Get Opinionated, Find Your Voice and Take a Little Action
by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check
April 6, 2010 - 7:00am (Print)
My new book Get Opinionated: A Progressive's Guide to Finding Your Voice (and Taking a Little Action) has just been released. It’s about many things---the environment, the economy, the war on terror---but of course, reproductive rights are a big part of the progressive liberal agenda as I see it. For that, I’ve excerpted some of the book below:
If you asked a reproductive rights advocate like myself about the number one most frustrating aspect of the fight, you probably wouldn’t get an answer about sanctimonious right wing nuts or the endless, intractable nature of the fight, though both of these aspects often make having your fingernails pulled out by pliers look pleasant in comparison. No, it’s that the public just doesn’t get it.
Your average member of the public sees the first like this.
Corner #1: Pro-lifers. Judged by the average member of the public on a scale between sympathetic people who feel deep devotion to their cause to simpering morons who kind of worship fetuses. What’s not in doubt is their commitment to fetal life, which the public assumes they consider precious beyond belief.
Corner #2: Pro-choicers. These are the feminists, who are assumed to be, depending on who you talk to, whip-cracking, cold-hearted bitches with no maternal instinct to sympathetic figures who genuinely think that while abortion is never easy, it should be safe because it’s not going away.
Certainly, pro-lifers go out of their way to front like they’re just Team Fetus in this battle. Even the most avid sports fans have to envy the way that pro-lifers drench themselves in their mascot’s imagery. I’ve seen fetus dolls, fetal feet necklaces, etc. This, plus no matter how much it makes people hate them, they can’t quit waving pictures of bloody fetuses at you. They would like you very much to believe that they’re just in this because they want to make sure that abortion goes away forever.
It’s also becoming important to the movement to make sure that you really don’t think they’re just misogynists who have a problem with female sexuality. They like women! They like women so much that they want every woman to experience the joys of motherhood on a regular basis, whether they like it or not. Team Fetus has started to offer arguments about their phony concerns for women, saying that abortion causes breast cancer and mental illness (repeatedly disproved by actual research), and they want to stop legal abortion for women’s own good. This argument takes a lot of ignoring of the fact that back alley abortions tend not to be so great for women, but they’re trying.
Unfortunately, the mainstream media buys right into the “pro-life” front, portraying the battle over abortion as an intractable one of Team Fetus vs. The Feminists, fighting over life vs. women’s rights, which does indeed sound like a horribly complex battle where not one gets to have the complete claim to moral superiority.
The real battle is between sexual liberationists and misogynist conservatives who see abortion as the most important front in their war against sex. Call them the Anti-Sex League or the Victorian Wannabes, but just don’t call them “pro-life”, especially since most are proud conservatives who back up imperialist wars and stalwartly oppose things that would actually preserve life, like universal health care. I call them anti-choice……
If you want to finish this chapter and the rest of the book, please check it out at this link or a bookstore near you.
Follow Amanda Marcotte on Twitter, @amandamarcotte
Congratulations on the book! I can't wait to read it.
<blockquote>The real battle is between sexual liberationists and misogynist conservatives who see abortion as the most important front in their war against sex.</blockquote>
In a comment on your previous post, "Roeder Sentenced to 50 Years, No Parole", I suggested A4C (against abortion at any cost) as an alternative to "pro-life". We'll see if that catches on anywhere, but I suspect you are right -- the anti-choice troops are not opposed to choice on abortion <i>per se</i>, but opposed to choice of any kind if it involves female sexuality and reproduction.
And, of course, congratulations on the book.
We don't like contraception, necessarily. (Some don't care.) I don't like it because if I ever found birth control pills in my 14-year-old daughter's room, the first thought in my mind isn't "oh, how responsible of her!"
I think you'll find that nearly all pro-lifers couldn't give a flying photon as to whether contraceptives are illegal. (This does not mean they should be handed out to pre-teens.) In my mind, a woman (of legal age) should be able to do whatever she wants with her body as long as it doesn't kill another human being.
You'll find that this is the most common pro-life view these days, despite mindless ramblings to the contrary. I'm aware there are pro-life 'crazies' out there that Amanda probably thinks represent us all. Personally, I think its irresponsible (but probably intentional) to portray us all that way.
The bottom line is that if you can pull off an abortion without killing a human being - go nuts. 99% of us will leave you alone.
The bottom line is that if you can pull off an abortion without killing a human being - go nuts. 99% of us will leave you alone.
Fantastic, because when I had my abortion, I didn't kill a human being, neither did the women I helped to get abortions! Not creating is not the same as killing, you can only say it's killing if you take the role women play in pregnancy for granted, as given the way the air we breath is a given. Otherwise, if you recognize the active role a woman takes in the real biological process of development, you'll have to agree that it's a process of creation. Not building a house is not the same as tearing one down. Well I'm glad that's been resolved, aren't you?
Looking forward to reading it. Thought the cover on the last one was more fun, though.
You don't like contraception in general because you think it would be irresponsible for your 14-year-old daughter to have sex. So, no human being in the world, of any age, should be allowed to control their fertility because you don't think your minor child should be having sex.
Even if you accept the premise that consensual contracepting sex by 14-year-olds is bad, you're still making the most self-centered and illogical argument I've heard all day.
If you're afraid of your own kid having sex, control your own kid. Don't expect society to babysit her. Or to sacrifice our health in order to guarantee that the worst possible things happen to her if she defies your rigid norms.
A reasonable parent would be afraid of their 14-year-old having sex because she might get pregnant. Unless you're some kind of child abuser who gets off on the idea of pregnancy as punishment, you should hope that your 14-year-old takes care of the pregnancy prevention part herself, even when you can't prevent her from having sex. Otherwise, you're hoping that your daughter gets punished for her defiance with an unwanted, unsafe, and unhealthy pregnancy. If that's the way you think, you don't deserve to be a parent.
thanks arex you raise some good points. My kids are not that age yet but your right. If a fourteen year old is sexually active, more often than not its with someone much older. I can't call myself pro life because I do not oppose abortion in all cases (rape obviously). (Though in light of the fact that emergency rooms routinely provide rape victims with emg contraception its only going to occour if the rape also involved an extended kidnapping or for some reason the victim couldn't get to a hospital). However, I agree that most of the pro lifers I know have no opposition to birth control. I think even most traditional feminists (pro choice, democrats, generally left of center) are pretty horrified to see the glorification of underage sexual activity (usually statuatory rape) as well as the increasing bizarre promotion of prostitution as if its just another career choice.
If a fourteen year old is sexually active, more often than not its with someone much older.
Please provide evidence for this [patently silly] assertion.
(Though in light of the fact that emergency rooms routinely provide rape victims with emg contraception its only going to occour if the rape also involved an extended kidnapping or for some reason the victim couldn't get to a hospital)
It's a bit of a stretch to say that an extended kidnapping is the only reason that a rape survivor would not be able to get emergency contraception. Since rape is so traumatic, it's reasonable to assume that many survivors to not want to deal with the added stress and humiliation of going to the hospital immediately after it happened. Even if they wanted to go to t hospital, the victim may not have the support network, resources, or transportation to get the help they need. Also, last time I got Plan B, the pamplet thing said it was only 87% effective with perfect use. Perfect use is taking the first pill taken within 72 hours and the second pill taken 12 hours after that.
I can't call myself pro life because I do not oppose abortion in all cases (rape obviously).
The attitude behind this statement worries me. Supporting abortion in the case of rape but not in the case of consensual sex implies that a girl or woman automatically consents to becoming pregnant any time she consents to sex with a guy. Any woman who has sex without being open to pregnancy is morally in the wrong, since she is attempting to avoid the consequences of her actions.
However, I agree that most of the pro lifers I know have no opposition to birth control.
Most people who are smarter than the average bear agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies is the only way to prevent abortions. However, tell that to the Catholic Church (not individual Catholics--but the institution's official policies). Tell that to states that are trying to ban methods of birth control like IUDs and Plan B that can prevent implantation.
I think even most traditional feminists (pro choice, democrats, generally left of center) are pretty horrified to see the glorification of underage sexual activity (usually statuatory rape) as well as the increasing bizarre promotion of prostitution as if its just another career choice.
You might be surprised to find that dictionary-definition feminism is the center. Women should have the same rights as men. Men should have the same rights as women. I guess the other side (not a side as much as a fringe) just had better PR people, since the general public seems to think "feminists" are ugly, shrill, woman-supremest, man-haters who sit around impregnating each other with turkey bastors and not shaving their legs. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that doesn't stop most people from shying away from calling themselves "feminists" even though they hold feminist beliefs.
I hadn't noticed that prostitution was being accepted as any other career choice. We can probably agree that changes need to be made to the way society handles prostitutes, since currently they can't call the police to report crimes (rape, battery, etc) committed against them, since they will probably get arrested for being a prostitute.
Tell that to states that are trying to ban methods of birth control like IUDs and Plan B that can prevent implantation.
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that IUDs and Plan B work by preventing implantation. I wish the pharmaceutical companies would stop wimping out and including this 'possibility' just because nobody has eliminated the possibility that it MIGHT happen.
Science CANNOT prove a negative. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the use of IUDs isn't keeping the northern ice cap from reaching its historic mass or that Plan B doesn't cause deforestation in Brazil, but neither of those negatives is dignified by a line in the package insert.
