Saturday, July 3, 2010

Anti-Abortion Freaks in Spain

As much as I love celebrating Spain's impressive achievements in the area of women's rights, I have to recognize that the country has its fair share of anti-abortion crazies:
Hundreds of people on Saturday staged a protest outside Spain's highest court to demand the suspension of a new more liberal abortion law, two days before it was to take effect.
The protesters, carrying placards reading "No to abortion, yes to life" and "Everyone has the right to life", gathered in front of the Constitutional Court building in Madrid in response to a call by around 60 anti-abortion groups.
They also chanted "25 years is enough," a reference to the decriminalisation of abortion in Spain in 1985.
The Socialist government's new abortion reforms -- which notably allow all women to end their pregnancies up until 14 weeks -- take effect on Monday.

Of course, if you look closely at the pictures of the protest, you will see that the protesters are, for the most part, not young. These are the people who were horribly sexually repressed by the fascist regime. Now, they want to deny the younger generations what was stolen from them by Franco's dictatorship. So at least we can blame Spain's anti-abortion freaks on the fascist dictatorship. What excuse do the US anti-choice crazies have?

10 comments:

profacero said...

"What excuse do the US anti-choice crazies have?"

- Church?
- Sexual repression by entities other than Franco?
- Wanting to assuage guilt over not caring about people once they're born?

Not sure.

V said...

I have some problem with the train of your arguments though... How exactly being more or less sexually repressed defines ones attitudes about abortion? I do not see much of the cause-and-effect relationship here, at best I see two separate effects of traditional upbringing.

I can totally imagine a pro-lifer which is not sexually repressed or a sexually repressed pro-choicer. Unless we are talking about religious fanatics, sexuality is driven by subconscious forces to much larger extent than one's attitude towards abortion. The latter is usually based on one's ethical beliefs and value system, i.e. on conscious factors.

Clarissa said...

These people hate the idea of sex that does not lead to procreation. Ergo, they hate the idea of sex for pleasure. Ergo, they derive no pleasure from their own sexual activities, or simply have no sexual activities. Ergo, they are sexually repressed.

I cannot possibly imagine ANY other reason why people would police other peoples behaviors with so much anger and venom. Religion as a reason does not fly at all. There is absolutely no prohibition of abortion in the Bible. None. There are dozens of other prohibitions, though, which these freaks are in no hurry to impose. Do you see them protesting in front of the houses of people who work on Sundays? Do they engage in protests over people who don't honor their father and mother? Over those who have been committed perjury? No. Not a peep out of them. So this can't possibly be about religion.

Can you please not call them "pro-lifers"? I find this extremely offensive.

V said...

Paragraph one: all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles. While I tend to agree that being religious in certain ways (i.e. having particular definition of sin) causes sexual repression, it is not the only cause.

Theoretically, one can joyously celebrate one's sexuality and in the same time believe in life starting from the moment of conception. With all the logical implications. Or one can be embittered to the point of not enjoying anything, including sexuality, jealous of those who are enjoying it (i.e trying to repress others) and in the same time be "pro-choice" on some philosophical grounds. Or any other combination.

Point three: how do you want them to be called then, is there any other good shortcut which is as effective in indicating whom we are talking about?

Clarissa said...

" one can joyously celebrate one's sexuality and in the same time believe in life starting from the moment of conception."

-Of course one can. But this is not about what one believes and practices in one's own life. It's about what one tries to impose (often violently) on OTHER people. I don't believe that life begins at conception. But do you see me - or anybody - trying to force other people to abort? I also don't believe that cow is a sacred animal. Do you see me force Hindus eat cow? Do you agree that I would need a powerful reason to start forcing Hindus to eat cow besides a simple belief that it isn't sacred? It works the same way with abortion.

The problem of abortion is not about anybody's beliefs. It's about some people trying to force their beliefs or whatever on others.

These freaks are called anti-choicers or anti-abortionists. Seeing as the absolute majority of them is pro-death penalty, pro beating children, pro-war and pro-guns, it hardly makes any sense to call them "pro-life." This offends those people who are truly pro-life, like me.

V said...

If, based on his/her ethical/value system, one believes that life starts at conception, it becomes a moral obligation for such person to prevent abortion the same way most people would consider it their moral obligation to prevent killing or abuse of "officially recognized" human beings who are already born.

The issue boils down to whether one is allowed to affect others while exercising certain beliefs. Your particular examples of what you do not do are, of course, very nice, but in principle there is a list of rules which are imposed by the society on people possibly against their wishes. Do not kill, do not steal, etc. Read the criminal code. But what belongs to that list is just a matter of consensus in the society... And people are not only allowed, but even expected to attempt changing that consensus according to their beliefs. One is supposed to act on one's moral convictions. Otherwise these are not really moral convictions.

Do not take it as either "pro-choice" or "anti-choice" argument. It is just a freedom of expression argument.

Clarissa said...

"It is just a freedom of expression argument."

-I have never suggested that these people should be prevented from protesting. But if they should have the right to voice their opinions (which they do), I should have the right to voice mine (which is that they are sexually deprived freakazoids.)

Interestingly enough, anti-choicers never suggested that women who have abortions should be persecuted criminally. They are actually very much opposed to this possibility.

"If, based on his/her ethical/value system, one believes that life starts at conception, it becomes a moral obligation for such person to prevent abortion"

-Says who? Believing in "thou shalt not kill" does not prevent any one from supporting the death penalty. As for stealing, look how many kinds of stealing in our society do not get penalized and nobody says anything. This idea of a "moral obligation to stop a certain practice following from one's beliefs" is applied ONLY to abortion and homosexuality. And absolutely nothing else. How can I not draw the conclusion that this isn't about morality, or religion, or beliefs, but simply about sex? because sex is the only thing that abortion and homosexuality have in common.

V said...

---Says who?

Me, of course. :) Maybe somebody else too, but I do not care. If there happens to be an issue where my opinion coincides with that of some unpleasant character, I am not going to change my opinion just because of that :).

I am not defending a particular brand of US anti-choicers which are the most vocal and which are, at the same time, pro death-penalty and big fans of the NRA, big polluting SUVs, etc. In other words - hypocrites.

I am talking about the possibility, in theory, to construct the anti-abortion argument without the hypocrisy. But you are the specialist in everything Spanish, so you know better if in Spain, as in the US, anti-choice goes together with something decisively anti-life or not.

Clarissa said...

The issue under discussion is whether one is likely to engage in public protests of abortion if one is sexually fulfilled.

In Spain, it's just the older people who were brainwashed by the dictatorship. Younger people don't care about this stuff. Churches stand completely empty. It's really different in the US in that respect. That's why people are so much enlightened (and happier sexually, I might add.)

Voroshilov said...

la mayoría son viejos y gente católica. Crecieron en la época dictatorial del Franquismo y hacen caso a muchos años de adoctrinamiento.The majority are old and catholic people. Grew at the tyrannical time of Franco, and make case for many years of indoctrination.