“and ending the silence and shame that women may still feel cannot be underestimated in the global struggle for reproductive justice and gender equality.”

This is important. In the west women have made headway, but in most of the world much of the culture is ingrained with natalism, patriarchy, gender roles and worse. The right to terminate a biological process that often amounts to nothing more serious than an appendectomy is a vital step in purging the anti-human notions and beliefs that cripple both individuals and societies. You speak of condoms etc. – do you think women everywhere are allowed to have libidos and their own will to the same degree they have in societies like ours? Do you think decisions you think are common sense and easy are possible in the context of a culture where women’s rights haven’t struggled for as long as they have here? Do you think all the boys, adult or not, in said countries are willing to wear a condom in the first place? Etc.

Abortions are never a short-cut. They are an unwise or necessary decision depending on the circumstances and they can be moral or not depending on if the child has developed into something more than a bunch of cells without any metaphysical qualities comparable to that of the woman having the -ectomy done. I find it pretty odd that a message focusing on the plight of women and mentioning the complex socio-psychological realities involved immediately is translated into some kind of aggravating braggadocio about killing children (because we all agree that children begin at conception). Joy and happiness? Where? Do we have to choose between caring for women (or in many cases, girls) and not wanting to kill “children” (once again, I can’t accept that all abortions take place after a human being has succeeded in developing in the womb)? Nuh-uh, that rule wasn’t written down at a meeting I attended, in that case.

Even in societies like our own women are increasingly turning away from the assumption that they have to make sure, on their own, that their having a child won’t limit their lives. Compare Swedish/French and German birthrates before and after Germany adopted social policies meant to make the individual and the mother non-exclusive concepts – now Germany is having higher rates again. Compare Japan, Iran, etc.; if the culture is burdened with the idiotic idea that women must be ready to sacrifice something more than the father when having a child and the policies reflect this, they’ll give society the finger and have less than 2.1 children. This is good – patriarchal cultures must suffer or change. However, if someone takes the courage to create social policies that ensure women won’t have to sacrifice more for having a child just because they have ovaries, then birthrates will go up. You want women to be a part of the capitalist system, then you have to help them – segregation required political action enforced despite voices of protest, so why should millennia of ingrained patriarchy have to be ended without any political programs? I know, a left-winger is not allowed to think this way, but Japan is a very capitalist society but apparently that hasn’t ended culturally related discrimination. Not having a Y chromosome is basically always a good deal, and this fact isn’t going to change without serious political action, like more kindergartens, parenting insurace (or something to that effect) and legal abortions offered in conjunction with psychology sessions depending.

As for the… Value-laden words and statements used in your post. Yeah, I don’t know what to say. I’m just glad I didn’t have the same reaction to Bloom’s communique – why the repeated exclaims of anger? I assure you – 46 million children have most definitely not died, and I really couldn’t identify any suggestion that she was glad that abortions were plentiful – merely an appeal to action for all the illegal abortions that often risk the life of the mother and also cause subsequent harassment from patriarchal or natalist voices in their societies. Why can’t we care about the women first and the not-necessarily-human abortees immediately after? Because, let me tell you – abortions will always take place, especially in patriarchal and dysfunctional societies. The choice is between forcing some women to undergo unnecessarily life-threatening and harrowing procedures in order to discourage a minority of women (who instead are forced to have the child at a premature stage in their lives, once again under less-than-ideal circumstances and often with less-than-enthusiastic support from their surroundings after delivery) or give women the needed mental and physical support they need and also empower them, thus make abortions a less-common feature in the next generation. Plus, with legal abortions available and brought to the awareness of women, they can seek them out quicker, thus ensuring the abortion is carried out before the collection of cells have become something that may be a human.

Abortions being illegal might save a few lives that could be debatably human, but due to the ugly anchor of gender roles and even worse structures existing everywhere, I think reproductive rights are an important counterweight that aid more causes than it harms. It’s definitely the sceptic in me that worries at the thought of making a leap of faith, and making the trade-off that illegalizing abortions would constitute. I’m sorry if you are feeling as aggravated by this as you did by Bloom’s maligned statements, but your post, especially your last two assertions, made me angry, and I had to react myself.

“Not having a Y chromosome is basically always a good deal”

Gnur I’m have the dumb. I meant a *bad* deal.

I do not understand what you mean. Is that supposed to be a response to Michael’s post or mine? If the latter, that sort of statement would be non-inclusive towards people who don’t agree with some implied position of yours. The slippery slope is a fallacy unless you can show that point B commonly follows from point A

Now we just seem to fly right by one another – I still don’t really follow you. I’m sorry.