Terrorism in Colorado Springs

[PlaysWellWithOthers]

Don't know how many people have read about this terrorist attack on a PP clinic in Colorado Springs?

Is it just me that thinks that the idea of "pro-life" people with firearms killing people is oxymoronic?

Why has no one described this obvious act of domestic terrorism as that?

There's been a lot of Tweets from anti-choice/anti-woman people supporting this terrorist. How do these people square the circle of which lives they are pro?

The way it's being reported is also interesting to me. I wonder if this man had had brown skin and been shouting pro daesh slogans, he would have been taken alive and have as much support from these people.

I'd only come across this story recently, and it just appeared there is already a great deal of politicising the tragedy. Mischaracterising everyone in the pro-life camp as a misogynist is in my view ranging a little too far into ad hominem territory.

Obviously a nutter arming himself and going on a rampage involves hatred of some kind or another, although it's interesting to note 2/3 of the people he murdered were men.

Just for full disclosure I am a man and I find the idea of abortion incredibly saddening. I am a hairs breadth from being pro-life myself so I can empathise with those who hold that view (not those who actually go on to kill obvs!).

I am of the opinion that if you make it illegal it won't stop happening, and when it happens under those circumstances you see more loss of life from botched operations.

The thing I can't stand surrounding this issue is the incessant mudslinging certain people from both sides of the ideological divide throw at the other.

I'd like to take the opportunity to condem tweets in support of the shooter as inane and inhumane, chilling in the extreme.

The word "misogynistic" includes the sense of "mistrust" of woman (as well as hate, dislike and fear, as you'd expect), so in my view it's a pretty good word to describe attempts to prevent women from exercising reproductive autonomy. We're not trusted to be responsible enough with that power, which leads to strenuous attempts to police and control it.

I wouldn't characterise everybody who personally disapproved of or had reservations about abortion as a misogynist, as that's just personal belief, and we're all entitled to those. However, the second that crosses over into trying to tell other women what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies, that's a whole other kettle of fish.

I've no idea what really motivated this guy, but I've seen no other alternative suggestions proposed for what his intentions were. I'm all ears if there are any, but all I have read suggests that he took issue with Planned Parenthood, and presumably for the same reasons as many people do - reasons that I personally don't agree with...

Actively seeking to deny women agency over their own body is misogynistic.

I must confess I have always struggled with the word misogyny, in that I had always taken it to mean hatred. However contextualising in terms of mistrust/fear puts a lot of what I've read into context.

I am still left wondering why we have contextualised the discussion of women's rights in terms of hate as opposed to fear. We have homophobia, isamaphobia et al. Yet the narrative around women seems to be built around hate.

This seems to be observable in reverse too, we see feminists accused of man hating, whereas at least as far as I can tell the reaction is more akin to fear than actual hatred of men.

If you'll suffer the tangent why is the default for examining gender issues one of hate as opposed to fear/mistrust?

I agree with slug. Furthermore, many people in the US who are anti-choice are also anti-birth control. It's a deeply misogynistic belief system.

Dervel, whilst phobia technically means fear, homophobic comments tend to be hate rather than fear filled and may indeed count as hate speech.

I quite agree OneMoreCasualty, but in the use of the word phobia it is implicit that fear lies at the root of the response, meaning if you tackle the fear you tackle the hatred. I suspect in much the same way misogyny has a foundational fear buried in there somewhere too.

Absolutely Seneca, it's anti-rational and batshit crazy, it's like being against thirst and anti water too. When you put it like that it does read like we don't trust women and thus control.

However I think we must be cautious as many groups practice sex selective abortions (read aborting females), and I'm very concerned about that.

The foundational fear buried in misogyny is very easy to see.

If you accept that women are people on a level standing with men, then you must also accept that their opinions and abilities have equal standing. Once you do that, all the power and privilege that is currently concentrated in the status of men in the patriarchy is lost.

By forcing women to give birth to unwanted children you effectively reduce them to breeding stock.

Just for full disclosure I am a man and I find the idea of abortion incredibly saddening. I am a hairs breadth from being pro-life myself so I can empathise with those who hold that view (not those who actually go on to kill obvs!).

I'm a feminist and a women and believe that people who don't have ovaries don't get a vote in this. Giving birth to a child is life threatening. The UN about maternal mortality; “about one woman every two minutes [dies] and for every woman who dies, 20 or 30 encounter complications with serious or long-lasting consequences. Surely only the person who is going to have to face that, gets to decide whether that risk is what she wants to take with her body.

When rich white men in the States talk about abortion when they have no experience of ANY of the issues involved (poverty, rape, lack of resources, lack of healthcare including contraception, lack of childcare, no maternity leave, terrible housing, violence) I cannot express how angry that makes me.

However I think we must be cautious as many groups practice sex selective abortions (read aborting females), and I'm very concerned about that.

You cannot battle that by banning abortions i.e. oppressing women more. You can battle that by getting rid of internalized misogyny as well as social structures that disadvantage women.
(For example, if only males can inherit land, then of course couples want sons!)

Yes Vestal you don't solve that by taking more power away from women, you solve it by taking the power away form men over women and giving it to the women.

YY to Vestal and MrsTerry.

Sex selective abortion is a phenomenon caused by the same patriarchal processes and oppression as the drive to roll back women's rights to bodily autonomy. Improve conditions so that women aren't second class citizens reduced to their value as breeding stock and gender selective abortion disappears. In a world that devalues women, sons are a better bet. In a more egalitarian society, that would be bonkers.

Fair enough MrsTerryPratchett I agree self ownership and autonomy are the foundations upon which all freedoms stand.

My thanks for the tolerance of my tangents. I wouldn't dream of suggesting abortion should be outlawed for fear of sex selected abortions, I merely raised it in context that the sides on this debate are not always so black and white.

I'll bow out now for obvious reasons. Except to say it is terribly sad people have lost their lives to yet another madman with a gun.

I'm a feminist and a women and believe that people who don't have ovaries don't get a vote in this.

This is based on the stereotypical assumption that men are more opposed to the laws on abortion than women. Polls in the UK time and time again show that this is not the case and that women are far more likely to vote to restrict the availability of abortion than men are. Would you agree to more restrictive laws on abortion if only women voted?

This is based on the stereotypical assumption that men are more opposed to the laws on abortion than women

No, it is based on the opinion that people shouldn't get to decide over things that won't ever affect them. No uterus, no opinion.

At least with women who vote for abortion, you have the consolation that they might bitterly regret it oneday.
It just satisfies a deeply human desire for justice, you know?

No, I would not agree to restrictive misogynist laws just because women voted for them.

Do you have a link to those polls in the UK?

Oh. I meant "for more restrictive laws on abortion", not "for abortion" ... okay, actually, they are for abortion, because they are, in most cases, also against contraception, but ... you know what I mean.

No, it is based on the opinion that people shouldn't get to decide over things that won't ever affect them. No uterus, no opinion. Exactly.

Also, I believe that everyone should be an organ donor. Let's make that compulsory. Let's force everyone to donate organs regardless of their beliefs, history and choices. No? Even AFTER death people's choices are respected. Even when people are dying for lack of organs.

So dead people keeping actual live people alive should have more rights than live women keeping a fetus 'alive'.

I agree. No uterus, no veto.

Anyone can have an opinion of course.

So dead people keeping actual live people alive should have more rights than live women keeping a fetus 'alive'

It might have something to do with half of all dead people being male.

Your organ donor plan won't work - one always can opt out of becoming an organ donor by living such an unhealthy lifestyle that the organs become useless.

However, women who drink during pregnancy will still be forced to give birth. (If they are not imprisoned for harming a fetus, that is)

Not one that I want to hear AF

@Any: Right, everyone can have an opinion. It is just that the one of people without uterus shouldn't count.

Me neither, TP. But, free speech.

Sorry Mrs TP

And indeed VV

Alright. Compromise. They can have free speech and I can stick my fingers in my ears and go, "LALALALA I can't hear you".

Article about polls

I agree. No uterus, no veto.

Why should the possession of a uterus mean that one person can overrule another person's autonomy? Why should anyone have a veto? If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, then she should be free to do so. Why should another woman have the power to deny her that right?