Against pro-life groups
Anti-abortion organizations have no place on campus
As co-authors of the GA motion re: discriminatory groups, we feel obliged to respond to resistance to our motion, which has crept up through The Daily and in heated conversations across McGill. The argument with which we are often first confronted, articulated most recently by Braden Goyette in her article “Stay classy, pro-choice crowd” (Commentary, February 4), waves a disapproving finger and accuses us of “encouraging” Choose Life. If only we had let this club run its pro-life course, they would have recognized the apathy as a sign of the futility of their position.
The problem with this logic is that it requires that we, in addition to ignoring Choose Life, turn a blind eye to the harms that Choose Life’s existence perpetrates, and disregard the precarious position in which access to abortion is currently situated. By not confronting those who seek to restrict access to abortion services, we would be further legitimizing the abysmal accessibility of abortion services in northern and rural communities. To expand on the idea that the very existence of Choose Life or any other pro-life’s group existence harms women, we thought a few definitions might be helpful.
We define pro-life groups by their opposition to the accessibility of abortion services. We respect individual choice regarding abortion. We do not respect any organization, movement, or individual who tries to impose their decision regarding abortion on other people. We are not against people who believe abortion is the wrong choice for themselves; we are against people who believe abortion is the wrong choice for everybody. Abortion is an individual decision. By advocating against pro-life ideology, we are protecting each individual’s right to do what they will with their body and their right to feel supported and not judged by whatever decision they make in the end.
We understand the following to be tactics used by those opposed to abortions: the criminalization of abortion; disseminating false health information; shaming women who enter abortion clinics; exploiting post-abortive women and simplifying their experiences as a way to manipulate women dealing with unwanted pregnancies; publicly casting abortion as immoral. By making public statements or mounting public displays decrying the immorality of abortion, women are presented with a moral judgment that tries to coerce them out of having an abortion regardless of personal circumstances. Personal circumstances are the only grounds for deciding what to do with an unexpected pregnancy.
Our logic: Pro-life groups are necessarily opposed to abortion. Opposition to abortion necessarily consists of restricting women’s access to abortion services. By restricting access to abortion services, a woman’s right to decide what is best for her own body is compromised. This compromise affects more than morality: it affects a person’s health and life.
We believe that any ban on abortion targets women who do not participate in their properly gendered positions as mothers. Throughout much anti-abortion dialogue, women who seek abortions are presented as uninformed or immoral figures who are going against their natural roles as women, as mothers-to-be, to give birth and reproduce “life.” This poses serious limits to a woman’s understanding of her own sexuality and her ability to have sex outside of heteronormative, monogamous, and economically stable relationships.
Pro-life groups aim not to help women make a choice, but to promote and ultimately establish conditions wherein women are not free to have sex on their own terms, to retain sexual control over their bodies. This motion seeks a stance where women’s health is not brought under public scrutiny: protecting, not forfeiting dignity.
Liam Olson-Mayes is a U2 Women’s Studies and History student and Maddie Ritts is a U3 Cultural Studies and Political Theory student. Write them at liam.olson-mayes@mail.mcgill.ca.
Tags: This article has no tags
Bob wrote:
"Opposition to abortion necessarily consists of restricting women’s access to abortion services."
Your logic doesn't follow. It's absolutely possible to be opposed without being alienating or disrespectful. You may disagree with their inappropriate methods, but to deny them the right to express their opinions? Really?
Feb 8, 2010 at 04:07 PM
eli wrote:
Consider a student association of a public university in, say Alabama, voting on a motion to never allow student clubs on campus that hold pro-choice views. Their logic, similarly to yours ("we define pro-life..."), would be based on their own definitions. IE, they would define life and individuality as starting at conception or at some other point prior to the exit of the baby from the womb. They would thus argue that any pro-choice groups are advocating something that amounts not only to discrimination, not only to incitement to violence but even to murder itself. They would thus feel confident in the righteousness of their cause and - at any suggestion that they are stifling free-speech - would argue the same types of arguments that you and your supporters argue (speech must be exercised responsibly, no right to yell fire in a theatre, noone is preventing them from thinking or talking without club status, etc...).
I submit that if you were students at that public university in Alabama, your understanding of the issues would be very clear - you would see this exclusively as a free speech issue, you would be furious given that you too are a tuition-paying student, and you would see this as an undemocratic tyranny of the majority (democracy involves not only elections but also institutions to prevent the tyranny of the majority oppressing minorities).
I feel this same way about your endeavor. Would it not be simpler to follow the sage advice of Braden and let the crazies think and say what they want... Has history not taught you that restriction of free speech under all sorts of seemingly laudable goals ("enemy of the state", provocation, irresponsible speech, offensive speech, immoral, high treason, unpatriotic, "propaganda", "destabilization of society", )is the start of a road to serfdom.
As Noam Chomsky explains so clearly, "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."
Feb 9, 2010 at 02:36 AM
missing the point wrote:
have you ever considered that abortion access is a superficial focus and one that overlooks the most important issues?
Feb 9, 2010 at 08:57 AM
guru hoodoo wrote:
Eli's post really gets to the heart of what is objectionable about this article, but I will add a few more points. I will use "Choose Life" as a stand-in for pro-life groups in general:
"By not confronting those who seek to restrict access to abortion services, we would be further legitimizing the abysmal accessibility of abortion services in northern and rural communities."
No, not at all. You can ignore Choose Life and instead try to raise awareness about accessibility issues. Or you can argue with Choose Life and still raise awareness about whatever issue you like. What you can't do is improve abortion accessibility by banning Choose Life any more than I can replenish my orange juice by throwing out my apples.
"we are protecting each individual’s... right to feel supported and not judged by whatever decision they make in the end."
No one has this right, no matter what the issue under discussion. There are quite enough "rights" involved in this debate without inventing new ones.
"women are presented with a moral judgment that tries to coerce them out of having an abortion "
The hypocrisy of criticising the other side for making moral arguments in an article predicated on them aside, the authors need to learn what coerce means. It doesn't mean "seeks to convince." It means "force by threats or intimidation." It's hard, given the clever disingenuousness of the rest of your article, to attribute it to benign ignorance, rather than deliberate mendacity.
Feb 9, 2010 at 04:26 PM
John wrote:
Man, I am glad I live in the US, where we still uphold the human rights of free speech and freedom of expression.
Feb 9, 2010 at 11:19 PM
Amrinder Brar wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
-Amrinder Brar (U1 Computer Science)
Feb 10, 2010 at 01:19 AM
Amrinder Brar wrote:
Suppressing freedom of speech is always justified with an argument like this-- i.e. that the exercise of speech should be suppressed if it presents a danger to someone's safety. This is how oppressive regimes throughout history have justified banning certain political groups, but it is also how more so-called moderate states have justified limiting the speech of "hate" groups (e.g. racist organizations).
But it’s all about what you think constitutes endangering someone’s safety. This can range from me giving you a dirty look on the street, to me yelling “shoot” to someone pointing a gun at your head. It’s all about where you draw the line.
In the U.S. Supreme Court case I linked to above, you can see that freedom of speech in the U.S. is protected insofar as it isn’t part of imminent criminal acts—keyword being imminent. I agree with the Supreme Court in where they drew the line. But I also think it’s possible to make somewhat of a compelling argument that the line should be drawn prior to that point. In the case of pro-life groups, I’m sure you could make the argument that if such a group were calling on people to bomb abortion clinics, it would be putting people’s lives in danger to allow these views to be expressed. But what the authors of this motion have done is say that even the existence of a group that calls itself “pro-life” constitutes a threat to the safety of women. I guess it’ll be up to the members of the assembly tomorrow to judge whether this is a bit of a stretch or not.
-Amrinder Brar (U1 Computer Science)
Feb 10, 2010 at 02:22 AM
Christopher Nardi wrote:
This is most probably the least effective pro-choice article I have ever read in my life. Not only, as the many comments before mine have stated, does the removal of free-speech help one's cause, but it removes the possibility for women to fully understand both sides of the equation, which we must concede can be a very important one. First of all, you write than women are exposed to pro-life arguments that, to you, seem morally unjustifiable. I can see where you're coming from....if you completely disagree with pro-life people. What doesn't seem to be understood is that when women go to pregnancy centers, they fully know what's expecting them: pro-life arguments, and yet they still go there willingly. If a woman wants to know why she should have an abortion, she can turn to her doctor, but if she decides to visit a crisis pregnancy clinic, it's because she's fully aware that she has options, and wants to know what they are, regardless of her final choice. By removing pro-life groups, you seem to desire to remove the other side of the debate completely, leaving women in need of counseling worse off, because not they are no allowed to make a fully educated choice.
Furthermore, what is claimed in the last paragraph is completely appalling. "Pro-life groups aim not to help women make a choice, but to promote and ultimately establish conditions wherein women are not free to have sex on their own terms, to retain sexual control over their bodies." I really REALLY don't understand how pro-life groups do ANYTHING to influence a woman's decision regarding sexual preferences. First of all, pro-life groups are not at all pro-abstinence groups, although i'm sure some members of them are abstinent, their agenda has nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING to do with sexual practices. So if what I understand is right, a woman having completely unprotected sex during her fertile period and doesn't expect to have at least a SMALL chance of getting pregnant is a valid sexual practice? This turns abortion into a contraceptive method, and that, is completely unacceptable for the mother, but also, and let's not forget that there are two parts of this debate, the CHILD who is conceived!
-Christopher Nardi (U1 Political Science and International Development Studies)
Feb 10, 2010 at 10:21 AM
J.A.P. wrote:
Pro-life here. Catholic even, so that means I think you're all sinning by having extra-marital intercourse and using contraception. Yep. Both evil, the way I see. Oh, abortion too. Yeah...How are you supposed to have any fun? Deal with it.
Sure, I can't stop you from having random monkey sex (hardly anyone's bleeding "right"); though I would like to see condoms and the pill taxed like they do with the tobacco I quite enjoy, at least.
On the other hand I sure would like to see direct procured abortion acknowledged by law for the scourge it really is: morally reprehensible and in no circumstance justifiable. Anyone who defends such a choice, and thinks himself "nice", is practicing false compassion before an audience of women who are slaves to their sex-drives, brainwashed with the pernicious doctrines of ultra-feminism.
I do not count myself among those who truly believe in "free speech" as an absolute right. I see its merits when it suits the truth, and when it suits the common good; but it is clear to me that such liberty can and has been abused by YOU, who claim to be its guardians. I hope more pro-life people on campus make statements like this. We don't give a damn for your "choice" rhetoric. All choices are personal, but the only one that seems beyond reproach is abortion. And you're full of it.
Choose Life have been very cordial with you brutes - you bullies! Thank God I am not directly involved, or president, for while I believe in pragmatism and diplomacy, I also believe in being rude and blunt when I need to be. I hope someone calls you all out, eloquently but with enthusiasm, on your serious failure at defending what it is your duty to defend. And no, not the fake right to abortion, Devils!
Abortion should be illegal; and people, both women AND men, should have to live with the choices they make without having to kill their way out of it. This is the view of anyone who is consistent with their ethics pertaining to life/death.
Those women who cried because of Choose Life's events need counseling, and warm attention. Unfortunately YOU are standing in the way of healing. We will fight tooth and nail so that both babies AND women who are hurting because of some stupid, wrong choice they made can have a future. (And don't give me that crap about how our approach is violent. You haven't even begun to define that word. Moreover any psychologist will tell you that before one can get better mentally, he/she needs to accept what happened to them. And that ain't always pretty.)
You may be successful in driving the pro-life voice on university campus. That's fine by me. When the world at large has been made sane once more, your frail community of puerile opinions and rhetoric will whither.
Feb 10, 2010 at 08:56 PM
Rachelle wrote:
What a revealing letter: pro-choice really means pro-abortion. Glad you brought the hypocracy out of the closet.
Women have the right to bear children. They have the right NOT to get abortions. And they have the right to get public support for their decision not to abort even if their boyfriends, husband's, employers, mothers and the rest of the pro-aborts don't like it.
That is why it is important that there is a public debate on the morality of the choices that we make. Because the right to bear children under conditions of adversity, which are those faced by the majority of undergraduate women, is made possible only by the room for a moral position created by the Pro-Life movement and by the Catholic Church and other groups that refuse abortion on moral grounds. Without them, the pressure to abort would be overwhelming.
There is no need to be militant to outlaw the right to abortion. The Russians are thinking of doing just that, only because their population is slated to shrink by half within 40 years and they don't have enough fertile young people to reverse the trend. The pro-abortion position is not sustainable in the long term and will collapse under its own weight.
Until then, the bullying needs to stop. No one should be coerced into supporting abortion if they think it is the wrong thing to do. Kudos to the BC Civil Liberties Union who is threatening to bring the U of Vic students union copy-cat bullies to court.
The actions of the McGill pro-aborts have brought shame upon the institution. It is time to restore free debate on population and individual choices and restore the full rights of McGill Chose Life.
Feb 12, 2010 at 11:47 AM
We've switched commenting systems. Please scroll to the bottom of the article, where you can now log in and respond to this story.