Saturday, February 25, 2006

Abortion Rights Supporters Eat Their Own

A couple of interesting discussions over at Pandagon, where well-meaning pro-choicers are having their hats handed to them by the more, ahem, purist pro-choicers.

In the first thread linked, Traven and later Bill (both pro-choicers) make the case that perhaps abortion-rights campaigners would get better practical results if they focused on the early and mid-term abortions, the right to which command strong popular support, instead of defending hypothetical 9th-month abortions that never really happen anyway. Traven and Bill are met with invitations to expand their description of the strategy and to lay out how this could work to bolster the cause for abortion rights in the long term. (Pause for laughter.) No, of course not; Traven and Bill are traitors to the cause who must DIE.

In the second thread, about whether or not progressives should boycott South Dakota, Sarah gets the love treatment for her temerity in agreeing with the poster, but having the wrong attitude, or something.

There has to be a way to get Amanda Marcotte put in charge of the entire progressive movement.

7 comments:

flint cordoroy said...

perhaps the best argument for abortion is that you don't want to pay progressive income taxes, which is ultimately cheaper than paying for the infrastructure to support the suburban refuge you and your ilk tend to flock to.

emily1 said...

you're exaggerating and you know it. are you truly interested in engaging with feminists and feminism in a meaningful way? of course, if your purpose is simply to engage in taking cheap pot shots, then have it. just don't continue under the delusion that you've scored any real points. if you want to enage in a sincere dialogue, then respond. to. the. argument. instead. of. the. person. ditto for what they appear to feel while making their arguments.

i'm not even sure what you are attempting to say. pro-choicers often have heated disagreements amongst themselves? wow, i'd never have guessed that. is it necessary for a political movement to involve an army of automatons with identical opinions and zero conflict for the goals of the movement to be legitimate? (yes, i know this is an exaggeration, but i'm trying to illustrate my point here.)

it is said OVER AND OVER AND OVER again that the abortion debate is intractable. the reason it's intractable is that not enough people actually focus on the subject. did you want to say something about abortion rights? because, your post isn't about abortion. it's about amanda marcotte.

did you notice that one of the posts you linked wasn't even written by amanda?

emily1 said...

flint:

many people who live in suburbs do so because they cannot afford city living expenses. i'm definitely not a fan of suburban development patterns because i think they come with unacceptable environmental costs, largely because they entail inefficient use of fossil fuel energy. i think we can solve that particular problem with the right political leadership.

of course, none of this addresses the reason why people *want* to live in the suburbs. a family might want a yard for their kids, something that comes at a high premium in an urban community. they might want access to better schools for their children. a family of modest middle class means can't afford private school for their children, and i can't help but sympathize with a family that makes the choice to live in the suburbs for these reasons.

Robert said...

Not really sure what I'm exaggerating, emily. Absolutist pro-choicers are over there accusing moderate pro-choicers - people who agree with them on every single legal point, but disagree with their assessment of what fetal life is - of being part of the Taliban. How could I exaggerate that?

As far as what I'm attempting to say, I think the title of my post makes it pretty clear. I am not, here and now, attempting to start a dialog with feminists about abortion; I'm informing my legions of readers (hi mom) about an amusing/tragic replay of the perennial lefty favorite, "Let's Shoot Ourselves", over on another blog.

Yeah, I noticed that one of the posters wasn't Amanda. So? It's her blog, and she's involved in the comments sections of both posts.

emily1 said...

Not really sure what I'm exaggerating, emily.

"No, of course not; Traven and Bill are traitors to the cause who must DIE." <=== this is an exaggeration.

i've been following both the threads you linked. yes, there is a cohort of people there who are absolutist participating in that thread. There is some heated disagreement, and a couple of the commentors do engage in over the top hyperbole. shall they all be judged by the poor rhetorical strategies of the few? shall this single comment thread on a single blog serve as a representative sample of pro-choicers or liberals?

As far as what I'm attempting to say, I think the title of my post makes it pretty clear. I am not, here and now, attempting to start a dialog with feminists about abortion; I'm informing my legions of readers (hi mom) about an amusing/tragic replay of the perennial lefty favorite, "Let's Shoot Ourselves", over on another blog.

generalize much? so, a controversial topic such as abortion generates a comment thread in which some pro-choicers heatedly disagree with one another, and this means that liberals are particularly prone to circular firing squads? i've seem equally vitriolic threads about abortion over at Free Republic where conservative commentors engage in EXACTLY the same behavior.

Yeah, I noticed that one of the posters wasn't Amanda. So? It's her blog, and she's involved in the comments sections of both posts.

amanda is not responsible for what her co-bloggers write, and none of the pandagon bloggers should have to answer for what commentors choose to post in the threads.

Robert said...

amanda is not responsible for what her co-bloggers write, and none of the pandagon bloggers should have to answer for what commentors choose to post in the threads.

That's true. But I didn't point to the posts and say "look at this objectionable statement", I pointed at the comments discussions and said "look, lefty group suicide, pass the popcorn". And Amanda certainly took part in both of those conversations.

If you want to defend the left against the belief/charge that it consumes itself with arguments and is intolerant of heresy, be my guest. I was part of the left for about ten adult years, and have been watching it ever since while being part of the conservative movement, and my own personal experience is that the left looks for heretics while the right looks for converts. YMMV.

emily1 said...

I pointed at the comments discussions and said "look, lefty group suicide, pass the popcorn". And Amanda certainly took part in both of those conversations.

disagreement amongst political allies over a hot button topic like abortion is 'group suicide'? amanda is an individual and deserves to be treated as one. stop trying to pretend that she is 'the Left.' there's no monolithic 'progressive movement' that needs someone to be 'in charge.'

while you may dislike amanda and ginmar, given the hideous conditions facing women worldwide, i'm glad they're around. women need allies like amanda and ginmar -- the take no prisoners feminists: brash, unapologetic, (even ANGRY!) and a little militant. women need fighters in their corner, not well-meaning, mealy-mouthed pseudo-allies who are too afraid to call out bad faith arguments acting as trojan horses for plain old sexism.

If you want to defend the left against the belief/charge that it consumes itself with arguments and is intolerant of heresy, be my guest.

'the left'? can you define that term? it's really quite dubious that strong disagreement over controversial political issues amounts to 'group suicide.' it's even more dubious that it's group suicide only for 'the left.' the folks over at Free Republic engage in circular firing squads all the time. the libertarians and social conservatives constantly rip each other to shreds.

i posted an article there about cuts in veterans' benefits, and one of the first ten comments expressed distrust and unease because the article was critical of bush -- even though the article didn't actually criticize bush. all it said was that there was a bill in the works to cut veterans' benefits. the commenter actually said that it was against the 'rules' to criticize bush and wondered if someone should zot my post.

he was not the only person to express that sentiment. how's that for kneejerk defense of a One True Narrative?

I was part of the left for about ten adult years, and have been watching it ever since while being part of the conservative movement, and my own personal experience is that the left looks for heretics while the right looks for converts. YMMV.

converts? interesting choice of words there. i thought it was 'the Left' that mistook politics for religion.