And with that I bid PBs a fine farewell. But first…
I have to admit I’m impressed with the nerve, the gall, the chutzpah, the unmitigated, brass-plated, gold-gilded, steel-belted BALLS of the disingenuous pricks defending the idea that Motion 312 might be a pretty cool, or at least not too bad, idea. While I have no desire to revisit the Progs vs Progs donnybrook, there is something that’s come up in the course of the altercation that I’d like to set straight, which is the way Dr. Morgentaler has been misrepresented by some of the, uh, “Motion 312 isn’t such a bad idea” bloggers, aka “disingenuous pricks”.
These guys (and gals) fell all over themselves to quote Dr. Morgentaler’s remark about having ethical issues with late term abortion:
Morgentaler said he has concerns about late-term abortions.
“We don’t abort babies, we want to abort fetuses before they become babies,” Morgentaler said from his Toronto clinic.
— as if Dr.M’s private, personal opinion on this extremely rare procedure (an opinion which, interestingly, he somehow restrains himself from imposing on others) means it’s okay to have a public debate about the possibility of Open Season on Abortion Rights. Worse yet, and this is where the stench of duplicity rises like putrid swamp gas, they ignore the all-important follow up quote — from the same interview, no less:
Morgentaler said he does not see a need for rules on late abortions, despite his personal ethical opposition to them.
“DOES. NOT. SEE. A. NEED. FOR. RULES.” Whoopsie.
Yet when I pointed this out to a couple of the bloggers who were using the first quote to intimate that “Even Morgentaler Himself!” might favour restricting abortion… *crickets*
Now I am the last person to question anyone’s “progressive” cred, since my own is routinely beaten like a gong, rode hard and put away wet. “Progressive cred” has never been my issue with this thing as much as… The Lying. Such as insinuating that women are having late term abortions Right Up Until The Moment of Birth!! because we have OMFGWTF NO LAW!. Such as omitting little factoids about Dr.Morgentaler’s views that don’t fit the desired narrative.
“Pro-life” I can handle. Pro-lie, not so much.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://i0.wp.com/www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/tny_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://i0.wp.com/www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
unrepentant old hippie 
It basically boils down to these folks didnt meet your or some others absolutist standard on what you feel pro-choice means (neither called for any abolition of abortion. One felt there should be some limits on last trimester, the other was more concerned with a journalist being civil in questioning the CPC guy).
I find the anti-choice progressive tag you’re using on here to be disengenuious to the extreme. You folks could have engaged them to tell them why they were wrong.. but no.. you wanted us to get rid of them because they didnt meet ehat your standard of a progressive on abortion was..
Well sorry.. but I dont believe (and neither did the others) in such stringent litmus tests. I’m also sorry you need to go, but I’ll do so.
‘Shrill’ here, or is it ”shriller’? (See Tribe’s comment there.)
Hey, JJ, the Vicious Abortion Crusaders ride again,eh?
I disagree, Scott. I and some others went to Scott Ross’ blog to tell him why we thought he was missing the whole point of the debate and we were rebuffed. In the days, week, that followed, things only got worse. Our concern with a human rights issue being questioned was treated as “shrieking banshees” wailing at was nothing more than a “touchy topic”.
Please try to juxtapose that over recent racist altercations in the US. Do you really feel that progressive bloggers should be advocating for the rights of entitled white men? Do you think Jackson and Sharpton are “schrieking banshees” and that they are only up in arms over a “touchy topic”?
Give your collective heads a shake. We women in Canada had a Supreme Court that was reasonable and understood the meaning of rights when they granted us full autonomy over our bodies as our rights as humans. Any talk about limiting our rights is as outrageous as any talk of limiting the rights of minority groups.
Fuck off, Tribe! Your interpretation, as usual when it comes to feminism, is wrong.
Scott, with all due respect, I didn’t see anyone insisting that you ban or get rid of anyone. If you can provide an example of such a demand, I’ll reconsider.
As I suggested to Peladiea yesterday, however, you might have taken a somewhat less drastic approach. While I can’t speak for anyone else, I would have applauded a simple reiteration of the basic principle that reproductive autonomy isn’t up for debate, and that that’s a fundamental point of agreement among people who consider themselves progressive.
It’s bad enough that such hard-won rights are under attack from the lizard-brains. It’s that much worse to hear this crap from people supposedly on the progressive side.
Normally, i would exercise caution at appealing to a slippery slope here, but what I am discovering is that the pro-life movement have expanded in their approaches to this topic. You now have an overall discussion that will oscillate amongst a variety of different premises: Discussions on rights, legal and philosophical debates on what defines a “person,” and then, the biological definitions. I purposefully left out religion because now, there is a shift away from declaring pro-life positions based solely on religious and theological considerations. Thus, what you have now are devoutly Catholic medical doctors citing as much corroborating authority and medical journal articles in one breath while quoting Christopher Hitchens as proof that Pro-life positions are not largely based on religious views. It is only at the end in which you have the insertion of a theological point of view, which also doubly serves as a legal proposition.
One example I can recall is that one pro-life supporter wrote a lengthy, oft-cited response to someone who called him out in trying to affix the “pro-abortion” label as if it were an accurate description of pro-choice (this was because, according to him, pro-choice advocates significantly downplayed the medical consequences of abortions, though I have found it excessively rare to see any pro-choice advocate be really enthusiastic about abortion at the expense of its risk). It was only until end, after citing what he believed to be medical evidence and athiests declaring their pro-life bone fides that he asserted abortions should be illegal even in the case of incest because an ‘injustice should not cover another injustice.’ Setting aside the difficulty of addressing the eternal “is vs ought” problem when bringing in biological premises in discussing legal rights, you can probably see the challenge here. The increasing multi-dimensionality of the debate allows for the easy interchange between biological, legal, or philosophical considerations. This then becomes pretty seductive as it legitimizes the reification of the internal conflicts of those in the “mushy middle,” as they become understood as extensions of the actual biological and legal world. Add that to the counter-reactionary populism (because you know there will always be someone complaining about how womens rights is evidence of the stranglehold of feminism), and you get a whole new and increasing intractably challenging field of debate. I would even be as reckless as to assert that this may be just the beginning of an incremental reopening of the abortion debate where such public musings will occur wilth slightly more frequency largely because I cannot see the Pro-life constituency receding any time soon.
Men have no place in the discussion. Full fucking stop.
Tribe, if you are male (it’s always hard to know online) you have one thing in play here now.
Your ego.
How precious it must be to you.
Jeebus! I had no idea (I’ve been busy with moving and all) First of all JJ I didn’t know you were on PB’s for you to quit it, I guess I stopped going there way back in the Can we haz a Feminist Blog, lord that was ages ago. And now this? But do you mean to tell me, your leaving the blogosphere or just
PB’s? That’s all I need to know, your voice must still go on. Motion 312 – To give a fetus rights, takes away the right of the actual woman which makes that anti-women, which makes that anti-progressive. That’s the rub for Liberals I guess.
Motion 312 is very similar to many bills making their way in the states. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realise that they are the thin edge of the wedge in an effort to limit or deny a woman’s access to abortion. What the “we need a law” crowd does not realise is that the Collage of Physicians and Surgeons has their own rules and guidelines when it comes to abortion.
Hmmm…quite the ‘brood’ you have here, jj…
As I told my Philosophy prof when he questioned my postulating that men had no right to even participate in discussions of women’s reproductive rights, if men could get pregnamt, birth control would be a sacrament and termination a sacred duty…yes, someone else came up with the original (bastardized here) quote, but you get my drift..if Scott’s knickers are in a twist..so sorry, but not even your argument to nitpick…
My $0.02
http://deadwildroses.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/progressive-on-abortion/
Hi Scott
No, they certainly don’t meet my absolutist standards on abortion, and probably on a lot of other things as well. Normally I wouldn’t care: Gordie routinely goes off on a tangent about women merrily aborting right up until the moment of birth!, and I just 🙄
I only wish that in this case they had exercised a little diplomacy.
If one is to take the position that this little “debate” (about my rights) is an okay thing, that’s kind of a slap in the face in itself, but I could let it slide. If that’s how they feel it’s certainly their right to express it. But I would have thought that given the sensitive nature of the issue, and given that the “debate” (about my rights) is almost upon us, maybe some consultation with those of us who oppose the “debate” would have been appropriate before engaging the blather gear and throwing anti-choicers into paroxysms of ecstasy.
FWIW, I never expected anyone to get the boot. There are other ways to respond to this kind of thing that probably would have de-escalated everyone.
Anyway, I appreciate the work you do for PBs, certainly a thankless task at best. But I haven’t felt comfortable there for awhile for various reasons, and this was kind of the last straw.
Oh, I’ll still be here 😛 😈 😯
I can’t stop blogging again, I missed the emoticons too much the last time
The idea that women & doctors could make these kinds of decisions without the long hairy arm of the State intervening is anathema to these idiots. I really get a kick out of how they justify it by saying “We have laws for everything else!” Exactly, so let’s get another stupid useless regressive law. Why not?? 🙄
Brood, ha 😆
That old saw is very true. But I can’t imagine a guy being able to deal with having cramps, let alone pregnancy & labour. (or maybe it’s just the ones I hang out with 😛 )
I was just there about 1/2 an hour ago & left my imprimatur on your post (rude of me, I know)
W00T!
A lot of people just don’t consider this a big deal.
As for “shrieking banshees” 😆 😆 😆 Yikes
“Men have no place in the discussion. Full fucking stop.”
Phew. Sure am glad I got the directive before having the gall to comment.
Hi B
I won’t presume to speak for Dana, but most people when they say that kind of thing are referring to anti-choice men. It would be more than a little foolish to alienate half the population and what are some of our best allies, pro-choice men.