BoardRoom/Soapbox Archive
	Article

The reality of compulsory pregnancy
By Lauren Sabina Kneisly

Date: 7 November 1999, 10:13 pm EST

:Dan says:
:
:Thanks Sabina for elaborating on that point. I
:appreciate your help in clearing up what
:compulsory pregnancy means.
:
:Of course I don't know that you and your ideas
:represent what most pro-abortion people are
:thinking any more than my ideas represent what
:the anti-abortion folks are thinking.

Most humans tend to represent their own ideas,
nothing more nothing less.  Extrapolating
anything one person says out to a movement will
be patently false.

:I've never heard the term compulsory pregnancy
:before

Well that's because we made it up,  hence our own
definition. Although if you study history long
enough, you will stumble across what was termed
the 'mandatory motherhood lobby', (i.e., another
term for the CPA [compulsory pregnancy advocate]
movement).

: so since you've defined it so well, here's my
:take on it:

:First of all, there would be no way to argue
:from a position of fact that women MUST carry a
:baby to full term now.

The CPA movement does, daily.

: Abortion is more and more widely presented as
:socially acceptable, a minor procedure and
:without moral implications. The debate

It's not a debate. Womyn's lives, and this is a
matter of life and death for some womyn, for
others it's "simply" their futures,
are not debatable. There is a medical procedure
they desire, compulsory pregnancy advocates are
doing everything in their power to ensure she
doesn't get it. That's not a debate.  Further
the damn mess has already passed the shooting
point. Debate stopped long before the the
compulsory pregnancy advocates began shooting.

:is no longer on the legality of the PROCEDURE
:of abortion but on how late it can be
:performed. To my knowledge it's legal in every
:one of the 50 states as late as 19 weeks and in
:many states when the baby is 5 months from
:conception. ( For example that would be the case
:here in North Carolina).

I don't play games about this week and that
week. The only place such stipulations matter to
me come sit at whether or not a womyn will be
able to get her procedure at her trimester cost,
etc.

:The ability of a woman to abort her baby is
:easier and more convenient than ever.

Glad you think so. Tell that to a 13 year old
victim of incest who has no transportation, a
compulsory pregnancy family, and past 26
weeks. *And*, a restraining order against the
abortion put on her by the state. Sure easy.
Real easy. You're right Dan, easier and more
convenient than ever.

In some towns prior to Roe, despite abortion
being illegal, people simply looked the other
way - even the local law enforcement - cops used
to bring their sisters. I have no way of
measuring whether it was easier then or now, but
at least back then, unless the cops were there
to bust you, they left you alone. They weren't
there bringing in restraining orders.

: There have been states that have challenged
:parental involvement in their childrens' lives
:and THOSE barriers are coming down so that if an
:under the age of majority child becomes
:pregnant, it is increasingly difficult for the
:parents to prevent an abortion.

Since the parents are clearly 'unable to'
*prevent* the pregnancy in the first place
(assuming such is even desirable!) why would
anyone assume they *should* have any power to
"*prevent* the abortion"? Regardless of some
religious positions (that parents own their
girls, and children in general) here in America,
MOST Americans recognize the government is not
here to enforce the social agenda of the church,
any church. If it were, you would then get into
the semantics of WHICH religious system the
government was going to enforce. How would you
feel about the government forcing your children
to prey Muslim prey-hers every morning in
school, or perhaps the government FORCING teens
to have an abortion (if it were some religious
sect's notion that all underage girls who were
pregnant must have abortions)?

I feel the same way about my government telling
me that in the case of a teen pregnancy the
government will enforce a particular religious
position whereby she may not abort.

Ultimately, I believe our bodies are our own,
even if we happen be underage.  And just as I
feel an underage girl can decide whether or not
to have sex,  i.e. who if anyone gets to have
intercourse with her, she also gets to make
decisions pertaining to her body upon pregnancy.

Do you really want parents to be able to make
decisions concerning her body?  If so, what if
Daddy decides she needs his penis in her? (Again
assuming incest is something undesirable.) If
'Daddy' is allowed to make decisions concerning
her body, leaving her with no recourse, this is
where *some* will end up. If you own your kids,
and that's enforced by the government, than
everything that happens behind closed doors in
the home falls under parental
control. Unquestioned. 

As we saw in St. Louis, even in public, you say
what happens is between that man and his
daughter. Is this in the GIRL's best interest?
Was it in HER best interest that she be grabbed
and have her hair violently yanked? Those
'christians' wouldn't even go find help to
figure out whether or not the situation was out
of control, let alone intervene.

Further, what if he then decides for her that
she gets to carry a pregnancy caused by him to
term? Is this really what you want - parents
owning their children's bodies? Just because
*you* might not screw *your* daughter, what's to
stop the neighbors? Even if she runs to (who,
hmmmm, social services would no longer be there,
because the church has replaced its function)
ok, she goes running to civil authorities of
some ilk. Now we're at the enforcement point,
daughter comes in saying 'daddy raped me'.

Firstly, who is the local sheriff going to
believe - upset teenage girl, or daddy -
particularly if mom's covering for him (oh,
wait, we're back to that 2 witnesses clause 
without such daughter's shit out of luck!)
Secondly, how long before sheriff decides the
girl's just trying to get rid of a daddy she
doesn't like?

Where does she go, Dan? Is the local church
supposed to somehow take on enforcement (which
we've heard alluded to), if so, you're down to
mob mentality, vigilantism, and let the Witch
hunts begin.

You see, I'm not likely to support the
government enforcing ANY religious agenda. I
think people should control their own bodies
make their own decisions, AND live with the
consequences thereof, preferably without undue
intrusion. Interference should come at points
where the problems are, i.e.  don't try to fix
something that's not broken, as a corollary, DO
fix what IS broken.

The daughter's consent is the bottom line
of what matters here, it's her body.

Either she gets to make decisions about her own
body 'no daddy, you don't get to fuck me', or
the parent gets to decide. I think parents owing
their kids bodies is a matter of bad social
policy. Our bodies ARE our own. Yes, even when
we're 12, we still have the right to say no; to
sex, to compulsory pregnancy, and yes even to
abortion. The consequences rest on her, so why
can't ownership?

In terms of fixing what's broken, I don't view
abortion as a 'broken', quite frankly I'm
surprised christians do. After all, to your
system, don't you all answer to god, not the
state for what you've done, OR wished you'd
done; what was in your hearts? After all, even
if the girl can't get an abortion  she still
wants one, right? Are you going to try to
physically 'protect womyn from ourselves' by
legislating a CPA position? What good will that
do, after all the abortion is still her desire,
right?

Prevent her physically all you want, the 'sin of
abortion' to your system is still in her heart
Dan. Protecting us from ourselves is generally a
losing proposition, it only makes us reject you
further, as you've just proven you are against
our interests. So what does such legislation
actually accomplish? A huge back market? Sure
some womyn will find real services in hiding,
the rich always do. Still others will die at the
hands of profiteers who don't know jack shit
about abortion or medicine in general, but do
know womyn will pay handsomely for anything that
MIGHT be an abortion. Perhaps, since the
pregnancy is likely a secret, her abortion will
now have to be in the closet as well. Is that
where you want your daughter seeking medical
care?

And all this is supposed to increase
child/parent relations exactly how?

Treating kids as less than fully human, fully
responsible for their own actions not only
eradicates consent, but you end up some really
unpleasant places. I can't support such an
agenda, nor such legislation without asking what
all this is supposed to do to make things
better.

All that I see as coming from your zero
tolerance for out of the closet abortions, and
resultant teen pregnancies (that most often the
girls are not allowed to keep because they are
unmarried) is a steady stream of adoption fodder
fed through the CPICs to certified christian
parents. I.E. movement growth. So you see, it's
got very little to do with abortion, and
everything to do with adoption - preferably a
steady stream of healthy white infants - and
those are much in demand here in America these
days.

The reason you see Biblical Americans rail
against single mothers, and unmarried teens
'keeping their baby-bees' has little to do with
morals and lots to do with their adoption
racket's demand for product. After all, if we
ungodly keep them, where will 'good standing
moral infertile christian' couples get theirs?


:So we are very far from any kind of compulsory
:pregnancy, and we are moving further away from
:it... not closer to it.

Depends on what you're looking at. For any womyn
without access compulsory pregnancy is the norm,
whether she likes it or not. One womyn, forced
to carry to term against her will is too
many. Non-consensual pregnancy is a 'rape' of
another kind.

:You are also focusing on pregnancy rather than
:children. Nobody can be forced to carry a child
:to term.

That's a pretty interesting statement there Dan,
one that doesn't bear ANY relationship to
reality.

What planet are you on? Do you think we womyn
can *decide* we don't want to carry a fetus and
it magically disappears into the ether? Perhaps
you education failed to include anything
resembling sex-ed, but the fact is once
pregnant, we womyn don't have a lot of time, or
a lot of options.

Every day womyn bear to term without their
consent. Try walking into a convention of
birthmothers who were doubly violated not merely
by being forced to bear against their will, but
then additionally had such resultant children
stolen from them. they will be quite happy to
tell you about pregnancy without consent. In
extreme cases- like when a womyn is raped in
prison and unable to get an abortion, the state
itself will force her to carry without consent.

Better yet, Dan, perhaps you should try being
pregnant sometime against your will, trapped by
your own biology, then make stupid statements
such as the above. I don't expect you to
understand what it means to be a slave to your
own biology.

:Even before abortion was legal, it was
:available.

For some womyn, not all.

: There are many ways of causing a baby to abort
:and a woman who is intent on killing her unborn
:child has always been able to do so, regardless
:of the legality.

Always, Dan? Always? Such absolutes belie pure
propaganda. If you actually believe this you are
an idiot. If you don't believe it, you're a
liar. You have in essence just stated that any
womyn who carries to term does so of her own
free will- you are wrong.

:It's like suicide or murder---both of these
:things occur regularly and despite their
:illegality.

Well, I will admit, we do have an out when
pregnant- we can ALWAYS *try* to commit
suicide. Folk don't *always* succeed,
though. Gosh, let's see, remain pregnant, or try
to kill myself? Lots and lots of womyn choose
the latter.  The aftermath of failed suicide can
be arrest or institutionalization, so basically
'succeed or loose your freedom'. The illegality
is not there for the successful dead, but for
the unsuccessful living- the consequences tend
to be unpleasant.

As for murder- again, the illegality never
prevents an act, it is there as consequences for
the caught, the same would be true for abortion
prohibition, it's not that you had an abortion,
or wanted one, it's the punishment after being
caught, and the intimidation to the provider and
others involved. It's about punishment and
threat thereof, not actually stopping
anything. If it were an effective deterrent, the
death penalty would have gotten our murder rate
down to nothing.

:I said:
:
::In the CPA universe, pregnancies are to be
::guarded and any loss of pregnancy is suspect. As
::always, enforcement is impossible, and only
::those vulnerable and 'caught' with a loss of
::pregnancy will be persecuted.

:Dan says:
:
:I'm not sure what you're talking
:about. Everybody has value in the eyes of
:God. Pregnant women and girls are not
:"pregnancies" they are people.

We are talking about the realm of the law
here. the law is not about individuals, but
classes of people, in this case, womyn as a
class, and pregnant womyn as a subclass
thereof. (not worse, just a smaller pool.)

:Babies are children, and they are people too,
:they are not "pregnancies".

'Babies' and 'Children' are both within the
realm of the born, and no longer dependant upon
the womyn's body alone for oxygen and
nourishment. Pregnancy is a state where the
fetus is in the realm of dependence.

:The anti-abortion movement is just what it
:sounds like---it is against aborting/killing
:babies.

The anti-abortion movement is against the
destruction of fetuses (currently residing
within the body of the womyn and in a state of
dependence). Both anti-abortion folk and
pro-abortion folk tend to be against the killing
babies (born, no longer dependent, now
recognized by American law as individuals).

:IF abortion were ever made illegal again, it
:wouldn't stop abortion

Correct, in that it would not stop SOME
abortions, other womyn would not be able to
afford, or find, anyone knowledgeable to perform
an abortion.  Abortion takes at least one other
person.

Even in the case of emergency contraception
(which must really be used with in the first 24
or so hours and is not 100% effective, no method
of birth control is), the pills must still be
prescribed manufactured, etc. Even there we
womyn are playing beat the clock.

Induced miscarriage is not anywhere near as
simple as herbal recipe books and compulsory
pregnancy advocates would have you believe. Hell
you can flush your cunt with Drano and the
pregnancy continue (won't be very happy if the
fetus and you survive, though.)

:anymore than it would create a system to
:persecute these poor women and girls who have
:them.

I don't consider womyn having abortions 'poor'.

If you are talking economics 'poor' you've
obviously never *been* poor. The economically
poor are the first to be attacked in raids, and
least able to worm (or buy, or social status)
their way out of punishment.

As for persecution, you may feel womyn will
somehow be treated with some form of 'biblical
compassion' but I've certainly seen those out at
the clinics spreading the CPA point of view
espousing womyn who have abortions must be put
to death, perhaps stoned to death under their
desired version of 'god's law'. Persecution?
Yeah I'd say stoning a womyn to death based upon
the evidence of her sexual activity and
inability to hide the evidence thereof goes just
a bit further than mere 'persecution' try
'capital punishment' perhaps? Not my envisioned
desires for America.

As usual, the actual 'crime of abortion' will
only be punished in cases of 'being caught',
those least able to afford flying to some other
country will be the ones who get caught.

:I said: 
: 
::and womyn without 'connections'
::would be the most likely martyrs of the
::pregnancy enforcement jihad. Compulsory
::pregnancy amounts to all womyn of childbearing
::age being redefined as a class into a suspect
::nation within the nation.
:
:Dan says:
:
:I don't know where you're getting this
:stuff. You've described a "brave new
:world" indeed.

Well let's see, who gets pregnant? Womyn of
childbearing age.  Who gets abortions? Womyn of
childbearing age.  Who may be pregnant, but it
may not be visible yet? Womyn of childbearing
age.  So who may be getting abortions without
anyone knowing? Womyn of childbearing age.

Since we don't know who in that class of people
may or may not be pregnant, and who in that
class of people may or may not have had an
abortion, BUT we do know men don't get pregnant,
nor commit the 'crime of abortion' under the
desired legislation (with the exception of
Doctors! Or other men performing abortions),
*Most* men will be treated differently than
womyn of childbearing age UNLESS those men
happen to know how to perform abortions or
OB-GYNs or another specialty of medicine. AND
since no one knows *which* womyn of childbearing
age have and have not had abortions we ALL come
under suspicion, thus treated differently, than
say, men who are not doctors.  Where will this
difference in treatment occur- anywhere we even
COULD get caught.

This is not science fiction, this is a small
window into history. When abortion WAS illegal-
prior to Roe in '73 (earlier in many other
places like NY, but we'll talk nationally for
simplicity) if a womyn, for example showed up in
a hospital miscarrying, sometimes she would be
denied medical treatment unless she was willing
to give the 'name of the person who did
this'. Even if it was a spontaneous miscarriage,
many miscarriages were considered potential
criminal abortions- and as such were treated as
a potential crime scenes. Ever go to a hospital
needing help and instead get questioned for
hours by a cop- as you lie there an bleed?

That has happened and it is what I'm talking
about.The differences in treatment only become
apparent upon the 'being caught' This 'perfectly
harmless legislation' you keep desiring has
ramifications I can't even see- because yes, it
will be different this time. Times HAVE
changed. We're now living in a culture with over
the counter pregnancy tests for starters.

:The anti-abortion sentiment I'm familiar with
:is primarily a belief that abortion is wrong
:because it kills a child. To call it a
:"movement" is about as accurate as
:talking about the anti-murder movement.

Perhaps 'movements' is the better term, as there
are distinctions on desired futures and
tactics. But yes, there are social movements in
this country and worldwide that I would broadly
define as 'compulsory pregnancy advocates'.  If
you want to broaden it, we'll have to bring in
the animal rights folk and the anti-capital
punishment movements, of and yes, the three
overlap. That, however, is a topic for another
day.

Additionally the leaders themselves call it a
movement.

The CPA movements have leaders, organizations,
communications, methodologies, buildings,
tactics, etc. If you've missed the past 26 years
worth of history of CPAs, it's not my job to
educate you.

:I said:
:
::In reality, naturally, such is completely
::unenforceable, thus it gives compulsory
::pregnancy advocates- the social movement- an
::untenable goal- ever to be strived towards
::reaching no conclusions.

:Dan says:
:
:Being anti abortion has very little to do with
:"winning" anything...it is a core
:belief of right and wrong.

Actually, I would disagree. As a solid
barometer- the annual march for life here in DC
has a multipoint agenda that they set out as an
outline of a 'winning condition'. I will be the
first to agree the movements would not disband
should they ever win all such points, but the
overall 'winning condition' appears to be a
desire to 'win out' over the (they label)
'secular humanist worldview'. I would perhaps
more broadly define it as an autonomous
worldview in opposition to a theonomic
worldview- but of course that's all been done
before.

As a fine starting point, perhaps one of the
primary early forays of protestant support for
the CPA agenda, take Francis Schaeffer's
"Whatever Happened to the Human Race",
herein I'll refer to the film, not so much the
book. From it's origins, protestant involvement
in the CPA movement has clearly been an
orchestrated campaign to mobilize it's own
people and aim them outwardly at the unconverted
by means of pregnancy evangelism.
"Whatever happened" begins with the
desired effect of inculcating a theonomic
worldview into the movement's own people, only
then, directing their efforts outwardly through
co-optation of the abortion issue to set up a
clear point at which 'god's law' differs from
'man's law' a point wherein the true believer
and potentially the convert must 'choose you
this day who you will serve'. A point of
decisionallism and personal alliance with the
values of the emerging movement.

The use of the anti-abortion issue from the
outset, by evangelical /marketing pioneers like
Francis Schaeffer has always been about
decisionalism and the imposition of the
theonomic agenda upon an autonomy centric
culture.

:It's very frequent that the right thing is not
:always the socially "progressive"
:thing. Quite often it's the opposite---I always
:strive to do what is right rather than what is
:popular....

As do we, and yet, I assure you our 'right
answers' clash. THAT is why a top down solution
(perhaps more easily termed absolute truth- true
for all) that ignores the variances in 'right
answers' can never succeed, and will create
endless busywork, without conclusion.

Home · About Us · Features · Archive · Links · Contact
 
© 1997-2006 by the authors.