Possibly the Most Idiotic “Common Ground” Discussion I’ve Ever Heard
Just because every generation has to speak in its own tongues doesn’t mean any generation will find that elusive common ground between pro-and anti-choice points of view when they frame the questions poorly.
One of those conversations is going on now over at RHRealityCheck, a website I respect and love, but that I think has allowed itself to be led down the primrose path to nowhere on this issue. For example, check out this utterly ridiculous bloviation about the merits of paying women to carry pregnancies to term by–as they adorably acknowldege–“two men, no uteruses”: Will Saletan, who never misses a chance to pontificate about how pro-choice he is while capitulating to anti-choice arguments and Beliefnet’s Steven Waldman.
Remind me, how do you spell “c-o-e-r-c-i-o-n”? How much money would it take to make you carry a pregnancy to term against your will?
The entire lineup of “voices” RHRealityCheck has put together to parse through the common ground rhetoric is lilly white, though gender balanced. They seem not to have done their due diligence about previous such attempts, and the framers of the questions have fallen into the trap of placing the entire focus on abortion– which is just the tiniest tip of a huge ideological iceberg that has primarily to do with worldviews about the nature and purpose of human sexuality, gender roles, and who has power over whose childbearing.
INTENTIONING
Sex, Power, Pandemics, and How Women
Will Take The Lead for (Everyone’s) Good
The new book from Gloria Feldt about the future, taking the leadership lessons learned from this disruption and creating a better world for all through the power of intention.
Now, I’ve been privileged to participate in some very profound structured conversation among people on various places on the pro-and anti-choice continuum. Though these explorations probably didn’t change minds, they did help us understand one another better. Plus, as long as people are talking, they aren’t shooting one another. I’m in no way saying that people with opposing views about reproductive rights and justice shouldn’t attempt to have dialogue.
But I am saying that the real common ground is preventing unintended pregnancy, and it is logically incorrect not to start with that framework. I am also saying that common ground can’t be reached until those who oppose abortion truly respect the moral positions of those of us who support safe, legal abortion, just as we have always respected their right to hold their views.
That’s what pro-choice means after all, and why it is the middle, or “common” ground, position in the first place.
But back to those bloggingheads without uteri. As RHRealityCheck’s own senior political editor, Jodi Jacobson has argued compellingly, we ought to be considering the needs of women first, as opposed to speculating upon how many dollars must dance on the head of a pin to coerce women into childbearing with no thought to how those women or their children are going to be supported after the birth.
GLORIA FELDT is the New York Times bestselling author of several books including No Excuses: 9 Ways Women Can Change How We Think About Power, a sought-after speaker and frequent contributor to major news outlets, and the Co-Founder and President of Take The Lead. People has called her “the voice of experience,” and among the many honors she has been given, Vanity Fair called her one of America’s “Top 200 Women Legends, Leaders, and Trailblazers,” and Glamour chose her as a “Woman of the Year.”
As co-founder and president of Take The Lead, a leading women’s leadership nonprofit, her mission is to achieve gender parity by 2025 through innovative training programs, workshops, a groundbreaking 50 Women Can Change The World immersive, online courses, a free weekly newsletter, and events including a monthly Virtual Happy Hour program and a Take The Lead Day symposium that reached over 400,000 women globally in 2017.
7 Comments
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Without particular reference to the Saletan- Waldman conversation, I’d just note that a couple thousand dollars is well below the current market price for private adoption. While always couched in terms of paying for expenses, time etc, the fact is that a woman who places a baby privately is being compensated more to the tune of $25,000. And a woman who serves as a surrogate gets about the same compensation. Even donating eggs can bring you between $3,000 and $10,000 a cycle.
Even with the ability to be compensated for carrying to term and placing a child for adoption women are not knocking down the doors to continue pregnancies and make money off them. What does this tell us about the meaning of being pregnant and the reasons women abort? I think the Guttmacher stats while valuable don’t really get at the heart of the matter. Yes, there are concrete reasons like no money, education continuation, not ready, etc but what is lost is the existential or essential character of being pregnant and the fact that if you do not want to be pregnant for whatever reason it is often rightfully experienced as a violation of identity. For those opposed to abortion who speak in glowing terms of how wonderful pregnancy is, there is an appalling blind spot when it comes to really valuing what it means when a woman consents to continuing a pregnancy.
Frances, while I couldn’t resist some snark, your point is much more profound. I’m glad you’re writing about it. The constant, almost feral capacity of our society to remain accepting of (at best, wedded to at worst) that “blind spot” as you call it is amazing to me.
Looking at France, Italy, and other countries that have implemented various financial incentives–though none as extreme or direct as these guys suggested–we can see that women pretty much have the number of children they want to have no matter what and for their own good reasons.
Reproductive rights are ultimately about self-determination. So what is the value of a woman? What is the value of her life? And why is that question so seldom the one being asked?
Gloria–I’m so glad you posted on this absurd conversation. I posted it to both FB & Twitter, noting that I couldn’t bear to watch it. Then I tweeted @bloggingheads to express my amazement at their cluelessness.
I’m done speculating about what women should or shouldn’t do to decrease abortions. Although I completely agree with you that abortion should be seen as part of comprehensive family planning and healthcare, I am unable to maintain a considered, kindly, conciliatory conversation with the so-called “pro-lifers.”
I propose that two feminists (sans penises) should debate on video, perhaps on bloggingheads.tv, the pros and cons of giving all boys reversible vasectomies. I floated this idea recently on FB and was surprised to discover support from men and women. True, we’d have to work out the details, but it’ll be like a vaccination that will be routine and required, just as the HPV vaccination has recently been discussed as mandatory for girls. I’m not sure at what age the reversible vasectomy should take place and I’m interested in hearing from the medical profession on this. Clearly, it’s in society’s best interests that these boys, when they are men, mature and ready to assume parenting duties, be allowed to express their sperm, so we’d also have to work out how we know when a boy has become a trustworthy, responsible man ready to parent.
Yes, I know it’s a bit edgy, a bit controversial, but I am serious. Not only am I serious about discussing this as a viable means of reducing abortions, I also think it is high time that the onus shift from women & girls to men and boys.
So, Gloria, shall we discuss this on video? I’d also love to have Frances Kissling in on the chat…let me know.
Madama, I love the idea of using ironic humor to point out the hypocrisy and sexism of male boggingheads pontificating about what women should do with their bodies. the whole bloggingheads setup is pretty humorous to start with. Wish I were quick witted enough to something like that, but I’ll be tit would soon be high on Youtube.
“Can pro-choicers embrace abortions moral complexities?” Well, the ones I hang out with have for decades, and are not afraid to talk about it. Loudly.
I couldn’t even get through the first 3 minutes simply because Will Saletan decided to compare this conversation to their own version of “2 girls one cup?!” Insulting, degrading…..ugh. disappointing. even more then that. it’s not clever at all. when people are being threatened, harassed, murdered over abortion– don’t you dare compare your male take on this issue with a pornographic video.
Dr. Tiller was my friend. I work at an abortion clinic where we have protestors who harass us daily.
this isn’t a joke.
“Common Ground?” Ugh.
Thank you for your work, Jennifer. You are really on the frontline, Definitely, this is not a joke. Thanks for your comment, and please be safe.
You have highlighted something that really irks me too, which is the allegation that pro-choicers can’t embrace moral complexities, when th every essence of choice is that there are moral complexities. We are the ones who can hold two competing ideas in our heads, whereas to anti-choicers it’s all black or white with no shades of gray in between.
Thats not just logic. Thats really snebslie.