This Common Secret


Interview with Susan Wicklund about abortion providers, Today Show nuttery, and a better dialogue about sex education on Reality Cast. Also, Sean Hannity confuses abortion and sex education.

Subscribe to RealityCast:
RealityCast iTunes subscription
RealityCast RSS feed

Links in this Episode:
Mob Logic on G-spots
Kate Walsh on abstinence-only
This Common Secret
Dawn Eden on the Today Show
Sean Hannity confuses sex ed and abortion

Transcript:

This week on Reality Cast, an interview with doctor and author Susan Wicklund, a sea change in the dialogue about sex education, and anti-choice nut Dawn Eden flies under the radar on the Today Show. Also, why is Sean Hannity calling comprehensive sex education "abortion"?

Hat tip to the online show Mob Logic for cracking me up with their response to recent research indicating that some women have G-spots and some don't, and that you can tell by looking at an ultrasound. Host Lindsay Campbell hit the streets and asked people about their experiences with the G-spot.

  • insert g spot

There was some feminist fussing over this, but I don't really get why the research is a problem. For a long time, some women have been saying they have one, some women have been saying they don't. All this shows is that both sides of the debate were right. How often do we get a chance to settle a long-standing argument with an elegant solution?

*****************

When you're working on the issues of reproductive justice, looking around at the political landscape can be soul-destroying sometimes. We haven't gained much ground, and what we have gained has been overwhelmed by major losses. We get the HPV vaccine, but the ability of people to afford it has diminished. We're seeing the right to abortion under assault, and even the right to contraception is being chipped away at, one Bible-thumping pharmacist at a time. It's demoralizing.

But there is one area where we're seeing the political landscape changing rapidly, and that's on the subject of comprehensive sex education. For awhile, the abstinence-only propaganda was gaining, getting all this massive funding from taxpayers who didn't realize that it is all lies, withholding of information, and religious dogma. Now people are waking up and the media is giving a voice to pro-choice activists.

The actress Kate Walsh works for Planned Parenthood on their board and was on CBS News exposing the lie that is abstinence-only.

  • insert kate walsh 1

I'm playing this clip for you because I think she hits the major arguments that you should use when trying to persuade people who might be fooled by abstinence-only nonsense. First of all, it doesn't work. Americans are pragmatic people, and they don't like something that's defined as a failure.

  • insert kate walsh 2

I think this is a good tactic to use, comparing it to other subjects. That draws down two points: 1) Telling kids what a condom is isn't going to mean they run out and have sex when they wouldn't have before. 2) This attack on sex education in the schools is part of a larger right wing assault on the idea of education itself. They don't want kids to be given a bevy of ideas and options, and then given the critical thinking skills they need to figure them out. This is about getting kids away from thinking for themselves, and instead making them automans who just do what they're told without questioning it.

We need to go the next step and state that the goal of abstinence-only propaganda, which is to make our kids bad thinkers who can't make their own choices, is in and of itself wrong. Not just that it's ineffective.

And then she rounds it off with an argument that I think is critical for our side. Basically, why is everyone hating on sex?

  • insert kate walsh 3

I can't hammer this enough. We need to call out anti-choicers for being, well, anti-life. Sex is a huge part of life, and education is part of preparing kids for life. Why do we think it's okay to raise a generation that's afraid of their own sexuality? It's not just about the fact that abstinence-only spreads disease and unplanned pregnancy. It also spreads anti-sex attitudes that can lower people's self esteem and make them neurotic about a normal and pleasurable part of life. Life is hard enough. No need to make it harder with this right wing propaganda.

**************

  • insert interview with Susan Wicklund

**************

Bane of feminist bloggers and anti-choice nut Dawn Eden was on the Today Show recently to tout her magic husband-luring plan of keeping your clothes on until you get the wedding band. The fact that Dawn Eden is on mainstream TV spreading her lunatic theories should have been a great moment, because I figured it was only a matter of time before she says something crazy. Unfortunately, they didn't really give her a chance to show the true crazy, though the minor kinds of creepy did come across.

  • insert dawn eden 1

This is Dawn's whole schtick. Basically, she was having sex and not getting married, so she hypothesizes that it was the sex that prevented the marriage. An intriguing and popular theory that often goes under the name "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" However, it's also a theory that's extremely testable, in the scientific sense. Even setting aside the fact that most women who marry do marry someone they're already having sex with, we have a testable subject in the very person of Dawn Eden. If it was having sex that made her not be married, then surely not having sex would have gotten her married, right? But she's eight years into this experiment and no husband has materialized. A scientist would say that it's time to scrap the hypothesis and look for another cause of the lack of marriage occurring in her life.

  • dawn eden 2

All I can think when I hear someone talk like this is, "Well, even when you're married, he's got to pull out sometime." And seriously, why wouldn't you want him to? But in a way, I can't blame her for having this idealized notion that you fall in love with someone for real, and somehow you stop being separate people. The notion that love is about giving up your identity is all over the place. In fact, the host of the show says something that made me cringe.

  • dawn eden 3

It's this idea, that someone "completes" you, that you are less of a person without a romantic partner, that drives so much dysfunction. You're already a complete person. A partner is just a nice addition to your life, and only then if they really are a value add.

  • dawn eden 4

What is frustrating to me about all this is that Dawn just slipped in some anti-choice dogwhistles and no one called her on it. "Giving myself completely" means that that you abhor contraception, and that you risk pregnancy every time. And that's what makes this whole situation really sad. You buy into this myth that love and sex is about being completed by another person, and that never happens of course. But even though he's got to pull out sometime, if he's constantly knocking you up, well, you're kind of still attached, right? And as long as Dawn stays unmarried, she can keep her romantic notions of what marriage is like.

Meanwhile, I'm once again angry at the Today Show. They had an opportunity to show that the chastity craze is part of a larger anti-choice philosophy. And they dropped the ball.

***************

Now for the Wisdom of Wingnuts. This edition: Sean Hannity lies about something Barack Obama said.

  • insert sean hannity lies

What did Obama actually say?

  • insert obama truth

Right. He wasn't talking about abortion, but about sex education and contraception.

But it's important to point this out, because it shows that when a wingnut says they're against abortion, that's usually code for being against education, birth control, and healthy women.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • invalid-0

    “and that you risk pregnancy every time.

    Amanda,

    Every time you have sex, you risk pregnancy. The pro-abortionists among you fail to understand this simple fact, but it is at the heart of the chastity movement. Contraception (in all its forms – barrier, hormonal, NFP) only reduces that risk, but that risk is still there.

    Riddle me this: how can you make love with someone – an act that, in the Darwinian/evoluntionist sense, is designed first and foremost to produce children – without wanting to have children with them? Without at least being okay with pregnancy if it does happen?

    I find your whole diatrabe against Dawn’s notions of marriage to be strange. After all, you either abhor the institution (it would seem), or you are so relentlessly pro-divorce that you cannot comprehend the idea that a loving, stable marriage is good for both men and women.

    However, it’s also a theory that’s extremely testable, in the scientific sense. Even setting aside the fact that most women who marry do marry someone they’re already having sex with, we have a testable subject in the very person of Dawn Eden. If it was having sex that made her not be married, then surely not having sex would have gotten her married, right? But she’s eight years into this experiment and no husband has materialized. A scientist would say that it’s time to scrap the hypothesis and look for another cause of the lack of marriage occurring in her life.

    Oh, it’s so cute when Womyn’s Studies majors try to delve into science. Amanda, first of all, one data point does not a scientific study make. Second, the contrapositive of a statement is always true, but the inverse and the converse do not logically follow from the statement itself. Your fourth sentence is logically flawed.

    Dawn’s point, if you care to listen to it instead of going on your chastity-shaming rant, is that the non-chaste lifestyle precludes a person from making a good marriage. While many people have had premarital sex, you ignore the fact that a substantial portion of those couples have only had sex with each other. You also ignore the ones that lead relatiavely chaste lifestyles after years of lack of chastity. Chastity is a necessasry, although not a sufficient, condition for marriage. There is an element of good fortune involved, both in finding a person with whom one wants to have as a partner and finding that person early in life.

    Dawn’s life is a testament to feminism: she has not sold out her morals and principles in order to get a ring on her finger. She espouses those principles, despite sharp and cruel criticism for her stance. She uses her life to live deliberately and actively, at her own behest, and not at the behest of others.

  • invalid-0

    Actually, I thought Ms. Eden’s appearance was a breath of fresh air…someone talking about sex in a broader context than just a “roll in the hay.” Why one would think it nutty or weird to talk about giving one’s self in love more fully and viewing sex in a holistic manner rather than setting it apart out of context of the larger picture?

  • http://www.myspace.com/7558749 invalid-0

    They had an opportunity to show that the chastity craze is part of a larger anti-choice philosophy.
    No, they did not, because the chastity craze is no such thing.

    It is no more anti-choice than the Macarena.

  • amanda-marcotte

    You know, I hate to break it to you, but I have had sex thousands of time and have been pregnant exactly zero times.  By your logic, because seat belts only reduce the risk exponentially, but don't eliminate it completely, you should ride on the hood of cars going 70 mph.

     

    You pretend that contraception doesn't work in an effort to convince people not to use it.  Sick.  Sick.  Sick.  I'm sorry that it bothers you that other people have sex and don't get punished with unwanted pregnanc, but you know what?

     

    Mind your own business.

     

    I can't believe how nasty and cruel anti-choicers are.  I mean, I stare at you all the time, and still I'm blown away at your willingness to deceive and punish people for doing what is just part of life: sex.

  • amanda-marcotte

    But otherwise, you're not making a lot of sense.  Of course it's anti-choice.  It's linked to the anti-contraception and anti-abortion movement that proposes that it's good to take away people's ability to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy, because they deserve to suffer if they don't follow the rules that someone else made up.

  • http://moss-place.stblogs.org invalid-0

    to watch something you so whole heartedly disagree with. If it makes you so angry give you, why bother? Invest your energy into something positive. All this hating on ideas different than yours is gonna give you premature wrinkles.

  • http://www.myspace.com/7558749 invalid-0

    When I was in high school, abstinence was mentioned as an absolutely effective method of avoiding pregnancy. Nothing about it was linked to abortion, or the idea that contraception was somehow intrinsically wrong.

  • sarah-seltzer

    No one is saying the personal choice for abstinence is immoral, though many of us think it's a bit kooky. It's forcing an abstinence-or-suffer paradigm on OTHER WOMEN that is not just a "different idea" but a cruel, and sometimes fatal, ideology.

  • http://www.catholicpillowfight.com invalid-0

    The only difference is that the choice is happening before you get married. I fail to understand the vitriol aginst Ms. Eden. If you want to tempt fate by continuing to have sex without wanting children, feel free. Ms. Eden is simply saying that there is another alternative (choice, if you will), that provided her with a number if benefits. It might work for others. Also, it might not because there’s a whole new way of looking at things that is required that many are not ready for.

    People with Ms. Eden’s viewpoint, never “risk” a child, because they don’t consider a child a risk, but a gift. If they’re not ready to accept the gift, they choose not to get married, and they choose not to have sex until then.

    One doesn’t get much more pro-choice than that.

  • invalid-0

    “you should ride on the hood of cars going 70 mph.”

    That is not an appropriate analogy. It would be more like “not getting into a car at all”. You could argue this leaves someone lacking in experiencing what life has to offer. However, spiritual folks don’t care about this as much as living a virtuous life.

  • invalid-0

    with Ms. Eden spouting her philosophy on TV-even if it hasn’t exactly worked for her. But she should be taken on her merits alone and not seen as some kind of “guru” for the anti-choice movement. That is giving her too much credit.

  • harry834

    "It's forcing an abstinence-or-suffer paradigm on OTHER WOMEN that is not just a "different idea" but a cruel, and sometimes fatal, ideology."

     

    I agree: once our health advice has been reduced to nothing but "be abstinent or suffer" then we are denying women and men life saving information, and attempting to force celibacy on their lives. The only way to have sex is to get married, so we create a society where people are getting married just to have sex.

    This is not good for marriage, for people's life choices, or for people's understanding how to manage their own lives.

     

     

  • invalid-0

    I used to sleep around. I got used a lot; I suffered from depression and I drank heavily. I had two abortions and now have to live with the fact that I murdered my children. I also used to display the same vitriol you do, Amanda, at those who were pro-life. I hope you reconsider. It’s a terrible life. I wish I had waited for marriage and kept it inside marriage.

  • harry834

    couldn't one just practice sex without being compulsive?

    Do you think that if people are allowed to have sex, they will have sex in a mindless compulsive addictive manner? Do you really think people can't control themselves, because of your own experience? Is everyone forbidden from having sex, because you wish you had stopped?

    I'm not sure how to convince of this, but people who don't choose celebacy (most of us) are not sex addicts. This includes those who may make a foolish mistake with skipping protection. One mistake is not a diagnosis of insanity. And everyday, responsible people are practicing sex safely. Not enough, though.

    But personal responsibility is only one part of the cause. We must not hide information based on runaway, horrorific imaginary fears. Thinking that the entire human race can't be trusted to decide their own sexual choices, just because you had problems, is an example of a runaway, paranoid fear.

    And I wouldn't be putting this spotlight on your personal pain, if you weren't using your fear to justify taking personal choice away from everyone.

     

  • harry834

    pre-marital sex does NOT equal promiscuity.

     

     

  • harry834

    "It's this idea, that someone 'completes' you, that you are less of a person without a romantic partner, that drives so much dysfunction. You're already a complete person. A partner is just a nice addition to your life, and only then if they really are a value add."

     

    I feel single guys, as well as single girls, can flourish from knowing this simple truth, hidden from us by soft-spoken advocates for oppression like Dawn Eden.

  • invalid-0

    Harry, You are overreacting. Just like I would have once. And you’re not getting it.

  • invalid-0

    How exactly is Ms. Eden an advocate of oppression? Is she suggesting that we imprison fornicators or something? Or is depriving Harry of easy women the current standard for oppression? Just wondering.

  • http://ontheotherfoot.blogspot.com invalid-0

    Meanwhile, I’m once again angry at the Today Show. They had an opportunity to show that the chastity craze is part of a larger anti-choice philosophy. And they dropped the ball.

    I don’t see why it was the Today Show’s responsibility to be a mouthpiece for the pro-choice side of the question. They chose well-spoken representatives of two conflicting sides, and allowed them to speak. I was honestly pleasantly surprised that they passed up the chance to take cheap shots at someone like Dawn who doesn’t toe the party line.

  • harry834

    if women don't committ to waiting till marriage, they are "easy"?

    I've yet to meet these easy women. It would seem that women, with or without the committment to pre-marital celebacy, have their own human reasons for being picky, and men are the same, believe it or not. It might be nice if every club girl would offer me sex right upon meeting, but I can anticipate a few reasons why might say no (let the code of masculinity be damned). Maybe I don't like how a lady may treat me. Maybe she won't allow condoms. Maybe I feel like doing something else, because, you know, men have other motivations. (In my case it might be video games, enjoying the night air, or just rolling in bed). Maybe even my mind can't have sex like a robot.

    Being at comfort with pre-marital sex is not the same as having it. It just means I'm not holding myself until the imaginary wedding day.

    And ever wonder if people, both men and women, WANT to be sexually self-aware before committing to the biggest committment of all?

    It is a lie to tell women that having sex before marriage will throw their chance at happiness. It is a lie to tell women that they need to abstain to keep their mind together. It is a lie to tell women that only with a husband is it safe to let their self-restraint unshackle.

    It is a lie to teach that sex, practiced safely, causes psychological disorders like what Eden and anonymous are suggesting.

    It seems a very patronizing lie that anonmymous sees Amanda's anger as a "symptom" that requires treatment through celebacy. Anger is a natural human emotion. Even when it overstretches, it is not a disease. It certainly doesn't indicate that Amanda needs "help", especially not celebacy until an unwanted husband shows up. Some of us don't want to get married! And we aren't better off if we were.

    I say this knowing full well Amanda's not giving me sexual favors tonight. She's not an easy woman, and neither are the thousands of other self-respecting women who aren't putting chains around their genitals. Rape wouldn't exist if women who don't commit were the same as women who give it to every guy who wants. The latter is largely an imaginary woman, who may only exist under particular circumstances, like an economic need to prostitute yourself for money, or a genuine psychological issue that is not characteristic of the majority of women.

    I was a paranoid about driving a car once. Does that mean I should have advise people that driving is bad for your psychic-well being? Or should those of us with personal phobias realize that our issues are just that – our issues, and not representative of the general human condition, such that we need to lock ourselves up to avoid life, to avoid risk, to avoid living.

    I myself am a virgin, but not because I'm trying to be. The point: allowing ourselves choice does not mean we will unleash an imaginary, compulsive monster inside of us.

    We don't need to lock ourselves up to keep us safe. So stop telling that lie to your readers

  • invalid-0

    I know I shouldn’t be surprised, but the vitriol that the “pro-choice” movement shows toward anyone who suggests an alternative to the sexual permissiveness so common today is simply amazing. In fact, it exposes that those who promote abortion are not interested in free choices at all, but simply in forcing their view on everyone. Spare us your whining: “I can’t believe how nasty and cruel anti-choicers are.”

    Yes, Dawn is sooooo nasty because she has the guts to present a vision of human life that so reverences sexuality it reserves it for the sacred bond of marriage. Casual sex just cheapens the persons who engage in it. These aren’t just rules that someone made up, but expressions of the deepest reality of human nature put there by God. The sexual revolution has left a trail of broken lives behind. Thank you, Dawn, for having the courage to speak the truth.

  • harry834

    is not that big. Yes, advisers don't hold a gun to your head, but they can "warn" you "for your own good" that if you don't do what they suggest, you will suffer in this, that, etc.

    And when such statements are based on faulty, prejudiced, or paranoid information, – whether deliberate or inadvertant – then we have a right to openly point out that the advice is based on just such faulty, prejudiced, or paranoid information.

    Now, assuming that it is not intentionally wrong (and many/most bad advisers fall in that category) then perhaps there is room for a polite supplying of missing information to the misguided adviser. However, often times the adviser is absolutely convinced of their prejudiced, warped, and paranoid views, and seeks to "warn" people. A free speech society can't stop her from speaking. But the same free speech allows us to counter with outrage based on our observation of the prejudiced nature of her views.

  • invalid-0

    You ask: “Basically, why is everyone hating on sex?”

    In reality, those who promote sexual permissiveness are the ones who really hate sex, because they cheapen it by making it so casual it loses all its human and personal meaning.

    Those who see a greater meaning in sex than the mere lust for pleasure are the ones who truly appreciate it as a gift, to be treasured and not used lightly.This is what marriage is all about. It is a commitment that the person I give myself to sexually is the one I am sharing my whole life with.

    Amanda, have all the thousands of sexual encounters you refer to above given you happiness and peace of mind and left you less selfish, or have they made you more selfish by craving more and more pleasure? Only you can answer that.

  • harry834

    Did you miss my above comment that pre-marital sex isn't the same as compulsive sex?

    And did you hear the part about us having the right to speak out against the fallacy that sex causes psychological disfunction.

    That is exactly the false diagnosis you are making:

    "Casual sex just cheapens the persons who engage in it. These aren't just rules that someone made up, but expressions of the deepest reality of human nature put there by God. The sexual revolution has left a trail of broken lives behind."

    Broken lives?

    And of course your using "God" to justify your argument. When do I get to meet this Guy who you people claim is on your side? I'm not sure how someone that supreme has the endurance to monitor every human's sex life. But if God is a voyer, maybe He's got impure motives.

     

  • harry834

    "the "pro-choice" movement shows toward anyone who suggests an alternative to the sexual permissiveness so common today is simply amazing. In fact, it exposes that those who promote abortion are not interested in free choices at all, but simply in forcing their view on everyone."

    vs.

    "Casual sex just cheapens the persons who engage in it. These aren't just rules that someone made up, but expressions of the deepest reality of human nature put there by God. The sexual revolution has left a trail of broken lives behind. Thank you, Dawn, for having the courage to speak the truth."

     

    So which is it: are you suggesting an alternative, or a God-endorsed truth that must be followed to avoid suffering?

     

     

  • mellankelly1

    In reality, those who promote sexual permissiveness are the ones who really hate sex, because they cheapen it by making it so casual it loses all its human and personal meaning.

    Those who see a greater meaning in sex than the mere lust for pleasure are the ones who truly appreciate it as a gift, to be treasured and not used lightly.This is what marriage is all about.

    That is a false accusation.  I've been married 9 years now (together 14 years… yes PREMARITAL SEX was had) and I still have casual sex with my husband with a mere lust for pleasure as often as possible with absolutely no possibility of pregnancy!  I love it and I'm not going to stop!

  • harry834

    the REAL God watches angels get their wings

  • invalid-0

    You pretend that contraception doesn’t work in an effort to convince people not to use it. Sick. Sick. Sick. I’m sorry that it bothers you that other people have sex and don’t get punished with unwanted pregnanc, but you know what?

    Mind your own business.

    Sigh. I am minding my own business, as is Dawn Eden. It is you, Amanda, who cannot mind her own business. If you are truly pro-CHOICE, if you truly think that people who are happier abstaining ought to do what makes them happy and to provide support for other like individuals, then you would:
    1. Support groups (pro-life and pro-choice) that make it easier for women to be pregnant and parenting, such as Feminists for Life. After all, if abortion is your only option because society hates on women (by hating on those who are pregnant), then we need to make a society that is more conducive for women.
    2. You would not condemn those, like Dawn, who have found something that works for them, sexually, and provide support for others. Amanda, you are, quite simply, a chastity-shamer. Unless I’m having lots of sex, in your eyes, I’m not a real woman unless I’m letting some man use me.
    3. If you cared about the supposedly difficult choice of abortion, you would examine WHY it is a hard choice. No one has a post-contraceptive-use support group; yet, women who have aborted become very pro-life. Why? Perhaps because, even to those who are scared, terrified, and alone, abortion is wrong.
    4. Likewise, if you really cared about women’s autonomous choices, you would encourage bills like Michigan’s Coercive Abortion Prevention Act. Instead, you find them patronising.
    5. How do you feel about a requirement that abortionists show women the ultrasound before performing an abortion? Last time I checked, it’s not kosher in your pro-abortion world to give women MORE INFORMATION about what they are doing. (IMHO, informed consent laws should be supported by both sides. Both sides believe the science reinforces their positions – pro-lifers that there is, indeed, a human in there, and pro-choicers that it’s a blob of cells. Oddly, though, only the pro-life side supports giving women hard facts – in the form of a totally unbiased ultrasound – about what is in their wombs.) Why not? I know that you’ll whine and cry about how women have made up their minds, but, if they haven’t seen the ultrasound, they’ve made up their minds without medical information. Even in your world, where an unborn child is the equivalent of a tumour, you don’t support this. Why not? Everyone gets to see their ultrasounds of abnormal tissue before that gets removed. Hum….?
    6. Do you ever condemn sex-selective abortion? Why not? Girl babies are disproportionately aborted, even in America.

    So we’ve established that you like to bash women who are chaste, who do not advocate for laws (or any type of coercion) for those who are not chaste, yet you let people murder girl babies with impunity and want to prevent abortionists from giving women information that, statistically, changes their minds 75-90% of the time. Some feminist you are! Gosh, sexually exploitive men who only want sons must have Amanda Marcotte shrines.

  • the-watcher

    In reality, those who promote sexual permissiveness are the ones who really hate sex, because they cheapen it by making it so casual it loses all its human and personal meaning.

    What nonsense! The verbal somersaults you resort to to explain your theory make it laughable. Does promoting something always mean one hates it? If I really like McDonald's, and I go around telling everyone I do, does that mean I secretly hate it?

    Those who see a greater meaning in sex than the mere lust for pleasure are the ones who truly appreciate it as a gift, to be treasured and not used lightly.

    Excuse me, don't presume to tell others how they feel about something. Let's go back to the McDonald's example for a minute…if I like McDonald's, and I eat it all the time, because I like it, must I not appreciate it? I suppose the argument can be made, but not by one person speaking for another. In your hubris, you seem to have forgotten this. The only person who can say how I feel about something is me, so don't you tell me if I "don't appreciate" sex because I didn't jump through the hoops you so generously set up for me.

    Amanda, have all the thousands of sexual encounters you refer to above given you happiness and peace of mind and left you less selfish, or have they made you more selfish by craving more and more pleasure? Only you can answer that.

    Then why are you trying so hard?

     

  • janine

    Of course, this is about denying Harry access to 'easy' women as a measure of oppression.

     

    I lured a man into bed, wasn't even on a date, and he married me. Yes, I'm that good. We've spent 15 years together – with 11 years of marriage now. Thanks to that early 'fornication' bringing us together, we later brought two wonderful children into this world.

  • invalid-0

    So,
    if women don’t committ to waiting till marriage, they are “easy”?

    No, Harry. But if they do commit to waiting till marriage, they won’t be easy. It is not the same thing. You seem to be more facile with words than logic.

  • invalid-0

    Where do you get the idea the pro-choice movement somehow “shows vitriol” towards the abstinence til marriage movement? ‘Tis not the movement,but it’s lies and misinformation about pre-marital sex that bother us. Because this is just a symptom of the larger anti-choice movment that blithely ignores reality in favor of some moral “golden age” that never happened. Except in their imagination.

  • invalid-0

    Rather like the feminist and pro-choice movement that proposes that sterilizing and aborting minorities is the path to a brighter future?

    I mean, if you can just make up crap, why can’t I? (Of course, I can always quote your hero Sanger, and you’ll be hard pressed to find a catholic of any note who believes we should be made to suffer for any of it.)

  • invalid-0

    Rather like the feminist and pro-choice movement that proposes that sterilizing and aborting minorities is the path to a brighter future?

    Can you direct me to a website which backs up this claim? I’ve never heard of any feminist,or pro choice movement which advocates this path.

  • invalid-0

    Is this really the best you can do?

    1. Feminists for life may well do good work in supporting pregnant women who want to be pregnant, I don’t really know. However, the reason I imagine most mainstream feminists don’t care for the organization is that they do not promote/support (officially, although individual members may) contraception, full, complete sex education, etc. Their sole mission seems to be shaming women who choose abortion and trying to make it illegal and promoting motherhood as the one, true expression of feminity.

    2. The chastity movement: Again, if individual women want to be chaste or not, that’s their business. and if they want to proclaim that chastity is the best choice for them, again, that’s their business. The problem I have with Dawn Eden (and I imagine Amanda has a similar issue with her) is that she uses her platform as a way to shame women who don’t chose chastity. Her issue seems to be more or less the same as that of FFL: women should abstain until marriage, wife and motherhood is the ONE, TRUE, ONLY legitimate expression of feminity, and anyone who chooses otherwise is wrong. She opposes giving complete information to those seeking it and, in fact, puts out (I’d say deliberately, but I don’t know her and can’t be sure, although if she doesn’t know then she should) wrong information about contraception and abortion in an attempt to dissuade women from freely choosing what to do with their own bodies.

    3. I’m sure for some women (maybe even many or most) it is a difficult choice, but for some it isn’t. Just because some women regret their abortion or get depressed or whatever after doesn’t mean that it should be illegal and/or unavailable to everyone. Lots of women get post partum depression too, but we’re not advocating making childbirth illegal. All these women should get the support they need both before and after the fact, but advocating form making something illegal just because you personally wish you hadn’t done it is kind of an asshole thing to do, no matter what your motivations.

    4. I don’t really know much about that particular legislation, so I can’t really comment on that. And if is is meant to actually prevent coerced abortions without putting any undue burdens on women who *want* to terminate their pregancies, then I’d support it. What’s usually the case with these sorts of bills, though, is that it is a sneaky way to put more obstacles in the way of women’s exercising of their own bodily autonomy.

    5. For one thing, the requirement that a clinic show an ultrasound adds extra cost to the woman (for what is already a somewhat expensive procedure–in terms of time and money–and tht doesn’t generally qualify for insurance/government support) and to the doctor/clinic. I’d support a bill that the clinic gives women the option to view an ultrasound, if that’s what she wants, but to require it is nothing more than expensive emotional blackmail.

    6. Of couse sex selective abortion is bad. But the way to stop that isn’t to ban all abortions, it is to raise the status of women in cultures where that is prevalent so that individual women don’t feel the pressure to do so. I certainly won’t blame an individual woman for making what is most likely a difficult decision in difficult circumstances. If you’re under pressure from your husband, your family, your culture, etc., to produce male children (which are higher status, worth more, carry on the family name, etc.) and you have such an abortion, you’ve made the most logical decision in your specific case. That doesn’t make it right or good, in the grand scheme of things, but doing what you have to do to survive isn’t something I’ll condemn women for. However, I will condemn a culture that so devalues women’s lives that such a practice is so common.