And no, this post is not about Mark Foley. I did find this rather creepy:
At a pivotal time in the abortion debate, Ms. magazine is releasing its fall issue next week with a cover story titled “We Had Abortions,” accompanied by the names of thousands of women nationwide who signed a petition making that declaration.
The publication coincides with what the abortion-rights movement considers a watershed moment for its cause. Abortion access in many states is being curtailed, activists are uncertain about the stance of the U.S. Supreme Court, and South Dakotans vote Nov. 7 on a measure that would ban virtually all abortions in their state, even in cases of rape and incest.“All this seems very dire,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, which publishes Ms.
“We have to get away from what the politicians are saying,” she said, “and get women’s lives back in the picture.”
Even before the issue reaches newsstands Oct. 10, anti-abortion activists have been decrying it. Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, wrote in a commentary that when she saw a Ms. announcement of the project, “the evil practically jumped right off the page.”
I am not sure if this is the best tack to keeping abortion rights. From my perspective, I am pro-choice because I think what a person does with their doctor should be their business. That doesn’t mean that I support abortion left and right, it doesn’t mean I think abortions should be celebrated or trumpeted- it means I support women having the choice to do what they they think is best for them.
And I guess I just don’t understand how trumpeting that you have had an abortion helps the cause- if anything, it will allow people to paint the pro-choice crowd ( namely, folks like me who would never choose to have an abortion but support the right of others to make their own decisions) as creepily pro-death, pro-abortion, etc.
I guess I can’t quite put my finger on it, but this seems, well, distasteful and ill-conceived.
Andrew
Whereas the poster sized pictures of dead fetuses that pop up during anti-abortion rallies and in good taste?
Andrew
* are in good taste?
capelza
Well, John I do cringe at this tack. I understand the reasoning (used loosely), but it isn’t a great idea at all.
A bunch of faceless (in essense) names on a petition does no justice to the women who make the choice to have an abortion, not because they are anti-life, but because circumstances are pinful as are the choices. Instead, this seems like a celebration, even if it isn’t.
Of course, to the pro-lifers, EVERY abortion is a recreatioanl abortion.
Mr Furious
I understand what you mean. I think, in a sense, that what they are attmempting to do is noble, but here is just really no way to do it.
I think they are trying to address or counter the stigma and shame associated with abortion. In particular the stigma and shame felt by women who have had one.
Now before all you pro-lifers jump in here, just move along to something else. Concede the fact that I am speaking as a pro-choicer, and so are the people involved in the is story. for the purposes of John’s question the abortion debate is more or less irrelevant.
Having an abortion is often an arduous and difficult decision, one fraught with guilt and second-guessing and regret. Often it is kept secret. All of these things mean there can be an enormous emotional toll. This is (I think) a way to deal with that.
Empowering women to say “Yes, I’ve had an abortion.” is a good thing. Bragging about abortion or advocating it, not necessarily, but enabling women to be even a little bit freed from a solitary confinement sentence of guilt and shame could be helpful.
matt
Has an organization with “feminist” in its name ever done something that wasn’t annoying or ill-conceived?
Lefty groups need to hire like professional marketing people or something, because they’re always doing stuff that pisses people (SYMPATHETIC TO THEIR VIEWS) off. I remember when the head of NOW(?) in Philadelphia called for Joe Paterno to be fired, heh.
Tsulagi
Brilliant timing. In a week or two, you’ll have the brave Fox warriors sounding the battle cry to the trenches. Foley ain’t nothin, WE NEED TO SAVE THE BABIES! Your last hope is the Republicans, any Republican in November. Brownback’s talking zygotes will find their voice.
SeesThroughIt
Me too. I believe in letting people be people. That’s apparantly too tall an order for wingers.
I understand the thinking behind this article. Wingers have constantly been portraying women who have abortions as dirty, dirty whores who compound their whorish whoring by becoming murderous murderers, and said women are just trying to point out what should be plainly obvious: They’re just regular people.
Unfortunately, all this is going to do is get the wingers to yelp even louder. “See, these murderous whores are PROUD of being murderous whores! They’d fuck your husband and murder your children if they get even half a chance! They get knocked up just so they can have more abortions! They love it! The culture of death is never satisfied!”
Keith
I’m starting to be about as tired of hearing the word “creepy” as I am “unhinged,” “cut ‘n run”, and “T-warrior”
capelza
So they can sit on IM’s showing the babies being exploited by the GOP when they become teenagers!
Mr Furious
I agree that the timing of this is suspect. While this would be greeted with howls from the right no matter when it came out, doing it now seems to be a diservice to their cause.
Pb
I think it’s a bad idea because some wacko anti-abortionist might treat it as a hitlist.
Paul L.
Why does it offend you? It is just a clump of cells.
Let’s hear from the scientists.
3-D Foetal Scans Show Very Active Kids In 12th Week Of Development
Gary Farber
The idea, John, is to encourage people like you, who think abortion is creepy, etc., to understand that countless people you don’t think are creepy have had to make the choice to have an abortion.
A lot of folks will think as you do, but even more strongly, that a woman who would have an abortion is a monster, horrible, immoral, etc. When they find out that those monsters are their mothers, their sisters, their daughters, their grandmothers, their wives, and so on, well, some will conclude that these people are monsters, but others might actually learn something important.
This turns out to be very important.
Punchy
Mr. Cole, being you’re on campus, you MUST have seen the anti-abortion crowd showing up to college campus with TWO-STORY HIGH “posters” with photos of actual, real aborted “fetus” (more like bloody, liquid-y chunky piles of pink flesh). they’ve been to my school, and to say they were disgusting is a huge understatement. This is a textbook example of “distasteful” and “ill-conceived”
matt
Maybe I’m just feeling cynical today, but I highly doubt that.
Pb
For the same reason that I don’t watch the surgery channel while I’m eating lunch.
Pb
Punchy,
Yeah, I hate those idiots. Fortunately, they rarely tried to pull that particular stunt, but suffice it to say, it wasn’t a crowd pleaser. If they had tried it more frequently, I think they might have ended up with a riot on their hands.
Mr Furious
Dovetails nicely with what I was trying toi say, Gary. In addition to how these women feel about themselves, the judgements of society are obviously key and this is an attempt to change that landscape.
Wheter or not this was the way to do it or the time is another matter, but I don’t disagree with the premise.
RSA
I can see John’s point of view, but there are a couple of reasonable countervailing arguments. First, the linked article explains why women wanted to sign the petition and even tell their stories: avoiding having a kid in high school, not being able to handle a Down syndrome child, and so forth. Those kinds of stories might not win over those who think abortions are morally questionable, but they can put a sympathetic face on someone having an abortion. Second, I’ve heard analogous arguments (not from John, of course) about the acceptance of gays in society: “I’m perfectly fine with gay people, just as long as I never find out that they’re gay.” In the long run, getting abortion out into the open may have a salutary effect on public discussion. (Or not.)
TH
June 6, 1971: The West-German news magazine “Stern” publishes a cover story with 374 famous women who publically proclaim they had an abortion. Abortion at that time was still illegal in West-Germany. Abortion was legalized after several attempts under specific conditions in 1976. (A similar public demonstration was published 1970 in France.)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wir_haben_abgetrieben! (In German)
Just to let you know that there is a precedent.
Andrew
Discovery Health Channel has got to be one of the most disgusting things ever. If I ever see another 400lb tumor getting removed, it will be too soon.
Jill
John says that “he would never choose to have an abortion”. Great comment from a man who would never have to carry a baby that might be endangering his health, or his life, or was conceived through rape or incest.
Pb
While we’re at it, I’d like to jump on the bandwagon too–as a white male, I’d like to state categorically that I would never choose to get raped. And even if I were, I wouldn’t have an abortion. (Duh. :))
Keith
You mean they finally removed the taint of Denny Hastert from Congress?
RSA
I would like to add that, though not being African American, I would never have tolerated being made to sit in the back of the bus.
Paul L.
capelza
Paul L..if men don’t want the responsibility of unplanned children, then use your own form of birth control.
And your last post? I see this show up so much..it isn’t about saving the babies, is it.
John D.
Yes.
RSA
“You mean this is gonna cost me money?”
Paul L.
The feminist double stand. So can I say if women don’t want the responsibility of unplanned children, then use your own form of birth control?
Or as Jeff G wrote:
In I’m also struck by the attitude taken by feminists like Shakespeare’s Sister, who says:
Men have plenty of “say” over this decision—but it all happens before the pregnancy. They have “say” over the women with whom they choose to have sex. They have “say” over whether they choose to discuss in depth with a partner what they would do in the case of an unintended pregnancy—and what their partners would do. They have “say” over whether they put a condom on.
…
my own post on the subject, which inspired quite a heated debate in the comments, I noted, too, that the same argument being marshaled with such haughty finger-wagging by Shakespeare’s Sister was (ironically) attempted by Wade in 1972 to suggest that women already have a choice—and was, of course, rejected and ridiculed by the very same contingent of the feminist movement who seem now quite comfortable pulling that particular rhetorical latter up behind them. Everything old is new again, I suppose…
Paul L.
However if the woman chooses to keep the baby, he will forced to pay child support until he or she is 18.
So you are saying that earning the money to support the child would not endanger the man’s health, or his life.
capelza
Jesus Paul, why does common sense have to be femenist?
You don’t want to have an abortion if you have an unplanned or problematic (health, defects) pregnancy, then by all means I won’t make you have one!
By the same token if a man does not want the responsibilty for a child then use fucking birth control. I was pointing out that the male anti-abortion arguement almost always brings up the “stomps feet..but it’s not fair…wahhhhhh” argument which has NOTHING to do with abortion.
mrmobi
John, political timing aside, I think it’s a very brave thing those women are doing, and there is nothing creepy about it. Poignant, perhaps.
What is creepy is that among certain anti-choice factions, it is considered acceptable to murder doctors who perform abortions. Those who do so are considered heroes in the anti-choice movement.
and Paul L. I know. Men have it so tough in our society.
Seriously, though, did you even read the article you linked to? Being Pro-choice means allowing that a woman’s biology is not necessarily her destiny. That’s as eloquent a way of saying it as I’ve ever heard. What the hell good is a life if you don’t have control over your own body?
Anti-choice folks want a return to women as child-bearers and servants. They want to turn back the clock to an earlier time when women had very little control over their own bodies.
Well, guess what, that’s not going to be happening any time soon, absent Taliban rule.
Paul L, I think you might find a home in the Taliban. True, the Taliban believe women are chattel, and shouldn’t be able to vote or own property. However, the Christian Right would be pretty comfortable with those circumstances. Both groups love killing people for breaking the rules. And they both hate secular government, preferring to apply the teachings of the Koran or the Bible to the various problems of society. In short, both groups are profoundly anti-choice and anti-American.
No, it’s not fair. Tough Shit. Women have to have the babies, often at great personal risk and involving considerable pain.
What you need, Paul L, is a time-machine that will take you back to the 1800s.
Good luck with that.
Paul L.
Gaia’s breasts capelza, it is a double standard.
Feminists scream for “reproductive rights”. But do not want men to have any “reproductive rights”
Note that male birth control is not 100% effective.
Isn’t that the liberal argument for gay marriage(I can’t marry who I love) or welfare/minimum wage/tax cuts (The gap between rich and poor is expanding).
Paul L.
Other than getting the blame for all that is wrong in the world and getting screwed at Divorce/custody hearing.
How does that equal not having to pay support for a unwanted child? The woman is free to vote or own property. She just does not get a claim to the man’s property/income.
Thanks for new retort to gay marriage, welfare, minimum wage or any other liberal causes I disagree with.
capelza
You are waundering all over the place, tripping on those strawmen Paul…
If you are so freaking conservative, you should never have to worry about knocking up a woman you wouldn’t want to have a child with…it’s that simple.
Men’s birth control isn’t 100% effective? And you think female birth control is? Despite all the chemicals and devices we hav to put up with? Really..there is a male birth control pill in the testing phase…you know the problem..men don’t like the side effects. You poor babies…welcome to our world, except for that giving birth and the nine months before it stuff.
But you sidestep my main point…complaining about having to pay child support for a child you don’t want has NOTHING to do with being pro-life. Keep it in your pants till you are married it it worries you so much and but out of everyone else’s business.
The Other Steve
Is Paul L suggesting we arrest women who have had abortions?
capelza
Paul L.
I am not. I just like reversing liberal talking points / arguments to show what hypocrites they are.
What are you talking about? Quote where I implied that.
capelza
Sigh…the “liberal” talking point. I don’t know how to break this to you Paul, but GOP women have abortions, too. And they collect child support, too.
You still haven’t answered my question, what does having to pay child support for a child you did not want, but yet you were more than happy to create have to do with being “pro-life”?
Richard 23
How does it harm you that people you don’t know get married, or get an abortion for that matter?
Barbar
Paul just wants to be able to have sex with women who want to have kids and then force them to have abortions.
Barbar
Oh I am sorry, maybe he just wants to be able to impregnate women and then not stick around to support the ensuing children. You know, because liberals are hypocrites.
Paul L.
Nothing. I am the fence with abortion. I lean pro-life.
Safe, legal and rare.
Now lets reverse it.
What does forcing men to pay child support for a child they did not want have to do with being pro-choice or with reproductive rights?
Here is a arguemnet against Men’s right to choose
DMX: Out-of-Wedlock Birth Caused By Woman Raping Me
Tell it to the Duke lacrosse players or Oliver Jovanovic.
capelza
DMX..the rapper? The bad ass rapper?
Oh hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa. Puhleeze.
Sorry, can not take you seriously anymore..really. Even your link is making fun of him.
Paul L.
Learn to read.
Here is a argument against Men’s right to choose
DMX: Out-of-Wedlock Birth Caused By Woman Raping Me.
You didn’t answer my question.
Krista
I don’t see it as “trumpeting”. I think they’re just tired of being ashamed of it and hiding it away as a dark secret.
Bit of a diff there.
And Paul, I have heard your argument before – what are the man’s rights if a woman doesn’t want an abortion and he doesn’t want to pay child support, or if she wants an abortion, and he doesn’t want her to do it?
There is no perfect answer that will make everybody happy. There’s no way for both parties to win.
You might disagree with this, but I don’t believe any woman should be coerced either way when it comes to abortion. It’s such a personal decision, and I think it’s just as horrible to coerce a woman to have one as it is to coerce her to not have one.
Should a man have to pay child support if he didn’t want a child? Well, at that point, if a child IS going to be born, I think that legally, the child’s needs trump everybody else’s at that point. And in most cases, financial support is needed from both parents in order to provide for that child.
Now, if we have the converse argument – the woman wants an abortion but the man doesn’t want her to – it’s a damn tough call. I don’t like the idea of a woman being forced to carry a child to term if she doesn’t want to. It indicates that her worth as an incubator is more important than her own needs and wishes. But, by the same token, if the father is willing and capable to take full responsibility for that child, even with the mother out of the picture (which would likely be the case, as I can’t imagine too many relationships surviving that dilemma), then my sympathy definitely goes out to the father.
Like I said. There is no way for both parties to win. And I don’t dare say that in Situation A, the woman should not be allowed to terminate the pregnancy. The way things are going right now, in this cultural atmosphere, I don’t dare start giving ground, because there are too many people out there who are trying to arrange it so that a woman wouldn’t be able to terminate in ANY situation, and nor would she be able to use the morning-after pill, or even the regular contraceptive pill.
So I can’t give ground. There’s just too much to lose.
HyperIon
thanks for digging up the link, TH. i was trying to remember the details. i’m sure many people then had a much stronger reaction to it than “kinda creepy”.
yes, Gary Farber. at least that was the point of the Stern story. that significant numbers of married white women had chosen to terminate an unwanted pregnancy was not widely known then. is it now?
finally (and i’m not trying to be mean here), Mr. Cole, you need to get out of WV more often. you read Foley’s emails and seemed not to have any suspicions about them. then you post this, focusing on your “ewww!” response.
this is the 21st century. these days not only do older men hit on young women, they (at least the gay ones!) also hit on young men. Roe was 30 years ago. yet the perception of abortion is still that it should be whispered about…because it’s SO shameful. but it isn’t shameful. it’s a very sad and hard decision to make and most women never get over it on some level.
yes, RSA, i think that is a good analogy.
ThomasD
John’s discomfort about this sounds remarkably similar to the debates over public or televised execution. Even many death penalty supporters get squeemish when they think about that potential spectacle.
I’m not sure what it all means, or if it will ever change an minds, but it does force people to confront the issue on a deeper level and that is not a bad thing.
scarshapedstar
Has any organization with “family” in its name done anything that wasn’t completely preachy, schoolmarm-ish, and with support from more than .000001% of the population?
And yet they’re considered the backbone of the GOP.
capelza
Paul..I’m still guffawing.
That isn’t an argument for anything but a man trying to weedle out on child support. Crying rape AFTER the paternity test came back positive. And his wife is the “witness” that he was “raped”. You are familiar with DMX right. That would be like the Terminator claiming rape.
This is an argument for asshole if anything. I wouldn’t habg my cause on that one.
Pb
Heh. A man gets a woman knocked up, and then is forced to pay child support. You know what that’s really an argument for? Something that today’s Republicans *really* hate:
Personal responsibility.
Steve
Isn’t it astounding that the mother ends up with more rights regarding her pregnancy than the father does? Why, you’d almost think she was the one carrying the child, or something.
Hemi-Demimondian
I have to agree with Paul L here, partially, we cannot have a double standard. If a woman has a right to choose (which she should), then a man should as well (sorry, you don’t get it both ways. It can’t be “right to choose” for a woman, and “Personal responsibility” for a man). It should be the woman’s choice whether or not to have an abortion. However, it should be the man’s right to say “Ok, if you won’t have an abortion, that’s your choice. I did not want this child, you will have to raise it yourself”.
Paper abortions are perfectly reasonable and are the only way to be pro-choice for women without being a hypocrite. However, if a man has a paper abortion, he loses all rights to contact with the child, and any of the rights that fatherhood entails.
BlogReeder
So it is a man’s responsibility? That sounds so old fashioned. Man must support woman. Before someone says, “but it’s child support”, there’s no compulsion on how to spend child support. Why can’t a woman support herself? Isn’t that the whole idea behind feminism? Let’s break those old stereotypes.
Bruce Moomaw
The reason it seems distasteful is that Ms. magazine and the N.O.W. have stubbornly refused to admit that there is a point beyond which abortions ARE morally questionable — namely, when the fetus develops something with a resonable chance of being considered a “human” consciousness. Their cheerful absolutism on this issue — their refusal to admit that there are ANY circumstances in which abortions are immoral — is what’s getting under your fingernails about this ad.
Paul L.
I am just pointing out the double standard of the “Pro-Choice” crowd. It is not about choice. It is about abortion.
Something that today’s Democrats really love:
Double standards.
Cyrus
I have the right to do very nearly anything necessary to get an uninvited and unwanted guest out of my house if I fear for my safety or property, especially but not necessarily if that fear is reasonable. There are exceptions and if reaching for a gun is my first resort there will be some tough questions, but the basic idea is true… and is not dependent on the “human” consciousness of said intruder. The only thing those groups are being absolutist about is the belief that a woman’s body is, in fact, her property.
mds
Their cheerful absolutism on this issue—their refusal to admit that there are ANY circumstances in which abortions are immoral—is what’s getting under your fingernails about this ad.
Ah, yes. The good ol’ “Whee! Let’s all go get third-trimester abortions for fun!” bullshit. They don’t think there are ANY circumstances where abortions are immoral? Ask those frisky feminists about coerced abortions. Meanwhile, read Roe v. Wade, which establishes restrictions on when abortions are allowed, yet the shrieking Talibornagain want overturned. Consider that “medical reasons” might not be equivalent to “immoral.” Read South Dakota’s law based on the “immorality” of abortion. Cogitate on why some of us have noticed that giving ground on “immoral” in a nation run by a political movement that inevitably seeks to criminalize “immorality” might not be the best strategy to retain any legal right to abortion. Then fold it all carefully and cram it up your self-righteous ass.
Bruce Moomaw
Let’s cut the hysteria, MDS. Opposing one extreme does not require supporting the opposing one — a landslide majority of Americans in the polls support neither (as the coming vote in South Dakota will, I imagine, prove again). And the point about Roe vs. Wade — as pointed out by such notorious religious reactionaries as Carl Sagan — is that it correctly allows early-term abortions for a ridiculously WRONG reason — namely, the fetus’ “viability” (by which reasoning a man in an iron lung isn’t a “human”), instead of brain development. Which also means that there are serious doubts about the morality of abortion except in health emergencies — by ANY human definition of morality, not just religious nitpicking — starting at the fifth month, not later. (Since when is it morally, or legally, permissible to kill an intruder invading your home if you KNOW for a certainty that he’s unarmed and presents no physical danger to you?)
You agree with me that late-term abortions should only be allowed in honest-to-God physical medical emergencies? Fine. So what’s wrong with legislating that? NOW, however, has always said that it believes in going much further. Which means that NOW doesn’t represent the interests of most women who think that early-term abortions (which is to say, the vast majority of abortions) should be legalized.
And simply providing lists of people who got abortions — without making any attempt to explain WHY it was morally justifiable for them to get abortions, although in most cases it doubtless WAS justifiable — doesn’t begin to cut it as an adequate argument for allowing abortions, which is what’s getting on Cole’s nerves about that ad. I repeat: NOW and Ms. magazine are trying to pretend that there is no moral issue AT ALL connected with abortions other than unfair infringements on the mother’s rights. There is, and the idiotic absolutism of BOTH extremes in this debate is a pain in the ass — to most people, not just to me.
RSA
Bruce, what do you think of Thomson’s violin player thought experiment?
mds
Oh, well, as long as MOST people believe that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy has to be restricted using the guidelines of fundamentalist Christianity, that’s all right, then. I’ll withdraw my hysteria. Clearly, NOW and Planned Parenthood have been campaigning tirelessly for completely unrestricted abortions, locked in an evenly-balanced struggle with the American Taliban, who have recently confirmed that after they make abortion completely illegal, they’re going after contraception. Yeah, a pox on both their houses. And the latest torture bill has been criticized by, e.g., Duncan Hunter, for not going far enough, while the ACLU thinks it goes too far. It must be okay, then, because fundamental rights are the result of averages and opinion polls. Whatever.
BlogReeder
I am just pointing out the double standard of the “Pro-Choice” crowd. It is not about choice. It is about abortion.
The whole abortion debate is an interesting use of semantics.
Ant-Abortion should be enough but by using Pro-life they can imply those who are against it are Anti-life. Pro-Choice still leaves weasel room to say they are personally against abortion but simply-only-harmlessly support a woman’s choice.
rbl
Paul L.:
Actually, there is a 100% effective form of male birth control, guaranteed to prevent unplanned pregnency. Here’s a hint, its the favored method of the religious right. Any man who is unwilling to pay child support for an accidentally conceived child would be well advised to use it.
mds:
The fact that there are wingnuts who want to ban the pill is irrelevant. Second, the “right to bodily autonomy” argument is invalid. At the very latest, once the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, albiet with intense care, then there is no way it falls under “a woman’s bodiy autonomy” as it is, in fact, another person. It’s not a fundamental right to kill another person, even if they are dependent on you.
This doesn NOT mean that a 3 day old clump of cells is human. I’m not a developmental biologist, but imo, when the fetus starts processing neural input and learning, then it really isn’t just a part of the woman’s body.
fwiw, I’m also militantly in favor of requiring pharmacies to stock the pill and plan b, and having emergency contraceptives OTC and available for all ages. And having real sex ed taught in high school, and middle school, and having condom dispensers in the bathroom. I’m in favor of reducing abortions, and the best way to do that is by reducing unwanted pregnancies.
mds
The fact that there are wingnuts who want to ban the pill is irrelevant.
Not when they wield control of many state legislatures, are a core constituency of the party that controls Congress and the White House, have been instrumental in skewing state and federal sex ed policy away from “ed” entirely, have held up Plan B and the HPV vaccine, have pulled their support from the “95-10” legislation that would provide much of what you call for above, and have a major say in Supreme Court nominations. Oh, wait, that’s just an insignificant fringe, with no political import whatsoever. John McCain recently kissed Jerry Falwell’s pinky ring because of his longtime respect for the guy.
rbl
mds:
No, I’m saying that they are wrong, and that the hardcore right’s hartred of reproductive rights does not mean that the more moderate critiques of abortion are wrong. Yes, the Theocons have power, yes they need to be opposed and no, we shouldn’t let the define the debate and make total abolition of reporductive rights the only acceptable path for those who think Americans should have fewer abortions. People like to use the slippery slope argument here, that any restrictions on abortion embolden the theocons and they pull a Dakota type ban. Yeah, they tend to push for more, but the fact is, and I say this as a left-winger, that the majority of Americans fall in the middle, and want some restrictions on abortion, but are generally closer to the moderate pro-choice side. At the risk of being labeled a concern troll, the reproductive rights movement needs to appeal more to mainstream America. They already are pro-choice, they just don’t realize it because pro-choice is framed as not wanting any restrictions on abortion.
mds
I see wisdom in what you say, rbl, really I do. But the word “compromise” has become a very dirty one recently, and I’m cranky about it. I think some absolutists become more shrill as they see too much chipped away in the name of “moderation” and “compromise.” The center is being defined by Zeno’s paradox, where we always have to meet the absolutists of the right halfway. Why must all the compromises go toward them? It’s not like there is a completely unrestricted right to abortion right now, yet the major “pro-abortion” organizations have been playing defense for the status quo for a long time. One more Supreme Court justice, and Roe is definitely gone, followed by a whole bunch of trigger laws banning abortion going into effect. And when I see Ryan et al. attempting to get a pregnancy-reduction bill going in the House, only to lose a lot of “pro-life” support because it involves contraception, I despair of the moderate middle. The middle shouldn’t need N.O.W. to be nice to them to figure this stuff out.
Bruce Moomaw
Let’s cut the hysterical shit, shall we? “Most people” do not think that “a woman’s right to bodily autonomy has to be restricted using the guidelines of fundamentalist Christianity” — they notice that, as RBL says, it’s not just HER body whose “autonomy” is at stake after the fetus has acquired a mind, and that piece of moral reasoning on their part has absolutely nothing to do with the strictures of “fundamentalist Christianity” or any other specific religion. In fact, unless you’re an Ayn Randian, it’s hard to to grasp any conceivable system of human morality that WOULD let you ignore it.
Second, it has absolutely nothing to do with the separate campaign by the real religious loonies to ban contraception. Take a look at the Gallup Poll: about 3/4 of the populace wants to ban late-term abortions except where the mother’s physical; health is in serious danger — but an equally gigantic majority favors unrestricted first-trimester abortions (let along contraception). Every time I see one of those idiotic “Are you pro-life or pro-choice?” opinion polls, I laugh my head off — what the hell are most of you supposed to say when given a (supposed) choice like that?
Getting back to the original ad: why the hell should just providing a list of people who chose to have abortions convince any doubtful person that it’s morally permissible? What you actually need to do to convert people is to provide logical reasons WHY you think it’s morally permissible. And the fact that the pro-choice people fall back instead on cretinous tactics like that List Of People indicates in itself that they themselves haven’t put in much thought on whether, and why, and under what circumstances, abortions are moral. Which, I think, is the ultimate reason why the ad made Cole uneasy — it indicates moral vacuity on the part of the people who thought it was worth doing.
Bruce Moomaw
The “compromises” DON’T all have to go toward them, and neither RBL nor I has ever even hinted that they do. I — and on this one, I agree with most Americans — take an intermediate position because I’m firmly convinced that it is the morally correct one; and if we stick by it — as we should — we can use it just as effectively to politically oppose the Right-Wing Wingnuts as we could use any strategy that involves officially siding with the opposite Loon Extreme. You sound like H. Rap Brown sneering at Martin Luther King for being an ineffective Uncle Tom. Look who actually carried the day, and how he did it.
mds
about 3/4 of the populace wants to ban late-term abortions except where the mother’s physical; health is in serious danger
So, Mr. Moomaw, where exactly is the morally correct line? When precisely does the fetus develop a “mind,” and hence acquire rights that surpass those of the woman? Because once you demand an absolute ban when abortion becomes “immoral,” you’d goddamn better make sure that the actual policy isn’t decided by those who believe personhood begins at conception. I don’t give a rat’s ass what 3/4 of Americans think are reasonable restriction’s on a woman’s rights, or what 3/4 of Americans think are reasonable restrictions on gay rights, or how much torture of suspects is reasonable. Especially when so many of that 3/4 vote for politicians who implement more draconic restrictions than the electorate favors, and are never called to account for it. Apparently because Ms. Magazine scares voters too much.
Look who actually carried the day, and how he did it.
By ignoring the actual legislative activities of those in power? By not being concerned about laws in many states that would automatically re-establish Jim Crow if, e.g., Brown were overturned? By turning a blind eye to the packing of the Supreme Court with anti-Brown ideologues? By offering to meet George Wallace halfway? By denouncing those who insist that blacks have rights that are not conditional upon a fucking Gallup poll as “Loon Extreme”? Because I must have missed all that in the civil rights movement.