Anarchists for Abortion? Stop and think

by free thinker Mon Feb 18, 2002 02:25

Phuq Hedd writes:

>It is foolish to ask the questions that you do >which attempt to conflate the killing of non->foetuses with the killing of foetuses. The first >three examples: abortion for disability, gender >and sexuality respectively are easily answered: >Yes. If that is what the mother wants.

I leave this without comment as something for consideration by readers.

>The last two questions/examples that you ask >about are obviously un-related to the first two. >They concern the killing of human beings that >are not physically inside of other human beings. >Their continued existence does not threaten the >lives and health of their mothers.

Yes but what is your answer to them? Do you want Gardai to lock up people who kill indigenous people as you suggest I must want them to lock up those who perform abortions? Or would the fact that you, (as I do) oppose the State as a system designed to implement exploitation and oppression, mean that you support legislation which gave impunity to the killing of some and not others?

by Charles W. Johnson - Auburn Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance Sun Feb 17, 2002 22:12 cwj2 at eskimo dot com

It is worth pointing out that the site to which we are referred by the original poster is also full of typical anti-abortion lies and distortions. It reprints, without editorial comment, several essays which attribute quotes to Margaret Sanger allegedly showing her to be racist, classist, and eugenicist. The problem is that the attribution of most of these quotes is actually a complete lie, and in the two or so which were actually printed by Margaret Sanger, words have been taken out of their context. (For example, Sanger referred to "thoroughbred" children--meaning healthy and physically fit, not some kind of eugenic genetic "purity." This is made quite clear in the article from which she drew the phrase, but anti-choicers have never hesitated to lie and distort when it suits their agenda.)

A similar manipulation of reality is present when they try to portray Planned Parenthood as "racist" for locating primarily in low-income neighborhoods and predominantly serving people of color. Here they draw on allegations from some male political leaders of color that abortion is part of "genocide" against people of color. This is absolutely infuriating. Planned Parenthood locates in these neighborhoods because they have had a long-standing policy of providing affordable women's reproductive health care, including abortion, to low-income neighborhoods and people of color, which they originally developed in alliance with Black leaders such as W.E.B. DuBois. If PP had acted like MOST medical establishments and located primarily in middle- and upper-class neighborhoods, the anti-choicers would call them racist and classist for not being available to low-income women.

I wonder how many of the people who level these claims have ever actually been in an abortion clinic, had to sit down and talk with women who are making the decision. I have to wonder whether they have any idea how fucking hard it is or how much comprehensive reproductive health services - including abortion - are needed in low-income neighbhorhoods. How much their allegations of racism come from a privileged background within the dynamics of sexual politics. I am just sick and tired of the bullshit.

by Phuq Hedd - As Yet Un-aborted Anarchists Sun Feb 17, 2002 00:16

"Free thinker" accuses "Andrew" of simplistic thinking and yet her/him-self advocates that killing a foetus is the same as killing a adult human being?!

To quote "free thinker" back "Nice simple reasoning"!

It is foolish to ask the questions that you do which attempt to conflate the killing of non-foetuses with the killing of foetuses. The first three examples: abortion for disability, gender and sexuality respectively are easily answered: Yes. If that is what the mother wants.

If you, "free thinker" want to minimize the likelihood that a mother would make these decisions then you should be working to produce a society in which homophobia, sexism and ableism are discouraged. That way, I feel sure, few people would make the decision to have an abortion which is an invasive, unpleasant medical operation undertaken when the mother has a very strong reason for so doing. ( I presume that you are active in campaigning in all these areas as anarchists are?).

The last two questions/examples that you ask about are obviously un-related to the first two. They concern the killing of human beings that are not physically inside of other human beings. Their continued existence does not threaten the lives and health of their mothers.

With regard to the "arguability" of the foetus being a child, the point is that a "child" is not physically inside the body of the mother. I was trying to be tolerant of the viewpoint that makes no distinction between the rights of someone that is unquestionably a human (the mother) and the rights of something that can be a clump of 32 cells, a proto-human with no nervous system and a baby 1-hour from delivery. We could argue around and over and through this for ever and neither of us would ever change our minds or alter the crux of the problem which is that one of the entities is completely physically dependent on the other and cannot be separated from it without dieing. It's existence is an imposition and a possible threat to the health and life of the pregnant woman in many situations. I am always going to favor the right of the woman to her own health and happiness over the foetus. You, I would guess, are always going to argue the opposite. The logical outcome of that is that you are willing to have some Gardai lock up a raped 14 year old. Or you are willing to lock up an older woman that fears that she will lose her job if she becomes pregnant. You are willing to produce a society which uses extreme force to make someone do something.

This must be news to you: anarchists do not support the right of the State to use its force to compel people to behave in certain ways.

If you are serious about trying to reduce the number of abortions then you should be working to minimize the social conditions that might make a woman choose to have one. You are far more likely to reduce abortions by this then by trying to force someone to continue pregnancies against their will.

You are I presume very active in campaigns to remove Capitalism which causes the very late-term abortions of many people daily? You are I presume active in opposing the late-term abortions of at least 500,000 Iraqi children (under the age of 5) by the UN imposed sanctions on Iraq?

If you can't answer yes to these questions then I suggest to you that you are not sincere in your desire to protect life and that your "anti-abortion" stance has more to do with a desire to coerce women.

by auguste - very little indeed Sat Feb 16, 2002 16:20

'the idea... is one that transcends politics', you claim.
this is typical of the bourgeois attempt to dissolve all ideas which do not fall within its own hegemony. no idea has an ethic independent of the class structure of society.
as hegel remarked , (i paraphrase) the notion of god being founded in the state rather confirms that god is a function of the state.

by we Sat Feb 16, 2002 08:33

According to several scientific studies a pregnant woman ,even one who doesn't want a child is not more likely to commit suicide than any other woman in circumstances she considers unfortunate.Sorry i don't have the link ,if anyone does please post it. Use contraception or send the child to be adopted.All the money the Irish goverment is spending on this refferendum would be better spent on contraception information campaigns.

by Mike Sat Feb 16, 2002 03:18 stepbystpefarm at shaysnet dot com

No, whether the foetus is alive and therefore has a "right to life" is NOT the question. Rights do not necessarily impose specific duties upon anyone.

Here's the problem. Let's assume that the foetus IS alive (and has a right to life, etc.) But it isn't capable of life on its own. Ah you say, then the pregnant woman has a duty to preserve its life.

But DO we normally do that? The drowning person may have a right to life, we may consider the person who jumps in to rescue them at the risk of their own praiseworthy. But we would not legally compel them to do so. We would not jail them for failing to do so. Even though the drowning person died.

Well here we have this live person who will die unless hooked up to this special other person (nobody else will do) for nine months, this hook up maintained at some medical risk to the person so hooked, and the link to be severed at the end by medical procedures which though again not entailing a HIGH mortality (say maybe no worse than being a fireman) does involve substantial health risk -- things like maybe 10% chance of major surgery.

OK, would we in any comparable situation DRAFT that person. Force them to allow this hookup whether they were willing or not. Subject them to penalties if they sought to be disconnected. I don't think so. We might try to convince them to make the sacrifice, but force them?

by free thinker Sat Feb 16, 2002 01:00

Andrew writes:
“ Anarchists HAVE to be pro-choice … because in order to PREVENT women having an abortion you have to support an incredably coercive state that can jail women, doctors, being helping women to travel etc. In the referendum you are not voting on whether you think abortion is a good or bad thing. You are voting on whether the state should be able to jail a women who has an abortion in Ireland for 12 years. You CANNOT vote yes and be an anarchist for this reason.”

Nice simple reasoning. But the question of anarchists’ involvement in the political process is a bit more complex than that. Maybe you might consider the following:

A referendum on whether disability of the unborn is a valid ground for legal abortion.

A referendum of whether abortion be legalised when the mother/parents are dissatisfied with the sex of the child.

A referendum of whether abortion be legalised when there is a genetic likelihood of homosexuality in the unborn.

A referendum on whether or not infanticide remain criminalised.

A referendum on whether the killing or indigenous people be criminalised.

These aren’t completely fanciful scenarios, they are the subjects of political campaigns (if not actual referenda) in various parts of the world now or recently. I would like your views on what anarchists should do in each of the above.
It seems to me that a coercive state which gives impunity to the abuse of the human rights of the weak is worse than a coercive state which treats all equally.

Phuq Hedd: “The premise that a foetus is a child is arguable.”

Lots of things are "arguable". The premise that a native American or a black person was a human being was argued over for centuries.

by Phuq Hedd - Not Yet Aborted Anarchists Fri Feb 15, 2002 19:25

Well, I've just wasted time reading the collection in the hope that there were some new ideas in there: you promised that there would be and said that it would be impossible to read it without being changed. In a sense that is true, I have changed: I feel cheated at having my time wasted.

The premise that a foetus is a child is arguable. It is precisely becuase it is arguable that no sane person would attempt to force their interpretation of this point upon a wretched, confused child that is threatening to kill herself if she is forced to continue with her pregnancy.

Your post sounds compassionate, but that is a mask: behind the mask lies the ugly truth that you would force your own narrow interpretation upon others no matter what the consequences.

I do agree with you that not enough choice is presented to women in crisis pregnancy situations. Hopefully we can both agree that working to provide a materially secure future, emotional support and a lack of social stigma would present these women with a choice which was un-forced?

If so then I expect to see you and your fellow "anti-abortionists" out protesting madly against the cutbacks in health services and welfare that have been forced upon the working classes. I hope to see you out protesting to an end to Capitalism which pushes some women into the position where they would be condemning themselves to a life of misery if they chose to not have an abortion. Will you be doing that? Will you be campaigning for an end to the very late term abortions (in the 150th trimester sometimes!) of union activists that are fighting to provide these life conditions?

I hope so. Anarchists are, perhaps we can work together on that point and agree to leave the choice up to those that know best: the women that are pregnant.

Phuq Hedd

by Andrew Fri Feb 15, 2002 16:27

You seem to have missed the point altogether
here.

Anarchists HAVE to be pro-choice even if as individuals we think that there is NO circumstance where we would have an abortion (I'm male so this hardly applies to me) or where we would advise someone else to have one.

This is because in order to PREVENT women having an abortion you have to support an incredably coercive state that can jail women, doctors, being helping women to travel etc. In the referendum you are not voting on whether you think abortion is a good or bad thing. You are voting on whether the state should be able to jail a women who has an abortion in Ireland for 12 years. You CANNOT vote yes and be an anarchist for this reason.