Comments on: William Saletan: Making a Career of Not Getting It

By: rxiwqorsow

rxiwqorsow — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:27:25 +0000

vnausxvzeua

gwpracsam snafgaqwrs orajvoa

By: exangelena

exangelena — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:34:34 +0000

Mas Tarde – sorry for writing back so late! I have in the past vacillated between prochoice and (moderate, never SD abortion ban-style) prolife positions and because I personally believe abortion is wrong, it’s sometimes been difficult for me to reconcile supporting its legalization. And yeah, I frankly don’t know of any prochoicers who oppose birth control and comprehensive sex ed. But I have seen some bloggers who have said that the prolife movement, or even believing abortion is morally wrong, is all about hating women (as I’ve said, I do think that the religious conservatism that goes along with prolife views often goes along with antifeminist views) – so I felt compelled to disagree because I am a feminist and I have some sympathy for the prolife position. As for the prolife=opposing birth control, even if prolifers are opposed to premarital sex, isn’t consensual premarital preferable to killing babies?

By: ronin

ronin — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:42:27 +0000

I’m really so sick of writers who think that writing an essay about a problem is the same as solving it.
The problem is that our policies are being driven by prolife absolutists, not the ambivalent middle that Saletan writes about. That is why we get a hypocritical stem cell policy. That is why South Dakota drafts a draconian abortion law. That is why we have faith based pork masquerading as social services. That is why we have wingnut delegates agreeing with conservative mullahs about international aid. That is…well you get the idea.

Saletan leaves out politics from the equation. Perhaps we will have that wonderful agreement he hopes for someday. But in the meantime, the absolutists have to be reined in. if Saletan distracts from that effort by putting the onus on prochoicers, then, yes- he is concern trolling.

By: IM

IM — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:29:47 +0000

Well, I`m pro Life. i think abortion is morally wrong. I´m anti stem cell research too and support the anti stem-cell laws of my country.

So how can I reach my goal of fewer abortions?

Not by making abortion illegal, that doesn`t works and neyer has. So I’m pro legal and accessible and cost-free or inexpensive etc. abortion. In ohter words pro choice. That is a quite common position here in Germany and in their hearts even many catholic bishops agree
.
So: Moderate pro lifers exist, they are also known as pro-choicers.

By: raging red

raging red — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:11:22 +0000

Palabra, mas tarde.

By: mas tarde

mas tarde — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:37:53 +0000

exangelina,

You seem to be saying that your position is slightly different from the pro-choice feminist position – it is “conflicted”:

“Well, I’m a feminist and I’ve always been conflicted about abortion.”

“I personally believe abortion is wrong (although I don’t at all want to control women’s sexuality, nor do I hate women in any way) – but I think that a lot of women in this country don’t really have the resources or options to prevent pregnancies in the first place.”

The whole point of this post and all the others responding to Saletan is this (and it cannot be stressed enough):
THIS IS THE PRO-CHOICE POSITION. THIS IS THE FEMINIST POSITION.

You do not have a “conflicted” relationship to pro-choice if this is what you believe. This is what pro-choice *means*. This is exactly why Saletan is exasperating. Like him, you seem to be saying that you’re pro-choice EXCEPT for the fact that you think abortion is icky/bad/not good in and of itself. But that position does not somehow deviate from the pro-choice position – it IS the pro-choice position. No one on the pro-choice side thinks that abortion itself is inherently great/fun/good/not icky. Indeed, the pro-choice movement, unlike the anti-choice movement, has ALWAYS advocated proven methods of REDUCING the number of abortions – through sex education, contraceptives, and assistance to poor women. That is why it is so annoying that Saletan:

1. thinks these ideas are new and some sort of “compromise” from the pro-choice position, and
2. is surprised that the anti-choice folks aren’t really interested.

It is actually no surprise, and pro-choice folks have been trying for decades to get people to realize that:

1. pro-choice doesn’t = “we love abortions”
(This actually seems to be hardest for actual pro-choice people like Saletan to digest, and all the disclaimers about how he’s DIFFERENT from pro-choicers because he think abortions are actually not good – these disclaimers only perpetuate this obviously stupid assumption.)
2. pro-life doesn’t = “whatever it takes for less abortions”

This is why the collective pro-choice reaction to Saletan’s piece is, “no shit sherlock”.

By: exangelena

exangelena — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 04:25:28 +0000

Well, I’m a feminist and I’ve always been conflicted about abortion. I’m politically prochoice, but I don’t think that all people who oppose legalized abortion are misogynists. I mean, there are people like Ryan (even if they’re a minority of prolifers and often come into conflict with other prolifers) who get the fact that available birth control can prevent abortions and unwanted pregnancies and who are willing to build bridges with prochoicers. I think preventing unwanted pregnancies is very pro-woman – by the very word “unwanted”, women are obviously not happy about having them.
I personally believe abortion is wrong (although I don’t at all want to control women’s sexuality, nor do I hate women in any way) – but I think that a lot of women in this country don’t really have the resources or options to prevent pregnancies in the first place. Also, the patriarchal attitudes in our culture – such as the idea that a man is entitled to sex on demand from his wife or girlfriend or that women should have to support their kids and the man can walk away freely if he wishes – contribute to the problem a great deal, IMHO.
I seriously doubt that the vast majority of women who get abortions want to have them. On a very basic level, surgery sucks. Although this metaphor may be a little silly, I had to get a tooth pulled and I would have been delighted if taking a pill or getting a shot could have saved me from undergoing anesthesia, being unable to keep down water and basically lying around on the couch with a swollen face for several days. Oh yeah, and surgery is expensive, especially if it isn’t covered by health insurance.
However, I do suspect that conservative religiosity that goes along with prolife views probably correlates with very traditional (and often antifeminist) ideas about gender roles.

By: zuzu

zuzu — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:28:56 +0000

The Belle Waring piece was great and true, but it still leaves open the question of audience. If Saletan’s really just concern-trolling, then yeah, the whole enterprise is annoying. I was, perhaps too-charitably, interpreting him as writing to the prolifers.

He’s writing in Slate. I think that takes care of your question.

By: exangelena

exangelena — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:34:46 +0000

There’s an article in the Marie Claire with Sarah Jessica Parker on the cover about the South Dakota abortion ban. Apparently, in the state task force that preceded the abortion ban, it posits the allegation that a child born of incest may be in the genius range of intellect. I just about vomited when I read it. Sorry if I got too offtopic, but how disgusting is that?

By: PLN

PLN — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:36:53 +0000

Zuzu,
The Belle Waring piece was great and true, but it still leaves open the question of audience. If Saletan’s really just concern-trolling, then yeah, the whole enterprise is annoying. I was, perhaps too-charitably, interpreting him as writing to the prolifers. (Unlike some of his other columns, which seem unabiguously concern-trolling pro-choicers.) And if you actually are trying to write to, and reach, non-wingnutty prolifers (who, I maintain, actually do exist), it may be more effective to gently (if naively, to the feminist/prochoice eye) point out the inconsistencies in the pro-life position *without* highlighting and mocking the sketchy motivations behind these inconsistencies.

This is of course an empirical claim for which I have little good evidence. I suppose I’ll say merely that it seems like both carrot and stick ought to be used; mock the wingnut activists *and* gently encourage the more moderate to see the light. And it’s hard to simultaneously do both. So isn’t it good to have different people focusing on different fronts?

I do think the beginning of his piece is really stupid and misleading. That “the good news is that we no longer have to fight about abortion” line is unsupported by the rest of the piece, and wrong … if this is what Piny had in mind by “offering an impossibility” I’ll sign on, and apologize for not getting it quicker. I suppose I just skimmed over that stuff as inconsequential intro, merely setting up his main point, which was “To lower the abortion rate, we need more contraception. And that means confronting politicians who stand in the way.” As long as Saletan’s concern-trolling prolifers, I suspect he does some good. But I’ll shut up now.