Have a look at today's long post on Werewolf by Melody Thomas on Sarah Palin's claim to be a feminist.
[Trigger warning: there are a couple of anti-choice / "pro-life" people commenting in the thread. One has been asked to exit the thread. Deborah (with apologies to AnneE for editing her post)]
34 comments:
Seems to me that the person writing the article can't quite get their head around a definition of feminism that is wider than their particular view.
And on the matter of "choice":
One thing that should be noted before we dig deeper is that the term “pro-life” is a controversial one, and a great example of what’s called “political framing”.
Politically framed terms (not just “pro-life” but also “pro-choice”) purposefully attempt to define their philosophies in the best possible light while simultaneously describing their opposition in the worst possible light.
Except that it's also fairly accurate.
Pro-choice means being pro death.
It is a life that is terminated, and the only discussion is at what stage do we justify the termination of a life, so that women can have "autonomy" over bodies.
Is that not the case? Does anyone deny a life is not terminated? Is that an inconvenient truth?
Nonsense. Pro-choice means that you are pro allowing women to make their own choices. It is entirely possible to be pro-choice, and to be anti-abortion for yourself.
As for a "life" being terminated, we terminate lives all the time. That's where that lamb chop you ate for dinner, the fluffy mashed potatoes that came with it, and the excellent leather shoes you are wearing came from.
As for a "life" being terminated, we terminate lives all the time. That's where that lamb chop you ate for dinner, the fluffy mashed potatoes that came with it, and the excellent leather shoes you are wearing came from.
Ah, so you do actually agree with me. we are terminating a life.
Sure, it might mean the same to you as lamb chops, but that is a different discussion.
The difference is that I'm not importing a hidden premise about "human life". Your argument is dishonest.
Pro-life means pro-death.
You don't care about the life of that woman. She can die for all you care as long as the foetus is brought to term. Once it's brought to term you don't care about that life either.
Anti-choice is a far better term for supposed pro-lifers who are generally pro-war and pro-death penalty anyway. Their "pro-life" stance only applys to foetuses. Not women, children or anyone else.
Nobody denies a life is taken when there is an abortion. Generally it's about feeling that women are responsible enough to make a decision as to whether they need to have an abortion or not. If you think women are irresponsible children who can't be trusted with their own bodies then you wouldn't give them that option. Being anti-choice is about saying that you know better than that woman and that you should be able to control her. What gives you the right?
Actually I disagree that a life is always taken. Particularly with early abortions, you cannot know if that fetus would have developed into a viable life. There are estimates that as high as 80% of pregnancies abort naturally, but as most of them happen at the point where a woman would have had her period it is never noticed as a miscarriage.
Don't bother trying to go down the whole So When Does Life Start rathole with me either ZT. I'm on my third pregnancy and I couldn't say for sure, neither can science, and it's yet another distraction from the point that denying women choice over their own bodies leads to nastiness like forced pregnancies which are the practical
outcomes of the anti-abortion position.
I agree with Julie. I think the anti-choice/anti-women brigade focuses on the "life is always taken" rhetoric because frankly they have no other argument.
I think the anti-choice/anti-women brigade focuses on the "life is always taken" rhetoric because frankly they have no other argument.
I have other arguments, but quite honestly I think the "life is always taken" argument happens to be an extremely powerful argument. Obviously from your point of view, it is of minor consequence.
You don't care about the life of that woman. She can die for all you care as long as the foetus is brought to term. Once it's brought to term you don't care about that life either.
You are having an argument with an imaginary person. I care about all life. The vast majority of the cases we discuss with abortion are not an either/or choice of mother dying/baby dying.
However, I can concede that where pro-choice people ultimately place choice above life, pro-life people are ultimately placing life above choice. That's the fundamental starting point or baseline for each other's world view. That doesn't imply that pro-choice people are happy when a foetus is terminated, nor does it imply that I do not have empathy and understanding over some decisions to abort. Let's be a little more mature about understanding each other's respective positions, please.
The difference is that I'm not importing a hidden premise about "human life". Your argument is dishonest.
I disagree. We are talking about a human life, fact. You are setting the premise of born/unborn makes the difference. I can accept (understand) that argument, but it doesn't invalidate mine. It then comes to personal preference on the relative importance of the unborn life versus the autonomy and preferences of the mother.
Actually I disagree that a life is always taken. Particularly with early abortions, you cannot know if that fetus would have developed into a viable life.
That is a weak argument. You actively terminate a life. Using the excuse "he/she may have died/aborted anyway" does not justify that action. Try it on a living child and see how far you get.
Obviously ZT, I don't think it's a weak argument or I wouldn't have made it.
You are effectively privileging a potential life over an actual life, through advocating against access to abortion. A fetus is no more than a potential life, the woman who is pregnant with it is an actual life.
I note that you haven't addressed at all the practical implications of further restricting access to abortion. I specifically mentioned forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies, and it's also worth considering what that means - locking up women who have tried to procure an abortion or expressed an interest in thinking about getting one, until they deliver, to ensure they cannot get to those traditional providers of unsafe abortions from times gone past; gin, coathangers, and stairs. Is that where you want to go?
And AnneE thank you so much for linking to Melody's article, I am finding it a great read.
ZT How many children have you adopted that would have been aborted? And how many more are you planning on taking in?
"The vast majority of the cases we discuss with abortion are not an either/or choice of mother dying/baby dying." - how do you know this? How many women have you forced to carry a child for nine months?
"The vast majority of the cases we discuss with abortion are not an either/or choice of mother dying/baby dying." - how do you know this?
I pay close attention to the "industry".
How many women have you forced to carry a child for nine months?
None. I'm not arguing for that either. It would be preferable if you could respond to the arguments I make, not the ones you assume.
You are effectively privileging a potential life over an actual life, through advocating against access to abortion. A fetus is no more than a potential life, the woman who is pregnant with it is an actual life.
It's a real life, not a potential life. It's just not born.
The "potential life" argument applies equally to babies. If one dies unexpectedly, we mourn the loss of the potential that baby had progressing to a child and an adult and living a full life.
Many abortions are made for reasons other than "a life for a life" option you present.
I note that you haven't addressed at all the practical implications of further restricting access to abortion. I specifically mentioned forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies,
It is obviously a major problem when a women would prefer to put her own life in jeopardy, via backstreet abortions than carry a baby to term. In that situation, given a "Sophie's Choice" I would prefer a safe abortion than an unsafe one.
I don't think the answer is simply to ban abortions - our culture needs a massive perspective change, which would lead to significant behavioral changes. The support systems need to be there for mothers to increase their confidence that they will receive the required support, and that simply isn't here in our society today.
However, I think making abortion easier is heading in the wrong direction, and that is certainly the direction many wish to go. It is a grave and terrible mistake, as terrible as the ancient practice of leaving unwanted babies on the outskirts of the city to die.
"Exposure was the preferred method of disposal, as that act in itself was not murder; moreover, the exposed child technically had a chance of being rescued by the gods or any passersby
That sounds a bit like the argument "a fetus may have died anyway..."
"I am still in Alexandria. ... I beg and plead with you to take care of our little child, and as soon as we receive wages, I will send them to you. In the meantime, if (good fortune to you!) you give birth, if it is a boy, let it live; if it is a girl, expose it.
Typically, it is the female that suffers most in practices of abortion and "family planning". That to me is one of the ironies of this debate on feminism and the link to choice.
Sorry, just to be clear, the last two italicised quotes were not made by commenters here, they were just extracts from articles I quoted.
"The "potential life" argument applies equally to babies."
No, not equally. A first trimester fetus, which is when the majority of abortions are performed, cannot live independently of the mother's body. There's an obvious difference between that potential for human life and the individual potential we all have as independently functioning human beings.
Just for the record I am pro-life/anti-abortion and I also am anti-war and I think the death penalty is immoral. Actually you could describe me as anti-death for everyone, even people who are only 'potentially' existing. Although how you get to be potential despite an having an individual DNA structure and individual cellular growth I don't understand. I'm also left wing and keen on a welfare state so that everyone can eat, be educated, be warm and healthy.
Not every pro-lifer is a Sarah Palin clone, personally I find her politics abhorent.
No, not equally. A first trimester fetus, which is when the majority of abortions are performed, cannot live independently of the mother's body.
Sure things are unequal, but that doesn't grant a right to kill in itself.
A man cannot live in the South Pole without a support system. Doesn't mean we suddenly can kill him should we find him at the South Pole.
A baby cannot live independently without being cared for, for that matter. The mother, rather than having a RIGHT to withhold food and shelter, has A MORAL OBLIGATION to provide care, or to find some-one who will.
I'm not disagreeing there are other arguments to make around the women's rights over her own body, and recognition of her emotional state, but they are other arguments to make. I'm not particularly convinced by the "stage of life" argument, but I am sympathetic to the issue of interdependence when the fetus is seen as unwanted.
I think the stage of life is secondary to the point that to take specific steps to terminate a life, or deliberately damage that life (by drug taking etc), is a sad thing.
I can't quite get my head around being sad for a women who suffers a miscarriage to then have her say "no, you should be happy for me, I took drugs to create that miscarriage".
"Oh, my mistake", I would have to say. "I thought you were describing a tragedy...not celebrating the power of choice"
(No, I wouldn't actually say that, it's just me explaining my perspective)
Is The Hand Mirror meant to be a safe place for women? As a regular reader and a woman who has had to have an abortion do I really have to be consistently confronted with a male Catholic's view that I killed my baby? His comments about miscarriage and abortion are devastatingly cruel. Is there no way that men commenting on this site who want to judge women who have had to have abortions have their comments hidden or warnings put on their comments? I'm not talking about censorship more trigger warnings. In this man's day to day life I doubt he would say this to the faces of women who have had abortions so why does he get to spread this hatred on a site that is for women. I don't go to religiousmaleswhowillneverneedabortions.com and attack them so why is it OK for them to come here and judge women who have had to have abortions? This post is about feminism and women. That man has obviously never felt the pain of having a miscarriage or felt what it's like to have to have an abortion. What a horrible hatefilled person who has come to a site where women are meant to be safe just to attack them and judge them on experiences he will never ever ever face.
There are so many things that make me angry about people who will never need to think long and hard about whether they continue a pregnancy making judgements about abortion, especially when they stand preening on a bible to do so.
Anon, I'm very sorry that Zen Tiger's post have been triggering for you.
Zen Tiger, about practising a little christian compassion, and leaving this conversation now. That is, if you actually are a christian, instead of just prating about it.
As for getting back on topic, as I have written elsewhere, Palin and her ilk treat women like children. Abortion is a moral question, and they assume that women don't have the capacity to think things through for themselves, and make their own decisions. At its most basic level, feminism demands that women are accorded the respect due to autonomous adults. Seeking to make moral decisions for them denies that autonomy. That's why I think that the winking and blinking and grinning Sarah Palin, is no feminist at all.
Just for the record, I'm a female Catholic and a mother of four children.
This is not the place to be posting comments that are specifically written to upset women who have had abortions. Desist from writing them - I've just deleted one and I'll delete anymore too.
I apologise Anonymous.
The difficulty with discussing such topics on a blog, a very public forum geared for inviting alternate views, is that if the ideas are taken in such a deeply personal way, they can be very painful - and for that I apologise.
I will happily withdraw from this conversation.
I point out that my opinions expressed here are not driven by any religious arguments. I have not quoted the bible or used it in any way here, so I am not sure why that is brought into the conversation.
You have judged me as hate filled, and that is not the case. Insensitive to some of the silent readers obviously, but I now correct that oversight.
Farewell.
Is The Hand Mirror meant to be a safe place for women?
It's meant to be a blog which includes comments threads, with the accompanying implication that people who disagree with the posts are as welcome to post comments as people who agree with them. The existence of people on the planet who disagree with you is simply reality, not a threat to your safety.
um psycho, you don't get to define how our blog works or what is appropriate here. the only place where you have the right to do that is your blog. we have a comments policy, and we expect commenters here to have a basic level of respect for others.
My comment was not about defining your blog for you, it was about what a visitor to your blog is entitled to assume about it from its content and comments policy.
Having read that comments policy, this visitor assumes that respectful disagreement with the post author is permitted. And on reading this thread minus the deleted comment, the only disrespect on display is directed at Zen Tiger.
Abortion isn't just a blog topic for a lot of people. Women who have had to make the decision don't see it as something that is just discussed in some guy's lunch break.
Abortion might just be something for someone like ZT to rail against when they're bored but for many women it's something they think about a lot and can't not think about. It's not just a conversation topic to them - it's something they've lived or supported their friends or family through.
It's easy for someone who will never get pregnant to attack women over abortion. They can then go back to whatever else they were doing. For women who have had abortions or women who have supported others it's not so easy to just ignore those attacks.
If you want to judge women about abortion then do it with other men who will agree with you and think that abortion is just a light conversation topic that they'll never have to think too deeply about.
Don't expect to get sympathy from women who actually HAVE to talk about abortion and what it means because they may be faced with that decision.
And on reading this thread minus the deleted comment, the only disrespect on display is directed at Zen Tiger.
that's your opinion, which you've chosen to state as if it's a fact. my opinion is that you're showing disrespect here, and responses to ZT have been entirely appropriate, given his first comment is to call people who aren't anti-abortion "pro death".
that's your opinion, which you've chosen to state as if it's a fact.
I think it's clear enough from the comment that it's "this visitor's" view, not an assertion of fact.
Re men not being in a position to express a view on abortion, people hold opinions on a lot of things of which they have no direct experience. Every time a cop shoots someone the blogosphere is full of opinion on the subject, despite few (if any) of us ever having been tasked with apprehending an armed violent criminal, or faced with the prospect of living with the fact that we fatally shot someone. Our opinion on those events certainly counts for less than the opinion of someone who's actually experienced them, but we're nevertheless entitled to hold opinions and express them.
"and we would have the joy of sharing their lives."
Ha! Yeah right. Who is going to look after these children from birth to adulthood?
Anti-choicers don't want to look after these children when they're born. They only care about controlling the mother.
MikeNZ how many children have you taken in who would have been aborted? How many more are you going to take in?
It's funny how anti-choice men never answer that question.
Mike the reality is you're not willing to walk the talk. If you want abortion banned then you want women to die in illegal abortions. You want women who aren't able to raise a child to raise that child. You want rape victims to carry their rapist's babies and you want women to die while carrying a baby. You want babies being raised in homes where they're not wanted. That's the reality.
Why can't you state the truth? That seems insidious to me.
Our blog, our rules, end of.
On the issue of whether or not men are entitled to an opinion on abortion. I think the issue for some is more that it's a bit galling to be lectured about the morality of a decision that the lecturer will never have to face.
For myself I don't think men are totally and utterly not entitled to an opinion on abortion, however I do tend to value it less than the opinion of a woman, because it is more an issue of theory rather than practice for men.
Especially since I have been pregnant myself, I'm aware that it must be very difficult for a man (or anyone who hasn't been pregnant to be honest) to understand what it is like to a) discover you are pregnant (whether planned or not) and b) actually be pregnant. While I have had the good fortune to only have planned pregnancies to date, I have had that sensation of my world closing in on me, in the face of what a pregnancy means, not just for the 9 months it may last but also for the forever of being a parent. I'm not sure that it's entirely possible for someone to fully get that until they've been there.
And certainly the experience of pregnancy itself has put me very firmly in the camp of thinking that there is no way any woman should be forced to go through that if she isn't up for it. Some women have lovely fluffy bunny pregnancies, but I'm yet to meet one. The extreme drain on your body is something you should sign-up for willingly, not be forced into because it's the only option.
Well said Julie.
"Is The Hand Mirror meant to be a safe place for women? As a regular reader and a woman who has had to have an abortion do I really have to be consistently confronted with a male Catholic's view that I killed my baby?"
Well it is clearly not a safe place for men (or unborn children.)
I am a woman and I am not Catholic and I will say this, the question as to whether abortion is a form of homicide or not or whether, if it is a form of homicide it can be justified has nothing to do with whether a contributor to the discussion has a penis or happens to like the Pope.
In my experience fetuses don't do a lot of in-womb blog-surfing.
I think it is clear that there are people who are against abortion who are not necessarily men and/or Catholic. However this thread had been previously dominated by someone who ticked both of those boxes, and I can understand some frustration on the part of readers about that.
In fact, I know Catholics, even Catholic men, who are pro-choice.
I think to some extent feminist blogs attract antiabortion rants in the same way that Planned Parenthood clinics do in the Bible Belt US. Here are all these uppity women, going about their business without reference to conservative morality, and you can find them and shout slogans at them with the added bonus of not needing to leave your armchair or make your own giant fetus placard.
I don't care whether they're male or female, Catholic or evangelist or whatever. They have plenty of other places to shout their slogans from where they won't get in the way of people wanting to genuinely share their personal experiences without being prayed for or called murderers.
How is The Hand Mirror not a safe place for men?
And either way aren't 'their' safe places EVERYWHERE?
Post a Comment