Pro-choice v. pro-abortion (Re: Comcast rejects antiwar ad

Nathan Newman nathanne at nathannewman.org
Thu Jan 30 10:26:00 PST 2003


----- Original Message ----- From: "Liza Featherstone" <lfeather32 at erols.com>
>BUT while
>a position like Casey's may be more palatable than that of your run-of-the
>mill right-to lifer, it basically amounts to "we support mandatory
>motherhood but we'll just try to make it as nice for you as possible."

Mandatory motherhood in the sense of having to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term, but not mandatory in the sense of having to take care of a child or significantly change ones life or subordinate oneself economically. That's a big, big difference.

Let's flip the issue a bit-- why can mandatory fatherhood be imposed on men if a woman gets pregnant? If she chooses not to get an abortion, a one-time sexual encounter can become a lifetime financial responsibility with no choice by the man involved. Some anti-abortion feminists argue that it is precisely the option of abortion that leaves men feeling justified in walking away from responsibilities from unexpected pregnancies. Where do values of "choice" come in such a situation?

I'm not pointing out a simple set of values here, but "pro-choice" feminism has to grapple with a whole range of values, from supporting women who want to have children to how to deal with the responsibility of men involved.

As I said, I have no problem keeping a pro-choice political platform, but I think it weakens the political and ideological strength of any movement when sympathetic but dissident voices are silenced. Casey's views should not have prevailed but I think it weakened the "pro-choice" movement not to listen and have to respond.

-- Nathan Newman



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list