tags: humor, cartoon, abortion, anti-choice, women, religion, blogging
Image: Jesus and Mo.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
In some wickedly funny satire, Amanda Marcotte shows us how to create an anti-menstruation movement:
The "abortion is icky" argument is such that the anti-choice crowd could easily start agitating for a ban on menstruation without skipping a beat. The fact that menstruation is incredibly common…
Answer: Everyone that couldn't afford it, if his representatives are any indication.
From People for the American Way:
Focus on the Family's James Dobson, on a recent conference call for anti-choice activists, sounded both those charges, calling reform legislation a "huge abortion industry…
The House of Representatives passed health-reform legislation that included an anti-choice amendment that will seriously jeopardize women's access to abortion - making it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new health system to offer abortion coverage to…
She's so mad about how mean pro-choice people are, that she's making up new facts. She says she received death threats over her callous use of the death of children, which may be entirely true (and if it is, I'm pissed off at you: no, it doesn't matter how vile her behavior is, you don't threaten…
Anyone who has been paying attention in the slightest already knows this. But it's good to keep hammering the point home.
Plus, I like Jesus and Mo.
Ya know, I'd still believe abortion was wrong even if men could get pregnant. I don't believe in legislating my personal morals, but I think it should be discouraged regardless of the sex of the parent. I'm just saying, don't stereotype the entire anti-abortion crowd.
Brandon writes:
And thus the concept of "choice". The other side of the argument is not the pro-abortion crowd but the pro-choice crowd. The counterpoint to the fundamentalist position is not abortion advocacy but the treatment of people as free moral agents.
Ah, right. So any women who are anti-abortion are clearly under the thumb of oppressive men. Have I understood you correctly?
Brandon has a good point when he says, 'The counterpoint to the fundamentalist position is not abortion advocacy but the treatment of people as free moral agents.' I tend to find supposedly 'pro-choice' people to be strangely resistant to the notion of presenting abstinence as a valid option alongside other methods of contraception*. Surely 'choice' is about having equal access to *all* options? This is why I'm of the view that 'pro-abortion' is generally a more accurate descriptor than 'pro-choice'.
*Yes, I know that it was abortion you were talking about, but the issues tend to overlap.
Exactly. I am pro-choice and pro-keeping-your-pants-on.
Ginger wrote:
While I can see how Ginger can get this impression, I think that it is merely the result of pro-choice people emphasizing their opposition to the "abstinence ONLY!" movement by talking about the other forms of contraception. That it would seem to focus only on those alternatives is because the abstinence option has already been agreed upon and is not a point of contention.
I mean, you can only speak for so long about what choosing the abstinence option entails ("Don't get pressured into sex if you don't want to." "Focus on your partner's personality", etc.) before you run out of things to say and move on to spend much more time on discussing the multiple (not just one) alternatives that exist. So, althouhg it would seem like the abstinence option isn't being discussed enough; it may actually have more to do that abstinence is only one thing compared with the more-than-one methods of contraception.
Also,
Not necessarily, but more likely to be either ones who:
1) personally wouldn't choose abortion (and doesn't understand why someone else would) under almost any circumstances (life-and-death situations notwithstanding)
or
2) have simply never been in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy (thus not understanding the suffering that those "other" women go through).
The #2 type, when finding themselves facing an unwanted pregnancy, can either:
A) become those of the #1 type. (Good for them! It's their choice!)
B) reverse their pro-life position. (Also good for them! It's their choice!)
or C) rationalize that they are the exception to the rule, secretly get an abortion, and then go right back to bashing other women for choosing abortion. (Only I get to choose! Not you, you unworthy slut!)
Given that the evidence seems to show that "abstinence-only" programs don't work and therefore actually increase the number of unwanted pregnancies (and thus the number of abortions), you seem to be very, very confused here.
Replying to Askyroth Re: Ginger, Randon, and similar:
To an authoritarian personality (dominant or subordinate subtypes), anything that is not forbidden must be mandatory, and vice versa. Also, the only reason to explain anything to a "child", is to command them either to do it or not to do it.
Thus, someone talks about allowing abortions for teenagers, and they hear "every teenager must have an abortion". If anyone points out that it's futile to demand abstinence from every teenager, they hear "abstinence must be outlawed". Likewise, "tell them about masturbation" becomes "train them to masturbate", and "teach them that gays aren't evil" becomes "recruit them into Homosexuality". Much the same applies to drug education, free speech, etc....
Yeah, there are people out there with more nuanced views -- but those aren't the folks bullying the school boards or the legislatures. By definition, anyone who supports individual choice won't consider it so deathly important to make sure their goals are the only goals on the table, and that leaves the sensible folks bringing knives to the proverbial gunfight.