![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flewellynWhilst 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 07:34 am (UTC)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
Date: 2004-10-20 07:55 am (UTC)Also, here in the US, states which execute murderers don't do so without due process of law. (Except in Texas.)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 09:02 am (UTC)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
Date: 2004-10-20 09:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-23 10:45 am (UTC)~Ron "Tater Salad" White