On what basis do you make that determination, Christina? I have honestly never met an anti-choicer who came right out and said that their based their opinion on sexism, and yet I have also never met one who didn’t eventually come out with “I believe in exceptions for rape and incest because she didn’t choose to have sex and shouldn’t have to deal with the consequences.” I’m really curious on how you can know that most opposition to legal abortion isn’t based on sexism. That’s a blanket statement as well, although I’m not qualifed to judge whether it’s simply not true or based on a complete lack of understanding of others’ viewpoints (I have my suspicions).

While I’m adamantly pro-choice myself, I have met many adamant pro-lifers who are neither sexist nor blinded by religion. It’s not a blanket statement to say that it’s unfair to make a blanket statement! By the way, people can believe abortion should be restricted to rape/incest cases because they believe the interests of protecting the mother outweigh the other interests. Remember, abortion is about balancing. DIfferent factors tip the scale at different places for different people.

This disagreement is never going to be overcome, anyway. People just look at it too differently, and everyone belittles everyone else’s views, as you yourself belittled her view. It’s kind of unavoidable.

You might be right that the issue will never be overcome. But a substantial consensus on abortion has been reached in much of the world. That right there is proof that some sort of agreement is possible. I did NOT belittle her view. I simply pointed out one falsehood, and asked her no to belittle the views of others. I completely respect and agree with her view on abortion, I just don’t think it’s productive to falsely impute questionable motives on whoever disagrees with you.

I honestly don’t believe that abortion involves balancing two distinct life interests,

I think it’s more or less a scientific fact that abortion, at least in certain stages, involves balancing two distinct life interests. Of course, the mother is one life. While the fetus can’t necessarily be called a “life,” it’s settled knowledge that it is a potential life that will almost certainly become a life absent affirmative intervention. It’s also settled law in the U.S. that the fetus IS a life interest. Regardless of the value that you place on the fetus’ life interest, you can’t deny that it has a life interest.
and even if I did that argument wouldn’t be comperable to murder, war or the death penalty in my opinion simply because

no one is entitled to use anyone else’s body for life support. I understand that others feel differently and can’t understand how anyone can disagree with them. So?

Once a person is born, his parents are both legally and morally obligated to support him. When a person is in danger, there is often a moral and legal duty to rescue. Social compacts often dictate that the society has the duty to support the indigent and helpless. Although I see how this can be distinguished from being entitled to use anyone else’s body for life support, I think there’s not much to commend such a line. When one conjoined twin relies on the heart of another conjoined twin, should the latter be able to terminate the existance of the former? Apparently you are basing your understanding on the moral precept that humans do not have the duty to support life. But that’s not an absolute truth–it’s an opinion.

The point is, it may be a moral issue for you or someone else, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a moral issue or a rights balancing issue for me.

I think it’s a moral issue for everyone. Your morals prioritize women’s rights. My morals prioritize practical policy. The pro-lifers morals prioritize the protection of potential life. It is ALWAYS a moral issue and ALWAYS a rights-balancing issue. In fact, almost everything is always a moral issue and always a rights-balancing issue. You completely discount the rights of the unborn fetus. That’s fine–my viewpoint does that as well. But that in itself is rights-balancing.

JM, at the end of the day we are both pro-choice and agree. i think your opinion is based on firmly held moral beliefs rather than any rational calculation, and I respect that. I’m pro-choice for practical reasons–after an unwanted conception, abortion is th best tool we have for avoiding many personal and societal harms. I’m willing to seek to explore and understand the opinions of others and to see the abortion question in its true complexity. The moral absolutists who say as a God-given precept that “noone is entitled to use anothers body for life support” are not much different than those who say as a God-given precept that “noone can destroy the life of a fetus.” No end is served by discounting prolifers as sexist, mindless church followers just as no end is served by painting prochoicers as godless murderers. Even if you don’t seek agreement or consensus, I think we should at least seek understanding. Belittling others only contributes to the hostile polarization.

Nice of you to class abortion with drug use, prostitution and pornography.

I classed it with other activities that were once illegal (and still have all sorts of restrictions applied) and have historically had Draconian laws applied to them.

What’s the purpose of the analysis? To understand, or to shame?

And what is the purpose of your question–sarcasm? I don’t often understand sarcasm, so if no reply was actually intended, again, I apologize.

My reason for analysis: To figure out how to improve the quality of people’s lives, and to put that knowledge into practice.

I’m not sure I understand where your hostility is coming from, but I’m sorry if I have offended you in any way.

I am pretty much an anarchist, and I think people should be able to do whatever they please. But you know, I ask similar questions about heroin, meth, pot, sex-for-money, porn, and so on. I think it’s good to interrogate ALL of these, even though I think they should all be legal and as you say, none of my business. But as a political person, I’d be a fraud not to examine the reasons for these behaviors.

Nice of you to class abortion with drug use, prostitution and pornography.

Though that illustrates nicely just why a lot of women don’t like to talk about having had an abortion at all, let alone their reasons for it.

LOTS of things are none of our business, but are you saying they should be completely off-limits to analysis? I think silencing discussion and the consequent dearth of analysis is why the right wingnuts have been kicking our asses in the public square, but that’s another issue.

What’s the purpose of the analysis? To understand, or to shame?

And for anyone who asks, “Silencing discussion? WTF?” well, we may not be silencing discussion in any technical or literal sense, and we may have no power to do that even if we wanted to, but I’ve seen someone raise an eyebrow after someone says something, and if that ain’t censorship, I don’t know what is. Okay, I need to go and drink all the vodka in the world now.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

If we don’t discuss the reasons for abortion, they sure will. Which spin do you prefer?

This disagreement is never going to be overcome, anyway. People just look at it too differently, and everyone belittles everyone else’s views, as you yourself belittled her view. It’s kind of unavoidable. I honestly don’t believe that abortion involves balancing two distinct life interests, and even if I did that argument wouldn’t be comperable to murder, war or the death penalty in my opinion simply because no one is entitled to use anyone else’s body for life support. I understand that others feel differently and can’t understand how anyone can disagree with them. So?

The point is, it may be a moral issue for you or someone else, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a moral issue or a rights balancing issue for me. We look at things very differently, and we don’t have to accept each other’s framework. You get upset when it’s suggested that the fundamental issue is women’s rights or misogyny, saying it’s just automatic to assume that that’s not true, yet at the same time you say we have to accept the reasonableness of the argument and righteousness of the assumptions of another argument whether it makes any sense to us or not, beause it’s just automatic to assume that it is true. That doesn’t make much sense to me. And that is what I see Amanda doing, reacting against this narrative that says the terms have been defined, you must recognize our fundamental truths as universal, abortion is tragic and involves two lives and killing and selfishness and convenience and is not not not about sexism, and saying that she has a different view and doesn’t have to accept these tropes she doesn’t necessarily believe in just because she doesn’t exactly have the power to control the terms of the debate.
I don’t think the debate is helpful, simply because it’s never going to produce agreement and it’s pointless to keep going around and around over it instead of just agreeing to disagree and let everyone have their own conscience. But I do agree with Amanda that as long as it has to be talked about, there has to be a counterview to the most popular perspective of moral ambiguity and qualms. Because that’s a respectable view, but it’s not universal.

“I think silencing discussion and the consequent dearth of analysis is why the right wingers have been kicking our asses in the public square”

Yep, with analysis like “Saddam tried to kill my dad, macaca” and promoting discussion along the lines of “I don’t like your bumper sticker, I’m stripping you of your citizenship, declaring you an enemy combatant and remanding you to Gitmo for torture” yes, that’s why the right wingers are kicking our asses, we just don’t have that kind of sophisticated analysis or open discussion. And for anyone who asks, “Silencing discussion? WTF?” well, we may not be silencing discussion in any technical or literal sense, and we may have no power to do that even if we wanted to, but I’ve seen someone raise an eyebrow after someone says something, and if that ain’t censorship, I don’t know what is. Okay, I need to go and drink all the vodka in the world now.

So? If somebody says “I think abortion should be legal but I would never have one” how is it any more condescending than “I think pornography should be legal but I would never look at it”?

It isn’t, except that pornography is less stigmatized by a long shot than abortion, so by putting yourself above “those pervy porn-watchers,” you’re not exactly vaulting up the social ladder (well, most social ladders, at least.)

This is the case with any statement of the form, “I think X should be legal, but I personally wouldn’t do it.” The latter clause just doesn’t do anything except push you into a better-regarded moral class than others.

What if I switched it to the following: “I don’t think people should be legally required to give a kidney to their child, but I would if my child ever needed mine.” That’s not condescending, that’s just a statement about a moral choice I would make.

That’s absolutely condescending. I mean, can you imagine this conversation?

You: “I don’t think people should be legally required to give a kidney to their child, but I would if my child ever needed mine.”
Me: “Oh. I certainly wouldn’t. I’d hope there’s a donor available.”
You: “…”
It’s the sort of statement designed to broker nothing but agreement, because really. What kind of person wouldn’t give their child a kidney?

Wouldn’t therefore…

Breast augmentation or botox injections, as a remedy to an unfortunate situation (poor body image), and as legitimate medical procedures, also need to be seen as “morally good”?

Provided they actually help the problem, yes. There’s rather a bit of debate on that issue. In any case, women shouldn’t feel pressured to have or not have (plastic surgery|abortion)—it should be a choice based purely on what they feel is best, absent coercive influences of any sort. For this to be the case, (plastic surgery|abortion) should neither demonized nor canonized as the right choice for everyone.
It isn’t inconsistent to say, “chosen abortion is a moral good,” and, “women’s economic circumstances often rob them of the agency to choose,” and summarily set about attacking both problems.

Poor self image is a mental issue, not a physical one. So breast augmentation would not fix the situation. Therapy might help, though.

I’m probably being overly pedantic here—and I’m sure you know this—but it’s not that simple. Sometimes there is a mismatch between someone’s mind, body, and social image, and those issues tend to be too intertwined to make for neat categorization. (This is related to issues regarding access to medical care and surgery for transpeople, which is a way longer discussion.)

The only reasons that abortion is made into such a moral debate is because of the sexism and religiousity structuring this society. These are ideologies, and not neutral viewpoints.

This comment, which someone said above, is simply not true. It really conveys a lack of understanding of other’s viewpoints. Remember, about half of Americans think abortion is wrong. Though some of these people base this on sexism or religion, most do not. Abortion, unlike other medical procedures, involves the balancing of two distinct life interests. Many people consider a fetus to be a human life, and thus oppose abortion for the same reason they might oppose murder, war, or the death penalty. Because abortion entails a balancing of the interests of one life against that of a potential life, there is bound to be reasonable disagreement. This disagreement will never be overcome by belittling those who don’t share your views.

Hippolyte and Myrine, err, I mean, Amanda Marcotte and Jill of Feministe, have had it with “pro-choice” Caspar Milquetoasts…

However, the right to have that choice does not mean that their rights negates anybody else’s free speech rights to have an opinion which condemns those choices, provided that their speech does not prevent the woman from having safe access to their legally protected rights to have an abortion.

I’m in agreement.

I am pretty much an anarchist, and I think people should be able to do whatever they please. But you know, I ask similar questions about heroin, meth, pot, sex-for-money, porn, and so on. I think it’s good to interrogate ALL of these, even though I think they should all be legal and as you say, none of my business. But as a political person, I’d be a fraud not to examine the reasons for these behaviors.

LOTS of things are none of our business, but are you saying they should be completely off-limits to analysis? I think silencing discussion and the consequent dearth of analysis is why the right wingnuts have been kicking our asses in the public square, but that’s another issue.

Anyway, I highly recommend the Ginsburg/Rapp book I mentioned earlier. They believe any time the “abortion is a moral good” argument is raised, it is trouble. (I probably wouldn’t have replied if I hadn’t been reading it.) In the USA at least, it has always been considered “good” for some women to have abortions, and for others NOT to have them. In light of this, considering abortion “morally good” could work to reinforce the status quo, since many people already believe certain women (poor, disabled, immigrant, Muslim, whoever) should be having abortions, and not more children. I grew up hearing sentiments like this, and it isn’t as uncommon as you might believe.