babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Reproductive choice: how can we regain control of the discourse?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Reproductive choice: how can we regain control of the discourse?
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 29 January 2006 08:15 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was most disturbed to read this news from Britain today, indicating that there will be a potential regressive of choice over there. Now, I have to say, this proposal (reducing the 24 week time limit to a shorter one) is most disturbing not for what it does now but for what it opens up to in the future: an elimination of reproductive choice. The spokesman for English and Welsh Catholics seems quite optimistic that there has been a change in discourse.

quote:
'The Cardinal sees in this moral awakening a growing unease with, and erosion of, the idea of abortion as simply a woman's right.'

OK, so I realize that there is a key difference between the British case and ours: British women won the right to choose from an Act of Parliament whereas in Canada we won it through the courts. But might we still lose this battle?

I'm not going to go onto a diatribe about the Conservative party here. Not because they aren't horrible and terrible on this issue. I am aware of Cheryl Gallant and others who do damage to women's liberty. But they are, for the most part, known quantities. I'm more worried about the potential "mainstreaming" of anti-choice that appears to be happening. Joyce Arthur's assessment of the failures of the anti-choice movement in swaying the public through shock tactics is, I think, correct, but we still have a lot to be worried about as some savvy anti-choicers are learning from their mistakes and changing their strategy.

The revelation (or reminder) that potential Liberal leadership Frank McKenna was actively anti-choice when premier didn't seem to worry many babblers and if he loses (especially if he loses for that reason) it won't bother me either. However, as cdnviking astutely points out, most of the time women have won rights against public opinion. So, all of this rambling leads to a relatively simple conclusion: we must regain control of the discourse. It looks like they're losing that control in Britain and may have already lost it in the US. I have a strong hunch that once the right gets used to the fact that gays and lesbians can marry that women's reproductive choice will be the next target. That is, if we let them.

I'd like to have serious discussion on strategies that feminists can employ to keep women's interest in reproductive choice on the radar. I was heartened by the recent film about Dr. Morgentaler on CTV but I feel there should be more. Should there be something similar to Murray Dobbin's Word Warriors? I think that's an interesting model, but I'm not sure how to get started on that, as far as prioritizing news sources of monitor. Maybe some other form of political education? I'm looking for something that would be easy for people to contribute to, regardless of where they live.

Please let me know if I'm duplicating others' efforts by starting this thread. I know there's a lot of pro-choice organizations out there and I don't want to step on their toes. Also, I tried to find some unbiased studies of public opinion on abortion, but, other than this babble thread on high school students, only came up with a number of unlinkable so-called "Real Women" pages. Anyone know of any research on this?

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: kurichina ]


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 January 2006 08:25 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
www.religioustolerance.org tracks polls on issues like abortion and marriage.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_poll.htm

The most recent one they have for Canada is from 2002 though.

There is a very high level of support for freedom of choice for women in Canada. It has been rising steadily since the mid-1980s when only about half of Canadian adults supported legal and widely available abortions. By the year 2000, an Environics poll had indicated that support had risen to 66%. A Compas Inc. poll conducted from 2002-NOV-16 to 19, shows that 78% of adults are in favor of abortion access. This value varied from a high of 82% in Quebec to a low of 68% in the Maritime provinces on Canada's East coast.

As one of the people who commented on McKenna, I want to clarify something - yes, I am concerned. My comments were to the effect that if he chooses to represent himself as pro-choice, he'll get away with it, just as Stephen Harper has.

Now, I'll bow out of this thread. This is an issue where I think heterosexual women should do most of the talking and the rest of us should do most of the listening.

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 30 January 2006 02:15 AM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for those links, RB.
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 30 January 2006 09:18 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I read those articles in the Guardian yesterday, kurichina, and I was thinking of starting a same thread and calling it 'discuss abortion from a pro-abortion point of view' but you got to it first.

Actually, what first got me thinking about this a few days ago was a piece by Katha Pollitt calledProchoice Puritans.

Here is the first paragraph:

quote:
Do you think abortion is tragic and terrible and wrong, that Roe v. Wade went too far and that the prochoice movement is elitist, unfeeling, overbearing, overreaching and quite possibly dead? In the current debate over abortion, that makes you a prochoicer. As the nation passes the thirty-third anniversary of Roe, it is hard to find anyone who will say a good word in public for abortion rights, let alone for abortion itself. Abortion has become a bit like flag-burning--something that offends all right-thinking people but needs to be legal for reasons of abstract principle ("choice"). Unwanted pregnancy has become like, I don't know, smoking crack: the mark of a weak, undisciplined person of the lower orders.

First of all, it's possible that the advances in birth control over the past 30 years have made abortion less of a valid choice. If you're setting up at least one barrier between yourself and an unwanted pregnancy (for example, the option of using the pill for birth control or regulation of a menstrual cycle, plus a condom for safe sex reasons) then the very fact that a woman gets pregnant when she doesn't want to somehow makes her suspect. Obviously however, that's not an argument that we can buy into (if you don't already know why I say that, then please stop reading now.)

But I think the reframing of abortion even by people who call themselves pro-choice (not to mention public opinion) has a lot to do with demographics (an ageing society, perhaps?) but mostly, an unsettling political, military and global environmental situation in which we fear for our common future, our safety, our health and by extension, the future of the human race which necessarily implies children. So lots of people wonder: if a human can't be safe in its own mother's womb, then where the hell is a safe place?

I think this is a legitimate reflection, but I don't think it's ultimately very intelligent, profound or even realistic. It's an argument that comes from wishful thinking and a refusal to accept the human condition. It's untrue that fetuses benefit from absolute safety in the uterus, and ultimately, I think that the human soul is greater than the individual decision whether or not to carry a baby to term. What I'm trying to say, as briefly as possible, is that the choice to abort needs to be looked at as a philosophical and legitimate choice, not an individual decision, but a decision taken by women throughout the world, throughout history, in all times and for many reasons. It has always irked me that abortion is so present in the political arena - as if it were a 'right' to be granted.

Wake up guys, abortion will always be a choice and a right. Let's use the technology and the knowledge we have to make it safe and accessible.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ryda Wong
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11839

posted 30 January 2006 03:53 PM      Profile for Ryda Wong     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have a suggestion. I think it's time to switch the discourse of pro-lifers. Alright. They don't want unborn feti to be destroyed. They are willing to legislate control of the female body to prevent this. At least in the U.S., it seems as if they might get their way.

So, let's work with them, as far as preventing the destruction of unborn feti. But, instead of forcing women to carry something they don't want, let's nip the problem in the bud.

Government mandated and sponsored vasectomies for all males, performed at age 12 or thereabouts.
Males who wish to have children may sign an official, notarized contract with the woman whom they wish to carry their child. At that point, they may have the vasectomy temporarly reversed. In the event that the vasectomy fails, the woman may get an abortion.

1. It will be cheaper than unwanted children.
2. Vasectomies are eaiser, carry fewer health risks, and are less invasive than pregnancies or abortions.
3. NO forced carrying of a child for any reason.
4. NO emotional or physical trauma associated for the man or the woman.....

See how they feel about passing this. It makes just as much sense as banning abortion


From: Boulder, CO, where we wish we were Canadian | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 30 January 2006 05:15 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ryda Wong:

Government mandated and sponsored vasectomies for all males, performed at age 12 or thereabouts.

Pigs sprouting wings down there in Colorado, Ryda Wong? Or are you smoking the good stuff?


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ryda Wong
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11839

posted 30 January 2006 05:58 PM      Profile for Ryda Wong     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fern hill:

Pigs sprouting wings down there in Colorado, Ryda Wong? Or are you smoking the good stuff?



It is Boulder. Either is possible.


From: Boulder, CO, where we wish we were Canadian | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
MHB
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11828

posted 31 January 2006 01:00 AM      Profile for MHB        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ryda Wong:

"Government mandated and sponsored vasectomies for all males, performed at age 12 or thereabouts".

Is that your initial, moderate response to a legitimate objection to your beliefs, or did you have something more radical in mind, originally?

For the last 2 decades, males have been made to understand in no uncertain terms that in addition to "No means NO", that a woman has the ultimate authority and say in what goes into her body, viz, the male organ in particular.

So if we're all OK with acknowledging a woman's "right to choose" what goes into her body, why the fierce pro-choice objections to holding her accountable to that choice?

In simpler terms, if I decide to drive drunk, say, and I get caught, then I'm held accountable for my choice and actions, not some third party. Why should it be different with an unplanned pregnancy? If a woman made her choice to have consensual sex and becomes pregnant, where is it rational that another human must die for it?

There are alternatives to abortion; just look a the long line-ups of prospective parents awaiting adoption, or flying to China to adopt. True, this means months of carrying a child to term for somebody who hadn't planned on a pregnancy. But where did our society fall off the rails with this "me first" philosophy that sacrifices our unborn children to our personal needs of convenience and vanity?

Of course, in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, the man has a responsibility to the child, too, whether in the form of fatherhood, child support, and whatever else is necessary for the child's well-being. Unfortunately, the voice of the male tends to be completely ignored by the "pro-choice" faction; this new person is 50% the responsibility of the man, and unfortunately, he has no say regarding the child's future, be it life or death.

Here's a thought: since Roe v. Wade (1973), the United States has aborted more than 30 million children.

Thirty MILLION. That's the entire population of Canada. How many brilliant scholars, artists and other significant contributors to society were lost as a result of this decision? How many potential medical researchers may have been lost, who might have cured such scourges as cancer, AIDS, and others?

ASIDE: I've heard rumours that not following lock-step with this site's supposed views on abortion, the US, Conservatism, etc. is grounds for immediate banning. If so, that's your lookout, Rabble. I'd be interested in debating this issue rationally, and not trolling for fights. However, you'll decide whether or not you wish to encourage free speech & discussion as you deem appropriate.

mhb23re


From: GTA | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 31 January 2006 02:50 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Thirty MILLION. That's the entire population of Canada.

Which the US would have no trouble supporting, as long as that new population didn't expect luxuries like flu shots, schools, home heating, dental care, non-military jobs...

quote:
How many brilliant scholars, artists and other significant contributors to society were lost as a result of this decision?

1,247. Also lost were 983,261 violent criminals; 3,452,906 assorted thieves, con artists and burglars; 7,304,174 tax evaders, 625,295 drug addicts; 16,932 people with birth defects, 54,891 people with chronic, disabling illness and 25,783,206 people with ordinary problems, struggling to get by.

quote:
How many potential medical researchers may have been lost, who might have cured such scourges as cancer, AIDS, and others?

12. Since most of the unwilling mothers were poor to begin with, it's not likely they'd have sent their extra kid to medical school. And the society at large sure wasn't going to!
Ever wonder how many of the kids that were born in the US during that same period are 'lost' to society - because society doesn't give a shit about them, once they're born?

Pro-lifers are a lot like the child who insists that his parents buy him a goldfish - regardless of how many previous goldfish he's flushed down the toilet or how many he's neglecting in a filthy aquarium at the moment.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 31 January 2006 05:10 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And they simply have no business on this progressive board, and especially not on the feminism forum. They can't read, either, at least not the forum's rules.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 31 January 2006 06:27 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, MHB: if this is your response to Ryda's post -

quote:
Is that your initial, moderate response to a legitimate objection to your beliefs, or did you have something more radical in mind, originally?

- then I would say your first problem is that you are severely humour challenged.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 January 2006 07:58 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
And they simply have no business on this progressive board, and especially not on the feminism forum. They can't read, either, at least not the forum's rules.

Yup.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 31 January 2006 08:30 AM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I remember posing the following to anti-choicers YEARS ago (during the Daigle case):

I suggested that the medical community focus on developing the technology where "unwanted fetuses" could be gestated "artificially" and that a woman could choose to have an "abortion", but the "abortion" would be a removal of the fetus to be "grown" and put up for adoption (thus eliminating the forcable "broodmare" concept of "carrying to term" if abortion were outlawed).

The anti-choicers I proposed this too (they were harrassing me at a CARAL booth at a fair in soutwestern ontario) vehemently said NO.... GOD INTENDED A NATURAL CHILDBIRTH and they would NOT accept this as a solution and would OPPOSE it vigorously!

Question:

If the technology existed today to "end" the need for "abortion" by allowing a woman to "sign over" an "unwanted fetus" so it could be "artificially gestated", would anti-choicers accept this idea?

Admins... I DO respect a woman's right to be in control of her body! This is a HYPOTHETICAL situation (although certainly within the realm of near future medical technology, at the rate medicine is advancing) I am refering too, just to measure the depth of character anti-choicers possess and to see if they can "compromise".

I hope this scenario and question doesn't violate the TOS... if it does, please let me know and I will remove the post myself and accept my apologies.


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 31 January 2006 08:45 AM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for that article, brebis. That really clarified the situation well, especially this:

quote:
The trouble with thinking in terms of zero abortions is that you make abortion so hateful you do the antichoicers' work for them.

That's also way I've made the resolution years ago to talk about my own abortion when the subject comes up. The more that no one ever admits to having one, the more it was stay something that is considered clandestine and "shameful".


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 31 January 2006 09:07 AM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
cdnviking raises an interesting point about medical "technology". As did others up-thread addressing issues of viability and "improved" birth control. (I'd like to see some evidence that birth control is improved.)

Anti-abortion people know their strongest card is "late-term" abortions, "partial birth" abortions, preferably with gruesome pictures. It is true that technology can now keep shockingly premature infants alive (with however much cost and suffering and future ongoing problems is another subject altogether). And this fuels the anti-abortion camp into "merely" wanting lower limits on the timing of abortion.

I remember (but of course can't remember any names) some so-called radical feminists proposing that childbirth be made entirely "artificial". Both sexes contribute genetic material equally. Neither must make a time or health or whatever commitment. They don't even have to have *whisper* sex.

(But then sex is the problem isn't it?)

So if the ground is shifting on us feminists by way of technology, maybe we can regain control of the discourse by jumping on that bandwagon. We could say: Fine, when a woman can have a baby with as little effort, commitment, or risk as a man, we'll go along with more severe restrictions on abortion.


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 31 January 2006 09:14 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
Question:

If the technology existed today to "end" the need for "abortion" by allowing a woman to "sign over" an "unwanted fetus" so it could be "artificially gestated", would anti-choicers accept this idea?


I don't see how that question could be answered here. We'd all be speculating about how others would react to something hypothetical. That said, my guess would be no, they wouldn't. And while I think many pro-choicers would like it as an option, I think most would object to it being compulsary.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 31 January 2006 09:16 AM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Reality.. it isn't all that hypothetical really. There are already projections that artificial gestation in humans could be a reality within 10 years or so, given current advances in reproductive technology!
From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 31 January 2006 09:20 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's hypothetical now, regardless of what may happen in the future. Even if and when the technology does exists, we have no way of knowing whether or not anyone would try to make it a compulsary replacement for abortion. I believe that many of the anti-choice people are also opposed to in-vitro and other assisted reproduction techniques, so I'd anticipate little change from the reaction you got years ago.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 31 January 2006 09:22 AM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fern hill:
Fine, when a woman can have a baby with as little effort, commitment, or risk as a man, we'll go along with more severe restrictions on abortion.

Maybe also with as little money? Even if we were to accept the wildly optimistic view of reproduction by technology I can't see this being an option for anyone but the super-rich. At least not in our current economic system.


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 31 January 2006 09:24 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fern hill:

(But then sex is the problem isn't it?)



It's possible that morally, yes, sex is the problem. But philosophically, I think the problem is 'womb envy' - this control women have over life. You can't separate the fetus from the womb without compromising or terminating potential self-sustaining life. I think this is where the pro-choice movement has gone off the rails, BTW. If the pro-choice movement wants to shift into more control over the discourse, then we need to embrace that fact: yes, an individual abortion puts a stop to one potential life; but that life simply isn't viable without the biological - and psychological - support of a woman and her uterus. Sorry, but it stands to reason (and it's not just a result of 'selfish modern humanism') that if a woman can't or doesn't want to support that life, then that human soul is going to have to find a home somewhere else. It's not that big a deal, on a macro scale; it's the individual business of an individual woman - some might find it a heart-wrenching but necessary choice, while for others it's no big deal.

I don't even want to get into the technological aspects of artificial birth; I don't think it's any kind of help to a pro-choice discourse. I think it's counter-productive to talk about shifting responsibility to technology.

(and BTW - did anyone notice how the arguments of the anti-abortion poster way above are so OLD? I mean, we've been hearing the ones about 'how many future doctors have been aborted?' for ages already. Maybe this is a sign the movement is running out of moral/philosophical arguments? Do we ever hear anything we haven't heard a million times already from them - not to mention how those arguments seem to go a mile wide and an inch deep?)

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: brebis noire ]


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 31 January 2006 09:26 AM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And anti-choicers are pretty much ALWAYS so-cons who support regimes like Mike Harris' Tories, who SLASHED AND BURNED support programs for poor children.
From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 January 2006 09:36 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Furthermore, considering some of the lawsuits we've discussed in the past where sperm donors who went into the arrangement with the complete understanding that they were donating their sperm ONLY and not wanting to parent a child, getting hit up for child support later, I sure as heck wouldn't take the chance of my genetic material becoming a 22 year financial burden. And don't tell me it couldn't happen. Tell that to sperm donors sued for child support - or to people who are "tricked" into becoming parents. (And don't tell me that doesn't happen - I know personally of two cases where it has, and I'm sure those aren't completely unique in the universe.) I sure don't want to see a situation where people start going after women for child support for children they "gave up for adoption" before they were even viable human beings yet.

Not to mention that this would open up a whole can of worms when it comes to the rights of adopted children to know who their parents are, and for their birth records to be open. In which case, the genetic parents WOULD have to be involved at least to some degree in the child's life - even if it's just as far as knowing there's a child out there that is theirs and who could conceivably want contact or medical information at some point.

No one should have to be a parent if they don't want to be. Male or female. Whether through sperm or egg "donation" or through carrying a fetus to term. Period.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 31 January 2006 09:42 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I hope people making the "how many future doctors, artists, whatever" argument would spend their time on:

1) working for free universal access to all levels of education, for all qualified and interested pupils/students;

2) ensuring the health and well-being of children living in poverty (and their parents), here and throughout the globe;

3) work to halt the many armed conflicts that are killing and maiming so many potential useful members of their communities, in Iraq, so many African countries and elsewhere on the globe.

But I guess that isn't exactly the so-called "pro-life" agenda, eh?


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
asthma_hound
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11192

posted 31 January 2006 11:03 AM      Profile for asthma_hound     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Delurking to say that, as far as anti-choicers are concerned, their interest in saving life appears to begin at conception and end at birth - the tens of thousands of Iraqi children killed or displaced during the current US occupation are expendable, but the fetus fetishists (especially south of the border) have lots of time and $$ to spend in order to attempt to set womens' rights back 100 years. Go figure
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 January 2006 11:54 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You don't even have to go as far as Iraq to realize that their "culture of life" (what the fuck is that, a yogurt slogan?) begins at conception and ends at birth.

As soon as the kid is born, screw them if they need health care, day care, special education, decent schools, food and shelter (if they're not lucky enough to be born to parents with employment), dental care, counselling, after school activities, tuition for higher education, etc.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 31 January 2006 12:14 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As soon as the kid is born, screw them if they need health care, day care, special education, decent schools, food and shelter (if they're not lucky enough to be born to parents with employment), dental care, counselling, after school activities, tuition for higher education, etc.

Here's the thing: the people who use the "Culture of Life" argument-set (which is a specific subset of arguments against abortion) most strongly are also people who believe in a hierarchy of deservingness based on innocence. The less sin you have, the more you deserve to live. Consequently, as you get older, the more sin you're likely to rack up, and hence the less you deserve to get. When you're an adult and fully sinful, you get nothing.

The other aspect is that the Culture of Lifers also tend to believe that if people life in Proper Families, they wouldn't need all those state supports, and it's the "contraceptive mentality" brought about by abortion that creates those situations.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
het heru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11011

posted 31 January 2006 06:34 PM      Profile for het heru     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MHB:
Of course, in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, the man has a responsibility to the child, too

Yeah, and when he can carry it to term, then we'll talk.


From: Where Sekhmet sleeps | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boarsbreath
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9831

posted 31 January 2006 08:07 PM      Profile for Boarsbreath   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Like anything on abortion, this is all very interesting -- but it's not on the topic, which is a hell of an important topic.

So far the only point ON topic, I think, is the bit about making it a point to mention your own abortion when the subject comes up, so interlocutors can't keep it abstract & shallow. Bingo on that, I say. I can't do the same, but I can, and do, mention the abortions my sister, two once-girlfriends (no, not mine, but so what?), and two or three friends have had. Does the same thing: fosters a view of real people rather than slogans.

But that's conversations, not the general "discourse".

There, I just don't know. Opposing choice to life plays straight into the hands of the enemy, especially as the enemy becomes more and more religious. (Certainly down here -- South Pacific -- no-one gets anywhere arguing like that.)

All the 'lost babies' is in fact a powerful argument FOR free access -- it is what explains the drop in violent crime in America, never mind if you first heard this from an odious RWer rather than the economist, Steven Levitt, who figured it out. And of course lagatta's right on. But that's an argument, not a change in discourse, and it won't & shouldn't sway anyone's opinions (It's powerful if you're an AI directing human society, but this is about motivating & influencing NIs [so to speak].)

So -- a theme, a trope, a term?

"Reproductive autonomy" is what it is, logically, but that doesn't sound too catchy to me. Liberty (harkening to the court's logic in Roe), freedom, choice, all feed into the Right's most powerful trick, that they and not the Left stand for "Morality >> Responsibility". Libertines seek freedom to shed children. Responsible, and free, mothers seek to manage their families...but again, "manage" is hardly emotive.

"Security"? (Harkens to OUR court's logic, in Morgantaler.) Something to do with security? How can you be an adult woman amongst the crazier Right -- even as neighbours -- and not feel a little insecure?


From: South Seas, ex Montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
het heru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11011

posted 01 February 2006 12:51 AM      Profile for het heru     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
FWIW (and as I have been known to take the logical route with drunks, it may not be worth much) in addition to using myself as a concrete example (I do not now, nor have I ever wanted children, and got pregnant despite using two concurrent forms of birth control) I tend to argue the issue of belief.

You (the non-specific) may believe that life begins at conception, I don't. There is only one direction in which this belief schism overrides the other. Any law regarding abortion is from the perspective of those who believe, as the absence of a law would mean wide open choice - no one is forcing all women to have an abortion, and no one wants to do that.


From: Where Sekhmet sleeps | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca