quote:

---

It is undoubtedly true that many women have abortions because they are being clear-sighted about the horrific economic futures that they and their children would face.

It is also true that no woman should be forced to have an abortion for any reason at all, and certainly not because she is poor or would be poor otherwise.

But it is further true that no woman should ever be forced to have a child that she does not want, for whatever reason. And some women are never going to want to have children.

All those things are true, all at the same time.

---

These are certainly points worth emphasising. And also that not all women are going to have the same reaction to having an abortion. Personally, hearing someone say that women are/should be emotionally devastated because they've had an abortion makes my feminist hackles rise as well.

Why should women be put into an emotional tailspin because they have exercised control over their reproduction?

By extension Catholic women who use birth control would presumably also be consumed with guilt. Is anyone going to say this to them, to paraphrase what Fed wrote (substituting birth control for abortion): birth control trivializes pregnancy, trivializes having children... Get rid of your child---kill it and forget it???!!

I doubt you'd find many women who would be breezy about having an abortion. But telling a woman that that she should be traumatised because she's "killed her child" is, in my opinion, inaccurate, insensitive, and intrusive.

quote:

---

Fed, it's great that you're working on additional supports for women and children. However, it sounds to me as though you're still imposing your own personal views on my reproductive choices, which is something I will always fight against.

---

I have been thinking a lot about war, too, lately, and am within millimetres of being an absolute pacifist.

And that is the option that Fed seems most to favour. Women who don't want children have an option: never have sex, or become a baby factory for some nice, clean, middle-class people.

With you on the pacifism thing, with you on the capital punishment, probably we'd agree on gun control, probably we'd agree on reducing bullying in schools for that matter. I am strongly anti-killing.

But I don't see abortion as killing.

And I think one of the problems is that people are known by the company they keep. The majority of anti-abortion activists I have had the misfortune to encounter have been pretty rabid about restricting women's freedoms all around, not just in terms of our ability to control our reproduction. Reasoned discourse is not an option. Empathy is not an option. It's very, very easy to see anti-abortion crusaders as anti-woman crusaders.

ETA cross-posted with skdadl again! This was in reply to Fed.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Tehanu ]

quote:

---

I have never known a woman who had an abortion who lived anything close to that kind of perpetual grief and anger.

---

No one is ever more entitled to speak her mind about herself than the woman who speaks, yes?

I think that that is the difference between you and me, Fed. You think that you can see into other people's psyches better than they can themselves. I think you are wrong.

Nothing terrifies me more than the tyrants of the mind. Bad enough that some people would try to kidnap or emprison women's bodies - and that has certainly been done, most of the time, in fact, through history.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fed:
You must have never heard one of these women speak:
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

---

Aauuurrggghhh. Where does this sense of tragedy come from?!?! Could it be from listening to people who are calling women "baby-killers"?

This is not to take away from a woman who's had an emotional reaction to an abortion. But in a healthy society no woman should be given a guilt trip for making a choice whether or not she wants to have a child. For any reason.

quote:

---

With you on the pacifism thing, with you on the capital punishment, probably we'd agree on gun control, probably we'd agree on reducing bullying in schools for that matter. I am strongly anti-killing.

---

Yes, I think we'd probably get along well. If we ever meet, I will buy you a beer!

Tehanu wrote:

quote:

---

And I think one of the problems is that people are known by the company they keep. The majority of anti-abortion activists I have had the misfortune to encounter have been pretty rabid about restricting women's freedoms all around, not just in terms of our ability to control our reproduction. Reasoned discourse is not an option. Empathy is not an option. It's very, very easy to see anti-abortion crusaders as anti-woman crusaders.

---

Well, you've not been running in the same circles I have, obviously.

Spend a little time at this guys website: I don't know him at all, but we see eye-to-eye on a lot. You'll see that the more traditionalist Catholics get, the more pacifist and socially responsible they get too. Pro-war neo-cons are not even CLOSE to being traditional Catholics.

Traditional Catholic Reflections and Reports
by Stephen Hand
http://www.tcrnews2.com/

Some recent articles there:

The Never Ending Storm - by Judith Morarty. About the gentrification of New Orleans following the hurricane.

15 Arrested at White House Protesting US Torture Practices - by Mike Fernier.

The Cafeteria Catholicism of Richard John Neuhaus - by John Lowell. (Critiquing a neocon Catholic from within Catholicism. )

On Activism & Prayer - by Jim Forest (of Orthodox Peace Fellowship)

quote:

---

Originally posted by the grey:
While that may be true for some, my perspective is that it isn't at all true for most. Most (not all, but most) would fall into same category as G.W. Bush -- protect them until they're born, but ever ready to string 'em up high after that.

---

Fed: read "A Handmaid's Tale". It's a frightening perspective on American society taken over by the religious right.

---

Generally speaking, I'd fully agree that it's vital do work at fixing the problems in society that might cause many women to choose to abort when they really wouldn't prefer that option. It's wrong for anyone faced with that decision to feel that they don't have a choice. But it isn't up to anybody else to block a woman's access to that choice.

If you don't personally support abortion, that's fine in your personal life. If you don't understand why someone would make that decision, that's fine too. But the appropriate response isn't to make abortion illegal, or to condemn women who make that choice. The appropriate response isn't working to make it more difficult to choose to abort, it is working to make it easier to choose to have a child.

---

But anyone who tries to tell me that I shouldn't have the right to decide if and when I will have a child is still someone, no matter how well-intentioned, who is oppressing me.

What do you say to the Catholic who wants to restrict access to birth control, which to me is also highly oppressive? It's their belief that birth control is immoral and sinful. And they tell adherents that it is immoral and sinful. And again, they are controlling women's bodies.

To me this is a very parallel argument with abortion; reproductive rights are central to my feminism, and, really, to women's freedom.

Edited to add: [thread drift] Okay, I went to the website you recommended and this jumped out at me:

quote:

---

A Civilization Without the Influence of
Jesus Christ

By Stephen Hand

... When the European Union's Constitution rejected its Christian heritage, in favor of a vague notion of transcendence worthy of a Mason, apart from which law, science, international law and human rights, the dignity of women, etc., would never have evolved in such progressive ways, it was an unhinging of cultural identity from the philosophical-metaphysical ground on which that identity was rooted. What is left is the vaccum which nature abhors. And in the waiting, like a coiled deadly serpent ready to strike when stirred, lies Nietzsche's nihilism, a world without values, without absolutes and compassion; leaving the sheer will to power, which configures easily with any totalitarianism which proves strongest. Then there is also a radicalized and brutal Jihadist version of Islam which is sweeping the globe after decades of absorbing western technological prowess, while rejecting western decadence, and which the moderates among them appear impotent to stop.

---

Um, excuse me? [/end thread drift]

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Tehanu ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fed:
Tehanu wrote:
And I think one of the problems is that people are known by the company they keep. The majority of anti-abortion activists I have had the misfortune to encounter have been pretty rabid about restricting women's freedoms all around, not just in terms of our ability to control our reproduction. Reasoned discourse is not an option. Empathy is not an option. It's very, very easy to see anti-abortion crusaders as anti-woman crusaders.
Well, you've not been running in the same circles I have, obviously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fed:
Nevertheless, I do favour the streamlining of the adoption system---the baby might not be wanted by her, but it is wanted by someone.

---

Unless the child is black.

Or developmentally delayed.

Or any other number of potential "issues".

And I know whereof I speak as my little brother was adopted into the family at three and a half.

And completely and utterly independent of that, I have always known I would never bear children. I simply do not want children in my life.

Going through the adoption process with my parents (I was in my late teens and it was a family decision) seems to have in no way changed my mind about giving a child up for adoption instead of aborting.

And guess what? Sure enough, at the ripe old age of 35 I got pregnant (for the first and last time with any justice in this universe). And OF COURSE I was using birth control - I am not an idiot and I have always known I don't want children.

But you know what? I don't actually believe that the instant that the sperm and egg unite *poof* it's a baby. And as much as you believe that it is, I believe that is the most ridiculous concept ever. And the mystery of belief is that no matter how obvious you or I think our own belief is, it doesn't matter because it is what it is - something that exists within our minds and cannot be transferred.

So, as one of those "frivolous women" I knew I was pregnant about ten days into it. Granted, there was still that moment of "shock and awe" when the doctor verified it, and I had her do a second test to verify that, because holy crap I was using TWO methods of birth control for this very reason (I really REALLY don't want kids), and coming in to schedule the abortion when the doctor informed me the HCG levels were dropping and I had miscarried.

And yes, I could afford to have a child.

And yes, I could have probably worked things out with the father.

But I don't want children. And I am not remotely interested in undergoing the "experience" of pregnancy or childbirth. I am quite fine without it, thanks.

And pregnancy didn't change that, despite what some people have claimed. (I have been hearing that "oh, you'll feel differently when it's your" crap for longer than I care to think about. My other favourite is, "you'll meet the right man and he'll make you want to have kids." Uhm, would that be at gunpoint, because I don't see it happening otherwise.)

What I'm hearing is that of us who are pro-choice want true choices -- the choice to determine when and with whom we have sex, the choice to prevent and end truly undesired pregnancies and the choice to raise our children in a supported environment when that's what we desire.

I think skdadl touched on this, and I know I've said this on babble before, but I'll say it again: Abortion on demand does not require "good reasons". Abortion on demand doesn't mean that women have to be "deserving" in order to terminate a pregnancy they don't want.

And I don't care whether our social programs become better than the most socialist country on the planet. There will STILL be a need for abortion, because the fact is, NOT ALL WOMEN WANT CHILDREN.

I got so pissed off during the last NDP leadership convention when abortion came up during the leader debates. Every single candidate pulled this bullshit wishy-washy, "I want to make the need for abortion go away with good social programs that will make it possible for women to raise blah blah blah."

The fact is, until we have 100% effective birth control, along with the elimination of any and all possible human error, abortion on demand will be necessary for women who do not want to have children. I don't give a damn whether a woman is single on welfare, or married to the richest person on the planet. If she doesn't want kids right now and she gets pregnant, she gets an abortion if she wants one! Period! I don't give a damn what her reasons are.

There's nothing that makes me more peeved than supposedly progressive politicians making the wishy-washy, "I want to make abortion unnecessary" argument. It's not going to happen, nothing you do and no social program you bring in is going to make it happen, nothing we ordinary people and activists can do will make it happen. It's not happening, so we need to stop saying it. And I think it's necessary to get in the face of anyone who tries to water down women's right to choose abortion in this manner, because it basically leads to questions like Sven's in the other thread - can we compromise with pro-lifers and work with them on making abortion unnecessary? Answer: no, we can't. Sorry. There will be no compromise and no working with anti-choicers. We pro-choice people already strongly support sex education and easily available (and free!) contraception, and we're constantly being pushed by pro-lifers to quit doing that.

The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

When the Anti-Choice Choose

Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the solution she would deny to other women -- abortion.

In the spring of 2000, I collected the following anecdotes directly from abortion doctors and other clinic staff in North America, Australia, and Europe. The stories are presented in the providers' own words, with minor editing for grammar, clarity, and brevity. Names have been omitted to protect privacy.

quote:

---

"I have done several abortions on women who have regularly picketed my clinics, including a 16 year old schoolgirl who came back to picket the day after her abortion, about three years ago. During her whole stay at the clinic, we felt that she was not quite right, but there were no real warning bells. She insisted that the abortion was her idea and assured us that all was OK. She went through the procedure very smoothly and was discharged with no problems. A quite routine operation. Next morning she was with her mother and several school mates in front of the clinic with the usual anti posters and chants. It appears that she got the abortion she needed and still displayed the appropriate anti views expected of her by her parents, teachers, and peers." (Physician, Australia)

"I've had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, 'You're not going to tell them, are you!?' When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn't want this to interfere with it." (Physician, Texas) ...

---

I'd like to preface it by saying that Michelle has very eloquently expressed the only rational position about 'eligible' reasons for abortion - i.e. any and all personal reasons.

But there's still this discomfort about the termination of potential life involved - I deliberately say 'potential', because there is no question in my mind that the fetus, the potential life, is not actual life. It cannot live an independent biological life outside the uterus.

I think the discomfort comes from living within a belief system (patriarchal monotheism) that insists that each person, each body, has a corresponding soul, and that if the body is extinguished, the soul goes...well, we're not sure where exactly, perhaps into the void? Obviously, anyone believing more or less in such a system is very uncomfortable with the idea of extinguishing a body, even a potential one.

Pro-choicers desperately need to elaborate a philosophical/spiritual belief system in which abortion is framed in a positive rather than a neutral/negative/materialist light. Do we need to sacramentalize abortion? Maybe so, if that's what it takes. I think that a lot of women who've had abortions have dealt with it on this level.

quote:

---

posted by Fed: ... Spend a little time at this guys website: I don't know him at all, but we see eye-to-eye on a lot. You'll see that the more traditionalist Catholics get, the more pacifist and socially responsible they get too. Pro-war neo-cons are not even CLOSE to being traditional Catholics. ...

---

I followed the link to the site you recommended and read some of the articles. Most are written by men, well-versed in canon law and theology. And as such, their position on pacifism and non-violence is somewhat abstract and intellectual.

I return, for the purpose of comparison, to Catholics for Choice. The articles are written by women and men, rooted in Christian faith, open to modern realities and complex in their grasp of Catholic theology, yet accessible and pragmatic. From the Catholics for Choice website:

quote:

---

Catholicism is a rich and diverse reality. It is a Christian tradition, a way of life and a community. Over a billion people world wide identify as Catholics. While united through sacramental bonds especially through baptism and the eucharist, these Catholics interpret various teachings of the church in different ways. In this they are no different than early Christians, such as Peter and Paul, who fought vigorously about many matters of faith and morals. Good and faithful Catholics disagree on almost every issue that confronts us in the modern world, from the death penalty and nuclear war to how to end poverty and certainly on questions of personal morality.

The deep struggle that many Catholics experience as they seek to reconcile their lives, relationships and values with church pronouncements is to be respected. In recent years, conflicting views of what it means to be Catholic have been dominant in not only the media but among Catholics themselves.

Abortion
The morality and the legality of abortion is an important personal and political issue throughout the world. Catholic support for legal abortion is grounded in core principles of Catholic theology, which respect the moral agency of all women. It is bolstered by respect for the religious freedom and rights of people of all faiths and no religious faith, by respect for plural and tolerant democratic societies and, most importantly, by adherence to the Catholic principle of standing with the poor and marginalized of the world who are disproportionately women.

---

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andy (Andrew):
RB Fortunately I'll never be in that situation but I think lots of people could grow up really naive, thinking it would never happen to them, being real judgemental about it all..and then find themselves in the situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
You know, I get kind of annoyed at the whole discussion about whether women make the decision to get abortions "lightly" or whatever. I also get really peeved at the idea that we will make abortion "unnecessary" by making sure there are adequate social programs to raise children.

I think skdadl touched on this, and I know I've said this on babble before, but I'll say it again: Abortion on demand does not require "good reasons". Abortion on demand doesn't mean that women have to be "deserving" in order to terminate a pregnancy they don't want.

And I don't care whether our social programs become better than the most socialist country on the planet. There will STILL be a need for abortion, because the fact is, NOT ALL WOMEN WANT CHILDREN.

I got so pissed off during the last NDP leadership convention when abortion came up during the leader debates. Every single candidate pulled this bullshit wishy-washy, "I want to make the need for abortion go away with good social programs that will make it possible for women to raise blah blah blah."

The fact is, until we have 100% effective birth control, along with the elimination of any and all possible human error, abortion on demand will be necessary for women who do not want to have children. I don't give a damn whether a woman is single on welfare, or married to the richest person on the planet. If she doesn't want kids right now and she gets pregnant, she gets an abortion if she wants one! Period! I don't give a damn what her reasons are.

There's nothing that makes me more peeved than supposedly progressive politicians making the wishy-washy, "I want to make abortion unnecessary" argument. It's not going to happen, nothing you do and no social program you bring in is going to make it happen, nothing we ordinary people and activists can do will make it happen. It's not happening, so we need to stop saying it. And I think it's necessary to get in the face of anyone who tries to water down women's right to choose abortion in this manner, because it basically leads to questions like Sven's in the other thread - can we compromise with pro-lifers and work with them on making abortion unnecessary? Answer: no, we can't. Sorry. There will be no compromise and no working with anti-choicers. We pro-choice people already strongly support sex education and easily available (and free!) contraception, and we're constantly being pushed by pro-lifers to quit doing that.

There is no compromise. Abortion on demand, for any reason. And progressive politicians should darn well be saying that too.

---

quote:

---

You know, I get kind of annoyed at the whole discussion about whether women make the decision to get abortions "lightly" or whatever. I also get really peeved at the idea that we will make abortion "unnecessary" by making sure there are adequate social programs to raise children.
I think skdadl touched on this, and I know I've said this on babble before, but I'll say it again: Abortion on demand does not require "good reasons". Abortion on demand doesn't mean that women have to be "deserving" in order to terminate a pregnancy they don't want.

And I don't care whether our social programs become better than the most socialist country on the planet. There will STILL be a need for abortion, because the fact is, NOT ALL WOMEN WANT CHILDREN.

---

If you want me to not post when it's a feminist forum I'd be cool with that but I just wanted to say I didn't think that is what Mr. Layton was saying when he said that stuff.

I don't think working towards 100% effective birth control is a bad thing. All moral issues aside why have surgery, even simple surgery, if it can be avoided.

I also know of situations where people wished that they had the money or the support to have the kid and they had a harder time with it then someone who wouldn't have wanted kids under any circumstances. I think in a first world country in the 21st century nobody should be coerced into that circumstance for lack of cash. That's just going to get worse under Harper's rule.
(Anyone know if abortions increased under Harris' social cuts?)

You can believe in someone's right to have abortion and also feel badly for those women who had one when they didn't want it but felt that no support was out there. I think you can believe in both things and not be an ass.

I've come back to add this which I just had sent to me

How stupid are they? Do they not think ahead and think that people might just be bad? People ignored it for years thinking it was something that would never happen...

quote:

---

This has been an exciting 12 months for opponents of abortion: first, two Supreme Court justices widely viewed as pro-life got on the court, then South Dakota passed a law basically banning all abortions (with suggestions that a few other states may try the same thing).

So why aren't top GOPers smiling — and even keeping mum when asked about the subject? Apparently, Newsweek reports, for a fear of voter backlash...since polls show more Americans support abortion as a right for women than want to scrap it:

---

quote:

---

But a recent flurry of activity on abortion is making Republican politicians nervous. With states moving to restrict abortion and the Supreme Court drawing closer to the day when it might actually reverse Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision guaranteeing a woman's right to an abortion, GOP leaders see big political risks.

---

People will be upset. This seems news to them?

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Andy (Andrew) ]

quote:

---

You can believe in someone's right to have abortion and also feel badly for those women who had one when they didn't want it but felt that no support was out there. I think you can believe in both things and not be an ass.

---

Not an ass at all. At least, I believe both those things.

I'm sure that many women have felt pressured, one way or another, to have an abortion, which is awful and which is likely to lead to prolonged sadness or resentment. I definitely want to see the social supports in place that would permit any woman to go ahead, have her child, and keep it, living independently, if that is what she wishes.

I suspect, though, that at least some women are being wound up by the anti-abortion propagandists, encouraged to feel and display a melodramatic grief they might not have experienced otherwise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brebis noire:

Pro-choicers desperately need to elaborate a philosophical/spiritual belief system in which abortion is framed in a positive rather than a neutral/negative/materialist light. Do we need to sacramentalize abortion? Maybe so, if that's what it takes. I think that a lot of women who've had abortions have dealt with it on this level.

---

This is an interesting thought. I don't know about "sacramentalizing" abortion, exactly - that makes me think at once of strange rituals in the clinics, which I personally would find fairly icky.

I do feel a reverence - or maybe just awe - for life m'self. I am equally or maybe even more awed by death. I feel the connections between the two intensely, but I don't know that I can articulate them, even for myself. That sense of a cycle beyond me, in which each of us both matters a lot and then matters hardly at all, is something I am just content to live with, without formalizing it or even communicating it much.

But that's just me. A lot of people would snort at what must seem to them my mysticism, and that's ok by me. Far from wanting to impose beliefs on anyone, I have a deep horror of the games people play with others' minds. So I don't know how far we can go - as a political movement - beyond just defending women's freedom to choose. The threats to that basic freedom, from several different directions, are just so great.

[ 14 March 2006: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

This is an interesting thought. I don't know about "sacramentalizing" abortion, exactly - that makes me think at once of strange rituals in the clinics, which I personally would find fairly icky.

I do feel a reverence - or maybe just awe - for life m'self.

---

Well, I would probably find it icky too, as a matter of fact, depending on the how it would be approached. But I think there's some moral and spiritual high ground that needs to be reclaimed - as long as so-called pro-lifers frame abortion as 'murder' then it's pretty hard to just shrug about it and say 'maybe it is, but too bad'. I personally don't think it's murder, but as long as there's an apparent moral/philosophical void, then it's pretty hard for an overall movement to overcome it, especially in times of war, uncertainty and ageing demographics - note that the anti-choicers filled that void with a slippery moral framework - and abortion will always remain a sneaky, though absolutely necessary recourse.

This is how the adoption 'choice' gets pushed - it is presumed that from the child's soul point of view, it is better to be born and adopted than to not have the chance to exist. But that's supposing a lot of things about souls and existence that can't be known for sure. But from a mother's point of view, adoption is excruciating. I'd choose abortion any day over giving birth and giving up the baby - no contest. But I'd have to find a way to frame that choice in a positive way.

[ 14 March 2006: Message edited by: brebis noire ]

quote:

---

A Civilization Without the Influence of Jesus Christ

By Stephen Hand

---

Under Christianity this started to loosen up, and by the middle ages women had the right to learn to read and write, own property, to take up trades, to accept or refuse marriage, to enter convents if they wished, and to cast the family's vote in shire councils. The late Régine Pernoud of France wrote a couple of books on the middle ages and the status of women therein from which I am summarizing.

At the time of the Enlightenment, the intelligensia of the time wanted to cast off the yoke of the Church and return to the "glory" of old Greece and Rome. They cast off even the eccelesiastical pronunciation of Latin in favour of a made-up pronunciation (vene, vidi, vici went to wene weedee weekee for example). And of course they got rid of all that stuff about women's education and trades and voting and all that.

I understand Stephen Hand to be arguing that if Europe continues trying to purge itself of all vestiges of its Christian heritage---from which the very concept of human rights sprung---in favour of "a vague notion of trancendence" it is ripe for takeover by nihilism, the sheer will to power, totalitarianism, or the "Jihadist version of Islam" (a perversion of a religion for political purposes).

We crawled out of the pit in the middle ages only to be flung back again during the Englightenment. We crawled out again in the 20th century only to be flung back now by totalitarianisms, like nazism and communism, which strip people of their human rights. Under totalitarianism, people become just cogs in the machine of the state or the party or the class or whatever.

Or in other words, supernature abhors a vacuum.

Anyway, that's what I got from it.

I think that when we start talking about cooperating with anti-choicers and eliminating the need for abortion we conflate two issues. One is providing supports for women and children in our society. The other is defending a woman's right to make medical decisions about her own body.

I work a bit on the first issue, and cooperate with anti-choicers to do so. A lot of people cross the abortion divide to work on providing care for vulnerable children. It can get insulting hearing people say "if only those pro-choicers would work with pro-lifers..." Many of us do, and it is not easy. Differences of opinion on abortion often reflect more fundamental differences of opinion about the place of women and children in society, and those differences lead us to seek different solutions to the same problems. I would advocate birth control access where another would advocate teaching absinence, for example. But some things we agree on, such as the need to provide care for the vulnerable, and on those social issues a lot of people roll up their sleeves and cooperate with the other side.

On the second issue, there is no compromise. A woman has the right to make medical decisions about her own body without interference. My belief in this principle has nothing to do with the state of childcare or family life in society. Even if every child were cared for and money were no object, I would fight for the right to abort. Michelle put it a lot more eloquently than me. On this issue, I see no need to work with the other side or to compromise. I cannot compromise my own self-determination and the need for my body and soul to be free from the violation of intrusive and unecessary laws.

I did get my tubes tied as soon as I could after the abortion (and had to put up with all the well-meaning "what if you change your mind?" crap from friends and family) because I was so afraid of lightening striking twice ...

[ 14 March 2006: Message edited by: asthma_hound ]

There's way too much error to address here, but as a for instance, that howler about Enlightenment thinkers "getting rid of all that stuff about women's education and trades and voting and all that":

You were (or Hand was) thinking perhaps of Mme du Châtelet, Voltaire's lover and collaborator and also the translator of Sir Isaac Newton in France? Mary Wortley Montagu, friend and collaborator of Pope and Swift and Fielding? Aphra Behn, C17 dramatist and spy for the English government? Mary Wollstonecraft? Mme de Lafayette, collaborator with La Rochefoucauld and the greatest novelist of the C17? Mme de Sévigny? Jane Austen? Mary Shelley?

The truth is that, although class was certainly a factor, literacy among women climbed dramatically in the Renaissance and through the Enlightenment, as did the numbers of women who managed to de-class themselves (often a route to independence of many kinds).

When the chains went on women again, it was the possessive sentimentality of the rising bourgeoisie in the early C19 that put them there, backed up fully by almost all the Christian churches until well into the C20. Good Christian mothers and daughters were the property of their property-obsessed husbands and fathers (as, of course, aristocratic daughters had been of land-acquiring "Christian" monarchs and lords in the Middle Ages), and had to be kept squeaky clean and pure as such - hence the barf-making, bathetic sentimentality of Victorian manners and mores and much of the popular literature.

If you want to get on to the turf of "perversion of a religion for political purposes," I would suggest you do a little work on that beam in the eye of your own church before you go spreading hatred towards any one else's culture.

And btw, although I am not a linguist nor an archaeologist nor a classical scholar, I think you will find that it is so-called Church Latin that is "made up," or at least a late mediaeval evolution. I don't know whether disputes continue about the pronunciation of Roman v and c, but it is archaeological and linguistic research that has convinced many to pronounce them w and k.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
(What a bizarre little detail that was.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by brebis noire:

I recognized that bizarre little detail as afavourite rhetorical trick used by protestant preachers/pastors to give the appearance of great knowledge (he knows his subject in such DETAIL!)

---

/more thread drift/ This made me laugh. My fave rhetorical church trick is when preachers hit words italicized in the bible really hard, obviously not knowing that they were put in there by translators when needed. The preacher on the Simpsons is a hoot doing this: 'So the sons OF man went TO the river. . ' (I'm making this up, but you get the idea.)

[/end thread drift]

quote:

---

If you want to get on to the turf of "perversion of a religion for political purposes," I would suggest you do a little work on that beam in the eye of your own church before you go spreading hatred towards any one else's culture.

---

Am I reading you right, that you think my characterization of militant Jihadism as a perversion of Islam amounts to spreading hatred about someone else's culture?

Logically, militant Jihadism is either a perversion of Islam, or it is an accurate interpretation of Islam.

Meself, I give the 1 billion Muslims on the planet the benefit of the doubt. I assume they are reasonable people, trying to please God and live in harmony with others. Thus, I am assuming that Jihadism is NOT an accurate interpretation of Islam. Therefore, I think militant Jihadism is a perversion of Islam to political ends.

If that constitutes hate, I'd be afraid to ask of your definition of love.

As for the interpretation of medieval history, don't take it up with me, take it up with her:

Régine Pernoud

"Those Terrible Middle Ages: Debunking the Myths"
Amazon link at: http://tinyurl.com/njoqs

From some Amazon reviewers comments:

quote:

---

Pernoud's ability to right the record by turning stereotypes and fallacies upside down shines through. Her major concern is that what passes for an education in history within public schools is often little more than a string of stereotypes held together by the glue of gullibility: "The Middle Ages still signifies: a period of ignorance, mindlessness, or generalized underdevelopment, even if this was the only period of underdevelopment during which cathedrals were built!"

---

quote:

---

Pernoud's central argument is that the revival of Roman law and the infatuation with Greek and Roman culture which occurred in France and much of western Europe during the sixteenth century resulted in an eclipse, even destruction, of all that had existed between the "two periods of light: antiquity and the Renaissance. . ." The intermediate period (the "middle" age) quickly became viewed as "crude" and "dark", failing to measure up to the eternal standards of ancient Greece and Rome. For instance, in the realm of art the result was "an anathema on the Middle Ages. All that was not in conformity with Greek or Latin modeling was mercilessly rejected" and even purposefully targeted for destruction.

---

quote:

---

She shows how nonsensical is the myth of the 'renaissance' the alleged rediscovery of classical learning. The peopleof the medieval period were quite familiar with classical authors, they simply didn't feel the need to copy them slavishly, unlike the people of the supposedly enlightened period that followed.

---

"Women in the Days of the Cathedrals"
Amazon link at: http://tinyurl.com/rr8j7

From an Amazon review:

quote:

---

In a recent TV programme I was surprised to hear Terry Jones, medieval historian and ex-Monty Python, describe women in the middle ages as merely 'chattels'. This excellent book shows how mistaken this view is. In Regine Pernoud's fascinating book you can read about the many and varied roles that women had in medieval times. here are powerful queens and duchesses, influential nuns, women saints, warriors, writers, doctors, tradeswomen and craftswomen, none of them at all chattel-like. This book shows how a woman like Joan of Arc could become leader of an army, there was nothing unusual in the Middle Ages about a woman taking on such a role. I had never thought before about the invention of the mill as the first great labour-saving device, but of course as Regine Pernoud points out, it freed women from having to spend their days in the back-breaking task of grinding corn by hand, something women still have to do in parts of the world. This is an absoultely enthralling book.

---

quote:

---

I love this book. Regine Pernoud is my new favorite historian. Ms. Pernoud writes about the Middle Ages when men were men and women were--well if not in charge pretty darn close to being so. Ms. Pernoud's premise contradicts much of what I have read elsewhere, but she goes to the primary sources and produces much material to support her thesis.

---

quote:

---

Studying primary sources, Ms. Pernoud shows that during the feudal era in the Middle Ages, around 1100-1300 AD, women were intelligent, capable, and highly influential citizens, involved in all areas of life, including medical, professional, education, political and administration. Never again have women had such influential roles in their society. As the Renaissance began to grip Europe, and the University of Paris barring women and the resurgence of classical Roman law, the role of women completely diminished.

---

(that last emphasis is mine)

And a sampling of some of her other titles:

"Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses"
Amazon link at: http://tinyurl.com/mjxfw

"Joan of Arc: Her Story"
Amazon link at: http://tinyurl.com/r76jt

"A Day with a Noblewoman"
Amazon link at: http://tinyurl.com/s7xrq

"A Day with a Stonecutter"
Amazon link at: http://tinyurl.com/lhc24

"Hildegard of Bingen: Inspired Conscience of the Twelfth Century"
Amazon link at: http://tinyurl.com/prk3d

[ 14 March 2006: Message edited by: Fed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tehanu (to Fed):
See, the key difference is that you think of abortion as killing. I don't.

---

After reading through this (really good) thread a couple of times, I think that may be the heart of the issue. If it's not killing, there should be no restriction on abortion. If it was killing, that's a different story.

The one thing I struggle with is the "slippperly slope" of fetal development. Is it a non-person until birth? I know that the Roe court established the third trimester as a pretty black and white dividing line (which is necessarily arbitrary, I think).

quote:

---

And btw, although I am not a linguist nor an archaeologist nor a classical scholar, I think you will find that it is so-called Church Latin that is "made up," or at least a late mediaeval evolution. I don't know whether disputes continue about the pronunciation of Roman v and c, but it is archaeological and linguistic research that has convinced many to pronounce them w and k.

---

[thread drift]We're able to have a fairly good knowledge of classical pronunciation because of some stone masons or inscription makers or graphitti-ers, etc. used phonetic spellings sometimes when they couldn't figure out how to spell something.

Ecclesiastical pronunciation varies from country to country. For example, if you hear Palestrina's "Tu es Petrus," you will be able to tell (or at least now you will) where the choir is from by how they pronounce it, especially when they sing a word like "caeloroum." A German, like the current Pope, would pronounce it "saylorum" whereas an Italian would say "chaylorum" (please note: I'm not so great in writing out phonetics, so please excuse me).

Ecclesiastical Latin wasn't "made up" so much as developed through the influences of vulgar Latin and through the languages developing around it (remember that Latin was used in the vernacular until the 9th century). Vulgar Latin pronunciation also had a great influence on the developing romance languages. Grammatically, classical and ecclesiastical Latin are virtually the same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

The one thing I struggle with is the "slippperly slope" of fetal development. Is it a non-person until birth? I know that the Roe court established the third trimester as a pretty black and white dividing line (which is necessarily arbitrary, I think).

But, what do you all think? Is a fetus a non-person until the moment of birth or does a fetus become a person at some point in the pregancy?

---

Sven, this question makes my spidey-senses tingle, as it's a fairly common provocation/red herring around the abortion debate.

But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. To be perfectly honest, viability outside the mother's body is something I struggle with as well, but what I always come back to is that a woman should never be forced to continue a pregnancy is she chooses not to.

I mean, really. If, for example, medicince could keep a four-month premie alive, are you going to induce birth at four months rather than allow an abortion? Sounds ridiculous and far-fetched, doesn't it? And yet that's the direction the viability argument goes if taken to its logical conclusion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tehanu:

Sven, this question makes my spidey-senses tingle, as it's a fairly common provocation/red herring around the abortion debate.

But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. To be perfectly honest, viability outside the mother's body is something I struggle with as well.

---

(My spidey-senses are tingling, too.)

"Viability" is changing. Preemies are being kept alive at much earlier stages than before. Often at great cost -- both financial and health-wise. On CBC radio on the weekend (Sunday Edition? I'll go look for a link), there was a documentary about technolgy and preemies. Some of these are very under-developed and some never develop. One woman whose preemie was quite handicapped spoke about wanting there to be some choice in these matters.

Does just being "able" to keep them alive justify it?

edited to add: Nope, it was Quirks and Quarks.

[ 15 March 2006: Message edited by: fern hill ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tehanu:
Can I suggest -- and it's my fault for bringing up that website that Fed recommended -- that if people want to have a discussion about women's position during the Renaissance/Middle Ages/Enlightenment & 19th century, another thread devoted to it might be appropriate? I think this one is important enough to keep on topic.

Ta!

---

Tehanu, I take your point, and if I can think of a nice way to start a new discussion, I will, since Fed's reply above raises so many other further issues. But you are right: it is drift here.

I wanted to thank Euhemeros for that post as well, though. That was more or less my understanding, ever since I was first shocked to learn that the Hollywood version of "veni vidi vici" is pronounced by most classical scholars "way-nee wee-dee wee-kee."

quote:

---

Under Christianity this started to loosen up, and by the middle ages women had the right to learn to read and write, own property, to take up trades, to accept or refuse marriage, to enter convents if they wished, and to cast the family's vote in shire councils. The late Régine Pernoud of France wrote a couple of books on the middle ages and the status of women therein from which I am summarizing.

---

quote:

---

posted by Sven: ... The one thing I struggle with is the "slippperly slope" of fetal development. Is it a non-person until birth? I know that the Roe court established the third trimester as a pretty black and white dividing line (which is necessarily arbitrary, I think).

---

quote:

---

But, what do you all think? Is a fetus a non-person until the moment of birth or does a fetus become a person at some point in the pregancy?

---

In the best of circumstances, pregnancy is an amazing symbiotic relationship between a potential human being and the woman who is giving life.

[ 15 March 2006: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by deBeauxOs:

In the best of circumstances, pregnancy is an amazing symbiotic relationship between a potential human being and the woman who is giving life.

---

quote:

---

Is a fetus a non-person until the moment of birth or does a fetus become a person at some point in the pregancy?

---

quote:

---

... Until there was a soul present, a woman may as well have been aborting a hot dog ...

---

Strange isn't it? The Vatican attributes power to its 'hot dogs', whoops, 'top dogs' aka cardinals. What they really fear is retroactive abortions, that the mudders of the Church fadders will reach out from the womb to snuff 'em.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
HA! And, keep in mind that the American's already have a form of birth/population control - it's the most privatized, most expensive health care system in the world. Republican conservatives have worked hard to ensure that America can boast bottom of the barrel infant mortality rates among richest nations.

---

“Somewhere there is a child who is hungry, who is sick, who needs love and an education, but our governing bodies do not feel compelled to provide those services for that child. Yet those same governing bodies have determined that it is necessary to compel a woman to squander her time, while she undergoes the physical and mental ordeal of carrying that child to term, so that it will be able to experience society’s indifference to its suffering.” — Wee Mousie

quote:

---

The Economist of Odd Questions
by Stephen J. Dubner
The New York Times Magazine (2003)
[Steven Levitt would go on to publish some of his wilder theories in “Freakonomics”]

. . . Levitt and his co-author, John Donohue of Stanford Law School, argued that as much as 50 percent of the huge drop in crime since the early 1990's can be traced to Roe v. Wade. Their thinking goes like this: the women most likely to seek an abortion-poor, single, black or teenage mothers-were the very women whose children, if born, have been shown most likely to become criminals. But since those children weren't born, crime began to decrease during the years they would have entered their criminal prime. In conversation, Levitt reduces the theory to a tidy syllogism: "Unwantedness leads to high crime; abortion leads to less unwantedness; abortion leads to less crime.". . .

---

[ 19 March 2006: Message edited by: Wee Mousie ]

No abortion for rape or incest even! What a bunch of PRATS!

I remember the abortion debate, back in the 1980's, here in Canada (during the Chantel Daigle case).

Men's right to procreate against a woman's right to an abortion (the crux of the Daigle case).

I remember doing volunteer work for C.A.R.A.L. (Canadian Abortion Rights Action League) at the time and sitting in many an information booth for the organization.

I also recall "baiting" anti-abortionists, in order to draw out their TRUE opinions on "alternatives" to abortion.

I recall one particular conversational stream, in which I suggested that as reproductive technology evolves, it may be possible to transplant an embryo to another "host" in order to allow an infertile woman to "experience pregnancy".

I also suggested that someday soon, it would likely be possible to implant the embryo in a MAN too (not that far fetched, if you think about it). The cord could be attached to the outside wall of a man's stomach and the man could give birth via c-section.

The anti-abortionists engaging in this conversation were aghast and taken aback by these "un-natural" methods of bringing an embryo to term. They were ABSOLUTELY against messing with "god's plan".

English translation: They REQUIRE women who get pregnant, no matter how (rape or incest included because you can't "punish the child for a criminal act of another"), to CARRY THE THING TO TERM.

There was NO room for compromise solutions, such as artificially gestating an embryo. These religious FREAKS require a woman to carry through a prenancy "god's way".

IF technology develops to the point where a "fetus" could be transplanted into a willing "host", why not?

Why not allow someone who WANTS to be pregnant to BE PREGNANT and allow the person who doesn't NOT TO BE?

The religious fanatics who are the root core (MEN for the most part) CANNOT/WILL NOT allow this, even if technology advances to make such a thing possible.

quote:

---

The religious fanatics who are the root core (MEN for the most part) CANNOT/WILL NOT allow this, even if technology advances to make such a thing possible.

---