I was under the impression that there was no actual “Cecil” but rather that he was a group of people (or at least this is what I’ve gathered from reading other people’s comments on these boards). Am I wrong?
Well, considering the fact that I recall a reference to a Mrs. Cecil, someone will be surprised to hear this…
Hyperelastic wrote:
Well, Cecil did say that someone OR SOMETHING winds up dead…
I guess I’ll also mention that I agree that the abortion-suttee analogy is seriously flawed. The centre of (north american) abortion debate is whether a human life is being extinguished, a concious choice is assumed. The reverse is true concerning the debate on suttee.
As one of the many recent newbies to this board, forgive my lack of a sense of history but does Cecil ever respond to anything posted here? Does anyone know with any certainty if he (she/they/whatever) even glances over the feedback given here with any regularity? The majority opinion seems to be that, for whatever reason, Cecil hit a decidedly sour note with that ill-advised and/or poorly constructed comment. I’m very curious to see what response, if any, may appear in the column or elsewhere but maybe I should not hold my breath…
A sidenote: Thanks to all for your intelligent discussion on this and other topics. My experience with other boards is that they are over-populated with (let’s be kind, here) the less verbally adept but this is certainly not the case with the teeming millions.
Yes, he did state something that wasn’t factual. He stated:
“The odd commonality–and let’s set aside questions of right or wrong here–is that when a woman in either hemisphere exercises her right to choose, somebody (or something) winds up dead.”
However, a woman can choose to have a baby. That is exercising her right to choose. It is a choice made by many women in both hemispheres every day. To say that a woman exercising her right to choose ends up with somebody or something dead is simply not true.
I know this has already been stated by other people in this thread. I am usually not a “me too” poster. However, I think this issue is important enough to speak up about.
I think you’re misinterpreting what was written; it doesn’t sound like Cecil is saying that given the ability to choose, the woman will always choose the death of someone/thing. Obviously that’s false.
The way it read to me is that in either hemisphere, there is controversy regarding the ability of women to make a choice in two specific subjects and in both of these subjects, the life of someone/thing is at stake. How is that false?
The wording is such that it implies that a woman, given the right to choose in either circumstance, will always choose to kill something. Or at least that her choice will result in death.
Women might choose life, and indeed, often do.
I really, really, hope that Cecil did not mean to imply this and believe that he should make it clear. Clarity dicourages ignorance and all that.
Yes, once in a great while The Master speaks to us–as contentious as this thread has become, I’m kinda surprised he hasn’t shown up already.
Uh, that’s piffle. “A woman’s right to choose” has become a code phrase for abortion in this country, and perhaps elsewhere in the West. Cecil’s comment implies that the phrase is taking on a similar “code” status in India, with reference to sati.
His “comparison” is nothing more than an observation that we’ve done a weird and terrible thing to our language, to equate “choice” with “death.”