NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently happened upon a quote by Emma Goldman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman) detailing the famous anarchist feminist's opposition to abortion:


The custom of procuring abortions has reached such appalling proportions in America as to be beyond belief... So great is the misery of the working classes that seventeen abortions are committed in every one hundred pregnancies.

( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman )

Further searches on Google led to various sources that further clarified her apparent position. According to what I've read, Goldman considered abortion to be a symptom of the deplorable condition of the working classes denied access to education about, and use of, birth control. Women end up becoming pregnant with children they cannot afford, because of their poverty, and abortion becomes the only option. Thus Goldman's advocacy of birth control (apparently for which she was jailed more than once) and radical economic changes she saw as necessary for improving the condition of the working class.

I find Goldman's position fascinating because I've largely arrived at the same conclusions myself. I find the practice of abortion deplorable, but I can't see how legal retribution is going to prevent it, as the root causes of abortion are in economic conditions which leave people in a position where they cannot afford or otherwise access alternatives. Without economic security, there is a lack of access to proper medical care, including birth control. Without adequate social services, such poverty is exacerbated and there is nowhere else for children who cannot be supported in life to go.

My first question is to ask if anyone can refer me to further sources on Emma Goldman in general, and to her positions on feminism and abortion specifically. Direct sources (from her own mouth/hand) would be best, but other biographies and such would be great too.

My second question has to do with a CounterPunch article I found while in the process of searching for more information on Emma Goldman. It presents abortion within the context of left-wing politics in such a way that I again find fascinating:


If the Left continues to draw out the implication of its principles, it will discover the marginalization of the unborn and unwanted as for example it discovered the marginalization of women in the first and second waves of feminism in the 19th and 20th centuries. And it's reasonable to suspect that the discovery will take as long and involve as many contradictions as that concerning women did -- and does.

There are of course groups on the political Left who have drawn this conclusion. Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote to Julia Ward Howe in 1873, "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Emma Goldman thought that abortion was an index of the general immiseration of the working class, and the suffragist Alice Paul spoke of it as "the ultimate exploitation of women."
...
But it's not just that the Left should oppose abortion if it is understood as it has wished to be for more than two centuries, as proposing the increasing democratization of human life. It should also do so because much of the thinking that leads to the position that abortion is generally acceptable depends upon a capitalist view of ownership, against which the Left is properly critical.
...
Even the approval of abortion by Nixon's Supreme Court -- not generally men of the Left -- depended in part on a calculus that abortion was cheaper than the adequate social services for which there was a popular demand a generation ago (Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973). The justices were undoubtedly motivated by visions of an insistent "underclass," at home and abroad, in those days of fear of both revolutionary and demographic explosion. Like the US government officials contemporaneously pressing anti-natal polices on the Third World, they agreed with the remark (probably apocryphal) attributed to Che Guevara, that "It's easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills."
...
Some recent defenses of the moral legitimacy of abortion have shifted from arguments based on the non-humanity of unborn children (i.e., that the fetus is not human enough to have rights) to what in the US are called libertarian arguments -- e.g., "I have the right to do what I want with my body (including the contents of my womb)." Defense of abortion on the basis of the ownership of one's own body is then similar to the right- wing account of "takings," which resists governmental attempts to limit what can be done with real estate.

But I don't own my body; I am my body. Talking of owning one's body arises from a malign mix of factitious capitalist theory and debased Christianity: I am then regarded as an immaterial mind/soul related to my body as the bus driver is to the bus -- a ghost in a machine, in the classic phrase. (Some Christians seem to forget that the fundamental Christian doctrine is the resurrection of the body, not the immortality of the soul.) It's finally this distancing, dualist, indeed Manichean idea of the self that casts abortion into the capitalist discussion of ownership.

Defense of the general acceptability of abortion on the basis of one's ownership of one's body is a capitalist position that the Left should be skeptical of, on its fundamental principles


http://www.counterpunch.org/estabrook01172003.html

Those of you on the political left, especially of the anarchist variety like Goldman, please read the entire article at the link above, and provide your reaction/commentary. In many ways, what is said above is the explanation for why I am opposed to abortion myself, although until now I have been unable to find the right words because I have not completely understood the explanation myself. I genuinely look forward to your reaction.

Those of you on the political left, especially of the anarchist variety like Goldman, please read the entire article at the link above, and provide your reaction/commentary. In many ways, what is said above is the explanation for why I am opposed to abortion myself, although until now I have been unable to find the right words because I have not completely understood the explanation myself. I genuinely look forward to your reaction.

The sentence "I am my body" is probably incorrect. "I am my brain and neural net" is closer to the truth according to current medical understanding.
Of course it is possible that our personality, that which makes us us, indeed lives in every cell of our body. If they can prove that, they actually have a case.

And, while it is probably futile to say this, this thread is not a debate about the good or evil of abortion. All I want is sources on Emma Goldman and commentary on the above article. That's it.

Your statement contradicts itself. You want to debate the merits of the articles, without debating some fundamental parts of them.

You want to debate the merits of the articles...

Yes, but I want this debate to occur mostly between my own ears as I continue to gather and process information. Collecting people's reactions is part of this gathering and processing of information.

However, I understand that part of someone's reaction may include "I am opposed to..." or "I support..." and that this is a necessary piece of information to collect.

Thus, my original statement will be changed/clarified. Edit: Done. Edit Again: OK, I just removed that part of my post entirely, because while my intention was to prevent the thread from degenerating into the all too common and useless sort of YES IT IS! NO ITS NOT! "debate," constructive debate is useful and vital for uncovering new ideas and positions. Of course, I don't want to discourage that. So, point recognized and conceded. :D

"Pro-lifers", especially the more left-leaning ones, love talking about how they don't want to draw lines, and we see Carl Estabrook echoing this notion, with his comparison of the denial of full humanity (full personhood, really) to Blacks and women to the denial of full humanity to fetuses.

But that's not really a serious position. Everybody draws a line. Virtually nobody really thinks that stepping on an ant is morally equivalent to killing a sentient, sapient, rational human being--and if they were so inclined, abortion would be the least of their concerns.

The real argument is over where we draw the line--which means that those who deny the full personhood of Blacks, women, and fetuses must all give a standard that justifies those exclusions.

We find in the case of Blacks and women that any standard that excludes them is hopelessly morally arbitrary (why should the color of one's skin in and of itself determine a being's moral worth?) or based upon false beliefs (generally an assumption of severe inferiority in mental capacity). The same is not true of at least some of the standards that deny the personhood of the fetus, an entity whose possession of the ordinary mental components of personhood--sentience, sapience, rationality--is severely limited, and definitely far inferior to that of an adult human.

By contrast, the moral standards that include fetuses as full persons tend to be beset by problems. They are either arbitrary ("it's human"--but the basis for moral worth is not in humanity itself, but in the traits that tend to correlate with it in adults) or applied with severe inconsistency ("it's alive", "it has a brain after x number of weeks", and so on--standards that the "pro-lifers" virtually never apply to non-human life.)

Edit: I am much more sympathetic to Estabrook's challenge to the notion of absolute sovereignty over one's body... I am not at all convinced that if there is no other option to save the lives of persons (there virtually always is), it would be unjustified to violate another person's bodily autonomy, though for me the question of organ donation is much more relevant here than that of abortion. But it still seems very far-fetched to call the demand for this right "capitalist"; a person's body is not akin to a factory, the connection is much deeper and more fundamental, and the violation suffered when control over one's body is forcibly deprived is immensely greater than that suffered when control over one's factory is.

We find in the case of Blacks and women that any standard that excludes them is hopelessly morally arbitrary (why should the color of one's skin in and of itself determine a being's moral worth?) or based upon false beliefs (generally an assumption of severe inferiority in mental capacity). The same is not true of at least some of the standards that deny the personhood of the fetus, an entity whose possession of the ordinary mental components of personhood--sentience, sapience, rationality--is severely limited, and definitely far inferior to that of an adult human.


Just to give more insight as to my own opinion/beliefs/position...It is this standard of "ordinary mental components of personhood -- sentience, sapience, rationality [that] is severely limited, and definitely far inferior to that of an adult human" that has always struck me as morally arbitrary. I can think of a whole host of human beings who also qualify as having "severely limited" mental capacity "far inferior to that of [the typical] adult human" whose life nonetheless enjoys full protection. A newborn infant child is the most obvious example. There are also those with developmental or learning disabilities, the comatose or other suffering from injury or disease affecting cognitive abilities, etc.

Thus, there is a whole class who would fail the "mental components" test, but most of them would still enjoy the protection of society concerning their life. But for some reason the fetus does not. The only other major difference between the fetus and the rest of this class is the stage of development, or age. And discrimination on the basis of age strikes me as just as arbitrary and nonsensical as discrimination on the basis of skin color or gender.

Of course, I understand the necessity for drawing the line. There are plenty of activities or relationships that are best regulated on the basis of age; it's probably good that 2 year olds aren't driving trucks on the highways, airplanes in the sky, or getting married, etc. But then there are a lot of age limits that are complete bunk. For instance, I live in a country where one can fight in a war at 18, but can't drink alcohol until 21; not only are these two limits completely backwards, but what is it about "21" that suddenly makes consumption of alcohol ok?

And for life itself? What can be more arbitrary than that?


...standards that the "pro-lifers" virtually never apply to non-human life.


But that would be an unfair standard. I probably "[step] on an ant" all the time without knowing it. Building a house probably takes out all kinds of ants. Growing the food I need to survive displaces and kills some more. The only way to be truly "pro-life," then, is to stand perfectly still out in the middle of an untouched forest doing nothing until starvation wins.

The term "pro-life" is being interpreted too literally. If anything, it is referring to the human species. This is "discriminatory," I suppose, but it is also justifiable. A member of a species tends to work to ensure the propagation its own species first, or even exclusively. The fetus (and eventual born child) are that propagation.

I actually dislike these sorts of hyphenated labels. All they do is contribute to misunderstanding.


But it still seems very far-fetched to call the demand for this right "capitalist"; a person's body is not akin to a factory, the connection is much deeper and more fundamental, and the violation suffered when control over one's body is forcibly deprived is immensely greater than that suffered when control over one's factory is.


But, see, the notion of a "connection...much deeper and more fundamental" sounds like the fuzzy and arbitrary religious doctrine that Estabrook criticizes. Quantify it; what is this "connection" and where does it occur? How "deep" is it? How is it more "fundamental?"

By contrast, the moral standards that include fetuses as full persons tend to be beset by problems. They are either arbitrary ("it's human"--but the basis for moral worth is not in humanity itself, but in the traits that tend to correlate with it in adults) or applied with severe inconsistency ("it's alive", "it has a brain after x number of weeks", and so on--standards that the "pro-lifers" virtually never apply to non-human life.)

Indeed, which is why I typically look upon the (defunct in the viewpoint of the article) libertarian ideas of "self" defining rights....

By contrast, the moral standards that include fetuses as full persons tend to be beset by problems. They are either arbitrary ("it's human"--but the basis for moral worth is not in humanity itself, but in the traits that tend to correlate with it in adults) or applied with severe inconsistency ("it's alive", "it has a brain after x number of weeks", and so on--standards that the "pro-lifers" virtually never apply to non-human life.)


Chiefly for the reason that an ant, while having limited cognitive functions, not looking like a human, blah blah, will always and forever, be an ant. Whereas a fetus, with limited brain capability, if any, is a human, will be a human, and there is nothing stopping it from being an adult, short of an abortion or death later in life.

Edit: I am much more sympathetic to Estabrook's challenge to the notion of absolute sovereignty over one's body... I am not at all convinced that if there is no other option to save the lives of persons (there virtually always is), it would be unjustified to violate another person's bodily autonomy...


This is basically why I agree that abortion is moral and necessary if the pregnancy poses some kind of immediate danger, of course. Ectopic pregnancy is the standard example. Those who take an absolute "anti-" stance in even these sorts of situations are, of course, completely irrational, and are usually based in the sort of religious nonsense that is rightly criticized.

Although one would hope that medical knowledge and technology will eventually provide another option (which, hopefully, everyone will have access to...).

I can think of a whole host of human beings who also qualify as having "severely limited" mental capacity "far inferior to that of [the typical] adult human" whose life nonetheless enjoys full protection. A newborn infant child is the most obvious example. There are also those with developmental or learning disabilities, the comatose or other suffering from injury or disease affecting cognitive abilities, etc. Thus, there is a whole class who would fail the "mental components" test, but most of them would still enjoy the protection of society concerning their life.

Three problems with this.

First, some of those people would not actually fail the "mental components" test--either because at some point in the past they met the requirements of personhood (thus allowing future-oriented preferences to be taken into account), or because they have enough of the necessary mental components to qualify, even if their levels are not "ordinary."

Second, protecting the lives of those individuals does not require anyone to give up sovereignty over his or her body.

Third, the fact that our society is arbitrary and inconsistent when it comes to moral standards does not mean anything regarding what the actual moral standard should be.

But that would be an unfair standard. I probably "[step] on an ant" all the time without knowing it.

Then adjust your lifestyle. Or pay more attention. If you really maintained that ants were morally equivalent to human persons, you would.

Building a house probably takes out all kinds of ants. Growing the food I need to survive displaces and kills some more. The only way to be truly "pro-life," then, is to stand perfectly still out in the middle of an untouched forest doing nothing until starvation wins.

I believe I did say it was an absurd position that no one really took.

This is "discriminatory," I suppose, but it is also justifiable. A member of a species tends to work to ensure the propagation its own species first, or even exclusively.

"Is" is not "ought."

A member of a nation tends to work to ensure the propagation of his or her nation first. A member of a "race" tends to work to ensure the propagation of his or her "race" first. Virtually everyone tends to ensure the propagation of his or her welfare over that of others.

None of those are justifiable. I fail to see how discrimination based on species is in the slightest bit more so--even if it is "natural" and supported by biological instinct.

The fetus (and eventual born child) are that propagation.

If you want to make an argument from "nature", you should consider that our society, if anything, is much more concerned for the lives of the very young than is "normal"... for our species or for almost any other.

Our infant mortality rates are massively lower than is "natural", for one example.

But, see, the notion of a "connection...much deeper and more fundamental" sounds like the fuzzy and arbitrary religious doctrine that Estabrook criticizes. Quantify it; what is this "connection" and where does it occur?

What is your connection to your own body? Are you serious?

Now it sounds like you are the one trying to equate our relationship with our bodies as ones of owner to property... and I cannot imagine a doctrine more capitalist (not to mention alienating.)

and there is nothing stopping it from being an adult

So what?

So what?

I was explaining why 'pro-life' people do not apply their reasoning to other animals, despite similarities or advantages in mental capability to a fetus.

Animals can never be human.
Fetii can easily be human.

It is the potential factor.

It is the potential factor.

And that is not a reason at all.

And that is not a reason at all.

Okay. Did I say it was? Even if I thought it was, I didn't say I thought it was.

I was just clarifying something.

Don't get all...jumpy.

I was explaining why 'pro-life' people do not apply their reasoning to other animals, despite similarities or advantages in mental capability to a fetus.

Animals can never be human.
Fetii can easily be human.

It is the potential factor.

I see the point, but I don't see how people can uphold the rights of 'potential people'. How far can anyone stretch that? Menstruation is murder?

I see the point, but I don't see how people can uphold the rights of 'potential people'. How far can anyone stretch that? Menstruation is murder?

Awesome phrase.

I can see that at a Pro-Life rally.

Awesome phrase.

I can see that at a Pro-Life rally.

How about masturbation is murder? Similar principle.

How about masturbation is murder? Similar principle.

There was a catholic scholar who thought masturbation was worse then rape, the name escapes me right now however.

How about masturbation is murder? Similar principle.

Aye, I suppose so.

There was a catholic scholar who thought masturbation was worse then rape, the name escapes me right now however.

Lunacy McGee?

Lunacy McGee?

I was thinking Mad Malcolm McLoopy, chairman of the Mad Persons' Association, based in Loonyville.

How about masturbation is murder? Similar principle.According to some Jews, not having children is murder. How about that?

I was thinking Mad Malcolm McLoopy, chairman of the Mad Persons' Association, based in Loonyville.

Touche.

According to some Jews, not having children is murder. How about that?

I guess it wouldn't be a UB post unless it had something negative and offtopic to say about Jews.