Why Abortion Can't Be Depoliticized

Scott over at Lawyers, Guns, and Money has an interesting amplification of Dana's post on the futility of the calls to depoliticize abortion. Both are worth a read, but there is a crucial point missing from both of these, which I discussed here, that warrants working out further.  It turns out that it is impossible to depoliticize abortion because when we think we're talking about abortion, what we are really talking about is *ABORTION*, and *ABORTION* has little or nothing to do with abortion.

Dana's point is a pragmatic one.

"I dream about a world in which women's health choices are de-politicized, but alas, I don't live in one. So until I do, it's something I'll be looking out for in every election. Conservatives certainly are."

Abortion has always been politicized, she argues, and as such those like Will Saletan who call for a negotiated third way are really advising Democrats that we would be better off bringing a knife to a political gun fight.

Scott argues that the depoliticization is impossible because abortion satisfies two necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for an issue to be necessarily political:

We've already been through this with respect to the Iraq War, but you can't "de-politicize" an issue that is a) salient, and b) on which substantial groups of people have fundamentally incommensurable views.

The Iraq analogy is a good one, but for a reason that neither Scott nor Dana address.

It is not merely because there are deeply held, mutually exclusive viewpoints on an issue as salient as reproductive rights that we possess our bifurcated political situation. To understand what is happening it is crucial to see that there is a slickly designed equivocation in our political discussions. There is a difference between abortion and *ABORTION*. Our discourse concerns *ABORTION* and has little if anything to do with abortion. *ABORTION* is a wholly political animal. To depoliticize *ABORTION* would be tantamount to creating Steven Wright's famed "dehydrated water." What is crucial to understand, but missed by many, is that *ABORTION* has eaten abortion such that any time we think we're talking about abortion, we have no choice but to descend into the terms of *ABORTION* and this was done intentionally.

If it were possible to decouple them and to have a conversation about abortion, then views like Saletan's in which we act in such a way to minimize the number of unwanted pregnancies would provide us with hope of being able to bridge the cultural divide and come to policy changes that would better the world and the lives of those in it. He can't figure out why pro-lifers aren't in favor of common sense measures like funding contraception. If they really are so deeply committed to making sure abortions do not occur, then surely they would be strongly in favor of any policy that would allow us to avoid the precondition for the possibility of an abortion. What makes Saletan's discussion so naive that you want to pat him on the head and buy him an ice cream cone is that the silly boy thinks that when he hears people talking about *ABORTION*, he thinks they are really talking about abortion.

*ABORTION* is a front, a shill issue, for those who are pushing a radical Evangelical Christian theocratic agenda. Those leading the charge against *ABORTION* are not interested in pragmatic policy options to that would bring about fewer abortions, they are interested in Christianizing American law, culture, and politics. Pragmatism is every bit as much an enemy to them as opposing ideology. It isn't a question of helping women avoid unfortunate and undesired circumstances for them. *ABORTION* is the leading edge, the public face of their righteous crusade between absolute good and anyone who disagrees with them. They do not merely want to decrease the number of abortions, they want to make sure that unmarried people don't have sex, they want to make sure that abortions are made illegal and punishable by law, they want their Dominionist worldview and the policies that they see as springing from it to be unassailably instantiated.

Why use *ABORTION* for this? This requires understanding one of the most effective conservative rhetorical gambits of the last couple decades, what we can call the "cage and frame" strategy. Framing, as discussed by linguist George Lakoff, is the act of setting the parameters for discussion by choosing the language of the debate. What Lakoff shows is that words are not just "Hello, my name is" stickers that we put on things, they come with ways of seeing the world packed into them. Selecting certain words instead of others limits the discussion by putting certain topics on the table and others off the table. Both sides have done this in their choice of designators. "Pro-choice" frames the issue in terms of liberty and who wants to oppose freedoms to choose? "Pro-life" frames the issue in terms of the life or death of a fetus and who wants to be pro-death? The selection of the name is designed not only to designate which side one is on, but also to elevate (in a fallacious question-begging fashion) one part of the complex of inter-related moral issues in this incredibly difficult ethical question.

But what we see is more than framing. We see another trick which I term "caging" in which one takes a series of related issues that you do not want acted upon and then selects a small single issue to pull attention way from all the rest. Like magicians who will do something flamboyant and fascinating with their left hand to keep you from seeing what they are doing with their right hand, the idea is to make one insignificant issue the focus of all attention in order to make sure that all other related issues are ignored. As long as there is a raucous passionate debate around that issue and it is made to seem of paramount importance, then the assumption by most listeners is that a fair and open debate on all issues is taking place and no one will notice what you are doing with regard to the other issues.

In this way, women's rights have been caged by abortion. All the time, effort, and money that could be going into furthering women's rights on a number of fronts are sucked into the abortion fight. Not only that, but how to cage the issue is determined by what issue is easiest to frame when let out of the cage. If conservatives chose to openly fight against voting rights or equal pay for equal work legislation, it would put them clearly on the side of immoral support of injustice and they would lose quickly and decisively. But by caging women's rights and only letting abortion out of the cage, any possible advances on the women's rights front are stopped in their tracks and pro-lifers can portray themselves as the defenders of families and innocent life, not the opponents of women's rights.

In the same way, civil rights issues have been caged with only affirmative action set outside the cage. We can bring the civil rights charge to a halt by focusing all attention only on hiring in a small set of cases. Again, this is made more effective when the caging is combined with framing -- affirmative action is only to be addressed in terms of quotas. In this way, the advancement of civil rights legislation not only stops, but those stopping it do so by portraying themselves as opposing discrimination.

Gay rights? Cage questions about hate crimes, workplace discrimination, housing discrimination,... only let out marriage. Then frame it in terms of "protecting the family." Cage and frame.

You cage all but the issue that is easiest for you to frame and for this reason, abortion was selected. The murder of innocent babies by promiscuous fornicators to protect their hedonistic lifestyle was seen as the perfect high-ground from which to attack the Fort Sumter of contemporary secular American politics. And it was in this role that abortion became *ABORTION*. When we talk about about reproductive rights, we are fighting a proxy battle. Yes, protecting reproductive rights is important, but that is not really what is happening here. *ABORTION* is not just about abortion, a salient issue on which substantial groups of people have fundamentally incommensurable views. No, *ABORTION* is the "Battle of the Bulg(ing Belly)" in the culture wars. It is their recruiting mechanism, their rallying cry, the place they've chosen to make their definitive stand. If they can't win substantial battles on that hill, on the most easily framable ground there is, their movement withers.

Abortion cannot be depoliticized because one of the most important political developments of the late 20th/early 21st century developments in American politics --the movement that began with Goldwater's defeat and Nixon's Southern strategy, moved through Gingrich's Contract with America and its sponsorship by the Christian Coalition, and reached its high water mark with Bush's re-election -- has staked its very existence on making sure that abortion is inseparable from *ABORTION*. As such, you can't depoliticize abortion without depoliticizing *ABORTION*. And you can't depoliticize *ABORTION* without depoliticizing politics itself. But that, of course, would be like dehydrating water.

Crossposted at Philosophers' Playground

•  Turns out that

  *Iraq* and Iraq have a similar relation, only what's happening in Iraq is so bad that the rest of the issues are leaking out of the cage meaning we don't need to only talk about *Iraq*.

  by SteveG on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 06:10:15 AM PDT

  •  It's an interesting way

    to look at the issue and I sort of get it in terms of abortion, gay rights and civil rights. But the Iraq analogy doesn't hold up for me. What are the caged issues surrounding Iraq? Especially given that being in Iraq itself is no longer a guaranteed winner with any but the most extreme constituency.

    by anastasia p on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 06:34:32 AM PDT

  •  Iraq? More like gushing out, I think

    by william f harrison on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 02:00:42 PM PDT

•  "Criminalizing Abortion" is an honest phrase

  that doesn't get enough play. Because that is really what we are debating (politically) about.

  My questions for people who want to make all abortions illegal are:

  1. Is performing an abortion a homicide?

  2. What is the appropriate prison sentence for abortion?

  3. Is it a felony or misdemeanor?

  4. Should both mothers and doctors (or other abortion providers) be criminally charged for abortions?

  5. Should paying someone to perform an abortion be considered "murder for hire" and trigger death penalty eligibility for mothers and doctors?

  6. Should it be illegal to travel overseas to have an abortion?

  The fact that you never hear discussions of these practical questions confirms your point - not many people really believe "banning abortion" is a real option rather than a political tool.

  by Marinesquire on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:02:00 AM PDT

  •  Excellent questions!

    In fact, anti-choice people can't answer these questions and usually don't even think about them. Check out this film of Libertyville anti-choice protesters, who are completely stymied by the unexpected question of "What should happen to women who have illegal abortions?" The answers are mostly like, I never thought about it; They need counselling; Let God punish them after they die; and so on.

    They're in naive denial about the logical consequences of what they propose. They want abortion illegal as murder, but with no consequences for the murderers! Which indicates as you say, that they don't seriously believe that abortion can be banned - and also, they don't really believe that abortion is murder. The other implication is they see women as incapable of making their own rational decisions, so women should be treated paternistically like victims, or children in need of direction.

    by choice joyce on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:43:28 AM PDT

    •  What's really funny

      ...is that, in the Bible, a fetus' life is very clearly worth much less than a woman's:

      Exodus 21:22 Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn’t badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. 23 But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise.

      So even their vaunted book does nothing to advance their cause!

      by eyeswideopen on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 12:06:35 AM PDT

  •  If they behave like many SOuthern fundies

    (like my MiL, who is pro-choice but has never voted for a Dem or a liberal in her life), they will not see a pooint to answer thsoe questions.  Because thsoe questiosn "prove" youa re damned tohell for all eternity and beyond help.  They'll just smile and change the subject or turn aroudn and walk away.  

    I think SOuthern Dominionists invented passive aggression.

    by irishwitch on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:56:44 PM PDT

  •  and

    if abortion is murder, then wouldn't a miscarriage be involuntary manslaughter?

    by sc kitty on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:04:08 PM PDT

  •  Actually, it does get a great deal of discussion

    on the pro-life or, "anti-choice" side of the debate.  Among those who oppose abortion, there are two broad sides.  One, represented by the Democrats for Life and those who agree with them, believes that abortion is a form of killing and, like war,  should be reduced and discouraged, but not criminalized because criminalization is impractical and is unlikely to be as effective at reducing abortions as other policies and practices.  The other side is best represented by the proponents South Dakota law banning most abortions.  In the SD legislation you can find answers to most of your questions pretty directly:

    1. It's akin to homicide.

    2. To be determined by a judge

    3. It's a felony.

    4. Only doctors may be charged; a mother receiving abortion treatment may never be charged.

    Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.

    5. No.

    6. No.

    by eastsidedemocrat on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:32:52 PM PDT

•  Thanks for a thoughtful take on issue

  I think when anything is politicized and there are opposing viewpoints, this "caging" thing happens. So yes, it's applicable to Iraq and any other political situation. Sometimes the caging can even involve other issues entirely, e.g., the media constantly wallows in the latest stabbings and shootings, while ignoring big stories such as the corruption of the White House and its contempt for the constitution.

  You're exactly right about the caging of abortion. People assume it's just about abortion itself, but it's really two divergent worldviews battling it out. Abortion is the visible tip of the iceberg, representing women's rights in general, but also the larger issues of freedom and democracy and human rights. The anti-choice, Religious Right, dominionist viewpoint is against all of that. If the average American really understood what's at stake, and could see that passing anti-choice restrictions, for example, is a "wolf in sheep's clothing", support for anti-choice measures would hopefully decrease.

  by choice joyce on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:32:02 AM PDT

•  This diary reinforces what I've heard

  about the Religious Right's "concern" for women with unwanted pregnancy--that it is a calculated political move, a banner that was raised not because of any real conviction of wrong but because the Falwellian wingnuts knew that the time had long gone when they could convert people to their side via their real bugaboo, integration. As Max Blumenthal recalled on the occasion of Falwell's death:

  Indeed, it was race–not abortion or the attendant suite of so-called “values” issues–that propelled Falwell and his evangelical allies into political activism.... While abortion clinics sprung up across the United States during the early 1970s, evangelicals did little. No pastors invoked the Dred Scott decision to undermine the legal justification for abortion. There were no clinic blockades, no passionate cries to liberate the “pre-born.” For Falwell and his allies, the true impetus for political action came when the Supreme Court ruled in Green v. Connally to revoke the tax-exempt status of racially discriminatory private schools in 1971. Their resentment was compounded in 1971 when the Internal Revenue Service attempted to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University, which forbade interracial dating. (Blacks were denied entry until that year.)

  Right wing activist Paul Weyrich tried to get the religious right to ally with the Republican Party, an effort, as Blumenthal quotes him saying, that fell "on deaf ears." It was only after he convinced them that an anti-abortion rights, anti-feminist, anti-gay "family values" jeremiad had a better chance of winning hearts and minds than rolling back the clock on integration did organizations like the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition take off.

  Read the entire article at Blumenthal's site. It's fascinating, the best of all the Falwell obits, and corrects a lot of what he calls "fuzzy revisionism" especially on the real reason for the anti-abortion movement.

  by Sharoney on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:22:26 AM PDT

•  This is why I use *ABORTION CARE"

  as much as I can.  Try saying the same things about ABORTION and then try substituting ABORTION CARE.  It blocks some of the affect you are citing.  For example, everyone agrees "abortion should be safe, legal and rare" but say "abortion care should be safe, legal and rare" which is what is happening, and you realize there is a problem.  

  I absolutely agree with you and feel women have been "brokered" freely and somewhat with impunity.  It just seems so UNJUST. And more importantly, what can we do about it?  

  Excellent diary SteveG!  Thank you for writing this and I hope it gets rescued!

  by Readrock on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 01:16:20 PM PDT

  •  abortion should be safe, legal and rare

    Not everyone agrees that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. I see nothing wrong with it being simply safe and legal. Whether one or one million people a year want to have abortions, it is none of my business. Since I don't know, maybe some of y'all can tell me, what is the correct number of abortions per year?

    by shann on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:46:40 PM PDT

    •  are you for real?

      Your attitude makes sense to me only as a political pose--as in, if certain Lifers are going to stake such extreme positions on their side, we'd better balance the spectrum to hold our own.

      Of course "everyone" doesn't agree about anything, but I personally don't know anyone touched by abortion who did not feel it to be at the very least a major bummer.

      As to the "right number"--that's an unfair question. What's the "right number" of broken legs? If I could prevent all broken legs I would, but realistically I can't without telling everyone to stay in bed, so there's no right number to give. (And if everyone stayed in bed, then there'd be more abortions...)

      by theloniously on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:27:21 PM PDT

      •  I am definitely for real...

        Again, it is none of my business what someone does with her body. I don't ask people if they have had abortions and they don't tell me. I have no interest in proposing they be rare or common. This is how to take the politics out of abortion. The right number of abortions is the number of women who want to have them, no more, no less. What is unreal about this attitude?

        by shann on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:32:50 AM PDT

        •  Why and how rare?

          Why would we care if abortion is rare or not?  Aside from the morning after pill (and maybe even then) it's an invasive, not entirely safe procedure.  I can't imagine that many would want to become pregnant just to be able to experience an abortion.  So I want abortions to be rare because of their negative aspects.

          How to make abortions rare?  Mostly by availability of and education about birth control methods.  Work to get girls and women out of the clutches of abusive fathers, boy friends and others would help as well.

          So I have to agree with theloniously and wonder if you can be for real.

          by DSPS owl on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:01:05 AM PDT

          •  Worst comment I have ever heard

            I can't imagine that many would want to become pregnant just to be able to experience an abortion.
            I can't believe that even a single one would do this. Only a really sick mind would have suggested this as the reason for abortion not being rare enough. Whoever told you this needs a great deal of mental help.

            Women do not need to explain why they want abortions, it is their right. But, I will bet that each one has an extremely good reason and should not have to consult us for our agreement.

            by shann on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 05:56:16 AM PDT

        •  for real, but not realistic, IMO

          I have no interest in proposing they be rare or common. This is how to take the politics out of abortion.

          Your framing here is exactly what I mean when I say that this stance may arguably make sense as a political position, but only as such. Since (as far as I know) no one on the choice side is in fact proposing a "right number" or quota on abortions, there is no such "proposal" that they be rare or common, only a desideratum. By emphasizing their interest in making abortion rare, pro-choicers draw attention to the vital fact that education and empowerment (full unfettered access to all forms of family planning, including safe abortion) are not just good in themselves but will also ultimately reduce the number of abortions. In this way they are reaching out to those in the anti-abortion camp who are NOT just crypto-anti-feminists, but who have deep personal beliefs against abortion (but not against ABORTION, to use the diarist's distinction).

          by theloniously on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 01:17:46 PM PDT

  •  Wrong. They interpret "abortion care"

    rather diffrently than you do, I suspect. To them it doesn'tinvolve abortion. It involves  care for women who have hd abortions illegally. ANd I don't really thinkt hey fell that thsoe women should be cared for kindlyand respectfully.  I ssupect they beelive they should be locked in abortionw ardds and forced to wear a Scarlet for Abortion for the rest of their lives.

    by irishwitch on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:54:28 PM PDT

•  Most excellent diary, Steve

  and one which explains the cognitive dissonance at play when -- as happens every day -- people who oppose *ABORTION* see no conflict between holding that political stance and having an abortion themselves, or supporting an abortion decision made by a loved one.

  Because their own personal experiences with abortion are not about *ABORTION* at all.

  by moiv on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 02:04:48 PM PDT

•  This isn't news to the women

  who fight on the abortion a d other women's issues' fronts.  We've known this for a long time

  In this way, women's rights have been caged by abortion. All the time, effort, and money that could be going into furthering women's rights on a number of fronts are sucked into the abortion fight. Not only that, but how to cage the issue is determined by what issue is easiest to frame when let out of the cage. If conservatives chose to openly fight against voting rights or equal pay for equal work legislation, it would put them clearly on the side of immoral support of injustice and they would lose quickly and decisively. But by caging women's rights and only letting abortion out of the cage, any possible advances on the women's rights front are stopped in their tracks and pro-lifers can portray themselves as the defenders of families and innocent life, not the opponents of women's rights

  We've been saying all along that abortion is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Dominionist agenda.   It's about keeping women (and gays, and people who have sex when Dominionists think they shouldn't, and people who have different interpretations of the Bible or hold to other faiths or none at all) in their proper place. Women got the attention first, because it's the biggest battlefield. We are more than 50% of the population. If we ALL rebelled, they'd have no one to boss around.

  They'd have no unpaid housekeepers, laundresses, cooks, nannies. They'd have no women willing to type their forms and make them coffee.  They'd have no willing slaves who'll do their bidding because God told them to. And how do they know God told them to? Well, their husbands and fathers and brothers and preachers told them so, that's how. ANd when you've been told that your whole life, and everyone around you believes it too, and you aren't alloeed to watch TV or go to movies or read books or magazines  that disagree, and you got to a Christian school and only know other DOminionists and are told that questioning is a sin--how can you doubt? There's no one to plant the seed of doubt. They've made damned sure of it.

  And last of all, if a man can't keep his house in order--well, what kind of a man is he, by Biblical principles?  

  I write about two main subjects: women's issues and  the Christian Right (even the Harry Potter Mom diaries are really about Dominionism). I've ben sayign for the two years I've been a Kossack that the two are not separate issues, but oen and the same. ANd the smae authoritarian CHristianity  untie us with gays and lesbians and bis and TG peopel and non-Christians and anyoen who doesn't toe that  line inthe sand they've drawn.  Yet dairies liek this and dogemperor's andmine don't generally get very high numbers of recs.  Peopel seem to NEED to pretnd this isn't true.

  And the oens here who pretend, who don't see the connection and the depth of the problem--are part of the problem. Listening to Dems try ot cater to the Religious RIght by talking about faith has made me uneasy. Having Kossacks here think Jim Wallis shoudl guide us makes me gag.

  There are noen so blind as thsoe who will not see.

  by irishwitch on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:52:24 PM PDT

  •  so true!

    IW, you are so right when you say people NEED to disbelieve that dominionism, abortion, GBLT rights and womens rights are related! There is no other explanation possible to explain why diaries that make this connection are first on my subscription list and not on the rec list. :-)

    I know a woman who was pretty old when she got pregnant. Her baby was born with his brain outside his head. She knew this well before she gave birth, knew the baby would only live a few days. She let things take their natural course. She would have chosen the abortion option, if it were available, but since she lived in Atlanta, only ABORTION could be found. Her son would be 10 now.

    I hope this means if you change someone's mind about any one of these issues, then all of them will be re-evaluated.  Good luck with your MIL, I am working on some family members of my own.

    by Lefty Mama on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:40:53 PM PDT

    •  I gave up on her long ago.

      When you make a point she can't refute, her eyes glaze, she gives a hiuffy little shoudler shrug and says soemthign like, "It's just your opinion."
      SHe last did that when she inisted I read COuntdown to Jerusalem, and I told her I ofudn 1o major errors of fact (liek sayign soemthign was in the Q'oran when it wasn't)  int he first 12 pages.  

      by irishwitch on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 07:35:25 AM PDT

•  re: abortion

  First of all, there will be no law banning abortion in the US or anywhere else for that matter.
  Abortion is something that the Rightwing nuts' leaders can use to manipulate their brain dead followers with over and over. Republican leadership and I use that term quite loosely has faiied with big majorities to introduce one single bill to ban elective abortion since they were the majority. These creeps know that abortion has to be legal so that if one of theirs gets in trouble she can go to a  nice clean clinic and get all fixed up. No Problem.And I believe it was here on the Kos that someone posted an interesting diary of anti abortion protesters getting abortions-I am the exception;just this one time- and  then getting back out on the picket lines to tell other s that they can't get their abortions either. Amazing.
  Let's repeat: Abortion will never go away; it's a biological function that no amount of laws can alter. As long as there is pregnancy there will be abortion.

  by cagernant on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 09:36:18 PM PDT

  •  spot on

    I have always strongly felt that the wingnuts don't really want the status quo regarding abortion to change one whit.   If they suddenly had success in legally curtailing abortion, they would lose a significant portion of their winger constituency.   People might have to turn their focus to REAL "life" issues like POVERTY and WAR - imagine that!

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:24:10 PM PDT

•  Abortion is a women's health issue. ABORTION

  is as you say, a political fight to the death with both sides framing their view as the right and noble.

  UNTIL, and only UNTIL, the other responsible party for the existence of the entity of focus - the fetus, zigot, whatever - is summoned to TAKE his responsibility will we see an end to ABORTION.  I am 60 years old, a woman, and I've YET to see a majority of males relinquish THEIR right to "do" whoever whenever however without regard for consequences.  Alas, I do not see this happening in my crystal ball.  

  The MOST attractive thing about ABORTION is that the Christian can look upon the actions of another and pass judgment, feel totally righteous in making decisions for others, a most detestable practice forbidden by the very book they quote!  BUT, those who fight ABORTION have magically, if not mystically and spiritually, linked ABORTION to the survival of the United States of America (and thus their own life) - the land that God chose for them to live in (screw the people who were living here because they weren't Christians - and kill their babes in the womb or on the teat)!

  It is, for me, the most hideous practice of Christians touting ABORTION as the cause of so many ills and ultimate demise of my country - using, not loving, nor trying to protect, the babes or their mothers.

  Speaking as one who has endured an abortion, it is NOT a political issue.  It is a very private issue, a very horrendous decision that was made in dire circumstances, a decision that I WISH with all my heart that I could have made without the judging actions of the sanctimonious a-hole who probably had a LOT to do with my poor choice of a sexual partner - a sexual partner who didn't really care for me, or our child, but was concerned about his dangling participle, much like the abusive person (who made the abortion decision for ME) and who taught me by practice that I was a person TO BE USED and then derided and blamed for his own action.

  Forgiveness is a BIG word in the Bible quoted by those who talk about ABORTION.  It is not an easy thing to do and I find must be practiced daily if not hourly.  Forgive my abusive father, forgive my poorly chosen sexual partner, and forgive myself, and LIVE with the fact that I never got to hold that child in my arms - and when thinking about that, forgive all over again.

  by Southern Mouth on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 09:37:23 PM PDT

  •  Thank you Southern Mouth for Your Story

    Your story could be my story.  Feminism literally saved my life.  

    Punishing women for being sexual is a central feature of fundamentalist christianity.  It is divide and conquer at its most elemental, dividing men and women and setting them in conflict with each other.

    by arlene on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 06:03:00 AM PDT

    •  Dividing ... and putting women in an inferior

      position ... ah, where have I seen THAT before?

      What IS it about some men that in order to feel good about themselves, they have to squash women? put them in a corner, cover them, silence them - until they NEED them as a vessel.  And then they whip about their handy-dandy religious book to say that it's a GOOD thing.  

      by Southern Mouth on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 07:51:29 AM PDT

•  This couldn't be more on-target

  The murder of innocent babies by promiscuous fornicators to protect their hedonistic lifestyle was seen as the perfect high-ground from which to attack the Fort Sumter of contemporary secular American politics. And it was in this role that abortion became ABORTION. When we talk about about reproductive rights, we are fighting a proxy battle. Yes, protecting reproductive rights is important, but that is not really what is happening here. ABORTION is not just about abortion, a salient issue on which substantial groups of people have fundamentally incommensurable views. No, ABORTION is the "Battle of the Bulg(ing Belly)" in the culture wars. It is their recruiting mechanism, their rallying cry, the place they've chosen to make their definitive stand. If they can't win substantial battles on that hill, on the most easily framable ground there is, their movement withers.

  That's it in a nutshell.   Framing is all.   If we react at all, we're reinforcing the framing, and that's what we've been doing for decades.

  Thank you for putting these thoughts together in such a cogent manner.   I'm glad this was rescued - I would have missed it.

  by Dem in the heart of Texas on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:12:37 PM PDT

•  This is a major issue for me

  and very personal, and I deeply appreciate your insightfulness in this diary. You're absolutely right on every point you make.

  by kyril on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:54:32 PM PDT

•  Damn you're good.

  Absolutely right in every way.  We are waging proxy wars, and if anyone would have listened carefully  to these nutcases (which I know a few) it's ALL about women's rights.  They don't say so in public, but under their breath, in their homes, among each other it's those awful feminazis who are destroying America.  Why else would Coulter go on record as saying "there's no Constitutional right to abortion"? Of course because it's always been about equal protections and equal justice under the law, equal privacy protections.  

  I am sick to death that my life means nothing to these people.  MY LIFE.  MY DAUGHTER"S LIFE.  MY FRIEND'S LIFE.  Even THEIR LIFE.  

  by lilorphant on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:04:50 PM PDT

•  This very much reminds me of the way *DRUGS*

  will always get in the way of rational discussion of our drug policies.

  And then of course we have *TERROR*, still a young one. I don't think it had grown nearly as powerful and heavy as *DRUGS*, just yet. They've been feeding it as fast as they can, though, after giving it a huge kick start back in 2001.

  And it has the advantage of being an emotionally loaded word to begin with...

  by terafnord on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 12:07:04 AM PDT

•  The term "wedge issue" comes to mind

  Like gay marriage, Abortion is more important as being symbolic of a Horrible Decline in Christian Values in America.  So if you support gay marriage, or support Abortion, you're certainly not a very good person and certainly can't be a Good Christian and you certainly have to demonstrate that by voting for somebody from the Good Christian Approved Candidates List.  Simple, dumbed-down political campaign psychology.  Intellectually dishonest, but effective.

  by CA Libertarian on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:26:09 AM PDT

  •  Christian Values in America

    I'd love to see a 100% decline in Christian Values: Intolerance; gay bashing; misogyny; Intelligent Design; child abuse by the clergy; evangelism; prudery; humorlessness.

    by TBarta on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 07:14:48 AM PDT

    •  Those aren't Christian Values!

      These are not Christian values:

      "Intolerance; gay bashing; misogyny; Intelligent Design; child abuse by the clergy; evangelism; prudery; humorlessness"

      Well, actually, "evangelism" is a Christian value, but only in the sense of spreading the Good Word.  And Jesus was always quite clear that Christianity was a personal choice, not something to be rammed down somebody's throat.

      Christian values are things like:

      • love one another
      • turn the other cheek
      • judge not lest ye be judged
      • don't murder

      The best place to read about Christian values is in Matthew 5-7 (Sermon on the Mount, which includes the Beatitudes).  Not the crap from Leviticus which the fundies are so fond of - recall that Leviticus is actually part of the Torah, the Jewish Law.

      by CA Libertarian on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:42:13 AM PDT

•  Perfect analysis.

  Thank you!

  by sagra on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 01:07:36 PM PDT