Chatelaine attempts to restart "the abortion debate"

Yeah.  We'll never be done with this debate, will we?  Chatelaine is a middle-of-the-road women's magazine, no real feminist leaning beyond their more recent attempt to get away from endless dieting articles, so it's not surprising to see this.

Speaking of that article, a bunch of us friends of Jessica Yee were thrilled to see her featured in that article as one of the new faces of feminist activism around reproductive choice.  She writes for rabble, too!

It's good for feminists like Jessica to get into the mainstream and show people that this is what a pro-choice feminist looks like.  I also like that they showed another pro-choice feminist holding a baby and being maternal, which busts the stereotype of us being nasty women who hate kids.

""...Meanwhile, women on the pro-life side want the feminist movement to open itself up to their voices, too.""

Well...that is mighty privileged of them, after all they want us to open to their voices, yet they do not want to open  to our voices!

That really translates into, "we do not want your voices heard at all, it should just be our voices heard"  Kinda like some people who come here demanding that we open to right wing dialogue, which really means; "we want to silence your voices even in your space"  with the implied message; "we think you are bleeding heart/"fair" minded enough to let us destroy you in your own space". Or in other words; "we think you are too stupid to realize what we are doing".

The questions is; "are we"?

Once upon a time, Chatelaine named Chantal Daigle as their Woman of the Year. Sigh.

Thanks for pointing out the positive in that article, Michelle. I heard Jessica Yee in Ottawa and thought she was awesome! But a "debate"... no way we want to go back there.

Are you saying Jessica Yee wants to debate it?

Sorry if this was unclear because I lumped two points together. Yee gave an awesome speech at the Jane Doe conference, but no, I don't think she wants to reopen any "debate".

Here is what the article tells about her:

"Jessica Yee, a Toronto-based 23-year-old activist, in action. "She's a force of nature, a sign of what's to come," Rebick says. Intense and intelligent, Yee is in demand as a youth facilitator, community organizer and speaker at pro-choice events, student gatherings and diversity panels, where she draws a connection between racism and the oppression of women. She was inspired in part by the experiences of her Mohawk mother, who endured two illegal abortions as a teenager. Yee spends her time crossing the continent. I caught up with her last summer via her cellphone. She was on her way to Minneapolis to work with the Minnesota Indian Women's Sexual Assault Coalition. "Part of the solution to ending the cycle of negativity in our communities is to take ownership of our bodies again," she tells me. "Knowing your own body and that you have rights over it is fundamental to people building themselves up."

How prepostourous.

Just when you think Canada has a slight chance of becoming progressive, they allow people to publish this sort of hatred encouraging the slavery of women. This should be illegal and the author of the article, as well as the editors of Chatelaine should be brought up on charges of hate crimes.

uh?...

I wouldn't go that far.  It would be a pretty scary place if an article like this was illegal.  From what I can tell, they weren't encouraging anything.

I think it's important for feminists to stay on top of any anti-choice activism that's emerging - there seems to be a resurgence of it, and a lot of us younger women maybe take our legal rights for granted, having had abortion be legal during most if not all of our reproductive years.

It's important for us to make sure that we're well-represented in mainstream news and magazines on this issue.  And we can't just bury our heads in the sand and pretend that anti-choice activism doesn't exist, or demand that other news agencies do so.  We have to face it head on instead of shooting the messenger.

Of course, it can be argued, whether Chatelaine is acting as the messenger here, or if they're taking a hand in creating the message.  I lean towards the former.  I think there has been a huge shift to the right by the culture warriors, and they're gathering strength.  At least in this article, they're giving a fair hearing to the pro-choice side.

Forcing women to conceive against their will, and essentially making them human incubators is slavery - pure and simple.

Do you honestly think that if Chatelaine printed an article advocating for capturing Africans and using them as slaves, that it would not be clearly viewed as a hate crime?

In my mind, it's pretty clear.

All anti-choice arguments are pro-slavery and therefore a hate crime.

I didn't read the article as I won't in support such a backwards publication in any way, but whether they are advocating female slavery or simply providing a platform for hatemongers to express their opinion, it's a very thin theoretical difference.

Well, you know, I  agree with feathersky here about forced pregnacy being slavery and that any literature promoting it,  can be seen as the promotion of slavery. Seriously think about it and what it means to be deprived of  freedom  to self determine.

Over the course of yesterday and today, I have been speaking with a woman who has had an oopsy at 37, and is pentacostal indoctrinated, though now lapsed.

Most certainly, she feels as if she was being forced to be an incubator against her will, having just had another child last year. Her partner is/was trying to force her to have it, as well as her mother. Indeed she was threatened with disassociation by both, and her partner went so far as to throw her out of the house physically when she said she was not going to continue with it, as not only does she not want it, she has almost died in childbirth twice before. He wants her pregnant and that's it, as it is a control mechanism for him, and not religion, though he is using her former religious beliefs against her to get what he wants.

Tomorrow she is going to take care of it, and if her marriage fails, she is fine with that too, as she now realizes that they do not want what is best for HER, nor do they respect her personal integrity. As really it came down to, so what if she dies and leaves her other children motherless. It is all God's will according to her mother. And her partner just wants HIS future child.

Forcing a woman to be pregnant is slavery pure and simple and it cannot be seen any other way.

I agree too. Thanks for sharing your friend's experience, remind. We often discuss religions (or men) in the abstract, often as the best we wish them to be, but there are horror stories like this happening all around us, with men's hand in it generally hidden.

The Childbirth by Choice Trust edited and published a great book ten years ago, called NO CHOICE - Canadian Women Tell Their Stories of Illegal Abortion. I wish more people shared or read those first-person accounts of abortion back then; it could draw a lot of votes away from Canada's anti-choice caucus MPs [14] Tell your local librarian about it! ISBN: 0-9683796-0-5

Thank you for the support. Remind

To be honest, I was beginning to wonder what sort of feminist forum this was with so many people defending such hatred of women.

Martin, I'm a little curious as to why your first response was 'uh?', as if you think I am a crazy person for my views, but now you agree?

Feather Sky, I wasn't defending "hatred of women".  I was defending journalists not being thrown in jail for "hate crimes" for writing an article like this one.  I think that it's over-the-top to throw writers in jail for profiling people in society with differing views on abortion, especially since they gave lots of space for the pro-choice point of view.

Hi Feather Sky. I wrote "uh...?" because I thought you were referring to a recent post and I couldn't make sense of what I was reading. I later understood that it was a reaction to the original Chatelaine story, and I agreed with your assessment and said so. Sorry for being way too elliptical myself. (I have noticed that there are often misunderstandings here when critiques do not name the argument or the person critiqued.)

I don't want to link to it here, as I don't want to get in trouble, however there is a Cdn prolife blog linking to this thread and quoting feather sky's comments in particular. Not sure how wide their readership is, but fyi.

Oh gosh!

Makwa, I am very torn by what you say, as the reality is women have been enslaved for the last 2000 years, and  we wern't legally acknowleged as having the right to self determine until just 20 short years ago. And still today,  many do not believe we have the right to. That is the lense through which I view things, and it in no way diminishes or disrespects others who have also been enslaved.  Moreover, slavery still exists today, shall we not call it for what it is?

Moreover, there is an update this morning, he has told her he will burn down the house, at minimum, should she go through with this and indeed leave him.

This is  taking place on the back drop, of events just across the straight from her in Washington state, over the past week end where a man shot and killed his 5 children, ages 7-16, because his wife left him.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008986370_websixdead04m...

I thought people might care because Feather Sky's comments about censorship are being used to represent average opinion on babble - rather than someone like Michelle's comments.

Ghislaine, Feather Sky didn't discuss censorship, she talked of hate crime legislation. Why not let that anti-choice blog have its own "debate" in its own sphere? I am concerned about the intimidating effect that your references to it risk having here.

Remind, your friend appears to be in great danger. Is she in touch with her local shelter (I can help locating it if she isn't - just PM me with more info)? Does she have a safety plan and resources to follow through with it?

Thanks for the clarification, but really, I still fail to see the point.

FYI, the day I worry about anything said by fetus fetishers, about those who actually understand human rights, will be never.

Sadly, this is a feared nightmare for her, as her father did burn their house down when her mother said she was leaving him because he was controlling and abusive, and they had to flee for their lives with a name change even.  I believe he is using this episode in her life to also control and intimidate her. The question remains is he just using it, or will/would he go through with it.

Doesn't matter to me, personally.  Anyone could take anyone's comments on babble and misrepresent the context, say that this person speaks for everyone, etc.  Doesn't make it true.  Doesn't mean we have to worry about it.

martin: she was, but in the context of censoring anything other than a pro-choice viewpoint.

feather sky, it is your right to hold that position - however I fully support Chatelaine's right to write what they did.

I think what this article shows is that there is still a debate out there, whether you like it or not. I believe that a woman's right to her own body is a very young and tenuous right that we must be able to articulately defend. 

My own personal position has been attacked here and mischaracterized many times as anti-choice. I am going to spell it out one more time and if it is still deemed not okay for this forum, I will never discuss the subject again:

I support legal abortion for women based on the Supreme Court's correct ruling. I don't support killing fetuses that have reached the age of viability outside the womb (somewhere around 24 weeks), however a woman also cannot be forced to do anything with her body that she does not want to do or parent if she does not want to (this is true re any children she has decided to carry to term and no longer wants to parent as well). At this stage, I don't see how it as an infringement on a woman's right to her own body to remove the fetus and keep it alive - in the same way preemies are kept alive at the exact same age. 

My own personal position is that a fetus is human potential. It may not be a legal person yet, but it has the potential.  Women should arm themselves with all scientific information available if they are faced with a decision that men never ever have to make (well except perhaps pregnant men in the context of transexual rights).  There are fingers, toes and a heartbeat that make up that potential that already has a gender. I think as pro-choicers we have to be able to acknowledge and state these undeniable scientific facts (found in any biology textbook) and outline why they are irrelevant to the right to legalized abortion and why a woman must have the right to control her own body.

Even if she won't go to a shelter at this stage, she can talk with her local shelter staff over the phone to assess the situation and take some precautions and action measures she might not have thought of. Their knowing about the situation in detail (where he hangs out, whether he has weapons) could make a lot of difference, for instance in the time delay before police shows up - many shelters have a good relationship with local police and lives are saved every day becase of this.  

If the abuser knows your daughter's home location, this is not much safer and risks extending the human cost if/when the abuser makes his move.

I don't pray but my spirit is with you and her.

Well, English and American and Spanish and Portuguese women (any others?) of the ruling class.

Martin,

You are no more concerned than I, having assessed the situation since Friday. And I agree that my daughter's home is perhaps not much safer, as he does know where she lives.  Hang on am actually going to pm you.

Makwa, will get back to you in a bit, about this, as I said I am torn and clearly understand your viewpoint however, I see and feel other nuances and am trying to sort it all out. But I do not want you to think I am ignoring your most valuable words.

Just so that I understand your position,

Are you saying that it is alright to give a platform to hate speech, as long as you give an equal platform to the opposing side?

So, for instance, shall we give a platform to those who feel it is alright to physically abuse their wives, as long as we give an equal platform to those who argue against it?

Personally, I don't see any reason why hatred needs a voice.

There are many opinions in our society which we need to silence - such as bigotry, anti-semitism etc, so why should this be any different. Why must slavery advocates have a voice?

I understand that you mean well, and I do understand your point.

However, in order to make people understand that forced conception is slavery, it needs to be compared to slavery.
There is no disrespect given or intended to people of African ancestry by my comment, except for those that don't feel that forced conception is an abominable crime of slavery.

Thank you for the clarification, Martin. I should try not to jump to conclusions as often.

I am not sure what the concern is? What is it that you are implying?
I don't think that I like what you are insinuating.

Makwa;

You are correct, I should not have liumped all women together, perhaps. However, I would suggest by your very same point of the last 400 years, that women who are of the history of Turtle Island, have experienced the same and worse, as those of European ancestory, over the last 400 years because of European colonialism and its influences.

Now, as for your limiting it to just women of European ancestory, I would expand that to all of continental Europe, the middle east and Asia.

I would also hope that you are not trying to suggest that what a majority of the world's population of women experience(d), was/is not "genuine" chattal enslavement? To do so would indeed obscure the facts that millions of women were murdered in the witch hunts,  and that millions upon millions have indeed been actual chattal possessions from 400-2000 years and enduring all that that implies. And indeed, it would negate the real experiences of women who suffer(ed) very real enslavement, there is no appropriation of the struggles of others,  when one is struggling from chattal enslavement, oneself. It is/was not just not oppression and disempowerment, it is/was chattal ownership and all it implies.

IMV, at present, slavery is slavery, and feel that no one has a right to expropriate it for just one segment who have been enslaved too. To do so minimizes the very real experiences of others, who were enslaved historically and who indeed are today.

The portion of the women, you indicate as being able to own and abuse and dispose of those of African descent, were also able to oppress and dispose of women and children not of their of own class. However, they are not even close to being a significant enough % to warrant consideration of a notion that women were not in the majority chattal possessions, even women within inherited wealth families were chattals and disposed of as such. Are you taking privilege of today and applying it to earlier day women? This cannot be done, women were not even considered to be human until 1927, and were absolute chattals, and how this has impacted women still plays out today, and minmizing it concerns me greatly.

Having said that, I do understand the broader points of your premise, but I am not sure you understand that most women were indeed genuine chattals, and  some still are to some extent today. Then of course there is the very real and actual enslavement of women, and in some cases men, going on today around the world.

Ghislaine,

I find your comments very offensive. I am sure that the feminist forum is not the place for you, and I sincerely doubt that Rabble is for you either. I am sure that you would be much more comfortable on some right wing forum more suitable for advocating the slavery of women.

In fact, a woman owns her body all of the time, not some of the time.
She is under no obligation to bring a fetus to term, at one week, three months, nine months, or even ten months.
Until the fetus exits the womb, the content within is nothing more than a parasitic collection of cells actively shortening a woman's life and putting her in danger. Every woman should have the full right to control her body every time, under all conditions and circumstances.

I don't know how to contact a moderator, but I am sure that they will deal with you soon enough.
There certainly are some very enlightened posters here, which is why I find it surprising to see the conversation set so far back with women-hating opinions such as the one that you have expressed.

feather sky, in actual fact, ghislaine is not allowed into any discussions regarding  woman's self determination, she however ignores this, and does so anyway, at every opportunity she can, and I should not have encouraged her, by even indicating she was in the thread,  even if I wanted to say "so fucking what".

So from that perspective anything she says should be ignored.

I'm one of the moderators, and it would probably be best if you left the moderating up to us, Feather Sky.  You're welcome to disagree, even in the strongest terms (I agree with your position on abortion, by the way) but you're not welcome to tell people to leave babble.  You can contact a moderator by private mail, or by writing to us at michelle AT rabble DOT ca, or oldgoat AT rabble DOT ca.

Ghislaine, upon further examination of your previous post, I can see why Feather Sky took offence at what you wrote about her.  It's not very nice to enter a thread where people are having a conversation and then speak about one of them as if they're not here.  And what you wrote about her could be taken to be disparaging, as if there is a problem with someone associating them with babble.

There is a wide range of feminist thought on all sorts of issues.  Let's be respectful of each other and learn from each other rather than disparaging each other when we find ourselves in disagreement.

Michelle, please do consider the fact you yourself have banned ghislaine from entering into any of these types of conversations. And I apologize for responding to her.

remind, that is revisionist bunk. The actual numbers are under 100, 000 over the course of more than two hundred years.

Feather Sky, you don't have to agree with Ghislaine, but she has as much right to her opinion as you do to yours. She did point out:

It helps no-one to alienate people who are, for the most part ON YOUR SIDE.

ETA:  What Makwa said.  Apples and oranges.

Well, timebandit we will have to agree to disagree on the numbers, and I am not getting into a debate with you about it.

People who are anti-choice are not on my side, no matter how many disclaimers that they add.

Everyone has the right to an opinion. Voicing it on the Internet, or in a publication is something else entirely.
Some opinions are not fit to print in any form. I happen to believe advocating that women should be returned to slavery is one such opinion.

I can live with that.  I understand how difficult debate can be without any actual evidence.

OFFS!  Who in fact is revising or at least buying into the revision?

ETA: and yet you presume to lecture feather sky about alienating potential allies, whom I agree with her at not allies at all, astounding hypocrisy you exhibit.

 feather sky, where did I write that a woman does not own her body at all times or that she is under an obligation to bring a fetus to term or to 9 or 10 months? I never once wrote that a woman should not have full control of her own body at all times.

Abortions at or past the age of viability outside the womb are a rare situation, as most abortions occur earlier on - but it also relates to the issue of access as well. But, I think we need to talk about it because it is these "grey" areas that can threaten the very recent right to legal ownership and control of our own bodies.

Michelle, I find anti-free speech views offensive - but I should have addressed this directly with feather sky.

Ghislaine: "...At this stage, I don't see how it as an infringement on a woman's right to her own body to remove the fetus and keep it alive - in the same way preemies are kept alive at the exact same age...."

I find this very sad.

Again OFFS!

Okay, let's start with this page:

http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/witch/werror.html

You're likely getting your numbers from the 9 million claimed by Mary Daly in her book "Gyn/Ecology", and who also coined the term "burning times". What you may not know, remind, is that her numbers have been discredited for some time. It is one of the more popular examples of revisionist "herstory".

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/10/did-european-witch-hunting-kill-9.html [53]

If you've got some current, reliable information that contradicts this, remind, by all means post it. Although I seriously doubt that you will find any such thing.

Enough with the off topic.

Personally, I don't think Ghislaine sounds like she is anti-choice, just honest about some of the conflicts that some women have in thinking about all of the different permutations and implications of absolute choice, and it's valid to talk about those. Take Feather Sky's tack and you will spend all your time preaching to the choir.

I also don't think I've said anything presumptuous to Feather Sky at all, nor have I delivered a lecture. I've disagreed, to some extent. I'm allowed to do that. No presumption necessary.

ETA:  I have shown no hypocrisy.  I am absolutely consistent and challenge you to show up any inconsistency in my position that you can find.

"Take Feather Sky's tack and you will spend all your time preaching to the choir." Actually, hers is the Supreme Court position, contrary to those who would ignore Solomon's wisdom and stick us with incubators filled with forcibly removed fetuses to honour their notion of "human potential".

martin - not forcibly removed but removed at the behest and choice of the woman.

And do you have any indication that women with unwanted pregnancies are actually asking for this godawful procedure? Or is this some fundamentalist thought experiment, a "choice" you would like to see engineered and extended to them?

No it is not valid actually, and I cannot believe you would try to float that prolife crap here timebandit.

I don't think the Supreme Court has ever ruled that writing an article profiling pro-choice and anti-choice activists is hate speech that should be illegal.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I think that's the only position she was actually challenged on.

I probably shouldn't admit this, but I used to feel the same way as Ghislaine about the more theoretical questions about when life starts and all that.  I think I've always been pro-choice as far back as I can remember, but I remember really struggling with the question about whether a fetus is a baby when I was pregnant, because to me, I felt like it WAS a baby, right from the first day I found out I was pregnant (two weeks along, since I was trying, and took a test really soon.  It took me a while (and a philosophy course or two) to wrestle it down to where it is now in my mind, which is that it's okay for a wanted fetus to feel like a baby to me, while an unwanted fetus at the same stage feels like a clump of unwanted cells to someone else.

Before I had it all ironed out in my mind, I took the "lesser of two evils" approach and just decided that even if I eventually wasn't able to reconcile my idea that my fetus is a baby (to me) while someone else's fetus is not a baby (to them), that I could still support a woman's right to choose, because her choices in life take precedence over those of the fetus, and that no one should be required to donate their body to support the life of another.

I certainly don't believe that fetuses should be removed from a person and put on life support if they're "viable".  The reason being that whatever is inside my body or is a product of my body belongs to me, and I decide what will be done with it.  If I do not want to create a child, then no one is allowed to force me to do so by taking tissue from my body and growing it independent of me, unless I choose to allow them to do so.

As for this scare stuff about viable babies being ripped out of women at 8 months or whatever - that's crap, and everyone knows it.  It doesn't happen, unless the fetus is dead or has something severely wrong with it that will cause it to die right away once it is born.  Nobody's giving birth to live preemies and then dumping them in the garbage.

Personally, I don't care what someone's personal philosophical beliefs are about when life starts.  I have always supported women's right to choose, and it didn't change when I believed life began at conception or when I believed life starts at the first independent breath, or anywhere in between.  As long as a person supports a woman's right to make such a decision for herself, without interference from the state, then I couldn't care less whether they think fetuses have souls, or two-week-old fetuses the size and shape of salad shrimp have feelings, or whatever.  After the right to choose is established, I figure the rest is just an unsolveable philosophical debate, along the lines of "Can God create a rock He cannot lift?"

And I'm betting a lot of the women who fought for abortion rights during the second wave also reached out across such philosophical differences and simply fought together to make it legal, safe, and on demand.

I'm not sure how else one is supposed to interpret this. To me this suggests not having full control.
Perhaps, if you added the disclaimer, 'for me personally', before your anti-choice BS.

Then you would make it clear that you are merely judging others that make that choice in a condescending manner, as opposed to suggesting the state make that decision for women.

Well, then I'll be sure not to make such abrasive posts in the forum dedicated to Free Speech.
Perhaps you should also champion the ability of people to yell Fire in a crowded theatre since you are such a champion of free speech and find such restrictions so burdensome.

The Supreme Court said we shouldn't be allowed to discuss philosophical conflicts we might have regarding abortion?  When was that?

I don't think Feather Sky's adamance that her view is the only one that isn't "hate speech" is constructive at all.

What pro-life crap was that?  That some women, as evidenced by Ghislaine's posts and Michelle's post, support choice while still feeling some internal conflict with it?  From what I see, choice is still supported.  You can't limit your numbers to the purists and expect to maintain the rights that we have.  Many women go through the sort of evolution Michelle talked about over time.  Alienate them at the outset and you stand to squash potential allies. Suggesting you and Feather Sky drop the overheated rhetoric is absolutely valid.

If there was some other pro-life crap that I'm missing, please do point it out in better detail.

I don't get it.  Women have the choice to do decide what they want to do.  Ghislaine seems to want to force them to hand over a piece of their body after a certain term.  I don't see any other way of describing it.  But enlighten me if you must.  Feel internal conflict all you want but don't interfere with another womans' right to choose.

I'm sorry Michelle but you seem to be giving up too much ground.  Ghislaine's posts make me ill on this topic and I thought we weren't supposed to be subjected to them anymore.

I argued that contrary to Timebandit's jibe, Feather Sky's position on choice was not some extreme attitude limiting her to "preaching to the choir", but reflected exactly what our Supreme Court acknowledged in 1988 (R. v. Morgentaler) when it struck down section 251 from the Criminal Code - the then-current limits on abortion - as contrary to women's constitutional right to security of the person. I agree with her that it is sad to see Babble apparently open to Ghislaine's attempts to restart that debate with some bizarro fantasy of voluntary premature birthing of unwanted children.

My two cents:

1.  I don't agree that the author of this article in a middle-of-the-road magazine like Chatelaine should be accused of a hate crime.  It's over the top and dangerous. 

2.  I wish people would stop using the anti-choice people's rubric of "pro-life".  It's self-defeating for pro-choice people to be accepting that term and absorbing their discourse into ours.

Point taken hoodeet, and I concur martin with your observations and points. There is nothing "purist" with understanding the fact that women cannot be compelled and that it is a human rights issue. It is sickening to see some self labelled feminsts try to slide anti-choice talking points in, especially after being banned from doing so prior. I could give a rat's ass about alienating them, as they are so far from understanding human rights as to be essentially anti-human rights for women and women do not need their kinda alliance.

I don't support compelling women to do anything with their bodies that they don't want to. My purpose here was to re-iterate the only thing I have ever said that has been characterized as anti-choice. If a woman is going in for a late-term abortion and induced labour is occuring as part of this, than perhaps the fetus should be kept alive rather then killed. As long as this does not affect the woman's choice and she has no responsibilities, any additional bodily discomfort, etc. That is all. This is a very rare and hypothetical situation and I repeated it only because so many here keep calling me anti-choice for that viewpoint. I never said that women should be forced into anything that they don't want to do.

Denying that there is a debate out there won't make it go away. I think we need to be able to discuss openly every last anti-choice argument and declare why they are irrelevant to a woman controlling her own body - and this right being legally recognized.

Michelle - why do you write that you "really shouldn't admit this here..."?  Can we not discuss openly the philosophical and scientific issues present in this debate? Stating facts about the stages of fetal development should not be construed as anti-choice. Why cede that aspect of the debate as ultrasound technology improves rapidly and this is obviously going to be used to justify an anti-choice position?  I would also like to be able to discuss the various ways that choice is still limited. For one, access. Two, a woman in poverty is not going to feel like she has much of a choice with the current situation of social supports, daycare, etc., will she? Men pressure women into abortions as well - saying they will never get child support out of them or they will break up with them or whatever­. A lot of women in my experience are 100% pro-choice, but feel as Michelle did when pregnant. To me, this just strengthens the argument that it must be a woman' choice, not the state's.

Ghislaine, seriously  piss off!! Your repeated attempts to spew your  anti-choice shit, which is what it is, no matter how you try to couch it,  and trying to re-open a debate that does not require re-opening, after being banned from doing so, is sickening.

PS, Your anti-choice actions are transparent, and I do not know who you are trying to fool, but it is extremely offensive that you are.

Why don't we re-open the debate about whether or not women are persons while we are at it and whether women should be allowed to vote or go to university.

Let's keep everything on the table in the name of free speech.

(Relayed by the PUSH Journal - Periodic Updates on Sexual & Reproductive Health - http://www.pushjournal.org - an awesome resource)

By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer Larry Neumeister, Associated Press Writer Mon Apr 6, 4:35 pm ET

NEW YORK - The life prison sentence given to a militant abortion opponent was appropriate despite his claims that he only meant to injure rather than kill a doctor, a federal appeals court said Monday.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan found no merit to challenges raised by James Kopp, including an argument that his sniper-style slaying in 1998 of Dr. Barnett Slepian in the kitchen of his suburban Buffalo home was not intentional.

A three-judge panel said it was irrelevant whether Kopp intended to kill Slepian.

Kopp, 53, was sentenced in June 2007 to life in prison plus 10 years. He was convicted in January 2007 of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act by killing an abortion provider and of using a scope-equipped military assault rifle in a violent crime.

The appeals court said Kopp was convicted under a law that only requires that he acted with intent to injure Slepian because he had provided reproductive health services. The statute allows for a life prison sentence if death results.

The law does not require that Kopp intended to kill the doctor, only that Kopp acted with malice and demonstrated a heightened disregard for human life when he shot him, the 2nd Circuit said.

"The truth is not that I regret shooting Dr. Slepian, I regret that he died," Kopp told reporters after the shooting. "I aimed at his shoulder, the bullet took a crazy ricochet, and that's what killed him."

Kopp claimed on appeal that a trial judge erred by barring him from asserting that he was saving children's lives by preventing abortions. The appeals court said the argument had no merit.

  (...)

Ghislaine, the point is, that actually doesn't HAPPEN.  Fetuses aren't "born living" during abortions, even late term abortions.  So there's no real need to discuss whether late term abortions should be put on life support or whatever.  An abortion is just that - an abortion.  The only time abortions are done on very late term fetuses is when there is something so wrong with them that they're not viable.  So this is a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" kind of argument.

remind, chill out.  I don't see anything that Ghislaine has said in this thread that requires her to leave the discussion, nor are you a moderator.  As you can see, there's a moderator already watching this thread, and we discuss any potential problems together.  Remember what we were saying in the other threads?  About how everyone feels like they're perfectly justified in ignoring the rule about personal attacks when they're angry? 

Feather Sky, no one is claiming that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions, nor is anyone arguing that women should not be able to vote or go to university. 

Is there an applause Smiley on Babble? If there is Michelle's post deserves it.

Ditto what Caissa said.  Thanks, Michelle - I'd been meaning to pop in this morning and post something along the lines of what you pointed out to Ghislaine -- that late term abortions are usually undertaken because of severe problems in the fetus' health and viability, not the "wanted-ness" of the pregnancy. 

Ghislaine, I understand your feeling on this, but it's not based on any real situation that I can see, although certain "pro-life" advocates do say viable later-term fetuses are aborted.  If so, it's infinitesimally rare and I would question it anyway.  It's just propaganda.  I also understand that your choosing a date that medical personnel tend to use as the line between what they term a miscarriage and a stillbirth.  I think you mean well, but what you're suggesting is not practicable.

My point over the course of the thread is that the Chatelaine article is interesting in that, apparently, there are women in our culture who are still conflicted about abortion.  If that's the case, then yes, we really do have to talk about it.  Berating them isn't going to bring them around to your position.  Talking rationally might.

By that logic, Chantale Daigle - whose fetus was normal - should have be denied her right to abort.

This is why I am saying that some folks here are trying to back-pedal us rightward from the relevant SCC decisions.

It's the women's choice, period, because her fundamental right to security is at stake. I do not support legislating regular inquisitorial procedures as to why an abortion happens past a certain date and which ones are justifiable according to some legislator.

Michelle, ghislaine has been banned, by YOU,  from any discussion regarding abortions, and now you are apparently back tracking (why?) as we all saw how well that works out just in the last couple of days. 

And I beg to differ as well, Ghislaines posts are highly offensive, and feather shy's analogy post should be well taken. Have you deliberately misconstrued what  feather sky was speaking to regarding  the attempted discussion of women's rights  as somehow being up for debate both here  now, and in the msm? As it was quite obvious that she was meaning that any attempt at discussing  women's rights as being debatable, is utter crap, so one might as well discuss our rights in other areas too.

Comments such as these of Ghislaine's are at best offensive:

"To me, this just strengthens the argument that it must be a woman' choice, not the state's."

WTF? It is a bs comment that is not even rational. It is a woman's choice NOT the states. The state has no say at all. Trying to make lies into truths, at best, and at worst she is saying we need to either disregard the SCC rulings, and/or defund abortions.

You indicated another with the whole late term abortion anti-choice lies she is spreading. As it is an anti-choice lie that they have long used, and you know it.

The nonsense about ultra sounds and science are absolute BS, the Supreme court ruled that a woman cannot be compelled to give her body into service, it does not matter what "science" says, or not. She is trying to blurr things  to make it appear as if it were pertinent, when it is not. Again another anti-choice ploy.

Then there is the whole raising the fetus outside of the woman's body nonsense, which would require government intervention, which is contrary to her claim regarding  her alleged belief the government shouldn't be involved, when indeed it already isn't, but apparently she wants it to be with her idea of hauling a fetus out and incubating it mechanically.

Furthermore, no prochoice women hang out at pro-life pro-women, and then come back here and say what she said.

She is just weaseling in anti-choice comments and positions and now apparently you are willng to give her a platform to do so..and that is even more offensive, frankly.

By what logic?  Who says that people shouldn't be allowed to abort their healthy fetuses?  What we're saying is that late term abortions hardly ever happen.  And in cases like Daigle's, where they do, there are usually some major extenuating circumstances - like, say, an abusive ex-boyfriend taking you to the Supreme Court to try and infringe upon your rights over your body.  I fully support Chantal Daigle's decision.

What we're saying isn't that late term abortions should only be allowed in cases where the fetus is unhealthy.  We're saying that they just don't happen at 7 or 8 months, so there's no point in arguing about it or pretending that there's some kind of problem around aborted fetuses being "born alive" as 7 month preemies and then being dumped in garbage cans or whatever overwrought imaginary scenarios the religious bodysnatchers come up with.

And no one here has supported "legislating regular inquisitorial procedures as to why an abortion happens past a certain date" either.

Ghislaine's first line in post #64 sounds pro-choice to me.

Parenthtically, cutting and pasting really bites with the latest Babble "improvement."

Are you be deliberately obtuse?

Are you?

If the defense of late abortions - wherever the government decides to draw the line - is advanced with allusions to fetal health problems in almost every case, or with what you call "extenuating circumstances", this does invalidate the sounder constitutional right to safety of one person's SCC rationale. The Supremes did not take into account whether Daigle's boyfriend was abusive. and I don't think we should. They recognized that her constitutional right was at stake and that it was this that decided the issue.

Your first line:  How do you figure that?  I didn't say she should have been denied her right to abort - I would just put her into the category of the extremely rare.  And it wouldn't surprise me that many women simultaneously supported her right to abort and felt conflicted about it.  So no-one's saying it isn't the woman's choice, period.

Let me get this straight, remind - you're upset because Ghislaine said, "To me this just strengthens the argument that it must be a woman's choice, not the state's"?

Yeah, I asked her to stay out of the feminism forum discussions on abortion in the past because I interpreted her posts in the past as being anti-choice.  But in the spirit of trying to actually read what people ARE saying rather than what I read INTO what they're saying, after having had some feedback from various babblers recently, I'm trying to read what Ghislaine is SAYING rather than what I think she might be thinking or what kind of ulterior motives I think she might be harbouring due to past arguments with her.  She has clarified that she is pro-choice, that she supports a woman's right to choose, despite what might be her own personal philosophical ideas about fetal development and when a fetus becomes a baby or whatever. 

Now, she has also floated a suggestion that perhaps an answer to the question of "partial birth abortion" is to put a late-term fetus on life support if it's past a certain date.  I agree, that's pretty iffy, but the premise of healthy, late-term fetuses being aborted is easily debunked (which has been done), and overall, she has said that she supports the right of women to choose abortion, on demand.

If I notice that Ghislaine starts veering any further into anti-choice waters, or if I see her taking advantage of this tiny bit of leeway she's getting by starting to push anti-choice views here, I'll be on it.  In the meantime, though, it would be great if you could just skip over her posts if they upset you so much, and leave the moderating to the moderators, and stop demanding in this thread that she be kicked out.  That's what we have e-mail addresses for - if you want to continue the debate about whether Ghislaine should be allowed here, then send an e-mail to one of the moderators and we'll discuss it on the mods list, taking your point of view into account.

(Edited for clarity)

Timebandit,

Daigle's was a late-term abortion. Her fetus did not present any problem. You argued that "late term abortions are usually undertaken because of severe problems in the fetus' health and viability, not the "wanted-ness" of the pregnancy". I submit that this works as an implicit criterion and risks sabotaging the legality of late-term abortions undertaken when there are no fetal health problems. It is a huge step back from the Supreme Court's reasoning, and reflects the current strategy of the anti-choice movement: to create "options" that make it reasonable to take away women's right to choose. (And I am not saying Ghislaine or you are doing that.)

The fact that some women are conflicted about abortion should never serve to undercut their fundamental right to it. (Many women are also conflicted about marriage!)

____________________________________________________

Liberals will hang you just a few inches from the ground.

I understand your concern, Martin, that if we simply argue that late term abortions hardly ever happen and usually only when the life of the fetus or mother is threatened, that this could open the door to people demonizing women who, in those very rare cases, decide to have a very late term abortion for other reasons of her own.

Personally, I think abortions are always the decision of the woman's, throughout the whole pregnancy.  But in order to counter those ridiculous thought experiment debates where people say, "Okay, so then what if it's a week before her due date and the fetus is perfectly healthy?  Do you support abortion THEN?  What about a minute before you give birth?  Is abortion okay THEN?  Well then where do you draw the line?" you have to eventually tell people that this is a stupid line of argument because it NEVER HAPPENS.   Abortion doctors DON'T perform abortions on healthy 8.5 month fetuses.  Sure, it's technically legal to do so, but it never happens.  It's technically legal to do lots of stuff medically that never happens. 

And I think that is a good answer to give to people who come up with imaginary scenarios (or might be troubled by imaginary scenarios they've heard from anti-choice propaganda).  Your scenario doesn't happen, but if it ever did, there would be some kind of extenuating circumstance involved, and ultimately, it's up to every woman to decide for herself, even if that means that your thought experiment has an uncomfortable resolution.

Timebandit used the word "usually", Martin. That does not mean "always" and implies there are other examples other than the "usual". She is using "usual" in a statistical sense.

"Your scenario doesn't happen, but if it ever did, there would be some kind of extenuating circumstance involved..."

I think this is pathetically weak line of argument. You can't prove that.

Are you telling me, then, that we should have a moratorium on the discussion of marriage?  That the reasons some women feel conflicted about it are just not permitted and are so beyond the pale they have no place in discussion?

There was no criterion implied by me.  If you see things that aren't there, it's not my responsibility.  I believe the word "usually" should indicate that I am not being absolute in the first place, and I'd challenge you to show me some evidence that what I said isn't true - because most of what I've read bears out that vast majority late-term abortions are related to screenings for such things as Down's syndrome and other fetal abnormalities.  So Daigle aside, do you have anything other than a very rare case from 20 years ago regarding women's choice that was supported in the courts and by all participating in the discussion?  Because we've all said it's the woman's choice.

My point was, and I'll reiterate for the hard of listening, that there are still some people who feel conflicted about such choices - and while those shouldn't have any bearing on access whatsoever, silencing people is seldom persuasive.

Caissa,

"...That does not mean "always" and implies there are other examples other than the "usual". She is using "usual" in a statistical sense."

Precisely. My point is that to oppose a fundamental constitutional argument with a statistical assessment is to needlessly weaken women's case, sacrificing their rights to a "well that hardly ever happens" attitude.

martin, there is no opposition.  It is entirely in your head.  No rights were sacrificed in the making of this post.

If a situation is statistically insignificant, then legislation, which already fully supports a woman's right to choose without caveats, does not need to be altered. 

I don't think you understand. It is women's right to "late" aborting a healthy fetus that is being dismissed here as corresponding to statistically insignificant occurences. And the "legislation" you speak about doesn't exist - section 251 has been struck out of the Code, that's it. All we have is some jurisprudence, with an opening for new laws to be drafted. and anti-choice forces gathering up steam and creating beach-heads in liberal spaces.

Sorry but I'm outta here.

I understand where you're coming from, Martin.  I know what you mean, that if we simply stop at the argument that "it hardly ever happens so it's irrelevant" then it could be interpreted as giving up ground because we're not arguing that it doesn't matter if it DOES happen.

I probably wasn't clear about it above, but my answer to such questions about late term abortions is that they hardly ever happen for any reason other than health problems for either the mother or fetus, but on that very rare occasion when it does, it's really nobody's business but the woman's because it is her body, and everything in her body is part of her body. 

I think it's easier to convince people of that if you actually say it, though, rather than just tell them that they're anti-choice, they suck, and you're never speaking to them again, and by the way, they're also guilty of hate speech and should be prosecuted.

I am 100% pro choice, but --I'm sorry - I also find it pretty horrific and inhumane that a creature that would be healthy if it were born naturally should be killed just days or even weeks before its birth.  If a 7-month-old fetus can be viable and healthy and survive childbirth as a "preemie", I really don't see why there we should be blindly rejecting even simple cautionary regulation of late-term abortion.

 If it is acceptable to perform and undergo the late-term abortion, with no regulation or reflection, of a viable creature (whether you call it infant or fetus I don't care), then why should charges of infanticide still be brought against women who kill their infant after giving birth?

I think that there is room for a healthy discussion among feminists of the problem, however distasteful it may be to people (rightly) concerned about the persistent power of the misogynist right.

 There are pacifist feminists who oppose abortion or who find it problematic on ethical grounds, but there seems to be no room in the movement for them to express their concerns.

Too bad they are being shut out.

 However, if rabble.ca policy is to shut these voices out altogether, then please forgive my misapprehension.

The point remains, that nothing needs to be altered from the first point of understanding that; women have the absolute right to self determine, full stop, so there need not be any discussion/debate/debate about having a discussion, surrounding any statistically insignificant situations in the first place. Nor any other thing that people can try to throw in as "something" to discuss. To enter into any form of discussion is to give it validity when it has absolutely none.

For example, any discussion about people "feeling torn" , or "horrified", is empty, pointless and an invasion of privacy, as well as a denial of freedom of conscience, actually. As so what if others are/were "feeling torn"? It is not about them, and how they are feeling about another woman's business. It is none of their business to even consider anything about it at all, let alone make pronouncement that they "feel torn", as indeed by doing so, they are pronouncing some form of judgement, as a judging process compared to oneself, has gone on, in order to come up torn feelings. 

It can correctly be seen, that people, who feel they are justified in examining their emotions, about  someone else's abortion, and then determine that their emotions about it are valid, have inserted themselves  into the situation parameters and are wrongfully making an equation including themselves. There is no equation,  and there should not be, any inclusion of themselves, there is only a solitary number of 1. One woman deciding to do whatever it is she wants.   As such, other's personal "feelings" should not be validated in anyway, and discussing someone's feelings, as if it has validity, wrongly gives the impression that it does, and  indeed should. It doesn't and shouldn't.

Hoodeet, I would disagree with you that you are 100% pro-choice if you also support legislation surrounding late term abortion.  You can "feel" as horrified as you like about it, but if you believe that there should be regulations around late term abortions, then as far as I'm concerned, you're not "100% pro-choice".  "Pro-choice" means that the choice of whether or not to have an abortion is left up to the pregnant woman.  Period.  It doesn't mean that in some cases that you deem acceptable, they can make that choice, and then in other situations that you deem unacceptable, they should be forced to carry to term because it's "too late" and because you feel "horrified" about it.

As for your argument that if you allow abortion then why not allow infanticide after birth - sorry, but that's straight out of the anti-choice playbook.  Sure, women can talk about it - heck, we could also talk about whether God can create a rock he cannot lift - but I don't think it's a very productive use of feminist space or time, and I doubt you'll find any feminists engaging you on such a subject.

Beyond any horror, discomfort, conflict, emotion, or whatever it is that drives this perpetual debate, the decision to abort certainly cannot be left to the discretion of the patriarchy, boyfriends, husbands, abusers, etc.  The range of excuses would just become the thin edge of whatever political wind drifts through at election time.  There can be only one decider, and that has already been determined.  The true horror lies in having the decision spread around for determination.

Thank you Michelle for your comments above. I know that the situation I described is extremely rare and I only mentioned in the context of re-iterating the fact that I am pro-choice. There is currently a woman in FL suing a doctor because her fetus was born alive and placed in the garbage can. It is rare, but it has happened. In no way, shape or form should a woman be forced to do anything with her body she does not want to do.

I think there are some misconceptions here though. A pregnant woman in Canada right now cannot get an abortion at any time in her pregnancy - when there are supposed to be no legal obstacles.

This article is from 2004 and according to wiki the situation remains unchanged. Yes, the numbers are small. But this means there are dozens of women per year who cannot exercise control over their own bodies and must go to the US - often at their own expense. Since 2004, this would be over a hundred would it not? Henry Morgentaler himself won't even do it.  This situation to me does not seem right. If even one woman does not have control over her own body, then it seems that none of us really do.There are a gazillion reasons one could end up not realizing you were pregnant until then or not want or need one until then.

Well, it seems then that at least some are understanding the absolute of a woman's right to self detrmine, and throwing off blinders that blinded them to the fact this is not about them, and that to have an opinion otherwise, and in some cases act upon it, means not only are you depriving women of their human right to self determine, but their rights of freedom of conscience and privacy. If there is one who understands  human rights, then more will follow and that is heartening. It is saddening that Morgentaler apparently does not fully appreciate human rights.

But it matters not, women will have their  human rights fully appreciated, and there will be no ands, ifs or buts.

Remind, please don't let yourself be manipulated like this. Ghislaine's off-the-cuff statement does not do justice to the situation. Late-term abortions require a surgery environment, which the Morgentaler clinics do not have while hospitals do. The man doesn't have to do EVERY type of abortion to remain a strong advocate for women's choice and refer candidates to appropriate facilities, as his clinics do.

Yes, I suppose you are correct martin, given that she also erroneously stated that  Canadian women, "often"  pay for it at their own expense, when they travel to the USA,  when the article she quoted from clearly states that indeed Canadian women do not. The province pays for it.

To Remind and Michelle: Thanks for the criticism. I accept it and recognize, on rereading my hasty post, that it is contradictory.  I think I was trying to reconcile the ethics of personal choice with the ethics of not killing viable infants, which remains an issue for many women who do not consider themselves to be either controlled by the patriarchy or the men in their lives or to be anti-choice.  These may be a small minority, but perhaps we need to consider the possibility that if on our side of the debate there were room for discussion of this ethical issue and for people to take a position on the issue --note: not to FORCE women to bring unwanted children to term -- there might be more women who are currently excluded --either because, like me, they are tagged as anti-choice, or, more importantly, because the terms of that discussion have become the monopoly of the so-called "right-to-lifers".

Two things need to be addressed, in collaboration with other social groups: (1) It is disturbing that the anti-choice movement is as strong and aggressive as it continues to be.  I can remember hearing in the late 70's of sympathizers on the hospital staff going through lists of women who had managed to get through the awful wait and the board review and had an abortion; they then gave the particulars to a group of people who then proceeded to harass the women and the doctors and their families. Is this still a contributing factor in the reduction of the number of doctors willing to terminate pregnancies?   

(2) On the question of the availability of abortions in Canada:  I don't know what the situation in Atlantic Canada is these days, but at least as recently as last year, as reported by the CBC and other sources, it had become very difficult to obtain a safe abortion in many places outside of the Morgentaler clinic.  So, to respond to Remind, even if the province pays for an out-of-province or out-of-country intervention, we cannot underestimate the cost and the emotional strain of finding a hospital or clinic outside one's familiar environment and having to travel to a strange place, often alone if no friend or relative can afford to go along. This situation continues to discriminate against poor and lower-income women and those who do not have the support network to look after the dependents they must leave behind when they travel. This is what must be emphasized over and over again in defending the universal right to terminate pregnancies IN-PROVINCE, and preferably at the closest hospital or clinic.

Regarding first paragraph, there is no room for debate,  why is as I stated, and to which you said you listened to, but immediately again said the opposite. The only thing that needs to be said to women, who choose to equate themselves in the situation, which is none of their business, is; "it is none of your business, and you are transgressing 3 basic human rights, so perhaps you should stop and pay attention to things pertinent to you such as.... I.E. access".

martin - He stated that he was ethically against it as well and would try and convince the woman to choose adoption instead.

remind - Women often have to pay for their own travel expenses and it is only a few states that will do late-term abortion it as well. Not all provinces will have access or pay for it. BC, Ontario and Quebec do - however here on PEI you have to travel to NB [104] to even receive one up to 12 weeks, let alone a planet ticket to Colorado should you be one of the rare statistics.

Ghislaine, we all know there are policy and material hurdles to accessing abortion services in Canada; we have been fighting them tooth and nail. Our point is that there are no legal constraints on access. I don't know by what leap of logic you are using these hurdles to justify setting up some premature extraction of unwanted fetuses that would be kept alive. That non sequitur had my head spinning.

BTW, I managed to trace that anecdote you lobbed at us without as much as a hyperlink back in post #93, when you wrote "There is currently a woman in FL suing a doctor because her fetus was born alive and placed in the garbage can. It is rare, but it has happened."

I am afraid you have misinformed us, unwittingly I'm sure. Check the link. First a "fetus born alive" is a baby, not a fetus. Born, takes first breath = baby; that is the criterion. Second, your situating this event in a discussion of abortion is misleading. This child's mother did not undergo an abortion. No abortionist was even at the clinic at the time. She was waiting for him, her child was born prematurely and apparently died. The body was then placed in a biohazard disposal bag. 3) According to the autopsy report, the death was classified as natural and there is absolutely no indication that the child was still alive when its body was disposed of, as your sentence suggests.

It would be sad if this discussion was allowed to be driven by mental images of live fetuses trashing about in abortion clinics' garbage bins, which is how the anti-choice lobby is spinning this sad story to its fans.

On that note, I would like to indicate hoodeet's use of loaded, misrepresenting, anti-choice rhetoric in her  post,  when she said; "killing viable infants" and "carrying unwanted children to term". There is NO children and there is no infants in this equation, there is either a zygote or a fetus.  A fetus is a fetus, until outside of the womb, as such  "children/infants" cannot be carried to term, nor are they being killed, and neither is a zygote, or a fetus, as in their case they are not yet alive.

Wrongful conceptual frameworks skew our personal emotions, which already have no basis in this equation other than if we are applying it to ourselves. Attempts to  wrongly frame, defame and slander women who excercise their personal and private choice, as being monsterous murders is unacceptable to me, and should be to everyone, it is also bordering on hate speech, if not actual.

Geegoshdarnit, wish this thread could go on longer, but you know how it is.  Long thread and all.  We'll end with remind's very good analysis of how anti-choice language can frame discussion - which I agree with wholeheartedly.