abortion 3

Abortion

Life or Death Who Chooses?

In Roman times, abortion and the destruction of unwanted children was permissible, but as out civilization has aged, it seems that such acts were no longer acceptable by rational human beings, so that in 1948, Canada along with most other nations in the world signed a declaration of the United Nations promising every human being the right to life. The World Medical Association meeting in Geneve at the same time, stated that the utmost respect for human life was to be from the moment of conception. This declaration was re-affirmed when the World Medical Association met in Oslo in 1970. Should we go backwards in our concern for the life of an individual human being?
The unborn human is still a human life and not all the wishful thinking of those advocating repeal of abortion laws, can alter this. Those of us who would seek to protect the human who is still to small to cry aloud for it's own protection, have been accused of having a 19th Century approach to life in the last third of the 20th Century. But who in reality is using arguments of a bygone Century? It is an incontrovertible fact of biological science - Make no Mistake - that from the moment of conception, a new human life has been created.
Only those who allow their emotional passion to overide their knowledge, can deny it: only those who are irrational or ignorant of science, doubt that when a human sperm fertilizes a human ovum a new human being is created. A new human being who carries genes in its cells that make that human being uniquely different from any and other human being and yet, undeniably a member, as we all are, of the great human family. All the fetus needs to grow into a babe, a child, an old man, is time, nutrition and a suitable environment. It is determined at that very moment of conception whether the baby will be a boy or a girl; which of his parents he will look like; what blood type he will have. His whole heritage is forever fixed. Look at a human being 8 weeks after conception and you, yes every person here who can tell the difference between a man and a women, will be able to look at the fetus and tell me whether it is a baby boy or a girl.
No, a fetus is not just another part of a women's body like an appendix or appendage. These appendages, these perfectly formed tiny feel belong to a 10 week developed baby, not to his or her mother.
The fetus is distinct and different and has it's own heart beat. Do you know that the fetus' heart started beating just 18 days after a new life was created, beating before the mother even knew she was pregnant? By 3 months of pregnancy the developing baby is just small enough to be help in the palm of a man's hand but look closely at this 3 month old fetus. All his organs are formed and all his systems working. He swims, he grasps a pointer, he moves freely, he excretes urine. If you inject a sweet solution into the water around him, he will swallaw because he likes the taste. Inject a bitter solution and he will quit swallowing because he does not like the taste. By 16 weeks it is obvious to all, except those who have eyes but deliberately do not see, that this is a young human being.
Who chooses life or death for this little one because abortion is the taking of a human life? This fact is undeniable; however much of the members of the Women's Liberation Movement, the new Feminists, Dr. Henry Morgentaler or the Canadian Medical Association President feel about it, does not alter the fact of the matter. An incontrovertible fact that cannot change as feelings change.
If abortion is undeniably the taking of human life and yet sincere misguided people feel that it should be just a personal matter between a women and the doctor, there seems to be 2 choices open to them. (1) That they would believe that other acts of destruction of human beings such as infanticide and homicide should be of no concern of society and therefore, eliminate them from the criminal code. This I cannot believe is the thinking of the majority, although the tendency for doctors to respect the selfish desire of parents and not treat the newborn defective with a necessary lifesaving measure, is becoming increasingly more common. (2) But for the most part the only conclusion available to us is that those pressing for repeal of the abortion laws believe that there are different sorts of human beings and that by some arbitrary standard, they can place different values on the lives of there human beings. Of course, different human beings have different values to each of us as individuals: my mother means mo re to me than she does to you. But the right to life of all human beings is undeniable. I do not think this is negotiable. It is easy to be concerned with the welfare of those we know and love, while regarding everybody else as less important and somehow, less real. Most people would rather have heard of the death of thousands in the Honduras flooding disaster than of a serious accident involving a close friends or favourite relatives. That is why some are less disturbed by the slaughter of thousands of unborn children than by the personal problems of a pregnant women across the street. To rationalize this double standard, they pretend to themselves that the unborn child is a less valuable human life because it has no active social relationships and can therefore, be disposed of by others who have an arbitrary standard of their own for the value of a human life.
I agree that the fetus has not developed it's full potential as a human being: but neither have any of us. Nor will any of us have reached that point: that point of perfect humaness, when we die. Because some of us may be less far along the path than others, does not give them the right to kill us. But those in favour of abortion, assume that they have that right, the standard being arbitrary. To say that a 10 week fetus has less value that a baby, means also that one must consider a baby of less value than a child, a young adult of less value than an old man. Surely one cannot believe this and still be civilized and human. A society that does not protect its individual members is on the lowest scale of civilized society. One of the measures of a more highly civilized society, is its attitude towards its weaker members. If the poor, the sick, the handicapped, the mentally ill, the helpless are not protected, the society is not as advanced as in a society where they are protected. The more mature the society is, the more there is respect for the dignity and rights of all human beings. The function of the laws of the society, is to protect and provide for all members so that no individual or group of individuals can be victimized by another individual group. Every member of Canadian society has a vital stake in what value system is adopted towards its weak, aged, cripple, it's helpless intra-uterine members; a vital stake in who chooses life or death.
As some of you may know, in 1969, the abortion laws were changed in Canada, so that it became legal for a doctor to perform an abortion if a committee of 3 other doctors in an eccredited hospital deemed that continuation of the pregnancy constituted a severe threat to the life and health, mental or physical of the women. Threat to health was not defined and so it is variously interpreted to mean very real medical disease to anything that interferes with even social or economic well being, so that any unwanted or unplanned pregnancy thus qualifies. What really is the truth about the lasting effect of an unwanted pregnancy on the psyche of a womem? Of course there is a difference of opinion among psychiatrists, but if unbiased, prospective studies are examined certain facts become obvious. (1) The health of women who are mentally ill before they become pregnant, is not improved by an abortion. In fact in 1970 an official statement of the World Health Organization said, "Serious mental disorders arise more ofte n in women previous mental problems. Thus the very women for whom legal abortion is considered justified on psychiatric grounds, are the ones who have the highest risk of post-abortion psychiatric disorders. (2) Most women who are mentally healthy before unwanted pregnancy, despite a temporary emotional upset during the early weeks for the pregnancy, are mentally healthy after the pregnancy whether they were aborted or carried through to term.
Do we accept killing a human being because of a temporary, emotional upset? All obstetricians and gynaecologists know of many cases where the mother, be her single or married, has spoken of abortion early in the pregnancy and later on, has confessed her gratitude to those who have not performed the abortion. On the other hand, we have all seen women what have been troubled, consumed with guilt and development significant psychiatric problems following and because of abortion. I quote Ft. John L. Grady, Medical Examiner for Florida State Attorney's Office, "I believe it can be stated with certainty that abortion causes more deep-seated guilt, depression and mental illness than it ever cures".
We used to hear a lot about the risk of suicide among those who threatened such action if their request for abortion was refused. How real is that risk - it is not - in fact, the suicide rate among pregnant women be they happy of unhappy about the pregnancy, is 1/4 of the rate among non-pregnant women in child-bearing years. An accurate 10 year study was done in England on unwed mothers who requested abortions and were refused. It was found that the suicide rate of this group was less than that average population. In Minnesota in a 15 year period, there were only 14 maternal suicides. 11 occurred after delivery. None were illegitimately pregnant. All were psychotic. In contrast, among the first 8 deaths of women aborted under the liberal law in the United Kingdon, 2 were from suicide directly following the abortion.
Are there any medical indications for abortion?? Is it valid for a doctor to co-operate in the choice for abortion? The late Dr. Guttmacher, one of the world leaders of the pro-abortion movement, has stated: "Almost any women can be brought through pregnancy alive unless she suffers from cancer or leukemia, in which case abortion is unlikely to prolong her life much less save it."
As an opponent to abortion, I will readily agree, as will all those who are against abortion, that pregnancy resulting from rape or incest is a tragedy. Rape is a detestable crime, but no sane reasoning can place the slightest blame on the unborn child it might produce. Incest is, if that is possible, even worse, but for centuries, traditional Jewish law has clearly stated, that if a father sins against his daughter (incest) that does not justify a second crime - the abortion of the product of that sin. The act of rape or incest is the major emotional physical trauma to the young girl or women. Should we compound the psychic scar already inflicted on the mother by her having the guilt of destroying a living being which was at least half her own? Throughout history, pregnant women who for one crime or another were sentenced to death, were given a stay of execution until after the delivery of the child: it being the contention of courts that one could not punish the innocent child for the crime of the mother. Can we punish it for a crime against the mother?
If rape occurred the victim should immediately report the incident. If this is done, early reporting of the crime will provide greater opportunity for apprehension and conviction of the rapist, for treatment of venereal disease and prevention of pregnancy. Let is give our children good sex education; and let us get tough on pornography, clean up the newstands, literature and "Adult Movies" and television programmes which encourage crime, abusive drugs and make mockery of morality and good behaviour and therefore, contribute to rape.
By some peculiar trick of adult logic, proponents of abortion talk about fetal indications for act. Whatever abortion may do for the mother, it so very obviously cannot be therapeutic for the fetus. Death is hardly a constructive therapy. As Dr. Hellegers of John Hopkins Hospital says, "While it is easy to feel that abortion is being performed for the sake of the fetus, honesty requires us to recognize that we perform it for adults". There is no evidence to indicate that an infant with congenital or birth defect would rather not be born since he cannot be consulted. This evidence might exist if suicides were common among people with congenital handicaps. However, to the contrary, these seem to value life, since the incidence of suicide is less than that of the general population. Can we choose death for another while life is all we ourselves know? Methods are being developed to diagnose certain defects in the infants of mothers at risk before the infant is born. The fluid around the fetus can be sampled and tested in a very complicated fashion. If we kill infants with confidential defects before they are born, why not after birth, why not any human being we declare defective? It is no surprise of course for many of us to learn that in hospitals across North American Continent such decisions affecting the newborn and the very elderly or those with incurable disease, are being made. What is a defect, what is a congenital defect? Hitler considered being 1/4 Jewish was a congenital defect incompatible with the right to life. Perhaps you have all heard this story :
One doctor saying to another doctor, "About the termination of a pregnancy, I want your opinion. The father was syphilitic (venereal disease). The mother tuberculous (small lumps on skin). Of the four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth also tuberculous. What would you have done?"
"I would have ended the pregnancy". "Then you would have murdered Beethoven".
Not content with the Abortion Act of 1969 which allows 40,000 unborn children to be killed legally in our country in 1973, many noisy and emotional people are campaigning for abortion on request. They are aided by a crusading, misguided press and media which continues to utter as fact, the fiction of fertile imaginative minds. We have been told by the media that the majority of Canadians wish to have abortion legalized but the latest census taken by the Toronto Star in March of 1989 reports that 35% of those polled thought that abortion was already easy to obtain, 26% thought it too hard, 19% about right and 21% had no opinion. Men more then women thought it too hard. Even if the majority did want it, this does not make it right. Centuries ago, most Americans thought slavery was right. The elected leaders of this country must have the wisdom and integrity for what is right, not for what might be politically opportune.
One of the uttered justifications for abortion on demand is that every women should have the mastership of her own body, but should she? To quote Dr. Edwin Connow, "Should she have the right for what is really judicial execution of new life - not a cat, not a chicken but a human being - not only potential but actual". In a society one is not totally free to do what one will with one's own body (we don't have the right to get drunk or high on drugs and drive down Young Street.) The great concern has been shown for the innocent victims of highjacking but what is abortion but this? The highjacking without reprieve, of an innocent passenger out of his mother's womb. Should we really leave the right to hijack as a personal decision only?
Those campaigning for further liberalization of the abortion law, hope to make abortion available and safe for all who wish it during a pregnancy. Qualifications have been placed on the abortion on demand routine by other groups, for example, a time limit for the duration of pregnancy or clause that the operation be performed in an accredited hospital. Before exploring the reality of so-called safe abortion, let me tell you a little method of procuring an abortion. Before 13 weeks of pregnancy, the neck of the womb is dilated - a comparatively easy procedure in someone who has already had a child - much more difficult if childbirth has not occurred. The products of conception in many hospitals are removed but a suction apparatus - considered safe and better that the curettal scraping method. After 13 weeks pregnancy, the fetus is too big to be removed in this was and either a dangerous method of injection a solution into the womb is carried out, this salting out method results in the mother going into what i s really a miniature labour and after a period of time, expelling a very dead often skinned baby. In some hospitals because of the danger of this procedure to the mother, an operation like a miniature Caesarean section called a hysterotomy has to be performed. There area also many other methods.
Let us now look if we can, at consequences of such license to kill an individual too small to cry for it's own protection.
Abortion by suction curettage is not just as simple as a pelvic examination performed in a doctor's office as Dr. Morgentaler and the television programe W5 who were doing a great disservice to young women in Canada would have us believe. In Canada as reported in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (the Statistics from Statistics Canada), the complication rate and this being for immediate complications of early abortion is 4.5%. According to the Wyn report with statistics from 12 counties, women who have a previous induced abortion have their ability to bear children in the future permanently impaired. There is a
5-10% increase in infertility. The chances of these women having a pregnancy in the tube increases up to 4 times. Premature delivery increases up to 50% and when one realizes that prematurity is the commonest cause for infants being mentally or physically defective, having cerebral palsy or other difficulties, then one realizes that those doctors doing abortions in great numbers south of the border or across the water, even in Canada may not be doing the women and her family a service. They will tell you that abortion has almost no complications. What most of them will not tell you, is that once the abortion is done they may refuse to see the women again and that she must take her post-abortal problems elsewhere.
Those seeking repeal of the present abortion law will rapidly point out that nevertheless, it is safer to have a legal abortion than illegal abortions, safer for the women that is. This I don not dispute, but here is the real rub. Liberalized abortion laws do not eliminate illegal, back street abortions and in some cases, the overall number of illegal abortions actually rise, usually stays stagnant, and rarely falls. There are still people who would rather try it themselves or go somewhere they will be completely anonymous. Another factor enters the total number of people seeking abortion, legal or illegal rises. The overall pregnancy rate rockets and people become careless with contraception and a women can have 3 or 4 abortions during the time of one full term pregnancy.
Are doctors really being kind to the girl to allow her to choose life or death for her unborn child? In aborting a 16 year old this year with so-called informed consent, we may be preventing her from having even 1 or 2 children 10 years later when happily married. No, repealing the abortion law does not make it possible for every women to safely eliminate, what is for her, an unwanted pregnancy.
Would limiting abortions to accredited hospitals make it safer? Yes, safer for the women, not for the fetus and it would jeopardize the continued well being of all of the members of the community with the gross misuse of the medical manpower, hospital facilities and money. With almost 31,739 abortions performed in Ontario in 1989, the cost to OHIP is about 9 million dollars. Yet to do as has been done in the U.S.A and the United Kingdom - namely to make legal, abortions is to turn so-called 'backstreet butchers' into legal operators.
Patients now go into the office through the front door instead of the rear. I have heard it said that is abortions became available on request, many less children would be born and we could use the pleasant delivery suites and postnatal beds for abortions. As I have pointed out, however, before today, liberalization of abortion does not reduce the birth rate. There would be little increase in available facilities or indeed doctor's time. By the very nature of the operation and because the longer pregnancy lasts, the more difficult it is, patients for abortions are admitted as urgent cases or emergencies so that all other members of the community must wait longer for their hospital bed or the surgery they need.
Who will pay for there abortions? With medicare, of course, it is you and I. I know one full tern pregnancy costs most than an abortion, but not much more. And it does not cost more than 3 abortions and that is what happens when the climate or choice for life or death of the unborn child changes. Let us use this money for constructive purposes, not destructive. It has been suggested that abortions on request would enable the poor to secure abortion as easily as the rich but regrettably, it has been shown that abortion-minded physicians in great demand will respond to the age-old commercial rules, as has already happened in the States and in Britain.
Abortion on demand a women's right to choose not to continue an unplanned pregnancy would prevent there being unwanted children in this country, so we are told. This is the final and desperate emotional plea of people anxious, at whatever price, to escape the responsibility for their actions. Nobody here or in Canada, wants there to be unwanted children in this city, and in this country, and also in this world. There is nothing more pitiable or heat rending that an unwanted fetus becoming an unwanted babe or an unwanted babe becoming an unwanted child, or an unwanted child becoming an embittered adult. But few would think it right to kill or have killed an unwanted baby to prevent it from becoming an unwanted child. Then how can they think it right to kill an unwanted fetus, even more defenceless than a newborn babe just because it may grow into an unwanted child.
Once a women has conceived, she already is a parent, be it willing or otherwise. The only way she ceases it be a parents is by a natural death or an act of killing. Killing in any form is not the solution to so-called unwanted human beings at any age. Hitler thought this was right. Canadians surely do not. It is a permissive and frightened society that does not develop the expertise to control population, civil disorder, crime, poverty, even its own sexuality but yet would mount an uncontrolled, repeat uncontrolled, destructive attack on the defenceless, very beginnings of life. Let us marshall all our resources financial, educational, those of social agencies, but above all, of human concern and passion for our fellow humans. Let us by all means, make available to all, knowledge of conception and methods of contraception. Let us offer ourselves as loving humans to those already in this country who are unwanted by their natural parents. And incidentally, I am sure I don not need acquaint you with some of the facts about so-called unwanted children. The Children's Aid Societies in Toronto and in fact in every major city across our country have many more potential parents anxious and willing to adopt infants and young children than they have such children available for adoption. Let us marshall our technology and humanity in the service of the unfortunate.
And in conclusion, I would like to read to you a letter which a member of Birthright received.



Dear Birthright:

I heard about your work in Birthright and think you can help us. We're in our late 20's and have been married 7 years. After 3 years of waiting, we became the happy adoptive parents of a precious baby girl last fall.
This is how you can help us. Please tell every unwed mother who places her baby for adoption how much we love her. We think each of those girls are the most generous, charitable, kind devoted and loving mothers on this earth.
We know she must have carried her child out of love or in this day and age should have found some way to have an abortion. We can never thank her enough for the 9 months of time and energy she spent for us.
Maybe if she knows that we think she's the most loving person in this world we will never know, it will help us both.
As Jenny grows older, we are telling her she has two sets of parents. We'll tell her how she came to be our child this way. Her first mommy didn't have a home or a daddy to help love and care for her. She loved her so much that she just couldn't let her daughter grow up without love of two parents and all the things that make a happy home. We'll tell Jenny that her 1st mommy thinks of her often and wonders how she is. She will always love her baby.
Maybe our thoughts will someday reach Jenny's 1st mommy. What she did was an act of faith in mankind, hope for her daughter's future and love toward us. We think the strength of her love enabled her to place her precious baby with us. We have faith that as Jenny grows up learning she was placed out of love and not abandoned by her 1st mommy, both Jenny and she will be at peace.

Thank you.

A Review of The Outsiders Club Screened on BBC 2 in October

A Review of "The Outsiders Club" Screened on BBC 2 in October 96
MA Diploma Disability Studies

INTRODUCTION
I decided to write a review on the social group known as The Outsiders. The group's main aim is to enable disabled adults to form personal relationships, including specifically sexual ones (Shakespeare 1996), either with each other or with non-disabled members. The group has been in existence for several years, and has attracted a great deal of attention, including reaction from present and former members, and in particular from within the Disabled People's Movement . Many of the comments made by former members of the group have been critical, sometimes highly condemnatory, and frequently made by disabled women (Rae 1984).

In both my professional and private capacity I am interested in sexuality and disability, and specifically in the ways in which disabled adults can establish meaningful relationships with other people (disabled or on-disabled). Issues such as sexuality and the forming of relationships are regularly discussed in mainstream youth and community work, but rarely with regard to disabled people (which is not surprising since disabled people are often absent from mainstream groups). Indeed, it is only in the last few years that disabled people themselves have been in the forefront of this debate, and the leading protagonist have usually been activists within the wider disability movement, who are well aware of other social and sexual issues such as gender, sexism, homophobia, and so on. The Outsiders was set up (and is still fronted by) an able bodied woman who for many years has been well known in the controversial arena of sexual liberation and soft-core pornography, so it is hardly surprising that her group has both supporters and critics.
A recent BBC-2 documentary series (From the Edge) devoted a whole programme to the group, and this essay picks up the main themes that were aired.
SEXUALITY AND DISABILITY
Morris (1989) writes "once we first become disabled we are usually denied any
form of sexual identity." It is certainly true that among the many negative stereotypes of disability some of the most commonly held views are that disabled people are non-sexual, or sometimes asexual beings, or that they are likely to be attracted only to each other.
THE OUTSIDERS CLUB
The Outsiders Club was established by Tuppy Owens in 1979. Tuppy, a self-proclaimed stalwart campaigner for sexual equality, and a trained sex therapist. She conceived the idea of a social group for disabled adults after her close male friend, Nigel, became blind. Fearful of the effect of disability ever afflicting her own life - and blindness in particular - she became determined to assist Nigel in any way she could. She began by taking Nigel to parties where she described to him in great detail what other women were wearing, and took delight in it. She claimed that this enabled him to
have more fun, as he could imagine what women were wearing, even though he could not see them. One question raised by this is: whose needs were being fulfilled? I have
already suggested that many able-bodied people have quite misguided views concerning issues of sexuality and disability, so was Tuppy fulfilling a sexual fantasy of her own, or performing a valid role for her friend? (Shakespeare, Gillespie-Sells et al. 1996).

The club produces its own Practical Suggestions Guide, a guide considered offensive and oppressive by some members of the disability movement (Shakespeare, Gillespie-Sells et al. 1996). The reason for this view is that the guide's content is based around a medical model of disability which suggests that disabled people's problems are due to their impairments, not to environmental and attitudinal factors (Oliver 1996). In other words, in the view of the critics the guide fails to acknowledge the dominant model of disability which is widely propagated by the disability movement. There is a 'medical' side to disability (or 'impairment') and it is at least arguable that some (maybe most) problems of sexual function are intrinsically medical - and not imposed by society. However, issues of shyness, assertiveness, and social/sexual confidence may well be rooted in expectations of disapproval, contempt or rejection from an unaware non-disabled public.
HOW THE CLUB TREATS ITS MEMBERS.
Billy Prosser, a member of the club considers that the topic "Disability and sexuality
is taboo", ie sexuality as expressed by disabled people carries a kind of stigma. Goffman in 1963 uses the term "stigma" to refer to an attribute that is discrediting. To an extent this derives from traditional cultural and media assumptions about physical beauty and "attractiveness". Disabled people are seldom portrayed (for instance in films, on TV, in books, comics or magazines) as sexy, or desirable, or sexually alluring to non-disabled people. The club's membership is made up of able-bodied and disabled people. What is interesting about the current membership is that there is a gender imbalance, with men outnumbering women by 2:1, and it appears that the club attracts able-bodied men but not able-bodied women (Shakespeare, Gillespie-Sells et al. 1996). So what attracts non-disabled men to the Outsiders Club? Are they splendidly broad-minded individuals who have no sexual hang-ups about mixing with disabled women, or are they themselves sexually frustrated, isolated people at the last chance saloon?
We need to look at the management, structure, and general style of the club to find some answers, and to try to answer the underlying question - is The Outsiders Club a good or a bad thing?
THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
The Outsiders Club's Management Committee consists of four people, including
Tuppy Owens, she is the only able-bodied person on the committee. In the film, Annette Taylor, the club's Chairperson, suggested that the club ought to address the negative images which have developed since its inception in 1979. When viewing a film like this, I feel it is imperative that we, as individuals (either club members or interested observers) are able to challenge our own moral standpoint. It is perhaps inevitable that
individuals who are confronted with the issues depicted in the programme have been provoked into feelings of discord. I found, as I was watching, that it was practically impossible not to draw upon my own personal feelings concerning the issues expressed above (Waitman and Conboy-Hill 1996).
THE OUTSIDERS CLUB AND SEXUAL SURROGACY.
In the film, Tuppy Owens mentioned her support for the use of sexual surrogates, presumably (in some cases) via contacts made at The Outsiders Club. A sexual surrogate is someone who usually is employed by a sex therapist to assist with some sexual problem. This can be associated with a lack of confidence or poor self esteem. The film interviewed two able-bodied sexual surrogates, one male and the other female. Both surrogates in this film used statements like: "I like to give pleasure and to make the person happy" and "I massage them". The fees commence at £60 per session, and a typical case would involve an able-bodied, female, sexual surrogate who would spend two hours with a disabled person (male) for the purpose of sex.
The surrogate explains:
"I take them out of their chair, put them on to the bed, make them comfortable, please them, wash them, dress them and put them back in their wheelchair" I found the impersonal, matter-of-fact words used by the surrogate woman in the film rather offensive. She kept referring to disabled people as "them" which seemed to imply that the disabled person was somehow less than the surrogate herself. It was considered reasonable by the surrogate that a fee (£60) was charged, partly because it is after all a 'business' transaction, and "otherwise they would become too attached if we did not charge".
POWER, CONTROL, and FETISHISM
The film showed several disabled women who discussed their experiences of the club. One woman, who uses a wheelchair, claimed that she had only been asked out by able-bodied men. Tuppy's explanation of this was that some able bodied men feel inadequate within their own experience, but are enabled to feel empowered if they have sex with disabled women. She said that such men feel they are in control, and by this process are able to exercise power over a woman, albeit that the woman is disabled. Shakespeare makes the point that there is an assumption here that any sexual contact is better than no sexual contact (Shakespeare 1996). A further disturbing aspect of the club, mentioned in some detail in the TV film, is that it is used by some (usually able-bodied) men as an informal network for specific sexual tastes. An example of this is that in the Outsiders Club handbook it states: "Do not confess your fetish early in the relationship, as some women may find this offensive". There seems to be a voyeuristic view of disability in cases such as these, and this was given weight by Shakespeare in 1996. What is particularly disturbing, is that the Outsiders magazine publishes most of the members' names and addresses with telephone numbers. It was suggested that most people who join do not fully understand how the club operates. This highlights very real dangers, particularly for some women who may already lack social skills and consequently be considered to be vulnerable.
CONCLUSIONS.
Tuppy Owens and members of The Outsiders Club co-operated willingly in the shooting of the film - to their credit. They do not seem ashamed or evasive about what they do and how they operate. The programme was not long enough to be a truly authoritative portrait, but it did raise sensitive, awkward, and provocative issues. The programme itself almost seemed to depict some disabled people and some non-disabled people (ie Club members) as somewhat sexually deviant or even dangerous, which it suggests is hardly surprising when we live in a sexually supercharged culture, where the emphasis is upon the body beautiful and how attractive a person is (Longmore 1987), and there is a growing fascination with sexual extremes. The programme quoted from its guide that women should not turn down advances from men as this may be perceived by the men that the women who are saying no in fact mean yes(Shakespeare, Gillespie-Sells et al. 1996). This is a dangerous proposition, and adds fuel to the uneasiness that is evident in people's views about the club. I do not disagree per se with the idea of a sexual club where consenting disabled adults can meet together with other disabled people or non-disabled people to develop social skills, build self esteem, and possibly involve themselves in sexual relationships. I do however consider that the Outsiders Club does not meet the needs of disabled women, and their vulnerability is not fully understood by the club's organisers.



References
Longmore, P. K. (1987). "Screening Stereotypes: Images of Disabled People in Television and Motion Pictures." .

Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. London, Macmillan.

Rae, A. (1984). Refusing to be the Outsiders. Spare Rib 145 . p. 18-20.

Shakespeare, T. (1996). Power and Prejudice: Issues of Gender, Sexuality and Disability. Disability & Society: Emerging Issues and Insights. L. Barton. London, Longman.

Shakespeare, T., K. Gillespie-Sells, et al. (1996). The Sexual Polities of Disability: Untold Desires. London, Cassell.

Waitman, A. and S. Conboy-Hill (1996). Confronting Moral Standpoints.


December 1996

The Struggle for Acceptance

"When the dust settles and the pages of history are written,
it will not be the angry defenders of intolerance who have
made the difference, that reward will go to those who dared
to step outside the safety of their privacy in order
to expose and rout the prevailing prejudice."

- John Shelby Spong
Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Newark, NJ


November 21, 1996
A Struggle for Acceptance

During World War II and especially the twenty years after brought great political and social changes to the U.S.. Undoubtedly, one of the major changes was the new awareness of homosexuality. If this new awareness was to the advantage or if it was really wanted by the gay and lesbian population is a question that arises; if they really had a choice in the matter is another.
I think gays= relentless struggle for acceptance into mainstream society came from the American constitution itself. After all, the gay liberation movement started in America, the land of the free, where all men are created equal and with an inalienable right to pursue their own happiness. No one should be able to take these rights away from anyone. Also, in the 1950s, the civil rights movement became active and words like desegregation and equal rights for all became synonymous with the American way of life. Stand up and fight against those who have done you wrong! This is what gave homosexuals such a conviction to start fighting for their own cause.
This paper will follow the progress of gay and lesbians in the twentieth century before, during and after World War II. What was their position in the armed forces during the war and what was government and military policy during and after the war on gays in the army and in government positions? How did gay and lesbians respond to the new policies after the war and why were organizations like the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis founded?
On December 7, 1941 at 7:55 a.m. local time, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The Unites States declared war on Japan and was suddenly a participant in the largest war in the history of mankind. A massive military force of 12 million men was assembled. American soldiers were sent to Europe and Japan to participate and win the Big One. The military bureaucracy grew accordingly and thousands of new jobs were created. With the military=s enormous demand for personnel, drafted American men found themselves in isolated gender segregated environments. All the big war movies depict this with the GI=s longing for leave so he could go downtown and find himself a prostitute. What these movies do not show is a new community, within the military, of homosexuals who until now lived socially isolated lives because they were either unsure of what they were or of their sexual preferences or just plain scared of what people would think if they found out their secret. In the military, these people found other gay men who were in the same predicament. They weren=t alone.
Before the war, gays and lesbians were almost invisible from society. They were not mentioned in the popular media and the general population was oblivious to their existence. An occasional arrest or school expulsion of a Asexual psychopath@ were the only vague signs that the public would hear about. Now that the military accepted or at least needed the cooperation of all men, including homosexuals, an important page had been turned in the progress of gay rights, however, it also set the scene for discrimination and prejudice.
Homosexuals were in all branches of the armed forces, from paper pushing to front line combat. Before enlisting, interrogators had forced them to describe their lifestyle, which in turn made it impossible for homosexuals to continue hiding in the closet but instead had to take the first step in living a new open lifestyle. They were classified as Asexual psychopaths@ on their military records, however, they were not being discriminated by the military at this point in time. An apparatus was even set up to accommodate gay personnel. Through this apparatus, the military ended up with quite an extensive record of homosexual behavior and was considered an expert on the subject. Military scientists much later said that through studying homosexuals' behavior could find nothing to support evidence that gay and lesbians were in any way psychopaths or had any form of mental disorder. This report came out after the 1940s and 1950s; until then, the military denied having made any research on homosexuals.
After World War II, the military suddenly made a decision not to have gay or lesbians in the armed forces anymore. They would be discharged without any benefitsa even though they hadn=t done anything wrong. This caused gay veterans to unite and fight against sexual discrimination and some were later the founders of organized gay rights movements.
Exposed by the war, gays and lesbians decided to continue living their lives in the open, although many still preferred living quietly in discrete suburbs, coming out only under pseudonyms in articles or books.
Bars for gays and lesbians became a major gathering place. Here they could mingle and be themselves. These bars became wide spread and were not only confined to the major U.S. cities but were established in many small towns as well. The general public and media started noticing this growth and with the common knowing of homosexuals being perverted sexual psychopaths, child molesters, sex offenders and sex degenerates, a fear spread for the safety of women and children who could be snatched by these dangerous people. This fear initiated the anti-gay policies and sex psychopath laws of the late 1940s and early 1950s, where gay and lesbians were witch hunted and fired from their work place. The policy that had the greatest impact was President Eisenhower=s signing of Executive Order #10450, stating that sexual perversion was reason for prejudice hiring and firing of workers
Gay veterans were a select group of American patriots, who, for the most part wanted things to go back to how they were and just lead secure and stable lives. These new policies caused much irritation and the veterans felt they were constantly being mistreated, which gave them all the more reason to speak up. They could have continued to live quiet lives but they were pushed into the open by the government, and now that they were exposed, they weren't going to go back in the closet without a fight. The new strict moral values of the postwar period and the nuclear family did not help gays and lesbians blend into society. Instead, homosexuals were being scapegoated and considered sex deviates. The idea of deviates and wave builders went well together with the red scare and homosexuals were feared even more than before. Communist homosexuals would mean the downfall of western society as we know it....at least that is what the government wanted us to believe. The theory of homosexuals being sex deviates was also supported by psychiatrists who wanted more influence over the criminal justice system and allowed for the incarceration of homosexuals into mental institution. This caused arrests for sodomy, perversion and indecency to skyrocket and many men and women ended up in these institutions.
The military=s turnaround and postwar treatment of homosexuals and the homophobia and irrational fear of gays that they caused, made its way to the civilian bureaucracy. In the 1950s, senators launched an attack on gay employees. Senator Joseph McCarthy led the crusade against homosexuals and communists and was feared by nearly all American; he had the power to dismiss you from your place of work and put you in an institution. Homosexuals were even considered to be easier targets for communist propaganda and were also the main reason for the purges in the government sector. People were afraid gays would deliver U.S. secrets to the Russians.
Even though gays and lesbians were hounded everywhere, they didn=t defend themselves from the attacks. Homosexuals had no one to speak up for them at that time and were unsure of what to do. Instead they isolated themselves and bottled up the anger and fear they felt for society. Gay veterans were no exception, however, they didn't accept the circumstances and conditions that had been set before them. They understood it was impossible for them to live the way they used to; in order for them to lead an open life, the hounding had to stop. They had fought a war to preserve their liberty and no one should be able to take that away from them now.
The first organization for gays was founded in Germany. The Scientific Humanitarian Committee wanted to abolish the German anti-gay penal code and to educate the public on being gay. The movement was short lived and was disintegrated when the Nazi regime came to power. There was also an effort for gay organizing in Chicago during the 1920s but they dissolved without major recognition. Then came the Mattachine Society. It was founded in 1950 in Los Angeles as a response to anti-gay campaigns in Washington, the constant police raiding of gay bars and that gays were an oppressed minority and should have someone to speak for them. The Mattachine Society would help gays out of jail, consult gays and refer them to psychiatrists, if they needed one. However, staying above budget was not easy. Call says the active members were doing more than they were getting paid for. Publishing the Mattachine Review, a gay magazine, was a demanding occupation and member fees did not cover all the work that had to be done. A bar directory was also published by the Society together with the Daughters of Bilits=s own magazine, the Ladder. The original founders were gay veterans from WWII and consisted of Chuck Rowland, Bob Hull, Harry Hay, Rudy Gernreich, Konrad Stevens, Dale Jennings, Stan Witt and Paul Bernard. The most charismatic of these was Chuck Rowland. He himself was an army veteran and an idealist. After the war, he had joined the American Veterans Committee and later the communist party. Being a member of the communist party would later cause him his seat with the Mattachine Society. These founders had a vision that all homosexuals would eventually come out and parade down the streets of LA. Until then, they sought refuge under pseudonyms when publishing anything of homosexual nature.
Many joined the Society but no one knew who ran the organization. Rowland and the others thought it safest to keep it that way in the beginning. In 1954, the founders decided to become an open democratic organization and a vote was held as to whom should be the leaders. Rowland and the others wanted a radical group of expansionists and protesters. Hall Call, their opposition, wanted to take a more conservative approach. He meant that for the group to survive, they did not want to attract unnecessary attention to themselves; also to have an open organization, they had to eliminate everything that could give the government, especially McCarthy, an excuse to shut the organization down, which meant removing the communist faction from the group. Call won the vote and most if not all of the original founders were asked to resign. This decision left them very bitter and the question whether they had done the right thing by going "public" they way they had is still asked. Rowland claimed Call was the reason for the Mattachine=s downfall, having not an ounce of organizational spirit in his whole body. Call on the other hand, who was a journalist, saw the McCarthy threat as real and if the Mattachine Society wanted to enhance the Society and do some good, staying low was the only answer. Membership later decreased in the late 1960s and members instead joined a seceded branch of the Society called SIR.
Up until 1950s, no Aopen-minded@ study had ever been made of male homosexuals. However, in 1956, Dr. Evelyn Hooker, a professor at UCLA, presented a paper to the American Psychological Association in Chicago, in which she had conducted an experiment of homosexuals and heterosexuals to study their Afundamental personal behavior@ using the Rorschach, the Thematic Apperception and the Make a Picture tests. The judges were internationally recognized scientists and were not told who had been taking the tests. The result came out and the judges could not find any relation between the subjects= sexual preferences and their answers. Dr. Hooker received the Distinguished Contribution Award for her study.
Dr. Hooker was also confronted by many lesbians, asking her to conduct a test on them as well. She refused on the grounds that a woman conducting tests on women would be considered biased and not be taken seriously.
In 1955, lesbians in San Francisco founded the lesbian equivalent to the Mattachine Society; they called it the Daughters of Bilitis. The movement was unsure on how to proceed; whether they should engage in picketing and other civil rights activities or whether it should challenge the medical profession's claim that homosexuality was an illness. Their task consisted of counseling lesbians and educate mothers who thought their daughters might be lesbian. One sad case was when a daughter confronted her parents and told them of her being a lesbian. The parents didn=t take it as well as she might have hoped for. Instead they raised a gravestone with her name on it and declared her dead by listing her in the obituaries in the local newspaper.
In June of 1969, the Stonewall Inn, Greenwich Village, was considered the dawning of the gay liberation movement. A police raid caused homosexuals to riot, not accepting the constant terrorizing from the authorities. The three day rioting led to the beginning of a new mass movement, the Gay Liberation Front, derived from the controversial Vietnamese National Liberation Front; wanting radical change, much like Chuck Rowland and the founders of the Mattachine Society and fighting fiercer and with more pride and confidence than before. Gays and lesbians began joining forces and recognized their common cause; to stand up for their rights as human beings and not willing to be suppressed any longer. This historic event is every year embodied in New York's Gay Parade.
There was a nationwide protest against the discrimination of gay military personnel but it didn=t have much impact. Military policy is still very much biased against homosexuals in the armed forces; even after government institutions loosened up their restrictions on gay policy. The military argued that homosexuals in service would threaten the moral and job performance of enlisted personnel. The discharge policy backfired. Instead of producing Asexual security@ for the soldiers, it reinforced hostility and prejudice among personnel. This policy goes against the secret military reports that say gays are suited for the military and the gay history of World War II, which showed that gay men could be just as courageous as straight men. It only leaves us to believe that the military has no respect for gay personnel and are only using them when in a crisis and being in need of cannon fodder.
Looking back, the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis were the pioneers for all gay and lesbians. They created a sturdy foundation on which to build a national recognition and understanding of homosexuals. Without them there would most probably not have been a Stonewall Inn incident. Who is to blame for homosexuals having to fight for recognition and acceptance against what seemed to be the entire American public? Before World War II, the public was uneducated and unaware of the gay and lesbian society they lived with. Like a child, they were easily affected by government doctrine, justified by the government=s need to keep the economy growing by uniting the people with false anti-Communist anti-gay propaganda and thereby creating an illusionary external and internal enemy. From a purely economic view, the government wanted Keyen=s AAnimal Spirits@ (herd mentality) to be positive and united and not have them go into another depression of pessimistic thinking. The postwar years were the first time the government had this much control over industry and officials thought it should stay that way. To do this, the public had to be satisfied and not worried about another recession. Communism and the gay threat were just the excuses the government needed to unite the population. They would foster the American ideal on how to be and act and deviance from this ideal, would cause the ARussian Bear@ to invade the American peace loving neighborhoods.
I think homosexuals were used as scapegoats and were a minority that could be sacrificed for the governments proclaimed Agood@ of the nation.

SOURCES:
$ The American Record; volume II: since 1865, by William Graebner & Leonard Richards, McGraw-Hill, Inc.
$ Making History; The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights 1945 - 1990, by Erik Marcus, HarperCollins Publishers

INTERESTING AND MORE DETAILED EXCERPTS FROM INTERNET SOURCES FOR FURTHER READING:

The Stonewall Inn, (named after the Confederate General 'Stonewall' Jackson), was a gay bar (said to be sleazy and Mafia-run) at 51-53 Christopher Street just east of Sheridan Square in New York's Greenwich Village. On the night of 27/28th. June, 1969, a police inspector and seven other officers from the Public Morals Section of the First Division of the New York City Police Department arrived shortly after midnight, served a warrant charging that alcohol was being sold without a license, and announced that employees would be arrested.
The patrons were ejected from the bar by the police while others lingered outside to watch, and were joined by passers-by. The arrival of the paddy wagons changed the mood of the crowd from passivity to defiance. The first vehicle left without incident apart from catcalls from the crowd. The next individual to emerge from the bar was a woman in male costume who put up a struggle which galvanized the bystanders into action. The crowd erupted into throwing cobblestones and bottles. Some officers took refuge in the bar while others turned a fire hose on the crowd. Police reinforcements were called and in time the streets were cleared. During the day the news spread, and the following two nights saw further violent confrontations between the police and gay people.
The event was important less for its intrinsic character than for the significance subsequently bestowed on it. The Stonewall Rebellion was a spontaneous act of resistance to the police harassment that had been inflicted on the homosexual community since the inception of the modern vice squad in metropolitan police forces. It sparked a new, highly visible, mass phase of political organization for gay rights that far surpassed, semi-clandestine homophile movement of the 1950s and 1960s, exemplified by the Mattachine Society. The Mattachine Society newsletter described the rebellion as 'the hairpin drop heard round the world'.
The event has been commemorated by a parade held each year in New York City on the last Sunday in June, following a tradition that began with the first march on 29th. June, 1970, and by parallel events throughout the United States.@
STONEWALL: THE HISTORICAL EVENT
The confrontations between demonstrators and police at The Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village over the weekend of June 27-29, 1969 are usually cited as the beginning of the modern movement for Lesbian/Gay liberation. What might have been a routine police raid on a bar patronized by homosexuals, became a signal event which sparked a movement. The Stonewall riots have developed into the stuff of myth, about which many of the most commonly held beliefs are probably untrue.
In 1969, it was illegal to operate any business catering to homosexuals in New York City-as it still is, today in 1991, in many places in the United States and elsewhere. The standard procedure was for the New York City police to raid such establishments on a semi-regular basis, to arrest a few of the most obvious 'types' and to fine the owners prior to letting business continue as usual by the next evening. It has been suggested that the majority of the patrons at the Stonewall Inn were black and Hispanic drag queens, but perhaps the goddess has always valued these rare creatures much too highly to ever let them become a majority. In fact, most of the patrons that evening were most likely young, college-age white men expecting to spend the rest of their lives in the quiet desperation of the middle-class closet. They knew that it was reasonably safe to enter the Stonewall Inn precisely because there were a few colored drag queens, butch bulldykes and others whose double-minority status made them far more likely candidates for arrest; this gave everyone else time to cover their faces and run for the nearest exit.
After midnight June 27-28, 1969, four men and two women from the New York Tactical Police Force called a raid on The Stonewall Inn at 55 Christopher Street. After leaving the bar, many of the patrons decided to wait around outside while the police dispatched the 'usual suspects' into the vans. It is said that this was the first time where Lesbians and Gay men fought back; in fact, there had already been several incidents in both Los Angeles and New York where sizable groups of Gays had resisted arrest. More to the point, the queens targeted for arrest had always fought back, alone and unsupported as they were led time and again to the vans. What was unique about Stonewall and gives it a resonance which continues to inspire today was that it was perhaps the first time when Lesbians and Gay men as a group were able to see beyond the lipstick and the high heels, beyond the skin color and recognize the oppression which threatens us all.
The greatest great myth concerning the Stonewall riots is that it was a Lesbian/Gay event. It is likely that many of those who began pitching pennies, then beer bottles, at the police that night weren't even homosexual. The only publicly reported arrest was a straight folk singer who was appearing next door and who joined the melee after leaving work. The streets of Greenwich Village were home to many young people whose politics were defined by the blossoming anti-war movement, left-wing political ideologies and the successes of the Women's liberation and Black Civil Rights movements. Like their Lesbian/Gay brothers and sisters, they were prepared to recognize oppression and thus willing to respond to it. (Anyone who thinks being able to see oppression is easy has to only remember the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.)
In all, some 300 to 400 people became involved in the attempt to stop the arrests, erupting into violent protest. The police and the bar owners, who were perceived to be part of the repressive system at work, barricaded themselves inside the Stonewall Inn for protection. While they awaited reinforcements, the crowd outside attempted to burn the bar down with the cops inside. Eventually, a squadron of patrol cars arrived and chased the crowd away from the bar, and then around the narrow village streets for several hours. The following night, a new crowd assembled outside the Stonewall and rioted when the police attempted to break it up. Provocative articles appearing in the NY Post, Daily News and especially The Village Voice helped to consolidate Gay willingness to fight back.
Within a few days, representatives of the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis organized the city's first ever "Gay Power" rally in Washington Square. On July 27, 1969, speeches by Martha Shelley and Marty Robinson were followed by a candlelight march to the site of the Stonewall Inn. Five hundred people showed up, thought to have included almost the entire 'out-of-the-closet' population of Lesbians and Gay men in New York, as well as their supporters from the political left. The rest as they say is history... STONEWALL: The Movement
Before Stonewall, there were a number of groups working for homosexual rights, ever since the concept had been defined in nineteenth century Germany, home to the world's first politically organized movement. In the United States, since April 1965, Frank Kameny of Washington, DC had been organizing Homosexual Reminder Days on the ellipse across from the White House and at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. These were sedate affairs of a few dozen picketers with the men in jackets and ties and the Lesbians in skirts and dresses. Their principal demand was for civil service protection and the right of homosexuals to hold government jobs. The New York delegation that attended the July 4th picket in 1969, one week after Stonewall, held hand and shouted down the other marchers. This was the last Homosexual Reminder Day and a clear sign that the Stonewall riots had set something new in motion.
During the first year after Stonewall, a whole new generation of organizations emerged, many identifying themselves for the first time as "Gay" meaning not only a sexual orientation, but a radical new basis for self-identification and with a sense of open political activism. Older groups such as the Mattachine Society or the Westside Discussion Group whose members had used first names or altogether fictitious ones to protect their identities soon made way for the Gay Liberation Front and the various regional Gay Activists Alliances. The vast majority of these new activists were under thirty, new to political organizing and believed everything was possible. Many groups were affiliated with specific colleges and universities, again with "Gay" replacing "Homophile" in the names of most older groups and almost all new ones. By the summer of 1970, groups in at least eight American cities were sufficiently organized to schedule simultaneous events commemorating the Stonewall riots for the last Sunday in June. The events varied from a highly political march of three to five thousand in New York to a parade with floats for 1200 in Los Angeles.


MATTACHINE SOCIETY
One of the earliest gay movement organizations in the USA. It began in Los Angeles in 1950-51. Its name was given by the pioneer activist Harry Hay in commemoration of the French medieval and Renaissance SociJtJ Mattachine, a musical masque group which he had studied while preparing a course on the history of popular music for a workers' education project. The name was meant to symbolize the fact that "gays were a masked people, unknown and anonymous", and the word, also spelled matachin or matachine , has been derived from the Arabic of Moorish Spain, in which mutawajjihin , relates to masking oneself. Such an opaque name is typical of the homophile movement of the time in which open proclamation of the purposes of the group through a revealing name was regarded as imprudent.
At first the structure of the society followed that of freemasonry with a pyramid structure, where cells at the same level would be unknown to each other. The founders were Marxists and analyzed homosexuals in terms of an oppressed cultural minority. The communist leanings of the organization put it under some pressure during the anti-Communist phase in the USA. The era of McCarthyism had begun on 9th. February, 1950 with a speech by Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, at Lincoln's Birthday dinner of a Republican League in Wheeling, West Virginia. Paul Coates wrote in a Los Angeles newspaper in March 1953 linking "sexual deviates" with "security risks" who were banding together to wield "tremendous political power". The Mattachine Society was restructured, with a more transparent organization, and its leadership replaced. It also changed its aims to the assimilation of homosexuals into general society, which reflected its rejection of the notion of a homosexual minority. However the Society declined, and at its convention in May 1954 only forty-two members attended.
The Mattachine Society produced the monthly periodical ONE Magazine , starting in January 1953 and eventually achieving a circulation of 5000 copies. The regular publication of the magazine ceased in 1968, but its publisher, ONE Inc., still exists.
In January, 1955 the San Francisco branch of the Mattachine Society began a more scholarly journal, Mattachine Review , which lasted for ten years. The periodicals reached previously isolated individuals and helped Mattachine to become better known nationally. Chapters functioned in a number of USA cities through the 1960s. However, they failed to adapt to the radical militantism after the Stonewall Rebellion and faded away.

a to loose your benefits in the military, such as a military pension, you normally had to act undisciplined, refuse orders and putting your buddies life in danger.




1