Gleanings from the blogosphere, Oct. 26

I've been more than a little bit miffed with Michael J. Fox and his foray into American politics. While I am very sympathetic to his condition, I don't think it justifies killing babies to solve his problem (or any of my medical problems either). Not only that, it's a highly dishonest ad. Embryonic stem cell research has not shown great promise at all, while adult stem cell research has got an enviable track record. The current limitations on embryonic stem cell research do not threaten any of the advances made so far. The Anchoress spells it all out and backs it all up.

Technorati tags: Stem cell research

A new wrinkle in the abortion debate is really very old

Opponents of abortion in South Dakota have taken a new tack, and it apparently has the pro-choice forces at a bit of a loss on how to handle it.

Vote Yes for Life campaign manager Leslee Unruh takes what she calls the pro-life "feminist" approach to the abortion debate.

Instead of discussing how abortion "murders babies" she talks about how abortion exploits women. The campaign headquarters features pictures of women and the slogan, "Abortion Hurts Women."
...
According to the Times, Sarah Stoesz, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota and North and South Dakota, says Unruh's pro-woman, pro-life tactic is "effective" and has thrown her group's campaign "off balance."

"Historically, this debate has been focused on fetal rights, fetal life. We have a lot of language about that," Stoesz told the newspaper. "This adds an element we're not accustomed to. It's a different line of debate... And that is something we struggle with politically."

It is interesting that 19th-century feminists also saw abortion as an exploitation of women issue and were adamantly opposed to it, without exception.

The feminist movement was born more than two hundred years ago when Mary Wollstonecraft wrote "A Vindication of the Rights of Women." After decrying the sexual exploitation of women, she condemned those who would "either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when born." Shortly thereafter, abortion became illegal in Great Britain.

The now revered feminists of the 19th century were also strongly opposed to abortion because of their belief in the worth of all humans. Like many women in developing countries today, they opposed abortion even though they were acutely aware of the damage done to women through constant child-bearing. They opposed abortion despite knowing that half of all children born died before the age of five. They knew that women had virtually no rights within the family or the political sphere. But they did not believe abortion was the answer.

Without known exception, the early American feminists condemned abortion in the strongest possible terms. In Susan B. Anthony's newsletter, The Revolution, abortion was described as "child murder," "infanticide" and "foeticide." Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who in 1848 organized the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York, classified abortion as a form of infanticide and said, "When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

Anti-abortion laws enacted in the latter half of the 19th century were a result of advocacy efforts by feminists who worked in an uneasy alliance with the male-dominated medical profession and the mainstream media. The early feminists understood that, much like today, women resorted to abortion because they were abandoned or pressured by boyfriends, husbands and parents and lacked financial resources to have a baby on their own.

From "The Feminist Case Against Abortion."

Questioning dogmas can be a very healthy thing. It is way past time that women questioned the standard dogmas about abortion.

Hat tip to Big Blue Wave.

Technorati tags: Planned Parenthood, Leslee Unruh, Sarah Stoesz, Feminists For Life

Women's rights vs. fathers' rights

John Burgess at Crossroads Arabia recently posted concerning women's medical status in Saudi Arabia. In the case cited, a woman in labour needed a Caesarian, but her husband had signed papers disallowing the procedure, even if it meant death for his child. The Saudi doctor involved managed to persuade the husband to change his mind, but he was shaken. He also came to the conclusion that the ultimate decision in cases like that should be left in the hands of the mother. It's awfully hard to argue with a conclusion like that (although any number of Wahhabis probably would) and I'm certainly not going to be the one to do it.

One of the commenters though brought up an excellent point:

However, in the West, we have many issues to the other extreme. Men are not consulted regarding abortions. Also, many women have given up children for adoption without the man’s knowledge, or consultation. Custody for men was also rarely given, despite circumstances.

Justice is rarely found at extremes and these are the two extremes: when women have no say and when men have no say.

In any properly functioning system, authority and responsibility must go hand in hand. You cannot strip someone of any authority and at the same time impose responsibility on them, or vice versa. If we are going to strip men of any say in what happens to their children, we must also absolve them of all responsibility too.

Not that I would advocate doing so. A balanced approach, that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all three people involved in the birth of a child, is the ideal. Most couple probably find this balance all on their own - I know that this was the case in our home. But the courts must often make decisions when couples haven't been able to resolve these issues on their own, and the lawmakers in Western countries should be looking for a better balance when it comes to the rights and responsibilities of fathers.