From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh Steve! Oh Canada!
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:54:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <1992Apr12.161004.18631@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <92101.130850ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

::REAL Women, a major female prolife organization in Canada, has a
::membership far lower than the membership registered in NAC.
::Considering the Canadian apathy to become politically involved,
::the number differences are seen to be significant to the point
::that the Federal government agreed that funding REAL Women is not
::required because they do not sufficiently reflect the attitudes
::of Canadian women.
:   I've liked to term REAL women as "feminists with morals". Seems
:rather fitting don't you think? The reason that REAL women is 
:so diminished financially is because of it's lack of federal financial
:support. Also it is a relatively new concept but has has lots of success
:in recent years. I stand behin the group faithfully for their intelligence
:and persistence.

	Looks like it hasn't gotten far enough to get funding...

	What do you mean, "with morals"? How is it that anything that
suggests the renunciation of sexuality and acceptance of the painful
duty of bearing of children is "morality"???

::The leaders of two leading antiabortion organizations are men.
::Reverend Campbell (I've forgotten the name of his group) was a
::frequent demonstrator and spokesperson for the Right to Life
::movement until he was arrested and jailed for violating a court
::against protesting outside of a Toronto Morgentaler clinic
::The leader of the Canadian Operation Rescue is a man.  The
::politicians who have tabled prolife policies have all been
::men.
:   And your point is? There are thousands of women who are proud to have
:these men as their spokesperson. Do they have to be women to merit
:any respect? Shouldn't it be enough that women support and respect this
:man's word? I think the best candidate for the job is what is important,
:male OR female...

	But why are the leaders here male? Only if one is female is
one directly affected by abortion. I think it significant that there
is a LOT more female leadership on the pro-choice side than there is
on the anti-abortion side. It probably reveals which side features the
most women with strong personal initiative, if nothing else.

	It was mentioned that anti-abortion sentiment was strongest on
the lower levels of society. That is supported by Kristin Luker's
study of this question. Here are common features of the two sides:

Anti:

Housewife
High-school education
Often Catholic
Religiously observant

Pro:

Career woman
College or university education
Often "personal" religion or none
Often nonobservant

Luker associated the side each took on abortion with personal
concerns:

Anti:

Abortion makes possible a drastic form of optional motherhood, and
therefore threatens identity as a mother. It suggests that babies are
somehow expendable.

Pro:

Abortion makes possible control over how many children one has, and
helps keep motherhood from being involuntary. It is not the most
pleasant thing in the world, but it is a good backup to birth control.


	Just about all those on the Internet are people with careers,
so we do not get many housewives. Not surprisingly, there is only one
persistent anti-abortion woman here: Suzanne Forgach. In contrast to
the nearly all-male anti-abortion contingent, the pro-choice one is a
nearly even mixture of both sexes. SF is a practicing Catholic, not
surprisingly, and many of the pro-choice people -- of both sexes --
are critical of many things done in the name of organized religion.
Thus, the talk.abortion posters fit Kristin Luker's profile to a tee.
The next think KL should do is to survey men on both sides of the
issue. That might be most interesting.


/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.abortion