Do You Consider Yourself a Feminist?

[Bianca and Bernard]

Some of the best articles I've found about women and their (lack) of reproductive freedoms

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/i...e-regimes-women-and-religious-fundamentalism/

When we talk about fundamentalism, especially the political aspects of fundamentalism, we cannot ignore the fact that the roots of fundamentalist political behavior are found in patriarchal interpretations of religious beliefs and values. Fundamentalists claim to be upholding orthodoxy (right belief) or orthopraxis (right behavior).1 They believe that they are protecting and preserving religious culture, traditions, and established ways of life from secular erosion. In spite of their dedication to “the old way,” fundamentalists do this by crafting new methods of control, formulating new ideologies, and adopting the latest political processes and organizational structures for advancing their beliefs in the public domain,2 thereby making these religious movements quintessentially political.

The attempt of fundamentalist religious movements to control the reproductive lives of women stems from the structures of dominance that we find in most of the major world religions. This is particularly problematic for women because when fundamentalists act politically to block women’s access to reproductive health services, state and government officials–who more often than not are men who were educated within patriarchal religious traditions–are more likely to accept the fundamentalist perspective as representative of their tradition. Progressive perspectives, on the other hand, are seen as “new” and less legitimate. Policymakers frequently are able to accept the fundamentalist agenda against women because it is familiar and if they are men–the likely case–it preserves male privileges.

The degree to which fundamentalisms attempt to control the sexual and reproductive lives of women varies. For example, in Pakistan many women are killed by male relatives when they are suspected of “immoral activities.” These so-called “honor killings”–a gross misinterpretation of Islam–are intended to recover family honor and tend to be covered up by families and the government, making it difficult to determine how many women are actually killed. In the U.S.A., Christian religious fundamentalists have employed terrorism to prevent women from having abortions. Clinics that provide abortions have been bombed, some doctors who provide legal abortions and other clinic workers have been assassinated, and packages falsely claiming to contain anthrax have been sent to hundreds of abortion providers as well as reproductive rights advocacy groups. In Nepal, due to opposition from conservative Hindu religious groups, who while very small in number have great political influence,3 the government has imposed one of the most severely restrictive abortion laws in the world. Although the law is currently under review, Nepalese law makes absolutely no exceptions for abortion, and as a result, hundreds of women have served prison terms–including victims of rape and incest who have sought abortions.4 And although there is a law condemning dowry deaths in India, Hindu fundamentalist leaders are apathetic to the growing problem. In Ghana, according to the Trokosi tradition, virgin girls are enslaved by priests as a way of appeasing the gods for crimes committed by relatives.5 These are examples of oppressive–and brutal–policies upheld in the name of religion.

 

[Bianca and Bernard]

https://nacla.org/news/2017/09/27/long-road-reproductive-rights-chile

In 2015, a woman from Indiana who claimed to have had a miscarriage was, for the first time in U.S. history, charged with attempted feticide and sentenced to decades in prison. In El Salvador, pregnant women can be prosecuted for medical complications during pregnancy. After a 1998 legislative change that declared abortion illegal under all circumstances in El Salvador, women have been sentenced to jail for up to forty years for having miscarriages.

The prosecutions of individual women across the Americas result from stringent laws that transform pregnant women into suspects—giving legislators the right to convict “perpetrators” who may have unexpected health problems either related or unrelated to their pregnancies. Indeed, laws that treat abortion as crime and use the discourse of a violation of “fetal rights” have provided platforms to criminalize women’s reproductive choices for much of the 20th century and well into the new millennium.


https://www.warhistoryonline.com/fe...s-bodies-discovered-groundbreaking-study.html

Across 250 centers, a staggering 350,000 to 400,000 German men and women were forced into compulsory sterilizations. These heinous hardships were inflicted on both sides, but Chalmers recognizes the Jewish experience was far more horrific and unspeakable. Sterilization was utilized if you were “non- Aryan” or labeled as mentally or physically unfit in some capacity.

It only took the Nazis six months after coming into power to implement eugenic sterilization programs. There were members of various medical professions who took a role in this. They adopted the Nazi concepts of Rassenkunde (the study of race and theories of racial superiority) and Rassenschande (racial pollution, race defilement, or racial treason).

The German women who had “desirable” racial backgrounds had tons of pressure imparted on them to have children for the Reich. The women were expected to stay home and have children as the feminist movement was targeted. Aryan men whose wives could no longer have children (or could not have them at all) were pushed to divorce them so the men could take younger, more fertile wives.

Most (not all) Jewish women who became pregnant had abortions under dangerously unsanitary situations. The progression of the pregnancy had no bearing on the decision.


r. Gisella Perl was a Jewish doctor in Auschwitz-Birkenau. She testified in 1948 about her role in aborting fetuses to save mothers lives. The author quoted her:

“First, I took the ninth-month pregnancies, I accelerated the birth by the rupture of the membranes, and usually, within one or two days spontaneous birth took place without further intervention. Or I produced dilation with my fingers, inverted the embryo and this brought it to life… After the child had been delivered, I quickly bandaged the mother’s abdomen and sent her back to work. When possible, I placed her in my hospital, which was in reality just a grim joke… I delivered women in the eighth, seventh, sixth, and fifth month – always in a hurry; always with my five fingers, in the dark under terrible conditions… By a miracle, which to every doctor must sound like a fairy tale, every one of these women recovered and was able to work, which, at least for a while, saved her life.”

 

[Bianca and Bernard]

https://www.e-ir.info/2014/11/10/ho...dermined-peruvian-womens-reproductive-rights/

ne could argue that entrenched within the core of Peruvian society is the notion that women have always been denied control over their own bodies, and deprived of personal reproductive responsibility or choice. Female subordination and subservience to their husbands or male family members is most prevalent in impoverished Peruvian societies. This was manipulated in the racial and strategic nature of the sterilization campaign, which specifically targeted indigenous poor women, for they were consistently the most vulnerable, uneducated, and easiest to manipulate to consent to the procedure.


In 1995, Peruvian congress legalized surgical the sterilization of women. The demographic rational was that with fewer dependents, the economic status of the poor would be improved. “The policy was to increase the use of modern contraceptives, especially sterilization, largely among poor, disenfranchised women with little or no formal education” (Coe: 2004, 62). Surgical sterilization is a non-reversible procedure and although routine, required operating on the bodies of women, which is synonymous with health risks in itself. With inadequate numbers of trained practitioners, inappropriate equipment and substandard conditions in rural areas; the targeted location of the program, it was only a matter of time before complications would arise.


The sinister character of the program arguably lies in formalities of implementing the policies and the conditions under which the procedures were performed. It exploited and manipulated those who were most vulnerable; poor, uneducated, indigenous, rural women. Firstly, the program was arguably flawed, for it did not consider that the effectiveness of the policy might have been greater if men (Who were notoriously polygamous and more sexually free in machismo ideology) may have been a more efficient way to reduce fertility rates. In its fierce commitment to rapidly reduce fertility, the program was extensively and authoritatively implemented (Coe: 2004, 62). Previously, sterilization had only been an accessible method of contraception available to women if they had a health risk, were above a certain age, or had four or more children. Furthermore, sterilization was abhorred by the Catholic Church and was not largely at odds with Peruvian culture, as a means of contraception. Furthermore, because the policy was implemented so rapidly, the ministry of Health (MoH) was unable to ensure sufficient training, and get appropriate equipment in such a short period of time.

Little care was taken for the physical and emotional consequences of sterilization. High quotas were set, practitioners were threatened with being fired if they were not met, and vast numbers of women did not formally consented to the procedure, or were aware that the procedure was irreversible. “Oral contraception were intentionally withheld to promote permanent sterilization, deception, food or clothing incentives, and humiliating threats against poor women of rural areas or other coercive methods were used to obtain consent”

Coercion and abuse was endemic and many physicians reported that did not inform the women that they were going to be sterilized, in some instances, women’s interviews show that some were performing the procedure when women were under anesthetic for alternate operations (Ibid). The program clearly inadequately protected, and violated women’s human rights.
Women’s bodies were essentialized to simply a practical means to reduce poverty, and there was little to any consideration of the psychological impact coerced sterilization had on the women it targeted. This was paramount for sterilization campaigns targeted poor, less educated, rural women who had little access to alternative measures of contraception. The numbers of urban women who underwent the procedure was marginal in comparison. The reforms reflected a class and racial bias of the Peruvian elite.

 

[Bianca and Bernard]

http://asap-asia.org/blog/lakshmi-dhikta-v-nepal-a-far-reaching-decision/


he Supreme Court of Nepal took a look at the issue of access to safe abortions by relying on the Nepali Constitutional framework and international law. It offered a rather unbiased view of women’s reproductive rights, by rooting it firmly in the reality of women’s reproductive rights. The key highlights of the Supreme Court’s decision are as follows:

– The Government Must Guarantee Access to Safe and Affordable Abortion Services for women. Unless the procedure is accessible and affordable, the right will not be realised.

– The Right to Abortion an Essential Component of Reproductive Rights and must be treated thus.

– An instance of forced pregnancy constitutes a violation of Women’s Fundamental Human Rights

– A foetus does not have a legal status as that of a human life.

– A comprehensive abortion law is necessary in order to fully protect the rights of women

– Where women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies, they should be given monetary compensation

 

[luvsJack]

No, of course it's not new. I never said it was new. It's reinstated every time the "pro-life" party is in control, and it results in higher abortion rates. How does one who claims to be "pro-life" rationalize this in their mind? I am genuinely interested in how this happens, because it seems to me that this and many other policies of the "pro-life" group really have the opposite effect of what they say they want.

https://smlr.rutgers.edu/news/study-global-gag-rule-increased-abortion-rates-some-regions

Actually it say “could” not does. I keep reading and reading but not finding where the rule stops contraception.

 

[luvsJack]

Not in Alabama, they wouldn't.

And no, I wouldn't have been able to get a tubal. Because the doctor would have asked him, just as they asked my now DH (together 27 years, married 20, and this was after our 2nd child together).

The law in Alabama is one of the ones I am saying is going too far. I believe there should be exceptions. I am not a citizen in Alabama.

I meant if his consent was not needed.

I live in the Deep South. I was asked at 21 when having my second child if I wanted one. At no point was I told I needed my husband’s consent. I chose not to.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

Actually it say “could” not does. I keep reading and reading but not finding where the rule stops contraception.

I'm not sure what you are reading because the article I linked clearly says that between 2001 - 2008 when that rule was last in place, that rule resulted in women in Latin America being 3x more likely to have an abortion, and women in Africa more than 2x more likely to have an abortion. So yes, the study is not done for what the same rule will do **this** time it's in place (meaning since Jan 2017) - hence the "could," however the study of the time frame from 2001 - 2008 is pretty clear, and I'm not sure why anyone would expect different results from conducting the same experiment again now.

So again, my question stands ... how does someone adamantly "pro-life" rationalize that they support policies that directly result in abortions?

 

[luvsJack]

So, it is ok to kill some babies? And you are choosing which babies are eligible to be killed and which ones aren't. How is that pro life? That is pro birth. How about we let the doctors and women decide?

Pro life is about the preservation of life. A woman or child who is raped has had a part of her life taken from her. Her physical and mental health may be affected. Being impregnated was forced on her.

If the woman’s life is in danger from the pregnancy, her life counts too. Or if the child will suffer from being carried to term or being born, abortion may be humane.

A child of 11’s body may not have the maturity to carry a baby safely. She is a child and her life counts too.

Once again, these count for a whopping .5% and 3% of all abortions.

 

[luvsJack]

I'm not sure what you are reading because the article I linked clearly says that between 2001 - 2008 when that rule was last in place, that rule resulted in women in Latin America being 3x more likely to have an abortion, and women in Africa more than 2x more likely to have an abortion. So yes, the study is not done for what the same rule will do **this** time it's in place (meaning since Jan 2017) - hence the "could," however the study of the time frame from 2001 - 2008 is pretty clear, and I'm not sure why anyone would expect different results from conducting the same experiment again now.

So again, my question stands ... how does someone adamantly "pro-life" rationalize that they support policies that directly result in abortions?

Where have I said I support it? And I still ask it relates more abortions to lack of contraception. Does the rule not allow them to give contraception?

 

[pwanderson]

I think we need to get back on track here. Raised in the south I was raised to respect. That said, there should be equal rights for all. I have gotten in trouble for telling a co-worker she looked nice that day, but that’s another discussion! No flames please!

 

[cinnaminny]

It's always so strange to watch women advocate that someone else should be able to make laws that take their own choices out of their hands. Especially based on their opinions...whose opinions are those that really matter? The woman who thinks there should be exceptions? The woman with no exceptions? The man who thinks birth control is zygote murder? Who has the winning opinion? Everyone has a different opinion of what is acceptable and what is not, which is why it should be left in the hands of women and their doctors privately, because quite frankly sometimes women don't even know how they really feel until they are really put into that position.

 

[mousefan73]

And you personally know this person? I'm not looking for stories on the internet. I'm asking if anyone here has personally known an American woman who has died in modern times. I've been on this earth for 53 years and have not known anyone personally ... not even a friend-of-a-friend situation. This leads me to believe it's a very rare thing.
So approximately 280 American woman die because of pregnancy /delivery UNAVOIDABLY every year. I know, I know, that's serious to their families, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of people who give birth without complications.

This still isn't a personal "I knew someone myself" story. What was the point again? I think it was, Pregnancy can be difficult, but the chances of dying from the condition are slim. To put those 280 women into perspective, (if you believe a quick google search), 1.25 million people die in car wrecks every year, yet no one's saying we should stop driving.

Yes I do but never met them as they died giving birth before I met my friend. A good friend’s mother died giving birth to her younger brother. Don’t really know why you ate stressing “ do you personally know”???

 

[Colleen27]

I dont know, I want equal pay for equal work, I dont want anyone (including women) to be treated unfairly, I am against the Government getting involved (Im alright with courts, but not government)

If government doesn't get involved, how would it ever change? Courts are there to interpret and apply laws, and without government involvement, there are no laws to apply.

You make it sound like all fathers will be controlling and abusive. That isn’t the case.

What about the father that truly want his child? The one that would raise the child on his own and be a wonderful father. That is the majority of fathers.

Two people enter a marriage and plan a life together. Two not one. Marriage is supposed to a life together. If a man decided to buy a house without the wife getting a voice, everyone would say “what a controlling xxx he is! That’s just wrong!” But it’s perfectly ok for the wife to take away his choices about children?

The fact that there is a range of circumstances and situations is exactly why the law needs to leave these things to personal choice. So the woman in a good relationship can involve her partner in her decisionmaking, while the one who is in a toxic relationship can make the choice without her abuser's agreement. Your way only works for those in good relationships and to hell with the rest.

And no, a wife getting a tubal isn't taking away the man's choices about children. If she could force him to have a vasectomy, she'd be taking away his choices. But her making a choice for her own body leaves the decision in his hands - is he committed enough to his marriage to accept his wife's decision of how her body will or will not be used, or does he feel strongly enough about having children to end the relationship and seek out a woman who has the same priorities?

And you may want to spin it to say that most abortions are about more than simply not wanting to be pregnant but the facts say different. Less than .5% are because of rape and 3% due to health of the mother or baby. All I am saying is that any time abortion comes up, the stories of the rape victims and mother having to choose her life over the baby abound as though those are the main reasons for abortions. They aren’t. A lot of people that are pro life will tell you that there should be exceptions in these cases. But all that gets thrown at us are the extreme cases and “what about this one?” It’s the other 97% that we want to look at not those few.

And the pro-choice side would like to talk about the vast majority of actual abortions, which happen early in the pregnancy, but the anti-choice side continually frames the conversation around the rare and usually medically indicated late-term procedures instead...

It’s pro life, not anti choice. I know it’s hard for pro choice to accept they are actually pro death and want to gloss it over.

Pro-death would mean advocating for abortion and discouraging/trying to prohibit women from continuing their pregnancies. I've yet to meet the pro-choice person who does that. In fact, there's a strong correlation between pro-choice views and advocacy for policies that are KNOWN to reduce abortion rates - comprehensive sex education, easy and affordable access to birth control, strong workplace protections for pregnant women including paid maternity leave, social safety net supports for children born into less-than-ideal financial circumstances.

So would it be ok to kill one of these unwanted humans in the delivery room or is it only ok to do it in the womb.

Up until a human being has the ability to live on his/her own, without the support of another's body, it has no rights the "host" isn't willing to extend to it. If my kid needs a kidney to live and his father is a match but won't donate, I/my kid/the law cannot force him. It should be the same with a woman's womb. At the very least, that means women should have the right to abort up to the point of viability. And in practice, almost all elective abortions happen well before that point - 85-90% before 12 weeks gestation - and those that happen later tend to be due to medical issues (usually fetal defects, not a threat to the mother's life).

I don't know much about the states that are passing anti-abortion legislation, but I wonder how many of them support pro-family policies like paid family/maternity leave, paid sick leave, increasing minimum wages, childcare subsidies, etc.

You're joking, right? These states are the bottom of the barrel in infant and maternal mortality, education, health and any number of other quality-of-life measures.

Does anyone here know anyone IN REAL LIFE who died in modern times -- say, the last 50 years? -- as a result of pregnancy or delivery?

This board is not a representative sample of the country as a whole. We're richer, whiter and more educated. And maternal outcomes vary immensely by income, race and location. So there's a very good chance that few of us here will have personal stories to share about friends or relatives who died in childbirth. But that doesn't negate the statistics. The U.S has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world, and it is rising, not falling, with the "modern medicine" of the last decade or two.

A husband absolutely should "get a voice" in his wife's decision to have a tubal ligation ... and she should "get a voice" in whether he has a vasectomy. When you marry, you become one. You agree to share all decisions ... forever. This comes with lots of wonderful benefits, but you also voluntarily give yourself and a portion of your freedom to your chosen spouse.

I don't recall anything in our vows or our marriage license saying that I became less than a fully functional adult when I agreed to marry DH. Marriage should be a partnership between two full and complete people, not an arrangement by which either has to surrender their own rights on the altar of their relationship.

 

[mousefan73]

I don't suppose you'd like to hear about the coat hanger at-home messes we'd get once in awhile too? The ones where they were just young kids scared to ask parents for help or be judged...that still happens as well. Fyi...

my grandmother’s sister passed away from blood poisening ( at least that what family members called it ) after a home abortion. Had to have been around 1947 or so. Just after the war. Left a little girl behind. Believe back then there were many pregnancies from other men. Also heard about those war stories. Men came and left and you weren’t sure if they’d come back. Old world europe.

 

[Searc]

Pro life is about the preservation of life. A woman or child who is raped has had a part of her life taken from her. Her physical and mental health may be affected. Being impregnated was forced on her.

If the woman’s life is in danger from the pregnancy, her life counts too. Or if the child will suffer from being carried to term or being born, abortion may be humane.

A child of 11’s body may not have the maturity to carry a baby safely. She is a child and her life counts too.

Once again, these count for a whopping .5% and 3% of all abortions.

Plain and simple, pro life is about power. It is about thinking you should have the power to decide what women do with their bodies. It is about being pro birth, not pro life.

 

[Colleen27]

There will never be an equal say when it comes to this. There can't be a 50/50, someone will always have to win, and it should always be the person who is putting their actual life on the line. FTR I have known plenty of guys that if they had their say, they would have forced an abortion. Men and women both have different choices, a mans choice of what they do with their body is different. There is no way to split the difference.

Exactly - both individuals involved have the right to decide what happens with their own body, not to control their partner's body. That is equality.

I have said many times that there should be exceptions for rape. And for an 11 year old, maternal health exceptions should make an abortion possible. I don’t agree with laws that do not give those exceptions.

I am so sorry you lived through that, but again if the laws weren’t swinging so far the other way, the rape exception would have allowed you an abortion.

Do you understand how flimsy the rape exception is? It will of course vary from state to state, but most require more than a woman's word that the pregnancy began with rape. And then there are questions of due process for the accused; the wheels of justice turn too slowly for something as time-sensitive as an abortion. So women who don't report or cannot prove their rape - that is, the majority of rape victims - are not protected by that exception. Some legal experts believe the exception exists solely for the protection of women who cannot legally consent (children and the disabled, who almost everyone would agree shouldn't be forced to carry to term), while others view it as a political concession to make abortion bans sound less absolute than they are.

 

[Colleen27]

To get back to the original topic, I was listening to a story on NPR this morning that really underscored how far we are from true equality between the sexes. It was about TripAdvisor's new policy of highlighting reviews that talk about sexual assault travelers have experienced at the hands of resort staff, and there was an "expert" (didn't catch her title) on talking about the new policy and travel safety more broadly. Her first piece of advice? Women shouldn't travel alone. Period, full stop. She was careful to add niceties about "of course it is never the victim's fault", but then went on to say that women should always have a traveling companion, avoid going places alone as much as possible and pre-arrange check-ins if they do so, refrain from drinking or getting friendly with other travelers, etc. How can anyone claim we have equality if we cannot even move through the world in the same way a man can, without having someone supervising or checking in with us like we're children?

 

[Alexander]

Not just no, but HELL no. Hate the word, even.

This!!!!

 

[Nancyg56]

Exactly - both individuals involved have the right to decide what happens with their own body, not to control their partner's body. That is equality.



Do you understand how flimsy the rape exception is? It will of course vary from state to state, but most require more than a woman's word that the pregnancy began with rape. And then there are questions of due process for the accused; the wheels of justice turn too slowly for something as time-sensitive as an abortion. So women who don't report or cannot prove their rape - that is, the majority of rape victims - are not protected by that exception. Some legal experts believe the exception exists solely for the protection of women who cannot legally consent (children and the disabled, who almost everyone would agree shouldn't be forced to carry to term), while others view it as a political concession to make abortion bans sound less absolute than they are.

No who gets to use that reason, rape? A women in a bad marraige who was raped by her husband is not likely to file a police report and then try to have a legal abortion. A teen who was raped by a family member and is terrified? WHo advocates for her?

I am struggling with this becuase as a Catholic I firmly believe life begins at conception, so for me, there is no abortion option. I understand that we cannot legislate religion, or at t=least that we should not try, so I am not going to try to reduce the rights women or men have over their own bodies. Once we take that autonomy away we have determined that a human is less than another adnd I am not okay with this. Not one bit.

WHat comes next? Do we go back to the boys will be boys mentality when they abuse women? Oh yes, we are already on that path. Do we determine a man needs more money for the same job because he has a family to support, o the poor guy pays child support, etc? Oh right.,.... that still exists.

Every step forward women have taken is becuase other people have stepped out of their comfort zone and have fought for that step. I am not happy that we are rolling back personal rights and human dignatiy for an entire gender.

 

[daisy2013]

Where have I said I support it? And I still ask it relates more abortions to lack of contraception. Does the rule not allow them to give contraception?

The Ohio law does not allow contraception that would prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg (they claim that is an abortion). So an iud and most birth control pills because they have the duel effect of minimizing the possibility of fertilization and change the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation.