As we keep rollin' back the clock to the ominous times for women

Dark days loom ahead for women who value their reproductive rights. With religious arch-conservative pharmacists being given special privileges to deny women access to their birth control prescriptions, hospitals refusing to give or even tell a rape victim about emergency contraception, state legislatures making women practically run a humiliating shame gauntlet before obtaining a safe and legal abortion (or even contraception), and worst of all–medical science being replaced by religious superstition and ignorance. All in the name of war against women’s reproductive rights. Other countries are beginning to recognize that reproductive rights are essential to women’s civil rights period, but the United States and others are slowly, painfully, but surely returning women to the dark days of desperation, fear, and turning to the worst and lethal options in wanting to end an unintentional and unwanted pregnancy. And we still see no “shame” gauntlet being thrown at men for the role they played in all of the unintentional and unwanted pregnancy–not even rapists. Neither have we seen nor heard of any man being lectured about his “immoral” choice to have a vasectomy, or buy a box of condoms, or refill his prescription for Viagra. No, only women with our ever burdensome reproductive organs which we can easily see as a liability to our civil rights in this country (under this presidential administration), will be forced to bear the full brunt of the “darker days.”

It most also be noted and acknowledged that these misogynist anti-reproductive rights laws, policies, and rhetoric are mostly made by powerful arch-conservative men, obsessed in controlling the bodies and lives of women via our organs. Though they are calculating and manipulative, and cloak their laws, policies and rhetoric with sob stories and so-called “moral issues” of protecting the “weak” and “frail”, while turning women–the most vulnerable especially when pregnant–into inanimate objects and incubators. Inanimate objects and incubators easily discarded after being used and abused by misogynist anti-choice/anti-contraceptive politics and religious fanaticism in bed with politics. Now allow this article from Planned Parenthood to illustrate the ominous days instore for us…

Abortion Restrictions Ease Worldwide, U.S. Clamps Down

by Meera Subramanian
05.18.05

Despite the rise of religious fundamentalism worldwide and the Bush administration’s global gag rule, which denies U.S. funds to foreign family planning organizations that promote or advocate abortion, more and more countries around the world are making it easier for women to access safe, legal abortions. But a small number of nations, including the United States, are passing laws that further restrict a woman’s right to control her reproductive health.

These are the findings of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which recently released a briefing paper assessing the global state of legal abortions 10 years after the Beijing Platform for Action explicitly called for governments to reevaluate restrictive abortion laws that harm women. As part of an overall commitment to women’s health, the declaration acknowledged that unsafe abortions are a major public health concern. The World Health Organization estimates that 70,000 women die annually due to clandestine abortions performed under unsafe and unsanitary conditions, with millions more hospitalized.

And those deaths which could have been prevented had these women had access to a safe and legal abortion, mean nothing to the Bush Administration, the neoconservatives trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, the pharmacists who deny women their contraceptives and EC, and certainly not the religious fundamentalists who view pregnancy as a just punishment for women having sex period.

Abortion Access Eased

While most of the world moves toward recognizing abortion access as an essential women’s right and its role in women’s health, a handful of nations, including the United States, are moving in the opposite direction.

Nearly 70 countries, representing more than 60 percent of the world’s total population, currently allow abortion with few or no restrictions. Over the past 10 years, 15 countries have liberalized access, and a third of those (Albania, Cambodia, Nepal, South Africa, and Switzerland) have completely legalized abortion and eliminated any constraints. Numerous other countries, many in Africa, have also relaxed laws limiting access to abortion. France eliminated a parental consent requirement for minors, instead requiring teenagers to be accompanied by an adult of their choosing.

Funny. And we call ourselves the great purveyors of liberty, civil rights, and individual freedom. Why, we even view some of those countries such as Cambodia and Nepal to be “inferior” to us when it comes to freedom and civil rights.

Abortion Access Restricted

But while most of the world moves toward recognizing abortion access as an essential women’s right and its role in women’s health, a handful of nations, including the United States, are moving in the opposite direction. In 2003, Congress passed and President Bush signed the country’s first federal abortion ban. The law was deemed unconstitutional in three federal courts after Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the National Abortion Federation filed separate lawsuits claiming that the broadly written law prevented doctors from providing the best and safest health care to women. Enforcement is barred pending appeals.

Other countries turning their backs on the Beijing Platform and women’s health include El Salvador and Poland. In El Salvador, abortion is now illegal under any circumstance, even when necessary to protect a woman’s life and in cases of fetal impairment or pregnancy resulting from rape. Poland’s parliament and courts have been in a tug of war over abortion rights since 1993, but by the end of 1997, abortion had become a crime.

The U.S. Senate recently voted to eliminate the global gag rule, but the House is not expected to follow suit. While more countries are liberalizing abortion laws, supporting the Beijing Platform and its commitment to women’s health and well-being, for many women around the world, abortion remains illegal or inaccessible.

Planned Parenthood believes that the ability to control your own fertility is a fundamental human right. It is working to end the global crisis of unsafe abortion by helping to provide health care around the world and by urging the U.S. government to abandon the global gag rule.

Women’s civil rights, especially reproductive rights, always seem to be expendable and no where near as important as institutionalizing–though subtely–misogynist politics, intertwined with religious fundamentalism. This is the legacy we shall leave to younger generations of women if we don’t act now. This is our fight.

This entry posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Anti-Contraceptives/EC zaniness, Anti-feminists and their pals, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Feminism, sexism, etc. Bookmark the permalink. 

45 Responses to As we keep rollin' back the clock to the ominous times for women

  1. 1
    NYMOM says:

    “Nearly 70 countries, representing more than 60 percent of the world’s total population, currently allow abortion with few or no restrictions. Over the past 10 years, 15 countries have liberalized access, and a third of those (Albania, Cambodia, Nepal, South Africa, and Switzerland) have completely legalized abortion and eliminated any constraints. Numerous other countries, many in Africa, have also relaxed laws limiting access to abortion. France eliminated a parental consent requirement for minors, instead requiring teenagers to be accompanied by an adult of their choosing.”

    Hi…

    If you look at most other countries however, they are suffering from OVERPOPULATION…while we have just the opposite situation. Immigration keeps US population at sustainable levels, as even African-Americans would be showing a steep decline in population, if it weren’t for immigration from the Carribean…

    So this is probably based upon MORE then just attempting to limit the rights of women although that’s a big part of it, it’s also based upon the loss of prestige and power our government officials see looming ahead if our population continuing declining so much…

    Also remember many countries practice sex-selection through ultrasound and then abortion, so this could even be a reason…not so much giving more rights to women in other countries but trying to have LESS women overall by allowing liberal abortion if ultrasound shows a girl fetus…

    Actually I think we should be refusing export licenses for certain medical equipment (such as ultrasound) to China, India, Pakistan and other countries for allowing this to happen as they deliberately used these techniques to engineer the ratio of women to men in their population and totally changed the balance between the sexes in their part of the world, maybe the whole world looking at the numbers we’re talking about…

    I have to be a little suspicious of so many countries liberalizing abortion laws, especially when they have shown themselves, in the recent past, to be very open to killing off female fetuses…

    Just my opinion, others might and probaby will feel differently…

  2. 2
    Anne says:

    The possibly suspect motivations of other cultures and nations don’t excuse the backward slide of the U.S. in regard to reproductive rights.

    I also don’t see underpopulation as a pressing problem in the U.S. Hell, we can barely take care of the people we have.

  3. 3
    armchair says:

    Ha. Yeah, right, scandinavia is so overpopulated that Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland need to have a legal abortion. Damn those liberal countries and the killing of female fetuses there!
    On a more serious note I do agree that in some countries overpopulation -> more abortion rights. But then again China really doesnt have a very “liberal” or “womans-rights-based” abortion policy, it is instead all about telling women that only 1 child in cities, 2 countryside (If I remember correctly, I might be wrong), to do otherwise is illegal and punishable. And one-child policy, due to sexism, results in parents wanting a son. The opposite policy underpopulation (?) -> less abortion rights seems bit shaky… Whoever agreed that populations need to grow bigger and bigger all the time, that declining population needs to be a necessarily bad thing?

  4. 4
    Piter says:

    I’ve heard a lot about the despicable actions of pharmacists not doing the jobs they were hired to do. While their actions are inexcusable, I can’t help but wonder if the media has taken a few isolated incidents and made them into a “trend,” like the “Summer of the Shark” and the year o’ kidnapping. How common is this pharmacist activism?

  5. 5
    Elena says:

    I agree with NYMOM that there are probably some sinister motives behind more reproductive control in some places, but perhaps the only time women can get some reproductive control in this world is when that control dovetails with not-so-noble trends and cultural realities, like the centuries old preference unto death of sons over daughters in Asia and the Middle East.

    I get very suspicious of underpopulation alarmists, because I think that it really is a fear that there aren’t enough of “us”, or women aren’t having enough babies and that means something scary is happening to someone’s idea of motherhood. I mean, yes, if there are fewer workers, there will be less money to support retired persons, but don’t the tremendous benefits of smaller population and smaller familes counterweigh the retirement benefits problem? Not solve them, neccesarily, but surely there are other solutions besides unsustainable population growth.

  6. 6
    Robert says:

    but don’t the tremendous benefits of smaller population

    What are the benefits of a smaller population?

    To steal a line from P.J. O’Rourke, name a country that was better off when its population was half of what it is today.

    Our economies at this point run primarily on brains, insights, the conversion of data into information, and the like. Reducing the number of brains available to solve our problems doesn’t seem like a success-building move, particularly as many of our problems exist whether there are 100 of us or 100 billion.

  7. 7
    Kim (basement variety!) says:

    Anyone have any statistics or suggestions for google key-phrases with regards to the US facing a crisis with regards to underpopulation? I’ve never heard such a notion, and in fact heard much the opposite (for instance, social security worries) with regards to our population. What needs sustaining that our population isn’t capable of at this point? Wouldn’t our unemployment levels be less if this were true?

    Are these facts or suppositional observations?

  8. 8
    Brian Vaughan says:

    Since the “overcrowded” parts of the world aren’t the most densely inhabited, and since last I checked we produce about twice as much food as is needed to feed every human alive, I don’t think we actually have a problem with overpopulation. And each person produces significantly more than they consume — far more, with advanced production.

    That’s not to say that there could never be a problem with population growth, or that we need continued population growth. But the apparent problems with “overpopulation” are best dealt with by a more even distribution of resources, and by making sure women have the social and material resources they need to make their own decisions about reproduction. That includes the right to free abortion as well as contraception.

  9. 9
    La Lubu says:

    The benefits of a smaller population? How about lower infant and childhood mortality? Longer lifespan? Adequate caloric intake and better nutrition? Less pollution? Healthier population? Higher literacy rates? More access to education?

    And let’s not forget…..more recognition of the rights of women! You know, recognizing that women’s brains can also solve the problems of humanity. It’s no coincidence that countries with higher female literacy rates have lower birthrates.

  10. 10
    Robert says:

    The benefits of a smaller population? How about lower infant and childhood mortality? Longer lifespan? Adequate caloric intake and better nutrition? Less pollution? Healthier population? Higher literacy rates? More access to education?

    OK. Name a country that had better outcomes in those areas when it had a smaller population.

  11. 11
    Antigone says:

    I really don’t see abortion significantly contributing to underpopulation. If there was NO abortion and NO contraception, I would (unfortunately) have to give up vaginal intercourse sex. So, I still wouldn’t be having a kid. And i really don’t see me as the only educated female that would come to this conclusion.

    So abortion really isn’t what’s keeping the population low, not wanting to have kids is.

  12. 12
    armchair says:

    Oh. Benefits of a smaller population just got summed up. :)
    Slightly off-topic but my 2 cents is that saying underpopulation isnt really a big problem isnt the same as saying we currently have a overpopulation problem ( Which I dont entirely believe, im inclined to agree with Brian Vaughan on this) but with constant pressure for population growth as competition between nations (who is the most numerous, more us, less them, an edge during a possible war), and balancing economies to assume a constant population/economic growth we will have problems some day, unless we figure out soon how to colonize other worlds (and I like science fiction but…). The issue of population growth has to be dealt with some day, and Id prefer some humane solution to wars and famines over diminishing resources. And I do favor invidualism over whats good for state or the fatherland or whatever, more rights and more freedom for inviduals over what is best for the nation approach … Though of course these two arent mutually exclusive (and they are sometimes the same thing). I

  13. 13
    Anne says:

    I get very suspicious of underpopulation alarmists, because I think that it really is a fear that there aren’t enough of “us”?, or women aren’t having enough babies and that means something scary is happening to someone’s idea of motherhood.

    Who was it that said that since everyone in the U.S. could fit into Texas if we each had a cubic meter (or something) to stand in, we were underpopulated? I should think population ought to be a case of quality over quantity. Would anyone look at India as a model of population management? It’s not a contest where the country with the most people wins.

    And every now and then, anti-abortion/”we’re underpopulated” crowd has ties to white supremacy. Got to keep the white race from dying out, and all.

  14. 14
    armchair says:

    Robert wrote:

    OK. Name a country that had better outcomes in those areas when it had a smaller population.

    But… this due to the fact that scientific progress (advances in agriculture, industrialization etc) and modern medicine has canceled out the hindrances that larger population has and as has been pointed out the population probably isnt too large in most nations… And scientific progress isnt all about the size of the population. Overpopulated, starving villages dont make science, scientists make science. “Had better outcomes” signifies history and there has been progress in virtually every area… This has made it possible to sustain a larger population, not the other way around (and population has been growing pretty much everywhere throughout the human history discounting huge epidemics etc).

  15. 15
    Kim (basement variety!) says:

    Actually I was thinking about a current course I’m taking in cultural geography. A few weeks ago we covered population, progress and stages of development.

    One of the primary and most important factors in countries evening out with regards to population (it occurrs to me that this evening out might be misconceived as dropping population rates), is that the lower birth rate can be directly correlated to a lowering in overall mortality.

    What are your direct concerns with what you perceive is underpopulation in the US, NYMom and Robert?

  16. 16
    Robert says:

    Since the population has been steadily increasing, and the quality of life has also been steadily increasing (overall), where do you get the idea that increasing population has hindrances? Where is the instance of a country getting poorer as it gained people? What are the hindrances?

    Oh, you say, infant mortality and caloric consumption and so on. And yet, as population increases, these things always get better. Because of science, you say…and science is created by HUMAN MINDS. Societies which contain millions of human minds generate more scientific progress than societies containing thousands.

    Yes, if people were “useless eaters” and each incremental birth was just another drain on a finite store of resources, the anti-population attitude would make sense. But each new birth is another human mind, another person who will have ideas and aspirations and who will think and labor, for their own benefit and (usually indirectly) the benefit of the rest of us. Our resources don’t fall from Heaven; we build them out of earth and cognition. Every new brain is a net addition to our resources, not a degradation.

    The “too many rats in the box” mentality ignores the fact that people aren’t rats, and the Earth isn’t a box. If it was a zero-sum game, it would have ended a very long time ago.

  17. 17
    Robert says:

    We don’t have an underpopulation problem as far as I know.

    Some subgroups aren’t replacing themselves. They aren’t subgroups whose loss worries me.

  18. 18
    La Lubu says:

    Let’s see how much technological advancement there is after the oil runs out, Robert. We’re in for a big slowdown, because we waste resources and our finite resources like oil and natural gas are running out. I think our advantages here in the U.S. have led us to believe that things will always get better, and that is most certainly not the case.

  19. 19
    Robert says:

    I am aware of no credible argument that supports the idea that technological innovation is dependent upon one particular fossil fuel. Nor am I aware of any credible arguments that oil or natural gas are running out.

    I am aware of tired, utterly discredited arguments recycled yet again by adherents to a philosophy of social control through restrictions on material prosperity – the same people who said we were running out of oil in the 1960s, and the 1970s, and the 1980s, and the 1990s, and now the 2000s. These have often been the same people who claim to worry about population (Ehrlich and the like). Their work is garbage.

    But this is wandering far afield. If you want to argue oil, technology, and the sweep of human history, I’m there, but we ought to ask for a different thread.

  20. 20
    armchair says:

    Oh, you say, infant mortality and caloric consumption and so on. And yet, as population increases, these things always get better.

    They have, but will they get better forever? Have they gotten better because of population growth?

    Because of science, you say…and science is created by HUMAN MINDS. Societies which contain millions of human minds generate more scientific progress than socities containing thousands.

    Yes…But societies containing millions of well to do people who get quality education produce more scientific progress than societies filled tens of millions people who struggle just to survive because of better opportunity to focus on science instead of fighting to survive… . Humans arent a hive-mind that plug together to create a combined computing power, science is made by inviduals. Humans are inviduals. Inviduals grow in a society.

    Yes, if people were “useless eaters”? and each incremental birth was just another drain on a finite store of resources, the anti-population attitude would make sense. But each new birth is another human mind, another person who will have ideas and aspirations and who will think and labor, for their own benefit and (usually indirectly) the benefit of the rest of us. Our resources don’t fall from Heaven; we build them out of earth and cognition. Every new brain is a net addition to our resources, not a degradation.

    I love the smell of straw in the morning. Where did that useless eater thing come from? Every invidual is unique, a person. This I agree with. Our resources come from earth, period. Cognition is a tool we use to better utilise that earth. Try to eat ideas and aspirations for food. Id rather have a pizza.

    The “too many rats in the box”? mentality ignores the fact that people aren’t rats, and the Earth isn’t a box. If it was a zero-sum game, it would have ended a very long time ago.

    We arent rats (your words, no one other used them) but we arent some transcendent beings sustained on brain power either… Earth isnt a box (oh thank you! I suppose everybody else thought it was!) but it is finite. It means that mathematically at some point we will literally fill the earth if population growth is constant and doesnt slow down. Unless we start Star Trekking.
    I apologize for my harsh language… But really Robert, for such a seemingly intelligent and well-mannered fellow those straw-men are beyond lame.

  21. 21
    Robert says:

    Try to eat ideas and aspirations for food.

    I haven’t seen Steven King starving in the gutter.

    Your viewpoint on what creates wealth is basically ignorant. I don’t mean that as an insult, I mean it as a technical descriptor; either nobody ever taught you, or you consciously rejected the knowledge, but what you got in your head t’ain’t right. I doubt that this board is intended as a forum for the discussion of the theory of wealth creation, and its way off topic, so I’ll bow out.

  22. 22
    Tuomas says:

    Off topic This would be – armchair – writing. I decided to use an actual name (my name) here than the thing i just coughed up in a second to answer something from someone. Feels more honest to be using a name than a nonpersonal sig,. And also (I didnt realize it at first) the unfortunate association about armchair psychology that I hate (doesnt everybody?). Comments by me will be made with this name from now on.

  23. 23
    Tuomas says:

    Robert… That wasnt the most uninsulting thing to say (technical description=ignorant) since i was talking about food and the most basic resorces rather than economics… and trying to be funny at the same time (didnt work, I see). Ah well, a misunderstanding and adults can see past it. But lets not derail this further, that is a very good suggestion. :)

  24. 24
    JM says:

    Kim (basement variety!):

    The lower birthrate is correlated with lower mortality but correlation does not necessarily imply causation. The world only has a hundred and seventy or so countries. Some of them have the power to affect the whole world by example as well as by neocolonialist aid. Where are the countries with a high birthrate and a high mortality rate? Mostly, they’re in the Muslim world, and Africa. India has lowered its birthrate and its mortality rate. India also now is telemarketing to Americans. In short, India has taken the measures that make it possible for it to receive international investment and economic aid. Most African and Muslim countries have not. A country with a growing population scares foreign investors because it implies steep cultural differences. A country with a growing population also scares foreign countries, which is why China was pro-natalist under Mao, and why it has improved its relationship with the wealthy West by leaps and bounds now that it has banned birds and bees. The world is too small and imbalanced for one to draw any causative conclusion from the fact that poor people have more children. One could make the reverse conclusion and be just as wrong to claim that economic development promotes infertility.

  25. 25
    Kim (basement variety!) says:

    The Classic Model of Demographic Transition
    Thomas Malthus

    The model of demographic transition proposed in the 1940s describes the stages in the relationship between birth and death rates and the overall population change. The growth in the population due to changes in the birth and death rates is called the natural rate of population growth. The model of demographic transition suggested that a population’s mortality and fertility would decline as a result of social and economic development. It predicted that all countries would over time go through four demographic transition stages. However with all models it has its limitations and the model has been developed to consider the demographic changes that many LDCs are experiencing.

    Stage 1 : Pre industrialisation: Stable population growth
    Characterized by High Birth Rates:
    - No or little Family Planning
    - Parents have many children because few survive
    - Many children are needed to work the land
    - Children are a sign of virility
    - Some religious beliefs and cultural traditions encourage large families

    Characterized by High Mortality Rates:
    - Disease and plague (e.g. bubonic, cholera, kwashiorkor)
    - Famine , uncertain food supplies and poor diet
    - Poor hygiene, no piped clean water or sewage disposal

    Stage 2: Rapid population growth
    Characterized by High Birth Rates: (see stage 1)

    Characterized by Falling Mortality Rates:
    - Improved medical care e.g. vaccinations , hospitals, doctors, new drugs and scientific inventions
    - Improved sanitation and waters supply
    - Improvements in food production in terms of quality and quantity
    - Improved transport to move food and doctors
    - A decrease in child mortality

    Stage 3: Continued and decreasing population growth
    Characterized by Falling Birth Rates:
    - Family Planning utilised , contraceptives, abortions, sterilisation and other government incentives
    - A lower infant mortality rates means less pressure to have children
    - Increased mechanisation and industrialisation means less need for labour
    - Increased desire for material possessions and less desire for large families
    - Emancipation of women

    Characterized by Low Mortality Rates.

  26. 26
    Robert says:

    Tuomas – you are right, my tone and words were insulting. I apologize.

  27. 27
    noodles says:

    Congratulations on derailing the topic from women’s rights to access to safe and legal abortion to overpopulation, and for the sprinkling of gratuitous jingoism here and there. Charming.

  28. 28
    Julian Elson says:

    The current U.S. fertility rate is 2.08 children per women — just about replacement, when pre-reproduction mortality and such is taken into account.

    If the whole U.S. population lived in Texas, we would each have about 2,300 square meters per person, or about a 157 x 157 foot square lot per man, woman, and child (naturally, this includes mountains, desert, farmland, asphalt, houses, etc: everything).

    I guess we should be glad that, whatever is happening on our particular slice of the Earth, the global trend is to more reproductive freedom. Freedom is on the march, huzzah. Overall, I’m optimistic about progress in women’s (and men’s, and children’s) rights. I think progress will happen, but it will happen because we make it happen, not because of any natural law of history. We the people have achieved a lot of things in securing a better life, from kicking out the British to Roe v. Wade, but it’s hard work. I, for one, haven’t nearly done my part, though it seems like this board has many people working hard for us all. I’m always somewhat simultaneously ashamed and heartened by what I read here..

  29. 29
    Kim (basement variety!) says:

    I agree Julian, my primary reason for tackling the overpopulation comment was to eliminate any potential of it becoming a non-supported point of debate within the discussion of reproductive rights.

    Same said for gender eugenics, really. I’m sure I would disagree with plenty of peoples reasoning for abortion, but bottom line is, once we open the door for those sorts of judgements, we might as well just hand the issue over to those that want to eliminate women’s reproductive rights. I don’t need to support a reason to support a right.

  30. 30
    NYMOM says:

    “What are your direct concerns with what you perceive is underpopulation in the US, NYMom and Robert?”

    Well, one is we cannot assume benevolence or concern for women from places that allow liberalized abortion, that’s one.

    AND related to that, I don’t want the world to be populated by men from countries that kill girls off; while states that support womens rights diminish…With modern transportation allowing constant movement of populations back and forth, those far-flung places become a direct threat to us…especially since a lot of their overflow of men eventually wind up here. AND once they get here, they don’t suddenly become liberal Democrats; so they can easily link up with the various malcontents we have in this country (such as MRAs) and form coalitions with them. Supposedly George Bush was helped back into office with a coalition of hispanic conservatives… and before 9/11 MANY American men thought Islamic fundamentalists who mistreated women were just dandy…

    Osama bin Ladin had 51 brothers and yes, I consider each and every one of them a potential threat to me and my family…

    The wars they start, even in their own parts of the world, often spill over and impact us here.

    Actually Valerie Hudson wrote a book “Bare Branches” talking exactly about that threat but from China…

    How can we expect liberal democracies to remain viable when we diminish our numbers and allow places that have no democratic or women’s rights traditions to overpopulate themselves with men and then send them off here as adult immigrants???

    Ben Wattenberg actually wrote some interesting articles and books on the subject…

    It’s equivalent to committing mass suicide…

  31. 31
    NYMOM says:

    BTW Robert, I found your comments fine….

    They were directly related to the original intent of the thread which was favorably comparing other countries liberalizing of abortion with US policies. Sometimes the issues are more complicated then just ‘good/bad’ and you cannot assume a country that suddenly liberalizes abortion is doing it to advance womens’ causes.

    Actually it can be and often is just for the opposite reason…

    I’ve often wondered how many abortions of female fetuses are allowed in countries before a man can get 51 brothers…

  32. 32
    Tuomas says:

    NYMOM: I didnt get it. I dont believe countries overpopulate themselves with men deliberately. Didnt you yourself acknowledge (in fact, you suggested it) that legalizing abortion might be an attempt to control overpopulation instead of a womans rights issue (I agree)? And the threat of “them” conquering “us” by immigration is just an appeal to good old bigotry. Im sorry but it is. I fail to see the problem in legalizing abortion worldwide (in fact I support it) in itself, but of course sexistic attitudes arent magically corrected by allowing women to abort. And usually” Id rather have a son than a daughter” attitude is more a problem with men… And having a man or a government to decide when or why a woman should abort is hardly liberal abortion policy. And BTW, I think Islam condemns abortion like many religions, and OBL is a hard-core fundamentalist muslim…
    Robert: Thank you, apology accepted.

  33. 33
    NYMOM says:

    “NYMOM: I didnt get it. I dont believe countries overpopulate themselves with men deliberately.”

    Yes, I think they do…which is why we must begin restricting medical technology from them as well as even applying sanctions against the countries that have done it…

    I believe they did it deliberately to build up their militaries against regional threats…as in India versus China…that sort of thing…

    AND no I don’t think it’s silly at all to believe that immigrants from other countries bring regressive ideas with them when they come here. AND I’m just not prepared to sacrfice any hard won gains for women to be politically correct on immigration…

    Actually even many Europeans countries now are starting to see where the rights of a number of other groups, women, gays, children, etc., could be under threat when these conservative immigrants combine with right wing politicans to roll back legislation. Many of these groups take the attitude that they’ll vote with the right for a while on some issues in order to get these more conservative agendas passed.

    We saw how G. Bush even got back in the White House with a conservative
    hispanic vote that the Republicans got to the polls in Ohio, for instance, by putting gay marriage on the agenda and in Florida by a parental notifiication law for minors to get abortions (even though these laws have been overturned in every state they were passed in)…thus we cannot even assume that the immigrant vote is even liberal democratic anymore, which used to be a given…

    I guess my point is that you seem to assume that because a lot of countries have liberalized abortion they are more liberal or progressive then the US and I’m saying that you cannot assume that…many have their own agendas regarding abortion and it’s not always a progressive one…

  34. 34
    Kim (basement variety!) says:

    NyMom;

    I guess I’m confused here. Do you believe the US is without eugenic abortion? Is your argument against eugenics or abortion?

    Also, I think you’ve got your Bin Laden facts wrong with regards to siblings. I’m fairly certain it’s 50 brothers and sisters, not 51 brothers. I’d research that one a bit more before using it as annecdotal evidence.

  35. 35
    Tuomas says:

    NYMOM: I think I get your point of view now. I do agree with some points, but I think you are generalising immigrants too much… They are not a homogenous group who all vote the same (all regressive/all progressive). I agree that both “sides” tend to assume too much of voter groups being always “liberal” or “conservative” in american politics…
    And I cant agree with restricting medical technology thing either. Even if there is a change that medical technology might sometimes be used in aborting female fetuses because of gender (which is sad). I hate to say but female babies can be “disposed” without any medical technology at all (abandonment, infanticide, backdoor abortions without proper equipment, prioritizing resources to male babies etc.), which is worse than abortion (and among the many reasons I support abortion rights)…

  36. 36
    NYMOM says:

    “I guess I’m confused here. Do you believe the US is without eugenic abortion? Is your argument against eugenics or abortion?”

    It’s against countries using sonograms to identify the sex of a child inutero and then aborting it; thus changing the balance of men and women throughout Asia, maybe the world when you look at the figures…

    I’d be against that going on here as well if it did…

    I think they have a shortage of between 57 and 63 million women there just between India and China, not counting the other smaller countries that did this.

    Actually, I don’t have a strong position either for or against abortion…It exists and most women appear to be in support of continuing to allow it to, thus I support their right to make that decision…

    It’s just puzzles me when I see people comparing some other countries with the US on abortion and then coming to the conclusion that they have more favorable policies to women in most of these places because they have more liberal polices on abortion…when there are sooooo many other variables that you have to take into account before you could say this…

  37. 37
    NYMOM says:

    “And I cant agree with restricting medical technology thing either. Even if there is a change that medical technology might sometimes be used in aborting female fetuses because of gender (which is sad). I hate to say but female babies can be “disposed”? without any medical technology at all (abandonment, infanticide, backdoor abortions without proper equipment, prioritizing resources to male babies etc.), which is worse than abortion (and among the many reasons I support abortion rights)…”

    Yes, that’s true but I think if the countries themselves saw outrage from the international community, that it would have some impact…and what else do we have but sanctions????

    I don’t think they should continue to be allowed to do this without anyone doing/saying anything…

    I actually think they should even be sanctioned on military equipment as well as medical since many of these countries have now made themselves a possible threat to their neighbors through their irresponsible short-term actions in trying to build their military up with male bodies…

  38. 38
    Tuomas says:

    My last post to this thread (I dont think I can keep to the subject at hand, I have pretty much said all I have to say about it): Withholding medical equipment doesnt hurt those in power. It only hurts the most vulnerable members of society (pregnant women, children, elderly, the disabled), and kind of defeats the whole point of sanctions. Not selling weapons to suspect countries is fine by me…

  39. 39
    ginmar says:

    I dont believe countries overpopulate themselves with men deliberately.

    There’s no other way this happens. Fetuses start out female, then become male. Male overpopulation does not occur without human intervention. Everywhere in the world, there’s a pronounced bias in favor of males and against females. It’s called sexism.

  40. 40
    Tuomas says:

    Okay, I said that I wouldnt be posting here but… My point was that I dont believe those governments are entirely responsible for this, but sexism is (in invidual parents etc.). And yes, I know about sexism… there indeed is bias in favor of males in most situations pretty much everywhere. So we kind of agree here?

  41. Pingback: startle the echoes » Blog Archive » make it safe

  42. 41
    alsis38.9 says:

    Would everyone besides me who is convinced that NYMOM is confusing the concept of “liberalized” abortion law with the concept of FORCED abortions– please raise his/her hand ?

    I can’t tell whether this is deliberate on her part or not, but it’s really annoying me.

  43. 42
    Brian Vaughan says:

    Alsis, I’m quite sure it’s deliberate.

  44. 43
    NYMOM says:

    Adrienne:

    I have an interesting article from Phillip Longman if you wish me to email it to you, let me know…

    It’s called The Global Baby Bust and is in this month’s May/June 2004 Foreign Affairs…it has an interesting section in it that talks about how ‘red’ states like Utah through their higher birthrates will eventually be deciding more elections then say liberal blue states like Vermont…

    So it could be another segway into another interesting post for you that people make about 40 or 50 comments on…

  45. 44
    Jessica Metaneira says:

    Nobody should ever be forced to donate their body, period. To anyone, including a fetus.