Jill of Feministe, in her critique of William Saletan's latest
offering on abortion, distills the essence of the impasse over reproductive choice: While the choice side is about exactly what they say they're about, "pro-life" is actually about social control of sex.
The two sides are talking past each other, but a whole lot of people who fundamentally agree that the government should not be in the business of telling women how to use their bodies (like William Saletan, and probably a lot of DUers who consider themselves "pro-life") have allowed themselves to be co-opted by a movement that has the ultimate aim of outlawing recreational sex because it is supposedly forbidden by "God." A less kind way to put it: they've been suckered by "the babies," which the anti-choicers use as a wedge to separate those who know what the fight is really about from those who don't.
It will be the Democrats job to wake that crowd up and turn back the tide on this debate. They'll only be able to do it, of course, if they know what is really at stake and have the courage to say it speak the truth.
Saletan expresses bewilderment over the effect on some members of the "pro-life" coalition of a Democratic measure in the House, offered by Tim Ryan of Indiana, to reduce the number of abortions nationally by making birth control readily available to poor women. Then Jill of Feministe replies:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/10/02/william-saletan-making-a-career-of-not-getting-it/ The objectors make several arguments. They point out that birth-control pills, like morning-after pills, can block implantation of an embryo. But there’s no evidence that this has ever happened. The risk is theoretical, and breast-feeding poses the same risk, so you’d have to stamp that out, too. Critics also note that many birth-control methods can fail. That’s true, but it’s an argument for using two methods, not zero.
Third, they protest that federal family-planning money supports Planned Parenthood, which performs abortions. In fact, however, only 14 percent of this money goes to Planned Parenthood, and fewer than 9 percent of Planned Parenthood clients go there for abortions. So, even if Planned Parenthood diverted family-planning funds to abortion—which would be illegal—we’re talking about a tiny fraction of the money.
Above all, the critics insist that contraception will backfire. As the Youngstown Diocese puts it, “Promotion of contraception leads to more extra-marital sexual intercourse, which leads to more unwanted pregnancies, which leads to more abortions.”
William, catch up: Anti-choicers are getting more and more extreme. Arguing that birth control will prevent abortions has no effect on them, because it’s not about preserving fetal life. It’s not about the babies. It’s about controlling female sexuality, and punishing women who don’t toe the line. Preventing 95% of abortions through birth control, education and aid to low-income women with children will not satisfy these people. They want to see women punished for being autonomous, sexual human beings. That’s it, end of story. And until we recognize what their motives are, all the hand-wringing in the world about why don’t the support contraception? isn’t going to do anything.
But then, what can we expect from “pro-life” politicians? Consistency?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
