Elizabeth May, in an attempt to win back the support of Judy Rebick and like-minded feminists, published an open letter to "clarify" her position on abortion.
In her letter, she affirms she is completely committed to legal and accessible abortion. However, she says:
I also said that the slogan “right to choose,” without context or dialogue, left those on the other side of the debate feeling offended. (...)Not every opponent of legal abortions is unthinking. Neither is every supporter of legal abortion unwilling to acknowledge the moral complexity of the issue. Some common ground could be found, I believe, when the discussion shifts to a broader context.
The broader context she speaks includes question such as:
What are a woman's real rights in society? Where are our economic rights? While a woman must have the right to terminate a pregnancy, what of the larger context?
What about the on-going struggle to create a truly equal relationship of sexual equality that might (would) help avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place? What about the responsibility of both sexual partners to avoid unwanted pregnancy (and while on the topic, to avoid sexually transmitted diseases that would be reduced through use of condoms)?
She also notes:
I remember admiring Bill Blaikie (NDP MP, Elmwood-Transcona) in an interview he gave the CBC radio show Tapestry, easily a gazillion years ago, when he asked why it was that some on the Left would happily quote the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops when it took up the issue of poverty, but who wanted nothing to do with the Conference on the subject of abortion.
It should not be a thought-crime to state publicly that the issue of abortion is one fraught with moral dilemmas.
I believe there are SOME dilemmas, but it doesn't mean that there are no clearcut answers. I do, agree, however, that she shouldn't be pilloried for being less doctrinaire on abortions that some hardcore feminists.
This passage hit home with me:
I really detest the kind of politics that seeks to exploit difference, creating ever wider chasms in our society (the “beware of them” type of politicians, whether a George W. or a hard-line Left winger). I think politics must be about democracy and democracy is better when we are capable of respectful dialogue.
This is something that is of interest to me. (I even wrote a poem about it.)
I have thought long and hard as to whether I, as a fetal rights activist, can fight for the cause of unborn children, while maintaining "respect", as the world understands this term.
Although I do believe that the fetal rights cause can be forwarded with perfect charity (if such a perfect person exists), the "respect" that people crave is impossible to show at all times. I will offend. And my opponents will offend me. I would like not to offend. I would like to be on friendly or courteous terms with the opposition, but it's not going to happen.
Perhaps you've heard the story of French and German soldiers during World War I, who held a truce during Christmas time and celebrated together. I don't know if it's true (and that's not the point).
In the next battle, they'd be trying to kill the other: people they just spent Christmas with.
And while I'm not suggesting proponents of legalized abortion are looking to harm us physically, what I am suggesting is that you can't be in a war-- in any war--physical or moral-- and not "shoot people down"; that is, not offend, not do things they find nasty, that will hurt their feelings or cause distress.
You can't have nice wars. I wish it were otherwise, but that's the way it is.
It doesn't mean you have to purposely dehumanize the opposition, or put them down at every opportunity, and engage in a kind of constant, vulgar character assassination. However, just as Jesus denounced the pharisees and said nasty thing about them, sometimes you have to speak the truth about what the opposition does, and it's not pretty.
That being said, I try not to forget that my opponents are human beings. I know it sounds sanctimonious and maybe even hypocritical when you're the one who's just been offended. However, I do not do it purely for the benefit of others, I do that for my own spiritual health. Engaging in constant insults and fault-finding, along with the refusal to see any good points in others truly corrodes the soul.
Elizabeth May is determined to transcend the typical debates:
Now, my recent experience should be an object lesson for me in the political safety zone created by sloganeering and staying far away from nuance or suggestions of moral dilemmas. But I do not want to retreat behind the barricades of slogans. (It is worth noting that “slogan” is originally a Gaelic word, meaning “war cry.”)
While I'm glad that Elizabeth May wants to have a different kind of discussion regarding abortion, here is, where I am certain, she loses the feminists:
I'd like to continue to explore a dialogue about what our society really wants ... no one would suggest we want to see abortions as a measure of public health and well-being. We must have access to them as a right, but that does not elevate an abortion to a “good or desirable thing” — not for society nor for a woman's life.
As far as hardcore feminists are concerned, abortion should be no more controversial than getting a tooth pulled. Never mind that women coo over that fetus when he is wanted, that love of fetuses should not create any debate or controversy whatsoever.
For anyone who's interested, Dr.Roy also has some thoughts on this.
May's response to Rebick drives radical feminists crazy at Dr. Roy's Thoughts.
UPDATE 9:54 PM
E. May Back-peddling at Politics n Poetry
Judy Rebick, Henry Morgantaler, and King Herod at Family Matters
Abortion is None of Your Business by Rambling Socialist
UPDATE 11:25 PM
Judy Rebick withdraws support for Elizabeth May at Coucoumellisms
UPDATE DEC.23 10:07 PM
Radical Pro-Lifers a thread at Philosophy Forums.
Single Issue Parties Aren't Always What They Seem at Yappa Ding Ding
Elizabeth May replies on Rabble regarding abortion stance at Section 15
May, Rebick and Potential Life at Straight Thoughts
Rebick withdraws support for Green's May: cites re-ignition of the abortion debate as cause at Pop Feminism
Elizabeth May responds to Judy Rebick's attack at Deborah Gyapong
UPDATE: Dec. 25 2:07 AM
Elizabeth May and Helena Guergis: Social Conservatives' Women of 2006 at Dipper Chick
Radical Feminism and Abortion: "It's my body and I'll do what I want to" at Right of Center Ice
DEC. 26 at 12:24 AM
Weighing in on Rebick vs May at Left Queries
10:37 PM
The last word on abortion at Dawg's Blawg
QUOTE from Dawg's Blawg:
For some of the gender Stalinists around, there is only one position on anything permitted. The word "pro-choice," in their hands, is fast becoming a cultish password to determine who is an in-group purist and who is the enemy. Such people are fond of their black and white, and I treasure the words of one debater over at EnMasse who sums up this approach perfectly: "Life isn't nuanced."
Wow.
DEC. 27 2:36 pm
Wow, 5 days later, and this story is still going:
Problem Solved? at A.R.
This feminist writes:
It is time to choose up sides, you believe that women have the right to live as autonomous human beings or you do not. You believe our society is better served when all people are free and equal or you do not. You believe that women’s voices are important or you do not.
Does anyone else see the irony of this?
