]]> i will say that i think in spite of our disagreements, we would all like to see an end to the deep divisiveness and hostilities on both sides.
peace.
]]>i can understand someone’s differing moral beliefs, and even their desperation to stop what they see to be murder. but i cannot believe that viewing it as a “war”, or trying to understand that others view it as “war”,(from either side), will ever, ever improve anything.
because if the other side is conducting a “war” against you/your viewpoint/your beliefs, then what can you do *but* engage in battle?? battle that only leads to further fighting and entrenchment.
as long as people continue to insist on engaging in “war”, they can never engage in a dialogue.
and there, i really am calling for an end to the debate on this. i’ve read the article, i’ve considered your viewpoint. we’re not going to get any further, i think. thanks.
]]>Regarding the term “war”, it’s essential to realise that it is not a ‘notion’ that is ‘promoted’, nor is it some sort of contrived ‘mechanism’. It *truly* is the reality that many many pro-lifers perceive (as it would be, given that they truly perceive that they witness fellow human beings being killed every day all around them). To not comprehend that this is their true mindset and their actual understanding of the situation, and to instead believe that it is only some sort of marketing tool that has been contrived to promote their aims… that misconception (and its counterpart misconception on the other side) is the very essence of what fuels this continued stalemate. Until we all get past that and are able to suspend our disbelief of how the other side truly sees the situation, we have no hope of ever calming this situation.
]]>@anglofille – no, one cannot *legally* sell their kidney as of right now. but one can sell their eggs, sperm, rent their womb. one can, in fact, donate a kidney, blood, piece of liver, breastmilk, stem cells from cord blood. likewise even in death, one can still dictate what happens to one’s body – cremation, donation, preservation, etc.
i think that abortion and prostitution represent similar extremes along the continuum between dictatorship and autonomy. if i truly believe that i cannot ever presume to tell someone what they should/shouldn’t do with their body, then that means they are (and *must be*) free to do things with their body i may not agree with. no, i don’t believe every choice is a feminist choice, because (currently) most choices are made in a social and political context which has historically been shaped by men. that’s a real and ever-present influence, and thus choices cannot always be said to be made freely. however in an *ideal world* of equality, no choices would be demeaning of women, because they would be completely uninfluenced and unlimited.
we don’t live in that ideal world yet, obviously. but i believe that we (men or other women) cannot constrain the bodily choices of women in the interests of “what’s best for them” as it only sets us further back from ever achieving the ideal.
to put it more bluntly, i can’t agree that dictating what one can/should do with their body *ever* furthers feminism, no matter how well-intentioned.
@tf – you’re just a political junkie
I don’t see prostitution and abortion as being analogous. There is really no situation that is equivalent to being pregnant and to having another being growing inside your own body. That is a unique situation. I fear that making the link between abortion and selling your body for sexual purposes plays into these notions that any “choice” can be a feminist one as long as it’s a “choice.” This kind of thinking seems to water down the whole notion of feminism until it means nothing. The global, corporate, patriarchal sex industry has already appropriated this kind of language to serve their own anti-woman purposes.
]]>*and to anyone else who manages to do it too.
]]>1) You’re right, it was hard to tell at the onset whether the author is pro-life or pro-choice, and I think that is a good thing and helpful to the whole debate. Too often, abortion-related discussions begin with a definitive declaration of each participant’s position, at which point half of the group stops listening to them. And too often, people don’t want to even read (or discuss or entertain) an article unless they know ahead of time which “side” the author is on — and when we find ourselves doing that, I think we *have* to stop and ask ourselves if this doesn’t actually make us as close-minded as both sides are always accusing the other side of being. So, I really liked that the blog post was almost undeclared in that way. I think it would improve the whole situation if we could all get away from declaring our positions right from the start, and perhaps there’d be a bit more discussion, maybe even a bit more listening, and… dare I say it, some reconsideration…? (call me crazy)
2) I loved that the author was able to remain calm and rational (as you were) in her analysis of such a highly-charged subject. But more than that, I loved that she sees that both sides are coming at the situation from rational, logical, even morally logical positions — completely different logic on both sides, but both logical. So often, we demonise the other side as being irrational, illogical, and motivated by selfishness, hatred, and even evilness, and we wrap the whole thing up in so much indignation and hysteria that it’s nearly impossible to cut through it enough to even examine the other side’s arguments. Whereas I believe the truth is that both sides come at the issue from places of real compassion and good will, and well-thought-out, logical arguments (with a few illogical bad apples on both sides). It was deeply refreshing to read a blog post that not only acknowledged that there is moral logicality on both sides, but also analysed it in a way to move the discussion forward, rather than to just create more hysteria and entrenchment.
Regarding your comments on logic/rationality and murder, I disagree. I think there are a lot of totally sane, totally rational people who have committed murder — if not, then the insanity plea could and would be used every single time. And I don’t believe it takes as much as war or self-defense to push a person to murder. Lots of people have murdered out of greed, out of anger, out of passion. …Even out of principle. I don’t believe that murder is solely within the domain of the irrational/illogical/insane.
But looking specifically at the case of this murder, I think that it’s important to acknowledge that pro-lifers do feel that they are in a situation as dire as any war. To look at it from their point of view, they see what they believe to be human babies being killed every single day, time and again, without end. Whether you agree or disagree with that is immaterial — that is the situation as they understand it and that is as distressing and stressful as any war and, therefore by your definition, could be enough to push a rational person to murder in order to bring about an end to it.
]]>nevertheless, she says:
But I remain stuck with a fundemantal problem: I can understand their moral logic. When someone whose moral logic I can understand, even endorse (without endorsing the underlying judgement about the personhood of the fetus) is driven by that moral logic to kill, I think there may be a problem that society needs to solve. When more than one kills for the same cause, I assume that there’s a structural problem in the political process that needs to be fixed. I’m not saying the violence is okay–I think Tiller’s murderer needs to go to jail. But like many contributors to Obsidian Wings, I can understand the structural forces that contribute to Palestinian terrorism without believing the terrorism is legitimate.
(emphasis mine)
and i have to reject out of hand her supposition that there is *any* logic in the acts of a murderous madman, moral or otherwise. put simply, i cannot believe that rational people can be made to murder. likewise, i do not believe that rational people commit terrorism, or suicide bombings, etc. if i were to believe that an act like this could be the natural conclusion of following a certain line of reasoning, and that rational, logical people, (who are not otherwise under the mental duress of war or self-defense), can be capable of cold-blooded murder… then i have to believe that *i*, or anyone i know, could be capable of murder. and that contradicts everything i’ve ever known or experienced about humanity in my life thus far.
i could be wrong, of course – but i don’t think i am. actually, i *choose* to believe i am not.
]]>(If you have lost the link and would like to see it, it’s http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/a_really_long_post_about_abort.php. I am quite happy for you to edit this part out again if you prefer. However, I’d be grateful if you’d let the bit before the brackets stand, as otherwise it kind of looks like I’m an idiot who couldn’t follow very basic instructions and just obnoxiously posted a prolife link. Cheers.)
]]>strawberry, i did edit out the link you provided, as i am not at this time entertaining or hosting any opposing views on the abortion topic. hope you understand.
]]>