Does the abortion debate reveal what some people really think about women?

seenitall wrote: »

Er... sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one.

And, be extension, sometimes it isn't.

Italy and Spain, although traditionally Catholic, are a good bit further along regarding women's rights. Ireland is only lagging behind a bit, that's all, as for historical and geographical reasons, the religion's grip has been tighter on this country than on the aforementioned ones.

My take would be different, in that the matter here is one of political conservatism i.e. the political class in Ireland are pretty conservative and it tends to be a family business. The truth is the abortion issue is still fairly contentious no matter where you travel. If we take the States as an example, had Roe vs Wade come before a different Supreme Court we may well have seen a completely different outcome. Say what you like about the states but they have a strong legislative and if the Supreme Court makes a ruling it tends to stick.

Were you to put the matter to a straight popular vote in the States abortion might well be repealed. Were you to rule for it on state by state basis you would likely see a red-blue divide.

Abortion has often been rolled in as a result of the political action of one person or party and not necessarily as a reflection of the will of the people. In Ireland, this has not been the case, as the matter is considered worthy of a referendum, and as such change has been slower. In addition, we have a fairly weak legislative here, meaning that even where we have voted or instructions have been received from the European courts, nothing has changed.

This is all just a different explanation for the same result - I don't really buy your "loss of power for men" argument - though I don't think it's really any less obvious than the explanation you have provided.

seenitall wrote: »

What is fairly obvious to me (in fact practically jumping out at me, while considering the issue with all the logic I can muster) may not seem at all obvious to you.

And, by implication, there is no "most obvious" explanation.

Earthhorse wrote: »

And, by implication, there is no "most obvious" explanation.

I thought I made it clear that IMV it's a matter of perspective/opinion, therefore, obviously, I disagree...

That's lovely to know, but the Gender Gap overall (whatever is encompassed, I don't have time to study the link ATM) may not necessarily coincide with women's rights (as in the case of Ireland).

Or am I alone in considering reproductive rights (i.e. the right to access a safe and legal abortion) a women's rights issue?

seenitall wrote: »

I thought I made it clear that IMV it's a matter of perspective/opinion, therefore, obviously, I disagree...

I am not too sure what you are confused about. It is obvious (there's that word again!) when discussing matters such as this that what we're posting are our opinions. In the course of the debate I pointed out some flaws in your explanation to which you said.

seenitall wrote: »

Er... sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one.

Obviously (:pac:) you are trying to conflate obviousness with correctness and also implying that your opinion is the "most obvious". That isn't really a counterargument and I'm just pointing that out (your points on Italy and Spain, though I don't agree with them, are counterarguments).

I'm not trying to get hung up on this; I'm happy, as you are, to agree to disagree on the matter, I'm not that vested in changing your mind.

It does bring me neatly onto the point I want to make though, which luckily happens to be far more on topic in any event.

Whenever we argue we have a subjective bias toward the point we are making and it often manifests itself in the way we present our argument including, but not limited to, the words we use. We choose the best words to describe our own points of view and the worst to describe our opponent's. Our arguments (and I am not having a go here, seenitall, I readily admit I do this myself and possibly have even already done so on this thread) are "obvious", "natural", "simple" (not simplistic), "coherent" etc. These words have strict literal definitions, of course, but they also come with an emotional weight that implies "good" or "correct".

These are at the lower end of the scale and tend not to steer discussions of course.

However, the more emotionally invested we are in a debate, the more this predisposition escalates. In particular, it escalates with regard to our portrayal of our opponent's points of view, which are "stupid", "crazy", "irrational", "old fashioned" etc. This has rather more consequences; whereas before we were being kind to ourselves now are being mean to someone else. This results in them being wound up and - unless they are able to check themselves - returning the favour. In short, it is the end of the debate and the start of the argument.

So, any discussion cum argument, can show us a lot about the temperance of a person's character and the quality of their thinking.

Why then, is abortion more illustrative of this than other arguments i.e. why are people more emotionally invested in it?

The answer is because no matter where you lie on the issue, it is a moral one.

Morals aren't a uniquely human thing but we do have a strong attachment to them. We can get upset over abstract concepts such as injustice because of our abilities to abstract and empathise (hence, we can feel sad and even outraged when a fictional character dies in an unfair manner).

For extreme Pro Lifers, the abortion debate is a moral issue because they believe life begins at conception, an ultimately arbitrary point, and due to the primacy of the right to life, there can be no quarter given to the woman, regardless of any danger to her health, of whether she was raped or the foetus's chances of survival. They believe that anyone who thinks otherwise is essentially supporting a woman's right to murder and that all women who make the decision to abort do so with ease and without remorse. Please note I am talking about extreme pro lifers here.

For extreme Pro Choicers, the abortion debate is a moral issue because of the woman's right to bodily integrity, and because of the primacy of this right, and their belief that life does not begin until birth (if they didn't believe this they would have to accept a conflict between the rights accompanying this life and the woman's right to bodily integrity), an equally arbitrary point, and therefore no quarter should be given to the foetus because it is "just a clump of cells". They believe that anyone who thinks otherwise is interested solely in controlling women, through this restriction of rights, is a misogynist, and believes what they believe not because they have thought through the issues but because their religion told them to. Please note I am talking about extreme pro choicers here.

Then there is the vast, vast middle ground - though you would never think it were you to follow the debate online or in the media - which is split between more moderate Pro Lifers and Pro Choicers; the abortion debate is a moral issue for them because they believe there are two important rights in conflict - the woman's right to bodily integrity and the right of a life to that life. Due to the vast array of differing viewpoints in this bracket they are a far harder group to pin down.

They believe that life begins at some point during pregnancy, though they accept that any given point they choose is essentially arbitrary. They believe that there are women for whom abortion is a difficult decision they may struggle to come to terms with for the rest of their life and others for whom the decision is clear and correct from day one and any amount of women in between. They have no wish to control women, either through restrictions on their reproductive rights, or by any other means but they accept that there must be a cut off point for abortions i.e. that the foetus's right to life must supersede the woman's right to abort, provided her life is not at risk, at some point during pregnancy. In short, they do not believe the issue is black and white, nor that people who do not agree with them on a particular point are capable of being pigeon holed in that manner, and are more capable, though often incapable, of having complex discussions on the issue without demonising others.

So you can tell a lot about what an extremist thinks about women because to them women are no more than a pawn in a debate and neatly fit into their one-size-fits-all world. For the middle ground you can tell what they think about women because they are capable of thinking of them as just that - women, with multiple and differing, opinions, beliefs and experiences - and not fitting neatly into a label of self-hating or self-serving. Of course, middle grounders may well have dim opinions on women which you'll be able to tell from the language they use in describing them as would be the case in any other discussion.

pwurple wrote: »

This makes no sense to me. Plenty of strong pro-life people are also christian. Are there not an absolute plethora of christian charities dedicated to just what you suggest? Helping those in hard times with housing, clothes, food, education, etc. St Vincent De Paul and all the rest.

Materially, yes, but I'd say it's possible to survive on state benefits etc if it's really necessary. The pro-lifers (I'm not going to say Christians, because there are plenty of people who are religious and pro-choice, as well as pro-lifers who are not Christian or not at all religious) are not around to help a mother who is in pain after giving birth and has to look after a new baby on her own, they won't take every second night feed or be there to help her when the baby is crying all day. Or even going past that, she's on her own worrying about if her child is being bullied, or hates school, or anything else that parents have to deal with in raising their kids. Pro-birth might be a better term than pro-life...

Rereading that, it comes off as a bit extreme. I do understand that some people are against abortion. I can entirely understand why, and I'm not sure what I'd do if I were faced with the decision. But I think an awful lot of the debate focuses on the pregnancy and birth, like once the child is born the difficult bit is over. It's not, and adoption may not be an option for everyone.

pwurple wrote: »

You mention adoption as an aside, but I know 4 couples personally who would be utterly utterly delighted to adopt a child. They are approved by the irish adoption board, but have to go abroad to find someone. They would be overjoyed to look after all the night feeds, all the worry for school, every second of it. I don't understand why the adoption rate is so low here now.

Don't get me wrong, I know very well how hard pregnancy can be, and it can even be life threatening in some cases. but why on earth is adoption not even considered as an option anymore? Why? There are open adoptions, and all sorts of options there too.

You don't know why?
Please talk to some women who have given a child up for adoption.
It very often haunts them forever.
They can never make peace with the fact that somebody else is raising their child. It is not as simple as enduring a pregnancy.
I know a couple who wanted to do the night feeds too..and the school worries. My parents. They did it. I ended up having an amazing privileged life because of them...but why is that all people see? What about the birth mother and what she has to live with? Why does nobody think about her? Everyone seems to love this idea of a happy ending. It's a happy ending for me and for my parents...but the next time you trot out the adoption angle...please think about the woman who will live with it for the rest of her days.

I'm not surprised that people have such low opinions of women, its hardly new. When it comes to all aspects of sex women are judged. I have direct experience of that being a young unmarried mother at one point, people look at you and make assumptions about your character. No one made those assumptions of my partner despite him also being a young, unmarried parent.

You can't win, you get pregnant and choose abortion your heartless and cruel and all the other worse things I won't print here, keep the baby and you are a scrounger or doing it to get a house. You can't win!!!

Re abortion I can see a definate judgement of women but mainly towards young, single women. I post a lot on a parenting board and have told my own abortion story there and have met mostly understanding but I think people assume because I was married and therefore "respectable" that my decision was a tragic one. I don't think it was any different to any other woman's decision but I'm sure if I had said I was single and it was the result of a one night stand I would have faced a different attitude.

People look on adoption differently but I think thats becasue any baby put up for adoption here will be lucky enough to find a family, put an older child into the care system and you're judged. Would people think a woman who gives up a toddler for example to be great? I doubt it.

Back to the op....I think it might be cultural thing in Ireland and it is related to a culture of deference that we have.... you do not get it in the UK, for example a woman ( or a man ) speaking up and demanding a good or even a great services is seen at best as cranky or a nuisance there is almost an expectation that you should be grateful for any medical services.

pwurple wrote: »

And abortion doesn't?

That you would even try to compare the two shows how little you understand about it.

Candie wrote: »

I was giving a personal opinion, not speaking on behalf of all society, recommending adoption as a preferable alternative to abortion, or otherwise judging anyone who either had an abortion, put a child up for adoption or moved to the states to be a topless model.

Its extraordinary that expressing a fairly pedestrian opinion has garnered the reaction it has.




And that may be the case. But if a mother gives up a child in the clear belief its in that childs best interest, I don't see why commending that act is a controversial opinion.

I would agree, I wouldn't judge any woman who gives up a child but I think in general society sees women as nurturers, we are expected to have this unbreakable bond with our children that giving them up is seen as a flaw on the part of the woman rather than a reaction to her circumstances.

It doesn't even have to be as drastic as adoption, women are judged for leaving their children to work, to go off on holidays with the girls, I've seen women whose relationships break up being judged for having left their children in the custody of their fathers.....society makes an assumption that children belong with their mothers and that if that woman takes extended time away from her kids even if its done in their best interests that she is somehow at fault.