Posted on 08/01/2005 11:48:51 AM PDT by Lorianne
I am no bachelor, and if I know anything from day-to-day or indeed minute-by-minute experience, it is that you cannot infer a man's politics from those of his wife.
Another proof of this truth came home for me the other morning in a discussion about the politics of Jane Sullivan Roberts, the spouse of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Over breakfast, I mentioned that Ms. Roberts had been active in a group called Feminists for Life.
"I don't think you can be a feminist and try to force women to have babies they don't want," my wife, Marion, said.
That claim succinctly expresses why abortion rights are central to feminism: Freedom entails control over one's own body. The idea that the state ought to control female reproductive functions would be an odious violation of the basic autonomy feminism was created to uphold.
And yet, the matter is considerably more complicated than that.
Feminism has a broad agenda and a rich history. It has dedicated itself to equal pay for women, to making it possible for women to ascend to positions of real power, and to opening all areas of human endeavor - from athletics to the sciences to law - to the aspirations of women. It has dedicated itself to raising third-world women out of poverty and to putting female MBAs into corporate boardrooms. It has dedicated itself to stopping the rape, harassment, mutilation, and degradation of women.
Feminism is anything but monolithic. There are anarchist feminists, communist feminists, and democratic feminists. There are eco-feminists worshiping the goddess of nature, Christian feminists, Islamic feminists, and atheistic feminists. There are feminists who define pornography as rape and feminists who endorse it as a liberatory practice.
And although most feminists favor abortion rights, that cannot be the only criterion. To reduce feminism to a single position on a single issue would be a sadly impoverished outcome of an immensely rich history. Even some of the most radical feminists - Emma Goldman, for instance - have had misgivings about abortion.
Any feminist who makes support of abortion rights the criterion of feminism has falsified the movement's history and goals and needlessly narrowed its base of support.
Ms. Roberts has for many years been a high-powered attorney, a status that is made possible in part by the victories of American feminism. There is no reason to doubt the sincerity or intensity of her commitment to many of the central tenets of feminism.
But like many people, she comes from a religious perspective (in her case, Catholicism) that condemns abortion, and perhaps like many others she also has (perhaps related) moral misgivings.
If it were perfectly clear that abortion is only a matter of a woman's control of her own body, then a defense of abortion would be a sheer defense of liberty and autonomy. It would be clear that you could not endorse the liberation of women without endorsing abortion rights.
But that's not clear. To what extent and up to what point a fetus is part of a woman's body are difficult questions that trouble even as clear an advocate of abortion rights as my wife Marion.
If feminism had been consistently libertarian - if it opposed on principle all legislation that limited people's autonomy - then there might be a plausible argument that a pro-choice position is entailed by any version of feminism.
But though there have been libertarian feminists, the main line of feminist theory has been extremely enthusiastic about achieving liberation through the force of law, from Title IX to sexual harassment statutes to amendments to the Constitution. Mainstream feminists can't in principle be opposed to legislation or constitutional amendments to defend the rights of children; the only question is whether limits on abortion are in fact about children at all.
That is, support of abortion rights can be a necessary condition for being a feminist only on the supposition that a fetus is merely a part of a woman's body. But that can't be decisively shown.
Until it is, Ms. Roberts's position is perfectly sensible and consistent. There are many aspects of a feminist agenda that she can enthusiastically endorse and that may have been and may be essential to her personal and professional life. This may lead to some lively conversations about the Roberts home.
The relation of Ms.Roberts's successful career as an attorney or her pro-life activities to her husband's future as a Supreme Court justice is a matter for speculation. But it is worth pointing out that, whatever his views on this or that, he is a man who married a feminist.
• Crispin Sartwell writes daily at eyeofthestorm.blogs.com and teaches political science at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa. ©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Perfectly stated!
Jennifer O'Neal and many others who bought into abortion when having a baby was bad timing now greatly regret their decisions
Including Jane Row where this whole thing started in 1973
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33113
I'm not buying this.
Mainline feminists are solidly againt Bush. Yet Bush has taken third-world female-hell countries like Iraq and given their women almost equal rights. They hate Bush because Bush hates abortion. And mainline feminists supported Bill Clinton blindly despite numerous accounts of rape and harrassment. They like Clinton because Clinton supported abortion.
I know several women who abandonned the feminist movement, precisely because of their overpowering support of abortion. Ms. Roberts is indeed a very small minority.
The day I left my prochoice views behind was the day it dawned on me that my children were not an extention of my self, but were complete separate, independent human beings. I realized that my life had no more importance than their lives. And, if that was true, then abortion is murder. There's no other way to look at it. None.
"That claim succinctly expresses why abortion rights are central to feminism: Freedom entails control over one's own body."
- This is the crux of the whole idiotic feminist argument on abortion. They think the baby IS their own body up until more than 50% of it is hanging out of their vagina...the whole reasoning behind how the "illegal search and seizure" statute of the 4th amendment makes abortion legal. Talk about delusional self-centeredness.
Using that logic, I would be the property of my landlord since I reside on his land or by that logic to reason that suicide (assisted or otherwise) should be made legal under the same 4th amendment principles.
I love arguing with feminists on this because they loose every time. The only concrete logical argument about the beginning of human life is at conception since it then that a new DNA blueprint is created (unique from any other human on the planet) and new life begins as the newly created single cell divides for the first time. All other arguments rely on conjecture and raw selfishness.
The bottom line is that new, unique human life can be proven scientifically at conception and all other rationales otherwise cannot. Abortion will be outlawed in this country in the near future based on the types of argument I’ve put forth. It’s only a matter of time.
This is NOT about choice, per se, this about making women able to do whatever they want, and never be held accountable.
You're right. When women are getting their heads cut off in the third world, getting put to death by their husband for being disabled, thousands of cases of statutory rape (I'm not talking about 18 year olds with a 16 year old either), in the abortion clinics go unreported and when the prospective fathers have no say but half the DNA of the aborting of the child...you hear crickets from the like of NOW, NARAL and Planned Parenthood. What is feminist about teaching a second grader being gay or lesbian is cool and mainstream, fourth graders how to put on condoms, no parental notification for abortion, quiet about the RU-486 deaths, aborting future women and not helping single mothers?
I went to the "March for Women's Lives" (lovingly known as the death march by others. More than half of those there were gay and lesbian (do they plan on reproducing?). Since it's touted as reproductive rights, where is the fight for those woman who want to keep their children? It seems the only right is the right to kill. Where are the victim assistance centers for women who are abused with and without families? Where are they when all the girls in Africa are being raped and killed? Has someone gone to the U.N. to speak on this?
A true feminist fights for ALL women and what they may want or not want. Especially future women. Those who have the kids...rule the world.
You don't want babies - don't have sex. It's that simple. Duh!
Or as the misguided wife of the author of the article said - "I don't think you can be a feminist and try to force women to have babies they don't want,". Here's the basic problem - the pro-choice feminists are arguing that the freedom to have control over one's own body extends in perpetuity from the initial decision points concerning the act of sex itself (of which there are many such as the who, what, when, where, why and how) right through to the concluding result or consequence of that initial decision (the potentially resulting pregnancy and by extension the right to abort it if they so chose to do so). Women already have control over their own bodies for the most part on the initial decision (excluding for the moment the issue of rape or age of consent issues etc that are such a minor number in the overall picture) - but since any women knows that babies come from the act of sex, the decision to participate in the sexual act means giving up that right to being able to control the consequences (since the act could potentially result in another human and no human should have the right to arbitrarily terminate the existence of another human being). The right to free speech does not include yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, the right to swing one's arm ends when it endangers someone's nose etc. The argument for abortion is akin to arguing for the right to swing your arm AND the right to land it on somebody's nose - works if the nose's owner agrees with it but doesn't if the owner objects or even says nothing. Same is true here and similarly, it doesn't matter if it was planned or unplanned. The baby as a completely separate person must be consulted and agree to the termination - and if the baby says nothing, it must be left alone.
Neither my wife nor I want any more babies. We have 3 kids. We were on vacation last week. We had sex multiple times.
Your advice stinks.
Feminists For Life is a fantastic group. Their online site has very interesting information about the anti abortion sentiments of the early Feminist leaders. These women knew the truth- abortion is abusive to woman as well as killing an innocent life.
Classical feminism is fine stuff.
Why? The point was that abstinence works.
I don't think you can support the murder of the most helpless and voiceless among us and really be a moral person, or take the moral high ground on any position.
Shouldn't the judge's breach of ethics be taken up with the state bar association?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.