Celebrating Choice: The New Fad Among Anti-Choicers


Ben
Smith at Politico
wrote an article about the way that the anti-choice
movement has moved beyond fetishizing fetuses to attaching themselves to an
actual person with sentience and feelings: Trig Palin, whose mere existence has
turned Sarah Palin into an anti-choice hero, because she chose to have her baby
even when she received a Down’s diagnosis.

Indeed, it’s hard to refrain from applauding the anti-choice
movement for this brave move towards finding love in their meager hearts for an
actual person; usually, they feel safer only expressing affection for the
non-sentient, who conveniently have no feelings or thoughts that could conflict
with what the anti-choice movement wishes to project on them.  However, Trig is still a baby.  Perhaps as he grows older and forms
opinions of his own, the anti-choice movement will abandon him as a love
object.  Too risky.

But what Ben Smith fails to note in his article describing
this rather silly Sarah-and-Trig-Palin-worship is the deep irony of it.  Despite the fact that the anti-choice
movement is organized around the desire to deprive women of choice and force
them to bear children against their will, to celebrate Sarah and Trig Palin is
to celebrate choice.  In the world that anti-choicers say
they want—a world where women don’t have a right to terminate a pregnancy
that’s unwanted for any reason—there would be nothing to celebrate.  Without the existence of choice, there
is no reason to celebrate someone for making the choice you want him or her to
make.  In order for Trig Palin to be
an object of worship, and Sarah Palin to be a childbearing hero, there has to
be a choice. Same story with all the women who die bearing children when they
didn’t have to do that become Catholic martyrs.  Without access to abortion, death in childbirth is just
life, and not some sort of sacrifice to be celebrated by misogynists who see no
problem celebrating the unnecessary deaths of perfectly nice women.

It’s easy to chalk up the fact that anti-choicers overlooked
this aspect of their stupidity. 
Maybe they didn’t notice that celebrating a choice a woman makes requires you to celebrate that she had a choice in the first place.  But unfortunately, it’s not so
simple.  While the anti-choice
movement does have its share of intelligence blunders, they actually are wise
to focus on celebrating choice in this case.  It works beautifully to paint them as decent people, and to
conceal the fact that they agitate to deprive women of a basic human
right.

Let’s face it. 
Choice is so popular that anti-choicers are pretending they invented it.

Celebrating women who make what they consider the “right”
choice is a way of using a genuinely good value—choice—to polish up their
fundamentally coercive beliefs. When anti-choicers celebrate choice, in their
disingenuous fashion, they give outsiders an easy opportunity for
sacrifice-free moral self-righteousness. 
Judging other women for making choices you consider “wrong”—such as
deciding not to bear a disabled child—is an easy way to feel like a good
person without lifting a finger. 
After all, you’re not actually being put to the test by being asked to
make that decision yourself.  It’s
always so very easy to tell someone else they have to have a baby they don’t
feel they can raise.

But when the focus is where it belongs, which is on the
anti-choice movement’s actual policy ideas, it’s not so easy to get that moral
glow off siding with them.  When
you realize that they’re not actually about celebrating choice, but depriving
women of it, then suddenly siding with them means siding with people who want
to force women to bear children against their will, force women to die in
childbirth, and create maternity homes where teenage girls are chained to
delivery tables so the child they were coerced into giving up can’t be snatched
by the desperate, sobbing mother. 
And that makes you less a morally self-righteous person, and more a
misogynist monster.  But it’s also
closer to the truth.

The surest evidence that we have that anti-choicers know
being anti-choice is fundamentally wrong is the way they run from their actual
beliefs, conceal them, and pretend that it’s the pro-choicers that oppose
choice.  For instance, this quote
Smith runs from Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List,
on the subject of why feminists “hate” Sarah Palin.

You just can’t escape it — she
really is cut from a completely different cloth than most men, but also women,
in politics,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony
List, which supports anti-abortion candidates. “She had the audacity in the
eyes of the abortion rights world to actually have this child and then has the
audacity to bring him along with her and feature him as a centrally valued
person in their family.

Except, of course, this is a lie.  As much as anti-choicers wish that pro-choicers were the
ones who demand coercion, who want to force women to make choices they’re
uncomfortable with, the proof is in the pudding, or in the policy.  Pro-choice movements do not advocate
for forced abortion laws. 
Pro-choicers don’t say that one should be forced to have or not to have a disabled
child against your will. 
Pro-choicers don’t come out against women who have babies.  Most pro-choicers will have children at
some point.  Pro-choicers don’t
have an issue with Sarah Palin’s reproductive choices.  We have an issue with the fact that she
doesn’t want to allow the rest of us to have those choices.

Unfortunately, the dishonest concealing of legitimate policy
differences on choice is an effective strategy at painting a smiley face on a
misogynist anti-choice movement.  I
recently had a Twitter battle with an anti-choicer who refused to admit that
banning abortion would equal forced childbirth.  She wanted to believe that she was for “choice”, because
“abortion is never the answer.”  But what happened when I asked what she would do to a woman who had listened to her pleas to bear
a child and give it up for adoption and rejected that argument—would she
force her under threat of jail to bear the child or would she allow her the
choice to abort?  She called me a
meanie. But meanie or no, the point stands: You can tell more about
anti-choicers from what policies they stand for than by their misleading,
soothing political rhetoric.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on Twitter: @amandamarcotte

To schedule an interview with Amanda Marcotte please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • jgbeam

    ..when the choice is made. If you don’t want a baby, don’t get pregnant. Your choice.

    Jim Grant, Pro-lifer

  • waxghost

    Well, since it’s that easy, I’ll just pack up my ovaries then….  Wait, what?  I can’t pack up my ovaries?  They keep doing their thing no matter what I do, even sometimes when I’m taking my (expensive) birth control?  So according to Jim Grant, Pro-lifer, I am not allowed to have sex with my husband at all because there is a chance I might get pregnant but I can’t afford a child time- or money-wise, considering I work 3 jobs and am a grad student as well?  What an interesting world we live in, with it’s lack of easy answers, eh?

  • julie-watkins
    But for people who think Things Happen For A Reason being born female instead of male is a pretty large sign of what Nature (or God) wants for you and it’s understandable why such people might have sexist expectations of how pregnant women should act if contraception fails. That doesn’t make the expectations less sexist and classist. Giving birth (giving life) must be a gift if a culture doesn’t want to treat women (& the poor) as second class.
  • jayn

    You’re still missing the point of the article.  The choice Sarah Palin
    is being cheered for isn’t choosing to have a child, but for choosing
    to carry to term even though she knew Trig would be disabled. 
    That’s not a choice that can really be made in the bedroom, because I
    doubt she looked at her husband one night and said "Let’s make a baby
    with Down’s Syndrome, honey", and so that choice is only noteworthy in a context where abortion is a possibility.  Otherwise, it’s just an unfortunate part of life.

     

    I’ll give Palin props for at least living what she preaches, but the celebration surrounding her is disturbing in how it re-inforces ancient gender roles–women are suppossed to be self-sacrificing.  Our role isn’t to look out for ourselves, but to help others, especially our children.  Our ‘true worth’, in this mindset, isn’t in who we are but in what we can do for others, and it really reduces us to being ‘less than’, because we’re not allowed to have any self-interest until everyone else is taken care of–a very destructive way to live, to say the least. The reality is that everyone, women included, needs to think of themselves first before otherst. Sometimes, no matter how much you’re ‘suppossed’ to, no matter how much you want to, you can’t help others because your own needs have to come first.

  • amanda-marcotte

    Oh, I get it.  You think women have unintended pregnancies on purpose!  You would think that the word "unintended" would alert you to the fact that it’s an accident, but I’ll give you that anti-choice rhetoric confuses the issue.  I can see how you might believe, after beefing up on it, that women get pregnant on purpose so they can have abortions, since anti-choicers make it sound like fun to have your uterus vaccumed out.

     

    So let’s clarify.  When a woman gets an abortion, it’s because she got pregnant on accident.  Most women, I’d say all women, would prefer never to get abortions.   It’s expensive and unpleasant.  You bleed and it can hurt.  Much like any other accident, it was not intended, and so telling someone "just say no" doesn’t make sense.  "Just say no" doesn’t work to stop toe-stubbing or car accidents, either.

     

    Now that you’re educated and know that women who have abortions would have preferred not to get pregnant in the first place, I’m glad you’re reconsidering your anti-choice views.

  • amanda-marcotte

    You aren’t reconsidering your anti-choice views.  In what case, I’m forced to believe that you don’t actually mean that women should stop having accidents by sheer force of will, but that you’re motivated by cruelty, and wish to force childbirth on the unwilling, who are in a common situation that is always an accident.

  • prochoiceferret

    The difference is….when the choice is made. If you don’t want a baby, don’t get pregnant. Your choice.

    Isn’t it funny when a male pretends to speak authoritatively on how the female reproductive system should be managed?

     

    Next up, Jim will discuss how yacht owners should manage their yachts, despite never having owned one himself! "If you don’t want barnacles on your hull, don’t put it in the water. Your choice."

  • crowepps

    …usually, they feel safer only expressing affection for the non-sentient, who conveniently have no feelings or thoughts that could conflict with what the anti-choice movement wishes to project on them. However, Trig is still a baby. Perhaps as he grows older and forms opinions of his own, the anti-choice movement will abandon him as a love object.

    They’ve hedged their bet by chosing as a love object a child with Downs, who is less likely to be able to express feelings or thoughts in conflict with theirs, or whose feelings and thoughts can be dismissed as not in contradiction because “he doesn’t really understand what he’s saying”.

  • crowepps

    Happened to be reading a book about the American superstition of "positive thinking" and it outlined in some detail how it arose in opposition to Calvinism – the idea that all humans are so vile that people should properly spend their lives doing nothing more than agonizing over how unworthy they are.  The idea that all pleasure is in and of itself sinful certainly seems to underlie the idea that women who have sex deserve death as a consequence.

     

    http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Puritans_Dark_Side.htm

  • jgbeam

    It requires sacrifice and discipline.

     

    Jim Grant, Pro-lifer

  • amanda-marcotte

    Therein lies the rub.  The way that some anti-choicers carry on about children with Down’s syndrome, you get the impression that they don’t know much about them.  Some of the Trig worshippers seem to think he’s going to be a perfectly pliable doll his whole life.

     

    In reality, people with Down’s syndrome have thoughts, opinions, etc., just like anyone else.  And while I suspect that anti-choicers who are made uncomfortable by that might try to dismiss it, it seems too obvious to me to deny.  

  • jgbeam

    I cheer Palin for deciding before she knows the condition that she will have the child regardless of its condition.  The choice is made in advance. 

     

    Jim Grant, Pro-lifer

  • jgbeam

    Of course they do.  But when that accident creates a life you can’t kill that life.  And no, I never believed that women get pregnant so they can have an abortion.  I believe that every women considering an abortion regrets getting pregnant.   

    Jim Grant, Pro-lifer

  • prochoiceferret

    It requires sacrifice and discipline.

    And for the women who want to do that, and freely choose to do so, that’s great. For those who don’t, however, that’s their prerogative.

     

     

    (It kind of defeats the whole point of sacrifice and discipline if you’re forced into them, doesn’t it?)

  • jgbeam

    doesn’t reproduce without the male’s reproductive system.  I think we can figure it all out.  It’s not as complicated as you make it out to be.

     Jim Grant, Pro-lifer

  • jgbeam

    I know quite well what their capabilities are.  I mourn the Downs children who were never allowed to be born.

    Excuse me, I have to go pick Thirza up from her ballet class.  Her Mom brought her to guitar class this afternoon.  My turn.

    Jim Grant, Pro-lifer

  • colleen

    It requires sacrifice and discipline.

     

    A sacrifice and discipline that no group of humans has ever managed to emulate or achieve, least of all human males or your clergy’.

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • crowepps

    However it doesn’t much of a stretch to believe that the thoughts and feelings of someone with Downs are going to be ignored and marginalized when they have so far successfully ignored and marginalized the thoughts and feelings of 50% of the population – the women.

  • crowepps

    A man who can’t grasp the realities of "serious complications of pregnancy" has a way to go in figuring things out.

     

    Since you can’t seem to wrap your mind around the scientific realties of pregnancy, why don’t you focus on the far more simple male half of the process and spend your time promoting male chastity and trying to stamp out male fornication?  Success there would pretty much solve the abortion controversy.

  • crowepps

    If the choice was made in advance then there wouldn’t have been any point in having the test to determine the child’s gene profile.

  • prochoiceferret

    But when that accident creates a life you can’t kill that life.

    Um… if that "life" is inside my body, using my bodily resources, and is there without my consent, I most certainly can and will kill it in getting it out. If you have a problem with that, then when you have a uterus, you can keep an unwanted life inside it.

  • feminist-life

    Um, I’m a woman and pro-life–and I haven’t ignored or marginalized the thoughts and feelings of women.

     

    And do you folks think Trig is going to grow up and say, "You’re right, I wish I’d been killed in the womb"?

     

    Yes, there is still a reason to test for Down Syndrome even if the mother is sure she would still have the baby.  Babies with Down’s often have medical problems that need to be dealt with immediately upon birth, so it is wise for the parents and medical staff to be prepared.

  • phoenix5

    WOW. you have amazing insight about the medical conditions of downs’ syndrome children. I wonder what great insight you have about unwanted children who are raised in foster homes, or abused by adoptive parents, or birth parents? Do you think babies and toddlers enjoy being hit, cut, and beaten?

    What is your input about what happens to the unwanted children who come into this world into homes that cannot or will not care properly for them? Do you have a big house? Should we leave them at your front door?

    DC area has the highest child poverty rate in The US; 35,000 children, 3 out of every 10-live in poverty. I’m sure they are enjoying feeling hungry most days of the week.

  • phoenix5

    WOW. you have amazing insight about the medical conditions of downs’ syndrome children. I wonder what great insight you have about unwanted children who are raised in foster homes, or abused by adoptive parents, or birth parents? Do you think babies and toddlers enjoy being hit, cut, and beaten?

    What is your input about what happens to the unwanted children who come into this world into homes that cannot or will not care properly for them? Do you have a big house? Should we leave them at your front door?

    DC area has the highest child poverty rate in The US; 35,000 children, 3 out of every 10-live in poverty. I’m sure they are enjoying feeling hungry most days of the week.

  • jenh

    What the author of this article fails to understand — and certainly has no wish to given her smug and condescending tone — is that no one who is pro-life is anti-choice. We firmly believe men and women should exercise their free will and choose wisely regarding their sexual activity, precisely because new life often results. That is why God insists that sex be reserved for marriage, and that married couples remain open to new life. That is the natural, intended result of sex!

    We also do not celebrate choice – we celebrate LIFE. We celebrate the gift of life that God gives and that only God has the right to take away.

    I’m shocked at the callousness of some of the commenters here, especially ProChoice Feret. “Um… if that “life” is inside my body, using my bodily resources, and is there without my consent, I most certainly can and will kill it in getting it out. If you have a problem with that, then when you have a uterus, you can keep an unwanted life inside it.”

    Wow… quite a cavalier attitude to take about killing. Are you really that certain of your “choice?” You have many other choice long before that life is present in your womb. Why not make the most of THOSE choices?

    The author also is unbelievably desensitized to the value of human life in her depiction of babies as non-sentient, unfeeling things who merit no consideration whatsoever. We all start out the same way, you know! We are all endowed with precious life from the moment of our conception, and thank God our value isn’t limited to our intelligence or depth of feeling.

    The fact is, the child in the womb IS an ACTUAL PERSON. A separate, unique individual with the right to live. No man and no woman has the right to choose death for someone else. Ladies, we all know how babies are made, so let’s not pretend to be victims of sexual biology. Grow up and take responsibility for your actions. Keep your pants on if you’re not willing to welcome a child. It’s that simple.

    And don’t cry to me about never being able to have sex again, or have sex with your husband because of your three jobs and you can’t afford a child. Hogwash. Learn your body’s natural cycle and your fertility can be managed without drugs or condoms. Again, it requires being a grown-up. It requires thinking of something besides yourself. It requires respecting life.

    I suppose this is how you must rationalize it to yourself in order to live with this wretched “choice.” I pity you, but mostly, I want you to see the truth and stop killing babies.

  • emma

    Speaking of cavalier attitudes, JenH, you yourself are remarkably cavalier about women’s lives and health and right to function as separate, autonomous persons. Doesn’t matter if you’re female yourself; plenty of women have problems with internalised misogyny, especially religious extremists.

     

    Separate persons from conception onward? I swear to your god my IQ drops every time I bother to argue this point with extremists, because the idea that microscopic organisms are people is just too ridiculous to take seriously. And I won’t cry to you about my inability to keep my pants on so long as you quit whimpering to me about how much you love foetuses and how abortion is REDRUM!!!111 :)

     

    I could do without the religious mumbo-jumbo, too.

  • prochoiceferret

    What the author of this article fails to understand — and certainly has no wish to given her smug and condescending tone — is that no one who is pro-life is anti-choice. We firmly believe men and women should exercise their free will and choose wisely regarding their sexual activity, precisely because new life often results.

    But if the woman becomes pregnant, and she doesn’t want to be, then her free will means nothing to you—and you would force her to carry the pregnancy to term. That is why you are anti-choice.

    That is why God insists that sex be reserved for marriage, and that married couples remain open to new life. That is the natural, intended result of sex!

    Um, God insists that I have sex with people who respect me for who I am. Nothing about marriage, or "being open to new life." And in case you didn’t know, humans have sex for many reasons, only one of which is to reproduce. "New life" is the "natural, intended result of sex" only if you’re talking about dumb animals.

    We also do not celebrate choice – we celebrate LIFE. We celebrate the gift of life that God gives and that only God has the right to take away.

    So I’m sure you’re lobbying very hard to an end to the death penalty and war. Did you know that your tax dollars are being used to take away many peoples’ lives every year? Scandal!

    Wow… quite a cavalier attitude to take about killing. Are you really that certain of your "choice?" You have many other choice long before that life is present in your womb. Why not make the most of THOSE choices?

    Who ever said I didn’t? I use contraception, and otherwise take measures to avoid unwanted pregnancy. But if I were to become pregnant, and I didn’t want to be, then yes, I’m going to abort. You might prefer that I didn’t, but then, you’d prefer that I did a lot of things differently. I certainly feel that way about you!

    The fact is, the child in the womb IS an ACTUAL PERSON. A separate, unique individual with the right to live.

    However much the zygote/blastocyst/fetus/etc. is a person, I’m a person, too—and last time I checked, no person has a right to the use of another person’s bodily resources. So if someone is using mine, and I don’t it to be, then I will exercise my right to cut it off.

    And don’t cry to me about never being able to have sex again, or have sex with your husband because of your three jobs and you can’t afford a child. Hogwash. Learn your body’s natural cycle and your fertility can be managed without drugs or condoms. Again, it requires being a grown-up. It requires thinking of something besides yourself. It requires respecting life.

    Sorry, but grown-ups care about things like failure rates. An adherence to science rather than dogma is a plus.

    I suppose this is how you must rationalize it to yourself in order to live with this wretched "choice." I pity you, but mostly, I want you to see the truth and stop killing babies.

    Actually, you do want to see more people "kill babies." If you didn’t, you would be advocating for folks to use proven and effective forms of contraception.

  • jenh

    Pro Choice Feret:

    You ignore the real choice: to have sex or not. If a woman becomes pregnant but doesn’t want to be, then she should not have made the choice to have sex. We all know how babies are made! The adult, grown-up choice is to NOT have sex if you don’t want to be pregnant!

    You’re not an animal, you’re a human being with a will that can override your hormonal and physical urges. You can make a responsible choice, assuming you’re motivated to be a responsible adult.

    And God doesn’t insist you have sex with anyone at all! He insists that if you’re going to have sex it is within the context of marriage as He ordained it to be, for the purpose of uniting the couple with each other, and for creating NEW LIFE!

    No one is denying that you are a person with rights. I simply want you to admit that the child is also a person with rights, and your rights are not greater than hers. You have more power and more choices than the child in the womb. You are not defenseless; the child is. If you’re so concerned that no one “use” your bodily resources, then do the smart thing and keep your pants on.

    Failure rates? Like condoms don’t fail? The Pill never fails? Diaphragms don’t fail? C’mon! You can’t be serious! I have successfully practiced NFP for years and it never fails to tell me what I need to know, and it does it without chemicals and side-effects. It works because it’s based on medical science. You know, that same science that proves the uniqueness of the baby in the womb… how she has her own DNA and brain and heart and all those things that have nothing to do with YOUR body? The child is not an extension of the mother. The child is a separate individual. Science says so.

    Emma,
    How sad that you find love for fetuses a thing to be mocked and scorned. As I’ve already said, it’s not an extreme position to agree with modern science, which proves the life and uniqueness of the fetus. Nice try, but it doesn’t fly.

    By the way, it’s God, not god. And He loves you very much.

  • emma

    OMG. JenH, I can’t believe you’re seriously making an issue of whether I capitalise the name of your deity.

     

    Internet evangelism is really offputting, you know.

     

    I do indeed find foetus-hugging ridicule-worthy. The idea that a microscopic organism is a person is extremist and entirely worthy of mockery.

     

    All this stuff about how women can just choose not to have sex is exactly the sort of simplistic reasoning I’d expect from a fundamentalist. You’re ignoring the fact that so. many. women are subjected to physical, psychological, economic and other types of coercion. For many women, it’s not just a matter of choosing not to have sex.

     

    Congratulations on your successful use of NFP. That particular method is only workable for women with agreeable partners, and who have time and energy to spare. It’s *much* more difficult for women with irregular cycles. Why on earth would I want to bother, when the pill and condoms are so much easier, less time consuming and more effective. NFP also doesn’t protect against STIs, and even good christian women who remain virginal until marriage can never guarantee that their good christian husbands won’t cheat. And that’s aside from the medical uses of the pill (endometriosis, etc).

  • prochoiceferret

    You ignore the real choice: to have sex or not. If a woman becomes pregnant but doesn’t want to be, then she should not have made the choice to have sex. We all know how babies are made! The adult, grown-up choice is to NOT have sex if you don’t want to be pregnant!

    This is what the entire pro-life movement comes down to: telling women not to have recreational (non-procreative) sex. It’s not about "saving babies," or "defending life," or "fighting the culture of death." It’s just Puritanism in its barest form.

    Oh, and I laugh at your attempt to make my sex life as craptastic as yours.

    You’re not an animal, you’re a human being with a will that can override your hormonal and physical urges. You can make a responsible choice, assuming you’re motivated to be a responsible adult.

    Yes. I can override my body’s hormonal inclination to reproduce. And I do, thank you very much.

    And God doesn’t insist you have sex with anyone at all! He insists that if you’re going to have sex it is within the context of marriage as He ordained it to be, for the purpose of uniting the couple with each other, and for creating NEW LIFE!

    She sure as heck hasn’t told me anything about marriage, other than not submitting to social pressure to get married if I don’t want to, or if my potential spouse isn’t the right person, or if it doesn’t feel right in general.

    No one is denying that you are a person with rights. I simply want you to admit that the child is also a person with rights, and your rights are not greater than hers. You have more power and more choices than the child in the womb. You are not defenseless; the child is. If you’re so concerned that no one "use" your bodily resources, then do the smart thing and keep your pants on.

    You may choose not to avail yourself of the means of enjoying sex without reproduction, but I most certainly do. You see, I like sex. I like sharing it with the person whom I love the most. Neither of us wants to have a child. Did I mention that our sex life is loads of fun? I’d ask you why in the world we should stop doing this, but the fact is, I really don’t give a rat’s ass what you have to think about it.

    Failure rates? Like condoms don’t fail? The Pill never fails? Diaphragms don’t fail? C’mon! You can’t be serious!

    I can’t be serious about that, because I never said that. Sure, modern methods of contraception fail sometimes too. For the most part, they fail a lot less than calendar methods. If you’re traveling in a car, you can wear seat belts, or sit with a large pillow in your lap. If you’re in an accident, the seat belts may not save your life, but you’ll stand a much better chance with them than with the pillows!

    I have successfully practiced NFP for years and it never fails to tell me what I need to know, and it does it without chemicals and side-effects.

    That’s nice. But I want a form of birth-control that never fails to stop pregnancy from occurring (or comes as close to that as possible). Contraception that always tell you what to do may be fun and all, but I’m just interested in not having babies.

    It works because it’s based on medical science. You know, that same science that proves the uniqueness of the baby in the womb… how she has her own DNA and brain and heart and all those things that have nothing to do with YOUR body? The child is not an extension of the mother. The child is a separate individual. Science says so.

    Okay. But if I don’t want it inside me, that "separate," "unique" individual with its own brain and heart and lungs that have nothing to do with my body is getting an eviction notice. It didn’t sign a lease, it’s not paying me rent, and I sure as hell am not a charity.

    How sad that you find love for fetuses a thing to be mocked and scorned.

    When that "love" becomes an excuse to force me to stay pregnant against my wishes, it deserves all the mockery and scorn it can get.

    As I’ve already said, it’s not an extreme position to agree with modern science, which proves the life and uniqueness of the fetus.

    It’s alive! There’s not another one like it! The same can be said of the cow that goes into my Bacon Deluxe Combo.

    By the way, it’s God, not god. And He loves you very much.

    Thank you for letting me know that. I’ll have my God take out a restraining order against your God. I don’t need this kind of "love."

  • jenh

    ProChoice Feret,

    Your remarks have made it crystal clear that it all boils down to one thing for pro-aborts: selfishness. Pure, undiluted selfishness. You’re all about as much sex as you can have whenever, wherever, with whomever, and any restrictions on your sexual enjoyment are fanatical and intrusive, and if a new life is created, too bad for that person. It’s all about you and what you want and don’t want, and you’ll do whatever it takes to make sure you’re not inconvenienced or asked to be responsible. It’s the most basic form of immaturity and selfishness I’ve ever seen.

    That you can be so callous and indifferent about another human being is reprehensible and incomprehensible to me. You simply refuse to acknowledge the choices you have in making sure your body isn’t “used” for its resources BEFORE a new life is created, and you speak of killing that life as eviction, as though you were kicking out a deadbeat tenant. You say you’re “sure as hell not a charity.” Clearly not. You clearly also have no charity.

    I pity you and Emma both. Your hardness of heart only serves to keep you imprisoned in your small and self-centered world, without the freedom to truly love.

    You may think sex is the answer to enjoyment in life, but it is not. And before you presume to label me an uptight prude, I assure you that sex as God intended it to be, within a loving marriage, is FAR better than ANYTHING you have ever experienced. It is freedom like you can’t even imagine.

    You worship at the altar of abortion like it’s the only thing that gives you freedom and autonomy. How unspeakably sad. I truly feel sorry for you, and I grieve for the lives that are lost because of your selfishness. Grow up. Learn what love really is.

  • jgbeam

    For taking the time to explain the pro-life position so clearly.  I agree with every word in your posts.

    Jim Grant, Pro-lifer

  • emma

    pro-aborts

    Using anti-abortion fanatic jargon doesn’t really speak well for you, JenH. It just makes you look like…well, an anti-abortion fanatic.

     

    I think engaging here is probably pointless. I’ve had more productive conversations with shoelaces.

  • prochoiceferret

    Your remarks have made it crystal clear that it all boils down to one thing for pro-aborts: selfishness. Pure, undiluted selfishness.

    Why have you not given all of your money and worldly possessions to charity, and live to serve the poor? Because you’re selfish, that’s why. You’re all about doing things to serve your own interests, and not those of the billions less fortunate than yourself.

    You’re right, I’m selfish. I don’t gratuitously sacrifice my needs for the sake of others! Just like most normal people in this society! If you’ve got a problem with that, then, well, go become the next Mother Teresa or something.

    I pity you and Emma both. Your hardness of heart only serves to keep you imprisoned in your small and self-centered world, without the freedom to truly love.

    Well, what a coincidence! That’s exactly how I feel about you, and most pro-lifers in general. Isn’t that funny?

    You may think sex is the answer to enjoyment in life, but it is not. And before you presume to label me an uptight prude, I assure you that sex as God intended it to be, within a loving marriage, is FAR better than ANYTHING you have ever experienced. It is freedom like you can’t even imagine.

    I know many people whose own personal experiences tell me otherwise. Here’s a new phrase for you to learn: "Different strokes for different folks." Not everyone likes vanilla ice cream, you know.

    You worship at the altar of abortion like it’s the only thing that gives you freedom and autonomy. How unspeakably sad. I truly feel sorry for you, and I grieve for the lives that are lost because of your selfishness. Grow up. Learn what love really is.

    Apparently, for you, love is "really" about carrying unwanted pregnancies to term.

  • jenh

    Emma,

    Why is it fanatical jargon to say what it is you’re really “pro” about? It’s not some theoretical, nondescript choice you want — it’s abortion. You want abortion. You ARE pro-abortion.

    I am anti-abortion, not anti-choice. As I’ve said repeatedly, I believe men and women have a great many choices that should be afforded them, but killing another human being is not a choice. It’s killing.

    You’re not intent on protecting legitimate choices; you’re militant about abortion. That’s not fanatical, it’s simply the truth.

    Truth seems to be anathema around here. But that’s what happens when you worship at the altar of abortion. There can be no truth where there is no life.

  • princess-rot

    Women have dominion over reproduction by definition.
    I know it must really irk some people, but we do. Any attempt to commandeer that facility for reproducing against the host’s will is nothing short of slavery.
    Whether that is manipulating politics so we are denied bodily autonomy right out of the gate, or massaging public conciousness with emotional claptrap so that insentient fetuses are suddenly awesome and women are second class, selfish peons for not being willing to pop another human into the world at their sole expense.
    I am sick of people getting up in arms about the preshus baybeez, because what they are basically telling me is that I, and by extension all women, are nothing but jizz rags, whom exist to grow babies and like it.
    I don’t ever forget that anti-choice doesn’t stop at being opposed to abortion, it’s generally opposed to just about everything women do that can be looked down upon as inferior and unworthy.

  • jayn

    Jen, you make it sound as if we’re telling women to go out and have abortions.  We’re not.  We’d rather women never found themselves in those unfortunate situations that make them desirable.  But while those situations can be decreased, they cannot be eliminated, and we feel that women should be able to deal with them however they feel is best for them.  That can, but doesn’t always, mean an abortion.  If that isn’t the choice they want, we’re not going to force anyone into it–that would be anathema to choice–and I’m sure most of us would be more than happy to help women find resources to help them with that choice as well.

     

    I’m not for abortion any more than I’m for brain surgery.  Once either of those are considerations the situation already sucks.  I just want women to have to ability to decide which option is the least sucky for them.

  • harry834

    what’s it like to have your fellow women consider you a murderer?

    The best answer might be that they are not your fellow women, but obviously that so many anti-choice women exist, of all ages, makes it that must harder to trust other women. So much for sisterhood.

  • harry834

    seems like we have to often defend ourselves from others like us.

  • julie-watkins
    The "killing another human being" discussions almost always omit the reality of Nature’s Sexism. I’ve had people look at me strange when I say that: "You’re a woman. Why do you want to be a man?" Fertile Women are biologically forced to expend resources for the next generation, where as the biological fathers are not similarity forced. Multiply the effect of that by millennia of expected gender roles. It always seems that it’s OK to discuss the obligation of a woman to her fetus (whether or not she considers the fetus an "unborn child") divorced from the risks of pregnancy, the inherent sexual discrimination, her ability to make private decisions, the effects on her ability to keep a job or fulfill obligations to her family. Since nature is sexist, the way for society not to be sexist rather than amplify the sexism is to not interfere with the woman’s private decision. If strangers interfere, it’s sex and class discrimination because men and rich people wouldn’t be as affected as women and poor families. There’s a large ethical problem with the effects expected gender roles on women. There is also a large ethical problem with the classist discrimination effect of restricting abortion access — the effect of an unplanned pregnancy is less on a family with more resources, but that family can more easily access abortion. For people who think things happen for a reason, being born a fertile woman is a rather large sign of what God wants a woman to do — and, because of that, I can understand why prolifers have an expectation that a pregnant woman should accept any pregnancy and try to bring the pregnancy to term. Me, I think my biological gender was chance, and I didn’t want to get with the program (When I had my abortion 28 years ago the Earth was already overpopulated — and we didn’t want children. (That’s why I had an IUD. Since it didn’t work in my body, I had my tubes tied … and that worked.)) Abortion a conditional "problem" — so long as the greater ethical problem of women’s oppression and classist oppression of the poor exist, the problem of an unwanted fetus ethically must be decided by the woman and her chosen advisors. It’s magnifying Nature’s sexism when outsiders to try to interfere.
  • harry834

    shows that our ability to survive and thrive has often depended on us rejecting the "natural" way. Diseases are defined by what hurts humans, but who said human survival was nature’s "intent"? Extinction is as much a part of the natural selection process as any process.

  • crowepps

    “Women are liberated as soon as they stop worrying about what other women think of them.” Sheri Tepper

  • kerewin21

    It’s really frightening to me that in a country that was founded on freedom of religion, so many people use their own religious views to justify forcing their religious viewpoints on others. 

     

    I don’t believe god created marriage.  In fact, I don’t believe in god at all.  And you might not like that, but it’s my right.  It’s also my right to do as I wish with my own body.  In this country, you cannot force your religious beliefs on me, and your belief that abortion is the taking of a life is just that, a religious belief.  You are free to think that, and if that’s how you feel then getting an abortion probably isn’t a choice you would make. 

     

    On the other hand, I don’t feel that way, and I can make whatever choice I would like.  Do as you wish with your religion and your body, and allow me to do as I wish with mine.

  • emma

    My point is that I’ve only ever seen the term ‘pro-abort’ used by fanatics. I don’t care if you want to say ‘pro-abortion’, but ‘pro-abort’ is, as I wrote before, part of the fanatic lexicon. It’s also ungrammatical. Think about it: how silly would it sound to refer to someone as ‘pro-run’ or ‘pro-jump’. It doesn’t work, it sounds ridiculous, and I don’t get why fanatics seem so fond of it.

     

    What I’m ‘militant’ about is that safe and legal abortion needs to be accessible to any woman or girl who needs one. The important thing is that the choice is available. Likewise, all possible supports should be available for women and girls who want to continue their pregnancies, both before and after birth. If you look at global abortion rates, there’s no significant difference between abortion rates in countries where abortion is legal and countries where it isn’t. The difference is in rates of unsafe, illegal abortion and maternal injury, disability and death as a result. Abortion happens whether it’s legal or not, so it’s important for it to be safe.

     

    The only been measure that’s been successful in reducing abortion rates is comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraception – abortion rates are lower in countries in which this is the case. The problem is that people with beliefs like yours say they want to put an end to abortion, but you don’t support any measures that have been found to actually work; instead, you think you can stop it with legal restrictions and by telling people not to have sex outside of marriage. You guys don’t seem to care what actually works, which is why it appears that you’re more concerned with imposing your particular version of sexual morality than you are about saving foetal lives.

     

    I don’t particularly care what other women do with their pregnancies; whether they continue them or end them doesn’t make a difference to me, aside from which, it’s none of my business. I’m not out there going ‘yay abortion! Everyone should have at least five!!’. It’s surgery, or it’s pills that cause large amounts of cramping and bleeding; either way, it’s painful and unpleasant. Ditto birth. Neither birth nor abortion sound like a great deal of fun to me. The important thing is that women have a choice, and that any choice they make is legal and as safe as possible.

  • harry834

    The ring of freedom starts from within; it is helped or hindered by the voices from without

  • prochoicegoth

    Riight, because consent to sex is totally consent to motherhood*sarcasm*. Since when has sex become a crime worthy of punishment via forced gestation?

  • prochoicegoth

    One, your god or religion DOES NOT belong in this issue. Two, not everyone sees sex as SOLELY for procreation. Three, consent to sex IS NOT consent to motherhood. Four, there are no infants or killing of infants involved in an abortion. Fifth, pro-choice IS NOT pro-abortion. We support the right to choose abortion AND adoption AND motherhood. Do educate yourself.

  • equalist

    So there’s the answer.  Instead of telling women just don’t get pregnant, why don’t you start telling men to just go and stop having sex with women since after all, it does take two? I’m sure all men everywhere will find this just as easy a choice as women will find it to just not get pregnant.

    The fact is, people like having sex, and just telling them not to do it isn’t going to work.  Especially in the case of married couples, who even by fundamentalist standards are allowed to bump uglies without being looked down on for it.

    Equal rights, equal responsibilities.

  • colleen

    why don’t you start telling men to just go and stop having sex with women since after all, it does take two?

     

     In order to do that they would have to hold men responsible for their actions and that’s the furthest thing from the minds of the ‘traditional values crowd..

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • prochoicegoth

    Actually you can. It’s called an abortion. NOTHING and NO ONE has the right to use the body of another without their consent or against their will. That INCLUDES a fetus. Consent to sex IS NOT consent to motherhood.

     

    It’s pro-choice or NO choice.