Anarchism and Reproductive Choice

by Mark C Thu Apr 26, 2007 15:36

You said: RAG is hosting a meeting open to fellow pro-choice supporters on the topic of Anarchism and Reproductive Choice

Would you mind if some pro-life supporters came to, just to make things nice and even? - widen the debate, lessen the back-slapping, encourage inclusion, change people's minds in each direction.

Regards,
Mark.

by Joe - WSM - Lucy Parsons - personal capacity Thu Apr 26, 2007 15:48

Mark I'd be surprised if an anarcho feminist collective opened its door to people who (in the Irish context) think women should be jailed for 5+years for the 'crime' of deciding whether or not they wanted to remain pregnant. Or that women should be banned from traveling because they are pregnant and seeking an abortion. Or that women should be denied access to abortion information.

Why would they do this any more then they would open the doors to people who think rape in the context of marrage is OK, or women who marry should be sacked or that a husband has a right to beat his wife. In the Irish legal context choice isn't just an interesting philosophical debate for you to amuse yourself with - its a draconian denial of access with severe punishments for those who break these laws.

Clearly from the way the meeting is advertised people with such views are not welcome and I'm not surprised. Its up to RAG whether they organise the sort of meeting you propose in the future but I don't see why they would waste them time doing so.

by C Murray Thu Apr 26, 2007 16:54

I see that its a film and discussion evening and wonder why , when something
is advertised as such that a member of the pro-life movement would wish to attend?

It seems only polite if there are 'issues' to discuss on abortion or choice
that a formal request to meet with people who represent the various strands
of the choice community would be properly forthcoming.

(which can be accepted or rejected)

but a film night advertised with a specific purpose is hardly the time or place
to bring the life movement's ideology/propaganga and or concern to the table.

Its afterall only common courtesy.

There are many women's groups discussing these issues and many meetings
(even coffee mornings )and other issues around political engagement, elections,
domestic abuse, consumerism etc, etc- . In other words there is a time and a
place for everything and this is not it- or would not appear to be it from
the article above anyhow. [just an opinion, btw]

by FMD Fri Apr 27, 2007 00:10

........

Sanger : no-choice heroine

by get real Fri Apr 27, 2007 09:53

A familiar and hoary old chestnut rewarmed and served up by the Anti-choice lobby. This article http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/618 gives a more balanced account of Sanger's legacy. Certainly some of her views were racist but would not have been seen as such at that time. It is a foolish exercise to judge historical individuals morality by the more enlightened standards that prevail today.

by C Murray Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:16

In the US.

The literal interpretation by fundamentalists in the US of biblical and moral codes
can also be seen in the EU (Poland) where intolerance and unwillingness to
even listen to the opinions of others , coupled with a refusal to look at issues
pertinent to women in a dispassionate way causes many problems.

Especially when it infects democratic and judicial systems.

Instead of a recognition of the value of others opinion on issues of
abortion/choice /reproductive rights/ and these opinions are being (here)
aired by a women's led collective- there is an attack based on those
basic rights to freedom of opinion and association.

But this will happen when the issue of medical abortion and choice are reduced
to simplistic interpretations grounded in the tenets of a dogmatic and literal
interpretation of morality issues.

or in other words- Presumption is the mother of all fuck ups.

It is ten years since Deirdre De Barra wrote to the Irish Times her letter.
It is 15 years since a judge allowed for the legislation on abortion in this
State.

The pro-choice movements have always discussed abortion rights as human rights
including the failure of the Present state to allow immigrant women to travel freely
to accquire an abortion.

How simple the propaganda- and refusal to countenance that there are issues
that effect women and that women must lobby on to be heard.

by FDM Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:20

'get real' -
But why stop at racism? By the standard of its time black slavery was acceptable.
Therefore, using your logic there was nothing wrong with it. Just as there was nothing
wrong with Sangers view of blacks, just as today there is nothing wrong with abortion.
It's all relative.
There are , by your logic, no absolute standards. Am I correct?

by Mark C Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:27

It just seems to me that this will be a very closed club meeting, and, if so, then what is the point of it?: people at closed club meetings just end up slapping each other on the back and saying 'look how good we are... (or whatever)'. How would a group like that expect to gain more support, except by getting more people to come around to their way of thinking - through argument and discussion, for example. So if open-minded pro-life people were 'allowed' attend (like myself) perhaps I might come back to being a pro-choice advocate.

In the Irish legal context choice isn't just an interesting philosophical debate for you to amuse yourself with - its a draconian denial of access with severe punishments for those who break these laws.

Perhaps you are right, but so too in any context is abortion not just an interesting philosophical debate for or about an unborn to amuse him/herself or ourselves with - it's a draconian denial of access to development and potential - in effect, as you say, a severe punishment.

Regards (respectfully),
Mark.
P.S. I guess I've just gotten to put my point across without having to go to the meeting.

by get real Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:26

FDM

No, your overly simplistic analysis is not correct. There are absolute or pretty damn near absolute standards. I simply say that to judge individual PEOPLE rather than their ACTIONS by the standards of a different era is a foolish and, ultimately, pointless exercise. Contextualising individual actions does not validate any particular behaviour. In Sanger's case she was ultimately a compassionate woman who wanted to do good. Unfortunately she was influenced by the overwhelmingly prevalent and accepted "scientific racism" and eugenics theories of her era and, sadly, she saw African Americans as a race of lesser ability. LIke many hero/ines she was flawed. She was wrong but so what? Her individual culpability must be seen in its proper context and you can not extrapolate from that to condemn all her other views as the anti-choice lobby constantly seeks to do.

by get real Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:36

Mark,

It's seems to be a private party. You're not invited. You're not welcome. Get over it.

We live in a free society where we can all advocate whatever legel reforms we wish. You are free to set up or join any organisation that appeals to you and shares your views. You are then free to have closed confidential meetings of that group in order to discuss, plan, strategise, organise, navel-gaze and consider your tactics. You will appreciate that the presence of those who hold diametrically opposing views would not advance the aims of the such a gathering.

I presume you will grant the same democratic rights to other groups, even those with whom you violently disagree?

by FDM Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:19

'get real'
Finally, an admission from pro-choice that Sanger was a RACIST and was WRONG.
'The road to hell is paved with good intentions' would certainly seem to apply in this case. (not a spiritual statement).
The notion that 'love thy neighbour' is somehow a modern, enlightened notion is nonsense. Sanger, like most of her generation knew right from wrong. She made the choice to selectively apply this notion and in doing so failed to apply it to anybody.
The theory of 'prevailing wisdom' is just shorthand for 'mob mentality'. We are all individually responsible for our actions and choices. Yes, Sanger was flawed, but that, to a large extent was her choice. I won't pay her the insult of presuming she did not have a mind of her own.

by get real Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:32

FDM,

You keep (wilfully?) missing the point. "Love your neighbour" is indeed a universal principle. I'm sure Sanger thought she was doing just that. As I say, she was wrong. Still doesn't make her wrong in every other belief she held.

And its hardly an "AT LAST!" tabloid style headline to say Sanger was WRONG and RACIST in some of her views. You will find much feminist analysis that says exactly this (if you bother to look) Start here http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/618

by FDM Fri Apr 27, 2007 13:02

Let's get a few thing straight.
Sanger is an icon of the pro-choice movement. She was also a violent racist (yes, abortion is violence, negative eugenics is violence).
To say that somebody meant well is not and should not be an acceptable excuse for their actions.
As I said, Sanger KNEW she was doing wrong. She knew she was committing violence against
blacks and she freely chose to do so.
The fact that the pro-choice movement venerates such an individual makes nonsense of its supposed distaste for fascism.
The practise of negative eugenics is something shared by the most notable fascists and the most notable pro-choice activists of the 20th century.

by C Murray Fri Apr 27, 2007 14:01

I had never heard of Sanger until today, but I have seen a lot
of negative trolling of the choice movement. I have seen activists
having a huge metal frame pushed on them, I have seen triumphalist
support by the life movement for people like Kathy Sinnot (who sits with the LPR
In the EU parliament) Justin Barrett and members of YD. I have also seen
an attempt by Professor Binchy in the Irish times to negate the Tysiac case in Poland.

The issue of choice and Political campaign for abortion rights is being led
by groups such as Doctors for Choice, AFC, Lawyers for Choice, Choice Ireland
and others.

This thread was about an invitation for Choice activists to attend a film screening
and discussion, the debate round abortion belongs elsewhere.

There seems an underhanded and misrepresented campaign by members of the life
movement to draw people out and engage in negative campaigning on the
issue of abortion which is wholly inappropriate and targetted.

re:- The Tysiac case , this was an opinion piece in the I.T which chose to
ignore the LPR and PIS attempt to change the Polish constitution by focussing
completly on one issue- the dogmatic interpretation of the issue of right to
life and not on the politcal manouevres of the far right.

So- the issue on the thread is a screening.
Political discussion is not on the agenda.
attacking a campaign does not seem to be on the agenda either.

including that photo which was an attempt to hi-jack the thread.

by W Fri Apr 27, 2007 14:15

What FDM/FMD unsurprisingly fails to note is that eugenics also played a key role in the early ANTI-abortion movement in the US. Newly professionalised doctors, seeking to drive midwifes out of business so that they could have a monopoly over women's healthcare, lobbied for abortion to be made illegal on the grounds that it was causing the white Protestant middle class to be outbred by the riffraff.

So no lectures from the lifers about racism, please.

by FDM Fri Apr 27, 2007 14:18

You're on to me.
I feel so embarrassed and silly.
I'll go away now and never,ever bother you again?

by eif - RAG, Fri Apr 27, 2007 15:07

Hi Mark and everyone
As one of the people organising the meeting, i'm gonna respond to Marks points from my own perspective. The reason we're not attempting
'to make things nice and even? - widen the debate'
is basically because we're not having a debate or anything like it. The content of the workshop is working from the assumption that the participants hold pro-choice views. It's a relatively short meeting and we want to discuss the links and ideas around anarchism and reproductive choice, and to keep it on topic. Going back to the fundamentals of why people believe what we believe is important, but it's definitely not the plan for Monday night.

I certainly don't think everyone who is pro-life is a nutcase, and i doubt all RAG members do. Having a meeting where people are starting from a shared perspective on the world doesn't imply that we think everyone else is a nutter (though pro-lifers seem to attract more than the fair share...)

When you say
"it just seems to me that this will be a very closed club meeting, and, if so, then what is the point of it?: people at closed club meetings just end up slapping each other on the back and saying 'look how good we are... (or whatever)'. How would a group like that expect to gain more support" you are making a good point in a way, but missing what RAG is, and also what we're trying to do with this workshop in particular.
RAG is a magazine collective which holds workshops and discussions on different topics, primarily for our own members, and secondarily for others who support our aims (to different degrees). yes, we aim to share our views through our magazine which we hope will be read as widely as possible. But our discussions are not aiming to culminate in a pro-choice group, and we are not looking for outside 'support' of any kind. on the contrary, we are working to articulate our own personal and collective beliefs and to understand them in depth.

if ya want a decent anti-abortion/choice debate, feel free to organise one. i'd probably come.

by Mark C Fri Apr 27, 2007 17:15

Hi eif,

Thanks for such a level headed and courteous reply. Many people could learn a lot from such an approach. Good luck with RAG.

Mark.

by queera - RAG Mon Apr 30, 2007 13:34

Hi all

Id just like to concur with Eif, me and her are facilitating the workshop and it wasnt intended to be a pro-coice pro-life debate, more of a sharing stories in a reasonably intimate space. Some of us will have had abortions and experienced the stigma that goes with this, so essentially we wanted a safe space to discuss openly about the finer details, of which maybe some pro-life people may be uncomfortable, or the girls who have experienced an exile to England might not want to share for fear of being judged. Its also an attempt to examine the pro-choice movement and see how it is defined.
I think its genuinely that simple and not borne out of a desire to shy away from real dialogue.
Like Eif, if a pro-life/pro-choice debate was set up, Id be more than happy to attnd, share, and debate. I just dont think this evening would be the right environment for that.

Just my 2 cents, for what its worth.

c