Author
|
Topic: Nat Hentoff on Arar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 21 February 2007 02:24 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house:
Then someone pronounced an anathema because of his views on euthanasia and abortion.
And Iraq. An "anti-torture" article by someone who supported and supports the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the consequent torture, maiming, and murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I'm not sure if "hilarious" is the right word in such a tragic context.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 21 February 2007 02:33 PM
Oh! An instance in which you are unsure!Breakthrough! Actually, it is quite easy to write intelligently about torture and third-country rendition while having initially supported the Iraq War. Not everyone is an ideologue who supports (or opposes!) the Leader in a down-the-line fashion. Indeed, many of those who ARE ideologues tend to write in predictable fashion, with a certain blindness to nuance. So, I recommend Hentoff on Arar even if he doesn't follow the party line on every conceivable subject.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 21 February 2007 02:37 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
I also don't understand your points on abortion and euthanasia. Are you suggesting that religious or other anti-women organizations which oppose choice are "unprincipled", while he is "principled"? What does all this mean? Or put differently, if someone's racist or homophobic or anti-people views are "long-standing and principled", are they somehow deserving of our respect on that account?
Are you equating racism and homophobia with anti-abortion and anti-enthunasia views? I'm not taking a shot at anyone. I'm only saying that Hentoff is a decent individual who takes a sincerely held view, whether it be freedom of speech, opposition to capital punishment, or opposition to abortion.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 21 February 2007 03:18 PM
josh, there is more at stake with abortion rights than simply what would happen to unwanted babies should anti-choicers get their way. It's about a woman's right to decide whether or not her body is going to be used as an incubator. It's about a woman's right not to have to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want to go through with. I believe that anyone who refuses to take that into account, even people who are consistent on one level at being anti-choice AND anti-capital punishment, are not holding a "principled" view. Why? Because they believe in forcing women to bear children they don't want. They are the enemy of every woman who believes in the autonomy of, and control over, her own body. Unless you believe that men should be able to dictate to women what they can do with their bodies and enslave them through reproductive means, then you can't believe that a man who is anti-choice is holding a principled view. I'm sorry, but you just can't. It is fully incompatible. I'm sorry to continue to this thread drift, but I think you're treading on thin ice by going down this road. I know you're pro-choice and you fully support a woman's right to choose abortion. I know that in the US and in so-called progressive political circles the dialogue around abortion is different than it is here, and that you're probably on the left edge of the Democrats. But you've got to know that if you're going to try to argue here on babble, a Canadian discussion forum full of Canadian feminists, that it's somehow "principled" to hold anti-abortion views, you're going to be in for a rough ride. My advice? Drop the thread drift before we feminists get on your ass in a serious way.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|