?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Ys
ysabel
..:: .::: .:: .::.::.:.: .. ..:: .::: .:: ....

May 2011
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31

Ys [userpic]

Once again, naamah_darling says it far better than I could. This time with slightly less fury and slightly more solid foundations.

If you, by some chance, thought you were being demonized by earlier comments on the subject, you'll probably find this one uncomfortable as well. That said, if you were feeling demonized by earlier comments, then my personal opinion is that you particularly need to read this one.

Current Mood: impressedimpressed
Comments

And once again, I am reminded of why I really, really dislike gunslinger.

Not that I needed a reminder.

Amen.

I read that entire post. And the one before it, and the other link, and the other.

One of my favorite blog comments of all time was left by Jesurgislac, on http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/04/cast_thy_blame_.html#comments

It's to someone from the staunch wall of starched-collar jut-chin smug normalizers that reinforce the reed-thin piping of the monsters at the heart of oppression, desperately struggling to protect the status quo of misery and suffering and minimize the voices and worth of its victims without taking a risky position themselves; the bright and peppy cheerleaders, one might say, of the red-handed monsters and the slave drivers squatting on their thrones. "Give me a fetus right!" they cheer. "Give me a stereotypical irresponsible woman!"

I like her answer; particularly in the context of the "partial-birth abortion act:"

**

... But, I do believe you just never think about the women so affected. Certainly I doubt you ever read blog posts like the one I linked to, and wish that woman dead. I think it never occurs to you to think about the women involved at all.

Because if you did think about them, I do assume you would change your mind. You would not support a law that has no purpose other than to harm women.

Convince me. Write a post explaining why you think this law is good. Use examples - you'll find them all over the blogosphere just now - from women with experience of late-term abortions. Explain why you think it's better that these women should have suffered or should have died. Don't go for the lazy "Oh, I don't approve of abortion" - these women all had serious health reasons why they had a late-term abortion. You want to argue that they shouldn't have, and particularly why they shouldn't have had an ID&X or a D&C? Tell us why you think it was better for them to suffer or die. Those were their choices. You think they should have have been forced not to abort: justify, giving real-life examples, why you think it would be right so to force them. You think it is right that doctors should be forced to use less-safe methods for late-term abortion: justify, giving real-life examples, why you think these women should have had damaged cervixes or strokes.

**

I so wanted to see someone try to answer that.

"Tell us why you think it was better for them to suffer and die."

**

They can't;

The pro-lifers articulate enough to speak for the movement without sounding crazy don't want women to suffer and die. They don't even want to stop abortions. They want to control their own fears. That's why real cases make them sympathetic, unless they're men and it's their own child, but why abstract women are so evil.

IMHO.

I need to read that post more thoroughly (dashing off to work now), but my initial scan makes me think there's a bit of a straw-man element at work here. Actually, I'm not sure "straw man" is the appropriate label when she's illustrating a mindset that not only exists on the pro-life side but seems to dominate it, but still...

If one believes abortion to be an intrinsically immoral act (not a view I share, but not one I consider to be mind-bogglingly unreasonable), then it isn't really a responsible option in pregnancy except when the alternative (significant risk to a mother's health, for example) is an even more immoral act.

If (ooh, an abortion analogy! these are always fun) a single parent quits their job to be a rock star --an act with a chance of financial distress-- and their only plan if the financial distress occurs is to commit an immoral act such as stealing food, then there is an element of irresponsibility to that choice. Obviously, the prospective rock star has non-immoral options, but our prospective parent (from the perspective of someone who sees abortion as immoral) does not. Pro-lifers confuse the issue by throwing around inappropriate and contradictory absolutes, and saying ridiculous and irrelevant things like "the purpose of sex is to make babies" (which makes about as much sense as saying "the purpose of music careers is penury") or "taking precautions doesn't matter" (if our rock-star parent takes precautions like having a recording contract in hand, but then the recording company goes bankrupt, one would be hard-pressed to say their decision was irresponsible).

So, the folks arguing for irresponsibility are generally completely wrong. But the argument itself is not altogether without merit.