Domestic Violence and Abortion: Why Do Anti-Choicers Excuse Abuse?


Two thoughts went through my head when I read about a study showing that women seeking abortion experience high rates of domestic violence.  The first thought was that this doesn’t surprise me in the slightest, both because abused women might have more unintended pregnancies and because pregnancy often is the catalyst for abusers escalating the amount of violence.  And the second is that this really demonstrates how wrong anti-choicers are when they claim that forced childbirth is somehow pro-woman.  To be truly pro-woman, you must give women tools to prevent abusers from strengthening their hold over their victims.  Forcing an abuse victim to have a baby against her will by her abuser is doing the abuser’s work for him.

The findings of the study conducted by University of Iowa professors and Planned Parenthood of the Heartland is grim but unsurprising to those of us who know something about the parameters of violence against women.  Fourteen percent of the women coming in for abortions over an eight-and-a-half month period had experienced domestic violence in the past 12 months. There’s reason to suspect that women in abusive relationships are more likely to experience unintended pregnancy. Sabotaging birth control is a common tactic of abusers seeking to increase their power over their victims and reduce their victims’ own sense of control. Preliminary studies have found that it may be that up to three-quarters of women in abusive relationships experience some form of contraception sabotage.    

Once pregnant, women in abusive relationships are quite likely to be more motivated than average to terminate a pregnancy.  Domestic abuse often escalates during pregnancy, probably because abusers feel an even stronger need to control their victims.  They may also feel like they can get away with more abuse, because the child makes it that much harder for a woman to escape.  In fact, homicide, usually at the hands of a male partner, is one of the leading causes of death for pregnant women.  I’m not at all surprised that many women sense this danger, and this influences the decision to terminate.

And that leads me to the one silver lining in this research, which is that it seems many of the women getting abortions are not just trying to survive within abusive relationships, but are also taking steps to get out.  It’s not surprising that an unintended pregnancy and an abortion can be a catalyst for ending a toxic or even abusive relationship, and the research bears this out.  Leaving is a very dangerous time for a woman in an abusive relationship, because the abusers often panic and start escalating the violence or stalking.  But with this research in hand, clinic workers might be able to offer resources to women who are in an abortion clinic as part of a larger journey of escaping a bad situation.

Unfortunately, the anti-choice movement could create a large obstacle for keeping women safe.  Anti-choicers already hail from the conservative, anti-feminist movement and therefore already inculcate hostility towards feminist efforts to dismantle the culture of male domination that permits abuse to flourish.  Indeed, some anti-choice organizations work by stoking the anger of men who were rejected by their female partners after an abortion.  I doubt very much that those promoting angry men blaming abortion stop often to think that perhaps these men were rejected because they threatened their partner’s safety.  The romantic anti-choice myth of an unintended pregnancy leading to happily-ever-after doesn’t leave much room for acknowledging that sometimes “ever after” is less about being happy and more about being abused and unable to escape.

And since abortion is often a necessary step for many women seeking to escape abusive relationships, anti-choicers who are highly focused on stopping abortion at all costs will show an alarming disregard for women’s safety and well being. Take for instance the documentary “12th and Delaware,” which is to be released on HBO in August.  The filmmakers recorded a crisis pregnancy center “counselor” trying to talk a woman out of an abortion, even though that woman made it clear that she was in an abusive relationship and felt the abortion was an important step in getting out.  The “counselor” suggested that having the baby would mean an end to the abuse.   In reality, having a baby with an abuser usually means he has more control and leverage over you, something the pregnant woman in this film knew very well.  Thankfully, the anti-choice “counselor” did not talk her out of taking care of herself and her safety.

Because of this basic disregard for women’s well-being, I worried that anti-choicers would immediately start angling to find a way to use this study to try to bully abused women out of getting abortions those women deem necessary.  And sure enough, that’s exactly what happened. Life News deliberately lied about the research to make it seem that the abortion came before the abuse for these women, implying that the women brought violence onto themselves by choosing abortion.  In reality, of course, the abuse predated the abortion in all of these cases, which were taking the histories of women getting abortions.  By implying that the violence came after the abortion, Life News joins forces with wife beaters everywhere by using the threat of violence to control women’s bodies.

And this is why anti-choice claims to be “pro-woman” are so laughable.  You cannot be pro-woman while using the threat of domestic violence to control women’s reproductive choices.  You cannot be pro-woman while telling women lies about domestic violence and pregnancy in hopes they make choices that will usually end up putting them in more danger.  You cannot be pro-woman when you distort the realities of abortion and domestic violence in ways that will, if you’re successful, lead perhaps to fewer abortions but certainly towards more beaten and even murdered women.  

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.

  • bei1052

    Amazing how this was posted on June 30th at 7:00 AM. Time warp…

     

    Anyway, I always do love your blogs. They’re always so enlightening (The sarcasm is evident, right?). By your links, 14% of all women seeking an abortion have been abused in the past 12-months, and of that 14%, about 26′ish% had been abused by their current partner and the other 74% by a previous partner. That correlates to something like 3.64% of all women obtaining an abortion because they had been abused by their current partner, and 10.36% obtaining an abortion because they’ve been abused by a previous partner.

     

    Now, for argument’s sake, let’s say that we allow the 3.64% of women who are abused by their current or most recent partner to get an abortion in order to “escape” from their partners. You’d agree that the other 10.36% of women shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion since the abuse was done by a former partner, and not their current partner, correct? lol, of course you wouldn’t. You’d argue the same thing you’re arguing now– that the woman should be able to get an abortion. In the end, it doesn’t boil down to who’s doing the abuse. Therefore, this abuse angle is– dare I say it?– a nice little red herring you use to try to rationalize why abortion should be allowed.

     

    You see, the difference between you and us, as you like to call us, anti-choicers, is that we believe that the unborn shouldn’t be killed just because the woman has relationship problems. In fact, killing the unborn child to “get away from the man” makes about as much sense as throwing a towel over a grape juice stain on a white rug. It totally ignores the actual problem. A man will still abuse a woman whether or not the child exists or not if he so wants. The logical thing would be to make it harder to abusive men to have contact with their ex’s and write up better laws which makes it harder for abusers to have contact with any children they created

     

    …But I forgot. That doesn’t promote abortion, so it’s out of the picture.

     

    Preliminary studies have found that it may be that up to three-quarters of women in abusive relationships experience some form of contraception sabotage. 

     

    1.) Three-quarters, huh? I know for a fact you pulled the above out of thin air.

     

    2.) I thank <enter deity here> that women never, ever, ever purposely get pregnant to trap men. I really am. Truly.

     

    And sure enough, that’s exactly what happened. Life News deliberately lied about the research to make it seem that the abortion came before the abuse for these women, implying that the women brought violence onto themselves by choosing abortion.

     

    You really put better emphasis on reading comprehension skills, as LifeNews clearly mentions something about pre-abortion violence and how women should speak up about whether or not they’re having an abortion due to partner abuse or… etc. etc. etc. and so on and so forth. But you tend to only read what you want to read, so oh well.

     

    …Oh, and do you deny that some women may face post-abortion violence stemming from the fact that they obtained an abortion?

  • mechashiva

    Wow, Life News’s intellectual dishonesty actually shocked me. It takes some real balls to lie about research that is readily available. How sad is it that they get away with this shit?

  • ahunt

    Oh, and do you deny that some women may face post-abortion violence stemming from the fact that they obtained an abortion?

     

    So…your point is that women at risk of post-abortion violence should NOT have an abortion, and should instead…breed with the man capable of post-abortion violence?

  • colleen

    How sad is it that they get away with this shit?

    There’s no doubt that the ‘pro-life’ movement is a powerful magnet for stupid credulity.

  • bei1052

    Except they didn’t say that. But that’s what happens when you read only what you want to read.

  • bei1052

    So…your point is that women at risk of post-abortion violence should NOT have an abortion, and should instead…breed with the man capable of post-abortion violence?

     

    Yes, just like I said she should stay with the guy the last time this topic came up. Just like that.

  • colleen

    Or, in your case, just a magnet for stupid.

  • arekushieru

    Begin rant (I apologize in advance for it but if misogyny doesn’t infuriate people then I don’t know what would)/

     

    <<Now, for argument’s sake, let’s say that we allow the 3.64% of women who are abused by their current or most recent partner to get an abortion in order to “escape” from their partners. You’d agree that the other 10.36% of women shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion since the abuse was done by a former partner, and not their current partner, correct? lol, of course you wouldn’t. You’d argue the same thing you’re arguing now– that the woman should be able to get an abortion. In the end, it doesn’t boil down to who’s doing the abuse. Therefore, this abuse angle is– dare I say it?– a nice little red herring you use to try to rationalize why abortion should be allowed.>>

     

    Oh, please, here we go, again.  Bei is accusing someone of something they weren’t actually talking about.  She was saying that these are stupid reasons for PLers to oppose abortion, while claiming to be ProWoman (this is the part you missed, obviously), and was explaining why.  She wasn’t applying them to herself, not even other ProChoicers.  Is your hypocrisy just so ingrained that you just won’t see it for what it is in someone else, just because you share similar ideologies, so you have to twist the opposing side’s words to the extent that they no longer mean what they actually mean?

     

    You see the difference between anti-choicers and pro-choicers is that PCers believe that if all other groups don’t have the right to life at the expense of another person’s bodily autonomy no matter what the reason is, then no one does.  Because otherwise all it can be is purely punishment for having a specific biological function grown and developed within one’s body, even though it is against their volition.  Definitely not about life.  If you haven’t figured it out by now, it was pure luck for you that you were born male.  Which means there is no excuse for stripping rights from women, alone, while granting more rights, than anyone else, to the contents of their uterus, just because they had the bad luck (when looking at it from your perspective) to be female.

     

    Really, where are the stats that say that 3/4 do not experience contraception sabotage?  Btw, that is not a negative fallacy.  I’m asking you to prove something that exists.  Finding me a quote that says exactly that, is finding me something that exists, after all.

     

    <<A man will still abuse a woman whether or not the child exists or not if he so wants.>>

     

    And she never said they don’t.  (In fact I remember her stating something that meant the exact opposite.)  She did say that it was easier for them to escape abusive situations.  If you don’t know that much about pregnancy, that would tell you why that is the case, then why are you discussing it with people who do?  After all, pregnancy is the single biggest physical burden that can be placed on anyone.  Escaping someone while in that condition is very difficult to do.  And implementing the policies you mentioned are something more Prochoicers actively attempt than ProLifers but these things take time.  So, what is the woman supposed to do in the meantime.  End up more likely to be forced to remain in the abusive situation?  I value women and believe they are far more than incubators and pieces of property to be owned.  It is sad that you appear to hold the opposite belief….

     

    <<I thank <enter deity here> that women never, ever, ever purposely get pregnant to trap men. I really am. Truly.>>

     

    I thank <enter deity here> that men never, ever, ever purposely deny child support, forcing poverty on women. I really am. Truly.  Because it is so much more difficult to run away from another body than one’s own. Really. 

     

    /End rant

     

     

  • bei1052

     

    “Choice” doesn’t extend to choosing to respond to someone.

     

    Begin rant (I apologize in advance for it but if misogyny doesn’t infuriate people then I don’t know what would).

     

    Oh, look. It’s the misogyny card. I’m guessing it’s the pro-choice equivalent of the race card? ‘Cuz it’s played almost as often and is just as idiotic.

     

    Oh, please, here we go, again.  Bei is accusing someone of something they weren’t actually talking about.  She was saying that these are stupid reasons for PLers to oppose abortion, while claiming to be ProWoman (this is the part you missed, obviously), and was explaining why.  She wasn’t applying them to herself, not even other ProChoicers.  Is your hypocrisy just so ingrained that you just won’t see it for what it is in someone else, just because you share similar ideologies, so you have to twist the opposing side’s words to the extent that they no longer mean what they actually mean?

     

    Oh, yes. I can’t read, as Ms. Marcotte definitely did not structure her argument around a woman being able to have an abortion to “escape” her abuser, or that the fact that a woman who is abused should be able to have an abortion to keep her safe (even if she’s not aborting her abuser’s child) or the fact that people who oppose abortions even if the women was abused (which, for the record, is something like an excess of 70%’ish of Americans) are somehow anti-women and hail from the “conservative, anti-feminist movement and therefore already inculcate hostility towards feminist efforts to dismantle the culture of male domination that permits abuse to flourish”. No, I just imagined that, as it’s not like any of the aforementioned is written in the above OP or anything. Definitely not.

     

    … … …

     

    …Was I too heavy on the sarcasm there? If you’re going to tell someone they’re not responding to what someone actually types out, then at the very least make sure that the things that the person you’re accusing of responding to which don’t exist don’t actually exist. Otherwise, you end up with a response such as mine above.

     

    …And, please, learn what it is to be a hypocrite before you accuse someone of being a hypocrite.

     

    You see the difference between anti-choicers and pro-choicers is that PCers believe that if all other groups don’t have the right to life at the expense of another person’s bodily autonomy no matter what the reason is, then no one does. 

     

    1.) Negative rights are not contingent on someone or something else. The simple fact that you keep stating as much, while going on about someone who isn’t donated a kidney not having the right to life, means that you don’t understand what a positive nor a negative right is. In a most simplified nutshell, positive rights are those things given to you. Negative rights, on the other hand, are things that cannot be taken from you. Are you telling me that the right to life is a positive right?

     

    2.) Even though I point this out a lot, one more time can’t hurt. If one Siamese twins kills the other, then that should be deemed as:

     

    A.) Murder

    B.) Suicide

    C.) Nothing, because it was his/her body

     

    Or are you just going to call it irrelevant as you usually do?

     

    Because otherwise all it can be is purely punishment for having a specific biological function grown and developed within one’s body, even though it is against their volition

     

    Yes, because barring rape, women magically become pregnant without any idea as to how or why. They just go to sleep in the morning and– wouldn’t you know it?– when they wake up in the morning, they’re pregnant. It’s not like they had sex or anything.

     

    …Oh wait. They did. They– What’s that word?– *Chose* to engage in sex and just as how those same women argue that *choosing* to have sex is consenting to take care of that which results from sex for a guy, then those same criteria and stipulations should hold true for them.

     

    You do like equality, don’t you? You do think that men and women should be held to the same standards, right?

     

    Definitely not about life.  If you haven’t figured it out by now, it was pure luck for you that you were born male. 

     

    Not really. But, yes, I was born a male. What of it?

     

    Which means there is no excuse for stripping rights from women, alone, while granting more rights, than anyone else, to the contents of their uterus, just because they had the bad luck (when looking at it from your perspective) to be female.

     

    Not this again. Arguing that the unborn not be killed solely at the discretion of another isn’t granting “more rights” to the unborn then anyone else, as everyone presently has that right except for the unborn.

     

    Really, where are the stats that say that 3/4 do not experience contraception sabotage?  Btw, that is not a negative fallacy.  I’m asking you to prove something that exists.  Finding me a quote that says exactly that, is finding me something that exists, after all.

     

    Sorry, but that’s not how it works. As it is, you obviously don’t understand how the burden of proof works. The onus is on the one making the assertion to prove their assertion true; not me to prove their assertion false (which, just so you know, is the same thing as disproving their assertion). You’re not asking me to “prove something which exists”. Indeed that’s what the OP is burdened with. You’re asking me to “disprove something which doesn’t not not exist” (yes, I wrote that out correctly).

     

    To that I say “No, thank you”, as it’s not my job to do.

     

    And she never said they don’t.  (In fact I remember her stating something that meant the exact opposite.)  She did say that it was easier for them to escape abusive situations.  If you don’t know that much about pregnancy, that would tell you why that is the case, then why are you discussing it with people who do?  After all, pregnancy is the single biggest physical burden that can be placed on anyone.  Escaping someone while in that condition is very difficult to do

     

    Oh, so now you’re changing the argument to not being able to “get away” because you’re physically burdened with a pregnancy instead of not being able to “get away” because you have a child with your abuser? Well, if that’s not a classic case of moving the goal posts, I dunno’ what is.

     

    And implementing the policies you mentioned are something more Prochoicers actively attempt than ProLifers but these things take time

     

    Oh, really? Would you like to play this game? Because I would.

     

    So, what is the woman supposed to do in the meantime.  End up more likely to be forced to remain in the abusive situation? 

     

    Except no one is forcing her to remain in a abusive situation.

     

    …And on a slightly related note, do you know what I find funny? Killing someone to keep them from being abused. That makes as much sense as starving someone to keep them from going hungry.

     

    However, this brings us to the original point. Why should a woman whose abuser was a previous partner be able to have an abortion when the pregnancy she has now is in no way, shape or form related to the abuse she received in the past? Inquiring minds want to know ($100 says you respond with something along the lines of “Because it’s her body”, which would mean that the abuse angle is– like I said initially– a red herring, as abuse or no, your argument in favor of a woman being able to have an abortion isn’t going to be affected any).

     

    value women and believe they are far more than incubators and pieces of property to be owned.  It is sad that you appear to hold the opposite belief….

     

    *ahem*

     

    ~~~

     

    Is your hypocrisy just so ingrained that you just won’t see it for what it is in someone else, just because you share similar ideologies, so you have to twist the opposing side’s words to the extent that they no longer mean what they actually mean?

     

    ~~~

     

    Sweet, sweet, sweet irony. At any rate, straw men simply aren’t cool.

     

    Also, if more women reject your argument (being anti-abortion = treating women are incubators and property) then those who accept it, then does that mean that your argument is anti-woman? Actually, wouldn’t it mean just that? Yes, it would.

     

    I thank <enter deity here> that men never, ever, ever purposely deny child support, forcing poverty on women. I really am. Truly.  Because it is so much more difficult to run away from another body than one’s own. Really.

     

    And I also thank that same deity that men are more apt to pay child support when ordered to do so then are women.

     

    (Oh, wait. Pointing out the fact that women are more likely to be deadbeats then are men is probably misogynistic. Am I right?)

  • squirrely-girl

    Well at least you’re consistent in your misogyny. 

  • ahunt

    Uh…not “stay”…breed. There is a distinction.

  • squirrely-girl

    No more than the “straw man” card gets played by the MRA crowd.

  • amanda-marcotte

    Please don’t accuse me of making up statistics. I abhor the lying that comes from the right, and thus avoid it at all costs. The links demonstrating that 3/4 number are provided in the post.

    As for the rest of your rant, shrug. If someone can understand it, feel free to respond.

  • amanda-marcotte

    People won’t click through the links. Which is why they feel free to imply that the abuse is because of abortion. There’s a lot of romanticizing of male dominance with anti-choicers, and that includes romanticizing battering. For instance, Jill Stanek applauded a fictional gangster beating his wife because she had an abortion:

    That spontaneous slap was the reaction of a real man who a woman had just told she aborted his baby. Compare that to the modern day cowardly male response, “It’s your choice. Whatever you decide, I’ll support you.” Or worse, his threat to abandon her if she does not abort.

    Real men, in her view, control their women through violence. And, apparently, run dangerous criminal gangs.

  • colleen

    There’s a lot of romanticizing of male dominance with anti-choicers, and that includes romanticizing battering.

    I’ve noticed that the religious right tends to justify violence towards women by announcing that men have a ‘natural’ genetic inclination to violently dominate women (while offering up no evidence from an actual geneticist to corroborate their belief).
    From reading the ‘pro-life’ folks and from many conversations with women who have been physically, emotionally and sexually abused by their husbands/boyfriends my sense is that the religious right (and I certainly include Catholicism) tends to accept male violence against women and children as somehow natural…sort of like being an aggressive tailgater or being left handed. Indeed I’ve spoken with many women who have told me that their husband rapes them several times a week or beats the crap out of them on a regular basis and when they’ve sought help through their church the Baptist minister or the Priest inevitably excuses the husband’s behavior and suggests ways that she should change.

  • mechashiva

    Yes, it sure is a problem when you do that. You should keep that in mind, yourself.

     

    There was one place in the article that explicitly mentioned violence pre-abortion. However, the very first sentence of the article is:

     

    A new study shows the link between abortion and the physical and sexual abuse women may be subjected to in the relationship by their husband or boyfriend following the abortion.

     

    That’s a blatant lie. The study definitely did not draw a link between abortion and abuse after abortion. That is nonsensical. Life News literally says abuse after abortion is correlated with having an abortion, and it implies that having an abortion causes abuse. The rest of the article is similarly disingenuous. Abuse after abortion is correlated with abuse before the abortion, not the abortion itself.

     

    The study actually found (quoted from the first link):

     

    Abortion-seeking women are more likely to have experienced partner violence than the general population… 

     

    Women who are already in abusive relationships tend to experience more abuse following the execution of any pregnancy decision (this is why I think all staff at all ob/gyn clinics should be trained in domestic violence assessment and response). So, yes, some women who are already in abusive relationships will experience escalated abuse following an abortion. But, that’s not a good argument against abortion, so Life News decided to embellish it a bit.

  • just1mom
    The author points out that being pregnant makes the victim even more vulnerable to the abuser. This is true and I have experienced it personally. I love my children and I would not trade them for anything. BUT I am now forever bonded to the person who abused me. Minnesota encourages as much contact as possilbe between the non-custodial parent and child/children. So he and I meet two of every three weekends and many holidays so that we can exhange the children. (Don’t tell me to go to back to coaurt and fix this injustice. I’ve tried.)
  • just1mom

    Women who are already in abusive relationships tend to experience more abuse following the execution of any pregnancy decision (this is why I think all staff at all ob/gyn clinics should be trained in domestic violence assessment and response).

     

    Yes! Thank you. You are so right!!!!!

  • mechashiva

    Only 26% of women who reported abuse in the previous 12 months (remember that’s 14% of all women seeking abortions) were still with the same partner at the time of abortion. 25% were single, and 49% were with a different partner (no stats on who the abortion baby-daddy was, unfortunately). There’s no reason to assume the women with different partners would be at risk of post-abortion domestic violence. There’s no good way of knowing whether the single women are at increased risk (depends on how recently they left and if the pregnancy was from the abuser or a different partner).

     

    That leaves only ~3.6% of all women seeking abortions who we could assume to be at risk for post-abortion violence (26% x 14%). While it is important to counsel those women appropriately, this is not good evidence to support the Life News assertion that abortion is correlated with violence afterward.

     

    The more I think about this Life News article, the more intellectually dishonest I see it is.

  • mechashiva

    When I read the first article you linked, I arrived at somewhat different conclusions than you did. Though survivors of domestic abuse are overrepresented among women choosing abortion, the research was not clear on what percentage of these women were aborting a pregnancy from the partner who abused themm (since around half were with a different partner at the time of the abortion and a quarter were single). So, to me, that says that these women aren’t necessarily using abortion as an avenue of escape. There’s no real reason to assume they are.

     

    Rather, I think the research could suggest the experience of abuse might make a woman more inclined to choose abortion in subsequent pregnancies in the year following the abuse. That sounds reasonable enough to me, and more research could be done to research something like… average time between ending an abusive relationship and choice to have a child. I don’t know, but I think that could be interesting to consider.

  • beenthere72

     I’m going to start a drinking game for every time you say ‘straw man’ and ‘red herring’.   I’ve never heard those words said so much in my entire 38 years on this planet.  

    I wanted to give my 2 cents on your continual mention of how woman are less likely to pay child support than men:   if a woman loses custody of her child to the father, there is a mighty good reason for it.    Huge reason.   In my husband’s case, it’s because the mother of his daughter is mentally unstable (and did/does drugs).   She’s on disability for her mental illness and doesn’t work.   And frankly:  she’s psycho (and did try to trap him 15 years ago by getting pregnant).    Child support comes out of her disability checks.   She owes years of back support (years of which she chose to never see her daughter) and that’s now coming out too.   So in my experience, in the case of women being less likely to pay than men, if she’s unfit to have custody, she’s unfit to do a whole lot of other things, like keep a job or be anything of a part-time parent, let alone a full-time one.    I’m sure something else could be said about the psychological affect it must have on a woman to lose her kids.    In the case of men, it’s more often than not out of sheer laziness, selfishness, and irresponsibility (also in my experience as I know plenty of deadbeat dads) even when they’re plenty fit to hold a job,  make a decent living and share parental rights.   

     

    I’d address the other stuff just so I could do some shots while you go:  mumble mumble red herring, mumble mumble straw man mumble mumble (which is how I actually read all your posts now because they’re wicked annoying), but I’m at work and wisely keep the Jager at home. 

  • mechashiva

    I actually agree with you on one thing. It does seem like Amanda structured her argument around abortion being neccessary to women escaping abusive relationships. That’s how I read it, and I’m pro-choice. But you are right, there’s no reason to approach the research from that angle. I hate to say it, but it’s a little bit similar to what Life News did, in my opinion.

     

    I don’t want to interject overly much, but there was one thing in particular I wanted to address:

    …And on a slightly related note, do you know what I find funny? Killing someone to keep them from being abused.

    I assume you find it “funny” because you think the obvious solution would be to leave the abusive relationship and carry to term, correct?

     

    Would it be better for her to attempt to leave? That’s both debatable and irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what we think she should do. If a woman does not feel ready to leave, she may be incapable of imagining her life without abuse. If that is the case, her decisions with regard to her pregnancy will be based on the belief that the abuse will never end. It goes without saying that she won’t leave if she has that perspective. It also goes without saying that we can’t force her to leave.

     

    Consider this… throughout history, women who were in danger of being enslaved were recorded to have killed their own children to prevent them from becoming slaves. Abused women may be legally “free” to leave, unlike slaves, but the brainwashing, fear, and other abusive tactics make women feel trapped. Women who are not ready to leave their abusers often abort because the future they see for their child is as bleak as they envision their own future to be. This was my observation among women in this situation who I saw at the abortion clinic where I worked.

     

    This is not an argument in favor of abortion for abused women, by the way. It’s just an explanation of why they might choose abortion rather than leaving and carrying to term.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Yes, but only if we can add “sophomoric sophistry, ad homonim, indoctrination, oneupmanship, and misandry.”

  • thbear59

    Having an abortion will not stop the domestic violence.  What needs to be done is to help these women get out of these situations, which is what CPC can do.  Not only get out of the situation, but how to get their lives back on track and still in the end have a beautiful baby.  These women are most greatful for the real help that is offered to them as opposed to just get an abortion and everything will be ok.  No, it is not ok, so now you have a women still in an abusive situation and now they morn the loss of their baby.

  • scott-c

    Now, for argument’s sake, let’s say that we allow the 3.64% of women who are abused by their current or most recent partner to get an abortion in order to “escape” from their partners.

    But you’re opposed to even this, which is why society doesn’t leave it up to smirking trolls to decide what women are “allowed” to do with their own bodies.

    For instance, Jill Stanek applauded a fictional gangster beating his wife because she had an abortion:

    That spontaneous slap was the reaction of a real man who a woman had just told she aborted his baby. Compare that to the modern day cowardly male response, “It’s your choice. Whatever you decide, I’ll support you.” Or worse, his threat to abandon her if she does not abort.

    Ah, good ol’ Jill Stanek.  Yes, you know you’re making an irrefutable argument when your point about “real men” depends on a fictional one.

     

  • crowepps

    You’d agree that the other 10.36% of women shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion since the abuse was done by a former partner, and not their current partner, correct?

    On what basis do you assert that they HAVE a “current partner”.  A woman who LEAVES an abusive relationship BECAUSE she is pregnant by the abuser is going to explain her situation as “abused by a former partner”, who she, obviously, has LEFT, and her abortion may be motivated by the fact that she doesn’t want a mutual child to which enable him to REENTER her life by trying to get custody, insisting on visitation, etc.

     

    It’s pretty common for batterers who abuse women to also abuse their children, especially as they get older, since the battering arises from the man’s dysfunctional mental processing and older children tend to ‘trigger’ his feelings of inadequacy/reflexive controlling by doing ‘selfish’ things such as liking their teachers and having friends.

  • romantaylor

    The Doctor who has the cure for cancer (or insert whatever cure/contribution to world that you’ve heard anti-choicers use) is dying and needs your organs to live.  Guess what?  No one can force you to give so much as a single drop of blood and you most likely won’t be accused of being a murderer for it.  So why is it okay to force woman to donate their bodies to a clump of cells?  I don’t recall signing away my rights to my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness when I decided to spread my legs for some extra sexy-sex funtime.  It’s not about making me “responsible” for my decisions, its about taking control of my life away and handing it to someone of their choosing.  Anti-choice arguements are anti-woman and anti-sex arguements.  Plain and simple.

  • just1mom

    Trust me, having a baby with an abusive man does NOT help you with the relationship. It ties you to him for at least the next two decades. I am not saying it is right to have an abortion, but maybe it is better than giving birth to the next generation of victims. The courts don’t want to hear that the father of your child/children is abusive to them. The courts will tell you to stop using your children as a weapon against their father.

    We need laws that put the protection of abused women and children above the parental rights of biological fathers

    You are right about a few points: 1. Abortion will not stop domestic violence. 2. CPC clinics, OBGYNs and everyone else should help women leave a dangerous situation.

  • bei1052

    I’m going to start a drinking game for every time you say ‘straw man’ and ‘red herring’.   I’ve never heard those words said so much in my entire 38 years on this planet.

     

    Quite possibly because you spend your time around people who think the same way as you do, so it’s unlikely that someone who thinks like you would ever point out the fallacies on engages in.

  • bei1052

    I assume you find it “funny” because you think the obvious solution would be to leave the abusive relationship and carry to term, correct?

     

    No, I find it funny because, if you click on one of the links in the OP, it says one of the reasons why abused women would have an abortion is to keep the father from abusing the child. But that’s nonsensical, as it somehow asserts that killing the child before it can be abused is better then letting it be abused. It’s, at best, a false dichotomy. The best decision would be to have the child and not let the father abuse that child.

  • bei1052

    But you’re opposed to even this, which is why society doesn’t leave it up to smirking trolls to decide what women are “allowed” to do with their own bodies.

     

    Of course, I’m not the one using the abuse angle as to why abortions should be allowed. Which is a noteworthy distinction.

  • just1mom

    Bei – It is a lovely notion to have the child and “not let the father abuse that child.” However, that is not how the law works. Fathers have custody and visitation rights. It is extremely difficult to prove a father is abusive and should not have contact with the child. It seems someone ends up serverly inhured or dead before the system notices.

    The most pro-life thing anyone can do is stop arguing about abortion and start enacting laws that protect women and children from the men who hurt them.

  • crowepps

    Are you suggesting that instead of having an abortion she should just get a gun and shoot her batterer dead?  Because believe me, that is the ONLY way she can “not let the father abuse that child”.  That may be a reasonable solution overall, but I can see problems with it.  I would add that you don’t seem well-versed in the suffering of abused children.  Try this:

    http://dreamcatchersforabusedchildren.com/category/child-abuse-news-headlines/

  • jcesatx

    @ Bei – so you are a man…who cares what you think? I dont. Luckily I dont have to. You will have to accept that the law will always allow me to make decisions about my future and my safety. I wont be forced to ruin my life for a small mistake, a mistake that no man ever has to be accountable for….child support is nothing compared to years of emotional and spiritual work that men dont ever perform in raising children full time. Men need a lot more spiritual work than women anyway. But women wont wait for men to get right with God. I wont.

    Some day you will have an experience that will allow you to see it differently. Maybe when you’re jailed for murdering your wife for justified reasons like…she had an abortion or cheated on you or forgot to love you unconditionally. You men have been running the show for a long time and you should have to suffer the consequences of that. You should take heed as women are becoming more educated in every part of the globe.

     

    Men’s rule of law is on its way out…its funny to watch the last battles and how ridiculous men egos justify any law that keeps women in poverty…..they say to us….’yes we value life’, yes we value marriage’ but if you’re pregnant….’oh well I hope you have enough vacation time built up and I hope you dont lose your job in the process’…….pish. Oh yeah, and you men think that birth control should be much harder to get because women are the only ones usually being responsible about that. Men are responsible for 90% of all the violence in any country. Why dont you start an organization that tries to understand why men kill people, and abuse animals and small children, or become serial killers, or sexually abuse family members. Why dont you try to find out why men think its beneath them to clean toilets unless they are being paid. No man would be a cook/housekeeper/nanny for any length of time for no pay…ever. They feel comfortable in taking for granted all of the unpaid labor of women.  Why is the number 2 threat of death to pregnant women, murder at hand of the man that impregnated them. Do you lock your door at night because you think a woman is going to rob you? No you dont. If men were being murdered at the rates that women are, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. The future is inevitable, you men should start getting used to it. This is the beginning of the decline of men. It will be a battle for sure. 

  • auntbec

    Can you honestly use the term “relationship problems” with a straight face when this post is clearly discussing physical abuse?  Obviously your life is filled with light and sunshine at all times.  You need to come out of your shell and find out what reality means.  You are commenting on a Reality Check blog…and we don’t really need “your kind” on here.

  • auntbec

    they are clearly anti-woman.  Authoritarian father figures and all that crap…

  • auntbec

    is a disgusting excuse of a woman and a nurse.

  • mechashiva

    The best decision would be to have the child and not let the father abuse that child.

    Right, that’s what I said I assumed you would think. So… why is your first word, “No?”

     

    No matter. Yes, there’s a false dichotomy in thinking that your options are “abort and child is never abused, but I stay abused” and “carry to term and child is abused, and I stay abused.” A domestic violence counselor would work to expand the client’s perspective of what choices she has available to her, but a counselor cannot control what a woman will actually do with regards to her pregnancy or her relationship. If she can’t get past the false dichotomy in her head, she’s going to make her decisions based on it, and that’s not “funny.” It’s actually terribly sad. That’s why it is so important for all staff at all ob/gyn clinics to have proper training to deal with these matters, that way women can be helped (whatever their decision) as early as possible in the pregnancy.

     

    In your opinion, it is best to carry to term and end the abuse. In my opinion, the best decision is the one that the woman can live with most easily, whatever that might be.

  • equalist

    Indeed I’ve spoken with many women who have told me that their husband rapes them several times a week or beats the crap out of them on a regular basis and when they’ve sought help through their church the Baptist minister or the Priest inevitably excuses the husband’s behavior and suggests ways that she should change.

    That’s quite common actually, whether the listening party is a religious authority figur, a friend, or a family member.  When my ex was abusing me while I was pregnant and I told my mother about the abuse and showed her the fist sized bruises on my back and chest, her response was simply “Well what did you do to piss him off?” Then there’s those who would assume abuse in the most benign of cases.  From the mild mistaking bruises from a late night power outage combined with traversing a living room full of furniture for abuse to the worse insisting abuse when there is none, and claiming a woman is in denial (I was accused of this, or rather my current boyfriend was the accused when my work performance began to suffer due to a massive ear infection I was trying to push through.  I was told that it was okay to say that he was abusing me, and that the supervisor who assumed the abuse would make sure to correct the performance issues in my file, but of course that wouldn’t be done if it was just the ear infection I had the documents from my doctor for.)

    I think the root of both of these issues is a lack of education on what abuse actually is and how to spot real signs of it.  There’s a combination of survivors who have become over sensitized due to their own experiences and look for every sign possible in a situation, and then there’s the other end of the spectrum, those who have no understanding of abuse or what it actually entails, and therefore make assumptions that a man would never hit a woman (or vice versa) if she (or he) hadn’t done something to deserve it, or that a woman (or man) suffering abuse would just get up and walk away if she (or he) didn’t somehow like having the abuse done to them.  They have no understanding of the amount of mental abuse that comes before an abuser ever lays a hand on his (or her) victim.  They don’t understand that to blame the victim only sets deeper in her (or his) mind that she (or he) is in the wrong, and that the abuser is correct in his (or her) behavior.  The “You made your bed, now lie in it” affirms the abuser’s careful instruction to the victim that no one will help her (or him).  The “Well if you would just ___ then he wouldn’t get so angry” enforces the abuser’s insistance that it’s her fault he’s abusing her.  And the same with telling women that the abuse is somehow because they chose to terminate a pregnancy. 

    The fact is that abusers do control their victim’s fertility when they can get away with it.  They poke holes in condoms, refuse to wear them during a sexual assault, hide or throw away pills, diaphrams, or other birth control methods they have access to, force women who practice the rhythm method or NFP into intercourse during their fertile periods, or prevent women from getting to appointments to get prescribed methods that have to be administered by a doctor (such as the shot or an IUD) in order to keep their control over women’s bodies. 

  • colleen

    You remind me of a time, years ago, when I was at university and had managed to injure myself with a splitting maul that bounced up hard off the log I was splitting and gave me a giant bruise on the face. 2 or 3 of the psych students were determined to extract from me who was beating me up and simply would not believe the story of what actually happened. They kept asking, “No, really, who hit you?” This went on for several days. I found it difficult to maintain patience.

    I don’t think the standard replies of ‘pro-life spiritual advisors’ to abused women are due to lack of education or, rather, I don’t think any amount of education about abuse and violence against women or children will convince the religious right that there’s anything particularly WRONG with a man forcing himself on his wife or ‘disciplining’ her. After all when a woman agrees to a traditional marriage she agrees to be property.

  • equalist

    …Oh wait. They did. They– What’s that word?– *Chose* to engage in sex and just as how those same women argue that *choosing* to have sex is consenting to take care of that which results from sex for a guy, then those same criteria and stipulations should hold true for them.

    Again, this goes back to the “If she hadn’t spread her legs, she wouldn’t be in this position” argument, which is strangely enough never forced on the man who had sex in the first place as well.  You said yourself that women don’t magically get themselves pregnant, so there is another person involved.  The difference is that unlike the man, the woman cannot sneak off in the middle of the night before he wakes up and leave him with the burdon of the pregnancy, or if they’re in a relationship, she can’t skip town as soon as the second line turns blue, or the pregnancy gets inconvenient.  If you’re going to claim to hold women accountable as men are held accountable for the child, then women should be granted outs just as the men are granted outs from that responsibility.

    Oh, so now you’re changing the argument to not being able to “get away” because you’re physically burdened with a pregnancy instead of not being able to “get away” because you have a child with your abuser? Well, if that’s not a classic case of moving the goal posts, I dunno’ what is.

    The fact is that the majority of abused women are either pregnant or have children under the age of five at the time of their abuse.  The fact is that leaving an abusive situation when you have more than just your own safety to think about is exponetially more difficult than walking out when you have no dependants (hence the reason women without children stay in abusive relationships to protect much loved pets which are threatened with death or torture in order to keep them woman under control.  Children and pregnancies are often used in the same manner).  The fact is that both are the same thing.  A pregnancy by an abuser, when carried to term produces a child by that abuser, which an abuser can use as a bargaining tool to attempt to force a woman to stay.  An abuser’s child is just as much his property (in his mind) as the woman that carried it to term.  The only difference is that the court system tends to agree with him as to having rights over the child that he does not have over the woman.  It is not uncommon for an abuser to kidnap, injure or even kill the child of his victim as a means of controlling her.  Think back to the man a few years ago who threw his girlfriend’s four children off a bridge to their deaths because they had an argument. Even more disturbing, children in an abusive relationship are often brought into the abuse as abusers or a part of the abuse itself.  One of my daughter’s first phrases as a toddler was “kill mommy”, often said after my ex put a knife or other weapon in her hand and taught her how to make stabbing motions in my direction with it.  This before she reached the age of two. 

    In summary, a woman may have many reasons for aquiring an abortion during or shortly after escaping from an abusive relationship.  It takes an intensely strong woman to survive abuse, and how she goes about doing that should not be turned around and held against her.  In an abusive relationship, there is no normal family dynamic.  A victim goes into survival mode, and if she sees an abortion as a step out of the relationship, or a way to prevent further abuse, then she should have the right to take it.

    However, this brings us to the original point. Why should a woman whose abuser was a previous partner be able to have an abortion when the pregnancy she has now is in no way, shape or form related to the abuse she received in the past? Inquiring minds want to know ($100 says you respond with something along the lines of “Because it’s her body”, which would mean that the abuse angle is– like I said initially– a red herring, as abuse or no, your argument in favor of a woman being able to have an abortion isn’t going to be affected any).

    The question here is what evidence do you have that the pregnancy is not related to the abuse?  I left my ex while pregnant with our second child.  When asked if I was currently or had been previously in an abusive relationship, I always answered that I had been previously.  A child producted with an abuser is a tie that abuser still has to his victim in the manner of parental rights, and women can and do leave abusive relationships while pregnant.  Adoption papers have to be signed by both biological parents in most states, so carrying the child to term and then giving it up for adoption as a means for escape is often out, as an abuser is not going to sign away his rights to a means of accessing his victim willingly.  Keeping the child puts her at risk for being subjected to abuse, harassment and threats by court ordered visitation, as in the case of a woman I knew who’s husband would send threatening letters home with their son after their court ordered visitations, and had the courts order her to keep a cell phone that he had access to at all times in order to contact their son, despite her claims that he was using the line of communication in order to threaten and harass her.  Because none of the threats and harassment were aimed at their son, he was allowed to continue the abuse because she was forced to submit to the visitation order or risk losing custody of her son to him.  In some cases, the only way out that a woman can see is to rid herself of the child of her abuser and cut off that link in the only way she legally can, and that is through abortion, and to deny her that is to deliver her into the hands of her abuser all over again.

  • equalist

    I’m sorry for your situation, it is one I fear myself.  I have not been able to get a straight answer as to the laws in South Carolina regarding the children of abusers and their victims, and what his rights to my children are or would be if I were to persue child support (as we were never married and there has never been a DNA test, at this time, he has no legal rights to them) as current economic situations may force me to do soon.

  • equalist

    Even better would be a study to determine the paternity of the fetus to be aborted.  I would hazard a guess that at least in the majority of cases, the biological father of the child would be the abuser.  It would make obvious sense in cases where the woman is currently in an abusive relationship or has only escaped one in the last few months.

  • equalist

    We need laws that put the protection of abused women and children above the parental rights of biological fathers

    I absolutely agree with this.  I firmly believe that the moment a man causes harm to his partner or their children, either verbally, sexually, or physically, he should lose all parental rights to any children with that partner.  Children do not deserve to be brought up around domestive violence, and to force them into that situation only perpetuates the violence as children learn what is appropriate and correct behavior from their environments.  Even if he is not abusing the child, is he abusing a new partner in front of the child?  Is the custodial parent still terrified of him to the point that the child is able to pick up on her fear?  Then that is what the child will learn.

  • equalist

    Why dont you try to find out why men think its beneath them to clean toilets unless they are being paid. No man would be a cook/housekeeper/nanny for any length of time for no pay…ever. They feel comfortable in taking for granted all of the unpaid labor of women.

    I have to respectfully disagree with your gross overgeneralization of men.  My boyfriend has happily accepted the role of stay at home dad to my two girls, including all the cooking, cleaning, and diaper changes that come with it.  While I’ll admit that it’s a rare thing to find such a wonderful man, please don’t completely deny that they do exist.

  • squirrely-girl

    My husband is the stay at home dad for our son and is MORE than happy to talk at length with people how much he enjoys getting this time. He’s also more than happy to joke about being a “kept man” for his sugar momma wife. :)

  • equalist

    Ahh!  I knew there had to be more than one of them out there!  :D

  • passerina

       I want to respond to Amanda’s excellent piece and raise a different question: Are domestic violence hotlines & shelters, and anti-rape organizations, helping pregnant victims of violence who come to them for help & who want an abortion or options counseling? Through the ’90s I ran an abortion fund and sometimes advocated for women who needed shelter or emergency legal assistance from one of these organizations. Other times a client was referred by a shelter or DV hotline. A few times, I tried working with DV program staff who would have nothing to do with the woman after she stated her intent to have an abortion, not because the staffer was anti-choice (at least that’s what they said) but because the shelter’s federal funding prohibited them from doing so. That might mean withholding transportation, childcare, or some other support the woman in the shelter needed to access the abortion (supports that would have been provided if it had been a different kind of healthcare problem). I spoke with a lawyer who said this understanding was in error, but the “rule” did seem to be part of the training these workers received. 

       This felt to me like a betrayal of the mission of the battered women’s movement. Why the gulf between battered women’s services and reproductive health services? What is the experience of other readers out there? 

    • ack

      I’m looking into this and I’ll hopefully have more information for you soon, passerina.

  • bei1052

    I think jcesatx is suffering from oxygen deprivation or something. 

  • bei1052

    On what basis do you assert that they HAVE a “current partner”. 

     

    …Because it says so right in the first link of the OP?

     

    Researchers found nearly 14 percent of the women who sought abortions had experienced domestic violence from a partner in the previous 12 months. And 74 percent of those women said they had been abused by a former partner rather than their current partner.

     

    Sometimes I feel as if I’m the only one who takes the time to read stuff.

     

    A woman who LEAVES an abusive relationship BECAUSE she is pregnant by the abuser is going to explain her situation as “abused by a former partner”, who she, obviously, has LEFT, and her abortion may be motivated by the fact that she doesn’t want a mutual child to which enable him to REENTER her life by trying to get custody, insisting on visitation, etc.

     

    Which is totally accounted for in what I wrote out and doesn’t change what I wrote out at all.

     

    It’s pretty common for batterers who abuse women to also abuse their children, especially as they get older, since the battering arises from the man’s dysfunctional mental processing and older children tend to ‘trigger’ his feelings of inadequacy/reflexive controlling by doing ‘selfish’ things such as liking their teachers and having friends.

     

    So it doesn’t matter who’s abusing the women, she can have an abortion because of it? Like I’ve said three or four times now, that would make the whole issue of abortion due to abuse a red herring.

     

    <_<

     

    I really do hate repeating myself.

  • bei1052

    Please don’t accuse me of making up statistics. I abhor the lying that comes from the right, and thus avoid it at all costs. The links demonstrating that 3/4 number are provided in the post. As for the rest of your rant, shrug. If someone can understand it, feel free to respond.

     

    1.) My post isn’t hard to understand.

     

    2.) I’ve read the links. Since I’m obviously dumb, why don’t you show me where you pulled the 3/4th statistic from? As it exists, it should be easy for you to point out said quote(s).

  • bei1052

    Again, this goes back to the “If she hadn’t spread her legs, she wouldn’t be in this position” argument, which is strangely enough never forced on the man who had sex in the first place as well.

     

    It’s not? Can you tell me where you live, because I know a hell of a lot of men who would love to know and would pay me dearly for such information. If you don’t think that men are constantly and consistently told, “If you didn’t want a child you shouldn’t have spread your legs”, then you’re living in a fantasy world. And I say this with absolute certainty (Especially when you consider the fact that a woman, in some states, can sue a man for pregnancy related expenses if he’s proven to be the father).

     

    You said yourself that women don’t magically get themselves pregnant, so there is another person involved.

     

    Which we all know and recognize. Well, the recognition part only comes when it suits one to recognize it, otherwise they don’t ;)

     

    The difference is that unlike the man, the woman cannot sneak off in the middle of the night before he wakes up and leave him with the burden of the pregnancy, or if they’re in a relationship, she can’t skip town as soon as the second line turns blue, or the pregnancy gets inconvenient. 

     

    No, they can just give birth to the child, leave it with the man and then sneak off into the night (as they do). If this is going to be one of those issues where you try to divorce the child from pregnancy (which makes little sense seeing as how a pregnancy exists because the child exists), then don’t bother, because it’s a waste of time as you cannot, in all honesty, do so.

     

    If you’re going to claim to hold women accountable as men are held accountable for the child, then women should be granted outs just as the men are granted outs from that responsibility.

     

    Men don’t have “outs”. Unless, of course, you’re treating breaking the law as an out, in which case I’m questioning the honesty of your argument, as breaking the law isn’t an “out” in any way, shape or form.

     

    *snip lots of typing that I’m far too lazy to quote*

     

    That’s great and all, but what did that have to do with what I was responding to, that being whomever it was I quoted changing the argument from it being hard to get away from someone who abuses you because you’re connected to that person via a child, and it being hard to get away from someone because you’re pregnant?

     

    The question here is what evidence do you have that the pregnancy is not related to the abuse?  I left my ex while pregnant with our second child.  When asked if I was currently or had been previously in an abusive relationship, I always answered that I had been previously.

     

    Outside of the cursory information provided in the links, none really.

     

    And just to clear something up: the question wasn’t whether or not you had previously been in an abusive relationship, but whether or not you had been abused in the prior 12 months, and whether or not that abuse was carried out by a former partner rather then your current partner.

     

    *snips a lot more typing he’s too lazy to quote*

     

    Which all goes back to the, “Kill-the-child-to-get-rid-of-the-abuser” mentality. Which, for the record, is prima facie ridiculous. And here’s a simple illustration showing as much. Let’s say a woman has a one-month old child with some guy. The guy starts abusing her so she leaves. Because that child exists, her abuser will forever (Well, for the next seventeen years and eleven months, anyway) have a link with her. Therefore, following your logic, in order to escape her abuser, she should be able to kill that child. Of course, to this you’d say no, throwing out numerous reasons why it’s not the same as killing an unborn child, yet fundamentally those two are no different, and the fact that it’s born vs. unborn has no bearing on your initial argument.

     

    You cannot, on one hand, claim that a woman should be able to kill her unborn child in order to escape her abuser, but then say that she shouldn’t be able to do the same with her born child even though it would allow her to escape her abuser. The simple fact that you do so means that it’s not, as some of you like to go on, about the abuse. If it was, it wouldn’t matter the time period, you’d allow a woman to do everything in her power to “escape” her abuser. No, as I’ve said about four or so times now, the actual abuse portion of the argument is a red herring. The actual issue here is abortion.

     

    That’s why most pro-choicers focus on having an abortion to “escape” the abuser instead of making it harder for the abuser to be an abuser. The latter is fixing the problem; the first is just advocating some ideology. But I’ve said this many times now and it keeps getting ignored, so *meh*, whatever.

  • bei1052

    Yes, I used the term ‘relationship problems’ once? If that’s what you’re going to take offense to, then you might as well not bother because that’s just being overly petty.

     

    …Also, if I left, how would you know that the reality you live in is subjective?

  • bei1052

    That’s a blatant lie. The study definitely did not draw a link between abortion and abuse after abortion. That is nonsensical. 

     

    Read it again. You’ll clearly see that it didn’t say the study drew a link between abortion and abuse after abortion. It said– and I don’t believe I’m having to quote what you just quoted– “A new study shows the link between abortion and the physical and sexual abuse women may be subjected to in the relationship by their husband or boyfriend following the abortion” (emphasis totally mine).

     

    May be subjected to =/= will be subjected to

     

    …And that’s our nitpicky English lesson for the day.

     

    Life News literally says abuse after abortion is correlated with having an abortion, and it implies that having an abortion causes abuse. Abuse after abortion is correlated with abuse before the abortion, not the abortion itself.

     

    Now the above is a nonsensical argument, and I guarantee you there are women out there would tell you that their partners never abused them until after they had an abortion. Indeed, a few weeks ago in Florida there was a case where a guy shot his girlfriend after she told him she had an abortion? How does that work into your argument? The answer? It doesn’t.

     

    I asked this question earlier but was never given an answer, so lemme’ try this question again. Do you deny that some women may face post-abortion violence stemming from the fact that they obtained an abortion? I ask, because the only way to deem the LifeNews article as “intellectually dishonest” is to make one of two assertions:

     

    1.) That no women faces post-abortion violence when they experienced none before.

     

    2.) That no women faces increases in post-abortion violence.

     

    The study actually found (quoted from the first link):

     

    Errr, ummm… Women who’ve already had an abortion don’t seek an abortion, seeing as how they’ve already had one? To somehow try to use that quote to dispute what LifeNews says is nonsensical.

     

    Women who are already in abusive relationships tend to experience more abuse following the execution of any pregnancy decision (this is why I think all staff at all ob/gyn clinics should be trained in domestic violence assessment and response).

     

    And women in non-abusive relationships never experience abuse post-abortion. Never. Not ever.

     

    (I don’t need sarcasm tags for that one, do I?)

  • ahunt

    Grasp at straws much?

     

    Get over yourself. If you want to believe that non-abusive men suddenly become violent abusers post-abortion…feel free.

     

    Those of us who have actually done some reading on the dynamics of violent abuse cannot take you seriously.

  • mechashiva

    A new study shows the link between abortion and the physical and sexual abuse women may be subjected to in the relationship by their husband or boyfriend following the abortion.

    It doesn’t matter whether the women “may be” or “will be” abused. That prepositional phrase is irrelevant. What Life News claims is that partner abuse after abortion is correlated with having an abortion, which is simply a stupid thing to say (for several reasons).

     

    Life News says study claims A.

    Study actually claims B.

    I quoted B to point out that B is not A.

    I did not quote B with the intention of using B as an argument against A.

    Sensible enough to me.

     

    Now for the more important part:

     

    I’m going to let you in on something. Abuse is predictable. Abuse never comes out of the blue, and physical abuse is almost always preceded by emotional/mental abuse. You know, an abuser has “never hit his woman” until the first time he does it, but the fear the victim has of just the potential for violence will often keep her in line.

     

    Abusers generally prefer to be lazy… doing only what they must to keep the woman frightened enough to behave “properly,” but not so afraid that she attracts someone’s attention. This means that, if possible, abusers prefer not to make overt threats or resort to physical violence. In fact, it is best if their partner isn’t afraid at all, but rather willingly falls into line in response to subtle manipulation (this often goes undetected, though it is possible to spot it if you know what to look for).

     

    Pregnancy often serves as the trigger that escalates abuse from emotional to physical, regardless of whether the woman aborts or carries to term. This can happen when the abuser previously has not used physical violence or if the relationship is one that is episodically violent. This is because the abuser feels less in-control and sees a need to increase the intensity of abuse above the “normal” level they usually sustain in the relationship.

     

    Let me put it this way for you:

    Abortion does not make a non-abusive man into an abusive man. Childbirth does not make a non-abusive man into an abuser. Putting a child up for adoption does not make a non-abusive man into an abuser. Being heartbroken, angry, or whatever about such decisions does not turn non-abusive men into abusers. Abuse is not a crime of passion. Abuse is about control.

     

    You really need to read more about the dynamics of domestic violence and abusive relationships.

  • mechashiva

    Yeah, I actually got a little chuckle out of his sarcasm. He’s so sure that he knows what he’s talking about. It’s almost adorable, if it weren’t so sad.

     

    Seriously, it’s like he sarcastically asked me if the sky is blue. Perhaps I should have responded with, “Does a wild bear shit in the woods?”

  • bei1052

    Grasp at straws much?

     

    Get over yourself. If you want to believe that non-abusive men suddenly become violent abusers post-abortion…feel free.

     

    Those of us who have actually done some reading on the dynamics of violent abuse cannot take you seriously.

     

    It’s not “grasping at straws”. Your propensity to claim something doesn’t happen which has *been documented to happen* shows just how far you have to go to try to defend your position. 
    …Buuut, hey, choosing (Hah!) to believe it doesn’t happen doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I guess all those women who ended up abused after their partner found out they had an abortion *don’t exist*.
  • equalist

    It’s not? Can you tell me where you live, because I know a hell of a lot of men who would love to know and would pay me dearly for such information. If you don’t think that men are constantly and consistently told, “If you didn’t want a child you shouldn’t have spread your legs”, then you’re living in a fantasy world. And I say this with absolute certainty (Especially when you consider the fact that a woman, in some states, can sue a man for pregnancy related expenses if he’s proven to be the father).

    I’ve never heard that statement made in the direction of a man unless he was standing behind a woman. 

    No, they can just give birth to the child, leave it with the man and then sneak off into the night (as they do).

    Which still requires the woman to suffer through nine months of pregnancy to produce the child, whereas the man can leave at any time.

    \If this is going to be one of those issues where you try to divorce the child from pregnancy (which makes little sense seeing as how a pregnancy exists because the child exists), then don’t bother, because it’s a waste of time as you cannot, in all honesty, do so.

    Where was I trying to divorce the child from the pregnancy?  The point is that the man can leave at any point during the pregnancy, whereas the woman can not escape the pregnancy until it ends, either by birth, miscarriage, or abortion.

    Men don’t have “outs”. Unless, of course, you’re treating breaking the law as an out, in which case I’m questioning the honesty of your argument, as breaking the law isn’t an “out” in any way, shape or form.

    I’m a little confused as to what part of walking out on a pregnant woman is breaking the law.  It’s done all the time, and many men do it repeatedly to multiple women.  Men avoid pregnancy in all kinds of ways, and not many of them are illegal barring violence.

    That’s great and all, but what did that have to do with what I was responding to, that being whomever it was I quoted changing the argument from it being hard to get away from someone who abuses you because you’re connected to that person via a child, and it being hard to get away from someone because you’re pregnant?

    They’re the same thing as you earlier stated, you can’t divorce the child from the pregnancy.  If you’re carrying an abuser’s child, that link is still there, you still have his “property” and therefore, you are also his “property”.

    And just to clear something up: the question wasn’t whether or not you had previously been in an abusive relationship, but whether or not you had been abused in the prior 12 months, and whether or not that abuse was carried out by a former partner rather then your current partner.

    There’s much of a difference?  Not to mention, it takes nine months to carry a pregnancy to term.  Would it not be logical that a woman who is three months pregnant, and was last in a relationship with her abuser two months ago, is probably carrying the abuser’s child?  Seriously, use some logic here.  If a pregnant woman was abused during the time that she has been pregnant, the chances that it is not the abuser’s child are slim to none unless he was inviting his friends to join in the abuse.  Also, 25 percent of the women were single, meaning unless they got into and escaped an abusive relationship in a matter of months (not likely) their abuser was the previous relationship and thus the relationship in which the child was conceived.

    Which all goes back to the, “Kill-the-child-to-get-rid-of-the-abuser” mentality. Which, for the record, is prima facie ridiculous. And here’s a simple illustration showing as much. Let’s say a woman has a one-month old child with some guy. The guy starts abusing her so she leaves. Because that child exists, her abuser will forever (Well, for the next seventeen years and eleven months, anyway) have a link with her. Therefore, following your logic, in order to escape her abuser, she should be able to kill that child. Of course, to this you’d say no, throwing out numerous reasons why it’s not the same as killing an unborn child, yet fundamentally those two are no different, and the fact that it’s born vs. unborn has no bearing on your initial argument.

    Of course there’s a difference in that one is illegal and the other is a legal right given to the pregnant woman and protected in the constitution.  And yes, leaving an abusive relationship with an existing child is terrifying.  The difference is the choices involved with an existing child are give the child over to the abuser and relinquish all custody or live with the terror.  For the pregnant woman, particularly the recently pregnant woman it’s a matter of having a few cells removed from her body or living with the terror, or bonding with the child and then handing him or her over to her abuser.  The choices are far different in these instances when you accept the fact that abortions are not handed out willy nilly when there is a fetus which is viable outside of the womb involved.

    You cannot, on one hand, claim that a woman should be able to kill her unborn child in order to escape her abuser, but then say that she shouldn’t be able to do the same with her born child even though it would allow her to escape her abuser. The simple fact that you do so means that it’s not, as some of you like to go on, about the abuse. If it was, it wouldn’t matter the time period, you’d allow a woman to do everything in her power to “escape” her abuser. No, as I’ve said about four or so times now, the actual abuse portion of the argument is a red herring. The actual issue here is abortion.

    Again, a born child is not the same as the clump of cells you refer to as an unborn child.  An unborn child, at the stage when most abortions take place cannot survive when removed from the mother, vs a born child who would survive just as well with the mother as with any other adult to care for it.  This might not seem like much of a difference to you, but it is a massive one.  This all boils down to a woman’s right to control her own body.  An abuser removes that right from her by getting her pregnant against her will.  To force her to remain pregnant against her will is to continue the abuse for him.

    That’s why most pro-choicers focus on having an abortion to “escape” the abuser instead of making it harder for the abuser to be an abuser. The latter is fixing the problem; the first is just advocating some ideology. But I’ve said this many times now and it keeps getting ignored, so *meh*, whatever.

    Please explain how to make it harder for the abuser to be an abuser as this is something I haven’t seen you bring up before or explain.  Please, let us be privy to your wonderful idea and why exactly you haven’t started working towards making this enforcable to protect women and feti everywhere?

  • jcesatx

    yes, yes, I know they exist….Im making a point about the MAJORITY. To think…. there are feminist out there reading the same thing I do that have men that believe in equality??? Isnt that where we are going? Good job!! Thanks you for your disagreement but im trying to get everyone on board.

     

     Nice response oh wise one Bei!!

  • equalist

    I have no experience with this as I carried both of my pregnancies to term during my abusive relationship with my ex (I am pro choice, but have never had an abortion myself) although I would be interested in finding this out as well.  If this is the case, I would say it is a great injustice to the women who find themselves in these unfortunate circumstances.

  • squirrely-girl

    …because it was the last of several I just read in a row.

     

    I think you have a rather well developed ability to present yourself positively in written form… but I also think you have difficulty maintaining this presentation of self for very long. I’m curious, for so very many reasons, as to whether you recognize when your arguments and writing start to deteriorate and degrade in quality and cohesiveness. Does this cycle for you? Are there any particular situations that trigger this?

     

    I think so many people here, on both sides of the debate, maintain a good balance between the ‘facts and stats’, logic and philosophy, and real life examples. You seem to enjoy arguing the “logic”… although at times it feels clinical. But you often fail to address a very critical element of this issue… the human element. Most of the scenarios you describe that involve actual people are purely hypothetical… in which the human element consists merely of subjects and actors. It’s artificial. I’m curious as to whether it’s because you’ve seen so little of the “real world” to create a comprehensive life philosophy/theory of mind or because you honestly just see other people as interchangeable pieces… more conceptual than anything. I also wonder if this is just how you view women more so than all people. 

     

    Honestly, even most of the pro-life crowd (that hangs around at least) has some real life examples, situations, and can agree (to disagree?) on a handful of issues or topics. I think you would willingly drown for the straw man. Even those I generally disagree with here have some measure of “people skills” and can maintain polite discourse. But you’re just so purposefully callous and contrary on a rather regular basis that it’s difficult to even want to read your posts. 

     

    I want to see you as a real person Bei. I do. But you appear to lack any semblance of empathy and make minimal effort to engage in real conversation, connection, or discourse. You seem to have an almost pathological need to be “right” and refusal to be “wrong.” You come across as having serious issues with control… particularly over others. Just in case you grew up in the ‘artificially inflated self-esteem’ generation and nobody told you this, these ARE character and personality faults. I’m not sure if it’s the result of a crappy homelife, neurological deficits, culture, religion, a traumatic experience or what… and I can’t quite put my finger on it… but you are just… not right.

  • equalist

    There are men who believe in equality, there are men who don’t.  There are woman who insist on equality in their relationships, and then there are women who would prefer to be the 1950′s housewife figure with dinner on the table and the husband’s cigar, drink, and slippers waiting for him when he gets home from work.  The thing is you have to respect all the choices as long as they’re choices.  If a woman honestly wants to be a housewife, and take on all the cooking and cleaning and other household chores upon herself, then she should be respected for that decision, just as a man should if he choses to be in said position and his partner agrees.  In the case of myself and my boyfriend, the choice was simply the one that best suited our situation at the time.  Currently I am temporarily out of work, and should I find a job first, then I will be the breadwinner and he will either continue as things have been going if that is financially beneficial or find a job as well working around my schedule, or if he should find a job first, then the roles will reverse.  It’s called working together in a relationship for the best outcome for the relationship and the family involved.  The thing is, it’s actually a far more common occurrance than you seem to admit in your original statement, and your original statement is offensive to the men who do so much work in their homes while honestly receiving less respect than women in the same position because they are men and are seen as deadbeats and freeloaders

  • bei1052

    It doesn’t matter whether the women “may be” or “will be” abused. That prepositional phrase is irrelevant. What Life News claims is that partner abuse after abortion is correlated with having an abortion, which is simply a stupid thing to say (for several reasons).

     

    Well, for one, it’s not a prepositional phrase (will and may are auxiliary verbs). Secondly, may and will are two completely different words, and don’t even have the same connotation, let alone the same meaning. Take the two following sentences:

     

    1.) I may go to the store.

    2.) I will go to the store.

     

    No one would take those two sentences to mean the same thing. Anyone would take the second sentence to mean something that is going to occur; the first would be taken as something which has a possibility of occurring, though there’s no reassurance of it happening. So, please, for your sake, stop now.

     

    Life News says study claims A.

    Study actually claims B.

    I quoted B to point out that B is not A.

    I did not quote B with the intention of using B as an argument against A.

    Sensible enough to me.

     

    Except, and see, LifeNews didn’t claim A. See how that works? I know some people are tired of me saying it, but this is why straw men aren’t cool. Misconstruing something which says someone may be subjected to X to say that they will be subjected to X, and then claiming that that person is engaging in “intellectual dishonesty” is absolutely a textbook straw man. And it makes no effort not to be.

     

    Anyway, I’m in a lazy mood today, so I’m not going to quote all of the rest of what you wrote out. Indeed, I don’t need to because you make the argument for me.

     

    LifeNews said: “A new study shows the link between abortion and the physical and sexual abuse women may be subjected to in the relationship by their husband or boyfriend following the abortion”

     

    You said: “I’m going to let you in on something. Abuse is predictable. Abuse never comes out of the blue, and physical abuse is almost always preceded by emotional/mental abuse… Pregnancy often serves as the trigger that escalates abuse from emotional to physical, regardless of whether the woman aborts or carries to term. This can happen when the abuser previously has not used physical violence or if the relationship is one that is episodically violent”

     

    The corrolary to this? Abortion is a catalyst that escalates abuse from emotional to physical. After all, if abuse is about control, as you say it is, and a man wants a woman to have his child, then it would stand to reason that he would become physically or sexually abusive after she aborts his child that he wanted her to have (See: The Godfather reference, since it’s already been provided), just as he would become physically abusive if she were to become pregnant and decide to keep the child against his wishes.

     

    (Or are you going to say that the latter does happen but the former doesn’t. Please tell me that’s what you’re saying, so I can laugh at your extreme ignorance.)

     

    In other words? QED. You agree with the LifeNews article. Thanks for playing. Come back again real soon, you hear?

  • bei1052

    I write down to the level of people who respond to my posts. Ergo, you try to be sarcastic, I’ll be sarcastic. You try to be witty? I’ll use wit. You try to be condescending. I’ll be condescending. And so on and so forth and yada yada yada. I’ve said this before, I’m sure of it.

     

    Plus, I don’t really care about the “human element”, ‘cuz it’s kinda’ irrelevant to how we allow one individual to treat another. Emotions get in the way of logic.

     

    Also, I have an IQ of 169, so I doubt it’s anything neurological.

  • ahunt

    write down to the level of people who respond to my posts

     

    I just had to see this again.

  • ahunt

    Well, thanks for clueing us, Bei.

     

    Heads up, Ladies! Your gentle, loving, trusted and trusting man is capable of a psychotic break in the event you choose to terminate a pregnancy. Please keep this in mind and avoid involving your significant other iin YOUR reproductive decisions.

    • princess-rot

      Bei doesn’t think much of men, does he? He thinks they’re all fragile and ineffectual and prone to fits of irrational violence if they don’t get their own way, or if they don’t stop “their” woman aborting “their” child. All “real men” know that if you inseminate it you own it; women, and by extension, offspring are men’s property, amirite?

       

      Yuck.

       

  • princess-rot

    The study definitely did not draw a link between abortion and abuse after abortion. That is nonsensical. Life News literally says abuse after abortion is correlated with having an abortion, and it implies that having an abortion causes abuse.

     

    Which, of course, is a veiled way of saying: “It’s her fault for aborting his child. She deserves the violence.” To feminists, that rather begs the question of why the man feels such a sense of ownership, a sense that entitles him to enact violence, if he was not an paranoid abusive control freak in the first place. To forced birthers, it’s a cut-and-dried case: he feels passionately about losing ‘his child’, and this has no ulterior motive whatsoever, in fact, to them it’s good for a woman and a possible child to stay around this guy! Sweet Jesus, do forced-birthers piss me off. I’m looking at you, Bei and Simon: “hurr durr u wimmenz shud burth teh babbies cos if u don’t want teh babbies u shud hav shut ur legs an its relly ur fault if u an babby get batterd an if u dont liek my opinion omg ad hominem”

  • princess-rot

    Plus, I don’t really care about the “human element”, ‘cuz it’s kinda’ irrelevant to how we allow one individual to treat another. Emotions get in the way of logic.

     

    Yes, of course, “the human element” is irrelevant when we’re talking about reducing human females to breeding stock irrespective of their individual will, but as soon as any mention of men’s responsibilities in sex and reproduction is made, you start squealing how unfaaairrrr it all is. Things that affect half the human population and turn their bodies into battlegrounds for ownership need to be looked at with little more than the empathy managed by the average slug. Sorry if that gets in the way of your manly objectiveness, but I really do not have the patience to hand-hold yet another anti-feminist diva twit through the process of explaining why its sexist and immoral to insist women give up their human rights and become incubators for spawn. 

     

    This is turning into yet another space where a man dominates the conversation, claiming his patronising assholishness is the hallmark of logical objectivity.  You accuse women of being over-emotional with absolutely no sense of irony while you stomp around whining, nitpicking, attention-seeking, grousing, arguing in circles, arguing in bad  faith, trolling, making demands, and laughably comparing perceived thwarting of your overblown sense of entitlement with systematic attacks on female bodily autonomy.

  • crowepps

    You don’t have any control but can only respond in reflex?  The women here are the ones who set the tone of the conversation?  Wow, usually it’s hard to get a man to admit that he lets women lead him around but you’re just right out there with it.

     

    As for neurological problems, a high IQ isn’t at all inconsistent with Asperger’s:

    The person usually has a strong desire to seek knowledge, truth and perfection with a different set of priorities than would be expected with other people. There is also a different perception of situations and sensory experiences. The overriding priority may be to solve a problem rather than satisfy the social or emotional needs of others. The person values being creative rather than co-operative. The person with Asperger’s syndrome may perceive errors that are not apparent to others, giving considerable attention to detail, rather than noticing the ‘big picture’. The person is usually renowned for being direct, speaking their mind and being honest and determined and having a strong sense of social justice. The person may actively seek and enjoy solitude, be a loyal friend and have a distinct sense of humour. However, the person with Asperger’s Syndrome can have difficulty with the management and expression of emotions.

    http://www.aspergersyndrome.org/Articles/What-is-Asperger-Syndrome-.aspx

  • crowepps
  • nbynw

    I was about to post that same self-test up-thread. 

     

    It would seem that a (possibly) Aspie troll has derailed a conversation on the role of the anti-choice movement in excusing domestic abuse into an obsessive argument over the semantics of women are to blame for their victimization if they choose an abortion.

     

    If you’re right about the AS, this troll will keep on fighting over the semantics even as his arguments prove the point that anti-choicers excuse domestic abuse.

  • crowepps

    It has been my experience that self-appointed style critics don’t actually participate in the conversation, but believe passionately that every discussion board needs someone to point out endlessly, in loooooong posts full of nit-picky details, that the opinions of the posters can’t possibly have any validity if there are spelling or grammatical errors or their analogies are strained.

     

    They usually spend a lot of time referring to the Logical Fallacies poster that they’ve downloaded, printed out and had laminated to hang on the wall above their computer.

     

    They rarely have anything original or interesting to say about the SUBJECT of the board but rely on ad hominem to try to discredit the posters who actually ARE discussing the subject.

     

    I wish I had a dollar for every cases I have worked on where men get dumped because this is the only way they seem able to interact with their wives/girlfriends, and she gets sick and tired of having every conversation derailed off the actual subject to the repetitive discussion of how she isn’t communicating ‘correctly’ and fails to grasp ‘logic’. Then, of course, he just CAN’T UNDERSTAND why she left! It just wasn’t LOGICAL for her to do so.

     

    Spock lives — and usually alone.

  • mechashiva

    Actually, Bei, you are condescending no matter how people approach you.

  • bei1052

    Oh, look. Unsurprisingly, we have yet another case of someone (Princess Rot) trying to turn this into a men vs. women issue when this is not true. Normally, it’s right about now that I’d point out how, much to your consternation, a plurality of women in the U.S. not only don’t view abortion as an issue of men vs. women, how they don’t view it as an issue of women’s rights, and how they most certainly don’t agree with your characterization of people who disagree with it, but I’m not going to do that, because it’d just be ignored anyway and you’d (Not you specifically) go back to your anti-misogyny/”you-hate-the-wemonz!”/those women are anti-women rant, as is usually the case.

     

    tl;dr version:

     

    Women aren’t a homogenous breed of collectivist robots. You don’t speak for all women, nor do you even speak for most of them. So kindly stop trying to pretend you do. Granted, it’s humorous to see you somehow assert you do, but it’s still incorrect. To claim that someone who is pro-life/anti-abortion/anti-choice/forced-birth/whatever you want to call us hates women is nothing short of asinine– especially when you consider how that would mean there are a lot of self-hating women out there, which I don’t think is a true assumption.

  • jamie-smith

    I know that many (most?) of you will disagree with me, but oh well. 

    I’ve had several friends involved in abusive relationships, so I’m not here to discount anything anyone is saying about how horrible they can be and how difficult they can be to get out of….but I don’t see how you can say that killing your baby is a good solution in any event.

     

    Let me use a ‘not so close to home’ analogy.

     

    Stacy’s boyfriend hates cats. Her boyfriend moves in with her and everything is fine for a while, but then she notices he’s starts to get more and more violent with the cat – first pushing it out of the way, later smacking it on it’s butt to move, then she catches him kicking it one day. 

     

    Well, the cat gets out one night and doesn’t come back til the next day. Stacy notices the cat is acting weird a couple of weeks later, goes to the vet and finds out it’s pregnant.  

     

    Knowing her boyfriend’s disposition towards cats (and violence) she tells the doctor to abort the kittens. 

    Is that the right thing to do? Should she have given the cat away to a friend or family member, instead? Should she have kicked her boyfriend out and told him it’s over? Now that the kittens are dead, is everything going to be better?

     

    Certainly not an apples to apples comparison, but the rationale is the same. Aborting your baby won’t stop abuse if there is any, just like having a baby won’t cause a non-abuser to become violent.  

     

    You don’t end violence by killing innocents. 

     

  • beenthere72

    Ditto!  I honestly wiki’d it just after reading his ‘I haz high IQ’ post. 

  • mechashiva

    Alright, whatever you want to call the sentence fragment, the point is that it isn’t necessary to extract the meaning of the quote from the Life News article. I don’t know why you are spending so much time trying to convince me that it is saying something other than what it does.

     

    Abortion is a catalyst that escalates abuse from emotional to physical…just as he would become physically abusive if she were to become pregnant and decide to keep the child against his wishes.

    I know you read what I wrote, yet somehow you always come off as though you just ignored it all. First, it doesn’t matter if it was “against his wishes” or not. Abusers tend to increase violence following pregnancy decisions, even if it is the decision that they pushed for. Abuse is not about conflict.

     

    The abortion is irrelevant. No matter what the woman decides to do, she risks escalating the abuse in her relationship. It’s the end of the pregnancy, one way or another, that acts as a catalyst. Now, you might consider that semantics, but it’s actually important to address this from the perspective of an abuse counselor (not a “pro-choicer” or “pro-lifer”). Meaning, it is important to be accurate when describing the causes of violence, otherwise you risk misrepresenting the way domestic violence works.

     

    If you claim that abortion triggers violent episodes within abusive relationships without also explaining the way that any pregnancy decision can have the same effect, then you imply that abortion causes abuse. This is what the Life News article did.

     

    You agree with the LifeNews article.

    Actually, I don’t.

     

    Also, I’m no longer going to dignify you with responses if your replies are steeped in your ever-present air of superiority and condescention. Why bother talking to someone who treats you like dirt? I don’t do it in real life, and I won’t put up with it here. Stop being so rude. It’s unsightly.

  • crowepps

    Knowing her boyfriend’s disposition towards cats (and violence) she tells the doctor to abort the kittens. 

    Is that the right thing to do? Should she have given the cat away to a friend or family member, instead? Should she have kicked her boyfriend out and told him it’s over? Now that the kittens are dead, is everything going to be better?

    Wouldn’t the entire decision depend pretty much on whether Stacy wanted the kittens herself?

     

    Some women in abusive relationships do indeed kick the boyfriend out, tell him it’s over and go ahead and have the baby, because THEY want the baby.  Others, who do NOT want to be pregnant, have an abortion.

    Aborting your baby won’t stop abuse if there is any, just like having a baby won’t cause a non-abuser to become violent.

    The purpose of the abortion is not stopping the abuse – the purpose of the abortion is no longer being pregnant.  I believe the POINT of the article was not that abortion stops abuse, but rather than SOME ProLife commentators have stated that abuse is APPROPRIATE in response to abortion.  You also don’t end violence by saying it’s okay to beat the woman up if she’s ‘bad’.

  • bei1052

    Actually, Bei, you are condescending no matter how people approach you.

     

    Indeed, I am not.

  • bei1052

    You don’t have any control but can only respond in reflex?  The women here are the ones who set the tone of the conversation?  Wow, usually it’s hard to get a man to admit that he lets women lead him around but you’re just right out there with it.

     

    Yes, that’s precisely what I said.

     

    As for neurological problems, a high IQ isn’t at all inconsistent with Asperger’s:

     

    And I’m guessing you wouldn’t recognize facetiousness even if it were spelled out for you. I mean, the whole 169 IQ thing should have been a dead give away. Or, at least, one would have thought so. Ah well…

  • crowepps

    Well, no, because those with whom I spend a lot of time do have high IQ’s so I didn’t automatically foreclose the possibility.

     

    It’s my understanding that facetious comments are also humorous, and this one didn’t qualify. I certainly wouldn’t want to leap to the conclusion that you are one of the ‘I’m a jet pilot, Navy SEAL, neurosurgeon’ internet group who out and out LIES all the time to make themselves feel important.

  • mechashiva

    You may not think so, but something tells me your self-perception commonly doesn’t match up with others’ perception of you.

  • bei1052

    Ah, yes, because pointing out that a straw man is a straw man is being nitpicky. Who knew? Well, you did, but that’s not saying much, considering how you don’t know what an ad hominem is and support baby killing.

     

    …And if you had a dollar for every case that “yada yada yada”, you still wouldn’t be able to buy yourself a hamburger from McDonald’s on Wednesday ;)

     

    Also, I haz gf.

  • crowepps

    You don’t have any control but can only respond in reflex?  The women here are the ones who set the tone of the conversation?  Wow, usually it’s hard to get a man to admit that he lets women lead him around but you’re just right out there with it.

     

    Yes, that’s precisely what I said.

    That’s really sad.  You might want to consider how much better you would feel if instead of feeling jerked around by other people, you established control by taking the responsibility for your own behavior instead of attempting to project it on those who “make” you do and feel and say things.  Developing self-control and being proactive instead of reactive establishes personal integrity.

  • crowepps

    considering how you don’t know what an ad hominem is and support baby killing

    Two things which are equally ‘evil’, apparently.

  • bei1052

    Two things which are equally ‘evil’, apparently.

     

    You missed it. Don’t worry about it.

  • bei1052

    You may not think so, but something tells me your self-perception commonly doesn’t match up with others’ perception of you.

     

    Seeing as how the common wisdom around these parts are that everyone who is pro-life hates women and/or are brainwashed by a misogynistic culture, it’s not terribly surprising that other’s perception of me don’t match up with the perceptions of myself.

  • bei1052

    That’s really sad.  You might want to consider how much better you would feel if instead of feeling jerked around by other people, you established control by taking the responsibility for your own behavior instead of attempting to project it on those who “make” you do and feel and say things.  Developing self-control and being proactive instead of reactive establishes personal integrity.

     

    I’ll keep that in mind for future reference.

     

    …Oh, and who’s in control now?

  • bei1052

    I highly doubt the people you spend your time with have IQ’s in excess of 160. Approximately 97% of the population falls within 2 standard deviations of the mean (100). People having over 160 IQ would be in the top .0001% percentile, and I think that’s overstating it.

     

    Next time, I’ll just use the whole “DBZ-over-9,000″ meme to make it more obvious.

  • crowepps

    I am not trying to ‘control’ anybody here – I am trying to discuss an issue that is important to me.  Disagreeing with another person’s opinion isn’t trying to ‘control’ them.

    Shoot, even making personal suggestions isn’t trying to ‘control’ anyone since that person is entirely free to reject or ignore them.

    That’s what the concept of Choice is about, respecting the other person’s right to run their own life even if you would do something else personally in order to get the reciprocal tolerance of having the right to do the same thing.

  • bei1052

    Choice is a misnomer. If I wanted to choose to kill my next door neighbor (that’s a choice, right?), who just so happens to be a woman, I can guarantee you the whole “respecting my right to run my life the way I see fit even though you wouldn’t do the same thing” argument would go right out the window, with said people who love to use that argument arguing that “choice” does not come at the expense of someone else’s life or well-being. No. They only extend that line of logic to abortion. Nothing else, though, ‘cuz then it’d be wrong.

     

    (Spot the problem there.)

     

    Anyway, you totally missed the point. So never mind.

  • just1mom

    Bei – When your 6-year-old child comes home after a visit with her abusive father and says, “I wish I had never been born,” we’ll talk. Until you have been in such a heart-wrenching situation, I am not sure you can understand.

     

  • just1mom

    Equalist

    Be strong. I hope things improve for you!

  • crowepps

    I think you’ll also find that those ‘weird’ ones over 125 in the top 3% tend to gravitate towards each other because we’re the only ones who get each other’s jokes. It’s also been my experience that people in that range tend to be kind of obsessive and socially awkward, although that may just be true of myself and my children.

    “DBZ-over-9,000″ meme

    As a geezer, I freely admit I had to go look that up. Look, apparently you’re here for the entertainment value, but some of us are focused on this issue because of experiences which involved a great deal of personal pain. That means we aren’t alert to gags, and this isn’t really a good board for someone who finds it amusing to play games of gotcha and ‘I’m superior’.

     

    My particular interest is medically necessary abortions, and there isn’t anything amusing about women who want to have a child ending up in life and death situations as a result of complications, having to make hard choices, and having their situation made tougher by politicians and professional protestors who ignore their pain because they can make a profit out of stereotyping and demonizing them and their medical providers. That happened to me almost 30 years ago, and I found it so traumatic I don’t want it to happen to anybody else.

     

    Probably Too Much Information, but that may be one reason people here get so irritated by post critiques.  You’re talking philosophical theory while we’re talking real people.

  • rebellious-grrl

    First off, animal abuse is a huge red flag of abusers. If a man I was dating or married to hit my cat I would kick him out and keep the cat. Second, using an analogy of a pregnant cat doesn’t work at all. Third, abortion is not “killing an innocent baby.” Let’s get this clear – if I was in an abusive relationship with a man that had impregnated me I would have no hesitation on getting an abortion. NO HESITATION! If I was some guy’s punching bag and was pregnant by him you better believe I would get an abortion. There is no way you could make me stay connected to someone like that for life. NO WAY! I’m not saying abortion is right for everyone, but as women we have the choice over what to do with our bodies. It’s her choice. If I knew someone in this situation I would help her do whatever she decided. Domestic violence is a very serious situation and belittling it by saying “she should have the baby and domestic abuse doesn’t excuse abortion” is so flipping absurd and demeaning to women. OMG. 

  • bei1052

    I’ve never heard that statement made in the direction of a man unless he was standing behind a woman.

     

    Errr, then you really should pay more attention or something, because there are hundreds of guys paying child support for a child they didn’t want who’ve been told just that.

     

    Which still requires the woman to suffer through nine months of pregnancy to produce the child, whereas the man can leave at any time.

     

    Which, barring rape, only happens because she chose to have sex. See where I’m going with this?

     

    Where was I trying to divorce the child from the pregnancy?  The point is that the man can leave at any point during the pregnancy, whereas the woman can not escape the pregnancy until it ends, either by birth, miscarriage, or abortion.

     

    In your second sentence? If the child is his, the law will force him into providing for that child. Indeed, depending on where the woman lives, she can sue the man for costs she incurred due to pregnancy if she can prove paternity. To somehow say that “the man can walk away” is entirely untrue, and it’s nothing more then a myth perpetuated by some of the more left-wing feminists. He might walk away, but just because he does it doesn’t mean the law allows him to do it. Applied to the woman, just because she could have an abortion, doesn’t mean the law would allow her to do so. As I said before, a pregnancy exists because a child exists. It’s not about “escaping” the pregnancy; it’s about “escaping” the child. You cannot divorce the concept of pregnancy from child.

     

    I’m a little confused as to what part of walking out on a pregnant woman is breaking the law.  It’s done all the time, and many men do it repeatedly to multiple women.  Men avoid pregnancy in all kinds of ways, and not many of them are illegal barring violence.

     

    Because men do not have “outs” that do not include breaking the law. I would love– I mean love– for you to tell me what some of these non-illegal “outs” are that you think exist, because I would really like to hear them. And so too would hundreds of men, as you’ve obviously found some loophole in the system.

     

    They’re the same thing as you earlier stated, you can’t divorce the child from the pregnancy.  If you’re carrying an abuser’s child, that link is still there, you still have his “property” and therefore, you are also his “property”.

     

    Reread what the person I quoted wrote out. She wasn’t arguing any “link” to the abuser, which was the original point, but rather that the women being unable to get away because of the physical burdens associated with pregnancy. Which, ugh, wasn’t what was being talked about at all.

     

    There’s much of a difference?  Not to mention, it takes nine months to carry a pregnancy to term.  Would it not be logical that a woman who is three months pregnant, and was last in a relationship with her abuser two months ago, is probably carrying the abuser’s child?  Seriously, use some logic here.  If a pregnant woman was abused during the time that she has been pregnant, the chances that it is not the abuser’s child are slim to none unless he was inviting his friends to join in the abuse.  Also, 25 percent of the women were single, meaning unless they got into and escaped an abusive relationship in a matter of months (not likely) their abuser was the previous relationship and thus the relationship in which the child was conceived.

     

    Did you really not read what I wroute out?

     

    You asked: “The question here is what evidence do you have that the pregnancy is not related to the abuse?”

     

    I said: “Outside of the cursory information provided in the links, none really.”

     

    Not so sure what most of what you had to do with above was responding to.

     

    Of course there’s a difference in that one is illegal and the other is a legal right given to the pregnant woman and protected in the constitution.  And yes, leaving an abusive relationship with an existing child is terrifying.  The difference is the choices involved with an existing child are give the child over to the abuser and relinquish all custody or live with the terror.  For the pregnant woman, particularly the recently pregnant woman it’s a matter of having a few cells removed from her body or living with the terror, or bonding with the child and then handing him or her over to her abuser.  The choices are far different in these instances when you accept the fact that abortions are not handed out willy nilly when there is a fetus which is viable outside of the womb involved.

     

    So you argument boils down to legal status, in which case once we make abortion illegal, your argument will evaporate for it will be just as illegal as killing a born child to escape your abuser. And you’ll accept that, correct? No, of course you won’t. That was the point. You cannot use the law to justify your point, because it the law changes to reflect a position you disagree with, you’re not going to change your position to reflect the law. No, you’re going to argue some principle as to why the law is wrong, and that’s what you have to do here in regards to its correctness.

     

    As it is, you’re trying to change the argument now. First we start off saying that a woman should be able to kill her child to get away from her abuser, but then you turn around and say that a woman shouldn’t be able to kill her child to get away from her abuser. The difference between being able to kill that child and not being able to kill that child is its location, but location of the child is irrelevant when it comes to escaping her abuser. In fact, it holds no bearing. The exact same way an abuser can still “get to the woman” if she has a one-month old by him, he can still “get to the woman” if she’s pregnant with his child and gives birth to it. Fundamentally, there’s no difference. Therefore, it’s illogical to say that a woman should be able to kill an abuser’s child before it’s born to keep him away, but not after it’s born to keep him away.

     

    As I said, the whole abuse angle is nothing more then a cover for abortion, and it makes no efforts to appear any way else.

     

    Again, a born child is not the same as the clump of cells you refer to as an unborn child.  An unborn child, at the stage when most abortions take place cannot survive when removed from the mother, vs a born child who would survive just as well with the mother as with any other adult to care for it.  This might not seem like much of a difference to you, but it is a massive one.  This all boils down to a woman’s right to control her own body.  An abuser removes that right from her by getting her pregnant against her will.  To force her to remain pregnant against her will is to continue the abuse for him.

     

    1.) So now you’re saying that the woman was raped? How’d you come to that conclusion? Indeed, that just came out of left field.

     

    2.) So first you claim that the unborn are “massively different” from the born because the unborn are not viable until at least 24 weeks, without even attempting to explain why that’s important. Indeed, it’s not, and is about as important a distinction as born vs. not being born, knowing how to walk vs. not knowing how to walk, knowing how to speak vs. not knowing how to speak, having a fully developed brain (which doesn’t happen until the early-20′s) vs. not having a fully developed brain, etc. etc. etc. and so on and so forth. All of those distinctions are arbitrary, and totally irrelevant to how we treat another. I mean completely irrelevant.

     

    3.) And wtf is a “clump of cells”? Do you not realize that you are nothing more then a bigger clump of cells then that which you label as nothing more then a “clump of cells”?

     

    Please explain how to make it harder for the abuser to be an abuser as this is something I haven’t seen you bring up before or explain.  Please, let us be privy to your wonderful idea and why exactly you haven’t started working towards making this enforcable to protect women and feti everywhere?

     

    No idea, really. Except for treating reports of abuse with greater emphasis then is currently treated. That’d always be a nice start, wouldn’t you say?

  • crowepps

    Unless your abuse is documented by CLEAR police reports or medical records of damage, any attempt to get child support MAY trigger an attempt by him to get custody or visitation.  Applying for public assistance and naming him as the father would trigger the State to attempt establish paternity and get repayment through child support.

     

    Without documentation of abuse, the Court will has no choice but to ‘give both parents equal rights to the children’, may assume that you are just making it all up because you’re ‘bitter’, and that the children ‘need to know their father’, that his lack of contact with them is all your fault, and he would end up with the exact same ‘rights’ to your children that you have yourself.

     

    You might make contact with a local violence hot line or a nearby women’s shelter and ask them if there are any attorneys who do pro bono work in this area.

  • bei1052

    Bei – When your 6-year-old child comes home after a visit with her abusive father and says, “I wish I had never been born,” we’ll talk. Until you have been in such a heart-wrenching situation, I am not sure you can understand.

     

    When I was younger, I used to say I wish I’d never been born. The fact that you somehow think that the majority of children actually mean that when they say it strikes me as humorous.

     

    …Also, my ex’s sorta’-kinda’-fiancee-at-one-point was abusive so let’s not play this game, mmmkay? Actually, let’s. I really wish me and her were on good terms right now. I’d get her to post here so you can tell her how she should have aborted her kids (Indeed, he told her to abort her son) in order to escape his abuse. And once you’re done, you can then tell her kids how they shouldn’t exist as they only serve to strengthen the ties between her and her ex. Because that would be a sight to see. It really would.

  • rebellious-grrl

    MechaShiva, right on! 

  • ahunt

    I’d get her to post here so you can tell her how she should have aborted her kids

     

    Knock it off, Bei. You know damn good and well there is not a poster here who would advocate such course of action against any woman’s will.

  • crowepps

    When I was younger, I used to say I wish I’d never been born. The fact that you somehow think that the majority of children actually mean that when they say it strikes me as humorous.

    She didn’t say anything about “the majority of children”.  She was talking about one actual real child.  I don’t see anything particularly amusing about children being abused or wishing they were dead.  Some of those children make it so.

    The topic of suicide in children and adolescents is a difficult one since there is possibly no loss and grief greater than that of a child. It is therefore all the more alarming that along with individuals over the age of 65, children and adolescents have suffered increased suicide rates over recent years. With respect to the rate of suicides, adolescent suicide has increased 300-400% over the past ten years. Suicide accounts for 2% of all deaths in the U.S. but 15% of adolescent deaths. That means approximately 2000 adolescents commit suicide each year.

    History of family problems and family violence is often found in the histories of suicidal adolescents. Abused children have higher rates even when compared to neglected children.

    http://cpancf.com/articles_files/childadolescentsuicide.asp

  • goddessofcarbs

    Jamie, I feel that this doesn’t work as an analogy because Stacy (who I presume is not being abused?) could just take the cat and leave.  The cat and its kittens create no legal tie between Stacy and the abuser, as a child would.  I don’t want to be redundant, so please read some of the comments above yours which outline the many ways in which abusers have used a child to maintain ties with and continue the abuse of the child’s mother. 

     

    Thanks for weighing in with your opinion.

  • goddessofcarbs

    @jcesatx, while I think Bei is out of his mind and should have no place deciding what a woman does with her body, I do think it’s uncalled for to say something like, “Maybe when you’re jailed for murdering your wife…”  Let’s show the anti-choice contingent the courtesy that they frequently do not give us.  

     

    Additionally, while I believe your ire toward menfolk is deserved (historically speaking, the crimes committed against women by men are almost infinite), it saddens me that you have yet to encounter a man who wouldn’t THINK of treating a woman as anything but an equal, and has no problems cooking, cleaning, and providing child care.  They are out there, and they are working hard to shatter the stereotypes that people still hold about males.  I hope you are lucky enough to find one of these men someday.

  • jamie-smith

    Rebellious,

     

    There are a couple of things you said that confuse me. 

    abortion is not “killing an innocent baby

    it’s not? what is it then? cause last I checked, that baby isn’t getting up and walking out of the procedure.

     

    Let’s get this clear – if I was in an abusive relationship with a man that had impregnated me I would have no hesitation on getting an abortion. NO HESITATION! If I was some guy’s punching bag and was pregnant by him you better believe I would get an abortion. There is no way you could make me stay connected to someone like that for life. NO WAY! I’m not saying abortion is right for everyone, but as women we have the choice over what to do with our bodies. It’s her choice.

     

    Let’s get this clear- if I’m in an abusive relationship with a man – I don’t get pregnant. I get out of the relationship, because as a woman, I have a choice over who puts what in my body.

     

    If I knew someone in this situation I would help her do whatever she decided.

     

    Exactly. That’s why you get away from the guy, and go to your friends, family or church family to get help and protection. You can say it’s not that easy, and I agree – it’s not that easy – but you have to do it.

     

    I had a girlfriend stay with me at my home because she was scared, and been woken up in the middle of the night because the jerk came over kicking and pounding on the door, broke my car window and show up at the workplace to harass me, just to protect her. You CAN do it.

     

    But I guess no reasoning will matter to any of you – you’re all absolutely right. You want to kill your baby, that’s your choice. Live with it. 


  • crowepps

    Let’s get this clear- if I’m in an abusive relationship with a man – I don’t get pregnant. I get out of the relationship, because as a woman, I have a choice over who puts what in my body.

    Why on earth would you think a batterer that doesn’t mind hitting, punching and kicking a woman, throwing her across the room or strangling her until she passes out, breaking her bones or throwing her out of a moving car, is going to listen to her CHOICE concerning sex?

  • bei1052

    Knock it off, Bei. You know damn good and well there is not a poster here who would advocate such course of action against any woman’s will.

     

    Because that’s precisely what I said.

     

    …Yeah, no. What I believe I said I was that “she should of had an abortion to escape her abusive ex”.

  • bei1052

    She didn’t say anything about “the majority of children”.  She was talking about one actual real child.  I don’t see anything particularly amusing about children being abused or wishing they were dead.  Some of those children make it so.

     

    1.) She didn’t have to say “the majority of children” because she made a blanket statement.

     

    2.) Could you explain what what you posted had to do with what I typed out?

  • crowepps

    Her statement — about ONE child, which seemed to me to be a statement of personal experience with her OWN child

    Bei – When your 6-year-old child comes home after a visit with her abusive father and says, “I wish I had never been born,” we’ll talk. Until you have been in such a heart-wrenching situation, I am not sure you can understand.

     Your statement – about “the majority” of children

    When I was younger, I used to say I wish I’d never been born. The fact that you somehow think that the majority of children actually mean that when they say it strikes me as humorous.

     She did NOT say “the majority of children actually mean that”.

    Instead she referenced ONE CHILD who said that.

    My post tried to alert you that some children DO mean what they say, and attempt or commit suicide.

    In view of which, I think it is inappropriate to find it “humorous” that she or anyone else might take such a statement seriously.  Some subjects just don’t contain any chuckles.

    In the U.S., suicide ranked as the third leading cause of death for young people between the ages of 15 and 24 in 2003. Additionally, suicide is the sixth leading cause of death for children ages 5 to 14.

    http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/famsci/fs637w.htm

     

    Only 4 children out of 500,000 commit suicide annually under the age of 12. This information comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While this number seems very small and not of great concern, this number has doubled since 1979. It is unknown whether the numbers have actually doubled or if we are more aware of these deaths as being suicide and report them as such.

    Read more at Suite101: Suicide Among Young Children: Do 7 and 8-year-olds really commit suicide? http://student-health-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/suicide_among_young_children#ixzz0sUBbK9zu

  • bei1052

    Yeah. It still holds true. You might as well stop while you’re ahead. Anyway…

     

    My post tried to alert you that some children DO mean what they say, and attempt or commit suicide.

     

    I said, and I quote, “The fact that you somehow think that the majority of children actually mean that when they say it strikes me as humorous.” And here you are trying to tell me that some children do mean what they say and some commit suicide? Well, strike me down and call me Nancy. The fact that the majority of children don’t mean it when they say they wish they were never born would mean that some do mean it and do commit suicide. QED. You just slightly modified and restated what I typed out the first time while trying to “prove” me wrong. How’s that work? The answer? It really doesn’t.

  • crowepps

    Since the point of my post was NOT to try to prove you or anyone else wrong but rather to protest that there is NO HUMOR WHATSOEVER in kids wanting to be dead.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Ever hear of rape? Force sex? Forced intercourse, birth control tampering? Hmm. Guess not. Yes, your reasoning makes no sense to me. Women have been practicing birth control and abortion for thousands of years. The same argument has been going around for just as much time. Once again, you make no sense to me.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Jamie – Here is a Scenario for you.  Say you are a woman, who has moved to a new city, new state, whatever. She has been isolated from her family and friends by her abusive partner. She has a cat, and her partner starts physically abusing her and her cat. Both her and the cat are pregnant. She is economically dependent on him to share the costs of living. She is pregnant and getting the shit beat out of her. She is worried about her health and stressed about her cat’s health. Even if she had a support network to continue a pregnancy it would be difficult. She has to figure out how to get out. Get the cat out, without being beaten while having morning sickness and puking all of the time. And all of the other “lovely” changes that come with pregnancy. Many can be major health complications. Pregnancy can be difficult enough when in a loving relationship and a much planned pregnancy, much less being pregnant under duress. 

    And, the last time I checked embryos and fetuses can’t walk out of a womb.

  • bei1052

    And show me where I said there was humor in someone being dead? I said it’s humorous that someone would believe that children mean the majority of what they say. Just like they always mean it when they tell you that they hate you.

  • bei1052

    Alright, whatever you want to call the sentence fragment, the point is that it isn’t necessary to extract the meaning of the quote from the Life News article. I don’t know why you are spending so much time trying to convince me that it is saying something other than what it does.

     

    Ah, yes. It’s not important to discern the actual meaning; just the meaning you want it to have. Gotcha’. I really do.

     

    I know you read what I wrote, yet somehow you always come off as though you just ignored it all.

     

    I didn’t ignore anything. I’m 100% sure though that you don’t really understand what you’re typing out.

     

    First, it doesn’t matter if it was “against his wishes” or not.

     

    Yes, it does.

     

    Abusers tend to increase violence following pregnancy decisions, even if it is the decision that they pushed for. Abuse is not about conflict.

     

    Did you just not say that abuse is about control? Indeed, you did.

     

    The abortion is irrelevant. No matter what the woman decides to do, she risks escalating the abuse in her relationship. It’s the end of the pregnancy, one way or another, that acts as a catalyst. Now, you might consider that semantics, but it’s actually important to address this from the perspective of an abuse counselor (not a “pro-choicer” or “pro-lifer”). Meaning, it is important to be accurate when describing the causes of violence, otherwise you risk misrepresenting the way domestic violence works.

     

    The above is the most ridiculous thing I’ve read in a long time. A guy who gets mad and beats his girlfriend because she had an abortion doesn’t beat her because she was pregnant. A guy who gets mad and beats his girlfriend because had an abortion, beats her because she had an abortion. That’s a “Duh!” kind of thing if there ever was one. To claim that the abortion is irrelevant and the catalyst the pregnancy is intellectual dishonesty at its worst. It’s not “irrelevant” in any sense of the word.

     

    You might want it to be irrelevant because you’d never want to admit that having an abortion can lead to abuse in the future, but that’s precisely what can, and sometimes does, happen.

     

    If you claim that abortion triggers violent episodes within abusive relationships without also explaining the way that any pregnancy decision can have the same effect, then you imply that abortion causes abuse. This is what the Life News article did.

     

    Errr, ummm… Get this. I never claimed that a woman getting pregnant doesn’t lead to abuse nor am I the one stating that not have an abortion at her partner’s wishes doesn’t lead to abuse. And neither is LifeNews. On the other hand, while you agree (I think) that a woman deciding to not have an abortion leads to abuse, you deny that a woman deciding to have an abortion doesn’t lead to abuse. You’re the only one stating that only some “pregnancy decisions” lead to abuse. And as a result, you’re the one burdened with explaining why only some pregnancy decisions lead to abuse but not others.

     

    Of course, you can’t do it, because your contention (That having an abortion can’t and doesn’t lead to abuse) is not only patently absurd, but it’s contradicted by your very own words. Not to mention the fact that there are documented cases of women being abused or even killed by their partners after the partner found out they had an abortion. And what will you say to that? The same thing you have been. Nothing. You’ll ignore it, because it obviously doesn’t exist because it doesn’t fit into your little world. And that, as is commonly said around here, should be deemed as insulting to women who were abused only after they told their partners they had an abortion.

     

    …Also, just to point this out to you. Following your rationale, pregnancy leads to abuse. But, oh, if I would have said that, I’d be engaging in intellectual dishonesty, now wouldn’t I?

     

    Actually, I don’t.

     

    Actually, you do.

     

    Also, I’m no longer going to dignify you with responses if your replies are steeped in your ever-present air of superiority and condescention. Why bother talking to someone who treats you like dirt? I don’t do it in real life, and I won’t put up with it here. Stop being so rude. It’s unsightly.

     

    You get the type of responses your writings necessitate you get.

  • princess-rot

    The existence of differing opinions on a certain topic does not invalidate the fact it is immoral to make motherhood mandatory for the entire female population. If you truly believe – hah! – we are individuals with autonomy, why the insistence that every pregnancy must be brought to term, regardless of the highly diverse wills, capabilities, and situations of the autonomous, non-robotic ladies you and yours claim to respect so much?

  • goddessofcarbs

    Also, even if the woman can get out, she’s not going to be able to support herself because NO ONE will hire her if she is visibly pregnant.  Interviewers take one look at a pregnant woman and cross her off their list because they assume she’s just going to take her maternity leave (if offered), and then end up quitting.  Totally unfair and frequently untrue?  Yes, but that is still how hiring managers see it.  So if she’s financially dependent on her abuser, she’s stuck.

  • crowepps

    He has NO PROBLEM with women deciding to stay virgins all their lives.

     

    But if any woman, willing or unwilling, comes under the power of a Mighty Manly Man and his Amazing Sperm Power, THEN motherhood is mandatory.

     

    (Sarcasm on) After all, why would women be around at all if men weren’t supposed to use them?

  • princess-rot

    You’re talking philosophical theory while we’re talking real people.

    Dude marches into conversation about policies and actions that really affect real people for worse, regardless of where those people’s individual views fall on the reproductive rights continuum because it labels them all equally as Incubators of Spawn, and thinks this is a good place to exercise his Philosophy 101 chops.

     

    “X amount of Y don’t agree with you so your assertion that patriarchy screws all women over is invalid.”

     

    “I never said that, you are hysterically conflating the logical outcomes of my/movement’s/political beliefs/religion’s philosophical masturbating with the continuation of centuries of patriarchy!”

     

    “I think women should be legally and socially obliged to continue every pregnancy regardless of their circumstances but I think they are autonomous human beings with individual lives, wants and needs. That’s not a contradiction, how dare you point out that out!”

     

    “Hysteria! Ad hominem! Fallacy! Talking points! Misandry! Feminist indoctrination! Groupthink! Propaganda!”

     

    “Nitpicknitpickblahblahblah”

     

    “Your abuse is not as important as my feelings on your abuse.”

     

    “I will not examine why a man would hit a woman if she had an abortion, or why she felt bringing a child into the world with this man was a bad idea. She had an abortion, he makes a sadface. There is nothing more to it, damnit!”

     

    “Imma disingenously flip this around and accuse you of <insert ism> to attempt to draw attention away from the fact it actually me who is full of isms.”

     

    “I have [insert qualification, test result, resume] so that qualifies me to unilaterally dismiss everything you say.”

     

    “Justify to my privileged ass why you and you alone should control your reproduction!”

     

    So. Irritating.

  • mechashiva

    You don’t have a leg to stand on, Bei, and everyone here knows it. There’s no more point in talking to you.

  • bei1052

    The existence of differing opinions on a certain topic does not invalidate the fact it is immoral to make motherhood mandatory for the entire female population.

     

    You don’t get to pass off an opinion concerning a section of the population as fact when that segment of the population you’re unilaterally trying to speak for would reject such an assumption.

     

    If you truly believe – hah! – we are individuals with autonomy, why the insistence that every pregnancy must be brought to term, regardless of the highly diverse wills, capabilities, and situations of the autonomous, non-robotic ladies you and yours claim to respect so much?

     

    There’s no “right to bodily autonomy” that involves killing another solely at your discretion. You wouldn’t argue the above in cases not abortion, so why try to argue it in abortion? Who knows? But it’s humorous.

     

    …Plus, I’m not the one asserting that everyone believes X, and that people who don’t believe X are Y. You, and likeminded individuals, are.

  • bei1052

    He has NO PROBLEM with women deciding to stay virgins all their lives.

     

    Indeed, I don’t.

     

    But if any woman, willing or unwilling, comes under the power of a Mighty Manly Man and his Amazing Sperm Power, THEN motherhood is mandatory.

     

    Well, at least you tried.

     

    (Sarcasm on) After all, why would women be around at all if men weren’t supposed to use them?

     

    And here you could of at least tried. Oh well…

  • bei1052

    Dude marches into conversation about policies and actions that really affect real people for worse, regardless of where those people’s individual views fall on the reproductive rights continuum because it labels them all equally as Incubators of Spawn, and thinks this is a good place to exercise his Philosophy 101 chops.

     

    *pats on head*

     

    You’re so cute when you try. But try harder, okay?

  • bei1052

    I think you’ll also find that those ‘weird’ ones over 125 in the top 3% tend to gravitate towards each other because we’re the only ones who get each other’s jokes. It’s also been my experience that people in that range tend to be kind of obsessive and socially awkward, although that may just be true of myself and my children.

     

    That’s… Great?

     

    As a geezer, I freely admit I had to go look that up. Look, apparently you’re here for the entertainment value, but some of us are focused on this issue because of experiences which involved a great deal of personal pain. That means we aren’t alert to gags, and this isn’t really a good board for someone who finds it amusing to play games of gotcha and ‘I’m superior’.

     

    No, it means that since you apparently can’t catch subtle humor in response to a poor attempt at wit, I’ll have to make it more obvious in the future.

     

    My particular interest is medically necessary abortions, and there isn’t anything amusing about women who want to have a child ending up in life and death situations as a result of complications, having to make hard choices, and having their situation made tougher by politicians and professional protestors who ignore their pain because they can make a profit out of stereotyping and demonizing them and their medical providers. That happened to me almost 30 years ago, and I found it so traumatic I don’t want it to happen to anybody else.

     

    I’ve asked this before, but who are you kidding? No one, aside from yourself. You know as well as I do that the majority of abortions aren’t medically necessary. You know as well as I do that the majority of pro-lifers would gladly accept limiting abortions to those deemed medically necessary and banning all the rest. And you also know as well as I do that pro-choicers would completely reject limiting abortions to only those medically necessary, instead arguing that a woman should be able to have an abortion for (Just about) any reason she wants, as they already do. So I don’t even know why you’re bringing this up. It’s a non-issue. I mean, a complete non-issue.

     

    I know this. You know this. And everyone familiar with the abortion debate knows this.

     

    Probably Too Much Information, but that may be one reason people here get so irritated by post critiques.  You’re talking philosophical theory while we’re talking real people.

     

    No, you’re really not talking “real people”. You’re talking ideology. It’s hard to go on about how you’re talking “real people”, when you totally ignore those who are killed by abortion who are, as you would state, “real people”.

     

    And then you turn around and wonder why fewer and fewer people label themselves as pro-choice as the years go by.

  • crowepps

    When the response to a statement of personal motivations in a post is

    I’ve asked this before, but who are you kidding? No one, aside from yourself.

    there’s no more point in wasting my time.

  • squirrely-girl

    While I’ve made the personal decision to stop responding to Bei, I’m curious as to what it takes for RH to ban a poster. I’m just curious if only because, when taken as a whole, Bei’s posts are just plain abusive. And I for one, am tired of it. Seriously. I’ve never been in an abusive relationship, but we all know there are people who post here that have… and I can’t imagine how posts like the following aren’t somewhat triggering.

    I’m going to give you a chance to rescind your statement.

     

    I didn’t ignore anything. I’m 100% sure though that you don’t really understand what you’re typing out.

     

    A guy who gets mad and beats his girlfriend because had an abortion, beats her because she had an abortion.

     

    You get the type of responses your writings necessitate you get.

     

    *pats on head*

     

    You’re so cute when you try. But try harder, okay?

     

    Seriously. That’s not even “abuser apology” but outright verbal tendencies of an abusive individual. I know y’all allow a considerable latitude in postings to encourage communication… but what he’s posting here no longer constitutes “communication” but rather an unfettered opportunity to verbally abuse random women on the Internet. 

    • princess-rot

      SG, you’re probably right. That Bei has an abuser’s mentality is the most likely explanation for his complete inability to explore the background reasons for anything. I find it rather interesting (interesting as in, “Wow, you are really good at pretending you don’t understand nuance, aren’t you?”) It’s just input = action = output with nothing in between, or at least he’d like us to see it that way.

      A guy who gets mad and beats his girlfriend because had an abortion, beats her because she had an abortion.

       

      Nope, nothing at all to do previous desires to exert control over another person, absolutely no sense that the woman is misusing the man’s “property”, as it were, no inkling that abortion is merely an excuse to exert violence and that excuse catalyst could crop up in any form at all.

       

      “She spends too much time with the baby.”

      “She wouldn’t shut the baby up.”

      “She’s pregnant with my child, how dare she [insert topic here]?”

      “She’s not parenting how I want her to.”

      “She wouldn’t do what I wanted first.”

      “She looked at me wrong.”

      “She looked at another man.”

       

      Basically, all those reasons, including the abortion one, are all a variation on “She made me do it.” It’s a way of removing or excusing the intent on the man’s part to exercise control or violence.

  • crowepps

    but what he’s posting here no longer constitutes “communication” but rather an unfettered opportunity to verbally abuse random women on the Internet.

    Maybe the appropriate thing to do would be to leave it up to individual posters if they’re willing to take the time to respond? Personally, I have better things to do. Certainly the ‘public face’, so to speak, of these guys gives me no sympathy whatsoever for their stated goals.

     

    Someone who interacts this way on the net, who believes mockery and sarcasm and nastiness are ‘communication’ and excuses it because “they make me do it”, is going to make an abusive, piss-poor father, in my opinion, and if I were making a custody determination, minimal supervised visitation would be the way to go so the kid could have some protection.

     

    It never seem to occur to anyone that ‘father throws child off bridge when denied visitation’ isn’t about how unfair it was that daddy was ‘denied visitation’ but instead that fathers who ARE CAPABLE OF throwing their own child off a bridge have a major screw loose and are denied the visitation for the child’s safety.  Isn’t their excuse also usually “she made me do it”?

  • princess-rot

    You don’t get to pass off an opinion concerning a section of the population as fact when that segment of the population you’re unilaterally trying to speak for would reject such an assumption.

    This is too fucking funny. You accuse me of speaking for every woman,  then do exactly the thing you’re accusing me of in the same damn sentence. Let’s use your little bait and switch back on you. How do you know so certainly how pro-life women would react in any given context?

     

    Ruling that all women are obliged to remain pregnant regardless of their individual situation, and defining women by the present state of their uterus is, oh I dunno, really fucking sexist and screws over all women regardless of their personal views on anything. Which, and I cannot believe you don’t already know and you’re just hair-splitting to be obnoxious, isn’t much good for women. You say with one side of your mouth that women are individuals then say with the other that we have no right to decide what’s best for us as individuals. It’s like you don’t give a toss as long as you feel secure in the knowledge that an option you don’t personally approve of is unavailable, damn the consequences. It’s really like you don’t actually believe what you say.

    There’s no “right to bodily autonomy” that involves killing another solely at your discretion.

     

    There is, actually. It’s called “pregnancy happens to women only”. It means I, like all other women, can decide with my icky female discretion whether I want to loan my body to a fetus for nine months or not, a process that is a gift that makes your “another” actually into an individual person, at the expense of me and mine. This is a sacrafice that you, by sheer accident of biology, will never be in the position to make. Your body will not be considered property, and it will never be assumed that contents of your body supercedes your will. Lucky you. You’re the default human being. Rejoice.

    You wouldn’t argue the above in cases not abortion, so why try to argue it in abortion? Who knows? But it’s humorous. …Plus, I’m not the one asserting that everyone believes X, and that people who don’t believe X are Y. You, and likeminded individuals, are.

    Who knows? You do, it seems, because you just said I wouldn’t argue it for anything else other than abortion with no actual knowlege of what I would say in any debate except that, miraculously, you know you are right. Kind of like how you feel qualified to expound on the reproductive rights and the morality of others’ reproductive decisions despite prior admission that you know and care very little about both, and couldn’t understand them even if you could be bothered to try. One could be forgiven for thinking that you are really privileged and more than accustomed to having your perspective taken very seriously indeed.

  • princess-rot

    Oh, I forgot one: Dude thinks sexist patronization has real weight as an argument, and excuses his asshattery.

  • bei1052

    Oh, I forgot one: Dude thinks sexist patronization has real weight as an argument, and excuses his asshattery.

     

    *pats on head*

     

    Keep trying ;)

  • ahunt

    A guy who gets mad and beats his girlfriend because had an abortion, beats her because she had an abortion.

     

    OMT, are you insisting that well adjusted men in healthy relationships suddenly snap and beat up their girlfriends when abortion is chosen? Please provide one shred of evidence.

     

     

    Context is your friend, Snookums.

  • mechashiva

    Honestly, when he first showed up on this site I thought Bei actually was my abusive ex. The way he talks is almost exactly the same, and he showed up a short time after I moved out (via a domestic violence shelter taking me in). I actually do find his posts triggering at times.

     

    I also am curious as to how RHReality check intends to handle abusive comments. There is no code of conduct for the site, as far as I know, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen them ban someone.

  • crowepps

    You don’t have any control but can only respond in reflex?  The women here are the ones who set the tone of the conversation? …

     

    Yes, that’s precisely what I said.

    Apparently he sees men as puppet-people, whose Pavlovian behavior is not self-directed or volitional but instead controlled by the women around them who “make them” do stuff. 

     

    I certainly fail to see the logic in beating a woman up because she’s ALREADY had an abortion.  That won’t cause the embryo to reappear in her uterus.  It would certainly be more sensible from a ‘criminal records make it hard to get jobs’ point of view to just break up with her or get a divorce.

     

    And it can’t be so “she won’t do that to his kid again” since once she gets access to a phone and the local feminist network helps her sneak away, he’s probably never going to set eyes on her again.

    • princess-rot

      It would certainly be more sensible from a ‘criminal records make it hard to get jobs’ point of view to just break up with her or get a divorce.

      And it can’t be so “she won’t do that to his kid again” since once she gets access to a phone and the local feminist network helps her sneak away, he’s probably never going to set eyes on her again.

      Even so, that’s not necessarily true. We’re assuming an element of privilege here, even luck: that the woman has access to a shelter and law enforcement and that law enforcement will take her claim seriously. Even in so-called first world nations like America, the shortfall in funding for violence shelters and abortion funds is catastrophic, and that’s only one layer of the whole rotten onion before you start adding other societal barriers in such as wealth, classism, and racism.

      I certainly fail to see the logic in beating a woman up because she’s ALREADY had an abortion.  That won’t cause the embryo to reappear in her uterus.

      No, it won’t. Not by itself, anyway. But… there are other women on another board I frequent (I won’t name them because it’s deeply personal and not my place), who were able to get abortions to escape abusive relationships, or relationships they feared would turn violent, only to have the man they were trying to get away from find out. One was thrown through a wall. Another was beaten and the bastard raped her to, in his words, “Start another one [pregnancy] so you’ll be mine forever.” This is the sort of shit that Bei, like so many other pro-lifers, thinks is just an exercise for his philosophical chops and a handy polish for his “family values” morals. That violent rapist wanted another baby so he could have a family, aww… isn’t that just peachy?

       

      Fuck real people, ‘ain’t my pro-life warrior armor shiny? Save teh babies!

       whose Pavlovian behavior is not self-directed or volitional but instead controlled by the women around them who “make them” do stuff.

      It’s the same thing Jill Stanek did, when she applauded the Godfather for slapping his wife when she told him she’d had an abortion because she didn’t want another child in the mafia. Even though Corleone is a fictional character, his actions are merely a mirror of society. It wasn’t made up in a vacuum by some screen writer, and that’s what gets me. Using a fictional character/hypothetical as a figleaf to applaud real violence. Its a cowardly dog-whistle that assholes use because they won’t come straight out and admit that violence of this type validates their beliefs in the patriarchy. It’s the same thing with Operation Rescue using weasel words to applaud the death of Dr Tiller “Well, we don’t approve of violence but he had it coming anyway.”

  • crowepps

    I think a few people have been banned for repeatedly posting spam — remember the guy who was putting in all posts about soccer?

     

    I do agree his posts are a huge waste of both time and space and that his conversational style is abusive, but maybe this is a safe place to let him and his ‘homosocial network’ demonstrate their ‘style’ so that girls who come here to get reproductive information can see the ‘rattle’ and know who to avoid?

    “Don’t cut off the snake’s rattle unless first you remove his fangs.” Unknown

  • ahunt

    Uh Bei…the topic of discussion is male on female violence….which certainly would fall under the heading of men v. women.

  • crowepps

    Having seen the arrest records, however, I think it would be more accurate to say “violent men v. the world”. Men who believe other people “make them do things” also attack male rivals, male coworkers and male bosses as well as the women they ‘love’. The more traditionally ‘masculine’ someone is, the more likely it is that he knows all about prison.

  • wendy-banks

    Yeah, I’ve reported the creep more than once, along with all the abusive shorks that come here to harrass us. And as a former victim of DV I REALLY resent that I should have to put up with them here.

     

  • julie-watkins

    I’d love a “hide” button. Wouldn’t it be nice if, in my preferences, I could specify which posters I never wanted to display on my screen?

    It would be double-plus good if there was a reciprocal block … I could block Asshat from replying to me (and I would be blocked from replying to Asshat).

  • crowepps

    I remember the ‘hide this user’ they used to have on Yahoo and how much it helped my blood pressure — you didn’t have to be assaulted by ‘loony right winger wall of text’ or ‘bigot who sneaks in his offensiveness by misspelling the N and F words’.  Hey, I’d vote for that!

     

    And if the majority hide a particular poster (or group of posters) then they’ll be limited to trying to impress each other instead of being able to annoy everyone.

  • lbsimon

    … do not now, nor have they ever, supported domestic violence. That’s like saying Amanda Marcotte is a communist agitator.

     

  • ahunt

    Take for instance the documentary “12th and Delaware,” which is to be released on HBO in August.  The filmmakers recorded a crisis pregnancy center “counselor” trying to talk a woman out of an abortion, even though that woman made it clear that she was in an abusive relationship and felt the abortion was an important step in getting out.  The “counselor” suggested that having the baby would mean an end to the abuse.  

  • bei1052

    Uh Bei…the topic of discussion is male on female violence….which certainly would fall under the heading of men v. women.

     

    Okay, and…? I believe what I said was that abortion is not a men vs. women issue. Keep up.

  • wendy-banks

    No, no! Don’t use the name of Spock in vain! He’s a good, decent person– Bei, not so much…

  • wendy-banks

    Ditto!  I honestly wiki’d it just after reading his ‘I haz high IQ’ post. 

    “I haz high IQ’ XD *giggle*

  • bei1052

    This is too fucking funny. You accuse me of speaking for every woman,  then do exactly the thing you’re accusing me of in the same damn sentence. Let’s use your little bait and switch back on you. How do you know so certainly how pro-life women would react in any given context?

     

    Oh, I did, did I? I said “all women believe <X>”? Really…? I would like for you to show me where I said that. Exact quotations, please, because I’d love to see where I said that. I really would. Seriously and for truly.

     

    …But, what’s this? You can’t find it? Well, that should be surprising to no one. Why not? Because not once have I ever claimed to speak for all women, who unlike you continue to make blanket statements about how women believe <X> or whatnot. Anyway, I’ll humor the accusation of bait-and-switch straw man. How do I know how they’d act? Dunno’. I never claimed to know, nor did I ever address that, as I believe my post was concerning beliefs.

     

    Bait-and-switch tactic indeed.

     

    Ruling that all women are obliged to remain pregnant regardless of their individual situation, and defining women by the present state of their uterus is, oh I dunno, really fucking sexist and screws over all women regardless of their personal views on anything. Which, and I cannot believe you don’t already know and you’re just hair-splitting to be obnoxious, isn’t much good for women.

     

    Oh? Could you show me where I said that all women are obliged to remain pregnant regardless of their individual situation, ‘cuz I missed it. While you’re looking for that, I’d like to point out that we define women by the present state of their uterus all the time, which is why someone who’s pregnant is referred to as a “pregnant woman” and not just a “woman”. Plus, if defining a woman by the contents of her uterus is so bad, then why does it happen all the time on this site in order to argue that pregnant women should get greater protections and rights then both men and non-pregnant women? You can’t have it both ways, you know.

     

    You say with one side of your mouth that women are individuals then say with the other that we have no right to decide what’s best for us as individuals. It’s like you don’t give a toss as long as you feel secure in the knowledge that an option you don’t personally approve of is unavailable, damn the consequences. It’s really like you don’t actually believe what you say.

     

    I’m calling your logic into question, as it’s deeply flawed. I mean, if you want to play, then let’s play. Take the following:

     

    ~~~

     

    I’m an individual. I want to steal a hundred dollars from my neighbor because I need to pay my rent. Even though stealing from my neighbor to pay my rent would be in my best interest, y ou’d argue that I shouldn’t be allowed to do so. Therefore following your logic I’m not an individual.

     

    ~~~

     

    Say what…? That makes, oh, about zero sense. I don’t know what world you live in, but people cannot do as they please just because they’re individuals. The simple fact that people cannot do as they please doesn’t mean they’re individuals; it means they’re held to a certain set of uniform standards, otherwise known as the law.

     

    There is, actually. It’s called “pregnancy happens to women only”. It means I, like all other women, can decide with my icky female discretion whether I want to loan my body to a fetus for nine months or not, a process that is a gift that makes your “another” actually into an individual person, at the expense of me and mine. This is a sacrafice that you, by sheer accident of biology, will never be in the position to make. Your body will not be considered property, and it will never be assumed that contents of your body supercedes your will. Lucky you. You’re the default human being. Rejoice.

     

    And, thus, you fall back on the “You’re a man” card, which somehow assumes that, one, my argument would be any different if I were a female and, two, that no female would ever, or even makes, the same argument as I’m making now. It was funny the first, oh, few hundred times or so, but now it’s just sad. And very much so.

     

    Just to point this out to you again, the fact that I’m a man has no bearing on the argument, especially when you consider the fact that, one, men and women are not drastically different in their views on abortions; the fact that, two, women are more apt to label themselves as pro-life then pro-choice; and the fact that, three, women are more apt to take the extreme pro-life position (Abortion never legal) then men are.

     

    The simple fact that is even if we somehow discredited every man’s opinion on abortion by virtue of them being male, your argument would still be the minority position because, as I stated above and as much as you want to believe otherwise, women take the pro-life position moreso then they take the pro-choice position. If we truly left it up to women to decide whether or not abortion should be legal or illegal, you’d find that abortion would end up restricted, and quite possibly even restricted moreso then what it would be if men had a say in the matter. And, if that happened, what would you do then? You’d either claim that those women who would restrict abortion either don’t care about women, that they’re self-hating or that they’ve been brainwashed by a patriarchal society.

     

    In short, it’s a game that you’d always win, as you’d either discredit the opposition on the fact that they’re male, or the fact that they don’t agree with you.

     

    Who knows? You do, it seems, because you just said I wouldn’t argue it for anything else other than abortion with no actual knowlege of what I would say in any debate except that, miraculously, you know you are right.

     

    Let’s just call it a hunch and say that if I were to say something, like, “rape should be legal because, while I wouldn’t engage in it personally, I wouldn’t want to stop others from exercising their moral autonomy” (or some argument like it), that you would instantly cry foul and scream about how wrong that is ;)

     

    Kind of like how you feel qualified to expound on the reproductive rights and the morality of others’ reproductive decisions despite prior admission that you know and care very little about both, and couldn’t understand them even if you could be bothered to try.

     

    Oh, look. Something I didn’t say. Surprising? Not really.

     

    One could be forgiven for thinking that you are really privileged and more than accustomed to having your perspective taken very seriously indeed.

     

    You’re forgiven then :)

     

    …Though my opinion does get taken very seriously indeed.

     

    …And lol @ thinking that not killing someone is a gift. I can only shake my head at that one.

  • ahunt

    Sigh…logic is not truth. Lather, rinse, repeat.

  • colleen

    I remember the ‘hide this user’ they used to have on Yahoo

    In the old days before there was a WWW or, for that matter, blogs, we had usenet and usenet had an appropriately named ‘killfile’ option. I agree, this would be a fine feature on this blog.
    Also, we need a ‘Godwins law’ for morons who announce their IQ, invent imaginary PhD’s or pretend that God wants them to evangelize. All are bizarre and desperate attempts to claim a authority the claimants are clearly not entitled to by virtue of their publicly stated pretensions.

  • equalist

    I had a girlfriend stay with me at my home because she was scared, and been woken up in the middle of the night because the jerk came over kicking and pounding on the door, broke my car window and show up at the workplace to harass me, just to protect her. You CAN do it.

    There is a massive difference between being the outside protector and being the actual victim.  Think about it this way.  These are the things he does to you to get to what he deems to be his property.  Now just imagine the kind of things he does to the one he decides belongs to him?

  • princess-rot

    I am not looking for a reaction from you, I couldn’t care less what you want. My posts are there to point out to other users the how the silencing tactics you use are no different from every other concern troll.

     

    In language you may understand: I am not talking to you, I’m talking about you.

  • princess-rot

    I’m an individual. I want to steal a hundred dollars from my neighbor because I need to pay my rent. Even though stealing from my neighbor to pay my rent would be in my best interest, y ou’d argue that I shouldn’t be allowed to do so. Therefore following your logic I’m not an individual.

     

    Right. Because pregnancy is like needing money. That’s as bad as the analogy that likens women who wear short skirts are “asking” for rape like someone who walks through a bad neighbourhood with cash hanging out of his pockets is “asking” for a mugging. It’s not about objects and property, it’s about consent and autonomy.

    Plus, if defining a woman by the contents of her uterus is so bad, then why does it happen all the time on this site in order to argue that pregnant women should get greater protections and rights then both men and non-pregnant women?

    Control over personal reproduction is “greater” protection, something which you take for granted? Did you skip biology in school? Which sex can get pregnant and which sex does getting and/or being pregnant affect the most? You just don’t get it, do you? You can’t understand that if women can be deemed unfit to make decisons about childbearing, it doesn’t stop there. You don’t understand that defining an entire class of people by a bodily function equals across-the-board oppression. I’m wasting my time, you’re just another insufferable internet concern troll who wants to yak endlessly about semantics and score cheap points by being a pedant.

  • bei1052

    Right. Because pregnancy is like needing money. That’s as bad as the analogy that likens women who wear short skirts are “asking” for rape like someone who walks through a bad neighbourhood with cash hanging out of his pockets is “asking” for a mugging. It’s not about objects and property, it’s about consent and autonomy.

     

    Analogies, by virtue of being analogies, are not exactly the same thing, and there was nothing wrong with my analogy. Of course, there was plenty wrong with you likening my analogy to claiming that someone who walks through a bad neighborhood is asking to be mugged. But I won’t point that out.

     

    Control over personal reproduction is “greater” protection, something which you take for granted?

     

    By the time fertilization concludes, you’ve already reproduced.

     

    Did you skip biology in school?

     

    Indeed I didn’t. Did you?

     

    Which sex can get pregnant and which sex does getting and/or being pregnant affect the most?

     

    Females. Of course, that really has no bearing on whether or not abortion should be legal.

     

    You just don’t get it, do you?

     

    The problem here is that you don’t get it.

     

    You can’t understand that if women can be deemed unfit to make decisons about childbearing, it doesn’t stop there.

     

    You have some seriously screwed up logic. The law saying you can’t do X doesn’t mean that you’re unfit to be a parent. I say this a lot, but you’re missing a few steps in between point A and point D.

     

    You don’t understand that defining an entire class of people by a bodily function equals across-the-board oppression.

     

    Except no one is defining them by their bodily functions, otherwise we’d be treating women differently on the basis that they’re women. Instead, we treat them differently on the basis that they’re pregnant which would mean, as you so kindly pointed out just a few hours ago, we’re defining women by the content’s of her uterus (which isn’t all that bad of a thing, since this site frequently does it in order to argue that pregnant women should be given greater rights then someone who isn’t pregnant nor a woman has).

     

    I’m wasting my time, you’re just another insufferable internet concern troll who wants to yak endlessly about semantics and score cheap points by being a pedant.

     

    If you’re wasting your time, it’s because you’re content to repeat the same things over and over again, even if they’re vastly untrue nor do they make sense.

     

    …Also, you didn’t respond to my whole point about women being more pro-life then pro-choice and taking the extreme pro-life position more often then their male counterparts. Why not? Quite possibly because it blows a huge whole in your “discrediting my views on account of me being a male” thing? I think so. In fact, I know so. You can’t exactly play the whole “men vs. women” card when women more women self-identify as pro-life then pro-choice and are more extreme in those views then men are. Now, you can continue to ignore said point. It doesn’t bother me, really. I just find it mildly humorous ;)

  • arekushieru

    Umm, yeah, actually, it is.  When you deny women the same rights as everyone else (as in the case of men, of course, because they never have to fear any such reprisal), based simply on the fact that they have a uterus.

  • arekushieru

    Umm, she wasn’t making an analogy about how similar they were, she was making a comparison between the atrociousness of both.   Which ARE two totally different things…?  Thanks.

     

    Btw, the former is atrocious because the ability to make individual decisions is based on which one caused the harm, initially.    In the case of pregnancy it is the fetus.  In the case of stealing from some random stranger it is the one who stole.  So you just made the opposite claim that the fetus is not an individual, *ob*viously.

     

     

  • bei1052

    You don’t have a leg to stand on, Bei, and everyone here knows it. There’s no more point in talking to you.

     

    Funny. I have two legs to stand on. Not to mention the arguments to back up anything I typed out.

     

    In my magnanimousness (sp?), I’ll graciously take your admission of defeat.

  • bei1052

    I am not looking for a reaction from you, I couldn’t care less what you want. My posts are there to point out to other users the how the silencing tactics you use are no different from every other concern troll.

     

    Silencing tactics, you say? That’s funny. How so? Because I’ve never told anyone that they can’t speak or their opinions are invalid, while you, among others, have time and time again tried to play the whole “you don’t get an opinion because you’re a man” card. Irony? I’d think so.

     

    In language you may understand: I am not talking to you, I’m talking about you.

     

    You’re not talking to me yet you’re addressing posts towards me (See: Your previous post)? How’s that work?

     

    In any case, please feel free to try harder. In fact, I encourage you to do so.

  • faultroy

    I cannot tell you how refreshing it is to see someone (I hope to God you are a woman) to think on his/her feet.  Until women quit sucking up every misleading, misinforming and deceptive piece of “statistic,”  women will not really have any choice at all.  Does it really make any difference if the lies come from a man or a woman? To be misled is to take away one’s right to choose.  In addition to the above articulate accurate and honest comments, I would suggest that women research the Center For Disease Control definitions on what is considered “abuse.”  According to the biased CDC Study–which is promoted by Feminists–, even “verbal criticism,” is considered “abuse.”  Of course with such a broad definition, all men are “abusers,” –even the ones that women love  and cannot stay away from because they love them so much.  And this merely reinforces earlier comments that I have made that Feminists have so twisted and misrepresented the reality of “abuse,” to further their own financial agendas as to have muddied the waters so badly that no one really has an understanding of the issue unless one defines it before hand… Having done this, they totally lack both credibility and objectivity.   In addition, in an article which ran in Science Daily, women of domestic violence actually rated their men with redeeming qualities which caused them to seek to stay with them. Those qualities included love, commitment, good fathers, friendship, empathy etc.  So, the biased and twisted presentations by feminist “experts,” are really not designed to help women, but rather further feminist ideological principles–and at almost all times at the expense of the women’s and her child’s ability to survive both emotionally and economically.  Thanks again for helping to ferret out this ideological deception and sleight-of-hand.

  • ahunt

    Now Bei…you are the one apparently insisting that perfectly normal, well adjusted men can suddenly turn violent post-abortion. Since most men are normal…by your lights, women must automatically assume an asskicking is a possibility…hence men v women.

  • equalist

    I’ve been working with the local battered women’s programs on this, and have a couple of attorneys I’m in contact with through my mom (she works for a real estate lawyer, but has worked at other firms that handle child custody cases and is still friends with many of the lawyers she has worked for previously).  I got the most information through the battered women’s programs, and some friends and family that have gone through similar situations (minus the abuse) and the general consensus is that if I need the assistance and the child support that I should go after it.  I’m taking things slowly, and questioning everyone and every thing each step of the way, but thank you for your concern.  That is one of the main reasons I haven’t attempted to go after child support over the last three years, but I’m finally coming out of the fear thanks to my supportive and loving boyfriend, and a lot of educating myself on the system and my options.

  • equalist

    I very much appreciate the concern and well wishes.

  • equalist

    Sorry, double post apparently.

  • just1mom

     

    Bei – I take my kids seriously. Glad to know you find the abuse of my kids by my ex-husband humorous. Way to be pro-lfe!

  • crowepps

    Being ProLife is all about anquish over the ZBEF – once they’ve been born they’re on their own.

  • arekushieru

    Neither are we.  Amanda was simply stating that ProLifers use that as an excuse to ban abortion.  QUITE different from what you said.  Sorry.

  • jen-boulanger

    Watch this video of one of our anti-abortion protesters.

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FNmM8axbeg

     

     

     

  • crowepps

    and in the name of ‘Christian compassion’ this guy is making it worse.

     

    I absolutely agree that people should have freedom of speech and the right to their own opinions.  But other people have the right to be left alone and to NOT have to listen to them.  Freedom of speech, yes; a right to coopt the ears of unwilling listeners, no, no, no.

     

    They have a right to say whatever they want BUT if Washington DC can set up ‘free speech zones’ off the motorcade route and out of earshot of politicians so THEY aren’t annoyed by ‘the people’, then let these guys ‘protest’ and ‘counsel’ and ‘pray’ out of earshot of unwilling people.  Private parties should be able to go about their lawful business without hearing a word they say.

  • princess-rot

    What a despicable, manipulative man. “The baby in the womb is innocent, why not give the baby in the womb a hug, grandma?” What do you know, you condescending, interfering rape apologist? The mother of a raped minor is just supposed to discount her daughter’s trauma, bodily autonomy and future for the sake of a potential? What the eff? Wouldn’t any sensible mother prefer her daughter to have a grandchild when she stable, happy, and actually wants to do so, not because some random third party said so?

     

    People who spout about “the innocent baby” not “paying” for the sins of the father (when they are not the abuse survivor deciding that for herself), but as an outsider really piss me off. Way to completely erase the woman from the equation. She has to bear the brunt of the impact pregnancy, birth, adoption or parenting will make in her life, not to mention the trauma of rape and other issues arising from that, but still her experience is erased in favor of a rose-tinted potential that makes other people feel betterSee: your abuse is not as important as my feelings on your abuse. Some people apparently feel so secure in their high-and-mighty moral code, they think their shit don’t stink and they can stand there and demand that total sacrafice from complete strangers.

  • kate-ranieri

    I believe that domestic violence materializes in many forms. From Islam, there is the rise in the type of violence toward young women called honor killings. And from fundamentalists and Catholics alike, there is the steady stream of verbal violence women are subjected to at reproductive health care clinics. This video shows one protester, Gerry Mc Williams, telling a mother that it was God’s will that her daughter was raped.

  • ack

    I think the root of these statistics is that women experiencing IPV experience much higher rates of unplanned pregnancy. There is a growing body of research documenting not only active contraceptive sabotage by abusers but a heightened fear of negotiating condom use among victims.

     

    The disregard the anti-choice crowd displays for victims of violence is chilling. But it is consistent with the general NO ABORTIONS EVER FOR ANYONE!!!11!!! mentality. I find that school of thought more consistent than those who make exceptions. I think it would be interesting to research whether anti-choicers who believe that abortion is “permissible” in cases of rape or incest think it’s “permissible” if the woman is being physically, emotionally, or sexually abused as well.

  • ack

    I think that we’ve done a bizarre job of separating honor killings from domestic violence. They both stem from the same fundamental and erroneous belief: a woman did something that a man disapproved of, and she therefore should be punished. 

     

    But the differences are equally scary. Multiple adult family members are often involved in honor killings, whereas intimate partner abuse is usually (but not always) perpetrated by one intimate partner against another.

     

    Children often become unwilling participants in the abuse of their parent; they might be forced or coerced by the abusive parent. However, it’s much rarer for other adults to be actively involved in the abuse, though it’s not unheard of. There was a horrific case out of Chicago where a woman was raped and beaten to death in front of her entire husband’s family while they egged him on.

     

    I think that othering honor killings from dv is dangerous. I also think that equating the two is disingenuous. Does that make sense? (I’m seriously asking, not being snarky.)

    • julie-watkins

      I haven’t read the whole thread so this might be already covered … but one discussion of Honor Killings I’ve read is how it’s often the Community [not just, or instead of, multiple family members] making the punishment. IE, the neighbors tell the parents “your daughter is dishonoring the community”. So the family may have outside pressure as well as any personal feeling they have about the daughter’s “rebellion”. Actually, I think sometimes the daughter’s family doesn’t do the killing. I think that horrid stoning of a young woman that was caught on cell phones a year or two ago (Turkey, I think) was neighborhood men breaking into a house and pulling the victim out and kept the family from stopping the killing.

      So I agree with you that “honor killing” shouldn’t be equated with “domestic violence”.