We’ve been posting recently about what it means to be feminist, and ultimately, I believe the fundamental ideology is concerned with the advancement of the status of women. That can be defined more specifically by various feminist sects who may or may not oppose one another. It’s concerned with gender equality (which also means different things to different people). Many pro-life groups have associated themselves with the term, recognizing the need for a differentiation from other forms of feminism and feeling that they are pursuing feminist ideals by pro-life means.
The infamous Rebecca West wrote, “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a door mat or a prostitute.” It is a term that has avoided rigid definition for decades, yet Gloria Steinem told us today who can and can’t use the word.
In an interview for @katiecouric, writer and activist Gloria Steinem responded to Sarah Palin calling herself a feminist, saying, “you can’t be a feminist who says other women can’t” have an abortion.
While I don’t say women can’t have an abortion, I’d prefer if they didn’t.
Steinem said of candidates like Republican Senate nominee Carly Fiorina: “I defend their right to be wrong.”
And I yours.
by 
I don’t say they can’t, either, but I don’t think it is very feminist-like, or empowering to lay yourself spread-eagled on the operating table and let some doctor have a go at your bottom bits with a vacuum.
And I think it is downright selfish to demand (without having to provide a reason or explanation) a doctor to perform a gruesome procedure that no doctor wants, and very few doctors are willing, to perform.
So no, I don’t say you can’t have an abortion. But I think that the people who request abortions are either selfish or scared. And I don’t think that selfishness or fear has much to do with feminism.
Abortion is the great NO. I don’t want another person interfering with my life, I don’t have the strength, the will, the energy, or the love to let someone else move me out of the center of the universe.
Whereas the woman who says yes to new life, even when it comes unexpectedly, or in difficult circumstances, or when she doesn’t know how she can handle it – is a woman who will actually grow stronger through this experience.
It is proven that women who carry their child to term, whether they keep the child or give him/her up for adoption, are better for that experience. They mature in ways that no one could have told them.
The woman who aborts doesn’t grow from that experience, but is wounded.
This is always the result of saying no to life.
A strong woman is able to allow someone else to enter and have their place at the table of life, even when it inconveniences her.
Does the baby before birth have dignity? Is he or she a person? If so then killing him or her is murder. I’m curious, do those who don’t want to say a woman can’t have an abortion also refuse to say that a person can’t murder, commit theft, genocide whatever, simply that they would prefer if the person choose for themselves not to commit murder, theft, genocide whatever? Is this a consistent position so committed to “choice” that there is no commitment to law whatsoever, simply a vague hope that law might not be necessary?
It seems to me that either the answer is “yes” or there is a commitment to the position that abortion isn’t really murder or even a wrong like crimes such as theft. If it’s less worthy of legislation than theft then I think while having many things in common with the pro life position, for example that abortion is distasteful, it seems to have more in common with the pro choice position in that choice, not life, us the greatest, most sacrosanct good.
The awful thing about Gloria Steinem is that she has stated explicity that abortion is murder. In fact, she challenges pro-abortion women to be honest and to admit that they are killing another human being when they have an abortion. She says not to admit that is to make themselves into some kind of shallow and uncaring group of people – yes, unbelievable but true.
I find it particularly sad to see old women, and Gloria Steinem is now old, still embracing the pro-abortion position. I would have hoped that when they reach their final years, they would have found something more life-giving to dedicate themselves to, but they are still waving that abortion flag, even though they are long past their own fertile days.
Does Gloria Steinem have any children? or grandchildren? probably not.
The biggest problem with the feminists of the 70ies is that they did not make things better for mothers, but made them worse.
“do those who don’t want to say a woman can’t have an abortion also refuse to say that a person can’t murder, commit theft, genocide whatever, simply that they would prefer if the person choose for themselves not to commit murder, theft, genocide whatever?”
The reason that I don’t say a woman can’t have an abortion is because, the truth is, even if abortion were illegal, she could still decide to have one. I don’t tell my daughter that she can’t hit my son because, if I did, she would (as likely as not) hit him just to prove me wrong. Instead, i tell here that we don’t hit, and, if she were to hit him, Mummy would be sad, Son would be mad, and Daughter would feel badly too, because it feels bad to hurt someone else.
David, please correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like what you are trying to say is that there should be legal or criminal penalties against a woman who has had an abortion. If this is indeed your opinion, I must say that I disagree with you VERY strongly.
I’m not sure this conversation is helpful on this site and I withdraw my comment. I like that this site directs the conversation to a different area and this is a good idea in my opinion.
My point, which I’m happy to withdraw, was that the law functions as a deterrent while we await the perfect society where it isn’t necessary. This is why if someone rap*es or murders or sexually abuses children there are legal consequences. Every rapist or murderer is a damaged person, in some senses a victim, but in all societies I know of there are consequences for committing these wrongs in the attempt to lessen them. Those who believe in the rule of law think that this approach, to some extent, works. They thinks that if there were no consequences for raping that there would be more raping. I agree with them.
Now for those who think abortion is the taking of an innocent life, it is on a par with these other wrongs mentioned and, believing in the use of law to sculpt the behaviour of citizens, it is consistent to hold that the taking of an innocent life should be a criminal act.
If someone doesn’t believe in the rule of law – fine. If someone doesn’t believe that abortion is taking an innocent life – fine. But for someone who does believe that abortion is the taking of an innocent life and believes that the law should sculpt the behaviour of citizens (me) I have no choice but to believe that abortion should be illegal. The only reason not to is if I didn’t believe in the law as a shaper of society or if I didn’t believe that abortion really was a wrong on a par with wrongs like murder or rap*e.
To be honest the strongest pro-choice position possible is to believe that abortion is the killing of the innocent AND that it should be solely up to the choice of the woman whether she kills the baby or not. If you believe that the unborn are just an inanimate collection of cells, like a cyst, then it’s not really a strong pro-choice position to believe that the woman should choose whether to take it out or not. But for those who believe that it’s murder – not that’s a PRO-CHOICE position! in that choice is even more important than life itself (literally) for those who hold it!
Again, I like the way this site directs the conversation in a non-legal way and that’s great with me, so I do withdraw my comments above 🙂