big rant
July 24, 2006 by thinking girl
well, I thought I had all the rants out of my system, and then on my drive home I was visually assaulted with huge posters of aborted fetuses lined along Robie Street. I was so enraged! There is an anti-abortion group visiting and protesting in Halifax right now. I don’t know their name, but they use graphic posters of photographs of aborted fetuses to spread their message, and they stand along the side of the road where you can’t avoid them when you drive by.
This type of moral bullying just doesn’t do anything for me. If I wanted to know what aborted fetuses looked like, I would go online and search out photos. I don’t want to know. Unfortunately for me, now I do. I had no choice in the matter, because these assholes wanted to exercise their right to freedom of expression. There was no warning so I could find an alternative route. Just here you go, look at these aborted fetuses. I was so angry I sped by as quickly as I could while giving them all the finger and yelling at them to go fuck themselves. Even the children - yeah, the children.
I resent the implications anti-abortion groups make about women who undergo abortion - that they are women who are immoral, sexually promiscuous, stupid for not knowing how to use birth control properly, selfish, cruel, irresponsible, immature, lazy, taking the easy way out. There is no acknowledgement that having an abortion is a difficult decision to make, that it is very emotional, and that some women are never able to forgive themselves for their decision, even if they feel it is the best one they can make under the circumstances. Women who undergo abortions choose them because in the context of their lives, having a baby is not an option, and it takes heartfelt consideration and careful reflection. Sometimes, having a child is a selfish act, and not having one is the best decision for everyone. It takes two to conceive a child, yet all the responsibility and moral condemnation is placed on the woman, although in many cases the man is also a participant in the decision. Having an abortion can be a traumatic experience that leaves deep emotional scars.
Which is why I was so angry at this demonstration. I feel horrible for the women passing by that protest who have had abortions. After making a difficult decision to abort a fetus, having that thrown back in their faces by self-righteous anti-abortion activists without the opportunity to avoid those graphic photos must be difficult for some women. Freedom of expression is one thing. Moral bullying that can’t be avoided is another.
obviously a touchy subject - and i hope i am not misunderstood here - as i don’t agree with the protestors….i would object to graphic images like that being displayed publicly…
yet freedom of speech is something i believe very strongly in… it ought not be granted only if we agree with the message or the presentation…. i.e. we rarely describe people we agree with as self-righteous or assholes….i mean, what would you have thought if it was, say, an anti-war protest… they have used graphic pictures as well and can be rather in-your-face at times - and i’ve heard similar complaints about gay rallies - “why do *they* have to get in our faces about it…”
i think to truly understand why someone would organize such a protest, one needs to try and understand their mindset. for them, it is murder, plain and simple - and it is permitted under the law… if one truly believes that, it is no wonder they are passionate… and their images - while much of the intent is sensationalistic, part of the reasoning is to present the idea that the aborted fetuses are people…some people in another century might have found the protestations of abolitionists, say, as self-righteous as you find their protests… my guess is, right or wrong, anti-abortionists today feel they are today’s equivalent of the abolitionists… speaking for a group that can’t speak for themselves - humans being treated as though they are less than human - try for a second, imagining yourself truly believing that the act of abortion is a murder condoned by the state…would you still consider their actions self-righteous or bullying….
now, to be sure, i don’t agree with the message or the methods of pro-life groups…. i am not 100% clear of what my personal views on abortion are - and i’m not 100% sure about what the law ought to be…both pro-choice and pro-life groups are coming from such wildly different assumptions that a civil dialouge is almost impossible… calling the other side “self-righteous” and “assholes” certainly won’t help foster any level understanding - although, to be frank, it’s probably too late for that anyhow…
hey Mike,
I don’t think I take your comment the wrong way. thanks for prefacing and qualifying your statements.
I didn’t edit myself one little bit in this rant. I was pissed off, and I still am. It was a visceral reaction. That said, I’m not sorry I said what I said. Assholes and self-righteous are terms that are fitting in my opinion. That is not to say that ALL anti-abortion activists are either, and that some pro-choice activists are not either or both. But this was too much.
I don’t object to all anti-abortion demonstrations. I think freedom of speech is important too, although not at any cost. I support their right to express their opinions. But I strongly object to the graphic content of the posters used in this instance, as I would object to the use of graphic photos of war victims in an anti-war protest. I don’t think sensationalizing the “victims” of either abortion or war is helpful. It is inflammatory and, in this case, completely unavoidable. I can choose not to listen to lots of types of free speech, but what I witnessed today was foisted upon me. I was not warned, I could not avoid it - I was victim to moral bullying.
I understand exactly where anti-abortion activists are coming from. I just don’t care in this instance. I think I have a right to drive down the street without being forced to view bloodied late-stage aborted fetuses. What about my right not to be subjected to that? Public space or not, why should their right to freedom of expression outweigh my right to not view graphic and disturbing pictures that carry an emotional punch? I get that that is exactly the point, but I find it abusive.
I think we’ve had a discussion about free speech before, in the context of hate speech. I support my country’s laws against hate speech fully. While this type of offensive material doesn’t qualify as hate speech, I would support restricting these types of graphic displays as well. At least give me the option of not having to look at it!
Oh lady !!! a week’s rest is doing good…you wrote already two posts since yesterday.
I shall get back here later and check it out. Not enough time in front of the ‘puter.
Chill out!
They’re bullies.
I’m not an American, so I don’t have the same relationship with “freedom of speech” I respect that it’s a bigger part of who you gyus are than who I am as an Australian, but come on… I mean: did those aborted fetuses sign permission slips granting those extremists prmission to exploit their existance … ( I don’t think so ). Freedom to exploit and bully … ? ( … is this part of your constitution … I don’t really get it.)
A wee note/thought on Mikes quote: - try for a second, imagining yourself truly believing that the act of abortion is a murder condoned by the state…would you still consider their actions self-righteous or bullying….
Ok. I can imagine for a second how they might feel about abortion. I’m a mum and abortion, as an act, upsets me. (shit when I pull a lettuce out of the garden I always apologise silently…
But I still think they’re bullies because we KNOW what abortion is, this is why they’re bullies - they’re condecending NOT educating, as I’m sure they think they are.
Do anti-pornography protesters hold banners of porn, project porn-flicks on the walls of porn-studios to prove their point? No, because it would be counter productive, for all kinds of reasons. I really wonder if their graphic images help sell their message … but, having said that, I live in a more moderate political zone …
If one night you were watching the news and there was a story on a child-porn ring being uncovered. With that story were images of children with semi-pixelated/erased censoring on portions of the image; essentially showing all but the I.D of the child and the exact abuse. What might your reaction be?
D
d: i suppose they would argue that perhaps we don’t *really* know what abortion is all about… i mean we *know* what war is about - but do we really? in their mind, a graphic image would make it more real… and i’ve seen news reports like you’ve described and they disturbed me = as well they should - so what is your point… and while I disapprove of such reports on tv - they undeniably make the horror more real…
i guess to summarize what i was trying to say - we ought to at least try and understand others’ viewpoints and recognize their humanity - too much political discourse involves demonizing those we disagree with - so while i may disagree with the message, or the methods (i suppose its up to a judge if their methods are legal or not) - i think it is important to see that their motivation is love and compassion - at least as they see it…
p.s.
the other thing i think you miss is that, at least to me, it seems like your response plays into the hand of the protestors…
they obviously intended their protest to be shocking, disturbing and emotional. i bet they would argue that the vehemence of your objection was because they were forcing you to confront the realities of abortion… they want you, and everyone else to be uncomfortable and outraged by their photos….imho, pro-choice people are best served by keeping the argument rational - scientific - i.e. when does a fetus become human…it’s hard to debate on an emotional level photos that look like dead babies… pro-life people know that - and that’s why they use this…best for pro-choice not to get caught up in that trap, but present their case rationally and scientifically…
great points D and Mike. I gotta run out right now, but I’ll be back to respond later. Thanks for discussing!
I think also that the whole show; pictures & all, are partly intended for publicity to get recognition by the media. & Like mike says they want you to be uncomfortable & outraged. I also agree with thinking girl that it is inflammatory & unneccesary. It makes me angry, too. It’s hard not to sink to their level.
Ok, I”m back.
Yes, the activists are hoping to upset people. And it works. It upsets A LOT of people - everyone I talked to today, in fact, was upset about the protest, and there have been three articles in the local paper (that I have seen) about it - none of which were in favour… although of course the editorial journalists support freedom of speech (duh).
Using pics of late-term aborted fetuses is manipulative. Most abortions are performed before such time as the fetus starts to look like a baby.
Mike, I don’t think there is a scientific answer as to when a fetus becomes a person, which is what many pro-choicers argue about. Personhood is an abstract thing, and can’t be shown scientifically. Which is why the best force of argument for pro-choice comes not from scientific arguments, but rather from a position of competing rights: the limited right to life of a developing fetus versus the full right to bodily integrity of a fully developed moral agent - the pregnant woman. It doesn’t matter much whether the fetus is a human person - it is human, no question about that, but it is also a parasitic organism that cannot survive without the woman’s ongoing consent to allow it to happen. It’s simple: women have a right to decide what happens in and to their bodies. My body, my uterus. My choice.
I should qualify this by saying that there has been a scientifically established stage for the development of senscience (sensation of pleasure and pain), between 19-20 weeks, and I believe that if at all possible, abortion should be performed as close to conception as possible so as to avoid pain and suffering to the fetus.
I also think the point I touched on that Daniela elaborated is the exploitation angle. In my opinion, these posters are exploiting the aborted fetuses depicted. If these are human people, as they claim, how can it be OK to exploit and degrade them in this manner? If their rights are so important, then what about their right to privacy? Even if consent was given by the fetuses’ mothers (for lack of a better term), why should the mothers’ consent be taken as more important than non-interference that is usually assumed in cases of non-consent? Because the mothers are actual human persons and full moral agents and can make their own decisions about what of their bodily tissue should be publicly displayed in such a manner? Hmmmm…. I thought the rights of the fetus were more important than the rights of the woman? I know I’m being completely tongue in cheek and smart-assed here, but really.
hi all, and Mike especially and respectfully - thanks for the conversation, it’s very interesting.
In response to your question:I suppose my point is that I think that graphic images used in public and the media don’t actually (or always) speak to us about what is REAL about the issue.
What frightens me is that some people find that these images aren’t ‘real’ or disturbing or any of those other horrible feelings that come to us as a gut response. In fact the use of these pics in protest, or news reporting, I think, can make some people less sensitive to what’s ‘real’. I agree with Ltart: Is anything designed to get media coverage all that close to what’s real?
After all, what’s real to you, and real to me, and real to pro-life supporters and real to pornographers and real to the media are entirely different. This, as Mike has mentioned is the actual point to be respected. Pro-lifers aren’t saying anything real to me; they are sensationalists.
At the base of this kind of protest, for me, is that they are saying - “Bugger the women and whatever happened to them and whatever made them decide to have an abortion and whatever their life and the people in their life dictated to them, lets focus on the dead ‘baby’, because that is the only reality of abortion.” The feminist errupts in me because it is another example of a women’s life being undermined by something ‘more real and more important’ than her right to live by her own design.
Anyway, thanks for the reading. I love it. My daughter needs a cuddle right now, so off I trot.
Many thanks:
d
exploitation and sensationalism are in the eye of the beholder…
anti-war protestors could be charged with being sensationalistic and exploitive as well…
peta, for example, often makes controversial, dramatic and sensationalistic protests - the protestor’s job is to attract attention to the cause…
i really don’t believe the competing rights argument is the best for choice… given the irrevocable nature of the choice from the fetuses view… when competing rights are analyzed - the relative value of the consequences ought be considered… given that the consequence to the fetus is termination/death/etc… well, if one views the fetus on any level to be a person - even a “lesser” person, it makes it hard to argue that what the mother goes thru is worse…
that’s why, imho, the answer to the question is defining personhood, in a legal sense - based on some scientific criteria - imperfect - to be sure - but the best option there is
as far as your point, daniela, that anti-abortionists portray the dead “baby” as the only reality - well, for those that consider it a “dead baby” that truly is pretty much the only issue… i mean, if one truly considers the act a murder, then one won’t necessarily have a lot of sympathy for a murderer
i have seen protests like this - recently even - albeit on a smaller scale - and have been apalled disgusted, etc as well - but i think the *point* of these protests must be addressed - and i firmly believe it does not serve anyone well by getting caught up in the emotion - but instead to try to reframe the issue in terms of logic and rationality - those that get to frame the debate often win it…
TG just dropping in to say you might look up Sharon Batt. I’m sure she’d be welcoming and must have office hours.
http://bioethics.medicine.dal.ca/WhoWeAre/Trainees_CIHR.htm
This organization has many feminists among it’s members.
http://www.acewh.dal.ca/
Best
Pony
Thanks for the links, Pony, and for dropping by. It’s always great to get some more resources from a friendly feminist - and one who apparently knows my school! Funny who you run into on the net.
Hello again,
Today has been great. I’ve been cleaning my house with my 2 year old in toe and checking this topic throughout the day. I like the combo: housework and debate, instead of debate over housework. (thanks again Mike + TG + All).
quote from mike: “…the protestor’s job is to attract attention to the cause…”
MMM. I GUESS I’VE LOST SIGHT OF THIS SIMPLE FACT. THANKS FOR REMINDING ME.
quote from mike: “…i mean, if one truly considers the act a murder, then one won’t necessarily have a lot of sympathy for a murderer…” OUCH. I HAVE ONLY FOR THE FIRST TIME REALISED THAT THEY *ACTUALLY* BELIEVE THIS … I’M KIND OF PUZZLED THAT THEY BELIEVE THIS. I MEAN, I KNEW IT, BUT KIND OF DIDNT WRAP MY HEAD AROUND IT.
***
I was at an event at Uni once, long time ago and this lesbian girl i knew had a great t-shirt on. Said ” I’m so bent that I can’t think straight “. So, maybe I’m so pro-choice that I can’t think pro-life … it just doesn’t compute in my head.
***
quote from mike: “… but instead to try to reframe the issue in terms of logic and rationality - those that get to frame the debate often win it…” I DON’T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN , : ), BECAUSE MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH ARE SUBJECTIVE SO LOGIC AND RATIONALITY CAN’T BE UNIVERSALLY DEFINED. I THINK THAT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE FRAMES…
Thanks, and thanks.
d
It’s an odd thing this abortion issue.
These kooks(I’ll be nice & not call them assholes)with their orchestrated emotional ranting & raving, & affiliations with churches & conservative groups have been able to turn the abortion question into something almost purely political.
Often, In the U.S. your political affiliation can & is assumed by your stance on abortion. This in turn creates a climate of political correctness where people feel compelled to take sides no matter WHAT the logic or rational of the matter is.
Mike makes a most excellent point:
“-and i firmly believe it does not serve anyone well by getting caught up in the emotion - but instead to try to reframe the issue in terms of logic and rationality - those that get to frame the debate often win it…_”
These ‘moral’ people have lost sight(if they ever had it) of what’s right in my opinion.
Frothing up peoples negative emotions only leads to anger & violence & irrationality. It’s wrong, for sure.
Unfortunately it seems that ‘emotion’ gets more attention then logic & reason.
Interesting though that the three articles in the paper about the protest were negative.
Maybe the anti-abortionists will shoot themselves in the feet finally by overexposure.
i guess what i am trying to say - unsuccessfully - is that both sides seem to debate the issue on a very emotional level and make statements that the other side cannot even fathom because the two sides start from such totally different assumptions…
pro-lifers say that abortion is murder - because a fetus is a person - pro-choicers say my body, my choice…
neither of those statements even begin to make sense to those from the other side - as the statements are based on completely different assumptions… so what do members of both groups do… REPEAT THEIR STATEMENTS LOUDER AND LOUDER… lol… hence the kind of protest that was seen… it is unlikely either approach will change any minds because , for the most part, they are not addressing the underlying issues. instead the other side is demonized - called names, etc… - that is, there is little logic or rationality in the debate
or put differently - both sides views are correct if one accepts the assumptions the views are based on….neither side recognizes that there is another way to view the situation - so the other side is simply wrong - or worse….
so, what i would like to see is the debate on another level - with both sides giving evidence to support their assumptions…i mean, at one point - you have a cell from each parent - some time in the future, you have a little kid running around the house - at what point did a “person” come into being… this approach to the debate may be futile as well - as i am sure there are no easy answers… and of course it would contain subjectivity as well - but at least some level of logic and rationality would be introduced…and, for all i know, maybe people do debate the issue on that level - but this doesn’t seem to be very common
believe it or not, abortion is not an issue that gets me too fired up - perhaps for this reason
Hey guys,
great points LT. This one especially caught me: “Often, In the U.S. your political affiliation can & is assumed by your stance on abortion. This in turn creates a climate of political correctness where people feel compelled to take sides no matter WHAT the logic or rational of the matter is.”
I find it interesting and sad that so much political discourse happens about women’s bodies. women’s bodies are the sites upon which patriarchy writes its scripts, and abortion is the most perfect case. Something to remember about abortion is that if abortion is not an available option, women are less free - let’s be very clear: if anti-abortionists get what they want (and make no mistake - they ARE getting what they want), women will have NO CHOICE ONCE PREGNANT but to carry and unwanted fetus to term, go through the unwanted pain of childbirth, and be left with little social resources to help them once the child is here. If the child is given up for adoption, the woman has still had to sacrifice her bodily integrity and freedom for 9 months, and still had to go through the pain of labour. Women’s bodies don’t always bounce back after pregnancy and childbirth - their bodies are forever changed. What sense is it to fight for the life of a fetus in a society that restricts so many other rights? The right to life is important, yes of course, but so is equality, and justice, and freedom to live one’s life as one finds most appropriate. Society couldn’t handle the birth of all those terminated fetuses.
D says” The problem here is that there are multiple frames.” True of many problems. This statement stimulated these thoughts, which are directed at the universe rather than at you in particular: A most important piece of the puzzle that is being missed by anti-abortionists is that the location from which they are arguing is WOMEN’S BODIES. They are not the ones who have to carry and give birth to (at the least) the fetus for whom they are fighting. Once that fetus is here on the earth, born and breathing, where is the support for the woman who was forced to give birth to it? It seems like the right to life is the beginning, the most fundamental right, and shouldn’t it underlie all other rights? Should it not matter what rights come AFTER the right to life - like the right to live one’s life without interference from political activism about one’s body? The right to maintain complete control and integrity over one’s own body?
Mike: actually, this very argument over personhood and when it begins is extremely common in philosophy, feminist discourse, and bioethics. The threshold of sentience I mentioned earlier is an attempt to pinpoint a median at which personhood begins. Bascially the argument goes something like this:
- we can’t make the threshold for pseronhood rationality/cognition, B/C it leaves out small children and certain of the mentally disabled.
- we can’t make it birth, because a fetus can survive outside the womb for a rather long time before it is born.
- we can’t make it consciousness, because that would include animals.
- we can’t make it independence, because that leaves out small children and certain of the disabled.
- we can’t make it conception, because it is counter-intuitive to afford all the rights of a person to a collection of cells.
- we afford moral rights to other beings than humans - like animals - although the rights we afford them are lesser rights than those we afford humans. The reason we afford these other beings moral rights is because they experience pain, and we deem pain to be morally problematic.
- therefore, personhood should begin at the point when sentience develops (scientifically proven to occur at 19 weeks or so), and moral rights shuold be afforded to fetuses based on development, where a full moral agent has more rights than a moral agent that is not fully developed in other important aspects (like cognition, rationality, independence, etc.). the moral rights of the fetus should never take precendence over those of the pregnant woman, but are still important and require protection. Therefore, it is morally permissible to abort a fetus BEFORE personhood using the threshold of sentience, and AFTER this point only in situations analogous to situations where we would end the life of a full moral agent: self-defense (threat to the pregnant woman’s life) or euthanasia (which is debatable, but think in terms of removing life support, which essentially the pregnant woman is providing - in cases where the fetus’ quality of life is deemed to be poor enough to outweigh the benefits of living - which opens a whole other can of worms, namely the problem of the subjectivity of the value of a person’s life.). There Mike, how does that ring your bell?
I think this argument is not part of the popular debate about abortion probably because it is a bit abstract, and when it comes down to it, the anti-abortionists claim that personhood begins when life begins, at conception. Anti-abortionists are not willing to budge an inch on their definition of personhood, while over the years the opposing arguments have softened from the position that a person is only a person when it is born.
LOL @ THEY REPEAT THEIR STATEMENTS LOUDER AND LOUDER!
sorry, that was really long. Maybe next time I’ll break it up if I”m responding to comments made by more than one person.
mike; I think you are doing a good job of saying what you want to say.
I also like to stay out of the abortion issue, because i don’t like emotional arguments & mud-slinging. (I can get that at home if I want)
perhaps this is why rationality & logic doesn’t seem to make it’s way to the front. It just bowled over by the drama & the politics.
excellent, logic based argument…
p.s. as far as anti-abortionists not budging…
the current research may place sentience at 19 weeks, but is that the same for every individual..
and what if future research would place it at 17 weeks…
identifying conception as the point a person comes into being, at least is a very unambiguous stance - and stems, in large part, on extra-scientific reasoning… it would be suprising if this stance of anti-abortionists *did* change or evolve over time…
yes, I thought you would enjoy that argument Mike. I found it very convincing myself.
in ref to TG comment # 17…are the anit-abortionist peeps getting what they want? eeek. that’s scary. very different climate over here (australia).
Daniela,
yes, in parts of the US, the right-wing anti-abortionists are managing to pass legislation to prevent women from obtaining abortions. In South Dakota back in March, this was the case, and although I think the state senator still has to sign onto the bill, the bill states that women cannot obtain an abortion unless it is medically necessary to save her life. That means even in the case of rape and incest, women will be forced to carry fetuses to term. In a few states - Mississippi and Alabama spring to mind - there is only one centre for abortion serving the entire state population, and of course since health care is not publicly administered, this means women living in these states have to come up with not only the money for the abortion, but also the money for travel expenses to the clinic if they don’t live in the same area.
Here in Canada, New Brunswick recently announced that the only hospital in the province offering abortions was not going to offer them anymore, which has caused a bit of an uproar, although the province is re-routing women to Nova Scotia and Quebec until they set up another hospital with personnel and equipment to provide abortions. Also, in Prince Edward Island there is no hospital offering abortions, so women have to travel outside the province for the service. At least in Canada, abortion is covered under the Canada Health Act - there are some stipulations, like it has to be performed in a hospital, and I think patients have to be above a certain age or have parental consent. It’s still not a perfect system, but legally, there is no law preventing abortion whatsoever - abortion is legal until delivery, because personhood doesn’t legally begin until birth. However, in practice late-term abortions are only performed when medically necessary, and most are performed before 17-19 weeks (again, it varies per province).