Author: has written 5302 posts for this blog.

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

14 Responses

  1. prairielily
    prairielily April 9, 2007 at 10:00 pm |

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but if these girls and women do not have the ability to say no to sex, doesn’t that mean that they’ve been raped? It seems to me that a rape exception would cover more women the more patriarchal a society is, right?

  2. Danyell
    Danyell April 9, 2007 at 10:11 pm |

    I find it so unbelievable that anti-choice people are so gung-ho, that they’re blind to the fact that their tactics aren’t working! It’s one thing to not like abortion, but shaming women for having sex isn’t helping either.

    And prairielily, though I completely agree with your statement, a lot of those rapes tend to happen within marriage, and we still have people in the USA that don’t think rape within a marriage “counts”. *sigh*

  3. Fab
    Fab April 9, 2007 at 11:24 pm |

    [W]omen are not dying because we cannot treat them. They are dying because societies are yet to make decision that their lives are worth saving.

    that’s a great quote.

    but the question is, how do you convince a pro-lifer that a woman who kills a “baby” does not deserve death herself?

    many social conservatives believe in an eye for an eye, vindicative justice (a la the death penalty) so there’s a huge disconnect in the discussion.

  4. gordo
    gordo April 9, 2007 at 11:24 pm |

    A rape exception would be meaningless for them.

    I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but it can’t be said too often: women should be allowed to have abortions, even when they aren’t raped, and even when their health is not at risk.

    At the heart of the anti-choice movement is the idea that motherhood is the punishment for the sin of having sex. Most people who think this way are happy to grant exceptions for rape and health, because most people aren’t sadists. But legislation that takes the right to an abortion away still takes away women’s control over their own bodies and their own sexuality, even when there are limited exceptions.

  5. gordo
    gordo April 9, 2007 at 11:27 pm |


    First, you have to get past equating a fetus and a baby. Baby killing is wrong, plain and simple. So is killing elderly people. But a fetus is not an old man, and it’s not a baby. So any argument that starts with “the life of the baby” or “the life of the child” is dishonest.

  6. Fab
    Fab April 9, 2007 at 11:31 pm |


    but it’s almost impossible to say that to people who believe that as soon as the sperm touches the egg, human life has been created.

    i’m not really saying there’s an actual solution to this.

    just mentioning underlining division here.

  7. SansContrefacon
    SansContrefacon April 10, 2007 at 1:04 pm |

    What would be the best way to go in Nigeria, with regards to legalisation in your opinion Jill? The way I see it, a rape and incest exemption would be more likely to pass than than anything more liberal and could be considered the best bet since then at least some women would have access to the services, but that would legally enshrine the idea of forced pregnancy as being an acceptable medical form of slut-bashing and make it harder to bring in more liberal legislation later.

    I can’t see anyway to bring around the Catholics on this. Education, sure, but if pleasing God is more important than the facts not even that’d help. /musing on futility

  8. Thealogian
    Thealogian April 10, 2007 at 1:14 pm |

    There’s an article over at Alternet today about population control. The article is so-so, but what is truly amazing, and disturbing, are some of the comments on that “liberal” news source. One commentor said that “we” (I guess while males) should sterilize 75% of women world wide and that would solve our problems. The solution always seems to be, control women’s bodies, control the “baby making machines.” Yet, that very same article stated that in countries where healthcare is best and access to contraception is free, you have the lowest birthrates. Even in developing countries, where birth-control is made accessible, to women, where we can chose how and when to have children, women choose to have small families. Now, how does this relate to Nigerian (and other 2/3 world countries) anti-abortion/illegal abotion problems? Conservatives are saying: compulsory motherhood is the consequence for having sex (whether willingly or against your will). Population Control People (which can be either liberal or conservative) are saying, stop having babies (especially to developing world women, yet of course the reason for population control, resource management, fails to recognize that its American/European/Japanese people who use up most of the world’s resources, not Ugandans, etc). The key here is control–if you have save access to contraception you have less babies (population people) and less abortions (conservatives); I am not saying that abortion should be illegal once everyone has the exuse of contraception (mistakes happen, deformity is a real concern, health, etc). Yet, no body looks at the statistics, what’s really going on…they want to look to how their own preconceived sexist, racist, and classist opinions about “the other” –the “woman” who would have an abortion or lots of babies–and punish her for her difference, for her “stupidity” or “immorality.” These people have been in power too long; these people, this simple and uneducated opinions/assumptions should not rule the day. The US gag order on abortion providers in other countries is killing women in the developing world!

  9. micheyd
    micheyd April 10, 2007 at 3:19 pm |

    True, Jill, except that I don’t think civil unions is quite a comparable situation. Rape and incest exceptions seem entirely unenforceable – which seems like it would result in abortion being a) entirely unprocureable, or b) having a loophole in the law that is used by women with the know-how to get abortions for any reason. With civil unions, they’re certainly still unequal but are enough along the lines of marriage that we get reason to celebrate.

    I don’t pretend to have an answer about what should be pushed for in a country with such entrenched patriarchy, but I’m split on the rape/incest exception thing, because I think it’s just another way to shame and punish women.

  10. micheyd
    micheyd April 10, 2007 at 3:29 pm |

    (pardon my grammar – been a long day)

  11. Scorpio
    Scorpio April 10, 2007 at 9:11 pm |

    Let’s quit perpetuating the notion that “God” “gives” women babies, ok?

  12. prairielily
    prairielily April 10, 2007 at 9:48 pm |

    Thanks for responding, Jill. You’re right, and for some reason that didn’t occur to me on my own. I must have been having a stupid day.

    Of course, legalizing abortion won’t have an adequate effect on its own. It needs to go hand in hand with a number of woman-friendly policies, like access to education, access to contraception, and the general empowerment of women in society.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.