Friday, 30 May 2014

On Those Who Missed Getting the Memo on Abortion Being Settled - Maybe*

I'm sticking this here because the comment box on the post before said, oh nooo, you're not running on in *this* spot.

The desired, concrete outcome of "This Is Eviltm" 'debate' on willful biological intervention in human pregnancy aka abortion, (and this is my cynical observation) is for one In-group to be privileged over others. 'Debate' is what happens when unilateral Commands aren't possible. Misinforming 'Debate' still allows stoking the sexual and Out-group fears in authoritarian followers (google: Bob Altemeyer Authoritarians) and bolsters a power base that too often unquestioningly supports against the defined Enemy Other.

Human zygote abortion as the topic for inciting Fear is incidental to authoritarian stoking. It's simply an emotional appeal that has the highest profile at this moment in time for this society. Miscegenation, LGBT, minorities based on sex, colour, creed, poverty aid, have been, can and are all slotted into the same framing.

Over and over such Tribal Fear topics are a test of control of society by the powerful using the powerless as political voodoo dolls. How many pins can you stick in a subject before someone that affects your pocketbook starts feeling pain? Everyone in recorded history *knows* this, which is why, slowly, over the eons, societal agreements, aka Laws of the Land have been developed to offset ,or at least momentarily balk, the human desire to scapegoat the ‘uncivilized’ Other out-group.

Human abortion as a hot button for Othering still works because there is empowering benefit to the groups doing the Othering. In Canada at the moment, such groups have lost State empowerment to exploit abortion Fear, but they're still monetarily benefiting as ‘private’ organizations and obviously hoping to re-up the political benefit because of the free media influence piped in from fellow travellers in the U.S. (and I wouldn’t doubt substantial monies piped in from the US efforts. The usual American suspects are quite openly exporting anti-abortion influence to other countries – which makes me laugh when Harper waves his hands hepwesswy about how he can’t do nothin’ but birthin’ them babies.)

"Respecting" aka uncritically coddling, historically privileged religious In-Group *feelings* (and honestly, I don’t give a crap about so-called ‘secular’ arguments against abortion when they’re the same atrociously awful arguments with the rosary filed off plus religious people helping to found the ‘athiest’ groups) is being asked to enable them to maintain their societal image privilege without cost or scrutiny. Handy for them. Not so handy for anyone challenging them.

Of *course* religious leaders don’t want to give up social status of pseudo-legislators and have to come down and live in parity with the rest of Canada’s civilians, who they helpfully label as murdering savages at every turn.

But let’s presume for a moment that we all go ’’’oh golly gosh, these religious folks with their feelings and faux-facts, their divinely revealed morality is superior and we now ban abortion after 20 weeks’’’. Is that going to satisfy them? History and present examples say FUCK NO. A complete ban on abortion? FUCK NO. Because this isn’t about abortion. Complete ban on medical contraceptives? FUCK NO. Because this isn’t about contraceptionwhichreallyisabortionreally. Enforced investigation into miscarriages? FUCK NO. Because this isn’t about induced miscarriages. Pregnant humans imprisoned to force pregnancy to term? FUCK NO because, really, it's about NO FUCK (until we, your moral overlords tell you it's ok...sorta...if you don't enjoy it too much...and we can punish you for it at whim...but don't look behind the curtain).

'Debating' abortion as Badddd, has so far been about control over human beings by an In-group, exploiting the primal biology of our species to set up Group-Betrayal Guilt. Whatever accessions given unaccountable In-Groups, recorded history sez the leaders thereof will *always* demand MORE. It doesn’t matter how irrational and inconsistent the demands are because that's not a bug, it's a feature. The more irrational the demand, the better, because acceding to such signifies the level of control achieved over large groups. Once fearful followers surrender the standard of evidenced truth, they are more and more unquestioningly vulnerable to obeying any demand made by an authority. And if the leaders grant *some* of the fearful followers *some* authority over what are now the even less empowered, obedience becomes invested with privilege and divides what opposition might arise.

“Pro-aborts” are not standing against just the invasion of uterus owners’ autonomy. They are standing against irrational demands upon a population, fought on a specific battleground of under-empowered women’s bodies. Gender-identified women, especially Not-White women (and for disempowered Bingo, those who are also disabled *and* sexually queer ) are factually and universally the least empowered and least prioritized members of human societies. Their bodies, their legal enfranchisement, are historically the testing ground for ‘stealth’ *and ‘dirty bomb’ social control.

If anyone wanting to ‘debate’ the human species' biological event called abortion has motives that, once stripped of hand wringing and pseudo-lie-nce, don’t rapidly curve around to authoritarian strangers' objectification and control of women’s bodies and their collateral existence to benefit a privileged, unaccountable few, that would be a new one on me.

/*edited for not noticing my edit to the title didn't take first time


Anonymous said...

dear Janet:
I just stumbled across your page,while I was looking for more info about Mike Schouten the guy over at "we need a law".I am some what shocked at how pasionate you write about this topic. Are you sure you have looked at this from every possible angle,eg. are you not concerned about what abortion is doing to the feminist movement. I am sometimes more concerned that the christian right has not been frank enough with you.Your completely out of touch if you think they are interested in your private unmentionables,The majority beleives if they just let you wallow in your own froth sooner or later you will expire of your own cause. If you would like some advice I'd be more than willing to help.

fern hill said...

@Anonymous: That's not bad parody of the illiteracy and irrationality of the anti-choice movement.

Try again if you like. We appreciate humour and satire here.

Niles said...

Dear Anonymous,

I'm not drunk enough to comprehend your comment.

PS: My name's not Janet. There is no one named Janet here. You might want to google the phrase and also the meaning of the word 'majority'. I do not think it means what you think it means. I look forward to your advice should you stumble back here.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but this has so much jargon in it that it a little hard for me to comprehend. Also, seems like your "FUCK NO" paragraph falls under the slippery slope fallacy.

Niles said...

Dear Anonymous 2,

For definitions of 'jargon', I would recommend Google.

For falling under the 'slippery slope' fallacy, maybe you have a different definition of that fallacy. There's no slope involved here, as all of the punishments given as FUCK NO examples of extreme control of women's bodies have already occurred in allegedly 'civilized' countries, including the U.S. Some people think 'The Handmaid's Tale' is an instruction manual.

Post a Comment