Scientifically its a human baby

Scientifically, it’s a zygote, then an embryo, then a foetus, and only a baby when it’s viable outside the mother’s body.

And even if you do consider it a person, while it is inside the mother’s body, it’s effectively feeding on her body, to the cost of her own health. No living person has the right to do such a thing; why should a foetus?

And this article fully emphasizes that “pro-lifers” don’t care all that much about life at all — because if they did, they’d take a few minutes to consider the women’s lives they’re putting at risk.

As one lifer I encountered online in a debate said, “I don’t care about murderers.” She had no sympathy for a woman who attempted a home abortion and could potentially die, all that concerned her was that the woman was “murdering her child”.

Yup, while the casual folks who are uncomfortable with abortion might be swayed, the hardcore ones who are often the loudest don’t care and often are gleeful when these women “get what they deserve.” I don’t know if that type can be reached; I’m not sure what makes them come around.

Witness one infamous anti-choicer on LiveJournal who has an avatar reading “Don’t want to die from an illegal abortion? Don’t have one!” and who also had one (until he was reported to LJ Abuse) which was a mocking macro of that B&W photo of the woman dead on a floor from a botched abortion. I’ve blocked out what the macro text actually said, but it was one of the most tasteless thing I’ve ever seen.

To some extent this is actually what we liberals need to learn to do.

But thats a losing argument. Trying to “prove” that an abortion is acceptable comes with the fundamental implication that some are not acceptable. It feeds into the the argument that the other side is making (“women are whores and babies are innocent”) and immediately puts the pro-choice side of the debate on the defensive. Worst of all, it doesn’t actually help our cause. Instead, it feeds the implicit prejudice against women rather than challenging it and concedes the basic tenet of the other side (that abortion is a bad thing, but that other things might be bad enough to permit it.) What you’re talking about is forcing women to negotiate for basic human rights because you don’t think they can be won in any other venue.

It’s very odd how we liberals believe in the power of meeting people half-way, empathesizing (if maybe not condoning their actions) with them, solving problems at the root, etc., when it comes to most social ills, but when it comes to dealing with conservatives (and a few other groups) and trying to win people over to liberalism, we adopt the mentality of reactionaries

Sometimes a reaction is needed. If someone breaks into your home with a knife and demands you hand over your valuables or get stabbed you don’t meet them half way and give them your TV but not your stereo; you shoot them dead. Thats what this is. If you want to talk about social programs or education or general policy positions then compromise is fine, but not on basic human or constitutional rights. Lets be clear what we’re talking about here. One side of the argument says that women are individual human beings who have a right to exercise exclusive autonomy over their own bodies while the other side says they’re incubators who must submit to the will of god/man/patriarchy. I don’t see a middle ground, I don’t see space for empathy, and frankly I don’t see space for discussion with people who believe that entire classes of people exist only to further the human race because a widespread delusion said so.

We need to stop suddenly becoming Manichean reactionaries when it comes to religious fundamentalism and bigotry but instead also view them as societal ills

Down that path lies submission. Fuck them. They’re social terrorists and barely concealed fascists and should be treated accordingly. Religious fundamentalism and bigotry aren’t like poverty or teen pregnancy, you can’t throw money at the problem or alleviate it with education. These are choices people make, conscious decisions to view other human beings as less than human or to engage in the wholesale violation of human rights because someone decided their god said so.

At the very least, we need to learn that to win the game, we need to play by the rules of the game (before we can change them

But the game has already been won. Constitutional rights have been established and continue to be reinforced. Laws are on the books. Planed Parenthood and NARAL get significant donations and do good work both in the community and in the backrooms of power all over the country. Liberals have played by the rules. At this point the forced birth crowd isn’t playing by the rules, they’re bringing guns and bombs and lies. Sure, maybe the pro-choice crowd should maintain the high ground and not respond in kind (not that I’m convinced…) but we sure as hell shouldn’t be saying “well, we beat you fair and square, but since you’ve decided to keep fighting to the bitter end we’ll start making concessions.”

I do not propose we liberals buy into the reasoning of too many Americans, but that we stop saying “we’d rather loose than compromise and seek the votes of mean spirited assholes

So reframe the debate. I’m not saying politics shouldn’t be played, I’m saying that nothing is won if you walk away with a technical victory but cede cognitive territory. By accepting the premise of the forced birth side and arguing from there you ensure than any victory is both temporary and hollow. Fight their premise, fight their arguments, fight their rhetoric.

we must recognize that a certain Puritanical Christian mentality infests American society at all levels and that we, in constructing our appeals to the populace in order to broaden our base, need to work with that

Why? Why not challenge it? That seems to have worked pretty well so far. Women’s rights movements didn’t say “Christian conservatives are right and women belong in the home, but….” The gay rights movement didn’t move as quickly as it did saying “Well sure being gay is a choice, but….” No, these movements challenged the premise of their opponents and, over a generation or so, radically changed the way America looked at their communities. I think the gay rights movement in particular is an excellent example of how to wage these kinds of wars. They fought right out of the box, even when the law was against them. They rose up at Stonewall, they marched in every major city they could organize, they challenged the basic assumptions of the average person on the street, they challenged the language used by their opponents, they challenged social norms, they fought tooth and nail over every inch of territory. In the 39 years since stonewall they have moved from being considered mentally ill and inherently criminal to the most conservative court this country has seen in generations striking down sodomy laws and same-sex marriage becoming a question of “when” rather than “if.” Fuck compromise.

To some extent this is actually what we liberals need to learn to do. It’s very odd how we liberals believe in the power of meeting people half-way, empathesizing (if maybe not condoning their actions) with them, solving problems at the root, etc., when it comes to most social ills, but when it comes to dealing with conservatives (and a few other groups) and trying to win people over to liberalism, we adopt the mentality of reactionaries (whilst reactionaries have political success using techniques that, if they applied them to, e.g., foreign policy, would mark them as moonbat liberals).

We liberals are, IMHO, right about how to deal with crime and various other societal ills. We need to stop suddenly becoming Manichean reactionaries when it comes to religious fundamentalism and bigotry but instead also view them as societal ills (which they are — and in our ideology we liberals accept that … e.g. in talking about institutional racism and patriarchy). At the very least, we need to learn that to win the game, we need to play by the rules of the game (before we can change them … at the very least, too many liberals seem like people who never play the game anyway, i.e. we do come off as nerds who don’t play real ‘murkin sports).

I do not propose we liberals buy into the reasoning of too many Americans, but that we stop saying “we’d rather loose than compromise and seek the votes of mean spirited assholes” (at the very least, that puts us “on record” as saying that ‘Murkins are mean spirited assholes) and accept that too many Americans have an authoritarian mindset coupled with mean-streaks a mile wide. Even as we Jews, liberal Christians, people of non-”Judeo-Christian” faith and secularists must continue our fight to maintain full acceptance of our faiths (or lack thereof) and equal footing in American society, we must recognize that a certain Puritanical Christian mentality infests American society at all levels and that we, in constructing our appeals to the populace in order to broaden our base, need to work with that rather than turning into Puritanical Cartmans ourselves saying “screw you guys, I’m going home” and always loosing the arguments because we refuse to broaden our base.

What’s clear is that their definition of “abortion” is something along the lines of “letting women have sex for pleasure” or “letting uppity bitches make their own decisions.”

But its so much more than that. The bottom line of the forced birth/anti-contraception argument is the same as all the other Christian political arguments: god has set forth certain conditions and it is not our place to question them. Thats the real horror here. Once someone has accepted that basic premise they have not only closed off all reason but opened the door to using any method available to enforce the will of their god. This is about using the coercive power of the state to enforce the tenets of a religion in direct opposition to personal liberty no matter what the human cost.

the experience of Ms. Z to give just one example of just how horrific things were” won’t cut it. We need to tell people exactly why Ms. Z had an abortion, and it better be a reason that’ll cause Americans (and we collectively seem to have an immoral lack of empathy lately, so it’ll be difficult to find a good enough reason) to say “wow — I can imagine being in that situation myself — I wouldn’t want to have to undergo what Ms. Z went through whenever I inevitably end up in that situation”.

You’re buying into their reasoning right there. What you’re proposing is trying to prove that women are justified in having an abortion, that it was the best choice given the options. You’re saying that the best way to secure abortion rights is to have a good reason why women should be allowed to abort. No. Fuck no. A million times no. That requires a level of insight and thought that the average person isn’t capable of or willing to dredge up. It also won’t do a damn thing to sway the true believers out there. Besides, why the hell should women have to pony up a reason to be allowed bodily autonomy?

I’m amazed that no one is concern here about the child being brutally killed here.

I betcha there are even some people who think that abortion should remain legal who nonetheless think “well, if she broke the law by having an abortion, she deserves what happens to her”. This country may be proud of having been started by revolutionaries, but it is a nation full of conformists with mile-wide mean-streaks who figure if you break any law, you deserve whatever punishment you get.

IMHO, telling stories about “the bad old days” really won’t make a difference unless we also make very clear the circumstances that prompted women to have abortions even though they knew the extreme risks involved. Just saying “X number of women had abortions before Roe v. Wade, Y of them had horrendous complications and here’s the experience of Ms. Z to give just one example of just how horrific things were” won’t cut it. We need to tell people exactly why Ms. Z had an abortion, and it better be a reason that’ll cause Americans (and we collectively seem to have an immoral lack of empathy lately, so it’ll be difficult to find a good enough reason) to say “wow — I can imagine being in that situation myself — I wouldn’t want to have to undergo what Ms. Z went through whenever I inevitably end up in that situation”.

Of course, there is the additional problem that people in this oftentimes stated as Christian country get the wrong lesson from Christianity: instead of thinking “that which you do to the least of them, you also do to me”, they think “well, of course, no matter what Ms. Z did, she would have sinned — but sin is inevitable … that’s why Jesus died on the cross for us”.

I don’t think telling gory stories is sufficient (it may be necessary — although it might just reinforce the violent and callous frame of the American mind — and in any case it ain’t at all sufficient) to overcome the callous lack of empathy inherent in American culture and religiosity.