“Mad Men” Provides Realistic Portrayal of Abortion


Fans of the show “Mad Men” love it for many reasons, not the least of which is the pain-staking attention to historical detail and love of highlighting aspects of the sixties long forgotten by most people who aren’t historians.  Last Sunday, the writers used this aspect of the show to touch on abortion.  The character Joan goes to a regular visit with her gynecologist, and in a discussion about potentially starting a family in a few years, Joan asks the doctor if her previous two abortions—which she euphemistically calls “procedures”—will harm her ability to have children.  We discover that the doctor has performed one abortion on Joan before (even though it was illegal in New York at the time).  He asks her about the other one, and she says that it was performed by a woman who claimed to be a midwife. 

In your usual overly dramatic Hollywood fare, this would have been an occasion for raising the stakes by implying that Joan was subject to a mythical back alley butcher who left her infertile for life.  But instead, the doctor shrugs and suggests that the odds are that the midwife did a good job, and certainly everything that he could see was in good working order.  He points out that she got pregnant after the first abortion, and so he has every reason to believe she’s fine. 

Believe it or not, this was historically accurate.  In the sixties, many doctors performed abortions for their regular patients and charted them as something else.  If you got an abortion from someone who wasn’t your regular doctor, odds are that it was still a safe abortion.  And, as I’ve written about before, the myth of the back alley butcher is mostly inaccurate.  It’s tempting for pro-choicers to invoke it in an attempt to remind people of the high human cost of banning abortion, but in the end, portraying abortion providers as “butchers” mostly helps the anti-choice cause by stigmatizing the compassionate, hard-working people who have helped women in need, whether or not that help was legal.   

Which isn’t to deny that illegal abortion meant the mutilation and often death of countless women.  It’s both true that when abortion was a crime most providers were professional and that hospitals had an overwhelming number of septic abortion cases.  As historian Rickie Solinger points out in her book Beggars and Choosers, this is because women who didn’t know where to find a black-market abortion provider often resorted to trying to abort themselves, causing injury or even death.  The coathanger is the symbol of women’s desperation when they have no access to abortion.

The lesson in all this should be clear: Access to abortion and to reproductive health care in general should be the priority of the pro-choice movement.  The main reason that the right to abortion is so critical is that it makes access to abortion that much better, especially for poor women and young women who may not have the resources to find an abortion provider on the black market. 

But anti-choicers are well aware there is more than one way to get women away from safe abortion providers and into emergency rooms with coathangers hanging out of their uteruses.  Indeed, you can tell from the actions of anti-choicers that the main goal has always been making sure that women have no access to safe abortion, and if they can’t ban abortion, they will make sure that it’s as hard as possible to get one.  And if they can’t punish you for being sexually active by putting you in a situation where you get an infection and possibly die, they will satisfy themselves by screaming at you as you get that safe abortion they so desperately wish you couldn’t get.

Unfortunately, the steady drip-drip of harassment, terrorism, stigmatization and legal restrictions on abortion gets us closer every day to a situation much like the days when abortion was illegal.  All while maintaining the legal right to an abortion, anti-choicers could very well get us into a situation like the sixties, where only women with resources (like the character Joan on “Mad Men”) can get safe abortions, and other women find themselves desperately turning to coathangers and throwing themselves down stairs. 

This is why we must view abortion rights less as a thing in and of themselves, and more as a means to the end of access.  Sometimes the pro-choice movement fails to do this, putting the war on restrictions on the right over the war on other restrictions to access.  Take, for instance, how most major pro-choice organizations formally oppose the Hyde Amendment but don’t put much of their resources towards fighting it.  Instead of using health care reform as an opportunity to mount a movement that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, we started from a position of compromise, and ended up seeing already-existing access given away as a bargaining chip.

Imagine if we really did focus on access, particularly ensuring it for those who are most likely to lose it, poor women and very young women!  Of course, this is what reproductive justice groups have always advocated, arguing that movements are most effective if they use this strategy.  If you fight for the most vulnerable among you, the logic goes, everyone else benefits as a matter of course.  It’s the method that does the most good for the most people. 

We’re closer to the world of 1965 portrayed on “Mad Men” than we care to admit, where women with resources like Joan still have access to abortions, but women without those resources face a gauntlet of obstacles.  Joan even has a privilege that most women who have abortions nowadays don’t have, which is the ability to have her regular doctor she knows and trusts providing the service.  Not to suggest that abortion access isn’t significantly better than in 1965, but just to point out that we’re backsliding to that level of access all the time.

Luckily, a newer movement that prioritizes access over just rights has emerged, and its leaders and foot soldiers are heavy with the young women we’re often told don’t care about choice. Emily Bazelon wrote about the movement afoot in medical schools to get more doctors trained to provide abortions, and to get the procedure provided by a woman’s regular doctor instead of only by specialists.   Reproductive justice groups like SisterSong are working harder than ever, and youth-oriented groups like Advocates for Youth are concentrating many of their resources on abortion access.  They’re  all fighting to make sure that we don’t have 1965 sneak back up on us, even if Roe stays nominally in place.

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.

  • julie-watkins

    but I worry about young doctors who want to provide abortion care getting hired by hospitals who disallow abortion in their hospitals and have, as a condition of employment, that doctors can’t provide abortions in an outside clinic, even if the work is volunteer. :-(

  • truth

    Let’s keep the killing spree alive, well and easily accessible! 50,000,000+ and counting… Keep up the good work.

  • colleen

    50,000,000+ and counting… Keep up the good work.

    Perhaps conservative men should stop having sex with women and little girls.

    Considering the zygote mortality rate it’s possible to increase that number by a factor of ten

  • truth

    That’s like saying that a naturally occurring death is the same as murder. Obviously they are completely different as one is natural and the other is deliberate.

     

    A miscarriage happens naturally, an induced abortion is deliberate.

  • colleen

    Here’s some logic:

    A man is at least 50% responsible for every unwanted pregnancy

    men have sex with women who don’t want to be pregnant millions of times a day in the US

    therefore

    If men stopped having sex with women who didn’t want to be pregnant there would be no problem.

    You have the power! Tell your friends!

  • squirrely-girl

     

    A miscarriage happens naturally, an induced abortion is deliberate.

    A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. And a miscarriage can be deliberate. 

  • bornin1984

    And, in the same vein, if women stopped having sex if they did not want to be pregnant, then more then 90% of abortions could be avoided. Yet you will probably call me a misogynist for pointing this out.

  • amanda-marcotte

    Person that making the wiping out of sexual pleasure has become your goal. But thanks for being straightforward about the fact that your main objection is to sex, fun, and particularly women having either.

  • bornin1984

    So stating that men should stop having sex with women who do not want to be pregnant is common sense, but stating that a woman should stop having sex if she does not want to be pregnant shows that the one saying it has an objection to sex and fun?

    Are you so blinded by your own prejudices that you do not see the absolute irony in your statement?

  • amanda-marcotte

    No, I’m pretty straightforward. I think sex is great, and people who enjoy it should do it all the time! Unlike Truth, I’m super consistent about being pro-sex. I think it’s wonderful we live in an era where men and women can have sex with minimal consequences to health and well-being. I believe that anti-sex attitudes are, in large part, about stoking anger and resentment between the genders. I worry about the motivations of folks like yourself and Truth who seem invested in creating acrimony between men and women, starting by making sexual intercourse fraught and stressful.

  • bornin1984

    No acrimony here. If you are a man, do not have sex with someone who does not want to be pregnant. If you are a woman, do not have sex if you do not want to be pregnant. Seems simple enough, yes? Well, no, because you will undoubtedly find some way to explain to us all why one of those assertions are feasible and the other unfeasible, as is the norm around here. That is not being consistent nor pro-sex. That is making up different rules based on gender.

  • amanda-marcotte

    If you’re anti-sex and anti-pleasure. Most of us aren’t, though. We prefer to have sex. So we need options like birth control.

    Sex is pleasurable, and often a bonding experience. It is a way of having fun and expressing love. Your assumption that it’s merely a procreative exercise is interesting, but has no real relationship to how most people see it. I mean, that’s cool if you’re not into sex! Just be understanding that most people consider being sexually active an important part of their lives. You act like giving up sex is like giving up a mundane, boring activity like sitting in traffic. I assure you, most people think of sex in much more positive, warm terms and like it very much.

  • bornin1984

    So it is unfeasible to expect a woman who does not want to be pregnant to stop having sex if she does not want to be pregnant because sex is not something you can just give up, yet it is feasible to expect a man to give up sex with women who do not want to be pregnant, or even to give up sex if he does not want to get a woman pregnant, because…? There is no way to answer this question without some rather large portion of hypocrisy on your part. Either it is unfeasible for both for the same reasons, or it is feasible for both for the same reasons. You do not get to make up different rules for having sex based on gender (which is something I thought the people around here abhor).

    As it is, it seems to me as if you are doing your best to skirt having to answer this question.

  • saltyc

    Great article and come-backs Amanda, and the trolls are as undecipherable as I’ve yet seen them here. Whoever said that people should not have sex unless they want to get pregnant, isn’t that the pro-life line?

    I do question anti-choicers who have recreational sex, though. I help many women a week get abortions, the vast majority of them became pregnant through sex, at least half of them used birth control. Everyone likes sex, but few want to maturely deal with the future consequences. But I still support their right to have sex, their right to abortion, their right to have babies. But really, if you’re having sex and really don’t care about the physical effects on your partner, such that you would want them to suffer a pregnancy they don’t want, wouldn’t want there to be an escape hatch when something goes wrong, I mean, how can anyone be that callous to someone they’re getting cozy & sticky with?

  • bornin1984

    Lost all credibility when you refused to lambaste that one chick who says she uses the withdrawal method and even proceeded to tell the world how you engage in it.

  • amanda-marcotte

    You are aware that in heterosexual sexual intercourse, there is a man and a woman, right? You keep insisting that I’m saying men should stop having sex, but I’m not a right wing nut, so I’m bound to pay attention to logic. And it’s illogical to suggest that women can have all sorts of straight sex but men can’t. Who would these women have it with?

    Please, make sense. This is getting very strange. The accusation that I’m opposed to male sexuality or a man’s right to choose birth control is simply inaccurate. That many straight men who have sex with women oppose female sexuality is a product of the illogic that occurs when you start engaging in misogynist narratives. Feminism is about equality, not just reversing the sexism. Thus, it’s not anti-male sexuality.

    You also keep accusing me of denying men the right to consensual sex and to use birth control with absolutely no evidence to back that up. On the contrary, I’m a big proponent of men taking more responsibility for birth control! I think that men should do things like carry condoms instead of simply expect women to take care of that. And I’m a huge fan of men taking charge of their fertility through vasectomies if they aren’t interested in having children or having more children.

    Please point to where I said men shouldn’t have sex. I’m curious.

  • saltyc

    .

  • amanda-marcotte

    Once again, you’re flailing around. My discussing the failure rate and risk assessment strategies of different methods doesn’t equal saying men can’t have sex.

    One link, please. One scrap of evidence that I advocate a nonsensical world of male abstinence but women having sex with men that aren’t having sex with them due to the abstinence. As a straight woman, I would be very sad if men en masse stopped having sex, I have to say. I’m not only not for male abstinence for all, but I’d say realistically, my stance is the opposite of that. I think it’s great when anyone has pleasureable, safe, consensual sex. Male, female, whatever.

    Please, I beg of you. Back up your assertion that I advocate only for male abstinence.

  • saltyc

    So which is it bei, er – I mean Bornin84,  are you for recreational sex or not? I’d like to see you and truth discuss this highly relevant topic.

  • bornin1984

    Perhaps you need to re-read what Colleen wrote out.

    A man is at least 50% responsible for every unwanted pregnancy [as] men have sex with women who don\’t want to be pregnant millions of times a day in the US. [T]herefore if men stopped having sex with women who didn\’t want to be pregnant there would be no problem.

    Which also applies to women in that they should stop having sex if they do not want to be pregnant. Since you responded to what I wrote out to Colleen, I am accusing you of not using that argument unilaterally. Women who do not wish to be pregnant should not be having sex.

  • truth

    Is just to show everyone here that there is no real debate going on, and never will be with people like Amanda and other “activists” who are only interested in promoting a Culture of Death. They won’t actually debate with logic and reason – they will only REACT to emotional claims. Hence the reason no one here can respond to logical arguments put forth. It is because the Sword of Truth cuts swiftly discerning absolutely right from wrong. It is wrong to murder innocent human life – you cannot argue (logically) this main point. You can only offer your emotional feeling that you want what you want when you want it regardless of the consequences to you and others.

     

    Their only argument when you get to the heart of the matter is:

     

    Do whatever you want! If there are natural consequences to your activities, we will “take care of” the problem through whatever means we deem necessary up to and including murder!

     

    True love must include self-sacrifice. As such, when you engage in true Love-Making it must be open to life (i.e. pro-creation). To embark on a sexual journey with another without this openness to life is purely masturbation. In the case of mutual masturbation you are using the other person as an object, and people are not objects.

     

    People in Amanda’s camp are seduced psychologically and spiritually into thinking that true freedom is doing whatever pleases their carnal being as their spiritual beings become numb and useless. They are then unable to discern good from evil and so they become zombies parroting only what the evil spirits tell them in the darkness of their collective souls.

  • amanda-marcotte

    You have a quote from colleen that you’ve misrepresented, and you think that’s evidence that I’m on a crusade to stop straight men from having sex? Fascinating logic, there. It’s like three steps removed from having a point, and about 15 steps from having anything resembling evidence for your rather outrageous claims.

  • saltyc

    Nobody, except Truth, is saying don’t have sex. It was an ironic statement, meaning, since you are having sex, you should take responsibility for it and support access to reproductive services. Or don’t have sex. Which we all know, we will.

    So are you for sex or not?

  • amanda-marcotte

    There’s some very interesting definitions of “logic” and “reason” in here. Also an interesting argument that people who have massive hang-ups over female sexuality that cause them to troll pro-choice blogs all the time are in any position to accuse someone else of being overly emotional.

  • saltyc

    Because your zombie movie script, with its moral fingerpointing, gore and high flying emotion would no doubt sell. Anti-sex sells too, you know.

  • bornin1984

    You proceeded to respond to a comment not directed at you, and then have gone on on a self-proclaimed but I did not say that! spiel, when no one said you did. That is what happens you try to interject yourself into places you were not initially.

    But at any rate, you agree that women should not be having sex if they do not want to become pregnant, correct?

  • saltyc

    But at any rate, you agree that women should not be having sex if they do not want to become pregnant, correct?

    You confused Amanda with Truth. I think he’s the only one here who would agree with that, unless you do too, but I’ll bet anything you don’t.

     

    PS you totally directed it at Amanda. It’s her article comment section, remember?

  • bornin1984

    Yes, because stating that if men stopped having sex with women there would be no abortions is akin to saying that you should take responsibility for having sex and support access to reproductive services. That is flawless logic, except for the fact that if men stopped having sex with women who did not want to be pregnant, supporting access to reproductive services would be moot as no sex would occur. I really do not know why you try, but you really should quit while you are ahead.

    At any rate, the corollary to the argument that men should stop having sex with women who do not want to be pregnant is that women should stop having sex with men if they do not want to be pregnant. It works both ways. The argument does not only get applied if one is, as you call us, anti-choice.

    Trying to rationalize the argument away on the basis on being anti-choice is, quite frankly, idiotic for then you essentially say that pro-choicers can be as reckless as they want to be, since they do not have a problem with abortion. I suppose that would explain why you have no problems using the withdrawal method while simultaneously having no problem lambasting others for using more effective methods of birth control.

  • bornin1984

    You are the only one flailing around, Amanda, and I do not really blame you, all things considered.

  • amanda-marcotte

    But I think I sort of see how some dudes become anti-choice. They get it in their heads, for whatever screwy reason, that women are in some conspiracy to keep dudes from having sex. And as punishment to women, a little forced pregnancy? Just, you know, because of this non-existent conspiracy?

    Paranoid much?

  • amanda-marcotte

    This does point the pro-choice movement in a helpful direction for reducing animosity towards women that contributes to anti-choice sentiment. Maybe some classes in how to be more attractive to women and get the loving you crave would help. Seminars in showering daily, not spewing misogynist crap that runs women off, taking that chip off your shoulder, and not being so paranoid would help. Anything to reduce the sense that Women Must Be Punished because some men, for some reason, think women are in some conspiracy to stop dudes from getting laid.

  • bornin1984

    Number one, I really do not know what you are talking about with the first comment. Number two, I am not going to entertain you, for you have already proven everything I said would be true regarding a discussion on this matter true (that is, you will not hold pro-lifers and pro-choicers to the same standards, but rather argue that pro-lifers should not have sex whilst pro-choicers can have as much sex as they want without using the least bit of protection, given the fact that they have few moral qualms with a woman having an abortion).

  • amanda-marcotte

    Can I take this as an admission of defeat? It wasn’t as entertaining as Rep. Gohmert losing it when asked to produce evidence of “terror babies”, but I’ll take it.

  • bornin1984

    If my comment was directed at Amanda, I would not have specifically replied to something someone else not named Amanda wrote out.

  • bornin1984

    It is hard to lose when the other person, instead of responding to the points one makes, goes off on some rant regarding how they did not say you said what someone else did not say they said and go off on some tangent regarding conspiracy theories and paranoia and the like while refusing to answer a simple, non-trick question. But that is just your posting style. Always has been and always will be.

  • saltyc

    No, I already said I support anti-choicer’s right to have sex, just as I support anti-choicer’s rights to have an abortion. But they are hypocrites, no doubt.

     

    If I said that someone who is pro-alcohol-prohibition and drinks is a hypocrite whereas someone who does not support prohibition and drinks, or doesn’t, is not a hypocrite, would that be unfair because they’re held to different standards?

     

    Hello? reproductive rights-is-about-s-e-x.

  • invalid-0

    the vast majority of them became pregnant through sex,

    And the rest?

  • saltyc

    rape.

  • bornin1984

    I do not know whether or not you are being deliberately obtuse on purpose, but the issue is not about whether or not someone has the right to have sex. Rather, the issue is about whether or not people should be having sex if they do not want to impregnate someone else/get pregnant themselves. Much like a large number of abortions could be avoided if men stopped having sex with women who did not want to be pregnant, a large number of abortions could be avoided if women stopped having sex if they did not want to be pregnant. You cannot argue that one group should not be having sex if they do not want to impregnate another group, or if that group themselves does not want to be impregnated, while refusing to also argue that if the other group does not want to be impregnated, they should not be having sex, either. It is quite simple logic, and skirting around that issue will not make it any less of a point then it already is. Much to your chagrin, the argument work both ways, Salty.

  • saltyc

    What the hell are you talking about?

    Don’t you remember, when you were Bei, I told you about a close friend of mine who knew she couldn’t handle either a pregnancy or an abortion, and the failure rate of her BC was not acceptable, so she chose not to have sex? That person also happened to be pro-choice, she just didn’t want to have to make that choice.

    I think it is perfectly sensible for someone who couldn’t handle either pregnancy or an abortion to not take the calculated risk to have sex, what do you think?

    I just don’t think it’s sensible to be anti-choice, especially if you’re having recreational sex. If abortion is that big a deal to you, that you have to annoy us with your morality tirades, then it should factor in to your decision. If abortion is not a big deal to you, then it won’t factor.

  • bornin1984

    I cannot remember anything you never told me? I really do have no idea what you are on about. I have been posting on this site since January (though it was infrequent at first).

    At any rate, I was perfectly clear in my post. The argument works both ways. It is either applied to all or none, not one group and not the other. Pro-choicers do not get held to a lower standard then anti-choicers on the basis that pro-choicers believe abortion is a viable option. Women do not get held to a lower standard then men on the basis that they are women and men are men. If the standards were equal, then abortion, in general, should be illegal, as a woman, unless she is raped, has the option of not having sex. Please notice how you are still skirting around the issue, no matter how many times I bring this to your attention. I know for a fact I have said the same thing at least three or four different times on three or four different threads.

  • saltyc

    I already answered all your questions. I was applying the standard of can you handle an abortion to everyone who wonders if they should take the risk, pro-or-anti, which of course abortion should be legal. We disagree on that, remember?? But if you’re having recreational sex, you should be pro-choice, I apply that to everyone too, male or female.

    So are you for recreational sex or not?

  • squirrely-girl

    At any rate, the corollary to the argument that men should stop having sex with women who do not want to be pregnant is that women should stop having sex with men if they do not want to be pregnant. It works both ways.

     

    Of course it does. To bad we generally only hear it applied to the woman from the AC/PL crowd.

  • squirrely-girl

    It is hard to lose when the other person, instead of responding to the points one makes, goes off on some rant regarding how they did not say you said what someone else did not say they said and go off on some tangent regarding…

    Pot meet kettle :/

  • bornin1984

    No, you really did not. Here is your argument in a nutshell.

    If you have recreational sex, you should be pro-choice. If you are pro-life, do not have sex with someone who does not want a child. If you are pro-choice, then do as you will, even if it leads to pregnancy, because you have no qualms about abortion.

    That is your argument and it is what I like to call logical gymnastics. It leads to a situation in which the pro-choicer is held to a lower standard than the pro-lifer. Indeed, we can see that now, with you who admittedly practices the withdrawal method trying to lambaste a pro-lifer for having recreational sex whilst using a method of contraception which is much more effective than the one you use. You effectively argue that pro-lifers should not have sex because of the prospect of the woman having an abortion (which you only apply to pro-life men), while arguing that pro-choicers can have sex despite this fact, both men and women, instead of arguing that pro-lifers, much like pro-choicers, can have sex with the foreknowledge that if a pregnancy ensues because of it, that it will be carried to term and the two parties held responsible for it.

  • bornin1984

    Of course it does. To bad we generally only hear it applied to the woman from the AC/PL crowd.

    I am pretty sure that pro-lifers, on this site included, have constantly asserted that people should not be having sex if they are unwilling to care for a child.

  • squirrely-girl

    …they will only REACT to emotional claims. 

    …only interested in promoting a Culture of Death. 

    Wow, culture of death sounds an awful lot like an “emotional claim.”

    …because the Sword of Truth cuts swiftly discerning absolutely right from wrong.

    Wow! There’s a Sword of Truth now? Can anybody else see this sword… or is it just you? 

    It is wrong to murder innocent human life – you cannot argue (logically) this main point. 

     

    Completely ignoring the fact that people can argue anything (except in your happy pony rainbow land of absolutes), you’ve still got to deal with the (logical) issue of operationally defining “innocent human life” as well as the term “murder.” Of course you’re going to win your (circular) logic fight (with yourself) if you’re using your own terms and disallowing any other interpretation. Too bad many of us just don’t agree with your terms or your “logic.” 

    True love must include self-sacrifice. As such, when you engage in true Love-Making it must be open to life (i.e. pro-creation). To embark on a sexual journey with another without this openness to life is purely masturbation.

    Glad to know you’ve rewritten the text on human sexuality :/ So what about infertile people? I can already imagine what you think of homosexual sex. I think you’re also forgetting that sometimes people don’t want to “make love” but rather just fuck. You think if God thought the above he would have felt the need to put it in commandment form… 

    People in Amanda’s camp are seduced psychologically and spiritually into thinking that true freedom is doing whatever pleases their carnal being as their spiritual beings become numb and useless. They are then unable to discern good from evil and so they become zombies parroting only what the evil spirits tell them in the darkness of their collective souls.

     

    Way to bring back the old time fire and brimstone preaching from the pulpit. Enjoy that lake of fire but feel free to keep your fundamentalist religious ideology to yourself… because my God disagrees :)

     

    By the way, I’m pretty sure you don’t get to criticize the logic of other people’s arguments then spout off about God, Swords of Truth, and a Culture of Death. Seriously. Do you just not see how illogical and blatantly hypocritical that really is???

     

  • squirrely-girl

    I’m pretty sure Paul is the only one who consistently makes that claim.

     

    From most others, this claim is usually made in the form of “she chose to have sex,” “other than rape it was voluntary,” “if she doesn’t want to be pregnant, she shouldn’t be having sex,” etc. In other words, putting it all back on the woman. 

     

    At any rate, I generally believe telling men or women to just “not have sex” is borderline retarded “logic.” Not because I’m sex-positive, but because the failure rate of behavioral interventions is profound. 

     

     

  • colleen

    Which also applies to women in that they should stop having sex if they do not want to be pregnant.

    I understand that telling women what we should and should not do is, of course, the sole reason the lot of you spend so much of your time trolling this blog. That’s why none of us believe your individual and group concerns are even minimally influenced by a ‘respect for human life’.

    Clearly the ‘pro-life’ movement is in no position to tell women how to conduct our sex lives. The one thing that you folks have control over as a group and individually is yourselves and yet you refuse to even discuss the possibility.

  • bj-survivor

    been banned yet? Why are we still subjected to its quasi-literate, misogynistic screed? It couldn’t rationalize itself out of a fucking paper bag! I mean, you and I and every other pro-choicer can see that when it comes to PIV sex or rape, A –> B or C:

     

    PIV sex or rape [A] leads to either [B] no pregnancy/no zygote exists at all OR [C1] pregnancy and subsequent spontaneous abortion, [C2] pregnancy and subsequent induced abortion [C3] pregnancy and subsequent live birth, [C4] pregnancy and subsequent live birth, woman dies, [C5] pregnancy and subsequent stillbirth, woman lives, or [C6] pregnancy and subsequent death of both woman and fetus.

     

    If one is a male who, in fact, is 50% responsible for creating a zygote (since, contrary to much forced-birther bilge, we know that human females are incapable of parthenogenesis) and is opposed to outcome C2, then it stands to reason that to be consistent with his own stated morals, his overwhelming concern for unborn life, that he refrain from recreational sex if he is unwilling or unable to parent or support a child or if he is unsure of his partner’s willingness to gestate his magical seed.

     

    Predictably, the troll goes ape-shit at the idea that there should be any glimmer of infringement or expectation on its natural right to spill its seed into the vagina of its choosing, whenever it feels like doing so. That it conflates mere suggestion to be what we pro-choicers seek to be codified in law is truly comical.

     

    But, again, why hasn’t it been banned yet? It JAQs off and contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion.

  • bj-survivor

    that arex needed this pointed out to him. But then, he’s one of those forced-birthers that considers rape to be a perfectly valid method of reproduction. And likely something that wouldn’t have happened if she hadn’t been wearing a short skirt or drinking or doing anything besides cooking/cleaning/birthing or begging for absolution for the sin of being female in the confessional.

  • bornin1984

    The use of the M word (misogyny) is a clear sign of defeat. It is, effectively, the pro-choice version of the race card (i.e., if someone makes an argument against affirmative action, then call him or her a racist). At any rate, should I be surprised that we are back to playing logical gymnastics, in which not only is the pro-lifer held to a higher standard then the pro-choicer (because the pro-choicer has no qualms regarding abortion, then they can do as they please when it comes to sex, even using no protection without being reprimanded where as the pro-lifer cannot, much less have sex period), but the pro-lifer, the male specifically, is not only made responsible for his actions, but the actions of the female as well, which is nonsensical as people are responsible for their own actions.

    What should happen is that the standard– if you do not want to get anyone pregnant/be pregnant– should be applied uniformly so that no one can have sex if they do not want to deal with the prospect of pregnancy and the child that ensues, which would mean no abortions. For some odd reason, though, you seem to think that is sexist in nature and whenever someone points out that a woman should not be having sex if she does not want a child, you scream and holler and rant and rave about misogyny and patriarchy and all the things that relatively few people care about, even though that is the standard you hold pro-lifers to, the men specifically. It is ironic, and would be funny if it was not sad.

    Predictably, the troll goes ape-shit at the idea that there should be any glimmer of infringement or expectation on its natural right to spill its seed into the vagina of its choosing, whenever it feels like doing so. That it conflates mere suggestion to be what we pro-choicers seek to be codified in law is truly comical.

    I admit it. The sheer humor of this response made me smile briefly.

    But, again, why hasn\\\’t it been banned yet? It JAQs off and contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion.

    You mean like most of your posts directed towards me? For a forty (or was it fifty?) year old, you sure do act like you are fifteen. You really do sound like the stereotypical old, angry, female pro-choicer, which actually has a bit of truth to it, when you look at the demographics of the pro-choice and pro-life movements. The old(er) part at least. The angry portion is just kind of common knowledge. To some of us pro-lifers, at least.

  • bj-survivor

    Run along, little boy. It’s past your bedtime. :p

  • nycprochoicemd

    Why is it so hard for you to just accept that not everyone agrees with your interpretation of love, sex, and sacrifice? You are free to do as you please, and I recommend you find a partner who agrees with you (otherwise you risk feeling terribly disappointed and unfulfilled), but let the rest of us who do not agree with you (which is about 98% of the population, if you base it on the percentage of women who have ever used a birth control method) do as we please. Not all of us believe in Swords of Truth, absolute good and evil, spirits, and souls.

    Do as you wish, but leave the rest of us alone!

  • broadblogs

    Re: The myth of the back alley butcher is mostly inaccurate: That may be true, but many women did lose their lives and health when abortion was illegal. This is the reason that both doctors and feminists were on the forefront of making abortion legal. It is an important story, and one that can save lives.  http://broadblogs.com/

  • saltyc

    no one can have sex if they do not want to deal with the prospect of pregnancy and the child that ensues

    So no sex for women with diabetes, high blood pressure, a history of miscarriages, or any other high-risk group that doesn’t wish to put their lives at risk. Even when they would have no problem aborting if their birth control fails. Funny how the equal standard is very different for men, since a diabetic man could have all the sex he wants, so long as he is “willing to care for a child” that’s all he has to do to be able to have sex, whereas a woman has to be willing to endure a pregnancy before she can have sex. You realize that if your standard is applied, a lot more men would be allowed to have sex than women, though with whom the excess hetero men would be having sex  is a mystery.

    (which you only apply to pro-life men)

    Absolutely false. I don’t lambaste you for having sex. I lambaste you for being anti-choice and for being a hypocrite. You only had sex/ would only have sex with women who were willing to become pregnant? Suuuuuure.

  • saltyc

    .

  • bornin1984

    So no sex for women with diabetes, high blood pressure, a history of miscarriages, or any other high-risk group that doesn\’t wish to put their lives at risk. Even when they would have no problem aborting if their birth control fails. Funny how the equal standard is very different for men, since a diabetic man could have all the sex he wants, so long as he is \”willing to care for a child\” that\’s all he has to do to be able to have sex, whereas a woman has to be willing to endure a pregnancy before she can have sex. You realize that if your standard is applied, a lot more men would be allowed to have sex than women, though with whom the excess hetero men would be having sex is a mystery.

    The standard is fine. Biology does not make something equal or inequal. The law tends to do that. The fact that one party becomes pregnant does not make the standard unfair. It means that said party has a vested interest in not becoming pregnant if they do not want to be nor can they handle the prospect of being so, and that they have an equally vested interest in not having sex if they cannot deal with the prospect of pregnancy (either that or sleep with sterile men or get their tubes tied). It is fundamentally no different from a man having sex with a woman who wants to be pregnant or has no qualms about being pregnant when he does not want a kid, and thusly has to provide for that child even if it is against his will. He is up the creek without a paddle, because he should not have been having sex if that was the case. As it is, that is a standard that most people apply to themselves, men and women, and it is a standard that the law already applies to men. I am simply applying it to women as well. You just do not like it because women, by virtue of being the ones who get pregnant, would have to take more care than they do currently (which, more-or-less, is none).

    Absolutely false. I don\’t lambaste you for having sex. I lambaste you for being anti-choice and for being a hypocrite. You only had sex/ would only have sex with women who were willing to become pregnant? Suuuuuure.

    Please do not use terms you do not understand. There is nothing hypocritical about stating that you should not engage in sex if you are not ready for a child, as that applies to men and women. It is hypocritical to turn around and not apply the same standard to everyone, however, instead arguing that one group, in this case the man, should not have slept with the other group, in this case the woman, if that group did not want to be pregnant instead of arguing that the latter group, the woman, should not have been having sex if they did not want to be pregnant. Yes, I am repeating myself, but there is no other way to state this. You simply do not apply your rationale unilaterally, and instead place 100% of the responsibility on the first group. What if women who did not want to be pregnant did not have sex? The same thing that would happen if men did not have sex with women who do not want to be pregnant, yet you consider one of those actions to be better than the other though they are equal.

  • saltyc

    yet you consider one of those actions to be better than the other though they are equal.

    You can keep repeating a false assertion, it remains false.

    But would you or would you not have sex with a woman who was unwilling to become pregnant? We already know you think it’s wrong for a woman to have sex when she’s unwilling to carry a pregnancy to term, is it wrong for the man to have sex with her?

    I think they should both have a great time and also to support the woman’s choice to stay pregnant or not. That’s why I’m not a hypcrite.

    Hypocrite = to pretend to believe something you don’t. You don’t really think it’s wrong for women to have sex when they’re not willing to become pregnant or you wouldn’t have sex with them. 

    But the truth remains, that a woman must be willing to get pregnant according to you before she has sex whereas a man must merely be willing to provide $200 a month for child support. Slightly different standard there, which would result, if actually practiced, in quite a lot more men being allowed to have sex than women.

  • bornin1984

    You can keep repeating a false assertion, it remains false.

    It is not a false assertion, Salty. You do not tell a woman that she should not have sex with someone if she does not want to be pregnant. You do not say that abortion should be generally illegal because, in most cases, a woman chose to have sex even though she did not want to be pregnant. Both you and I know this, as does anyone who can read your posts, so I really have no idea why you are even attempting to argue this. You are wrong, point blank, and are refusing to apply the same standard to women you do to men.

    But would you or would you not have sex with a woman who was unwilling to become pregnant? We already know you think it\’s wrong for a woman to have sex when she\’s unwilling to carry a pregnancy to term, is it wrong for the man to have sex with her?

    And you are back to playing logical gymnastics again. Men are only responsible for their actions. The same with women. Men should not sleep around if they do not want to care for a child, and women the same. You do not get to thrust 100% of the responsibility onto one party, as you are doing. What you do, is you hold both parties to the same standard. However, I can play your game, too, you know. Is it not wrong for her to be sleeping with a man who can make her pregnant if she does not want to be? Of course, you cannot answer this in a way which does not hurt your own argument in some way, though I would like to see you try.

    I think they should both have a great time and also to support the woman\’s choice to stay pregnant or not. That\’s why I\’m not a hypcrite.

    1.) A woman should not have sex if she does not want to be pregnant.
    2.) A woman should not be held responsible for that pregnancy is she chose to engage in sex.

    Those two statements are incongruent, Salty, and I know you know this.

    But the truth remains, that a woman must be willing to get pregnant according to you before she has sex whereas a man must merely be willing to provide $200 a month for child support. Slightly different standard there, which would result, if actually practiced, in quite a lot more men being allowed to have sex than women.

    I am just going to quote myself, because you apparently did not see it the first time:

    The fact that one party becomes pregnant does not make the standard unfair. It means that said party has a vested interest in not becoming pregnant if they do not want to be nor can they handle the prospect of being so, and that they have an equally vested interest in not having sex if they cannot deal with the prospect of pregnancy.

    And considering how you have already demonstrated that there are women who wholeheartedly agree with above assertion and are pro-choice, then what is your argument? You have none, other then you do not like the standard because it would hold women more accountable than they are currently held.

  • saltyc

    1.) A woman should not have sex if she does not want to be pregnant.
    2.) A woman should not be held responsible for that pregnancy is she chose to engage in sex.

    Those two statements are incongruent, Salty, and I know you know this.

    Yes and I agree with #2 (though I would phrase it differently,) but not #1, I don’t think it’s wrong per se for a man to have sex with a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant, it’s wrong for him to not support her choice though. And it is hypcritical to say that she shouldn’t have sex if she doesn’t want to get pregnant, then to proceed to have sex with her. Because you wouldn’t be having sex with her if you didn’t want her to have sex.

    do you ask to make sure your sex partners are willing to carry a pregnancy or is it a don’t-ask’don’t-tell policy with you.

     

    (This is stupid.)

  • bornin1984

    So your argument is now that it is not wrong to sleep with someone who does not want to be pregnant so long as you support their choice (and that women can sleep with whomever they want to because it is their choice). That is marginally better, but not by much, as you are still shifting 100% of burden onto the man while only looking at half the argument while holding pro-lifers and pro-choicers to different standards.

    It is not hypocritical to say that one should not have sex if they cannot handle the prospect of pregnant. It is hypocritical to say that one should not have sex if they cannot handle the prospect of pregnancy while the person saying it cannot handle the prospect of pregnancy yet has sex anyway. Your problem is that, in your example, you make the man responsible for not only making sure he does not sleep with someone if he cannot handle the prospect of pregnancy, but also if the woman cannot handle the prospect of pregnancy. You do not say to the woman that she should not have sex if she cannot handle the prospect of pregnancy. You say to her that she should have sex regardless of this fact, and then make her choices later, at which time you then turn around and tell the man that he should not have slept with her, as if the woman did not choose to sleep with him.

    That does not make any sense, as she is being held to a far lower standard than the man in that she is not being made responsible for choosing to engage in sex. And that is evidenced on this site, because if I were to state how the woman should have kept her legs closed if she did not want to be pregnant, I would be bombarded with response after response of claims of misogyny and anything else people can think of, yet a similar statement for the man will garner very few, if any, responses of misandry and the like. That is where the hypocrisy comes in, and it is rather blatant. The man is responsible for both his and her actions while the woman is responsible for neither. At the end of the day, the woman should be held to the exact same standard as the man and made responsible for her own actions. In that vein, no one should be having sex if they cannot handle the prospect of pregnancy and the ensuing child. No one.

  • saltyc

    So your argument is now

    I never changed my argument. And I never stated nor do I believe  that the man by default bears the burden of responsibility for the pregnancy. not 100% which is what you accused me of doing, when you were Bei  you accused me of saying all those other things I never said. There are just too many mis-statements you attribute to me for me to have time to go over all of them.

    I’m tired of pretending to discuss with you who can’t even get straight what I said and invents whacky arguments I never made for you to refute, no matter how many times I clarify. Done.

     

    I was just clearing up some arguments commonly made by young pro-lifers who still don’t get that their movement is anti-sex, and if you’re looking for a club to get laid, this aint it. All that talk of pregnancy, fetuses and murder won’t get the juices flowing kids, trust me.

     

    I myself would not have sex with a man who would not support my decision to abort, I have made a point of having this talk along with the contraception method talk etc.

     

     

     

  • bornin1984

    For you make quite a few claims regarding men and women, and then when someone points out to you the inherent problem with those claims, you turn around and say that you did not say that when, in fact, you did. Anyway, please notice I did not say that you said that the man bears 100% of the burden for pregnancy, but that he bears 100% of the burden for both his actions as well as the actions of the woman, instead of him bearing 100% of the burden for his actions and the woman 100% of the burden for her actions. My previous post laid this out clearly, and the reason you simply threw it aside was because I said nothing wrong in that post. In fact, if I do say so myself, it was fairly accurate. You have yet to say that a woman who does not want to be pregnant should not be having sex. Nowhere. Yet you have said the opposite many times.

    I was just clearing up some arguments commonly made by young pro-lifers who still don\’t get that their movement is anti-sex, and if you\’re looking for a club to get laid, this aint it. All that talk of pregnancy, fetuses and murder won\’t get the juices flowing kids, trust me.

    Because pro-lifers do not have sex? Please do find a better accusation that actually makes sense. Also, this is the internet. Why would I be looking for sex on the internet?

    I myself would not have sex with a man who would not support my decision to abort, I have made a point of having this talk along with the contraception method talk etc.

    And abort you probably will, using the withdrawal method.

    (Can you imagine the number of people who would scream if a pro-lifer said they used the withdrawal method as their form of birth control?)

  • saltyc

    You have yet to say that a woman who does not want to be pregnant should not be having sex

     

    Ummm…. because I don’t believe it, derr.

    but I have said this:

    I told you about a close friend of mine who knew she couldn’t handle either a pregnancy or an abortion, and the failure rate of her BC was not acceptable, so she chose not to have sex? That person also happened to be pro-choice, she just didn’t want to have to make that choice.

    I think it is perfectly sensible for someone who couldn’t handle either pregnancy or an abortion to not take the calculated risk to have sex, what do you think?

     

    If someone is OK with either outcome, does not rail on about how abortion is murder, that is different from someone who likes to pound the morality drum against access, engaging in the very acitivity that is the leading cause of what he says is abominable. But you won’t change the one behavior that can actually lead to that which you, not I, find absolutely unacceptable.

    get it yet?

    OK, let me try one more angle and maybe just maybe you’ll get my point.

     

    Let’s say I claim that killing cows is murder. Then I eat a hamburger. You call me a hypocrite because I don’t really believe what I say I believe that it’s wrong to kill animals when I am eating a hamburger. I cry foul, because you don’t apply the same standard of not eating meat to yourself. And anyway you’re not putting enough of the responsibility on the butcher, I wasn’t the one who killed the cow and anyway there are other ways of getting meat that are not killing. That would be ridiculous.

     

    I am saying, that you are a hypocrite if you say women should not have sex unless they’re prepared to carry a pregnancy to term and you have sex with a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant because you obviously do want her to have sex if you’re having sex with her.

     

    This is the argument I was making all along, and I have seen this hypocrisey many times.

     

  • bornin1984

    Ummm…. because I don\’t believe it, derr.

    Which is precisely what I just said. Yet again I say to you, before you try to mock people, actually read what they type out.

    Anyway, I know what your argument is because you have used it over and over again. You state that if Person A is not okay with Outcome X, that they should not engage in Action S. The problem is that you are not only holding Person A accountable for Outcome X by virtue of engaging in Action S, but you are holding Person A accountable for Outcome Y, which is dependent on Person B engaging in Action S, while you do not tell Person B that they should not engage in Action S if they do not want Outcome P to happen. Do you really not understand that? It is overly blatant hypocrisy, and it makes no effort not to be.

    Now, I will bite at your example, though. Let us say that you and I go out to eat at a nice restaurant. To get there, we take my car. Now let us also assume that I believe that eating meat is wrong. Let us also assume that you have no intention of paying even though you know you will be responsible for your half of the meal. Once we get to the restaurant, I order a salad and you order the most expensive item on the menu that you can find. Once the check comes, you turn to me and claim that you are not paying because you did not want to pay and that it is my fault for bringing you along.

    See the problem? I not only have to be responsible for myself (take care not to order any meat and pay for my own meal), but I also have to take care of you because you chose to come along with me and eat yet pin the blame on me for you coming along. THAT is the problem which I have reiterated time and time again.

    Hypocrisy is not dependent on the actions of someone else. Hypocrisy involves saying one thing and doing another. That is what the woman is in your example. She does not want to be pregnant, yet she engages in an action which can make her pregnant anyway, which is effectively what you tell the man not to do.

  • saltyc

    You state that if Person A is not okay with Outcome X, that they should not engage in Action S.

    No, no no no no!!!

     

    Just because you don’t want to get someone pregnant and have sex anyway is NOT in itself HYPOCRISY!!!!!!!!

     

    The hypocrisy comes in when your whole position is to make sex even more perilous for women than it currently is, yet don’t expect that to have any effect on your getting any, THAT is selffish and HYPOCRITICAL.

     

    YOU make a moral stance saying that abortion is an unacceptable abomination, that women should not be allowed to abort, because it’s murder, yadayada, that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy against her will, YOU want to take away an escape hatch for women.

     

    Skydivers are not hypocritical because they don’t want to hit the ground, yet skydive anyway.

    But if half of the skydivers are susceptible to more risk and peril, yet someone, in the other half, states vociferiously that those people should not get special treatments for their wounds, because they brought it on themselves then said person invites one from the susceptible half to go skydiving with them, THEN they would be a HYPOCRITE.

     

    Now, I will bite at your example, though. Let us say that you and I go out to eat at a nice restaurant. To get there, we take my car. Now let us also assume that I believe that eating meat is wrong. Let us also assume that you have no intention of paying even though you know you will be responsible for your half of the meal. Once we get to the restaurant, I order a salad and you order the most expensive item on the menu that you can find. Once the check comes, you turn to me and claim that you are not paying because you did not want to pay and that it is my fault for bringing you along.

    What is this supposed to be analogous to and what is it supposed to mean???

  • arekushieru

    Of course, Born misses the point, as usual.  Truth, an anti-CHOIcer, doesn’t want abortions to occur.  ProChoicers want women to have the ability to CHOOSE to HAVE an abortion.  So, why should WE apply the same standard as an anti-CHOICER?  And why SHOULDn’t an anti-CHOICER apply the same standard to ALL of their positions.  That’s exTREMEly illogical, even for YOU, Born. 

     

    Btw, this is Amanda’s blog and a PUBlic forum.  ONE of these days you will get it through your head, right Born…?