FWIW, I find it comforting that no group is large enough or monolithic enough to advance their agenda all by themselves without any coalition-building or give & take.

"who has the ultimate decision-making authority over whether a woman continues her pregnancy?"

OK, here goes, but with the caveat that I'm on cough medicine with codeine so I reserve the right to revise and extend blah blah blah...

Answer: the same decision making authority that decides whether killing is moral/legal/whatever. God, self, whatever. Obviously God is not a requirement to decide if murder is wrong, I think most atheists would wholeheartedly agree that murder is wrong.

I think the question leaves out the issue of what pro-lifers like me feel about abortion: that it is ending a human life.

Before the pro-choicers say "why is it ok to murder for rape and incest, then?"--here's my answer. It's an unanswerable moral dilemma. You either think it's a moral compromise that must be made in the case of rape/incest/the mother's life (as I do) or you don't. I guess I'm willing to bend on that one, even though I still DO think it's killing the child. I hate it, but there it is. It's not hypocrisy, it's a necessary evil, a moral compromise. Or maybe it is, but I can live with being called a hypocrite in this instance. Just because it's "ok" in the case of rape/incest/life of the mother doesn't mean it's acceptable for other circumstances (usually, irresponsibility or unwillingness to be responsible for one's own actions).

So is it a state issue? No more, no less than laws against murder or any other crime. People forget that we legislate morality ALL THE TIME. Every society does. It's not wrong to do so, it's SANE.

I really don't see how the abortion issue should be a do-or-die issue for feminists. Frankly, if it's about the woman's body, well then who's been controlling her body when she ends up with an unwanted pregnancy? You can't control biology (iow, have unprotected sex without consequences), so who's controlling you? ("You" in the general sense.) If you want to be in control of your body, then DO IT--and then you won't HAVE unwanted pregnancies (exception: rape/incest). Those who aren't responsible for their bodies (with birth control or whatever) really are hypocrites when they lay claim to "my body" for an abortion, IMHO.

First of all, what Beth said regarding why the state should be involved. Except I only believe in exceptions for the life of the mother. (And believe me, it was not easy to get to that point.)

Okay, I'm going to try to comment on this while respecting your rules. Hopefully, I will succeed.

I am very much in agreement with what old-school feminism was all about: that women should be treated with respect and dignity, that women are not property, that women are not inferior, etc.

However, the current types of feminism have pretty much alienated me. One reason I don't consider myself a feminist is that I'm pro-life, and, as you have pointed out, pro-life women are not allowed in the club.

But there are other reasons, too. For example, I was reading a feminist blog just the other day that completely misrepresented what advocates of chastity believe. It had to do with the forthcoming book by a pro-chastity blogger. To paraphrase, the feminist blogger said that advocating chastity means that a woman's virginity is being "passed around" from her father to her husband and that it means that a woman's worth is judged by whether her hymen is intact or not. I would go into all the ways that this misrepresentation is ridiculous and wrong, but I would get too lengthy. Let me just point out two quick things: intact hymens and chastity are two different things and that men are included in the whole chastity thing as well.

So, it's not just the abortion issue that excluded women like me from feminism. It's things like believing in abstinence until marriage and rejecting the sexual revolution. It seems like certain feminist (not all) think women should imitate the worst behavior of men (the whole "sowing the wild oats" thing) to be truly liberated. I think that's BS and is degrading to women. I also think abortion is degrading to women, and apparently the early feminists thought so as well.

Shoot, I wasn't worried about you breaking any rules, Susan. Besides, this:

Let me just point out two quick things: intact hymens and chastity are two different things and that men are included in the whole chastity thing as well.

--sums up well enough one of my other beefs with some strains of feminism, this notion that any attempt to reign in human sexuality must necessarily be bad for women. I do not myself agree.

A related misrepresentation I'm seeing from feminists too often: That pro-lifers aren't "really" interested in promoting a culture of life, but are rather seeking to control and oppress women. Oh, you THINK you care about that unborn baby, but behold: Others are better able to divine your secret motives, before you are ever aware of them yourself!

That one gives me a pain in the ass. I believe Jill at Feministe said as much on this score a few weeks ago, once again making me wonder how much dialogue feminists actually engage in with pro-life and/or religious women. I'm thinking very, very little, if any.

That said, I still think decreeing pro-life women automatically unfeminist is a stupid, stupid position to take, because feminists simply don't have the numbers to make that one work.

How many people are strongly anti-abortion in this country?

And that's if it were merely a matter of strongly, which it isn't. I have lost track of the number of posts I have seen on feminist blogs that argued that it was unfeminist to object to any sort of abortion, EVER, even if you weren't saying that abortion should be made illegal. It's MUCH more than 25% of women who, for instance, support parental or spousal notification, or who want legal restrictions on second- and third trimester abortions ("but don't you trust women? No woman aborts a five month fetus unless they have a serious medical reason!"), or who don't think that non-medically-necessary abortions should be publicly funded...

...and excluding people who hold THOSE views from feminism absolutely guarantees that feminism won't have the numbers to have much of an impact. (Which goes back to the more general problem I have with lumping tons of issues together under a single ideological label. If you believe in X, you should welcomed to the fight for X, even if you don't also believe in Y and Z.)

I think one of the things pro-choice women forget when considering the subject of their pro-life opponents, and that hinges on the fact that each side has, at least in the majority of adherents, two very different views of existence. The "ownership" and control of a woman of her own body is central to the pro-choice argument. But to most of the pro-life group, a woman does not own her own body. When a pro-choicer hears that she thinks "Aha! They are after state control and oppression of women!" But that isn't the case at all -- I think it is safe to say that most pro-lifers don't believe a woman owns her own body because most of them are religious: they believe that God owns every woman's, and every man's, body. And that is why you get this continuous spectacle of trains passing each other.

I realize that I am generalizing here: of course there are plenty of religious people who do not believe that God is particularly against abortion -- the argument I've heard is something rather wishywashy about God not wanting us to bring "unwanted" children into the world -- and there are surely atheists who are against abortion. But I think that the scenario I decribed above holds for the majority of people.

I think it is safe to say that most pro-lifers don't believe a woman owns her own body because most of them are religious: they believe that God owns every woman's, and every man's, body. And that is why you get this continuous spectacle of trains passing each other.

That may indeed be a generalization, but I think it's about right myself, so I'm not about to argue with it.

And, oh, say, this business of ownership and bodily autonomy--whatever does that remind me of? Right; the fact that I can name but one feminist who framed the Terri Schiavo debate in those terms (among others). There may have been more feminists doing the same, but I don't think I'm especially ignorant of feminist opinion on the web, and my best count was exactly one.

Do I think the near-lockstep "let Terri die; her husband says it's what she'd want" position taken by most feminists weakens the "choice is a right to bodily autonomy issue" argument? Oh, I ain't sayin'! No sense breaking my own rules here.

Oh, and Moebius, I didn't respond to your comment because I don't have a font that renders applause. But, yeah--I can't say "I think this woman's kind of horrid" without surrendering my feminist card? Then I guess I'm just not a very good feminist.

What about people who hold both opinions? Take me for example. I'm morally pro life. I freakin' love life! I'll take life over cowbell any old time. But I'm politically pro choice. That's to the point where I have voted for people I otherwise despise because of their stance on this issue.

No, check that. I don't recall ever voting for somebody because of their stance on abortion but I have voted against people due to it. I guess I'm not so much pro choice as I am anti-control.

What would the feminists say about a fella like me, dirty libertarianist that I am?

What would the feminists say about a fella like me, dirty libertarianist that I am?

Probably "Quit molesting that poor cow," Jim.

In order to have this discussion, you have to define feminism. Traditionally, we have thought feminism to be the right of women to have equal opportunity to men. Period. In modern times, feminism seems to be defined by only abortion, affirmative action for women, and any other thing they can color pink and claim a victimhood over. Abortion is only one issue in a host of issues. So you can't tell me that if I don't like every item on the TGI Friday's menu, I don't like TGI Friday's. That isn't logical. But that is what we do with the feminist argument - you are either a total wacko for their cause, or a total wacko against their cause. Personally, I consider myself a traditional feminist - in the sense that I believe that women should have equal opportunity to men - with the same qualifications and requirements.
In regards to abortion - nope, not for it. Be responsible, use protection, and if an oopsie happens, put it up for adoption. Rape and mother's health are the only reasons I agree with for abortion, and mother's health means the mother is going to stop breathing - her life is being risked. Mental health is a BS reason to me. Yes, I'm a psych-major - still not buying it. HOWEVER, I do not sit here and condemn those that have had abortions - it isn't my job. I am not the one who has to defend their actions - they do. And they have to live with it. But I refuse to make it easier for them either - acknowledge what you did - if you can live with it....well, okay. I'm not going to mistreat or treat someone differently in ANY WAY because they had an abortion.

So there ya go. That's my take on it.

Ilyka, I'd read about the woman who wrote that NYT article, but I had a far more disturbing case in mind: the case of Brenda Drummond (scroll downish), which got a lot of publicity in Canada around a decade ago. No doubt this woman had mental problems, but I don't think that it's doing feminism (or the prochoice position!) much good to take the position that anyone who thinks that this woman's actions shouldn't be protected under the law obviously (deep down inside whether they know it or not) HATES WOMEN AND WANTS THEM TO DIE.

once again making me wonder how much dialogue feminists actually engage in with pro-life and/or religious women. I'm thinking very, very little, if any.

Y'know, that's what pisses me off more than anything about the feminists on the left. That goes for their misconceptions about the pro-life side, the pro-chastity people, the religious, etc. It's the lazy way of characterizing your opponents: just make the shit up or ASSume you know what the other side thinks. It's become almost comical. I've been called all sorts of things that are WAY off by left-wing feminists (and other leftards, for that matter). And I refuse to call them "feminists," but rather "left-wing feminists," because I will not surrender the term to them. They are no more feminist than any of us are, but they've completely turned "feminism" (just like "liberal") into a negative word. As far as I'm concerned, they are neither liberal nor feminist. Left-wing, yes. Pro-Roe, yes. (I don't think it's "pro-choice," either.) But that in itself certainly does not make one "feminist" or "liberal." It's BS.

I would consider myself very pro-choice on the abortion issue, but I get tired of the battles some of those organizations choose.

For instance, any bill that makes it a crime to harm a fetus during an attack against a woman is instantly shot down. "The next thing that'll happen is they'll force us to become baby factories!" Bah.

There is a huge diff between going to a clinic to have a medical procedure and kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach. But yet many pro-choice organizations grind this ax all the time.