Curves: Evil, or not?

[danaeris]

Many of you have probably heard by now the rumors floating around about how Curves is anti-choice, a position which seems nigh-contradictory for a chain which seems to focus on empowering women.

I decided that it was time to look into this myself, rather than spreading it further.

Those of you also interested may find the following links interesting:
The San Francisco Chronicle's correction of its erroneous columns, which accused the chain of donating 10% of its profits to radical anti-choice groups
A Fast Facts listing on the Curvers for Choice website

From reading the above two documents, I feel I have a much better grasp on what is going on.
Heavins, the owner of Curves International donates the following money:

• $750,000/year for five years (3.75 million) to the Family Practice Center of McClennan County, which is neutral on abortion.
  
• 50,000/year for five years ($250,000) to the McLennan County Collaborative Abstinence Program, which funds abstinence education for students in grades 5-12; most of this initiatives funding comes from Texas and the federal government. Also, as it turns out, sex education in Texas MUST emphasize abstinence until marriage due to laws Bush passed when he was governor. So this funding doesn't change anything.
  
• 200,000/year for five years (1 million) to Care Net of Central Texas, which provides counseling to pregnant women which tries to convince them to consider adoption rather than abortion. Heavins' grant constitutes a major portion of their funding.

According to both Curves and the correction issued by the SF Chronicle, these donations come from Heavins' personal wealth, and not from Curves. All the same, isn't his wealth derived from Curves? Even if he had several million to begin with, if he didn't have the income from owning Curves, he couldn't possibly be making donations this large without destroying his fortune. Am I right, or do I not understand how finances of companies work?

Based on the correction, it appears that there is no evidence to indicate that Heavins or Curves are allied with radical anti-choice groups.

A pro-choice owner of a Curves gym estimates that about 50 cents of each membership goes to Curves International. The rest stays within the specific gym you've joined, according to her.

Still, we must all make our own choices as responsible consumers. By joining Curves, your money MAY be supporting a counselor in Texas who is offering counseling with an agenda to women in need, and sex educators who are not allowed to discuss abortions with students. There's a lot of uncertainty in that may, but it is something to consider. I'd be interested to hear what you-all think; my mind is not made up, but luckily, I'm not interested in joining Curves, so I don't have to make this decision. I'm a normal gym kinda gal.

Comments

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

What exactly is wrong with providing voluntary counselling that emphasizes the possibility of adoption?

re: counseling

[etherial.livejournal.com]

Because counseling should be more objective than that. It's better than "counseling that will commit you if you want an abortion", but worse than "counseling that helps you ensure you're making the best choice".

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

Because too often that counselling includes misinformation regarding the safety and/or physical/emotional trauma of an abortion. I would rather support a counselling service that works to determine the needs of each individual woman, based on that woman's beliefs, desires, etc. and then counsels abortion (going over specific types and aiding in choosing the right one) or adoption (going over the process and agencies and again helping them choose the right one), rather than being pro-adoption or pro-abortion.

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

Actually, also including counselling after the abortion or adoption has taken place (and throughout the pregnancy for the later choice) would be essential. Hmm. . .

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

Just because it 'too often' happens, doesn't mean that that's what happens in every case.

Also, one must remember that these places are VOLUNTARY. Reputations follow places like this. If a counselling centre is known for being virulently anti-abortion, then people will know that - and as a result the sort ofpeople who will go there, are those who don't want an abortion, but are worried about what to do with their child.

Besides, given the vast amount of people waiting (and going out of country) to adopt (even higher if the US gov't allows gay adoption), and the fact that a foetus isn't the same thing as a random benign tumor, isn't adoption better than abortion, all other things being equal???

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

isn't adoption better than abortion, all other things being equal???

Given that one must go through 9 months of hellpregnancy to get to the adoption, all other things will NEVER be equal.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I have a feeling you and I are going to disagree on this one. :)

First, I do not want legislation which will make abortions illegal or more difficult to get. That said, I am pro-life. I do not see a problem with women being presented with options such as adoption procedures before going through with an abortion. There are people out there who would love to take and raise that baby, and would do a good job of it. Many of them will never get the chance to be parents because babies are being aborted rather than given up for adoption. A bit of information about other options is not necessarily a bad thing, so long as a) the woman is not harrassed or denied her right to an abortion if she still decides to go that route, and b) it is done in a respectful, informational manner.

There are a lot of things I don't like about the way Texas is run, but I don't live there and I don't get to elect their representatives. Obviously a large number of the people who do live there and do vote, actually want people who think in these ways. That's democracy in action.

Oh, and I don't like the term anti-choice. I am in favour of informed choices that value the life of the child. You don't usually hear the pro-life movement calling the pro-choice movement anti-life. Please don't insult those of us who feel this way, by calling us anti-choice. It's needlessly inflammatory.

(You're new to my friends list, so I'll reiterate this: I love debate, and I can agree to disagree without rifts in friendships. Don't worry about offending by disagreeing. That doesn't happen.)

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Hey you! Thanks for clarifying that friendly debate is good. :)

I'm not sure that our positions are nearly as different as I think you think they are.

I believe that when someone has an unwanted pregnancy, they should receive neutral counseling that does not have an agenda. That means that the counselor should not decide that aborting is evil and pressure the patient to carry to term and give up to adoption. That also means that the counselor shouldn't decide on their own that it would be "best" for any given woman to abort so that being pregnant doesn't "ruin her life," regardless of the woman's own needs, ethics, morals, etc. That's a fine line to walk, but I believe it is an essential one. And to emphasize, I do not think there is anything wrong with the counselor gently reminding the patient that the fetus/child's life has some inherent value as well. But the counselor's role is to enable the patient to make an informed decision and connect them with the needed resources when the patient is ready for that step (whatever that step is).

My impression is that the care centers Heavins is funding do have an agenda, unfortunately, and are unlikely to present both sides of the story. They may even be actively pressuring the women into choosing adoption regardless of other factors.

As far as my choice of words, I apologize. When I wrote the post, proper terminology and sensitivity was not on my mind. As some have pointed out, pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Likewise, pro-life is not necessarily anti-choice. Those terms paint the situation like it is black and white, but that is rarely the case. While some pro-life folks may feel that abortions should be illegal, others believe that while the choice should be available legally, that other options should be emphasized. Just like some pro-choice folks believe that while a woman's right to choose should be inviolable, anyone who doesn't consider the life of the fetus/child is... well, being morally questionable.

And then there's the whole ambiguity: When does the fetus become a child whose right to life should be guaranteed?

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Th debate would be so much easier if people just kinda switched themselves "on" at some obvious point!

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

yeah, no kidding. If only it were that easy!

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

It's hard to get anything without an agenda attached in Texas, as far as I can figure. In fact, that seems to be the case in much of the States. Debate tends to be polarized more there than here, and the opposite side villified for no other reason than that they disagree. The ultra-polite Canadian in me can't handle the polarization.

So, if ALL debate is more polarized and politicized than it is here, would it be possible to get unbiased counselling? I agree that that would be ideal. I just don't think it's possible, since people working in that kind of counselling environment are almost certain to have a bias one way or the other.

This is one of the few areas where I can see the Republican point of view. In a nutshell, a fetus has a right to life when it is capable of surviving outside the womb. In that respect, I would support a ban on third-trimester abortions. If you've had twenty-eight weeks to make this decision, surely you can come to a decision before the baby is capable of surviving on the outside. Not making the decision earlier is a decision, in and of itself.

Keep in mind, I'm at the point where, if one of my students past or present were to come to me for help because she was pregnant, I would offer to adopt the baby myself if that would keep her from having an abortion.

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

I'm actually curious how many potential parents are incapable of being such due to potential kidlings being aborted. Last I checked states were still desperately searching for foster homes, which implies that there's no shortage of kids who want parents. . .

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Two points -

1. The shortage of foster parents is almost entirely due to the need for people willing to take older kids with extreme behavioural problems or mental health needs.

2. Foster parenting is almost always a temporary situation.

Many people would be quite happy to adopt a baby as their child. I know at least one couple who is travelling to China to do so.

There's a big difference between "Will you take this infant/young child and raise it as your own?" and "Will you take a sexually-abused 13 year old with a drug problem into your home for 6 months while his parents are in jail?"

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Kids don't make it into the foster system from the get-go. They make it in after their birth parents have had several years to royally screw them up first. Then it takes several more years for the child to be made a ward of the state/crown and be put up for adoption. By the time all that happens, you have a much older child with significant learning issues and emotional trauma. Some families go that route, but I can understand those who try to get a baby instead.

The number of domestic adoptions has dropped significantly in Canada over the last twenty years. I'll look up the stats, but the number is huge. The waiting list to adopt a baby in Canada is an average of ten years, if you don't get too old in the meantime.

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

You don't usually hear the pro-life movement calling the pro-choice movement anti-life.

Actually, I have heard this and variations on it quite often. Usually the term "babykillers" is used, but have definitely been accused of being "against life".

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Well, I apologise on behalf of those who think as I do. I would never do that. By the same token, I would expect respect in the form of the term "pro-life".

[bestdaywelived.livejournal.com]

I've been called "pro-abortion".

I think that's the pro-life side's equivalent of our term "anti-choice".

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I don't like the term anti-choice. I am in favour of informed choices that value the life of the child. You don't usually hear the pro-life movement calling the pro-choice movement anti-life. Please don't insult those of us who feel this way, by calling us anti-choice. It's needlessly inflammatory.

I couldn't agree more. What we need in this debate is not hurtfulness and demonising of the other side (which is what calling people anti-choice is).

What we also need is for the pro-legal-abortion group to start recognizing that a foetus is not just a random bunch of cells, and to stop pretending that it is.

Personally, I consider myself to be pro-choice and anti-abortion. The only difference is that being of a libertarian bent, I believe that the choice should rest with the one most affected by the decision.

And in most cases (ie excepting matters of health for the mother) that one is the foetus. The effect of living or dying is a huge effect, greater than that of carrying a child to term. As such, I believe that choice must implicitly rest with the child, and that nobody has the right to take that choice away - not the gov't, not the father, not the mother.

Since we can't determine what the foetus would choose, we must wait and allow it to choose on it's own, when it is able to express that decision. If it becomes 15 and decides to kill itslf - that's it's choice. But I question the platform that calls itself pro-choice and then removes the most essential choice from the weakest amongst us - the choice of life or death.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

This is effectively what I believe too, but I'm not prepared to enact legislation that would take choice away from the mother, for the most part. I would like to see some limits on it, though - if a pregnancy is past the seventh month, the baby is likely able to survive outside the womb and should be protected. Why abort that baby, when you could simply deliver it and give it to people who want it? But then, I don't really understand why anyone would consider an abortion in the first place. I can accept that they would, but I can't understand it.

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

What we also need is for the pro-legal-abortion group to start recognizing that a foetus is not just a random bunch of cells, and to stop pretending that it is.

The thing is, a lot of us are not pretending that - I honestly in my heart of hearts believe that a bunch of human cells that cannot survive outside of the womb is no different than a bunch of cat cells or monkey cells or pig cells or any other kind of foetal cells that can't survive on their own.

I believe that the choice should rest with the one most affected by the decision. And in most cases (ie excepting matters of health for the mother) that one is the foetus.

Except that once born we let the parents make all KINDS of choices for their children - we recognize those children as not able to make choices for themselves. When I was thirteen and told my parents that I was angry at them and did not ask to be born and would just as soon not have been they didn't tell me it was my right to then kill myself.

If it becomes 15 and decides to kill itslf - that's it's choice.

And don't you think that both the child and the parents would both be happier overall not having to endure those 15 intervening years?

[zoetheshort.livejournal.com]

I didn't know fetuses were capable of making decisions. Interesting.

[liberalty.livejournal.com]

The only difference is that being of a libertarian bent, I believe that the choice should rest with the one most affected by the decision.

You want to make reproductive choices for women - how is that pro-choice?

[auros]

Would it be murder to kill something with about as much neurological structure as a starfish, that had tied its circulatory and digestive systems into yours, as a parasite?

No?

Well, that's about the level of sentience, and ability to make "choices", that a second trimester fetus has.

I don't give a fig that at some point in the future, it might have more sentience. Something like two-thirds of all pregnancies spontaneously abort or never implant. Every one of those is, in theory, a potential human being. So if we're going to get upset about abortions, we'd better do something about this holocaust of zygotes.

[auros]

Many of them will never get the chance to be parents because babies are being aborted rather than given up for adoption.

This is simply false. There is no shortage of children going into the adoption and foster care system. In fact, the adoption and foster care systems are heavily overburdened. There is a shortage of such children who meet the criteria of the parents looking to adopt -- children who have no physical or mental issues, who are white, who have verifiable parentage, etc.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I'm familiar with the foster care/adoption issues. I have friends who are full-time career foster parents. The kids get left with the birth parents even when the parents are clearly either unwilling or unable to care for them adequately. Then the CAS wonders why they can't find homes for kids whose behavioural problems make seasoned professionals blanch. Answer: if they'd started earlier, they'd have had a shot.

In fact, many people who would do perfectly well raising a baby are simply not up to the kind of care required by these kids. My aunt was one. She and her husband tried with two kids, and in both cases the adoptions fell through, partly because the birth parents changed their minds and partly because they couldn't handle the behavioural issues of the two kids. I stood by her side in church one day when a teenager told her that she had just had an abortion. I saw her face. She would have loved that baby with everything she had, and she would have given it a good home. Forty years ago, that baby would have been adopted by someone like my aunt. Now, it dies instead.

The fact remains that adoptable babies are dying while the number of "unadoptable" kids remains consistently high. Both are tragedies.