The intelligentsia have always had contempt for the unwashed masses. It's the same old story of the proletariat being too stupid to know what is good for them, hence the need for a revolutionary vanguard to impose "justice" upon them.
Bender | Homepage | 06.01.07 - 1:40 am | #

Elitist leftists, who woulda thunk it (O:
Michael | Homepage | 06.01.07 - 7:14 am | #

I think your misreading the article and reading in your own pre-conceptions. The point of the article was that women's stated moral positions on abortion and their actual actions regarding it are often at odds. It makes the point that most women getting abortions think they are somehow special moral "exceptions" to the immorality of abortion, and that all other women getting them don't have the same moral exceptions they do. I think it is a fascinating (in sad, morbid way) look at the complexities and mental gymnastics the human conscience sometimes tries to put itself through to justify one's actions.

The article also is making the point that if women think that their reasons for abortion are somehow superior to other women's reasons, or if abortion is a sin surrounded by such shame and silence, it makes it harder for women to recover and mutually support each other in their recovery.
A girl | 06.01.07 - 7:46 am | #

"reproductive justice movement . . ."

Do their euphemisms ever end? They love to refer to things like "reproductive freedom," as if the topic were birth control instead of crushing and dismembering preborn children.

They ignore the obvious: With abortion, reproduction has already taken place. A new human being has already been created. It just happens to be in side the mother's womb - a term formerly used as a metaphor for safety and comfort, but now the most dangerous place on earth.
Neil | Homepage | 06.01.07 - 8:20 am | #

I don't know A-Girl, are we all reading the same article? You are not suggesting that the focus of the article is actually about "recovery" from abortion, are you? Or that the authors believe there to be validity to the idea of the "immorality of abortion"?

Maybe I'm misreading you, but I find both of those inferences from this article to be quite astounding, given their use of such give-away terms and phrases as "anti-abortion," "reproductive justice movement" (not to mention the elitist "professional reproductive justice movement"), and their non-descriptive description of partial birth abortion as merely "a type of abortion that is sometimes medically necessary to care for women in the second trimester of pregnancy."

Despite the headline of the piece, its main point has precious little to do with the needs of the "abortion patient," other than the need for them to close their eyes and stop thinking that there are any moral dimensions to the action that followed their "choice." In other words, the women need to quit their whining and crying and get into the fight and start happily celebrating "reproductive freedom," but they are too stupid and ignorant of "the contemporary reproductive justice movement, or indeed of politics in general," much less grateful to the "professionals."

The article has nothing to do with helping women in their "recovery" because there is nothing to recover from or to apologize for.
Bender | Homepage | 06.01.07 - 9:59 am | #

That accent is so gaudy its gotta be a fake audio clip.
IA_ | 06.01.07 - 10:05 am | #

No no IA_, sadly, it is very real. You can google for lots of articles on Hillary's accents arising in black churches.
Zorak | Homepage | 06.01.07 - 10:10 am | #

eeaa gads ... hillary dun struck a cord whut sounz little like a sharlutton
uncle jim | 06.01.07 - 11:10 am | #

As a sort-of liberal who is vehemently pro-choice, I'm afraid Dawn is horribly right about this article.

The left is certainly not free from eye-wateringly sanctimonious bilge on the subject of abortion.

In fact the authors come awfully close to coldly stating that the women interviewed are not ideologically suitable candidates for the procedure.

It's a thoroughly shameful piece and I rather agree with some of Bender's points.
jody tresidder | 06.01.07 - 12:20 pm | #

Neil-

The euphemisms are designed specifically by the Ministry of Truth in order to explain to the proles what the abortion issue is really about. After all, the proles are really too ignorant to think through these complex issues without assistance from the Party.
Charlie | Homepage | 06.01.07 - 12:21 pm | #

Addressing only the topic of shame, which comes up here, it's interesting how shame is so often thought of as wholly negative in the modern world. It's to be banished.

Shame, like guilt, is unpleasant. But it's also a warning flag. Sometimes it is misplaced, but all too often, in our contemporary societies, are problems are caused by the fact that we seemingly have no shame.
Yeoman | 06.01.07 - 1:14 pm | #

Also,
In debates I've spoken with a number of "pro-choice" individuals who hold an elitist and sanctimonious attitude, placing themselves as better than poor woman and believe poor women need abortions for their own and society's own good.
Rachael | Homepage | 06.01.07 - 1:17 pm | #

The point of the article was that women's stated moral positions on abortion and their actual actions regarding it are often at odds.

Read your Bible. People have always done things they knew were wrong. It's called "sin". And it means you need redemption, not political re-education. These women need Jesus, not Gloria Steinem.
Christina | Homepage | 06.01.07 - 9:08 pm | #

Bender, there is indeed a strong elitist, "They don't appreciate all we've done for them, those miserable wretches!" flavor, isn't there?

Strange, isn't it, that women aren't grateful when listening to the intelligencia puts them on the abortion table?
Christina | Homepage | 06.01.07 - 9:10 pm | #

In debates I've spoken with a number of "pro-choice" individuals who hold an elitist and sanctimonious attitude, placing themselves as better than poor woman and believe poor women need abortions for their own and society's own good.

Amen! "I'm above such sordidness, but it's a blessing to the unwashed masses." How often it's there!
Christina | Homepage | 06.01.07 - 9:12 pm | #

These women need Jesus, not Gloria Steinem.

Why not both? ;)
L. | Homepage | 06.02.07 - 6:57 pm | #

It is only a small step from legalising abortion for the good of poor women to mandating abortion for the good of poor women.

For those of us who are happy to be living in America, not China, it's a frightening thought.
theobromophile | Homepage | 06.04.07 - 1:47 pm | #

Actually, theobromophile, it`s a pretty enormous step, and one that I believe most pro-choice people (including me) would actively oppose. "Mandating" is not compatible with "choice."
L. | Homepage | 06.04.07 - 3:41 pm | #

L,

Don't be so sure. I'm not saying that all poor women would be forced to have abortions (any more than they are now, to a large extent). The rationale for abortion is that it is what is best for the woman (ignoring, of course, what is best, or even good, for the baby). The HPV vaccine is a good thing for young women, supposedly, but the government is mandating it. Why? It simply does not trust people to make their own health decisions.

In 49 states, it is legal to coerce a woman into having an abortion by withholding finances, threatening her, kicking her out of the house, or otherwise getting her to do something she doesn't want to do.

Not to get too snitty, but there is very little "choice" in "pro-choice." (I'll ignore the nature of that choice for this discussion.) Planned Parenthood, for example, performs 180 abortions for every adoption referral and 14 abortions for every time it gives prenatal care. That's not choice... but it's regarded as a constitutional right to "choose" medical care.

We already have a de facto system whereby many women are forced into abortion. We allow it "for their own good," not to mention to combat various environmental and social ills. Frankly and objectively, it is but a small step to mandating abortions.
theobromophile | Homepage | 06.04.07 - 5:54 pm | #

Where was this clip filmed? (They mention Mayor Palmer). Her accent is insulting.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 06.04.07 - 6:24 pm | #

Well, theobromophile, I simply disagree about the meaning and relevance of "choice." And as for the baby having a choice, none of us here today had a say in whether or not we were born (and personally, I feel my own mother would have been much beter off, medically, had she chosen to abort, and therefore perhaps it would have been better for me, too -- but obviously I`ll never know for sure).

Regarding those silly coercion laws that I personally oppose -- in how many states is it legal to coerce a pregnant woman into NOT having an abortion, "by withholding finances, threatening her, kicking her out of the house, or otherwise getting her to do something she doesn't want to do?"

I do believe that in all 50 states, making threats against someone is already against the law.

I will say this --- you and I probably agree on this much: there should be support, both societal and governmental, for pregnant women who choose to carry to term and lack the resources to do so. I agree that a "choice" made because someone feels as if she "has no choice" is not what choice is about. However, there`s a very significant distinction between recognizing that this sometimes happens, and "mandating abortions."
L. | Homepage | 06.04.07 - 7:02 pm | #

I'm not a socialist, so no, I don't want governmental support for pregnant women... unless you are one of the rare people who doesn't use that as a euphemism for welfare.

And as for the baby having a choice, none of us here today had a say in whether or not we were born

That's a scary thought. None of us had the choice to live from birth to age 2, because all of our needs were taken care of. I can't say if I would have been better off if my parents threw me in a Dumpster when I was a year old, but for some reason, we find that morally appalling.

"Making threats" is NOT AGAINST THE LAW. Ever heard of the First Amendment?

What is against the law is to threaten bodily harm or to harass. Harassment is statutory - i.e. the legislature often defines when "speech" has crossed the line into "behaviour." It can also so regulate when the law is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest - i.e. the health, safety, or welfare of its constituents.

Read, please.
http://www.rtl.org/html/ legislat...ention_act.html
theobromophile | Homepage | 06.04.07 - 7:56 pm | #

So you don`t favor governmental support of pregnant women? What`s your solution, then? Ban abortion, and therefore essentially "mandate adoption" of all the babies those mothers can`t support?

The First Amendment is greatly misunderstood. It`s primarily about what the government can`t make laws about -- it doesn`t give anyone the right to say anything under any circumstances without consequences.

And I oppose the Michigan bill you linked.
L. | Homepage | 06.04.07 - 8:52 pm | #

I should explian WHY I oppose it -- it makes it illegal for a man to withdraw financial support from a pregnant woman, or divorce her, or move out, or ask her to move out, simply because she`s pregnant. I believe a man has the right to do all of the above.
L. | Homepage | 06.04.07 - 9:12 pm | #