Pro-Choice Insurgency

Hendryk said that only one side in the abortion debate has used violence in support of its goals--anti-abortion extremists killing abortion doctors and the like.

Thing is, given how abortion is legal by Federal fiat, the pro-choice crowd has the entire State enforcement apparatus on its side, so they don't really *need* to use violence.

So let's switch the situation. Make it so that there is a federally-enforced ban on abortions nationwide and pro-choice groups use violence to "get their point across."

I'm thinking it might start with paramilitary defense of "back alley" abortion providers against law enforcement and escalate from there.
 

Susano

Banned
Thing is, you dont need an insurgency. You simply need illegal abortion doctors. You onmly need violence to control the phenomen, not to widen it.
 
Thing is, you dont need an insurgency. You simply need illegal abortion doctors. You onmly need violence to control the phenomen, not to widen it.

That's a good point.

That being said, that doesn't mean a pro-choice insurgency is impossible, just more difficult to pull off.
 

Hendryk

Banned
That being said, that doesn't mean a pro-choice insurgency is impossible, just more difficult to pull off.
Where did you pull that "pro-choice insurgency" out of?

Were abortion to become illegal again, there would be no insurgency. There would be backstreet abortion providers, some of them qualified doctors, some of them not. Women with unwanted pregnancies would cough up whatever money is asked, and hope to live through the procedure. Of course, even if they do, then they'd have to hope not to be arrested by the police the next day.

Sounds dystopian? We're talking about OTL. Read up on the history of reproductive rights before you start fantasizing about insurgencies.
 
Where did you pull that "pro-choice insurgency" out of?

Were abortion to become illegal again, there would be no insurgency. There would be backstreet abortion providers, some of them qualified doctors, some of them not. Women with unwanted pregnancies would cough up whatever money is asked, and hope to live through the procedure. Of course, even if they do, then they'd have to hope not to be arrested by the police the next day.

Sounds dystopian? We're talking about OTL. Read up on the history of reproductive rights before you start fantasizing about insurgencies.

I am aware about back-alley abortion providers. I'm not an idiot.

If abortion #s would be roughly the same in both cases, legalized abortion would be the lesser evil, but surely there're alternatives that satisfy both sides.

(see my comments in the other thread about artificial wombs)

Furthermore, how can you categorically say there would not be an insurgency? Someone whose relative died in a botched back-alley abortion or something could take a shot at the officials responsible, for example, and an inept, heavy-handed response could produce radicalism.
 
Furthermore, how can you categorically say there would not be an insurgency? Someone whose relative died in a botched back-alley abortion or something could take a shot at the officials responsible, for example, and an inept, heavy-handed response could produce radicalism.

IMHO it would be very difficult to produce an insurgency of any kind in the USA. People just have too much faith in the system as a whole. A short-lived bombing campaign by a small terrorist organization or an assassination or two would be acceptable, but I can't see a rebellion organizing very well.
 
IMHO it would be very difficult to produce an insurgency of any kind in the USA. People just have too much faith in the system as a whole. A short-lived bombing campaign by a small terrorist organization or an assassination or two would be acceptable, but I can't see a rebellion organizing very well.

Perhaps like the clinic bombers in OTL?

The number who've died in abortion-related violence is not, IIRC, all that large.
 

JohnJacques

Banned
Not at all possible. Abortion isn't such an issue for one side. The pro-choice camp does not have any black and white moral view of the issue. No one is arguing that abortion is some inherent social good. The pro-life side argues that it is some inherent evil. Its part of the reason the debate has lost ground. No one really supports abortion, they support the women's choice. But the other side can characterize it as a want for abortions. Now, you will likely get civil disobedience and symbolic displays but really? Violence? Violence is basically out of the picture. There aren't any targets to attack or intimidate for pro-choicers really. If anything, you'll see more pro-life violence against those who go through with the operation or those who actually perform it. And all with state-sanctioned silence.
 
And all with state-sanctioned silence.

Not necessarily. The State tends not to be fans of vigilantes, if anything for self-interested reasons (it's THEIR monopoly on violence that's being infringed on).

Rape is illegal, but the guy who killed a friend's rapist in Atlanta a few years back got nailed to the ground real quick.
 
Not at all possible. Abortion isn't such an issue for one side. The pro-choice camp does not have any black and white moral view of the issue. No one is arguing that abortion is some inherent social good. The pro-life side argues that it is some inherent evil.

A good point.
 

JohnJacques

Banned
I think harassment of women who were known to have had an abortion would be basically ignored, even if it doesn't lead to outright violence. Just look at violence over miscegenation or even the moral and extralegal outrage towards polygamy.
 
Not at all possible. Abortion isn't such an issue for one side. The pro-choice camp does not have any black and white moral view of the issue. No one is arguing that abortion is some inherent social good. The pro-life side argues that it is some inherent evil. Its part of the reason the debate has lost ground. No one really supports abortion, they support the women's choice. But the other side can characterize it as a want for abortions. Now, you will likely get civil disobedience and symbolic displays but really? Violence? Violence is basically out of the picture. There aren't any targets to attack or intimidate for pro-choicers really. If anything, you'll see more pro-life violence against those who go through with the operation or those who actually perform it. And all with state-sanctioned silence.

The bolded- not true. There are plenty (by no means the majority, but plenty) of people on the pro-choice side who see abortion as the central foundation that women's rights, liberation, etc. revolve around. In their case, the concept of abortion may have transcended the reality of the procedure, but make no mistake...for them, abortion IS a social good, in terms of what its come to represent. They are the "far down the spectrum", and close to the equivalent of reactionary pro-lifers who want women arrested and doctors arrested/killed. These people will defend abortion's current status as a legal and (generally) accepted status quo fiercely.

But violently? I think you hit the main point with your third last sentence. Switch things around, and there isn't any targets to attack. Not anything that encapsulates the issue, like abortion clinics do for pro-lifers. What are the choicers going to do, attack people who don't have abortions? Attack the police? It becomes an ill defined concept at that point, and IMO that makes it hard for a REAL insurgency to find something to revolve around. To be honest, even the pro-life radical movement isn't very influential or respected. So I think that if things were switched, the idea of a hardcore pro-choice movement is even less of a possibility. JMO.
 
Why? What are they blowing up?

That is a good point. Abortion clinics are a clearly defined target as opposed to random bombings. So we must make a equaly attractive target. The first thing that comes to my mind is a special anti-abortion police. The US goverment structure tend to evolve a insane amount of police agencies, even at federal level. They have DEA for drugs, ICE for immigration and so on so a special anti abortion agency, or under group to an agency, would be something very American. So there is a target. Another might be organisations who support the ban.

It striks me that organisations are set up to combat a specific political issue in the US rather then having a policeforce handling all kinds of crime. DEA and drugs for example. So what about groups who target them?

Also, IIRC the death rate in abortions didn't drop when legalised in Sweden. It makes sence since it's just one procedure which people can learn without having the broad knowledge of a doctor. It's more like first aid.
 
The bolded- not true. There are plenty (by no means the majority, but plenty) of people on the pro-choice side who see abortion as the central foundation that women's rights, liberation, etc. revolve around. In their case, the concept of abortion may have transcended the reality of the procedure, but make no mistake...for them, abortion IS a social good, in terms of what its come to represent. They are the "far down the spectrum", and close to the equivalent of reactionary pro-lifers who want women arrested and doctors arrested/killed. These people will defend abortion's current status as a legal and (generally) accepted status quo fiercely.

But violently? I think you hit the main point with your third last sentence. Switch things around, and there isn't any targets to attack. Not anything that encapsulates the issue, like abortion clinics do for pro-lifers. What are the choicers going to do, attack people who don't have abortions? Attack the police? It becomes an ill defined concept at that point, and IMO that makes it hard for a REAL insurgency to find something to revolve around. To be honest, even the pro-life radical movement isn't very influential or respected. So I think that if things were switched, the idea of a hardcore pro-choice movement is even less of a possibility. JMO.

Who? As far as I can see they see the 'central foundation that women's rights, liberation, etc revolve around' is not the procedure but the fact of a woman's right to choose. Please cite some examples of groups who believe that the procedure itself is the issue.
 
Top