Genocide Gap

Well, today's treeware column is raising a ruckus over at The Star's main website.

Good -- although I notice that all the dissenters are ignoring the issue I raise: comparing abortion to all the millions and millions and millions of people massacred during the Holocaust, in Rwanda and Cambodia, and, well, we could go on and on. East Timor. Bosnia. Armenia.

Sigh.

Of course, I blogged on the Genocide Awareness Project in recent days but I wanted to pull it together for the paying readers (God bless newspaper subscribers!) who don't tend to go to blogs.

So here it is, in part:

There's been a lot of talk lately of how anti-choice clubs have been restricted from proselytizing on Canadian university campuses with their bloody posters of chopped-up babies and piled up bodies at Auschwitz.

Just last week, for example, half a dozen Campus Pro-Life students at the University of Calgary were facing trespassing charges after, on at least seven occasions, setting up displays that confronted students with images of lynchings of African Americans, butchered babies in Rwanda and Cambodia, and Nazi swastikas.

Understand: I am all for freedom of expression. And the university did not ban these displays from the campus. All it did was ask the club members to turn their offensive posters around so that only those students who chose to see them would.

This Abortion = Holocaust tack is part of an continent-wide campaign, organized under the banner of the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), described on its host Center for Bio-Ethical Reform website as "a traveling photo-mural exhibit which compares the contemporary genocide of abortion to historically recognized forms of genocide. It visits university campuses around the country to show as many students as possible what abortion actually does to unborn children and get them to think about abortion in a broader historical context.''

GAP members liken themselves to abolitionists. They argue that no abortion, except in the case of ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, should be performed because it is murder.

Women should be forced to bear children and, if they don't want them, well, like human incubators, they can give them up for adoption to the millions of other people on baby waiting lists.

Otherwise, they are no different from the concentration camp I-was-just-following-orders commandants who oversaw the slaughter of millions and millions.

Totally justifiable, they say: "These pictures of genocide against Jews and African Americans are used all the time in textbooks and documentaries. Martin Luther King, in his letter from the Birmingham Jail, compared the brutalization of blacks to the brutalization of Jews during the Holocaust. Was that insensitive of him?"

So obsessed with lentil-sized cell collections, these people equate women with the most evil mass murderers in history.

Which says plenty, not only about their view of women but the real live victims of genocide.

Not much to add but:

1. One reader wrote to say that the column was misleading on one point:

If GAP members have been accurately quoted in your column of Friday Feb 13, that the removal of a tubal ectopic pregnancy equates to an abortion, they are in error and you also for contributing to public misinformtion.

A pregnancy that implants outside of the uterus, most commonly in the Fallopian tube, has about a one in a million chance of producing a live child, and a far greater chance of the death of the woman from severe internal hemorrhage. Removing the Fallopian tube, and yes, the embryo within it is NOT an abortion, rather a life saving procedure.

Anyone who had had a tubal pregnancy removed should be disabused of the idea that your column presented that the necessary surgery was equivalent to an abortion.

Here is the exact quote from GAP's FAQ page (pdf). It refers to the exceptions its absolute not-even-in-rape aim to ban abortion.

What about a woman whose life is in danger?
These conditions are extremely rare, with the exception of an ectopic or tubal pregnancy. In that case, the baby is growing inside the mother’s fallopian tube and as it grows, the tube may rupture (or burst) and that can threaten the woman’s life. Medicine cannot save the baby’s life at this point; only by removing the developing embryo from the tube can the mother have a chance for survival.

2. Also in my email was this from a Canadian born in the former Yugoslavia:

Thank you very much for the wonderful text in today's The Toronto Star about
abortion.

I was born in a socialist country where despite pretty high level of male chauvinism the abortion was legal and rarely challenged. The right-wing and extreme religious groups, they were more or less silent.

The people who ever read some historical documents in their life, they know that for the thousands years in every war the women were victim of the rape.

But in recent war in Bosnia it is for first time recognized that rape was a part of one genocide project and used as a weapon to destroy the people.

And we still are not saying rape=holocaust in Bosnia-Herzegovina (or Rwanda).

Can we ask pro-life extremists just one "what if". If their mothers or sisters were raped would they be "pro-life" or "pro-women's right to decide".

And one more thing I would like to ask male "pro-life" extremists, how many of them committed "sin of Onan".

Good questions.

(The above scene is from the award-winning film, Grbavica aka Esma's Secret, about a woman who survived the war and her daughter.)

For all their ''pro-life positions,'' I never hear a word about the horrors visited right now this minute on women all over the world, including Congo, about which I have repeatedly blogged. Indeed, when I wrote about how US President Barack Obama was lifting the ''global gag rule,'' all I got was criticism from ''pro-lifers'' about how birth control in the worst places on earth was murder.

As for the ''sin of Onan,'' well, let's just say I won't touch that one with a 6 inch pole.

UPPITY DATE: Ooops, almost forgot. Many readers who disagree take exception to my comparing the typical abortion to a lentil-sized clump of cells.

Please note that, at 8 weeks, we're talking .63 of an inch long, .04 of an ounce in weight. 

So my bad. We're talking a lima bean-sized kidney bean-sized clump of cells.

UPPERMOST DATE: Great piece here on what women in Congo are suffering.

The disturbing stories that have come out of the Congo defy imagination: women and young girls being raped by militia men in front of their families; rape victims ranging from as young as six months to as old as 83 years; women and girls faced with unwanted pregnancies and raped intentionally by men known to have AIDS. There is also a devastating epidemic of women and girls whose vaginas and reproductive organs have been completely destroyed from being violated with guns, bottles and sticks, often resulting in a condition called fistula, a rupture that results in the uncontrollable leakage of urine and feces. The traumatized rape victims are then further stigmatized and ostracized by their families and communities. Says Mukwege, awarded the UN Human Rights Prize in December 2008 for his humanitarian work, “attacking women, the bearer of life, with this level of terror, I believe it has nothing to do with sexual desire. I think it’s about destabilizing society, trying to destroy society and bring about its complete destruction.”

Any thoughts from the fetus fetishists who feel that kidney bean-sized clumps of cells are going through the same thing as these women are?

<Crickets chirping.>

Comments

[MensRightsNow]

Millions of men have died so you don't have to experience what the women in the Congo experience. Thank men. You can even give birth or kill your off spring freely in this free country that so many men died for. You can even promote killing your offspring (not his, cuz he doesn't matter) and do it in a newspaper without being hung.

[Granny]

Here is the tie-in to the Holocaust:
C Ward Kisher, a human embryologist, said, "Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception)...Every contemporary textbook of Human Embryology states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization. No human embryologist has ever, nor would ever, use the word potential describing human life or even 'life.' In fact, 'potential' human life does not exist. All matter in the universe is classified as either living or non-living. One does not convert to the other. All that are living are either alive or dead. Those that are alive eventually become dead; once dead they cannot revert to living. There is no 'potential' when referring to biological life!"
The concept of "potential human life" was previously applied in the 1930s in Nazi Germany and accounted for the extermination of 6 million Jews, and 10 million others, including the mentally and physically impaired.
As to the suffering women in Congo, how is that the fault of their babies? Since when does one's suffering justify killing an innocent other? Death upon death; choose life instead!

[Michelle]

Every contemporary textbook of Human Embryology states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization. ...
The concept of "potential human life" was previously applied in the 1930s in Nazi Germany and accounted for the extermination of 6 million Jews, and 10 million others, including the mentally and physically impaired.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this a completely spurious line of argument.

First of all, the Nazis used the Jews as a scapegoat, and propaganda was extensively employed to degrade these people to subhuman status. Let us not confuse the ravings of a deranged, power-hungry man with abortion - they are not the same thing.

Second, and more significantly, the so-called 'pro life' argument vis a vis abortion completely ignores the biological dependence of the fetus on the mother. Until the moment of birth, that fetus is utterly dependent upon the mother for the very basics of its existence.

By virtue of the unique circumstances involved, this grants the mother a degree of authority over the pregnancy which does not equate to the persecution of Jews in Nazi era Germany. In no way were Nazi era Jews dependent upon the the state for their survival - a fetus is utterly dependent upon its mother for survival.

I claim that this unique status of absolute dependence grants the woman absolute control over the situation. It is she who will pay the biological price for the pregnancy - including the risks of childbirth itself - if she carries it through. Therefore, she has quite rightly the absolute power to decide whether that pregnancy proceeds or not.

It is a matter of personal morals and ethics at play in the decision to proceed with a pregnancy or to end it. Just as the woman pays the price for her decision (either way), she has the absolute right to that decision.

The "GAP" campaign is disingenuous in its analogies, and outright disrespectful to the victims of genocide around the world. Further, it is disgraceful in the way that it equates a woman who has an abortion with some of the worst of humanity - condemnation through propaganda makes the GAP campaign as offensive to me as the anti-Jewish propaganda of Nazi-era Germany.

[jdv]

And who's going to care for the babies, Granny? If they even become babies...after that kind of trauma, most of these women's bodies aren't ready to carry a pregnancy.

But hey, it's easy to condemn when it's happening to someone else.

[Ali]

Anti-abortion demonstrators are asked the question: What should be the punishment for women who have abortions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

[Rachael]

regarding your [sic] comment on rape.and pregnancy, does one compound a horrific act by attacking the victim again with another horrific act. I note you did not mention attacking the attacker but that is typical reporting,the poor man has a problem so lets molly-coddle him and lets mask what was done to the victim.

[Rachael]

At 21 days the "lentil sized' human entity has a beating heart not bad for something so little to bad those who are already born don,t have one [a heart I mean]

[hysperia]

At the kidney bean stage, the embryo does not have a beating heart. Certainly not at the lentil stage. The heart doesn't start beating until the fetus is a lot bigger than any legume.

[MensRightsNow]

Ali....the punishment for women who have abortions is the psychological trauma of having killed a life they helped create. No amount of cheerleading from feminists or legislation from governments will ever change that. Women need to take responsibility for their first choice (sex) so society doesn't have to look after her second choice (unwanted pregnancy).

[Antonia]

And what's the punishment for the sperminator who refused to wear a condom, Men's Rights Now?

[MensRightsNow]

Antonia, do you mean rapists? We have a Criminal Code...they go to jail. Or do you mean the female, in full control of her body, that allows the man to penetrate her without a condom. If "enduring" 9 months of discomfort is so demanding and horrific, would it not be in the female's best interest to fully exert her "my body, my choice" dictum? Of course, it might spoil the moment for HER, but that's okay, she has the freebee, remember?

[Antonia]

Do I need to draw you a picture?

How many times have you ever pushed a guy off because, at the last minute, he refuses to wear a condom? How many times have you been too tipsy to see he didn't put it on?

Of course women have responsibility but you just find every excuse to let men off the hook, don't you?

Maybe you oughta walk a mile in our high heels Men'Rights Now.

[MensRightsNow]

Antonia, is this what we should teach our daughters? Reasoning like this? Use drunkeness as a defense? Or, I was too hot and bothered to push him off and demand he wear protection. Forget that she has full control prior to intercourse to ensure she never gets pregnant, as well as after if they both choose to not wear/use protection.

In essence, you believe women should have the freedom to bang men without protecting themselves. You only believe this because you can abort your responsibility. Men should have choice too. It would be interesting to see how many females would practice effective birth control if the state didn't pay for their mistake and men didn't have to pay for a child they may not have wanted.
Of course men should wear condoms, but mostly to protect themselves from the epidemic of Herpes and HPV in women (and men), in addition to preventing an unwanted pregnancy.

There are 2 cases in the states where men have caught women emptying the contents of the used condom (from a waste basket) into their vagina in an attempt to get pregnant. One man put tabasco sauce in the condom post-coitus, as a result, she was "injured" and sued him for assault...and she lost. Funny eh?

[Antonia]

Your posts always fascinate me, MRN. You never discuss men's responsibilities. You never cite sources. Why is that?

[neko]

Why is it "use protection = no need for abortion" or "take responsibility for actions post-unprotected sex"?

You can get pregnant when you're on the pill. Condoms can break. Nothing is 100% safe.

I take the pill, my partner uses a condom with spermicide and we recognize that I may still find myself pregnant one day. At which point, we head to the clinic and get the mistake corrected. Because we take responsibility for our actions.

[MensRightsNow]

neko...Your post suggests your "partner" has a say in your "mistake correction", and you both agree abortion is the solution.

I suppose if he actually WANTED the child you wouldn't head to the clinic?

Or maybe YOU wanted the child and HE thought it was a "mistake", would you cut him loose from his responsibilty?

Or do you subscribe to the Animal Farm version of equality. ie. Freedom to CHOOSE/abort (100% your decision, 0% him), Freedom to saddle your partner with 21 years of c/s, against his will (100% your decision, 0% him).

Remember...your words....it was a mistake. Or is his mistake different or less "equal" than your mistake?

[...pat.]

So, MRN: if a woman has an abortion, she will deal with the unending hellfire during her life of knowing she killed a child. If a man impregnates a woman, and he wants the life terminated (because he doesn't want to be responsible for the life he co-created), is he going to suffer the same fate? I know you want equal rights for both sexes.

Oh. I forgot. You only care about financial payments.

[MensRightsNow]

Pat....that is so cute, you sorta, kinda, in a roundaboout way, acknowledge men may actually want the child.

Ya, I would also feel pretty bad if my partner killed our offspring without my consent.

And ya, also, I do care about financial payments. I should not be forced to pay money against my will for a child I do not want (mistake). That is against MY RIGHTS! The same way that forcing a women to have an abortion or carry the child to term is against HER RIGHT'S, HER WILL, HER MISTAKE!

There are so many holes is the feminist version of abortion it is embarrassing. The funny thing is, I am an atheist, but feminism is a religion. It's almost like feminists want men to accept them as the weaker, more irresponsible, childish sex. There are many women who I propose my theories to that fully agree with me. They're educated, successful women too.

[neko]

MRN, I refer to the possibility of my getting knocked up as a mistake because I don't want to get knocked up at this point in my life. Abortion is not, as you say, the solution. It is the last option when my other lines of defense have failed me. They haven't yet, but I do admit that they could. I could also win the lottery tonight. I hope the latter happens.

Being a responsible adult, I sat down with my partner and discussed this prior to us having sex (we also exchanged papers from the Doctor at this point detailing how our recent STD tests came up clean). I said that I don't want children right now and what was his opinion on that? He agreed with me. Then I said, if accidents happen, would you like to know (thereby creating a discussion at that point as to keeping it or not) or would you prefer ignorance (I handle it myself)? He said that it would be as much his error as mine and would like to know. Since we both don't want one, he would go with me to the clinic and split the cost.

Now, should I change my mind and decide that I want a child, I would revisit that conversation with him before I stopped taking the pill and started poking holes in his condoms. If that conversation determines that I want one and he doesn't, then I shall have to re-evalutate our relationship at that point. If he decides he wants one and I don't, we'll have to re-evaluate and discuss.

It's not about me choosing to vacuum out my womb vs raping his wallet. It's about being adults. We are partners together and will therefor make our choices together, after informed discussion.

[MensRightsNow]

NEKO>>>>"If that conversation determines that I want one and he doesn't, then I shall have to re-evalutate our relationship at that point. If he decides he wants one and I don't, we'll have to re-evaluate and discuss."

This is amazing advice, I agree with you 100%. But what if the convo doesn't go your way? Or his way?...You still have an out by killing his offspring. If you want the child and he doesn't, and you are both entrenched in your decision...what then? YOU can't say he should have a worn a condom, because both of you are practicing excellent BC. My point is about equality. If two consenting adults have sex, and one slips past the goalie, in a truly equal society, BOTH men and women should be able to "fix their mistake". As it stands now, only women can do this, and if they choose not to fix their mistake and have the child, she can force the MAN, against HIS WILL to financially support what he believes is a mistake. In essence feminism has robbed men of their reproductive rights, while still holding them financially responsible. It's ludicrous.

[Antonia]

Um, Men's Rights Now? In case you didn't notice, these questions could have been asked years before there was feminism.

Feminism isn't to blame. Biology is.
We have the uterus and the ovaries.
You can pee standing up.
That's the way the cookie crumbled.

So what's your solution? Instead of ranting and raving about it, what do you propose? Would you consider a uterine transplant? A trade of plumbing? A supply of women willing to be baby hatcheries for a fee?

[neko]

MRN... a little reading comprehension, please? I said the convo re: changed minds regarding potential spawn would occur before the spawning would. I settled that fact with my partner ages ago. If we are unprepared for it, it is taken care of. Period. The end. If one of us decides to want a child, we would discuss before any wackiness in my uterus.

By the way, the notion of "killing his offspring" is ludicrous. It isn't his and it isn't mine, it's ours because it took two people to make it. I also don't like the "killing" part, but that's a whole other argument.

Thanks to fun quirks of nature, the "uterUS, not uterU" argument doesn't quite work. It's my body at the end of the day, so I get the final call. If biology worked out the other way, it would be his final call. Life simply isn't fair and one day, your actions may end up with reprocussions you just don't like. You do the best you can with it and move on.

My point in sharing my life's personal details was to show those of various opinions who read Antonia's wicked blog that there ways to be adult about all of this. If you feel that you shouldn't have to pay for an unwanted child, you should discuss that with your partner and get it hashed out before there is any potential for a child.

Everyone should get their lives sorted and have backup plans and contingencies in place before the monkey wrench, not after.

[Antonia]

Speaking of which, anybody ever notice that the Latin root of uterus is a MASCULINE noun? Wonder what means/meant.
http://www.babylon.com/define/112/Latin-Dictionary.html

[MensRightsNow]

neko....you're debating relationships, I'm debating abortion. You're stating the obvious to me. My argument is a man should have equal choice over an unwanted pregnancy. I don't care if it is your body, the "ball of lentils" is 50% mine. Society believes this because I am expected to be a father and PAY for it. Life isn't fair...you said it, and so has Antonia.

You're right Antonia, it is men, not the feminist movement that sacrificed a man's reproductive rights. Men should be able to abort their reponsibilities, just like women. You hate it because it makes too much sense and equals the playing field.

[Antonia]

Uh? NEWSFLASH Men's Rights Now!!!!!!

You do not own women's bodies.
End of story.

So, if you don't want to be a Dad, get out your raincoat, or get surgery. Why should women carry all the responsibility of not getting pregnant?

[neko]

Yay Antionia!! *standing ovation*

MRN, please remember that you do have choices. You seem to think that the options are 'murder' or your credit rating and either option really gets your goat; this is not true. Now, your options are limited to dealing with your biology as you simply cannot have a say in what goes on in the body of another human being (you wouldn't want me to have a say about yours, after all). You too have options in The Game of Life: Abstinence, Birth Control (which has a percentile chance of failing, so roll your dice and enjoy sexy time) or get snipped.

You are right about something, MRN; I am arguing relationships. It is our relationships (however momentary and fleeting that may be) that enables us to procreate and started this whole argument. You assume that the argument and life begins at conception. I think that the argument begins hours/days/weeks/months before hand and life begins a damn site further than a couple of cells.

[Antonia]

In other words, put a knot in it or put a sock in it.

[MensRightsNow]

...because they have 100% control Antonia.

Uh Antonia, the offspring is 50% mine...oh wait, that's only if YOU want it....and even then....men have no reproductive rights and therefore should be able to abort their financial reponsibility, like women can their's!

You act like women abort because childbirth is hard, but the reality is, they mostly abort for financial reasons. Yet, I am excoriated for suggesting men should be able to do the same thing. More Animal Farm equality! If a women can abort because she can afford children, why can't the man? Nevermind, I know your answer....

If I don't own your body, why are you allowed access, against my will, to my wallet? Maybe my future? My other children's future? My sick parent's future? All because WE made a mistake, not you, not me....WE! Therefore WE should be able to decide our own role in the aftermath of pregnancy. You still control YOUR body, just not my wallet!

[Michelle]

''Uh Antonia, the offspring is 50% mine...oh wait, that's only if YOU want it....and even then....men have no reproductive rights and therefore should be able to abort their financial reponsibility, like women can their's!''

MRN: When you can address the small, itsy-bitsy problem of the fact that it is the woman who pays the biological cost of pregnancy, AND takes the very real risks that are part of childbirth...then, and only then, might you have a say in whether a woman chooses to continue a pregnancy or not.

As for your wallet, to borrow a line - if you're that worried about the consequences, then keep it zipped. ... and get used to dating the palm sisters.

[MensRightsNow]

So MIchelle, you're selfishly suggesting women can enjoy the pleasures of unprotected or protected sex only because they get the freebee. Meanwhile, the unprotected man OR protected man is relegated to c/s for 21 years or HE gets to spank the goalie in perpetuity?

Women ONLY get to make a mistake, not MEN, is what you are suggesting, even though women have multiple forms of birth control. It's laughable.

How do you or Antonia possibly, with a straight face, tell men to "man up", be "great fathers", etc., while robbing them of any form reproductive rights or choice....it's selfish, and as a society we are seeing the fruits of such selfish ideology.

If child birth/pregnancy is so terrible, don't risk sex then!

[Antonia]

''If child birth/pregnancy is so terrible, don't risk sex then! ''

Takes two to tango.

Ask yourself: If she's trying to get pregnant to trap you, how can you be so stupid as to let her?

Advice I have to a young male friend just last week. "Be careful. Her biological clock is ticking. Wear a rubber or I will we attending your wedding within the next nine months."