Is anti-reproductive rights advocacy hate speech?

[markomalley]

Buried deep in another thread, I was having a discussion with another poster where I submitted that a person who advocated restriction of reproductive rights was just as guilty of hate speech as a person who advocated racism or homophobia.

I am not trying to highlight this particular argument, but I am curious about the opinions of others on this board, in a very generic sense.

The way I see it, a poster who advocated restricting the voting rights of people of color would be making hateful remarks. I would submit that a poster who advocated restricting the marriage rights of GLBT persons would be making hateful remarks. And those remarks would be just as hateful if they were wrapped around eloquent verbiage as if they used the foulest of gutter language. I don't believe that ANYBODY here would disagree with me. I also think that anybody who advocated those positions, no matter how persuasively, would be subject to an alert and possible banning from this forum.

Am I right with my assumption there, that a poster who advocated racist or homophobic positions would be subject to censure on this board? I've seen people tombstoned for less...

So am I off base stating that a person advocating restriction of a woman's reproductive rights is just as guilty as a person advocating the restriction of other civil rights?

The way I figure it, the sincerity or the lack of malice of a poster shouldn't figure in it. A white supremicist could sincerely believe his words and not have particular malice behind them, but the words would be just as hurtful. A Falwellite could likewise believe that he is doing the right thing, but his speech could still cause great emotional distress to the recipient.

And, again to the person with whom I was having that discussion on the other thread, I am not trying to start a flame war. I am very interested in hearing the opinions of other posters. Because the discussion, particularly in this forum, might be highly offensive to many other folks.

Thanks in advance for your inputs.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. I think your observations are astute

I very much consider the anti-choice argument to be akin to slavery

[purduejake]

2. Good observations...

I've never though of it that way before, but you are absolutely right.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. Well when you consider it

you are forcing someone to 18 years of indentured servitude...you are forcing someone to undertake a medical route that no other MALE American would be forced to take (AND NO CHILD SUPPORT DOES NOT APPLY as that pertains to the quality of life of the BORN child not the host)

We don't force people to undergo blood tranfusions, we don't force people to get their appendix taken out, we don't force people to take anti-hypertensive meds...but we can force someone to squeeze a watermelon out of an opening the size of a small citrus fruit?

[markomalley]

5. Thanks

I was just considering the correlation with modern civil rights, but you bring up a good point about slavery.

[gumby]

4. The "choice" frame was very unfortunate.

Well, what 'choice' should I make today? Have my nails done or have an abortion? Or maybe I'll 'choose' an abortion so I can fit into my prom dress. That's where the wingnuts have taken the 'choice' frame.

Reproductive freedom should have been advocated as a civil right. Women can not be equal citizens without the recognized right to control their fertility and that ultimately includes abortion.

Refusing women autonomy, the State is claiming possession of a woman's body. Women are either property of Big Government, or they're not. THAT is the 'choice' involved.

[markomalley]

6. Thanks

I hadn't thought of it that way. I changed the title of the thread to more accurately reflect that very valid point. Thanks again.

[ultraist]

10. I agree, it should be framed as a civil liberty, not a "choice"

Right to privacy is a civil liberty and this right extends to a woman's body just as it extends to a man's body. Can the state take control of someone's body?

If Roe vs. Wade is overturned and the State is permitted to take control over people's bodies, the State could force sterlization and castration.

Do people really want to give the state control over their bodies?

What if you had an illness the doctor said required treatment to live, such as cancer. If you refused chemotherapy and radiation, the State could force you to undergoe this treatment if they have control over your body.

[markomalley]

7. Kicked to get comments from the evening folks...thanks.

:kick:

[ultraist]

8. Interesting point

Is advocating to oppress a group's rights, in this case, womens' Right to Privacy, as stipulated by Roe vs. Wade, hate speech?

Or is hate speech lingo that goes beyond voicing discrimination of a civil liberty of a group to promoting violence toward a group? Apparently, it's not only speech that promotes violence but also speech that promotes discrimination.

I think it also depends on the severity of the language. "Baby murders" may well qualify as hate speech because it suggests the group members are perpetrators that deserve to punished.

Promoting discrimination of women, an oppressed group and advocating to deny them of a civil right, is precisely what anti-choicers are doing. There is a misogynist undercurrent there, no question about that.

Hate speech is generally defined as: "extremely offensive personal insults and characterizations that are directed against an individual's or group's race, religion, ethnic origin, gender, or sexual preference, and which may incite violence, hatred, or discrimination. As such, this variety of hate speech constitutes more than merely the fair airing of information or viewpoints. "

So, actually, yes, I do think it's hate speech although I do not think discussions of when life begins can be considered hate speech because that point of demarcation is debatable.

[saracat]

9. Very right. Wonderful point.

I have been pointing out forever that people who would be aghast at the suggestion of curtailing civil rights think nothing of limiting reproductive rights>

[ultraist]

11. Exactly! Curtailing Right to Privacy is ok if it's a woman's body