Anyway, here goes:

I looking through a discussion thread for a Ron Paul article at

http://reason.com/blog/show/124542.html

entitled “‘Jane Roe’ Endorses Ron Paul” (just because I find Ron Paul’s deconstruction of the Republican platform intriguing) and I came across the following comment from “Amanda”:

“The pro life people could care less about life, they just want to control womens bodies. It ia all part of an organized, multicentury long hierarchical patriarchy.

Obviously a fetus is not alive if it is not wanted, everyone knows that. No one knows when life begins so we need to assume it is at birth.

Abortion must be legal thru all nine month right up till the cord is cut. It is the most important, God given right any woman has, without it all other rights are meaningless.”

This is followed by a few inflammatory responses from misogynistic morons and then another post from “Amanda” with the link to this very article, also written by Amanda.

Then more idiots, including one post declaring:

“I have long considered the possibility that the logic gene is located on the Y chromosone.”

Followed by this response from “Amanda”:

“Logic is a contruction of the hierarchical patriarchy, there are other, non-linear forms of thought that are more valid. Logic is meant to oppress womyn.”

Anyway, I had never heard of you and knew nothing about you and so I thought I’d respond to what I felt to be fairly absolutist language. Unfortunately, I never considered the possibility raised later by another poster:

“Oh god - a troll pretending to be Amanda Marcotte. What kind of double hell is that?”

And then, further down than I had the patience to read at the time someone says:

“And AmandaM is a troll. Probably a pro-life troll, at that.”

To which “Amanda” responds:

“Yes.”

Soooooooo…. it seems I suck. I’m very sorry. I am still happy to have had this discussion, but this revelation gives it a whole new texture. Here I am trying to get all of you to converge with me at or near a point where you are already standing.

Cheers

P.S. touché, Grammar RWA, touché

You can tell it to me, or …

I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a pro-choice advocate who was absolutely in favour of abortion on demand in the third trimester.

Anybody?

Off the top of my head I can’t think of one either, Dunc. I am in favor of keeping abortion legal throughout the entire pregnancy, because I cannot foresee all the situations that might necessitate abortion, and law is clumsy. But I know it’s downright impossible to find a doctor who will abort two days before delivery because a woman just doesn’t feel like it anymore. Doctors are stringent about when they will perform the procedures.

It would be quite a stretch to pretend that this means I am in favor of late abortions for fun and profit. I simply expect that doctors and pregnant women can discuss options and make the best decision from among a handful of undesirable options, and law is more likely to be a hindrance than a help in these situations.

Jeremy keeps repeating this “pro-choicers are absolutists” stuff, pretending that this is the dominant viewpoint among pro-choice people, even while multiple people here are contradicting him, because it allows him to believe that most of us are cold, rigid and lacking empathy. He can therefore be separate and superior, because he has empathy and is human.

There’s something he doesn’t like about the pro-choice crowd, so he needs to feel separate. How do I know? It was pointed out to him that “‘no abortions in the third trimester unless the fetus is very, very sick or the pregnancy is jeopardizing the woman’s health’ is considered a pro-choice view”, thus Jeremy is pro-choice. But he won’t identify as such. Instead of just acknowledging that there are plenty of differences among pro-choice people, and that his desire for fewer abortions would best be served by supporting safe access to abortion and access to contraception, he wants to imagine that his differences are so great that he does not belong inside the tent. Why?

Because, if he acknowledged these shared goals and shared values, then he might feel obligated to get up off his ass and do something to help, like volunteer at Planned Parenthood. It’s much less work to sit at his computer and type “convince me, convince me” than to make a commitment, even though he’s ostensibly already on our side; and as a bonus it makes him feel important to be an uncommitted “swing voter” who can be courted with attention from both sides. Am I wrong, Jeremy? You can tell it to, or you can go forth and prove it to yourself.

I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a pro-choice advocate who was absolutely in favour of abortion on demand in the third trimester.

Anybody?

To begin, the whole “concern troll” thing is a bit disappointing (and this has nothing whatsoever to do with the specific topic at hand). I remember a time, not so long ago, when it was almost exclusively the right that used these types of tactics to stifle conversation in favour of a monologic ideal. On the left we always leaned more toward a Bakhtinian dialogic. It’s becoming more and more apparent, though, that some of us have lost our spirit of the carnivalesque, and it’s sad (not to mention eerily reminiscent of a group of fundamentalists bursting into derisive laughter when their pastors glibly proclaims “My uncle wasn’t no monkey!”) Of course, I’m probably wasting space here as some folks seem intent on their certainty that I am just a poser attempting to infiltrate their sacred space (were I one to use similar tactics I might suggest that there may be more purity trolls in here than concern trolls).

Now to make nice:

JackGoff: I went to your blog. You have some good stuff here. Especially revealing was your emphasis on empathy as a moral touchstone. So long as we agree on this, we can always find common ground. I was also very intrigued by your discussion of abortion in terms of the mother/slut binary. This does give me something to chew on. Incidentally, Susan Gilbert and Sandra Gubar have a fantastic book entitled *Madwoman in the Attic* that offers an exhaustive exploration of this topic in the context to the 19th century novel. If you’ve not read it, you might really find it interesting. Also, Mary Wollstonecraft’s *Vindication of the Rights of Women* and William Godwin’s essay “Of Co-operation, Co-habitation, and Marriage” are must reads for anyone interested in female personhood (just reread them recently in preparation for my upcoming PhD comps in Romantic Lit.). Personally, though, I prefer the feminist ideals of theorists like Helen Cixous in that they open a space for female abundance or ‘juissance’ in a way that North American feminism sometimes falls short.

Paul: I really do consider myself a deconstructionist (well, more of an all around poststructuralist, to be honest), and not in a ‘deconstruction is hip’ sort of way. I have been researching Derrida, Foucault, and Bakhtin since long before they were fads. Also, you might be interested to know that the high school I attended as a teen, and at which I taught for several years (don’t worry, no abortion discussions in my class) before returning to student life, participates in an annual fundraiser that raises thousands of dollars each year for the local neonatal unit. I have always been proud to be a part of this. Here’s a link (scroll down to “Mon Oct 15, 2007: 25th Annual Trojan Trek”):

http://www.district2.nbed.nb.ca/news_0708.asp

Anyway, I am sorry to hear of your difficult experience. I hope your child and his mother are now doing well.

murcielago: Your analogy helps flesh things out. It covers most of the bases quite nicely, from physical autonomy to empathy. The only disconnect, I guess, would be in the distinction between passively allowing someone to die and active participation in ending a life, but again this does nothing to discredit your astute answer to my empathy concern.

Alara: I really cannot express my appreciation for your thoughtful and fair response. It is so encouraging to see that common ground is possible on this issue. As I suggested in an earlier post, I fully agree that empathy requires that the object of one’s empathy can feel, so I am quite willing to reject absolutism and accept your analysis of early term abortions. On the other end, I am in full agreement with your suggestion that it is not “okay to kill a fetus which would be viable, within a month or so of its birth, unless the health or life of the mother is at stake.” It has not been my experience, though, that all pro-choice advocates are as willing as you to back away from the absolutist thesis that an unborn foetus is an unborn foetus is an unborn foetus, and might be aborted regardless of questions of the woman’s health, or viability or an ability to experience emotion or pain on the part of the foetus. At any rate, it helps to know there are people on both sides of this issue who are not so irrevocably divided.

Amanda: Thank you for allowing me to participate. I really do wish that there was some way to convince you that not one part of your assessment applies to me. Specifically: “Anti-choicers are motivated by a fear of sexuality and women’s liberation—if that wasn’t true, then why are they so thoroughly dedicated to battling gay marriage, sending women back to the home, and battling birth control?” I don’t battle gay marriage or birth control and have no illusions that women belong in the home. I can only suggest you consider the frustration you might feel at having the same blanket accusations levelled at you in response to a single disagreement on a specific point with an otherwise likeminded person. No grudges; it’s just a crappy feeling.

To everyone else: Thank you for letting me in and for sharing your knowledge and opinions. I realize it’s unlikely I moved anyone of you a single inch on this issue, but that’s fine because, hard as it may be to believe, I have no proselytizing motives. I simply wanted to get some feedback and read some counterpoints to help me flesh out my own views on this complex issue. Hence, this was a success.

Sorry for being so long winded. Last post, an all. Love, peace, and juissance.

Jeremy

DeadMan