Quite so. The fact that you can believe something so manifestly irrational is a pretty good indicator of how much thought you are likely to have put into your other beliefs.

If I claim to be an expert on art, but my house is full of pictures of crying clowns and blue-skinned women, a disinterested observer will know just how much to trust my judgement.

Lines of argument can stand or fall on thier own merits. It shouldn't matter who advances them. Sometimes, a person's identity can skew their experience of an issue. In those cases, we should explain that, focussing on why the argument is faulty.

MTR's Christianity has become an excuse to attack her, base on this stereotype that Christians impose their morality on others. Christians have as much right to advocate change as anyone else.

MTR's Christianity is her own business. It is her mistrustful attitude towards male sexuality that needs challenging.

I am no fan of MTR - quite the opposite - but this article is an excellent example of why she might be reluctant to discuss her religious beliefs. If her opinions are manifestly incorrect, then we have a duty to correct her using rational argument, not by censoring her for being a Christian. The latter is discrimination, pure and simple. Christians are entitled to make moral decisions like any other person - how they do so is up to their conscience - and attempts to silence anyone because they happen to believe in Jesus Christ betray the intellectual paucity and blatant bigotry of those who have elevated their own beliefs to that of a secular religion. When we say any one group should not be listened to because of their identity - whether they are Christians, women, homosexuals, or socialists - we are advocating discrimination and prejudice.

There are situations where one's belief system does not matter, but there may be situations where people gain publicity for some work yet use that particular publicity for that particular work to unduly influence in other areas while having other agendas.

@Mishka Gora
I'm not "censoring" or "silencing" Reist for her religious beliefs. That is a complete distortion of my position.

I'm asking her to be transparent about how her beliefs impact on her morality campaigns. Just as I would ask a feminist, a Marxist, a Buddhist, etc etc, except people who follow those ideologies aren't generally coy about saying where they're coming from, unlike some Christians.

Far from silencing her, I've asked hundreds of times that she debate her position with those who disagree with her, not necessarily me. Reist will not enter into debate. A public intellectual who will not enter into debate with alternative views? A Christian public intellectual who says her faith impacts on her message, but will not reveal how?

If there is a conflict for some Christians in that they fear their moral arguments will somehow be undermined by the revelation of their faith, then the problem lies with them and their faith, not with those of us who ask perfectly reasonable questions about it.

Or are you suggesting we have no right to ask anyone anything about their religious, political, ideological beliefs and affiliations? Because if Christians are to be exempt from such questioning, so must everybody else.

...And here again, and overtaking as usual, all concerns of the normal man, this special department in OLO dedicated to irrelevance, “La Femme”.

" .. concerns of the 'normal man' .."?? " .. irrelevance, “La Femme”."
by diver dan

I want a world where my daughter or her friends will be Not manipulated into marrying young; manipulated into marrying a faith; or, manipulated into being a breeding vessel for someone part of a group who think that is what women are primarily for.

Briar Rose, are you saying you are Jennifer Wilson, the author of this article?

I agree that, when asked, someone should be upfront about their beliefs, and to not do so shows cowardice.

However, the article concludes "If anyone seeks to morally prescribe from such a position, I am entitled to know that and to make my decisions accordingly. In those circumstances it is, to my mind, completely unethical to refuse to discuss one's relationship with religion and its influence on one's very public work."

You should be able to decide if someone's position is right or wrong from the position itself. Murder is wrong whether someone believes that it's wrong to take a life or that God told them so. It's still wrong! If you can't decide on whether you agree with someone's opinion unless you know whether they're a Christian or not, you have failed to exercise your intellect and moral reasoning.

I don't see how knowing MTR is a Christian changes anything. Why can't you just ask her what she believes about [x]? Christians aren't all the same. They disagree with each other on many things. I don't see how identifying her as a Christian illuminates the situation.

I don't think the author gets it.

No one has to disclose much at all to anyone. They don't have to disclose their political views or what political party they voted for, nor do they have to disclose their religion or why they belong to a religion or not.

I certainly wouldn't disclose much at all to a feminist, and who is judging, and who is playing at God here.

The author?

@Mishka Gora
Yes, sorry, I should have signed Jennifer.

I did not identify Reist as a Christian. Reist identified herself as such.

Reist says in several interviews that her faith influences perceptions of her moral campaigns in ways she doesn't like and won't talk about. I wouldn't unquestioningly accept that statement from anyone who made the same claims about any other religion or ideology. Why am I expected to accept that refusal from a Christian?

What else is remarkable is that followers of other religions and ideologies who take public stands don't usually attempt to separate their belief system from their morality, in my experience. This seems to be specific to some Christians. Why is this, and what makes you think I'm not entitled to ask that question?

Murder, and pornography, sexual representation of women and abortion are very different things. Reist is not arguing about the crime of murder, she's arguing about matters of morality and opinion. Your analogy is false.

The fact that the morality of some in Emily's list allows them to lie, break up marriages, live in debauchery and make up the rules along the way attests to their lack of belief in accountability. The godless press however are not game to go there. It is true that one's faith does influence every part of one's life. Look at the idiotic outcomes and predictions made by the likes of Gore and Flannery. Their faith is costing taxpayers heaps. If all belief systems were attacked equally the godless atheist would lose out in any rational arguement.

I feel that you might be on shaky ground here briar rose/Jennifer.

>>Reist says in several interviews that her faith influences perceptions of her moral campaigns in ways she doesn't like and won't talk about.<<

As vanna pointed out, she is not obliged to discuss them, or even disclose them.

The only point at which it is relevant that a particular "moral campaign" is informed by Christian/Muslim/Atheist/Marxist etc. beliefs is when the justification for holding that position is a bald "because I'm a Christian/Muslim/Atheist/Marxist etc."

Blind adherence to dogma of any kind is no substitute for independent thinking. But equally, holding firm moral views that are based upon the collective stance of a particular group of people is not in itself disqualification from holding those views.

Jennifer, let me be clear. I think MTR is open to criticism on a large number of matters, some of which I have aired with her supporters, and I think she's a coward for dodging questions, but she is right to point out that people do not evaluate her opinions on their merit when they put it in a context of her Christian faith. What she believes is irrelevant. What is relevant is the merit of her arguments (or lack thereof).

My analogy is not false. Morality is about right and wrong. Crime is about legality and illegality. Murder is wrong even when it's legal. That is a matter of morality. I don't care how many Hitlers make it legal to kill Jews; it is wrong. If the state makes it legal for 12 year old girls to be married according to their parents' wishes and not their own, I will say it is wrong (and I hope you will agree with me). That is a matter of morality, and the fact that Christian beliefs support such morals even when it means being transported to concentration camps should give you pause for thought.

I thoroughly disagree with the way MTR portrays women, but I don't see how her beliefs have anything to do with it. And if she says her beliefs are not relevant, then you should respect that. I think you'd have very good grounds for asking her to state her exact position on abortion and related legislation - I'd like to know what it is too - and you should ask her why she believes whatever she does on this and other topics, but the very fact that you wrote an article about it and that we're talking about it now proves that discussion of her religious faith does indeed "distract" from her work.

McReal:

...So onwards Mc Real, you wish to control when your daughter will marry, whom your daughter will marry and when your daughter will birth her children. That represents control McReal. I would suggest your intentions are honest, but misguided.

I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the very personal nature of the attacks on MTR. I think its getting out of line. MTR's views should be discussed and debated on their own merits. The intellectual and spiritual journey that formed MTR's views is her own business. I disagree with a lot of what she says, but she hasn't given up her basic privacy rights by making public statements on matters of public interest. And using her Christianity to discredit her views is just a cheap way of avoiding dealing with the merits of what she is saying.

For my mind, there is a critical intersection that is reached once a private individual seeks to influence public policy or perceptions.

Does anybody here believe that Senator Harradine wasn't obliged to reveal his religious motivations as he sought to affect public policy? Or that the onus isn't on Tankard Reist, who worked for him as his bioethics adviser at the time and who continues to lobby public and private perception, not to reveal the same.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/tankard-reist-explain-yourrself-21120123-1qdst.html

nice of you to portray the exact opposite meaning of my post, diver dan.

I don't care what my daughter does marriage-wise, or when, as long as she is "Not manipulated into marrying young; Not manipulated into marrying a faith; nor, manipulated into being a breeding vessel" as I stated.

Mishka, I and many others have asked Reist to answer the questions that interest you, to absolutely no avail. She does not engage with such questions or with any dissent.

Are seriously suggesting that an individual's religious and ideological beliefs have no effect whatsoever on their decisions about what they consider right and wrong?

Have you noticed what is currently underway in the US? Compulsory vaginal ultrasounds for women who seek an abortion are necessary because? There is a reason other than the religious for making this a law in Virginia? There is a reason other than the religious for attempting to deny women fundamental reproductive rights? The people advocating these tyrannies are doing so in no context whatsoever,you'd argue, they just don't think abortion and contraception are right, because they just don't?

Why and how does putting moral beliefs in the context of Christian faith detract from those beliefs? Are you saying there is something wrong with the Christian faith that it will inevitably taint moral beliefs and make their evaluation somehow suspect? Because if that is so, surely that is a problem for the believer and the faith, not for someone who is asking questions about it.

No, I don't have to "respect" a refusal to discuss. I can question a refusal to discuss. I can point out a refusal to discuss. I don't have to respect anything other than what seems to me to be worthy of respect. Playing games about one's faith and morality does not inspire respect in me.

Sorry Jennifer, but I think MTR has every right to be embarrassed about her religion if she wants to be.

It certainly is the first time I have heard of someone threatening to sue for defamation because they were called a Baptist though. I bet the Baptists are a bit miffed that a feminist believes that being called a Baptist, even erroneously, is somehow derogatory or defamatory and may cause emotional anguish and/or damage to ones reputation.

Poirot,
I agree that one should “reveal” one’s CV, probably including religious or secularist afilliation. (thou not a complete list of all what one beliefs on the background of one’s world-view, be it religious, deist, atheist. or what you have) when applying for a public job, e.c. an official “bioethics adviser”.

However, this shoal not be the case when entering an intellectual debate about some FACTS, and how to interpret them, or evaluating a variety of OPINIONS (irrespective of where they originally come from or what word-views happen to have influenced them)

Pericles,
I am somewhat surprised, but glad, that I can agree with every word you wrote in your last post.

*As vanna pointed out, she is not obliged to discuss them, or even disclose them.*

Pericles, she is not obliged to. But if an author has a religious
background and there are reasons to suspect that their religious
beliefs are affecting public policy, then its quite reasonable for
others to point that out and discuss their possible motivation.

Personally I have far more respect for somebody who comes clean
about their beliefs, so we all know where we stand

For these days we have freedom of religion, so why not freedom
from religion, for those who choose so?

I unfortunately do not have time to read all the other comments atm.
Jennifer, I like your article. I agree with most, if not everything you have said.(the exception, or question I have for you will be my one disagreement) I am a christian that is is very happy to let it be known that that is who I am, and that is the worldview I am coming from. I agree, your worldview does color your attitudes, beliefs, opinions, values and actions. I am not even going to deal with the issue that christian's opinions are so very often written off simply beacause they are christians.. I'm sure that will be there somewhere in the existing 20 comments.

My question to you is, though you are not a christian, and though many are not christians in our society, would you and those same people be prepared to live in a world that has not had the underpinning of the bible for the last 1000 years? I have recently read a book that really made me think and examine my understanding of western culture. The guy who wrote it, travels in the USA regularly, though is from a culture which does not have christian history. His wife STILL cries tears of amazement and joy whenever an ambulance rushes past to the aid of some poor unfortunate person. In her culture, people are not valued. True, the actual ambulance man may not value that person.. but the system does. The question for you to really consider is, how did the system develop?
sorry if this seems random,but i am addressing your issue with being in a system that reflects bible values.. and I thought that it was a point worth making, and a book worth reading....
ps my personal willingness to be known is not meant to be a negative reflection on Melinda. I am ver much in support of her work
I do hope you two can work things out. I am praying that you do.

“Tankard Reist ... says it's not being called Christian she objects to, but the claim that she is ''deceptive and duplicitous about her religious beliefs''. (see e.g. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/antiporn-activist-threatens-to-sue-blogger-over-religion-claims-20120116-1q39d.html).

So although I know nothing about the case, nevetheless am inclined to think that MRT should not have sued Jennifer. There would be very few of us on this OLO if we had a skin that thin. Also, on this OLO there is one runner, who knows exctly what atehism is all about but many Jennifers who know exactly what Chrisanity is, or ought to be, all about. We, the more reluctant to make sweeping statements, just have to live with both kinds.

However, as far as possible reasons to sue, there is certainly a difference between being called a “Christian” and being called “deceptive” (giving an appearance or impression different from the true one; misleading, in my dictionary) and “duplicitous” (deceitful : treacherous, in my dictionary).

Jennifer, badgering MTR about her religious affiliation won't get you any more answers. You wrote an article saying it's unethical to not disclose one's religion. While religious and ideological beliefs may inform someone's morality, no one is fully aware of exactly how. None of us, it is to be hoped, engage in so much self-analysis that we can trace every last influence on our moral decisions. You seem to think that the "Christian faith" can be blamed for anything its adherents say or do. If someone is a feminist and has the view that male kittens should be drowned, it might be enlightening to know she's a feminist, but at the end of the day her views are abhorrent on their own merit. Should all feminists be blamed for the views of one?

If you have a problem with MTR's views, attack her views, not where they come from.

As for ultrasounds, of course there are non-religious reasons. Firstly, there are people who oppose abortion who are not in any way religious, who accept what any biologist will tell you, that life begins at conception. Secondly, if a woman is going to have an abortion, I believe she should know exactly what she is doing. I believe she has a right to be fully informed. She also has a right to proper medical attention. I have had a D&C, which is the same as abortion except the foetus is already dead. It was necessary for me to have a vaginal ultrasound beforehand to ensure that the foetus was actually in the womb and not elsewhere - a mere pregnancy test will not show an ectopic pregnancy, and an abdominal ultrasound won't show the foetus in early stages of pregnancy. (I know because I've had an ultrasound technician tell me I wasn't pregnant when I was, only to clearly see my baby's heart pumping on a vaginal ultrasound the next day.) But you blame religion for these laws.... I think that shows very clearly why someone would have good reason to not want to disclose their religious views to you.

Pericles, I agree with you that of course Reist is not obliged to discuss anything she doesn't want to discuss. For me, however, this particular refusal seriously undermines her credibility.

As she is a public figure urging moral values on society, I am quite within my rights to question her credibility on any grounds I feel are relevant. I have no obligation to remain silent if I'm uncomfortable with her values.

I don't know if her campaigns are as they are because of her Christian beliefs. That is the question I'm asking, that she will not answer.

While Reist doesn't baldly assert they are Christian, she also refuses to say that they are not. It wouldn't be very difficult to state that her campaigns are nothing to do with her faith. She has not done this.

What she does say is that people thinking her campaigns are influenced by her faith will damage the campaigns. This is not an answer to the question, and it doesn't tell us if her campaigns are founded in Christianity or not. It only tells us that she doesn't want people thinking they are.

If the campaigns are solidly founded in the Christian faith, that is no reason for disqualifying them out of hand, I agree. However, I need to know what Reist's vision of a moral universe is. If it is entirely based on Christian values I have big problems with that, and the first one is, what kind of Christian values, as there are many. Fundamentalist? Homophobic? Anti choice? Liberal?

Reist can very easily resolve all this speculation about her agenda by saying if it's based on her Christian beliefs or not, and if it is, what kind of Christian beliefs.

I understand that some people don't care one way or the other. But some people do care, I'm one of them, and we have a right to ask the questions and have them answered before we decide if we are supportive of Reist's moral values or not.

Pericles,
I think you are getting close.

Feminism is very much a derivative of Marxism, and of course Marxists were very much into interrogation and mind control.

The person was interrogated for their beliefs, and if those beliefs did not conforms to the party’s beliefs, then systems of mind control and “re-education” followed.

Millions died in those “re-education” camps.

People have a right to their privacy and their own private thoughts and beliefs, and do not have to give those beliefs to some feminist or feminist party to see whether their beliefs conform to the feminist's beliefs.

Religion and religious feelings may not be something that can be adequately expressed verbally anyway, but a Marxist/feminist may not be able to understand this, or understand feelings.

just for the record, though I agree with your premise that your faith informs your life and viewpoints etc, i feel your attitude is an attacking attitude. (I say this because my earlier post stated that i agreed with nearly everything you had said... this is to qualify that i don't (personally)agree with the way you have said it).

Jennifer as another former christian I'm not so certain that it's viable to seperate out which parts of your thinking are christain and which are not. There may occasionally be specific parts of your thinking were that's the case but for the most part my experience was it's all so interwoven that it's not easily seperated out.

By the same token I doubt that most non-christians are readily able to seperate out specific parts of their thinking from their own background vs purely reasoned conclusions nor do we generally require disclosure of all the factors which might have contributed to certain viewpoints. A rape victim might hold similar views but not necessarily realise the degree to which that horror impacted on their thinking nor be required to disclose that.

No fan of MTR's on a number of fronts. As others have already pointed out I think that the real issue is the very negative approach she takes to male sexuality and her apparent desire to impose maternalistic impositions on the rights of others (both men and women).

Where there is a clear conflict of interest it should be declared.

On the other hand I wonder how many of MTR's feminist supporters felt the same way when it was Tony Abbott as health minister who's faith appeared to be impacting on his thinking. Was his faith off limit's as a topic of discussion?

R0bert

The thing about "Tony Abbott as health minister who's faith appeared to be impacting on his thinking" was that seems to align closely with MTR and what she was espousing at the same time.

They both focused on certain selective aspects of RU486 without indicating they had sought balanced medical advice from, say, a college (or other collection) of gynecologists/obstetricians about its use.

Jennifer, you said: "we have a right to ask the questions and have them answered before we decide if we are supportive of Reist's moral values or not."

No, you have a right to know what those moral values are, not how she came to have them. Either you agree with her points or not. You don't have to agree with her entire belief system to agree that, I don't know, maybe that pornography objectifies women. Either you think it does or doesn't. What's Christianity and which brand MTR adheres to have to do with it? Maybe she's non-denominational. But you don't have any "right" to know.

All the same, I think MTR should be more open and she certainly shouldn't have sued you. She sued you?! But the principle stands - you don't have a right to know anything more than she cares to tell you.

Minimus,

MTR's legal representatives sent letters threatening defamation action.

"...you don't have a right to know anything more than she cares to tell you."

But you do have a right to ask - and you do have a right to discuss in the public sphere the ethics incumbent on those who seek to affect societal attitudes.

Usually when I come to OLO I read about an issue. Today I find I’m reading a debate about a person, Melinda Tankard Reist. If I were her, I’d be chuffed to have so many people kicking up dust over me. Reminds me a bit of Jesus. Everyone had an opinion. Some loved him, some hated him. Most found him hard to ignore.

I’ve only vaguely ever heard of her before today, but now I’m interested. Who is she and what does she actually believe? (Unless I’m mistaken, there’s no actual quote from her, in any context, given in the article.)

Dan,

Actually in MTR's case it's morphed into the Streisand effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

I agree with much of this article in that Christians should not be ashamed to admit what we are. And it’s refreshing to find a non-believer standing up (sort of) for the right of believers contribute to debate on politics, ethics, etc. Often nowadays we are told that religion is a “private” matter, and to keep our beliefs to ourselves and not foist them on others.

That said, I can’t help feeling the call for MTR (how did she become an acronym, by the way?) to admit religious underpinnings to her ethical stand is to introduce an excuse to dismiss her view because it has a religious underpinning. Jennifer says she does not wish to be forced to live subject to Christian morality. Fair enough. But - as others, especially Miska have argued – MTR’s moral positions should be judged according to its moral coherence, not its religious (or other)motivation.

Martin Luther King’s calls for equal rights and an end to racial discrimination were deeply rooted in his theology and religion, but that in no way undermined their moral authority or the obligation of both believers and non-believers to treat them on their merits.

This entire article was doused in idealism and impracticality. It might work on paper but it doesn't work in real life

'Actually in MTR's case it's morphed into the Streisand effect.'

Although, I think in reality we have a reverse-streisand, considering the ubiquitous PR industry tactics of our time.

MTR cant lose! Dan S is living proof. Increasig market share for career feminist social commentators is all this is about. Feminism is all about popularity and entertainment. That's the moral of the story.

Jen, what you're missing is that you should cash in as well. A bit of ambush marketing is in order, fly along on the coat tails and turn up to every book signing she has. I reckon you're more marketable to the male demographic. You must milk it for all it's worth. I know you are looking for that Feminist Social commentator role;-)

I fail to see that 'outing' someone as a Christian who is already known to be Christian and has stated such before, is defamatory. Did she get the flavour slightly wrong? I thought being a christian is generally considered a good thing.

If John Eales campaigns for more funding for Rugby, and someone points out that he used to play rugby for Australia, well how exactly does that defame him? Is it because his lobbying has somehow nothing to do with his love of rugby, and shouldn't cloud the merits of his campaign. Give me a break.

So much goings on, and really I think if feminists were to discuss MonkeyGate with such fervour, they would get much more men interested for a start.

2 interesting points in all this..

1. Forests impeccable research about the attempt to blacklist Jen on OLO before the threat of legal action.

2. The stuff from Jen about the irony of a so-called feminist using the silencing tools of... du du dum....! 'The Patriachy!'

As Bill would say,

Got 'im, Yeeees!

Who behaves like this? Really? Is it just me that sees it all as extremely childish and cowardly of MTR?

But what a brand! M... T....R! M... T... R!

The point of the issue is surely that if someone -- like Reist -- wants to convince me to change my mind on an issue then they are obligated to give me good reasons. Reist claims SHE has good reasons for opposing liberal abortion laws, yet neither she nor anyone else can provide a rational foundation for that opposition. Assuming that they are not merely barking mad, either the anti-choice brigade either have to explain why they are right, or their opponents need to explain why they are wrong. Identifying a religious belief which is associated with other delusional claims goes a long way towards explaining this one as well.

anyone who wants to support liberal abortion laws simply does not want to face simple facts. It is killing a young child in no uncertain terms. What could be more obvious. Would you like a video that you can watch?

"Murder, and pornography, sexual representation of women and abortion are very different things. Reist is not arguing about the crime of murder, she's arguing about matters of morality and opinion. Your analogy is false." J.Wilson

Only the highly educated could possibly hold such a neo-stone age moral philosophy. Power confiscates natural access to the good http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/does-morality-depend-on-god.html so that authority lies solely in the hands of a positivist (and amoral)ruling class. The same one that pays and nurtured Wilson. But their yoke is hard - for Wilson has lost the natural light of reason and chosen an expensive repentance in court.

Wilson should listen to Mrs Gora and in Jesus' name - pray. He loves us deeply.

Jon J.
Why does MTR have to be singled out for being anti-abortion. Do other feminists think she is becoming too popular, and taking away their popularity?

I can imagine an interveiw with a feminist.

"I don't want to discuss it."

"Ah ha, so you are trying to hide something", says the feminist.

Then if the other person does tell the feminist something, the feminist will try and use it against them.

So it would be best not to associate with the feminist at all.

@ Mishka Part 1
“Badgering?” Now asking questions of Christians is “badgering?” And if not that, it’s “blaming?” What is this sense of being entitled not to be questioned that some Christians assume?

Reist is a public intellectual. Part of her role is to debate her position with members of the public. Questioning her is a legitimate activity. If she doesn’t want to answer, then she isn’t fulfilling her chosen role and can’t expect to be taken seriously.

You write: “Secondly, if a woman is going to have an abortion, I believe she should know exactly what she is doing.”

What makes you think she doesn’t know “exactly “ what she’s doing? And what does “exactly” mean in this context?

Given that you consider I have no right to know Reist’s religious beliefs, why on earth do you think you or your church has the right to decide whether or not a woman knows what she’s doing when she seeks an abortion? Your assumption is that unless a woman goes through a process you and your church considers adequately educative, she doesn’t know “exactly” what she’s doing?

I contend that this is religious rubbish. If it isn’t, the onus is on you to prove that women seeking an abortion do not know “exactly” what they’re doing. You must then prove that a compulsory vaginal ultrasound will tell them “exactly” what they are doing, in a way that nothing else can.

Despite absence of proof of assumptions that are based on the entirely presumed ignorance of women, vaginal ultrasounds are to be compulsory in VA before a woman may access abortion. Based on religious doctrine, not on empirical evidence because there isn’t any.

There are of course non-religious people who debate when life begins. And I would like to hear their empirical evidence for claiming women do not know “exactly” what they’re doing when they seek abortions. If they make such claims, which I seriously doubt.

Vanna, Reist is a public participant in an open debate. If she puts forward a position she is obliged to justify it. If her only justification is "The Sky Fairy told me so," then we can all draw our own conclusions as to the defensibility of that position.

"anyone who wants to support liberal abortion laws simply does not want to face simple facts. It is killing a young child in no uncertain terms."
Posted by runner, Friday, 17 February 2012 5:55:18 PM

"liberal" abortion laws? As opposed to 'illiberal abortion laws' or 'illiberal anti-abortion laws'?

What simple facts? Like the simple fact it is actually Not a 'young child'?? Like the fact a foetus is simply a collection of evolving stem cells? All those cells still developing into body systems?

Jon J,
Yes, well unemotional or facts based science could be brought into it, but then I've never known a feminist to rely much on science or facts.

Normally they want to rely upon emotional manipulation, deceit, advocacy research, lies, propaganda, distortion of information, misinformation, bigotry and selective reporting of information.

It is an interesting cat-fight now occurring between feminists.

vanna,

"It is an interesting cat fight now between feminists."

Which tells us more about your depth of perception than it does about the issue at hand.

Tankard Reist's supporters have consistently endeavoured to skew this debate into one which examines who can or cannot call themselves a "feminist".

We wouldn't be having this discussion at all if Jennifer Wilson hadn't gone public with the threats of defamation from MTR (letters she was advised were "not for publication" by MTR's legal representation).

Forrest Gumpp comments on the deliberate deviation from the issue here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13244&page=0#229219

dream on McReal the usual pseudo science used to block one's conscience. Try looking through a microscope but then again that would destroy the myth you want to believe.

Poriot,
There has been an attack on Christianity by various feminists going back decades, because Christian groups have so often opposed abortion.

This particular cat-fight is probably a localised continuation of that long-term attack and denigration of Christianity.

It becomes interesting because both opposing parties have called themselves feminists.

BTW. Some of my definition of what constitutes feminism is “emotional manipulation, deceit, advocacy research, lies, propaganda, distortion of information, misinformation, bigotry and selective reporting of information”

@runner,

Your continuous swipes without any explanation except that you are a servant to bronze-age mythology as it is interpreted today largely by a nonsensical pseudo absolutist ideology, have no effect on rational people.

Here are a few simple questions for you.

Should all abortions be illegal?

Or, should there be exceptions if the mother’s life is threatened by proceeding with the pregnancy?

For abortions you consider should be illegal, what is the crime? (That is, is it premeditated murder?)

The law already implements lengthy prison terms up to the death penalty for murder, should the sentence be the same for abortion? (If not, why not)

Should the woman who has the abortion and the doctor who performs the abortion be prosecuted for murder?

Should any other staff present also be charged with aiding in murder?

I look forward to your answers although I expect considerable squirming.

David

There are easier ways to defeat feminists like Tankard Reist. Just ask them about personal responsibility and watch them run.

Jennifer, you haven't just asked questions. You have written an entire article calling her unethical. She's not a public servant, and there's no requirement for her to answer your questions. I don't like her evasiveness any more than you, but even public figures have a right to privacy. And the way you're attacking her, no wonder she doesn't answer you!

I wouldn't call her an "intellectual", but I take all people seriously and try to evaluate arguments rather than judging people based on their beliefs. The more you attack MTR the more credibility and exposure she gains. Well done, Jennifer! On the bright side, at least she might get more of a hearing, which is good for democracy.

As for knowing "exactly" what an abortion entails, that is a medical right of all patients, not "religious rubbish". (Next time you're lying in hospital I suggest you read your Patients' Rights sheet.) Furthermore, if you look at http://www.abortionhelp.com.au/facts-on-abortion#12med you will see that even abortion providers like Marie Stopes require an ultrasound and explain why (as I did in my previous post). I'm also constantly told by pro-choice women who've had abortions that the embryo/foetus is "just a blob of cells" and by other women that it's something they deeply regret.

I can't speak for the Virginian legislators, but I don't see how their religion affects the legitimacy of their arguments. The pro-life argument has nothing to do with religion - it's about when life begins and whether we have a right to terminate that life. If you decide that someone's argument is invalid because they are religious, you are being discriminatory. The validity of an argument is not dependent on who's advancing it or what their creed entails. I think you'll also find it's their democratic right. They were elected to legislate for Virginia's citizen's, 76% of whom identify as Christian. Got a problem with that? That's a problem with democracy.

And if you're so interested in hearing the evidence of secular pro-lifers, why don't you ask the folk over at http://secularprolife.org? Hopefully, they will be more forthcoming than MTR.

David

It is not rational people who kill the unborn it is hard hearted sinful people whose consciences are seared. Doctors slaughtering the unborn are in this category.

Also the feminsist and educators who insist abortion is only about the woman and not the baby. They are deceitful and lead many to abdicate their responsibilities.

In answer to your questions

Should all abortions be illegal?

Having brainwashed and deceived so many into hard heartedness and deceitful thinking no. The gaols are already full.

Just imagine unborn children were given a chance and adopted out. That that really would be quite novel wouldn't it David

<The ethics of the situation are obvious. If Tankard Reist is a practicing Christian then there is no doubt that her faith guides her moral values. If she has a relationship with God in which she seeks through prayer advice and instruction on her work, as Christians are required to do, then she is ethically obliged to disclose this.>

The problem with this logic, Jennifer, is it suggests that non-denominational advocates are objective. Just because you deny God and profess secularism, it doesn't follow that your views are comparatively disinterested, or ideologically undirected--apologies but you views appear populist and predicatble. Indeed it could be argued that unconscious bias--especially when it has the moral high ground, as secularism does at at the moment--is more successfully devious than a patent agenda. I might add, however, that it seems to me MTR has a patent agenda when she uses or has phrases like the "sanctity of life" attributed to her.

Mishka Gora,

I'm a little confused.
You say above that "...The validity of an argument is not dependent on who's advancing it or what their creed entails..." Yet, in your recent article on OLO your argument appears to rest abundantly on those points. You say that religious employers shouldn't be compelled to adhere to a "dictatorial mandate" enforced by the U.S. government to fund free birth control through insurance - precisely because of who they are and what is their creed.

Poirot, not at all. The right of someone to follow their conscience is not dependent on whether they're right or wrong. It doesn't matter how batty someone is, if they are convinced of the immorality of something then that must be respected. I don't think that war is inherently wrong, but I respect the right of Quakers to not be conscripted into the armed forces. And the validity or invalidity of their argument isn't dependent on whether they're Quaker or anything else. I decide for myself that they're wrong, but I still respect their right to have a contrary opinion and not violate their conscience in that regard.

So, what I'm saying is that while I can disagree with MTR, I still respect her right to her opinion, her right to express it, and her right to follow her conscience wrt those opinions... and her right to privacy. I do not need to know whether she's a Christian or not to know that I disagree with her portrayal of men and women. I will disagree with her whether she's a Christian, a Buddhist, or an atheist because I disagree with her argument, not with her creed.

@runner,

The gaol population is not under scrutiny here, your attitude is and you have failed in a serious way to answer the questions. Abortion has always been practiced whether it is illegal or legal. Imposing the carrying through of a pregnancy to birth is a patriarchal idea and not supported by any laws that have a high regard for equality.

When I say patriarchal, I mean it because you are not following the ways of the alleged creator; you are following the ideas of mentally compromised men. The alleged creator has made a system where a very high percentage of foetuses naturally self-abort. The alleged creator has also made a system where all humans die. In fact, the alleged creator is responsible for the deaths of everyone. This is beyond murder; this is genocide on a monstrous level.

Religion has a way of cherry picking its way through its own fantasy to suit minds that cannot come to grips with reality and in doing so, creating unnecessary mayhem.

Either answer the questions or get off your sanctimonious self-righteous high-pony. It will never gain the status of horse.

When religion has simplistically intractable ideas about complex problems all it does is create suffering for actual sentient human beings.

Why not come along to the 2012 Global Atheist Convention in April this year and see that Satan is nowhere to be found there. Instead you will discover, just sane and sensible people trying to help civilisation.

But I guess exposing your mind to anything not fitting a narrow preconceived thought-window would not be to your liking.

David

David

Your irrational dismissal of the unborn being a human being shows that science really has little place in your conclusions. I suspect strongly your high priests Dawkins and others who are chief cherry pickers will be pushing and modelling his immoral views at your love feast. It will only be those wanting their immoral views sanctioned that are likely to be attending.

btw just because I did not give the answer you wanted does not mean I did not answer.

" In fact, the alleged creator is responsible for the deaths of everyone. This is beyond murder; this is genocide on a monstrous level."
Quality lol.

"Embrace the Nothing"
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/reading-rosenberg-part-vii.html
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/12/christ-and-nothing-28

Evangelical Atheism.
(Doing God's work despite ourselves since 2004.)

"When religion has simplistically intractable ideas about complex problems all it does is create suffering for actual sentient human beings".

So true, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.

The phrase "sanctity of [human] life" is a particular bugbear for mine, divorced as it is from any consideration of earthly-ethics or sustainability. On the one hand anti-abortionists condemn the taking of a potential human life; on the other hand they're content to see humanity multiply beyond the capacity of the planet to sustain us. Where's the sanctity of human life when we die en masse thanks to the dictum to be fruitful and multiply?

@runner,

“btw just because I did not give the answer you wanted does not mean I did not answer.”

Sorry, I was after an answer to reasonable questions. It amazes me you hide in this manner but I have gotten used to it over the years. But, I’m still amazed humans can self-deceive like this.

High priests in atheism…really! Shows you haven’t an inkling of an understanding about atheism.

I knew it would be a waste of time addressing you; the fear of hell / annihilation has been firmly planted. You will misrepresent, twist, contort, hide, evade etc to escape an eternity of torture / nothingness without even taking into account the alleged creator knows you are doing this.

I have heard it is seriously against lying, even when it is for supposedly good.

Our conversation has ended if the questions are left unanswered. You might not believe this, but I have a great pity for such a mind-set and it is one of my main drives in preventing this from happening to others.

David

"The right of someone to follow their conscience is not dependent on whether they're right or wrong. It doesn't matter how batty someone is, if they are convinced of the immorality of something then that must be respected."
Posted by Mishka Gora, Saturday, 18 February 2012 2:17:50 PM

The "right" of someone "to follow their conscience" depends on the actions they think that "right" confers, and whether they enact those actions. Harassing or murdering abortion clinic staff comes to mind. That must Not be respected nor must the immorality of doing, or wanting to do, those things.

runner,
Science tells us lots about human beings and their development from conceptus/zygote, then blastomere, through 16-cell morulla stage to blastocyst, before implanting to start pregnancy/gestation; then the embryo and membranes develop (til 10 weeks), then various foetal stages, including a period when it is considered "sentient" (at about 26 weeks), then further progression to being a near term and full term baby. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm

We humans philosophise about that information; science does not do that thinking for us.

I can see both sides here, but ultimately I fall on the side of Jennifer Wilson in this somewhat ugly debate.

I don't think anybody has a responsibility to disclose his/her religious beliefs when expressing an opinion or lobbying for something. As many have already said, arguments should be judged based on their justification rather than on the religious attitudes of those who present them. Our opposition leader, Tony Abbott, serves to illustrate this point. He openly professes his Catholic faith and, when opponents have difficulty countering his arguments, they just call him the "Mad Monk" and move on as if that served as sufficient rebuttal. Many non-Catholics may share his set of values; many Catholics may disagree with him. To his credit, but also often to his detriment, he makes their origins clear. I think rebuttal on the grounds of religion says more about the opponent than about Abbott.

In Reist's case, however, it seems that she likes to drop the occasional veiled comment about her religious beliefs, and links those comments back to her broader arguments. Whether she argues because of, or in spite of, her religion is irrelevant: she appears to acknowledge a connection. Then, like a teenager seeking an air of mystique, she backtracks and refuses to answer any questions about the topic. In doing so, she does herself no favours. Either her arguments are reasoned and in keeping with her faith, they are reasoned and contradict her faith or they are unreasoned and in keeping with her faith. She does seem to have something to hide. I can see where the Streisand effect comes into this: she asks us not to talk about it, so we do.

<"The right of someone to follow their conscience is not dependent on whether they're right or wrong. It doesn't matter how batty someone is, if they are convinced of the immorality of something then that must be respected."
Posted by Mishka Gora, Saturday, 18 February 2012 2:17:50 PM"

Thanks for highlighting that quote, McReal, it illustrates another bugbear of mine; the whole notion of human "rights". Human rights were rhetorically conjured up and are vested, by humans, in the human "capacity" for fulfilment and suffering and not in natural law.

By your logic, Mishka, as stated above, Hitler's morality must be respected. That is nonsense!
If someone is going to set-up as a public intellectual, or arbiter of morality, or life and death, the onus is on them to give a full account of their reasoning. I'm not interested in MTR's or anybody else's convictions. A computer makes more sense!

Here you go Squeers.

It's interesting that you should raise the issue of Human Rights. It was a central plank of MTR's lawyer's second letter to Jennifer Wilson.

http://noplaceforsheep.com/2012/02/07/the-second-letter-tankard-reist-claims-human-rights-abuse/

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
If you wanted to decrease the rate of abortions, you could probably significantly decrease the rates overnight. It does seem too many immigrants are using abortion as a system of contraception, as occurs in their own country, and if they used contraception, the rates of abortion would significantly decrease.

But the ghastly practice of abortion is central to feminism, and the non-human practice of IVF has also become central to feminism, so we can’t discuss either, or find better or more progressive ways of living, without abortion or IVF.

Otokonoko
You are somewhat correct I think.
MTR doesn’t have to disclose or talk about her religion, or be forced or pressured to. It is illegal to do so under the Anti-discrimination Act, but she can talk about it if she wants and when she wants.

I personally would not want to be forced into a position where I was interrogated by a feminist about my religion or anything else.

A truly fascinating thread, and so many side arguments too!
I wish I hadn't been away from OLO so long this time :)

I tend to agree more with Jennifer's views on the subject of Reist's views.
Reist can't expect to have books, web-sites, tweets and blogs out there in the public sphere extolling the same moral views and values as Christians on subjects such as abortion, cloning, surrogacy, euthanasia and sexuality, and not expect others to ask her about her religious views.

Although I applaud many of Reists' views on women's rights, I feel she is being a little 'precious' in her denial of the obvious fact that her views are very much coloured by her Christian beliefs.

I fail to see why she isn't prepared to tell about this already obvious part of her being. Why is she so reluctant about sharing this?

I don't believe that a true Christian can also be a true feminist.
Anyone who will deny a woman the right to abortion, and thus 'force' her to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will, cannot have a woman's welfare at heart at all..

@vanna,

The aim should not be to decrease the number of abortions but to educate women to have greater control over their fertility. The number of abortions will drop as a consequence. And of course, no amount of contraception will stop all unwanted pregnancies.

It is a value based and unhelpful opinion to call abortion a “ghastly practice”. It is a necessary medical practice. That kind of language is not helpful to the discussion as actual women do have to have actual abortions. The Atheist Foundation of Australia supports their decision either way.

David

Otokonoko, Saturday, 18 February 2012 3:30:27 PM

It depends on context and fullness of information around which an argument is being put. For example, with respect to abortion, there is the outcomes for the mother and any child that might arise out of a pregnancy for which an abortion is being considered; as well the father,and as for other people that mother might care or be responsible for. The battle-cry of "think of the foetus" is a narrow, in that respect.

And specifically who is countering eg. with respect to countering Abbott, someone in direct discussion with him - in Parliament or in a meeting - won't be calling him 'the Mad Monk'; that is a term used by a third party who/that is largely irrelevant to the primary discussion.
...................................

"It does seem too many immigrants are using abortion as a system of contraception"
vanna, Saturday, 18 February 2012 4:31:04 PM

That is a pretty bigoted statement, vanna.

As is - "the ghastly practice of abortion is central to feminism"

Ensuring the 'right to have an abortion' might be central, but so is the moral responsibility of trying very hard to avoid the need for one.

Thanks Poirot,
It's interesting that MTR invokes the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", a secular/humanist document, to protect her Christian parochialism. I might take pause for a moment too to pick on the word "universal". Not only are our grandiose human rights not universally agreed-upon in the cosmos (so far as we know), they're specifically flouted here on Earth! What is universally respected on Earth is "an award of compensation"; ie, "money". That brings one down to Earth!
Good to see MTR's not to caught-up in religious coils.

Suseonline, Saturday, 18 February 2012 4:34:25 PM

Melinda Tankard-Reist does Not seek to deny abortion to women who want them, so does not seek to force a woman to go to term. She seems to be willing to help some women to go to term. If she has "books, web-sites, tweets and blogs out there in the public sphere extolling the same moral views and values as Christians on subjects such as abortion, cloning, surrogacy, euthanasia and sexuality", then those views and values can be addressed for each of those scenarios.
................................................

"no amount of contraception will stop all unwanted pregnancies."

Posted by David, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 18 February 2012 4:55:59 PM

Well, perhaps a condom and spermicidal cream, in conjunction with a women using an IUD, a diaphragm, and the pill, might considerably lessen the chances. But, of course, that is stretching a point.

McReal & Squeers, I did NOT say that if someone thinks they're right then we have to respect that. Freedom of conscience is about not forcing anyone to do something they believe wrong. It does not give them the right to do anything they think right. Just as Hitler did not have the moral right to force Jews into concentration camps, etc., those who disagreed with him had the moral right (of their conscience) to not be forced to participate in the persecution of Jews (even though it was technically legal and their resistance was technically illegal). Freedom of conscience protects people from being forced to participate in evil or immorality. It is a negative protection not a positive mandate. It doesn't give anyone a right to act, it merely gives a protection from being coerced. There are exceptions - there are almost always exceptions to rules - such as if someone uses conscience as an excuse to not do their moral duty to save someone's life, but the general principle stands.

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
I think there are a number of reasons why abortion rates in this country are high, (and for a country with relatively cheap contraception, the abortion rate is high), but abortion rates are unlikely to decline if there is an attitude that abortion is somehow natural or acceptable.

Abortion is central to feminism, similar to the cross being central to Christianity.

Abortion is like a symbol or motif to feminists, so that is why they hold onto abortion despite there being possibilities of reducing it.

So MTR represents a threat to feminist’s core symbol or base so to speak.

To a feminist, opposing abortion is a direct threat to their entire ideology or base, even though abortion could be significantly reduced.

The closed and narrow mind of a feminist does not allow innovation to find ways of reducing abortion.

I think the MTR Christianity thing is a secondary issue. The real issue is the threat that MTR represents to feminist’s pride and joy, which is abortion.

It is a fundamental human right to be able to make one's own decision about what one does with one's own body. Why abortion is a feminist issue is because it isn't a problem that applies to men's bodies.

The "pro choice" lobby is at its heart fundamentally Christian, and this is seen by most as an attempt to impose their religious values on others.

MTR is perfectly aware that as a committed Catholic, her attempts to fight the right to choice is immediately perceived as a religious crusade against a fundamental human right. By trying to avoid discussing her deep belief, she is trying to portray her crusade as based on "rationality".

Unfortunately for MTR, most of us are not that stupid

Shadow Minister, posting on Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 4:00:21 AM, says:

"MTR is perfectly aware that as a committed Catholic,
her attempts to fight the right to choice is immediately
perceived as a religious crusade against a fundamental
human right. By trying to avoid discussing her deep belief,
she is trying to portray her crusade as based on "rationality"."

Could Shadow Minister quote any reference that backs up the claim that MTR is a 'committed Catholic', or state upon what basis that assertion has been made?

In asking this question, I am not attempting to suggest that SM is incorrect in that assertion. MTR's 12 years as a presumably acceptable bio-ethics advisor to Harradine alone makes that assertion very believable. The point is that if SM's assertion is based upon certain knowledge, or upon believable publicly accessible record, it is absolutely central to this whole issue of MTR having taken first resort to defamation law in an attempt to shut down Jennifer Wilson's blog 'No Place for Sheep'.

It should not be forgotten that one of the lawyers' first demands was that ALL REFERENCE to MTR be removed from Wilson's blog. Another demand was that the fact of this demand, and other demands of their letter, should not be published. MTR demanding the right to censor Wilson, but at the same time wishing not to be known to be doing so. That all smacks of something Wilson having said, or being anticipated as being likely to say, something MTR identifies as extremely inconvenient in relation to the public image she would like to maintain.

MTR's attempt at demanding OLO should cease publishing Wilson, a demand made prior to the publication of Hills' article and Wilson's 10 January blog post, would seem to support the view that MTR sees Wilson as some form of threat to MTR's public persona.

Devine's apologia as to MTR having been "brought up Christian, attending Uniting Church services as a child in Mildura", is most interesting for its recent recounting.

Love a reference, SM.

I think it's probably another great example of SM shooting first and asking questions later, Forrest Gumpp. Frankly, I place more faith in Devine's article than I do in somebody who regularly resorts to namecalling when peddling political diatribe. And, if Devine's article has any semblance of truth, MTR is not 'committed' to any religious denomination (as she doesn't attend any church), and was certainly never committed to Catholicism, having attended a UNITING Church as a kid.

And here we have an example of what I said earlier: the uninformed making ridiculous assertions based on somebody's perceived religious stance. This is why she should have either kept her mouth shut or been prepared to open up wide.

And McReal, you certainly have a valid point about context. My Abbott example wasn't the best - those who dismiss him on religious grounds generally have no political sway anyway (except when it comes to an election).

There is no requirement to disclose a religious beliefs or any other belief. A conflict of interest issue is different matter when attempting to influence, if there is an affiliation, say with a business you are involved, where there might be undue advantage. This is not the same IMO.

Most POVs are debatable on merit. Protagonists may choose to include religious affiliations or beliefs as part of an argument, but to force declarations implies Christians are a homogenous group.

Afterall what does it mean to be a feminist. To listen to some views feminists are out to subjugate men and take over the world. If you have to declare as a feminist on every issue what is the point if the perceptions are so skewed, as to make any difference.

There are many Catholics who take birth control, have abortions and non-religious people who might be pro-life or debates about where life begins?

MTR has been public about her religious affiliations-does she have to declare it every time. Do I have to declare as an atheist if I am putting forward a view that could be soundly argued by reason and facts? Does that label have to identify me on every issue?

Teaching religion in schools, for example, can be argued in terms of government interference in private lives and in forcing of doctrines, which might be an argument attractive to both Christians or Atheists purely on an ethical basis.

This whole affair would have been a storm in a teacup but for MTR seeking to suppress free speech. Whether one agrees with the claim that a religious belief should be declared, it is not defamatory to assert someone is religious or to request they declare themselves, particularly in this case as it is not a secret and is widely known (or easily found via research). Reist equally has the right to deny to debate the issue or to dismiss it as irrelevant.

The whole media frenzy over this is really about the free speech aspect and the risk of litigious threats in stifling debate.

Forest posted some links on the "Why the need for consensus" thread to twitter comments related to this issue. A comment made on that listing prompted some thoughts on the issue. They seem more relevant here than on the consensus thread.

It was comment by Leslie Cannold "Demanding disclosure is about ensuring YOU have the power to decide who's a feminist" http://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23MTRsues from the 15th Feb that set off some additional thinking on the topic.

It's been argued that argument made should be important rather than the affiliations of that person or how they are identified (my take on it anyway). I point I largely agree with but in relation to the side topic, if it's not important to know that someone is a christian (or part of some other grouping with strong bias's on a topic) then why should it matter that someone can be identified as a feminist.

I suspect that when discussing porn or reproductive rights identifying as a feminist is seen as adding credibility for enough of the not already converted that it's worth announcing, being seen as a christian won't help much with those who don't already agree.

So while it's true that affiliations should not matter I suspect that they are being used based on perceived advantage and disadvantage. Just as it should not impact the debate that someone is christain it should also not impact the debate that they are feminist but I don't think that's the reality.

R0bert

Apologies,

MTR is a committed Christian, I assumed that with her affiliation with Catholic causes and associations that she was Catholic. She attends a Baptist church which as far as evangelical Puritanism differs little from the Catholics.

http://blog.cannold.com/2011/09/melinda-tankard-reist-biography.html

The denomination is not the issue, even if you wish to nit pick, the issue is that her religious faith is what motivates her position on women's rights not feminism.

But SM,

Apparently her particular "brand" of Christianity IS the issue as far as the threat of defamation is concerned. Jennifer Wilson called her a Baptist after taking it for "gospel" that, amongst other sources, information on MTR's wiki page was accurate.

However, MTR has denied that she is a Baptist. She has instead stated that she is a Christian. In fact, in the letters regarding this subject, the issue of being labelled (erroneously) as a Baptist was central to MTR's threat of proceedings toward Jennifer - along with Jennifer referring to MTR as "deceptive and duplicitous".

http://noplaceforsheep.com/2012/01/17/some-thoughts-on-being-threatened-with-defamation-by-melinda-tankard-reist/

Mishka Gora,
I reached my post limit and was unable to post till now.
Thank you for clarifying your position but my Hitler analogy still illustrates the need for rigour and transparency in public representation and debate. I said above that none of us is objective and I would call upon all those who seek to influence public discourse to theorise and expound their reasoning whatever the position may be. I've said something very similar to Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc in other threads, asking him to expound the intellectual basis behind his atheism, and met with indignation and refusal.
The state of populist politics these days is such that no one seems to think they have to justify the position taken, it's intuitive. Freedom of conscience is starting to look like a euphemism for "I dunno it's just what I believe". In fact any issue is far more likely to garner support and respectability if it expound upon it's reasoning and make it compelling. In practice, freedom of conscience seems to be a species of rhetorical evasion. Just so, Hitler struck the right note and had no need to elaborate his position in a world receptive to fascism. If MTR is not guided by Rome, or whatever her belief system entails, then why are we denied access to the position she's thrashed out with herself? We get the same from politicians of every stamp, all they have to do is make the right noises, mouth the usual pieties about hard-working and patriotic Australians (Gillard's specialty), or apply the kibosh, "it's unAustralian", and it's Nuf said.
Freedom of conscience is a matter of private conceit and indulgence, and shouldn't be used in the public sphere as an excuse for dumbing-down important issues. As I've said above, I want to seem some rigour on all sides, and not just puerile populism. Indeed I could just as easily ask after the credentials of pro-choice and get nothing but the usual pieties. It's pathetic!

The slaughter of one's child in the sacrificial rite of abortion in today's dominant religion, has an ancient pedigree.
http://www.arimathea.org/index.php/j/p/abortion_as_a_sacrament/

Poirot,

As I mentioned above, the denomination is not the issue. Her alliance with conservative christian organisations are what matters. That she attends a Baptist church would indicate that irrespective of how she prefers to label herself, that her values don't fall far from the tree.

That she wishes to keep her "label" secret is recognition that christian fundamentalism does not help her "feminist" credentials.

Shadow minister,
Maybe there should be a feminist panel, and if someone wants to call themselves a feminist and a Christian, then they have to be questioned by this panel.

You know, like in the movie 1984.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087803/

Squeers, I think we largely agree. If you look at my earlier posts, I've clearly said that I don't like MTR's evasiveness and we have a right to hear some cogent arguments on the issues about which she is campaigning. What we don't have a right to know is her entire belief system. For starters, I'm not sure she could give you a coherent answer. I don't, however, see how whether she's a Christian or not, is part of her "credentials". Do you need to know someone's religion before you employ them? I hope not. Anyway, I agree there needs to be more rigour and rationality, and I think MTR's refusal to answer reflects very badly on her (and can be interpreted as a lack of conviction), but she has every right to behave in such a way. I think it reflects worse on Jennifer Wilson that she has branded MTR unethical for it. But then perhaps MTR is playing us all for fools in the knowledge that there's no such thing as bad publicity... in which case Jennifer is playing into her hands. MTR now appears to be a 'victim' and she's getting lots of publicity for her cause....

Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. What is to be gained by questioning (never mind getting a straight answer) MTR's beliefs except to support prejudiced views of her arguments?

Which by the way are nonsense: I just wasted about five minutes of my life scanning the website of a woman who must surely be the most oversensitive, whiny wowser in all of Christendom. And I'm never getting those five minutes back: thanks, MTR.

So never mind the beliefs, just look at the nonsense she spouts (if you feel like punishing yourself). If JW cannot fault on her on that alone, I'm amazed anybody bothers to read her blog (which I won't bother scrutinising: once bitten, twice shy).

Cheers,

Tony

Hear, hear, Tony! Well said.

Tony Lewis,
But she may be a threat to other feminists, because she could be building up a gathering.

She could take attention away from the other feminists.

SM, posting on Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 2:22:38 PM, says:

"Apologies, MTR is a committed Christian,
I assumed that with her affiliation with
Catholic causes and associations that she
was Catholic. ..."

I'm taking that to be a response in the negative as to knowledge of the existence of any reference to SM's earlier assertion that MTR was Catholic. I wasn't trying to nitpick, SM, as such an assertion that MTR is Catholic, if able to be sustained in the face of other express or implied claims as to denominational affiliation, would have gone far in establishing a prima facie defence as to truthfulness in relation to JW's use of the term "deceptive and duplicitous" in the blog piece over which JW has been threatened with lawsuit.

What equally concerns me is Otokonoko's apparent acceptance of Miranda Devine's account in this respect at face value. Otokonoko said, speaking with respect to SM's earlier assertion as to MTR's being Catholic, in her post of Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 11:11:09 AM:

"Frankly, I place more faith in Devine's article
than I do in somebody who regularly resorts to
namecalling when peddling political diatribe. And,
if Devine's article has any semblance of truth,
MTR is not 'committed' to any religious denomination
(as she doesn't attend any church), and was certainly
never committed to Catholicism, having attended a
UNITING Church as a kid."

The problem, Otokonoko, is that Devine's article ( http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/why-being-christian-gets-you-crucified/story-e6frezz0-1226250226632 ), to use JW's words, was "a shocker". That article seemingly sought to establish a chronology of cause and effect that put MTR centre stage and cast in the light of 'victim' in what, by the time it was published on 22 January, had become in reality a PR disaster of MTR's own making. I pointed out its chronological errors here: http://noplaceforsheep.com/2012/01/21/entitlement-bullying-and-private-faith/#comment-11175

Important stuff is going on here, Otokonoko, and some interests, I suspect, have a lot invested in obscuring just what that may really be.

TBC

Continued

So, in the absence of any reference corroborating any claim as to MTR being Catholic, it seems that MTR's claim, as reported in Devine's article, as to "[having] no denominational affiliation" and "along with two thirds of Australians, [having been] brought up Christian, attending Uniting Church services as a child in Mildura", may have to be accepted at face value.

Given that Hills' Sunday Life article of 8 January could be taken as the launch of a political/media campaign to elevate the public profile of MTR, too close or identifiable an association with the implementation of Vatican policy of MTR (such as the 12 years as Harradine's bio-ethics advisor) could be seen by those backing such a campaign as a negative. How much more assistive of Vatican aims would it be if a bellwether with no provable Catholic identity, but a track record of effective assistance in quietly implementing Vatican policy, could be emplaced to establish Vatican hegemony over not only the entire nominally Christian Australian population, but also a large segment of the not-necessarily-Christian 'feminist' population, such that the Vatican could represent itself as having a right to procure legislation of its own choice in the name of that entire population?

Examples as to where such presumptive Vatican 'rights' to procure self-serving legislation might lead are to be found in the soon-to-be-enacted prescriptive medical procedure of vaginal ultrasound scans for all women seeking terminations in the State of Virginia, USA, and the Brazilian midnight Presidential decree of 26 December 2011 requiring the registration of all pregnancies in that country.

Could it be that Wilson's blog post, or the public discussion it may have been seen as likely engendering, was perceived by MTR and/or her backers, in what seems may have been an already well planned campaign to emplace MTR in some more powerful position of political influence, as a direct threat to such a large and long-term investment in political positioning?

Such could make Wilson's cause one of freedom of speech against tyranny.

Mitt Romney seems to have a similar problem in America. I think that since she has stated her religious belief and it is known where she attends, the discussion as to what she believes should be taken there. If she talked to the media about what her beliefs were, then there would be a public discussion about her belief but everyone would say what they believes but not search for truth. I think its enough to say "I am a baptist Christian then we as the public should search out what it is that Baptists believe, from their mouth and their church. If people had a searching attitude to prove those things that she believes on that are true, and dismiss that which is not, irrespective of our previous belief, then and only then could we have an effective religious public discussion. The problem is not the belief, the problem is that the audience won't listen properly.

'she attends a Baptist church...'

Are you mad SM! Shhhhh!

'So while it's true that affiliations should not matter I suspect that they are being used based on perceived advantage and disadvantage. '

Spot on R0bert. Again.

See, it's all about branding and controlling your brand.

If I was a company called Motor Transport Rastafarians, I'd be shaking in my boots.

All those rastas threatening the MTR brand.

Imagine if MTR owned Apple.

Forrest Gumpp,

Here's a biographical article on Women's Forum Australia. Melinda Tankard Reist was one of its founding directors.

http://blog.cannold.com/2011/09/womens-forum-australia.html

Perhaps the reason Tankard-Reist does not disclose her personally-held beliefs is that she knows that as soon as she says the word ‘Christian’ her views will be immediately discounted, as you reveal later in your article when you say ‘We have a human right to live free of religion and the imposition of religious morality.’
Theoretically, I could just as easily argue that I have a ‘right’ to live free of humanist, secular imposition. But unfortunately that right is not able to be upheld, since humanists feel they are currently in a privileged position where they can impose their opinions on everybody else without right of reply.

One thing that secularists, humanists or atheists (or any other category where God is discounted) need to realise is that they do not have a monopoly (yet) on these debates. We do not live in a totalitarian society (yet) and until then, you need to listen to other people’s opinions and realise that yours is not the only one. You don’t have to agree, but you do have to listen to and put up with different points of view. That’s democracy.

If God made us, then what He says will be in our best interests. The overwhelming evidence is that when you leave the path of his commands, you are living a life that is not in your best interests. You don’t need a religious viewpoint to see this. You just need to go in with your eyes open as the evidence is there: things like abortion, divorce and the sexualisation of women hurt men, women and children in our society. The list could go on and on.

Instead of ‘shooting the messenger’ and trying to look for reasons to discount her views because of what she ‘believes’, try looking at what Tankard-Reist is on about. Look at the material she presents – weigh it up – does she have evidence? Are her arguments compelling? Does she present truth? Perhaps the real issue in the attack on Tankard-Reist is that some are threatened by the thought that maybe she might be right.

hadassah89,
Now that's an interesting aspect to it.

Do feminists have an attitude that they want to learn something from MTR, or do they want to interrogate MTR, as a part of a process of condeming her and carrying out a feminist attack on her.

Conversely of course, could MTR ever learn anything from a feminist?

>>Instead of ‘shooting the messenger’ and trying to look for reasons to discount her views because of what she ‘believes’, try looking at what Tankard-Reist is on about.<<

Hear, hear. Judge a book by its contents, not its cover.

>>Look at the material she presents<<

I did that last night and would sooner stab myself in the eye with a spoon than repeat the experience.

>>weigh it up – does she have evidence?<<

Scant at best.

>>Are her arguments compelling?<<

Is the Pope a Protestant?

>>Does she present truth?<<

I'm sure she presents someone's version of truth: it's just that that someone makes their living as a village idiot.

>>Perhaps the real issue in the attack on Tankard-Reist is that some are threatened by the thought that maybe she might be right.<<

Perhaps, but it seems unlikely given that she is so obviously wrong.

Cheers,

Tony

hadassah89

nicely put.

hadassah89, runner,

This is even more nicely put:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13244&page=0#228903

hadassah89,
I read the 'beliefs' on MTR's website, and it was like reading the latest copy of the Catholic newspaper, only less exciting.
(And yes I KNOW it doesn't matter about at which Christian place she worships invisible beings in the sky!)

Tony Lavis,
nicely put :)

Cheers,
Suse.

"If God made us, then what He says will be in our best interests. The overwhelming evidence is that when you leave the path of his commands, you are living a life that is not in your best interests. You don’t need a religious viewpoint to see this. You just need to go in with your eyes open as the evidence is there: things like abortion, divorce and the sexualisation of women hurt men, women and children in our society. The list could go on and on."

Posted by hadassah89, Monday, 20 February 2012 10:17:48 AM

"If God made us, then what He says will be in our best interests." .. that is an existential fallacy, and a fallacy of an excluded/undistributed middle. Besides, "if God", "if God made us" .. etc

"You just need to go in with your eyes open as the evidence" ... This is a non-sequitur. Besides, go "in" where?? "evidence" for what??

One rule for Christians, one for everyone else. That's getting a bit tired...

I am happy to proclaim what I do, or don't believe, where it is relevant to a discussion. So I therefore expect each other contributor to list their philosophical and political beliefs, in the same way. It is exactly the same thing.

If you doubt this is needed, take the following quote from the article:

"In my early thirties, I ceased to believe in the Christian God and organised religion. A few years later feminism gave me the analytic tools to deconstruct religion and reveal it for the powerfully oppressive force it can be for women."

@Squeers Sorry to have taken to long, to reply,I'm on holidays.
Re bias - as a pro choice woman I believe it's an individual woman's right to obtain an abortion, just as she would any other medical procedure, fully informed. I prefer bias towards choice rather than bias towards prohibition.

more generally: Re Reist ( or anybody else's) religious, ideological views - if I know that someone believes in a system that I find bizarre, repressive, anti feminist and oppressive I'm not going to try to separate the belief system by which they live their lives from the morality they espouse. I wouldn't go to a celibate catholic priest for relationship advice. I wouldn't go to a radical feminist separatist for advice on my male partner.

Reist is perfectly entitled to disclose or withhold whatever she likes. I am perfectly entitled to mistrust her and form an opinion about her. This is not a new debate. These questions were asked about Reist in 2006 by people I'd never heard of until I started researching. They were asked by Jane Hutcheon on ABC TV's One on One in November last year. It's ludicrous of Mishka to attempt to frame this as some odd obsession of mine.

I really do wonder why Reist chose to threaten me instead of the numerous other people who've asked exactly the same questions for years.

What matters as far as I'm concerned is that I know who Im dealing with and where she or he is coming from. This may not matter to everyone, but for those of us to whom it is a matter of concern, it is our right to ask the questions. If someone wishes to conceal their influences, that is their right, and what becomes important to me then as I consider their moral position, is their need for concealment.

The high court of Australia ruled that charlatanism is the price we pay for religious beliefs and that if any religion was asked to prove any of those beliefs all would fail.
Perhaps people that have made a nice profit from religious superstition and are still making a profit from religion, may also not want to be identified with this group that the High court of Australia identifies as open to charlatanism.
To a lot of people, being seen chanting incantations to a mythical and fictitious deity that is open to such charlatanism's to satisfy superstitious delusions. Delusions that were forced onto them with threat and fear as vulnerable young children may well be thought of as career threatening in another sphere, away from other colluding religious cult members. Whether these religious cult members actually really believe in these ridiculous superstitions or just pretend to for profit, like so many do. There have been so many Prophets for profit, how does any religious cult member know who is a fraud and who isn't, its all open to charlatanism isn't it?
As for abortion, no one should say a word until they have seen the Doco, "Abortion cops and corruption", so they can see how bad it was when abortion was illegal in this country and what their religious delusions would again inflict!

briar rose,

I s'pose we could describe you then as a "democratic, liberal feminist"? and MTR as a more conservative, less libertarian version of the same thing? Yet on the issue of porn it's MTR who'd seem the more radical "separatist", apropos a history of exploitative and oppressive paternalism? As intuitively right and irreproachable as your--"I believe it's an individual woman's right to obtain an abortion, just as she would any other medical procedure, fully informed. I prefer bias towards choice rather than bias towards prohibition"--sounds to "enlightened" sensibilities, there's a reckless individualism to it, as well as a sense of the "rights of the consumer" that smacks of s free market, anti-social ideology. In this sense your secular church is more conservative than MTR's Catholicism, since libertarianism is the order of the day.
I don't hold to the notion of the sanctity of choice any more than I do the sanctity of life. Free choice is or should be a privilege, complement to social responsibility and mores, the social contract, rather than supremely vested in egotism. It's an ideological delusion to think choice is ever free--in any qualitative sense--or independent. It was argued on the Science Show that human promiscuity is a social adaptation, rather than biological; in any case it's the very antithesis of "free choice". The topic of pornography bares a great deal more complex discussion than the evocation of individual or human right.

tbc

...
Similarly, the sanctity of life argument is ludicrously removed from all practical consideration of sustainability and the implications for the planet, as well as hypocritically indifferent to the low value put on life (and 'choice') in poor countries--not to mention the industrial-scale death that's indiscriminately unleashed by human fecundity. And should the libertarian wish to affect the morality that "far from being indifferent, s/he is lifting the poor out of poverty", s/he should ponder that it's just as loopy to imagine we can all live like kings and queens as it is to think we can go on breeding like good Catholics.
It seems to me you're both trading on spurious universals and emotive catchwords, rather than reasoning and argument. But I keep forgetting, that's not what's at issue here.
I'd love to see articles by you and MTR on the pros and cons and nitty-gritty of abortion and pornography, and not just grand professions of "belief".
In the real world, and not free-market or socialist utopias, I think "separatist" feminism has a hell of a lot going for it and might be the best compromise of left and right feminist ideologies (of which you both appear to be blends) as well as for the planet.
At least separatist feminists are decisive, and are making "radical" rather than predictable and co-optive choices.
It would also compromise the breeding programme!

"MTR is perfectly aware that as a committed Catholic, her attempts to fight the right to choice is immediately perceived as a religious crusade against a fundamental human right. By trying to avoid discussing her deep belief, she is trying to portray her crusade as based on "rationality"."

Shadow Minister and others - am I to understand that there is no rational argument, or even single point, to be made against abortion? That's one hell of an arrogant position to hold, don't you think?

I have read many articles by people of different backgrounds who see many problems with abortion as it is currently practised in Australia. These are not Catholics/Christians, etc, just everyday people who have concerns.

Each and every one of them "irrational" are they?

I find that to speak against any aspect of abortion rarely brings a rational response, just name calling or hiding behind "women's rights" and closing the argument. I'm all for a rational debate of the topic but rarely find someone up to the challenge...

RD,

The right to determination over your own body is a basic human right not a "women's right". No one can force you to donate blood, give a kidney or anything else that can save lives. Similarly a woman has the fundamental right to decide what happens with her own body. Whether abortion is immoral, unethical or irrespective of ANY consequences, the fact remains that no one should ever be in the position to strip away that one basic human right.

Folks I realise this looks like a set-up, but it's not. I did not ask/pay/beg Shadow Minister to prove my point so conclusively by yet again slamming the door on ANY discussion of any aspect of abortion.

We live in a world that spends the first 10 minutes of a news bulletin crying over beached whales but will not even discuss alternatives to abortion. A world where the RSPCA (top people - I'm not paying them out )has more credability than someone who dares to suggest that abortion might not be as "fine" as we are told it is.

Just one of the many questions that needs to be discussed:

If a child is born, the father is obliged (as he should be) to provide financial support. Yet the same father has NO rights at all to even enter into discussion as to whether the child is born or not. Explain to me exactly how that is fair?

I could go on but my keyboard will probably not survive the pounding. This issue, and the way any discussion at all is silenced, has me extremely angry.

RD,

I am quite happy for you to talk about abortion until the cows come home. As for alternatives, if anyone wants to provide attractive alternatives for unwanted children and support for single mothers I am all for it. However, banning access to pregnancy termination is a violation of human rights.

Just curious - why are the rights of the adult more important than the rights of the child?

"However, banning access to pregnancy termination is a violation of human rights" is an opinion that carries no more, or less, weight than, "Terminating a viable life is a violation of human rights."

Until people see this debate from two sides, discussions remain futile.

Women absolutely deserve greater care and compassion than has been shown in the past. However, so do their children.

And just in case I'm going to now hear about the unborn foetus not being a child, please don't bother. You will not find one doctor or scientist to agree with you. The status of the child is not opinion but fact.

"And just in case I'm going to now hear about the unborn foetus not being a child, please don't bother. You will not find one doctor or scientist to agree with you. The status of the child is not opinion but fact."

So you get all upset because others appear to shut down debate on the points you want to make but use the same tactics when it suit's your case.

Why should debate on that issue be cut off?

R0bert

Fair call, R0bert.

RD and Robert,

Even considering that the fetus is a legal adult, the rights of the fetus cannot detract from the rights of the woman.

If I were dying and could only survive by being hooked up to another person for a couple of months, would my rights override the rights of the other person? of course not. I could not even force that person to give up one pint of blood.

To then say that a woman is forced to bear the child to term with all the consequences that ensue beyond the birth is clearly illogical.

SM I don't think it's all that clear cut. Our country has had military conscription in the past, the law recognises elements of a duty of care, we have mandatory taxation, forced child support which can go well beyond the actual costs involved and a variety of other measures where people are imposed on for what at the time is considered a greater good.

Whilst I'm not a big fan of imposed responsibility I don't see why this should be an absolute where other stuff is not especially where the pregnancy is the result of a consensual act and does not pose an undue risk.

If the foetus was a human life it would significantly alter the balance of rights and responsibilities in my opinion.

R0bert

Our country has also had hanging, forced removal of aboriginal children, etc, none of which makes it right.

Roughly 2/3 unwanted pregnancies today were using contraception which clearly indicates that they had absolutely no intention of creating a child, and while most will continue to bear it, for some the consequences although not fatal are severe. And the responsibility argument implies a punishment far in excess of any carelessness.

Given mankind's inbuilt sexual urges the counter argument of abstinence is absurd.

It's been a few years now, but some time ago my wife completed her thesis about abortion in Australia. We both did an immense amount of research on the topic (as a thesis dictates) and it was this experience that has strongly shaped my views in this area. The statistic that always stood out was the fact that in 99.6% of abortions, there was no medical risk to the mother, the conception was not forced in any way and the reason given (as recorded by the doctors) was "lifestyle."

I realise that is VERY simplistic (and lifestyle covers a huge area) but it's also more than a little scary. I will have to dig out the research but I recall failed contraception being a fairly small number as well. Certainly nothing anywhere near the 2/3 quoted above (reference for this please?) Perhaps a convenient excuse?

Back to my original point, and this will be my last post as I am spending too much time here at the moment. There should be allowed to be an open discussion of abortion. It is not satisfactory to end it with "it's the woman's choice" because that ignores so many other factors.

SM, you say "Even considering that the fetus is a legal adult, the rights of the fetus cannot detract from the rights of the woman." Again I would counter that the opposite must also be true, yet somehow it's not.

Certainly not the best example but one that comes to mind showing the logical fallacy here is smoking. The smoker has the right to smoke, however, I also have the right to exist without having face full of someone else's smoke. Both have rights but how do we balance it and meet both?

I am yet to hear a compelling argument as to why the mother's rights outweigh those of the foetus. In fact, I'm yet to hear anyone seriously try to answer it, other than with "It's the woman's choice." This debate must move past this.

Thank you all for your thoughts and challenges - healthy debate is good!

SM "And the responsibility argument implies a punishment far in excess of any carelessness" so to is child support for a child that you didn't have a say in in the first place other than the act.

I agree that because we do or have done some thing it does not make other things right but I also don't think some of the absolutes used when convenient are meaningful either.

R0bert

RD,

In this debate the 2/3 figure or 60% of unwanted pregnancies being to women using contraceptive has been raised several times and while there are a small % that don't use contraceptives, there are millions that do, not always successfully. This can be due to simple things like antibiotics blocking the pill or diarrhea not letting it get absorbed.

The statistics are that about 1/2 of all children conceived in Australia are unplanned, but not necessarily unwanted (merely inconvenient timing).

I read the statistic from a link provided several years ago, and will try and find it, but not now. As you lack any statistics, perhaps you would like to confirm this.

Robert,

I would like to believe that human rights are fundamentals that one should avoid breaching at all costs. Torture is never justified, neither is forcing someone to have a child they don't want.

In some cases rights should be absolute.

@Squeers
I don't recall making an argument for "sanctity" of choice. I'm not of the opinion that there is anything at all "holy" or "godly" about choice. Free choice is a privilege? Indeed it is a perk of the privileged, if that's what you mean. Safe abortion has always been available to privileged women, while poor women died or were forced to carry on a pregnancy they couldn't manage.

Neither do I describe myself as "pro pornography," though Reist is openly "anti porn."

It's worth remembering that much of the pornographic violence Reist etc advocate against is already illegal in this country. Apart from an internet filter, there appears to be little else to be done, apart from enacting the laws already in place.

While you perceive porn as oppressive and paternalistic across the board, I don't agree with that perception. Neither do I see how such an un-nuanced position is useful, especially for the women involved in its production. While an argument can be made that such women are not exercising "choice" that's not an argument that appeals to many of them, and this is one of the points on which i disagree with Reist.

briar rose,
I think it's pretty clear I was using the term "sanctity of choice" rhetorically, as comparable to the old saw "sanctity of life", as an unchallengeable verity. I said <I don't hold to the notion of the sanctity of choice any more than I do the sanctity of life. Free choice is or should be a privilege, complement to social responsibility and mores, the social contract, rather than supremely vested in egotism. It's an ideological delusion to think choice is ever free--in any qualitative sense--or independent>. I was really lamenting that feminism seems to have degenerated into this kind of sanctimonious, free-market anti-intellectualism. You said on another thread, "if you are asking for my feminist credentials I have absolutely none" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13244#229045 and yet your resume says you're a cultural theorist. So let's have some depth.
I said above <It seems to me you're both [you and MTR] trading on spurious universals and emotive catchwords, rather than reasoning and argument. I attributed Catholicism to MTR, in its universal sense, because at least she implies a social frame of reference, whereas you seem to deny it.
But none of these issues should be treated lightly. I haven't said I "perceive porn as oppressive and paternalistic across the board", though porn has entered a technological phase, violent, misogynistic and aggressively marketed. It's a bit coy trying to defend it because a few purists (very few) dream of making it wholesome. And it's a long stretch arguing it's a legitimate form of feminist expression and empowerment.
I remember arguing with a feminist once who insisted it was her right to smoke while pregnant, with every intention of seeing it through, and yet clearly she had a duty of care. I'm pro-choice, but abortion deserves a little more personal and social consideration than "any other medical procedure". I don't "see how such an un-nuanced position is useful", or conscionable.

'I remember arguing with a feminist once who insisted it was her right to smoke while pregnant'

Intriguing! Was she saying smoking while pregnant was a feminist issue? Probably not (So why the anecdote which proves even less than a single irrational person?), but it does open up a new debate.

Which is, if it's a woman's body, why is it frowned upon to smoke while pregnant. The child's rights should be secondary to that of the woman.

At what age foetus should the woman have to stop smoking and taking drugs? Because before it's a human, she can do whatever she likes. It's HER body!

I actually am pro choice BTW, and pro abortion-rights (Rather than the disingenuous 'reproductive rights'. Women have reproductive rights, they are fighting for the right to kill potential offspring, lets call a spade a spade)

I think Birth should be where we define a human, not 12 weeks or whatever it is. Just because you have ultrasound doesn't mean you can start creating laws for parasites:-)

I always think if you are anti-abortion, you should be anti-masturbation. Every sperm is sacred!

Actually, you should even be pro-rape. If you are really desperate to prevent any barriers to human life, we should encourage men to rape as much as possible. All this chivalry gets in the way of impregnating women, and denies future humans the right to life. The selfish women and men who decide to only engage in consensual sex are killing potential babies. I wonder if when sperm die in the testis they feel pain? I'm sure we could make videos of that!

I agree, Houellebecq, that the anecdote was a bit redundant. I think if the mother intends to have the child she has a duty of care not to smoke. I was otherwise pointing up the fact that all our verities are social conventions, even the idea of freedom of choice. The idea of free choice as something individualistic buys into the notion that subjectivity is something other than derivative, or that human rights in general were more than social conventions. That's why they're so plastic.

...had to dash out to take my daughter to work.

I thus used the term "sanctity of choice" to point up the fact that free choice is as much an ideological frame of reference as MTR's putative Christianity and the sanctity of life. As I tried to show, Jennifer Wilson's position seems strongly inflected with the credulous ideologies of humanism and libertarianism, rather than scrupulously interrogated. In a sense, MTR's assumed position is superior (whatever that means) in that she's consciously influenced by a socially-negotiated ideology, whereas JW cleaves to the socially-fractional illusion of free choice.
In a sense the Catholics are right in treating recreational sex as sinful (in that it's a parody of free will), and one should not make or worship graven images of it, since it seems promiscuous sex is not a matter of choice, but of convention.

briar rose,

I have to revisit your comment above: <as a pro choice woman I believe it's an individual woman's right to obtain an abortion, just as she would any other medical procedure, fully informed. I prefer bias towards choice rather than bias towards prohibition.>

Last night I went to a meet the candidates forum for the QLD election and was struck that none of the candidates supported legalising abortion, not even the Labor member whose judgement I respect. It got me thinking and I scratched a little deeper.
There are about 70000 abortions carried out a year in Australia. It varies from state to state but there's no "prohibition" on abortion and it's available to anyone under the age of 24 in Victoria, for any reason.
Making abortion legally available, "like any other medical procedure" is to commodify it, tending also to dismiss ethical considerations and to take the whole issue out of the public sphere. Can you see why I view it as yet another facet of libertarianism?
However upon consideration (and I have teenage girls, know some of their neurotic friends and am versed in the issues that preoccupy them) it seems to me the more important issue is "counselling". I doubt many women treat unwanted pregnancies lightly, and many of them would be feeling extremely confused and fragile. Others would no doubt suffer depression after the fact. The fact that women seeking abortion have to give reasons and be counselled first is for "their" benefit more than the infant's. I doubt any woman is ever obliged to have a baby, except perhaps if it's fully developed. But more importantly, going through the counselling process might help women to be sure they're doing the right thing and they're not going to regret it. Who knows how much some women are nagged and harassed into taking the step, whereas at least as things stand a woman must talk to someone who has her best interests in mind before she takes the fatal step.
Abortion "is" available and I'm pro-choice, but it should be a sober and considered decision.

"I thus used the term "sanctity of choice" to point up the fact that free choice is as much an ideological frame of reference as MTR's putative Christianity and the sanctity of life. As I tried to show, Jennifer Wilson's position seems strongly inflected with the credulous ideologies of humanism and libertarianism, rather than scrupulously interrogated."

My God, what a lot of psycho babble.

This is not simply about choice as in whether you want a car to be red or blue, this is about a decision that will tremendously change a person's life forever, and whether the woman whose body it is can make the decision based on her own morals and situation, or whether the government or church should be allowed to make it for her.

The tactic of the religious right in the USA, is to try and put as many obstacles in the way of anyone wanting a termination, knowing that the longer the decision and anguish is drawn out, the greater the likely hood of the woman backing out. Mandatory delays and counselling
are prime examples.

While I agree that counselling should be available from non religious advisers, this should not be in any way compulsory. Very few of the women who come to the clinics are doing so without having seriously thought about it, and treating them as children that need to rehash their decision is not only obstructive, but demeaning.

Shadow Minister: <Very few of the women who come to the clinics are doing so without having seriously thought about it>
SM, I didn't realise you were a health professional; how do you know this?
Do you have any idea of the mental illness statistics in this country? If we're to believe them it's in the order of 20% at any given time. Pregnancy is generally a time of high vulnerability, the body being awash with hormones, and moods, cravings, emotional highs and lows commonplace. When a pregnancy is unwanted, by either party, it's a safe bet there are also often relationship issues or money problems etc., and that it's even less likely the woman is fit to make such a momentous decision. That's not to say that all pregnant women are non compos mentis, but it seems to me a reasonable precaution, and not too much of an imposition, to ask a few questions, for the mother's and child's sakes; just as we would someone intent on self-euthanasing (assuming it was tolerated, as it will be some day).
"... and treating them as children that need to rehash their decision is not only obstructive, but demeaning".
Women over the age of 35 most commonly seek an abortion, many no doubt having decided they're getting a bit old for it, and would rather enjoy life. I very much doubt these matrons are being pressured to change their minds, but it's both sensible and humane to enquire after their welfare without commiting the cardinal sin of impugning their precious freedom of choice.
As I've suggested with my "psycho babble" above, your fetish for freedom-of-choice is based on the delusion that this freedom has some integrity. In fact your precious individualism is "sub-jective"; your choices are entirely predictable and readily exploited.
That's what I love about libertarians; they're the most credulous of all and the joke's on them : ))

how do I know that Very few of the women who come to the clinics are doing so without having seriously thought about it?

Easy, I know that most women are not child like idiots that need to be protected by paternalistic religious organisations. Most women have the IQ to assess the situation and make the decision for themselves. Voluntary counselling would help the few that needed it.

The figures quoted were that 20% of the population will suffer from mental health issues at some time in their life, which mostly includes depression, not psychosis. I happen to know a couple of women that have had terminations, and for them the decision was simple, and the termination left few regrets, unlike the few cases that suffer regrets and religious organisations try and pretend are the norm.

Wrong on all counts, SM:
"I know that most women are not child like idiots that need to be protected by paternalistic religious organisations".

The screening process is secular, not religious, and the paternalism, by any other name, is the same ambient social context that nurtures and indulges your pseudo-individualism.

"The figures quoted were that 20% of the population will suffer from mental health issues at some time in their life".
Wrong.
The figures quoted indicate that roughly 20% of the population suffers from mental illness "in any given year"; and "mental illness" is based on "clinical definitions", not my own.

"...which mostly includes depression, not psychosis".

Are you saying that as long as the expectant mother isn't actually psychotic she can be deemed fit to make the decision for herself and her potential spouse?
The question's misleading, however, since the mother "does" make the decision, people just show concern for her and ascertain that she's sure.
I also know women who have had abortions and I indicated above that it is no doubt not a hard decision for some women. No one involved in Australia's Health Services would be pressuring mothers to go ahead with unwanted pregnancies, and the pressure from religious groups has nothing to do with public health.

Squeers,

"Are you saying that as long as the expectant mother isn't actually psychotic she can be deemed fit to make the decision for herself and her potential spouse?" - Absolutely, just as she is legally deemed fit to make contractual decisions for herself.

As for mental health, 80% of women have no mental health issues what so ever, do you still propose mandatory counselling? Perhaps with a 9 month cooling off period, or other arbitrary barriers?

As for the other 20%, half of those are mild cases of mood / anxiety /depression, and only 4% of all adults have severe mental health issues.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features30March%202009

SM,

sorry to keep whittling away your position till there's nothing left for you to cling to, but the fact that 20% of the population suffers from mental illness "in any given year", doesn't mean, as you simplistically suggest, that "80% of women have no mental health issues what so ever". The statistic indicates that our population is extremely susceptible to "mental illness", such that one in five is suffering at any given time. It doesn't suggest it's the same one in five, but that in all likelihood we'll all succumb sooner or later to melancholy of one kind or another. It seems we are a pathological society.

I actually agree with you that much of this "mental Illness" is dubious (a symptom of egotism?), in fact that it's just another form of commodification; people have exercised "free choice en masse" in seeking treatment, "just as they would any other medical procedure". Another rousing testament to libertarianism!

Squeers,

Depression reported to a GP and treated with mild anti depressants is a "clinically treated mental illness" as per the definition. And 20% of women are treated in a 12 month period does not mean that 20% are suffering at any one time.

Even those being treated for mild or moderate depression are perfectly capable of making a sound decision, which leaves about 95% of women at any one time mentally and legally capable of making decisions for themselves.

I am still trying to see why anyone should feel that counselling should be anything but voluntary.

'The screening process is secular,'

Haha, not if Abbott gets his anti-abortion 'help' lines up again...

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/01/02/1167500124318.html

Shadow Minister:
<I am still trying to see why anyone should feel that counselling should be anything but voluntary>

Because this is an issue important to "us". Because our society is already perilously close to having amorality as its only human ethic, the rest privatised and turned over to the markets.
All thinking people are aware of the dilemmas associated with their stands on abortion, euthanasia, over-population etc., and that's why we continue to agonise, because there is no one correct solution, and certainly not libertarianism. There is the mother, father, potential human being and human society at large to consider, and while the woman's choice is in my opinion paramount, that doesn't make the issue (literally) irrelevant to the rest of us. Screening abortions--and I dare say counselling "is" voluntary, and that no one is being lectured--seems to me a reasonable compromise position.
The doctrine of individualism is, consciously or unconsciously, dedicated to undermining the social contract and reducing civilization to a fragmented and shallow materialism, readily exploited by the market. For anyone who cares to think about it; this is "not" hyperbole.
But thanks SM et al for the engagement, and sorry for derailing your thread BR/JW.

Squeers, and there we have the nub of the answer. The counselling has nothing to do with the welfare of the women and everything to do with blocking access.

The other issue that I have personally is Christians trying to claim that their view point is the gold standard in morality and ethics. Their view point is based on christian dogma and is way out of date. We have moved on from stoning adulterers and witches, and modern laws are based on in depth thinking based on human rights and dignity.

Squeers,
Thanks for your interesting deliberations showing not that the “pro choice” people are always right, nor that the “pro life” people are always right, but arguing that the problem is more complicated - not only ethically but also psychologically and sociologically - than to allow for sweeping statements defending the one or the other side of this argument.

Thanks George,
I've enjoyed the different arguments too and the exercise has given me a greater appreciation of the issues.