Real Feminists Are Pro-life

[ironmonk]

Kathleen Howley's column

By Kathleen Howley

I am going to try to say this without sounding like a man-hating feminist. Here goes.

There are few things in life more disgusting than men who, when discussing abortion, use the phrase: "I can't tell a woman what to do with her body."

It's like a password. It's usually pronounced with a self-satisfied smile. They're saying, "I'm cool. I'm a supportive kinda guy. I'm sensitive to the needs of women."

Yea, right.

Sometimes, there's a slight reluctance in their voice as they recite the mantra. Those are the ones who believe that while they, personally, are opposed to abortion, they couldn't tell a woman...blah, blah, blah.

You've heard it before, I'm sure.

In most cases, these guys have never, in their lives, used the words "chaste" and "dating" in the same sentence. You can bet that many of them are pretty adroit at telling a woman what to do with her body, if it happens to serve their own needs.

Abortion, or "choice," as it's euphemistically called, becomes a requirement, for many of them, because it has the ability to erase any unforeseen problems caused by their lack of moral discretion.

I was at a G.O.P. cocktail party last week, and a man used that old line on me: "I can't tell a woman what to do with her body."

I gave him the logical response: "What about the body inside her womb? What if it's a male body, a little boy? Surely that can't be her body, because she can't be a man and a woman at the same time. Can you tell her, in that case?"

He looked at me glumly. This was not the response he expected. He probably assumed, because I'm a young woman, that I'm pro-choice.

Not a wise move. Three major studies within the last four years show that women tend to be more pro-life than men.

Makes sense, doesn't it? We're the ones with the maternal instincts, and if we know the facts of life -- meaning all the stuff you never read in the newspaper, such as what an abortion does to an unborn child -- many of us come down on the side of the baby.

I've been around enough men to know that they occasionally daydream about great feats they would perform if, for example, they suddenly found themselves trapped, with their whole platoon, under enemy fire. It's one of the most charming qualities of men, this desire to prove themselves to be brave and fearless.

But, so many men fail to realize that all around them, in our modern world, are opportunities to show their valor. Every day, they are confronted with opportunities to witness to the truth -- situations which, perhaps, take more courage than saving a platoon from enemy attack.

Once a month, I attend a rosary vigil with about 200 people in front of a local Planned Parenthood clinic. I see the woman going in for abortions, some reluctantly, some being steered through the door by a man who is probably the father of the baby.

After about 45 minutes, some of the men come out, alone, looking relieved. They did their duty and sat in the waiting room with their significant other until it was time for the abortion, and then they get to go off -- get a cup of coffee, read the paper -- while she's in the recovery room.

What bothers me is that most of these guys are dressed as if they were on a date -- as if they were on the way to the movies. Except, this date involves the destruction of their children, and the wounding of their girlfriends.

I'm with the early feminists, when it comes to abortion. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Dr. Alice Bunker Stockham, and the whole crowd of them were staunchly pro-life. They called abortion "child murder," and the "exploitation of women and children."

More emphatically, they pointed out that abortion primarily serves the needs of the predatory male. In a July, 1869, article in "The Revolution," the feminist newspaper edited by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, the latter -- of current U.S. one-dollar coin fame-- wrote:

"Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh! thrice guilty is he who, for selfish gratification, heedless of her prayers, indifferent to her fate, drove her to the desperation which impels her to the crime."

In her day, Susan B. Anthony was describing a tiny minority of men. Today, you'll run into hordes of them at just about any political cocktail party you attend.

But, still, there are countless other men who dare to swim against the tide -- men who respect life, and respect women, at a time when neither is required by the world.

Those are men who don't have to daydream about performing feats of great valor. They do it every day.

[God Conquers]

Great article Ironmonk... where is it from?

[ironmonk]

Great article Ironmonk... where is it from?

http://www.roevwade.org/howley.html

I didn't remember, it was something I collected within the last five or so years... thank God for google.com

Your Servant,

ironmonk

[traichuoi]

amen...

[Ellenita]

That's a brilliant article Ironmonk - thanks!

It's good to see someone acknowledging that men often play a significant part in abortion, and giving credit to the early feminists who said abortion is wrong. Not everyone who is feminist is pro abortion, but they are often treated like pariahs from both sides of the 'argument'; 'pro choice' feminists because they don't believe it's possible to be feminist and not 'pro choice'; pro life people because they assume all feminists are pro abortion.

There are some good accounts of pro life feminists in Donna Steichen's book:

'Prodigal Daughters: Catholic women come home to the Church.'

[Carrie]

That was a great article. Thank you for sharing!

[marielapin]

Amen!

I liked this quote in particular:

"What about the body inside her womb? What if it's a male body, a little boy? Surely that can't be her body, because she can't be a man and a woman at the same time. Can you tell her, in that case?"

For some reason I never thought about it that way. And to add to that statement, if a woman has the right to choose, then if the baby is a girl then she should have that same right as well.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Amen!

I liked this quote in particular:

"What about the body inside her womb? What if it's a male body, a little boy? Surely that can't be her body, because she can't be a man and a woman at the same time. Can you tell her, in that case?"

Yeah, I liked that one too. It pretty much stops the conversation and makes them think...

[God Conquers]

hehe... I've used that before. Along with:

"So you think a woman ccan have 4 arms... And 4 legs... And a penis?"

That usually makes them reconsider.

[Dave]

hehe... I've used that before. Along with:

"So you think a woman ccan have 4 arms... And 4 legs... And a penis?"

That usually makes them reconsider.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

High five for God Conquers!

[God Conquers]

Thanks bro.

[littleflower+JMJ]

this is really cool ironmonk and i thank you. in my history class we were just talking about women feminism and how they were "able" to do much (i.e. the widespread of birth control) and it just made me so sad, how they would consider that as liberating when really they just lost it :sadder:

anyways great article.

we plan to make a poster too with "unborn women have rights too" written on it to use.

again, thanks! :D

+JMJ

[Nicole]

Another reason the Pope is a man to be respected is because of his view on woman. The Pope's "new feminism" is spectacular!

The Feminine Genius

[W]oman has a genius all her own, which is vitally essential to both society and the Church…[she] is endowed with a particular capacity for accepting the human being in his concrete form. Even this singular feature which prepares her for motherhood, not only physically but also emotionally and spiritually, is inherent in the plan of God who entrusted the human being to woman in an altogether special way.

-- Pope John Paul II, Angelus Reflection, July 23, 1995

I definitely feel honored to be a woman. Yea for feminism, in the truest sense of the word.

Pope's Reverence for Women

Edited January 31, 2004 by Nicole

[Lil Red]

thanks ironmonk, that's an amesome article!

[dairygirl4u2c]

This post is in a new thread here:

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=6891

What do we say to people that say we can't prove that it's a human? They would think that we're imposing our religion. Of course we impose our "religion" in murder etc., but in this case we can't prove a deed is being harmed to someone else. That's pretty much the basis for all law, damage to others. And if all we use to say that it is murder is majority vote, how isn't that imposing our religion? I think this is what one of the Justices used as his reason to ratify the legality of abortion.

Of course they way the court and most people define abortion is immoral.

I think the court said that it is a baby yet we can't impose on the mother's rights. Obviously if it's a baby, it has rights, and the woman's rights stopped when she chose to have sex and became pregnant. The court did say that it was a human right? I may be wrong on this.

Anyway, most pro-choice positions are immoral. They say it is not a baby. This could be used as a justification for abortion (if they could prove it.. but then we can't either which goes back to my original question) But then contradict themselves when they say that and, in addition, say it's a woman's right to terminate the baby. Of course if its not a baby they have the right! There's no need to say the last part.

I think a lot of responses to this will be, "okay, it's a baby when it's born, at what point is it not??" or something to that effect. I know theologians have argued over when the baby gets a soul, the Catholic Church used to say it was only a baby after quickening, when the baby starts to kick, and yes we can (and possibly should) give the benefit to human life, but if it's not proof, how can we expect everyone to agree with us? Isn't that imposing?

Since we can't prove that it's a human, why can't we leave that question to the woman? How could we dispute that we're not imposing our religion given all I've mentioned?

Edited February 1, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c