If you’ve spent much time in Civil War discussion groups you’ve probably run into the argument that slavery would have ended in the South without the Civil War; therefore, the War hadn’t needed to be fought. Indeed, occasionally some southern apologist will insist that the South was well on the way toward giving up slavery and would have done so freely had the statist, Big Gubmint damnyankees not pushed the issue prematurely.
Well, certainly, by now slavery would have ended, although probably not by the free will of the slave states. It more likely would have ended by constitutional amendment once enough “free soil” states had entered the Union to form a majority.
In fact, that is what the plantation owners feared. And in 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected on a platform of keeping slavery out of the territories, which would ensure that new states entering the Union would be free soil states. Thus the election of Lincoln touched off the secession crisis, which in turn took the nation to war.
The southern plantation class, which controlled the South economically, politically and socially, was certain that the abolition of slavery would ruin them. They were prepared to fight to the death (or compel non-slave-owning whites to fight to the death in their place) to preserve slavery. The Declaration of Causes documents adopted by the states of Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Texas make it clear that secession was all about preserving slavery.
And may I suggest that a people determined to fight to the death to preserve something are not on the brink of giving that something up?
Anyway, the South started the war when South Carolina fired on the federal military reservation of Fort Sumter, and ever after they have blamed Lincoln for making them start it (that’s why it’s called the “War of Northern Aggression,” see; the damnyankees fought back). And after the war the former secessionists blamed Reconstruction for making them engage in race riots, lynchings, and other violence perpetrated upon the freed African Americans (even though much Reconstruction policy was enacted in reaction to the race riots, lynchings, etc.). Had the white plantation class been allowed more time to change their minds about slavery and end it on their own, which they would have done someday, then white southerners wouldn’t have been left with all those hard feelings that made them so violent. And then there wouldn’t have been a Ku Klux Klan or Jim Crow or any of that stuff.
But after the war those damnyankee carpetbaggers conspired to temporarily disenfranchise southern white men just because they had engaged in armed rebellion against the government and thereby forced through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. And then the poor downtrodden southern white people just had no choice but to form the Klan and enact Jim Crow laws, because they hadn’t been given enough time to adjust.
Those of you who are much younger than I am and/or did not grow up in hollerin’ distance of Dixie might not have been exposed to this line of reasoning much, but believe me, it was common. Still is, in some circles.
Fast forward to today’s anti-abortion rights movement. Fetus People like to see themselves as the heirs of the abolitionists, and they compare the struggle to protect fetii with the stuggle to end slavery. And they like to evoke the Dred Scott decision, which declared that a black man could not be a citizen and could have no standing to bring suit against a white man. The “antis” want fetii to be given full citizenship status; those who would deny them that status are bad people, just like the justices who ruled against Dred Scott.
But in truth, the anti-choicers more and more remind me of the old white supremacists and Klansmen, not the abolitionists.
First, the line of reasoning that blames the abortion wars on Roe v. Wade (see previous post on abortion) and not on a faction of fanatics who will try to stop abortions by any means is just too much like saying the 13th Amendment was responsible for the formation of the Klan. Let’s pretend that tomorrow Roe is reversed. Does anyone seriously believe that states which allowed abortion to remain legal would not be descended upon by Randall Terry and the screaming culture of death hoardes? Puh-leeze …
The Right argues that the Roe v. Wade decision amounted to judicial activism and judges “ruling from the bench,” which is exactly the same thing they said about Brown v. Board of Education. Many on the Right insist they don’t really want to impose a ban on abortion; they just want the question to be decided by elected state legislatures according to the democratic process. Does anyone really think that if Roe were overturned tomorrow, and abortion given a full and fair debate in every statehouse, and the 50 states separately wrote abortion law that reflected majority opinion in each state, that the Fetus People would accept any state’s decision to keep abortion legal?
Hah.
The Fetus People simply do not accept any position on abortion but theirs, and they will not give up until their will is law. For the past 33 years these people have engaged in systematic intimidation and terrorism to impose their will. Let me repeat this passage from Eyal Press’s “My Father’s Abortion Wars” …
The flip side of the desire to rid the world of evil in accordance with your spiritual beliefs is the impulse among some of those convinced of their righteousness to demonize, and in extreme cases to want to eliminate, anyone who does not subscribe to them, something that, as I saw up close in Buffalo, is not a mind-set unique to Islamic fundamentalists. When the police removed protesters from a clinic in Buffalo one time, a spokeswoman for the local branch of Operation Rescue likened them to Nazi storm troopers. When a group of local religious leaders sympathetic to abortion rights held a meeting on another occasion, a protester assailed them as “ministers of Satan.” Driving past my father’s office while still in high school, I saw the signs emblazoned with his name. “Murderer!” “Baby-Killer!” On several Jewish holidays, including Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, a group called Project House Call organized demonstrations in front of doctors’ homes, choosing as their targets two local physicians who happened to be Jewish: my father and Slepian. Later, during the Spring of Life, radio ads blared, announcing: “Some doctors deliver babies. Some doctors kill babies!” My father and several other physicians were singled out by name. On the corner of Maple and Exeter Roads, a quarter-mile or so from my parents’ home, a six-foot red banner reading “Press Kills Children” was unfurled. In case anyone missed the banner, leaflets were distributed throughout the neighborhood.
These are not people who give a bleep about debate or the democratic process. And they are the cause of the abortion wars, which would be waged Roe v. Wade or no.
Some might argue that the pro-privacy Left is just as adamant to have its way, but when has anyone on the pro-privacy Left committed arsons and bombings, butyric acid attacks, and murders to get their way? In the 90 or so years in which abortion was illegal in most states — abortion didn’t become illegal until the late 19th century — I do not believe activists for abortion rights killed anyone, bombed anyone, or issued fatwas against the opposition. Instead, they worked within the system, which includes court challenges.
Let us revisit the old plantation slaveowners and ask another hypothetical question. Let’s say they’d been allowed more time to decide to give up slavery. Surely another generation, probably two, maybe more, of human beings would have lived their lives enslaved. And even if the slave states had been given more time, there is no guarantee that all slaveowners would have given up without a fight, or that slavery would not have left a residue of white supremacy no matter where or how it ended.
Today some on the Left argue that giving up Roe v. Wade would be smart strategy. Republicans have hidden behind Roe v. Wade long enough, they say. Without it, they’d be forced to deliver on their promises to ban abortion, thereby alienating the majority of voters. Or, they’d be forced to disappoint the Fetus People and forfeit their votes. Yet this would not end the abortion wars, and many women would suffer. And where abortion becomes illegal, the Fetus People will press for more — banning birth control and sex education, for example. The war will continue as long as the Fetus People choose to wage it. They will not be appeased.
So let’s stop kidding ourselves that there is anything that can be done to end the abortion wars. Like extremist Islamic terrorists, the Fetus People believe in their own absolute righteousness and will not stop fighting — to the death — to get their way. Like the slaveowners of earlier times, there is nothing else to be done but oppose them.
See also: Fetus People Follies.
Very very insightful, thanks.
Thank you for your essay on the Great Rebellion, which the seditious choose to misremember.
I think you are far too pessimistic about Roe. Do remember that Roe permits deep and pervasive limits on abortion – which no state, however red, has ever passed.. The Fetus People are not a majority; the plurality (who may be a majority) are those who wish the issue would go away, without too much of a change in either direction.
The Fetus People delude themselves; but then they always have.
It’s about male, taliban like, male dominance. Take the male vote out of the equation and the battle is over. And, yes, there’s a connection with the white southern male.
O yes Kevinim, the evil non-jewish white! The Amalekite! The hater! (hand-wringing) Send their sons to Iraq to fight for Israel and die, so that their blood may be shipped back for we and our shabbos-president may feast!
Brilliant, Maha. The fetus people will never give up. Neither will I.
If I could get pregnant, you’re damned right I’d want the right to have an abortion if all else failed. And if I couldn’t find a doctor to do it, I’d figure out a way to do it myself, as dangerous as that might be. Just because a gal has a few beers while in estrus, bonks an available guy and the condom fails, is no reason she should be saddled with his offspring for the rest of her life.
I don’t know how much of the anti-abortion movement involves the male desire for control over women or other psychoanalytic issues. It’s an interesting starting point for looking at male and female psychology.
I think the anti-abortion movement has everything to do with a male desire to control women, Steve. The movement is organized and run by men, with the occasional Stepfordian female spokesbot trotted out in a frilly pink suit to state their case.
Remember the Dan Quayle-Murphy Brown controversy from 1992? Danno single-handedly brought back the phrase “illegitimate” to describe a child born out of wedlock. Thus, a fetus may have a “right to life,” but if it comes into the world without the father’s legal ownership papers in order, these same idiots now deem the child “illegitimate.” Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. There’s no nice way to say it.
WITH ALL THAT YOUR SAYING KILLING THE UNBORN IS OK..RIGHT,,IF SO YOUR JUST AS GUILTY AS THE ONE DOING THE ABORTIONS…WHOOO,MINE WAS NOT AS LONG AS YOURS….
Johnathan isn’t into reading, I take it. Or lowercase letters.
His is not as long as mine? That’s frightening. Has someone invented a new gender?
Pingback: Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » Eyal Press: “My Father’s Abortion War”
Pingback: Faux Real :: Le Sigh, Le Disappointment :: January :: 2006
I’m missing something here. Your saying that the Right is hiding behind Roe v. Wade? I think you missed the part were the Supreme Courte ruled in favor of abortion.
And what’s with comparing it to slavery for pro-death. Did you also miss the part were the overwhelming majority of people say slavery is wrong? And how is slavery different from abortion? It is one person controling another, having absolute rule over whether that person lives or dies. You can dispute that it is a person, but how. It has its own genetic signiture and opporates individually. At what point does the infant become human, if not a conception? At the point of visibility? So whether you are a person is then determined by wether or not people can see you? That means a blind person could kill anyone, you know. But what if you believe that it is a human after a certian amount of time, what has happened to change it in that time. If you don’t dispute that it is living, than you simply believe that a mother can kill her child any time she wants before birth. What changes after birth? I’ll also say that no state will pass a law saying that the baby is a person, but the mother can kill it at any time.
When you say the baby is not human, you are simply wrong. It is a scientific fact that an unborn infant is alive (Life cannot come from nonlife). It is human, because what would be the offspring of two humans? If you can answer that, than I’ll believe anything you say. Also, it is impossible for the offspring to “evolve” to be human because it is also a law of thermodynamics that information cannot be gained (the order to chaos one). Getting a little off topic, but you can tell I feel very attamatly about this(but not spelling).
You have also stereotyped all pro-life people by saying two people account for the opinions of an entire community. Paul Hill and… the other guy reflect the views of only a handfull of sick individuals. The violence that they acted out will never stop the violence against the unborn.
Another thing, men are not conrolling women through this any more than men. Abortion is murder, and men cannot commit murder, so why should women be able to.
On a final note, pro-death people don’t need to be active, because their will is already imposed on us. A 13 year old girl who falls on the sidewalk can’t get a bandaid from school without parental permission, yet that same school will provide her with the opportunity to get an abotion without the parents even knowing. That is why we are so atamate, because the state takes the power away from the parent and gives it to the child, who is deemed unable to make decisions for themselves (medical care, ocupation, residence…)
In responce to Steve Nichols, engaging in intercourse with an intoxicated partner is considered rape.
Your saying that the Right is hiding behind Roe v. Wade? I think you missed the part were the Supreme Courte ruled in favor of abortion.
Yes, dear, they did. That was Roe v. Wade. The overwhelming majority of people in America support Roe v. Wade. This enables Republicans to simultaneously tell the anti-privacy people that they will end abortion while winking at the majority that, of course, they can’t do that because of Roe v. Wade. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the Republicans wll have to put up or shut up.
And what’s with comparing it to slavery for pro-death.
To be against a right to abortion is to be pro-death; for an explanation of this, see this book review by Gary Wills.
Did you also miss the part were the overwhelming majority of people say slavery is wrong? And how is slavery different from abortion?
Forcing a woman to go through pregnancy and childbirth against her will is something like slavery, yes.
It is one person controling another, having absolute rule over whether that person lives or dies.
“Person” is a social construct’ it’s not something that can be scientifically quantified.. “Person” is not DNA; tissue samples in a petrie dish are not a “person,” for example, even though it may have human DNA.. And of course the product of conception is living, but that doesn’t equal personhood, either. It is insentient, for one thing. It is a metaphysical construct to consider whether it is a separate being from the mother. And this is all way over your head, isn’t it?
Bottom line, your arguments are all irrelevant. If you are interested in what else I have to say about abortion, keyboard “abortion” into the search box in the right column and read what I’ve written. I’m not going to write more just because you can’t keep up.
As a proud Fetus Person, I would like to reject your notion that the character of Fetus People is the point. The point is, human life is protected by the Constitution, and it doesn’t matter what anyone’s character is, or what their gender is. I think the character of the abortionist is evil also, as he cruelly dissects a living being and tosses the body parts in the garbage, but that is subject to opinion. What is not subject to opinion is that life continues at conception, it doesn’t begin. You can’t get life from dead people. No matter whether you define it as a human being or not, it’s a living thing ,and it’s definitely human. And that human life is something that no one should have the right to terminate just because they feel enslaved by the normal natural functioning of their own body.
The point is, human life is protected by the Constitution,
The 14th Amendment says that citizenship is determined by BIRTH. And what the constitution protects relates to citizens. Nice try; no cigar.
Regarding “human life,” however, I addressed (an destroyed) your argument here.
you know, it helps to provide the correct link. oh well, i’ll defend my side even though the offence has not prepared for battle.
1. life cannot come from non-life. this is a scientific law. if you dissagree with this, you might have a very large community to convince.
2. infants come from fetuses. this is not so much as a law as it is a fact. you will still have a large community to convince otherwise.
3. a fetus is either A. human, or B. something that is not human (and becomes so at birth).
4. there a total of 0 species known to change their species at birth, or for that matter, any time. no genetic change occurs after the birth. therefore, we must assume that it is human. and the endinding of any innocent human life is considered murder, no matter where they are a citizen of.
Blake — Your arguments are utterly irrelevant, for reasons explained here.
You’re fluffing over the main point here (murdering a child within his or her mother’s womb, which is by it’s nature & make-up supposed to be the safest place for this baby to grow). You really have to try hard to get in there to kill the baby; you have to go through the woman’s body to do it. You make it sound like abortion is GOOD for women. Abortion hurts women phsysically, emotionally, spiritually; look at all the women coming forward after having an abortion and voicing that they really had NO choice, because they weren’t given all of the facts and truths about abortion (it’s harmful affects on her, let alone that it’s really killing a living being not just getting rid of tissue). Look at all of the research coming in linking abortion to SUICIDE, DEPRESSION, BREAST CANCER, on and on. Look at the amount of MONEY coming into the abortion industry! Read the testimoinies from many of these women in the South Dakota Task Force Study on Abortion. Go to http://www.priestsforlife.com and SEE what abortion LOOKS like, then tell me you think it’s good for women and for babies in the womb. You can twist words (like “person”) to mean whatever you’d like, but the fact is: When a woman becomes pregnant, whether intentional or not, the life within her is a separate human being. Even abortion doctors know this, but they won’t admit it to the women who walk into their abortion mills. The truth is, you’re using clever language to desperately reach for a way to make abortion seem like a “right”, like a “good” – no one has the right to kill another living human being, whether in the womb or in the grocery store. The pro-life activists who bombed abortion mills were wrong, and the pro-death abortion providers are wrong. We’ve been deceived by this lie that abortion is a “right”. We have no right to kill, ever. And stop hurting women by feeding them these lies.
And stop hurting women by feeding them these lies.
The “lie” is that making abortion illegal stops abortion. It does not; making abortion illegal just drives it underground, and women die or are mutilated as a result. I’ve written a number of posts on this point; this is the most recent. Follow the links and see what kind of atrocities your “moral” position leads to.