![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From another community, but I'm reposting.
Whilst I was browsing the (now orphaned) Something Positive LJ community, I found a link to this bit of evil from our good friends in Operation Rescue.
Imagine my joy.
During the ensuing discussion, with people voicing their disgust, one person remarked that it looked like Troy Newman of Operation Rescue (a real piece of work, but never mind that now) was not just waging war on abortion, but on women's health in general. I responded thus:
From what I've seen, the war IS, for many of the big names and organizations in the "pro-life" movement, a war against women's reproductive health. The objective of folks like Operation Rescue and the ilk of John Ashcroft is not to save babies, it's to punish women for having sex.
Otherwise, if they were arguing strictly from a moral standpoint of saving lives, they wouldn't be pushing to ban birth control, restrict access to procedures for women who miscarry, close women's clinics, picket clinics and call the women who enter whores and sinners, or play dirty tricks like opening "clinics" that will not do abortions, will not refer women for abortions, and will try to tie the pregnant women in red tape until it's too late to legally have an abortion. Not to mention the terroristic campaign described in the parent post. If you have the actual moral high ground, you can simply argue from that directly; dirty tricks are the province of those who have something to hide.
It is very possible for someone to believe that abortion is morally wrong and not be a party to this war, mind you. I know a number of people who believe abortion is wrong, but wouldn't engage in such terroristic tactics. They're the REASONABLE anti-abortion people, who just say "I'm against it", and don't take this (arguably valid) moral stance as license to harrass and intimidate other people. At most, I've seen these people argue (forcefully, but politely) that abortion is wrong, and that women should choose not to do it; if they are women, these people usually say "Well, I will never have one." And you know what? That's fine, that's great in fact. People should uphold their personal moral codes and debate issues like this.
My argument here, is that for many of the prominent anti-abortion crusaders, it's not about the morality of abortion itself at all.
One piece of evidence towards this is, of course, the large number of men leading these anti-abortion crusades. Traditionally, men in western culture have cared less about actually raising and caring for the babies, and more about keeping control of their women. (Yes, I said "their" women, because in this mindset, the men DO own the women.)
For some reason that I don't quite get, the thought of "losing control" of women seems to terrify many men in many different cultures; fundamentalists of all stripes seek rigid control of women. I think (though I'd have to do more research to be sure) that it's partly about ensuring a line of succession in the family.
As a man, I should point out that I find this terrifying as well.
Sort of a brain dump, but one of my fiends...er, friends thought I should repost this.
Questions? Comments? Plaudits, brickbats, recriminations or baked goods?
Edit: I should note that my own personal opinion on abortion is irrelevant to what I wrote here, since my point was fundamentally thus: regardless of anyone's views on the matter, what Operation Rescue is doing is not justified, and its motivation is disingenuous and dangerous. Even, I would go so far to say, evil.
Imagine my joy.
During the ensuing discussion, with people voicing their disgust, one person remarked that it looked like Troy Newman of Operation Rescue (a real piece of work, but never mind that now) was not just waging war on abortion, but on women's health in general. I responded thus:
From what I've seen, the war IS, for many of the big names and organizations in the "pro-life" movement, a war against women's reproductive health. The objective of folks like Operation Rescue and the ilk of John Ashcroft is not to save babies, it's to punish women for having sex.
Otherwise, if they were arguing strictly from a moral standpoint of saving lives, they wouldn't be pushing to ban birth control, restrict access to procedures for women who miscarry, close women's clinics, picket clinics and call the women who enter whores and sinners, or play dirty tricks like opening "clinics" that will not do abortions, will not refer women for abortions, and will try to tie the pregnant women in red tape until it's too late to legally have an abortion. Not to mention the terroristic campaign described in the parent post. If you have the actual moral high ground, you can simply argue from that directly; dirty tricks are the province of those who have something to hide.
It is very possible for someone to believe that abortion is morally wrong and not be a party to this war, mind you. I know a number of people who believe abortion is wrong, but wouldn't engage in such terroristic tactics. They're the REASONABLE anti-abortion people, who just say "I'm against it", and don't take this (arguably valid) moral stance as license to harrass and intimidate other people. At most, I've seen these people argue (forcefully, but politely) that abortion is wrong, and that women should choose not to do it; if they are women, these people usually say "Well, I will never have one." And you know what? That's fine, that's great in fact. People should uphold their personal moral codes and debate issues like this.
My argument here, is that for many of the prominent anti-abortion crusaders, it's not about the morality of abortion itself at all.
One piece of evidence towards this is, of course, the large number of men leading these anti-abortion crusades. Traditionally, men in western culture have cared less about actually raising and caring for the babies, and more about keeping control of their women. (Yes, I said "their" women, because in this mindset, the men DO own the women.)
For some reason that I don't quite get, the thought of "losing control" of women seems to terrify many men in many different cultures; fundamentalists of all stripes seek rigid control of women. I think (though I'd have to do more research to be sure) that it's partly about ensuring a line of succession in the family.
As a man, I should point out that I find this terrifying as well.
Sort of a brain dump, but one of my fiends...er, friends thought I should repost this.
Questions? Comments? Plaudits, brickbats, recriminations or baked goods?
Edit: I should note that my own personal opinion on abortion is irrelevant to what I wrote here, since my point was fundamentally thus: regardless of anyone's views on the matter, what Operation Rescue is doing is not justified, and its motivation is disingenuous and dangerous. Even, I would go so far to say, evil.
no subject
However. I've had an abortion myself, and I don't want to deny any woman the right to choose that solution. I think it's a decision a woman must make for herself, and not even with a doctor helping.
If I had to do it again, I probably would. But I would always feel the universe turn on my decision, like I do now. And I wouldn't want any man alive to have the control to say I could or couldn't do this.
no subject
You'll also note that my opinion on abortion never even appears in the above post. It's irrelevant to my central point.
This is not to say I disrespect what you're saying here, just pointing it out.
no subject
no subject
(Please don't take my comment as an indication that I believe abortion is murder; I don't. However, if a person sincerely believes that abortion is murder, then they'd naturally expect that it was moral to do to them whatever one might morally do to a murderer).
no subject
Trying to forcibly "lock" a child in someones womb is morally wrong. No person or organization has any right to say how a woman chooses to handle her own body and the 'contents' within. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and stance on many given circumstances. This does not, however, give them the right to force their views on another.
I commend those that have a difference of opinions yet don't advertise with such force that causes undue stress on others. There is a level of maturity required when dealing with issues of this nature. I seriously question the morals of people who so publicly and forcibly question the morals of others.
As you know I'm currently pregnant. I've been having some serious issues with regards to the well being of my child and the possibility of it having cystic fibrosis. Being a carrier of the gene I knew when I found out that I was pregnant that there was a possibility my child could have it. I have gone round for round with the father trying to get him to be tested for the carrier gene.
When I spoke with my specialist, he asked what I would do if the father was in fact a carrier. Would I want an amneocentesis to be sure? Would I wait until the child is born to test it? What would I do if I found out it was a carrier while it was in the womb? Did you know that you can abort a child up until the 24th week of pregnancy? I didn't. That was a really tough conversation to be in. Ultimately, this is my child and no disease will make me willingly terminate its life.
My choice/decision is my own. Another mother might not feel the same way I do and choose to abort. If that right is taken away, what do we have left? What other rights will they try to take next?
(Sorry for the rambling on. I didn't intend to write such a lengthy response but this hits close to home for me. Your response above was very well written and I commend you for your approach on the issue.)
no subject
And thanks for your kind words. :-)
no subject
I do, however, think abortions should be banned after a set number of months. Then it's just plain murder.
no subject
no subject
One thing that caught my eye... "He's not a loose cannon like Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry" -- Yeah, has anyone else watched/read The Stand? Granted, it's not Randall Flagg, but to mind comes the line "You screwed up, Bobby Terry!" shouted Randall Flagg (paraphrased, don't feel like typing the extra letters). Coincidence?
no subject
no subject
I'd amend that to 'if you're not prepared to support your partner, should she require support, in whatever decision she chooses to make...'.
Doesn't being born into an overpopulated world, and ending up living on the breadline or in care, penalise the innocent party too?
I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with your association of sex and guilt. Bcoming pregnant, or getting someone pregnant, isn't a matter of 'guilt'. If all practical precautions have been taken, it's a matter of misfortune.
Hmm... I need to clarify...
You're punishing the innocent and letting (at least in the case of the father) the guilty go off scot-free.
I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with your association of sex and guilt.
Flag that one as a poor word choice. Instead of "guilty", "responsible" would have been the more correct (and wonderfully ironic, in my view) word to use there.
Doesn't being born into an overpopulated world, and ending up living on the breadline or in care, penalise the innocent party too?
That strikes me as too much of using a potential future evil to justify a present evil. Who are we, as flawed, imperfect, (and most importantly) non-prescient people, to arrogate unto ourselves the decision that, because any of a large number of circumstances, unborn child "x" is less deserving of the same shot at life that our parents gave us? Yes, there is great suffering, famine, injustice, child prostitution, starvation, disease, ignorance, apathy, hardship, and so forth and so on; there has been in past and will be in future. I cannot see that the presence of misery is justifcation for what I hold to be premeditated murder.
Bcoming pregnant, or getting someone pregnant, isn't a matter of 'guilt'. If all practical precautions have been taken, it's a matter of misfortune.
As addressed above, "guilt" was a poor word choice. And again, I'd have to say that misfortune is not a justification for what I hold to be premeditated murder. It boils down to, "I/we (depending on whether or not the man is a part of the decision to abort) screwed up, so you get to die before you ever get a chance to live."
I think, at base here, we're arguing from different world-views and hold to different core axioms about life, the universe and evertything (to hijack a phrase :-) ), and unless I forsake my God or you come to know Him, we're just not gonna see eye to eye on this one. We just see things differently.
no subject
1) I hate calling it a pro-choice/pro-life debate. I don't think abortion has ever been the issue - I thinkit should be a rallying cry for teaching about contraception (yes, including absitnence) EVERYWHERE. School, home, posters at the doctor's office. It's not about kids anymore - sex is fuckin' dangerous.
2) That being said, I'm pro-choice. The idea of having a child just to send it to foster care (which I've seen many unsavory products of, along with a few good ones - my father included) seems really cruel to me. I'm pro-choice in my particular instance. I'm on the pill, and I use condoms 99% of the time. The likelihood of me getting knocked up is minimal. I'm pro-choice for most other women, as well. However, I start feeling less sympathy after someone has 8 of them or so. Then it becomes a "we should really go back to Point Number One" situation.
3) I hate the fucking war on Planned Parenthood. A group protests the one nearest to me, and they don't even provide abortions. They do women's health and counseling. Nothing more, nothing less. OH NOES NOT PAP SMEARS!!!11ONE! Yes, they will tell you where to get an abortion if you want one. So will the Yellow Pages.
4) Even if you disagree with something or someone, I think there's a basic level of respect every living thing should get. I'm not overly fond of far right people's viewpoints, or people who drive SUVs when they have no clear reason to, but I don't hold up signs saying "HOMOPOBIC COCKBITE" or "ASS WHO USES TOO MUCH OF OUR PRECIOUS FOSSIL FUELS". Yes, they're not exactly similar, but fear mongering is a really horrible way to get your message across no matter how you do it.
Damn. That's like, the longest comment I've ever written. Ever. You suck.
no subject
Unless you paid me enough...
no subject
Not just because I agree with you one hundred percent, but because you articulated this so well.
no subject
Is abortion murder?
Is it murder to kill a known murderer?
If you answer "yes" and "no", then virtually any anti-abortion tactics may be moral and justifiable.
Further, whether someone's position is reasonable or not does not depend on their answers to these questions (which may vary for reasonable people), but whether their own acknowledged view on anti-abortion tactics derives logically from their answers.
no subject
There's an incoherent, illogical, and evil one, yes, but I'm not about to defend that.
no subject
no subject
Leaving aside the issue of whether abortion can be considered murder: yes, it is murder to kill a murderer. People don't get let off in murder trials for saying "I killed him because he killed someone else", do they?
no subject
I happen to agree with you (and I don't think abortion is murder anyway), but it's clear that the anti-abortionists actions are justifiable under their own belief system, and that they may be reasonable people, by any definition of "reasonable" that's predicated on how one arrives at conclusions from priors, rather than on priors themselves, which are, I'd say, beyond the reach of adjectives such as "reasonable" or "logical".
no subject
Also, here in the US, states which execute murderers don't do so without due process of law. (Except in Texas.)
no subject
Okay. I was just trying to point out that regardless of one's stance on execution of murderers, it's a common belief that it's okay to execute murderers, and that while huge segments of the population can easily have different priors, it's suspect to suggest that huge segments of the population are unreasonable. :)
Also, here in the US, states which execute murderers don't do so without due process of law.
Hence my reference to "known murderers" in my original statement. "Due process of law" is essentially just a method for knowing, imperfect though we may agree it currently is.
no subject
no subject
~Ron "Tater Salad" White
no subject
Golly, all that typing made me faint. I wish a big strong man would help me with it....
::pout, flounce, wibble::
Shocked and astonished.
Good Grief!
I'd heard vaguely that workers at abortion clinics in America were getting hassled, but I'd no idea it was that bad.
Any hassle to people trying to get on with their (perfectly legal) jobs is out of order to me, but that is beyond the pale. That groups are allowed to harass individuals in this way astonishes me.
I've added you, perhaps you can keep me up to date on more extraordinary things I tend to miss in lil' Britain.
Re: Shocked and astonished.
I have added you back, since I like the way you write, and you do nifty arts too.
Re: Shocked and astonished.
And there was!
Re: Shocked and astonished.
Re: Shocked and astonished.
Re: Shocked and astonished.
no subject
no subject
Mercy still comes by, but without Randy showing any interest, or posting "comment on the comic" posts, it's kind of dying off.
no subject
Sometimes I fear that people are losing their ability to deal with sensitive issues without acting like complete psychos about it. Admittedly, only a small handful go to the lengths of Troy Newman, but it seems like people can't discuss or debate issues like abortion, politics, religion, etc. without foaming at the mouth and leaping for each other's throats (and I fully admit that there have been times when I have been guilty of this too).
Or maybe there was never a time when people as a whole had the ability...
no subject
no subject
:-)
(* beats whimsy with a wifflebat - BAD whimsy! Hush now! *)
no subject
And a lot of them tend to form groups, mob mentality takes over, and we get the status quo of life on a planet full of psychotic apes.
Sad thing is that it often takes extremists using extreme measures for even positive change to occur.
*Sigh*
However, I am pro-choice. I think, if Suzie over there needs an abortion or wants an abortion or whatever, it is HER body, HER child, and HER right to have one. I cannot say how much it pisses me off when a MAN gets on his high horse about this. Oh, wah. Your life was hard. Waaaaah. I've seen 13-year-olds who need parents, not children, who think that the only way someone will love them is if it's their child. And is this douchebag dealing with that?! No. He deals with the symptom. Not the problem. What was it his own god said about bringing the little children unto him? Doesn't that mean the children that he wants to make alone and loveless? What about THOSE children? Sure, they're alive, but what kind of life is it?
I know it's all been said, and obsessions don't allow for logic, plain fact.
But this guy is fucked-up. HE'LL never have to be the one to lay awake at night trying to figure out whether or not to keep the baby, trying to figure out how to provide for another mouth. YES, there should be some kind of restrain there on the part of the mothers AND the fathers, a quickly dwindling society in this day and age. But HE can rest secure in his little fucking house, and know that he's so much better than the poor crackhead who has an abortion because, in a moment of rationality, she realizes the hell that her baby will be born into, addicted and alone, and does what's necessary to keep that baby from having to feel that pain. Fucking sanctimonious cock. He'll never know, and it's too bad. He should know. He should HAVE to know the battle he fights. He should HAVE to know the side he's fighting against, because he has NO clue. None. He'll never know, and it's so easy to be holier-than-thou when you aren't even speaking the same language.