From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 16:32:25 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa


pl>In article <Bw4ABM.22n@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
dk>In article <1992Oct13.165348.14307@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
 
dk>However,
dk>when push comes to shove, when the fetus's right to life is in conflict
dk>with the woman's right to her body, they are willing to use the force 
dk>of law to take away the woman's right.  As should be clear, this is hardly
dk>a pro-woman position. 
 
pl>Dan - I understand your reasoning, however it has a circular flavor to it. 
pl>That is your premise supports your conclusion but your conclusion unfortunately
pl>is the basis for your premise.
 
In our previous exchange about FFL, I had thought we had dropped it by
agreeing that while FFL is a feminist organization, their opinion on 
abortion is not pro-women.  I have still not seen anyone justify 
their agenda to make abortion illegal, thereby forbidding an option 
1.5 million women in the U.S. choose, as pro-women.  I have no problem
agreeing the FFL is a feminist organization, I just believe they
try to use deception to make it look like their position on 
abortion legislation is pro-women.
 
Perhaps either I missed a reply by you or you missed a reply by me.  
I'll send you my last reply in our exchange via e-mail.  If you 
have a message that replys to that one, please send it via e-mail.
 
pl>The conclusion, FFLA is anti-woman on abortion, is based upon the premise that
pl>the fetus, because of its biological dependence upon the pregnant woman's body,
pl> has a heirarchy of rights which is quite different than those of the woman. 
 
Right now in the U.S. we have some number close to 1.5 million women
who when faced with a difficult choice, choose abortion. Part of FFL's
agenda is to make that choice illegal.  While it is possible to hold 
a position against abortion that is pro-women, I have trouble 
understanding how holding a position that you want to use force
of government to take this choice away from woman, is a pro-woman
position.  
 
pl>On one hand you say to be pro-woman you must accept that the rights of the
pl>woman take precedence over fetus; on the other you say, since the rights of the
pl>woman take precedence over the fetus you must be anti-woman if you disagree. 
pl>This is not an argument, its a list of rules that the establishment feminist
pl>movement has adopted. 
 
Right now we have people such as Rush Limbaugh claiming he is a feminist.  
Now anyone can claim they are anything they want to be.  But I consider
it dishonest for someone fighting for legislation that will hurt such
a large number of women to call themselves feminist.  I want to know 
how anyone can consider taking choice away from women, pro-women.
 
pl>The insidious undertone is that feminism implies female superiority with regard
pl>to the balance of rights in our society.  Any feminist group will vehemently
pl>deny this, I'm sure.  But merely saying that the fetus places a burden on women
pl>not experienced by others (men, children, infertile women) is not sufficient
pl>justification for leaping to the conclusion that the rights of a fetus are
pl>lessened.  FFLA has an alternative conclusion; that the responsibilities of the
pl>father should be strictly enforced by law, and society should be required to
pl>share and ease the burden of the pregnant woman.  To me this is truly a
pl>feminist conclusion; one that recognizes the inherent differences between the
pl>sexes while at the same time recognizing our society's duty to make sure the
pl>biological inequalities (so vital to the continuation of our species) are
pl>counterbalanced.
 
I don't get it.  FFL says society should be required to share and ease the
burden of the pregnant women.  I find this a worthwhile goal.  Why wouldn't
a pro-woman organization ensure this happens prior to using the force 
of government to take away a choice from women?  I would think they would
want to ensure this happens first.  Once this happens, then we will run
a lessened risk to hurting so many women by the silly legislative agenda.
Right now we have a case were every year, 1.5 million U.S. women, when
faced with carrying a fetus to term, choose not.  There are a variety
of reasons why they do not, many appear to be societal.  Shouldn't we
as feminists look toward changing society, PRIOR to taking away this
choice from women?
 
pl>FFLA believes the inherent rights of both beings are equal.    Once you strip
pl>away the artificially imposed inequality things aren't so easy.  Start from
pl>there, then talk about how a feminist should approach this much more imposing
pl>dilemma.

That is what I've been talking about.  There are many changes that could
be used to make the choice of carrying a fetus to term more attractive
than it currently is.  Use incentives to encourage women to voluntarily
give up her rights to the fetus.  But to use force of law to punish
women for society problems, at least in my eyes, is anti-women. 

pl>Paul

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion