Yesterday I did four media interviews. From my perspective, two were good, one neutral, one terrible. The terrible one I have yet to see (CTV Newsnet)–I can’t find it, plus there’s the fact that I don’t want to. I was too easily annoyed (on air with an abortionist’s wife). I spoke over her. I don’t think (can’t recall) I made any meaningful points. And the moderator was happy to let my opponent blab on, euphemism after euphemism rolling off her tongue. I tried to make myself feel better last night by buying food I like for dinner: sushi and Fudgesicles. But then you try sleeping on a stomach of sushi and Fudgesicles. Not good.
I failed to realize in that discussion that six minutes shared on air with a woman who works in an abortion clinic cannot change world views. She said that women cannot always control their reproductive systems (true enough) so they will always need abortions, or something to that effect. This in essence is “abortion as birth control”–not an argument even pro-choicers tend to support, preferring instead the “safe, legal and rare” thing. Instead of pointing that out–I spoke of personal experience. Again, not good.
Then again, so did she. She told everyone she is an immigrant to this country as if that were a meaningful point. (It’s not, and I’m allowed to say that, given my own family’s immigrant status.)
Anyway, I’m told “anything worth doing is worth doing badly.” It is worth it to stand up and say life is not disposable. I am still sorry that I did it badly.
This article, incidentally, made me feel better, especially this part:
Future generations may well condemn our society’s countenance of abortion in the same way we look back in wonder and revulsion at those who defended slavery. Men such as William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln are rightly revered today for their opposition to that peculiar institution — but we must recall that they were outnumbered and reviled in their time. Indeed, both men were stretched to the limit of their political skills, and their lives, to obtain justice. The nobility of their cause, though clear to us, was nowhere near apparent to their contemporaries. Then, as now, the most dreadful things can become convention if enough folks go along.
Many men and women go to their graves outnumbered and reviled by their contemporaries for any number of causes. I’m just going to have to learn to enjoy revulsion a little bit more. (Hey–maybe that involves more sushi and Fudgesicles. See how I’ve brought this meandering post full circle now.)
Brigitte really doesn’t get sushi and Fudgesicles (who needs fish when you’ve got chocolate?), and also why Andrea feels so bad about the interview. Remember, Andrea: There are no ways to make abortion sound like a good idea so you’re already way ahead even before you open your mouth.
Andrea adds: A friendly reader found the link for me. And for those concerned about my dietary choices, it was vegetarian sushi. Just thought I’d add that.
Tanya’s analysis: I’m from Quebec, so my definition of speaking over someone is completely different. The demure interruptions you were offering one another were not an issue in my eyes.
This is what I did notice. Ms. Corsillo was speaking in pro-choice catch phrases of old, and they rambled out of her uncontrollably. You, Andrea, spoke in the now.
But that was the underlying tone of the interview, wasn’t it? Did you notice her scoff when you said, “I remember when I was a young person.” (Check it out, 5:10 into the interview.) Her tone was generally condescending. To her, you still are a young person whose belly button hasn’t quite dried up yet.
Is this how Ms. Corsillo views any woman in her 20’s or 30’s? What does that say about the tone and tactic she likely employs when counseling individual women about abortion? “You poor thing, you have your whole life ahead of you, and you have no idea what a responsibility this is. It would be a shame for you to become a mother now. When you’re older, and you’re ready, that’s when you should have a child.” That’s gentle manipulation, is what that is.
Andrea again: Folks, there’s been a most egregious error in this exchange. “Fudgsicle” is the proper spelling. Not “Fudgesicle.” I say this as a woman who is truly “in the know” and the “now” as it were. (I’m, er, looking at the box as I type this.)