+- cloven hooves (https://clovenhooves.org)
+-- Forum: The Personal Is Political (https://clovenhooves.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Reproductive Rights (https://clovenhooves.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Resource Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (/showthread.php?tid=576)
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America - Possum - Jan 24 2025
Stumbled across the name of this organization in an article and almost choked on my tea. I looked it up and it's real. Perfect example of how the right uses feminist aesthetics to attract women and make their cause seem more legitimate. Interestingly, it was formed in 1992 so decades before the current Ovarit-style 'feminism' shitshow.
Another interesting thing is that it doesn't seem to use a religious approach. I haven't done a huge deep dive on their site yet so maybe there is the typical religious rhetoric hiding somewhere but if it is there, it's not in immediately in your face. This is interesting because it's sneaky and probably very effective. I think a lot of people are more wary of religious pro-life rhetoric so the secular feminist spin may make it seem reasonable at first glance.
Women with no/little background in feminism probably still recognize Susan B. Anthony from public school or pop culture so it sounds like legit feminism, because they lack the feminist knowledge necessary to spot the bullshit.
From their about page:
Quote:Who We Are
Marjorie Dannenfelser and a group of pro-life women founded Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America in 1992 as the political arm of the pro-life movement. Named after the influential suffragette who also fiercely opposed abortion, SBA Pro-Life America seeks to embody the courageous spirit of our namesake through our leadership of the pro-life movement. Since our founding, SBA Pro-Life America has grown into a nationwide network of more than 1,000,000 Americans committed to serving women and saving babies.
Our full family of organizations is united in the singular mission of saving innocent and vulnerable human life. We work cooperatively to meet the pro-life movement’s need to maximize election outcomes, and to enhance policy research and education for policymakers and the public.
And here's their mission statement, also on the about page linked above. Emphasis mine. Look at how they reference the valid feminist goal of female leadership within their organization. Combining a good feminist talking point with pro-life to legitimize the pro-life stance.
Quote:SBA Pro-Life America's mission is to end abortion by electing national leaders and advocating for laws that save lives, with a special calling to promote pro-life women leaders.
RE: Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America - YesYourNigel - Jan 25 2025
I think many Christians have realised they need to keep their religion on the down-low, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's their angle here. Conservatives are incredibly manipulative people and will frequently pretend to be on the opposing side in order to lure people in.
I always get the impression that abortion is the rare anti-woman measure that has a lot of genuine female supporters, unlike all the other ones that are basically just women parroting whatever their Nigels and their male influencers say from the sidelines. I imagine it's the (partially religion-fueled) motherly idealisation and protectiveness bumped up to the extreme.
RE: Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America - Clover - Jan 26 2025
(Jan 25 2025, 4:00 PM)YesYourNigel I always get the impression that abortion is the rare anti-woman measure that has a lot of genuine female supporters, unlike all the other ones that are basically just women parroting whatever their Nigels and their male influencers say from the sidelines. I imagine it's the (partially religion-fueled) motherly idealisation and protectiveness bumped up to the extreme.Yeah. Putting their internalized misogyny aside, it is because they have some sort of belief that ending any human life is wrong, I guess? (How does this work with the ones who also support the death penalty, I'll never understand.) And I think that is fine to believe, for themselves. And it's fine if they want to go make organizations that support undecided pregnant women by offering free formula, diapers, baby clothes, etc. if they really think that'd make a difference. (It really doesn't for the cast majority of women who don't want to remain pregnant.) I think they are also sheltered and believe having a child "isn't that bad" because, obviously, who cares about the woman's life? She's just a woman. And douse that in that sickly sweet tradwife syrup of "having a baby is the most amazing thing a woman can do" to tolerate the utter disregard of women as people who have rights to decide what goes on with their bodies.
I also have come across a self-proclaimed "feminist" forced-birther online who claimed that she can be a feminist while being forced-birth because, well, many women of the 1st wave were "pro-life." This bizarre mental gymnastics ignores the fact that, uh, perhaps the medical standards in the mid 19th to early 20th century made it so that abortion procedures were not as safe and accessible as in the modern day, meaning more women were likely to accept that getting pregnant meant having children, as that was the "way of life" back then... We are the products of our environment, claiming "I can be a 'pro-life' feminist because the 1st wave feminists were pro-life" seems so reductive and ignorant.
RE: Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America - YesYourNigel - Jan 26 2025
(Jan 26 2025, 3:59 PM)Clover it is because they have some sort of belief that ending any human life is wrong, I guess? (How does this work with the ones who also support the death penalty, I'll never understand)Or the warmongering gun-worshipping conservatives. Doubly ironic when you consider that early pacifist Christians were opposed to military service (which didn't last long lol)
I imagine the difference is that this one is seen as an innocent child, so it's like all the protectiveness towards children that mothers are expected to have (esp those mothers who have internalised the idea that a woman's only achievement or goal in life can only ever be giving birth) cranked up to 11. I wonder if in their minds, since a child is more vulnerable and more innocent the younger it is, the ultimate most vulnerable child is the unborn one? I think that's what motivates so many of them, this really obsessive concern for an unborn baby from women already trained into believing that their own lives are always going to be less important than others', always just a prop, an incubator, whereas for men it's just about being spiteful and controling the woman, they couldn't give a shit about the baby itself, even if it's their own. They'd let it starve on the streets for all they care.
Quote:I think they are also sheltered and believe having a child "isn't that bad" because, obviously, who cares about the woman's life?
Ugh I think I had that attitude. Like, women give birth all the time, so I don't really see why the whole issue is THAT big of a controversy. And yet I just knew I didn't want to get pregnant and, like with so many womanly things, I thought I was somehow special and unique in not getting the appeal, when in reality, it is fundamentally a body horror kind of experience, it's just that the prospect of having a child makes it worth it.
It goes to show just how little respect women get for this massive sacrifice that they undertake. Someone once said women who give birth should be treated as heroes more than men who go off and kill people in the military, and I like that thought.
Quote:douse that in that sickly sweet tradwife syrup of "having a baby is the most amazing thing a woman can do" to tolerate the utter disregard of women as people who have rights to decide what goes on with their bodies.Speaking of...as someone who fundamentally doesn't resonate with motherhood or the ability to give birth, the amount of "sacred femininity" and "motherhood" worship on Ovarit was really draining, esp when coming from GC spaces (I hadn't yet known just how not-critical-of-gender the whole community is)
RE: Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America - Possum - Jan 26 2025
(Jan 25 2025, 4:00 PM)YesYourNigel I always get the impression that abortion is the rare anti-woman measure that has a lot of genuine female supporters, unlike all the other ones that are basically just women parroting whatever their Nigels and their male influencers say from the sidelines. I imagine it's the (partially religion-fueled) motherly idealisation and protectiveness bumped up to the extreme.
Yep I think this is true. I think a lot of mothers (and women who want to be mothers) end up projecting their feelings about their own pregnancy onto other pregnancies. Something like "I saw my fetus as my baby while I was pregnant, therefore abortion is murdering babies.". Abortion makes them imagine aborting their own wanted children and they have this kneejerk NOPE reaction to it. And instead of interrogating that feeling they just run with it and find ways to justify it.
I had a argument once on Ovarit with a woman who just could not separate her feelings about her own preemie from the concept of late term abortion. Like talking about how her preemie was a "real baby" at (however many weeks I forget) who survived so therefore all fetuses are "real babies" and we need to give them a chance to survive. Arguing that maybe women could stay pregnant until the baby is old enough to possibly survive outside the womb and then remove it instead of aborting it. And this is a "reasonable compromise" because at least we're not forcing the woman to carry to full term.
And she was kind of open to the argument that many abortions at that stage are medically necessary. Told her all about renal agenesis and how cruel it would be to force the mother to carry to term in that situation. And she was kind of open to that argument because I guess she was able to feel empathy for that specific example but I couldn't get her to agree that abortions at that stage are okay in general. She just kept repeating stuff like "well it can't be legal because what if they kill the healthy babies too, we just have to make a special exception for renal agenesis".
Like her whole stance on it was just super emotional and coming from this misplaced protective instinct toward the hypothetical babies because the hypothetical babies reminded her of her own baby. Which is my own fault I guess for arguing from an emotional standpoint in the first place instead of sticking to the bodily autonomy argument. But it's rough because they ALSO refuse to accept the bodily autonomy argument so like there's no way to bring them around unless you use the emotional arguments. I have no idea how to bring women back to reason once the pro-life mindset kicks in because nothing works.