Bolder Anti-Sex Arguments Coming From Religious Right


We’ve been documenting for years at RH Reality Check the dishonesty of the anti-choice claim that their objections to reproductive rights is rooted in some love of life, as their behavior is more consistent with people who object to sexual liberation and women’s rights.  Indeed, screaming “life” and “abortion” is fundamentally a con being run on the mainstream media to the exploit the good faith assumption that rules over actual investigation of the story behind the claims. Since anti-abortion activism is part of a larger umbrella of efforts—including opposition to gay rights, fighting sex education, blocking condom distribution in HIV-torn areas, writing pledges that suggest it’s better to live in slavery than have a single mother—it’s actually pretty surprising how capable the anti-choice masses are at least grasping that they’re supposed to just yell “abortion” a lot when they have a potential audience outside of their own circles.

The attack on Planned Parenthood is beginning to degrade the ability of anti-choicers to front that this is about abortion.  The official line that contraception has to be cut off because of abortion is a bit complex, and defies the rule of politics that if you’re explaining, you’re losing.   And many anti-choicers have decided to choose simplicity instead of trying to tie all this to abortion, and going straight for the “dirty sluts should be forced to have babies, that’ll show ‘em” argument.

This really became evident in the coverage of New Hampshire cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood to distribute contraception. One of the executive councilors who voted for this defunding used the “dirty sluts” argument repeatedly, and you get the impression that he flagged down every reporter that would talk to him so he could pompously inveigh against women who have the nerve to enjoy sex.  To two separate reporters he said, “If they want to have a good time, why not let them pay for it?” and “If you want to have a party, have a party but don’t ask me to pay for it.”  You can imagine how much he’ll be refining this line if more reporters make the mistake of speaking to him. 

As I argued at Pandagon, I know it when I’m hearing a right winger use an intra-conservative argument that is common behind closed doors and in email exchanges, but is usually concealed from the larger public.  These are often the arguments that are most persuasive to conservatives, but they know will cause outsiders to reject their point of view. Some times these arguments jump what you might call the Goldbug Barrier (named after the way that Glenn Beck turned gold hysteria into something that’s talked about openly by right wingers), where suddenly the unspeakable becomes more normal for conservatives to say out loud.  The “dirty sluts” argument against contraception subsidies is really inching across the Goldbug Barrier, in part because it’s just the only non-complex argument against funding Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion services.

It’s worth noting that Lila Rose set the tone for this with her round of videos that kicked off the current defunding craze.  While abortion was mentioned in the videos, by and large the claims Rose were making had nothing to do with abortion.  The videos were an attempt to scandalize people by showing Planned Parenthood offering legal services—including STD prevention and contraception—to young people who presented themselves as sex workers.  When the young people made claims to illegal sex trafficking, Planned Parenthood duly turned them in.  Thus, the only reason to release the videos and act like something scandalous is in them is to suggest that the “dirtiness” of some people should prevent them from obtaining reproductive health care.  When Rose and other anti-choicers put out a list of clinics they claim could replace Planned Parenthoood in Indiana for Medicaid patients, many of the clinics on the list didn’t provide contraception or cancer screening, indicating underlying hostility to the health care needs of sexually active women outside of abortion services. 

This stuff has been right under the surface of anti-choice claims for those of us willing to scratch, but not it’s sitting right out in the open for anyone to see.  But as anti-choicers push harder and demand more incursions on women’s rights, these anti-sex arguments will be harder to conceal.  It’s not just in the media, either.  In kitchen table arguments, some confused nonsense about cutting off contraception because of abortion is going to fall apart in the hands of ordinary people trying to argue the point, and the simpler “if you don’t want babies, just keep your legs shut” will win out.  The problem is that in a society where the vast majority of people enjoy procreative sex, this argument will sound strange and outdated. 

Of course, this in no way means that pro-choicers should lean back and wait for anti-choicers to hang themselves with their own rope.  For one thing, they can do a lot of damage on their way out, especially with so many anti-choice sympathizers in office.  For another, while anti-sex arguments sound ridiculous now, they can start to sound more normal if not faced with a vigorous defense of women and of why sexual pleasure is a good thing, and punishing it unnecessarily is strange and misanthropic.    

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

Follow Amanda Marcotte on Twitter: @amandamarcotte

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

  • crowepps

    The problem is that in a society where the vast majority of people enjoy procreative sex, this argument will sound strange and outdated. 

    That argument also finally makes it explicit to the guys that the attacks on Planned Parenthood are not just to make the women be more careful about birth control, or to stop abortion, but instead to stop ‘female promiscuity’ while will have the unpleasant side effect of preventing MEN from having sex unless they get married.  Even with themselves, since another thread of the anti-sex crusaders is banning ‘pornography’.

  • cc

    Amanda is so right. The anti-choicers are going after contraception because that’s yet another way to control women’s bodies. And to make their argument, they paint Planned Parenthood as a place for “slutty” women to get birth control so that they can maintain their “slutty” lifestyle. That many married women use birth control is lost in their trope about “rewarding promiscuity.” For these folks, birth control is as bad as abortion as it allows unmarried women to “get away” with the “sin” of having sex without having to worry about an unplanned pregnancy and for married women to commit the “sin” of not allowing every sexual act to be open to conception. Thus, forcing a woman to have a child is really a punishment and their religious worldview is really about punishing those women who dare to go against the patriarchy. For them, if sex happens, a baby should result – regardless of economic or personal situations. But in order to maintain the delusion that they are all about “helping” women, they also claim that once a baby is born, mommy will love baby and they’ll all live happily ever after.

    That this is taken to the extreme is shown on Stanek’s newer thread about how Jaycee Dugard loves her baby conceived by her rapist and kidnapper. The misogynist Catholic Dr. Gerard Nadal actually said that having the child of the rapist helps the healing process. How barbaric is that?

    But the hypocrisy and inconsistency of their arguments is exemplified in how the dirty sluts who have sex and then have abortions become born again virgins when they have the baby. Bristol Palin was heralded as a teen queen when she had her baby. If she had decided (and if it were up to these people, there would be no choice) to have an abortion, she would have been a dirty slut.

    As Amanda points out, the meme of keeping one’s legs together is no longer on the misogynistic right wing websites. It’s become part of the national conversation and those of us who are pro-choice need to fight back.

  • mallet

    The fact is that I am both pro choice and pro life…and anti abortion. When it comes to the political movement, that call themselves “Pro choice,” You gotta ask yourselves, who’s choice is it really? Is it the tax payer’s choice? Other (significant) family member’s choice…i.e. parents or gaurdian? Is it the baby’s choice? Is it even the father of the baby’s choice?

    Lets not dwell too much on those rare extreme cases like rape, incest, or health reasons…after all, the author (Amanda) just shot herself in the foot when she made the statement,

     “…The problem is that in a society where the vast majority of people enjoy procreative sex, this argument will sound strange and outdated.”

    whether she meant to say “procreative sex” or “recreative sex”, the point is that, according to Amanda, majority of abortion supporters are those who engage in recreative sex, and dont wanna deal with the result of having a baby…if it were those who enjoy procreation, there wouldnt be any need for abortions now, would there?

  • jennifer-starr

    That they would say that, that they would even THINK that about Jaycee Dugard and the horrible ordeal she went through, just goes to show how very sick these pro-lifers are.  

  • jennifer-starr

    Well, Mallet, whose choice it should be is really quite a simple mattter; it should be the choice of the woman who will actually have to carry the fetus to term. And if a woman chooses to end the pregnancy, I would call that ‘dealing with it’ and taking responsibility. 

  • john-h

    I don’t follow this comment at all; is it a case of this: “In kitchen table arguments, some confused nonsense about cutting off contraception because of abortion is going to fall apart in the hands of ordinary people trying to argue the point, and the simpler ‘if you don’t want babies, just keep your legs shut’ will win out”?

     

    Mallet, as someone who identifies as “pro-life”, can I assume you’re also against other things that end human life, like all wars, capital punishment, handgun availability, cutting/opposing universal health care, pharmaceutical patents, seed patents, wasteful food production techniques, cutting/denying public assistance for people (and especially those women who are forced to reproduce and their unintended or straight-up unwanted infants) who can’t make (enough) money working because of an increasingly deregulated public-sector economy (low wages, 10% unemployment) or because the need to devote their time to caring for others (the elderly, infirm, or said infants), etc.? Or is your “pro-life” stance limited to restricting female sexuality, while the lives of those who don’t directly benefit you are worthless (or certainly not worth any amount of the public funds to which you contribute through historically-low taxes)? I’m especially curious about what you think should happen to the infants born to women who cannot afford to support thmselves, let alone themselves and an infant, but who were forced to carry their pregnancies to term. “They shouldn’t have had potentially-procreative sex,” isn’t an answer, because we know that your insistence isn’t going to stop people from doing so (nor mine, nor anyone’s). Public policy needs to be rality-based and impact-based; given that you can’t stop people from having sex, what SHOULD we do with respect to, for example, women who become pregnant but can’t economically support a child? (Note: I’m not a big fan of biopolitics; my intention is to challenge Mallet to think through the impacts of banning abortion, a position which already accepts that it is the place of the state to regulate the bodies of its citizens.) I get that you think that abortion is bad; have you though through the cobnsequences of NOT allowing abortion? Have you considered that, as bad as you think allowing or even supporting abortion is, to not do so might be even worse?

     

    If you addressed this in your post already, I apologize: I really do find it mostly incomprehensible.

  • mallet

    In the case of underaged girls, the parents should also have the choice.

    Also, it would also be logical for the father to also be afforded a choice as well, since its his child. He may not bare the burden of carrying the baby, but if he feels he’s willing to bare the burdens of raising the child, that option should also be available for him as well.

    As a tax payer, i dont want to fund some girl’s promiscuos lifestyle. I should also have that choice. If you want to abort a baby, thats your choice…use your own money.

    AND who, oh who, will give that life, yet to be born, the choice to live or die?????

     

    It seems the political pro choice movement is really a bunch of Bull-feminists, who want everbody to do things their own way…not much of a choice in that, is there?

  • jennifer-starr

     

    So you think that parents should be able to force a girl to give birth against her will? Or a man to be able to force a woman to do that as well?   That is what you’re saying, Mallet. You don’t think that sounds a little wrong? 

    And what exactly have you been funding?  As per the Hyde Amendment, the only federal funding that goes toward abortion is in cases of rape or incest. So you aren’t actually  paying anything. 

     

  • crowepps

    When it comes to the political movement, that call themselves “Pro choice,” You gotta ask yourselves, who’s choice is it really? Is it the tax payer’s choice? Other (significant) family member’s choice…i.e. parents or gaurdian? Is it the baby’s choice? Is it even the father of the baby’s choice?

    Another case of the mysterious disappearing woman.

  • mallet

    why are u using such a harsh word as “force”. who said anything about “force”???

    What I said was, those other parties should also have a CHOICE…you know, the thing so-called “pro-choicers” want.

    Once you take away the ability for those other parties to choose, THEN you have force. As in the government FORCING everyone to yield to some pregnant woman, or even little girl’s wishes….just cuz she’s the one carrying the baby…and I suppose thats the most important part of baring a child.

     

    Stop kidding yourself. Pro-choicers are just a bunch of greedy women who want their way…nothing more

  • mallet

    Im sorry, I know Beyonce said different, but women aren’t the center of the universe. The life of a child shouldn’t be left at the whim of one single woman.

    Im sorry.

  • jennifer-starr

    I’m sorry you don’t like the word force, but the plain fact is that force is exactly what it would be. You would be forcing someone to carry something in their body for nine months–something that will change their body and possibly even damage their physical and/or emotional health.  I realize how much it upsets you, but women do not lose the right to bodily autonomy when they become pregnant. I’m sorry if you think that’s greedy, but women are more than incubators and breeding stock.  The ability to choose belongs to them.  

  • prochoiceferret

    In the case of underaged girls, the parents should also have the choice.

     

    So if the underaged girl wants to give birth, but the parents want her to have an abortion, then the parents’ choice should be respected?

     

    Also, it would also be logical for the father to also be afforded a choice as well, since its his child. He may not bare the burden of carrying the baby, but if he feels he’s willing to bare the burdens of raising the child, that option should also be available for him as well.

     

    So if the man wants to “bare the burden,” but the woman does not want to “bare” it, then… screw the woman, she’s gonna have that baby? I’m surprised you even bothered with the “if the father wants it” part.

     

    As a tax payer, i dont want to fund some girl’s promiscuos lifestyle. I should also have that choice. If you want to abort a baby, thats your choice…use your own money.

     

    So if she doesn’t have her own money, you’re willing to pay for the baby’s pre-natal care, birth, food, diapers, child care, medical care, vaccinations, preschool, school supplies, and schooling? How very generous of you! I, however, would rather not pay for all that for children that wouldn’t exist if their mothers had subsidized access to abortion.

     

    AND who, oh who, will give that life, yet to be born, the choice to live or die?????

     

    Silly Mallet, fetuses can’t make choices! And even if they could, they can’t make the choice to commandeer a woman’s body against her will, any more than I can “choose” to help myself to your left kidney.

     

    It seems the political pro choice movement is really a bunch of Bull-feminists, who want everbody to do things their own way…not much of a choice in that, is there?

     

    Yes, we make very clear to everyone that it should be “your way or the highway.” Political Republicans, on the other hand…

  • freetobe

    “It seems the political pro choice movement is really a bunch of Bull-feminists, who want everbody to do things their own way…not much of a choice in that, is there?”

     

    To be a bull is to know one hmmmm? I do not mean feminists either I mean the so called pro-life bunch in the political field now. The biggest bull headed bunch of patriarcs there are.

     

    “As a taxpayer”-I think you have bought the tapes they play nonstop. They lie and they lie and they lie to take over the Government and starve the poor and the sick. To put a spin on a an old saying from the Bible. Let them starve and die slowly from disease and then let God sort them out!

  • mallet

    John, first of all, I thank you for your politeness. 

    Now, to clearify, I do infact feel strongly about the sanctity of life, and that promiscuity and abortion is all together bad.

    BUT, i laid all of my personal opinions aside. My argument is not about what i feel. What im simply asking is, if freedom of choice is so important in the abortion debate, why is this freedom limited to just one party (pregnant women)? Especially when the debate is about baring a life, or aborting it. We’re not talking about going to the store and picking candy, we’re talking about a potential life.

    So why is the freedom to choose only limited to just one group?

     

    as far as those other debates, like capital punishment, war issues, handgun policies, health care…etc. Im sorry, I cant really get in to that right now, because each of thoses issues are just as complex, if not more, as this abortion issue.

  • crowepps

    Women don’t get pregnant having sex with other women.  If you want to eliminate the ‘problem’ of abortion, just convince your fellow males that for the good of the innocent fetus, and the taxpayer, it’s their moral and patriotic duty to not have sex until they’re married.

  • prochoiceferret

    why are u using such a harsh word as “force”. who said anything about “force”???

     

    It tends to come up a lot when “pro-life” junk gets written into law, and enforced by people with guns.

     

    What I said was, those other parties should also have a CHOICE…you know, the thing so-called “pro-choicers” want.

     

    Kind of how plantation owners should also have the FREEDOM to own slaves, right? You know, the thing so-called “abolitionists” want.

     

    Stop kidding yourself. Pro-choicers are just a bunch of greedy women who want their way…nothing more

     

    Funny, they used to say the same thing about those who fought for female suffrage… and civil rights… and gay rights… and transgender rights…

  • prochoiceferret

    Or is your “pro-life” stance limited to restricting female sexuality,

     

    Pretty much everything about “pro-lifers” is limited to restricting female sexuality. “Slut” was probably the first word out of their mouths, and oh, the temper tantrum they must have thrown when Mommy uncovered her nipples for breast-feeding….

  • jennifer-starr

    Okay, let’s turn this around, since you think third parties should have an equal say in what someone does to their body.  What if the woman wants to carry the baby to term but the ‘interested’ parties say no, we don’t want you to do that? Should she then be forced to get an abortion? Or another scenario altogether. If a man wants to have a vasectomy, should he need his wife’s permission beforehand?  What about his children’s or his parents permission, since they might want to have another sibling/grandchild?  

  • prochoiceferret

    So why is the freedom to choose only limited to just one group?

     

    Because that “one group” happens to be the one carrying all of the physical, mental, emotional and (more than likely) financial burden of carrying the pregnancy to term.

     

    as far as those other debates, like capital punishment, war issues, handgun policies, health care…etc. Im sorry, I cant really get in to that right now, because each of thoses issues are just as complex, if not more, as this abortion issue.

     

    Yes, none of those issues present you any slutty, promiscuous women that you can exercise your “choice” over, so it’s understandable that you don’t care to get into them at all.

  • mallet

    I can clearly see that this board is quickly being filled up with the same estrogen fueled, feminist bull crap that fills up the airwaves.

    All im saying is, as much as I love, honor and respect women, Im not going to let you force me into killing your child all becuz you want to be sexually free, and dont want deformed bodies. 

    Neither am I going to stand by, and allow you to freely kill my child (speaking as a father), or my potential grandchild, and not have my opinion matter.

    Im sorry again, but girls dont rule the world. The quicker u realize this, the better. 

    If being pregnant seems so atrocious, then i’d quickly learn to close my legs, and teach other little girls to do the same if I were you (Pro Choicers).

     

    #lastnote: Pro choicers got their ability to have a choice from their pro life mothers….and THIS is how im both pro life and pro choice

  • mallet

    Ok. its clear their are no str8 cut answers of yes or no, because each of those senerios are complex in themselves. but in the case of the man having a vasectomy, depending on his status, he should have his wife’s permission, or parents permission (if underaged). But a man’s situation is a different, and not as controversial, because he isnt already carrying a life.

    But this is completely digressing. There is no controversy (to the best of my knowledge) about vasectomies, or women getting their tubes tied. Its equal in that sense. All I ask for is equality in the whole pregnancy issue as well

  • mallet

    Oh how I’ve tried, and still trying. But This is a 2 way street though…pls do the same for your female compatriots.

     

    ….and actually, this is where religion comes in, but i dont wanna go there. Thats another complex issue, and i know what a sticky mess people have made in the name of ‘religion’

  • cc

    So why is the freedom to choose only limited to just one group?

     

    Because we’re dealing with bodily autonomy issues. Society has no right to impose their will on bodies other than their own. Be it abortion, vasectomies, liposuction, tubaligation or what have you – it’s nobody’s business but the person who has chosen to have the procedure. But love the reference to “promiscuous” lifestyles as that just underscores what Ms. Marcotte’s message; i.e. that the basis for wanting to prevent women from having the right to abortion and contraception is really anti-sexual. And this anti-sexuality is all about hating women for their freedom! The patriarchal religions that preach this message want to go back to the “good old days” when women didn’t have freedoms because they were so much easier to control.

    The misogyny of the anti-choice movment, which is based in fundamentalist Christianity and Catholicism, is so apparent in the talk about “closing the legs.” In other words, women’s “purity” is solely her responsibility. Men are free to do as they please. This is a notion that is an intrinsic part of patriarchy; i.e. men have needs but women don’t and a virtuous women will rebuff male advances. But if she is unable to do so, she must bear any child that is conceived. Talk about a no-win situation. But even if women are pure, they are still females and the patriarchy loathes them – hence the theme of the evil seductress and the popular saying that “she was asking for it” in situations of rape and domestic abuse.

    But beyond the offensiveness of the anti-choice meme abut how contraception and abortion encourage women’s promiscuity, is the sheer stupidity. Women who are married or in a non marital monogamous use birth control, too. But if women do have their baby, these same right wing jokers would deny them public assistance. In the man’s world of the anti-choice movement, women can’t win.

    Just an aside – all junior high school students should read “The Handmaidens Tale” to see what will happen if the forced birth movement has their way.

  • jennifer-starr

    Why isn’t there a straight cut answer from you?  Just a moment ago you were so certain that third parties should have a say in what happens in a woman’s body and suddenly you’re  not? If you want third parties to have a say in a woman’s reproduction than it logically follows that they could decide against life just as easily as they could decide for it.  I still think the choice to continue or end a pregnancy should fall to the woman, but you can’t have it both ways.  

     

  • cc

    If being pregnant seems so atrocious, then i’d quickly learn to close my legs, and teach other little girls to do the same if I were you (Pro Choicers).

     

    Im not going to let you force me into killing your child all becuz you want to be sexually free, and dont want deformed

    I rest my case. And how is he being “forced” to kill my “child?” The reality is that anti-choicers want to force women to not have abortions. This is really getting into bizarro world territory.

  • mallet

    i didnt say i had a problem with the word force. Its just that i dont think ur using it appropriately.

    Your using the word force as if EVERY SINGLE GIRL who doesnt have an abortion was forced to keep it, and we both know thats not true.

    The old saying, ‘it takes a village to raise a child’ is still true to this day. No one person should have the ability to abort a life, at his or her own personal whim.

  • prochoiceferret

    I can clearly see that this board is quickly being filled up with the same estrogen fueled, feminist bull crap that fills up the airwaves.

     

    Translation: “Wahhh!! All these mean ol’ feminists aren’t just rolling over and accepting my manly thoughts on what they should do with their bodies!!”

     

    All im saying is, as much as I love, honor and respect women, Im not going to let you force me into killing your child all becuz you want to be sexually free, and dont want deformed bodies.

     

    Translation: “As much as I like to think I love, honor and respect women, I actually don’t. In fact, I like to advocate for social and legal policies that reflect hatred, dishonor, and disrespect of women.”

     

    Neither am I going to stand by, and allow you to freely kill my child (speaking as a father), or my potential grandchild, and not have my opinion matter.

     

    You don’t have to worry about that, because trust me, no one here wants to have sex with you. And if you make your views clear to the women you meet, I doubt they’ll ever want to either.

     

    Im sorry again, but girls dont rule the world. The quicker u realize this, the better. 

     

    Oh, we realize it. Dismantling male hegemony and privilege is a big part of why many of us became feminists, after all.

     

    If being pregnant seems so atrocious, then i’d quickly learn to close my legs, and teach other little girls to do the same if I were you (Pro Choicers).

     

    If we were you (anti-choicers), then we’d quickly beg forgiveness for all of the misogyny and misinformation we’ve spouted, work to correct the legal and social harm we’ve inflicted, and ensure that womens’ rights are enshrined both in the public consciousness and the law of the land. Oh, and we would stop thinking that sex and sexual pleasure is only for reproductive purposes, rather than being a healthy activity that human beings engage in many, many times throughout their lives.

     

    #lastnote: Pro choicers got their ability to have a choice from their pro life mothers….and THIS is how im both pro life and pro choice

     

    Correction: Our mothers freely chose to have us. Did yours?

  • mallet

    that wasnt what you asked me. you said (paraphrasing) if “3rd parties” decided against having the baby, but the mother decides to have the baby, should she be “forced” to abort. First of all, no adult aged woman should be “forced” to do anything she feels is not good for her.

    But you’re trying to make me make a decision about this particular woman in this particular situation. I cant do that, esp since i dont know what exactly the situation  wholly looks like. 

    So no, there is no clear cut yes or no answer. My argument, and my contentment is that others got a say in the matter, because im sure they were looking out for her best interest. However its decided is up to them

  • jennifer-starr

    No,  that is not how I was using the word choice. A single girl who doesn’t have an abortion makes a CHOICE to give birth and either raise that baby or give it up for adoption. And is her choice that she is free to make. 

  • princess-jourdan

    Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups have failed in their defense of contraception in that as of lately they have failed to stress that millions of women need hormonal contraceptives for reasons that have nothing to do with sex.  Many women and teen girls NEED to regularly  use hormonal birth control to treat endometriosis, ovarian cysts, polyps, hormone disorders, certain types of acne, and a wide range of other female health problems.  Planned Parenthood needs to start really stressing this argument VERY HEAVILY.  It might strike a cord with some of the people who have gotten caught up in the whole “If you don’t want kids, then don’t have sex” craze.  Because even the most Puritanical of women have used hormonal birth control at some point to help cure various female disorders.  I’ve known several Conservative Catholic and Evangelical women who have used the Pill to combat various disorders.  Planned Parenthood needs to show how these anti-choicers are trying to deprive American women of MEDICINE that they NEED to be healthy!!  I don’t know who I could call to suggest this to them, but it needs to be done!! To all of the idiots out there who argue that men should have easy access to Viagra because “it’s medication that helps with erectile dysfunction, which is a medical condition”, then we can counter back with “Well what do you think ovarian cysts and endometriosis are?!?  They are JUST AS MUCH OF A MEDICAL DISORDER than not being able to get an erection is!!”  I began taking hormonal birth control when I was 17 years old because my hormones suddenly started going crazy and giving me horrible cramps every month and bad acne.  And at the time, I wasn’t “a promiscuous slut” like many of these anti-choicers jump to claim, I was a VIRGIN at the time…and stayed that way for quite awhile.  These assholes have no right judging other people for their PERSONAL, PRIVATE business!!

     

    Also, I have noticed that many people have begun harping about how “irresponsible women shouldn’t be allowed to have birth control” when these same people are using it themselves.  And the majority of them aren’t married, either.  So why is it OK for them to use birth control but not anyone else?  Since when did this country turn into a bunch of mindless hypocrites who don’t want to practice what the preach?  I have a male cousin who is a right-wing fanatic and he’s always ranting on and on about how people who don’t want to have kids should just “practice some restraint”…and yet he has a child out of wedlock, occasionally uses condoms, and has had two live-in girlfriends.  He certainly isn’t “restraining” himself the way he dictates that everyone else should! What makes him think his life and choices are any “more responsible and moral” than anyone else’s??

     

    Oh and Mallet, girls DO rule the world, bud.  The sooner you realize and accept that, the better.  Men have ruled the world for far too long and fouled up everything as badly as they possibly can, and now it’s OUR turn to take the reigns.  We’re not gonna live out our entire lives stuck in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant and barely able to read.  Oh, and your argument that “women who don’t want to have kids should strap their legs together” is completely moot due to the fact that even that won’t save us from unwanted pregnancies because there will always be plenty of MEN out there who can’t take “no” for an answer and are more than willing to FORCE us to have sex with them against our will.  Ever think about THAT?  One of the unfortunate aspects of being female is that we aren’t guaranteed from the possibility that men will try to forcibly exploit our bodies for their own pleasure.

  • jennifer-starr

    That is precisely what I asked you.  You can’t say that third parties only have a choice if they decide the way you think they should. Because one choice is not actually a choice at all. The logical extension of what you’re proposing is that they could  just as easily decide the other way. 

     

    As for the best interest, what if the mother of a minor child feels that it’s in her child’s best interest to finish school, go to college and not be a teen mom? I know you’re going to bring up adoption at this point, but I don’t think that should be a forced choice either.  And what if a man decides that he doesn’t want to be saddled with daddy responsibilities and his choice is that she ‘get rid of it’?  

     

    You see the troubles you get into when you take the choice out of the woman’s hands? 

  • princess-jourdan

     “First of all, no adult aged woman should be “forced” to do anything she feels is not good for her.”

    Then why do you want women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term even if we feel it’s not good for us?  You talk out both sides of your mouth, you know that?

  • rose-macaskie

    I am glad John H mentions other forms of killing, like that of not enough health care which kills indirectly, he asks Mallet what she thinks about that and about war and other forms of killing. It seems that a lot of religions are not very anti war, the violence in South America is often Catholic, I believe Evangelist are not against war. On the health question the religouse groups seem to ask for the vote to be given to the right, to be anti health care for the poor. It seems that in Spain and in North America that the parts of the populations that support the religiouse groups overwhelmingly support the right, rich or poor.

       The question about their restricting health care, full health care for everyone, has a lot to do with the realities of this question of family planning clinics as the women of rich families have always had contreceptives, so any restrictions on family planning clinics will only effect the poorer families, as restrictions in public health care also do.

        I am also glad John H mentioned other forms of death for another reason,l when we tak of abortion we fight the groups who are anti abortion, usually religious ones on the ground they have chosen and though we must fight on these grounds that are harder to win, as they are questions many people are divided on,  an indirect way of fighting these questions would be to reduce the credit of these groups where it is easy to beat them, such as that their love of peace is only skin deep, also they have always and rightfully, been accused of being instrumental in upholding cruel power structures, keeping the poor good and managable and they are up to the same now in the twentieth century and it is time to stop them on that front that they are very vunerable on, there must be a residue of the knowledge that the religiouse were very bad for the poor, created countries that were hoplessly irresponsible to their poor, to make that fight easier. People  have been put off their guard about the evils of religion by the  low profile, for decades, of religions and because it seemed that the churches had given up their worst practices for dominating the unfortunate and keeping the status quo desperately unfair. 

    It is to the advantage of women put a lot of emphasis on how brutal the religions are in other feilds as their line is we are good so we are right, it is important to relativise that pretence and make things more real. They are not very good when they obstaculise giving  preservatives to the poor in poor countries, preservatives that prevent HIV. Not only is this indirectly doing for people  it is obvious that they have an enormouse interest in people being ill, it  helps them to convert the population. Conversion is a form of insemination, and priest learn in seminaries, the insemination of your idology rather than your biological charicteristics and we all know what Freud say about how strong the impulse is to reproduce, strong enough to make people very unbalanced and cruel in their judgement. Illness is plainly to their advantage as changers of cultures as are orphans, another group that is easily indoctrinated. Not only can they save souls by bringing them into the fold more easily if people have HIV and trying to bring people into heaven is a tremendous driving force, there is also money to be got out of more christians, more christians is more peope to donate to the church, though it is hard to believe that you have to whatch it or money drives the religiouse we are so inclined to see them as good.  We can get them for the diabolic practices they take part in and help the world while we help women.

      As to war catholics make a big show of being pacifist the pope regularly comes out on his balcony asking for peace in whatever part of the world is at war but catholics, the anti contraceptive group i know best, are in fact far from peaceful themselves,  Spains very catholic dictator General  Franco was bloody in his represion of his people and he only died thirty five years ago and was being bloody when I was a child, i am fifty five years old, when the english were as they still are, the young may believe things were different then, being impressed by the popes appearance of peacefullness, because fifty years ago he also used to come out on his balcony and say nice things about peace whenever some country was at war, that is through all the years of brutal repression of none catholic parts of the population, communists, in catholic countries, by the catholic factions of those countries in South America. They are very good at saying one thing and doing another, at the propoganda machine.

  • rebellious-grrl

    A woman’s uterus is not public property. She has the right to decide what happens to her body, to decide to remain pregnant or not.

  • blackkatya

    While I (thankfully) didn’t become pregnant as a result, the idea that having his baby would have helped me heal is disgusting. In fact, it would have driven me over the edge to suicide, something I had already been seriously considering.

  • blackkatya

    Funny, I got my ability to have a choice from my extremely pro-choice mother who made the CHOICE to have me.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Stop kidding yourself. Pro-choicers are just a bunch of greedy women who want their way…nothing more

    Women can’t ever win with a patriarchal misogynistic society, and yes your comment is offensive and misogynistic. If women want to have equal rights they are greedy selfish bitches. I’m really f-ing sick of comments like yours. You can take your outdated view of women and go away.

    Let’s talk about greedy. How about all of those a-holes in congress who say they care about the “unborn” but yet they don’t give a rat’s ass about actual babies. We are taking the money out of the mouths of children and giving it to the over-entitled a-hole uber-wealthy CEOs of major corporations. SO DON’T YOU DARE CALL PRO-CHOICE WOMEN GREEDY! We know who the real merchants of greed are they are the GOP. GOP=Greed.

  • squirrely-girl

    … that a man’s desire to raise a child in NO WAY gives him the right to use another person’s body as an incubator against her will. When men get pregnant and experience childbirth they can make the decisions about their own bodies. Until then women will continue to make decisions for themselves.

     

    Please go Google “Hyde Amendment” and read the actual wording of the legislation closely. You aren’t funding abortions. 

  • squirrely-girl

    If I need one of your kidneys to survive and you’re the ONLY match on the face of the planet no court in this country could compell you to give your extra kidney to me… not even if you were my husband… not even if I were your child… even knowing I would die without your kidney there is no scenario where I or some higher authority could make you give it to me. Yet you seem to think it’s acceptable to make women use their bodies in a way they don’t wish to satisfy your sense of morality. 

     

    People don’t have any right to use another person’s body as life support without that person’s consent. What about this argument is so difficult to comprehend? 

     

     

  • ahunt

    All im saying is, as much as I love, honor and respect women, Im not going to let you force me into killing your child all becuz you want to be sexually free, and dont want deformed bodies. 

     

    A) Just how do you plan on stopping me, or any other woman? Please be specific.

     

    Neither am I going to stand by, and allow you to freely kill my child (speaking as a father), or my potential grandchild, and not have my opinion matter.

    B) See A

     

    Im sorry again, but girls dont rule the world. The quicker u realize this, the better. 

    C) Well, not yet.

     

    If being pregnant seems so atrocious, then i’d quickly learn to close my legs, and teach other little girls to do the same if I were you (Pro Choicers).

    D) Excellent. So you would support the perogative of married woman NOT to engage in PIV sex unless she wants to be pregnant, correct?

     

     

  • ahunt

    In the case of underaged girls, the parents should also have the choice.

     

    Why? The second an underaged girl makes the decision to carry to term, her parents have absolutely NO legal standing to interfere in her choice of medical care…none.

    Also, it would also be logical for the father to also be afforded a choice as well, since its his child. He may not bare the burden of carrying the baby, but if he feels he’s willing to bare the burdens of raising the child, that option should also be available for him as well.

     

    UM…you are seriously suggesting that a man has the right to OWN a woman’s body? Seriously?

     

    As a tax payer, i dont want to fund some girl’s promiscuos lifestyle. I should also have that choice. If you want to abort a baby, thats your choice…use your own money.

     

    Hyde Amendment.

     

    AND who, oh who, will give that life, yet to be born, the choice to live or die?????

     

    Woo Woo imaginings of an individual not familiar with gestation.

     

    It seems the political pro choice movement is really a bunch of Bull-feminists, who want everbody to do things their own way…not much of a choice in that, is

     

    Yah….we’re ALL man-hating harpies, especially all those catholic and born again evangelical women who seek a significant proportion of the abortions performed in the US>

  • ahunt

    So why is the freedom to choose only limited to just one group?

     

    Well, pregnancy and childbirth are in fact highly one-sided.

  • beenthere72

    Have you ever heard a dumber question? 

  • princess-jourdan

    Hey I’ve got an idea–let’s ban all insurance coverage and subsidies for erectile dysgunction pills and penis pumps. I say if the men want to play around and stick their dicks into every living thing even remotely resembling a female, then LET THEM PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES!! I don’t want MY tax dollars paying for other dirty men’s sex aides. :)

  • plume-assassine

    You sound like the type of manchild who likes to blame women for all of his problems in life. (Those evil feminist man-haters!) You are a misogynist through and through. You do NOT love and respect women; if you did, you would respect our rights as human beings. Apparently your idea of “loving and respecting” women is making sure that you own our bodies and control our sexuality because ~*~daddy knows best.~*~

    Oh and by the way, decent men are not threatened by gender equality or feminism, as you seem to be.

    Im not going to let you force me into killing your child all becuz you want to be sexually free, and dont want deformed bodies. 

    Let me make it simple for you, since you seem to have a hard time grasping the concept:

    One – Only women experience pregnancy, therefore it is up to the woman as to what she will do with her pregnant body. Men contribute their DNA, but they do not bear the phsyical and emotional cost of childbirth. It is wrong to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will, just as it is equally wrong to force her to have an abortion… because it’s HER body, not yours.

    Two – An embryo is NOT a child or a person. A woman IS a person, and you do not get to say that an insentient organism (an embryo) is more important than a woman’s wellbeing.

    Three – YOU do not pay for anyone’s abortions (hello, Hyde Amendment?) so please cut the conspiracy theory bullshit. Although, it should be said that WOMEN are taxpayers, too, and there are many of us who wouldn’t mind at all helping disadvantaged women pay for their abortions and other health care. All taxpayers pay for things they do not “agree” with — like the use of my tax dollars toward “faith-based initiatives.”

    allow you to freely kill my child (speaking as a father), or my potential grandchild, and not have my opinion matter.

    What the christ are you even talking about??? Nobody here is talking about infanticide or threatening to kill your child. I’m sorry, but this just makes you sound like a nutcase.

    I think we WERE talking about abortion, and what makes you think that any of us would be dumb enough to want to have sex with a lunatic misogynist such as yourself and be forced to bear your children?

    then i’d quickly learn to close my legs, and teach other little girls to do the same if I were you

    How about instead – if you are so obsessed with sex-for-procreation-only - then: you learn to keep your dick in your pants and teach your douche bros to do the same instead of PILING ALL THE BLAME ON WOMEN FOR HAVING SEX? Instead of having a double-standard about sexuality and calling all women sluts if they so much as look at a penis?

    By the way, do you only ever have sex when you want to procreate? Didn’t think so.

     Pro choicers got their ability to have a choice from their pro life mothers

    logic fail. my mother is 100% pro-choice. she wasn’t forced/obligated to have me by you or anyone else; she CHOSE to.

  • arekushieru

    But only the ‘slutty, promiscuous women’.  ‘Slutty, promiscuous men’ get a pass.

  • plume-assassine

    Brava, squirrely girl, thank you for bringing up that scenario. It is one of the best ways to illustrate the concept of bodily autonomy to men who can’t seem to understand that another person’s organs are not public property.

  • arekushieru

    But even if women are pure, they are still females and the patriarchy loathes them – hence the theme of the evil seductress and the popular saying that “she was asking for it” in situations of rape and domestic abuse.

     

    women can’t win

    Also, women who do continue their pregnancies to term are still judged by what the anti-choice crowd deems moral/immoral.  Smoking, doing drugs, not enough rest, too much rest, good women don’t get sick, good women are frail, and the list goes on.  Then labour and delivery.  Natural childbirth, hospitalization, medication, etc, etc….  Those who do engage in sex for procreative purposes are also judged.  Do they accede to their partner’s wishes all the time or too many times, do they tell him no when they really mean ‘yes’?

    Like you said: Women CAN’T win.

  • lapidarion

    those other parties should also have a CHOICE…you know, the thing so-called “pro-choicers” want.

    Mallet, if you or your friends are still reading: we focus on choice insofar as it is something that has been denied specifically to women. The whole problem we’re working against here is that “other parties” have had — and continue to have — too much “choice” over women’s bodies.

    See the difference? You-choosing-for-yourself v. you-choosing-for-me-too?

    all becuz you want to be sexually free, and dont want deformed bodies.

    It’s not only a question of whether sex should have “consequences,” though sexual freedom sounds okay considering the alternative. It’s not only a question of the many side-effects of pregnancy, though bodily deformation doesn’t sound trivial to me.

    Really, it’s this: Who gets to say what my body goes through? Me, or someone else?

    Like, who gets to decide whether I get a tattoo? Even if I know for sure I want one, who gets to decide whether I get it next week or next year or whether I put it off indefinitely? What about the design? Why would anyone else even suppose they have anything to say about it? Or the way I dress myself? Or the way I deal with issues that affect my health?

    Whose decisions are these? Mine, or someone else’s? They’re mine, dude.

    Neither am I going to stand by, and allow you to freely kill my child (speaking as a father), or my potential grandchild, and not have my opinion matter.

    Until birth (if it happens), you don’t have a child. All you have, assuming she wants you around, is a pregnant woman. You’ve made a contribution to her body, yes, but just because her body has become a pregnant body with your “help” doesn’t mean that it stops being her own self. She has the right to treat her pregnant state as a person-to-be, but that’s up to her and the processes by which she makes her decisions — which may or may not include your wishes as you understand them at the moment. You don’t get to force her to pay attention to your opinion. You’ve just got to let go and realize you’re not the main player in such a scenario.

    Mallet, if you aspire to engage in sexual activity with a partner with minimal risk to how much your opinion matters, your options as I see them are:
    – start using condoms
    – use one of the forms of contraception “pour homme” once they become available in the next few years
    — get a vasectomy
    — some combination/sequence of the above and, in any case, endeavor that your partner trust you enough to value your opinion in this regard should it arise

  • arekushieru

    It’s not US that is demanding that abortion be made illegal. SO sorry.  

  • lickitysplit

    The man’s choice in the matter ends once he has ejaculated. You should have get to know the gal a little better before impregnating her if you are so concerned with what she may choose to do with a pregnancy. Don’t want an aborted fetus? Don’t have sex with one of those angry, man-hating, pro-choice feminists.

  • ack

    But you’re trying to make me make a decision about this particular woman in this particular situation. I cant do that, esp since i dont know what exactly the situation  wholly looks like. 

     

    This is one of the major tenets of the pro-choice movement. How can society, or communities, or family members, or even intimate partners determine what is best for a particular woman or girl in a specific situation? It’s very easy to say, “Always continue the pregnancy, that’s a baby in there!” But that blanket statement ignores the multifaceted reality. It ignores the emotional and physical well-being of the pregnant woman or girl. It ignores the reality of pregnancy and of childbirth, neither of which are minor inconveniences physically, emotionally, or financially. And as Jennifer said, you can’t have it both ways. Either third parties get to make decisions regarding childbirth for all women and girls, whether it’s forced birth or forced abortion, or they don’t. Does that make sense? From a legal perspective, both are based on private medical decisions between a woman and her doctor. From a social perspecitve, both eliminate the wishes of the woman because someone else “knows better” than her, which is not only scary but incredbily patronizing.

     

     that others got a say in the matter, because im sure they were looking out for her best interest. However its decided is up to them

     

    This is where we fundamentally disagree. I don’t think that my partner, my parents, my community, or my state or federal government gets to decide what’s in my best interest regarding the outcome of a pregnancy. I’m the one who has to undergo the pregnancy and the excruciating pain of childbirth, risking my physical and emotional health and potentially my life. No one else should get to make that decision for me, any more than they should be able to make me get an abortion because they think that’s best.

  • concerned-feminist

    I agree 100%. You can’t have it both ways. Mallet should really start typing like an adult if he wants to be taken seriously. Stuff like “U” and “Becuz” and other crap like that just further show how lazy his thought process is. When he becomes pregnant he can do whatever he would like with his body. That is CHOICE. His blatently simplistic and warped view on the female species is absolutely disgusting and innaccurate in so many ways. Crap like this leads me to believe he is probably some unattractive, bitter loser living with his momma making excuses as to why no woman has ever been interested in him since the sluttiest, drunkest, most desparate girl in the world would probably not make a pass at him. A word of advice, his attitude is probably the single most unattractive thing about him.