Secular Pro Life (9/9)

Continued from part 8

Not one of the social problems you mentioned is caused by abortion. Not men bailing on their kids, not pay discrimination, not the devaluation of women’s labor. All of these problems existed when abortion was banned and now that it is a constitutional right. Abortion isn’t the cause of sexism, and criminalizing it only worsens the symptoms.

The solutions will need to address the real causes, like capitalism and toxic masculinity, state violence and private property. I doubt those are issues you’re prepared to look at, so I’ll start simple. I’ll start with a possible solution.

Secular Pro Life (8/9)

Continued from part 7

However, it would be irresponsible for the pro-life movement to cultivate a “sure, anybody can do it” attitude toward conception and parenthood—particularly when it comes to teenagers, who even with all the support in the world may not be emotionally mature enough to provide a secure home for a child. Traditionally, efforts to encourage teens to abstain from sex or use contraception have emphasized the hardships of motherhood. What happens when motherhood is less of a hardship?

Are you kidding me? What the fuck is wrong with your moral compass?! You want to intentionally create and maintain a system of undue hardship on teen moms – again targeting only female people you’d like to control -to save other teens from the bad fate that only exists because we choose it? Your logic is bad and should feel bad.

When motherhood is less of a hardship, teen moms nd their children thrive. Girls with supportive families and economic assistance are more likely to finish high school, go to college, and find higher paying work after. Virtually all of the negative outcomes experienced by teen mothers and their children could be prevented if we got rid of attitudes like yours. There is nothing stopping you from caring for born teens and their babies now, without inhibiting safe abortion.

An entirely new approach is needed, and to date, the pro-life feminist movement has not adequately addressed the specifics of this educational shift.  We need to develop a curriculum that encourages the planning of pregnancies, while neither the curriculum nor social circumstances themselves will shame or punish parents or children where the pregnancy is unplanned.

You know who has great educational materials that don’t shame people facing unplanned pregnancies? Pro-choice organizations! Please spare everyone the effort. Do not try to reinvent the wheel. You are not up the task.

Continue to part 9

Secular Pro Life (7/9)

Continued from part 6

Second, if abortions become rare, and meanwhile birthing and child-rearing are so well-supported as to have no downside for the adults involved, the birth rate is bound to increase. 

Every single part of this is wrong! First, nothing you have suggested would make abortion rare, just illegal and therefore deadly. I’ve written about abortion prevention before, not because abortion is bad but because pregnancy can be. Preventing pregnancy and economically empowering women to choose parenting actually reduce abortion. Criminalization just drives it underground,

Secular Pro Life (6/9)

Continued from part 5

First, pregnancy and child-rearing requires time, energy, and money.Historically, these costs have been borne by mothers. (They have made big money sacrifices in terms of missed earnings, even when the children’s upkeep was directly borne by the fathers.) This has allowed fathers to invest more time and energy profitably, in the workplace, than mothers can – thus controlling the purse strings over whatever earnings do not go for minimum family upkeep, and winning all the other rewards of a career. In developed societies, men have come to recognize society’s need for women’s contributions in politics, science, art, entertainment, sports and every sphere. But promoting female equality on this front will require people who are not mothers to give up some time, energy, and money from the career areas of their lives to share the load. And if children are unplanned and are not to be aborted, this will mean that those who are not pregnant (which includes all men) will have to give up time, energy, and money to share the load of children whom they did not want and even their mothers did not want.

Exactly how does forced birth and the proliferation of children who feel unwanted compel men to take on responsibility? What is stopping men from doing that work now? Not abortion. Married fathers spend a fraction of time with their children, compared to their wives. Even when men choose to parent, they drop the ball. How will more children fix any of this?

Secular Pro Life (5/9)

Continued from part 4

When abortion is legal and moreover is promoted as “a responsible decision,” “the best thing for you,” or “waiting till you’re ready,” all the abortions that will naturally result become an escape valve: the pressure on men to support womanhood is relieved. Thus legal abortion is both a symptom of, and reinforces, a patriarchal, misogynistic social system. 

Oh you sweet ignorant summer children! Do you honestly think that free men have ever been encumbered in their efforts to disavow their children? Especially the children of women with less power? Sex workers, mistresses, chamber maids, and one night stands? Men have always been empowered to abandon. Always. Abortion no more caused this state of affairs than reliable genetic testing solved it. Medical technology itself is not social change.

Secular Pro Life (4/9)

Continued from part 3

Meanwhile, while many men are wonderful fathers and are happy to devote time, energy, and money to their children out of love, these positive tendencies have not become a strong social norm on the level of maternal care. 

Yup, a lot of dudes are shitty dads. That’s been true across time, culture, and legal status of abortion. Almost like an issue of primarily women’s health doesn’t have much bearing on the cavalier sexism of men. Definitely not a good reason to link women’s or children’s prosperity to those men.

Secular Pro Life (3/9)

Continued from part 2

The energy spent in carrying a child to term, and the time, energy, and money spent in giving birth, and the time, energy, and money spent in any subsequent care for the child, disadvantages women because we live in a social system that does not value and support motherhood – which is to say a patriarchal, misogynistic social system.

Agreed. What a wonderful argument you have made for my position, that no one should be forced to endure the social and financial costs of pregnancy and children without their consent.

Secular Pro Life (2/9)

Continuing on from part 1.

When pregnant women feel they must resort to abortion for the sake of career goals, pregnant women’s genuine contributions to society are deemed insufficient to win society’s rewards, without their first employing violence against the weak.

Okay first, no one wants women feeling they have to resort to anything. Pro-choice is about choice, including the choice to parent. The social and economic forces working to limit women’s freedom to parent and work aren’t caused by legal abortion, and won’t be solved by its criminalization. Abortion is not the root of sexism; it’s the medical termination of a pregnancy.

Response to Secular Pro-Life (1/9)

This morning I was pointed to a mind numbing piece, attempting to claim that outlawing abortion is the more feminist choice. I will be responding to that text with a blend of snark, statistics, and foul language. It turned out a lot longer than I intended, so it has been broken up across several posts for easier reading.

Cereal Laze

London-based market research firm Mintel released the results of a 2015 food consumer survey. The mainstream news latched onto one data point, that 40% of Millennials surveyed don’t choose cereal as their breakfast. Some respondents indicated that having to wash dishes after contributed to not thinking of it as a convenient choice.

That was all it took for another spate of Millennials bashing think pieces in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Atlantic. Beyond the reactionary nostalgia of people who think of cereal as a noble tradition, and woeful projections for what this means to Post and General Mills, the articles all had a common refrain: Millennials are lazy.

Too lazy to wash a bowl and spoon! Too coddled, too sheltered in childhood. Participation trophies must be to blame. Those darn lazy Millennials with their smart phones and energy drinks won’t eat cold cereal like God intended. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

What this cereal caping press ignores is any other possible reason besides sloth cereal might be less popular. Like food trends and fads, or the relatively low nutrition of most cereals, or the fact that a box of Cheering costs twice as much in 2016 as it cost in 2006. Or the challenges of working spit shifts or two jobs, or the dish wars between the increasing number of older Millennials living with roommates.

Or that cereal isn’t “new” like Greek yogurt, chia seeds, and kale. Or that food insecurity may be driving the sizable minority of Millennials who simply don’t have a breakfast. Or that free or discounted food at work is one of the only perks restaurant workers get, so eating at home feels wasteful.

The only people who should care that this generation eats less cereal are cereal makers and their shareholders. Anyone else being “alarmed” by this news is either putting on a show or needs to chill. Think of that advice you love giving college student trauma survivors.

The world isn’t your safe space or your bubble, and no one will give you protection from ideas or facts you don’t like, such as the fact that your favorite breakfast food is no longer on trend. Put on your grownup britches and breathe. You can handle living in a world of waning cereal popularity. You’ll be okay.