Culture Of Life – Page 33

Can You Be a Feminist for Life?

Sure. I’m a feminist for life. I like life. I think mine is important enough to preserve, and I think yours is too. I think we should do all we can to sustain life and to make it as good (or at least as livable) as possible — I support life-affirming things like poverty relief programs, environmentalism, reasonable gun control laws, and universal healthcare. I don’t support things that result in the unnecessary taking of life, like the death penalty and preemptive wars based on untruths. Because I value women’s lives, I believe that everyone deserves access to medical care and family planning tools.

But the anti-choice group Feminists for Life is a different story. On the surface, they’re decent, as far as anti-choice groups can be decent. They promote education and childcare for women with children, and adequate campus housing for students with children. These are good things. But as Katha Pollitt discovers, they aren’t exactly a progressive’s dream (in more ways than being anti-abortion):

The problem is that FFL doesn’t just oppose abortion. FFL wants abortion to be illegal. All abortions, period, including those for rape, incest, health, major fetal defects and, although Foster resisted admitting this, even some abortions most doctors would say were necessary to save the woman’s life. (Although FFL is not a Catholic organization, its rejection of therapeutic abortion follows Catholic doctrine.) FFL wants doctors who perform abortions to be punished, possibly with prison terms.

They also subscribe to the theories that abortion causes breast cancer and birth control pills are “abortifacients” — despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. FFL claims that women choose abortion because of a lack of other options — if they had a better education, or access to childcare, or were making more money, they’d have that baby in a heartbeat and abortion would cease to exist. I agree that it’s tragic that some women do “choose” abortion simply for lack of other choices. I think it’s disgusting that right-wing legislators in states like New Jersey have created laws that limit poor women’s choice to have children — for example, penalizing welfare recipients if they give birth while on state assistance. Make the world a friendlier place for women by truly allowing us the fullest range of choices in all areas of our lives, and you can bet that the abortion rate will drop right along with the unintended pregnancy rate.

But if you don’t give women the opportunity to determine the number and spacing of their children, we aren’t going to be able to achieve things like fair pay, white-collar jobs and higher education on the mass levels that men have been able to. If you don’t believe that women are entitled to control what goes on within their own uteruses, if you don’t trust women to make their own decisions — indeed, if you think that the government should be allowed to legally force women to give birth — then you aren’t a feminist. “Feminists for Life,” aren’t. I’ll let the much more eloquent Katha Pollitt finish it out, but I’m curious if any feminists here think that you can be anti-choice (and I mean broadly anti-choice, in that you think abortion should be illegal, not just anti-abortion on a personal level) and still be a feminist.

Exposing the constraints on women’s choices, however, is only one side of feminism. The other is acknowledging women as moral agents, trusting women to decide what is best for themselves. For FFL there’s only one right decision: Have that baby. And since women’s moral judgment cannot be trusted, abortion must be outlawed, whatever the consequences for women’s lives and health–for rape victims and 12-year-olds and 50-year-olds, women carrying Tay-Sachs fetuses and women at risk of heart attack or stroke, women who have all the children they can handle and women who don’t want children at all. FFL argues that abortion harms women–that’s why it clings to the outdated cancer claims. But it would oppose abortion just as strongly if it prevented breast cancer, filled every woman’s heart with joy, lowered the national deficit and found Jimmy Hoffa. That’s because they aren’t really feminists–a feminist could not force another woman to bear a child, any more than she could turn a pregnant teenager out into a snowstorm. They are fetalists.

Pro-Life… as long as you’re Protestant

An anti-choice adoption agency that receives money from the sale of “Choose Life” license plate won’t accept Catholics as clients — reminding us that being “pro-life” is more about control and religious dogma than true compassion.

Equally disturbing is that the news article linked above only mentions that the agency discriminates against Catholics. But when I went to the agency’s website, I found a Statement of Faith — by which “Members of the national board, local boards, staff and adoptive applicants indicate their personal agreement with Bethany’s Statement of Faith”. This statement not only requires that potential adoptive parents be Christian, but that they be anti-choice as well. So the agency isn’t just discriminating against Catholics, as the news article implied — they’re discriminating against Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, pro-choice people, and anyone else who doesn’t share their exact vision of the world, as dictated by their Bible. But I guess that’s not news.

On an unrelated note, if you’re going to email me ridiculous anti-choice articles, at least don’t pretend to be Andrew Sullivan when you do so. And if you’re going to pretend to be Andrew Sullivan, try and think of a more convincing email address than BareBackAndy. Thanks.

(And to the many people who have emailed me interesting articles, blog entries, or personal messages, I do sincerely appreciate it. If I haven’t replied, it’s because I’ve been really strapped for internet time, and because I’m an ass. Please keep them coming!)

Mighty Classy Bumper Sticker

as photographed by Sasha

Putting parents back in charge of their adolescent daughters

From the “Cheers and Jeers” section of Women’s eNews:

The Republican-led New York State Senate passed a bill Wednesday to allow local pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception to women without prescription, according to combined news reports.

Fabulous. Now both my “home” states — Washington and New York — have sensible rules regarding access to EC (assuming that Gov. Pataki signs the legislation, which he likely will).

But in not-so-great news:

Female teens who try to obtain contraceptives may have to wait at least five days for their parents to be notified, according to the Parents’ Right-to-Know Act, which was re-introduced Tuesday in Congress.

Read More…Read More…

“Rape Trap” Condemned in South Africa by Women’s Groups

One one hand we’re told to take all precautions possible, on the other, told not to adapt to a violent culture.

You might remeber Feministing reporting on the “rape trap” anti-rape device being introduced in South Africa in response to their astronomical rates of sexual violence. Once an artistic concept developed by a Swedish woman “to contribute to the debate on men’s sexual violence against women in society,” this tampon from hell is becoming a reality in a country where over 50,000 rapes occur in a year.

The tampon-like device, invented by a woman, supposedly protects women from rapists by cutting into a man’s penis.

It has sparked an empassioned debate over the high number of rapes committed each day in the country and the authorities’ apparent failure to tackle the issue.

Activists are outraged and want to stop it going on sale alongside tampons in chemists and supermarkets next month.

…The device, which Sonette Ehlers, its inventor, has patented, is worn like a tampon but is hollow. In the event of a rape, she said that it would fold around the rapist’s penis and attach itself with microscopic hooks. It is impossible to remove the clamped device without medical intervention.

“We have to do something to protect ourselves. While this will not prevent rape, it will help identify attackers and secure convictions,” Ms Ehlers told the Johannesburg Star.

Women’s groups were immediately outraged by the introduction of this product to store shelves, beginning a debate quite like the one we are having on the very topic this week:

“This is a medieval instrument, based on male-hating notions and fundamentally misunderstands the nature of rape and violence against women in this society,” said Charlene Smith, one of South Africa’s most prominent campaigners against rape.

“It is vengeful, horrible, and disgusting. The woman who invented this needs help.”

The inventor of the device, Sonette Ehlers insisted she did not hate men.

“Something needs to be done, and women are crying out for me to go ahead,” she told the BBC’s World Today programme.

Ms Ehlers has patented the tampon-sized device, and expects it to go on sale next month.

Lisa Vetten, of the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) said it was “a terrifying thought that women are being made to adapt to rape by wearing these devices”.

Ms Ehlers’s critics argue that it would be better to educate men not to rape in the first place, rather than just to catch them after the deed.

But the inventor insisted: “I’m not an educator – I will go for those they can’t educate.

The question seems to be whether or not women should adapt. Women’s groups say no, women aren’t raping themselves, it is the men who need education. And interestingly enough, they believe that the use of such a device is misandrist toward rapists (?). Perhaps I’m missing something. Others believe that whatever is necessary to protect oneself should be employed, be it pepper spray or barbed tampons. In South Africa, a woman has a greater chance of being raped in her lifetime than learning how to read.

I don’t know what sort of value to place on this concept, other than to say that the idea that a woman’s last resort is an anti-rape device inserted into the vagina because rape and sexual assault are so prevalent is absolutely horrifying. As Jessica of Feministing asks, have we given up the idea that men can willfully stop raping women?

These things do not occur in a vacuum. Rape is systematically used against women and children as an act of war. Myths prevail, primarily in regions of the African continent, that sex with a virgin will cure a person of HIV/AIDS, accounting for the alarming rate of baby and child rapes in the region.

The overwhelming question is Why? In part, the culture of violence is a legacy of apartheid.

At the root of the problem, says Dr Rachel Jewkes, a senior scientist with the South African Medical Research Council, is men’s attitude towards women.

“In South Africa you have a culture where men believe that they are sexually entitled to women. You don’t get rape in a situation where you don’t have massive gender inequalities.

One of the key problems in this country is that people who commit rape don’t think they are doing anything wrong.”

Is this a problem that can be solved with barbed tampons or education? Neither? Both? I don’t know either way. But this makes my chest ache.

HT: Feministing and Krista

Stem cell research vs. IVF

Many conservatives, like George W. Bush, are against embryonic stem cell research but support IVF, despite the fact that this is a completely inconsistent position. And, really, if stem cell research is equivalent to “dismembering” a human being, then why just stop at barring federal funding of such research? Why not push for an all-out ban on any stem cell research or fertility treatment that may result in discarding of embryos? Again, there’s a serious logic gap here.

Hypocrisy in the Culture Wars

Neil of the nTrain has two great posts up about stem cells and gays/women in the military. Neil (who has a great, sarcastic writing style) points out that, although he his in favor of stem cell research, “those that object to the use of federally funded research that involved the dissection of these embryos cannot simply stop there. You cannot be against what you see as murder simply because the federal government is funding it. That’s absurd. What this calls for is a Republican bill outlawing the use of embryos by any research facility in their stem cell research.”

His solution?

I think it’s necessary to make use of those embryos because to simply allow them to remain frozen is to inhibit their developmental potential. Perhaps we can just sprinkle them on some hospital beds and give them 6-9 months to develop, providing food and drink whenever necessary or applicable. Doing nothing just seems barbaric.

Read More…Read More…

At least they’re good for something

Right-wing wackos posing as journalists is nothing new, and their antics usually fall somewhere in between vaguely irritating and just plain offensive. But every once in a while, they do something kinda funny. Jeff Gannon pal Les Kingsolving — who somehow has a permanent seat in the White House press corps — typically throws long-winded softball questions at Scott McClellan, which involve a statement with which Les agrees, followed by, “The President thinks so too, right?” (See Example A). But this week, he made a humorous (though kind of frightening in its underlying insanity) point about the President’s “pro-life” views:

Read More…Read More…

Well if this isn’t timely…

Does William Saletan read this blog? Based on this piece on Slate, I think he does, because it sounds a lot like some of the comments in this post. He may have a cool chart, but I still like you all better. While this is a good piece (possibly because he doesn’t do much of the writing himself), Saletan has too consistent a history of ticking me off for me to throw myself blindly behind this article. But the chart is interesting.

Even better than Saletan is an anonymous person on Slate’s forum, who writes one of the most compelling arguments for stem cell research (and one of the most scathing attacks on the “culture of life”) that I’ve read in a long time.

As it happens, I have adopted one of those frozen embryos in a fertility clinic that this debate whirls around. My son—my six month old baby boy—is the blessing of embryonic adoption and that has without question transformed my life. It is troubling to hear so many talk about the disposition of these embryos when so few actually have any exposure to the process. So, having actually done more than talk about those frozen entities and done something about it, I’d like to take the opportunity to inform those who insist on meddling in the very private matters of those of us involved in these processes.

Read More…Read More…

Amnesty International and a Culture of Life

In the rush to prevent the “the dismemberment of living, distinct human beings” (said Tom DeLay in a fit of melodrama, equating cell division to real, live people) the United States has conveniently redefined a culture of life to disregard or outright deny human rights to, you know, humans.

Amnesty International has branded Guantanamo prison as “the gulag of our time” in addition to other scathing assertions about American detention centers around the world.

the US government has gone to great lengths to restrict the application of the Geneva Conventions and to “re-define” torture. It has sought to justify the use of coercive interrogation techniques, the practice of holding “ghost detainees” (people in unacknowledged incommunicado detention) and the “rendering” or handing over of prisoners to third countries known to practise torture. The detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law. Trials by military commissions have made a mockery of justice and due process.

The USA, as the unrivalled political, military and economic hyper-power, sets the tone for governmental behaviour worldwide. When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity and audacity. From Israel to Uzbekistan, Egypt to Nepal, governments have openly defied human rights and international humanitarian law in the name of national security and “counter-terrorism”.

The report offers a radical solution to at least some of the inhumanity done in the names of American citizens: close Guantanamo Bay. My knee-jerk reaction is total agreement. If one doesn’t believe this will have some sort of positive consequence on a micro level, one only has to look at the anti-American sentiments, and the rioting, and the bombings, and the overall general violence generated by American military presence in the Middle East over the last year. Closing Guantanamo, or even Abu Ghraib, would send a message that we are serious about the rhetoric of peace and common humanity that so often flows out of Washington, and begin a renewal of commitment to these values of human dignity that most American citizens openly endorse.

Brief international goodwill, a la the Indian tsunami, is not enough to cultivate a true global community no matter our intentions.

Unfortunately,

Economic interests, political hypocrisy and socially orchestrated discrimination continued to fan the flames of conflict around the world. The so-called “war on terror” appeared more effective in eroding the international framework of human rights principles than in countering the threat of international “terrorism”. The security of women facing gender-based violence in the home, in the community or in situations of conflict barely received attention. The economic, social and cultural rights of marginalized communities continued to be largely ignored.

A true culture of life is one that does not perpetuate a rule of law that says human rights only matter in times without conflict. One cannot fight terrorism as it is currently defined with bombs, tanks, guns, and prisons. If one wants to reduce terrorist acts, state-sponsored or not, one must first look to the root causes: racism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, misogyny, invisibility, strict fundamentalism, limited resources, lack of educational opportunity, economic hardship, the spirit of revenge, and the desire for complete consolidation of power.

The solutions to these do not lie in gunpowder.

For interested readers, the Baltimore Sun provides a synopsis of the Amnesty International report and responses from the U.S. government.