|
Author
|
Topic: The "nuanced" position on abortion
|
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874
|
posted 08 February 2008 01:21 PM
The previous thread on abortion... on abortion and the leader of the federal Greens anyways... is nearing 100 posts. I wanted to open up a new discussion topic here about the "nuanced" position on abortion. Not Elizabeth May, not the Greens, but the position itself. Michelle, if you want to move this thread elsewhere (body and soul?), feel free to do so. ... I don't think the line where life (in the human sense) begins is a black and white one. I don't really think there is even a line. I don't think life begins at conception, I don't think life at birth. I don't really know where life "begins". I do believe that a fetus is at least some form of life, and that it therefore might carry at least SOME intrinsic value. So, I don't view abortion as a societal good. I wouldn't celebrate if I heard that the number of abortions rose. I'm not comfortable with them. That is my personal moral position on the subject. That said, I absolutely don't believe that my moral view here should be imposed upon a vulnerable pregnant woman. I believe that every woman should have the right to have an abortion if they so choose (see, this is where I thought the term "pro-choice" came from). I find the alternative, restricting access to abortions, terrifying. I don't think that these two views neccessarily conflict with one another. I believe the aims of reducing the number of abortions and providing full access to them can both be accomplished. I don't believe these views are unprogressive. How do they hurt woman exactly? That is my challenge to you.
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 08 February 2008 01:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
I don't think the line where life (in the human sense) begins is a black and white one. I don't really think there is even a line. I don't think life begins at conception, I don't think life at birth. I don't really know where life "begins". I do believe that a fetus is at least some form of life, and that it therefore might carry at least SOME intrinsic value.
The future value of the fetus has nothing to do with it, nor does it if there was a new line drawn that says this is where life begins, and there is a line by the way, it is at first breath. quote:
So, I don't view abortion as a societal good.
You cannot determine any societal good, or bad, when you think of abortion, it is not about society, or you, it is about the woman and her right to choose whatever she wants. quote:
I wouldn't celebrate if I heard that the number of abortions rose.
This is an odd remark, because pro-choice has nothing to do with wanting MORE abortions. quote:
I'm not comfortable with them.
It is none of your business, so it matters not what you are comfortable with. quote:
That is my personal moral position on the subject.
Your personal moral position has absolutely no bearing on upon a woman, nor this topic. As you, yourself, go on to note below. quote:
That said, I absolutely don't believe that my moral view here should be imposed upon a vulnerable pregnant woman.
Then keep your mouth shut and mind your own business. quote:
I believe that every woman should have the right to have an abortion if they so choose..
That is all that should be said, no qualifiers, nothing, nadda, not a god-damned thing. And that is where pro-choice came from. No qualifiers, no nothing. quote:
I don't think that these two views neccessarily conflict with one another.
Of course they do, one is your personal moral opinion, the other is a statement of human rights. quote:
How do they hurt woman exactly? That is my challenge to you.
By your expressing/inflicting your personal moral view point upon others, and by your believing you have a right to, when it is none of your, or even society's, business.When EMay does it, it is even worse, as she is a female politician, publically playing politics with other women's lives and our Human Rights. Moroever, if she was in the least pro-choice, as a lawyer, she would understand the legalities of these acheived Human Rights. [ 08 February 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 08 February 2008 06:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
So, I don't view abortion as a societal good. I wouldn't celebrate if I heard that the number of abortions rose. I'm not comfortable with them. That is my personal moral position on the subject.
Do you view divorce as a societal good? Would you celebrate if you heard that the number of divorces rose? Are you comfortable with divorces? Women have suffered, for millennia, because of enslavement to abusive (or simply unwanted) relationships, because of legal, religious, patriarchal strictures. The ability to leave - without constraint - is an indispensable ingredient of the emancipation and equality of women. In any society where women's unquestioned right to divorce has still not been realized, it is (in my humble opinion) an attack on women - an attack on human rights - to invite discussion on how the number of divorces can be reduced. Likewise with abortion.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boze
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14094
|
posted 08 February 2008 06:33 PM
Expressing a personal view isn't inflicting anything. Speech is not action. Debate, no matter how distasteful, is not an infliction on anyone or anything and I don't think the proliferation of expression of opinions and ideas can ever be a bad thing when one has the ability to tune out those messages one does not like. And that's all I'm gonna say on this topic.edit: except that I think abortions and divorces are neat. [ 08 February 2008: Message edited by: Boze ]
From: Kamloops | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 08 February 2008 06:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Boze:
Expressing a personal view isn't inflicting anything. Speech is not action.
Uh, yes it is Boze, to both accounts, that is why we have hate speech legislation, why there is such a classification as verbal abuse. Please do think a bit eh?! quote:
And that's all I'm gonna say on this topic.
Good thinking, as you were already asked by the moderators to stay out of the feminist forum a few months ago.[ 08 February 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boze
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14094
|
posted 08 February 2008 06:55 PM
If that's true I'll oblige, but I don't remember that.As for hate speech, Canada's hate speech laws almost kept Salman Rushdie's book from being sold here. In this respect the US constitution is unique in its guarantee of freedom of speech, but even they're slipping. Freedom of speech means precisely the freedom to say the things you disapprove of most, or else it's meaningless. It's easy to defend the freedom to say things you don't object to. [ 08 February 2008: Message edited by: Boze ]
From: Kamloops | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 08 February 2008 07:15 PM
Well, I tried to look for the thread in which it happened, but could not find it, must have been more than 50 posts ago, but I did find a thread in which Michelle refers to it. quote:
Oh no you don't. You don't get to take this thread and use it to start attacking feminists on babble again. That is most certainly NOT what this thread is for. This thread is to discuss the way this forum has been unwelcoming to anti-racist people of colour, and now you're calling babble feminists "misandrists".[/qb]
refering to Boze's actions
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 08 February 2008 07:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Is this a debate in the FF (among males, of course) on when life begins?[Giving my head a shake.]
Yes, and all of them are failing to see, not only what they are doing, but that it does not matter when life of a fetus begins, or when it does not when it is in respect to abortions.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673
|
posted 08 February 2008 09:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
I wanted to open up a new discussion topic here about the "nuanced" position on abortion. Not Elizabeth May, not the Greens, but the position itself.
There will have to be full access before any kind of nuanced position could be valid. The nuanced position holders will always provide platitudes about access--but only platitudes. Nuanced positions, in general, require a dialogue occurring in good faith--but until there is full access there can be no good faith here. So pragmatically speaking, anyone that really wants to advance that nuanced position on abortion needs to push for and help get full access before there can be any movement. Ethically speaking, human rights should never be exploited as political fodder. But back to pragmatics--what would be the point of raising that nuanced position? Why would anyone want to get people divided and worked up over abortion? Why would any real politician that has real issues to advance turn the national conversation away from those issues and toward abortion? It divides and distracts Canadians.
From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 09 February 2008 09:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
The most offensive thing about the "where does life begin?" debate is that anti-choicers would pit the theoretical life of the fetus against the real life of the woman. And that, in essence, is the violent misogyny at the heart of the abortion debate--which, as should be obvious, has no place on babble.There is no nuance. It is the woman's choice, point.
The "where does life begin" cannot be factored by those who would try to impose/inflict their personal moral philosophy upon the fact that women have the legal and legislative Right to self-determine. The bottom line is according to Canadian Law: quote:
a person may not be compelled to use his or her body at the service of another person, even if the other person's life is in danger."
this fact was noted by the SCC in regards to their decisions made about their recognition of woman's equality rights and freedom to choose what happens with their body in D vs T. This means that even if a fetus being recognized as a "person" has some line drawn, other than first breath one in place now, it means nothing in respect to a woman choosing to have an abortion. No person, this too means women, can be compelled to give service of their body to another "person" even if that "persons" life is in danger, which of course it would be, if a woman was choosing not to give her body into the service of another "person' by way of having an abortion. Beyond, this blatent disregard of Canadian law when imposing a personal judgement belief upon women, by those who feel they have a right to inflict their personal and morals views about abortion upon women, are in fact breaching women's Charter rights that were recognized in M vs R. Equality Privacy, Safety, and Conscience. For those interested in reading the full account of Charter Rights taken into consideration by the SCC, you can do so in this thread. Society does not have a right to compell women to become baby manufacturing machines, period, and making public judgements, that disregard Canadian law and human rights, from a personal moral viewpoint is misogynist, and in fact it could be an attempt to spread hate against women.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
laine lowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13668
|
posted 09 February 2008 08:40 PM
Well stated remind.Why does this topic keep reappearing in one form or another? Why must we rehash the fact that the SCC has recognized that women have full dominion over their body? There is no need to accommodate a "nuanced" position on abortion for the likes of Elizabeth May or Jonathon Kay or anyone else who is trying to soft-pedal legal restrictions to a woman's right to control her body. Get over it. As women, we have the right to decide if and when we will get pregnant or give birth. As someone who has had more than one abortion, I can tell you that it is none of your f*cking business why I chose to. I can also tell you that there was a world of difference between pre and post 1988 and the SCC ruling was a welcomed change. Those women who feel morally repulsed by the concept don't have to access this medical procedure. It's their choice. [ 09 February 2008: Message edited by: laine lowe ]
From: north of 50 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 09 February 2008 09:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by laine lowe:
Why does this topic keep reappearing in one form or another? Why must we rehash the fact that the SCC has recognized that women have full dominion over their body?
I really do not know, I simply cannot understand those who do not realize it is none of their business what a person does with their body. They do not have to contemplate abortion in any way shape or form, all they need to do is understand that a person cannot be compelled to have their body used to benefit another for any reason. Period end of story. It is mind boggling and deeply troubling, that they fail to understand that basic legal right, and it is compounded by their failure to understand women have the Right to Freedom of Conscience, that in part means having a free life without "nuanced" positions, which are actually plaintive guilt trips which are geared to cast a woman in a bad light, a disparaging place, that has many dimensions, for choosing, either in the past, present, or future, to have and keep her body to herself. It is further compounded by their belief that they can side step women's rights to privacy, because of their personal morals. I mean wtf? They sound like the bigots that would not tolerate equality rights for SSM's. Well actually, they are bigots, just the same as those who do not believe in SSM equality rights because of their personal morla opinions. Then when one adds our right to safety, of person, where playing politics with women's rights leads to targeting of woman for exercizing their rights, one clearly sees the deeply held misogyny. quote:
There is no need to accommodate a "nuanced" position on abortion for the likes of Elizabeth May
No there is not, for there is no nuanced position, it is trying to couch hate. It does this by the inference that women are doing something bad by having an abortion, such as implying that women are murdering a "life" as that is what WCG post actually did. quote:
Those women who feel morally repulsed by the concept don't have to access this medical procedure. It's their choice.
Yes, it is, and it is no other woman's business what another woman does, and it definitely is not a man's, nor is a man's business to discuss it.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
choice joyce
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11819
|
posted 10 February 2008 07:31 AM
Thanks for your great posts, remind. I totally agree, and if I may phrase the issue in my own words: In regards to abortion, the personal and political are completely separate. Everyone has varying personal, often "nuanced" opinions about abortion - the moral value of the fetus, when life begins, the role of women, and so on. But your opnion about abortion (or anybody's opinion) counts for absolutely nothing, unless you are pregnant yourself, or unless a pregnant woman asks for your opinion. Everyone's public/political obligation is to REFRAIN from imposing their personal opinions about abortion onto pregnant women. Instead, we must respect and trust each individual pregnant woman's decision about her pregnancy, regardless of her personal opinions and reasons, and regardless of whether we personally disagree with them or not. Because they are none of our business. (A fetus becomes a person when the woman carrying it decides it does.)
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 10 February 2008 08:37 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Boze:
If that's true I'll oblige, but I don't remember that.
I remember it because I was the one who told you to. So please stay out of this forum from now on. That said, remind, your tone from the outset in this thread has been hostile, and the opening post did not warrant it. Please dial it back. Thanks. Finally - we haven't had enough threads on this? I think we have. This is just going to piss people off, and a thread full of men discussing the "nuanced position on abortion" has no place in the feminism forum. So I'm going to close it. No, I'm not going to move it elsewhere. The rest of babble is not going to be set up as a "get out of feminism free" space just because something isn't posted in the feminism forum. [ 10 February 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Email this thread to someone!
