The Neon Elephant in the Room: What the Media and Pundit Class Keep Missing About the “Abortion” Debate


Making assumptions based on available evidence–whether based on sensory or scientific data–is a fundamental human trait and fundamental aspect of policy debates.  In public policy, evidence is debated and analyzed ostensibly for the purpose of reaching informed conclusions.  But what happens when the evidence changes? Ostensibly, the analysis and conclusions drawn also change to accommodate the obvious.

Not so in the “abortion debate.”  When it comes to debates about “abortion” and “pro-life politics,” both the media and the pundit class are persistently missing the huge neon-lighted elephant in the room. Current efforts by the far right to undermine health care for the poor are neither about “abortion” as commonly understood nor about “life.”  Instead, they are part of longer-term broader efforts to undermine women’s rights across the board, deny basic health care to the poor and middle class, increase the available labor force, demolish the social safety net, and keep wages down and corporate profits on the rise.  The abortion debate so craftily positioned and manipulated by the far right is but one aspect–albeit the one most likely to be played out on a field of emotions–and one used to deflect attention to the much broader and deeper agenda of the far right.

An editorial in today’s New York Times, for example, makes this increasingly common mistake in an otherwise on-target argument: It assumes that recent efforts by Indiana and other states to de-fund Planned Parenthood are “about abortion.”

The editorial states that Planned Parenthood is a favorite target of the far right “because a small percentage of its work involves providing abortion care even though no government money is used for that purpose.”  It then goes on to note:

Governor Daniels and Republican lawmakers, by depriving Planned Parenthood of about $3 million in government funds, would punish thousands of low-income women on Medicaid, who stand to lose access to affordable contraception, life-saving breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing and treatment for H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted diseases. Making it harder for women to obtain birth control is certainly a poor strategy for reducing the number of abortions.

This is all true but for one thing: It assumes that the goal is to “reduce the number of abortions.”  That is only partly true because as we all know, if “reducing the number of abortions” were the goal, money would be flooding from states into Planned Parenthood and other family planning programs to dramatically increase access to contraception, to address rape and violence, and to ensure that everyone had access to basic sexual health education. If reducing abortions were the goal, then economic and social supports especially for parents in the poor and the middle class would be a major social priority.  And if reducing abortions were the real goal, as the editorial assumes, funding would still be flowing for efforts to provide early detection of cervical and breast cancer for poor women, as Planned Parenthood does, or to increase access to prevention, testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, which Planned Parenthood also does.

But as an editorial in the Indianapolis Star similarly reveals, many in the media still are not seeing that elephant.  “It’s not as if lawmakers weren’t warned” about the cut-off of federal Medicaid funding to Indiana because of its de-funding of Planned Parenthood, the editorial states.

Indiana’s secretary of the Family and Social Services Administration, Michael Gargano, said well before the law was passed that, in his view, it might violate federal rules, thus jeopardizing $4 million the state receives each year in Medicaid funds dedicated to family planning. Legislators, and the governor, barreled through that yellow light without slowing down.

And now there’s a mess that will be sorted out in the courts at taxpayers’ expense.

But the fact is that Indiana doesn’t care about Medicaid funding or Medicaid patients, just as Paul Ryan doesn’t care about whether seniors beyond those now enrolled (who ostensibly would vote in the majority for Republicans) have access to affordable health care.

We all now know–even if we don’t admit it–that the far right is made up of three basic extremist groups: fundamentalist religious groups seeking to create a theocracy in America (and c’mon folks, they are less and less shy about stating this); fundamentalist “free marketers” who feel only corporations have rights; and fundamentalist pseudo-libertarians. These groups–whether we want to admit it openly or not–share a common belief in the supremacy of men over women, of corporations over democratic government and people, of the rich over the poor, and of whites over everyone else.

Together, these groups hate Planned Parenthood for the same reason they hated Acorn (notwithstanding problems in the organization, it was the mission of helping register disenfranchised voters that so infuriated the right, as evidenced by current efforts to undermine voting rights at the state level). Extremists hate Planned Parenthood for the same reason they hate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, hate the minimum wage and labor and environmental regulations, and hate programs like Title X and Title IX. All of these–and I name only a few–are aimed at providing basic equity in American society.  So they hate Planned Parenthood because it provides basic primary health care–including but not limited to reproductive health care–to people who might not otherwise have it. Abortion is merely the emotional foil used by the far right to rally the extreme religious minority that votes in the Republican primaries and to confuse other voters into thinking they’re all about “morality” and “life,” fiscal austerity and freedom, and efficiency.

If, for example, the issue were about abortion, and if, for example, the case of Indiana, as the Times editorial asserts “could help deter other states — including North Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin and Tennessee — from moving forward with similar measures to restrict payments to Planned Parenthood,” we wouldn’t see concurrent efforts by Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin to demolish BadgerCare, starting with denying men access to services under the program, which serves low-income individuals in the state.  According to the Huffington Post:

Abortion rights advocates in Wisconsin are convinced that Walker and the GOP lawmakers are just looking for underhanded, politically acceptable ways to change the BadgerCare program so significantly that the U.S. government is forced to cut all federal family planning funding to the state.

It’s clear far right governors and legislators know what they are doing and are acting according to plan, to de-fund all health care for low-income people, starting with the kind of health care they can most easily stigmatize and sensationalize, irrespective of how important such care is to the basic health and well-being of a functioning society.

You can’t solve a problem unless you know what it is. The reality is that these efforts are part of a larger strategy to de-fund and dismantle government supports at every level.

As long as the media and pundits consistently get hoodwinked by the far right, anti-choice, anti-woman crowd into a “repeat-after-me” script about “babeez” and “life,” we run the risk of being distracted by the real agenda, which includes but goes far beyond attacks on Planned Parenthood.

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 Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • nico

    I agree with the basic analysis here, that the fight is not about “abortion” but about the full range of reproductive rights, including right to reproductive health care, including abortion. I especially agree with this:

    <blockquote>”You can’t solve a problem unless you know what it is.”</blockquote>

    But in addition to knowing what the problem is, the problem also has to be named, and clearly communicated. And that’s where I think there’s been a breakdown.

    The way things currently stand, “choice” has become a euphemism for “abortion,” and that alone obscures the neon elephant.

    To whatever extent “choice” IS taken to mean more than abortion, it’s mostly a generic stand-in for just about anything one “chooses” to do, further obscuring/breaking the connection between “choice” and the underlying needs and rights of the individual “chooser.”

    The word “choice” refers to the actions (decisions, behaviors etc.) of the chooser, rather than to necessary *rights* and *freedoms* needed to exercise “choice” in the first place.

    “Choice” sounds trivial and frivolous compared to talk that pits “right to life” & “sanctity of life” & “innocent babies” & “fetal pain” against “baby killers” and  “irresponsible open-legged sluts.”

    We all know that the language of so called prolife is manipulative fuckery (often functioning as porn for fundies), but is “choice” — the term itself — strong enough to push back against what’s being thrown at it? I have doubts.

    Consider how even though reproductive rights — including abortion — are presumably a common denominator across all of feminism, the notion of “choice” is contested from one genre of feminism to another, with the word used to alternately justify and ridicule individual decisions about everything from lip gloss to sex work to the pop divas we get duped into enjoying. That is not the fault of the so-called antis. And I don’t think we can assign all blame to the media and the pundit class.

    Is the word “choice” too dilute? Is it up up to the rhetorical/political demands we place on it? I’m glad to see that the word was barely used in this  post, and that the words and phrases that  choice is typically grouped with (“abortion,” “life”) were put in scare quotes. But are we scared enough? On the other hand: Are we more than simply scared?

    <blockquote>”As long as the media and pundits consistently get hoodwinked by the far right, anti-choice, anti-woman crowd into a “repeat-after-me” script about “babeez” and “life,” we run the risk of being distracted by the real agenda, which includes but goes far beyond attacks on Planned Parenthood.”</blockquote>

    Here’s the thing, though, as I see it. It’s only hoodwinking because we are on the losing side. It’s not enough to blame the hoodwinked. And it’s definitely not enough to blame the hoodwinkers, who after all are doing exactly what they’re supposed to do: managing discourse to their ends.

    The risk here isn’t that repro rights advocates will be distracted by the right’s “real agenda” (which to activist-types should by now, finally, be fucking clear) so much as our inability to make the right’s real agenda — and its consequences — and the contradictions & incompatibilities within its agenda — clear to those who stand to lose (which is, in the end, everyone.) 

    “Choice” doesn’t adequately name the issue or describe what’s at stake. “Choice” is a consumer marketing term of casual decision and freedom. It’s a myth-like term of abundance and plenty, kin to the “having it all” meme. Choice is a beautiful thing. But today it’s just too light and breezy and hollow (and familiar, and rote) to carry the weight of bodily autonomy and integrity and our absolute right to those.

    The inadequacy of “choice” as rhetoric is reflected in the political position that repro rights — under the #prochoice banner — occupies today. That’s depressing as fuck, especially if it’s no longer possible to blame the antis, the media, and the pundits for it.

    OK rant over! :) Love this site! x

  • rita

    There is an elephant in the room but we don’t misidentify it precisely because we are so earnestly and bitterly focused on our own women’s rights.

    Selected children are routinely aborted, utterly defenseless victims of the Democrats’ current allegiance to an extreme ideology founded on the abhorrent ‘principle’ that the small genetically unique human child, growing and being protected and nurtured in his/her mother’s womb is only “a bunch of cells” over which we women are assured quite wrongly that we have absolute ownership and disposal rights.

    Of course, this is not the first time that an ideology has taken hold of a political party and resulted in the programmed dehumanizing and medicalized extermination of a vulnerable group of human beings.

    But even the most virulent ideologies flame and then die away. All that is left is deep abiding shame for our complicity over four decades in the terrible injustice of ‘legal’ abortion of innocent human lives.  

  • reproductivefreedomfighter

    Yes, how dare we be focused on women’s rights! How dare we presume a woman capable of making decisions about her body!  Sickening! 

    I do have some deep abiding shame…about how I used to be conservative.  About my abortions?  Nope.  That was my decision to make, NOT YOURS. 

  • ahunt

    Define “selected.”

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ Forcing women, little girls, raped women, and raped little girls to breed against their will is sadomasochistic rape. ~

     

    ~ Nothing and no body has a right to be in a woman or little girls body against her will, use her body against her will, terrorize her for nine months with extreme dread of having to anticipate having extreme vaginal pain against her will, no one was the right to cause a woman or little girl extreme vaginal pain against her will. No one has the right to use and abuse her vagina against her will, even though it gives the christian misogynistic taliban much sadomasochistic satisfaction. ~

     

    ~ Raped pregnant women and raped pregnant little girls have physical and emotional feelings; an embryo or fetus does not. ~

  • rita

    The “selected” are those unborn children who are ‘chosen’ for ‘selective abortion’. 

    The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has explicitly condemned selective abortion “on the ground of sex, ethnic origin, social and cultural status, or disability” as a “serious violation” of the rights of the child.

    This certainly covers such circumstantial grounds for procured abortion as ‘unwantedness’–wrong time, wrong gender, wrong father etc.

    But none of these grounds should be presented as the child’s fault and as deserving of capital punishment for the child.

    In an ‘unwanted pregnancy’ the quality of ‘unwantedness’ is not inherent in the child.  The child is not to be blamed or punished for this quality.  Rather, the ‘unwantedness’ is per se an attitudinal attribute of the child’s mother (and/or of other parties such as the father, other family members, and/or the community).  It is this attitudinal prejudice that needs to be worked on and reformed.  No child should be placed at risk of abortion because others reject the child as curtailing their own wants.

    In short, it is the prejudicial attitudes of those responsible for the well-being of the child at risk of abortion that need to be changed. And often the best way to change those attitudes is through better education and better community care and support services for distressed mothers and their children both before and after birth.

  • ahunt

    Ah…thanks for clarifying. Here is more info.

    http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/factsheets/FS6.HTM

     

     

  • stephtrudel

    Do you have any idea what atrocities truly unwanted children face? Neglect, abandonment, abuse, sexual assault etc. I have such an issue with the antichoice side saying that ‘we have to protect these precious children” while in the same breath calling for cuts to programs that actually help BORN children. Until it’s born, it is not a person, however the female carring them IS. The Antichoice side has NEVER, IMO, acted with concern for children. They act out of a desire to control womens sexuality. If you all really want to decrease abortions (which us prochoicers are ALL for), it makes sense to support contrceptives as well as free/affordable prenatal care and assistance to help struggling mothers and fathers. You all claim to care so much for the unborn, yet as soon as it hit air, it’s on it’s own. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for buying into this mysoginistic culture.

  • jodi-jacobson

    I have worked on these issues for 25 years. Sex selection abortion is not about abortion or an unwanted pregnancy; these are not comparable. Sex selection abortion is about deeply misogynistic cultural attitudes that lead to preference, often desperate preference on the part of women, to bear a male child. The roots of this lie in the low value put on female children, the very high value put on male children, and the fact that in many places women are still “blamed” for the sex of their baby even though it is the male’s sperm that determines the sex.

    Sex selection abortion is not about abortion.  In the same places that you find sex selection abortion you find high rates of serious neglect of female children, to the point of starving them in favor of their brothers, denying them health care and schooling, and requiring young girls to work from the time they can walk, and to be married off early.  The social and individual abuse and violence against these born female children is the issue; the devaluation of women as people–perpetuated by the anti-choice crowd–is the reality and the root of the problem. As I said above, if you were really so worried about these issues you’d be supporting and fighting for efforts to support women’s basic human rights, including rights within marriage, freedom from violence, and rights to bodily integrity, among other things.  You’d be fighting from the get-go to ensure that all women could determine whether, when and with whom to have children and to have access to modern contraceptives and all forms of reproductive health care.

    Focusing on and misinterpreting the outcome gets you nowwhere, unless nowhere on solving the real issue is where you want to be.

    This is the problem with the anti-choice movement: there is one simple answer to everything, and there is no real depth of understanding–or caring–about the real issues underlying the outcomes.

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has explicitly condemned selective abortion “on the ground of sex, ethnic origin, social and cultural status, or disability” as a “serious violation” of the rights of the child.

    This certainly covers such circumstantial grounds for procured abortion as ‘unwantedness’

     

    Actually, it doesn’t. You may want to work on your reading-comprehension skills. Employers value them pretty highly.

     

    But none of these grounds should be presented as the child’s fault and as deserving of capital punishment for the child.

     

    They’re not presented as such. Neither do they have anything to do with the woman’s inalienable right to an abortion.

     

    In an ‘unwanted pregnancy’ the quality of ‘unwantedness’ is not inherent in the child.  The child is not to be blamed or punished for this quality.  Rather, the ‘unwantedness’ is per se an attitudinal attribute of the child’s mother (and/or of other parties such as the father, other family members, and/or the community).  It is this attitudinal prejudice that needs to be worked on and reformed.  No child should be placed at risk of abortion because others reject the child as curtailing their own wants.

     

    Sorry, but women are not going to go through with unwanted pregnancies just because you feel they should.

     

    In short, it is the prejudicial attitudes of those responsible for the well-being of the child at risk of abortion that need to be changed. And often the best way to change those attitudes is through better education and better community care and support services for distressed mothers and their children both before and after birth.

     

    Sure, services like those are good ideas. Too bad the GOP is dead-set against funding them. And that even if those services are available to every women, some are still going to have those pesky “prejudicial attitudes” you don’t like, because they don’t want to remain pregnant, period.

  • tricia-k

    How about Right to Privacy?  It’s none of your *&$%#() business!  How is it you’re entitled to know what kind of medical care I’m receiving?  If the government isn’t paying for it, and it isn’t, HOW IS IT that anyone has any right to know anything about the medical procedures being performed by any particular health care provider except in abstract form?  Worry about your own self and I’ll do the same. 

     

    Perhaps women should consider some kind of protest where we start demonstrating in front of doctors’ offices that cater to men or prescribe erectile dysfunction medication.  After all, if God determines you can’t get it up anymore, maybe that’s God’s way of protecting women from accidental pregnancy when they’re closer to menopause than anything else, ESPECIALLY IF YOU’RE GONNA GIVE THOSE SAME WOMEN GRIEF about protecting themselves from it any other way.  I know we don’t want to stoop to their level, but after all, keeping a guy from his boner pills isn’t gonna put his life at risk or do anything.  No one says he has to have sex.  In fact, it’s just as much God’s will as a woman conceiving is it not?

     

    I know that’s a fantasy, but men would be outraged that anyone had any say in their medical care and recognize immediately what’s wrong with forced birth politics.  IT’S NONE OF YOUR GOD DAMNNED BUSINESS!!

  • hephacet

    The problem with your argument is that the anti-abortionists classify abortion as murder, and murder is murder, whether it’s paid for by the state or by private individuals.  And murder, in their eyes, should be classified as a crime in the legal code.  And according to the law, it matters not whether a crime is committed by private means or public (i.e. doesn’t matter if the abortion is paid for out of pocket or with public funds).

  • hephacet

    Well, many people are against abortion because they consider it murder, in the literal sense.  They are very much against murder, and, say, many people who are murdered every day are drug dealers.  This does not mean that people who are for punishing the murderers of drug dealers are therefore IN FAVOR OF drug dealers.  Or specifically in favor of any number of categories of people who are murdered– red-haired white people with pekingese dogs, or black women who walk with canes, or any other specific demographic, simply because they were crime victims.  Murder itself is wrong, according to them.  My point is that one does not have to be FOR X, simply because one is AGAINST Y.  By the same token, one does not have not have to be in favor of providing state funding to unwed mothers, simply because one does not want their children murdered. 

  • hephacet

    Whoah there– just because a woman should have the right to abort a child due to the fact that she would prefer to have a child of the other gender does NOT mean that she is somehow misogynistic.  That’s ridiculous.  Perhaps she chooses to have a FEMALE child, not a male one?  Is she still a misogynist?  You’re jumping to totally illogical conclusions here.

  • hephacet

    “some are still going to have those pesky “prejudicial attitudes” you don’t like, because they don’t want to remain pregnant, period.”

     

    I agree with you 100%.  I feel the State should do everything it can to ensure that such women have abortions– these are not the kinds of women we want reproducing.

  • prochoiceferret

    The problem with your argument is that the anti-abortionists classify abortion as murder, and murder is murder, whether it’s paid for by the state or by private individuals.  And murder, in their eyes, should be classified as a crime in the legal code.  And according to the law, it matters not whether a crime is committed by private means or public (i.e. doesn’t matter if the abortion is paid for out of pocket or with public funds).

     

    The problem with your argument is that the pro-choicers classify abortion as a fundamental human right, and a human right is a human right, whether it’s paid for by the state or by private individuals.  And a human right, in their eyes, should be classified as a fundamental right in the legal code.  And according to the way the law should be, it matters not whether a human right is upheld by private means or public (i.e. doesn’t matter if the abortion is paid for out of pocket or with public funds).

  • prochoiceferret

    Whoah there– just because a woman should have the right to abort a child due to the fact that she would prefer to have a child of the other gender does NOT mean that she is somehow misogynistic.  That’s ridiculous.  Perhaps she chooses to have a FEMALE child, not a male one?  Is she still a misogynist?  You’re jumping to totally illogical conclusions here.

     

    Yes, I suppose Jodi would be jumping to illogical conclusions as far as countries with an endemic culture of sex-selective abortions favoring female births are concerned. Could you remind me which ones those are, again?

  • prochoiceferret

    I agree with you 100%.  I feel the State should do everything it can to ensure that such women have abortions– these are not the kinds of women we want reproducing.

     

    Change that to “ensure that all women have the free choice of an abortion” and we can shake on it!

     

    I can live with you calling women who have abortions “not the kind of women Hephacet wants reproducing,” though I suspect you’re going to be flummoxed by abortion recipients who are already raising (born) children.

  • hephacet

    You’re missing the point.  The person I was talking to (not you) was writing that she couldn’t understand why the anti-abortionists thought it was their right to know what was going on in privately funded corporations.  Well, if the anti-abortionists think abortion is murder, then clearly they would think they have the right to know what goes in such places.  For example, if it were known that Target or Burger King was shooting people in the head in their back rooms across America, I think the police (and the public) would have the right to investigate, whether it’s on private property or not.  This was meant as an explanation of their position only, not polemics.

  • hephacet

    As an American I have no jurisdiction, or say, nor should I, over countries other than the US.  I am referring to my own country, the US.  What goes on in Ghana or Timbuktu is irrelevant to the discussion of the legality of abortion in the US, or abortion according to gender in the US.  I am 100% in favor of abortions according to gender (the mother’s choice), or abortions for any other reason, in the US.  To say that I am therefore a misogynist because I would be in favor of a mother’s aborting any and all male children would be ridiculous.  My point stands. 

  • hephacet

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • prochoiceferret

    For example, if it were known that Target or Burger King was shooting people in the head in their back rooms across America, I think the police (and the public) would have the right to investigate, whether it’s on private property or not.  This was meant as an explanation of their position only, not polemics.

     

    Oh, we already know that certain people will think that something that isn’t murder somehow is murder just so that they have an excuse to stick their noses where it doesn’t belong. The issue isn’t what they believe (because people can believe whatever old claptrap they want), it’s that their “not-murder = murder” belief can and has been enshrined into law—which is generally a bad place for claptrap.

  • hephacet

    “The issue isn’t what they believe..”

     

    Actually, the issue in my post is whatever I want it to be, not you.  But, thanks for your suggestion, it will be noted, logged, and given the attention it deserves.

  • hephacet

    Don’t forget the actual Muslim misogynistic taliban.  They make the american “taliban” look like pikers.

  • prochoiceferret

    I am 100% in favor of abortions according to gender (the mother’s choice), or abortions for any other reason, in the US.  To say that I am therefore a misogynist because I would be in favor of a mother’s aborting any and all male children would be ridiculous.

     

    Yes, I suppose if the number of women aborting male fetuses were about even with the number aborting female fetuses, you might just not be a misogynist!

  • prochoiceferret

    Don’t forget the actual Muslim misogynistic taliban.  They make the american “taliban” look like pikers.

     

    Baby steps. Baby steps.

  • hephacet

    As usual, you make no sense. 

    Let’s say the majority of murderers and other violent criminals in my city are of X demographic.  According to you, if I support prosecuting those criminals, I am clearly anti demogrpahic X, and pro demogrpahic Y, simply because I am supporting that these criminals be brought to justice…?  Or, let’s say I am a supporter of University ABC, and it happens that University ABC happens to have a majority of demogrpahic Y in its ranks.  According to you, I am in favor of demographic Y ONLY, and against demogrpahic X.  You don’t make sense.  How about BEING IN FAVOR OF A WOMAN’S RIGHTS, no matter how uncomfortable it may make you feel.  A woman has a right to abort her child FOR WHATEVER REASON SHE CHOOSES.  It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS why a woman chooses to abort.  Are you preepared to curtail her rights, due to your personal prejudicies and beliefs?  Are you prepared to snoop in her private business?

  • hephacet

    Nah, some of us have already fought against the REAL taliban, whether physically or through the legal system.  Anybody who thinks american “taliban” are anything like the real thing is deceiving himself.

  • elburto

    So Rita, what are you doing to help prevent the rising tide of stillbirths? They’re unique genetic material too. Wanted babies, with decorated nurseries awaiting them, who die due to poverty, poor access to medical care, poor maternal nutrition etc.

    What are you doing to fight that? Why is it that your ilk get your rocks off trying to force women to keep unwanted babies, while ignoring the plight of the devastated families who lose WANTED babies at full-term.

    That’s always baffled me, and whenever I ask one of you, nothing. No reply. It’s almost as if you don’t want women to be happy.

  • hephacet

    I”m not sure who “Rita” is, or whether she wants women to be happy or not.  I will say that I, for one, don’t want YOU personally to be happy.  Does that count?  And as for wanting women to be happy… if you’re male, I am willing to bet that I keep my girlfriend 100 times happier than you keep your wife or girlfriend, if you have one.  And, if you’re female, well, I don’t think you’re very happy.  Am I right?

    Let’s see, if you care so much about people, what have you done to support the fight against Testicular Cancer?  How much have you donated??  And, if you care so much about people, what have you done in the fight against Tsetse fly infestations, and the horror of sleeping sickness??  And what about the fight against carpal tunnel syndrom, what have you done in the struggle against it?  If you haven’t donated to all of these causes, you clearly have no consideration for the plight of others.

    The point is, just because one is against, say, the kidnapping and murder of children by serial killers, doesn’t mean that if one therefore doesn’t donate to the Paulie Klass fund, one is an evil person.  Or, just because someone is against purse snatching, one MUST donate to the local Fraternal Order of Police and serve beer and wait tables at their gatherings.  Get real.

  • crowepps

    Why is it that your ilk get your rocks off trying to force women to keep unwanted babies, while ignoring the plight of the devastated families who lose WANTED babies at full-term.

    Because it’s not about the babies, it’s about how EVIL it is of women to not want to be pregnant.  The ignore the problems of women who actually want to be pregnant and are marching along appropriately in their narrow gender role, including pregnancy complications that can kill them if they’re not treated.  Women who wanted babies only come on their radar when they break other Rules For Women — like not being married.  Or planning to go back to work.  Or breastfeeding.  Or any of the other hundreds of items the misogynists have included on their checklist.

  • crowepps

    Your argument strongly reminds me of the fairly recent history of people classifying being the wrong religion as equivalent to  “condemning your children to hell”, and deciding that because they “sincerely and passionately believed” that was true, it justified their right to intervene.  It’s not that long ago that the Catholic Church was kidnapping the children of Jews to raise as Catholic “to save their souls”, and Protestant school authorities tried to force Catholic children to parrot Protestant tenets “to save their souls”.

     

    There is a real difference between ‘sincerely believing’ something based on your own biased thinking and actually BEING correct.  People ‘sincerely believe’ all sorts of foolishness, and the foolishness seems to increase expotentially when their moral scheme will outsource all of the pain to other people.

  • plume-assassine

    Look at this fucking ridiculous manchild seriously advocating for involuntary sterilization.

     

    the option for sterility or abortion should progress from voluntary to not so voluntary.  But that would be in a perfect world.

    That is not a vision of a perfect world by any stretch, you insipid moron. What you are advocating are explicit human rights violations. No individual entity or government has the right to decide who is “fit” to breed or not. YOU do not get to decide if/when anyone has children.

    By the way, that is something that they tried out in various Nazi-occupied governments – deciding who was “allowed” to reproduce, and utilizing a combination of forced birth or forced abortion/sterilization.

    Go crawl back into the cave you came from.

  • plume-assassine

    Well, many people are against abortion because they consider it murder, in the literal sense

    No, this is a lie. Most anti-choicers don’t actually believe their own bullshit. “Murder” is a word they use for the sake of hyperbole and an excuse they use to justify their misogyny and disrespect for individual privacy rights.

    If they really believed that abortion was murder, they would be calling for the mass trial & imprisonment of one-third of the population of American women, since by extension, they would all be “murderers.”

    If they really believed that abortion was murder, they wouldn’t have “crisis pregnancy centers” that seek to COUNSEL women after abortion. (There aren’t any counseling centers and “grief classes” for people who murder their own 4-year-old child.)

    If they really believed that abortion was murder, they would investigate all miscarriage as negligent homicide or manslaughter, and they would seek to criminalize all acts of non-procreative sex, since that kind of sex would essentially become russian roulette.

  • crowepps

    Well, many people are against abortion because they consider it murder, in the literal sense

    And yet it would also be possible to make the statement “many people are against marriage because they consider it slavery, in the literal sense.

     

    Are those people who so “consider” then justified not just in trying to abolish the insitution of marriage by changing the laws, but in protesting them by deliberately disrupting marriage ceremonies, insisting “informed consent” be given to women and that they wait a minimum of 24 hours after receiving same, harassing workers in the wedding industry, burning down churches, and gunning down pastors who perform weddings?  After all, they “sincerely believe” they are saving women who don’t know any better from lives of degredation and abuse.

  • colleen

    This guy would advocate for anything that demeaned and humiliated women. That’s why the ‘pro-life’ movement is such a magnet.  Guys like this find the degradation fantasies stimulating.

  • crowepps
  • susmart3

    For about  seven months, I was involved in a discussion at a pro-life personhood site. It started in response to a one-liner exchange:

    “I don’t want to pay for YOUR abortions!” Well I don’t want to pay for YOUR wars.” 

    I thought I’d be kicked off or blocked, but it went on to be a thoughtful discussion where I was treated fairly and respectfully. The inevitable impasse: they would save the unborn, I would save the mother. 

    So I tried to come up with anything that might cause me to change my position. By ignoring morality, privacy, cost, laws, etc, and focusing just on simple biology:

    X chromosone + Y chromosome = Zygote

    Make mandatory that BOTH PARENTS be on every birth certificate.

    Mandatory that BOTH PARENTS have to watch the sonogram.

    The man has to be there, too. At the same time.

    Pro-life has co-opted the Holocaust, slavery, even the Animal Rights movement to plead their case. They are excellent in thinking outside the box. So why can’t they think INSIDE the box?

    Why not hold men accountable? 

    No one on their side would answer my question. 

    No one on this side addresses the question either.

    Is this entire attack only old fashioned misogyny?

     

     

  • crowepps

    In fact, I think there’s a huge helping of misandry involved.

     

    Women are “better than” men and naturally just more civilized.

    Women can “control themselves”, are capable of being responsible, delaying gratification, ignoring the urges of their bodies, making moral choices, are naturally ‘more truly spiritual’, are uniformly loving and nurturing the children, etc., etc., etc.

     

    Attributing any of these civilized attributes from men VOLUNTARILY is ridiculous, because men are just naturally selfish, egotistical and unable to resist any hormonal surge that arises.  The only way to get men to behave in a civilized fashion is to assign them a woman/behavioral trainer who can use providing/withholding sex as a training tool to get the man to at least PRETEND he knows there are rules and that he’s following them.  Obviously, if too many women are distracted by education or careers or self-fulfillment or personal talents and not enough are willing to do their duty to supervise a man 24/7, all the men out there will destroy civilization by reverting to barbarity, beating children to death, raping strangers and starting wars.

     

    This view of men is not, in my view, a compliment in any way whatsoever.  It’s more akin to the view ‘well, women HAVE to do it because it’s ridiculous to expect anything from MEN.’

  • ahunt

    It’s more akin to the view ‘well, women HAVE to do it because it’s ridiculous to expect anything from MEN.’

     

    And Yet…no renumeration for women for this intensive labor, because…I dunno…if a woman is doing it…it can’t be worthy of a paycheck.

  • susmart3

    Leaving any of that out of the discussion…

    Pro-life has shown their willingness to focus in on one thing only- the unborn

    And, as far as I can tell, there is only one group remaining that MIGHT be able to create a tipping point in favor of their cause.

    This can be directly addressed by both sides:

    PRO-CHOICE: Men have three options- abstinence, birth control, consorting with other men

    PRO-LIFE: Men in this movement believe so strongly in our position, that yes, will work on this.

    Why- given the insanity we’re willing to visit on women-  is minimally inconveniencing men, to possibly save the life of the unborn, not an option? 

    Why?

  • crowepps

    Well, sure, because women do wonderful things out of nobility and willingness to sacrifice for others, not for crass, ignoble reasons like filthy money.  Golly, women would probably actually be INSULTED if people tried to pay them so let’s not even offer.  Nobody wants to upset them, right?  (sarcasm)

  • crowepps

    Why- given the insanity we’re willing to visit on women-  is minimally inconveniencing men, to possibly save the life of the unborn, not an option? 

    Why?

    Because if men are given a choice between being minimally inconvenienced or shoving all the responsibility off onto women at the risk of the women’s sanity, health and life, the men are going to choose to visit insanity on the women.   Why do you think feminism exists?

  • ahunt

    Yah…”labor” in all its unremunerated glory…