I hate that anti-choice people call themselves pro-life!
I was channel surfing today, and happened upon some orthodox Jew giving a speech in front of a large group of people. My ethnocentric curiosity made me stop and watch. I was terribly disappointed to learn that he was speaking to people participating in "The March for Life", being held today, on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
I watched quite a lot of the coverage, on and off throughout the afternoon. I found myself tight fisted, shaking my head, almost crying at times. I wasn't reacting this way in sympathy to their message, I was reacting this was out of my anger. The people in attendance looked normal. They looked like people you would see in the supermarket, at the mall, living next door. They were from all denominations, races, and ages. There were even young children carrying signs that read "Abortion Hurts Women".
The speakers repeated the usual anti-choice rhetoric. One called abortion in this country the "American Holocaust", another invoked words spoken by MLK, and said that abortion is this generation's civil rights issue. I don't necessarily disagree with the latter. One commentator said he was inspired by the large turnout of teenagers. He actually said something to the effect of; these kids are the next generation of voters, the aborted kids won't be voting. I guess in his mind the aborted fetuses, had they been born, would have been pro-choice. If you follow this idiotic line of reasoning, shouldn't he be happy that they were aborted? Less people to vote pro-choice, no?
I don't know why I'm always surprised that there are still so many people out there who are anti-choice. I used to see them every Sunday, in two locations, while driving to work. Rain or shine, they would stand out there with their signs. One of the clinics was in a strip mall that also housed a Starbucks. It always looked like they were praying and waving their pictures of Mary in opposition to the overpriced coffee.
Abortion is a civil rights issue. Keeping abortion legal ensures that a woman is the sole holder of rights to her own body. Anti-choice people say that they are pro-life. The are pro-life only when it comes to a mass of cells that is unable to survive outside of a woman's body. They are not pro-life when it comes to the actual woman housing those cells. Not that they want her dead, she is a necessary incubator after all.
If we lose the power to make decisions for ourselves, to make choices over our own bodies, then we lose EVERYTHING. Where will it stop? Will anti-choice people be happy when women have to resort to back alleys, and coat hangers? Will they put a stop to the use of contraceptives? Will they have a set of rules that pregnant women will be required, by law, to adhere to in order to ensure the health and safety of the fetus? Will all women of childbearing age be legally barred from smoking, or drinking, on the off chance that they are pregnant? Where do we draw the line? What are we willing to give up?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)




8 comments:
If you're going to call pro-life people "anti-choice," then wouldn't it be fair for them to call you "anti-life"?
Frankly I think both terms are kind of belittling. I don't really want to debate abortion, but I think a little respect on both sides would help (as your post about the images pro-lifers use illustrates so well).
The post itself explains why I have a problem with the term pro-life. It's interesting that you commented about this particular post, in addition to commenting on "Bullshit". They both have to do with personal responsibility and our government telling us what we should do with our own bodies.
As to having respect; I have nothing but respect for anti-choice advocates' right to believe whatever they want, to say whatever they want, and to do whatever they want with their own bodies. I cannot, and will not, respect their claim that they have a right to tell me what to do with my body.
Two thoughts...
1) Since you brought up the personal responsibility/freedom question from the Bullshit post, let's go back to that. I'm clearly not well-versed in Libertarian ideas (if that's even what this comes down to) and that seems like a pretty foundational idea for you. So help me understand--what do you think are the limits to our personal freedom? When does something else trump our personal freedom? Does it ever? I think it would help me to understand your perspective on that.
2) You didn't answer my question--is it fair to call you "anti-life"?
I'm not trying to debate you on abortion here. Part of the reason I don't want to is because it's such an emotional and difficult issue (again, your response to the images the anti-abortion people used is a powerful example). I think it's so difficult because it degrades into a shouting match and is rarely ever a conversation where we can learn something and maybe understand one another a little better. I think using images of dead fetuses or calling someone "anti-choice" (or "anti-life" for that matter) are anti-productive in the conversation about abortion. Maybe it's just semantics, but it seems important if you want to have a productive conversation.
1)Here's an eloquent answer; "Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another.
For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. He has the right to choose his own happiness, but no right to decide that his happiness lies in the misery (or murder or robbery or enslavement) of another. The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do".
"Textbook of Americanism," The Ayn Rand Column, 84.
2)It's totaly fair to call me anti-life. Based on the beliefs of the anti-choice crowd, that's exactly what I am.
I see the issue as dealing with choice (can I choose what to do with my own body, or do I need the government's permission). Anti-choice advocates look at the issue as dealing with life. The life of the zygote/blastocyst/fetus.
1) OK, that's what I thought. But when one person's freedom violates another's, how do you decide who wins out? That's the crux of the smoking ban debate for me--your freedom to smoke is trumped by my freedom not to be harmed by your smoking. And in Minnesota at least, the argument was made from the perspective of an employee who doesn't have a choice (i.e., you have the right to a healthy work environment).
2) I would have thought that to be so thoroughly and willfully misunderstood and misconstrued would be offensive and at the very least unfair. But I guess if you're not offended by that then I'll shut up. ;-)
1)As I stated earlier, bars, restaurants, etc. are private property. Therefore, the owner has the right to decide about smoking. He/she is not obligated to the public to provide any services, just as the public is not obligated to fork over their money to him/her. If smoking bothers you, go somewhere where there aren't any smokers, and give your money to business owners who support your needs/desires/ethics. I don't have a problem with the government banning smoking on government property. However, unless they want to socialize all property, they need to stay out of my business. Pun intended.
2)It's not necessarily about being misunderstood. I understand why some people are opposed to abortion, and I'm sure some of those people understand why I support a woman's right to have one. I think the bottom line is, that they are more concerned with enabling a potential human to gestate it's way to life, than they are with individual rights of the actual live human being also involved (the woman). This is so incredibly offensive to me, that I frankly don't care what they think.
I'm saying this as someone who would probably never consider abortion. Unless my life was in danger, I can't imagine a situation which would make me feel comfortable making that choice. I also recognize that if I want the freedom to make decisions affecting my body, I can't expect to make those decisions for someone else.
1) As I said before, the case in Minnesota was presented from an employees perspective--doesn't an employee have a right to a healthy work environment?
But even from a customer's point of view, aren't there some things we can reasonably expect, even when we're on the private property of a business? Such as not being discriminated against? Such as not being harmed?
What I'm trying to get at is that I think some freedoms have to be limited for the sake of other freedoms. Exercising your freedom in all things has consequences for those around you--so we can't all have freedom in all things. (now figuring out which freedoms trump others, that's the tough question)
2) But you do care what they think, because it seems to piss you off. And if you don't care what they think, then you're not respecting them.
My bottom line: If you just want to rant and vent, then say whatever you want. But if you actually want to convince people of your position, if you want to change minds--then you have to be respectful. (And sometimes that means you have to take the first step and be respectful when you're being disrespected.)
Honestly, the last part of what you said there, that you wouldn't choose abortion but you won't make that decision for others, I think that's powerful. You're sharing some common ground and suddenly it's a lot harder to write you off as another angry "anti-life" person. Suddenly it's easier to look at and begin to understand your emphasis on freedom and choice.
I guess I'm pressing this (and I hope I'm doing it respectfully--it's hard to communicate that in text) because I'm the hopeful idealist that thinks the abortion debate shouldn't be so venomous. I don't expect everyone to agree, but a little respectful disagreement would be something.
Firstly, as I stated earlier, segregation/racial discrimination is not the same as smoking. Segregation is unconstitutional, and therefore in a completely different category when it comes to businesses. As to the "healthy work environment", I'd like to first say that no one is entitled to a job. A job is not a right. Secondly, I can't think of any jobs that would expose an employee to second hand smoke, other than bars and restaurants. Thirdly, there are lots of jobs that carry risks, and expose employees to various sorts of discomfort, and ickyness. Here are a few; anything in the medical field, garbage collectors, crime scene clean up, firefighters, cops, dog catchers, lion tamers, and countless more. If someone feels that they HAVE to be a waitperson, then they can find a place that is smoke-free, by owner's choice.
I have also discovered that there is a substance out there that is deadly. We're not talking in the long run deadly; I mean it will basically kill you within minutes. This substance is also found in just about every restaurant I can think of. Why not ban peanuts from all public places? No one can argue with the fact that they are deadly. If we're already letting the government dictate rules on smoking, why not menu selections as well. I'd also like to point out that there are lots of restaurants out there that have dress codes, require you to be over 21 to enter, and won't give you a reservation unless you are a celebrity or know someone. All of these practices are discriminatory, and unfair to some people, but we're talking about private property here, and as far as I'm concerned the owner has a right to dictate these things. I thought it was "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", not "life, liberty, and eating out".
As to the issue of abortion, I really don't care if I convince anyone. I don't think that "they" can be convinced, just as I will never be convinced that "they" have a right to tell me what to do with my body.
My bottom line: this is my blog; I get to say whatever I want. You can agree, disagree, not care, it doesn't really matter. It's nice to get comments, but I'm writing for my own pleasure, not anyone else's.
:) (to convey that I still like you, even though we disagree)
Post a Comment