Live Action founder: Allow me to introduce you to “the anti-abortion feminist”

posted at 10:30 am on April 3, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Lila Rose is the founder of Live Action, a pro-life group that utilizes new media and investigative journalism to expose attacks on human life. She’s out today with an op-ed in Politico, “Battle Hymn of the Anti-Abortion Feminist.” I hope you’ll read the whole piece. In it, Rose introduces audiences to what she calls “the anti-abortion feminist,” a type of woman with which I hope you’re familiar if for no other reason than that I write for this site. I’ve never liked the term “feminist,” but Rose reclaims it for women like me:

We are women for whom the idea of artificial birth control as “preventive care” is deeply insulting.

We are women who view the intentional killing of children not as a constitutional right, a matter of privacy or a necessary evil but, rather, as profoundly anti-woman and the antithesis of love.

We are women whose lives contradict the idea of an inevitable clash between religious liberty and women’s health. We are women who believe that something precious is lost when fertility is intentionally excluded from marriage, a sacred bond and a total giving of each spouse to the other.

We are women who believe that sex and pregnancy aren’t just health issues; they are also inextricably linked with family, morals, faith and values. And we are women who love everything about being a woman, including being mothers. We have noticed that the rise in the availability and use of cheap birth control coincided with increases in the rates of sex addiction, divorce, unmarried childbearing and abortion.

We have also noticed that while contraceptives and legal abortion promised to eliminate the exploitative attitude of men toward women, they have had the opposite effect.

We don’t wish to take the country back in time; rather, we aspire to move it forward, beyond a time when women are treated as objects and pitted against their children and their religious institutions — and toward a time when truly emancipated women embrace their intrinsic dignity and, with it, their authentic womanhood.

Rose writes that we are “transforming” what it means to be a woman, but I’d argue that we’re reviving it. Our ideas are deeply radical, but in its true etymological sense; they go back to the root, to the very beginning.

While I still cringe at the term “feminist,” Rose is right to use it, as it conjures with it the idea of freedom of choice. Feminism is supposed to be about that freedom, but modern feminism actually deprives women of it, dictating what their choices should be and/or obscuring the real choices before them. Treating fertility as a disease and teaching that a human fetus is not a human person are the most obvious examples of the way feminism does that. Treating fertility as a disease suggests that what is innately and uniquely female — the ability to literally give birth to the next generation — is somehow shameful. Teaching that a human fetus is not a human person obscures a pregnant mother’s legitimate choices. By the time a woman is pregnant, she doesn’t have the choice to not be a mother. She has just one choice to make: What kind of mother will she be?

The pro-life feminist would say that what is innately and uniquely female is awesome, worthy of respect. Yes, our capacity to be mothers must be used wisely, but it must not be denied.

My thanks to Rose for an anthem that made me feel wonderfully less alone.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

What’s this — marital advice according to The Secret?

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:23 PM

More like marital advice by someone who has rose-colored glasses of his own. A prenup no more ‘dooms your marriage to failure’ than wearing a seatbelt dooms you to a car wreck. The success or failure is completely dependent on the people involved.

MelonCollie on April 3, 2012 at 2:18 PM

You seem to think we should all have the freedom to choose to live or die, yet you would not extend that freedom to the unborn.

Oh, probably because I haven’t expressed myself thoroughly on that.

I’ve been pro-life and staunchly so (even vehemently so) most of my life. For instinctive and emotional reasons, the thought of parents killing their kids is (or was?) abhorrent to me.

But as I reflect upon my life and others I’ve known or known of, I realize life can be — on balance — bad.

I don’t go as far as the South African philosophy professor, David Benatar, in saying that on balance life is always bad. That was Hegesias’ position, and for sake of presenting the unpopular, but sometimes valid, position for discussion, I have brought it up.

I have had periods of my life that were great — and periods that weren’t. So has everybody.

For some people the good outweighs the bad — but by no means for all! And for those whose life, on balance, is more good than bad and they wish to live, if only for philosophical and religious reasons, to impose their will by force on others is a type of tyranny, even torture.

But you asked about abortion.

Since I consider my life more bad than good, it’s harder for me to casually dismiss the argument of those who say that it’s better not to bring an unwanted child into the world. It may be that their parents are selfish a–holes, but I’m not sure how that makes it better for their child to be brought into the world (although a wanted child is by no means guaranteed a good life — it is a tremendous gamble the parents are taking: the only thing they can be sure of is their child will die, and they can be nearly certain it will, in fact, suffer a lot, emotionally and physically).

I used to believe in God and souls. I don’t now. I believe in evolution and neurobiology.

How many people here have used birth control pills or had sex with someone who was on them? Put your hands up, please.

You realize, don’t you, that they sometimes cause fertilized eggs to not be implanted on the uterine wall and die, right? That — according to a view that the human life begins at conception — kill people.

I just want to make sure you’re very clear on that.

So whether by combining DNA from both parents or infusion of a soul, I’ll grant that life begins at conception. But the child does not have a developed nervous system yet and will feel no pain — nor any raised and ultimately dashed hopes — if killed then.

But if born, it will suffer enormously. And have great pleasures possibly too, temporary ones that it will always know must end.

I just don’t see it as as easy a decision as I used to.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Your comment also makes a claim/assumption that could border on chauvinism and I suspect that there are some women on this board who’d take serious umbrage with your commentary.

lol

So what?

Beta males will squeal about it even more than offended women.

The fact is, men and women are biologically different — hormones and brains too.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:31 PM

MelonCollie, I readily admit that my faith provides the lenses through which I view the world.

A prenup may not automatically “doom” a marraige to failure, but in my estimation it’s assuming that it will because of the message it sends – that my material funds are still mine, not “ours”. Marraige and driving are not the same thing.

You’re correct that the success or failure of a marraige is dependent upon one or both individuals going into it. Thus, as I noted earlier, solid vetting is needed and the adage based off of the Biblical quote about not being “unequally yoked”, meaning people of different mindsets/beliefs shouldn’t be getting married.

If you’re not on the same page when you get married it’s going to be difficult to get on the same page while you’re married. Even if you’re on the same page, it takes work to stay on that page.

Marraige is committment. Too many people walk into marraige ignoring that fundamental aspect.

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Was your wife a virgin when you married her, Logus?

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Or at least were you her first?

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Because that’s something that has actual predictive value for the long-term success of a marriage.

And if you think I offended women before, you haven’t seen anything. They get outraged when you point out the data about how the likelihood of their marriage succeeding is inversely proportional to the number of non-matrimonial pre-marital sex partners they’ve had, and exponentially so.

If you want to ruin an unmarried mother’s day and have her hate you, this is the short path to it.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Beta males?

Now you sound like Allahpundit or Vox Day.

I find the whole discussion surrounding the Greek alphabet of labeling men and their personalities rather absurd. The last thing I worry about is what letter I am and where I or others fit. I’m married and I have children and more importantly, I’m His. I win. I don’t care whether I’m beta, delta, kappa, pi or whatever.

In fact, the more I read of yours and Mellon Collie’s comments, the more you both do sound like Vox.

Blech. He needs to stick to just economics.

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Vox Day is a moron, so I’ll forget you said that.

But it’s a well-understood concept in biology for understanding higher-order animals’ social hierarchies, and we are the highest-order hierarchiest animal of all.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

You’re just a lovey dovey, nosy person aren’t you.

Nevermind what I just said this day. Maybe you do will need a prenup… if you can ever find a woman that’s willing to put up with you and isn’t a push-over.

Yeesh.

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM

I find the whole discussion surrounding the Greek alphabet of labeling men and their personalities rather absurd. The last thing I worry about is what letter I am and where I or others fit. I’m married and I have children and more importantly, I’m His. I win.

Oh, blissful delusion, how sweet thou art.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:49 PM

You’re just a lovey dovey, nosy person aren’t you.

OK, so I’m guessing she wasn’t. I won’t regale you with how, surprisingly quickly, the odds of a woman’s marriage lasting long-term plummet with the number of previous sex partners she’s had (and it doesn’t have to be many at all to drop below 50%, and far below this).

But this is something that has very strong predictive value.

Yet you could always beat the odds.

Good luck.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:53 PM

if you can ever find a woman that’s willing to put up with you ….

Why would I want *a* woman?

Not understanding the concept: does not compute.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:59 PM

The term “anti-abortion feminist” is an oxymoron when considering the Second Wave Feminism started over 60 years ago (The Second Sex by Simon de Beauvoir, 1949) and rapidly metastasized in the 60s.

What does Lila Rose attempt to redefine it? Why isn’t it sufficient to call herself a woman? Why use the word feminist at all? I don’t think she understands what feminist means or its most current roots.

The Second Wave Feminist Movement of the 60s was bound up in the collectivist thinking of the Left. It was primarily part and parcel of the political movement of the Left. It wasn’t about women. That’s the key to understanding why it hasn’t been good for women, for children and for families. Any and all personal problems were considered to be political problems.

The Left’s solutions to everything always comes out of its collectivist thinking. Intrinsic to this thinking is the stamping out of individuality and primary personal relationships. The new primary relationship is to be to the collective. This means the erasure of differences between men and women, and that results in unhappiness for both sexes with destructive consequences for the family.

Why do pro-life women cling to the word feminist at all? Lila Rose has a brief definition at the end that indicates her lack of understanding of feminism and her own attempt to redefine it:

We don’t wish to take the country back in time; rather, we aspire to move it forward, beyond a time when women are treated as objects and pitted against their children and their religious institutions — and toward a time when truly emancipated women embrace their intrinsic dignity and, with it, their authentic womanhood.

INC on April 3, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:53 PM

You can guess till the cows come home. I won’t tell you whether you’re wrong or right because it’s none of your business either way.

As I noted, you’re nosy. You’re also plainly focused on money and your status in life among other men.

Why would I want *a* woman?

Ah.

Says a lot.

Blech.

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM

I don’t know as much about what’s now called the First Wave Feminism that began the 19th century, but while it was not pro-abortion and included a focus on woman’s suffrage, it also had elements that were anti-man.

Feminism is a word that can’t be used without its historical trappings. My only guess as to why conservatives even attempt to cling to it, is that they have some misplaced perception that at it’s root it was a good thing or else they have some intrinsic fear of being called anti-woman if they decry the term.

It reminds me of sticking on the adjective social in front of justice. There is justice or there is injustice, but social justice is a political term that has nothing to do with determining right, wrong, crime or punishment.

You either treat people, whether they be man, woman or child, with dignity and fairness or you don’t. Feminism is a wedge term.

INC on April 3, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Correlation does not equal causation. Sleeping around is a symptom of greater ills within that persons being, so it is no surprise those who view sex in such a casual manner are more likely to divorce.

NotCoach on April 3, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Correlation does not equal causation. Sleeping around is a symptom of greater ills within that persons being, so it is no surprise those who view sex in such a casual manner are more likely to divorce.

NotCoach on April 3, 2012 at 3:19 PM

And how is that different than, if a long-term marriage is your goal, it’s better to marry a virgin than a slut?

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Rhetorical question. I’ve got an appointment so have to head out.

I’ll have to actually look at the data again, and see if I can actually find that, blink. Can’t do it now.

At any rate, there is a strong correlation between the number of pre-marital non-matrimonial sexual partners a woman has had and divorce.

As pretty much anyone with any brains would expect.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

You could be right, blink. I’ll have to give that attention when I get back late tonight.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 3:26 PM

The question is whether your null hypothesis holds up between 3 and 6 sexual partners.

That’s exactly where it gets very interesting, actually. But I still have to go now.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 3:27 PM

And how is that different than, if a long-term marriage is your goal, it’s better to marry a virgin than a slut?

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Bad sexual habits do not create character flaws, they are a symptom of character flaws.

NotCoach on April 3, 2012 at 3:35 PM

And how is that different than, if a long-term marriage is your goal, it’s better to marry a virgin than a slut?

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Why would I want *a* woman?

Not understanding the concept: does not compute.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Unless by highlighting *a* you were trying to imply the, one might think you mean some/many/any, and at that point, what does that say of you compared to you women who sleep around? It makes you no better than them. Otherwise, in your effort to be slick, you’ve gone right over my head but left yourself open by your own words – or lack-thereof (due to lack of fully defining/explaining).

Are you allowed to sleep around but a woman is not?

See how nosy we can get? And why is it that a woman who has had more than one partner is considered a slut but a man who has more than one partner isn’t? Because you’re an alpha, right?

As far as stats go, I really don’t pay attention to them. Besides, I’ve spent much of my life being a recalcitrant curmudgeon bent on proving statistics wrong. I’ve had quite a bit of success. Most of it is due to the fact that I have a different world view.

If long-term marraige is your goal, I hope you never slept around beforehand. Predictive values and all that… But then, sounds like long-term marraige is not your goal.

You’ll need that prenup anyhow with that swollen cranium of yours, if you can find a/the/some/any/many woman/women (or a man if the case is – I don’t know you from anyone) that’ll put up with you.. unless she’s a complete push-over.

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Bad sexual habits do not create character flaws, they are a symptom of character flaws.

NotCoach on April 3, 2012 at 3:35 PM

We could explain it to him until his eyes glass over. He think’s he’s right and funny to boot, thus the tauntings. There’s an incongruency of worldviews and Mr. Hesiman is not on the same road as us.

Instead I see a sad, small little man.

Hope your appointment went well Mitchell. Have a blessed day.

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Google the moniker and have the truth laid bare.

tom daschle concerned on April 3, 2012 at 4:06 PM

We are women for whom the idea of artificial birth control as “preventive care” is deeply insulting.

Can we get Obama out of office before you “pro-lifers” spout your insane ideas? You want to overturn Roe v Wade. It’s more likely to overturned if your stop scaring women voters. I am frankly puzzled by why it doesn’t scare more men voters. My only guess is that they don’t think through what your ideas would really mean.

thuja on April 3, 2012 at 4:12 PM

tom daschle concerned on April 3, 2012 at 4:06 PM

*facepalm* – and not directed towards you tom.

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Can we get Obama out of office before you “pro-lifers” spout your insane ideas? You want to overturn Roe v Wade. It’s more likely to overturned if your stop scaring women voters. I am frankly puzzled by why it doesn’t scare more men voters. My only guess is that they don’t think through what your ideas would really mean.

thuja on April 3, 2012 at 4:12 PM

My only guess is that you have never thought thru anything.

You secular humanist ‘fiscal cons’ better be careful, you may just reap what you sow.

tom daschle concerned on April 3, 2012 at 4:19 PM

You secular humanist ‘fiscal cons’ better be careful, you may just reap what you sow.

tom daschle concerned on April 3, 2012 at 4:19 PM

I seem to remember what we reaped in the 2010 election when we avoided social issues.

thuja on April 3, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I seem to remember what we reaped in the 2010 election when we avoided social issues.

thuja on April 3, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Look at that whirlwind of success!

Wowzors!

tom daschle concerned on April 3, 2012 at 4:29 PM

I seem to remember what we reaped in the 2010 election when we avoided social issues.

thuja on April 3, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Look at that whirlwind of success!

Wowzors!

tom daschle concerned on April 3, 2012 at 4:29 PM

It has been a huge success at averting the evil that we would have got if Nancy Pelosi were still Speaker and Reid had 60 Democratic Senators. I think we can agree on at least that.

thuja on April 3, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Thanks for the link Tina …fantastic read.

The Ugly American on April 3, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Here’s a link to an article about the study I was referring to. It refers to where you can get (buy) the study yourself, if you’re so inclined. Other social science studies have shown the same thing.

Notice that even one premarital sex partner, other than her husband, is correlated with the odds of a successful marriage (lasting at least 10 years) dropping from 80-something percent to barely north of 50%.

By 5 pre-marital, non-matrimonial sex partners, it’s correlated with a less than 30% chance of the marriage lasting.

However, number of premarital sex partners the male had was not so correlated. This says something real about human nature.

But then we’re polygynous apes, so it’s probably not surprising that male chastity is far far less correlated with long-term relationship success.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Oh, right, the link:

http://socialpathology.blogspot.ca/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM

There is nothing Christian about allowing the state to define unrighteous and unfair terms for your marriage. A Christian should use the Scriptures to define the terms of their marriage. Not only do the Scriptures not award adulterers, it punishes them. The terms for a Christian marriage should go something like this: Divorce is only acceptable under grounds of infidelity from either partner, and under such situation, the guilty party gets nothing (Mt.5:32, 1Cor.7:10-11). This goes for the man and the woman, so its not like the man is making out better than the woman with this agreement.

To allow the state to define unrighteous terms for your marriage under the guise that it shouldn’t matter if you love each other is (to borrow a quote from Dick Cheney) recklessness cloaked in righteousness.

NeverLiberal on April 4, 2012 at 12:54 AM

Comment pages: 1 2