I'm not female, but I suppose if a man had a vagina he could relate to a woman's sexuality and birthing issues - other than that, sure, many men are feminists. Oh, if men had breasts and could breast feed infants they could really be in tune with feminist issues of nurturing

Can a white man be a civil rights activist?
Can a rich man be a Socialist?

I am a man, and I am proud to call myself a feminist.

I am not even sure what constitues a femisist anymore, so it is hard to know where my hat lands. I know I support, endorse, and live many of thier tennants, but reject others, such as the full and unrestricted right to have an abortion.

feminism at its heart is not just about women, it is about equality, and one doesnt have to be part of a marginalized group desire equality for them.

culturally the term "feminism" can imply many positive and negative meanings but essentially it is: 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests -- feminist n or adj -- feministic adj

neither of which demand a gender requirement of their believer

I think yes of course a man can be a feminist. But then it seems obvious that everybody has different definitions of what it means to be a feminist. As a mother of a new baby, I am horrified to read that Honzo comments he thinks he might be a feminist and yet does not believe in a woman's right to have "full and unrestricted access to abortion." I would definitely argue that he does not belong in the sphere of feminism. Let me explain - equal rights for men and women includes basic quality of life issues. I love my child and children in general but if I got accidentally pregnant right now, I would choose not to have the baby. Pregnancy is exhausting and dangerous work - let me emphasize that. Women die in childbirth. Raising a child is serious work that demands a lot of time and attention. How can he claim to be in favor of feminist issues while telling me that I might be forced to have a child that he willl never know or care about? I am nervous at the direction of events right now in the supreme court and the nation. To think that some men are going to impose their hypocritical moralities on me and countless other women is absurd. And Honzo goes right along. How convenient for you Honzo. Have you used a condom lately?

That is just the kind of ludicrous nonsense that can only come from a kook liberal college professor.

Pippin needs to read all the pro-life feminist posts on this blog. Being pro-life is TOTALLY feminist because it protects the 20 million unborn women and it makes women less of sex objects. "Not killing innocent people" is not hypocritical morality.

I am flattered. To think that I sound like a college professor!! Roland, if you are so concerned about women being viewed as sex objects, then I would suggest that you form a men's group devoted to that issue. Forcing women to have children they don't want will not change any sexism - it will only enforce it.

Abortion is a difficult decision that I hope I will never have to make. I understand why you are horrified by abortion. Do you understand why I am horrified by being forced to have children? I never understood what it meant to give birth until I gave birth - 30 hours of incredible pain. I could have died.

Why do you sacrifice my life for your ideal?

Pippin, one should think about parenting children before they have sex. Then they should take proper measures to stop from creating life instead of ending it. And the easiest way for a woman to make sure she doesn't get pregnant is to not have sex. So no one is forcing you to have children, you are choosing a line of actions that may lead to children, even if it is not the desired result.

pippin, I am curious to find out when you think a person first has a right to life. Is it at birth or is there some mid-pregnancy milestone? Do you think that there is any moral difference between having an abortion 3 days before the baby is due versus 3 weeks after conception?

Thanks, smiles. I appreciate your words. Just keep in mind a couple of things: a) I am married and b) I use birth control. No birth control is 100% effective except for abstinence.

You are basically telling me that I can only have sex with my husband if we want a child to come out of it. What you are asking for is complete control of my sexual behavior, from beginning to end. Now, I imagine that is not what you intend, but that is the result.

One should think through one's line of reasoning before imposing one's morality on others.

Pippin, I wasn't comparing you to the college professor. My two paragraphs were seperate. The first was about Dave's prof, the second was abuot your comments.

just clarifying.

Thank you, Manu, for your important question. Yes, this is a very complicated issue. Of course there is a difference in the example you outline. But I guarantee you, just about every woman knows within days of discovering her pregnancy whether or not she is willing or able to bring the child into the world. In addition, there are medical guidelines for performing abortions (which, by the way, would not exist if abortions were made illegal). I really do sympathize with your feelings and compassion for the unborn children. Abortion is not an easy decision.

Can you sympathize with my desire to maintain a woman's sexual freedom? Or are we only allowed to have sex when we are prepared (or forced) to have children? Try mandating THAT to the men of the world!!

killing out of convenience is an atrocity. It's not complicated at all.

I certainly think that a white person can be a civil rights activist, because the civil rights ethic is about people of all races receiving fair treatment.

Whether a rich person can be a Marxist seems a little more cloudy. Doesn't Marxism preach that having a disproportionate amount of wealth is inherently evil? (I'm not an expert on Marxism, though)

By the way, I am a FEMALE pro-life feminist.

Whether a rich person can be a Marxist seems a little more cloudy. Doesn't Marxism preach that having a disproportionate amount of wealth is inherently evil? (I'm not an expert on Marxism, though)

Yeah but look at how many rich corrupt officials there were in the Soviet Union.

pippin-- No, I am not saying that sex is only for procreating, but what I am saying is that if you absolutely don't want a baby, abstinance is the only way. If you have sex, no matter how protected, there is still a chance to get pregnant. Thus if one does get pregnant, they have chosen to be pregnant.

Fo lack of a better analogy, if you shoot someone in the head, it is possible for that person to survive, but if they do die, you can't say, I didn't want to kill him. You chose to shoot the person, knowing that it could end in death, but also not ending in death. There are consequences for actions, whether they are intended or not.

I would agree with Smiles that any time a person engages in willful sex they are giving their tacit consent to have a child and all the responsibilites that come with it.

Of all the comments, Honzo is the only one to have granted me enough respect to actually respond to my concerns. The rest of the respondents seem to have glossed over anything related to equal rights for women and how childrearing relates to that.

Honzo, a couple of things:
1) Of course men can have opinions regarding abortions. Every couple's decision is exactly that - THEIR decision.

2) Does a fetus have a right to life? Herein lies the essence of the anti-abortionists' argument. On the one hand, I say yes of course. Life is sacred. On the other hand, if we all agree that life is sacred, why are people starving to death when there is plenty of food, why are people being locked up in prisons according to their skin color, how has war become our foreign policy? I read a blog on this site that said that true feminism is when a mothers role is honored in society, when there are support structures that actually help disadvantaged children and struggling families. I agree wholeheartedly. If all you self-proclaimed "pro-life feminists" actually were able to influence society and create these ideals in the real world, then I and many others would give more credence to your commitment to feminism. Once the support structure exists to raise all children in decent and loving circumstances, while giving their mothers the ability to live their lives with dignity and economic opportunity, then I would listen to you without a cynical ear. The tenet of the sacredness of life is hollow when it is only applied to the unborn fetus.

3) On "raising the sexual responsibility of men" to that of women. Nice idea. Same comment as above. Let's see you put it into action. I challenge and encourage you!

4) I sense that many of you find the act of sex itself to be morally reprehensible. Sex is seen as dirty, and women as the dirtiest of all. We bleed, we give birth - its messy. A woman in charge of her own sexuality is a dangerous thing - thats why we invented things like chastity belts and female genital mutilation. A woman who has sex without raising children is just a selfish woman who puts her own needs first. The nerve!!

I wonder - do any of you support the morning after pill, or is that abortion too? How do you feel about birth control? Some of your anti-abortion bedfellows certainly think that birth control in itself is a horrible affront to God. Let's think a few years into the future - if abortion is made illegal under any circumstance and the neo-cons want to ban birth control, where will you stand then? Somehow I don't think you'll come to my rescue.

I love sex. Just so we're clear.

Roland - i'm sure you do. Do YOU think about having a child EVERY TIME you have sex? Or is that only the woman's responsibility?

Thanks for the compliment pippin, that was one of the nicest things that someone has said to me here. :)

1. My wife and I celebrate sex. It is such a wonderful gift that we have been given that we can share together.
2. Morning After pill? My philosophy and religion force me to conclude that the moral objectivity of a being begins at conception. Because of that, no matter how much it my pain myself, that life has value.
3. Contraception? It is morally permisable because the "spark" does not occur until conception. Things that prevent the conception prevent the spark and with out the spark there is nothing to fuss about. (following from my philosophy and religion)
4. Everytime I have sex with my wife I realize the possible conseqences that might come from it. Namely that we might create another beng that we will be responsible for.

Honzo - you write that your philosophy and religion force you to conclude that "the moral objectivity of a being begins at conception." What if my philosophy and/or religion force me to conclude otherwise? Can you live with agreeing to respect each others' personal decisions, or must I conform to your worldview? (ie convert to your religion/philosophy) Just curious.

Err on the side of life.

A better way of putting this would be "when in doubt, err on the side of NOT SLAUGHTERING INNOCENT BABIES."

I can't believe anyone even debates this.

Roland, it is hard to carry on a conversation with you precisely because you have no respect for any viewpoints that disagree with your own. You are a broken record but you fail to convince me of your compassion - I hear only anger and self-righteousness. I also sense you have very little respect for women's rights.

One other thing, you forget that abortion is legal and has been for over 30 years.

It's legal so that must mean it's right. That's a fallacy.

We can disagree on the merits of birth control. That's legit. But when it comes to slaughtering innocents, you're right, it is hard to respect that. I feel the same anger an "self-righteousness" that Dave has towards the genocides in Africa. And they haven't hit the 40 million dead mark. Are you going to call Dave angry and self righteous too?

Roland - not every law is right - i agree with that observation. My comment was in response to yours: "I can't believe anyone even debates this." I only meant to emphasize that the debate has been argued and WON in the nation's highest court.

You have not once addressed anything regarding women's rights. This shows me very clearly that you think absolutely nothing of them. You say you love sex, and yet you tell me that we can disagree on the merits of birth control.!!! You want complete sexual freedom as a man and expect virginity from a woman. Its a typical chauvinistic viewpoint that I reject entirely. However, at least I can address your concerns. You have yet to address a single one of my concerns.

I suspect deep down your concerns have nothing to do with saving innocent lives and everything to do with exerting complete control over women's lives.

My position cares MORe about women's rights. And everyone's right to exist. Birth control is a mutual responsibility. I don't see how that's related.

I am the anti-misogynist. You don't klnow anything about me. I believe in women's rights wholeheartedly. I just don't agree with slaughtering innocents, which I don't think is a radical viewpoint. That's a no-brainer. The Supreme Court used faulty reasoning to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

There is no justification for slaughtering an innocent person. Period.

I believe in women's rights wholeheartedly.

Sorry Rol...but that is simply untrue. You do not believe in a woman's right to be in certain positions in leadership in the church. You cannot say that you believe in women's rights "wholeheartedly" when you do not affirm their right to lead in all areas in the church.

But anyway...just an aside from this lovely discussion. Sorry I have not been participating - I have been gone, and now I am tired. Maybe tomorrow!

Ok, I meant in the public sector. I believe in equal rights for women and gays and other minorities in the public sector. The churches reserve the right to govern the way they want because those are voluntary organizations.

And still, I'm more egalitarian than many other evangelicals. Just not as much as Dave.

Roland, your view of equal rights is not wholehearted. That much is clear, and has been from the moment you first entered this conversation. The assertion that you are "more egalitarian than many other evangelicals" is no excuse for denying equal rights to people based on their gender, ethnicity, etc. I don't care what you say - public sector, private sector, voluntary, involuntary - you want to uphold a man's power at the expense of women. It is people like you who will never understand what it means to be a feminist, nor will you ever grow out of your limited worldview to respect opinions other than your own.
That is, unless somehow you can recognize that your views are not egalitarian and need to be changed. I'm not holding my breath.

If we want to make false assumptions based on a few simple blog posts, then I conclude that you are a genocidal inhuman monster who should be tried at Nuremburg.

People who know me know the truth. I am for equal rights for women. ALL women, including the defenseless unborn.

Roland...you are not for equal rights for ALL women. We (I) have already demonstrated that in the church.

dammit, now I gotta repeat myself. Yes in the public sector and most of the time in the religious sector. Those are two completely sperate issues and even in the religious sector, I'm not cheerleading male dominance. Only the existence of different roles.

But in principle, in SOCIETY, I believe in equal rights among genders, races, etc.

Roland, I sure hope you never exercise any power over other peoples lives. I don't really get the whole religious sector vs. society argument, and frankly I am not too interested. Somehow you have a certain logic in your brain that allows for the segmentation of life so that equal rights can sometimes be applied and other times not applied.

My question is to the rest of you who are still in this discussion - are these the kind of people you want as your allies? Because there are plenty of them with much more extreme viewpoints than Roland. You heard the man: birth control is a point of contention, women should be denied certain roles in church, and of course abortion is murder. Because abortion is such a hot-button issue, I suspect many of you would gloss over the murkier questions and form alliances with the most heinous anti-abortion groups. Then when all you "pro-life feminists" find that a much broader range of women's rights is at stake, who will be your allies then? If you think long-term you might find a better strategy. But if you lie down with dogs, you're bound to get fleas.

are these the kind of people you want as your allies?

Come on...this is not a very good argument. There are many anti-Iraq war people that I strongly disagree with their methods. But that does not meant that I stop being anti-war.

As such...there are many, many, many anti-abortion people that I disagree with in both action and ideology. But that does not mean that I change what I think about abortion.

dave - i am not asking you to change your opinion regarding abortion. what i am asking you to do is think through a policy that would illegalize abortion. why is it that almost every single feminist organization adamantly supports a woman's access to abortion, while allmost every reactionary, patriarchal and neo-con organization wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Now, I know you feel yourself to be a pro-life, anti-war feminist, and I am not denying you that self-identification. But the fact is that abortion is what many fear to be the first wave of ever- repressive measures regulating the role of women in society. The key to women's rights is economic self-sufficency, and there is absolutely no way that a woman can be economically independent with small children in this society. The reason I said to think long-term is that IF you and your pro-life feminist cohorts can actually change this aspect of our society, then you would find more people from the left in support of your position. As it is, you are stuck with Bush and the like as your allies. The reason? Because the majority of anti-abortionists, albeit sincere in their defense of the unborn, care very little about women's rights. In fact, I would venture to say that many of them are anti-feminist and would prefer to see most of us in the kitchen cooking their food and keeping our mouths shut.

So what are you going to do? Let me reiterate that I have no desire to change your opinion regarding abortion. But think through the ramifications of anti-abortion legislation. Sure, you can disagree with your allies on many points. But would you think twice if the KKK or a bunch of neo-Nazis turned out in numbers to support an event you helped to organize? I certainly hope so.

Pippin...I agree with much of what you just said above. And I have said on this blog before that I am not convinced that the criminalization of abortion is the appropriate step.

The way that my anti-abortion views play out is reducing the number of unwatned pregnancies so that abortion is a MUCH smaller issue. If you reduce the need for an abortion, you reduce the argument for/against abortion.

The key to women's rights is economic self-sufficency, and there is absolutely no way that a woman can be economically independent with small children in this society.

I agree what the key is economic self-sufficiency. And I agree that it is nearly impossible for an economically independent single mother. As said above, I do believe that women and men should be doing much more to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Part of this is making it economically viable to raise children in our society. Providing childcare is one way to do this. Providing birthcontrol is another way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. I believe strongly that if you can increase the economic viability of having a child, providing means to prevent pregnancy, and eductating women AND men about sex and pregnancy (including contraceptive), the number of unwanted pregnancie can and will decrease.

Because the majority of anti-abortionists, albeit sincere in their defense of the unborn, care very little about women's rights. In fact, I would venture to say that many of them are anti-feminist and would prefer to see most of us in the kitchen cooking their food and keeping our mouths shut.

I completely agree with this. Much of the "pro-life" movement are anti-feminist. Part of this is their patriarchal and traditional views of women, but to be fair, part of it also lies in the feminists adamant support for abortion - often above other rights of women.

As I pointed out in two other posts recently - our newly appointed Judge Roberts believes that equal pay for women is a radical marxist redistibution idea and that it is not good for society for women "homemakers" to become lawyers. I have no doubt that much of the right have very negative views of the role of women in society. What it comes do for me is that we need a progressive "pro-life" voice in America. And this pro-life voice should not solely be anti-abortion, but also should be anti-war, anti-captial punishment, etc. We need a voice that says, "yes, abortion is wrong, so what are going to do to reduce the number of abortions?"

Pippin...what it comes down to is that I disagree with abortion as a form of birth control. Many, many abortion are done solely because it is convenient (or "inconvenient" to have the child). Are you okay with this? With abortion as birth control?

I think abortion as an option is crucial. Women have been practicing abortive medicine for thousands of years, mainly in the form of certain powerful herbs. It is our way of being able to control the quality of our lives, including OUR CHILDREN'S lives. Did you know that a majority of abortions are performed on women who already have children?

You say "many, many abortions are done soley because it is convenient...." Do you happen to know anyone who had a "convenient" abortion? I didn't think so - where do you get the facts to support this sweeping statement??? The idea that abortion is convenient falls far short of the reality - every woman I have known who has had an abortion has taken it VERY SERIOUSLY. It is not an easy or convenient decision.

So in short, yes, I think women need to have an option open for abortions when other forms of birth control fail.

I didn't mean to say that abortion was an easy or convenient decision. I should have worded it differently. What I really mean is that too many abortions occur because it is simply inconvenient to have the baby. And that is what is very sad to me, and that is where we disagree.

You believe that abortion should be available for any reason, including simply inconvenienve. I believe that abortion should be available at least for reasons of health, rape, etc., but not as a form of birth control.

Killing someone because of convenience is an atrocity. A genocidal atrocity when you add them up.

First stop the slaughtering of innocents. Then address the economic problems. Killing is not an acceptable option for financial problems.

God help us from the modern day slaveowners who deny an entire class of humans of ALL of their rights.

Roland...correct the reasons that lead to unwanted pregnancies, and you stop the killing.

I agree that killing is an unnacceptable option for financial problems. But what is the response? To limit the effect? Or limit the cause?

And lets be honest...Roland, after you criminalized abortion, you would never support "welfare" spending to make it more feasible to have a child, would you?

The killing must stop first. However long it takes to address eht reasons that lead to unwanted killings, int he meantime innocent children are being mutilated alive. There is no "cause" to unwanted pregnancies to which killing is an acceptable solution.

Welfare at the state level is at least Constitutional.

roland - the word genocide is meant to convey a mass killing of a specific group of people based on ethnicity, religion, etc. stop using the word for shock value. you only diminish your own credibility.

the truth is, abortion happens across socio-economic levels as well as nationalities (including countries where abortion is illegal). even if you criminalize abortion, you will never stop it. people will continue to have sex, and there witll be accidental pregancies that will be terminated by choice.

you can fume all you want, call people names and use all the wrong words to justify your unbending position, but you will never be able to control other people in their personal lives and their personal decisions.

dave, having a baby is not a matter of "convenience"!!!! it is a major life-changing and altering event!!!! you diminish the importance of child-rearing when you use words like that. you think people have abortions because it is convenient? more accurately, they have abortions because 1)they have no means of providing for the baby (ie unskilled, uneducated, no job, no support structure) 2) they have no partner to provide for the baby 3) they are not READY to be parents (doesnt this count for something in your world, or will you be moralistic and tell them they should not have sex until they are ready to be parents?) 4) any number of other reasons....least of which is convenience.

Pippin...you haven't read much of my blog, have you? You clearly don't know much about me, or what I believe.

I completely agree with you that having a baby is a "major life-changing event". There is no question about that.

having a baby is not a matter of "convenience"!!!

As I have already said, I worded that statement poorly. I changed what I said to this: people have abortions because it is inconvenient to have the baby. That seems to go right along with what you are saying. When I say inconvenience I mean exactly what you are saying: having a baby is life-changing. If you want to argue semantics, go for it. But we are saying the same thing there.

doesnt this count for something in your world, or will you be moralistic and tell them they should not have sex until they are ready to be parents?

Of course this counts for something. But I would much rather keep them from getting pregnant than have them have an abortion.

any number of other reasons....least of which is convenience.

The first two reasons that you gave were a matter of inconvenience. Yes, major ones, but like I said, we are arguing the same thing.

I already said that abortions happen for those reasons. I am saying we need to take care of those reasons so that abortions are not necessary. Do you really have a problem with that?

My bigest problem with the "pro-choice" crowd is that they too often refuse to acknowledge (or refuse to believe) that abortions should be avoided. And because of this they do not believe that we should take certain measures to make abortion rare. They too often believe that ackowledging that abortion should be rare would discredit their argument. People like you and me need to work together to create measures that make abortion rare.

dave, you are right I have not read much of your blog. i stumbled onto it doing some research and got sucked in.

some clarification:
i really dont get your semantics argument. in other words, i don't understand what you are saying. you say "people have abortions because it is inconvenient to have the baby." I said, no its not incovenient, it is life-altering. believe me, I dont want to get sucked into semantics, but i dont see how inconvenience is the same as life-altering. the former implies a bump in the road, the latter implies a different road entirely.

i have a baby. my life is very different now. i know what i am talking about. my pregancy was terrible, the birth was very difficult. only now, after 1.5 years, am I able to get back on my feet. i never would have made it without my family - literally, we would have been out on the street with nothing. this is not anything about convenience - it is about survival. can you understand that and reflect it in your language? being unemployed is not inconvenient - it means you cant pay your rent, you cant pay your bills, you cant pay for health insurance, let alone for anything convenient like a car or clothes or good food. welfare helps a little, but not enough to survive with a roof over your head. don't make light of poor people's struggles! convenience to you may be life or death to them.

i will say that abortions should be avoided. sex education, access to contraceptives, all this is good. but abortion should not be made illegal. rare, if possible, but not illegal.

the word genocide is meant to convey a mass killing of a specific group of people based on ethnicity, religion, etc. stop using the word for shock value. you only diminish your own credibility.

It is also used to describe the deliberate extermination on a massive scale. Another word I guess would be "megadeth", but they were better when Marty Friedman was in the band. I'd say 40 million dead in 40 years just in America counts as a genocide.

even if you criminalize abortion, you will never stop it.

That's probably the worst fallacy of all. We'll never stop rape either. or murder. Or drive by shootings. So should we just set up "safe drive by shooting zones" where it's legal and antiseptic? Because let's face it, people are going to do it anyway so we might as well make it safer.

but you will never be able to control other people in their personal lives and their personal decisions.

It's called the criminal justice system. It does control crime to a certain extent. Murder is not a personal decision.

Abortion is the new slavery. We will someday evolve beyond this and hopefully soon.

i will say that abortions should be avoided.

Why? Why should abortions be avoided and rare?

don't make light of poor people's struggles! convenience to you may be life or death to them.

Like I already said, you clearly do not read what I write on a daily basis. You clearly do no understand my perspective on poverty. Maybe if you read more of this blog, you would understand more where I am coming from.

But I do apologize if you are offended by my term "convenience". I will change my language though, because I understand where you are coming from. But I really do not think that we are saying different things.

I think this will be my last post. It's been interesting, because most people I know take for granted a woman's right to choose and obviously you folks don't. i will say that your arguments hold more validity in my eyes (compared to the run of the mill anti-abortionist who usually seems full of hatred) precisely because most of you seem to really care about the children once they are born. i encourage you to pursue this path!

however, i maintain that abortion is a legitimate option for a woman. i agree with your desire to limit abortions, and in fact the number of abortions has declined dramatically over the past decade (though this may be due to the morning after pill more than anything else). in my opinion, the reason that abortions should be limited is because abortion is a personal tragedy - there is no doubt about it. but then again, there are many tragedies in our everyday lives, including being forced to carry a baby to term when it is not wanted. avoiding pregancy is the key, so we are in accord there.

and dave, i am glad you will no longer use the word convenient. it does make a huge difference.
hasta luego. may your loins be fruitful!!!

Killing is never a legitimate option. There are lots of people in my life who are not wanted. Doesn't mean I get to kill them.

roland, you are NOT one of the people who care about children once they are born. that much is obvious. there's a lot of hatred inside of you - maybe one day you can work it out with someone who cares.

WTF? Where did you get hatred out of anything i said. If anything everything I've said has been out of concern for the millions of innocent babies being dismembered and burned alive. You on the other hand have made tons of pointless ad hominems and false assumptions about my personality. And you are the one who favors killing innocent people.