Honestly, I didn't even bother to respond to them this time, since they explained several times in the e-mail that they were too busy to have a debate or incapable of speaking on behalf of their group.
Hi Emily,I lol'd at the hilariously paternalistic "concern" SFL has for women. You know, we fragile creatures just can't be trusted to understand what having an abortion means. It's just soo much better for women if we all endure forced childbirth.
Thank you for your email. It poses some great questions and talking points about the pro-choice/pro-life debate. Unfortunately, many of your questions cannot be answered as in-depth as any of us would like them to be strictly for the reason that we would be speaking for a group of individuals, Students for Life, and many opinions vary throughout the group. Issues such as contraception (to a certain degree) and the war cannot be justly discussed in a ‘debate’ format since we do have a very diverse group with varying opinions about topics such as those, and we do not have an organizational stance on them.
Regardless if you believe that SFL and the pro-life movement is based on contempt for women, we know that it is not and that our mission is to educate people about all of the negative effects abortion can have on women and the innocence of the child’s life.
We strive to be there to assist women, help them with their decision, provide resources and ongoing support, and again, show the truth that abortion can and does hurt women. Specifically speaking for Students for Life, our history with different activism projects, outreach, and events can prove that we are not based on contempt for women (again for example, the Pregnancy and Parenting Resource Initiative, baby item/resource drives, etc.)
Our membership is indeed of very diverse religious backgrounds, not different denominations of Christianity as you assume. Not only is our membership of diverse religious backgrounds, but we quite frankly never talk about religion in any context. Our organization is open to all, regardless of religious beliefs, and we evidently have been successful in conveying that message as we do have religiously-diverse membership.
Concerning feminism, we would like to share with you a quote from Harvard University Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon: “To earlier feminists who fought for the right to vote, and for fair treatment in the workplace, it had seemed obvious that the ready availability of abortion would facilitate the sexual exploitation of women [After all, why did Hugh Hefner and Playboy become big early supporters of abortion, to promote the dignity of women?].
Oh man, I guess because Hugh Hefner and Playboy support abortion, that means the whole thing must be BAD. Right you guys, right?? (If this was logical, then for example, all cars are BAD because Henry Ford was a raging anti-Semite. And I guess that means modern-day biology and evolution science = WRONG because Charles Darwin was a racist eugenicist.) What Students for Life is implying is that abortion somehow "exploits" or "objectifies" women because they believe that women are not sexual beings and would only ever have sex and have an abortion if a man was exploiting them. Actually, no, the exploitation of women occurs when you treat women as nothing more than baby-making vessels and force them to keep an unwanted pregnancy. Why is this so difficult for SFL to comprehend?
Pioneering feminists like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton regarded free love, abortion and easy divorce as disastrous for women and children. They would have regarded women who actively promoted those causes as duped or deranged.
Why the fuck are anti-feminists so obsessed with trying to co-opt 19th century feminism? Oh, that's because they are incapable of understanding that as a movement grows and progresses, it changes. They can't seem to reconcile the fact that 19th century feminism is the old prototype that has been replaced by the more intellectually-developed model of modern-day feminism. That, and, what rights did women gain in the 19th and early 20th centuries? The right to own property and the right to vote? That's it. I'll let you make of that what you will.
What's extremely telling to me is that they think women who promote choice and contraception are DUPED or DERANGED. Oh, right, because if you don't want to endure FORCED CHILDBIRTH or if you want to decide WHEN you will have children, that means you are duped and deranged! It's clear to me that the deranged individuals are those who want to control women's bodies, namely, Students for Life.
But the feminism of the 1970s was different. What made it different was a puzzling combination of two things that do not ordinarily go together: anger against men and promiscuity…” (Professor Mary Ann Glendon has contributed to a book titled “The Cost of Choice: Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion by Erika Bachiochi.)
One of the most HILARIOUS misconceptions about feminism is that it's all about man-hating and promiscuity. More discredit for SFL. They obviously have no clue what feminism is about. The "anger" that people often associate with the feminist movement is not directed at men; it is directed at the lack of equality in all areas of life. And furthermore, where do they get this assumption that all feminists are promiscuous?
I would also like to note that Mary Ann Glendon is an anti-feminist in the extreme and you need look no further than the fact that she was a candidate for the Supreme Court in the George W. Bush era. She is also a religious extremist, an ambassador to the Holy See who is against all contraception, even condoms. She is quoted as saying, "The Holy See in no way endorses contraception or the use of condoms, either as a family planning measure or in HIV/AIDS prevention programmes."
Fucking disgusting. How pro-life is that?
It cannot be denied that feminism has taken an excruciatingly apparent and extreme diversion from the early intentions to todays intentions (that being sex, free love, and abortion). Certainly, the reversal of feminism does not define all women or even all feminists.aaaaand that's about it! not to mention your incessant quoting of right-wing religious nuts like Mary Ann Glendon. Christ, give me a break. literally.
Concerning religion and our speaker events, we have indeed had some speakers who have had religious affiliations. However, we have also hosted speakers with no religious theme such as, Serrin Foster from Feminists for Life, Stephen Wagner, and another woman with no religious affiliation who did our pregnancy forum for the start of the Pregnancy and Parenting Resource Initiative on campus.
On contraception, our point was simply to note that there is no simple relationship between the availability of contraception and fewer abortions. Please read- http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/contrafactsheet.pdf. Education of any kind does not necessarily translate into predictable behaviors. These taking abstinence classes do not necessarily abstain, and those who have learned about contraception do not necessarily use it consistently.
Wrong
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/4/gr060407.html
Furthermore, the claim that the number of abortions has not seen a serious increase in the country since 1960, and particularly 1973, is simply false. That claim, along with the claim that there has been no cultural change on the subject of premarital sex, is obvious to anyone with common sense who saw societal changes from the time of the Second World War on. Even Planned Parenthood, when at Clarion, conceded the increase of abortion and the normalization of premarital sex.
Premarital sex has become increasingly acceptable, starting in the 19th century. Furthermore, marriage does not prevent abortions. The highest percentage of women seeking abortions are already married mothers.
Also, abortion rates are decreasing, at their lowest point in 20 years: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html
This is my favorite part:
All in all, Students for Life is very busy with end-of-year events and planning. Students for Life is at Clarion to present the truth about the very real yet much ignored harmful effects of abortion (as stated earlier). As much as we would love to have an ongoing discussion, we simply can’t... we certainly welcome opinions and feedback about our events, our group, and any other issues, but it is particularly difficult and nearly impossible to maintain an ongoing debate when our responsibilities lie elsewhere. If you would like to have a discussion over the summer with someone without having them speak for the organization on specific matters, that is just as welcomed. Thanks again for your letter to The Call and specifically taking the time to respond to us via email.
Regards,
Katy Nolan, Amy Denison, and Emily Mosher
Translation: Terribly sorry, but we can't really debate with you because our members are just way too busy with urgently important matters such as upholding the status of women-as-incubators, promoting the cult of the almighty embryo, and infringing on the rights of others. Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment