“Jane Roe” Gets a Movie Gig


First Abby Johnson gets a television commercial, now Jane Roe is getting an acting gig.

Via Reuters:

Norma McCorvey, a.k.a. Jane Roe, appears in “Doonby,” a psychological thriller from British writer/director Peter Mackenzie. She plays an elderly woman who tries to talk the expectant mother out of going through with her plan.

Mackenzie wanted to cast someone with the gravitas to deliver anti-abortion dialogue without being preachy. So last year, over lunch at a restaurant in tiny Smithville, Texas, he persuaded McGreevy, one of the most controversial living Americans, to play the role, despite the fact she had never acted before.

The film’s creators claim that the film is “apolitical.”  It was funded by $2 million from a donor who “wished to remain anonymous.”

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

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • northeast-elizabeth

    I encourage women to continue their pregnancies every day.  They are thankful, and experience the great joy of having a beautiful little baby.  I’m glad that McCorvey is demonstrating her love for women and their children to a wider audience through this film.  Perhaps some pregnant women watching it may change their minds about aborting.  There’s nothing wrong with that.

     

    This post does not present any real argument against what McCorvey is doing:

    (1) The post notes she’s doing an “acting gig”, with the implication (I suppose) that she’s doing it for the money.  Assuming she is compensated, I’m sure it’s a pittance, far less that many pro-choice actress get ($10-$20 million) per film.  But more importantly, it would be silly to suggest that it is the money rather than the cause that is motiviating her.  She would clearly refuse to portray a pro-choice character.

    (2)  The post suggests that the film’s creator’s are being dishonest in claiming the movie is “apolitical.” I’ve Googled around, and the major theme of the movie doesn’t seem to be dissuading women from having abortions.  And even if it were, I’m not sure why it would be any more “political” than encouraging women to have abortions.  Beyond that, I’m not sure why calling something “political” is a perjorative.  Pro-choicers are as political as anti-choicers.

    (3) The post implies that there’s something wrong about the donor wishing to remaining anonymous.  Presumably, the implication is that the donor is probably conservative and/or political, and trying to hide it.  That’s possible, but so what?  The public can evaluate the slant, if any, of the movie it itself, and the director and actors are all identfied. 

     

    The real objection here is to the practice of trying to talk pregnant women out of abortion.  If that’s the case, it would be more persuasive to make an actual argument against it.   Instead, the post pretty much commits the “wrong” it appears to object to:  concealing its true motives.  

     

  • arekushieru

    This is a ProChoice site. NO one, here, is encouraging women to have abortions.  There’s one of your problems, right there.  If teenagers were looking for something to convince themselves to not have an abortion, there is plenty of material out there.  What IS rarely portrayed in media is women having abortions and not experiencing reams of regret as a result (the experience of MOST women who have had abortions). Your implication that each and every woman you talk to is extremely thankful for being convinced to not have an abortion and experiences great joy at having a ‘beautiful little baby’ is also extremely insulting to me, as a woman, who does not ever want to have kids.  Your implication is that every woman WILL want them, if only she would quit worrying her silly little head over it and get down to making babies, as God ‘obviously’ intended her to. 

  • crowepps

    Your amazing psychic powers are apparently on the fritz — I have no objection to people who they have a right to shame, blame and boss around their relatives, friends and neighbors by insisting morality requires they jump in the volcano to make the anti-sex fanatic fringe happy. 

     

    What I do object to is the lies and falsehoods fed to pregnant women as truth, and the use of federal funds to support and facilitate the liars, and the lack of help for women or children AFTER the birth.  Personally, I think it’s immoral to persuade women that their ‘place’ is as breeding stock, convince them they will be valued if they become baby vending machines, or to brainwash them into producing product for the adoption industry.

     

  • northeast-elizabeth

    Arekushieru, crowepps:

    I made a series of very specific ciriticisms of this post.  You addressed none of them, electing to instead make incoherent, rambling, insulting and irrelevant commentary.  If you are pro-choice, you’re certainly not representing your side well.  Are you, perhaps, actually anti-choice operatives trying to give pro-choicers a bad name?

    Let’s see your own analysis of Robin’s post.  Why did she post about Norma McCorvey’s moive role at all?  What exactly was her point?  Why does she object to a movie which portrays a women encouraging another women to continue her pregnancy?

  • prochoiceferret

    I made a series of very specific ciriticisms of this post.  You addressed none of them, electing to instead make incoherent, rambling, insulting and irrelevant commentary.

     

    Oh, don’t worry about that. That’s how all anti-choicers interpret criticism that upholds the rights and agency of women.

     

    If you are pro-choice, you’re certainly not representing your side well.  Are you, perhaps, actually anti-choice operatives trying to give pro-choicers a bad name?

     

    No, unlike you, they don’t go around the Internet making their side look like mouth-breathing troglodytes.

     

    Let’s see your own analysis of Robin’s post.  Why did she post about Norma McCorvey’s moive role at all?  What exactly was her point?  Why does she object to a movie which portrays a women encouraging another women to continue her pregnancy?

     

    Her point was probably to keep us apprised of what Ms. McCorvey is up to these days. Now, let’s see your analysis of how you came to the conclusion that Robin was somehow “objecting” to this movie.

  • arekushieru

    Actually, we addressed everything you said.  Sadly, though, it seems beyond your comprehension that there could be any link between your biased portrayal of this article and the statement that ProChoicers do not promote abortion.  Meaning that, as PCF said, that the author probably wasn’t ‘objecting’ to Norma McCorvey’s role in the film for the reason you thought.  Of course, when it’s anti-choicers, it’s criticism, when it’s pro-choicers it’s incoherent, rambling, insulting (where did you arrive at that conclusion?  You addressed that post to BOTH of us, after all, so I would assume that that remark was directed at me, as well) and irrelevant.        

  • forced-birth-rape

    “Why does she object to a movie which portrays a women encouraging another women to continue her pregnancy?”

    Because it is no ones business!!!

    No one should harass, badger, coerce, or force any woman or little girl into getting married, having sex, or giving birth! Because all three have to do with a woman or girls vagina.

    Your pro-penis rape side is trying to force raped under age little girls to have another round of unwanted vaginal pain against their will, with nine months to anticipate it.

    Or side is anti-rape, and anti-child rape! Your side is saturated with child rapist, who are pro-forced birth.

    http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm

    http://voicelessvictim.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/top-10-catholic-lies-about-child-rape/

    And I get the same message from pro-lifers that I get from the porn industry, I am nothing but a cunt.

    If I will not or can not but out meaning give birth, then I am nothing.

    Pro-lifers are sadomasochistic misogynistic perverts!!! Who ad raped little girls to their pornographic pregnancy and birth fetishes.

    The GOP is the pro-lifer side of America, here is their ideas for women and girls.

    Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the Pro-lifers War on Women

    1) Republicans not only want to reduce women’s access to abortion care, they’re actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven’t.

    2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to “accuser.” But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain “victims.”

    3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

    4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

    5) In Congress, Republicans have proposed a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

    6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids’ preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

    7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

    8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

    9) Congress voted yesterday on a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

    10) And if that wasn’t enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can’t make this stuff up).

    Since I am a woman and I have lots of little girls in my family I care about, I will stick with the pro-choice anti-force, anti-rape side.

  • northeast-elizabeth

    Arekushieru, English has fairly standard rules of grammar and syntax which you might consider learning if you’d like to make your points clearer.   However, given that you were able to make it clear you agree with PCF, I can add the word “dishonest” to my other characterizations of your comment.  Robin obviously wasn’t just updating us as to McCorvey’s activities, because there’d be no reason to discuss claims that the movie was “apolitical” or that the funding source was anonymous if that’s all she was doing.  It’s not a question of me being “psychic”; it’s just a question of drawing reasonable inferences from the facts she selected to highlight.   In the same way, I don’t need to be psychic to know you’re stupid.  I just read what you say and draw the inescapable conclusion.

    PCF, I commend you on having obviously completed a few more years of schooling than Arekushieru, possibly even college.  Unfortunately, your reasoning skills are only slightly more advanced.  Spewing cliches about “mouth-breathing  troglodytes” and generalities about “agency” don’t communicate anything meaningful.  It’s as if I were to respond “you’re a baby-killler” to every point you made.

    I explained why it’s clear that Robin was objecting to the movie in my first comment, and earlier in this one.  You haven’t offered any plausible, alternative interpretation of this post.

  • arekushieru

    I assure you my grasp of the English language is probably far more advanced than yours.  Is it my fault if you can’t remember what you said (“And even if it were, I’m not sure why it would be any more “political” than encouraging women to have abortions.“) or understand simple sentences (if you didn’t mean to address Robin’s article as encouraging women to have abortions, maybe you, by your own logic, should have clarified your grammar and syntax, a little more)? (Yes, that is the first, and ONLY, case of me being insulting….) I don’t have to be verbiose just because someone feels entitled to have everything explained to her.  Btw, calling me ‘stupid’ (ableist remarks ftw…?) just after you complained about my grammar and syntax?  (Hint: it implies that your own grammar and syntax isn’t up to the challenge if you can’t use something other than uneducated comments to make your point.) Check.  Calling me insulting yet using insulting remarks, yourself?  Check.  You, ‘sweetheart’ are a hypocrite.  I just read what you say and draw the inescapable conclusion.       

  • colleen

    I made a series of very specific ciriticisms of this post. 

    No, you ladeled up several ignorant, tired  ‘pro-life’ stereotypes in an attempt to insult. One of the problems with folks who listen to ‘news’ and ‘religion’ designed for trailer trash is that y’all tend to mistake trolling and verbal abuse  for ‘arguments’ . The fact that your series of ignorant and wildly off the mark stereotypes and insults were bolded does not  make them any less stupid.   Your posts aren’t worthy of the thoughtful response you appear to be demanding. You are in no position to demand anything. I suggest you find another blog.

     

  • forced-birth-rape

    “English has fairly standard rules of grammar and syntax which you might consider learning if you’d like to make your points clearer.”

     “ I commend you on having obviously completed a few more years of schooling than Arekushieru, possibly even college.”

     

    ~ Before you come on here criticizing my spelling, grammar, and punctuation I will explain myself. I went to christian home school taught by my mother who had only a high school diploma, she did the christian girl thing to do, got married as a teenager stayed home, and had babies. I am dyslexic and have not went to college. 

     

    My great grandmother could not even write her own checks because she did what you pro-lifers want woman and girls to do, have babies in their teens and onward. I guess you would mock my grandmother for being illiterate when she did the right thing and had as many kids as possible as soon as possible.

     

    Are you a pro-choicer pretending to be an anti-choicer to make your side look like elitist who mock poor women with little education? ~

  • northeast-elizabeth

    Forced birth is rape, Arkushieru, and colleen, are you all the same person masquerading as three different illiterate pro-choicers?  You all just slop words together with little effort to do more than express some vague notion that you’re outraged about something.

    I’ll continue to encourage women to continue their pregnancies.  It’s my business because I make it my business, just like I’d make it my business if I saw a stranger beating her toddler on the street.  I’m decent and moral like that.  Clearly, you all hope that women will read your words and decide it’s just fine to get an abortion if they feel like it.  So you believe in persuading women just as much as I do.  It s just that you’d prefer them to abort rather than give birth.  Very sad.

     

     

  • arekushieru

    Nope, all three of us are very different women (although, you do seem to resemble another woman who appeared on these threads awhile back.  Although it has nothing to do with illiteracy and EVERYthing to do with your personality). But, you must be the illiterate one. Because we believe, and have repeatedly SAID, that the choice whether to continue OR terminate a pregnancy should be left up to the SOLE discretion of the woman.  Women aren’t as uneducated as you would like to think they are.  Btw, nice, you just called a woman who admitted to dyslexia, illiterate.  So, do you use those same forms of ‘compassion’ when approaching women with unplanned, unwanted or untenable pregnancies?  If anything, they probably just say what they think you want to hear and go on to do whatever they originally planned on doing.  Sad, really (for *you*) 

  • ack

    (1) The post notes she’s doing an “acting gig”, with the implication (I suppose) that she’s doing it for the money.

     

    I honestly don’t know what else you would call it. It IS an acting gig. There’s nothing shameful about getting paid to act, unless we’ve warped back into Elizabethan times. In which case, please inform Brangelina that they should be mortified.

     

    The post suggests that the film’s creator’s are being dishonest in claiming the movie is “apolitical.” I’ve Googled around, and the major theme of the movie doesn’t seem to be dissuading women from having abortions.  And even if it were, I’m not sure why it would be any more “political” than encouraging women to have abortions.  Beyond that, I’m not sure why calling something “political” is a perjorative.  Pro-choicers are as political as anti-choicers.

     

    Sigh. No one here on the pro-choice side is encouraging women to have abortions. We encourage honest conversation and portrayals of the reality of abortion. The reality doesn’t include suicide, FYI.

     

    There’s a general understanding that when you lopsidedly portray one side of a divisive political issue without giving weight to the other side in illustration, song, film, or stage, you’ve politicized a work of art. There’s also an understanding that when you portray a divisive political issue in a work of art, it’s political. Period. For a great example, listen to Bob Dylan’s “God On Our Side.”

     

    (3) The post implies that there’s something wrong about the donor wishing to remaining anonymous.  Presumably, the implication is that the donor is probably conservative and/or political, and trying to hide it.  That’s possible, but so what?  The public can evaluate the slant, if any, of the movie it itself, and the director and actors are all identfied.

     

    I do think there’s something wrong with that. Everyone, on both sides of the aisle, is perpetually screaming about TRANSPARENCY!!!!111!!!! and yet we seem to be left with an increasingly opaque political system.

     

    Funding makes film and advertisements possible. Otherwise, it’s just a person with media, no matter how great the storyboard, sketch, lyric, dance, etc… may be. Most films don’t exist on the basis of donations, they exist because of contracts. A film that exists because of donations points to someone having a stake in the content. I’d have the same expectation of knowledge about funders of a film that presented vegetarianism as the only healthy life choice (I’m veg). If it was funded by Morningstar Farms, I’d have a better idea of where to place it terms of persuasion vs. accuracy.

     

    I hope that was clear. It’s late and I’ve been in the car for most of the day.

  • ack

    The real objection here is to the practice of trying to talk pregnant women out of abortion.  

    Yes, I object to that. We shouldn’t be “trying to talk pregnant women” into or out of anything. I’m not her. You’re not her. Congress isn’t her. Your state legislature isn’t her.

     

    Instead, the post pretty much commits the “wrong” it appears to object to:  concealing its true motives.

     

    I think there is plenty of room for further analysis of the motives of the film, but the post itself pretty much adhered to its thesis.

     

    And it was posted on this site, not lifesite, or your local news station. There should be an understanding that the analysis came from a perspective in favor of reproductive rights. That’s not deceitful, or an attempt to conceal.

  • crowepps

     It’s my business because I make it my business

    Yes, yes, it was already obvious that you’re one of those self-appointed morals enforcers, nose sharp from repeatedly sticking it into the middle of other people’s personal business, arriving uninvited determined to invade everyone’s privacy, prying and snooping because you feel entitled to put your two cents in and tell people what’s what and give them a piece of your mind, sure in your superiority and self-righteousness that God has given you a special appointment to tamper and trespass and insist everybody ought to do things your way.  You busybody and butt in and meddle and intrude and buttinski until the entire town flees at the sight of you coming.  And you’re so oblivious to how disgusting your behavior is that you actually BRAG about your lack of manners and decency and contempt for everyone else, instead of being properly ashamed of yourself.

  • ack

    Child abuse is everybody’s business. We totally agree on this. If you see something, say something, to SOMEBODY who can do something. It won’t always be safe for you to directly intervene, but you can record plates, tell a store manager, etc…

     

    But.

     

    Abortion isn’t child murder. Child murder is the two little boys in metro Phoenix who were shot to death by their father because he was afraid their mom would take them to Florida. Child murder is the case where a four year old boy in my state was beaten to death with a belt for having an accident. Child murder is the case where a toddler died wedged between the wall and the toilet trying to escape the final beating. The phrase “child murder” is reserved for independent, born, sentient children. They know what’s happening to them. Whenever someone tries to equate those cases with abortion, they’re insulting the memory of those kids and the countless others who die every year at the hands of parents and caretakers.

     

    Nearly 90% of abortions happen in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. While there may be people out there who equate the abortion of a fetus the size of a lime and without any biological systems to make termination even APPROACH what those kids went through, I think those people should be ashamed of themselves. 

     

    I have a very genuine question that’s been posed before:

     

    If a building was burning down and you could safely save one five year old child in one wing, or 10 nine week embryos in another, what would you do?

     

     

     

  • ahunt

    ” It’s my business because I make it my business, just like I’d make it my business if I saw a stranger beating her toddler on the street.”

     

    Just so we are clear, you are equating the private reproductive decisions of women to child abuse, and claiming the right to insert yourself into the lives of total strangers…because you are ever so moral? Yes, no, maybe?

  • northeast-elizabeth

    I like this blog just fine and think I’ll stick around. You might reconsider your classist statements about trailer trash and religion. Is this site just for atheists who live in mansions?

  • northeast-elizabeth

    Are you saying a woman should have the sole discretion to terminate a pregnancy at eight and a half months for any reason? Or are you one of those “forced birthers” who would strip a woman of her “agency” and limit the reasons to health-related one?

    I called an illiterate person “illiterate” before based on her inability to use English properly. Illiteracy isn’t the same thing as dyslexia. Are you calling all dyslexics illiterate? Why do you hate them so much?

    Illiteracy is a valid ground upon which to criticize a person’s performance on issues of public performance. Indeed, pro-choicers continually point to President Obama’s supposed superiority to Sarah Palin with respect to verbal skills. And Vice President Biden has praised the President as being “clean and articulate.”

  • northeast-elizabeth

    Yeah, that pretty much describes me, except for the part about people fleeing and being disgusting. The beneficiaries of my wisdom are quite grateful. If you would read more carefully, you’d thank me too. And probably will. So, you’re welcome..

    It might surprise you that there are these things called “laws” which stick their noses into everybody’s life and control their moral behavior. So think of me as a law-giver.

  • northeast-elizabeth

    Yes.

    Except the decisions you’ve identified aren’t really private, any more than beating a child in the basement would be.

    I’m a stranger, and you’ve inserted yourself into my private decision to express my viewpoint. However, it doesn’t make you “ever so moral” like I am because your moral view is odious.

  • arekushieru

    Your ‘private’ decision?  Hardly.  Read up on the terms public and private a little bit more.

  • elburto

    Can’t win an argument, so she resorts to base insults about the language and reasoning skills of posters.  Quite pathetic.

     

    You’ve been told this on other sites that you’ve been banned from, but there are many reasons for someone to not be able to express themselves articulately online.  (not that this applies to A and PCF)  Poverty, race, and disabilities can impact how well a person expresses themself.  So there are plenty of excuses out there.  What there is no excuse for is being a disgusting, woman-hating troll wjho is consumed with so much internal misogyny that she spews it over everyone else.

     

    You might want to consider posting under a different name Trolly McTrollerson, or p’raps changing your M.O,, because as far as trolls go you’re a boring, cliched, tired excuse for one.

     

    Abortion is good, actually, it’s great.  If any of you anti-choice dingbats could give a plausible excuse for just why you think chldren should be born into poverty, born unwanted, boen to face abuse, born addicted to substances like drugs and alcohol, then I might take you more seriously.  Unfortunately all any of you can ever come up with is “ABORTION IS WROOOONG!”  (why?)  “ABORTION IS ICKY!” (so is birth, at least abortion doesn’t make you shit yourself) or “THERE ARE INFERTILE WOMEN WHO COULD RAISE THAT BAAAABY!” (tough, people with uteruses aren’t walking incubators for barren women who want to buy children instead of fulfilling their need for attention and love some other way)

     

    So, try to persuade me.  Try to tell me why you’re right, why abortion shouldn’t happen, with the caveats that adoption, God, and the arguments I mentioned above are off limits.  I’m waiting.

     

     

     

     

  • arekushieru

    The only ‘moral’ behaviour you control is that which thinks rape is just great.

  • elburto

    1)  A woman has the absolute right to terminate pregnancy whenever she feels like it.  It’s her body, nobody elses.

     

    2) It’s because of people like you, classist, ableist, racist, elitist anti-choice woman-haters that FBIR has some trouble with her written English.  Had she, and her female forbears. not been forced into the sexual and domestic slavery of disgusting, abusive men, then they may have had more time for education.  Sadly, women who are kept around to be used merely as breeding stock and sexual playthings usually aren’t afforded the privileges of decent education.

     

    You are disgusting.  You come here, venting your presumed moral superiority, when really you’re just a lonely, miserable person who wants everyone to be as unhappy and unfulfilled as you are.  You want to sentence them to misery, all women, you hate that ost of us have free will and agency to do what we want.

     

     I despise ableists, and classists like you who view poverty and the resulting educational problems as indicative of moral failure.  The only moral failure I see is anyone who supports a system that forces women to get pregnant and birth against their will, who forces unwanted pain and the risk of death upon anyone unfortunate to have been born with a vagina.

     

    Go away and troll somewhere else, if there’s anywhere left that is.

  • arectaris

    I was born into poverty. I suppose I should have been aborted then?

  • elburto

    First you don’t know the difference between ‘moral’ and ‘legal’, and now you’re unsure about the difference between ‘public’ and ‘private’.  And to think you’ve been calling other people illiterate and stupid.  Ironic.

     

    Except the decisions you’ve identified aren’t really private, any more than beating a child in the basement would be.

     

    The thing is, nobody has the right to control what’s inside my body.  Say Elizabeth, how would you feel if I came to your house and physically stopped you from having sex?  (You might have to use your imagination on that one, I know)  What about if I came over at meal time and swept your food off your plate?  How about if I said “You can’t watch that TV programme any more, if you do, I’ll punish you”

     

    How would that feel?  What you do with your body and it’s contents, in your own home, is no-one’s business.  Where does it end?  I know you desperately want The Handmaid’s Tale to become a reality, but this isn’t Gilead.  Beating a toddler is abuse, because you’re hurting a living, sensate being.  Aborting a foetus is nothing but a surgical procedure (or a medical one) to remove a insensate parasite from the uterus.  That’s it, the be all and end all.

  • elburto

    There’s a difference between being wanted and loved and born poor, and someone desperately not wanting their child to be born into poverty, because they know they couldn’t cope.

     

    Your straw-man is burning.

     

    I’m disabled, that doesn’t mean I don’t think women carrying disabled foetuses should keep them.

  • elburto

    Whoops, duplicate.

  • elburto

    Can I please just say, I think you are absolutely admirable.  Your inner strength, asnd commitment to telling the truth about your life, is a credit to you.  You are an absolute asset to this world, and I mean that with all my heart.  I’m sorry that there are narrow-minded, disgusting people out there who think that you should be mocked, but that’s their loss.  You escaped, and you’re laying your life open so that other people can benefit from it.  thank you so much.  RHRC would not be the same without your comments.  

     

    Kep fighting the good fight, I would be proud to have you as my sister any day *hugs*

     

    Oh, and for what it’s worth, I’ve never had a problem understanding your posts.  I’d rather take a million slightly misspelled posts that support choice and freedom, than just one of N-EE’s ‘perfectly written’ (gag) rants about how women are nothing more than walking cunts, for men to use and breed with as they see fit.

     

    You’re awesome.

  • colleen

    I like this blog just fine and think I’ll stick around.

    Please reconsider.

     

    You might reconsider your classist statements about trailer trash and religion.

    I didn’t intend my use of ‘trailer trash’ to refer to class at all but, rather, the thuggish and genuinely shallow qualities you and other right wing trolls display here when y’all try to force your primitive dehumanizing ‘faiths’ and peciliar notions of political correctness down our collective throats. For instance Rush Limbaugh, Randall Terry and Newt Gingrich are trailer trash as is Jeff Skilling and, the entire Bush family and, with the possible exception of Mr Skilling, they all have far more money than any of RH factor’s regular posters.

    Is this site just for atheists who live in mansions?

    Hardly. Again you should be able to answer questions like this by reading the ‘about us’ tab at the top right hand side of the home page.

  • arectaris

    How do you know I was wanted? How do you know I wasn’t born into one of those situations in which you apparently think one should not be born into? Do you know my life better than I know my own? There is no straw man here. You appear to be operating under the impression that being born into a less than ideal environment means that you have less of a right to live than someone born into the perfect environment. I want to see if you have the proverbial balls to tell certain individuals that they should not have been born into the situations they were born into, as being aborted would have been better for them. 

  • elburto

    You’ll end up banned from here, just like you were from Feministe, Abortion Gang, Salon, Feministing, etc.

     

    We don’t like you.  We don’t like women who are so saddened by their own failures that they attempt to drag others down into the cess-pit with them.  This site is about celebrating the beauty of all women, the power and strength they have when they’re not being forced into sexual slavery, like you want them to be.

     

    #funny how neither you, or any of the other “IT’S ALL ABOUT THE BAAAAYBEEES” brigade never seem to post on articles about preventing stillbirth.  Or does it not matter if wanted babies die, breaking the hearts of their parents?  Why is it that you’d rather waste your time and energy convincing people who don’t want to carry and birth children that they have to, instead of helping the fight against stillbirth, and maternal and neonatal death?

     

    It’s almost as if you feed on misery.  Force children on those who don’t want them, sit idly by while parents grieve for their loved and wanted dead babies.  Do the tears of the miserable sustain you black, withered heart?

     

  • colleen

    I completely agree with this post, elburto. I would go further and say that FBIR has a real talent for writing. I have nothing but respect for her person, her courage and her honesty. She is not just a survivor, she’s a richly talented survivor. 

  • elburto

    I would have been better off not being born.  

     

    My best friend, and her four sisters, would have not suffered sexual abuse, starvation, neglect and misery had they not been born.  Two of them would not have had psychotic breaks and lost everything, had they not been born.  The other three, with their illiteracy, lack of parenting models, and learning disabilities, would not have gone on to start giving birth at 13, to children who ended up in state care, had they not been born.  There would not be 18 children under the age of ten, with brain damage, FAS, FTT, languishing in institutional facilities, had those five women never been born.  If their mothers had not been brainwashed into thinking contraception and abortion were bad, and that men owned them, those 18 children would never have been born to suffer in the way that they are.

     

    Why is it that anti-choice scum like you don’t believe that every child should be wanted, loved, and cared for, born to parents who are ready to raise a child?  Is it that your life was miserable, so you want to ensure everyone else is too, is that it?

     

    If you were born unwanted and into poverty, and suffered because of it, then yeah, abortion would have saved you from that.  Why would you think I’d be scared to say it?

     

    Oh and the ‘balls’ thing?   It’s misogynist and sexist.  Say it again and you’ll lose yours, troll.

  • ahunt

    Except the decisions you’ve identified aren’t really private.

     

    Well, before we go any further…which decisions are you referring to…?  Contraception, therapeutic abortion…what?

     

    I’m a stranger, and you’ve inserted yourself into my private decision to express my viewpoint.

     

    Context Pookie…public opinion boards an’ all.

     

    However, it doesn’t make you “ever so moral” like I am because your moral view is odious.

     

    Snerk. So tell me more about my moral view. While you are at it, logically get me from A) responding on a public forum to B) insulting, unsolicited, and unwarranted  intrusion into the intensely personal business of reproductive health and well-being of people you have no connection with. Try to keep it rational.

     


     

     

     

  • arectaris

    There’s a world of difference between believing you would have been better off not born or even believing that someone else would have been better off aborted, and telling someone else that they would have been better off not born. One is a statement made in relation to your own life or a thought kept to yourself, while the other is a statement made in relation to the life of someone else. There are few individuals who ever outwardly tell someone else that they would have been better off being aborted, as it would be considered a sign of an extreme douche. 

     

    Why is it that anti-choice scum like you don’t believe that every child should be wanted, loved, and cared for, born to parents who are ready to raise a child?  Is it that your life was miserable, so you want to ensure everyone else is too, is that it?

     

    For one who decried the use of straw men, why are you engaging in one now? Yes, every child should be wanted, loved, cared for and born to parents who are ready to take a child. Yet this isn’t a perfect world. My position is that just because a child might be wanted, unloved, neglected and born to parents who might not have wanted him or her, is no reason to kill that child.

     

    If you were born unwanted and into poverty, and suffered because of it, then yeah, abortion would have saved you from that.  Why would you think I’d be scared to say it?

     

    If tomorrow you were to lose your family, your friends and all of your material possessions, then killing you today would save you from that. Yet few would argue that killing you today to prevent you from suffering tomorrow to be a good recourse of action. There are many individuals living unwanted and in poverty. We don’t, as a society, kill them because of it.

     

    Oh and the ‘balls’ thing?   It’s misogynist and sexist.  Say it again and you’ll lose yours, troll.

     

    No, it’s not. It’s a common saying. Get over it. And are you trying to threaten me on the internet?

  • forced-birth-rape

     

    ~ I should have been aborted, my mother did not want me, she did not love me, she could not take care of me, she would not protect me.

     

    If I found out my mother wanted to abort me, and someone stopped her, I would hate that person.

     

    My father died leaving my mother much debt, she had no job or education, if my sister or me needed new shoes it was miserable because it put my mother in such a toxic mood, we had no extra money for shoes, or new winter coats.

     

    If my mother’s car broke down she was hateful and cried every night for weeks, me, my sister, and mother did not have happy lives, we had severe money problems, abuse, and no love. You people are just signing kids up to be abused, hated by their mothers, and have to watch as their mothers suffer.

     

    I was born, it made my mothers life miserable, and it did me no favors. Basically three miserable lives, with bad memories.

     

    There are lots of people who say I wish I had never been born, and I wish my mother had aborted me.

     

    Me and the kids I grew up with are the kids you are forcing to be born.

    Having to look at a penis, feel a penis, and dread a penis as a child, is worse then abortion.

     

    It is nothing to you if kids spend the first ten years of their lives begging their mothers to not leave them with people who are going to rape them.

     

    It is nothing to you if kids have to dread and worry of having to have sex with porn addicts every day of their childhoods. ~

  • ahunt

    Oh and the ‘balls’ thing?   It’s misogynist and sexist.  Say it again and you’ll lose yours, troll.

     

    No, it’s not. It’s a common saying. Get over it. And are you trying to threaten me on the internet?

     

    Only metaphorically, given the common saying.

     

    If tomorrow you were to lose your family, your friends and all of your material possessions, then killing you today would save you from that.

     

    Odds, Pookie…what are the odds.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • arekushieru

    “I called an illiterate person “illiterate” before based on her inability to use English properly. Illiteracy isn’t the same thing as dyslexia. Are you calling all dyslexics illiterate? Why do you hate them so much?”

    Yup, you’re just sounding more and more like that uneducated woman (btw: obvious troll is still troll) who attributed her own words to other people. I said that dyslexia was not the same as illiteracy.  You called FBIR illiterate, when she already stated that she had dyslexia. Now WHO equated dyslexia with illiteracy? (Hint: It wasn’t me.)

    YOU are a forced-birther.  I believe any woman can decide to have an abortion at ANY stage for whatever reason.  Only way for women to have the same rights as everyone else.  So, sorry, but you lose….

     

  • arekushieru

    There is a difference between saying someone shouldn’t have been born or being aborted would have been better for them AND abortion would have saved someone from all their misery.  Learn them.  (I’ll give you a hint, though: Retroactive vs proactive.)

    Nope, NO one has a right to co-opt another person’s organs against their will, not EVEN to save their lives.  Making abortion illegal would solely elevate fetal rights to that level.  Sorry.

  • arekushieru

    Good thing we’re not saying you can ‘kill’ a ‘child’ because they might not be wanted, loved, cared or born to parents who are ready to take a child.  We are saying that a pregnancy may be terminated for whatever reason a woman does not want her body to be used, any more. The final arbitrator of the decision is not wanting your body to be used, after all….  Which is why there is MUCH difference between saying that an individual might have been better off being killed, today, rather than remaining alive and losing their family, friends and material possessions, tomorrow (IF that was even what elburto was saying… which it’s not).

     

     

  • jennifer-starr

    Though I have been a lurking reader for quite some time now but I finally joined today because I wanted to put in my two cents. Elizabeth, I gather from your statements that you’re one of those ‘sidewalk counselors’?  From what I’ve read so far, you’ve been rude, judgmental, self-righteous and extremely defensive.  If this is a demonstration of your counseling skills, I would suggest finding something else to do with your time. 

  • elburto

    The beneficiaries of my wisdom are quite grateful

     

    Yeah, but cats are like that.  They’ll listen to any old shite as long as you feed them afterward.

     

    It might surprise you that there are these things called “laws” which stick their noses into everybody’s life and control their moral behavior. So think of me as a law-giver.

     

    Laws control illegal behaviour, not immoral behaviour.  It’s immoral to force women to give birth against their will, it’s not illegal.  It’s immoral to think of POC, PWD, and the poor as lesser beings, but it’s not illegal.  It’s immoral to stand by stuffing your face with food as others starve, but it’s not illegal.  If they were illegal then you would be well and truly fucked, wouldn’t you?  I mean, it’s pretty hard tdish out sactimonious lectures from a cell.

     

    You don’t get to give your ‘morals’ to anyone else.  Just because you think men should be able to rape and impregnate women, that doesn’t mean it’s legal.  Just because you think women exist to be subservient slaves and chattel, that doesn’t mean it’s legal.

     

    Do you see now?   Morals=/=laws.

  • carolyninthecity

    It’s not about you dude. 

    No one is saying that poor people have less of a right to exist- once you’re here, as in born, you’re here. And regardless of your socio-economic status, you’re a free and equal person with full rights. No one is saying you should be killed because you are poor. 

    A fetus however, is not a legal person. You cannot give a non-sentient, non-thinking, non-feeling being that is being gestated inside a person’s body (remember the person? the woman?) full and equal rights without it infringing on the woman’s rights. If the fetus has a “right to life” then the woman is no longer a whole person. Get that? So the woman in this case is the only one who can have the decision-making power.

    So when a woman gets pregnant and she decides that because of her economic situation- or any other variable- she cannot raise a child and opts for an abortion, she is doing what is best for her OWN life. She’s doing what she needs to do to survive and to thrive. The difference between pro-choicers and anti-choicers is that your lot would call that woman’s decision “selfish”. You would say she should sacrifice everything to have and raise a baby (or go through the trauma of giving it up for adoption), that she should just “suck it up” and deal with the concequences (how cute). Nevermind that having a child when you’re not ready or not financially or emotionally prepared can potentially ruin your life. Nevermind that the last thing the planet needs is more babies (but that’s a whole other issue). You guys are so good at erasing the pregnant woman from the picture. 

    pro-choicers on the other hand would see her decision to abort as responsible, even noble, brave, and in all likelihood the right and moral thing to do. 

    See, the universe does not revolve around you. That’s wonderful that you were born into poverty, overcame adversity and are now a successful internet troll. But had you been aborted, you never would have known. No one would. The universe would remain unaffected (unlike when a born person is killed). You wouldn’t be looking down at us from fetus heaven thinking “damn I’m so sad, wish I haden’t been aborted”. 

    When a woman is pregnant, she is still an equal person. It’s not all about the fetus. She still has full rights. When are we all going to finally understand that? 

  • ack

    My position is that just because a child might be wanted, unloved, neglected and born to parents who might not have wanted him or her, is no reason to kill that child.

     

    My position is that if a pregnant woman or girl looks at her life and thinks, “I can’t do this right now/yet/ever,” we as a society don’t get to tell her, “Too bad, you’re staying pregnant and birthing a child.” It’s abhorrent and incredibly demeaning to women and girls.

  • kj

    As someone who is training to be a real counseler (i.e. with a license and ethical standards), I concur. 

  • arekushieru

    You would say she should sacrifice everything to have and raise a baby (or go through the trauma of giving it up for adoption), that she should just “suck it up” and deal with the concequences (how cute). Nevermind that having a child when you’re not ready or not financially or emotionally prepared can potentially ruin your life.

    You see, what they’re demonstrating, here, is the ‘sin’ of Greed.  Forcing others to labour for you in order to live the way you wish to live is the ‘true sin’.  Selfishness, not so much.  In truth, after all, selfishness isn’t necessarily a bad thing….

  • broodstock

    It’s funny that you accuse someone of being classist and then go on to insult someone’s level of education…. which requires $$$….  hypocrite.

     

    So you went to college, and you learned some big words, and now you’re gonna talk real loud cause GODDAMN RIGHT YOU’LL BE HEARD.  (music reference, but applicable)

     

    Some of the smartest, most intellectually open people I know have high school diplomas – so don’t pretend that college somehow imbued you with superior thinking skills and a vocabulary you can utilize to degrade and intimidate others – because someone with that inferior high school diploma or GED might knock you on your proverbial @ss, Northeast Elizabeth.

  • arectaris

    The unborn aren’t here? They don’t exist? They have no right to life? Really?

    I’m only here because individuals such as yourself couldn’t convince my mother that it would be in my best interest if I was aborted. According to you, people like Gianna Jessen and Ana Rosa Rodriguez shouldn’t be here because they were just choices. According to you, if it would have been in our mothers’ best interests to kill us, which the mothers of the latter two individuals tried, then that would have been perfectly okay and a ‘noble’, ‘brave’, ‘right’ and ‘moral’ thing to do. To you, humans have no worth that their mothers do not want to give them. Luckily, most people do not adhere to such an archaic thought process, as it is, and should be, appalling to just about anyone.

    Contrary to what you state, the unborn are here, the unborn do exist and they do have worth outside of what their mothers want to give them. Their worth is inherent, and as human beings, they should be afforded the same rights and protections as any other human being is afforded. Doing so does not turn women into chattell or reduce their status as persons under the law. Stating as much is an insult to millions of women who vehemently oppose abortion and all of your (mis)characterizations.

  • prochoiceferret

    The unborn aren’t here? They don’t exist? They have no right to life? Really?

     

    Not, not really. But just because they’re here, they exist, and they have a supposed “right to live” doesn’t mean they have the right to free life support from a woman who does not consent to provide it.

     

    Their worth is inherent, and as human beings, they should be afforded the same rights and protections as any other human being is afforded.

     

    So you agree that “the unborn” aren’t entitled to some other person’s uterus, then. Thank you for being pro-choice!

  • julie-watkins

    the unborn do exist and they do have worth outside of what their mothers want to give them.

    Are you disappearing the woman? Do her choices have no worth? No born person has the right to demand a kidney or even blood from another born person; a dead person’s cornea’s can’t be harvested unless the person (before death) signed a donation card. But a pregnant woman is expected by society to not be “selfish” and accept any pregnancy because it would be good for someone else.

    Again, I always get boggled at people who obviously feel that a pregnant woman/girl not accepting an unwanted pregnancy is So Much More a moal problem than the systemic sexism of Nature and the sexism & classism and sexism of society. It’s not my fault I was born a fertile female; human biology is not my fault; I didn’t want to be pregnant (that’s why I had an IUD). When it failed I chose not to give a gift of life. A child is built out of the flesh and blood of its mother, it not a trivial lose of resources and has many medical risks (especially if medical care isn’t locally available or to expensive). The only way society can be less sexist/classist than it inherantly is (considering human biology) is that [attempting to] give life is considered a gift not an obligation.

    If my mother chose not to stay pregnant (she was rich enough she could have gotten an abortion), then I wouldn’t know I didn’t exist, so it’s not a problem for me. I would have been more upset if I found out she was forced into marriage.

  • arekushieru

    And, one more thing, something else that anti-choicers rarely ever seem to consider when they complain about how the fetal body shouldn’t be violated, is the kind of violation we’re ACTually referring to, which would be drawing blood from the fetus or gathering tissues and organs from it, against its (read: woman’s.  Ironically enough, since, in this case, anti-choicers would say that the choice must ultimately be left up to the woman because the fetus CAN’T make a choice) will.

  • crowepps

     Doing so does not turn women into chattell or reduce their status as persons under the law. Stating as much is an insult to millions of women who vehemently oppose abortion and all of your (mis)characterizations.

    This might be a difficult concept for you to understand,  but there is a huge difference in the situations of women who are trying to have children and VOLUNTARILY become/stay pregnant and other women who do NOT want to be pregnant.  Nobody that I know of is promoting the idea that “women who vehemently oppose abortion” should be FORCED to have abortions.  Most people that I know are saddened but resigned to women choosing to die, destroy their health, or drive themselves insane because they cling to bizarre beliefs about reproduction.

     

    On the other hand, women who do NOT want to be pregnant have no obligation to stay pregnant because other women “vehemently oppose” something.   That would be as ridiculous as the idea that therapeutic abortion should be withheld from women suffering pregnancy complications, or that Plan B birth control should be withheld from women who are raped because some religions find the possibility that they MIGHT become pregnant in a couple of days far more important than their being victims of crime.

     

    It’s a little hard to see how you can deny the result is to “reduce their status as persons under the law” when you are proposing that women be FORCED to donate the use of their body to a parasitic process where all the benefits go to someone else and all the consequences for the host are negative, on the basis that the fetus by merely existing has a right to steal their oxygen, food and use of their bodily organs.  The conservative moralists have made it clear that if a person’s “bad choices” result in homelessness and starvation,  they shouldn’t feel entitled to a free cardboard box or a crust of bread.  Why should anybody think the zygote has such an ‘entitlement’?

  • grammaragious

    Legally, there is certainly no right to live inside the body of another person.

  • arectaris

    Life is not a “gift” which can be given by anyone, since life is not and was not created by anyone alive today, but is rather a continuum from one organism to the next going back billions of years. If life is a gift from anyone, it would be God, and not some woman who is merely an entity within the continuum called life. You can save your rhetoric for someone else who is apt to listen to it, though I can’t imagine most people outside of this site would.

     

    A child is built out of the flesh and blood of its mother.

     

    Not true. Fetal development is self-directed.

     

    The only way society can be less sexist/classist than it inherantly is (considering human biology) is that [attempting to] give life is considered a gift not an obligation.

     

    Or you could refrain from doing the modern feminist thing and not claim that everything is a matter of sexism/classism. It is a well established fact that, on the issue of abortion, men and women do not differ significantly in their views on abortion, regardless of the society. 

     

    I noticed that you bothered to avoid the real crux of my post, which was that individuals such as yourself have no problem saying that certain individuals shouldn’t be here today. You hide behind all this talk about women, while refusing to acknowledge the individuals who would really be affected by abortion. When it comes time to putting a face on individuals, who are not just choices, you instead choose to run and hide or to repeat the same rhetoric. Even if my mother thought I had no value, I would still have value. Even though Gianna’s mother thought she didn’t have value and tried to abort her, that doesn’t mean she was valueless. Individuals have worth independent from what others think they should have. If your argument is that an individual only has worth so long as someone else says they have worth, then there is no reason why you cannot be deemed as worthless. 

  • arectaris

    I have no real desire to respond to most of that, as I really have little idea what you’re trying to respond to, but I should note that when it comes to donating to the poor/needy and/or charity, conservatives are more generous than their counterparts. 

  • prochoiceferret

    Life is not a “gift” which can be given by anyone, since life is not and was not created by anyone alive today, but is rather a continuum from one organism to the next going back billions of years. If life is a gift from anyone, it would be God, and not some woman who is merely an entity within the continuum called life.

     

    Okay then, so you won’t mind if this “woman who is merely an entity within the continuum called life” decides not to continue with her pregnancy. After all, she’s not giving a “gift” of life if she goes through with it, so she can’t very well take it away if she doesn’t.

     

    Not true. Fetal development is self-directed.

     

    Great! The fetus can self-direct itself somewhere other than the unwantedly-pregnant woman’s uterus.

     

    Or you could refrain from doing the modern feminist thing and not claim that everything is a matter of sexism/classism.

     

    Sexists and classists everywhere will be grateful!

     

    It is a well established fact that, on the issue of abortion, men and women do not differ significantly in their views on abortion, regardless of the society.

     

    And yet women continue to have abortions, safe or otherwise, and (cisgender) men don’t. Isn’t that funny?

     

    I noticed that you bothered to avoid the real crux of my post, which was that individuals such as yourself have no problem saying that certain individuals shouldn’t be here today.

     

    Okay, I’ll touch your Horcrux: You certainly shouldn’t be here today. I don’t think it’s just me who has a problem saying that. Why don’t you go do something more productive than troll a reproductive-rights Web site?

     

    Even if my mother thought I had no value, I would still have value.

     

    You’re not exactly making this assertion persuasive.

     

    Even though Gianna’s mother thought she didn’t have value and tried to abort her, that doesn’t mean she was valueless. Individuals have worth independent from what others think they should have.

     

    What does the value of a person have to do with anything? Even the most valuable person in the world doesn’t have the right to live inside the body of another person without that person’s consent.

  • colleen

    when it comes to donating to the poor/needy and/or charity, conservatives are more generous than their counterparts.

    Bullshit.  American conservatives are some of the most grasping, venal and greedy people on the planet. Since Reagan y’all have dedicated your sorry selves to increasing both the numbers and desperation of women and children living in poverty . The destruction of the social safety net in the US is entirely due to conservative social policies. American conservatives and particularly religious conservatives use the poor as as fundraising props. It’s way past time that you folks took some personal responsibility for the escalating destruction of our social fabric. Y’all have COMPLETELY abrogated any responsibility towards the poor.

     

  • ahunt

    I have no real desire to respond to most of that, as I really have little idea what you’re trying to respond to…

     

    Well, Crowepps did say the grasping the concept would be difficult for you.

     

    Essentially,  millions of pro-life women who get all butt hurt because millions of other woman disagree with them…can mind their own damn business, and breed to their hearts content…and not one pro-choice woman will attempt to legally bar them from such choices..

     

    Clear now? (sorry crowepps)

     

  • ahunt
  • alysoncoromandas

    While I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said, Colleen, I’m not sure if it’s possible to divorce terms like “trailer trash” from their classist implications.  No matter what your intention is, you’re still using a term which equates poor people who live in trailers with garbage, and I don’t think that’s okay, nor is it okay to equate such people with political figures who you dislike when they’re leading vastly different lifestyles and may not share the same beliefs and characteristics at all.    (Though I do find Northeast Elizabeth’s objection to it to be a bit of a “gotcha” tactic.)  Being “thuggish and genuinely shallow” has nothing to do with living in a trailer.

  • julie-watkins

    It also depends on where the charity is going to: if it’s going to people like you or people you’re uncomfortable about. IE, helping poor people who share your religion verses helping a non-denominational/multi-racial homeless shelter.

  • julie-watkins

    I noticed that you bothered to avoid the real crux of my post, which was that individuals such as yourself have no problem saying that certain individuals shouldn’t be here today. You hide behind all this talk about women, while refusing to acknowledge the individuals who would really be affected by abortion.

    Well, my crux of the matter is that I’m not responsible for being born a fertile woman; I’m not responsible for how Nature works in that the female has so much more burden than the male, and I will fight how sexist/classist society takes advantage of this. If a woman was prevented from obtaining an abortion when she would have taken that choice when it was available then I think that she shouldn’t have been forced to remain pregnant. That doesn’t me I want her child to be retrospectively erased. I’m saying the forced or coerced continuance of the pregnancy was wrong.

    Why is a woman’s or a poor families choice not to continue a pregnancy (at great cost) less important than the systemic sexism/classism?

    Almost everything, to me, is matter of sexism/classism because that’s how the ruling class continues to unfairly consume the resources and labor of the lower classes without paying what the resources and labor is worth. Since I believe everything is connected I will continue to use those arguments even if many anti-abortion people (such as yourself) feel they are not relevent. Objecting that many people use an argument you don’t agree with isn’t really responding to the argument.

  • beenthere72

    Doesn’t this Arectaris-fella sound familiar?    Bei, familiar?

  • colleen

    I’m not sure if it’s possible to divorce terms like “trailer trash” from their classist implications.

     I certainly am able to do so and with some ease. Perhaps you could just this once try.

     

    nor is it okay to equate such people with political figures who you dislike when they’re leading vastly different lifestyles and may not share the same beliefs and characteristics at all.

    I agree. Income and wealth have nothing to do with  the dignity, personal characteristics, intelligence or worth of any individual. That was my frickin point.  And how do you know that my ‘lifestyle’ is all that vastly different?

  • crowepps

     

    A child is built out of the flesh and blood of its mother.

     

    Not true. Fetal development is self-directed.

    If the woman isn’t making a contribution what’s the problem with removing the fetus and letting it “self-direct” its development somewhere else?

  • arectaris

    It’s actually not bullshit. The link ahunt provided kind of touches on the subject, but it fails to adequately state what Brook’s found. Link. Link. The idea that liberals care more about their fellow man than do conservatives isn’t born out of evidence, as the evidence point the opposite direction. You will find that in the U.S., the majority of your charities who service the poor are run by mostly Christian organizations and that, in many areas, it are local churches who run food banks, or run low-cost food/supply centers, etc. It is the individuals who like to claim that the other side doesn’t care who are the ones most likely to do nothing.

  • ahunt

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

     

    Can you say slovenly reasoning, methodologically unsound procedure and utter horseshit.

     

     

     

     

  • arectaris

    Could you point out what’s slovenly and methodologically unsound about Brook’s findings? Or are you just stating as much so you do not have to come to the realization that the age old truth that conservatives simply don’t care is a myth?

  • crowepps

    Yes, other Christians, some of them conservative and some of them liberal, do indeed run food banks and loan closets, and support charities.  They absolutely should get credit for their hard work.  You don’t get any of the credit for that though.  Your posts here don’t assist food banks or loan closets or raise money for the poor.  You don’t deserve to ride on their coattails just because you moralize at strangers on the internet .

  • crowepps

    Working on a big job, no time to check in regularly, appreciate your willingness to pick up the slack.

     

    It astonishes me that people think “I’m not smart enough to understand what you’re saying but it’s probably wrong” is an argument.

  • arekushieru

    This is one more example of the religious right’s not so religious response to the disenfranchised, impoverished and underprivileged.  There is a passage in the bible, after all, where a poor woman who literally doesn’t have more than two cents to rub together in her name, donates both of them to the collection pot. Jesus praises her for it.

  • arekushieru

    Perhaps the fact that he apparently ASSumes that all religious organizations are Conservative?  Most of the religious organizations I’m aware of that provide support to the poor and underprivileged are liberal.

  • colleen

    George Will? You give me a George Will op-ed as a cite? George Will makes his living as a Republican shill and, thus, reflexive liar. He will say and do anything. I’ve read op-eds by this vile little son of a bitch that mocked and ridiculed those of us who wish to live in a representative Democracy that actually cares for it’s children and it’s elderly. He wrote this piece of crap to try to justify unworkably stupid and greedy conservative social economics which clearly do not work.

    Conservatives are the people who have for 35 years ridiculed  those of us who really give a crap about ending or alleviating poverty. (those of us folks like you mock as “bleeding heart liberals”  After 30 years of shameful, socially destructive political dogma and policy you folks (including George Will and conservatives sucking up what funds are available to buy Bibles and ‘help’ pregnant women fill out medicaid forms  while simultaneously electing politicians who run on their plans which further savage the ‘undeserving’ poor. The poor were the first folks savaged and jettisoned by’centrist’ Democrats and Republicans.

    I can recall a time when heathcare was affordable. I can recall a time when if someone worked a 40 hour week the social agreement was that they were entitled to a living wage. I can recall when we actually HAD a living wage. Now the morons on the right call that socialism.

    I seriously hate what you folks have done to this country.

  • beenthere72

    when it comes to donating to the poor/needy and/or charity, conservatives are more generous than their counterparts.

     

    I’m glad to hear that.   Liberals, for the most part, choose to live in states where we pay higher taxes to support programs that give help to the poor/needy.    Vermont, the bluest state of them all, has the highest tax burden, and they just passed universal health care, isn’t that wonderful?

  • arekushieru

    If women aren’t more valuable than fetuses, then women aren’t valuable, at all.  Or, at least, less valuable than a fetus.  And you refuse to acknowledge the woman who would be affected by being forced to remain pregnant.  So, we can safely assume that you don’t find women of any value, at all, because you never seem to consider the other side of the equation, and that side which is more valuable at that….

    Sexism is inherent in nature. However one feels about abortion has nothing to do with it. Sexism is also imposed by those who would support such Natural sexism.  Do look up the term sexism.

    You should also look up the term ‘gift’, while you’re at it.  Although, whether something is a gift or not makes no difference in someone’s exercise of their rights, either.  Thanks. 

     

     

  • colleen

    I don’t know what is happening in Canada but here in US churches, tithing has gone out of style. The gigantic, tax free mega churchs don’t come cheap and neither do the multi-million dollar payments to victims of sex abuse by clergy. Much of what conservatives call ‘charity’ goes to line their own pockets.

    Indeed even much of the ‘charitable choice’ money goes to blatant proselytizing which is the exact opposite of help. The religious right is sucking up a great deal of money which could help, say, single mothers in practical ways and they’re putting it in their own pockets.

    In my local community we had to find a new site for the local food bank. Not one of the churches was willing to host it and the Catholics, the LDS and the local mega church has the room and facilities. A local service club stepped in. All of our local services that help the poor in practical ways are secular. Our CPC gets about one ‘customer’ a month. What a waste of needed money

  • arekushieru

    I was once homeless.  I was taken into a shelter, in my community, called WEAC, an organization run under the umbrella of a church affiliated charity.  Most of the organizations run by this charity forego proselytization of any type.

  • carolyninthecity

    I’m coming to this thread a little late, but I’ll reply anyways. 

    For me, I’ve always considered a born child to have greater moral value then a fetus. I feel this way because, as was mentioned futher down the thread, two sets of rights cannot exist within the same body. They’re irreconcilable. So if you must choose one to receive rights- either a woman or the fetus- I think the only acceptable thing is to allow the woman to remain fully autonomous throughout her pregnancy. I think it’s fair to say that once you are born, you have full and equal rights. That’s where the line is for me. Obviously the birth process creates a gray area, but it’s not a black and white issue. It’s not to say a fetus is “worthless” and has no value whatsoever. 

    I would never say that someone should have or should not have been born. Saying that economic factors often influence a person’s decision to have an abortion is not the same as saying all poor women should have abortions. I don’t know where you’re reading this- not one person here would ever try to convince somebody to have an abortion. If I had the opportunity to council your mother while she was pregnant I would tell her to do what she thought was best for her. To me, a woman who is forced or coerced into abortion when she does not want one is an incredible injustice, and I think everyone on here would agree with me. 

    It’s always about the woman’s life, and she needs to decide what’s best for her, what’s safest for her. It’s a matter of survival. We’re talking about the removal of a human embryo that has no brain, and therefor no awareness. No capacity to suffer or feel pain. It would never hurt or know of the life it might have. But the woman, she would hurt. She would suffer, and she would know what she was losing being forced to gestate a pregnancy she did not want. She would bear that hardship. And to me, that is a greater moral injustice then killing a fetus. 

    What is this inherent right to be born? who says that’s so? Babies don’t come from the cabbage patch. Women make them in their bodies and then go through what is probably the most transformative and life-altering event that a woman can experiance when they give birth. It can be an incredible joy, but also terrifying and an incredible sacrifice. How is forcing women to make that sacrifice contributing to the greater good? To human’s greater happiness? I don’t think it is at all. I don’t expect to be changing your mind on this issue, but understand that being pro-choice doesn’t come from some hatred of babies, or contempt for the poor or disrespect for life. It comes (for me, anyways) from my immense love and respect for women and motherhood.

  • ahunt

    Conservatives care very deeply….particularly about their religious faith.

     

    http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/08/political_prefe.html

     

    “One thing that is very clear from reading that document is that “charitable contributions” cover a very wide scope. For example, about 40% of charitable contributions are to religious organizations, and of that, 70% goes to church operations with only 30% going to church programs to aid the poor, sick, etc. There’s certainly nothing wrong with donating to an organization that you personally benefit from, but to me this is morally somewhat different from a donation that serves only to help someone else. The same goes for arts funding — a significant fraction of charitable giving: if I like theater so I donate $500 to my local theater group, I would consider that differently from donating $500 to the local soup kitchen.”

     

    http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/Research/Giving%20focused%20on%20meeting%20needs%20of%20the%20poor%20July%202007.pdf

  • beenthere72

    Very well said.  I agree with all of it. 

  • crowepps

    I think that’s wonderful, and if what happened in Masschusetts happens there, the number of abortions should drop.  No woman should ever have to have an abortion because it’s cheaper than obstetric care.  In a country that really ‘cared about the unborn’, prenatal care would be free.

    As of February 2010, more than 439,000 additional people were covered by health insurance, according to the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, yet the most recent data indicate that the number of abortions in Massachusetts simultaneously reached its lowest level since at least the 1970s.

    http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/?p=3178

  • arectaris

    Who is trying to ride on anyone’s coattails. You seem to be confusing trying to ride on someone’s coattails with correcting you on an otherwise highly incorrect statement made without any basis in fact.

     

  • arectaris

    Perhaps the fact that he apparently ASSumes that all religious organizations are Conservative?

     

    Nowhere did I explicitly say this or even implicitly make that assumption.

  • ack

    I was at one of those for a baptism and made the mistake of looking at their “Wish List” in the program. They wanted $10k (in large letters) for a new projection system. Nevermind that the system they had (two huge screens progressing through the lyrics to hymns, with Christmas pictures) seemed to be working just fine for the two hours I was there. Further down the list, in much smaller letters, was a request for scholarship money for kids. I didn’t see anything on there about money for social programs.

     

    Giving money to a faith community =/= giving money to charity.

  • arectaris

    From reading the above, it’s clear that you didn’t bother with either link and are just trying to be “right”. Brooks looked at religious giving, non-religious giving, donating one’s time and even blood to determine who was more generous, and found that conservatives are more giving than their counterparts.

     

     

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ I see the child-raping, wife-beating, warmongering christians are coming in here marking all of our Pro-womens, and little girls rights post down.

    Typical of the penis-worshiping, vagina-pain-mongering Pro-forced-birth christian American taliban. ~

    ~ Conservative republican christianity capitalizes off of ignorance, misery, and poverty that is why they are working so hard to create it, think of all the power and money James Dobson and his minions have to lose. That is the reason the child-raping-catholic church keeps people poor in third world countries by making women and little girls breed themselves into poverty and submission. ~

     

    ~ Any charity conservative christian republicans do is PR to recruit republican voters to give them their women and little girl torturing power. I know I grew up with them. ~

     

    ~ Atheist liberals want every one to have the best healthcare and education and then let them come to their own conclusions. Conservative christians want to “control” because they are scared someone will reject their anti-human rights, misogynistic evil. ~

  • rebellious-grrl

    Northeast, what in the hell are you talking about? Rich atheists? Excuse me. I’m a working class pagan. I believe in gender equality and reproductive freedom for all. Your statements are out of touch and classist!

  • rebellious-grrl

    Talk about a statement that is reeking with class privilege.

  • rebellious-grrl

    No, but anyway. I prefer that women have a choice. If she choses to continue a pregnancy great — If she decides to have an abortion, great. It’s an individual choice. It’s not up to me. I will continue to work for reproductive freedom for all women.

    My uterus IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS! You may think you can shove your morality on anyone you cross, but not here. What is sad, is that you feel entitled to shove your morality down our throats.

  • rebellious-grrl

    I will stick with the pro-choice anti-force, anti-rape side.

    Me too FBIR! And I’ll add, anti-forced birth.

  • rebellious-grrl

    2nd that! I agree with colleen, FBIR you ARE a talented writer.

  • rebellious-grrl

    The only people who are saying you can’t be poor and have children are the conservative Republicans.

  • ahunt

    “religious giving, non-religious giving, donating one’s time and even blood to determine who was more generous

     

    None of which says anything about donating to the poor and sick.  You are assuming general non-profit donations are all about the poor and sick and disadvantaged. Such is not the case.

     

    Are you suggesting that liberals are funding the non-profit pro-life poltical organizations?

  • rebellious-grrl

    Are the undead here too? Do you believe in zombies? See dead people?

    Really, I’m not trying to make fun of you, but every time I hear “unborn” I think of really bad stupid horror flicks. I want brains…….

    Talk about insulting. Your statement wins first prize at being insulting to women. To say that women have no bodily autonomy, is to say women are chattel. OK. If your post was on a billboard I would spray paint “THIS IS INSULTING TO WOMEN” on it.   For real.

  • ahunt

    oops…double post.

  • arectaris

    I am assuming no such thing. That is your interpretation because you do not understand what it being said to you.

    Conservatives donate more to religious organizations than do liberals. They donate more to non-religious organizations than do liberals. They donate their time and volunteer more than liberals. They even donate blood more often than liberals. There really is no way to spin the data to make it more friendly towards your political leanings. That is why talk about how conservatives don’t care or however the line goes should be taken with a grain of salt. When it comes to putting up, they do, even moreso than the individuals who are likely criticizing them.

  • ahunt

    Conservatives donate more to religious organizations than do liberals. They donate more to non-religious organizations than do liberals. They donate their time and volunteer more than liberals. They even donate blood more often than liberals

     

    Again, none of which says anything about helping poor, sick people. It might possibly suggest that conservatives feel passionately about certain political and social causes, but it does not suggest that conservatives care more the about the poor and sick.

     

    You keep insisting that the data says what it does not.

  • prochoiceferret

    That is why talk about how conservatives don’t care or however the line goes should be taken with a grain of salt.

     

    Sure, conservatives may want to deny women autonomy over their own bodies—but hey, they give their money and time to causes that reflect their anti-woman cultural and political leanings, so they’re not so bad after all!

  • forced-birth-rape

    TIME ranks Southern Baptists’ rejection of sex-offender database as a top “underreported” news story of 2008

     

    http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm

     

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/church-excommunicates-mother-of-9yearold-rape-victim-ndash-but-not-accused-rapist-14218389.html

     

    http://www.madkane.com/madness/2009/10/09/pro-rape-republicans/

     

    ~ http://www.thebody.com/content/art56485.html The Christian Right: Wrong on AIDS ~

     

    ~ Conservative groups have caused an uproar by opposing a vaccine for the second-deadliest cancer for women. http://www.alternet.org/story/37485/ ~

     

    ~ Why do conservative christians adore child rape so very, very much? And “LOVE” to hurt women and little girls, even third world women, and little girls, so very, very much?~

  • arekushieru

    Are you confusing yourself with Brooks, now? Nowhere did I explicitly say or even implicitly make that assumption that you were Brooks.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Opps double post. Need more coffee this morning.

  • beenthere72

    I think what they’re doing in Vermont is better than what we did here in Mass.   They’re going to have a single-payer system.   Mass’s reform is more like Obama’s. 

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care#Massachusetts

     

    I’m anxious to see the outcome of reform in Vermont.  It should be a model for other states/the nation.     Heck, I’d move there; it’s such a beautiful state. 

  • beenthere72

    Have you heard about The Giving Pledge?

     

    http://givingpledge.org/

     

    Pretty amazing. 

  • crowepps

    Conservatives and liberals are not monolythic groups all of whose members have identical thoughts and behaviors.  We are not talking about fans following sports teams or people with the same hobby.  Most people are conservative on some issues and liberal on other issues, and each has a unique set of exactly which are which.  Some conservatives are ProChoice and want abortion to remain legal, some liberals are ProLife and want it further restricted.  Some sincerely religious people are ProChoice and some sincerely religious people are ProLife, each for a unique set of moral conclusions.

     

    The only way an entire group of people could have identical views on ALL political issues would be if they weren’t thinking at all but instead slavishly following the list of correct thoughts their ‘cult leader’ has passed around to them.  In that case, you would expect to see the exact some arguments with the exact some wording and the exact same cognitive and fact errors.

     

    Some conservatives are charitable with time and money and some liberals are charitable with time and money.  The conservatives and liberals who are NOT charitable don’t get an entitlement to bask in the reflected glow because OTHER people give.  They still have a responsibility to go do some of that work themselves instead of feeling self-righteous becasue they waste time harassing strange women about their sex lives.

  • arectaris

    How can you care about social causes such as poverty, but not care about the poor? You see, it isn’t hard to put two and two together. If we have two sets of individuals, and across the board one of them gives more, both in their time and of what they make, even though they make less than the other, it’s by no means a stretch to believe that the one who is giving cares more than the one who is not giving as much. 

     

    You keep insisting that the data says what it does not.

     

    Incorrect. You continue refusing to accept that which you do not like.

  • arectaris

    What a joke! How do you type all of that after making a blanket statement about “conservative moralists”?

  • prochoiceferret

    How can you care about social causes such as poverty, but not care about the poor?

     

    Good question. Which political party is doing everything it can to axe programs that alleviate poverty and help the poor, again?

     

    If we have two sets of individuals, and across the board one of them gives more, both in their time and of what they make, even though they make less than the other, it’s by no means a stretch to believe that the one who is giving cares more than the one who is not giving as much.

     

    Conservatives sure seem to care a lot about dismantling this country’s social safety net.

  • crowepps

    The FY 2011 budget just passed has a cut of 40% to the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, and a cut of 30% to the Women and Infants Feeding Program.

    I’m not sure that there is any connection between “caring” and giving money through churches when, A, the giving is tax deductible, and B, the idea is that the church can ensure the money goes only to the “deserving poor” who aren’t “immoral” or use the offer of charity to require the person to listen to sermons or join the church, or give up a child to adoption.  In the later cases, it isn’t about ‘caring’ but instead being able to control people.

  • beenthere72

    In Texas:

     

    http://www.truthout.org/helping-neediest-among-us/1305119849

     

    I’d laugh if it wasn’t so sad.  

     

     

  • arekushieru

    Please do tell me where crowepps made such a claim…?  

  • arekushieru

    Yes, yes.  You keep saying it, but it doesn’t make you anymore right.  When Conservatives do deign to give to the poor, it’s usually because they make enough money that they wouldn’t notice if a few bucks went elsewhere.  If that isn’t true, please provide supporting evidence.  Just like we would like you to provide supporting evidence for that which YOU continue to avoid.  That the moneys go directly to the poor.  Kthxbai. 

  • crowepps

    Well, even though I may not have actually made that claim, since I’m a liberal I probably WOULD make such a claim, you know, because that’s what liberals are all like.  <snerk>  I sure get tired of people who make strenuous efforts to squeeze themselves into a rigid stereotype and then insist that everybody else must have done the same thing.  Since, you know, they are the measure of ‘normal’.

     

    I get particularly sick of the ones who insist that “all liberals” are blah, blah, blah, or “all feminists” are blah, blah, blah, but that if a person is a conservative they must be good and if they are a Christian and go to church they must be moral.  It’s hard to conceive how they could argue that without a lobotomy first, considering the absolutely STAGGERING mass of evidence to the contrary.

     

    I mean, leaving aside the enormous avalanche of evidence about sexual perversions and pornography and sexual abuse of children, and the repeated instances of claiming that God has authorized assault, bombings, arson, harassment and trespass, and just counting the actual MURDERERS who attend church faithfully pretty much disproves that one.  Did you know the BTK killer who terrorized Kansas was a Lutheran deacon?  Went to church faithfully.

  • arekushieru

    I find that people are generally liberal or conservative for exactly those reasons, though.  Whether you want to follow the policies, first, then party, or the party, first, then policies.  Which has nothing to do with the moral goodness or immoral badness of a group, collectively, or an individual, specifically. 

  • crowepps

    I’d say probably there are 15% whose beliefs are absolutely 100% in line with conservative dogma, and 15% whose beliefs are absolutely 100% in line with liberal dogma, and the remaining 70% are conservative on some issues and liberal on other issues and consider cases individually instead of trying to force them into one size fits all cases.  Certainly I know lots of caring, liberal Democrats who are Christians and who help the sick and the poor — Jimmy Carter for one — and he was ProChoice at least during his candidacy, rejecting abortion personally but unwilling to force others to follow his faith.

  • arectaris

    Perhaps you should read what your pro-choice friends type instead of mindlessly rating everything a pro-choicer says a five?

     

    The conservative moralists have made it clear that if a person’s “bad choices” result in homelessness and starvation,  they shouldn’t feel entitled to a free cardboard box or a crust of bread.

     

    That’s untrue. It’s a blanket statement made to villify conservatives.


  • prochoiceferret

    That’s untrue. It’s a blanket statement made to villify conservatives.

     

    No, actually, the stated (and in many cases, enacted) policy preferences of conservatives do all the vilifying that’s needed. All we need to do is point it out to remind you of your anti-choice hypocrisy.

  • colleen

    It’s a blanket statement made to villify conservatives.

    When it comes to their treatment of the poor in this country the actions and policies of American conservatives speak for themselves and need no vilification. It has been the policy of the conservative movement to destroy and/or privitize to any semblance of a social safety net.

     They have been open about their intent and, thanks to the capitulation of ‘Third Way’ and blue dog Democrats they have largely succeeded. The results are not pretty and y’all need to take some personal responsibility for them rather than stoke yourselves publically about your nonexistent generosity and compassion.

     

  • crowepps

    Odd that you would object to that, since your own posts are full of blanket statements made to villify liberals and blanket statements made to whitewash conservatives.  At least mine have the benefit of being true.

    Councils consider ban on giving food to homeless

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23418097-councils-consider-ban-on-giving-food-to-homeless.do

     

    Drivers will be ticketed in campaign to curb panhandling

    http://www.adn.com/2011/05/04/v-printer/1845334/anchorage-revives-campaign-to.html

     

    The Conservative Assault on the Homeless

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-conservative-assault-_b_835342.html

     

    Conservative Republicans Ratchet Up War Against Poor

    http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201103280009

     

     

  • arectaris

    A factual statement made with the requisite information and made after you made an incorrect statement devoid of any facts is trying to villify liberals/whitewash conservatives? 

     

    As to your links, the first is from the U.K. and has no bearing on the U.S., nor even mentions conservatives or liberals. The second makes no mention of conservatives or liberals, either, not that it would because both conservative and liberal districts have passed bans on panhandling. The third and fourth are from HuffPo and Media Matters, respectively, and I’m not even going to go there because both of those sites have a decidedly left-wing bias, and would be akin to me posting something about liberals from Fox News. 

     

    You think your statements have the benefit of being true? The best evidence of your statements being true you can provide are two examples that mention neither liberals nor conservatives, and two examples written to a decidedly left-leaning audience on left-leaning websites. If that’s the best you have, then you don’t have much of anything at all.