What I appreciate most, and what I think is exemplified especially by your manifesto, is an excellent understanding of what reproductive justice actually means. While I am pro-choice, and would consider early abortion acceptable as a facet of reproductive choice, I agree completely that real reproductive choice is about creating a society where women are free to make truly autonomous choices about all aspects of sex, reproduction, and childrearing. An abortion (or adoption, or birth…) chosen because there was “no other option” is no choice at all and only indicates greater flaws in society that many of the pro-life crowd refuses to acknowledge. I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir here, but I just wanted to let you know that you’ve got my support, and I’ll wager would have a LOT of support from other pro-choicers as well. I hope that you and people like you will continue to work towards this goal, and know that this blog has been a true breath of fresh air!

Cheers!
Annalee

Using Christianity as an excuse to discriminate against homosexuals isn’t valid. The same passages that condemn homosexuality also condemn eating shellfish and wearing clothing in blended material. Do you feel compassion for the people who “sin” in these ways? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Basically, the law against homosexuality is an outdated code that was only relevant to those living 3,000 years ago. It’s 2008. We know better now.

Plus, the Bible says nothing about gay marriage. Therefore, you need to find a new excuse for being against it.

Yes, this was never intended as a statement of pro-life unity. I confess, I’m no longer sure such an animal exists.

It grew out of Marysia’s and my frustration that Feminists for Life used to be a more radical organization, and isn’t anymore. We weren’t part of the decision-making process, but we perceived that it changed in order to become more palatable to conservatives. Now, there’s some value in that — reaching people who have a negative reaction to the word “feminist” (as many, but not all conservatives do) is a good thing. But the cost was that they had to throw some values overboard that nobody else was/is embracing in the public sphere, and those values deserve an airing. That’s where we come in.

I do wonder whether Ponurru had to approve the title, and if so, whether he regrets it (I suspect he might).

1. abortion
2. liberalism

Jill Stanek posted my death-to-life conversion story a while ago:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/05/conversion_stor.html

Why am I not a liberal? Well, that’s complicated. The short answer is this: I grew up. I got out of college, got a job, got married, had some kids, and had to start taking responsibility for my own life. Along the way, God grabbed hold of me and changed my heart. He’s still changing my heart today….

It all started to come down like a house of cards. Once I started questioning pro-abortion dogma, I started questioning everything else. Once I realized that absolute truth could (and did!) exist, I began to discard all of the moral relativism that had defined my philosophy. Once I had to start paying taxes, I started to question where all of that tax money was going and whether or not it was doing any good.

Marysia opined:
although admittedly I think leftism fits better with prolife

It should. The fact that the Left is generally associated with the Party of Death is another sign of cracks in their philosophical foundation. When liberal activists can muster outrage over an Iraq War that has killed (in the extreme worst-case) 200,000 people over five years … yet they enthusiastically cheer for a monstrous crime that kills over one million innocent children every year … it demonstrates a clear failing of the Left.

the Party of Death? How about the Party of Some Deaths but Not Others?…Aha, so the Democrats and Republicans *are* hard to tell apart.

Sigh … you didn’t read the book, did you? The Party of Death is not the Democrats. The Party of Death is Ramesh Ponnuru’s term to describe the loose affiliation of:
* many (but not all) liberals,
* most media,
* academics, and
* the Courts.

What unites the Party of Death is not their position on the Right-Left divide, but rather their willingness to categorize some human beings as “non-persons” who are not worthy of rights. Therefore, abortion is okay. Therefore, destructive stem-cell research is okay. Therefore, euthanasia is okay. Everything that we could want to do to a “non-person” is okay, because only people have rights.

Seriously, read the book. Ramesh has a whole chapter about Dems who used to be pro-life, but then switched to the pro-choice side. There’s another chapter about liberal pro-lifers, including a lengthy discussion of the plight of DFL, Democrats For Life. It’s a really great book.

http://www.amazon.com/Party-Death-Democrats-Courts-Disregard/dp/159698 0044/

Ignore the blurb on the inside jacket. Ramesh isn’t attacking Democrats. He’s attacking death. The publisher engaged in a little bit of misleading advertising to creat controversy and sell more books…. :(

Fine, but don’t expect conservatives to join with you.

As I wrote earlier, I’ll just have to keep waiting for a statement of pro-life unity. :(

Because, among many other reasons, LGBT-phobia leads to violent assaults, suicide, job and housing discrimination, and risky sexual experimentation that in some cases leads to crisis pregnancies and then sometimes in abortion.

Firstly, the “phobia” talk is an obvious and patronizing strawman. Very few conservatives are actually afraid of LGBTQ people. I’m certainly not. I grew up in NOW, so I had plenty of exposure to LGBTQ people. I remember one social event at a Virginia NOW conference. It was a dance, and we even had old-fashioned dance cards. I was twelve, and I thought it would be cool to get my dance card filled. So I went around the dance and asked every woman I knew to dance with me. Afterward, my parents commented on the irony that my dance card was filled with lesbians. Whatever else I may be, I am not a homophobe.

Secondly, your statement assumes that the only harm inflicted on LGBTQ people comes from conservatives and our nasty attitudes. I’ll admit that some people (the Westboro Baptist kooks are a fine example) heap abuse & hatred upon those poor souls who are confused about their sexualities. There is no excuse for hating people, especially among those who claim to be Christian. Just because I am not tempted by a particular sin, that gives me no right to hate those people who are so tempted. I have my own temptations, and I would not want others to abuse me for those temptations. The Golden Rule applies to us all.

Here’s an analogy for you. Smoking is an evil, addictive, harmful habit. My wife’s grandmother was killed by smoking cigarettes, and her parents (even though they’ve quit now) seem destined for the same fate. My wife herself suffers from severe & chronic asthma that was caused by her parents’ smoking. Yet I am not afraid of smokers. I do not hate smokers. I have compassion for smokers, because I know that they are trapped in a sin that will inflict pain & suffering on them. Some people seem to have extraordinary temptation to smoke — whether the cause is genetic, environmental, or some combination — and those people deserve extra compassion. I hate smoking. I do not hate smokers.

Now that you understand how I feel about smoking … I feel exactly the same way about same-sex attraction. It is an evil, addictive, harmful habit. I know people who have suffered from it. I know people who have been hurt by it. As a result, I have great compassion for people who are trapped in it. They need help, not condemnation or abuse. But my compassion does not blind me to the truth of sin. I hate sin. I do not hate sinners. We are all sinners, and we all need the love of God and the forgiveness of His Son to save us from our sins.

Yes, this is a pretty collective/communitarian sort of perspective. ANd it has a bit of libertarianism in it. Although people vary in what they think the role of government is.

LGBT rights are quite an important part of reproductive justice including the prolife feminist variant. Because, among many other reasons, LGBT-phobia leads to violent assaults, suicide, job and housing discrimination, and risky sexual experimentation that in some cases leads to crisis pregnancies and then sometimes in abortion.

So what changed your mind on:

1. abortion
2. liberalism

two separate issues (: although admittedly I think leftism fits better with prolife

the Party of Death? How about the Party of Some Deaths but Not Others?…Aha, so the Democrats and Republicans *are* hard to tell apart.

Naaman, by definition a manifesto is sweeping and lacking in specifics.

Aha, good point. :)

Nonetheless, as you can see in my responses to Jen above, it’s still a good idea to be as specific as possible. If you’re willing to pare your manifesto down to the essentials of defending Life, you’ll have a good shot at getting some conservative pro-lifers to join you. On the other hand, if your manifesto requires the entire liberal agenda, then you’ll be on your own….

And another part,as Jen said, is showing that opposition to abortion does not necessarily equal opposition to said choices, that there are a whole bunch of folks who in fact believe quite the opposite, contrary to ruthless stereotypes.

Hmmmm … so the purpose of your manifesto is to establish that you’re pro-life, but you’re not like those pro-lifers? Seems limiting.

I agree with you that being pro-life doesn’t have to mean being conservative. However, it also doesn’t have to mean being liberal! I’d really like to see a pro-life manifesto that could reach across those ideological lines and encourage people to work together for Life. I think I’ll just have to keep waiting….

So you’re a conservative? That’s a good sign. (:

Yes and no. I’m actually a neo-con, in that I used to be quite liberal (and pro-abortion). Therefore, I’m immune to a lot of liberal arguments. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirts. ;)

As a former liberal, I admire the efforts of pro-life liberals to reclaim the Left from the Party of Death. (See Ramesh Ponnuru’s book by that name.) Liberals should be opposed to abortion, destructive stem-cell research, and euthanasia. I’d even like to help you, but only if I can do so without having to accept a worldview that I’ve already rejected as false.

“While You Were Sleeping” by Casting Crowns includes the following:
As we’re sung to sleep by philosophies
That save the trees and kill the children

Too right…. :(

Okay, I can agree with that.

The “multiple, interacting forms of institutionalized oppression” listed all work against the realization of reproductive justice. For instance….

Hmmmm … if I sign on to your manifesto, then I might also signing on to environmentalism, government-funded healthcare, and big spending on useless social programs to “help” the poor. Frankly, I was afraid of that. :(

One thing to keep in mind is that this is not limited to the United States. Worldwide, many people still lack the ability to freely choose their sexual partners. Women can be married to men against their will. Rape is not prosecuted everywhere, and women can be punished for being raped.

Good point! I’ll sign on to that. Rape is bad (at least), and it should be against the law everywhere.

Here in the U.S., this freedom is (mostly) protected by the letter of the law, but obviously rape still happens.

More law enforcement is always popular with conservatives. ;)

People are still discriminated against, beaten, and even killed for being gay.

Whoops, I think you just lost me again. :(

Let me be clear: Nobody deserves to be beaten or killed for homosexual acts. Period.

That said, “discrimination” against homosexuals can take many forms. If we’re talking about countries that still arrest people for homosexual acts, then I agree with you. That’s bad, and we should oppose it. On the other hand, if “discrimination” means the traditional definition of marriage, then I am utterly opposed to you.

However, all of that misses the point. By definition, homosexual acts do not lead to reproduction. Therefore, why are they a part of any call for reproductive justice? It seems like your view might be a little too broad here….

Naaman, by definition a manifesto is sweeping and lacking in specifics. (: How to translate it precisely into action is something that needs to b worked out as its proponents go along.

Sometimes “sexual and reproductive choice” is used as a code word for “abortion.” But it also can include many, many worthwhile causes that don’t deserve to be lumped in with the taking of life.

We wanted to highlight that even though we risked the confusion that this was some covert proposal for all abortion all the time–which it is decidedly not.

Part of what this manifesto is about is affirming real choices, the ones that don’t take life and in fact reduce abortions. And another part,as Jen said, is showing that opposition to abortion does not necessarily equal opposition to said choices, that there are a whole bunch of folks who in fact believe quite the opposite, contrary to ruthless stereotypes.

That much said, I agree with Jen and with you that a sweeping statement is not an end in itself. And that is precisely why this little manifesto concludes with a pledge to action. Many people are already working in their own ways or already have to do their part in realizing this vision, or they have things they’re hoping to do. And we are deliberating over starting a new organization for people who take this approach.

So you’re a conservative? That’s a good sign. (:

Marysia should feel free to chime in, but I’ll say that in the context of this manifesto, “reproductive justice” is defined as all people having the ability to exercise nonviolent choice with regard to sexual and reproductive matters, and not having violence inflicted upon them as the result of other people’s choices (e.g. rape, elective abortion).

The “multiple, interacting forms of institutionalized oppression” listed all work against the realization of reproductive justice. For instance, discrimination against people of color has led to unethical medical experimentation and involuntary sterilization. Pollution can lead to infertility or damage to developing babies. Rape is often used as a weapon of war. The poor have less access to safe medical services, less access to family planning resources, less ability to afford to raise a child, and many people proposing abortion as a “solution” to their problems.

People can choose their sexual partners? Well, we already prosecute rapists, so what exactly are you looking for here?

One thing to keep in mind is that this is not limited to the United States. Worldwide, many people still lack the ability to freely choose their sexual partners. Women can be married to men against their will. Rape is not prosecuted everywhere, and women can be punished for being raped. Homosexuality is still against the law in many countries, and punishable by death in some.

Here in the U.S., this freedom is (mostly) protected by the letter of the law, but obviously rape still happens. Coercion still happens. People are still discriminated against, beaten, and even killed for being gay.

Sweeping calls to action are not useful. All they do is enable like-minded folks to feel good about themselves.

I agree that sweeping calls to action are not useful in themselves. But in this case, the first thing we’re trying to accomplish is to demonstrate that a community of like-minded folks exists. Lots of people have no idea that it does, including people who would love to be part of that community if only they knew they weren’t alone.