Slaves to love?

You know, it was F. Scott Fitzgerald who said, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." But let me remind you, Fitzgerald was not only drunk most of the time, alcohol also drove him to an early grave.

I only raise him here to disagree with him. That's because I will never understand, say, how some people can claim to be pro-family and yet be vehemently opposed to gay men and women having families. How can they be against expansion of government and yet want to expand government right into women's wombs? How can they be against a woman's right to choose -- ostensibly because it ''murders innocents'' -- and yet proclaim the bombing of Iraq and its innocents a ''task that is from God?''

Doesn't this ''logic'' defy logic?

Which brings me to today's treeware column, all here with some links and amplifications to satisfy those readers who wrote today accusing me of making stuff up:

Whenever my feminist politics are attacked by social conservatives – there is a daily onslaught in my inbox – I have to question how it is that they hold such contradictory views.

Aren't these are the very people who usually condemn "big government" and, indeed, any government intervention into their lives, sometimes even taxation? So how is it that they demand government control of women's bodies and choices?

They want pharmacists and medical professionals to have the right to refuse women contraception – and that includes the Pill and condoms, by the way – even as they deny women the right to not be pregnant.

They want the freedom to practise their religion, no matter how far out their sects and dogmas may be, and yet want to impose their morality on the rest of us.

Never mind how, as this week's New Yorker reports, their abstinence-only philosophy results in more teen sex and pregnancy than most other groups, at least in the U.S. (Come on down Bristol Palin and Levi "I don't want kids" Johnston.)

It's "Do as I say unto thee" until it's "Now where's my shotgun?"

Although it's not getting much mainstream coverage, two states, Colorado and South Dakota, have measures on their ballots that would strip women not only of their reproductive rights but would also define life as beginning at conception.

In other words, zygotes would be defined as legal persons, with their rights protected by the state.

That would mean that pregnant women would be wholly owned by government, as walking incubators, with absolutely no right to make any decisions, and I mean any decisions, about their, as John McCain disdainfully put it in air quotes two weeks ago, "health."

These amendments would include not only women who want to end their pregnancies, but also those who want to carry their babies to term. This has already begun to happen, in a horrifying way in some states.

One Pennsylvania woman lost legal custody of her fetus before, after and during delivery. Why? Because it was decided she was risking her baby's life by her choosing to go with natural labour. She was ordered to undergo surgery against her and her husband's will.

A Maryland woman became critically ill five months into her pregnancy. She, her husband, parents and doctors all decided that, with medical support, she could bring her baby to term. But the state decided otherwise and a Caesarean was ordered. Both mother and child died.

Women have been forcibly removed from their homes, their legs strapped together by police, and railroaded into operating theatres because some state board decided their lives and decisions were secondary to their fetuses'.

Time out to watch the video and get some background here.

This year, when Canadians protested against Bill C-484, the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, they were afraid that the proposed law would not only take away the right to choose abortion, but also to choose life.

The government, which insisted it wasn't about any of that until it killed the bill because it would "reopen" the abortion debate (as if it has ever closed), now faces the wrath of the social conservatives who looked to Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take away women's rights.

Which raises the question: Why is it that the heads of most anti-choice organizations, including the Roman Catholic Church, as well as virtually all my angry emailers, are men? But, if you were to ask them if they believe in slavery, most would say no.

And yet, here they are, advocating the utter subjugation of women to biology, the state, and even to men.

How do they reconcile these ideas? Anybody?

Well?

UPPITY DATE (3/11/08): Here's a great piece on the situation in South Dakota.

Comments

[sooey]

They start with the position that women aren't people and go from there.

[Kat]

Men, even pro-choice, anti-contraceptives men, can't give birth.

For men who respect women, that's not a big deal. It's simply a fact of life, whether they create their families through conception or adoption, and whether they are straight or gay.

But for men who are misogynists... the creation of family, something they feel very strongly about, *is beyond their total control*. They have to depend on someone who is not one of them. And, near as I can figure, that freaks them right out.

So they try to control the ones who *can* give birth. And, lacking the power to do so themselves, they are horrified that anyone would choose to give up a zygote if they had one.

Near as I can figure, male misogynists just wish they could do it all themselves. Which I think means that really they want to be women. Sometimes. Kind of.

The ones I can't figure out are the female misogynists. Why on earth would any woman agree with all this crap?

[Alex]

Dear Ms. Zerbisias:

Good column.

I've also wondered why so many ardent anti-abortionists and anti-birth control zealots are men. The only conclusion I have come to is that it's not about the fetus, it's all about control of women. Face it, if Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and so on treated blacks (or any other ethnic / racial group) the way that they treat women, the rest of the world would be up in arms. Saudi Arabia certainly treats women in a far more repressive fashion than blacks were treated under South African apartheid -- the only difference being that no one really complains about Saudi Arabia.

Also, while there may be some issue as to what the tenets of the Abrahamic religions prescribe vis a vis other races or ethnicities, there is absolutely no doubt that they preach the subjugation of women. So one easy rationalization is that it can't be slavery if it is the will of God.

And then there's self-interest. As a man it would be easy for me to endorse the most draconian restrictions on a woman's right to control her own body because I know that, no matter what, I can't get pregnant. So unlike supporting a totalitarian government, where I run the risk of falling out of favour with the dictator du jour, there is no cost -- to me -- to restricting women's reproductive freedom, because any and all costs will be borne only by women.

Keep writing!

[maribeth]

It all just makes me want to stamp my foot like an angry toddler. I have always wished that the folk who professed to such Christian values would put their zeal toward helping the existing children who need food, health care, and a decent education. Americans have enough trouble dealing with their children who suffer greatly in the supposed greatest nation on earth, let alone taking the side of clumps of cells. Sorry to be so blunt, but as someone on the frontlines in the world of children every day, I'm fed up with those who waste their effort in puritanically punishing women while ignoring the very real needs of our future generation. Get out there and help the kids, for the love of god, allah, buddah or zeus.

[Jim Rootham]

Robert Altemeyer investigates a lot of this at http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/%7Ealtemey/

His analysis of this particular point is that fear shuts down critical thinking.

[Peter Giaschi]

Yes, and stop claiming 'freedom' as the defining characteristic of the right. Has not anybody noticed this? Socialism is not an alternative to democracy. It's an alternative to capitalism. Margaret Atwood pretty much nailed it in 'The Handmaid's Tale.' There's freedom for you.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

There's an interesting article in the October 20th American Conservative: Paul Gottfried
"Adam Smith’s authoritarian personality", which calls into question the compatibility of capitalsim and democracy.

But the incompatibility of socialism and democracy has been proven over and over and over again with a rigour that mathematicians might envy

[sooey]

I guess that's why Bush Inc. reversed the democracy vs socialism equation to which you refer and snatched back great gobs of democracy BEFORE nationalizing the banks. You know, to save capitalism...

Tsk tsk. Like shooting fish in a barrel, Stygy.

[Mike2]

Antonia,

I was suspicious of the examples you cited from Pennsylvania and Maryland, so like you suggested I looked them up. Your brief descriptions of these cases are highly misleading, and in fact your account of the Maryland situation is out and out wrong. The strange thing is that I used the links you provided - did you even read them yourself?

I don't think you are doing this complicated issue justice. For example, let me ask you this. We were all outraged when we saw today in the Star that the father on the Yellowquill reserve has been charged (and now plead guilty) for allowing his 2 daughters to freeze to death in the snow. Surely we can all agree that this man had every right to drink himself into a stupor regardless of any consequences to his children. The state simply has no right to control this gentleman's body and tell him what to do. When will we see a column defending his rights?

[Antonia]

Mike2:

Exactly how do those links not support what I wrote?

[Kerry]

This is the problem, Mike2, when you seek to turn abortion into a rhetorical argument. Argue away, compare it to any number of situations (the Holocaust is a popular one?) but for those of us who've found ourselves with unwanted pregnancies, the rhetoric counts for nothing. Reproductive freedom is about individual people,and their singular experiences, and it is not just a game you play with logic. Abortion is not an "issue"-- it is a fact. Further is the fact that criminalization leads to women ending up dead, and this has always been the case, everywhere.

[Mike2]

Ms. Zerbisias,

Thank you for responding to my post.

You stated that the doctors, her family and the woman all thought the baby could be brought to term. The actual article doesn't say that - it says the doctors didn't think the baby could live, and the woman was sedated and could not make her views known. That is a huge difference. You also failed to mention that a court overturned the judge's decision (albeit too late to impact the outcome in this particular case). This is a very important point becuase it means that the current state of the law in Maryland is that the government does NOT have the authority to require a woman to have a c-section when the fetus' is in danger. Your article encourages us to believe that the opposite is true. This is misleading, and I have to believe that you know it. I think the argument you are making is fundamentally sound; however you do both yourself and your readers a diservice by relying on events that did not happen in the way you describe them. It calls into question your entire argument, and leads one to believe you are driven more by your preconcieved notions of the proper "answer" than looking at the issue dispassionately.

I have been resolutely pro-choice my entire life. However, reading these articles has actually caused me to reconsider some of my long held views. Some of these cases raise very troubling and difficult issues. In my view it is better to approach them with an open mind rather than a preconcieved conclusion.

[Antonia]

Mike,

Depending on which account you read, the Maryland woman did make a decision. She was not completely out of it all the time.

http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/articles/angela.htm

''Although assumed to be near death and unconscious, Angela was lucid and able to communicate when, after the court made its ruling, one of her obstetricians told her about the court's decision. When her doctor explained that she might die as a result of the ordered surgery and that he would not perform the surgery without her consent, she said repeatedly, "I don't want it done." However, this declaration did not sway the hospital to withdraw its petition or the court to amend its order.''

Also, you miss the point. Why must women turn to courts to overturn decisions made about their lives and bodies? Why is it the business of the state or others to deem a woman's life secondary to that of her fetus?

Thank goodness these are not YET laws. My examples were merely illustrations of what could happen as a matter of course when the state/medical boards/courts get between a woman's legs.