This fear of embodiment is also why they have a problem with evolution (me no monkey!) and why most of the far right-wing people who are atheists tend to be transhumanist libertarian nutjobs who cream their pants about the concept of downloading their consciousness in a computer simulation or transplanting their brains into invincible robot bodies.

I am in awe of this post.

Oh Gawd: all day today on Christian radio they had the whole breast beating, teeth nashing women who had abortions and lived to regret it. One (Focus on the Famblee station)of them was a former P.P. director named Anne, the other was some idiot pushing a Abortion Recover group.
The former director really pissed me off. She said she believed being prochoice was doing Christian works, because she didn’t want to see women have illegal abortions. Needless to say, after her Pro Liar awaking, she apparently forgot about that. GAH.

Amanda, the reason why I keep coming back to this blog is posts like this. You’re absolutely fantastic on the issue of reproductive rights (it’s my favorite subject to read you on, Nice Guys being my second-favorite), and I think this is your most insightful treatment of the subject yet.

Obsessive fear of death and fear of life are two sides of the same coin. The hardcore anti-choicers display both, in spades.

Very powerful post, Amanda.

Brilliant

Adding my awe to that of Stubbles @ #2.

Better instead to have exactly one path to follow---don’t fuck, get married, have a couple of kids, stop fucking, and don’t look sideways or you might accidentally invite tumultuous passion into your life.

I grew up in a fundie household, and this idea was taught to me explicitly by my church and parents. Passion was understood in sexual terms almost exclusively; I remember my dad approvingly quoting the evangelist Billy Graham, who said that he never allowed himself to be alone in the company of a woman not his wife. Sexual attraction IS a very strong force, but the idea was that people (and men especially, of course) are helpless if it occurs; that people experience it the way you’d experience falling off a cliff or something. It’s such a sad, odd, constricting way to live—always being in fear that your desires will lead you somewhere you don’t really want to go.

Brilliant analysis, Amanda.

I believe in living life to the fullest. I also believe that absolutely everyone should have freedom of choice. I just don’t think aborting a living human fetus is a good idea. It is not without consequences, emotional and otherwise. Therefore, I think we should all additionally focus on LOUDLY supporting the alternatives, prevention being the most obvious.
Personally, I abhor the thought of the government dictating what I can or cannot do with my body. That said, I don’t believe that all pro-lifers are full of hatred for living as your diatribe suggests.
In my view, your abundant vitriol condemning anyone even a baby step to the right of you, doesn’t serve the cause of freedom. It serves the cause of polarization and condemnation and reinforces some ugly stereotypes of those of us who believe in choice.

This is really awesome, Amanda. It’s exactly what I have been trying to articulate to my mother and stepfather for some time.

Dr. Tiller performed therapeutic abortions.  That means that in some case he saved the lives of women whose lives were at risk due to pregnancy.  Any person who thinks that a woman should die rather than have an abortion, if it means her fetus will die along with her anyway has no right to call themselves “pro-life”.

I don’t want my tax dollars:

to pay for STD treatments when people know full well that sex leads to babies and sometimes diseases.....

In that case, I don’t want my tax dollars going to treat flu-related pneumonia because people know full well that not getting a flu shot, not washing hands thoroughly, and coming into contact with other people can lead to getting the flu.

And I don’t want my tax dollars to go to people who travel to a foreign country for pleasure when they know full well that they could catch malaria or traveler’s diarrhea.

And I don’t want my tax dollars to go to people who drive drunk when they know full well that could lead to them getting into an accident.

Why aren’t conservatives consistent in their ideology?  Why don’t they want these other people to just die too?  Could it be that think sex is a worse sin than human contact, traveling for pleasure, and even drunk driving?

If you add religion to the mix, you get another dynamic; fear of God’s wrath, which also drives many of these protesters. Some may feel visceral disgust, but many of them are convinced that if they don’t oppose abortion, they are committing a major sin and that means Hell and/or other punishment by God.

It’s a real fear, put into them very early in life, and no matter how “good” you are as a Christian, it’s not uncommon to feel constantly haunted by the idea that you’re this close to screwing up and pissing off God.

Fred over at Slacktivist actually posted something on this:

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/01/tf-the-logic-of-hell.html

basically, that compassion comes to be seen as your enemy if it prevents you from adhering to the rigid rules of your religion.  Hell and avoiding it are the end-all and be-all obsession, and this makes it impossible to interact compassionately, normally and healthily with other human beings.

Great post, Amanda.

And yeah, what’s with the duct-tape-over-the-mouth thing? I see it everywhere, even on the (otherwise admirable) Cindy McCain anti-Prop 8 ad.

GQ “political” articles (or current events articles, however you want to say it) are always shite.

Dr. Tiller worked to save womens lives. Roeder murdered him in cold blood for it. That should be about the extent of that article.

Here come the concern trolls…

... who, apart from blithely ignoring the fact that Dr. Tiller’s practice was pretty much summed up in the “saved women’s lives” category…

... is also making sure that even though they loosely use terms like “believing in choice” that we all know that abortion is just so gosh-darn problematic. Those stupid sluts with their nasty wombs getting knocked up and then deciding that the life they’d planned for themselves does not involve gestating the little tissue globule into a full-grown baby are just… well, we’re not going to say MURDERERS, but it’s just ... it’s just so not good don’t you see? I mean, we should just sterilize all the sluts right out of the gate and then make sure they pass some sort of mandatory parenting racial purity test before we reverse the procedure because prevention is the key! And if prevention doesn’t work for whatever reason ... well, again, we’re not going to call you a baby killing murderer who will roast in hell for eternity, but don’t you understand how very upsetting the idea of removing that little globule of tissues is for us? I mean, so what if I expelled something very similar from my nose during my last sinus infection. I’m pro-choice, you dirty filthy whores! Why can’t you just feel so bad for doing something that gives me the vapors and stop with this nonsense that your lives are somehow worth a damn?

And yeah, what’s with the duct-tape-over-the-mouth thing?

Other people disagreeing with them means that they’re being censored.  It’s the same mindset that has them saying that they’re being religiously oppressed if other faiths are acknowledged, or that giving gay people rights means less rights for them.

Roeder comes off as a broken man with no connections to others, whose convictions are mostly regarding imaginary things

Except for the name, this sentence could reasonably describe any given terrorist. Groups that place concepts of faith (be it in invisible men or political ideologies) over the health and well-being of people find them very useful indeed.

Now to the troll:

Therefore, I think we should all additionally focus on LOUDLY supporting the alternatives, prevention being the most obvious.

Again, this strange strawman that pro-choice advocates are somehow opposed to contraception. You do understand that, in addition to performing abortions, reproductive health clinics also dole out condoms and offer prescriptions for the pill.

If anything, it’s the anti-choice crowd who are loudly opposed to contraception (except for the bogus abstinence option). Amanda explains very clearly in the above post why that’s the case.

That said, I don’t believe that all pro-lifers are full of hatred for living as your diatribe suggests.

True, some of them are just dull-witted and tunnel-visioned, and prioritise carriage to full term over the health and well-being of the pregnant woman. And others just hate certain living people (e.g. those who don’t believe in their flavour of Invisible Bearded Sky Man™, women, etc.).

In my view, your abundant vitriol condemning anyone even a baby step to the right of you, doesn’t serve the cause of freedom. It serves the cause of polarization and condemnation and reinforces some ugly stereotypes of those of us who believe in choice.

Your concern is noted. However, this isn’t the MSM, so the idea that both sides have equally valid points and deserve a hearing doesn’t work here. For example, on cable news, you can make an empty, truism-filled statement like…

I just don’t think aborting a living human fetus is a good idea. It is not without consequences, emotional and otherwise.

...and not be called on it. Not so here. For example, what’s your definition of a “living human foetus” (blastocyst? zygote? embryo?)? And in addition to those those vague and I assume negative “consequences, emotional and otherwise” of getting an abortion, are you willing to acknowledge that there can be very solid long-term negative consequences of NOT getting an abortion?

mgburroughs @ #9:  A few thoughts.

1.  Describing abortion as having “consequences, emotional and otherwise” sounds rather similar to the language anti-choicers use.  Just saying.

2.  Pro-choicers ALREADY support alternatives to abortion.  That’s why it’s called being pro-CHOICE.  A number of Amanda’s previous posts deal with the issue of access to contraception, and none of the pro-choicers here are opposed to women choosing to have a child.  The operative word here, again, being choice.

3.  Calling a spade a spade is not abundant vitriol.  The language and behavior of the anti-choice movement makes their motivation crystal clear, even when they cover it with a layer of “Oh, we just care about the bay-bies so much!” There are plenty of anti-choicers who are merely ignorant of the arguments they espouse, who have not thought their position through to its logical conclusion.  But there are plenty more who are spiteful, hate-filled human beings whose true colors show as soon as you point out how fucked-up their beliefs really are.  (And I suspect, in a couple more of your posts, you’ll reach that point yourself.  I may be wrong, though.  You could just be ignorant.)

Catgirl, I was going to post a similar thing: I live with no human contact and I’m a breatharian. I don’t want my tax dollars going to disease control--everyone knows that human contact and eating food can lead to diseases and health problems.

And yeah, what’s with the duct-tape-over-the-mouth thing?

In this case, it conveys the spurious idea that anyone speaking out in favour of choice can easily be stifled by the comeback: “Life, bitches, LIFE!” (with the “bitches” part just as heartfelt).

A hateful old preacher whose mouth is plastered over with tape reading “CHOICE” or “LIBERTY” doesn’t evoke nearly as much sympathy in America.

I’m way too slow for this, apparently.  Mighty Ponygirl, Gracchus, you beat me to it!

I don’t really see the duct-tape thing or anything else at Bound 4 Life as anything more than simple lite fetish porn for Christianist BDSM idiots.

Not that people who are into BDSM are idiots, but from what I understand, within the community, there’s not much excitement for douches who don’t understand the sort of trust and respect that is the foundation of the lifestyle. And the folks who looooovvveee to get teenage girls and the occasional teenage boy to look sexy with a little “LIFE” duct tape over their mouth are predatory and do not meet that basic criteria.

If you want to beat off to pictures of people all trussed up like a thanksgiving turkey, that’s fine with me… but at least square with yourself. Don’t decide that God will forgive your horrible kink if you can somehow wrap it in some Righteous Cause. You’re still touching yourself.

I’m way too slow for this, apparently.  Mighty Ponygirl, Gracchus, you beat me to it!

Nah, the more the merrier. These dopes think we’re too stupid to see concern trolling for what it is, and too polite not to call them on their BS.

The core problem for anti-choicers, from the violent militants to the weaselly types like mgburroughs , is that at the end of any debate all they’re left with is some variation of “because an invisible sky fairy said so, so there!” In the industrialised West, that argument doesn’t work nearly as well as it did 60 years ago.

I think the duct tape thing is to symbolize what would happen if their own mother had had an abortion, and that person wasn’t around to talk.  Ironically, they’re demonstrating that choice worked just fine for them, because many of them were born after abortion was legal everywhere.  Their mothers chose to have them, but the tape is meant to show that they wouldn’t “have a voice” if their mothers had chosen differently than the did.  It’s really a non-sequitur because their own mothers already chose, and they didn’t choose abortion with that particular pregnancy.  These people seem to think that keeping abortion legal is the same thing as making it mandatory.

Mg, thanks for your concern. I agree some people’s fear of sexuality is more moderated. Yours seems to be. But that desire to control and fear of sexuality comes in degrees doesn’t change the central point. Sex doesn’t terrify you, so much as worry you about consequenes. You’ve only shown that irrationality comes in degrees.

This is a wonderful post.

That said, I don’t believe that all pro-lifers are full of hatred for living as your diatribe suggests.

Well, mgburroughs, the ones who aren’t full of hatred simply haven’t thought it through.  Even seen the video of protestors who say abortion should be illegal when they are asked if a woman who has an abortion should go to jail?

The literally have never thought about it.  They are stymied and usually say no and go on about sin or so. 

A crime by definition must have a punishment.  If it’s murder, even murder by hire, then there should be serious consequences, but most forced-gestationists don’t want that. 

They really haven’t thought anything through.  Abortion is icky and bad!  Women shouldn’t do it! 

But when you get into the nitty gritty of what they mean by “bad”, all you get is hate or ignorance or both.

What forced-gestationists also like to ignore are wanted pregnancies--women who choose life--that go bad.  When a wanted child has no chance of life and in fact threatens the mother’s life and/or future fertility.  Bill O’Reilly has gone so far on his show as to claim no pregnancy ever threatens the life of a woman (Media Matters has it on file)

That’s part of the icky, sticky, gritty, reality of life.  Babies aren’t snowflakes--they aren’t perfect, crystalline entities.  They don’t always form correctly, even if you dearly want them.  It’s not anyone’s fault, but there are assholes happy to blame women for not being properly successful wombs and willing to let them suffer and die.

The type of abortions Tiller provided were just those types of abortions.  Wanted pregnancies that went badly.  For all the talk about medically necessary abortions being “okay” with ‘pro-lifers’ it’s simply not true.  The ER won’t treat you unless you are hemorhaging or actively septic.  They’ll be happy to give you a hysterectomy.

But finding a doctor who actually knows and has performed the medical treatments necessary to preserve a woman’s health and fertility are very few and far between.  And if this piece of shit health care bill passes as is, women will be stuck in the same situation as federal employees and soldiers--doesn’t matter if the fetus is dead, if she isn’t septic or bleeding out, the woman’s life is not in danger, and no treatment will be covered.

So the rich will be able to choose the way they want to end a failed pregnancy, but the rest of us will be screwed b/c even a dead fetus is more important than a woman.

If that’s not hate, what is?

Really too bad Ernest Becker isn’t alive to be interviewed.
http://www.ernestbecker.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=11

I remember writing a letter to the editor of my college newspaper about abortion that was somewhat similar to mgburroughs’s comment. I was a virgin back then, and when I started having sex (before going on birth control), and actually faced my first “my period should be here by now, what if I’m pregnant” fear moment, I changed my mind. Abortion is no more of a sad procedure than removing a kidney is, in many circumstances, and most people don’t want to hear that.

I just don’t think aborting a living human fetus giving birth is a good idea. It is not without consequences, emotional and otherwise.

See how that works?  Continued pregnancy and childbirth have some risks too.  So does everything else.  Ironically, most of the “emotional” risks of abortion are caused by propogandists trying to make women feel guilty about choosing abortion with misleading or outright false information. 

Also, pregnancies are aborted, not fetuses.  And in the vast majority of cases, and embryo is involved rather than a fetus.  So if we are talking about the point where a fetus is involved, it’s very likely that the woman is seeking an abortion because of health risks, which means not having an abortion is probably more risky than having one.

Of course, the funny thing about people like mg using euphemisms like “consequences” is that every decision you make has consequences.  Sometimes they’re good, sometimes they’re bad---what they mostly are is hard to predict, and that’s why freedom scares so many people. 

But what makes the hyper-focus the freedom-fearing have towards abortion funny is this: In terms of big life choices, abortion is the one with the biggest take-back potential, especially if you’re a rational person with few hang-ups about sexuality.  If you decide you really can’t have this baby and have an abortion, and then down the line you are ready for a baby, you can have one.  You can decide that a month later if you wish, though that’s pretty rare. Falling in love or out doesn’t have take backs.  If you take this job, then that other one is usually closed.  If you move here but not there, there are real consequences.  With abortion, the potential for regret is minimized, unless you’ve been poisoned by misogynist anti-choice propaganda.

Consequences: A word antis use to mean “punishment”.  But in the real world, most women feel relief when they abort.  Many are able to deal with the consequences of having the opportunities a pregnancy would shut down remain open.  Many deal with the consequences of not having another mouth to feed, so they are better able to feed the ones they have.  They suffer through the consequence of not being saddled to a man they don’t love, or being able to go to the school they do.  It’s so weird to talk of “consequences” in the way antis do---as if wishing made it true that the jezebels of the world would pay for the crime of fucking.

The core problem for anti-choicers, from the violent militants to the weaselly types like mgburroughs

But here’s the rub. Mburroughs is pro-choice. In a stupid, badly-expressed, ill-thought-out way, but pro-choice, and should just own that and get on with things. If you believe that women have the right to have abortions (even if you disapprove or tut-tut or feel ooky about it) then you’re pro-choice. The rest is just stupid acceptance of wingnut framing.

It’s like the idiots who say “I’m not a feminist, but I believe women should get equal pay for equal work and shouldn’t be subject to harassment in the workplace. And men should share housework and child-rearing.” Or “I’m not a liberal, but I can’t imagine where we’d be without social security and medicare, and I think in general that the power of government should be harnessed to improve the lives of all citizens.”

In terms of big life choices, abortion is the one with the biggest take-back potential, especially if you’re a rational person with few hang-ups about sexuality

Oh hell yes. I felt empowered by it afterwards. I’m sick of the way the prochoice side panders to the antichoicers by saying how harrrddd abortion is and tragic. They need to stop letting the antis frame the argument. This frustrates me so much.

You write so powerfully on this issue in general, but this post is above even your usual high standard, fantastically articulating the fallacy of their claiming to love life…

I think “self-hatred of one’s self” in your seventh paragraph is a bit redundant, though.

I just think that real progress on this issue will come from understanding, and perhaps even some kind of compromise, not from obstreperous name-calling and glittering generalities about the pro-lifers.
When we accuse even one wrongly, we arm them all with the ammo to defame our whole argument.

I suggest we point out, even call out, the real idiots, and not condemn all those who simply believe that abortion is wrong. I suspect that there are tens of millions of people who are opposed to abortion that wouldn’t dream of making it illegal. Isn’t that large universe worthy of our consideration?
In the end, isn’t our argument about choice?

Also, mg, most major anti-choice organizations are openly against contraception, or they claim to be neutral while sending out emails discouraging the use of female-controlled effective contraception like the pill or the IUD.  The people behind abstinence-only education were anti-choicers.

Meanwhile, all pro-choice organizations support contraception---Planned Parenthood does most of its work distributing it---education, and support for all choices.

Your anger, er, “concern”, only makes sense if you believe something that is patently false, which is that the anti-choice movement is just fine with preventing unintended pregnancy.  At best, some anti-choice organizations have decided not to make actively fighting effective contraception a priority.

I just think that real progress on this issue will come from understanding, and perhaps even some kind of compromise, not from obstreperous name-calling and glittering generalities about the pro-lifers.

The problem is that “pro-lifers” don’t argue in good faith, and we actually understand them too well.

I’m actually amazed that you came back, so let me ask you this: how do you feel about rape victims having abortions?

I have always been pro-choice. Being a rape victim is beside the point.

I have always been pro-choice. Being a rape victim is beside the point.

You’ve already stated that you think it’s a bad idea for women to have abortions.  Do you think it’s just as bad when rape victims do it?

tens of millions of people who are opposed to abortion

Oh please. Tens of millions of people who haven’t put that much thought into it, you mean.

It’s really easy to be opposed to abortion when you’re not sexually active.

It’s really easy to be opposed to abortion when you’re not at risk of pregnancy yourself.

It’s really easy to be opposed to abortion when your life is settled and an unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t completely derail everything.

It’s really easy to be opposed to abortion when you’re well off enough that you have a full range of options.

It’s really easy to be opposed to abortion when you’re white and have a fairly healthy family history and there’s a tidal wave of people scrambling to adopt “your baby.”

It’s really easy to be opposed to abortion when the baby you wanted is healthy and won’t require levels of care that your family are not physically, emotionally, and financially able to meet.

It’s really easy to be opposed to abortion when it isn’t you or your wife or your sister or your daughter that could get an infection from the dead fetus inside of her that could destroy any chances of trying again.

Once the reality of life and sex starts to stare you in the face, like the entirety of Amanda’s post points out, IT GETS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS EASY to look a living breathing woman in the face and make the call that she gets to sit down and shut up while the little blob of tissue she doesn’t want inside of her develops into a baby because you’ve decided the blob of tissue is more human and worthy of rights than she is.

The anti-choice movement will not tolerate compromise, mg. The people who “just think it’s wrong but wouldn’t dream of outlawing it” are exactly as politically apathetic as they sound. They can’t be relied upon as allies either, because they are likely vote/express themselves in a way that dodges social shame among their less-apathetic anti-choice compatriots. Milquetoast that the completely dishonest anti-choice fringers will steamroll in a second.

I am not sure you understand just how crazy these people are. I have four 3” binders full of just how crazy they are at my local Planned Parenthood. Or you could just watch them throw holy water on me every Saturday morning.

How is it besides the point, mg? Doesn’t it dramatically contravene your claim that abortion is always a “bad idea”? I think not carrying one’s rapist’s child is a very good idea, myself. It’s likely to spare a rape victim a additional suffering. I can’t see that as a bad idea, the poor widdle fetus notwithstanding.

I just don’t think aborting a living human fetus giving birth is a good idea. It is not without consequences, emotional and otherwise.

A-frakking-men. Huge consequences.  Lifelong consequences for at least two people, likely three, often more…

But when anti-choicers speak reverently of “life”, they don’t mean this.  [Examples given]

There’s also the belief that there’s anything remotely “pro-life” about the idea that children and motherhood are, or should be, a punishment. For anything.

There’s no compromise with the anti-abortion lobby. There just isn’t. They don’t have a desired end goal, they don’t have any sort of detailed policy desire. The one thing that people need to realize about them, is that for them a lot of it is simply about the fight itself. The more they can do to restrict abortion, the more they prove their cultural dominance. That’s their real goal. Everything else is an aside, it’s collateral damage.

The anti-abortion argument itself is at about a 2nd grade level. Can you really compromise with that?

If you believe that women have the right to have abortions (even if you disapprove or tut-tut or feel ooky about it) then you’re pro-choice. The rest is just stupid acceptance of wingnut framing.

And I’d argue that stupid acceptance of wingnut framing betrays an insincerity in his purported belief that women have the right to have abortions. In large part, the accurate descriptors “stupid, badly expressed, and ill-thought-out” are a direct result of his trying to cover that insincerity, and forestall the inevitable moment where he has to invoke an invisible Bronze-age psychopath to close his case.

I’ve met plenty of sincerely pro-choice people who don’t think abortion is the appropriate choice for them and theirs, sometimes on the basis of their religion. What differentiates them from BSers like mgburroughs is that they’re honest about their personal views, and don’t think that there ought to be any serious debate—vitriolic or calm—about imposing those views on their fellow American citizens or compromising “choice” as laid down in Roe v. Wade.

You probably think that it is important to back me into a corner.
Perhaps you simply don’t want to hear from someone who is not a hard-liner.

I prefer that abortions not be necessary. Clearly, sometimes they are.

The anti-choice movement will not tolerate compromise, mg.

To add to my last post---I should note that as a uterus-bearing creature (though hopefully not a fertile-uterus bearing creature after next year...go go gadget tubal ligation!) I won’t accept compromise on my bodily integrity either.

So I can at least respect that much. But no, compromise is off the table for both sides. Because what kind of compromise is, “you MOSTLY own your body, but not completely”, anyway? And who is that going to help? Nobody.

With abortion, the potential for regret is minimized, unless you’ve been poisoned by misogynist anti-choice propaganda.

I wouldn’t go so far as you did; it’s not easier to take back than taking a specific job.  You don’t get one specific baby at one specific time in your life.  You can have a different baby under different circumstances, but I don’t see how that’s more of a take-back than passing up a job.

A-frakking-men. Huge consequences.  Lifelong consequences for at least two people, likely three, often more…

You know what else has lifelong consequences?  Having a baby! Do you even realize what happens when women don’t have abortions?

You know what else has lifelong consequences?  Having my gallbladder removed.  But it would also have lifelong consequences if I left it in there.

You know what else has consequences?  Every single decision you make in your entire life.

I just think that real progress on this issue will come from understanding, and perhaps even some kind of compromise, not from obstreperous name-calling and glittering generalities about the pro-lifers.

You seem averse to answering questions concerning your mushy statements (which don’t rate the honour of being called euphemisms), but I’ll try again: exactly what kind of compromise are you (not those anti-choice nutbars, but pro-choice you) suggesting?

I suspect that there are tens of millions of people who are opposed to abortion that wouldn’t dream of making it illegal.

Yes, and most those Americans don’t think the issue is a personal decision that’s not worth arguing over in any style. I don’t think anyone here has a problem with them. And yet here you are, a pro-choice advocate calling for debate and compromise concerning abortion as a public policy matter.

But finding a doctor who actually knows and has performed the medical treatments necessary to preserve a woman’s health and fertility are very few and far between.  And if this piece of shit health care bill passes as is, women will be stuck in the same situation as federal employees and soldiers--doesn’t matter if the fetus is dead, if she isn’t septic or bleeding out, the woman’s life is not in danger, and no treatment will be covered.

Yup.  Stupak wrote it specifically to exclude any coverage for pregnancy complications that endanger a woman’s health or severe fetal deformity.  And those are the types of abortions that are major surgery and cost thousands of dollars.

You probably think that it is important to back me into a corner.

Oh, you poor naive child.  This isn’t about winning some intellectual debate.  This isn’t about the satisfaction of being right.  This is about real women with real lives who face real decisions about their own bodies.  This isn’t just some little game to us.

And I’d argue that stupid acceptance of wingnut framing betrays an insincerity in his purported belief that women have the right to have abortions.

Yes. And I’d note that it almost always leads, in practice, to the notion that *certain* (appropriate? non-slutty? middle-class? or poor? or sufficiently traumatized?) women have the right to an abortion. Need to finish high school, or got raped (in the “correct” way, by a stranger, while you were a virgin, in an alley)? Absolutely, have an abortion.

A couple years out of college, with a job and a BF you’re not sure you wanna stick with? Tsk, you slutty mc slut slut, don’t you think about CONSEQUENCES?

Uh, catgirl, I was referring to giving birth.  I just lost the strikeout in the copy-paste.  I’m lucky it didn’t kill me.  Both times.

<tiny>pst—catgirl, there was a strikeout fail on the blockquote.</tiny>

By which I mean, I’m lucky giving birth (well, actually, pregnancy, birth was ok) didn’t kill.  I feel like I wrote that as though copy-pasting is a dangerous activity.

To be clear, for a little more than half the week, Dr. Tiller’s clinic performed the absolutely most common (88-90% overall) of abortions: 1st trimester elective abortions.  The rest of the week was late term cases.  They put them all on the same few days a week because a) it was an intensive process that took a couple of days and b) Dr. Tiller enrolled women having late term abortions in support groups.  During the process, they had a lot of time to sit and talk to other women in their situation, and draw strength and comfort from each other and the knowledge they weren’t alone.

I prefer that abortions not be necessary. Clearly, sometimes they are.

I prefer that chemotherapy sessions not be necessary. Clearly, sometimes they are.

Of course, I don’t see a lot of people out there to whom the prospect of chemotherapy (an unpleasant medical procedure) is so appealing that they get them when they’re unnecessary. Which leads me to wonder if you do see a lot of people out there to whom the prospect of abortion (an unpleasant medical procedure) is so appealing that they get them when they’re unnecessary.

You probably think that it is important to back me into a corner.

Yes, it’s all about persecuting oh-so-moderate you. It has absolutely nothing to do with your weaselly arguments and vague platitudes.

You should be able to hear my standing ovation from way over there in New York.  Fabulous, Amanda.

I just think that real progress on this issue will come from understanding,

I do understand them.  It’s you who don’t.  Over-generosity doesn’t equal understanding.

Look, the fear of life and death that’s intertwined and expresses itself in disgust with the body and fear of sexuality is a common experience to all humanity.  You have a good dose of it, but so do we all.  But we have to---wait for it---choose whether or not that overwhelms us or whether we accept that life is messy, freedom is scary, but the risks of living are not only worth it, but that you’re going to die whether you live in fear or live your life.

Compromise is such an odd thing to think is useful.  You are talking about women’s basic right to freedom.  I fail to see how we compromise that.  You seem to think if we give them forced birth after conception, they’ll let us have contraception or something.  It doesn’t really work that way.  The anti-choice movement is fanatical, precisely because they are in the grip of these emotions.

tens of millions of people who are opposed to abortion

I fully, 100% support their right not to have one.  Is that the compromise you mean?  Because pro-choicers have always been the ones behind the right to choose---we applaud their right to choose to view sex as a mandate to procreate, or every pregnancy as something they have to complete.  I say, go for it!  But of course, others who see it differently should not have to compromise their private choices, either.

You don’t get one specific baby at one specific time in your life. 

If you think about that logically, however, that’s true of every sexual encounter, but by the millions.  Every sperm that hits leaves millions, usually billions, wasted.  To regret every potentiality is to drive one’s self mad.

Well-said, Amanda. This is one of the best posts I’ve seen on Pandagon lately.

You are absolutely right about why pro-"lifers" are so pitiable.

Thank you. My only regret is that you didn’t post this before I got on the Metro today. I needed something to keep me from glaring at the fundies with their stupid signs, and reading this would have taken my eyes off of them.

MG, we ALL prefer that abortions not be necessary.  But we’re also not the side screaming against birth control, comprehensive sex education and access to women’s health services so they CAN prevent unwanted pregnancies.

mgburroughs, pro-choicers embody the compromise. We believe that:

everyone should be taught and have access to contraceptives so that the number of unwanted pregancies is small;

if a woman wants to continue with a pregancy she should be helped--we believe in national healthcare so everyone has access to healthcare and can afford it, so a pregnant woman will have a healthy child;

if a woman has a problem with a pregnancy then they can end it--where the woman (and her doctor) decides whether the problem is big enough to lead to an abortion;

the child should also be supported after it’s been born so that it grows into a healthy adult, not just when it’s a fetus.

In other words, we’re pro-choice and we support all decisions. The pro-life lobby (mostly) doesn’t care about the child once it’s born or the health of the woman or believe in contraception.

Compromise is such an odd thing to think is useful.  You are talking about women’s basic right to freedom.  I fail to see how we compromise that.  You seem to think if we give them forced birth after conception, they’ll let us have contraception or something.  It doesn’t really work that way.  The anti-choice movement is fanatical, precisely because they are in the grip of these emotions.

There have been prominent anti-choicers who openly stated that after they get Roe overturned, Griswold is next.  As you’ve pointed out, even if they don’t openly oppose contraception, they engage in misinformation campaigns that conflate the most popular forms of b/c with abortion.

And the coddling of anti-choicers by the MSM, plus the constant false equivalences (article in GQ is a perfect example), has led to a situation where Scott Roeder and others who think doctors should be killed and women jailed or allowed to die in childbirth are the extreme of the anti-choice movement (they are) and the supporters of Planned Parenthood are the extreme of the pro-choice movement.  IOW, the fact that there is even the idea that there’s a pro-choice “extreme” speaks to the success of the anti-choicers in getting accommodations to their wacked out views.

Of course, mg did erect a strawman: the tens of millions of people who don’t like abortion, but are pro-choice.  Since they’re pro-choice, this post doesn’t pertain to them.  So why does he think it does? 

I guess because it’s a scale.  People who think abortion is icky, like mg, are basically trying to find a way that it’s okay when they need it, but not when that bad girl does.

mgburroughs, pro-choicers embody the compromise.

JohnL beat me to it.  Safe legal abortion, access to contraception, comprehensive sex ed.  Not compromising from that position.

You probably think that it is important to back me into a corner.

You are a unique and beautiful snowflake, just like everybody else.

There was a time when I tried to think seriously and soberly about the possibility of there being an afterlife, but I concluded that it really didn’t matter either way: if this is our only existence, we should enjoy it and be kind to one another.  If this is some sort of period of testing or preparation, clearly we are put here to enjoy the myriad pleasures of it, and to learn to be kind to one another.

just because you (or anyone else) has “deeply held personal convictions” doesn’t mean that i (or anyone else) needs to give two nanny-goat shits about them. somehow, the right has co-opted the discussion (and the MSM has bought into it, hook, line and sinker) that someone’s personal or group values should be given priority over the rest of society. why? who cares what you or your group think? why should i, or the rest of the country pay homage to some nitwit’s “deeply held personal values”, any more so than they should pay homage to mine?

everyone in this country is entitled to whatever “deeply held personal values” their little old hearts desire, i’m not required to honor them. or even pay lip service to them.

until such time as progressives take back control of the national conversation, and focus it on the constitution, and not what some idiot fundie “thinks”, we’re always going to be getting dragged behind the wagon.

Yeah, not having an abortion has consequences.  Like a totally unplanned baby stretching your finances to the breaking point because you were too Catholic to get the abortion you initially wanted.  Like your marriage falling to pieces in slow motion because you never really wanted kids and you love your baby, you really do, but you still resent how much your life has changed, and at times you feel smothered and trapped and your husband is just so sparkly and happy all the goddamn time and gets mad at you for being upset.  And you just can’t stop resenting him because trying NFP was all his idea, and when it didn’t work you were the one who got the swollen ankles and the C section scar.

7 months later, I know 100% that I should have had that abortion and if I ever get knocked up again I know what to do.  It kills me to look at my little baby and think that, but why should she have to live with a Mommy who regrets her?  I apologize to her every day. 

And anyone who ever asks me, my advice will always, always be, get that abortion.  You might regret it forever if you don’t.

We’ve BEEN compromising ever since the 1960s.  Roe v. Wade is a compromise.  All that our compromising has done is to restrict and lessen access to abortion.  There are hundred, thousands of counties where there is no doctor who will perform an abortion.  There are medical schools that no longer teach how to do them.  WE HAVE COMPROMISED

Very good post.

I have and still do maintain that most pro-lifers simply haven’t thought that deeply about the ramifications of their stances.  (Some have, and are motivated by the cynicism and authoritarianism you describe.  These are the truly evil people.) They simply equate blastocyst=baby=human, therefore abortion is murder and we don’t believe in murdering people.  They are so trained to see things in black and white terms, in absolutes, that any attempt to delve into nuance or introduce externalities is seen as “situational ethics” and sophistry.  It seems so conceptually easy for them- don’t get pregnant, and you won’t need an abortion.  Don’t fuck, and you won’t get pregnant.  Do fuck, and you take responsibility for whatever happens; and abortion is using murder (of an innocent, no less) to slip out of that responsibility.  That’s the extent of their thinking.  I know, because I’ve had this discussion with pro-life friends quite often over the years.  They aren’t intent on denying the pleasure of sex, nor do they see it as controlling women’s uteruses.  Women control their own uteruses, but they also have a responsibility to use them responsibly.  (Just as men have a responsibility to control their dicks wisely, which the pro-lifers will admit if you press them on it.) That’s where the disconnect occurs.  I view abortion not only as an individual right, but as a positive tool to enhance experiencing the pleasures and social benefits of sex, because it acts as a safety net in case an unwanted pregnancy results.  They view it as murder and a way to avoid responsibility, a responsibility we should feel as ethical and moral human beings (as they perceive such things).  It’s a clash of incompatible values.

I hope we win.

(to finish my thoughts) WE HAVE COMPROMISED.  There are no more compromises that will not result in ending legal abortion.  (And then they will increase their efforts to end legal contraception.)

This whole “consequences” thing is sick.

Even if you think having sex is incautious and stupid, would anyone who drives incautiously and stupidly be advised not to avoid an impending accident?  Especially one that will cause damage to other people?

So this is slightly nit-picky, but I feel like it deserves pointing out:

That pro-lifers think abortion should be illegal and that the women who have them should not go to jail are not incompatible positions. You can make performing an abortion illegal, with all the punishments falling on the doctors. That’s a far more effective enforcement mechanism anyway - the downside of not performing the abortion for the doctor is generally much less than the downside of being arrested and losing their license, while many women would be willing to risk jail time to procure an abortion. There’s also many fewer doctors, so the prison system could absorb them.
From a policy perspective, I would expect the line of questioning ‘So you think abortion should be illegal? So what jail time would you recommend for the women who get them?’ ought to be greeted with ‘None - that would be a very silly implementation’.

Now, there is plenty of evidence that many pro-life folks haven’t thought through their positions. The much-publicized jailtime-for-women video just doesn’t happen to be it.

mg, being “moderate” on an issue is not the same as having vague feelings that you don’t feel very strongly about and don’t think about very often.  Or at least it shouldn’t be.

If you’re going to criticize something about pro-choicers in general and this blog in particular, then you should come with persuasive arguments, not wishy-washy platitudes about compromise and consequences and concerns about our tone.

So, you think that abortion should be legal and that we should have lots of methods of prevention such as widely available contraception and education?  Guess what, so do we!  Hooray!

But if you think that the pro-life leadership is well meaning with an innocent difference of opinion that isn’t at all based in hatred, contempt, or dislike of women and sex, then you’ll have to convince us.  Just saying “but they’re really nice people, honest” isn’t convincing.  This blog has published many arguments showing how the pro-life position is consistent with dislike of women and sex and fun.  If you don’t find the arguments convincing, then give us counter-arguments.

Now, there is plenty of evidence that many pro-life folks haven’t thought through their positions. The much-publicized jailtime-for-women video just doesn’t happen to be it.

If the pro-lifer’s argument is that abortion is morally equivalent to murder, then saying that women shouldn’t be arrested for hiring a doctor to murder someone isn’t very consistent with that position, is it?

It’s a clash of incompatible values.

Yes, the eternal clash between those who value well-thought-out, well-supported positions based in reality and those who value half-baked, fact-free positions based in superstition and fantasy.

I hope we win, too. And we can start by giving the second group’s values the respect they deserve: none.

I just think that real progress on this issue will come from understanding
I do understand them.  It’s you who don’t.  Over-generosity doesn’t equal understanding.

Props to Amanda, as usual. And definitely word to the above. mgburroughs seems to believe that understanding will automatically lead to agreement but it’s just not true: we understand the anti-choicers just *fine* and they would prefer we *didn’t* because that is the only way they have any kind of leg to stand on. If an argument boils down to “girls are icky and I wish they would die” then clarifying it won’t suddenly make it a good argument. I *understand* that anti-choicers hate women but they would prefer that I thought they loved babies.

It’s not like something is being lost in translation: we’re not all going to be talking one day and a “pro-lifer” will say “hey, wait, you thought we didn’t like sexual women? And we wanted them to suffer for being sluts? OMG that’s embarrassing, no! No way, that’s totally not it! It’s just that we’ve found a way for women to become pregnant/gestate perfectly healthy children only through a conscious mental effort --bypassing any need for abortion and birthcontrol-- and we thought you guys were just ignoring this awesome discovery!” and then all the pro-choicers will slap their foreheads: “OH that makes so much more sense! We completely misunderstood! Yeah, that sounds awesome, let’s do that instead!”

The reality is more like the anti-choicers are saying “we love babies!” and the pro-choicers are saying “well, it seems like you actually mostly just hate women.” Then the anti-choicers are like “...yeah, you caught us. Friends anyways? We’ll hate the ladies together?” and the pro-choicers say “NO.” Then the anti-choicers throw themsleves to the ground, kick their little feet and scream until their faces turn blue that we’re soooo meeeeean, and try to pretend it was actually the baby thing all along, no really. And just like when a toddler does that, trying to reason with them is pointless; it’s better for the adults to just get on with their lives without indulging a tantrum.

Great. Fucking. Post. Thank you, Amanda.

Jerks like mgburroughs are that much more despicable when you consider that the root of their hand-wringing over “but don’t you see just how problematic and difficult abortion is!???” is the belief that women are just too gosh-darn stupid to, you know, actually weigh difficult questions that may have major consequences (like having vs. not having a baby) without having Thoughtful People like mgburroughs along to hold their hands. Assholes/morons like mgb (as we say, this is a both/and blog) think that women are literally so stupid that they think women need to be told that abortion means that they won’t have a baby in nine months, because, you know, who knows why women decide they want abortions in the first place?

The steadfast belief of even pro-choice misogynists like mgburroughs in the inability of women to perform moral reasoning or otherwise think for themselves would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

I saw that photo and thought, “If only.”

Perhaps the folks suggesting a further compromise (read: surrender) with the anti-choicers would like a 3/5 kind of thing? ‘Cause that seems like a tasteful model for how to compromise on equality. In this compromise all the women of color could be allowed (nay, encouraged!) to get abortions while the white women aren’t. Or maybe we flip a coin each time: “Oh, Mrs. Roberts, it landed on heads. Looks like no abortion for you this time! Hope that graduate degree/house can wait a few years.” Hell, we could flip a coin for every pregnancy! “Gee, Ms. Brown, I know you’ve been trying for that baby for a while but the coin is very clearly ‘tails’ ... get on the table, please.”

I can see absolutely no problem with compromises like this.

Especially if delivered alive and then drown in sterile water by the good doctor.

Oh, don’t be ridiculous! Sterile water’s too expensive—only the hobbyist baby-killers indulge to that extent (the mounting/preserving in jars works better that way). Good ol’ tap water is fine for those cheap-ass big-business abortionists. :D

Knuterockne, I wouldn’t even care if he was doing it for the money.  Lots of people do things that help other people and primarily for the money.  So long as the helping was going on, and he wasn’t cheating anyone, why should I care?

But in fact he did care about the women.  Your disbelief isn’t proof.  The wording in the article that he “was good at making women think he cared”?  Bullshit.  No one risks his life and family the way he did just to make a few bucks.  He could have made a lot more money trimming labia in Hollywood.

Knuterockne—don’t forget mom cheering all the way, and the post-abortion dinner party. Nom nom nom!

The fetus wasn’t aborted in sterile water, you tool, it was aborted in fluoridated water, to make sure that the body is 100% contaminated and that the fetus’s soul goes straight down to hell. Satan doesn’t pay for unblemished souls.

God you’re a jackass.

@jalmondale, #80:  Not all abortions are performed by doctors.  Imagine a future where abortion is illegal - doctors are no longer trained to perform them, nor are they allowed to practice.  Abortions are still going to happen, but they would be performed by either knowledgeable professionals working in violation of the law (and at great risk to their careers), or by non-professionals, with tools and practices that put the mother’s health at grave risk.  Some women, faced with an unexpected pregnancy and no safe methods of abortion, are going to reach for a coat hanger.

If confronted by an anti-choicer who brought up the technical point you did, the question I would pose to them is this:  much jail time should a woman get for aborting her own fetus?

Occasionally I feel this daft impulse to give your posts a standing ovation, and then I feel stupid because I’m actually just sitting in front of my laptop reading, not standing in a huge crowd hearing your voice thundering from a mountaintop or whatever scenario I just got transported to.

Epic post, and so true it’s utterly painful.

#87: LOL. It’s funny how antichoicers, when you drag them out into the light and look hard at them, are such a compelling pro-choice argument to present to the mushy middle.

Some people are mildly antichoice because they haven’t put a lot of thought into it. But the people who have put a lot of thought into it, and are still antichoice, are all completely. fucking. crazy.

Actually, jackalopemonger, before Roe, some (non-doctor) women trained themselves to perform safe abortions.  With the right bits of equipment, a pressure cooker for sterilization, and a prescription for painkillers and antibiotics, the scrapy kind can be done.  With other stuff, the vacuum aspiration kind.  Of course, these kinds of illegal abortions would still get you chucked in jail if there were law about that, and in a world with no legal abortions, it would be a privileged position to have the knowledge and stuff to do it right. 

That said, I’d still rather have a train professional do it, than my friends.  Plus, you get aftercare if something goes not-quite right.  Was just clearing up the facts.

Great post, Amanda.

What possible “compromise” could there ever be with the anti-choicers?  Really.

We’re the ones who support access to birth control, we’re the ones who support better prenatal care for women who want to be pregnant, we’re the ones who support access to abortion care for those who don’t want to be pregnant, and we’re the ones who believe that women are actual, real people just like the men are and can decide the course of their lives however they feel is best. 

Any woman who wants/needs an abortion should be able to get one, at any point in pregnancy, no questions asked, and no shaming whatsoever.  It’s her body, her uterus, and her life and she’s the person in the best position to make that decision.  And anybody who has thought the issue through and comes to any other conclusion is, at best, a giant flaming asshole.

But apparently, that opinion makes me an extremist on abortion.

I’m still waiting for examples of those unnecessary abortions.  Because no matter how I slice it in my head if a woman becomes pregnant and has no desire to bear a child, her abortion is necessary.

I’m also waiting for an explanation of why women need some special protection from making a medical decision, which requires at least minimal consultation with a medical professional, that has “consequences, emotional or otherwise.”

Yawgmoth:  I just want to give you major kudos for admitting that which no mother (or so we’re told) is supposed to ever admit-- that as much as she loves her child she wishes she had aborted instead.  My son was planned, but there have still been many days where I *knew* having him was a huge mistake and apologized to him for it.  Having a child comes with even greater consequences, emotional or otherwise, than having an abortion and anyone who fails to appreciate that has no business participating in policy discussions on reproductive rights. Or having children, frankly.

You hit this one out of the park.

I’m old enough to remember the pre-Roe v Wade controversy, and my puzzlement over the almost universally authoritarian attitudes of the anti-abortion side. At least back then I could imagine that the term “pro-life” might actually mean what it says. By some coincidence, the same year Roe v Wade was decided I read Eric Fromm’s The Anatomy Of Human Destructiveness where Fromm developed his concept of the “necrophilious” (death-loving) personality and it all became much clearer: the fondness for control and for static rules, a horror at the unpredictability and messiness of life, an obsession with sinfulness, a denial of the body, and the focus on an afterlife. It was all there, then as it is now.

Fromm isn’t exactly the most feminist of authors, though he evolved quite far from his roots as a Freudian. But I don’t know of anyone who was more perceptive as to the sickness forming within the American psyche that became more and more manifest over the following years.

Fantastic post, Amanda.

You definitely articulated something extremely important about the fear of lifedeath (same thing, different phases) in people who are driven to violently repress the bodily autonomy of others.

I think the extent to which they fear passion - real emotion, genuine involvement and engagement with their inner world, compassion, pity, vulnerability - is very much driven by religion. Not in the clichéd way of “organised religion is bad and repressive”, though. It’s true that a lot of anti-choicers use the language of religion, but in some ways I think that Chritianity is an eccidental hero in this tale: it’s an authoritarian phylosophy that offers pre-defined structures of oppression to those in search of an oppressive framework.

No, what I mean is that in the post-Enlightenment age, a lot of the human passions that used to be channeled through religion don’t have an outlet anymore. The primacy of Reason as an ethical good (which I support, I’m not some anti-Enlightenment crank) edged out what used to be an acceptable conduit for ecstasy, terror, enrapturement, delight, extreme grief… You get the picture - all those orgasmic St Theresas and anguished St Geromes. There’s just no cultural niche for that kind of thing anymore - even our art is becoming more and more emotionally sterile, cerebral, cold.

People are still just as prone to those extremes of feeling; and for a lot of us, it’s relatively easy - or at least conceivably possible - to rechannel them into our everyday lives. To suffer for our sports team, be enraptured by our children, cry hysterically at a movie or pictured from Haiti or when our dog dies. But there are people who are brought up to be damaged, narrow, who are not taught to commune with their own psychic lives, who are taught to expect themselves to be living automata with no subjectivity because that’s how their environment sees them.

It’s those people I think who, unless they manage to break out of this barren hell, develop this phobia of the real, the complex, the non algorithmic. They fear many things which are non-linear, unpredictable, complicated: science, climate change, social justice. I agree with you absolutely that we can do only two things for them: pity them, and ignore them.

fucking stellar.  i have nothing more to add.

Knuterockne - Yeah, right, there was no more lucrative path available to the best ob-gyn surgeon in this particular subspecialty (and make no mistake, if you had a late-term pregnancy go wrong, Tiller was the very best American medicine had to offer) than than having to spend his life in a bullet-proof vest, looking over his shoulder.

Hmmm, low seven figures a year minus mid-six figures for security and another mid-six for other overhead--why, he was clearly the richest surgeon in the universe!!

No, wait, he wasn’t.  A few hundred thousand a year net is chump change for a clinician with Tiller’s chops.

And you have no goddamn idea of what you’re typing about, you gullible, shit-for-brains, wingnut-talking-point dispenser.

Early-term abortion costs few hundred bucks for a procedure these days, most of it for lab work and such.

I remember when ending a pregnancy meant you had to find a couple of months’ salary, in cash, very quickly. And you could die--I knew girls who did. 

It’s now a couple days’ salary, and that’s assuming it’s not covered by your insurance.

And it’s safe.

On the other hand, do you have any idea how much it costs to adopt a healthy white infant, how many tens of thousands of dollars, how many people--lawyers, social workers, “counselors,” et al.--have their hands out to facilitate such a placement?  (No, it doesn’t include the mother--she’s expected to be grateful if she isn’t stuck with the medical bills.)

It’s obvious who has an enormous financial stake in abortion--and it’s not the pro-choice side.

@rowmyboat, #95:  Good point.  I hadn’t even considered that, to be honest, but it makes perfect sense now that you bring it up.

TheLady-

I have often said I like my reality Enlightened, and my stories Romantic.  It’s great to have epic passion- put it in a story where fictional characters are having it.  In real life, I think we really do need to be more cerebral.

I suggest we point out, even call out, the real idiots, and not condemn all those who simply believe that abortion is wrong. I suspect that there are tens of millions of people who are opposed to abortion that wouldn’t dream of making it illegal. Isn’t that large universe worthy of our consideration?
In the end, isn’t our argument about choice?
Comment #35: mgburroughs on 01/22 at 04:13 PM

Just what do you think that “don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” slogan is all about?  As we’ve seen with the recent post about Florida forced incarceration for being pregnant, the z/e/f/ personhood crap and the anti-contraception campaign - give the cretins an inch, and yep, they’ll take a yard.  There is NO compromise because they are inherently misogynist, even if that misogyny means self-hating on the part of the women anti-choicers.

Those who “just believe it’s wrong are the ones who aren’t protesting, writing letters or harassing women at clinics.

You know, I wonder which other right-wing peculiarities could be explained by a need to look back on the historical forces which lead to your own particular life and declare them Right, Good, and Necessary. I mean, I might be alive because my mother didn’t abort me, but I’m also alive because of, say, the invasion of Poland and the Middle Passage. Trying to retroactively control all the variables of the universe so that you in particular can be born, walk around, and buy milkshakes is a weird hobby.

Actually, jackalopemonger, before Roe, some (non-doctor) women trained themselves to perform safe abortions.  With the right bits of equipment, a pressure cooker for sterilization, and a prescription for painkillers and antibiotics, the scrapy kind can be done.

Hell, if the anti-choicers get their way, I’m gonna start the world’s first non-profit criminal organization, smuggling RU-486 into the US.

There was a time when I tried to think seriously and soberly about the possibility of there being an afterlife, but I concluded that it really didn’t matter either way: if this is our only existence, we should enjoy it and be kind to one another.  If this is some sort of period of testing or preparation, clearly we are put here to enjoy the myriad pleasures of it, and to learn to be kind to one another.

This, in combination with the original post, makes up some of the most thoughtful, eloquent writing I have read in a long time.  I applaud both.

Amanda,

That was a superb post. 

I used to think Digby was the strongest real-time writer, but I’ve changed my opinion now.  Not due to this specific post, but for the body of work you have produced that has caused me to change my view on a number of complex issues. 

It takes hundreds of posts to reveal an intellectually, ethically, and morally consistent framework, but once done, it forced me (initially in basic agreement with your ideas,) to throw out a bunch of unexamined prejudice.

I’m still “holy privilege, Batman” and am not going to start doing household chores, and I’ll continue to try to treat the help right (hey, did anyone else get 3 Broadway tickets as a Christmas gift from their maid?)

You are the most interesting writer on the net.  Thank you.

They’re obsessed with imaginary threats to purity---see contamination in everything from food to water to abortion, which is of course their stand-in for their fears of sexual contamination.

A lot of water in the United States is contaminated. Not by fluoride, but still. Same for food. It isn’t weird or wrong to worry about your food and water, or to get politically active about it. This sort of concern by Roeder does not contribute to your case that he is obsessed with purity. At best it indicates that he is ignorant about what fluoride actually does.

It isn’t weird or wrong to worry about your food and water, or to get politically active about it.

If you’re a rational person genuinely concerned about the health effects of factory farming and groundwater poisoning, you’re a tree-hugging hippie environmentalist.  If you’re a paranoid rightwing loon convinced that communists are controlling America’s youth with fluoride, you’re a Person of Strong Convictions.

GQ, that bastion of feminism, what a surprise. When I’m at an airport or the supermarket, if I pick up that magazine, I always end up in the worst mood.

Even if you think having sex is incautious and stupid, would anyone who drives incautiously and stupidly be advised not to avoid an impending accident?  Especially one that will cause damage to other people?

This.  Those who blithely proclaim that pregnancy and a baby are appropriate consequences for “irresponsible” sex have obviously never considered the hellish lives of the unwanted children of unwilling parents.

More non-sense, Roeder is of course extremely disturbed.  But to equate Tiller as this saving angel is laughable.  Tiller was in it for the money, big money for complete fetuses.  Especially if delivered alive and then drown in sterile water by the good doctor.  And many body parts, harvested from the aborted fetus, are also a handsome profit as well as the abortion fee itself.  Lets hear the whole story.

LOLwtf.

DonnaDiva, they don’t care about children. They don’t care about parents. They don’t really care about fetuses, either, per se. They just want to insure that everyone follows their rules. If people suffer hellish lives as a result—well, God willed it, who are they to interfere?

Yes, I’m coming in very late (busy at work) but here’s a thought:

They really are anti-choice in so many ways.  They want to dictate one right way to live, one right way to be married, one right way to have a job, one right way to have and raise children.  They want there to be a single, clear path for everyone.  They don’t want to have to make choices, period.

And I get that.  Choice is scary.  When you have a choice, sometimes you make the wrong one and fuck things up.  It’s easier to go along with the program and then complain about how unhappy you are because then you don’t have to take responsibility for your unhappiness—someone else chose your path for you.  If you chose your own path and are unhappy, then it’s all on you.

That’s why they’re so resistant to the idea of people having choices—they’d have to face up to all of the ones they’ve made in their lives and not be able to push the responsibility for them off on other people.

And their one right way is the one they’re familiar with, “traditional family” values: the dominant father, submissive mother, obedient children. They’re frightened by change, by the range of choices available now, by freedom itself. Independent women, openly gay men and cheerful atheists threaten the very foundations of their lives.

I think they’re afraid of more than the possibility of regret or admitting responsibility. For many, the only alternative to “the way it’s always been, what God meant us to do” is utter chaos. Where we find joy in freedom, they find fear.

I just think that real progress on this issue will come from understanding, and perhaps even some kind of compromise, not from obstreperous name-calling and glittering generalities about the pro-lifers.

Lazy, lazy, lazy thinking.  The truth is NOT automatically somewhere in the middle.

As for compromise...1) have you been asleep for the past 30 years? 2) what gives you the right to make compromises with someone else’s body?

If the pro-lifer’s argument is that abortion is morally equivalent to murder, then saying that women shouldn’t be arrested for hiring a doctor to murder someone isn’t very consistent with that position, is it?

It’s consistent if you take the position that women are very very stupid and never know what they’re doing when they get an abortion.  Of course, if you still wanted to try and convict women who committed other crimes, you would have to do some logical acrobatics.

I’ve just been arguing with a resident anti-choice troll on RHRC, so this post is a welcome breather from the verbal drivel of an empty-headed douchecanoe who thinks that licensing sex (via marriage) like you license automobiles and jailing those who don’t comply (that’s most of America in prison, then) will automatically bring everyone to heel. No woman will ever be raped, abortions won’t happen and neither will unintended pregnancies because everyone will abstain until happily ever after, because making women’s bodies into sexual trading cards has worked before, yanno! Gays don’t really exist and the only “real” sex is procreative! Yeah!

TL;DR: he’s as crazy as he sounds.

Not-quite-on-topic: I’m wondering why that woman in the picture is puckering up under that tape. “Kiss me, I think your uterus should be public property”

Amanda is 100% right, this is something I’ve been saying all along.  When you spend your life bashing abortion, you have no life at all.

Or you take it the other way. That these people for the most part really don’t think it’s murder.

Just a little hint for the trolls. By and large we think that the anti-choice movement are lying fucktard trolls themselves.

If this really was a “bedrock moral absolute” for them, they’d have NO problem with throwing women in prison for having an abortion (I.E murder), and there would be no talk of any sort of exception. Or even throwing it down to the states. It would be a flat-out ban. But that’s not what we get.

The reality is that the ant-choice lobby is about proving their cultural dominance and/or enforcing and maintaining their idea of cultural normality. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fetus, and everything to do with limiting the freedom of women.

I have and still do maintain that most pro-lifers simply haven’t thought that deeply about the ramifications of their stances. 

You’re missing the point.  Their knee-jerk freak out is the result of not thinking about it.  They are unthinking people.  They react strictly by what grosses them out, freaks them out, and they want to SHUT DOWN THE THINKING AND THE SEX AND THE LIVING AND THE CHOICES, because they are unthinking.  Unthinking leads to authoritarianism.  In this case especially, it’s not evil vs. stupid.  They’re evil because they refuse to think, but simply react in fear.

mg, see the comment at #87, and please let’s keep talking about how understanding these wackos will somehow reveal they aren’t wackos.  He just said abortion doctors sell the body parts of fetuses for money.  liberalrob, please read that and think about how that’s not rooted in well-meaning stupidity, but really rooted in crazy mean stupidity.

Look, I understand them just fine.  That kind of belief is rooted in a deep horror of living itself that manifests in bizarre, macabre fantasies.  Truth doesn’t penetrate their brains.  Discussion is kind of pointless with people who live in a fantasy world.

Amazing post Amanda. Seriously. I loved it, and really have nothing to say except DAMN, CONCERN TROLLS! TRY HARDER NEXT TIME!

Not to mention that they’re almost uniformly against masturbation as well even though that allows for sexual enjoyment (and you can do it with a partner as well) without the risk of pregnancy-which-could-lead-to-an-abortion and also is a way to enjoy your sexuality without getting caught up in heartache when you really haven’t got the strength for it, I know that being in love is always a risk and I’m not saying it’s a risk anybody shouldn’t take (in fact, I just told the person I’m in love with that I’m in love with them and they feel the same way so I’m all “yay love” at the moment), but being able to have an orgasm and feel good and release the happy endorphins without having to manage a relationship or pregnancy risks that you may not be in a good emotional space for is absolutely to be celebrated and encouraged.  Yet more evidence that it’s about hating women and pleasure and bodies and and not about the “unborn babies”.

...you are told, over and over again, that you should simply stop fucking… I have no idea if people who believe this are into fucking themselves, or if they find fucking unbelievably disgusting and perverse… We should stop fucking, they say.  Why?  Because fucking is all those things---an expression of love, a moment of intense pleasure, a messy reminder that we have real bodies in the here and now?  Is it because fucking reminds us that we’re really alive?

Why?  Because a majority of the people who actually believe that it is a moral imperative for you to stop fucking are themselves not fucking.  They want to fuck, everybody wants to fuck, but they haven’t fucked anybody for a long time, they won’t fuck anybody today, and they are only slightly less sure than they are sure of sunrise tomorrow that they won’t ever fuck anybody again in the long dismal stretch of the future.

Naturally, they hate this.  Bitterness over their unspeakable personal disaster has ruined everything in their lives.  They want to wreck everything.  They hate the whole God damned world.  Most of all they hate happy people who fuck when they don’t.

Love this post.

They really are anti-choice in so many ways.  They want to dictate one right way to live, one right way to be married, one right way to have a job, one right way to have and raise children.  They want there to be a single, clear path for everyone.  They don’t want to have to make choices, period.

I’m reminded of the planet in “A Wrinkle In Time” where IT resides, where everyone goes on their appointed rounds at the exact same time in the exact same way, where no one is different from anyone else, where no one has any choices to be or do anything else.  It’d be interesting to have a rabid anti-choicer read a description (edited to take out the reactions of the protagonists) of that planet and get their opinion of it.  I wonder how many would think it a paradise?

Re: “Life” Duct Tape

It doesn’t symbolize anything other than stupidity. The duct tape over their mouths symbolizes their being “silenced” by Pro-choicers (which they aren’t). Then they fuck up any symbolism of silence by writing their own message of “life” over the tape that’s supposed to show them being shut up. Kind of defeats the purpose.

W. Kiernan, this thread is dwindling (it was awesome), so I won’t say “Cue the commenter who says you’ve disappeared the asexuals in 3, 2, 1 ...” More like a couple of hours.

I think you’re right, and that you put your point correctly, even though being asexual is perfectly legitimate and fine.  Most anti-abortion terrorists have a deep sense of deprivation--a pent-up fury.  THEY’re not asexuals and they assume the rest of the living world is sexual too.

It isn’t weird or wrong to worry about your food and water, or to get politically active about it. This sort of concern by Roeder does not contribute to your case that he is obsessed with purity.

Did you read the article?  Roeder wasn’t just concerned about his water in the sense that he’d only drink out of water jugs that held non-flouride water; he wouldn’t let any flouridated water in the house, even to wash his dishes or mop his floors.  His whole home became filthy, which was a lot more dangerous to his health than flouridated water could be.  He became so focused on one tiny thing that he ignored the big picture, just as the anti-choicers become so obsessed with microscopic zygotes that they ignore the living, breathing people standing right in front of them.

I never called them pro-life. Since the early 70’s I’ve called them mandatory motherhood people. It was the major organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL that gave in to using their language and modified the reproductive rights movement into the much weaker pro-choice movement. And it is successive generations of women trained by consumer culture to reject their mother’s brands who gave up on the strong feminism of the 1970’s and the university’s seeking stature who trashed radical feminists and separiatists who had the most thorough ananlysis of these reproductive rights under(and I do mean under) patriarchy.
Wake up and smell the fundamentalist coffee many of us have fought since the early 70’s. We need another women’s movement not afraid to be out in the streets, not afrais to name patriarchy for what it is and not afraid to lose dates becouse you’re a feminist. I realize some things have changed and there are more men who do reallly get it. But not nearly enough and they don’t do enough to educate their own sex. The only thing that has ever helped women is an organized and vocal women’s movement.

Thank you for such a wonderful analysis.

Antigone @103:

That’s a very pithy summary! I hope you don’t mind if I use it at some point…

But thinking about it in a bit more detail I’m not sure I can actually agree with you there. Sequestering the Romantic passions into the culture we consumes (be it art, entertainment or somethign in between) is part of the problem, as I see it; and anyway I would cheated out of life if I never personally got to love someone like Cathy did Heathcliff, or marvel at nature like Wordsworth did at the Lakeland, or just be buffetted and agitated by wordless passion worthy of a Rachmaninof concerto… Not vicariously through the filter of someone else’s artisic expression, but authentically as a response to my own subjective experience of my actual life.

I think that’s what’s missing for a lot of people, and I also think that because they are not familiar with it, it’s even scarier for them than it is for those of us who are. Passion on that scale is always scary - but the difference is between scary like a rollercoaster ride and scary like really fucking scary. If that makes sense. For the anti-life wingnuts (or libertarians, or even just apathetic, paralised people) opening up to the full spectrum of lived experience is so viscerally terrifying precisely because they’ve seen in on TV but had never been taught to look out fo rit in real life, and inside themselves.

Dr. Tiller comes across as a pragmatic, down-to-earth (almost to a fault), brave man who had a full life with a happy marriage, happy children, and meaningful work.  Roeder comes off as a broken man with no connections to others, whose convictions are mostly regarding imaginary things, such as the dangers of fluoride in the drinking water and the threat of the Illuminati.  Dr. Tiller and his staff went out every day and helped real people with real problems fix those problems.  Roeder and the anti-choice crew not only have no interest in real people, but seem actively hostile to them---their anger and denial when confronted with evidence that women who have abortions have minds and feelings of their own is palpable.

You know, I see more of God’s love in Dr. Tiller than in Mr. Roeder.

TheLady-

It’s possible I just don’t have a very romantic soul, in general.  It’s all well and good to read a story where the star-crossed lovers are nothing but passion and fire and dramatically die in the end so that they could be together for all eternity; but in real life that gets a little tiring.  I find that people who try to live their romantic lives like they could truly never live without the other person tend to be clingy.  For me, my husband and I love each other like a deep, still well, not the burning passion of an inferno.  Our favorite thing to say to each other is “I love you through life"- catboxes, lay-offs, family gatherings, broken down cars as well as new jobs, dinners together, and beautiful costumes.  There was no place for kitty throw-up in Wuthering Heights.

In the same way, I can read (or watch) Lord of the Rings Valiantly Going to War against the Hordes of True Evil with glittering shields and a Sword of Destiny- sacrificing, fearing, risking everything for continued survival and strength and still know that in real life, war sucks.  It’s dirty, it’s disgusting, it smells bad, and there is no side that is Good while the other is Evil. 

So, while I can’t really enjoy much Enlightenment stories (yuck, character development stories.  I’m going to die of boredom); I don’t want my life to have the climaxes and denouncements of Romantic ones.

This is all I’m going to say on compromise.  Roe vs Wade is a compromise.  It’s a compromise between those who believe that abortions should be allowed all the time for any reason, and those who believe they should never be allowed for any reason.  Neither side won.  Abortion is allowed for any reason in the first trimester, and as it turns out, remarkably hard to get after that.

That is our compromise, and it is our law.  And instead of listening to anyone blather on about finding more compromises, we need to make it clear all the time in every argument that the present law already is a compromise between the two sides, and if they so deeply believe we need to further compromise, then maybe it’s the pro-life’s turn to give something up.

jalmondale @80 - yes, they are incompatible positions. What you’re glossing over is that anti-choicers believe abortion should be illegal because it is murder. Your argument, essentially, is that if a husband pays a hit man to get rid of his wife, we ought to go after the hit man but leave the husband alone. After all, there are a lot more husbands than professional killers!

Now, it’s true that they are not incompatible positions for anti-choicers who don’t really think abortion is murder, or who think that issue is secondary to the much more important task of controlling women’s bodies. From a ‘policy perspective’, as you put it, most people are uncomfortable with the idea of treating a woman who has an abortion just like Susan Smith. So you don’t sell your message that way; you go after doctors, who, being fewer, are easier to threaten and terrorize. If you were honest, your response to the “how much jail time” question would be “That doesn’t play well in the polls, so we don’t discuss it.”

And of course if one is a social conservative who sees women as moral infants, incapable of making choices or living their lives without a man to firmly guide them, then of course jail time is silly. We wouldn’t jail a five-year-old who was playing with Daddy’s 9mm and accidentally shot her sister; we also wouldn’t jail a woman who had an abortion for the same reason, which is that being an inferior female, she can’t possibly formulate the mental or moral level necessary to know what she’s doing.

He wasn’t portrayed as a hotshot doctor, he was portrayed as a pragmatic human being who saved lives.

Is your knowledge of medicine really summed up by the first few minutes of the movie Doc Hollywood?

Because a majority of the people who actually believe that it is a moral imperative for you to stop fucking are themselves not fucking.

You know, I don’t actually believe that.  I expect that describes many of them, and there are almost certainly many others who have sex but are unhappy in their sex lives, but I don’t really think jealousy is the explanation.  Certainly not on that basic level—“I want sex and I can’t have it so I’m jealous of people who can.”

I think it’s more likely that a lot of them are motivated by this: they played by their rules (or even if they didn’t, they’re playing by the rules now), they restricted their behaviour whether they wanted to or not, they embraced the “right” values, and they deserve to be elevated and rewarded for that, which means seeing others punished.  If others aren’t punished for making the “wrong” decisions, their status is diminished.  It’s much like other Christianist doctrines—they want to be rewarded and elevated over everyone else and placed in charge because they are Christian.  It’s not that they necessarily want not to be Christian. 

Just like white supremacists don’t necessarily want not to be white; they’re just enraged that being white doesn’t entitle them to quite as much as it did a hundred years ago.

Hey Knute.  We’re grownups here, you can actually write the word “fucking” if you want.

Ha Knute proving the point: two comments of incomprehenisible nonsense, then a freakout out sexually active women for having the nerve to live. This is the typical pattern, bit we’re told to respect his “convictions”, even though his “convictions” would embarass a Victorian.

Its because he is such a shitty doctor he chose his line of work. 

Cite please.  Wikipedia (as reliable as it isn’t) says that he studied of the University of Kansas and was a flight surgeon in the Navy.  That doesn’t sound shitty to me.

Reading the article, what stands out is that Roeder’s anti-abortion group was and is paranoid not just about abortion, but about a whole potluck of disconnected right-wing conspiracy theories.  They live in a world where the Illuminati are a serious threat, the President spies on people through their tax returns, fluoridated water is a plot to kill us all, and any day now Jesus will not only return, but personally take over the U.S. government.  Roeder went to Dr. Tiller’s church with the cover story that he was there to distribute pamphlets warning people not to file with the IRS as a small business because it allows the government to control you; that he never thought this might come off as weird or suspicious speaks volumes.  No wonder one of these people reached the point where shooting a man in cold blood seemed reasonable.  They lived, and still live, in a world with no connection to reason or reality.

And they choose to live there.  They prefer a world that’s terrifying, but simple and predictable, over reality, which is full of tricky shades of grey.  They’re miserable, but they’re comfortable.  The anti-choice movement exploits this type of authoritarian mindset, offering a simplistic and didactic version of pregnancy: no tough choices, no mixed feelings, no medical complications, just good people who love babies and (most of all) wicked sluts who need to get their comeuppance.

Dr. Tiller was against abortion as a young man, but became fiercely pro-choice after talking to women who had gotten abortions and realizing that the issue affected real people’s lives.  Roeder shut out everyone except a small circle of people who shared his paranoia and angrily ignored others (like his ex-wife) who suggested that he was becoming delusional.  That’s the really messy and frightening thing about reality.  You might start to care about people.

Good point, Shaenon.  Like the doctor says in Watchmen, it’s human nature to impose order even when there is none. More flattering to think that you’re the target of a worldwide conspiracy than that it’s just bad luck or happenstance or the fact that you’re just another tiny cog in a vast machine to the government.  It’s far more comforting to believe someone is at the wheel of this galactic bus (even if it’s Satan) than the reality that’s nobody’s driving, nobody at all.

Brilliant, clarifying post (and discussion)—thank you, Amanda.

awesomely Epic article!

just needed to add something re:

Sometimes I think anti-choicers skip that step of understanding, and instead stave off fear of death by dwelling on the hope that not living will keep it away, that you can somehow purify yourself until death stops knocking.  Not consciously, but subconsciously, it seems clear.  Death is so scary, and so hopefully by denying living, death can be safely ignored.

Some of them take this to the extreme. the Rapture believers take this view literally and consciously, i.e. if they are pure enough, self-sacrificing enough, and self-denial-y enough, then Jesus himself will come to take them into Heaven ALIVE, give them new, “perfect” bodies, and free them from their sinful minds: they will be non-human, and they won’t have to die, either!

also, I am very amused that out concern troll up there ironically showed the same, albeit significantly milder attitude when he declared that he’d prefer if abortions weren’t necessary: the desire to live in perfect la-la land, instead of our messy reality, is precisely what this post was about, after all

I was talking to a friend who grew up in a fundamentalist baptist household and he tells me how when he was in gradeschool, the people in his church would tell him “don’t you worry about death, we’re so close to the Rapture that none of you will actually have to experience it.”