken care of -- which is the whole point.
You seemed to have turned this into some sort of class issue, when all it's about is not having kids if you can't give them the best chance to succeed. If it is possible to do so on $14,000 a year, fine, but as far as I know that's not what the statistics say. I may well be factually wrong about the numbers or the circumstances in which it makes sense to raise kids, but it's very clear to me that you shouldn't have kids unless you're ready and willing to devote the time and energy and resources it takes to raise kids right.
Please tell me: why is my position "morally bankrupt," and do you think having kids you can't support isn't? And what social consequences are you thinking that there would be? The only one I can see is that there would be fewer kids, but they'd be better taken care of -- which is the whole point.
210
I can't get behind this pledge. The point of being pro-choice is that we value women, value their ability to make a choice and live with that consequences. Coerced, enforced abortion is no better than forcing women to stay pregnant.
211
It seems like what is understandably upsetting people here is that the pledge equates pro-choice with anti-life. And that is where the anti-choice people have already won: By creating the allusion that we are anti-life, which of course is not true. If we must have a pledge, and I don't think we do, it only needs to affirm that we value a woman's right to choose—period.
212
@197
I like the new one, although it might grind your teeth to read this coming from someone who was against the first pledge (more so against some of your comments from earlier in this thread), you might have gone too far in the other direction. That said, I would sign the revised pledge. I would also sign a pledge that just said:
I believe abortion is a viable for of birth control and I will support planned parenthood.
I like the new one, although it might grind your teeth to read this coming from someone who was against the first pledge (more so against some of your comments from earlier in this thread), you might have gone too far in the other direction. That said, I would sign the revised pledge. I would also sign a pledge that just said:
I believe abortion is a viable for of birth control and I will support planned parenthood.
213
212 - It's done. Frankly, any input at this point is kind of superfluous. And Internet comments often seem meaner than they were meant to be. At least I didn't call anyone a "pretentious vapid fucking cunt." Here's the finished one:
http://www.petitiononline.com/santorum/p…
http://www.petitiononline.com/santorum/p…
214
@208: Since it would be a violation of human rights to physically force a woman to get an abortion, or to remove or euthanize a newly born kid, we'd have to use incentives.
The social incentives: Make birth control and abortion freely and easily available everywhere. Fund research into better contraceptives, especially male ones: the most promising candidate is called RISUG or Vasagel, and is already in Phase III human trials in India. Create public-service announcements and TV shows extolling the virtues of being child-free and the burdens of raising a kid. Make better sex-ed programs in schools. Some schools already have students carry around an egg for a week, or make a budget, to show what it's like to have a kid; extend and elaborate on such school programs to give kids a realistic idea of how hard it is and how much it takes away from you to have a kid.
The financial ones: Remove the incentives to have a kid, such as extra TANF funding and tax credits for additional kids. Forbid maternity/paternity leaves. Give preference in government jobs and contracts to child-free people, and to companies that support child-free policies, like we currently do for veterans and minority-owned businesses. Give a tax credit or government funding to people for each year they remain child-free. Require the purchase of an insurance policy or a fee in order to have a kid, or make, e.g., driver's licenses contingent on such an insurance policy.
Just a few ideas off the top of my head. Obviously few, if any, of them will ever be politically feasible.
The social incentives: Make birth control and abortion freely and easily available everywhere. Fund research into better contraceptives, especially male ones: the most promising candidate is called RISUG or Vasagel, and is already in Phase III human trials in India. Create public-service announcements and TV shows extolling the virtues of being child-free and the burdens of raising a kid. Make better sex-ed programs in schools. Some schools already have students carry around an egg for a week, or make a budget, to show what it's like to have a kid; extend and elaborate on such school programs to give kids a realistic idea of how hard it is and how much it takes away from you to have a kid.
The financial ones: Remove the incentives to have a kid, such as extra TANF funding and tax credits for additional kids. Forbid maternity/paternity leaves. Give preference in government jobs and contracts to child-free people, and to companies that support child-free policies, like we currently do for veterans and minority-owned businesses. Give a tax credit or government funding to people for each year they remain child-free. Require the purchase of an insurance policy or a fee in order to have a kid, or make, e.g., driver's licenses contingent on such an insurance policy.
Just a few ideas off the top of my head. Obviously few, if any, of them will ever be politically feasible.
215
Soupytwist - you are a whacko because you think that my comments suggest that I am anti-choice. I am pro-choice.
You declare that anyone who approaches this topic with any sense of subtlety or tactfulness is some kind of evil, woman-oppressing, anti-choice apologist. You attack your allies. Your attitude is militant and completely counterproductive.
I am pro-choice and no whacko like you is goint to tell me that I am not.
You declare that anyone who approaches this topic with any sense of subtlety or tactfulness is some kind of evil, woman-oppressing, anti-choice apologist. You attack your allies. Your attitude is militant and completely counterproductive.
I am pro-choice and no whacko like you is goint to tell me that I am not.
216
This is ridiculous. Since it's common knowledge that having sex results in risk of pregnancy, she should pledge to shut her legs until she's ready to deal with the potential consequences of her actions instead of promising to kill her child prematurely if circumstances are less than ideal. What a selfish person.
217
If you are actually pro-choice, as in you are for choice and don't just use that as a euphemism, then you should oppose abortion, which deprives a person of the most basic of choices: Whether to live or die.
218
If you are actually pro-choice, as in you are for choice and don't just use that as a euphemism, then you should oppose abortion, which deprives a person of the most basic of choices: Whether to live or die. If you really believe that having choice over your own body and life is a human right, then oppose the legality of depriving a person of their life. Otherwise, you're just being a hypocrite.
219
"Obviously few, if any, of them will ever be politically feasible."
Let alone constitutional. And once you've created your childless dystopia, will you give up your social security and Medicare first?
Let alone constitutional. And once you've created your childless dystopia, will you give up your social security and Medicare first?
220
Blackrose is proof that hard core greens simply hate humans. Shame they never volunteer to remove their cuntish arses from the planet first.
221
"how much it takes away from you to have a kid."
Sure, if you're a selfish cunt. But I wouldn't give up the sleepless nights, exhaustion and thousands of dollars I spend to raise my kids for anything. My kids are my life; id give mine for theirs in a heartbeat
Then again, I'm not a selfish cunt.
Sure, if you're a selfish cunt. But I wouldn't give up the sleepless nights, exhaustion and thousands of dollars I spend to raise my kids for anything. My kids are my life; id give mine for theirs in a heartbeat
Then again, I'm not a selfish cunt.
222
I read up to 51 and had to comment, because yes, one of the best mothers I know had her first kid at age 15 and kept him. My own mother was 21 exactly. Whew. I guess she just got in by the skin of her teeth.
And a pledge intended for other people based on your own experiences/observations/prejudices could be marginally funny, I suppose. But this isn't. It sounds a lot like how the conservatives roll.
Dan, come on. Really?
And a pledge intended for other people based on your own experiences/observations/prejudices could be marginally funny, I suppose. But this isn't. It sounds a lot like how the conservatives roll.
Dan, come on. Really?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
-
Meanwhile in Toronto by Dan Savage
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
-
In Which I Do Not Declare My Candidacy for Seattle City Council by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (222) RSS