Sometimes the lack of self-awareness of Canada's extreme left is nothing short of astounding.That lack of self awareness is particularly evident when one examines the pro-abortion movement. And when one is talking about pro-abortionists who lack self-awarness, one of the first to come to mind is none other than JJ, the proprietor of Unrepentant Old Hippie
In a recent post at that particular percolating cesspool, JJ makes it evident that her ire has been drawn by Lila Rose, whom JJ describes as an "anti-choice fascist" (which is an ironic accusation coming from someone who applauds violence against her anti-abortion opponents).
Rose recently suggested that all abortions be "conducted in the public square".
"I don’t see misogyny behind every tree, but for a few seconds there I saw a hatred of women so raw it was like a slap in the face," JJ writes. "It really makes me wonder about the origins of Ms Rose’s crusade against Planned Parenthood; what she experienced that filled her with such loathing for her own sex."
Ironically, JJ refers readrs to a post at Reproductive Health Reality Check in which Mandy Van Deven sheds some light on JJ's particular affliction.
Of course Van Deven likely doesn't realize how perfectly she's describing the Unrepentant one -- and herself. She's actually writing about Lila Rose when she says:
"Twenty-year-old Lila Rose suffers from a condition that afflicts many new activists, a condition known as myopia. Those who suffer from myopia experience an inability to see nuance in the world and seek comfort in absolutes. While thought to be more pronounced among the young, myopia can infect people of all ages with varying results, and the results of Rose's particular strain of this cerebral infection have only just begun to make themselves known."The real hilarity ensues once one notices that Van Deven has labelled her post "anti-choice activists".
Like many pro-abortion activists -- and, like JJ -- Van Deven insists on pretending that there can only be one thing that anti-abortion activists really oppose: choice. The argument is that the anti-abortion movement simply opposes freedom.
In the minds of such people there certainly couldn't be anything morally or ethically repugnant about abortion that they oppose. No. To individuals such as JJ and Mandy Van Deven, people like Lila Rose are merely authoritarians seeking to enforce their beliefs on other people.
Likewise, in JJ's mind, Rose couldn't possibly have a moral or ethical objection to abortion -- she simply hates women.
It isn't, after all, as if there are human lives embroiled in the abortion debate -- and more than simply the lives of the mothers carrying these children. In particular, JJ and her ilk have yet to admit that unborn children are human life forms, not merely "clumps of cells".
Lila Rose's rhetorical recommendation that abortions be conducted in the public square -- and it is simply that, a rhetorical tool -- will never be implemented, and with good reason.
But there is one thing to say about the idea, and how it pertains to the wider debate over abortion: it would give people a wider understanding of precisely what abortion entails. This would apply to both early- and late-term abortion. It would very likely have the effect of galvanizing public opposition to late-term abortion, and also increasing permissiveness toward early-term abortion.
There's a reason why the pro-abortion movement is so insistent on preventing the general public from understanding the various nuances of abortion. It's because this kind of understanding threatens the monopoly on the debate they believe they're entitled to.
The truth is that the pro-abortion lobby isn't merely myopic in its very nature, it also wants to spread that myopia to as many people as possible. They've thrived off of it.
***The real hilarity ensues once one notices that Van Deven has labelled her post "anti-choice activists".***
ReplyDeleteActually, that labelling was done by RHRC, not me. I specifically asked that Rose NOT be labelled in my writing as an anti-choice activist, and instead as a pro-life activist, which is how she refers to herself.
***To individuals such as JJ and Mandy Van Deven, people like Lila Rose are merely authoritarians seeking to enforce their beliefs on other people.***
Wrong again. I actually see Rose as an impassioned young woman who is working to change the world into what she believes is best. She's no different than I am in that regard. We simply differ in our visions of what we believe a just society looks like and in our tactics on how to enact that vision.
Speculation is a significant hinderance to having a solid argument. Perhaps you should remove so much of it from yours.
Peace,
Mandy
"Actually, that labelling was done by RHRC, not me. I specifically asked that Rose NOT be labelled in my writing as an anti-choice activist, and instead as a pro-life activist, which is how she refers to herself."
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting to know. It seems like you shouldtake that up with your editor or administrator at RHRC (whichever the case may be), as they've clearly made you like look a bit of an ass.
I personally take issue with the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" labels as well. I find them to be obfuscatory and lend themseves to a debate founded on rehtoric, as opposed to fact.
"I actually see Rose as an impassioned young woman who is working to change the world into what she believes is best. She's no different than I am in that regard. We simply differ in our visions of what we believe a just society looks like and in our tactics on how to enact that vision."
I'm sure that you can understand how the labelling decision made by your editor could lead someone to think otherwise. The anti-choice label has been treated as precisely that: an accusation of authoritarianism. It is, in turn, just a cheap method of reducing the debate to one that is rhetorically facetious.
I'm glad you came by to clarify these things. You clearly still have issues to discuss with your colleages at RHRC, but I'd say that I now have an increased understanding and sympathy for your way of thinking about these issues.
It seems like you should take that up with your editor or administrator at RHRC (whichever the case may be), as they've clearly made you like look a bit of an ass.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure I do a good enough job of that myself at times, so I can't blame my editors. ;) The matter was discussed with my editor, which is why the term doesn't show itself in my actual writing. However, they have final say on what they choose to put on their site (including the tags for the articles), and as an editor myself, I respect that.
I personally take issue with the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" labels as well. I find them to be obfuscatory and lend themseves to a debate founded on rhetoric, as opposed to fact...It is, in turn, just a cheap method of reducing the debate to one that is rhetorically facetious.
Absolutely. I think people who identify as "pro-choice" certainly value human life and want to decrease the number of abortions. I also believe that many who are "pro-life" value a woman's right to make her own choices. The current debate is a false dichotomy, which severely limits the public conversation. The issue of "choice" is complex anyhow and, in an American reproductive rights framework, assumes individual free will is not restricted by social, political, and economic conditions. In my view, individual free will is a fallacy for those whose actions are limited by such conditions (which is most Americans) and, therefore, "choice" is actually quite limited for many people.
I'm glad you came by to clarify these things.
As am I. I'm always happy to engage in respectful dialogue.
"I'm sure I do a good enough job of that myself at times, so I can't blame my editors. ;)"
ReplyDeleteWell, you sure aren't alone in that. After all, if I'd read your blogpost a little closer I may have caught on to this myself.
"I think people who identify as 'pro-choice' certainly value human life and want to decrease the number of abortions."
I think a great many -- even the majority -- would share that sentiment. However, I also see an extreme fringe of that movement (however one may want to describe it) who want to advance their cause by undermining the value of the unborn child -- something that is absolutely not conducive to respect for human life.
"The current debate is a false dichotomy, which severely limits the public conversation. The issue of 'choice' is complex anyhow and, in an American reproductive rights framework, assumes individual free will is not restricted by social, political, and economic conditions. In my view, individual free will is a fallacy for those whose actions are limited by such conditions (which is most Americans) and, therefore, 'choice' is actually quite limited for many people."
The logic in that speaks for itself.