How can women be equal when their reproductive rights are being controlled by a male-dominated society?
The answer is they can't.
The FDA's continued refusal to pass the Morning After Pill for over-the-counter sales, despite being proven safe after extensive testing, is another example of politics sticking its unwelcome nose in a woman's business.
While the United States is enforcing freedom and democracy around the globe, it is enslaving its own women domestically with antiquated and sexist reproductive policies.
The only reason that the Morning After Pill, also called Plan B, hasn't been released for over-the-counter sales is pure puritanical prudishness. Of course, this isn't the official policy of the FDA. Rather their stance is "because of concerns about whether young girls would be able to use it safely." Um, if I read between the lines that means, "we don't want to encourage women to have sex outside of marriage."
Uh, yeah.
Why not hold up cholesterol-controlling drugs because we don't want to encourage fat asses to eat more bacon and eggs? Oh wait, because that's not a female-only issue having to do *sexuality*.
Oh, and don't worry, they're working on outlawing abortion too, so don't get your ovaries all titillated. Don't believe me, just ask the women of South Dakota.
What a duplicitous message we are sending young women in this country. On one hand they see images of scantily clad women engaging in sexual activity, but they rarely talk about the importance of making smart choices regarding their sexuality. Heck, some parents don't even want schools teaching sex-ed to their kids. Then when young women subsequently end up pregnant, the ugly reality of reproduction rears its head. Society's answer is "tough shit, honey," that's your problem. You should have thought of that before you dropped your skivvies. Never mind the sperm donor involved in the deed.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baronius
Your argument contains a few errors.
First of all, you say men get to make all the decisions about reproduction. But you also say that women are in charge of contraception. It seems to me that the woman is the one making the decisions.
Does it make sense that women carry the burden of family planning? Yes, since the guy can always leave town. It's in the nature of the equipment that the woman bears a greater share of the consequences. Indeed, I suspect you'd find it oppressive if men were in charge of family planning. That would be a diminishment of the woman's voice in the matter.
One last point. Men and women have had an equal say in public policy since 1920. It isn't as if the men of South Dakota are seeking to outlaw abortion. Polling data has consistently shown that men are somewhat more likely to vote pro-choice, and women somewhat more likely to vote pro-life. It's the male instinct toward irresponsibility that sustains the abortion rights movement.
2 - Steve
I'm with you on this one, Baronius.
3 - Dawn
You are both totally wrong.
My point was that the options given to women for contraception put the burden on the woman. These devices were created by men for women. Not vice versa. So when things go wrong with the devices men created, they then want to create more obstacles for women to remain autonomous, by making abortion illegal (it was the male govenor who signed that law - just like our governing body in this country is predominately male - unless you want to argue that too.) And it's not good enough that they want to make abortion illegal, they want to keep emergency contraceptives unavailable too. Which to me, would seem a better alternative to abortion.
It's really crystal clear - and just because you say you don't agree, doesn't mean you are right.
Bearing children however joyeous the occasion may be, is still a burden placed solely on the female. Women should have ALL THE CHOICES.
4 - Nancy
I agree utterly, Dawn: until & unless men are able to transfer & carry the embryo/fetus to term, & willing to do so, no man should have any sort of control or say about any woman's reproductive rights. And that includes access to contraceptives as well as abortion, both chemical & mechanical.
5 - Arch Conservative
So by your logic Nancy women should not be allowed to have any say or control in war until they are able to serve in forward infantry units. So I had better not see you offering any opinions on Iraq on BC right Nancy?
When you accept this I while accept your position that men should not be allowed to have opinions on abortion.
Also Nancy and Dawn.... what do you make of women who are pro-life?
6 - Steve
As Baronius pointed out, even if men were not allowed to have a say vis a vis abortion, most women are pro-life anyway, so you're really not helping your argument. But then, feminists are always shooting themselves in the foot with these anti-male arguments. If only life were as simple as they'd like it to be.
7 - RedTard
It's not about reproductive rights, women have always had that protected by rape laws, infringers are very severely punished. They'll continue to push their lying propaganda until they pissed enough people off to overturn Roe v Wade.
Nancy and Dawn are angry that it's not as easy to murder an unwanted baby as they would like. They completely ignore the fact that society is twice as hard on men when it comes to reproductive rights as women.
At least women have a choice in 49 states. The man has no say at any point in any state, ever.
N & D would fully support any measure that would help a woman rid herself of an unwanted child, support laws to drop aff born babies at any place anytime, yet suggest to them that guys should have the opportunity to quit paying child support for an unwanted child and they would fly off the handle. They don't want equality for women, which is already fact, they want special treatment.
8 - Nancy
No, actually I don't support guys having to pay child support if he doesn't want the kid but she refuses to abort. I'm not sure what the solution to that one is, when I'm still not sure how to solve the more basic issues, but I never did think that was fair.
I do think that a living, sentient woman has priority & her rights not to be a breeding cow trump those of either the impregnating man or the embryo, which until birth is basically just a parasitic life form occupying her body - and no man should have the right to tell her she's got to carry it to term, for any reason...unless, as said, he is willing to accept transfer and continue the gestation himself. In which case, fine & dandy. He can be burdened with the kid, and she can pay child support.
9 - RedTard
My wife's 7 month's pregnant now I get a little touchy on the subject.
10 - Nancy
That's understandable, to a point. Is this your first?
11 - Dawn
Really this post is much less about abortion than it is about reproductive choices and who has to make them.
I think it's unfair and the burden is unduly put on women far more so than men.
What I would like to see is a little more common sense, a little more compassion and a little less in my face bullshit from men, when in fact it is often they seeking sex and it is we are faced with the consequences of that union.
I mean really, what's so hard about all of that.
12 - Steve
You know, some of you ladies make it sound like you simply aren't capable of saying no to sex!! I think this debate has alot more to do with self control, after all, it's a lack of self control (on the part of both parties) that's creating all these reproductive dilemmas in the first place.
13 - Dawn
RT - Congrats!!! I have two children and think babies are sweet and wonderful, but like so many complicated issues, sometimes it's necessary to separate your personal life from political issues.
In any case, good luck with the little one.
14 - Nancy
Ladies aren't capable of saying 'no' to sex, when it's put to them in the form of incestuous male relatives, rapists, etc. No woman is capable of fighting or fending off a male heavier, stronger, & larger than she is - and that's about 99.999% of all males who have the advantage over females.
15 - Dawn
Um, excuse me Steve, I am married and I have no issue saying no - ask my poor husband.
Again we are talking about preventative measures here.
You sound like one of those people who thinks only sluts have sex and only whores get pregnant.
That's kind of ignorant don't you think.
16 - RedTard
Thanks. People just gravitate towards the extremes, myself included, on these issues. I'll admit that you probably don't have some macabre fascination with aborted fetuses if you'll admit that not every person who is uncomfortable with alowing all abortions is a woman hater.
I think we would both agree that those who would restrict birth control and morning after pills probably have some explaining to do though.
17 - Steve
Nancy, sorry, I thought we were talking about consensual sex here, I don't have a problem with abortion in the cases of rape or incest. Bottom line is in your case, if at all possible, don't put yourself in a position where you are alone in a non-public place with a man that you don't want to sleep with. And of course, if he forces you against your will into a situation like that, then the consequences are not your fault.
My point is, Dawn, abstinence is the best preventative measure, everything else involves an element of risk, if you aren't willing to have a child, why take the risk?? Aren't you just asking for trouble?? Sex is never risk free, with birth control or without it. That's just a Hollywood myth. If you are not willing to accept the possible consequences, don't engage in the behaviour...this is not rocket science!!
I've known of people who've pracised 'safe sex' but gotten pregnant anyway. 'Safe sex' is not the panacea the birth control folks etc. would like you to think it is. They're just out to make money off you.
18 - Arch Conservative
Nancy.......rape, incest, and saving the mother's life combined account for less than 3% of all abortions performed in this country so maybe you should offer a more valid argument as to why abortion is such a great and necessary thing.
19 - Nancy
As far as terminating pregnancies at all, I don't think ANYONE goes leaping joyfully into an abortion; that's a Terry Reed fallacy used for propaganda purposes. But I do wonder about the wisdom of forcing a woman/girl to carry a baby to term & then have to cope with it if she doesn't want it. Yeah, so it "teaches" her a lesson about being a slut. Then what? She takes it out on the kid, or even if she doesn't, she's stuck in a life of poverty - and so is the kid. Is this fair to the kid? Have you ever been an unwanted child? I have, and I can tell you, it's not a nice life. Not existing at all is infinitely preferable to being the source of resentment to a parent who doesn't want you & wishes you had never been born. What is amazing to me is, that even with all the so-called 'shortages' of adoptable kids, most never seem to make it to adoption in this country, for reasons I've never been able to fathom. My neighbors' son & daughter-in-law just went to enormous lengths to adopt a baby from India. Why India? Why from here in the US? Are the procedures here so stringent that overseas adoptions are preferable?
Anyway, my take on it is, forcing the mother to keep the baby may teach her a lesson, but what about the kid? Why should they also have to bear the brunt? Is the pro-life faction willing to guarantee the baby a good home if she does forgo abortion?
20 - Dawn
Steve, again I have no issue saying no, but what about us married folk? How about you tell my husband why I am saying no and deal with his level of unhappiness at my decision.
AC - we need abortion to be legal because no contraceptive is 100% infallible.
No one said abortion is great, but it is necessary because we have yet to create an 100% effective birth control that is easily accessible to all who want it.
This is my WHOLE point - how can we outlaw abortion when we can't come up with an 100%effective and low-cost birth control that is easily accessible.
None of you who have issues with abortion have answered these questions.
21 - diana hartman
Arch Conservative posts: "So by your logic Nancy women should not be allowed to have any say or control in war until they are able to serve in forward infantry units."
wow, what a dumb ass analogy...
getting to serve in forward infantry units -- where women currently serve by the way, check your sources -- was made a big no-no for women by men...it was no natural occurence, like having a uterus, that resulted in banning women from the front (but only officially, and only until the men unofficially said, "fuck it, okay, let them in"...don't believe me? come with me to landstuhl next week...)
"...what do you make of women who are pro-life?"
dumb asses who have somehow forgetten that being pro-life is a choice, not something imposed upon them by their male-led government...
steve posts: "You know, some of you ladies make it sound like you simply aren't capable of saying no to sex!! I think this debate has alot more to do with self control, after all, it's a lack of self control (on the part of both parties) that's creating all these reproductive dilemmas in the first place."
and yet, the part of this that is the lack of control on a male's part still results in all the responsibility on the female (pregnancy and delivery) -- and not the boring, repetitious, one-sided diatribe that conveniently spearheads the woman...as such, the decision to have comprehensive and effective reproduction control should be the woman's domain alone...it's not like men are so keen on condoms and vasectomies anyway...bring on the morning pill already...it's not like we're asking for retroactive abortions! yet...
saying "no" or not to sex has nothing to do with it...if one (male or female) has to say no because effective protection isn't available, that's a suck...
"I don't have a problem with abortion in the cases of rape or incest."
this argument flies only if you can say how one fetus is worth more than another...either you're against abortion for the reason that it ends a life, or you're not...
"My point is, Dawn, abstinence is the best preventative measure, everything else involves , everything else involves an element of risk, if you aren't willing to have a child, why take the risk??"
curious that this question is directed toward a female...males, what's your answer to steve's question? feel free to answer on behalf of the entire male population as the male questions here are asking but a handful of females to answer on behalf of the entire female population...
"I've known of people who've pracised 'safe sex' but gotten pregnant anyway. 'Safe sex' is not the panacea the birth control folks etc. would like you to think it is. They're just out to make money off you"
the morning after pill is for just such a scenario steve...if all they're after is the money, then where are the goods?
22 - Nancy
Izzat a valid enough argument for ya?
23 - Steve
Diana, re. abortion, if a woman willingly has sex, she must be willing to face the consequences like adults are supposed to. If she doesn't have sex willingly, she shouldn't have to face the consequences, unless she chooses to do so. Not a difficult argument to follow.
It seems to me all you ladies' arguments are about evading the consequences of sex instead of facing them like an adult. Your point about women and pregnancy & delivery simply reinforces my point. With so many more reasons to abstain, why can't you?? And then you get angry when men don't??? I'm surprised you feminists aren't taking the lead in this and being an example to the men in your life (seeing as you want to be in charge and all).
Re. your husband, Dawn, you mean you can't have sex without intercourse??? That's news to me. Maybe your hubby needs to learn some new tricks in the bedroom (I hope I don't sound snide, I really do mean that seriously).
Self control is 100% effective if practised and doesn't cost any money!!! The answer lies within yourselves ladies, not male dominated drug companies!!!
24 - Dawn
Steve, seriously, that is the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever heard. It has nothing to do with "new" tricks. It has to do with coming up with new and effective means of birth control. If men really cared about preventing unwanted pregancies then they would concentrate really hard on new technology and at least give women access to the shitty technology we already have.
Also, remember, women don't fornicate themselves, in order for them to become pregnant, some man had to be there to donate his DNA.
Why oh why will you not admit that men need to take some friggin responsibility.
yeah, and what diana and nancy said too!
Jeebus, you just think women are stupid whores don't you. Why am I arguing with you? what a wasted effort.
25 - Lisa McKay
...if a woman willingly has sex, she must be willing to face the consequences like adults are supposed to. If she doesn't have sex willingly, she shouldn't have to face the consequences, unless she chooses to do so. Not a difficult argument to follow.
The problem, Steve, is that you'd like to define what those consequences are. I'd argue that abortion is one likely consequence of having sex, and the decision to have one ought to remain a viable option for all women. No one is forced to have an abortion, and neither should anyone be forced to continue a pregnancy against her will.