Battleground Nebraska: Extremists Turn Focus to Carhart
by Wendy Norris, RH Reality Check
November 3, 2009 - 6:00am (Print)
This article was originally published in the Fall issue of Ms. magazine, available on newsstands or by joining the Ms. community at www.msmagazine.com. The article was developed in partnership with RH Reality Check.
Shortly after pioneering Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller was murdered on May 31 and his Wichita clinic subsequently closed, other abortion physicians bravely stepped into the breach. Among the most public was Nebraska-based Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who for 11 years had traveled to Wichita monthly to perform late abortions at Tiller’s clinic. Carhart quickly announced he would continue Tiller’s work either at his Nebraska clinic in Bellevue or in Kansas.
And just as quickly, anti-abortion forces switched their campaign against Tiller to focus on Carhart. In an eerie similarity to Tiller’s struggle to defend himself against relentless legal attacks by former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, Nebraska’s attorney general Jon Bruning spoke about Carhart in a disparaging manner that signaled possible future legal action.
In a June 11 interview with Omaha’s KETV, Bruning said of Carhart, “I’m disgusted and I’m saddened, and I hate it that he’s here in Nebraska and I hate it that he’s in America. I mean, this guy is one sick individual."
Shortly after that opening salvo, Troy Newman, head of the Wichita-based Operation Rescue—which had moved to Kansas from Southern California in 2002 to focus on closing Tiller’s clinic—announced a “Keep It Closed” campaign to prevent Carhart from opening a late-abortion clinic. This campaign is a coalition effort by Operation Rescue along with Nebraska’s Rescue the Heartland, which has been publicly harassing Carhart and his staff for years, and Nebraskans United for Life.
In August the trio of groups, along with the Christian Defense Coalition, filed a formal complaint with Bruning, alleging “illegal activities” by Carhart and supposedly backed by affidavits from disgruntled ex-employees. The attorney general passed the complaint to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, assuring Operation Rescue’s Newman in a letter that his office “will continue to monitor the progress of their [the Health Department] investigation.” The Nebraska Attorney General’s office did not return repeated calls for comment.
The anti-abortion groups then made a national call for a demonstration against Carhart’s Abortion and Contraception Clinic of Nebraska on August 28 and 29. But national pro-choice groups led by NOW, Feminist Majority Foundation, NARAL Pro-Choice America and The World Can’t Wait organized even greater numbers in support of Carhart. About 200 clinic defenders, from across Nebraska and 15 states, assembled in Bellevue in late August, dwarfing the 65 anti-abortion protesters.
Carhart assured supporters at a press conference conducted by the pro-choice groups that he would not be intimidated and would continue to see patients. He wore a button saying “Trust Women”—one of Dr. Tiller’s guiding principles. Terry O’Neill, president of NOW, outraged by Bruning’s intemperate remarks, reflected, “I think a lot of people are now beginning to rethink the vicious smear campaigns by elected officials and authorities in Kansas against Dr. Tiller that created an atmosphere in which Scott Roeder [allegedly] felt empowered to commit murder.”
In reaction to the “Keep it Closed” campaign’s targeting of Carhart, a flood of new pro-choice volunteers are now offering their help, says Nebraska NOW president Erin Sullivan, who coordinated the pro-choice response: “People who had never been involved before drove to the clinic after seeing us on the evening news to offer their help and support.”
Although the number of “Keep it Closed” protesters was relatively small, the militancy of some who participated in Bellevue is troubling. A major player was Norman Weslin, founder and leader of the Lambs of Christ, a notorious anti-abortion group linked to violent extremists. Weslin has traveled to protest besieged clinics and has been arrested more than 70 times for clinic invasions, including twice at Carhart’s clinic. His followers once chained themselves to junk cars they dumped in the driveway of Tiller’s Wichita clinic, an event former clinic employee Linda Stoner remembers as chilling. “It was just chaos,” Stoner said. “The women would come in and they were traumatized.”
Larry Donlan, director of Omaha-based Rescue the Heartland, has traveled and been arrested with Weslin for clinic blockades. Donlan drives one of Operation Rescue’s “Truth Trucks,” two of which were parked along one of the Bellevue streets closed off by police during the demonstrations.
Operation Rescue’s policy advisor, Cheryl Sullenger, also came to Bellevue from Wichita. Sullenger served two years in a federal prison for conspiring to bomb a San Diego abortion clinic in 1987. And according to press accounts, Sullenger admitted to providing information to Scott Roeder concerning Tiller’s church; Sullenger’s name and phone number were on a handwritten note in Roeder’s car when he was arrested for Tiller’s murder.
Finally, another Wichita follower of Operation Rescue who demonstrated in Bellevue was Jennifer McCoy, who served prison time for attempted arson at Virginia abortion clinics in the 1990s. She reportedly attended Roeder’s July 28 preliminary hearing and has visited him in jail several times as he awaits trial.
The “Keep it Closed” demonstrations appeared to be coordinated with A Woman’s Touch Crisis Pregnancy Center, located across the street from Carhart’s clinic. At one point during the day, Troy Newman held up a sonogram of a woman he claimed was a patient of Carhart’s who had come into the CPC instead.
“We’ve long believed that CPCs such as this one function as staging grounds for these anti-abortion extremists groups,” says Katherine Spillar, executive vice president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, who came to Bellevue to support Carhart.
Bellevue Police took the potential for violence at the demonstration seriously; Capt. Herb Evers coordinated with 10 state, local and federal agencies to ensure the safety of Carhart, his staff and clinic. U.S. attorneys from Washington, D.C., were also on hand as monitors, and federal marshals provided protection for Carhart.
But the threat of harm has not deterred Carhart even in the face of continued local protests. He announced plans to open a new abortion clinic in Kansas by year’s end in defiant testament to his late friend and colleague. “Dr. Tiller was willing to fight back and so am I,” Carhart said.
The “Keep it Closed” demonstrations appeared to be coordinated with A Woman’s Touch Crisis Pregnancy Center, located across the street from Carhart’s clinic. At one point during the day, Troy Newman held up a sonogram of a woman he claimed was a patient of Carhart’s who had come into the CPC instead.
A clear demonstration of the fact that CPC's violate patient privacy. Real medical clinics would lose their license for using patient sonograms as props in a political campaign.
They claim the woman gave them permission to distribute it, that she wanted everyone to know she was carrying a baby. The sonogram had "I love you!" typed onto it, and there was an area at the top that was cut off (where the patient name would be). Oddly, they had time to cut out the name from a hundred printouts between the time she went in that Saturday morning until they started distributing the sono ... Saturday morning.
McCoy was convicted of conspiracy to commit arson, but both of the clinics named had fire damage done to them. It would seem McCoy (then Richardson Sperle) plead down.
This is a continuation from the What Now? Colorado Groups Seek "Personhood" For Cells thread.
Considering how many ProLife activists have come on here and bleated about how they have no problem at all with what they call the tiny percentage of medically necessary therapeutic abortions it might be instructive for you to read the other article on Reality Check about the radicals who are (hopefully not literally) bringing their guns to bear on the NEXT doctor who performs those exact types of abortions. You keep saying 'nobody will be unreasonable about codifying and enforcing this' but there are ProLife forces being widely tolerated NOW that are massively unreasonable about ectopic pregnancy, nonviable fetuses and saving women's lives. Why should we ignore all the evidence of extremism that actually exists now and believe your assurances that somehow if these extortionists are given 'blastocyst as people' amendments, in the future these kooks will miraculously become reasonable?
crowepps,
First, thanks for the 'heads up' on this article. May I ask you if you ever read my PLCC article from March 28th? (the day after Dr. Tiller was acquitted on charges of violating the Kansas abortion law and months before he was assassinated). This is part of what I wrote then:
It’s not news that I am Pro-Life. I’m opposed to abortion. I’m opposed to abortion in cases of rape; I’m opposed to abortion in cases of incest; I’m opposed to abortion in cases of fetal abnormality; I’m opposed to abortion when the mother is seriously disabled; I’m opposed to abortion when the mother already has more children than she can handle; I’m opposed to abortion in cases of extreme poverty; I’m opposed to abortion in regions where there is overpopulation; I’m opposed to abortion when the father is abusive. Get the idea? But if there is any situation where I might say, “Well … gee … in this particular case … I hate to say it but … abortion might be an acceptable solution” it would be in the case of medical necessity.
When you move into the area of medical necessity you find yourself in a position where the options are 1) death and 2) death. There is no Pro-Life alternative when you’re looking at medical necessity, and in the situations stipulated by the Kansas Late Term Abortion Law there is no Pro-Life alternative. The rule in Kansas is: no medical necessity, no late-term abortion. That’s why George Tiller is the last abortionist I would single out for criticism. I certainly think there are far better ways to protect the unborn than to hound Dr. Tiller.
I think my article stands up pretty well more than seven months after I wrote it.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm ready to justify anything anybody does under the name "Pro-Life". I'm not. If I could get to Kansas I would volunteer to be an escort for women who needed Dr. Carhart's services. I would attempt to to patiently and respectfully engage the 'extortionists' and I expect I would have as much luck doing that as I've had when I try to do the same at Jill Stanek's 'site.
May I respond to this: "You keep saying 'nobody will be unreasonable about codifying and enforcing [a personhood bill]'"
Oy! Did you read the part where I said I'm opposed to personhood bills? I didn't say then, but I'll say now that the REASON I'm opposed to those bills is because I fear that people will be unreasonable.
What I have continually supported has been the idea of a public health policy initiative to drive down the rate of spontaneous abortions. I have supported research and education. I have supported improved standards for the reporting of data. I have supported a change in attitude. You and ahunt have been, in my estimation, unreasonable in your opposition to my position.
By the way, I hope you realize that even when I vociferously disagree with you I still hold you in high regard. I'd even admit that I've developed a great deal of affection for you but I have a marriage to maintain.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
I don't believe I said anywhere in my remarks that I thought YOU were an extremist. I said you need to recognize that it is reasonable for people discussing this issue globally to yoke together your suggested public education policy to advocate your personal philosophical position encouraging women to voluntarily think of blastocysts as people and the extremist positions advocating exactly the same philosophy but ALSO advocating codification, coercion and punishment.
You spend a lot of time here advocating your beliefs and feeling hurt that people don't agree with you because you are sure you would personally be responsible and caring in the process. Aside from a deep disagreement about how 'caring' it is to brainwash women with biological myths in an attempt to transform their reproductive years into one long guilt trip, you should understand that those responding to you do not see your advocacy standing alone but instead as part of the entire fabric of this issue, which includes the zealots and their insistence on harassment and punishment.
I'm not sure whether your purpose here is to be understood, since I've already told you that although I disagree I do understand your position, or whether it's to get people to agree that your idee fixee is 'right', or whether you're frustrated that a couple of women won't allow you to 'instruct' them in what they should think and feel. Certainly you don't seem to be here to listen to us, because you repeatedly dismiss what we say as silly or exaggerated or unreasonable.
Frankly, your last line about affection and needing to maintain your marriage is out of line. This is not a singles site, and we are having a discussion about public policy. In that context, flirty remarks are downright insulting.
Pay attention, Paul!
Ark. Lawmakers Consider Banning Smoking by Pregnant Women
June 15, 2006
addthis_pub = 'jtonline'; addthis_logo = 'http://www.jointogether.org/images/icons/jt_logo_200px.gif'; addthis_brand = 'Join Together'; addthis_options = 'facebook, buzz, digg, delicious, stumbleupon, myspace, reddit, google, newsvine, more'
News Summary
Pregnant women would be legally barred from smoking
under a proposal being considered by lawmakers in Arkansas, the
Associated Press reported June 13.
State Rep. Bob Mathis (D-Hot Springs) said that fellow lawmakers
should study whether the health risks facing children born to smokers
warrants a ban. Gov. Mike Huckabee said the proposal made sense, at
least from a health perspective.
"I haven't thought it through all together in terms of the legality
of it," Huckabee said. "From a health standpoint, heck yeah, it makes
sense."
But both Huckabee and Mathis are about to leave office, meaning the
proposal has little chance of progressing. Mathis also proposed a bill
making it illegal to smoke in a car with children in car seats.
Huckabee recently signed that bill into law, along with a measure
banning smoking in indoor workplaces.
"There are a lot of things pregnant women shouldn't do. That's just
one of them," Huckabee said, adding: "The point is, if you're going to
make that against the law you're probably going to have to extend it to
all the other things that are equally unhealthy for the child."
Pay attention, Paul.
Pay attention, Paul!
ahunt,
You and I couldn't possibly be in more agreement about the stupidity, inappropriateness and futility of imposing legal sanctions against women who are (or who might be) carrying a child. You're so disgusted by and terrified of the thought of criminalizing women's behaviors that you have abandoned all hope of the society doing anything to improve pregnancy outcomes. I haven't.
We can tackle the problem of prenatal mortality. We can save lives without putting women in chains.
I don't know if you realize this but I'm deeply concerned about the issue of drug abuse -- I'm also totally opposed to the drug war. We need a medical intervention, not a penal one. I feel the same way about protecting the unborn.
Mike Huckabee thinks he can protect the unborn by putting a gun to women's heads. You think the government has no business protecting the unborn. I think we need to figure out ways to preserve life that don't involve degrading women.
You keep insisting that my viewpoint is the same as Huckabee's.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
From Crowepps...
I said you need to recognize that it is reasonable for people
discussing this issue globally to yoke together your suggested public
education policy to advocate your personal philosophical position
encouraging women to voluntarily think of blastocysts as people and the
extremist positions advocating exactly the same philosophy but ALSO
advocating codification, coercion and punishment....Certainly you don't seem to be here to listen to us, because you
repeatedly dismiss what we say as silly or exaggerated or unreasonable.
The point, Paul, is that we have every reason to fear that the logical ramifications of your personal ideology will come to pass, and I get cranky when you dismiss the fear as nonsense.
I get cranky when you dismiss the fear as nonsense.
ahunt,
Allow me to let you in on a little secret: I'm as terrified of right-wing fundamentalist Christians as you are. The trouble with fundamentalists is that they don't have any actual fundamentals -- what they have is an unmatched set of peripheral ideas that they treat as fundamentals. Cognitive dissonance drives their zeal.
you don't seem to be here to listen to us, because yourepeatedly dismiss what we say as silly or exaggerated or unreasonable.
Maybe we both need to listen to each other better. I don't think it's silly or exaggerated or unreasonable to imagine that there are "pro-lifers" concocting arrangements that violently oppose a woman's right to dignity. What I get 'cranky' about is the fact that it seems to me that no matter how much I bend over backwards to propose plans to protect the unborn that DON'T violate a woman's autonomy you respond to me as if I were Randall Terry's twin brother.
You and I are stuck! I keep trying to get you to understand something that I honestly think you still don't understand. I don't think you misunderstand me because you're stupid, or mean, or crazy, or female. My guess is that you've been so scarred by the counter-productive attempts of others to promote a respect for life that you're too mistrustful to give my ideas a fair hearing.
By the way, you and I have to talk about the line where 'personal ideology' ends and justice begins.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Allow me to let you in on a little secret: I'm as terrified of
right-wing fundamentalist Christians as you are. The trouble with
fundamentalists is that they don't have any actual fundamentals -- what
they have is an unmatched set of peripheral ideas that they treat as
fundamentals. Cognitive dissonance drives their zeal.
Here's your problem, Paul. The fantasy that your personal ideology will ultimately define the decisions all women make also lays down the foundation and builds the framework by which fundamentalists will seek to codify your ideology, and for reasons exceeding protection of the zygote.
ahunt,
I don't believe for a second that Mike Huckabee or any of the rest of them actually care about the three month old fetus of a sixteen year old Spanish speaking black girl in Miami. God knows his crowd won't be offering any help once the child is born. They don't care, but I do.
If the goal is to get mothers to value the lives of their unborn children you need to start with the assurance that the society will value those children after they're born. I'm ten thousand times more interested in that than I am in any plans to restrict access to abortion.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Mike Huckabee thinks he can protect the unborn by putting a gun to women's heads.
Contemplate the idea that Mike Huckabee LIKES the idea that he's entitled to put a gun to women's heads and the unborn are a good excuse.
See, this is what Paul misses, Crowepps...
The Huckabees of the world know that legally implementing Paul's philosophy also has the added benefit of removing women from much of public life, limiting their activities to home and hearth, and the "nuturing" occupations that are beneath men, reinforcing the traditional female obligation of sexual gatekeeping, and just generally ushering in the restoration of male primacy and female invisibility...
...just as GOD would have it.
Frankly, your last line about affection and needing to maintain your marriage is out of line. This is not a singles site, and we are having a discussion about public policy. In that context, flirty remarks are downright insulting.
crowepps,
Believe me, I'm sorry I made that comment. In fact, I was sorry about it a minute after I posted it. I'm embarrassed, but I'm not humiliated -- it's not the first or last time a lame attempt at light-hearted humor has backfired on me.
What I'm sorrier about is the fact that you felt insulted. You were confronted with a comment that could have meant one of two things -- 1) I was making an awkward attempt to show my appreciation of the fact that you are a superior poster or 2) I was sexually insulting you. The fact that you picked option two floors me.
You really don't understand me and, truthfully, you don't understand my point of view. I wish you could see past your reflexive fear of people who disagree with you about this issue. You complain that I tell people how they ought to feel. Right now, I'm telling you that you ought not feel insulted. Why do I do this? What I'm really saying is that you ought to see things as they are.
From the beginning I've tried to draw attention to the idea that it's better to deal with the abortion problem as a public health issue than as a criminal matter. I've demonstrated as much concern about spontaneous abortions as I have about procured abortions. That's because I'm more concerned about the well-being of the people being aborted than I am about casting judgment against the people doing the aborting.
It truly shakes me up that there's such a gulf between what I say and what you hear. You credit me with "an attempt to transform women's reproductive years into one long guilt trip". What I want is for men, and for women, and for people past their reproductive time to value life and put their minds to the task of preserving it. Protecting life is going to involve a lot more than modifying the behavior of sexually active fertile women -- and the modifications they would need to make can't be made if they're motivated by guilt.
I get so frustrated because it's so obvious to me that you're smart, it's so obvious to me that you understand that women ought to be treated with respect, it's so obvious to me that you care about justice and about doing what's right.
Instead of continuing to waste the energy expended on this issue in conflict, I've been proposing that we envision a situation where women aren't burdened with the sole responsibility of caring for new life -- that we all share responsibility. All that's needed is that we open our eyes to the value of the life we're taking responsibility for.
Liberal attitudes about abortion aren't the boon to women that you think they are. They're a reason for the entire society to wash it's hands of the need to care. Instead of saying, "it's not our problem" and sticking mothers with extra hardship, we've decided to say, "it's not anybody's problem. It's not even a problem." Back in the bad old days, society didn't care about women and their unwanted babies -- now we care even less than we used to.
It's glaringly obvious to me that we -- not just women, but everyone -- has made a bargain with death. This can't have a good end.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
What I'm sorrier about is the fact that you felt insulted. You were confronted with a comment that could have meant one of two things -- 1) I was making an awkward attempt to show my appreciation of the fact that you are a superior poster or 2) I was sexually insulting you. The fact that you picked option two floors me.
Boy, you just don't get it, do you? Telling somebody you feel 'affection' for them, particularly when you imply your wife might object, does not address the content of their posts in any way whatsoever. The fact that you are 'floored' instead of ashamed of yourself is just an attempt to make me seem unreasonable for calling you on it.
Paul, I do not come on this board and discuss this issue to get people to 'like' me or to 'understand me'. I come here to discuss IDEAS. You post your ideas and I post my ideas and then we find and post facts supporting our ideas and then we discuss the ideas. We may agree or disagree, but that doesn't have anything to do with 'like'. In addition, I am not 'afraid' of you because we disagree. I simply find you naive and think you lack understanding of your unconscious presumption of male entitlement.
Right now, I'm telling you that you ought not feel insulted. Why do I do this? What I'm really saying is that you ought to see things as they are.
No, what you're really saying is that YOU get to define reality, that the way I see things is flawed if I don't agree with you, and that the only way I can earn a 'Paul Affectionate Head Pat' is to adopt your definitions. That is patronizing.
Liberal attitudes about abortion aren't the boon to women that you think they are. They're a reason for the entire society to wash it's hands of the need to care. Instead of saying, "it's not our problem" and sticking mothers with extra hardship, we've decided to say, "it's not anybody's problem. It's not even a problem." Back in the bad old days, society didn't care about women and their unwanted babies -- now we care even less than we used to.
I never said I thought abortion was a 'boon' to women - I said having abortion legal kept women ALIVE. Society (run almost exclusively by men) did not in the past and does not now give a flying flip about women and their unwanted babies, or women and their WANTED babies for that matter but instead only about MEN and their SONS. Society and the economy, from what I can see, is totally focused on power and money. There are 10,000 years of records of trying to make civilization 'better' by attempting to 'purify' the women and to date it has been a huge failure.
Go proselytize your brothers, clear up the problems THEY have with where they focus, get them to stop shooting each other and starting wars and starving people to death, and I'd bet when you get them all straightened out and come back, you'd find that women will also think totally differently.
The "bargain with death" was made when Cain slew Abel in jealousy over his having received God's approval - so far as I can see, having lots of cool technology doesn't actually mean men have advanced much morally since.
[T]he only way I can earn a 'Paul Affectionate Head Pat' is to adopt your definitions. That is patronizing.
crowepps,
You'd be surprised how eager I am to earn a 'crowepps Affectionate Head Pat'.
I come here to discuss IDEAS. You post your ideas and I post my ideas and then we find and post facts supporting our ideas and then we discuss the ideas. We may agree or disagree, but that doesn't have anything to do with 'like'.
You seem to be saying that you've got your thoughts, your feelings, your behaviors and your beliefs locked up in separate boxes. You visit RHReality Check, you unlock your 'thought box', you share with us a nugget of unadulterated intellect and you search for an opportunity to interact with the unadulterated intellect of others.
I operate differently. My thoughts, feelings, behaviors and beliefs have infested each other so thoroughly that there's no chance to glimpse my thoughts without getting a peek at the rest of me. My emotions are definitely engaged during the time I spend here and, were it not for the fact that I experience a lot of joy here and find myself caring about the people I meet, I would probably drift away.
what you're really saying is that YOU get to define reality, that the way I see things is flawed
You see? Now we're talking! You've suggested a question that is more interesting, and more pertinent than the technical question of whether or not the unborn have a right to life. You're begging the big question about the essence of reality. Is reality something in and of itself? Does it operate outside and beyond either one of us? Or, is reality simply a 'trick of perception'? Perhaps each of us creates her/his own reality, and we shouldn't interfere with someone else's creation by imposing our own.
The question about the unborn is merely one little example of the 'reality question'. Am I free to define a zygote as a person and leave you free to define a zygote as a 'thing', an 'it', a 'mere cell'? Am I simply chasing after shadows when I express a desire to know what a zygote 'really' is, or express a hope that we can help each other remove the flaws in our understanding? Is the very idea of a 'flawed vision' flawed, because no vision is any more or less flawed than another?
It's obviously been my custom to lead with my own thoughts about any given question, but I'd like to shake things up a bit. So, would you be willing to do me the great good favor of sharing a little bit of your philosophy with me? I get the idea, from the hints that you drop, that there's something 'relativist' about your world view. I won't say any more, though, because I want to lose the reputation of putting words in people's mouths (I think you used the word 'blather').
By the way, have I made too obscure a reference in my subject heading?
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Ohhhh Paul....you may wanna rethink this one...delete if possible?
Feel free to believe in demons if that allows you to believe there's an exterior source for men's inherent human urge for power over their fellow man. Personally, I think people ought to actually take responsibility for their own behavior and leave other people alone.
The reason I don't come on here and talk much about my feelings is that those are my own responsibility and other people, particularly total strangers with whom I have contact only on the internet, have no obligation to meet my emotional needs. Hauling in baggage to support intellectual points actually weakens them -- to me it is the adult equivalent of the threat my grandson made to me when he was 4 - "I will be be very, very sad if I have to go bed now."
I don't think my world view is 'relativistic' - I think it's realistic.
People are imperfect. The process of reproduction is imperfect. Women die during pregnancy. Zygotes/blastocysts/fetuses die during pregnancy more often than not. Some fetuses cannot survive birth and others are so imperfectly formed that they suffer terribly after birth. Abortions happen whether they are legal or illegal. Women are more likely to die during abortions that are illegal. People do things which other people disapprove of, including have sex. Trying to impose one person or group or religion's view of 'moral values' on other people doesn't now and never has worked but causes oppression and repeated occasions of horrendous bloodshed. Because of that history, a central part of the foundations of our country is freedom of conscience.
People who talk about 'universal truth' invariably are talking solely about their own personal understanding and want to promote it to others because it gives them an illusion of security and safety to have companions so they can all assure each other they are in the 'Truth' group. This is much more common if they believe in a punitive God who threatens eternal punishment for 'Error/Sin'.
Men who protest that they really want to know what women think reject what they hear and insist that 'real women' wouldn't think that way. Men who protest that they really want to know what women feel reject what they hear and tell women that they should feel different emotions because 'real women' wouldn't feel that way.
The things that they want women to think and feel are amazingly convenient and useful in allowing the men to be selfish, irresponsible and kept personally comfy by a woman who acts as their unpaid but admiring support staff. This allows the men to 'outsource' purity, declaring that females are 'naturally better fitted' to be moral so that lapses can reasonably be punished. Males, of course, are cut huge breaks, because men are more impulsive and passionate and often 'can't resist temptation'.
Part of that impulsiveness is that men who don't want to address the actual points that a woman made in her post go off on a tangent and talk about something else entirely like the 'reality question'.
" Hauling in baggage to support intellectual points actually weakens them -"
Paul, permit me to point out that when I was baring teeth...you dismissed my experience and emotional responses as "a violent fit'...your exact words!
You're working yourself up into a violent fit simply because I point to
the difference between a subjective and objective reality.
You cannot have it both ways, Paul. Either emotion informs the objective, or it does not. And once again, I am restraining myself. Recalling your own dismissal of my anger, I can throw your words right back at you.
"I operate differently. My thoughts, feelings, behaviors and beliefs
have infested each other so thoroughly that there's no chance to
glimpse my thoughts without getting a peek at the rest of me."
I am trying to be civil.
You're working yourself up into a violent fit simply because I point to the difference between a subjective and objective reality.
ahunt,
I well remember that comment. I had stated that all unborn persons, regardless of their state of development, had an equal right to live. I took the position that if it made sense to invest money to address the health and safety risks of late term fetuses it made just as much sense to invest money in protecting zygotes and blastocysts.
You insisted that I was demanding mothers to generate the same feelings for a 'flushed blastocyst' as they would for a late term miscarriage or a still birth. I told you that I wanted nothing of the kind. I told you that it made plenty of sense to me that mothers (and others) would feel much more grief at the loss of older children in whom they had made more of a physical and emotional investment.
The objective reality is that blastocysts have as much right to live as fetuses. The subjective reality is that people feel a lot sadder at the loss of a fetus than they do at the loss of a blastocyst. I wasn't objecting to the fact that you were experiencing emotion -- I was pointing to the evidence that your emotion was rooted in your mistaken conviction that I wanted women to feel as sad for the loss of a blastocyst as they would for a stillbirth.
Unlike crowepps, you have not claimed to limit your expression of personality to the intellectual. You and I have both demonstrated a willingness to express emotion. Because I see the connections between different aspects of expression I knew that your 'violent fit' was connected to the belief that I was making comments about people's subjective reactions to the unborn when in fact I was making the comment that the objective value of a person is not determined by other people's reactions to her/him.
I'm continually taken to task for the crime of telling women how they should feel. I do something a little different than that. I take people's emotions seriously and I regularly have cause to notice how mistaken beliefs lead to painful emotions. I don't suggest to people that they change their feelings -- I suggest that they exchange false beliefs for true ones. When they do that, their feelings change on their own.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Paul, have you ever considered that it is in fact your beliefs that are incorrect? That it is those with whom you disagree are the ones with the correct understanding of The Truth, and it is in fact you who needs to change your beliefs?
A friend of mine gets really irritated when extremely persistent missionaries show up at her door. She now says to them 'ok, are you willing to listen to my beliefs and consider becoming atheists?'. Generally, they hedge and then say no. And she replies 'why should I consider converting to your beliefs when you won't consider converting to mine? What if my beliefs are in fact correct?'.
I don't usually offer silly little stories like that, but it seemed apropos. Take from it what you will.
Emma,
I'm constantly ready, even eager, to exchange my incorrect beliefs for someone else's correct ones.
It's for that very reason that I do all I can to develop a genuine exchange with the people I converse with -- not just play a game of 'debate' with each side trying to 'win'.
If I'm wrong about something, and I 'win' a debate -- I lose and the person I'm debating loses as well.
As far as becoming an atheist goes -- I personally am less interested in whether or not someone believes in God than I am about learning what kind of god they believe in or disbelieve. I regularly state that the most important particular in a person's faith isn't whether or not they believe in the existence of God, it's whether or not they believe in the existence of other human beings.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Well gee, Paul, are you demanding that women objectively value flushed blastocysts as much they objectively value their born children?
How is that done, precisely? This I gotta hear.
How is that done, precisely? This I gotta hear.
ahunt,
I wouldn't have you think that a flushed blastocyst is as valuable as a born child. We have to compare apples to apples, and it makes no sense to compare a corpse to a living body. I would, however, claim that a living blastocyst has as much right to life as a born child.
This isn't about feelings. I am stating that it is no more justifiable to deliberately harm a blastocyst that it is to deliberately harm a born child. It is also as wrong to demonstrate wanton disregard for a blastocyst as it would be to demonstrate wanton disregard for a born child.
By the way, caring for a blastocyst isn't nearly as difficult as caring for a born child. Born children need constant and thoughtful attention. It's enough to let a blastocyst be, and not to go out of your way to harm her/him.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
By the way, caring for a blastocyst isn't nearly as difficult as caring for a born child. Born children need constant and thoughtful attention. It's enough to let a blastocyst be, and not to go out of your way to harm her/him.
It never fails to astonish me that there are women stupid enough to fall for your brand of cooing, idiotic emotional manipulation.
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Dr Warren Hern, MD
It's enough to let a blastocyst be...
Oh Paul...I just can't take this shot. Too easy.
Instead I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you agree that women can go about their business w/o worrying if a blastocyst might need non-attention.
ahunt,
It's like walking around in a hall of mirrors!
I stated once (and will restate now) that, with research, we will learn things about zygotes and blastocysts that will make it possible for us to increase their survival rates.
You returned with a concern that everything that we might learn would compel women to restrict their freedom -- even before they are able to know whether or not they've conceived.
I responded that I didn't know what we might learn or what interventions might improve outcomes for zygotes and blastocysts but that I expected that it would neither be necessary nor advantageous for women to be so hyper-vigilant about the care of blastocysts that concern for them would impair their ability to lead normal lives.
You asserted that I wanted to keep women in chains. And you got mad at me.
Right now, in November of 2009, the only thing we know for sure about increasing the survival rate for blastocysts is to avoid administering mifepristone. Someday we might learn more, but today the best advice for women who want to improve the survival rate of their blastocyst children is to "go about their business" but avoid mifepristone. That pretty much boils down to: "Let Blastocysts Be".
Giving me the benefit of the doubt would be to believe me when I say that my interests are in finding ways to protect the unborn that don't involve making life miserable for their mothers.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Right now, in November of 2009, the only thing we know for sure about increasing the survival rate for blastocysts is to avoid administering mifepristone.
Might I suggest that you spend a little time on those sites which are dedicated to helping infertile women? Aside from administering mifepristone, women who want to increase the survival rate of their blastocysts should also avoid coffee, alcohol, hot tubs, strenuous exercise, herbal therapy, eating green peas, stress and stop smoking.
What I'm looking for, crowepps, is an opportunity to discuss how people would behave if we spent more time thinking about the fact that each of us, even when we were blastocysts, had a life trajectory of our own apart from our promise to advance or frustrate the life trajectories of our mothers.
Naturally, your suggestion that I spend more time visiting 'sites that provide information to those with infertility issues is well taken.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
What I'm looking for, crowepps, is an opportunity to discuss how people would behave if we spent more time thinking about the fact that each of us, even when we were blastocysts, had a life trajectory of our own apart from our promise to advance or frustrate the life trajectories of our mothers.
The thing is, Paul, that when you make these statements, you are willing to give great value to the 'life trajectory' of the blastocyst but you don't seem able to see the corollary; that value apparently evaporates if that "life" turns out to be female, develops to sexual maturity and becomes pregnant. If there is an inherent 'value' in the life trajectory of the blastocyst, then there should be equal value in the woman whose life trajectory that blastocyst is capable of frustrating, crippling, or ending altogether.
You keep insisting that ignoring the value of the blastocyst is 'ageist' because they are 'very young' without acknowledging that you are ignoring the value of the women because of THEIR age; to assert that the woman has a less compelling value because of the fact that they are OLDER is equally 'ageist'.
I think it could be equally productive to take an opportunity to discuss how people would behave if they spent more time thinking about the fact that every child who is actually born alive deserves shelter, food, clothing, medical care and to be able to live with people who are able to meet their needs. So long as millions of children continue miserable lives where they are hungry, homeless, ill, poor, neglected, and physically and/or sexually abused it's really difficult for me to get all emotionally involved with blastocysts. Our society recognizes that we are failing our children, but we are too busy blaming their parents for being irresponsible to rescue them. Once we have something to offer those blastocysts beyond a miserable existence as unwanted 'consequences', I might see your point.
http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/patkotak/story/1017317.html
crowepps,
Thanks for the heads-up. I don't regularly read the Anchorage Daily News so I hadn't been following Patkotak's columns.
May we review her November 3rd piece, which I especially liked? I was particularly struck by this comment:
[W]e, as a society, are once again forced to face one of the thorniest questions that can be presented to a country that prides itself on its commitment to the ideal of personal freedom and the sanctity of the family unit - when and how much should government intervene in family life.
I'm wrestling with that 'thorny question' all the time and my answer has always been that we should try every possible means of persuading parents to do right by their children before we invoke the kind of government intervention that is referenced in the penal code.
This is how I look at it: Parental violence is viscerally revolting. Those of us outside the family unit owe it to the cause of humanity to develop some concern for the well-being of these victimized children. That makes it plenty tempting to intervene at the first sign of distress. The trouble is, you can't sustain a system that uses violence to prevent violence, and privacy violation is a form of violence, not only that but coercion is a form of violence; so any government intervention that's designed to get parents to 'behave themselves' will fail if it's intrusive and coercive.
Patkotak continues:
Personally, I recommend forced sterilization of both parents of any family in which domestic violence and/or alcohol abuse is a routine part of life. That way, the adults could get drunk and pummel each other as much as they wanted without bringing a helpless child into the mix who is unable to dial 911 when being beaten against a wall or shaken to the point of brain damage.
Ideally, I suppose, you'd want to sterilize the parents before they have children! I regard her suggestion as a 'vindictive fantasy' because I don't think she meant it to be taken seriously. I'm betting that she herself realizes that you can't really implement violence to contain violence.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Is this the kind of situation where you think the government ought to be reluctant to intervene and should concentrate on 'persuasion'? Personally, if I have to choose between the violence continuing to be perpetrated on the children or being inflicted on the adults, I'd choose hurting the adults every time.
As an adult child of alcoholics, I think EVERY alcoholic and drug addict ought to be sterilized on diagnosis, hopefully before they have children. It would save worlds of suffering.
Child burned in bizarre 'redneck flamethrower' incident
By JAMES HALPIN
Published: November 18th, 2009 07:46 PM
Two Anchorage men who told investigators they were horsing around with a "redneck flamethrower" set a 5-year-old boy's head on fire and have been charged with felony assault and reckless endangerment, according to police and court records.
Jonathon Michael Miller, 29, and Stephen Ray Dilley II, 32, were jailed Tuesday after inflicting second-degree burns to the boy's head and singing his hair with an aerosol sprayer and lighter, according to Alaska State Troopers. The child, who was injured Friday, did not receive medical treatment until arriving at school near his home in Anchor Point on Monday.
"It was described to the troopers as an accident," troopers spokeswoman Megan Peters said. "I mean a child, two guys, can of Quick Start, Bic lighter: How could this not go wrong?"
According to a troopers' affidavit filed in court, Miller told investigators he's been trying to toughen the boy up and the best way to do it is to "scare the s--t out of them when they don't see it coming."
Asked why the child had not gotten treatment, Miller told investigators, "Why go make bills for yourself over little things," according to the affidavit.
The child, identified only by his initials in court documents, suffered burns to the left side of his face, nose, eyelid and ear, according to troopers. Most of the hair on the left side of the boy's head was singed, along with some on the right side.
The boy told troopers he had not been in trouble and described the incident as a "practical joke gone wrong," Trooper Ryan Browning wrote in the affidavit. The child said he was playing in his room over the weekend when the incident occurred.
The boy's mother was away for the weekend and had left the boy with her current boyfriend, Miller, and Dilley, with whom the mother has a child, according to troopers. Although she has a restraining order against Dilley, he has been living in a motor home on the property where she lives, at Mile 162 of the Sterling Highway, and helping her take care of her five children, according to troopers.
The men told troopers they were out on the porch smoking when they went inside and Dilley grabbed a can of compressed starter fluid and a lighter, troopers said.
"You know what would be funny?," Dilley said, according to the affidavit.
"Do you know how much trouble I could get in for this?" Miller replied.
Miller then called for the boy, who opened the door as Miller unleashed a ball of flames, according to troopers.
"Dilley stated it only lasted for about a half second and then they saw (the boy's) head was on fire," Browning wrote. "They ran to (the boy) and doused the flames with their hands, then tended to his burns. Dilley stated he didn't think the spray would go that far."
The men denied drinking, saying it was a very "sober day," according to the affidavit.
When the boy's mother came home late Sunday night, she learned of the boy's injuries, troopers said. She ended up hospitalized because of an overdose of bipolar medications the same night, Browning wrote.
The Office of Children's Services called troopers Monday after the burned boy showed up to Chapman Elementary School. The boy did not want to disclose what had happened, according to troopers.
He was treated at an emergency room and released to a family member, Peters said.
Court records indicate the Miller and Dilley have been appointed public defenders, though a woman who answered the phone at that office said that agency had not yet received the paperwork in the cases and no attorney had been assigned.
They are each charged with two counts of third-degree assault and a count of reckless endangerment. They remain jailed at the Wildwood Pretrial facility, according to the Department of Corrections.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/crime/story/1018935.html
That was awesome! You claim to be well read and you're constantly backing up your claim.
It's not so much a matter of whether I believe in demons or disbelieve in them. I consider references to demons to be the manner in which many people have chosen to describe authentic human experiences. In that passage, Cain was wrestling with the temptation to murder his brother. I've wrestled with temptation. I don't have any trouble understanding people when they describe that experience in terms of a demon lurking outside the door of their soul.
You say, "Personally, I think people ought to actually take responsibility for their own behavior and leave other people alone." That pretty much describes the way I interpret that verse -- which is that Cain had the opportunity to take responsibility for his actions and, thus, 'master the demon'. Instead he behaved irresponsibly.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
I do recommend that you, Paul, go and read this:
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/RightWingWomenAbortion.html
...and then this:
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/IntercourseI.html Read both pages, then go and buy the book. I believe it is available on Amazon. I think reading and digesting this would answer a lot of your philosphical questions and explain to you WHY we get antsy when people talk about making intercourse and reproduction a matter of public concern or policy. In an unfair world, trying to implement a school of thought that brings the goings-on inside millions of women's bodies to centre stage is inherently oppressive. Dworkin argues that abortion-on-demand is part of a matter of privacy and freedom for women away from male-centric models of sex and gender. In fact, it's a shame she died four years ago, because I imagine she'd have a lot to say about your ideas.
I read "Right Wing Women" and agreed with everything she said in the first half of the piece. In fact, I've made many of those same observations myself.
This sounds like the kind of thing I might say:
The decriminalization of abortion--for that was the political goal--was seen as the final fillip: it would make women absolutely accessible, absolutely "free." The sexual revolution, in order to work, required that abortion be available to women on demand. If it were not, fucking would not be available to men on demand. Getting laid was at stake.
Here's something else I found very easy to agree with:
Sexual radicalism was defined in classically male terms: number of partners, frequency of sex, varieties of sex (for instance, group sex), eagerness to engage in sex. It was all supposed to be essentially the same for boys and girls: two, three, or however many long-haired persons communing. It was especially the lessening of gender polarity that kept the girls entranced, even after the fuck had revealed the boys to be men after all.
We start to diverge here:
If before the Supreme Court decision in 1973 leftist men expressed a fierce indifference to abortion rights on feminist terms, after 1973 indifference changed to overt hostility: feminists had the right to abortion and were still saying no--no to sex on male terms and no to politics dominated by these same men. Legalized abortion did not make these women more available for sex; on the contrary, the women's movement was growing in size and importance and male sexual privilege was being challenged with more intensity, more commitment, more ambition.
Here's the problem as I see it. The women in Andrea Dworkin's set might have been saying "no" in 1973 and thereafter -- but the average woman in the US was saying "yes" in increasing numbers between 1973 and 1983. The honest-to-God impact of Roe, at least in the first decade, was to make it much, much, much easier for the average unmarried American male to get laid. What slowed things down was the realization that AIDS wasn't simply a 'gay plague' and that it was a threat to heterosexuals as well.
I get exasperated with comments like this one:
And the boys of the sixties did grow up too. They actually grew older. They are now men in life, not just in the fuck. They want babies. Compulsory pregnancy is about the only way they are sure to get them.
I'm in total agreement with Dworkin that a man is more likely than a woman to want to boink. I completely disagree with her idea that a man is more likely than a woman to want to have children. The women who've been pushed into having sex to satisfy a man's desires are legion. It's actually rare that a man will pressure an unwilling woman to have his baby -- it's actually more likely for a woman to pressure an unwilling man.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Here's the problem as I see it. The women in Andrea Dworkin's set might have been saying "no" in 1973 and thereafter -- but the average woman in the US was saying "yes" in increasing numbers between 1973 and 1983. The honest-to-God impact of Roe, at least in the first decade, was to make it much, much, much easier for the average unmarried American male to get laid.
So, because we won the right to abortion and birth control, we are still mostly responsible for male sexuality, and responsible for any shitty attitudes directed towards women that are rooted in irrational resentment of the latter two? Puts us in the unenviable position of having no power and all the responsibility, doesn't it? If we'd continued to say "no" and simply continued to try in vain to deny that we are sexual human beings, none of this would have ever happened? If we'd just stop trying to define sex and reproduction in our own terms and remain trapped between choosing forced pregnancy, lifelong abstinence, miserable marriages and concubinism we'd be better off? I don't think so.
The reasons for abortion are as complex and varied as women are, not because we didn't bow to the idea that everything we do should revolve around men. You completely misunderstand Dworkin. She opposes the idea that abortion makes it "easier for men to get laid" by offering them an "out" from one of the functions of icky female sex organs, and posits that abortion is, in fact, the balancing of natures sexism, and is a device to allow women to choose to reject male essence and choose when and where they bear children. As in her essay; male support for abortion declined when they realized it wasn't going to make easily-controllable harems for them. They got angry because we want sex, childbearing, parenting and abortion on our terms, not theirs. They're still angry because doing the opposite isn't making easily-controllable harems, either.
For the last freaking time, we are not the gatekeepers of sex and controllers of male morality. In short; stop playing the "but what about teh menz" card.
What slowed things down was the realization that AIDS wasn't simply a 'gay plague' and that it was a threat to heterosexuals as well.
Abortion made people realise that casual sex without protection could potentially transmit harmful diseases? We weren't immune to HIV prior to Roe vs. Wade, Paul. It is more likely that people realised casual sex without condoms was making people irreversibly sick, and that it affected both sexes, unlike pregnancy, the prevention of which
traditionally fell on the shoulders of women and men felt they didn't have to bother minding their sexuality because it was taken for granted that the woman would do it for them. So men were more cautious about engaging in unprotected sex. Any conceptions that weren't made and that would have been aborted otherwise were simply a knock-on effect. Correlation =/= causation. Don't confuse the two.
I'm of the school of thought that the right to freely and safely end a pregnancy is the question of fundamental freedom for women, regardless of all the hand-waving about uterine "people". Pregnancy should not be compulsory. Babies are not so important that their creation involves holding one half the human race virtually hostage for goodly portions of their lives. We should not be held in abnegation to our biology. I cannot stand the "zygotes are people" argument, since it is from the crucible in which all romanticization of children and motherhood form. The base attitude of all this special snowflake nonsense is that children, especially potential ones, are akin to gods and more important than everything else, regardless of the consequences to those directly affected. It's one of the most dangerous myths in human history and causes untold unseen misery. People need to jettison vitalist bullshit and quit fetishizing reproduction.
It's actually rare that a man will pressure an unwilling woman to have his baby -- it's actually more likely for a woman to pressure an unwilling man.
Nonsense. Are you an MRA? It cuts both ways, men get women pregnant to keep them trapped and dependent, or to further his "legacy" while having little or nothing to do with the kid. Did you miss the series here about "When a Pregnancy is a Sign of Abuse?" Women get pregnant to eke some kind of benefit out of the man, to keep him trapped or believe that having a baby will instantly turn him into Ward Cleaver and make him love her. Controlling behavior via reproduction manifests itself in myriad forms and it isn't mostly exclusive to women just because we can have babies.
You completely misunderstand Dworkin.
Princess,
Perhaps you completely misunderstand me. Dworkin and I agree that women should have the right to say "no" to unwanted sex and should have the right to say "no" to unwanted pregnancy. My point is that even if she noticed, in 1973, a strengthened resolve on the part of some women that resolve wasn't in evidence in most women.
Male pressure for females to have sex is the cause of a great number of abortions. If women were empowered to act according to their own interests and preferences rather than act out of a desire to please men, the abortion rate would go down. Male pressure became greater, not less, after Roe. I'm entirely in favor of women becoming more empowered to make their own decisions -- I'm just taking note of the fact that, in reality, a great number of women don't have as much self-determination as you, or I, or Andrea Dworkin would wish for them.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Well Paul...I'll give you this one...if the various religious organizations and government entities that are working so hard to slut-shame, guilt trip and penalize women for owning their sexuality put similar effort into the menz...I'd be less defensive.
ahunt,
I've long wondered whether you would come around to the realization that we actually agree on a number of important issues.
Male behavior is a much bigger hinderance to the protection of the unborn than female behavior is. In the bad old days before the sexual revolution, men had more sexual freedom than women. An unmarried woman had to worry about the possibility that she would end up raising a child on her own -- a man knew he could disappear as soon as the heat was on.
A lot of women seem to think that equality means that women should be as sexually free as men have traditionally been. My idea of equality is that men will be compelled to support their children and will, therefore, be as motivated to avoid unwanted pregnancy as women are.
But you certainly have to realize that there are many religious organizations working hard to get men to take their roles as fathers more seriously. They could do more, but lately they've been taking steps in the right direction.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Male pressure for females to have sex is the cause of a great number of abortions. If women were empowered to act according to their own interests and
preferences rather than act out of a desire to please men, the abortion
rate would go down.
That's right, because women don't actually WANT sex except when we want babies. So if we have an abortion (we don't want the baby) we must have not wanted the sex! It's all the "male pressure"! We don't have sex out of our "own interests", we only have sex to "please men"!!
What a crock of shit.
KatWA,
This afternoon, after I made my post, I realized that I'd get my head handed to me over the very observation you just made.
It has not escaped my notice that women will often want sex even when they don't want babies. Obviously, such women are not being 'forced' to have sex and -- in the unhappy event that they get pregnant -- they might very well view liberal attitudes toward abortion as their insurance for pursuing their own "preferences and interests".
I do not believe that EVERY abortion has its roots in a situation where an insistent male manages to overcome the objections of a reticent female. Not every abortion, but some. Female empowerment to say "no" to unwanted sex will save lives. A man's acknowledgment that it would be a shame if his child died in an abortion would also save lives.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Paul,
What is the basis for your belief that male behaviour results in more abortions than female behaviour?
I don't see how you can possibly not see how the implication of what you're saying is that women have limited or no agency, and would choose not to have abortions absent male pressure. You're essentially saying that it's all about the men, rather than that women want to have sex with men without having kids, and that those who have abortions do so because we don't want to be pregnant. For those who don't ever want kids, it would make life shittier if men decided to refuse to have sex with any woman who'd choose to terminate any accidental pregnancy. It would just be another way for men to control women's sexuality.
As to your response to me above - the problem is that you seem to assume that we need to be brought around to your point of you; that you need to impart 'correct' beliefs (I think you used that term at some point).
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say you care about whether people believe in/recognise other human beings. I think we all recognise that other people are human; the issue is that some of us don't see blastocysts, zygotes or foetuses as people. There is more to personhood than having human DNA.
The question is somewhat irrelevant to me in any case, because even if I agreed they were people - which I don't - I still would not believe they're entitled to be gestated by women who don't want to gestate them. I'd abort a 32-year-old if it were living in my body and I didn't want it there.
What is the basis for your belief that male behaviour results in more abortions than female behaviour?
Emma,
I'm happy to answer that question. The main 'driver' (if you will) for abortion is unwanted pregnancy, and the main driver for unwanted pregnancy is the lack of, or poor use of birth control. Men are as involved in the reproductive act as women are but men are much less responsible than women are with regard to birth control. We could prevent hundreds of thousands of abortions simply by getting men to use a condom (as an adjunct to whatever other birth control is being used). Women aren't the ones objecting to condom use, men are.
Men, by and large, are more responsible than women are for restricted access to birth control for teenagers.
Men, to some extent, still have more political power than women and men are more to blame than women are for the lack of social supports for mothers and children. Men are also more responsible than women are for educational and employment policies which discriminate against pregnant students and workers.
Men, also, are notoriously unsupportive when their unmarried partners disclose that they're pregnant. Many women would carry their pregnancies to term if they were confident that they would receive emotional, physical and financial support from the father.
There are other issues as well, but I'm under time constraint right now. There's a lot more to abortion than the agency of women, and my eagerness to find ways to reduce abortions that don't include denying women access to the procedure is in no way an indication that I think women have no or limited agency.
By the way, the accusation that I have a low opinion of females is getting pretty old.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Female empowerment to say "no" to unwanted sex will save lives.
It's not even minimally empowering to assign women the cultural task of controlling the impulses and desires of men. But what really bothers me about the above sentence is that notion that the really, realy important result of men forcing women to have sex (which is, btw, rape), the thing that 'we' should all focus on, the real problem, is the possible conception.
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Dr Warren Hern, MD
Having assigned women "the cultural task of controlling the impulses and desires of men" it would sure be nice if law enforcement followed up on their complaints about assault, attempted rape and rape. Perhaps if their reports were taken seriously, and their complaints weren't dismissed as "not credible", Sowell wouldn't have 10 plus bodies buried around his house.
Sowell and Garrido were both on sex offender lists. Both men (and, of course, the charming Mrs Garrido) were the subjects of numerous reports from neighbors.
Not that we need those cases to make the case for a rape prone culture and enabling law enforcement.
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Dr Warren Hern, MD
colleen,
It's taken me a while to appreciate your skill in transforming perfectly sensible comments on my part into outrageous diatribes. For example, on this thread I've pointed to a specific change in behavior that I've observed (and that Andrea Dworkin had observed) in women as they become more mature and confident -- the change is that these women are less susceptible to the whiney, entitled, manipulative and insistent pleas on the part of their annoyingly immature boyfriends to have sex on male terms. Women who are insecure and inexperienced often fall for these tactics, but if they are blessed with the capacity to grow in the direction of self-determination they learn how to turn such "offers" down.
Your brilliance, and I stand in genuine awe of it, is your facility to frame that kind of an observation in a way that makes it appear to be the reflection of a misogynist.
Somehow, you were able to reconstitute the admiration I feel for women as they learn to stand up for themselves into me placing a burden of responsibility onto women to "control the impulses and desires of men". You are waaaaaaay smarter than I am! I never even saw it coming.
Then there's the trick of 'adding the only'. I say, "Women who can hold their own sexually with men have fewer abortions." You translate it into, "The only good thing about a woman holding her own with a man is that she's less likely to have an abortion." My intention was to point out that, in addition to all the other good things that come along with female empowerment, it enables women to do a better job of protecting their children. You turn it into me making the nasty and degrading assertion that the only proper purpose of a woman is to be a good mother. Amazing!
Not only did you do all this with remarkable dispatch and efficiency, but you even managed to 'ramp it up'. I was following Andrea Dworkin's lead and considering the example of a man (or boy) being bratty and petulant and threatening to hold his breath until his partner agreed to have sex. I suggested that a woman learns to counter these strategems as she matures.
You manage to turn my suggestion into something so much different. You stop all conversation by using the R-word. I say, "A woman can learn to deal with male brattiness." You make it sound as if I'm normalizing the experience of a woman being raped. As if a man saying to his girlfriend, "You promised!" is the same as him pressing a knife against her throat.
Do you take classes in this stuff or does it all come naturally?
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
s your facility to frame that kind of an observation in a way that makes it appear to be the reflection of a misogynist.
Pardon. I believed that your misogyny was well established here. Indeed when folks say things like "abortion isn't about women" or:
I’m opposed to abortion. I’m opposed to abortion in cases of rape; I’m opposed to abortion in cases of incest; I’m opposed to abortion in cases of fetal abnormality; I’m opposed to abortion when the mother is seriously disabled; I’m opposed to abortion when the mother already has more children than she can handle; I’m opposed to abortion in cases of extreme poverty; I’m opposed to abortion in regions where there is overpopulation; I’m opposed to abortion when the father is abusive. Get the idea?
It's rather difficult to deny a certain bias on your part.
I would continue this discussion further but it's clear to me that would be futile and far from empowering.
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Dr Warren Hern, MD
... the obvious fact that I certainly would be a misogynist if I thought abortion WAS about women and I thought I had any business developing an opinion about it.
I find it curious that the long passage you quoted from my March piece in defense of Dr. Tiller leaves out the essential line which is that I don't oppose abortion in the case of medical necessity. When there's a case of medical necessity, abortion is about women and I have nothing negative to say about it.
I support abortion rights when abortion is about the woman and I support fetal rights when abortion is about the fetus. That is the 'certain bias' on my part.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
a man is more likely than a woman to want to boink.
Why do you think this?? This has really not been my experience at all. And since the human species has been repopulating itself just fine since it's existence, I doubt it's true. I'm curious why you think this is the case though? This is a common stereotype that conservatives believe... but no evidence appears to exist.
I completely disagree with her idea that a man is more likely than a woman to want to have children. The women who've been pushed into having sex to satisfy a man's desires are legion. It's actually rare that a man will pressure an unwilling woman to have his baby -- it's actually more likely for a woman to pressure an unwilling man.
Think about it. Who is pushing who to be forced to bear children? Are women trying to pass laws that force men to have children? (to ban condoms for example?) No? Are men, on the other hand, passing laws to force WOMEN to have children? (think of the the picture of all the men signing the "partial birth abortion" ban.) Dworkin is not saying men want children more than women, but that men want children and are FORCING women to have them.
I'm curious why you think this is the case though? This is a common stereotype that conservatives believe... but no evidence appears to exist.
No evidence appears to exist that men are more interested in sex that women???? There's the entire body of evidence that Evolutionary Science gives us. We know why men are more likely to want multiple partners than women are, we know why men are willing to get sexual at an earlier phase in a relationship, we know why men are more likely to focus entirely on physical attributes when selecting a mate. We know why a woman's interest in sex waxes and wanes according to the month but men are ready for sex any day. We know why men are more likely to use violence as a means of getting sex.
Men and women evolved differently and have entirely different reproductive strategies (actually, I don't like using the word 'strategy'. It smacks of intelligent design. We should be talking about reproductive successes.)
In my observation, there are two groups of people who steadfastly refuse to believe in Evolutionary Science no matter how much evidence is brought to bear on the subject -- Fundamentalist Christians and Feminists. The Fundamentalists don't like to think that life forms came into existence by blind chance and the Feminists don't like to think that women and men are different from each other.
Dworkin is not saying men want children more than women, but that men want children and are FORCING women to have them.
I wish we could maintain a distinction between what Pro-Lifers in general believe and what PLCC stands for. I am totally opposed to the idea of forcing anybody to do anything. Every scheme I've suggested for protecting the unborn involves supporting mothers and maintaining their free choice.
Can I get you to admit that there's a difference between a woman preventing herself from conceiving an unwanted child and a woman who has already become a mother from destroying the life of her unwanted child? We'd have more of the former and less of the latter if people placed a higher value on human life -- and we wouldn't have to do any FORCING either.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Can I get you to admit that there's a difference between a woman preventing herself from conceiving an unwanted child and a woman who has already become a mother from destroying the life of her unwanted child?
Yes. But the difference pales in comparison to the effect of nature's sexism and society's sexism and classism.
We'd have more of the former and less of the latter if people placed a higher value on human life -- and we wouldn't have to do any FORCING either.
Historically, focusing on ZBEFs (or whatever the contemporary vocabulary would be) means increasing social pressure and burdens on women and the poor.
Julie,
I like reading your posts and I've noticed that you often talk about 'nature's sexism'. I want you to elaborate on that idea, but what comes to my mind is the fact that women suffer a great deal in the reproductive process and that men suffer very little. The suffering that women endure casts a shadow over the pleasures that sex can offer. Is that pretty close to your idea?
What comes to my mind when I think about overcoming nature's sexism is the idea of women having complete control over ovulation. This, of course, would eliminate both the pain of unwanted pregnancy and the pain of menstruation. Such a development would free women without disregarding the lives of young people.
I focus on ZBEF's, not because I want to increase the burdens on women and the poor but because I want to decrease the burdens on the very young. I consider everyone's welfare to be my concern -- the poor, women and the very young.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
In my opinion inuntended burdens on women (such as caused by the Nicaragua law that their Bishops & the Pope applaudedj) are still burdens -- and sexist/classist.
.
Can I at least get you to admit that nature's sexism and society's sexism and classism is a significant burden to women?
.
I find that the way you write about "the burdens on the very young" sexist/classist and an effort to socially coerce women and the poor to conform to gender and class roles, for the benefit of hierarchial structure of society. It also continues to anger me that "Paul Bradford, Pro-Life Catholic" keeps trying to tell me he's "for choice". When I, Julie Watkins, former Catholic & athiest, declare that I am "for choice" I am not attempting to coerce other women and families what reproductive choices to make. I support their choices -- it's a private matter, not for strangers. A equitable society will believe that Giving birth is a gift not an obligation for women who have convieved, or women and poor people are being treated as second class by that society.
It also continues to anger me that "Paul Bradford, Pro-Life Catholic" keeps trying to tell me he's "for choice".
I do it to distinguish myself from the Pro-Lifers who use strategies I abhor.
Most Pro-Lifers are attempting to prevent abortions by limiting a woman's access to the procedure. Pro-Lifers look for ways to make abortion less affordable. Pro-Lifers look for ways to make abortion less convenient. Pro-Lifers look to put legal restrictions on abortion. Pro-Lifers look to put women in the situation where the only available abortion is an abortion that's unsafe to her.
I not only claim that all of those methods are inhumane -- I claim that they're bound to be ineffective. The way to save unborn lives is to make women healthier, happier, freer, more empowered and more secure; and the way to make women healthier, happier, freer, more empowered and more secure is to make it a priority to protect the lives of their children.
Here are the policies I've proposed to lower the abortion rate:
* Provide quality OB/GYN care to women of any income.
* Provide comprehensive birth control to all.
* Improve social supports for mothers and their children.
* Assure paternal support.
* Most importantly, discourage the use of discriminatory language against the very young.
Let me tell you my assessment of the abortion situation in Nicaragua and maybe you'll understand why I object to you throwing me in with the lot who applaud it.
First of all, I want to point out that there is a serious abortion problem in Nicaragua. In fact, the situation there is more serious than the situation is here. Let me state it more forcefully: The unborn are less safe in Nicaragua than they are in the United States. Nicaragua has a law "prohibiting" abortion in all situations but they don't have a justice system to enforce that law. The law is a joke! Not only is it unenforceable, but it goes about the problem in entirely the wrong way.
The first thing you've got to do if you want to protect the unborn in Nicaragua is to protect their mothers. Women's health care in Nicaragua is a disaster. You don't want to be pregnant in Nicaragua. The likelihood of a pregnancy or childbirth complication leading to serious health risks or death is far higher in Nicaragua than it is in America. Health care in general is substandard in Nicaragua, but it's very difficult to funnel money into OB/GYN. Women don't count as much in Central America as they do here.
The way to make women "count" is to get girls educated. The bigger the 'education gap', the greater the subjugation. Educated women press for their rights -- including their rights for comprehensive birth control. You're going to have a hard time getting a woman to protect her children from abortion if she can't protect herself from unwanted pregnancy.
Where are the social supports in Nicaragua? Where is the counterbalance to the culture of machismo that enables men to give virtually nothing to their own children? Do you know that, in Nicaragua, more money is spent on prostitution than on women's health -- not just OB/GYN, all health care for all women.
That's no way to protect the unborn.
I find that the way you write about "the burdens on the very young" sexist/classist and an effort to socially coerce women and the poor to conform to gender and class roles, for the benefit of hierarchial structure of society .
Julie, I'm not interested in socially coercing women. I'm interested in all of us expanding our circle of people we're concerned about. There's no coercing people to care about the very young. If you care about them you care about them -- and you want to do things to improve their welfare -- and you want to encourage other people to care about them. This isn't about women conforming to gender roles. It's about justice for all.
Hierarchal structure of society??? You think that's what I'm all about???? That's not what I'm about. I'm about 'the other guy'. I'm about taking yourself out of your own center of concern and thinking about the well being of others. The problems I see with the 'structures of society' is that it's too easy for some people to tune out the needs of 'the other guy' and to concentrate solely on what's good for them. Structures need to be reformed, but that can only happen if there's individual reformation. In America, we play the game, "Let's compete to see who gets the most toys!" We've got to stop playing that game if we're going to have any hope of reforming the 'hierarchal structure'.
You know, Julie, you really hit my button. I don't know what you see when you look at me -- but it isn't me.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
I notice you put "the unborn" in front of "the mothers" in Nicaragua (and in your third paragraph and everywhere else, it seems).
I do it [use "for choice"] to distinguish myself from the Pro-Lifers who use strategies I abhor.
As someone who is "for choice" -- as in supporting other people's reproductive choices whether I would have made the same choice or not which you would pick another way to distinguish yourself (such as "Against Recriminalization") because your usage of "choice" is wanting "parents" to make the right choice rather than supporting what I (and many other people) consider "choice", and I consider this dangerous because you're helping people who want to enforce nature's sexism and outlaw abortion access. (Look!, he's "for choice" and he says it's discrimination!)
Here are the policies I've proposed to lower the abortion rate:
* Provide quality OB/GYN care to women of any income.
* Provide comprehensive birth control to all.
* Improve social supports for mothers and their children.
* Assure paternal support.
This is all good -- for the pregnant women women who want to be mothers. However, you continue --
* Most importantly, discourage the use of discriminatory language against the very young. [emphasis added]
You really show your true colors with that "most importantly", Paul. You really think what I see when I look at you "isn't [you]". Well, I don't think you understand the magnitude of your extremism. I'm not the only woman objecting! Back to your proposals to lower the abortion rate. Taken in the context of your last point, what you're trying to do for pregnant women who don't want to be mothers is to make the cage so inviting that some of them might allow themselves to be socially coerced in accepting society's sexist expectations, so you’ll protect some of the “very young”. Lots of women who want to be mothers would be very happy to get all you propose (not that it's going to happen).
I'm not interested in socially coercing women.
Can you at least admit that to women who don't want to be pregnant coming up with all these reasons why they should always choose to put the ZBEFs first when they can is social coercion? PAUL, YOU COERCE ALL THE TIME! You may not be "interested", but that doesn't seem to stop you. Or you're in denial. When you make such claims you only harm your credibility.
Hierarchal structure of society??? You think that's what I'm all about???? That's not what I'm about.
I would ask you to consider that it's to the benefit of the status quo, the ruling class, that the populous thinks of unwanted pregnancies as "unborn people who need protection from selfish women". There's a lot of husbands, partners, parents and friends who will help a woman get an abortion. Desperate women and girls risk death when safe abortion isn't available -- so the need isn't frivolous. One reason why it serves the ruling class to limit abortion & contraceptive access is that it disproportionately burdens the poor -- thus making it easier for the rich to unfairly harvest their resources and labor. Your goal may not be to help the rulers stay in power, but "protecting the unborn" helps the rich more. The other way "protecting the unborn" helps the rich is that enforcing gender roles also enforces a hierarchical form of society. Men get to do what they want, women are expected to do what other people want them to do. But in the way the wife and children are subordinate to the man in a traditional family, the man is also subordinate to hierarchy of rulers. The woman knows her place; also the man knows his place, in relation to his boss, pastor, or king.
I'm about taking yourself out of your own center of concern and thinking about the well being of others.
It’s everyone's job to know their place and help others. Many of the people on the top of the pyramid aren't very good at looking out for the well being of others. They think they deserve all they can grab. The other way "protecting the unborn" helps the rich is that enforcing gender roles also enforces a hierarchical form of society. Men get to do what they want, women are expected to do what other people want them to do. But in the way the wife and children are subordinate to the man in a traditional family, the man is also subordinate to hierarchy of rulers. The woman knows her place; also the man knows his place, in relation to his boss, pastor, or king. It seem to many people (not me) that enforcing nature's sexism is, by definition, ethical -- even though sexual & classist discrimination is the result. It seems to many people (not me) that a woman (or her supporters) who objects is, by definition, to be considered unethical and selfish. I'd rather not be considered second class by definition, so I'm going to trying to change the conventional thinking.
No evidence appears to exist that men are more interested in sex that women???? There's the entire body of evidence that Evolutionary Science gives us.
There isn't any evidence that I know of from "evolutionary science" that there is a huge difference between the sexes so far as desire and interest in sex among people in primitive tribes. So far as I know, most of that supposed difference is a product of culture. Do a little reading on those hunter-gatherer tribes which are closer to our ancestral mores and you'll see that the woman are just as interested in and just as likely to promote sexual activity as the men. A good place to start is the Bushmen.
No evidence appears to exist that men are more interested in sex that
women???? There's the entire body of evidence that Evolutionary
Science gives us. We know why men are more likely to want multiple
partners than women are, we know why men are willing to get sexual at
an earlier phase in a relationship, we know why men are more likely to
focus entirely on physical attributes when selecting a mate. We know
why a woman's interest in sex waxes and wanes according to the month
but men are ready for sex any day. We know why men are more likely to
use violence as a means of getting sex.
I have no idea what science classes you're taking or journals you're reading, but this all sounds like bullshit to me.
(and "we know why"?? WHO? No real scientist I know has every made these ridiculous claims.)
I've never met any men who want more partners than women. In fact, most of the women I know have had MORE partners than the men. I'd say in history we were FORCED to have less (being saddled with babies or even the idea that every time we have sex we would have a baby tends to reduce the amount of sex we want.)
Men want to get sexual at an earlier stage in the relationship? Eh? This just hasn't been my experience. People vary, some want to have sex on the first date, some on the 50th. It varies more PER INDIVIDUAL than per sex.
Men are more likely to
focus entirely on physical attributes when selecting a mate??? Do you REALLY believe this?? That's why ugly girls never get a mate, right? Jesus. I understand how stereotypes can be tempting to believe. I myself sometimes think they are true. For example, just the other day I was very upset with myself because I have trichotillomania (compulsive hair pulling) and I had given myself another bald spot. I was sad that I was making myself ugly. I cried to my boyfriend, "You deserve a beautiful girlfriend, not me!" and he said, "but I want YOU! I want someone interested in the same things as me, with the same life goals!". In fact, despite me not being necessarily physically attractive, I've had attractive boyfriends steadily for the past 10 years. You might be able to say that I am some rare exception, but I've honestly found that people are able to find a mate, no matter how ugly they are!! Men are not all as shallow as you think. (and they call feminists the man haters? You don't seem to think too highly of men...)
We know
why a woman's interest in sex waxes and wanes according to the month
but men are ready for sex any day.
I know you'll be shocked at this, but unlike other mammals, humans have this thing called "hidden ovulation". That means that while most mammal females only want sex when they are ovulating (in heat), human women can have sex ANY DAY OF THE MONTH! If this were not the case, the birth control pill would not work because it would have the effect of removing all women's libido! (while it does have that side affect in some women, it is rare rather than all-encompasing)
Give me a link to one accredited journal that claims to have
evidence that men like sex more than women (and that it's biological and not cultural - I wouldn't like sex either if I lived in one of those places where they practice "dry sex")!! WTF do you think the
clitoris is for? You do realize that it's ONLY function is sexual
pleasure? How can you think women don't like sex?
I think I see your problem Paul! You believe the gender stereotypes you learned are all TRUE! (and even attribute it to evolution!!)
Feminists don't like to think that women and men are different from each other.
Actually, feminists know that there are greater differences within the sexes than there are differences between them. Feminists also have no difficulty acknowledging and appreciating the differences that do exist among people...we simply object when they are used to justify inequality under the law...
We also get annoyed with those who insist on exaggerating the distinctions into rigid, proscribed social roles and duties.
Just scratching the surface here.
All too often "men and women are different" is automatically translated into "and since men are the norm, women's differences mean women are abnormal/inferior to men and shouldn't have the same rights". Like a lot of other women, I am really, REALLY sick and tired of men (and women who have never been pregnant) telling us how we should think and feel about reproduction.
I'm sure just about everybody here who has children had the experience of discovering that actually BEING a parent was a heck of a lot different than what they imagined it would be like before they had kids, back when they were sure their theories would produce perfectly behaved children. Similarly, actually being pregnant is something people just don't get unless it actually happens to them, and having complications of pregnancy is something even other women just don't get unless they have the experience.
In my personal opinion, men should recognize that how women handle this is none of their business. If they want to "stop abortion", then they need to address their fellow MEN who shouldn't be both indiscriminately promiscuous and sloppy about birth control. I don't have a lot of interest in the opinions of women who have never been pregnant either, since most of them don't know what they're talking about.
