Feb 3rd, 2009 at 10:01 am
Stark Contrast
By Brian Beutler
If a picture’s worth a thousand words, then two pictures are worth considerably less: Above, a bunch of Republican white dudes smile as they rob women of the right to seek a third trimester dilation and extraction, while below a black man, surrounded by a bipartisan, multi-ethnic array of women (and Steny Hoyer), gives women the right to equal pay for equal work.
48 words.
Update: Apologies. As I’m well aware, “Partial Birth” does not equal a third-trimester abortion. Such are the perils of trying to maintain an Yglesian posting schedule, minus caffeine. Thanks to Jill for the reminder.
61 Responses to “Stark Contrast”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
Matt posted this earlier. It’s definitely worth a repeat, though.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 am
Thanks for the link, Brian! Just a quick FYI on the “partial-birth” abortion ban act — it didn’t outlaw third-trimester abortion. It outlawed a very rare procedure that’s usually used in the second trimester. The ban won’t prevent any abortions — it’ll just require doctors to use a different procedure which may be less safe for their patient. At its heart, the “partial-birth” abortion ban isn’t about “life” because it won’t preserve a single fetal life; its just about making abortions more dangerous and harder to get.
So yes, the contrast is incredible.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:10 am
Are you trying to say that “white dudes” care more about babies than women and minorities do? It’s nice that killing viable unborn babies can bring women together.
I wonder how many spinsters who schlep over to China to adopt a baby girl when they turn 50 wish they had kept one of the babies they aborted when they were younger.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
Jill,
Here’s an idea: if you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex without using birth control. The pill + condoms are about 100% safe in combination.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 am
Babyfan,
Indeed. These cosmopolitan hipsters claim that it’s the height of “feminism” and “pro-woman” to build a society in which in order for women to succeed, it’s necessary for them to butcher their children.
As it might be expected. The pro-abortion movement was never about women’s rights (and, really, I doubt anyone ever was fooled that it was). It’s about young hipster men who like to use women for sex, and dispose of the consequences if necessary. That’s the reason why studies consistently show that women are more pro-life than men.
A truly pro-feminist society would respect the essential different nature of women, and not encourage them to violate that essential nature through the legalized butchery of abortion.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:15 am
“The pill + condoms are about 100% safe in combination”
And when they’re not?
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:17 am
Tom,
When they’re not, you accept and conform to what fate has chosen for you. If you prefer, you can choose adoption, or you can choose to raise the child. We are not intended to have absolute control of our destinies- that is the pernicious error of the modern liberalism. There is virtue and glory in obedience and submission to a higher authority, for men as much as for women.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:18 am
“That’s the reason why studies consistently show that women are more pro-life than men”
Which certainly explains the contrast of the pictures.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:20 am
“We are not intended to have absolute control of our destinies”
By that logic, the fetus is not “intended” to have absolute control of it’s existence.
That aside, how do you specifically propose to enforce an abortion ban?
Also, there is no God.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:22 am
Ah, putting women’s lives in jeopardy. Pathetic that the right-wing counts this as a victory.
What a seriously nasty movement. A bizarre mix of hating women and being jealous of them, all wrapped up in high-minded images of beatific mothers.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Thanks for the heads up Jill. I updated.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:30 am
Wait, being pro-choice is a cosmopolitan hipster thing now? Or are hipsters just in favor of the mandatory abortion-for-success thing that Hector describes? I only just found out that trucker hats are no longer cool, so I’m feeling a little behind on these things.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 am
I never know what to make of these “feminism is anti-woman” arguments. Feminism is a plot launched by men because men already had all the power, authority, autonomy and options in life?
Odd. But then the Libertarians have been arguing that the Income Tax crippled America, because in 1913, things were so much better than they are today.
And plenty of Republicans think we need to go back to the time before the Voting Rights Act, when there was no racism.
At least none that you had to pay attention to.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:33 am
Ha, Steny Hoyer. I was wondering who that goofy-looking guy was.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:34 am
Yeah Beutler, I get your point. White males to blame for every ill in society?
What preposterous liberal bullshit.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:39 am
Is Buetler the cat who was shot up by some black kids in D.C.? Piece of advice for you about women: date the liberals when you’re young, and then find a conservative one when you’re ready to settle down. Since conservative women are less promiscuous, there’s less chance that she’ll have a venereal disease, or the psychic baggage that abortion survivors usually carry around.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:50 am
Fred,
Did you actually marry anyone? You’re such a catch, being a bitter racist loser and given that Steve Sailer is already married.
If only the black man hadn’t held you down and stolen your Ivy League place.
Are you employed yet btw?
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:03 am
“Piece of advice for you about women: date the liberals when you’re young, and then find a conservative one when you’re ready to settle down.”
Are you aware that you’re implying you yourself are disease ridden?
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
James,
Why so angry? Are you sure you’re not the bitter loser?
Tom,
Women are more vulnerable to STDs than men are.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:08 am
Fred,
I’m not angry, I just think you’re a racist piece of shit.
As to bitter, I never went on about losing an Ivy League school place because of Affirmative Action.
Can to answer if you are either employed or married?
Guess not.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
“Women are more vulnerable to STDs than men are.”
And from whom do they get them?
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
Tom,
They get them from black men.
Who aren’t strictly the same race as black men.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:24 am
I’m not sure how it’s relevant to mention that the first guys are white dudes and Obama is a (half-) black dude. You might note that Dems are apparently more kind to women’s rights than Repubs are. But is the implication that you’ll get a more feminist result if you involve people of minority background in the policy process? In the US, feminism has more fecund roots in “white” circles than among people of black/Latino/African/E.Asian/S.Asian/Arab background.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
“I just think you’re a racist piece of shit.”
Based on what, exactly?
“As to bitter, I never went on about losing an Ivy League school place because of Affirmative Action.”
You seem to go on about this quite often, actually. When’s the last time I’ve mentioned it?
“And from whom do they get them?”
Check the NIH for stats on which sorts of men are most likely to be infected with STDs. If I give you the data here myself, James might use them to claim I’m racist.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Fred,
Married and/or employed?
Answer any time you like.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:33 am
“They get them from black men.
Who aren’t strictly the same race as black men.”
I think your syphilis has progressed to the dementia stage.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:33 am
LOL, Fred’s argument is, literally, “liberal chicks have cooties! Horrible cooties from which they will never be clean! EWWWWW!” Never mind that everybody gets cooties, and whether you do or don’t is about luck and protection, not politics.
And for the love of God, the whole “cooties! run away!” attitude was passe in 1937!
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/I?wpapos:2:./temp/~ammem_r9xQ::displayType=1:m856sd=cph:m856sf=3b49018:@@@
Fred is literally trying to bring back a false shame doctrine that everyone else has rejected for the better part of 80 years. Hilarious.
But hey, if you’re still obsessed with cootie-avoidance, you should date only lesbians. Who tend to be liberal. It’s all very confusing.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
Orrin Hatch has a creepy look on his face like he’ll personally get to stamp “Property of the GOP” on a few uteruses.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
Re my #23, I’m sure I’ll get in trouble with a commenter who provides an example of the long history of black feminism, Latina feminism, etc., but I think my point still stands.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
“Answer any time you like.”
If it will make your heart happy: engaged and employed. Now, perhaps you’ll explain why you think I am a racist.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:40 am
I hope before you proposed you found out whether or not she used to be a liberal ho with a diseased pussy.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:44 am
anonymiss,
Whatever makes you feel better about yourself, I’m all for it, but facts are facts. And the facts are these:
A) Conservative women are more likely to be married and have kids.
B) Spinsters are more likely to be liberal.
Ever come to New York? Neighborhoods like the Upper West Side are full of pathetic, menopausal single women, eating alone (or occasionally with an adopted Chinese baby, as BabyFan mentioned earlier in the thread).
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:45 am
James,
Answer any time you like.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
Fred,
I can’t think straight to answer until I find out if you’re engaged to a diseased ho.
Say no no Fred, she’s not a diseased liberal ho?
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Damn the Patriarchy and their hegemonical oppression!
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
You know, this is why we can’t have nice things . . .
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Ever notice that women have the “right” to do what they want with their bodies unless they have eight babies from invitro fertilization and suddenly liberal ethicists come out of the woodwork? Some green ethicist opined that having more than two children is bad for the environment.
I would be willing to bet that when most liberals get older they will be glad that the conservatives had more children to pay their social security and medicaire.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Wait, trucker hats aren’t cool anymore? Oh, jeez . . .
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
It is sad that those on both sides of this “discussion” don’t understand what motivates the majority of abortions in this country. More than half of abortions (and please check my figures at the CDC website) are associated with abnormal fetal development. There are hundreds of thousands of couples every year who make the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy because of things like Anencephaly (base rate 1 in 1,000). Although the base rate of these conditions is quite rare for any individual, the base rate X a large population results in millions of cases every year. The recent decline in abortions indicates a substantial decline in young women having abortions but demonstrates that the numbers for women who are married and starting families remained stable, supporting this overall thesis.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Wait, being pro-choice is a cosmopolitan hipster thing now?
The next time you’re hanging out with cosmopolitan hipsters, mention that you’re pro-life and see how well that goes over. You might as well say that you find Neko Case boring.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
There are hundreds of thousands of couples every year who make the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy because of things like Anencephaly (base rate 1 in 1,000).
I should note that being fully in support of more restrictive anti-abortion laws, I do support abortion for fatal conditions like this.
More than half of abortions are associated with abnormal fetal development.
But I don’t support abortion for Down Syndrome and the like.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
As Lenin said, it’s all “Who? Whom?” Unborn babies can’t vote, so who cares what gets done to them?
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Or as Ceausescu said “The fetus is the property of the entire society.”
And then proceeded to police pregnancies.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Yes, brilliant logic Steve. That explains Republican indifference to abortion.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Adam Villani,
I also support the right to abortion in cases where the fetus is terminally damaged or malformed (anencephaly, and other fatal conditions). I certainly don’t think it should be legitimate in cases of Down’s Syndrome and the like.
By the way, I should make it clear that I don’t agree with Fred’s comments above.
Tom, don’t be dumb. We aren’t entitled to absolute control over our destinies, but we are entitled, at the very least, not to be murdered when we are at our most vulnerable. But hey, go on believing your second-wave feminist nonsense. I’m sure it makes it easier to use women for sex at the night-club, by telling them ‘it’s just a blob of tissue’.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Ah, the acrimony of an abortion thread.
I myself am pro-life (or, if you like, “anti-choice”) because I fail to find convincing any argument for evolving “personhood” that is not either question-begging or arbitrary.
But I do recognize the real social ills that accrue to women from being forced to carry a baby to term. That is why, it seems to me, any coherently pro-life position must be willing to do three things: 1: outlaw the practice of abortion except for reasons having to do with the health of the mother 2: refrain from prosecuting women who obtain abortions 3: provide an ample enough amount of financial and medical aid to unwed or poor mothers so as to lessen, as far as possible, the social harm that is accrues to them from carrying out their pregnancy to term.
Try finding any Republican who is willing to sign on to number #3 on this list. No doubt this fact motivates the many people on this thread who are cynical of the real motivations of the pro-life movement, especially as this movement is codified in national politics, largely populated by idiots and whores.
Also, the pro-life issue is qualitatively different from other issues in the “culture war”–gay marriage and adoption, etc.–because, if the pro-lifers are correct, then we are dealing with the termination of a human person, with murder.
And any way, most pro-lifers of my generation are not homophobes, or misogynist, or racist; many of us actually ascribe to policy positions on these latter issues that would be described as “liberal,” even though we refuse to countenance a law that defines out of existence the most vulnerable of human beings.
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Yes Hector, all those nightclubs filled with empty-headed women who can’t think for themselves or make an decisions of their own. They clearly account for the bulk of abortions and must be protected by you.
wj, you should also add comprehensive (or at very least non-obstructionist) birth control policies as a #4. As for your #2, it’s a very bad idea to enact laws which you don’t intend to enforce.
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Tom,
As for #4, yes, of course you’re right. I had, for the purposes of my comment, just assumed that comprehensive birth control would be readily made available and, in certain venues–low income areas, high schools, colleges, etc.– subsidized by the state or federal government. As for #2, I was not clear enough: while not prosecuting women who solicit abortions, we would, of course, have to prosecute those people who perform them. You are right, in a larger sense, that it is unwise to enact laws which are subsequently not enforced. My sense is that, similar to laws regulating prostitution in some of the Nordic countries (laws which, it seems to me, are much more sane than our own) in which it is illegal to solicit a prostitute but not illegal to be one, there must be a way of making abortion illegal while protecting, as far as possible (I am aware that it will not be perfect), those individual women who believe they need to procure one.
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
WJ,
I would agree with everything on your list, although I would also make exceptions when the fetus was terminally damaged, or when the mother had been raped.
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:57 pm
a bunch of Republican white dudes smile as they rob women of the right to seek a third trimester dilation and extraction,
You mean, smile as they protect thousands of fully conscious persons from being hacked to bits.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Can women get health insurance and life insurance for their unborn “children” as soon as they test positive? Can they deduct their unborn “child” on their tax return?
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Just as I was thinking that this thread should be nuked from orbit for the good of humanity, it took a surprisingly interesting turn – but ‘fore I get to that I want to talk to Asher, who writes,
“You mean, smile as they protect thousands of fully conscious persons from being hacked to bits.”
That would be pretty horrible, but that’s of course not what’s happening (in some really ironic and unpleasant ways, too). Matt’s talking about the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Bush signed. There’s no medical procedure termed a “partial birth abortion,” but the courts have decided this political term refers to intact dilation and extraction (intact D&X/intact D&E). This is a rare (~0.17% of all abortions in 2000) late-term procedure used to reduce the risk, etc, to the woman, and in some cases apparently to provide an intact body for the parent/s to say goodbye to.
Matt’s already pointed out that “third trimester” was a typo. In reality, somewhere around 90% of abortions occur in the 1st trimester. For 2000, only 1.4% – that’s one-point-four, not fourteen %- of abortions were late term (defined as over 20 weeks), and one (1997) estimate for abortions past 24 weeks was 0.08%. The number of actual third-term abortions – banned under Roe in most states except for life or health – is incredibly tiny, and as far as I can tell involves cases where things have gone very, very wrong. Again, PABA banned a specific and rare method chosen for the good of the woman and used almost solely in uncommon, often serious second-trimester abortions.
The fetuses involved are certainly not fully conscious; their brains are not even very developed. Indeed, it seems like they may not be able to feel pain until very late in the second trimester or possibly the third (at the earliest). And that’s a blessing, because there’s a rather horrible irony here. After all, the Act doesn’t ban any late term abortions, only a specific method – it’s not clear if even a single abortion has been prevented. But at that point, the fetus is simply too large for earlier methods to work – hence the admittedly gruesome intact D&X, where the fetus’ skull is collapsed, so the whole body can be removed. What’s the alternative? Well, one of the main ones is dilation and evacuation (D&E). It means increased risks for the woman (a pro-choice concern); it also happens to involve the fetus being pulled apart, in the uterus, into pieces small enough to remove. In other words, being “hacked to bits”.
So what Bush is signing in that picture, surrounded by beaming GOP antichoicers, is the Hacked-To-Bits Abortion Promotion Act. And what’s worse is that any antichoicer whose brain isn’t stuck at a second-trimester level of development either knew all this or should – by any reasonable standard – have been able to figure it out. Given that they supposedly believe that these fetuses are persons, probably can suffer pain, and likely even be fully conscious, that they gleefully passed a law that not only put women at greater risk (of course), but virtually ensured that a number of “babies”, instead of having a grotesque but mercifully quick death, would be torn apart in the womb . . . honestly, it’s monstrous. Of course, anti-choice restrictions help increase the number of late-term abortions to begin with (by making it harder for women to get an earlier (and safer) abortion), so this really is only par for the course. Lies and suffering – it’s all the organized anti-choice movement has.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:14 am
“. . . No doubt this fact motivates the many people on this thread who are cynical of the real motivations of the pro-life movement
I touched on this just a bit in my previous comment . . . it’s one reason I keep responding to Hector these last few weeks, because in some ways he provides such a perfect . . . distillation . . . of a lot of the organized antichoice movement. (Heck, I’m still not entirely certain he’s not performance art). Sure, he’ll dutifully go on about “butchering . . . children” and so on but it’s almost as if his heart’s not completely in it, and then there’s those incoherent exceptions. (It’s ok to “butcher” your “child[]” if they’re a product of rape? What?). Whatever exactly he really feels, it seems clear that what’s truly driving this is
(These cosmopolitan hipsters claim that it’s the height of “feminism” and “pro-woman” to build a society in which in order for women to succeed, it’s necessary for them to butcher their children [sic]. . . . A truly pro-feminist society would respect the essential different nature of women, and not encourage them to violate that essential nature . . . We are not intended to have absolute control of our destinies . . . There is virtue and glory in obedience and submission to a higher authority, for men as much as for women.)
a reactionary obsession with extremely strict, essentialist gender roles (which of course means an implacable opposition to feminism, with its greater freedom and opportunity for women (and men!)), which is part and parcel of an deeply authoritarian, rigidly hierarchical, and (yes) patriarchal ideology – something which our civilization has struggled over decades and centuries to slowly dismantle, and very, very much the better for it. Just in case somebody missed me quoting this the last n times -ladies and gentlemen, Christina Page:
“[When I was researching this book,] I was happy to make distinctions and say, Well, we do have evidence that there’s a wing of the pro-life movement that supports child care. But [what I found is that] there is no wing. And the opposition that we’re facing to these issues is from these pro-life groups. An alarming pattern emerges: Not only do they want to take away legal and safe abortion, they want to stop people from having access to contraception. Coupling with that, they want to strip people of opportunities to put their children — whether they wanted them or not or can afford them or not — into child care.
Where does this lead? What is the point of this? How can you be against child care if you’re against helping people plan their families? If you don’t want to help people have limited numbers of children, why are you stripping them of the very things that make that possible? The only conclusion that this path leads to is one: The modern family is deeply offensive to the Christian right. The family structures in which we are living today, in which both parents are equal and they both bring home a living, they get to choose the number of children they have to what they can support and want — that is offensive to the pro-life establishment. The whole reason why none of their programs are leading to fewer abortions is because that’s simply not the point. The point isn’t about abortion, it’s about the family. It’s about what the family looks like, it’s about who’s in it, who’s leading it, who has the power, and who’s the spiritual head.”
And it’s not at all irrelevant that she wrote her book (How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics, and the War on Sex) at least partly in reaction to what happened after she and a moderate pro-lifer co-wrote a NY Times op-ed about how both sides could work together for a (however limited) common cause, helping to reduce the number of abortions through sound, sensible means. As she tells it, the pro-choice response was disappointingly lukewarm (I suspect, sadly, from experience), but the other side went berserk. And not in a good way. It’s nice to see someone a bit different. Seriously, I’m cheered to find someone who would force my wife to give birth against her will, but would at least push for financial aid to help her out, or force my (hypothetical) daughter to give birth against her will, but at least try to ensure that birth control would have been available at her high school. That’s messed up. But hey . . .
So, the whole situation is insane; given that, what about your three conditions for a coherent prolife position (which I certainly would agree exists)? I don’t know about #1 – I think folks could be (and are) pro-life, while also (given the world, and female personhood*) sadly accepting the vital necessity of choice, while doing their best to support life (not even getting into war, death penalty, helping born children. yet – that’s a huge plus, of course). To make an analogy here which will be distasteful to at least some folks on both sides, I’m a vegetarian, and would be happy to convince other folks to be too – or at least to eat less meat – but I don’t think we should have legislation banning almost everyone from eating meat.
#2: no prosecuting women who get abortions. I hate to say it, but this is just incoherent. If the state (wrongly) decides it has a compelling interest in protecting fetal life over and above a woman’s right to their own body (excepting her right to sustain it), it could surely (still wrongly) see it as legitimate to prosecute them. Now, I disagree, and if that comes to pass will try to interfere (along with providing transportation, info about safe methods, etc.), but . . . Mercy, yes, but seriously extenuating circumstances aside, mercy within this brutal framework would be lesser penalties compared to someone who hires a contract killer to off a (born) family member, not no prosecution at all!
(Of course, here we get into ideas about how women are kinda childlike and brainless and not really responsible, in any sense, for their decisions – see Hector’s antiquated delusions re: “ It’s about young hipster men who like to use women for sex, and dispose of the consequences if necessary. So since, like children, they’re not really responsible, they don’t face legal sanction – but of course, the flip side they don’t get choices either, since they’re too innocent and flighty to handle them. Submission and obedience. Wait, why do they get to vote again? )
#3. Well, since I oppose forced-birth legislation, I don’t actually agree with this, but yes, surely sincere, coherent pro-lifers would support all this. And in terms of those specific measures (obviously not the whole ban thing), of course, so do pro-choicers. It’s a hideous and sick thing for someone to be forced to carry and give birth against her will, but it’s also a tragedy for someone who wants to have a baby be forced (by poverty, lack of support, general anti-women/children/family policies) to seek an abortion. Choice works both ways – what we want is education, availability, opportunity, and support, so that women can make their own choices on this most intimate of matters with as much freedom as this struggling world can manage. Not young women with pregnancies they never intended because fearful folks made sure they were stuffed with abstinence-only nonsense instead of given genuine information and guidance (’sex before marriage is like juggling with machetes!!’ ‘Condoms don’t work!!’ ‘If you have sex you’re a horrible old piece of dirty, dried up tape!’) Not women who’d love to have children, but are faced with obsolete systems and policies which insist that work and family are an immutable division of labor. Not women who get an abortion for the sake of their other kids because the world says that another lateness for a doctor’s appointment and you’re fired and out on the street. Etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. Hopefully things will be getting a little better, for a bit, but we’ve already seen how attempts along these lines are going to go, so if you want to help, we need you.
Now, beyond this . . . well, that’s a whole ‘nother matter (as you’ve pointed out, wj, for sincere partisans on either side, this is a unfixable debate; murdering the unborn vs. enslaving real women (and of course, suffering, permanent injury and death for those non-elite women who will get abortions which will be illegal, unsafe, and tragically not all that rare ) but for this, certainly, yes.
* this is the real issue in much of this debate, I think – not the question of fetal personhood, but female personhood. Pro-choicers are convinced it exists and is very important . . .
February 4th, 2009 at 1:53 am
“That’s the reason why studies consistently show that women are more pro-life than men.”
Hector’s wrong (or misleading) here; for example, an August 2008 Pew Forum poll found women and men in a statistical tie on whether abortion should be legal in all or most cases (54% vs. 53%), but that involved 20% of women for “all cases” vs. 14% of men. (I’m just guessing that’s statistically significant, though, so Hector might only be wrong (or misleading), not doubly so). On the other side, there wasn’t really a gender gap – the breakdown of the 42% “illegal” position (most cases/all cases) was almost identical for women and men (26%/16% women, 27%/15% men). However, another 2004survey found that women feel stronger on this issue on both sides, compared to guys – they’re more intensely pro-choice, and more intensely pro-life. Thing is, they’re still rather significantly pro-choice (33% strongly opposed more restrictions on abortion, 19% strongly supported them). So you can argue that Hector’s kinda right, except . . . no.
Now, if you’re curious about possible reasons why a minority of women would be so strongly antichoice, one place to start is (for example) Kristin Luker’s Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood and/or Faye Ginsburg’s Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community – both older, mid/late 80s works, but I don’t know what the hipster kids are reading nowadays . . .
February 4th, 2009 at 2:11 am
“These cosmopolitan hipsters claim that it’s the height of “feminism” and “pro-woman” to build a society in which in order for women to succeed, it’s necessary for them to butcher their children [sic]. . . .”
Ironically, of course, I and other pro-choicers want to build a society where it’s genuinely rare that women would need to have abortions in order to succeed/get out of poverty/get an education/feed their other children, etc., because of education, availability, and generous (private and public) pro-women, pro-children, and pro-family policies. Hey, Hector, if you want to help with that, you’re on our side too! (narrowly and provisionally, granted). But hey, if you’d rather sit around fantasizing about woman’s “essential” nature, how horrible hipsters are, and the glorious freedom one finds in obedience and submission while whipping yourself with a gore-clotted lash or something, well, to each his onan . . .
ok, ok enough – time for me to get to bed. Goodnight, any poor soul still reading . . .
February 4th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Dan S.,
Don’t be moronic. I support government funded child care, and the social provision of birth control. (I have no moral problem with chemical contraception; I think that condoms might be morally questionable, but I think people should make that decision for themselves.) I voted for Nader, by the way.
I realize that it might be fun for cosmopolitan hipsters to burble about the (at this stage, rather invisible) patriarchy, and more nonsense about “autonomy” and “freedom”, but perhaps you could have a more productive conversation if you would respond to what I actually said.
To be fair, Dan S., you’re welcome to comment on my blog anytime, I write about abortion amongst other things. http://www.patriabolivariana2008.blogspot.com. Your cheerfully nihilistic philosophy provides a perfect distillation- as much as Coketown or the Yezhovshchina- of the horrible consequences of a “humanist” world.
Sure, I’ll cooperate with you people in the matter of pursuing better access to contraception and child care….much as I would have partnered with Stalin in defeating the Nazis.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:46 pm
cialis
Great site. Good info
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:01 am
levitraIf you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:30 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:54 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra