Pro-abort Meg Wilson, a senior at Georgetown U in DC, posted this on the Choice Words blog yesterday:
Tuesday morning I decided to do a shift of clinic escorting….
So the morning was fairly quiet until an anti-choice protester arrived and began sounding off. While at first his comments remained general and aimed at everyone within ear shot, he soon started to narrow his focus to just me.
At first I just assumed it was just the fact that I was standing closer, but then his comments became increasingly directed; directed at the only black female. For him the best way to help sway over black patients as they entered the clinic was to paint me as a traitor to “my own people… who wants to kill my entire race.” I, of course, was highly offended by this alone, but the icing on the cake was when he asked me one simple question, “If you’re pro-choice, then can I choose to have slaves?”
I was completely outraged by such a racially charged statement….
I don’t know why Wilson was “offended” and “enraged.” Obviously this was the first she had encountered analogies between abortion/slavery and abortion/black genocide, meaning she hadn’t done any research whatsoever on abortion before becoming an activist. Doesn’t say much for her.
Actually, pro-abort blogs are all over the slavery analogy right now, in response to Melinda Henneberger’s NYT piece I drew your attention to Sunday, “Why pro-choice is a bad choice for Democrats.”…
Melinda Henneberger notes that opponents of abortion have made progress by making abortion a “human rights issue comparable to slavery.” The real problem, though, is that pro-choice advocates have defended abortion rather than the women subjected to such outrageous analogies.
“Outrageous”? How so? Slavery apologists considered blacks nonpersons, property, expendable at the whim of their owners. Hello?
Pro-abort blogger bean at Lawyers, Guns and Money responded:
The slavery point is worth noting, if only because BOTH sides of the abortion debate have compared it to slavery – on the abortion rights side, it’s the forced pregnancy that compels a woman into servitude; on the anti-freedom side, it’s the fetus whose personhood is not acknowledged (hence the “Dred Scott” secret phrase).
But what really piqued my interest here is that Paltrow takes… much of the mainstream pro-choice movement to task. And she’s got a point. By focusing on the abortion procedure itself, we (reproductive justice activists and advocates) buy into the antis’ trap – we put a procedure about which many people feel uncomfortable in the spotlight. How might it change the conversation if we stopped talking about abortion itself and started talking more about the women – many of them already mothers, as Paltrow points out – who have abortions?
Many people are going to say this won’t work – talking about women’s autonomy wasn’t successful before Roe and hasn’t been successful since. But this strategy is not about intangible concepts like freedom and autonomy. It’s about actual women and their real lives. I think it’s a pretty compelling turn of phrase.
Pro-aborts have fallen into “the anti’s trap” by “focusing on the abortion procedure itself”? Bean, that’s called “informed consent,” and your people fight that every step of the way. In actuality, pro-aborts run like roaches from discussion of the “abortion procedure itself.”
And I’ve never heard pro-aborts compare pregnant mothers to slaves. They certainly circle around it, saying abortion brings freedom, that women would otherwise remain barefoot and pregnant.
And I’ve heard them lately say more than the opposite, calling preborn babies freeloaders or parasites – less than slaves, who don’t even reciprocate for food and shelter. And the implication from that is the mother is an unwilling landlord, or duped mortgage company, or infestation victim, take your pick, but certainly not a slave.
No, in actuality, pro-aborts stay away from the word. Because the comparison of abortion to slavery only works one way. And they’d rather not go there. Hence, they become “offended” and “enraged” and consider it “outrageous” when we do, protesting way too much.