As Amanda reminds us here and here, the notion of a reasoned debate, of consensus morality, of civilized human interaction vanishes and is impossible to recover when the “conversation” takes place with a gun in the room. There are no proponents of state-mandated birth, no matter how deep their armchairs, that can claim a non-violent stand. Besides whispering a prayer when an honorable and compassionate human being is murdered, they also dedicate their time, money, and social clout to electing anti-choice “conservatives.”
This act is both cowardly and aggressive. Pro-forced birth proponents may not be willing to kick in a door, interrupt a medical procedure and incarcerate a woman until she gives birth against her will. They would, however, clap with psychotic glee as the police point guns at women to ’save unborn lives.’
How can anybody imagine that “common ground” can be found between people seeking the most basic recognition of their humanity and a throng of mystics begging and pleading for the state to enforce their preference that women bear children at all costs and against their will? Can anyone expect a reasoned debate about the moral nature of anything when one side is willing to detain, imprison or kill the other and those that aid them?
Anti-choice’ers take cover behind the illusion of civil discourse in an attempt to hide the barbaric means that they employ. They are given a pass because they do not pull the trigger themselves but “vote” for others to point the guns.
The spokespeople for the anti-choice movement cannot condemn outright the actions of a lunatic who murders a doctor. That is exactly the penalty they want imposed if a doctor refuses to obey their preferences.
Just to be clear, the violence you’re talking about is the risk to the woman’s body from carrying a baby to term, right? Because if it’s about directing police against people, support of any law in a society with law enforcement is support of violence.
There are dangerous fanatics among the anti-abortion, yes. Dr. Tiller’s murder made that more clear than ever. But I don’t think it’s helpful to conclude, as you do in this post, that all people in that movement are violent and psychotic. I’m pro-choice, but I was raised Catholic, so maybe I have more experience than many cradle liberals do with the calmer more rational anti-abortion movement. Most “pro-life” folks I grew up with expressed their views in the voting booth, or by donating money to pro-life candidates, or for the most hardcore, going to the annual march in D.C. — that is, through civil means, not violent ones.
I’m not defending the content of their beliefs. I’m not even saying that we should waste too much effort finding common ground with those people who truly disagree entirely. (There are, however, people who are anti-abortion but pro-contraception — perhaps we might find common ground with those groups/people). I’m just saying that they’re not all wild-eyed gunmen, and implying that they are seems intellectually dishonest.
“Because if it’s about directing police against people, support of any law in a society with law enforcement is support of violence.”
Yup, and if you disagree with one law, I’ll say it’s 100% that there are multiple other laws you agree with that also involve using police to restrain people from doing something they see as good, right, and not harmful to other people.
I thought this the other day but didn’t comment since I saw the original post as angry venting — perfectly justified under the circumstances.
I think Jad is indeed suggesting that the violent enforcement of laws does not produce justice so much as violent oppression. Particularly so when the laws disproportionately affect people who are already subjects of oppression and marginalization.
I’d suggest your percentages are a bit off.
[...] my last post, lo these many weeks ago, I noted Amanda’s mind-blowing insight regarding the creation [...]