Reply from Jeffrey Feldman of FrameShop and other comments

Jeffrey replies:

First off, thanks for the reply to my piece. It's great to get good feedback from bloggers who care very deeply about the issue.

I am concerned, though, that the readers of What She Said might inadvertantly be using my piece an opportunity to voice a position that has little to do with what I wrote. My piece is calling for a deeper understanding of what is actually written in Roe v. Wade, and the reactions seem to suggest that I am arguing against a woman's right to have an abortion. In fact, I am not arguing in any way against a woman's right to have an abortion. Quite the opposite. I am suggesting that the more people who understand what is written in Roe v. Wade, the more people a woman's right to have an abortion will be protected. My piece even links to the same copy of the ruling as linked on the main page of the What She Said blog.

The main point in 'Oh, Baby!' is that Americans do not know what Roe v. Wade says. The Blackmun opinion explicity states that it does not believe in a woman's unlimitedright to an abortion, but rather believes that abortion should be regulated and that the state has an interest--above and beyond women's rights--in protecting children.

Those two issues have resulted in widespread access to safe abortions in this country, available to women acting autonomously. True, this access and that autonomy has been curtailed in recent years. But I would argue that this is because of an attack on Blackmun's opinion and a diminising number of Americans who actually know what it says. Most Americans probably believe the view of Roe v. Wade put forth in the dissent by Justice White, which is a hateful piece of writing that completely misrepresents Blackmun's argument.

Now, I get the sense that What She Said readers are responding as if I am politically opposed to abortion or evern worse: as if, based on my essay, I am somehow against women's autonomy or equality. I am not nor have I ever been.

I invite everyone to take another look at the essay. Where I offer critique, it is only of the word 'choice'--the word only, not the idea of woman's autonomy or the importance of eliminating criminal statutes barring abortion. Although I introduce the idea of thinking about potential life, I do so because it helps to explain the logic of the court ruling. If Americans really understood how much Roe v. Wade discusses the value of protecting potential human life--the opponents of abortion and women's autonomy would be shouted back into their churches.

It is true, sadly, that Blackmun did not discuss the problem of unequal representation in our system of government--the persistent problem whereby women are excluded from our democratic system. But I don't think Blackmun impedes this discussion. And I think he would be the first to support those arguments as a citizen, even if he was not able to write them into the opinion on that particular case.

Please, take a second look at the essay because I think you will find that--with the exception of the missing point about autonomy--it makes a pretty sound argument, and that it actually puts forwarrd the case that needs to be made if we are going to protect women's access to safe abortions in this country.
By Jeffrey Feldman

Hi, Jeffrey-

I understood your article and its purpose. If I thought it had no merit, I wouldn't have linked to it. You gave a dispassionate analysis of the way Roe v. Wade is misrepresented, and you made an excellent argument regarding the fact that Republicans don't give a damn about children. It was very clear that you were not arguing against abortion rights.

My comment was prompted by the approach to the subject. Your blog is called FrameShop, so I infer that you are concerned with constructing arguments to counter the Republican frames which have been very successful in swaying people to support positions they don't really understand. What you didn't address, and what prompted my comment, is that this issue goes beyond whether or not a woman can have an abortion. It goes to whether or not women are people. We aren't talking about a political issue - we are talking about my uterus, and the fact that neither the Congress, nor any man, is authorized to negotiate the disposition of it. The only role of government in the matter should be to assure that my doctor is competent and the hospital up to standard. I am not the property of the state. I am a citizen of the state who is guaranteed a certain level of personal liberty that has so far not been acknowledged in our legal system.

I agree with you that we shouldn't call it choice. As I stated, if the alternative is death, there is no choice involved. I have a natural right to preserve my own life. Your article is otherwise excellent, and I hope people will follow the link I provided and read it - I just think it missed the autonomy issue.

***
Also in comments, Lee_J, a pro-choice man, asked the following:

Abortion opponents might argue that "since you concede that a fetus 'may constitute' life, if a woman chooses to engage in unprotected sexual intercourse, and becomes pregnant, she should take responsibility for her choice, and protect and preserve what 'may constitute' life. In such a case, abortion should not be a legal option.

This principal should also apply when protection fails, as the risk is omnipresent, known, and avoidable through abstinence to any woman or couple who does not wish to assume responsibilty for what 'may constitute' life".
How do you suggest I counter such an argument?

I would counter this by saying that I did not acknowledge that it may be life, but rather that others, enjoying freedom of religion, have the right to think that it is. I would further say that "ensoulment", as the Christians call it, cannot be proven. It is no more a valid argument than how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. (That was quite a controversy in the Church in the 1200's.) I prefer that my government stick with science in forming policy, and stay out of my business regarding medical decisions.

Science tells us that a human without a functioning brain is "brain dead" and their life can therefore legally be terminated should illness or injury create this condition. We know that the fetal brain is not fully functioning until around the 5th month, meaning that its brain is not yet funtional, therefore not a viable human being. Most abortions occur before 12 weeks, so while it may be human tissue, it is not a human. The only abortions that occur later in a pregnancy are prompted by a defect of the fetus, or risk to the life of the mother. As I stated, the actual life of the mother takes precedence over the fetus.

As for their Culture of Death, George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that allows life support to be removed if the family can't pay for it. That law was used to terminate the life of a child, in spite of the parents protests, right after Terri Schiavo died. Where were that child's protesters? Why didn't Tom Delay care about that? Why do they feel perfectly content to execute people who may be proven innocent by available technology? Again, an actual life is at stake. To put less value on the life of a prisoner than on an unborn entity is bizarre, and we need to say so. Don't kid yourself - abortion will be a capital crime if they get control of the courts as well as the legislature. They're already trying to get access to our medical records.

Let's not forget that Roy Moore has actually advocated the death penalty for homosexuals. Some respect for life - they want to execute people for consensual sex. (Exodus 20:13 Thou Shalt not Kill. Read your statue, Roy.) Need I also mention that they are defending the practice of torture, where prisoners are being killed with impunity during interrogations. The Republicans don't believe in life - they believe in lots of Catholic and Evangelical votes.

Many of the arguments the Radical Right is using these days are based in Christian doctrine. The irony of the situation is that their own actions belie their actual beliefs in those arguments. We need to point out their hypocrisy at every turn. A 5,000 pound monument of the 10 commandments , or a framed sheet of paper on which they are printed, is a graven image. If one actually reads the the Commandments we see that they say:

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; (Exodus Chapter 20)

So if they actually practiced the 10 Commandments there would be no argument. Such images are forbidden. So, do they believe in the Word or not? If they don't, why are they trying to force it on the rest of us? Why do so many churches, especially in the South, now display American flags? Idolatry is continually forbidden in scripture, yet a flag is an idolatrous image in the context of that religion. Nowhere in the Bible is abortion forbidden. It isn't even mentioned. So why are we arguing about that when they aren't following rules against idolatry? Abortion has always been a common practice. It only becomes an issue in cultures which regard women as property.

How many of the most homophobic politicians turn out to be living with same sex partners, or cruising gay bars and web sites? Mr. Ethics, Bill Bennett, is a gambling addict. Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict. Mr. Morality, Newt Gingrich is an adulterer. It goes on and on.

The Left needs to hammer these people on these issues. They aren't moral - they are liars, thieves and hypocrites. We're fighting the spread of Christian/Corporate Fascism - we can't be subtle in our approach. We can't keep "playing fair". We need to shake the Democrats into action before it's too late, if it isn't already.
***
As Pseudo-Adrienne said, men have the luxury of being detached from the subject. Don't expect me to be reasonable when you're talking about my body, and when the people talking loudest don't use reason at all.

Shakti suggested we call it reproductive sovereignty. I've been thinking we need to take a two pronged approach. First would be the Women's Autonomy Movement, which would be a continuation of feminism, emphasizing our right to our own bodies, medical decisions and to safety from rape, sexual abuse, assault, domestic abuse, slavery and war. The second would be the Sexual Sovereignty Movement that would assert that adults have a right to have sex as they choose, in accordance with their own beliefs. I'm sick of the Christian assumption that sex is bad and only for procreation. I'm a proud hedonist in a free country. I won't be limited by ideas from a book written by a tribe of hash-smokers a few thousand years ago that have nothing to do with my life. The government exists to make the trains run on time and keep the peace -- it has no place in my bedroom, or my doctor's office.

Happy Pride Week, y'all!