Dispatches from the Culture Wars

I will believe that anti-abortionists are honest in equating abortion with murder, when they also decry the natural failure of early embryos to implant in the womb as the largest cause of human death, and when I start to see even a sliver of motion from them to detect their "children" who thus die. So long as they remain unconcerned about this -- a lack of concern that seems to me quite rational -- I am suspicious of their sudden concern when a woman causes this on purpose.

Posted by: Russell | February 4, 2008 10:22 AM

Excellent post and thank you for it. I'm an atheist who has a mixed opinion of abortion based on what I think is reasoned thought, not misogyny or religion. I can't for the life of me, figure out how it could be wrong to terminate a pregnancy early on, say in the first trimester. But how any sane person can defend abortion in the third of healthy fetuses is unfathomable.

I can't stand it when I'm accused of being either sexist for this position by pro-choicers, or wishy-washy by pro-lifers. I see it as the only logical conclusion.

Posted by: Butch | February 4, 2008 10:36 AM

Nice blog. Thank you.

Posted by: Ian | February 4, 2008 10:51 AM

(singing) One of these things is not like the other...

The trouble with your argument is that, unlike in the examples you give, the 'sneering dismissal' of abortion opponents has a genuine factual basis to it; that is, anyone who genuinely believes that a fetus is fully human and thus that abortion is (premeditated, and therefore first-degree) murder would support the same penalties for a mother who has an abortion as for any other murderer or accessory to murder (death, if they support the death penalty, a long prison term otherwise). Very very few abortion rights opponents in this country support penalties equivalent to murder for women who have abortions, which suggests that they don't genuinely believe that a fetus is a human being, which makes it a fair question to ask why exactly they oppose abortion.

And it doesn't help the anti-abortion-does-not-equal-mysogony case that one of the main arguments against penalizing women is that all/most women are forced into abortions or don't really understand what an abortion is - that is to say, the anti-abortion-rights crowd claim that women, like children, lack moral culpability for their actions. I'm not certain how this doesn't reveal a certain level of mysogony.

You've probably seen this chart before, but it's worth linking again.

Posted by: ithaqua | February 4, 2008 10:57 AM

I'm glad to see this conversation continue and touch upon other subjects where emotional debate can easily cloud our perceptions. I think it is valuable that we engage in discussions without demonizing and generalizationing the motives and positions of those we oppose. The debate has far too many complexities and variables to be anything but a personal decision in the end. It was obvious to me in the previous discussion that the misogeny comment did nothing to help clarify the issue except to show how emotionally charged it is, and that I believe we all knew (ok I'm generalizing) before we read the posts.

Posted by: JoH | February 4, 2008 11:16 AM

Banning abortion would effectively force women to bear children. How is that not misogynist?

Posted by: dc | February 4, 2008 11:20 AM

Butch: financial support is not equivalent to giving over your body to a highly specialised and invasive parasite for 9 months. Paying child support is not potentially fatal, but pregnancy is. You can't demand the use of another person's internal organs, even to support your own life. The fact that so many people fail to see that is what leads to many of the charges of misogyny. It's almost like some people don't even see women as human, since the right to bodily autonomy is about as fundamental as human rights get.

Oh, and the mythical abortion on demand in the third trimester is just that: mythical. Third trimester abortions are almost always strictly for urgent medical necessity, in cases where the life of both mother and foetus is immediately threatened by the continuation of the pregnancy. And even then, they're pretty rare.

Posted by: Dunc | February 4, 2008 11:57 AM

Great post, Ed.

I think this is something that needs to be pointed out more. I've been accused of being a mysognist by certain feminists simply for disagreeing with them, heck, even for not completely toeing the line where I agree with them. It seems like 'mysoginy' is an overused word, in general. I somehow don't think there are as many people out there "hating women" as the use of that word would imply. Heck, one can even be a sexist jerk without necessarily hating women.

But as you say, it is easier to label someone with something that you can then safely ignore as "evil" and not worth listening to than it is to actually adress the content of what someone says. In times past I saw a similar phenomenon with debates I had with those of the more right-wing bent - their dirty word is now 'liberal' so they labeled everything and anything they disagreed with as 'liberal' or they'd label you a 'liberal' and then you could be safely ignored as automatically discredited.

Posted by: Disgusted Beyond Belief | February 4, 2008 12:19 PM

Well, when the debate becomes centered on women as rational, thinking people and not as people who are willing to abort on the whims of the time, then I'll allow the pro life side some slack. Right now, they feed into a misogynistic stereotype because they behave that way. Their rhetoric, when they admit there is a woman involved in the abortion debate at all, is so demeaning to women it would make me cringe if I weren't misogynistic. To wit: women want to abort because being pregnant would interfere with a trip they had planned; women want to abort because they want to fit into clothes for some event (usually a prom dress); women want to abort because that's their birth control. When you have the pro life side represented by Randall Terry (Operation Rescue), Phyllis Schlafly, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Rick Santorum, etc., and others poohpoohing the very real medical problems some women face with pregnancy and childbirth, it's hard to look at them and think they are NOT anti-women.

Posted by: BC | February 4, 2008 12:42 PM

BC - I don't think anyone is denying that some anti-abortionists are misogynistic, but once again, you can't lump them all together with generalities or expect to know their motives. Most extremists on either side are irrational but it doesn't help the debate to use them as examples of the entire movement. You are falling into the good vs evil debate, I don't know any rationally minded folk that would agree with or use your examples and some of them are pro-life.

Posted by: JoH | February 4, 2008 12:59 PM

"I'm pro-choice myself, but is it really that difficult to imagine that someone could sincerely be convinced that abortion is murder, period, and therefore must be stopped?"

It is, somewhat, because not only would one have to understand incredibly little about neurological development in the womb (no brain, no pain), but would also have to have no interest in learning about the subject, nor in dealing with the comparatively far greater number of spontaneous abortions, nor in considering future suffering of both parents and their unwanted children, nor in understanding the "skin cell" rebuttal to the potential person argument.

It is hard to imagine this particular constellation of beliefs and lack of knowledge surviving for any period of time without being shored up by religious convictions (and, unless there's one I don't know about, all of the anti-abortion religions are highly misogynist). Hard to imagine, but not impossible, I guess.

Posted by: Jason Failes | February 4, 2008 1:19 PM

It is not because it's a potential person -- to them, it already *is* a person. They are not misogynist. They are not excessively religious. What they are is afraid of a slippery slope where we decide that certain people are not people just because they lack certain mental faculties.

Except even a completely real, fully grown person could not coopt someone else's body to use for life support. So they obviously think there's something about women that gives them less right to their own body than we would normally give to a human.

And it seems to me they are deciding that people are automatically worth something because of some kind of soul, which is, in some people's books at least, excessively religious.

Posted by: nicole | February 4, 2008 1:48 PM

dc -

Banning abortion would effectively force women to bear children.

Umm, it would? Then how is it exactly, that I know many, many women who have never once had an abortion, yet have also never once been forced to bear a child?

When you have the pro life side represented by Randall Terry (Operation Rescue), Phyllis Schlafly, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Rick Santorum, etc., and others poohpoohing the very real medical problems some women face with pregnancy and childbirth, it's hard to look at them and think they are NOT anti-women.

No one is saying that there aren't a whole lot of misogynists on the anti-choice side. I daresay that there is no one on that list that isn't a misogynist. That does not mean that every anti-choicer is a misogynist.

Jason Failes -

It is, somewhat, because not only would one have to understand incredibly little about neurological development in the womb (no brain, no pain), but would also have to have no interest in learning about the subject, nor in dealing with the comparatively far greater number of spontaneous abortions, nor in considering future suffering of both parents and their unwanted children, nor in understanding the "skin cell" rebuttal to the potential person argument.

Ignorance a misogynist doth not make. In a perfect world, everyone would be exceptionally well educated and capable of discerning bullshit propaganda for what it is. In reality, there are a whole lot of folks, who for a variety of reasons, buy into all sorts of propaganda that bears little, if any relationship to the truth. This is true in the abortion discussion, the discussion of science education, discussion of environmental issues (on every side), discussions of alty-"medicine," animal rights discussions, gay rights discussions and probably every issue under the sun.

Sometimes the ignorance is willful, probably most of the time. But often enough, the ignorance exists for lack of any understanding otherwise.

I am reminded of a discussion I got into in Clay Center, Kansas, when I went to meet my biological father for the first time. Clay Center exists solely because it is where the grain co-op and Clay county government (such as it is) has to be somewhere. I was eighteen at the time, spending my days hitch-hiking the U.S. I had multiple earings in both ears, hair halfway down my back and a very pretty-boy appearance.

As I was sitting in the only diner around, having breakfast and a coffee, I was approached by a farmer who asked; "Are you one of them queerfolk? (actually his first question was about whether or not I was one of Tom Cook's boys) There was a total lack of malice or disdain in his demeanor, he was truly just curious. So I said no, but I mentioned that a fairly large percentage of my friends are. The next question, again without malice or disdain was; "Why is it that them queers are so fond of sex with small animals?" We ended up spending the better part of three hours talking about gays and clearing up the vast misconceptions he had about homosexuality.

Before talking to me, he was pretty well against gay rights. This was not because he has any hatred or malice towards men who want to have relationships with other men, it was entirely due to his total ignorance about gays. Mostly based on the notion that gays like to have sex with animals and the worse, children. It never occurred to him that the sources he had learned about gays from, might just be very biased. I think the same is true of a lot of people and their opinions about a variety of issues.

This is just not nearly as black and white as some folks here would have it. I think that trying to claim that everyone who is anti-choice is a misogynist, merely serves to further alienate people who are anything but, who merely come to the conclusion they have, because of ignorance rather than malice. Calling them such, merely puts our rhetoric on the same level of that of everyone on dc's list which I quote above.

Posted by: DuWayne | February 4, 2008 2:07 PM

financial support is not equivalent to giving over your body to a highly specialised and invasive parasite for 9 months.

Wow, talk about misogynistic. Do you really consider pregnant women to simply be hosts for invasive parasites? What kind of a sick thinking leads to such an absurd charaterization? I mean, I've heard some bat-shit crazy rhetoric from both sides in these debates, but wow! Placental mammals don't really go through fetal development, they simply pass through a parasitic larval stage!

Posted by: tonyl | February 4, 2008 2:12 PM

Cali -

I do not deny that such a slippery slope could exist. (Most people would agree that an anencephalic could be aborted, morally, but what about others? Down's Syndrome, for instance? It's a gray area.

Just had a baby on December thirteenth. Mid-summer, we were called into an appointment with the maternal fetal medicine people, to discuss further DS tests and their implications. The nurse who called, talked to me and implied that there was a fairly significant risk of DS, which is why we needed to come in (turned out to be a one in forty chance, based on the previous results). Before we even went in, there was little discussion and no question. If the tests were postive, we were going to terminate the pregnancy. This would have been very hard and very painful for our whole family, but with a son who has fairly extreme ADHD, there is no way we could begin to justify bringing an exceptionally special needs child into our ranks. Even that aside, neither my partner, nor I, have the patience and fortitude to deal with a severely retarded child.

(but wish to see the rate of abortion go down considerably; abortion of a healthy fetus is a very sad thing to me)

I would like to see the rate of abortion go down, because with very few exceptions, the situation that led to the abortion, was unsafe sex. Being a condom nut (I usually have some on me and happily pass them out when given the opportunity) and sometimes HIV/AIDS activist, I am a very strong proponent of educating people out of dangerous sexual habits.

nicole -

Except even a completely real, fully grown person could not coopt someone else's body to use for life support. So they obviously think there's something about women that gives them less right to their own body than we would normally give to a human.

But their attitude is, that the women made the bad choices that led to her getting pregnant. Thus they would argue that if she didn't want her body co-opted, she should have either worn a condom or not had the sex.

Pierce Butler -

More to the point: if there is a thoughtful, non-misogynistic component to the anti-choice movement, it remains deep in the rear echelons, unrepresented by that movement's rhetoric, leadership, or street activists.

The shrill extremists, always get the podium. Moderates are underrepresented in virtually every movement you could list. Of course it's buried in the rear escholon, as it were. Such moderates are sometimes even denounced by the more extreme anti-choicers, as not really serious about the problem. Kind of like Phelps protesting Jerry Falwell's funeral.

Gods know that as a staunch political moderate, many of my orientations on a host of issues are almost entirely unrepresented. Is that my fault? I do everything I can to get those views out there. I find quite often that my moderate views are in line, or close to those of a whole lot of people, yet no matter how much little old me tries to get them out there, it's the extremists who get the most press.

The closest any of them come to "supporting women" (that I've observed, in about eighteen years of pro-choice work) is advocating the sorts of programs that Ed Brayton would instantly denounce as coercive nanny-state-ism.

Ed isn't exactly supporting their position here, any more than I am. This is all about sorting out the rhetoric to fit the argument. The only claim being made, is that not all anti-choicers are misogynists. This is not to be taken as an endorsement of their positions. I daresay that anything relating to abortion that they could come up with, would be denounced by Ed, regardless of nannystateism.

Posted by: DuWayne | February 4, 2008 2:32 PM

Wow, talk about misogynistic. Do you really consider pregnant women to simply be hosts for invasive parasites? [My emphasis]

No - I consider pregnant women to be full human beings. Why should the choice of a pejorative term for the foetus reflect anything about my ideas about women? They are not defined by pregnancy.

From a purely functional perspective, the developing zygote / blastocyst / foetus is a parasite. And every pregnant woman I've ever talked to about the subject has agreed on that - especially towards the end of the third trimester.

Posted by: Dunc | February 4, 2008 3:00 PM

Bad:

It's quite possible to make a distinction between course of nature and deliberate action. We do it all the time when it comes to a child dying of disease vs. murder, where only the latter is a cause for outrage and positive legal action.

Yes, intentional harm is targeted differently by the legal system. But even natural diseases are targeted by other efforts. There have been huge efforts to reduce and treat childhood diseases such as measles and polio. Practically every Christian church is eager to participate in various charity efforts aimed at other childhood diseases. But this one form of natural death they ignore, which if they are consistent to their claimed principles is the single largest cause of human death ever.

Now, I think it quite rational to ignore the failure to implant as a problem. Zygotes are neither conscious nor hard to produce, and at the point they fail to implant, no one has much invested in them. But by their own rhetoric, those opposed to abortion should view this as catastrophic as malaria, measles, and all other diseases combined.

Posted by: Russell | February 4, 2008 3:26 PM

"While it may be true that you could find a Nazi who doesn't . . ."

Goodwins Law strikes again, and as always I'm sure it will elevate the discussion.

Posted by: Sweating Through Fog | February 4, 2008 3:51 PM

Caliban -

It is probably true that not all fundamentalists are homophobic, but does it really matter if someone who supports an official government policy of discrimination towards gays then paradoxically claims not to hate them?

Absolutely it does. Indeed, it is a very important distinction. A homophobe cannot and will not be turned. The fear and hatred involved make any kind of rational, intelligent discourse impossible. OTOH, someone who is coming from a position based only in ignorance, without the hate and fear, can be reasoned with. While it may be more trouble than you find it worth, to try to reason with such a person, it is not the futile effort that debating true bigotry would be.

This is exactly the point of this post. When we just lump everyone who carries some belief, with everyone who's position is similar, we are engaging in intellectual dishonesty and intellectual laziness. We are in effect, saying that it is futile and pointless to talk to any of these folks, because they are all the same and none of them will listen.

Yet history shows the lie in this. If that was true, people could still be shut into mental institutions for being gay. People could still be prosecuted for having an abortion. People could still be imprisoned for having the audacity to marry someone with different colored skin. The only way to actually forward the goals of any movement, is the recognize that one's opponents are most certainly not all the same. To recognize that it is possible to turn some of them and thus the movement grows and change happens.

Because this is the ultimate "sin" in this intellectually lazy attitude; it hampers the very goals one espouses. Sure it might feel good, the way that being a martyr filled with righteous indignation, can give one a sense of superiority. But it is a hollow place, because all that you're really doing in ceding the battle to the enemy.

Unless of course, you honestly believe that gay rights can wait, or that it is such a sure thing, that changing minds doesn't matter. And the same can be said of abortion rights. While I don't see a huge step back on the horizon, abortion rights are not an absolute certainty. Activism is about changing hearts and minds. Calling someone a misogynist Neanderthal, is not conducive to that effort. Neither is calling someone a homophobic bigot. (which isn't to say that I've never done just that)

Posted by: DuWayne | February 4, 2008 4:16 PM

DuWayne,

If someone online (as this is the only likely circumstance under which such a discussion will occur with me)states that they are a religous fundamentalist (of whatever Abrahamic religon) it seems reasonable to assume certain things about that person.

Namely, the nature of certain beliefs they are likely to hold and their scriptual justifications for them. In such a case, i would assume thier beliefs would have something to do with the Old Testament. The OT is not ambiguous about how gays should be treated. If I should then learn that said Fundamentalist does not abide by what the OT says about gays, then fine, my assumption is proved wrong in this instance. (At this point one might ask how someone could identify as a Fundamentalist and yet reject what it has to say about gays.)

However, my initial assumption is still warranted given what most fundamentalist believe. That is why such self-identifying vocabulary exists in the first place. Fundamentalists want to differentuate themselves from other groups. Just as every self-labeled group does.

Posted by: Caliban | February 4, 2008 5:23 PM

Excellent post.
I think it would be fun to include ID-related hypotheses in a xenobiology course. I mean, as long as you're speculating about whether an aquatic species could ever develop advanced technology, what life would be like with three sexes, how to detect life not-as-we-know-it, and so on, why not include questions like:
"If life were designed and then allowed to evolve naturally, how long would evidence of design persist?"
"How would we detect (past or current) intervention in evolution by some external entity?"

Of course, the students would have to know a lot about evolution to understand the material, but (in line with the theme of your essay) surely there must be some people interested in intelligent design that would meet this criterion. Right?

Posted by: Ford | February 4, 2008 6:04 PM

naive:

Why can't a simple measure be used, such as 'if a "baby" can live with X probability (60%? 90%?) out side the womb then it's murder, if it can't then it's not'?

When medical technology advances to the point that every frozen embryo can be brought to term in an artificial womb, is it then a legal obligation to do so? We, in the 21st century, shouldn't be discussing these issues as if technology won't advance in this area.

Posted by: Russell | February 4, 2008 6:10 PM

Re: Russell

Miscarriage is not a wholly natural phenomenon. A great deal of the miscarriage rate depends on the age and lifestyle of the parents. The older the woman (and the man - most spontaneous abortions are caused by chromosomal abnormalities, which occur in the sperm just as often as the egg), the higher the rate of miscarriage. And things like smoking cigarettes, etc.

So what we have here with sex leading to conception is an activity that's about 25% likely to end an innocent life. That may be an acceptable risk - after all, we do have to have children. However, if you're talking about a 45 year male smoker having sex, the miscarriage rate from any conceptions are probably going to be around 50%. What I would liken this scenario to is driving. Driving is an activity that we know is going to kill thousands of people this year, but we need to be able to drive. However, this 45 year old male smoker having sex is the equivalent of somebody driving 100 mph on the highway. You go to jail for that. A 45 year old male smoker having unprotected sex with his 45 year old diabetic wife during her fertile period - I wouldn't be surprised if the miscarriage rate approaches 95% for that. But this exact scenario will probably happen a thousand times in the course of today.

The obvious solution here is to outlaw sex for smokers, people with diabetes, people over the age of 30, etc, etc. There were 1 million miscarriages in the US in 1999 (vastly underreported as most spontaneous abortions occur before 6 weeks and many are not even noticed by the woman, much less reported). These types of rules would probably wind up saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Of course, these rules are ridiculous, and nobody is advocating them. But the thing is, if you engaged in any other activity besides sex that had a 50% chance of killing somebody, you'd find yourself in jail very quickly. Sex is not an unregulatable activity - HIV positive people that have indiscriminate sex without informing their partner can be sent to jail. But nobody is going to even think about bringing up the fact that middle-aged married people having sex kills hundreds of thousands of 'people' a year.

Nobody thinks that a fetus is a person. Nobody. They might place a fetus on the status of a dog or a cat. But given the choice between saving 1,000 embryos and a human child, I have yet to meet one prolife person that would not save the child. And anybody that would save one person while letting 1000 people die is monstrous. Pro-life people that want abortion outlawed are either stupid, ignorant, or misogynists.

Posted by: Brian | February 4, 2008 6:21 PM

There are some pretty mysogynist people wrapped in the prochoice mantle. There are plenty of them that support abortion because they want to push eugenics, or because they are interested in population control, or because of racism. I have to actively remind myself that they're in the minority statistically, because so many of them rise to the surface in the shouting matches.

I'd say that the dividing line isn't "Which side cares about women?" But "Which side thinks abortion is actually beneficial?"

Frederica Matthews-Green put it succinctly: "Anything that proposes to help women by killing their children has got a lot of explaining to do."

A lot of prolife women (of whom I am one) have as much of a knee-jerk "You must HATE women!" response to a prochoice stand as prochoice women have to a prolife stand. Many of us get the feeling that prochoicers see women as just life support systems for vaginas, exiting purely as sex toys to get vacuumed out like rental cars so we're clean and servicable for the next user. It seems to us that in the prochoice image, women belong on their backs with their knees in the air getting something, be it a penis or a canula, shoved into them by some man who doesn't care any more about them than he cares about the burger flipper who grilled his Big Mac.

I'm not saying that this is STANDARD among prochoicers, just that many of us often get that impression, particularly from a lot of men who self-identify as prochoice.

Posted by: Christina | February 4, 2008 6:53 PM

DuWayne,

Things like bigotry, racism, sexism etc. are not simply black and white issues. It's not as if people are either 100% bigoted or 100% free of bigotry. Certain idealogies reinfoce bigotry while others do not. I feel i don't need to point out examples.

Consider: You have to choose between two options:

Option A: You are an unofficial second class without all of the rights and privledges of everyone else. However, the people most responsible for maintaining your lower status are "nice" to you.

Option B: You are a full citizen and have the same rights as everyone else, however, a certain subset of the population hates "your kind" and is very vocal about it.

Which would you rather have? I don't know about you, but my status as a ciitzen far outweighs weather or not certain groups hate or like me.

This is why it's bigoted to vote for people who run campaigns specificly against gay rights.

Posted by: Caliban | February 4, 2008 6:59 PM

Mike wrote:

How is it misogynistic to think that a female fetus' right to life might trump a woman's right to do what she wants with her body?

Because it makes women and fetuses moral and legal equivalents. I don't see how the gender of the fetus, if it could be known, would change that.

********************************

I forgot to mention this in my earlier post.

Ed Wrote:

Anyone who is against affirmative action is a racist.

Anyone who is for affirmative action just wants a free ride.

Anyone who is for school vouchers just wants to destroy public schools.

Anyone who is against school vouchers just wants our kids to languish in bad schools without any hope of getting out.

I'm sorry for sniping at you the other day, but I think these are bad analogies. None of these positions are advocating denying anything, much less medical services or medication, to a specific segment of the population.

Again, this is about a position that advocates legislation barring one group from accessing certain medical procedures specific to their needs. Which is why I think that saying the anti-choice/pro-life position is inherently misogynistic is a lot more like saying that the anti-gay marriage position is inherently homophobic.

***************************************

DuWayne wrote:

A homophobe cannot and will not be turned.

Says who? Homophobes can and do change. Still, whether or not they might change in the future has nothing to do with what they advocate in the present. Perhaps you can tell the difference between a person who is simply advocating for legal discrimination against gay people because they think being gay is morally repugnant and those who just generally hate gays.

I can't tell the difference. I think the two things are functionally equivalent. Some people are more vehement then others, to be sure. But they both look like homophobes to me.

Posted by: Leni | February 4, 2008 7:05 PM

Mike: you evidently think that a mass of immature cells with absolutely no capacity for higher thought and (only possibly) minimal capacity for physical sensation is equal to a conscious adult woman in terms of personhood.

I'm not Mike, but I want to point out the error in this statement. Once again we see an overstatement (just as this whole debate began with the overstatement that all anti-choice folks are misogynists). It need not be that the fetus is equal to the mother, but that its interests are not wholly absent.

The pragmatic result would be that the mother's interests may or may not trump the fetus' interests, depending on the situation. Rape or incest give the mother's interests more weight for most Americans. Others also see other factors, such as income and health giving the mother's interests more weight.

Just as very few people would assign no value at all to the fetus's interests, very few people would assign no value at all to the mother's interests. I would be inclined toward agreeing that anyone who assigns no weight to the mother's interest is likely motivated by misogyny. Then we can reasonably debate where the misogyny line is drawn. If someone opposes abortion in the third trimester except for serious health concerns, are they misogynist or not? If someone says the mother's interest trump the fetus's only until the heartbeat begins, is that misogynist?

There's lots of room for intelligent and reasoned debate. But the claim that everyone who opposes abortion is a misogynist is neither intelligent nor reasonable. If the claim means everyone who opposes all abortions, and would never allow any, no matter what the circumstances, then, OK, I think that's reasonably called misogynist because it wholly dismisses the interests of the mother (although that would still leave the female fetus problem another commenter mentioned) . But in that case the claim is much smaller and less sweeping than I have inferred it to be.

What a thread, though! I'm amazed and impressed by it's longevity. Kudos to Ed for supporting its continuation.

Posted by: James Hanley | February 4, 2008 7:08 PM

Naive, one thing to keep in mind is that birth is a biologically significant event. An infant born at 7 months is not the same as a 7 month fetus. When a new infant starts to breathe, the increased serum oxygen levels start the brain working in ways it could not, for the fetus in the womb. If you were to reduce an infant's serum oxygen to what it was for the fetus in the womb, the infant would suffer unconsciousness. And likely worse. (It wouldn't return to the state of a fetus. Biological development is path dependent, and rarely reversible.) To put it simply, an infant breathing outside the womb has started a phase of biological development that was impossible for the fetus. Regardless of when birth occurs. A premature infant might not make it through that phase. But a fetus, no matter what month, hasn't yet reached that phase.

That said, I understand the argument for drawing a legal line not at birth, but at some stage of development prior to birth. And I think that is a perfectly reasonable argument to have, so long as it is based on neurological development, not on the variety of nonsense issues that usually lie behind anti-abortion views.

Posted by: Russell | February 4, 2008 7:31 PM

I am opposed to abortion but support comprehensive sex education and the widespread availability of contraception.

I believe women as individuals, like men, have the right to decide what happens to their bodies. But they do not have the right to decide that for other individuals. For me, a fetus is just one phase of the four-dimensional event which is the totality of an individual human life and I believe that individuals should be entitled to the right to life at all stages of development.

This is not based on any religious belief - I am both agnostic and atheist - but on a belief that the right to life is one of the foundations of any humane and civilized society and not to be circumscribed except in cases of extreme necessity.

This means that abortion should be available cases where the mother's life or long-term health are at risk and a choice has to be made between the life of the mother and that of the unborn. There can be no justification for forcing a woman to carry a child to term at the risk of her own life.

I also believe that any society which is contemplating a limit on abortion must be prepared to make adequate provision to care for the mothers and those children who are not wanted by their biological parents. We could hardly call ourselves humane and civilized if we abandoned some of the most helpless and needy on society to their fate.

Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | February 4, 2008 8:19 PM

Russell, you are making the same mistake as others here: arguing with me as if I was defending their position as correct. I don't think it's correct, and I agree with your arguments. But you are missing the point that there is a huge range of difference between insincerity and being incorrect. My point is simply that sincere people have answers to the supposedly unanswerable criticisms you and I might have of their position. And we may not agree with those answers, but that doesn't mean that they aren't held sincerely.

And honestly, I agree with Peter Singer on this one: very little that occurs at biological birth makes any meaningful difference in the moral capacity of a fetus/baby. It's not a useful moral line, except for the legal convenience of having a clear easy to define line.

I also don't buy the "if you don't refuse to acknowledge that pregnancy raises different legal and moral questions, then you hate women or think they are unequal" position that some here seem to have. The reality is, women get pregnant. That doesn't make women have less rights, or be less worthy. What it does mean, however, is that women can potentially face ethical situations that men will not. But we don't get to simply ignore the situation entirely for the sake of "equality."

Side note on something I read today: fetuses have been observed to masturbate in the womb. Ewww. Even if it might help their case, I don't think many pro-lifers will be highlighting that bit of info.

Posted by: Bad | February 4, 2008 8:43 PM

DuWayne,

Misogyny is a hatred of women, a desire to oppress women. People who believe that a fetus is a human life, no different than any other human, don't necessarily hate women or want to oppress them. Their belief is founded in ignorance to be sure, but ignorance doth not misogyny make.

But if they act on that belief in a way that advocates legislating bans, then they are oppressing women whether they do it because they hate them or not. Insofar as forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies is a kind of oppression. I think it is, in all but the most extreme cases.

Again, if a person simply doesn't like abortion then I would probably put them in the pro-choice camp. Nobody likes abortion, but only some of us actually want to ban it.

Not understanding the effects of your opinions or actions doesn't mean those effects don't exist. I guess this just seems basic to me. If you have racist ideas, support racist legislation, it probably shouldn't surprise you if someone "hauls off" and calls you a racist.

That said, I don't think you are justifying anyone's bad behavior or ideas. I know you are trying to be fair and even-handed. I just think you are missing the point that being nice or not meaning to hurt others doesn't absolve you when you do. At least not in cases like this, where we are talking about what would essentially amount to using the government to force women to remain pregnant against their will. The stakes are a lot higher, and the result is a profound kind of institutional misogyny that I find frightening.

Posted by: Leni | February 4, 2008 9:18 PM

Show me a person who wants to ban or heavily restrict abortion who is neither a misogynist nor repeating misogynistic arguments without even thinking about them, and I will cheerfully amend my generalization.

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 4, 2008 9:47 PM

Bad: Side note on something I read today: fetuses have been observed to masturbate in the womb.

I'm tempted to ask you to provide a source (with images) on that factoid, but wonder whether Homeland Security would flag me as a pedophile and prosecute the researchers as child pornographers.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 4, 2008 10:37 PM

It is interesting that some people are very comfortable making absurd generalizations about their political foes...yet they cry foul when similiar generalizations are thrown in their direction.

Posted by: Cheddar | February 4, 2008 10:53 PM

I agree that being of an anti-abortion persuasion does not necessarily equate with misogyny. However, I personally believe that "pro-life feminism" is an oxymoron of a grand scale.

It is my observation that the vast majority of anti-abortion activists are motivated not so much out of fear/hatred of women as fear/hatred of sex for its own sake. I think that most of these people truly believe that sexual intercourse should be engaged in exclusively for procreative ends, and this is why you see so many of these people simultaneously rail not only against abortion but also comprehensive sex-ed and all forms of artificial birth control.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 4, 2008 11:22 PM

It is interesting that some people are very comfortable making absurd generalizations about their political foes...yet they cry foul when similiar generalizations are thrown in their direction.

I can only speak for myself, but when I object to generalizations being applied to me I can and do provide some more convincing reason why they are false, as applied to me, than merely that they are generalizations (or even that they are unflattering generalizations).

Additionally, it is perhaps worth explaining that in my usage "misogyny" refers not merely to a conscious desire to oppress women, but also includes the belief that women's rights and interests are not worth enough to make specifically oppressing women an unacceptable form of collateral damage, or that women's interests and "nature" are such that treatment which the speaker would consider self-evidently oppressive when applied to himself is not "oppressive" when applied to women. For instance, from an overview of Jim Stone's position, the implicit argument that whatever the fetus is being deprived of is more valuable than the right of a woman to control her own body and life, while perhaps falling somewhat afield of the literal interpretation of "misogyny" as "hatred of women", is difficult to adopt unless one trivializes - or is outright contemptuous of - the rights and interests of the woman in question. Within a reasonably broad interpretation, my position stands.

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 4, 2008 11:45 PM

Bullshit. You will find some moronic rationalization to claim that no, that person really is misogynistic. Then you will put you fingers in your ear and go "la la la la misogynist la la la la" until they give up and go home. At which point you will claim victory. You Manichean dualists usually end up following the same basic script.

And it will be interesting to see you mount a response to my previous statement that does not also imply that the sentiment satirized by the phrase "I don't hate blacks - I think they're great! I think everyone should own one!" is not "racist."

The logic is roughly equivalent, since it restricts the term that's being used to the most literal interpretation of "hatred of x group" and takes at their word anyone who claims not to "hate" that group. But, of course, if pattern recognition holds, that's different. Why? IT JUST IS!

Speaking of following the same basic script...

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 4, 2008 11:56 PM

As a conservative, I have had two children and am working on producing another. And yet two of my liberal girl friends have none.

So having children is apparently a conservative thing to do? Interesting. I guess that tidily explains why I, a liberal, have no children and have no intention of having any in the foreseeable future. You sure did clear that up!

I hope they wake up before the clock stops ticking.

Or, presumably, they are exercising their own judgments and free will about making such a huge, life-impacting decision as having children. But then, I don't know your friends. Maybe they just don't want their boyfriends to be saddled with those pesky child support payments.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 5, 2008 12:13 AM

Isn't it obvious that Pro-choicers hate God, hate America and love the Terrorists.

Posted by: Cheddar | February 5, 2008 12:56 AM

naive: you support a standard that basically says, "If the fetus has a pretty good chance of surviving on its own outside the womb, you shouldn't kill it." this got me thinking: once you've established that the fetus could probably survive on its own, why should the mother have to remain pregnant? why not induce early labor or perform a c-section?

If the fetus has such a good chance of surviving that you're not willing to kill it, then you shouldn't be forced to act as its own personal life support. let it take its chances.

Posted by: also naive? | February 5, 2008 1:15 AM

"If the fetus has such a good chance of surviving that you're not willing to kill it, then you shouldn't be forced to act as its own personal life support. let it take its chances."

No child up to about age 2 has any chance for survival without food, love, shelter and protection. Certainly even past that age most of us would not have made it, but after that point being able to get around and communicate greatly enhances our chances.

Posted by: Rich | February 5, 2008 1:26 AM

Thanks for trying, DuWayne, but this has become a profoundly depressing thread. In a PoMo world, ideology trumps actual thought.

Posted by: kehrsam | February 5, 2008 3:02 AM

I know a fair number of people who personally oppose abortion, who are not misogynists at all. In fact, they are all Buddhists, who, despite believing passionately in equality and universal compassion, also happen to think that aborting a fetus is really bad karma. I don't imagine for a moment that these people harbor some secret desire to see women subjugated. They simply have their beliefs, and I respect and admire them for their sinceritey. It has to be said, though, that they are not Randall Terry pro-lifers, that they have arrived their position for different reasons, and they are not crusading against abortion in general, only opposing it for themselves.

And as a devoutly pro-choice individual, I also think that however steadfast they are in their beliefs, that they do not have the right to impose them on me or the women in my community by making them into the law of the land. Most of them would, in fact, agree with me.

Posted by: ep | February 5, 2008 4:28 AM

kersham -- great, so those of us who feel this issue personally are "pomo"? That the on-topic points as to why people draw the conclusion of misogyny are irrelevant and "pomo"? Thanks, I feel completely dismissed now, and my concerns and rights are obviously trivial in your eyes. That IS what you wanted, right? Our viewpoints can be passed off as pomo trivia, and too "depressing" to be considered real concerns?

Of all the things on this thread, this pisses me off the most. That people trying to talk about modern issues and attitudes which have real effects on people's lives can get handwaved away with "oh, you're just being pomo." You can just f*** right off.

DuWayne -- you make some very good points, but what's wrong with pointing out to people who put the fetus's interests over the woman's interests that they are holding an arguably misogynistic attitude there?

James Hanley -- I was going on the basis that the central nervous system does not appear to be mature enough to be hooked up or even partially, detectably functional in a developing fetus until 16 weeks at the earliest, and ~90% of abortions occur before that point. Fewer than 0.8% of abortions occur after week 20, and there has to be a medical justification for those. So my own view (yes, I realise that not everyone agrees with me) is that something without a functional central nervous system doesn't really count as a person and has limited, if any, "interests".

If you start considering the fetus's rights and interests as possibly trumping the woman's before this point, then you open the door to regulation of pregnancy -- enforcing that women shouldn't smoke, drink, eat poorly, or do any of those things which will obviously damage fetal development. (And there have even been politicians who have tried proposing this, in the last few years.) Either you accept that the woman's rights sort of automatically trump those of the fetus, or you do allow this argument to be considered seriously.

You say: very few people would assign no value at all to the mother's interests. You might be surprised how many. (Many Catholics, for example, take this attitude in practice -- ask me about ectopic pregnancies sometime.) And there are more subtle ways of doing this, too -- like, for example, making the implicit or explicit assumption that the majority of women who want an abortion do so simply because the pregnancy isn't "convenient" for them, with all the trivialisation of their concerns which this carries. Or, say, the assumption that if they didn't want to be pregnant they simply shouldn't have gotten pregnant, and the frequently-attendant assumption that it is *right* that women who become pregnant to relinquish rights over their body, with no thought for the fact that no birth control is 100%, for example.

As a side note, heartbeat would be a seriously, seriously crappy measure of personhood or any rights whatsoever, given that the heartbeat depends on nothing other than the presence of heart cells; you can plate stem cells and let them differentiate to heart cells, and they start beating as soon as they mature enough to build up an ion gradient. Anencephalic, non-survivable fetuses have heartbeats. So yes, I would think that using this as a starting point would really be misogynistic. :-/

Like I said, I'm willing to believe that not all "pro-life"/anti-choice people are motivated by a dislike of women, but the trivialisation of women's concerns is common, and arguably misogynistic -- and common.

ep -- the fact that the people you know are limiting their anti-abortion stance to themselves, and not attempting to enforce that choice on others, does not make them anti-choice. They are therefore not really "pro-lifers" in the wider cultural understanding. They are leaving choice up to the individual; generally, "pro-lifers" are the ones who want to keep women from being able to make that choice.

Posted by: Luna_the_cat | February 5, 2008 6:26 AM

Luna - I am completely open to disagreement on this of course, but I think you do get to a point very close to the birth where the rights of the foetus and the rights of the women have to be considered to be very close to, if not actually, equal.

The foetus may at this point not be an actual living, breathing human being but it's as near as dammit.

I also personally think that aborting so early that the foetus really is just a bunch of cells is no big deal.

As it is, we draw a line somewhere inbetween these two points and I think we have to acknoweldge that this line is fairly arbitrary, not least because I am assuming not all foetuses develop at identical rates. Deciding where this line falls is something that may well change as our understanding of the brain and what life really is develops.

People who are absolutists on either end of this scale baffle me a little. They seem to be drawing fixed lines in nature where none really exist.

As a side note, I think its interesting how misogynistic a couple of the pro-choicers on this thread sound. Not so much hating women as individuals, but hating what it fundamentally means to be a woman. Strange and slightly unexpected.

Posted by: Matthew | February 5, 2008 7:27 AM

As a side note, I think its interesting how misogynistic a couple of the pro-choicers on this thread sound. Not so much hating women as individuals, but hating what it fundamentally means to be a woman.

So what, pray tell, is it that "it fundamentally means to be a woman"? Are women who choose not to have children (or who are unable to have children) not really women? To be a woman is to be a human being, in exactly the same way that to be a man is to be a human being. No-one's humanity is defined by their reproductive choices.

Posted by: Dunc | February 5, 2008 8:15 AM

Woman, as opposed to man, means one half of the reproductive process. That's what gender is. The two sides have different and supposedly complementary roles in the reproductive process. Take away that distinction and we are all, as you say, just human beings.

There seem to have been a couple of commenters on this thread who have a pretty hostile reaction to the fact that babies grow inside women, like they do it out of spite. It's pretty much the definining feature of the biological definition of a woman. It comes across as an odd sort of self-loathing.

Posted by: Matthew | February 5, 2008 8:41 AM

I say give DARWIN AWARDS to every person who makes stupid statements like yours.

Posted by: SueinNM | February 5, 2008 8:43 AM

Sorry, that WAS aimed at Diana's ridiculous comment.

Posted by: SueinNM | February 5, 2008 8:45 AM

Luna,

I don't really disagree with anything you say. You rather reinforce my point, when you talk about when most abortions occur, as my point was that most people will assign more and more weight to the fetus' interests as it develops and becomes more clearly human.

Again, I am not taking a pro-life stance. I am merely explaining why not all pro-lifers are misogynists, which was the stupid statement that started this thread. My personal beliefs fit rather well with what Luna said in her post.

Posted by: James Hanley | February 5, 2008 8:53 AM

We are all biological entities. The only reason you are described as a woman and not a man is a biological one.

I am not saying that your reproductive choices or otherwise define you as an individual. I am also not saying making any sort of a value judgement on a woman's fertility.

I think people are confusing a basic category definition with something more specific.

Posted by: Matthew | February 5, 2008 8:54 AM

Matthew,

How would you define a person who is physically female but mentally male, or vice versa? Can you define that person strictly as a biological entity? Or does the fact that they have one sort of body define them as that gender?

Just curious.

Posted by: SueinNM | February 5, 2008 8:58 AM

clumps of cells

mass of immature cells with absolutely no capacity for higher thought and (only possibly) minimal capacity for physical sensation

Yes, yes, yes. I personally have almost zero moral qualms about aborting such lumps of cells. And I will zealously fight those who do. But the great majority of Americans support abortion at that stage of development, so it's a strawman argument at best. More likely it's evidence that you sense the weakness of your argument when you start talking about an 8 month fetus--a point at which the cells are not undifferentiated, and have great capacity for physical sensation, which is why most Americans don't want abortion at that point. Amazing--the great majority of Americans are more subtle and sophisticated than some of the folks arguing on this thread. (As for me, I think late-term abortions are probably wrong, but I think the policy consequences of banning them probably create more problems, so effectively I'm a pro-choicer all the way.)

There are, however, more than a few sensible voices on here, like Matthew, who recognizes the stupidy behind the "lump of cells" argument.

Matthew:

So the people on this thread going on about a clump of inanimate cells trumping a woman's right to control her own body are either stupidly or willfully distorting the argument.

Posted by: James Hanley | February 5, 2008 9:01 AM

Sorry, got that backwards didn't I. Basically, what I mean is that you cannot actually change your gender in a complete biological sense, to the best of my knowledge.

Posted by: Matthew | February 5, 2008 9:04 AM

Interesting note: I found that the same person that got offended by the PoMo comment, still feels it is legitimate to keep using the misogyny generalization. Even though I disagree with the name-calling it was very telling to see the result. If anything, it once again shows how narrow-minded those that continue to resort to correlating misogyny to an entire movement. I agree that some of the pro-choicers on this site are in fact hateful, unfortunately we don't have a term for that kind of hate so that their ideas can too be generalized away.

Posted by: JoH | February 5, 2008 9:13 AM

Luna - Snigger, excellent point. I still don't think my Mum's forgiven me, actually.

Posted by: Matthew | February 5, 2008 9:35 AM

Matthew -- :-)
I am convinced that the burst of oxytocin right around parturition has a great deal to do with offspring survival, in more than one way.

Posted by: Luna_the_cat | February 5, 2008 9:43 AM

Luna - I think kersham was thaking DuWayne specifically because it was chiefly DuWayne that he was debating on issues of fundamentalism, rather than a slight to anyone else, although that's just a guess.

Posted by: Matthew | February 5, 2008 10:03 AM

kerhsam: Right, I obviously misinterpreted, so I apologise.

I'll throw out a thought for you to consider, though -- perhaps the people who are "merely repeating" the same things over and over, are doing so because they do not feel that they are being heard, much less that what they are trying to say is understood. When this happens, one usually has two choices: either repeat, with different phrasing, trying to find some way that will "get through" to the other person, or just give up. On an issue like this, few people are willing to just give up.

Posted by: Luna_the_cat | February 5, 2008 10:15 AM

Dunc - I am actually pro-choice, although you might not guess it from my comments.

It was more some of the more aggressively pro-abortion comments I found a little disturbing. The 'how dare that little bundle of cells disrupt my lifestyle' stance which characterised all foetuses up until birth as basically Not Life.

Actually my own stance is closer to this: I have deep and profound misgivings about abortions, especially having been involved in a scenario which led to one. I don't like them and I think there is something a bit sick about the whole thing, and ultimately I think far too many people have them as a lifestyle choice instead of facing up to the consequences of their actions.

That said, I know that all people are different and there are numerous scenarios in which an abortion is by some distance the only sensible, and in some cases the only ethical solution.

Add to the fact that it such a fundamental (ie, concerning life itself) and such a personal and an emotive issue, I don't think the idea of telling anyone else they 'can't' have one is at all right.

That said, we were discussing the nature of being unable to have this very discussion, so I never thought to bring it up before.

Posted by: Matthew | February 5, 2008 10:22 AM

Incidentally, and just to clarify, I honestly believe that those misgivings I mentioned do not stem from misogyny.

I really personally believe that they stem from doubt about when we define life as beginning, and generally finding the way some people have abortions because they want them rather than need them to be a bit repellent.

Although when evaluating all these things I come down on the side of choice or non-interference, I can easily see someone else taking the same emotional mix and ending up on what I consider the 'wrong' side of the argument: pro-life. Therefore I was trying to argue that not all pro-lifers must necessarily be misogynistic because I don't think my own doubts about abortion stem from a misogynistic bias. Or at least I hope not.

Posted by: Matthew | February 5, 2008 10:31 AM

SueinNM -

I do have a question for you. Does your mother believe in punishing women who have abortions by charging them with murder, or does she believe that women are the "innocent victims" who don't know what they're doing?

Both. Or more to the point, she believes that they should be punished for complicity in murder. At the same time, she believes that they are making a bad decision based on social acceptance of abortion. There is much more to the psychology behind her take on it, that I am really not comfortable discussing, because it is rather personal. While I am not the least bit uncomfortable talking quite openly about myself, it is not my place to do so about others.

I should also add, that I don't think she has probably fully thought it through, even today. There is a lot behind that, which as I say, it is not my place to throw it out there.

A huge number of anti-choice people haven't even thought of that, though some must have confronted the problem.

This is absolutely the case and it is one of the better rhetorical tools, for debating anti-choicers. I have stopped the debate dead in it's tracks on more than one occasion with that simple question.

Is your mother against the "morning after" pill? Does she believe all pregnancies, regardless of circumstances, must be carried to term?

My mom is a firm believer in birth control. I am pretty sure she didn't start from that position, but having me for a son rather changed her view on that. To put it mildly, I have gotten around in my day.

If women are to carry every pregnancy to full term, how would your mother wish the authorities to enforce this?

Crickets are chirping. This is a point in the discussion where the arguments become circular, which I actually view as a positive. I don't think she honestly knows the answer to that one. In large part, I think this is because she ultimately believes in the autonomy of women and the only ways to enforce it would be to restrictive. Ultimately, I think it means that enforcement would be after the fact, just as it is with most crimes.

Luna -

you make some very good points, but what's wrong with pointing out to people who put the fetus's interests over the woman's interests that they are holding an arguably misogynistic attitude there?

Ultimately, I don't object to explaining to someone that their attitudes are rather misogynistic. The objection I have, is with the accusation that they are a misogynist. It is part and parcel with the discussion of why the premise they are coming from is flawed.

I guess I should be clearer, in that I am objecting to a very narrow aspect of the discussion. I am not interested in giving anyone a pass, nor do I object to pointing out the flaws in anti-choice arguments. What I object to and stand by, are blanket assertions about the people behind the arguments.

Posted by: DuWayne | February 5, 2008 11:42 AM

When my grandmother was expounding to the rest of the family on the evils of having civil rights for blacks forced on the American public, she was having, as Ed puts it, a sincere dispute between people who both care about doing the right thing. She didn't hate blacks; she just didn't think that they were capable of acting responsibly with access to full rights and freedoms. And look, the disintegration of society in the 60s and 70s, after blacks started getting all those rights, bore her out. (According to her.)

She didn't hate blacks, she didn't even dislike them, and she wouldn't want to see any innocent person, even a black, hurt -- she just had a very sincere concern about a deeply misguided move by society, that's all. And she thought that, for everyone's good, it ought to be rolled back.

Where is the line between "holding a racist attitude" and "being a racist"? Similarly, where is the exact dividing line between "holding a misogynistic attitude" and "being misogynist"?

Some people are indisputably, beyond any shadow of a doubt, misogynist. We can give that a nod and move on, I think. But when it gets to the level of many "concerned" moderate, caring people, for example -- ok, not a misogynist, just kind of acting kind of like one in certain ways? Or what?

All I'm saying is, how exactly do you separate the "this is a misogynist attitude" from "you are acting like a misogynist, do you see why some people would call you that name"? And would you even want to do that in most cases? It took a few repetitions of "Mama, that's just strtaight-up racist" to my grandmother for the hint that her attitude was not self-evidently right to sink in to her.

Further -- fundamentalists who want to have creationism taught as being at least equal to evolution aren't necessarily evil either. They have a sincere concern about what they see as an unsupported, immoral stance being taught to impressionable children. We shouldn't want to demonize them either, surely...?

My point, to sum this up, is that having a sincere concern about something, and not being evil, doesn't stop anybody from being wrong, and occasionally wrong in quite vile ways. So, if we should call a spade a spade in order to highlight objections to one form of stupidity, as I have had argued to me elsewhere on SB, why not others? And in the case of "pro-lifers", given the unfortunate fact that many in the "pro-life" movement actually display unambiguously misogynist attitudes or opinions, when or why does it become wrong to characterise the movement according to a generality drawn from the majority?

Just askin'. I don't think that DuWayne and I, at least, actually disagree on much, but I would like to see a response to these questions.

Posted by: Luna_the_cat | February 5, 2008 12:29 PM

And what, exactly, gives you the right to decide whether someone else's decision is based on desire rather than need?

Who are these silly women having abortions just because they like the idea of a fairly unpleasant and invasive medical procedure?

The very fact that you say that "far too many people have them as a lifestyle choice instead of facing up to the consequences of their actions" strongly implies that you believe that many women are incapable of deciding what is in their own best interests, or the best interests of their children.

The other point is that people make decisions all the time that demonstrate quite clearly that they have no fucking idea what is best for their children. Just because they are 'wimmin' doesn't mean they magically know what's best for their children, the fact that we live in a free society means we don't get to decide for them though.

However, in terms of preventing people making their own decisions on this matter, you are basically impugning me with the precise opposite of what I said, which is a bit irritating. You make this accusation:

The position "I'm not misogynist, I'm just not sure women are fit to make their own medical decisions"

I don't think the idea of telling anyone else they 'can't' have one is at all right.

I have personally known a woman who had an abortion because she didn't want to raise a child, not because there was anything the slightest bit dangerous either medically or socially about doing so. Do I think the law should be able to stop her? Well, no, I don't. But I do have grave misgivings about the morality of the decision.

And as for the point at which life begins not mattering, well that's just daft. It makes a difference because you just might be killing - actively killing - a sentient (at whatever level) being whose very existence is dependent upon you and you alone. Alternatively, you might be doing no more than cutting your hair. We don't know. If you do not see that this creates a grey area and that the implications of deciding one way or the other are quite important then this is the very reactionary fundamentalism that was the topic of this post to begin with.

Posted by: Matthew | February 5, 2008 1:20 PM

Oops - I meant to say that I don't want to have someone imposing their value judgments on others and that is one of the reasons I am pro-choice.

Posted by: JoH | February 5, 2008 2:00 PM

JoH -- at the point that you give some indication that you have actually read what I've been writing, I would be happy to have a discussion with you. Sad to say, I see absolutely no evidence to that effect. I see nothing in your posts which reference me which would give an indication that you have read the words I actually wrote.

If there wasn't some validity in their assertions, would we really be having this discussion? Gee, I dunno; if there weren't some validity to creationist claims, would we really have to defend evolution all the time? If there weren't some validity to the claim that blacks are inherently slightly less intelligent (as a group) than whites, would we really have to deal with *that* conversation all the time? If there weren't some validity to the assertion that vaccinations pose a risk of autism, would we really have to keep dealing with that concern?

My only point here is, humans believe all kinds of weird shit, with or without evidence, and frequently in the face of evidence; "if this didn't have some validity, would we..." type arguments are a very poor defense of anything.

There, see? I have given you evidence that I actually read something you wrote, even though I think you're talking bollocks. I have analysed and offered a direct response to something you actually said. Try that sometime, instead of setting up strawpeople.

Posted by: Luna_the_cat | February 5, 2008 2:49 PM

nicole:
"How would you categorize dropping out of school? Losing a job or major career opportunity? Being abandoned by family members? What if you multiply those by two (mother and father)? How about ending a relationship that otherwise could have more successfully produced children at a later date? Having to work a second job, neglecting the children you already have? Slashing lifetime income when having children later in life would mean a more prosperous two-parent family? These are all things I have heard pro-lifers characterize as inconveniences since they don't involve maiming or death, but they all seem pretty life-altering to me. To trivialize the very serious concerns of millions of women could easily be seen as misogynistic."

Excellent point. When we hear inconvenience, we usually think of being 10 minutes late due to traffic or having to rewrite a post that didn't succeed in getting submitted. Having a pro life position based on this kind of thinking would be weak to say the least.

I'd offer that many pro life people actually do understand the difference between minor inconvenience and having a child, because so many have children. They are more likely to see it in terms of human life that cannot be taken. For example if my boss fires me today, it will have a big impact on my earnings, relationships, and future. As upset as I may be with her though, threatening to take her life will land me in jail. No I'm not saying the two things are equal, I'm saying even when very large consequences are at stake, ending a life is off the table for those who view a fetus as a life.

Posted by: Rich | February 5, 2008 3:19 PM

Rich -- once again, someone misses the point. I brought up all the "people believe this" stuff as a comment on the logical validity of the "if this had no validity, would we..." argument. It's not a good defense. I'm not classing all "pro-lifers" as being creationist, racist anti-vaxers. I'm saying that it's a stupid logic to defend having to have a discussion over something. Anything. Am I clear enough, now?

janine -- thanks. Yes. Exactly.

Posted by: Luna_the_cat | February 5, 2008 3:57 PM

Matthew -- I'm somewhat confused by your last comment. You say, on the one hand, At one point a foetus is a ball of cells which I have no compunction about getting rid of. But you also say, Having an abortion when you could raise a child but don't want to is where I think serious questions arise. ...So, how is this not a compunction?

And, what rights would you grant a father? The right to force an abortion when the woman wants to have the child? The right to force the mother to carry the child when she doesn't want to?

And, as you say about women, the father could have just kept it in his pants, or taken responsibility for birth control. So shouldn't he just live with the consequences?

(Just pointing out a few inconsistencies, here.)

Oh, and actually, aborting an 8 1/2 month old fetus would ONLY be done if there were a fatal medical condition of the fetus. It wouldn't be done anywhere I know of for the health of the mother unless it was really, truly, a bleeding-out-on-the-floor-scary black and white situation in which the mother could neither give birth nor survive an emergency caesarian. This is because an 8 1/2 month old fetus is simply an early baby, like, oh, probably close to 20% of all births. At this point it's fully developed and, barring fatal congenital disorders, capable of survival outside the womb. Don't make silly statements.

Posted by: Luna_the_cat | February 5, 2008 4:27 PM

All I'm saying, Luna, is that it's a grey area. As you quite rightly say, making an extreme statement like 8 1/2 month etc.. is just silly because by eight and a half months it is basically a baby. Good.

So go back from there and at what point, exactly, does it cease to be a baby? That's what I am saying we really don't know. So on the line from the silly eight and a half month scenario to the equally silly 'taking the morning after pill is murder' we draw a line.

That line will have reasonable people on either side of it. What I am saying is that the unreasonable people lie at the silly extremes, which is what I think Ed is saying.

I expressed moral doubts depending entirely on the urgency of the circumstances of the mother, of the 'sentience' (or whatever) or otherwise of the foetus depending on term. I am trying to say that is not misogynistic to query the significance of terminating the foetus depending on term and development. I am also saying it is not misogynistic to query the 'interests' of the mother, depending on circumstances.

I am not saying that we throw the law into those areas, as I think they are too grey, so we really have to trust to people taking the issue seriously enough themselves to ensure that abortions are used only when needed. But I also do not think it is misogynistic to suggest that some women use them with more thought to their own future happiness than the potential implications of aborting a foetus of potentially questionable viability.

If that is misogynistic am I am misandrist to suggest that a lot of men push women into abortions because they are thinking chiefly of their own inconvenience and fear?

In terms of the rights of the father, I think they should be proportional to the responsibilities. I am not suggesting for a second that a man should get to 'decide' whether or not a woman should have an abortion. But I do think they should be invovled in the decision, although I have no solution as to how best to do it. Equally, as you say, if he doesn't want the responsibilities involved then he should most certainly have kept it in his pants. It's too late to run away after the fact.

If a man wants to have a child a woman wants to abort I think there is something wrong with the fact that she should be able to just choose to abort it against his wishes. That said, any other scenario is even wronger, if you know what I mean, so there is no better solution.

Posted by: Matthew | February 5, 2008 4:53 PM

Give all the pro choice people DARWIN AWARDS and sit back and let the PRO LIFERS reproduce.

The fit will survive, the weak will perish.

Posted by: Jena | February 5, 2008 5:41 PM

Jena (as Diana is now calling herself),

If the "fit" will survive and the "weak" will perish, then the pro-lifers can be expected to die out, as more Americans self-identify as pro-choice than pro-life.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 5, 2008 6:19 PM

Luna - I haven't quoted your words directly because I believe most of how I felt was already covered by Kehrsam, James Hanley, Matthew, Rich, Ed and others in various ways and more eloquently than I. Just realize that when you throw out generalizations, you are open for criticism and attack and it becomes your responsibility to convince me otherwise. I don't believe that you have in any compelling way convinced me of your assertion that "all pro-lifers are misogynists" is true. As for my comment regarding why there is continuing debate, this debate has way too much gray area for many very rational and non-misogynistic pro-life and pro-choice folks that it isn't like the ridiculous debate examples where there are clear dividing lines. I don't believe that there is definitively a right or wrong side of this issue. I am just more convinced that pro-choice is better than for purposes of public policy and society as a whole.

Posted by: JoH | February 5, 2008 7:14 PM

So if one advocates positions which will naturally result in limited female autonomy, then they are advocating positions which are bigoted against females.

I disagree with this. There are lots of things that result in limited personal autonomy for a great many reasons, some good and some bad. Reproduction is one of them, for men and women, although most dramatically so for women, obviously.

Women should not necessarily have total autonomy in a situation where their bodies are being cohabited by another creature. I know that it is highly debatable whether or not a foetus is a live creature, but I think that insisting that this issue is purely about female autonomy is willfully ignoring the yet-to-be-defined status of the foetus.

Rights only apply in this sort of unlimited fashion when they do not infringe upon the rights of others. The fundamental uncertainty about whether or not or at what point a foetus becomes an actual person means that abortions are not entirely about female autonomy.

They also involve the rights of something else. Something that may or may not be human, that may or may not be alive and something the status of which we are as yet not capapble of determining with certainty.

This very uncertainty and the acknowledgement or not thereof is pretty much the fundamental point of this whole thread, I think.

Posted by: Matthew | February 5, 2008 8:10 PM

Luna -

Been actually working in the field today, haven't read the continuing comments, but you addressed some questions to me, so here it is.

All I'm saying is, how exactly do you separate the "this is a misogynist attitude" from "you are acting like a misogynist, do you see why some people would call you that name"?

All it takes is a little questioning, if you're not sure. Some are more obvious than others. Diana, with her idiot assertion that her liberal friends are really missing the boat, by not having kids, is obviously a misogynist. Every statement she made, was rife with it. Christina, way up thread, OTOH, is a different story. While it is entirely possible she is a misogynist, it is definitely not obvious. I suspect that for the most part, the real misogynists have a hard time hiding it. It comes out loud and clear from the getgo, as it did with Diana.

And would you even want to do that in most cases?

That is entirely dependent on your goals. I am very keen on seeing the polarization that American electoral politics is so rife with, go by the way side, along with the republicratic deathgrip. An important step in that, is to realize that my allies and adversaries, are not always the same for every issue. I have found an immense amount of common ground on a host of issues, with people who are anti-choice. Many of them have become very dear friends as well. If I started using the same language to describe them, as I do to describe folks like Peter Labarbra or Jerry Falwell, all that would dissipate like dew in the desert.

Further, by trying to really understand their perspective, I can more effectively tailor my arguments to the person. By understanding, or trying to understand them, I provide them with motivation to do the same with me. Ultimately, this is the most effective way to actually change minds. Will it work every time, or in the timing we want, no. But it is a great way to break through the polarization and at the least, create allies on some issues, where before the situation was purely adversarial.

It took a few repetitions of "Mama, that's just strtaight-up racist" to my grandmother for the hint that her attitude was not self-evidently right to sink in to her.

Indeed. But how effective would it have been, if you had just repeatedly said, "mama, your a racist bitch?" The key to this is separating the person from the argument. This is a perfect example of what I am trying to illustrate here. It really sounds like rather than being racist, she was merely ignorant. Given contact with various people of color, people who didn't fit the stereo-type that she had in her head, probably would have gone a long way towards curing her of that ignorance, until her whole attitude was different. OTOH, people who actually flat out believe that whites, their brand of white mind, are absolutely superior to everyone else, are not likely to change so easily. They will (mostly unconsciously) actually blind themselves to anything that doesn't fit their perception. They will rationalize away everything that doesn't fit that world view.

Further -- fundamentalists who want to have creationism taught as being at least equal to evolution aren't necessarily evil either. They have a sincere concern about what they see as an unsupported, immoral stance being taught to impressionable children. We shouldn't want to demonize them either, surely...?

I don't see why. I mean when we are talking about groups such as the DI, or much of the ID movement, there is a difference. They are acting in an inherently dishonest fashion. All bets are off. But I deal with OECs and even a couple YECs, whom I have become friends with, on a regular basis. Rarely does the discussion come up, but when it does, I use evidence to back my position and leave it with this; "Science, that is ideas that are supported by the best evidence we have, belong in the science classroom. Creationism, belongs in church and at home." It is telling that my pastor has fallen all the way back to the argument that Satan didit, when faced with the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution. That actually came out, when I tried to get him to explain, outside evolution, why whales have rear legs under their skin.

While I daresay that I have yet to turn many, if any, adult minds on this, I have had an effect on some young people.

And in the case of "pro-lifers", given the unfortunate fact that many in the "pro-life" movement actually display unambiguously misogynist attitudes or opinions, when or why does it become wrong to characterise the movement according to a generality drawn from the majority?

Two things here. First, I am not averse to making the general statement that the anti-choice movement, is, as a movement, inherently misogynistic. I have and will continue to claim that the ideas are themselves inherently misogynistic, because they are. I am not arguing against that. What I am arguing against, is the claim that all anti-choicers are inherently misogynists.

Finally, I actually don't believe that the majority in the anti-choice movement are misogynists. To be certain, the most vocal proponents certainly are. And it is a movement that attracts misogynists in spades. Yet of all the anti-choicers I have met over the years, only a handful are really misogynists. To be sure, many of them are somewhere on a spectrum, but I daresay that most of us fall somewhere off center, on a spectrum with misogyny on one end and misandry on the other.

Ultimately, I just think this is an issue of breaking the polarization. While it is also an issue of being rational, it is the polarizing that is a serious problem. Neither life, nor politics is an us versus them dichotomy, yet that is increasingly what where we are trying to go as a society. All that this ultimately means, is that we all lose in the end. I just do not believe it has to be this way.

Someone above made the point that everyone shares the goal of a smooth, functional society, that everyone wants whats best for society, we just disagree on the particulars. This is an extremely important point. Conservatives, liberals - libertarians, socialists; we all want whats best for our country and ultimately our planet. We have the ultimate common ground, underlying every divide and it is important to remember that. That at the end of the day, we are all doing and saying what we think is right. I can promise you, that this is far from the only common ground out between most of us. Hell, outside his insane, poisonous anti-gay rantings, Phelps is/was apparently a social oriented democrat. There are actually a lot of ideas that he and I probably agree on. Now in his case there are too many irreconcilable differences, but I think you see my point.

Posted by: DuWayne | February 5, 2008 8:21 PM

Dammit. I have been itching to respond to Luna, since I popped in at lunch and now she's gone. Leni?

Posted by: DuWayne | February 5, 2008 8:40 PM

Matthew wrote:

Rights only apply in this sort of unlimited fashion when they do not infringe upon the rights of others. The fundamental uncertainty about whether or not or at what point a foetus becomes an actual person means that abortions are not entirely about female autonomy.

I didn't argue for unlimited rights. I specifically said, probably a half dozen times now, that even limited choice arguments are still pro-choice arguments imo.

I'm not arguing that is "entirely" about female automony. I'm arguing that any position advocating a general ban on access to abortion procedures or medication is a vote against female reproductive autonomy and therefore misogynistic.

You would know that if you'd actually read what I said. But instead, you're interested in focusing all your energy on determining when women should be denied the choice.

Interesting.

Posted by: Leni | February 5, 2008 9:12 PM

Luna_the_cat:
"JoH -- You're an idiot. There, I feel better now. I'm going to ask you one thing, and one thing only:
WHERE in this entire thread, have I ever said "all pro-lifers are misogynists"? Point to this "assertion" I am supposed by you to have made. Do. Please."

Luna_the_cat:
"And in the case of "pro-lifers", given the unfortunate fact that many in the "pro-life" movement actually display unambiguously misogynist attitudes or opinions, when or why does it become wrong to characterise the movement according to a generality drawn from the majority?"

Just a hunch, this might have given that impression.

Posted by: Rich | February 5, 2008 10:45 PM

Ahem DuWayne.... DuWayne to the big white telephone.

Hello! DuWayne ... to the big fat sexist pomo telephone. Ahem.

:P

Posted by: Leni | February 5, 2008 11:31 PM

Sorry Leni, I will get a response out soon. But I came home to a rather ill six year old, a gurgling seven week old, a foaming at the mouth partner and a rather nasty line of puke from the living room to the toilet. I have sedated momma (not really, just bummed a little weed from a neighbor), the six year old was asleep before he hit the pillow and the seven week old is out. I'll get to it after I clean the up the vomit.

Posted by: DuWayne | February 6, 2008 12:00 AM

Sorry Leni, didn't intend to misrepresent your position.

You would know that if you'd actually read what I said. But instead, you're interested in focusing all your energy on determining when women should be denied the choice.

Well this really is the crux of the matter, and where all the misogyny talk comes from. One extreme side of the debate really does seem to feel they can go around denying other people autonomy at will, depending on whether or not they think they are doing something naughty.

The other extreme side has fought so hard to preserve this autonomy that they treat it as an inalienable right at the expense of the potential rights of the other key interested party.

Given most people think either extreme position is not right then where that line gets drawn is precisely the point.

Posted by: Matthew | February 6, 2008 3:36 AM

OK, we're clearly not getting very far with this approach, so let's try something different. What would a genuinely non-misogynist, non-discriminatory anti-abortion position look like?

Well, one could argue that the preservation of life is of sufficient importance to overrule the right to bodily autonomy and the right to make your own medical decisions. So what other things would naturally flow from that position?

1. Blood donation would be compulsory.
2. Post-mortem organ donation would be compulsory.
3. All citizens would be subject to mandatory tissue-typing for live transplant donation (liver, kidneys, bone marrow). In the event that a transplant patient needed a donation which cannot be supplied through post-mortem donation, a suitable donor would be chosen by lottery.
4. Suicide would be illegal.
5. There would be no right to refuse life-saving medical treatment.
6. There would be no option (other than medical) for exemption from mandatory vaccinations.

Now that would be a genuinely non-discriminatory pro-life position. Any takers?

At the moment, most on the "pro-life" side seem (to me, anyway) to be arguing that a pregnant woman has less right to bodily autonomy and medical self-determination than a corpse.

Posted by: Dunc | February 6, 2008 5:09 AM

Dunc, don't forget that 1-3 and 5 would also be required if the recipient were in a persistent vegetative state or had no brain activity at all, including those with no loved ones to care what happened to them.

Sadie, it's almost as curious as pro-choice people who don't want the government making their medical decisions wanting universal health care.

Posted by: nicole | February 6, 2008 9:03 AM

Dunc for what you are saying to hold any water whatsoever then one's level of responsibility to and for a life form that you created and is growing inside you would have to be equal to your level of responsibility to and for any person selected at random in the street. If you think this is the case, then why do children live at home with their biological parents wherever possible until they reach the age of self-determination.

You are also comparing the hypothetical person in your list of new rules to the mother, when what you should be comparing them to is a foetus, because it is the foetus's right to life or otherwise that is at question. We are not debating whether or not to kill pregnant women.

You are also confusing the wishes of a fully grown human that is able to evaluate options, understand consequences and make informed decisions with a being whose level of sentience is highly debatable and which we don't really have any way of evaluating.

That post is either fatuous or just plain silly.

A genuinely non-misogynist anti-abortion approach would look like this:

- We do not know when the precise moment is that a human life starts, but we know that a fertilised egg is what starts the process that leads to it, so instead of drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and potentially runnin the risk of killing nascent human life, we will place the moment at which a person is said to exist as being the moment of fertilisation. Although I think it is wrong, this is not an inherently misogynist view.

- If you start with the above premise, then an abortion is emphatically not just about the woman in question. It is about two human lives whose rights can quite reasonably assumed to be, if not equal, then very nearly so.

- Now, with this premise having an abortion is basically ending another human life and under what circumstances it is acceptable to do so. Basically, the only time it is acceptable to take a human life that I can think of is if it threatening to take the life of another. Or maybe if a person chooses to end their own. Even life support is only turned off for people with no hope of recovery, not people who would simply not recover that well.

If a man is involved in a bad car crash his wife is not given the option of saying 'oh just switch him off - he'll be all crippled and I'll have to quit my job to take care of him and I can't face that'. Why? Because irrespective of autonomy we do not consider the termination of a human life to be something we as a species have a right to do if it is not threatening the life of another, and that is not a misogynistic position either. It applies equally to men and women on death row and on life support.

- So in the case of a pregnancy this means the only time it is acceptable to terminate the life of the unborn is if it is a direct threat to the life of the mother. Because in this position, whatever your attitude to women, the foetus itself already has some essence of humanity to it and its life must be treated as in some way just as sacrosanct as anyone else's, be they a pregnant woman or an old man requiring life-saving heart surgery.

- Whether or not the foetus is a direct threat to the mother is therefore inherently a medical decision, because only the medical profession will understand or be able to evalate this threat and this, like any other medical treatment it is offered, on consent, only when deemed medically necessary. Hence not freely available and only administered by an authority figure on their medical judgment, be they private or state employed.

Now, there is nothing gender-based in this position at all. What is gender-based is simply the nature of the reproductive process. Men have obligations to any children to which they contribute sperm, and women have obligations too. You can argue about them, but they are never going to be equal - ever. It is physically impossible.

I do not hold these views, I have to stress this, but if you take the view that a foetus is even close to being equivalent to a human life, which is not an issue of misogyny, although it is probably wrong, then it this is very close to being the inevitable conclusion of that one premise. It is not just about the woman's rights or her autonomy. It is about the competing rights of two distinct human lives, one of which is in no position to speak for itself.

Misogyny may lead a lot of people to this position as it inherently allows them a position of denying women something they may want. But that position itself would apply irrespective of the gender of the person bearing the child.

Posted by: Matthew | February 6, 2008 10:50 AM

If you think that the foetus is equivalent to a human life - which is not something I am arguing, but which is not inherently either misogynistic or insane - then abortion always involves a rapid death.

So the question becomes at what point do you have the right to actually kill someone in order to alleviate risk to yourself?

Posted by: Matthew | February 6, 2008 11:34 AM

The pro-life position for a complete ban does have a good arguments that are no more/less misogynistic than those that allow a exception for the life of the woman. At least they are principled enough to not endorse what they see as murder of an innocent person in order to prevent the woman from dying a natural death.

Dunc,
Great post. Rights shouldn't end at birth, yet I've never heard any of my pro-life friends advocate for a newborns right to life to continue over any part of the mother's body when needed. If a fetus has rights over another's body then there should be an even stronger moral and legal imperative to protect life to this extent when a full human beings life is at stake. Giving birth, without the same level of follow up protection, would be no less an act of infanticide than other acts of omission such as refusing to feed the newborn.

DuWayne,
Very good points, I do try to engage people in conversation myself and it helps not to shut them down with labels. A friend at church recently admitted that he now understands that there are good reasons for supporting abortion rights. On the other hand, another church friend that I really respect recently surprised me with a bunch of intelligent design stuff *sigh*.

Posted by: Janine | February 6, 2008 12:04 PM

Refusing to provide a bone marrow transplant to someone dying of leukaemia is logically equivalent to actually killing them, if you're the only available tissue match. I see the distinction you're trying to make between actively killing someone and passively killing someone (which I think is the crux of your argument), but I don't think it's logically or morally valid - they're still dead as a direct result of your actions

I think this is a very valid comparison. Would you say that anyone coming down on either side of that argument was a 'misogynist' or whatever the perjorative term might be for hating people who refuse to give bone marrow transplants?

If you look at the abortion question in these terms, and leave out gender then you can evaluate that very question on its own merits and this demonstrates enough grey areas that I think it is wrong to characterise all anti-abortionists as misogynistic. It may be a statistically meaningful generalisation, but when you are faced with an individual who is against abortions I don't think it is right to turn a generalisation about a group into a conclusion about an individual, as this is the essence of prejudice.

I said I wasn't against abortion, but I had severe moral misgivings about it in certain circusmtances, and that I didn't think these were misogynistic in essence. If I examine the two examples - say a borderline late term abortion by a woman who is prosperous and well-supported enough to be able to raise a child reasonably but perhaps not in ideal circumstances, and in another case someone who is informed that they are the only known person who can donate the required bone marrow to keep a person alive - then I would feel similar misgivings.

Is it right for me to let someone die when I can actually accept some danger to myself and save them? I don't think that the person who opts to answer 'no' to this question is necessarily hateful, or a bigot.

I think both are extremely sensitive moral quagmires and it is not for the government to regulate in either area. But if it is not black and white to the extent that the government should be prevented from making the decision for someone else, then it is equally not black and white enough to paint someone who disagrees with you on the issue as a bigot.

Now, again, I am pro-choice. I would never say that it was the government's right to make these decisions for anyone. And I also think that a misogynist is far more likely to be pro-life than pro-choice. But I do not think it is fair to say that misogyny is inherent in the pro-choice position, and I think your argument about bone marrow donation illustrates this quite clearly.

Posted by: Matthew | February 6, 2008 12:34 PM

I am very much for abortions on demand. This is not because of some philosophical or relgious belief, but simply because I listen to what women say.
My maternal grandmother was (many many years ago) a midwife in rural Wales. She bicyled around to isolated farms and villages helping with all manner of gynecological and obstetric problems. One day she was very late coming back home, her mother was very worried. When she turned up, long after dark, she was pale and very shaken. She had attended a woman who was hemorhaging. She did all she could to stop the bleeding, but to no avail. The woman bled out. The reason for this was a back-yard abortion had perforated her cervix.
My grandmother only told this story 50 years after the event, but she always was staunchly for a woman's right to choose (as was my mother).
If abortions are not conducted by trained professionals, in clean, well regulated premises women will be forced to go to shady back-yard operations, exposing themselves to the possibility of sexual assault, rape, blackmail, fraud and extortion, not to mention the MEDICAL risks.
Thus restricting abortion rights is definately mysogynist. They may not have mysogynist itentions, but result is at a practical level.
Fortunately here the Rabid Christian Right are unliky to be able to prevent abortions, as the politicans are well aware of the solid 80% support for allowing WOMEN decide what happens to thier own bodies. -DJ
PS: It comes down to two words really: "Harm Minimization" -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | February 7, 2008 12:59 AM

My point is that if you accept that the potential bone-marrow donor has the right to refuse, but do not accept that that a pregnant woman has the right to abort, then either your position is logically incoherent or you're assigning less rights to the woman purely on the basis that she's pregnant

Yes, but if you don't accept that our hypothetical 'only suitable' bone marrow donor has the right to refuse, nor that a pregnant woman has the right to abort, then you have a logically consistent position. It may be wrong for various other reasons, but I don't think it is misogyny. It is a slightly exaggerated view of the need to preserve life and an extreme view of the right of authorities to make other people's decisions for them.

I definintely concede, however, that there will be a vanishingly small number of people who hold that sort of a position. Probably because they view a parent's obligation to their unborn child as being in excess of one human's obligation to a random stranger, but that is another question altogether.

That is a deeply ironic and excellently-made point about the coincidence of people who at once oppose abortion and insist on the right to refuse medical treatment.

Posted by: Matthew | February 7, 2008 6:04 AM

Phew! And breeeathe!

Definitely interesting stuff.

Posted by: Matthew | February 7, 2008 8:59 AM

I know this thread is and should be dead, but I just want to make a quick point or two and then I'll think I'll be done.

DuWayne wrote:

There is a huge difference between calling the argmuent misogynistic and calling the person a misogynist.

I disagree. I think making repeated arguments against women's rights and making strident calls for the punishment of women qualifies. Likewise, if you make a bunch of racist arguments there's a good chance somebody is going to call you a racist. I don't mean to be rude, but duh.

Sorry, but you aren't going to convince me that it isn't being misogynist to act just like one.

I have accused people of being anti-gay bigots and I have told people their argument is inherently bigotted against gays. You guess which argument has allowed me the continued respect of the recipient, and in one case, actually helped change someone's attitude.

Would you care to guess how much I want to be friends with someone who is trying to insert themselves between me and my doctor? And my life. This probably won't come as a surprise to you, but I'm not terribly interested in retaining some bigot's respect.

And frankly, you aren't the one who's reproductive autonomy is on the chopping block. Mine is. So your "let's just all pretend to be friends" attitude isn't exactly the most compelling argument I've ever heard. These people aren't my friends. I don't want to have their respect and as long as they advocate against my rights, they will never ever have mine.

I've run their stupid gauntlet. I've had an abortion. I've experienced the several dozen flaming hoops of paperwork and screaming assholes. Had them "pretend" to take pictures of my license plates.

So DuWayne, I'm not really interested in being friends with these people. They are fucking criminals, as far as I'm concerned. And their supporters and (worse yet) sympathizers? Those "innocent", well-meaning, self-righteous assholes (sorry) like your mother who think I belong in jail? I'm not all that interested in being friends with them either. Their willingness to disregard my right to consult my doctor over my reproductive health issues has lost them their place on my "A-OK" list.

Seriously. The next time you go to your doctor, just imagine making 2 trips through gauntlets of screaming, psychotic religious maniacs. I'm not talking weirdos with signs (although they were there too), I'm talking screaming in your face, taking pictures of your car, yelling that you'll get yours too, you baby-killing whore. And then, to add insult to injury, having to legally wait 24 hours, because after all that you still "might not be sure", so that you need to stay overnight and pay for a hotel because the closest doctor willing to perform a colonoscopy is 9 counties over... because a bunch self-righteous, back patting, baby saving assholes like your mom thought it would be a good idea to make you wait 24 hours because of their misgivings.

Which means you need to do this 4 times. In two days. While having an abortion.

Next time you need to go to the doctor and have something done that someone doesn't agree with some jackass religious ideology... Think about running a gauntlet of abuse and threats so severe you can hardly find a doctor willing to help you.

And then imagine how non-plussed you'd be if I came along and told you that there were actually non-bigoted arguments for treating you this way.

So DuWayne, I could not possibly care less what you think of your mother. I know what I think of my rights, and I know what I think of people who want to reduce them because of my gender and because of their problems with my reproductive status.

Not interested in playing nice. Not interested in playing ego saving games for other people who are willing to put me in fucking prison.

Posted by: Leni | February 8, 2008 3:13 AM

Matthew wrote:

Yes, but if you don't accept that our hypothetical 'only suitable' bone marrow donor has the right to refuse, nor that a pregnant woman has the right to abort, then you have a logically consistent position. It may be wrong for various other reasons, but I don't think it is misogyny.

Except the typical pro-life position does not accept that bone marrow donors do not have the right to refuse being donors.

Hello? Remember? That's the whole problem here. That there supposedly is a pro-life position that isn't misogynistic. Well. If there is, that ain't it.

Posted by: Leni | February 8, 2008 3:56 AM

But if "pro-life" types make abortion difficult or illegal it will force women to resort to back-yard abortionists. This can open them to medical and other risks.
If this attidude exposes women to greater harm, even if it were not the intent, it could be considered mysogynist I would say.
It is possible to support mysogynist ideas whilst not being one yourself. -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | February 9, 2008 2:26 AM

DJ -

It is possible to support mysogynist ideas whilst not being one yourself. -DJ

Which is exactly what I have been saying this entire thread.

Brandon -

No, no one is forcing them to now, because it is legal and safe. But when it was not, many women died having illegal abortions. To say that no one would force them to, is a load of shit. Circumstances will occasionally force it. Other times, women will just have the baby and fuck up their lives and often the life of the baby they couldn't abort as well.

One of the more compelling stories of pre-Roe v Wade, is a widow who had two children and was raped. She opted for a back alley abortion and died in the process. Bleeding out slowly while the scum who performed the procedure ran, leaving her to die quite painfully. She had the abortion because there was no way that she, as a single mom could afford to raise another child.

Quite honestly, the argument that "no on is forcing them to" is rather misogynistic on it's face.

Posted by: DuWayne | February 9, 2008 3:57 PM

Good point, I forgot to mention rape and incest. Beyond that, though I don't claim to be enlightened enough to comment on whether abortion should be legal, I also don't have a whole lot of sympathy for somebody who has sex with insufficient protection, creates a life, then doesn't want to deal with the consequences. That applies just as much to the father.

The most convincing argument for pro-choice, to me at least, is that if you want to make an exception for rape and incest, you have to allow all abortions because it's not always possible to prove that there was a crime involved. Frankly, I find it more misogynistic to say, "Aww, the woman didn't know better, so let her take it back!"

Posted by: Brandon | February 9, 2008 7:04 PM

Brandon wrote:

The most convincing argument for pro-choice, to me at least, is that if you want to make an exception for rape and incest, you have to allow all abortions because it's not always possible to prove that there was a crime involved.

Wow Brandon. Let me be the first to say that this is one of the most enlightened arguments for why we shouldn't intrude on an another person's medical care and life decisions that I've ever seen.

Maybe some day far in the future we'll recognize the ability of women to make decisions for themselves, but until then, not being able to prove how they got pregnant will have to be sufficient.

Posted by: Leni | February 9, 2008 8:21 PM

"Beyond that, though I don't claim to be enlightened enough to comment on whether abortion should be legal, I also don't have a whole lot of sympathy for somebody who has sex with insufficient protection, creates a life, then doesn't want to deal with the consequences."

I also have no sympathy for someone who carelessly eats contaminated food and as a result gets food poisoning. NO TREATMENT FOR YOU, BITCHES. ACTION MEET CONSEQUENCE!

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | February 9, 2008 10:40 PM

Oh no, I wasn't talking about abortion at all. You said that you want women to be able to make decisions for themselves. "Whether or not to kill babies," is a member of the subset of possible decisions a women might make. Therefore, for a woman to be able to make all decisions for herself, she would logically need to have the right to kill her babies.

Sorry if you thought I was talking about abortion. I was just asking about your idealized future when women have the right to get away with anything they want, even murder. Or would you assert that perhaps some rights are restricted for a reason?

Posted by: Brandon | February 9, 2008 11:27 PM

Sorry just to clarify (again) all those crimes I mentioned earlier (twice) are potentional hazards to women FROM the "back-yard" abortionists (and their helpers) THEMSELVES. Not anything to do with needing to go to the BYA in the first place. Not sure if I conveyed that too clearly. -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | February 10, 2008 2:00 AM

I've already said that I don't have any say one way or another whether abortion should be legal, because I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know what's best for everybody.

You're a bad liar, Brandon. If you really weren't presuming to know what's best for everyone, you'd be explicitly in favor of leaving open legal pathways for women to choose what is best for themselves. Instead, you are not willing to disavow abortion bans that clearly do make the decision for women instead of allowing them autonomy.

Letting the law protect the choice of abortion is not the same as telling people what is best for them. To imagine otherwise is to confuse legal abortion with forced abortion.

I also don't have a whole lot of sympathy for somebody who has sex with insufficient protection, creates a life, then doesn't want to deal with the consequences.

And there you have it, folks. Brandon wants women who have recreational sex to be punished with the righteous consequences.

Frankly, I find it more misogynistic to say, "Aww, the woman didn't know better, so let her take it back!"

Actual misogyny would be to pretend that women are mannequins who do not change their minds, or fools who should not be "let" to change their minds.

Posted by: Grammar RWA | February 10, 2008 8:40 AM

Grammar RWA--

Just for clarification, I have never defended Brandon's pro-life views, nor said that he's not a misogynist. I said that it's not misogynistic to suggest (as Brandon did) that there may be a biological component to gender disparities in science, and also that being pro-life doesn't necessarily make a person a misogynist. Brandon's hatred of women, or lack thereof (I don't know which, since I haven't bothered to read most of this thread) is irrelevant to those two positions. You've no reason to gloat.

Posted by: Gretchen | February 10, 2008 9:33 AM

I fail to see how anything I said was sexist. Yes, it is true that only women get pregnant. That is, in a sense, a gender disparity enforced by the laws of nature. But I assure you, that if in my lifetime, men are capable of becoming pregnant, and of becoming pregnant accidentally, then my feelings will not change. So by Grammar's definition, I am a sexist until medical science can catch up with my imagination. I can live with that, especially since at this point I am really only posting for my own amusement and don't care at all what anybody here thinks of me.

Posted by: Brandon | February 10, 2008 11:31 AM

If we were to have a discussion about whether the South had the right to secede from the union, we would have a lot of racists show up to say yes. Does that mean that it's racist to believe that the states have a right to secede? Of course not.

But the analogy isn't very precise.

Imagine instead if we were having a discussion about whether or not Lincoln overreached the powers of the executive.

And suddenly Brandon showed up and said, apropos nothing, "The really depressing thing is that there are respected bloggers on this site who would go crazy over the assertion that, 'Sometimes civil rights can go too far.' These are the people who say that being for states' rights means you hate blacks, or who go nuts when you point out that there is a possibility that, on the average, whites are just more biologically geared towards the sciences."

Not exactly a common meme among non-racists, is it? And certainly not so in unrelated conversation. No, when you hear a speaker jump on the first opportunity to call black people dumb, and denounce the civil rights movement as extremist, you just might be inclined to wonder if the speaker is a racist.

Somehow you miss the same kind of dog-whistles when the speaker is a sexist. Why? Without presuming to read your mind, I'll offer the possibility that we still live in an incredibly sexist culture, and you're so acclimated to it that you don't even notice that such pronouncements are not normal and acceptable. Again, just a guess; take it or leave it as it applies to your or does not.

Or maybe you just hadn't read the thread. In which case I don't know why you'd jump in to any particular speaker's defense.

So gloat all you want, I suppose, but your position is logically impoverished.

I erroneously attributed your defense to his anti-choice position, and I again offer my apology for that mischaracterization.

But that does not obscure the fact that this whole conversation has been about how "some anti-choicers are not misogynists", and the resident anti-choicer has just revealed that he thinks women are too stupid to be trusted to make their own decisions or change their minds.

The irony is sweet, though it is not specifically at your expense, Gretchen.

Posted by: Grammar RWA | February 10, 2008 1:11 PM

Grammar:
"The larger discussion has been about whether some anti-choicers are actually not misogynists. And it's sublimely funny to me that this discussion goes on and on even while resident anti-choicers consistently out themselves as misogynists. As I said, who could have predicted that? Anyone who's not so naive as to take assholes at their word.
Your objection is noted, but I continue to gloat, and this vindication feels damn good."

Appearantly this myth is quite convenient for you. Glad it makes you feel better.

Posted by: Rich | February 14, 2008 12:43 AM