Feminists can be pro-life
Pro-life feminism is not an oxymoron, according to Sally Winn.
At Yale Law School last Friday, the senior communications specialist for the Feminists for Life of America argued that resources for pregnant students and staff at universities need to be more available so they do not feel that abortion is the only option. While some students in the audience questioned whether, as Winn claimed, a true feminist could be pro-life, four of those interviewed said Winn presented a side of the abortion debate that they had not previously heard.
In her talk before an audience of about...
You go girl!
Options abound: why, for example, is adoption downplayed these days? Loving families go to great lengths--and different countries--in order to adopt. Why the rush to abort, say, a potential future Yalie?
The bulk of the "support" one receives on campus, when pregnant, is of the "outpatient" kind, i.e., "We support your termination of this human foetus." Why not a little support of the other variety? Let's celebrate LIFE!
There is no culpability to assign to the child. The child is innocent.
While pregnancy and childbirth may be painful burdens, this pain does not outweigh the life of a child.
Adoption is always an option.
I would rather live in squalor, in destitution than not to live at all.
My mother could have aborted me as a single mom, but she didn't, despite the burden I was on her.
I am eternally grateful and ended up at Yale!
Looking for real HOPE and CHANGE?!?!
Then protect life in every instance.
It's mind-boggling that Ms. Winn campaigns to make child-rearing a more feasible choice for young women while also explicitly seeking to criminalize the choice not to give birth. Pretty depressing, actually.
Then again, it's kind of funny that Ms. Winn seems to think she has the upper hand in the debate. As long as we agree to outlaw abortion, she'll let us have piercings? Don't be so generous, Sally!
I wonder whether "times have changed." That is: time was that abortion was promoted as an "option" in part because pregnancy was such an outright social disgrace. Access to abortion was supposedly to end "back alley" procedures.
These days: no one is denied access to birth control and pregnancy certainly is no longer even, well, noticed. Perhaps for the large majority of terminations, i.e., those used as a form of post hoc birth control, the pendulum could swing a ways back in favor of the unborn.
Yes, yes: I can hear you now: "BUT WHAT ABOUT RAPE AND INCEST?!"
First off: I rather doubt anyone is seeking to ban abortion when the health of the mother is in question or when a foetus has some irreparable deformity, so get off the ledge there, folks.
That said: even the product of a rape (and, seriously, exactly what NUMBERS are we talking here, hmm?) is still 50% the biological progeny of the mother, and 100% worthy of love to any number of adoptive families. Just something to think about.
Lastly: the most sickening aspect of the abortion discussion at a place like Yale is that the Liberal youth (educated, if not affluent) are the least likely to face the decision OR they are, post graduation at least, the most likely to support abortion PUBLICLY while privately they say "of course, *I* would never have one!" (Examine yourselves readers: how many support OTHER people's abortions, hmm?)
Why do I point this out? Because liberal abortion laws are effectively a campaign of genocide against minorities and the poor--the women who REALLY have the bulk of abortions (and NOT because of the dreaded "RAPE AND INCEST!"). How nice that, as usual, you backhandedly condemn (or at least encourage) the less privileged to death.
Too bad college is out of the conscience biz...
This piece offers an interesting perspective on this issue as well:
http://www.alternet.org/story/96513/can_you_be_a_feminist_and_anti-abortion/
Thank you Sally! I completely agree!