Letters to the Editor
-
We Shall Overcome is pretty appropriate
Abortion deprives vulnerable human beings of the right to control THEIR bodies. Unborn babies are treated like disposable property of the woman whose body they happen to be in, much like slaves who had the misfortune of being born on a plantation and subjected to cruel or even fatal treatment by their master. In the vast majority of cases, the unborn child was created through a voluntary act by the mother (and the father), ie because she was controlloing her own body as she saw fit. Preventing a woman from killing that child is not interfering at all with her right to control her body, it is limiting her ability to harm the body of another person. After all, we are not permitted to do whatever we want with our bodies just because we "own" them: there are laws against rape, assault, and murder. The right to our bodies is limited to that which will not harm another human being.
Anti-abortion activists believe that the unborn have the same rights as all human beings, and deserve protection from harm and the right to live.
-
Chana, I totally respect your opinion
I only wish that others who might agree with you would have as much respect for mine.
Let me explain a couple of things. Not everyone agrees with you. You have an opinion. Your opinion is valid, but you do not have a right to make choices for me based on your opinion.
Many proponents of choice realize that without safe and legal access to abortions, many women will be victimized and probably die in the process of seeking illegal and unsafe ones. It has happened in the past and continues to happen now.
Abortion has existed since the human race began. It is not new and it is not going anywhere - whether or not you succeed in making it illegal.
I hate to reduce the response to a bumper sticker, but it's pretty simple: Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
-
ARA! ARA!
Incidentally, much of the work countering OSA in Jackson is being done by Anti-Racist Action, one of my favorite activist groups. As the name suggests, they started out battling racist groups, but have since branched out into, as they say, "fighting fascism in the streets since 1988!" The news section at www.infoshop.org has some recent stories about the Battle of Jackson.
The Anti-Racist Action Points Of Unity
1) We go where they go: Whenever fascists are organizing or active in public, we're there. We don't believe in ignoring them or staying away from them. Never let the nazis have the street!
2) We don't rely on the cops or courts to do our work for us: This doesn't mean we never go to court. But we must rely on ourselves to protect ourselves and stop the fascists.
3) Non-Sectarian defense of other Anti-Fascists: In ARA, we have lots of different groups and individuals. We don't agree about everything and we have a right to differ openly. But in this movement an attack on one is an attack on us all. We stand behind each other.
4) We support abortion rights and reproductive freedom. ARA intends to do the hard work necessary to build a broad, strong movement against racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, discrimination against the disabled, the oldest, the youngest and the most oppressed people. We want a classless society. WE INTEND TO WIN!
-
What I also find Outrageous is Salon and Broadsheet's Silence on Dean Tong
Again, this is off topic, but I find it astounding that Salon is presenting Dean Tong as a valid source in "They Called Me a Child Pornographer". I'm equally stunned that Broadsheet has nothing to say about this - I guess when it's your own website then feminism doesn't count.
This is no small issue as the questionable statistics and politics of Dean Tong and his co-horts were the subject of a Salon article back in 2002.
See http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2002/05/22/molestation/index.html
The article did say Tong was raising an important issue, but also pointed out his dishonest science, dubious qualifications and unsavory alliance with misogynist "men's rights" groups. It concluded: To the extent that Tong and his colleagues add more hysteria to the molestation equation, they bury precedent under hostility and ignorance -- elements that they purport to despise in the so-called child molestation industry...to the extent that reformers use distorted statistics to disguise a regressive, reactionary agenda, they only prolong any resolution of the child abuse problem in America."
Now, three years later, Salon allows an uncritical use of Tong as a source.
But Tong hasn't exactly gotten more valid with time. In fact, he's been involved in the notorious Darren Mack case. When Darren didn't get everything he wanted in a bitter divorce, he stabbed his wife to death, shot the judge and clerk on his case with a high powered rifle and went on the lam. Before he surrendered in Mexico, authorities had found evidence he was planning a bomb attack.
Dean Tong consulted with Mack in his divorce case. He provided "expert" testimony that Mack was not a violent man, despite repeated complaints about abusive behavior from his wife, including a restraining order.
After Mack became a murderer, Tong attempted to justify himself with all sorts of lame spin, including comments which attempted to blame his victims for creating the stress which made him snap - "You know, this was a situation where he—he wasn‘t going to take justice delayed is justice denied. He felt like the fox was guarding the henhouse. And—and he wanted justice now."
More details can be found here:
http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/2006/06/darren_mack_hir.html
I wonder if the author and Salon were unaware of these issues when this article was being edited. It doesn't take much to discover Tong has credibility problems - all Salon had to do was google itself.
Usually Salon is quite good about spotting and exposing the crackpots. But Salon also has had a long running fascination with the issue of false allegations. Here, I think they screwed up and it undermines an otherwise compelling story.
-
Protest and Rhetoric is sickening?
As pro-choice as I am, to read that Triaster finds legitimate protest and fair rhetoric (particularly when propononts of gay marriage use exactly the same language), "sickening," pushes me towards the Lifer's camp: if they really believe that abortion is murder - and there's no reason to think that they don't, then the language of "We shall over come" is not only appropriate, it's a mild response: in some parts of this world, those who disagree with the religious, find themselves dead or worse, and other political movements, such as the move for Purto Rican independence (led, at one time by Lolita Lebron, who partook in the 1954 shooting attack on the US Congress ) find themselves celebrated as heroes. To deny legitimate protest is sickening, Rebecca, even if we don't agree with the cause, and while some in the pro-life movement have resorted to violence, the overwhelming majority of lifers have worked within the system. That the outcome serves neither you or I may be disheartening, but you can't deny their success - and maybe, instead of feeling sick, it's time to convince your neighbors that choice is the best way to go. While your experiencing the vapors, the lifers are fighting - and fighting hard.