Category: abortion

Grania explains today’s Irish referendum on abortion

May 25, 2018 • 8:30 am

Today Ireland is at last holding a referendum on abortion. Grania, who of course lives in that country, explains it to us concisely:

Today Ireland is holding a referendum to poll whether the people wish to repeal the 8th amendment. Here’s some background.

Article 40.3.3, known as the Eighth Amendment, was voted into the Irish Constitution by referendum in 1983. The amendment states: “The state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.:

The amendment equates the life of a pregnant woman with that of an embryo or foetus, and has created an unworkable distinction between a pregnant woman’s life and her health.

The amendment was set in place specifically and deliberately to prevent abortion in Ireland. As a direct result, pregnant women were denied life-saving medical interventions if such interventions could interfere with the health of the fetus. In addition to this, it meant that nobody could obtain abortion under any circumstance—not rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities.

Women in Ireland have only one option, to travel to the UK where they could obtain an abortion—dependent of course on whether they are physically or financially able to do so.

In 1992, Ireland held a referendum to try to ban women from travelling outside of Ireland to obtain an abortion. Fortunately, this attempt failed and Ireland was left with the hypocritical, dangerous and bizarre position of having condoned abortion so long as it happens outside of the country’s borders.

The need for the referendum is because the Irish Constitution cannot be amended unless ratified by a simple majority.

The effect of the referendum is only to repeal the Eighth Amendment. Later legislation will have to be enacted. Currently proposed legislation would allow for unlimited abortion up to 12 weeks, and afterwards only for medical reasons.

Grania will report tomorrow on the outcome, but people are hopeful it will pass. The Catholic Church, of course, is weighing in heavily on the “no repeal” side, but polls show that more than 50% of voters are in favor of repeal.  I am heartened by the many people on Twitter supporting the repeal. This one, in particular, warmed my heart: these people all met at the airport; they were independently returning to Ireland just to vote:

Grania found these tweets and pictures; three Twitter hashtags are Together for YES, Repeal the Eighth, and Home to Vote (see also here).

AP stylebook tweaks language in a political direction

July 14, 2017 • 12:45 pm

There’s an article at The Hill (a nonpartisan site) by Rachel Alexander (a conservative writer) about the increasing politicization of language in an influential writing guide: “How the AP Stylebook censors ‘pro-life’ and other conservative words.” Her thesis is that the Stylebook is subtly changing its guidelines for journalists so as to favor a liberal agenda–all by using terms favored by the Left.

The stylebook is well known and influential; as Wikipedia notes:

. . . the AP Stylebook, is an English grammar style and usage guide created by American journalists working for or connected with the Associated Press over the last century to standardize mass communications. Although it is sold as a guide for reporters, it has become the leading reference for most forms of public-facing corporate communication over the last half-century. The Stylebook offers a basic reference to grammar, punctuation and principles of reporting, including many definitions and rules for usage as well as styles for capitalization, abbreviation, spelling and numerals.

. . . Writers in broadcasting, magazine publishing, marketing departments and public relations firms traditionally adopt and apply AP grammar and punctuation styles. Over the last 50 years, the AP Stylebook has become a leading style for non-journalistic publishers such as corporate marketing and public relations departments. Its simplified grammar, such as dropping the Oxford comma and using figures for all numbers above nine, saves scarce print and web space.

Here are the areas where, according to Alexander, language has been slanted. Her words are indented, my take is flush left.

Abortion.

A pro-life author who submits a piece taking a position against abortion will see the words “pro-life” changed to “anti-abortion,” because the AP Stylebook instructs, “Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and pro-abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice.” It goes on, “Avoid abortionist,” saying the term “connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions.”

I’ve always disliked the way both sides try to use euphemisms to make their stand more palatable. “Pro-life” irks me because many who oppose abortions also oppose government medical care, making them anti-life. Let’s just be consistent and use “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion”, or “pro-abortion rights” and “anti-abortion rights.”  The term “abortionist” does sound a bit creepy; I’d prefer “abortion provider.”

Terrorism

Words related to terrorism are sanitized in the AP Stylebook. Militant, lone wolves or attackers are to be used instead of terrorist or Islamist.

I agree with Alexander here. Words like “attackers” or “lone wolves” don’t give as much information as “terrorists”. This is clearly an attempt to sanitize language, probably to draw attention away from Islamist terrorism.

Immigration

Illegal immigrant” and “undocumented” aren’t acceptable anymore either. “Illegals” and “alien” were already forbidden a few years ago. Although “illegal immigration” is still acceptable, it’s not clear what words are supposed to replace the forbidden words. The word “amnesty” contains no reference to illegal immigrants, instead instructing, “See pardon, parole, probation.”

“People struggling to enter Europe” is favored over “migrant” or “refugee.” While it’s true that many struggle to enter Europe, it is accurate to point out that they are, in fact, immigrants or refugees.

It’s surprised me a bit that “illegal immigrant” and its euphemism “undocumented immigrant” are now verboten. The first phrase is a perfectly good description of someone entering a country illegally; the second, which was a euphemism produced to make illegal immigrants seem less illegal, is now off limits as well. What words do we use for someone who enters a country to live or work without legal permission?

And “migrant” or “refugee”, which were perfectly good words, lacking pejorative connotations, and are being sanitized to cater to those who favor immigration but think those words seem pejorative.

Guns

The stylebook also instructs writers to use confusing language about guns in order to create a negative impression about them. Semi-automatic rifles that have add-on parts intended to increase shooting accuracy are to be called “assault weapons,” despite the fact the term has referred to fully automatic weapons used by the military for years. The latter are now referred to as “assault rifles,” and the two are often conflated. Adding even more to the confusion, the phrase “military style” is recommended to describe assault weapons.

I agree that this change has been made not to convey accuracy, but to demonize guns. I’m in favor of stringent gun control, and total banning of these types of weapons in private hands, but let’s at least be consistent in how we describe them.

Climate-change denialism

Separately, the phrase “climate change deniers” is everywhere today in news articles. This is because the stylebook instructs, “To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute that the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers.” The entry includes an extensive discussion with seemingly authoritative evidence of manmade global warming. These words tell the reader that climate change theory is true, or at least “mainstream.”

I don’t quite get it, as the phrase in use is the one the stylebook doesn’t recommend. Yes, climate change theory (i.e., it’s our fault) is mainstream, and anthropogenic global warming can be regarded as provisionally true. But the words “skeptics” or “deniers” seem okay to me, just as we have “evolution skeptics” or “evolution deniers.” I can’t be arsed to worry about this one, except to say that articles on climate change and its “doubters” do need to convey the consensus view of climate scientists and not imply that the views of both sides have equal weight.

I did find it interesting that language is being policed by the AP, and it seems to be a policing pushing language to the Left. I’d prefer simply accurate and consistent usage rather than euphemisms or politically correct language. That was all pointed out, as I’ve mentioned recently, by George Orwell in his famous essay “Politics and the English Language” (1946).

Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ abortion

June 29, 2017 • 8:15 am

The new Jesus ‘n’ Mo strip, called “wade,” came with this email:

Today we return to an old theme, prompted by this article in Harpers Bazaar. (It’s about the Trump administration’s drive to ban all abortions, restoring a “culture of life”, and the dangers that this poses to women.)

It’s worth a read! The figures that Mo quotes are from that article. Here’s another one:

“If anti-abortionists are going to keep calling pro-choice people baby killers, then it’s time to start referring to them for what they are: people who would kill women.

At the very least, they are people who will stand by cheerfully, smugly, while they enact a system that leads to 14-year-old girls drinking rat poison.”

 

White women should get abortions to end white supremacy

June 23, 2017 • 10:30 am

UPDATE:  Several people have suggested that this website is a fake–that is, the pieces are satirizing extreme social-justice warriorism. It’s possible, but as Ben pointed out in the comments, it’s not good satire since it’s indistinguishable from the object it’s satirizing. In other words, it’s not pure satire but a hoax, designed to be misleading.

Now I’m willing to entertain the possibility that I’ve been taken in, and have written to the site asking if it’s a hoax. (Of course, why should I believe anything they tell me?). But if a reader can prove it’s a hoax, then I’ll send him/her/it/hir/them an autographed copy of either of my trade books.

____________________

Medusa, an online magazine whose masthead proclaims “Feminist Revolution Now”, seems like a version of Everyday Feminism for women a bit older: it aims to shame everyone who doesn’t conform to its rigid ideology, and is unabashedly Control-Left. (See, for instance, its recent piece calling Evergreen State College professor Bret Weinstein a racist who should be fired immediately for refusing to leave campus as a white man in the Day of Departure). But the article below, which at first I took to be a joke, is about the worst thing I’ve seen coming from intersectional feminism. The title of the piece by Nicole Valentine tells all; click on the screenshot to go to the article.

It’s blatantly racist, recalling the bad old days of eugenics, but of course the intersectional feminists will say that calling for white people to abort their fetuses to stop white hegemony is not racism, because “racism equals prejudice plus power.” I don’t buy that, and I don’t think anyone should buy into that, or allow anyone to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity just because they’re from an ethnic group lower down on the Ladder of Oppression. The ranking of The Oppressed is problematic anyway, for it actually puts Jews at the Unoppressed top, and where do you rank Hispanics versus Muslims? The right thing to do is decry bigotry in all its forms, while remaining conscious that some groups suffer a lot more from bigotry than others. But Valentine, whose Gravatar profile is below, wants to do what the Nazis did to those deemed inferior: stop them from giving birth. In this case, it’s through the abortion (presumably voluntary!) of white fetuses.

No, this is no joke. Valentine’s thesis is that white breeding “replicates the white family unit,” thus reinforcing white supremacy. White abortion solves at once the problems of too many white people in America as well as the hours white people devote to raising their kids, which could be used to assist women of color. Although a Pew Survey from 2015 shows that black and Hispanic families are already larger than white families, Valentine seems to want the average family size of whites to be zero (as she says in her piece, “the white family unit must be destroyed”). Here are the Pew data:

Among mothers near the end of their childbearing years, Hispanics and blacks have the largest families. On average, a Hispanic mother ages 40 to 44 has had about 2.6 children. By comparison, black mothers have had about 2.5. White and Asian mothers have families that are a bit smaller, on average. White mothers have 2.3 children, and Asian mothers have 2.2 children.

Okay, on to Valentine’s piece; I give a few quotes:

It is no surprise, then, that America’s fascination with the white family unit has gone hand-in-hand with the historical proliferation of white supremacy. After Bacon’s Rebellion, white micro-fieftans thought it necessary to expand the definition of white family to encompass the entirety of white society, so as to coerce the working class to fight amongst itself based on racial lines. Whites are embedded from birth with the sense of common white identity, and this identity conditions them to replicate the white family unit, thus furthering the cycle of white supremacy in America. That is why the white family unit must be destroyed.

And the call to arms (or to Planned Parenthood), which says that white women who call themselves progressives, but have any kids, are hypocrites:

White women: it is time to do your part! Your white children reinforce the white supremacist society that benefits you. If you claim to be progressive, and yet willingly birth white children by your own choice, you are a hypocrite. White women should be encouraged to abort their white children, and to use their freed-up time and resources to assist women of color who have no other choice but to raise their children. Women of color are in need of financial and humanitarian resources. As this white supremacist society continues to imprison black fathers, women of color are forced to stand alone in their plight to raise the next generation of Americans. White women: instead of devoting your time and energy to white children who will reinforce the struggles of women of color, how about asking women of color in what ways you can assist them in their self-liberation? How about adopting children of color who have lost their parents to the destructive white supremacist society that you have enabled and encouraged?

Of course, the best choice is to act preventatively to ensure that white children are not at risk of being born. But in circumstances in which termination and generation are the options, it is best to take advantage of your right to choose, and abort in favor of assisting women of color.

Of course there’s still racism in America, and we must remain aware of it and fight against it. You can see plenty of that racism on white supremacist and neo-Nazi websites, and I decry it in the strongest terms. But the difference between that racism and the views of Nicole Valentine, which aren’t that different, is that white supremacists are mocked and reviled by all thinking people, while Valentine’s racist and eugenics views are on tap in a progressive feminist website. Oh, the humanity!

Here’s Valentine’s Gravatar profile, showing a bit more racism

h/t: Orli

Public university sued for refusal to bring in anti-abortion speaker

May 30, 2017 • 10:03 am

This was inevitable given a U.S. campus climate that demonizes conservative speakers and ideas, and sometimes de-platforms them or shouts them down. According to Friday’s Washington Post, students at a California state university are suing because they were prevented from bringing in a speaker espousing a taboo idea—abortion is morally wrong—while at the same time the university readily funds pro-abortion speakers.

From the Post (my emphasis):

Students for Life at California State University at San Marcos filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, saying the college wouldn’t give them funding to bring an antiabortion speaker to campus. They claim they’re being treated unfairly by a public university that has hosted speakers on controversial topics, including a lecturer who favors abortion rights and a professional sexologist who led “a discussion of BDSM and Kink which included prizes and participation in an interactive workshop.”

The antiabortion group wanted to bring conservative columnist Mike Adams on campus to speak. Adams once referred to abortion rights activists as “animals” that “needed to be caged,” and his controversial statements about abortion and other topics led students to start a petition to get him kicked out of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, where he is a professor of criminology.

Nathan Apodaca, the antiabortion group’s president, said other, more liberal groups had received funding for speakers from the mandatory student activity fees at CSUSM, which is near San Diego.

“Some of the speakers that were being brought in had speaking expenses that were the exact same amount that we had been asking for and they were getting funding but we were not,” Apodaca said in a video statement.

The state school is violating the antiabortion group’s constitutional rights, the federal lawsuit says, by forcing its members to “subsidize speech with which they disagree without affording them the opportunity to respond by bringing in their own speakers.”

The case is being handled largely by attorneys for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit that has launched court battles — including several against universities — on behalf of antiabortion or religious groups.

In the CSUSM case, the ADF’s argument is simple, said Casey Mattox, senior counsel for the group: Students should have equal access to the benefits of their fees, regardless of political stance.

“The Supreme Court has said that these kinds of fees can only be collected by schools if they guarantee that the money is handed out in a neutral way,” he said. “You have students who are forced to pay this money every semester that are paying to hear the other side’s perspectives, but not being able to use the money to bring speakers in who represent their views.”

The lawsuit asks the court to declare that CSUSM’s student fee policy violates the constitutional rights of students in the antiabortion group. The lawsuit also asks the court to make CSUSM pay the antiabortion group $500 and refund its student activity fees.

And here’s the inevitable “we like free speech BUT. . ” statement from the university itself.

Margaret Chantung, a spokeswoman for CSUSM, said the university could not comment extensively because of the pending lawsuit.

But she said in a brief statement: “Cal State San Marcos is committed to fostering a campus environment where diverse ideas and views can be presented and discussed. In addition, we take student complaints and concerns very seriously.”

I favor nearly unrestricted abortion—in fact, I agree with Peter Singer that children born with irreparable and life-destroying diseases or defects should be allowed to be euthanized soon after birth. But you simply can’t reinforce a Leftist pro-abortion sentiment on campus by not letting students hear the other side.

I’m currently rereading John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, a short, wonderful book that everyone needs to read, as it’s especially germane in these days when free speech is under assault. (It was, by the way. published in 1859, the same year as On the Origin of Species—a banner year for liberating the human mind.) Mill gives several reasons why no speech except for that promoting immediate harm should be banned. Even if the sentiments in a speech go against popular morality and ideology, as does antiabortion views on most campuses, hearing your opponent’s arguments still gives you a chance to examine and hone your own arguments. It prevents your ideology from going stale by remaining unchallenged, undefended, and then hardening into a mantra whose devotees no longer know the reasons they hold it—beyond observing that it’s the proper liberal view to have. I doubt that many students, for instance, could explain why abortion should be permitted beyond saying “it’s a woman’s right” (that is not an argument) or “women should have control over their own bodies” (but many disagree, including the religious).  Could they argue their case against someone like, say, Ben Shapiro? They should be able to make a case for abortion like this one.

Liberals and progressives need to listen to smart conservatives on the other side, lest we become purveyors of a creed supported not by thought but by conformity.

If you allow liberals to speak, you must allow conservatives to speak. If you allow Israel haters to speak, you must allow Israel supporters.  None of these speakers, once invited, should be deplatformed, disinvited, or forced to cancel their talks for fear of violence or student demonstration. San Marcos should give the students money for the antiabortion talk.

Pope Francis gives priests power to forgive abortions

November 21, 2016 • 7:00 am

Well, this is clearly a case of making a virtue of necessity. Given the widespread abandonment of the Church by Catholics in many countries, and the archaic stand of the Vatican on many issues that puts that the Church far behind secular moral progress, it’s no surprise that today Pope Francis gave priests the power to forgive abortions. This was the permanent extension of a temporary decree issued by the Pope during Jubilee Year.

That said, it’s still a move to be applauded, even though the Church itself is an outmoded institution that should be scrapped.

As CNN just reported:

Pope Francis will allow Catholic priests the power to forgive abortion, he announced in a letter released Monday.

The letter states: “I wish to restate as firmly as I can that abortion is a grave sin, since it puts an end to an innocent life. In the same way, however, I can and must state that there is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with the Father.”
“May every priest, therefore, be a guide, support and comfort to penitents on this journey of special reconciliation,” the letter continues. “I henceforth grant to all priests, in virtue of their ministry, the faculty to absolve those who have committed the sin of procured abortion.”
Developing story – more to come

How does this represent a change? Well, in the past, abortions were considered such a grave sin that anybody who had one was automatically excommunicated. And, as The Independent notes:

In the past, only a bishop or a designated chief confessor of a diocese could grant absolution for an abortion.

What I don’t get about all this is how the Pope even has the power to decree what actions (e.g., unforgiven grave sins or excommunication) can put a person in danger of hell, and which can be forgiven by God. Did God tell Pope Francis? Is the Pontiff speaking ex cathedra (or “inflammably,” as Archie Bunker used to say)? If not—and perhaps some Catholics or ex-Catholics can enlighten us on this—then he’s simply making up Catholic doctrine, which represents a decree about what God wants and does not want.  And if that’s the case, I want to know where Francis got a pipeline to God’s wishes.

 

Poland backs off its attempt to criminalize all abortions

October 5, 2016 • 10:45 am

As I’ve mentioned several times before, Poland was set to enact, though its legislature, the most stringent anti-abortion law in Europe, forbidding all abortions, including those resulting from rape or incest, or when the mother’s life was endangered. Further, all abortions would have been crimes, punishable by up to five years in prison—presumably for both the woman and her doctor. Right now, those specific abortions are legal in Poland, though “normal” abortions aren’t. Two days ago, on “Black Monday,” thousands of Polish women went on strike, donned black clothing and, with sympathetic men, demonstrated against their right-wing, Catholic-dominated government in cities throughout Poland.

Surprisingly, it seems to have worked, at least with respect to the pending legislation. As the Guardian reports:

A proposed total abortion ban in Poland will not be implemented, a member of the government has said, describing mass protests against the ban as a lesson in humility for the country’s leadership.

Jarosław Gowin, the minister of science and higher education, said on Wednesday that the protests by women had “caused us to think and taught us humility”.

The comments appear to indicate that Poland’s conservative leadership will withhold support from the highly unpopular proposal to ban abortions even in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at risk.

. . . Also on Wednesday, the Senate speaker, Stanisław Karczewski, said Poland’s upper house of parliament would not initiate work on a bill that would further restrict Poland’s abortion law.

Karczewski said senators would wait to see what the more powerful lower house of parliament would do. However, he voiced support for a ban on abortions of foetuses with Down’s syndrome, something currently allowed.

This isn’t over yet, though. Like Ireland, Poland still bans abortions of all other sorts, a violation of EEU regulations. That is, of course, because of the sway the Catholic Church has over the Polish government. The women of Poland still have a way to go, and they’re fighting a powerful institution in their protests.