Progressive Prolifers at the Progressive Magazine's Hundredth Anniversary Bash
crossposted at Nonviolent Choice, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
And we weren't gate crashers, either. We were there as part of the festivities, sometimes recognized, sometimes not, sometimes welcomed, sometimes not.
For starters, take two of the speakers on the official program, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and political scientist Stephen Zunes. Most of the event wasn't about abortion, and these two activists were both present to speak on issues other than abortion (yes, progressive prolifers *really do* care about a whole slew of social justice issues). But their respective stances on that particular subject are a matter of public knowledge.
Anyone with Internet access can look up Marcy Kaptur's legislative record. Including her good record on labor, LGBT rights, family planning, and maternal/child health and welfare, among other recognizable-to-all progressive concerns.
Stephen supports the mission of Consistent Life, an international network of over 200 pro-every life organizations (including Nonviolent Choice). With peace psychologist Rachel MacNair, he co-edited the recent anthology Consistently Opposing Killing (Praeger, 2008).
Rachel and I are friends who go way, way back and have long histories of our own with Consistent Life. We team-staffed a literature table for CL in the exhibit hall at the Progressive Magazine celebration. Our table featured a large, eye-catching banner: "Prolifers for Peace, Peaceworkers for Life."
And who was the very first person to approach us, when we were still setting the table up? A young man who told us he was prolife, but did not feel free to disclose this opinion in progressive circles. Throughout the day, we met a number of pro-every life women and men who also gladly outed themselves to us.
And quite a few of the people who stopped by were prochoicers who said lovely, hospitable things like, "I may not agree with you about everything, but I'm glad you're here" and "I like your kind of prolife." We had good, respectful dialogues about relieving the root causes of abortion as well as better understanding our areas of disagreement. Including not one but two long conversations with an abortion clinic escort.
Rachel and I enjoyed the overall positive climate of these exchanges. In our long pasts with this sort of thing, we have both routinely experienced some rather difficult difficulties at literature tables. Yes, not everyone of the prochoice persuasion would do this, to be sure...But numerous prochoicers have quite rudely and precipitously mistaken us for some pretty horrid things that just a little polite conversation would quickly reveal us to be decidedly not.
No doubt prochoicers who staff literature tables are also quite familiar with this sort of abruptly unloosed torrent of verbiage that leaves not one unflooded space for response or engagement or self-defense...and it's not much fun, is it?
Although, especially later, it may afford some consolations of comedy. Rachel and I still laugh about the woman who long ago ran up and sternly ordered her, "Stop taking orders from the Pope!" When in fact Rachel is a dedicated Quaker, and the Society of Friends does not even have ministers, for Christ's sake! because that mess is just too durn hierarchical and authoritarian.
We didn't know quite what to expect at the Progressive Magazine event. But not a single person came up to our table and issued one of those dreaded adhominem rants, or scolded us along the lines of "What the hell are *YOU PEOPLE* doing here? Get the f*** out!" Which has also happened, far more than once...that is, when we haven't been excluded from the event before we even got in the door.
That's progress among progressives, for real.
Now, a few folks did raise eyebrows at our banner or shake their heads and walk briskly away. And once, when I was by myself at the table, I did distinctly see and hear a pair of conferencegoers stop dead in their tracks, proclaim "Yikes!" and turn aboutface in their tracks...
As if there were not a quite involved and invested sentient being (me!) taking all this in just inches away. And a sentient being at the ready to make eye contact and smile (sincerely, not fakily) at them in passing, at the very least, and if they allowed, to ask them, quite seriously, what specifically was behind that "Yikes!"
I did want to know, I did want to listen, but if people don't give you an opening...But any of these responses sure beat the bad old unreality-based ad hominem rant.
However, something quite troubling did happen to Rachel, after I had taken my leave of the conference and its nonproletarian-priced celebrity fundraising events on my customary posh, high-roller mode of transit, the Greyhound bus.
Rachel attended a price-included-in-exhbitor-pass bigwig panel discussion on the future of the progressive movement. During the question/comment period, she pointed out the existence of progressive prolifers. She recommended that the progressive movement as a whole work with us to reach people who otherwise might not give progressive values and politics any serious hearing.
Now, Rachel says she wasn't going on any longer, and probably was going on shorter, than others who lined up behind the questioners' mikes. I did attend previous panel discussions, and there sure were a lot of talkative folks with strong opinions who leapt up behind those mikes the instant they were switched on.
But the bigwigs on the panel grumbled that they could see where Rachel was going with this (they could? how did they know before she went there?) There amidst the advocates of free speeach, she was summarily cut off. "Free speech for me but not for thee..."
Then the panel bigwigs unleashed a number of statements Rachel had no chance to publicly respond to. One panel member, for example, criticized the Pope's statements about condoms in Africa--as if "prolife" meant you automatically bowed in obedience to those words, of course.
And no one openly challenged the censorship dynamic here. Indeed, there was apparently a lot of applause for it.
Rachel tells me what else she would have said if her mike had not been cut off:
"I would have responded by re-iterating and bringing [the panelists] back to the point I was actually making about outreach, rather than responding to non-sequiturs. There were several bizarre points made that I could have taken issue with, had I had all afternoon, but I would have kept on track because the session was about the future of the progressive movement and I was keeping on track even if they weren't."
(Now me, I would've explained how those "bizarre points" were nonsequiturs, *then* returned to the matter of outreach. But that's me.)
On the other hand, some women in the audience approached Rachel afterwards and shared their own reproductive challenges. They quickly grasped that hers was not prolife-as-expected, and they all ended up hugging each other.
But why were complex, nuanced, empathetic, very human, small-scale interactions like these--the kinds of exchanges we had both experienced elsewhere in the conference--not reflected in the overt, bigwig-marshalled, publicly unchallenged group dynamics that cut off Rachel's mike?
Like Rachel would tell you if she had half a chance--that question matters to the future of the progressive movement, to the hundred more years we wish the dear old Progressive Magazine.
Excellent info about the Progressive pro life movement. Thanks!
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Pro-choicers and progressives would gladly approach you if you made clear that you do not favor criminalizing abortion, nor stigmatizing the choice or legitimacy of having one. However, previous discussions on this site have shown you to take the view that all abortions can be prevented by providing enough support or resources to the woman. There is no room in your world for a woman who wants an abortion, regardless of how much you can do for her. (I know that you don't favor making abortion illegal, but getting you to actually say as much was like pulling teeth. You kept dancing around the point until you were pinned down on it.)
There is room for collaboration on providing contraception, aid to pregnant women, etc., of course, but if the core of your advocacy does not include a strong respect for the choices and autonomy of women, even when the choice is not the one you hope for, then your agenda is ultimately about control and will be an awkward fit in the progressive movement in general. Not to say that we wouldn't prefer progressive pro-lifers to the alternative, but styling yourselves as misunderstood Good Guys(tm) is dishonest and self-serving.
"styling yourselves as misunderstood Good Guys(tm) is dishonest and self-serving." That is not dishonesty, that is how progressive prolifers see ourselves, just as you pro choicers often "cry me a river" and claim to be the misunderstood good guys because that's how you see yourselves. You seem to feel that Marysia is being dishonest and self serving because she doesn't see her own position the way you do.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
When people advocate--especially when they try to advocate in a complex, nuanced, non-blaming way--for social justice measures that challenge existing power structures...they often encounter misunderstanding, hostility, and censorship.
it goes with the territory. that doesn't make others' less than optimal treatment right or justifiable, but it does happen. a lot. If i cried rivers over it, I'd get rapidly dehydrated and need some IVs on a regular basis!
This sort of negative response happens to activists from a wide variety of movements, not only progressive prolifers. I'm not trademarking any "Good Guys"--for one, most of the progressive prolifers I know are women, not guys!
And when activists of any stripe feel they are encountering this sort of response, they have every right to point out what is happening.
In US culture, the quickest way to discredit someone who complains about something unfair is to mark them as a crybaby.
As if one were supposed to "suck it up and take it" or "take your lumps your evil self is due"--presuming, of course, that anything problematic really did happen anywhere other than in the dratted crybaby's over heated, self serving, dishonest imagination...
I decline to accept your use of this tactic against the story I have told.
Why should I have any less right to identify and object to dismissive and undermining responses than, say, a prochoicer who encountered this sort of thing from prolifers?
because I'm one of "Those People" and ding dong, QED, I'm "Wrong"? so therefore I can't say a word about it? Is it OK to say something only if someone is in the "Right" in your eyes?
It's not dishonest or self-serving to talk about this when it happens. This stuff happened at the conference, and over the decades I've seen a lot worse that also bears telling.
Sometimes it makes some prochoicers uncomfortable to hear about this stuff from the "enemy" vantage point. Because it's supposed to be "antichoicers" who are all closeminded, hostile, censoring. But no movement has a monopoly on those unfortunate traits. Alas, they are everywhere under the sun...
I never said that *all* abortions can be prevented through providing resources. Even in a situation of optimal, ideal medical care, for example, a few pregnancies will endanger women's lives.
But so many of the problems put on pregnant woman and their babies are social constructions contrived and imposed through human agency, and human agency can and should dismantle them.
People in the US especially haven't bothered very much to do that. We have the resources to make a very different world, but because women and children, born and unborn, are not really valued, we don't bother.
OK, if I don't think legality/illegality is the deepest, most decisive question concerning abortion, but alleviating its root causes--and so I don't devote my energies to expounding or acting on the matter of the law--how is that hiding anything or dancing around or being dishonest because I'm coming from a somewhat different place than the debate-as usual?
Just because you want to see me that way, as an evader or deceiver?
Am I supposed to be fitted into the terms that others immediately recognize? or is my job and contribution in this whole mess of the abortion debate to be what I have to offer, regardless of whether that means I can be readily slotted into pre-existing categories or not?
I *do* have a strong respect for women's autonomy and choices. Why else would I advocate strongly for nonabortion choices and be so concerned about all the situational pressures upon women to have abortions? The vast, vast majority of women in this world have abortions in situations of *disempowerment.*
But does our right to choose--assuming some women are ever in situations where they can fully and freely exercise that, which in the global picture now is rare to nonexistent-- include the right to take the life of an unconsenting other? Does any human have that right over another? If you are concerned about control, isn't that's a question to ask and be concerned about, too?
What you are saying sound likes: I don't want to work with you unless you become just like me on abortion.
But common ground or coalition building is about working with people on things you all deem necessary, whatever your genuine and conscientiously held differences.
It's not--my way or the highway. In human history, that's never been known to get anything done.
Hoping that someday we will understand one another, even when and where we do not agree....
Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
or take dismissing the human life actually does exist prior to conception (which truly is a pro-every life stance being all inclusive of all human life, regardless of someones personal belief) as ridiculous like you did in a prior blog in a comment. The anti-contraception crowd has just as much right to claim progressive.
You are trying to assert that my stance on prenatal life is absurd by associating it with a viewpoint that scientifically does not hold water.
Biology does differentiate a great deal between an ovum or a sperm cell and the entity set in motion by their combination.
The abortion debate is not over this science so much as it is over whether the being set in motion by conception is to be treated as *socially* and not alone in the biological sense as a human life/a full-fledged human life.
And that's why is it wholly fair for prochoicers to ask abortion opponents if they hold consistent prolife views on such matters as the death penalty, war, and social service programs.
Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
Zygote is combined, the prior stage of sperm and ovum is not combined. We get that. A zygote is one cell/no organs a baby is multi-cellular and physical organs.
And I didn't say 'absurd', however you did say 'ridiculous' in your response in the prior blog/comment.
yes, i did say 'ridiculous' in that context. scientifically speaking, it is ridiculous to equate sperm or ova with an already conceived life form.
however, it is not scientifically ridiculous to regard the already conceived life form as a continuous individual life, in a sense that the sperm and ovum which went into his/her/its makeup were not.
the debate is over the social value attributed to that life form.
Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
Nope. I don't believe two separate embryo entities that combine into one to form a single baby are really two people. Or that a single entity that splits into two post-conception is somehow still one individual. You probably have your own reasons around these cases but anyone can call that reasoning ridiculous too.
BTW, sperm and egg are continuous into the embryo…it may take a sex act (without an artificial barrier/pill) to put them together but so does development rely on implantation to continue, type of development on neural tube closure, etc. and very importantly it relies on the womans body continous interacting to maintain its life for development to be continuous. A normal, healthy embryo in a Petri dish can continue to “grow” but it will not “develop” along the path to becoming a baby – it will only turmorize.
People have just as much right to draw the line even earlier than you in a pro-every life stance.
Marysia, I can't make heads or tails of all this and I don't want to jump to conclusions - are you simply personally pro-life, or do you support making abortion illegal for everyone (or nearly everyone)?
The thing is, I don't approach the debate in those terms. My focus is on alleviating the root causes of abortion, which will need to be alleviated whether/to what extent abortion is legal/illegal. I have decided, personally, to neither work for/against any laws, in order to devote energies to the root causes alone.
Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
When people advocate--especially when they try to advocate in a complex, nuanced, non-blaming way--for social justice measures that challenge existing power structures...they often encounter misunderstanding, hostility, and censorship.
Advocating in such a complex way, that you tiptoe around the most basic points of skepticism that pro-choicers have about your position. You say, "Oh, criminalizing abortion is not important for us," but it's very important for folks who have good reason to suspect a wolf in sheep's clothing, after decades of supposedly "pro-woman" efforts by mainstream pro-lifers.
This sort of negative response happens to activists from a wide variety of movements, not only progressive prolifers. I'm not trademarking any "Good Guys"--for one, most of the progressive prolifers I know are women, not guys!
I used "Good Guys" because "Good Girls" has another meaning altogether. Feel free to consider my criticism as a generic "negative response" no different than that received by other activists, as opposed to a statement specifically built on what you've said in the past. But if you enjoy playing the part of a martyr, then please spare everyone the pretense of complaining about it.
Why should I have any less right to identify and object to dismissive and undermining responses than, say, a prochoicer who encountered this sort of thing from prolifers?
Because you're engaging in sophistry, Marysia. You're saying, "Hey everyone, I may be pro-life, but I believe in addressing abortion via contraception and sex ed and all that good stuff! I'm totally with you guys!" when your advocacy is built on a premise that negates the whole principle of respect for a woman's agency.
because I'm one of "Those People" and ding dong, QED, I'm "Wrong"? so therefore I can't say a word about it? Is it OK to say something only if someone is in the "Right" in your eyes?
No, it's perfectly fine for you to advocate your position, and collaborate with pro-choicers on the points held in common. What's wrong, however---the point where you, in effect, become the crybaby---is in wanting to be fully embraced as a "Progressive." You're certainly progressive for a pro-lifer, I'll give you that. But you still have some pretty regressive ideas at the heart of your advocacy, and people are going to rightfully object if you try to claim otherwise.
I never said that *all* abortions can be prevented through providing resources. Even in a situation of optimal, ideal medical care, for example, a few pregnancies will endanger women's lives.
I don't mean abortions that are medically necessary. I mean, abortions where the woman could have had a perfectly healthy child, with no adverse effect to her, and yet she doesn't want to go through with that. Where you could give her a million dollars, a long-term nanny, and a luxury house in the Hamptons, and she still says no. If you cannot respect that decision on her part, then for all the collaboration that you could do with pro-choicers, there is still going to be this philosophical chasm in between.
But so many of the problems put on pregnant woman and their babies are social constructions contrived and imposed through human agency, and human agency can and should dismantle them.
Sure, and that's all fine and good. Where you go wrong is in thinking that the ultimate result of such dismantling is an elective abortion rate of zero.
OK, if I don't think legality/illegality is the deepest, most decisive question concerning abortion, but alleviating its root causes--and so I don't devote my energies to expounding or acting on the matter of the law--how is that hiding anything or dancing around or being dishonest because I'm coming from a somewhat different place than the debate-as usual?
The hiding occurs when someone asks you about this very point, and you don't give a clear answer. What's wrong with saying, "No, I don't believe elective abortion should be criminalized, nor do I advocate for that?" Why do you have such a problem with just coming out and saying that?
Am I supposed to be fitted into the terms that others immediately recognize? or is my job and contribution in this whole mess of the abortion debate to be what I have to offer, regardless of whether that means I can be readily slotted into pre-existing categories or not?
Blame your non-progressive colleagues, then, because they've tried a whole number of different tacks on the anti-choice advocacy. If you're not going to do the basic diligence of putting people's misgivings to rest, then they have very good reason to be skeptical of your angle.
I *do* have a strong respect for women's autonomy and choices. Why else would I advocate strongly for nonabortion choices and be so concerned about all the situational pressures upon women to have abortions? The vast, vast majority of women in this world have abortions in situations of *disempowerment.*
You're just making my point for me. You believe that all women considering (elective) abortion think, "I can't have this baby because ...". The woman does not exist in your world who thinks "I don't want to have a baby right now."
But does our right to choose--assuming some women are ever in situations where they can fully and freely exercise that, which in the global picture now is rare to nonexistent-- include the right to take the life of an unconsenting other? Does any human have that right over another? If you are concerned about control, isn't that's a question to ask and be concerned about, too?
And there you have it. The question of whether a fetus is an "other" to which the concept of "consent" is even applicable, is one of the big ones that pro-choicers hold cannot be answered (because the answer depends on one's faith, which is not universal). But you, like regular non-progressive pro-lifers, already have the answer to that question. And that answer informs all your advocacy.
What you are saying sound likes: I don't want to work with you unless you become just like me on abortion. But common ground or coalition building is about working with people on things you all deem necessary, whatever your genuine and conscientiously held differences.
I, and other pro-choicers, would be happy to work with you in a "common-ground" approach. Where I (and others) object, however, is your efforts to ingratiate yourself into a movement with whom you disagree on some pretty fundamental points.
Hoping that someday we will understand one another, even when and where we do not agree....
Oh, I think we understand each other, and on what we agree and disagree. I just hope you'll find that truth in advertising is a good thing, and that you're willing to take the lumps for the points on which you disagree with the pro-choice movement.
I disagree that we have achieved that level of understanding. For one, you seem to assume that my stance on abortion is based on sectarian faith, when it decidedly isn't.
We have a ways to go here...
I have not lied about anything I think or do. Please do not mistake complexity or nuance for deception and evasion.
I should not have to "take lumps" for things I do not advocate. As for "taking lumps" for those things I do advocate--that is tantamount to saying I "ask for" any disrespectful treatment I get, that I've basically "got it coming" to me...
Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
did she really come out against making 'abortion illegal'? or just against 'criminalizing women'? I read and understood only the latter. The former will still make it inaccessible to many women who really want it based upon their own needs/desires/beliefs about fetal development and whether their body should be used to maintain life (not to be confused always with societal pressures to abort as women do think for themselves too). Criminalizing abortion, without criminalizing women, can make it inaccessible to many of these women regardless of whether they themselves will face jail time.
did she really come out against making 'abortion illegal'? or just against 'criminalizing women'? I read and understood only the latter.
I thought she just didn't really care one way or the other, but that's only what I recall offhand. You could be right---she twisted and equivocated so much on this point that I could have misread her.
Her answer is in her diary entry with fifty-some replies (I'd post a link to the specific comment but I don't think I can--it's on the first page, though). It pretty much boils down to not working for or against abortion legally, just, as best I can gather, trying to make abortion unthinkable (1. money, 2. education, 3. ?, 4. PROFIT, er, no abortions?).
You know, you all don't need to talk about me in the third person, as if I weren't here, in the space of my own diary, too....
Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
Its third person only because I was replying to the first Anonymous' comment which yes, happened to regard their summary of prior conversations with you...but I was replying to the content as I thought I read it summarized in Anonymous' comment itself .
I was replying to the first anonymous and attempting to summarize your comment (if somewhat snarkily). Imagine, people discussing your ideas among each other. Most bloggers would approve.
As this comment *is* to you, however, let me thank you. My short stories are enhanced by your philosophy and its logical repercussions.
It's not the discussion of ideas i object to. not in the least. you apparently do not understand how pro free speech and anti censorship i am. so kindly please do not interpret my statement as a call to censor disagreement and discussion.
it's something else entirely i object to--it's the talking about me like i'm not here, an equal part of the conversation.
this tactic is sometimes what people do,consciously or unconsciously, to distance themselves from others they regard as "less than."
now i have no idea what you are writing about in your short stories. but if you interpret my request for the same respect others would want for themselves as an attempt to squelch discussion and censor disagreement and bring on fascistic dystopia...i think it's fair to say, you misinterpret.
Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
....distance ourselves from someone we regard as "less than"? I know you are here, you wrote the blog and have been active commenting. I never assumed you wouldn't see the comment or have a chance to comment. BTW, I was also previously exchanged posts with you on the Pro-Voice blog where you didn't want to respond to questioning you so specific about your stance on abortion being illegal...and again my comment above was responding only to the summary in the first Anonymous comment .
ok, i'm sorry if this does not apply...it's just that all too many times, i have had people use this put-one-in-the-third-person thing as a form of intentional disrespect.
so, apologies if this was not the case.
i
Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
I have no idea how you think such comments should be phrased, then. I would certainly think an unwritten "Marysia, do you agree/etc?" would be invoked by simple virtue of this being your diary. It seems fairly normal for blogs, especially those that generate a lot of comments.
And, no, it's not your "my request for the same respect others would want for themselves as an attempt to squelch discussion and censor disagreement and bring on fascistic dystopia" that is such a rich seam of inspiration, just progressive pro-life-ism in general, and, in a broader sense, when good intentions run smack into the brick wall of reality.
Imagine, people discussing your ideas among each other. Most bloggers would approve.
Bingo. Its fairly common practice for commenter's to weigh in on summaries of the authors viewpoint that had been posted by other commenters...e.g. 'Did Amanda really say that...or did she say this other thing'
but this is the crux of the issue.
Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. It is *pro-choice.* It is a philosophy that recognizes that not everyone has the same moral or philosophical construct as you do for a fertilized egg, blastocyst, pregnancy that is 5 or 7 or 12 weeks along. It recognizes the diversity of moral, religious, ethical and personal opinion.
You claim that: I never said that *all* abortions can be prevented through providing resources. Even in a situation of optimal, ideal medical care, for example, a few pregnancies will endanger women's lives. But so many of the problems put on pregnant woman and their babies are social constructions contrived and imposed through human agency, and human agency can and should dismantle them.
But this is by definition an agenda in which you impose your standards on and restrict the choices of others. And also, it does not recognize that with all the social supports in the world some women, many women, millions of women simply do not want (a) or another child. It is not for you to decide for them. This is why in effect it is not a progressive position, because it denies the rights of people in a morally contested space to exercise their own religious and moral beliefs, not be imprisoned by yours.
Thanks, Jodi
I agree with Jodi here. I am one of those women who, no matter how much money, social support, nannies, etc., would still abort if I got pregnant. I simply do not want, ever, another child. I have two and I'm done. I'm OCD about birth control and always very careful. But shit does happen and I'm one of those hyper-fertile women that you hear about and getting pregnant by 'accident' is always a possibility. And there is nothing, nothing, that could ever convince me to have another child.
And if you can't respect that choice on my part and think that just waving it all away with 'social support' will make me change it, then you aren't respecting me as a woman *or* as a mother. And thus you can't *really* call yourself progressive.
And on a side note that really isn't relevant to the main topic of the post--I live in Marcy Kaptur's district and I generally really like her and think she is a fine representative. I've met her (she goes to the same church as some good friends of mine and we talked at their kids' first communion) and she seems really nice in person too. However, I have never voted for her in a primary and only vote for her in general elections as a lesser of two evils (because I would never vote for a Republican, ever--Democrat is as conservative as I'll go) precisely because she isn't pro-choice.
I have to agree with ks, Jodi and colleen here. There are times in my life where if I did get pregnant, my choice would be abortion. It has nothing to do with giving me economic support or other support. I can think for myself instead of caving in to societal pressures from either direction.
ks,
i don't think all women "should" have kids, let alone as many kids as possible. i stopped at one child myself, purposefully. i do empathize with not wanting to have another child, ever. i have been in that situation and like you have been obsessive compulsive about contraception--while knowing all too well that it still might not work as intended.
now i don't want to make any assumptions about your own personal motives here. but i would like to raise larger questions, at the collective level:
why are we a kind of society in which women are left to struggle with such imperfect methods of contraception?
why don't we as a whole have the respect for women and women's fears and desires to make existent methods as close to foolproof as possible?
why is that our culture exalts penis-vagina sex--the only kind that can possibly result in conception--above all others? why are the rest looked upon as "foreplay" or "side dishes"? When there are so many possible forms of sexual pleasure between consenting adults that have absolutely no associated risk of pregnancy--as LGBT people so often know more than heterosexuals do?
and what is it about our culture that makes taking a prenatal life appear to so many better/less bad than having others raise the child?
if we dealt collectively with this issues, i do believe that the contexts of women's individual decisions will be radically, radically altered--in favor of both women's and unborn children's lives.
Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
Some women aren't huge into foreplay and not accepting of it without intercourse. I'm one of them. I don't care if you call it the side dish or main course. I'll exalt it however I please....in my sex life I'll determine what goes/doesn't go.
Sure, there are other ways to be sexual besides just PIV sex, and I enjoy that stuff in and of itself. But I also very much enjoy PIV sex and I don't think I should have to give it up. That is why I use birth control and that is why I'll save abortion for a back up method if the birth control fails. And sure, better birth control would be nice (I'm actually thinking of sterilization, but I don't want to have surgery if I don't have to), but even then, nothing is 100%. Except my desire to not have any more children.
And letting someone else raise a child I gave birth to is also not an option, as I don't think I could give up a child of mine. I know people who have and every single one of them wishes they had not--I think it's a much more painful experience than we as a society let on to. And besides, I don't want to ever be pregnant again anyway. I hated every single second of being pregnant, and I did it twice on purpose. If I were forced (or coerced or guilted or shamed into) to carry another pregnancy to term, I know that I couldn't bring myself to give it up, but I would also resent that child for being born when I didn't want it. That wouldn't be fair to me or to the child or to my other two children--better that it never be born at all.
So yeah, with better societal support, etc., some women would make different choices and continue pregnancies to term and have children and either raise the kids themselves or let someone else (although I think that if there were more societal support for working/young/single/whatever mothers, there would be way, way less children put up for adoption), but there will always, always be women like me who just will not.
Jodi,
I never equated pro choice with "pro abortion." In fact, when I hear prolifers talk about "pro aborts," I challenge them on this and explain that, yes, really, prochoicers see their position as one of many choices, not only abortion...
if I didn't recognize and respect the fact that prochoicers mean it when they say "prochoice, not proabortion" about sexual/reproductive options--then there really wouldn't be any prospect of common ground, would there?
Now, here is a point on which we do disagree...
People hold a range of views on whether this sort of biologically human form of life or that one also counts socially as human.
But the simple fact that there is a range of views does not in and of itself determine whether the biological life form under dispute should be treated as socially human across the board, or treated variably according to that range of views.
After all, people have a range of views about, for example, immigrants, people on death row, women, LGBT people, people of color...
But when someone defends immigrants or death row prisoners or just about any other kind of biologically human life form but a prenatal one--it is seldom regarded as enough to counterargue "there is a range of views about the status of this kind of being."
So, there are other considerations involved here...And anyway, I don't think questions of life and death and who counts as socially human are not the same as genuinely sectarian questions like, what kind of daily prayers or ritual, or what/who is the Divine if there is any such thing...
I hope this makes some kind of sense....
Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
Marysia said: "But so many of the problems put on pregnant woman and their babies are social constructions contrived and imposed through human agency, and human agency can and should dismantle them."
You replied: "But this is by definition an agenda in which you impose your standards on and restrict the choices of others."
How? How is taking unjust social burdens off of pregnant and parenting women an agenda in which we impose our standards on and restrict the choices of others? Restrict whose choices? Those who would abandon their pregnant partners or children? Those who would keep us from having universal health care? Those who have spent the last thirty years dismantling the social safety net? Those who don't want to accomodate the needs of parenting women in the workplace and schools? Since when do feminists stand up for their choices?
I think she's heard from those who would fall into the 'restrict whose choices?' category, people who have been commenting here and on one of the prior blogs and saying they would not carry a pregnancy to term regardless of these other efforts to improve conditions (and also support improving these other conditions for other women and also for other reasons). Deciding to have an abortion can happen even if there is a supportive partner, health care, etc.
I understand that there are some women who just don't want to bear children, even under the best conditions in the world. As does Marysia, I'd add, having known her for years.
But Jodi was replying to the part of Marysia's comment about removing the burdens on women, and saying *that* was restricting people's choices.
Jodi: "I just don't believe this, and I do believe there is a very very fine line between "offering" social supports (why not to all pregnant women and those struggling to care for the families they have?) and coercion of women."
This seems pretty non sequitur given that I was talking about things such as health care, accomodating the needs of parents in the workplace, etc.
It's impossible to work towards a world where women are forced to gestate and give birth to children they do not want and call yourselves progressive. The 'pro-life' position, because it dehumanizes women, is intrinsically authoritarian, dehumanizing and fundamentally flawed.
The problem isn't that you are misunderstood, we understand quite well. The problem is a deep, fundamental difference in basic values. You believe it's possible to force, cajole, manipulate and shame women into adopting the notion that a fertilized ova or a 10 week old fetus is a 'person' and that said 'person' is every woman's raison d'être but most of us strongly disagree on both counts.
Is abortion a litmus test for whether one counts as progressive or not?
Or is it not possible to derive from progressive values a range of views on abortion--some prolife, some prochoice?
Is this not a matter on which reasonable and compassionate people can possibly have disagreements?
Prochoicers are right on the money to ask professed prolifers: "Are you pro life on death row? Are you pro the lives of women and children who are threatened by social program cuts? Are you pro the lives of human beings threatened by war?" Etc, etc, etc, etc...
But why is that when prolifers are prolifers who *can* answer, and honestly, "Yes, of course, yes, of course, yes, of course" to all those fair inquiries and more: suddenly those answers don't seem to count for much of anything?
Now, if you feel that you, as a prochoicer, have been misunderstood by a prolifer: you are the arbiter of whether or not you have been understood, are you not?
It's a good principle in human interactions, and of nonviolent communication--when someone protests they have not been understood, to find out--from *them,* the source, directly...
...why they feel that way, and to try to understand them better, as *they* understand themselves, on their own terms, not simply as *you* understand them on *your* terms.
Even if you disagree with them, and remain in disagreement with them.
Does this principle suddenly not apply when prolifers claim that prochoicers have not understood them?
Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
Jodi,
i agree.
i think when it comes down to it, this is the essential point of difference between prolife and prochoice on abortion.
so, it appears...prochoicers generally believe the status of the fetus is a matter of inidividual judgment, because fetuses are unlike other biologically human life forms due to their dependency for life on women, and therefore have a different social standing than already-born people.
prolifers generally believe that just like other biological humans, fetuses have certain rights or social claims in a political sense even though they are dependent for survival on women...some who identify as prolife think women as well share in universal human rights and social claims, and some decidedly do not...i'm in the former not the latter camp...
Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
she also mentioned different moral and philosophical constructs for the fertilized egg.
didn't finish the sentence here...not just for the fertilized egg but also pregnancy that is 5 or 7 or 12 weeks along...which includes mention of different moral and philosophical constructs for the fetus too. Its not just a dependency issue.
Very good, Marysia. Now answer this: why should our government enforce your beliefs through the rule of law, and ignore my beliefs altogether? What makes you so right, and me so wrong, to the extent that if I do something counter to your beliefs -- have an abortion -- I should be put in jail? [Surely if a fetus is a person, and abortion means killing a person, the killer should go to jail]. Do you really believe the government should take sides between us, and if so, why should the government side with you?
Good ness, who said anything about putting people in jail?!
This is not a retributive-justice kind of issue!
What makes me so right, and you so wrong?
Sheesh... I really don't even think in those terms...but in terms of "What actions are constructive or destructive to individuals and to the social fabric? What can be done to help promote constructive practices and alleviate destructive ones?"
Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
Is abortionMay 7, 2009 - 2:40pm
<blockquote>Is abortion a litmus test for whether one counts as progressive or not?
</blockquote>
I don't know. I do know it's a litmus test for me and millions of other politically aware women.
<blockquote> Or is it not possible to derive from progressive values a range of views on abortion--some prolife, some prochoice? </blockquote>
I’ve no interest in furthering the careers or ideas of people who work towards a world where other women are forced to carry to term children they do not want just as I’ve no interest in voting for politicians or shutting up about churches who/that hold such authoritarian and harmful attitudes. If it turns out that forcing women to carry to term children they do not want is a position held by ‘progressives’ then I will be pointing out just how oxymoronic self styled ‘progressives’ are.
I would also like to add that you don’t present yourself as someone who is opposed to the DP or poverty or torture or war, you present yourself as ‘pro-life’ and are posting on a blog devoted to reproductive issues. Indeed you even presented yourself as ‘pro-life’ at the convention you attended.
<blockquote> Is this not a matter on which reasonable and compassionate people can possibly have disagreements? </blockquote>
Denying women their bodily sovereignty, freedom of conscience and personal autonomy aren’t minor disagreements. We have huge, fundamental differences and it seems to me that one chooses one’s political descriptions based on values and ideas. I believe, no, I KNOW, that if folks who work towards a world where women are forced to carry to term children they do not want prevail the results will be neither compassionate or reasonable. It’s already something of a problem.
<blockquote> Prochoicers are right on the money to ask professed prolifers: "Are you pro life on death row? Are you pro the lives of women and children who are threatened by social program cuts? Are you pro the lives of human beings threatened by war." Etc, etc, etc, etc... </blockquote>
Thanks for the permission but it really wasn’t something I needed.
<blockquote>But why is that when prolifers are prolifers who *can* answer, and honestly, "Yes, of course, yes, of course, yes, of course" to all those fair inquiries and more: suddenly those answers don't seem to count for much of anything? </blockquote>
Because you work towards a world where women are forced to carry to term children they do not want and you’re doing so on a blog devoted to reproductive issues..
--I would also like to add that you don’t present yourself as someone who is opposed to the DP or poverty or torture or war, you present yourself as ‘pro-life’ and are posting on a blog devoted to reproductive issues. Indeed you even presented yourself as ‘pro-life’ at the convention you attended.--
OK, the organization I tabled for takes stands not simply on abortion, but against/for positive alternatives to/ the death penalty, racism, poverty, war, and violations of disability rights. These are all stands I have advocated and worked for, for a long time, as well as pro environmental and animal concerns and pro feminism, including the reproductive rights of comprehensive sex ed, LGBT rights, family planning, HIV/Aids prevention and treatment, maternal child health and social welfare programs...
how many letters do i have to write (and i do write then, all the time, because i have no money to give but i can give my one voice) to public officials, pleading for the lives of prisoners on death row, or against waterboarding, or for expansion of unfpa and title x family planning funds, or for same sex marriage equality, or for stricter mercury pollution standards and curbs on greenhouse gases, or for paid leave, living wage, and universal health insurance, before anyone will believe that i am genuinely a progressive?
i am seeking to reclaim the term "prolife" so that instead of mere opposition to abortion, or the conservative values so often encoded by the term, rightly or not, it means pro *every* life, already born as well as unborn.
i do recognize that in terms of already born lives, some prochoicers do a lot better in effect at that than some who identify as prolife!
i just wish more prochoicers would recognize that some of us who identify as prolife share that concern for already born lives--including and especially the lives of women--to a much, much greater extent than we are customarily given credit for.
--Denying women their bodily sovereignty, freedom of conscience and personal autonomy aren’t minor disagreements. We have huge, fundamental differences and it seems to me that one chooses one’s political descriptions based on values and ideas. I believe, no, I KNOW, that if folks who work towards a world where women are forced to carry to term children they do not want prevail the results will be neither compassionate or reasonable. It’s already something of a problem. --
ok, i do understand, i think, that that's how 'prolife" appears from prochoice eyes. it must appear pretty ugly.
but please try to see where i'm coming from on this--imagine for a moment--if everyone is an equal life, including women, including prenatal life forms, then doesn't that change the whole picture?
Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
but please try to see where i'm coming from on this--imagine for a moment--if everyone is an equal life, including women, including prenatal life forms, then doesn't that change the whole picture?
Imagine for a moment if there really is a God, and He is exactly as the Catholic faith holds Him to be (and so all other faiths are false). Doesn't that change the whole picture?
Answer to both questions: Yes. Yes it would. Unfortunately, the question is one that cannot be objectively answered---it can only be answered through faith, and faith is an personal, individual choice. The question of whether a human fetus has the same value as an adult is like the question of whether there is a God or not. You say yes, I say no, he doesn't know for sure, she doesn't care. It's not a matter of being right or wrong, because no one will ever be able to prove their position to the satisfaction of others. It's a matter of allowing people to consider such questions on their own, and come to their own conclusions, and have others respect those conclusions (and the process by which they were reached) even if said others do not agree with them.
And no, calling upon historical instances of blacks/slaves being treated as non-humans and such doesn't fly here. You claim that a zygote---a newly fertilized egg---has the same fundamental, inherent value as a fully-grown human. Good luck trying to advance the notion that society simply hasn't "progressed" enough to embrace this view. (It'll probably happen around the time that PETA decides that microorganisms are deserving of their protection.)
-imagine for a moment--if everyone is an equal life, including women, including prenatal life forms, then doesn't that change the whole picture?
No, it doesn't change anything. Because even if prenatal life forms are equal lives to women, it doesn't change the fact that those prenatal life forms depend on the woman's body to survive. I'm not required to lend out my body to any other person in order to ensure their survival and to make an exception for prenatal life by definition elevates that life above my own. You may believe that I'm an asshole to refuse to grant that permission, but by any decent moral or ethical standard, I cannot (or should not, anyway) be forced to do so.
And because of that fact, said prenatal life forms cannot be equal to me. They can be considered greater than me (forced gestation) or subordinate to me (I get to decide what happens/who lives inside my body), but they cannot be equal to me.
ok, i do understand, i think, that that's how 'prolife" appears from prochoice eyes. it must appear pretty ugly.
'Ugly' is such an understatement but my problem isn't the appearance of the thing, it's the results and social consequences that occur when folks work towards a world in which women are forced to carry to term children they do not want. Now that is ugly and not remotely progressive.
You will never convince me that a fertilized ova or fetus and a woman are of equal value (I find the idea as silly and offensive as the notion that a fertilized ova is a person) but that major difference aside, you don't believe the lives are equal either. When you work towards a world in which women are forced to carry to term children they do not want you are claiming the imagined needs of an invented class of persons are superior to everything that makes a woman a unique human being, entitled to basic rights, bodily sovereignty and a conscience which may very well have reached a different set of conclusions and priorities than the flawed ones you would foist on us. When you do this you are not behaving as if other women have 'equal life' (whatever that means).
I think you avoid looking at the underlying paternalism and innate authoritarianism of the 'pro-life' stance. There's nothing about working towards a world in which women are forced to carry to term children they do not want that is remotely progressive.
Marysia, you ask what the difference is between classes of persons such as LGBT people, immigrants, POC, women, etc. and the biologically human fetus. One important difference supplants all arguements re. who is regarded as human and deserves life, civil rights, etc. AND faith arguements of the pro- and anti-choice variety: a fetus is a being that depends on the body of one particular human woman for life support. If she does not consent, that's all that matters. Please note the difference between people who need intensive levels of care to survive (severely developmentally disabled folks, some elderly folks, babies and young children, etc.) and fetuses: a variety of people can provide life-sustaining care for the former, but only the woman carrying the pregnancy can provide the continual care and life support that a fetus needs to survive. When you ignore this difference, you negate both the work women do in pregnancy and our right to bodily sovereignty.
ok, this is the sort of consideration about the status of the fetus that i think is far more decisive to the abortion question than simply saying people have diverse views of the fetus, let's leave it at that.
i am well, well, well aware that a fetus is a body and a life within the body and life of a woman. i have carried one child within my womb, and i have been right there at her side ever since she conceived, carried, and birthed her son, my grandson, who like her was unplanned.
i have worked in a professional capacity in services for pregnant women and their babies.
i have for a long time 20 years challenged conservative antiabortionist who speak of and treat women as mere inert fetal containers...pointed out how treating women like this *causes* abortions instead of preventing them...
i can no more deny the humanity of the woman than i can that of the prenatal life within her. in any pregnancy there are two profoundly interconnected bodies and lives.
and the fact that one of those two bodies/lives is smaller and temporarily dependent on the other for survival does not render him/her less equal and important...nor is it inherently degrading for the woman to carry him/her to term, though a culture can be so inhumane as to twist giving life into a degradation.
i say this not from sectarian religious beliefs, not at all. but from considerations of universal human rights and dignity that are shared in fact by people of all faiths and none--just like beliefs against the death penalty, or for hunger relief are shared by people of all faiths and none.
i do understand that universal human rights and dignity are also the basis of a prochoice position. but we are interpreting those values differently in regard to abortion.
i hope this makes some kind of sense....
Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
That seems to equal this: "It is not degrading to have your body used by another against your will for the better part of a year with the possibility of lifetime physical and mental repercussions. If you feel it is degrading, it is because culture has brainwashed you, because all pregnancies would be inherently empowering in a good culture."
If so...
If you cannot see the inherent vicious misogyny in such a belief... Oh, why bother?
Rock on, you rebel pro-lifer, rock on.
This is my perspective on the "another is using my body agaisnt my will" argument.
I am not saying that having sex is wrong. As far as I am concerned, that really does fall under the "my body my choice" category and is up to the woman. But, if her birth control fails and a fetus is conceived, the pregnancy is not a punishment, it is a natural consequence of having had sexual intercourse, and society is not punishing her or violating her rights by requiring that there be a valid medical reason for her to obtain an abortion. This is because the second life living inside the woman didn't ask to live inside the woman, nor was the woman forced (except in cases of rape, where most pro lifers support exceptions) to participate in creating the new life. Thus, the new life should not be penalized by being destroyed via abortion.
For instance, like I've said on my own diary post, I appreciate what my biological mother went through in carrying me to term. If I ever meet her, I will thank her. But, if she then tells me that she wishes she had had an abortion because I used her body against her will for nine months...then I will simply be very disapointed in her. I won't feel "guilty" for "using" her body for nine months, because it wasn't my fault that I was conceived and I had no choice about using her body until birth. That is why, as a pro lifer, I fully support forcing fathers to take full responsibility for children that they father, making contraception available, and giving options and resources to parents who find themselves deciding what to do with an unplanned pregnancies. But, I do not respect the "someone else is using my body against my will" argument because the person using the woman's body had no choice about being there in the first place.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
a baby that still needs a womans body after birth (even when its directly due to a genetic issue the woman knew she risked passing on by having sex) does not have the choice to use the womans body...even if it requires some of the same exact resources that it had prior to birth and it was entirely her decision to risk this by having sex.
BTW, natural consequences don't include medical interventions that override nature. I for one will reject any of those assistance measures you claim to support in an unwanted pregnancy. Absolutely there will be no prenatal or other type of medical interventions that assist the fetus to violate my body.
Anon-I don't claim to support those measures, I do support them. Secondly, your example of a baby that needs your body after birth makes no sense. I'd like you to provide even one example of a born baby that is dependent on it's mother's body, because of "genetic issues" or anything else.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
I know you support them, I won't accept them upon myself.
Whether its a genetic issue, fetal development issue (everyone takes the risk to develop what are called 'birth defects' versus a fetus with no birth defects)...yet no one is required to give a segment of their liver or blood, etc. Babies get existing medical care, the parents volunteer or seek replacement organs or they die. I myself was born with a malfunctioning ureter and poorly functioning on the other side. Given two bad ones I needed at least one transplant fairly early on to keep things functioning, thankfully there was a man made option but should my parents be required to give one of their good ones up if it was before the man made option was available or if it was a more immediate threat to my life? No. Yet 'birth defects' are a natural consequence of sex....I was born with one.
I agree that a fetus is a potential consequence of having sex, but you are essentially saying that if that happens, the woman MUST continue the pregnancy-against her will. And if that is an unwanted pregnancy, well than she IS becoming a vessel and someone is using her body against her will -whether it be the fetus, the law, The Man.
The truth is we tried that tactic before...pre Roe v. Wade. You have sex, you use contraception but it fails, and now you're pregnant. Sorry...it's just a consequence of having sex-you MUST carry that fetus to term. Except women didn't take that approach...when they didn't have access to safe, legal abortion, they went to back alleys and used dangerous, often lethal methods. I prefer women to have access to safe alternatives and a choice to what they want to do with their body. I also don't believe the fetus inside the woman is a "person."
It's interesting that you cite "my body my choice" for women who want to have sex, but then take away that notion when they become pregnant.
Um, I'm the original anon you commented to. And I fear that it is late, I'm tired, and I'm about to give you a reply exactly like the whole idea of "progressive feminist pro-lifers" deserves. Sorry, I get sarcastic when the full moon rises, bite of a were-frog, long story. ~Anyway~...
Shrug. Second verse, same as the first. In *practice*, rather than bullshitting sessions, you're right back to those square pro-lifers' "Do the crime, do the time", just with an added fillip of "Forced gestation is ~empowering~ because you can *choose* to have sex! We're so progressive the world just ain't ready for us!" You can also call shit ice cream but that don't make it so.
I own my body. If I consent to sex, I am consenting to what? Hmm? Sex! Right then, right there, with that person (or persons, since we're being so open-minded here). I can take that consent back at any time, offer not good in Wisconsin, check expiration dates before using, turn off all cell phones before take-off. My consent does not cover playing tuba at the Super Bowl, going off to live with the fairies, and pregnancy, AIDS, syphillis or any other sexually transmitted, potentially deadly, disease. Just like many other diagnoses, there's a treatment for that these days. And there's only one person involved, no matter how much you empathisize with the *potential* ('cause they sure ain't got no *actual*) of fetuses.
And, for what it's worth, if *my* mother had it to do over again, I'd think her a damned fool to carry me to term-my existence ruined her life. I'm adopted, too, (in-family-putting the 'fun' in dysfunctional for generations) and the super-speshul-snowflake notion does not fly with me. If I'd been aborted I... wouldn't exist. Just like I won't exist after I die. Wow, shocking concept, the whole world revolves around me, I know, it's so hard to stay humble. See, you'll find it difficult to mine my existential angst as I have none. And-get this, man-I actually love my mother enough that if she'd been able to do the sensible thing back then, my non-existent self would have been totally down with that. Love and respect for women, an amazing concept. Wow, you think that might have somethin' to do with that 'feminism' stuff all the cool kids are into?
Peace, Bodily Autonomy, Metallica, Woot!
Re: abortion would make me not exist so I wouldn't care argument:If someone shot you, you wouln't exist then, either. Are you okay with someone shooting you?
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Welll, born people have a functioning upper brain makes up (or houses, however you like your neuroscience) their minds. Not neccesarily picture perfect normal minds, but good enough minds. If somebody shot me right now, well, I'd be dead and wouldn't give a damn, but for argument's sake, I-a ~mind~ (not a just clump of DNA chooglin' along) ~exist~. I have connections, dreams, plans, a joy in hanging out laundry...
If I may digress for a moment, abortion can only harm bodies--fetuses don't have the brain-bits to have minds and souls are either "pure and more impermeable than diamond" or nonexistent-irrelevant in this discussion either way. If someone shot me there would be harm not merely to my body, but my mind and my social group. A fetus's social group is it and its mother-and if she wants it out, she has the final vote. She is the one doing all the work and the only one with that niggling little thing called a 'mind', after all.
What prolifers advocate, when you get down to brass tacks, is sticking society in every woman's womb. That is logistically nigh impossible, pointless, and would result in severe overcrowding on many levels. ~Potentially~ a fetus has a society, but ~potentially~ I'm Blackbeard, and no court in the land would hang me for piracy until I scuttle a skipper and a bottle of rum.
And again, for what it's worth, I'd rather be goo scraped out of my mother's uterus as a fetus than property of the US Maternity Corp as an adult. Especially if it's just because some overly sentimental folks stole my bodily autonomy in the name of their existential crises.
Liberty, Fraternity, Reality! And Guns 'n Roses.
Silly me, write that big ol comment and not even finish. Lawks, even, forget my perty l'il head next an' then whatever will those wiser heads than mine pat?
Whoever is blaming the unfortunate conjunction of sperm and egg? It can no more be at fault than a hammer. Really-and I do mean really-I don't consider fetuses people, so I don't blame them for ~anything~. Sadly, if that little bit is just in the wrong place-my womb-at the wrong time-ever-it will be meeting the same fate as any of its unfertilized brethren, just at an inconveniently later time than usual. (By which I mean ~weeks~, not your mandatory sentence of nine months.) It has no awareness, souls don't exist, and if I am not queen of my own petite domain, I'm a slave. Collapsing probability fields bothers me not a jot.
Peace, Kittens, Metallica (Goodness gracious me, I'm going to get banned, aren't I. lol)
Marysia,
A few comments. We obviously disagree on choice and specifics of abortion, so I am not trying to change your mind, but simply showing you my perspective on these issues.
and the fact that one of those two bodies/lives is smaller and temporarily dependent on the other for survival does not render him/her less equal and important...
I really can't agree with this statement. A fetus and the woman carrying it are simply not equal, in my opinion of course. And I do believe that the "fact that one of those two bodies/lives is smaller and temporarily dependent on the other for suvival" DOES render the fetus less equal. I mean, logistically, that just makes sense. And when it comes to life (as in, woman's life or health is endanger) of the woman or the fetus-woman trumps fetus.
This is such a dangerous path to venture down too. If fetus and mother have the same rights, you could potentially venture into a legal battle in which said fetus's legal representation is fighting mother's lawyers...which could potentially result in the woman being an "inert fetal container" if fetal lawyers win! Yikes!
nor is it inherently degrading for the woman to carry him/her to term, though a culture can be so inhumane as to twist giving life into a degradation.
This is a pretty intense statement. Here's the thing...some women have wanted pregnancies and are excited to give life. Some women have unwanted pregnancies, and to them having an abortion is also like giving life-except it's their life or a return to the life they envision for themselves (which may or may not include children in the future or the past). Most women feel relief after an abortion because they weren't ready to give life. Additionally, most women who have abortions are mothers already-so I really have a hard time believing that our culture twists "giving life into a degradation."
Obviously you are entitled to your own opinion, but I am having a hard time seeing how you are a progressive anti-choicer.
If you look at the sources and contexts of the beliefs...people have can have very different reasons for arriving at parallel conclusions and my reasons have nothing to do with fascistic theology or politics...
Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com
Your reasons aren't the issue, your results if your beliefs were imposed on the real world are.
Is someone calling you a fascist? You yearn towards making human nature, biology, and reality in general squash themselves to fit the very narrow box of your philosophy--which, yes, let's be generous and call that merely 'ugly'-- but it's not fascism without force of law. As you neither work for nor against legal bans (?) you aren't promoting fascism per se, at least insofar as I understand fascism and your own stance.
Of course, the instant people start enforcing a "progressive pro-life" philosophy as law, then we have fascism--but that would be totally against everything you stand for, they're doing it wrong, but at least the fetuses are aive!, etc. Which would be a great consolation to somebody, I'm sure.
Graylor-
restrictions on abortion are not fascist. The US was not a fascist nation when abortion was illegal. In Nazi Germany, healthy Aryan women weren't allowed to get abortions, thus the controlling factor, but be a disabled woman and abortion was forced-er, I mean, freely offered. Moreover, if we're making comparisons, fascists used the argument of "not a person" to kill/terminate their victims. So, if we're comparing basic philosophies, of everyone has the right to life, including the fetus, and "born people have a right to life but the fetus isn't a person until it exists the womb because it's in the womb, because the woman's body is being "used", because...." I think that your own position bears further scrutiny. In short, what I mean is that pro life and pro choice philosophies in themselves should not be labeled as fascist because the other side can also come up with a very good example of one or the other being used by real fascists to control their victims.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Get a grip? Your respect for women astounds me. Women have been legally compelled to have c-sections *now*, whether they want to or not. But, boy howdy, that couldn't be fascism, there's a baby--look, *shiny*. People keep floating ideas about how it should be illegal for women to drink during pregnancy. Oh, but that's not creeping fascism, think of the baby. Let's enshrine mandatory childbirth in law--that's not going to hurt *anybody*. :DDDD
Whereas pro-choicers *of today* say, hey, since it's plainly obvious two people can't be equal in the same body, let's let the one the actual person run the show on an individual basis. Let's legislate that people can choose to carry to term or not according to their own will! :DDD Wow, just imagine the souls crushed by such a monstrous regime of people running their lives to suit themselves.
Right now, pro-lifers=not neccesarily fascists.
Right now, pro-life philosophy=not neccesarily fascist.
Right now, pro-life law=definitely authoritatian and leaning hard towards fascism at the very least.
Scrutenize my postion all you want, it's been done before by people I respect far more than random internet strangers. I've found your position just as illogical, untenable, and repellant as you likely find mine. Which is why I have nothing more to say to you or she who must not be referred to in the third person--doubtless one of the many intelligent women here who has more patience and a gentler tongue than I will indulge you. Yes, in other words, *flounce*. At least I won't have to deal with the daft capcha any more.
Marysia,
you say:
this is the sort of consideration about the status of the fetus that i think is far more decisive to the abortion question than simply saying people have diverse views of the fetus, let's leave it at that
I find this offensive. This is not the equivalent of saying: gee, there are diverse opinions on whether vanilla, chocolate, or strawberry are the best flavors.
there is extensive, extensive moral, ethical, and religious history considering the question of abortion and also contemporary thinking that simply does not support your view. The issue of when life begins, when it is "viable," the status of a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus as against the mother---these are all contested areas of moral and ethical thinking.
this is the beauty of a pluralistic society. we can and should be able to recognize when and where profound differences in positions require that we allow people to make their own decisions in concordance with their own beliefs, morals, and consciences. these are not "flavor of the month diverse views, let's leave it at that." They are deep moral and religious and ethical differences. If you do not accept that these differences exist and that mine are as valid as yours, then again, you obviate the question of whether this is a progressive position.
Imagine that Christian Scientists sought legislative changes to ensure that all federal funding for health care go through their own moral version of what is "allowed." Look around and see the legislative fights over the right to die when suffering painful terminal illness, or the circus that arose around Teri Schaivo. I want to be able to make medical decisions about when my life ends should i be in rendered effectively brain dead, and I think that is a moral and ethical position. Others do not believe I should own that right. I can respect their views for themselves; i can not respect the imposition their views on me in relation to a deeply personal issue.
This is and continues to be the problem: it is great that you support brith control, though we haven't gotten into what forms of birth control. But the far right does not recognize any of these rights, and your advocacy for this issue fits into their own category of denying people the ability to make complex moral choices in deeply contested areas of belief.
Jodi
....would volunteer to take an unwanted fetus into their own bodies. THEY could be pregnant - THEY could go through childbirth - and THEY could then deal with the resulting kid for 18 to 25 years.
Only then will I ever believe in such a creature as a "progressive pro-lifer."
I refuse to be trapped in my own body by a fetus. It doesn't have to die, it just has to get out of my body. If you want it, you're welcome to it.
I'm sure that when the science allows for it, hordes of pro life women will be lining up to let your fetus borrow their uteruses, cause that's just how we are!
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
