Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Oh noes, someone forgot to tell the Canadians they’re women! Previous entry: Friday Genius Ten “Dropping Truth Bombs” Edition

How effective is fact bombing?

As I reported this morning, I jumped in on Twitter last night and started, with the help of others, to flood #livetweetingabortion with cold, hard facts.  Today, I decided to experiment, and stayed on #livetweetingabortion most of the day to see what could be done by trying to stick to facts, correct misinformation, and quiz anti-choicers about their larger beliefs about sex and women’s rights.  I tried to avoid platitudes, though I did give in and make a couple jokes.  These were the results:

*Most anti-choicers fled the scene.

*A few tried to retaliate with links, but most were called out quickly for using blatant, misleading propaganda to fight against reputable research.

*Of the few that stayed in and argued, most eventually dropped the “OMG BAYBEEZ” thing pretty quickly.  They would return to it, sure, but the facade that this isn’t about punishing sexually active women was dropped quickly.

Of the arguers, I saw these arguments, available for all reading #livetweetingabortion to read:

*That a man has a right to force his wife not to use the birth control pill.  This was part of a larger argument about how the price women pay to be in families was submission to men’s desires. When I asked how much force/violence a man should be able to use to assert his right to prevent his wife from using birth control, she freaked out and left the conversation.

*That merely waiting for “the one” would be enough to prevent HPV, and that getting stuck with a needle is too painful to tolerate just to avoid cervical cancer.

*That the Centers for Disease Control’s information on abortion safety (conclusion: pretty damn safe) isn’t reliable.

*That married people have no need for contraception.

*That all single people should not have sex, ever.

*That instead of teaching sex ed in schools, there should be religious indoctrination.

A couple anti-choicers didn’t take the bait when asked if they supported the right to use contraception, but repeatedly ignored the question.  However, most asked proudly answered.  Of those, 100% dismissed contraception as unnecessary or wrong.  For those reading who thought that anti-choicers were nice people who simply thought abortion was murder, it was hard to impossible to walk away with that conclusion intact.  The more that anti-choicers dug a hole for themselves with their radical anti-sex arguments, the more the pro-choicers in the room were able to stay on track, and not get sideswiped arguing about impossibilities like when life begins or if there’s a god who cares how you fuck.

Now, there’s things about this experiment that are hard to prove.  For instance, just because pro-choicers were able to control the debate and get anti-choicers to admit impolitic things, such as their loathing for most people’s sexual choices, doesn’t mean that others were reading.  However, I do feel that some folks that went in already convinced of pro-choice arguments on the grounds of bodily autonomy really seemed to learn more about the anti-sex agenda of the anti-choice movement.  Clearly, no hardcore anti-choicers were going to change their minds, but since this Twitter feed was well-publicized, it’s likely that some fence sitters came in and saw screeching about the evils of contraception from anti-choicers, and that could have an effect.  But by and large, I think the most prominent effect was helping center the pro-choicers in the room on the fact that anti-choicers are warring against very normal sexual choices in our culture.

What the experiment did demonstrate, it seems to me, is that facts are extremely effective at undermining conservative bullshit.  On this argument, conservatives prefer to argue about unknowables, like if fetuses have souls, or they prefer to use glittering generalities, such as encouraging “responsibility”.  Facts help derail these strategies.  For instance, if someone talks about responsibility, the fact that 3/4 of women who have abortions cite responsibilities to others as a reason can refocus the discussion.  A lot of liberals end up buying into conservative frameworks—-“responsibility” does sound good!—-without thinking of how that framework is fundamentally dishonest.  Facts can help. 

However, this experiment was performed in an arena of gender and sexuality, and so the results may be hard to replicate in other ways.  Why?  Because the abortion discussion—-and most misconceptions that allow people to sympathize with the anti-choice view—-is dominated by misogynist beliefs about women that simply aren’t backed up by facts.  The beliefs are that women are stupid, thoughtless, and have very little moral grounding on their own, and thus cannot be trusted to make the own decisions about their family size or their sex lives.  The facts prove the opposite: women who have abortions tend to know exactly what they’re doing and why they’re doing it.  They have children and families and finances and relationships.  In fact, women who have abortions look very much like the women we all know and respect.  They are the women we know and respect. Facts help establish this narrative.

I’m not sure the results could be replicated in other arenas, but I think this Twitter storm pushes us a little closer to understanding how these sorts of arguments roll out from conservatives, and what it might take to dismantle their misleading narratives.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 07:42 PM • (48) Comments

I’m not sure where the battlefield really is on this issue, but my leading concern is all the girls I knew in high school who said, “I think it is a right, but I could never personally have an abortion.” And too many of those girls had unplanned pregnancies in their teens or early twenties, and I can’t believe that had a positive impact on any of the ones I’m still in contact with. (I’m thinking of specific people, not talking in generalities—also, I should say they’d disagree with me.)

Somewhere in that mushy middle, it needs to be made clear exactly what this debate really is about. That most of these friends of mine made a personal decision that they “could never have and abortion” based on lies and disingenuous arguments, made by people who don’t have their best interests in mind. It is a question of undermining those emotionally charged arguments with facts.

Not changing their minds about womens’ rights, just helping them realize that they do have legitimate options around their own health and family planning. Good work.

Comment #1: humanadverb  on  02/26  at  08:08 PM

Brilliant strategy, Amanda!
If I’d had to make a prediction, I would have guessed that facts would have no effect at all.  Some on that side are rather impervious to them.

Comment #2: MadLibrarian  on  02/26  at  08:09 PM

I would have guessed that as well, Mad, but it was amazingly effective at smoking them out of their holes.

human, I’m sure more women than you’d think that say “I could never” have or will.  And that’s sad.  Not that they had abortions so much as they probably felt bad for no reason about it. Knowing that abortion is very common could probably go a long way with them.

Comment #3: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/26  at  08:13 PM

I think by far the most important thing you did was expose how anti-choicers want to radically alter life for the vast majority of the public, in ways unrelated to abortion.

They want to ban a health product that 98 percent of women use.

They want people to stop having sex if they don’t want to get pregnant, even in marriage.

They want to punish the 95 percent of Americans that have premartial sex. (Sure, they can’t straight up make this illegal, but they use every indirect method to make it dangerous: warring against the HPV vaccine, trying to ban Plan B, etc)

It would be one thing for them to say “we won’t let you have an abortion because it’s murder, but we don’t give a rat’s ass what you do otherwise.” That’s clearly not their goal. It’s important to point out over and over that they want as much control over your sex life that they can get, short of breaking into your bedroom and handcuffing you. There’s a reason Leslee Unruh is both the director of the Abstinence Clearinghouse (whose literature opposes masturbation and contraception, just fyi) and the leader of the South Dakota abortion ban.

Amanda, your stuff at RH Reality Check turned me pro-choice. Keep it up.

Comment #4: Ashley Herzog  on  02/26  at  08:13 PM

I’ve run into that “ignore questions about contraception” thing before….it’s kinda eerie….

Comment #5: Eric_RoM  on  02/26  at  08:15 PM

Amanda, I know you’re right about that. And you know that that pressure doesn’t just lead women to feel bad—it helps their shithead boyfriends they know they can’t rely on to talk them into giving it a chance. Again, I’m thinking of a couple of specific people. In one case, the boy left her at 14 weeks.

There is the story of the anti girl who showed up in the same clinic she was protesting, and told the doctor that she’d be back outside protesting the day after getting an abortion from him. (He ended up refusing to give her care.) There are always reason why “my case is an exception,” but for a whole lot of women, they don’t find those reasons.

Comment #6: humanadverb  on  02/26  at  08:21 PM

There are of course people who think a fetus is morally equivalent to a baby and aren’t anti-contraception, but they don’t spend their time monitoring twitter to attempt to crush anyone who is pro-choice.  The people you were talking to were not fully representative of all those who oppose abortion.

However.  The fact is that people who are not only anti-abortion but anti-woman are the ones who direct the resources and the March For Life parades and work on changing legislation to deny reproductive choice even beyond abortion. 

The public fight is between those who are in 95 percent agreement with the majority (pro-choicers, who may have some differences with the average jo/e in terms of abortion in some circumstances only), and those who are in 5 percent agreement with the majority (anti-choicers, who really really are against any choice in contraception whatsoever, unlike the average jo/e). 

They use abortion as a toe in the door to make themselves seem legit.

Comment #7: oldfeminist  on  02/26  at  08:37 PM

You should see the discussion that exploded over at Daylight Atheism on this topic.  I decided to take the “here are the facts; here’s an argument over personhood” approach.  After a couple hundred posts our anti-choicer (who is not anti-contraception, oddly enough) was reduced to “a fertilized egg is of equal moral worth to an adult human because it has a soul (and will eventually become an adult human)”.  How the hell do you argue with that?!?

Comment #8: themann1086  on  02/26  at  08:54 PM

mann @ #8

A rousing chorus of “Every Sperm is Sacred”?

Comment #9: Captain Bathrobe  on  02/26  at  08:58 PM

That merely waiting for “the one” would be enough to prevent HPV, and that getting stuck with a needle is too painful to tolerate just to avoid cervical cancer.

What in the whaaa??? I’m a huge needle wimp and EVEN I think that I’d rather NOT have a crown put in without novocaine. They think getting stuck with a needle is comprable to cancer? I guess they’ve never seen or had someone close to them DYING of the disease and being in PAIN every second of the day then.

Related to the larger topic - what’s that thing the lawyers say? Google to the rescue! Oh internets… I heart you.

“A lawyer’s primer: If you don’t have the law, you argue the facts; if you don’t have the facts, you argue the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, then you argue the Constitution”

And that would explain the number of morons who wank about about claiming the Constitution “doesn’t provide for X, Y or Z. Ugh.

Comment #10: Danica Lefse Queen  on  02/26  at  09:13 PM

Not that I’m saying we Don’t have the law… but we might not if the tap tap tapping away of Roe V Wade continues.
Esp. with the bullshit like that in Utah…

Comment #11: Danica Lefse Queen  on  02/26  at  09:13 PM

Maybe it depends on the venue and scale of the audience, because in my blogs when I do fact bomb my opponents, whether I’m talking about abortion, rape advocacy, whatever, I usually just get repeats of, “Nuh uh, I don’t believe that,” and then told, after I repeatedly cite the DOJ, or AMA or whatever, that I’m an over-emotional woman. 

*head/desk*

Comment #12: GeekGirlsRule  on  02/26  at  09:14 PM

<i>”*That all single people should not have sex, ever.” <i>

That one always amazes me for the bold faced dishonesty

They start talking about teen pregnancy and “babies having babies” to get normal peoples attention
and then say to solve it we need to teach “abstinence till marriage
notice the switcheroo there?
3 card monty dealers got nothing on these guys

So if you are 16 and married its ok, but a 30 year old never-married should be abstinent?
Its no wonder they have to resort to verbal trickery

Comment #13: jefft452  on  02/26  at  09:24 PM

Here I’m really glad that the experience (abortion) that Angie incurred is about like having a thrombosed hemorrhoid excised.  A little pain, cramps, and some bleeding that clears up after a few days.

I’m glad she had such a safe, effective medical option.  Let’s keep it that way.

Comment #14: Crissa  on  02/26  at  09:29 PM

GeekGirl, try something which has caveats and uncertainties like climate change.  There’s enough wiggle room and complications in those for the idiot nay-sayers to always find a little niche to cling to.

Comment #15: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/26  at  09:30 PM

Honestly, who finds this surprising at all?  If you’ve taken debate in high school or college you would understand 90% of the conservative narrative on issues would be destroyed in debates.  It’s largely emotional attacks and misdirection.  The conservative media allows only the conservative narrative to be perceived as real, any sort of attack is a lie, it’s basically an argument of preemptive strikes which specific name eludes me.  This approach is not new, the argument for these types is all about making their opinion seem like the reality and what everybody wants and the only way they feel better is if everybody agrees with them to create a majority image.  It’s a mental disease they’re suffering from.

Comment #16: Xeranar  on  02/26  at  09:33 PM

Piator, thanks, no.  I have my hands full arguing the above topics, as well as health care reform, and why Obama is not a socialist.

Comment #17: GeekGirlsRule  on  02/26  at  09:39 PM

One of my favorite techniques (besides bringing the realities of an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy home for people by pointing out the very real challenges of having a child) is to throw their misogynist rhetoric back in their faces.

“Women who have abortions are irresponsible sluts, huh? Well, why the hell would you want an irresponsible slut in charge of a baby?”

“If should couldn’t be bothered to take a pill every day, how are you going to trust her with the care of an infant?”

(of course, they whip out the adoption canard, to which…)

“If she’s so unreliable that she couldn’t stick to her guns about not keeping her legs closed when she’s a little bit tempted by cock, how are you going to trust she’s going to hand over her baby once she gives birth? So again, how are you going to trust her with the care of an infant?”

At that point, they pretty much have to declare that women should have their children yanked out of their arms to make sure they’re adopted by a loving christian couple.

You can also point out that if she can’t be bothered to take a pill every day, then you can’t trust her to make her prenatal appointments, (not to mention keep away from all of the pregnancy taboos) so her infant is more likely to be less “adoptable” than others.

Comment #18: Mighty Ponygirl  on  02/26  at  10:36 PM

One interesting thing to see will be what happens the next time the same set of wingnuts converge. My bet is that 90+ percent of them will use the same lies that got refuted here.

Comment #19: paul  on  02/26  at  10:39 PM

Maybe it depends on the venue and scale of the audience, because in my blogs when I do fact bomb my opponents, whether I’m talking about abortion, rape advocacy, whatever, I usually just get repeats of, “Nuh uh, I don’t believe that,” and then told, after I repeatedly cite the DOJ, or AMA or whatever, that I’m an over-emotional woman.

You seem to have forgotten the rules as laid out by evo-psych:

- All men are innately logical, so their arguments come from logic
- All women are innately emotional, so their arguments come from emotion
- Therefore, any argument a man uses is by definition a logical one, even if he has no facts to back it up, and any argument a woman uses is by definition an emotional one, even if she uses facts to back it up.  Because otherwise the man would be making an emotional argument and not the woman and THE UNIVERSE WOULD IMPLODE!!!

Comment #20: Mnemosyne  on  02/26  at  10:41 PM

It’s good at smoking the real shit out, but it’s often draining. When you flip up the rock, it’s always the same old tired animosity and you end up becoming mostly an expert in bad faith arguments to the point where you can pretty much predict the next response by a troll before they engage in it (an interesting tactic is also doing so) and what you say pretty much gets ignored because we have a large part of the population that is hostile to knowledge and reality for shattering their precious “everyone knows"es.

Plus, it can be a pain in the ass collecting all the necessary links and it can just feel emotionally futile (though not necessarily literally futile) when you research out a couple of thousand word post filled with 20+ links and the offenders reply with generalized misogyny (and when they know they’re arguing with a woman, it almost always is generalized misogyny no matter what the actual topic was).

But yeah, it does seem to get them to drop the facade, especially in the anti-choice sense since so much of anti-choice is based on the false veneer of caring just so much about the poor Baybeez.

It is also interesting that every anti-choice argument (or hesitant pro-choice argument) ends up with them supporting one of four final arguments they will not budge on based on the idea that women ain’t shit.

1) Sexual women need to be punished. (By far the most popular and the one most of the others tend to be combined to, though “honest” anti-choicers or hesitant pro-choicers will have more of the other 3)
2) Sperm magic, the only part of pregnancy where a man was involved is totally the only important and necessary part and the fertilized egg just grows homonculus style in the empty space of the womb for 9 months spent in a time machine that makes it go by without effect in a blink of an eye.
3) Thinking about never having existed gives me existential worries and easing that in my mind is more important than reality or the health and well-being of women.
4) I am or used to be a catholic and since I was raised that it was wrong and have generalized anxiety attacks whenever the subject is brought up, I’m going to carry those scars with me and argue on behalf of hideous women-hating policies.

Pretty much every argument they have can be broken down to those or will devolve into those with a fact bomb. It’s pretty interesting to see actually.

Comment #21: Cerberus  on  02/26  at  11:09 PM

Aww, Amanda, you met Schlenky (pschlenker)!

There’s way more fun to be had with that guy.  He’s a doctrinaire Catholic who believes, not only that abortion and contraception are wrong and single people should never, ever have sex, but that women who have severe health problems and don’t want to sacrifice their health or lives to a pregnancy are selfish and evil.  He writes a lot of creepy fetishizing shit about how wonderful it is for women to be forced to value another’s life above their own, etc.  I honestly think he gets a HUGE sexual charge out of the idea of women suffering…not to mention getting attention from younger women, even if it’s hostile. 

At that point, they pretty much have to declare that women should have their children yanked out of their arms to make sure they’re adopted by a loving christian couple.

What’s misguided is expecting them to have any shame about that.  They don’t.  They see absolutely no problem with treating “fallen” women as walking incubators for “loving Christian couples”.

Oh, and for lulz, here’s a video posted by one of the Twitter antis.  I especially admire the subtle use of fashion choices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCmLmZDpB4I

Comment #22: killjoy  on  02/26  at  11:14 PM

@themann at 8

Ask them: “What about all the zygotes that never implant, and the embryos and fetuses that miscarry?  Don’t they have souls too?  Yet we don’t give them funerals so their souls can find rest.  Why is that?”

If you’ve taken debate in high school or college you would understand 90% of the conservative narrative on issues would be destroyed in debates.  It’s largely emotional attacks and misdirection.

Xenanar, you must be one of the fortunate souls who skipped Listen To Me.  It stars Kirk Cameron (naturally) as the star of a debate team (what?!) on Bizzarro World, where emotional attacks and misdirection are not only allowed in debate, they rule the freakin’ day.  The high point (or rather low point, if you have an IQ above freezing level) is when Kirk’s love interest, Jamie Gertz, cries about how she’s a rape victim who had an abortion.  She feels just terrible about it, so no woman should ever have one again, because “we women are just too gosh darn dumb to decide what to do with our bodies.” 

In the real world, this would disqualify her and her team.  In the Bizzaro World, the Supreme Court declares her team the winner, overturns Roe, Kirk and Jamie run off hand and hand toward the White House, I throw up and the movie’s over.

Comment #23: Blue Jean  on  02/26  at  11:20 PM

Sudden thought about the fact bomb is that since it gets right-wingers to use their actual genuine reasons versus the usual chaff they throw up, it’s great for learning the real resistance. Basically, people who argue in bad faith care about something are actually responding by some emotional investment or reason that is critical to flipping them, it’s just they don’t care if their stated reasons are debunked, because they don’t really believe what they’re saying.

For instance, in the anti-choice brigade, we see chiefly a terror at sexual freedom for women, which pretty much tells us that the key to destroying the anti-choice movement is better sex education, not just that which we give the teenagers, but genuine education about sex and sexuality and how to enjoy sex on your own terms.

More people coming out as kinky or talking publicly about their sex lives or being frank and honest with their partners about their actual desires are the things that will break the resistance and wash them away in the tide of history.

When they turn into the darker side, they’re revealing exactly what they’re invested in and what they and society in general needs.

This is also why the biggest morons are those who demand “moderation” and self-censorship when arguing for a liberal cause, because correcting one’s self to the bullshit arguments they make doesn’t do anything because they don’t care about the stated reasons, rather the hidden stuff when cornered. And what they need isn’t deference to that hidden stuff but more of what they fear.

The origin is animosity about sex? We need public conversations about sex and getting people over their hangups about examining their own sexuality. The origin is fear of losing the patriarchal system? We need more feminism and more out feminists. The origin is fear about penis size and loss of masculinity? We need more conversations by feminists to break toxic masculinity head-spaces and make it more acceptable to explore all aspects of one’s being as a man.

And we can lose sight of that chasing the obviously wrong bullshit flak though debunking it certainly does help radicalize the moderates, flush out the true reasons of the antis, and rally the base.

Comment #24: Cerberus  on  02/26  at  11:21 PM

3) Thinking about never having existed gives me existential worries and easing that in my mind is more important than reality or the health and well-being of women.
Comment #21: Cerberus on 02/26 at 09:09 PM

I think there’s a subset of these who are really, truly afraid of being obliterated by their mothers.  Whether it’s because their mothers are actual horrible people, or they just never got over mom being bigger and stronger and smarter and just so godlike when they were children for some reason, they both hate and fear women.  They have to invent a bigger meaner god to keep women in line.

Comment #25: oldfeminist  on  02/26  at  11:54 PM

I think there’s a subset of these who are really, truly afraid of being obliterated by their mothers.

My ex-boyfriend’s mother told him she should have had the abortion her parents wanted her to have instead of marrying his father.  She told him this in front of me.

He didn’t turn into a crazy, woman-hating right-winger (that I know of—it’s been 20 years) but I could see how a steady diet of that could.  I think people who are convinced their mother would have aborted them if they’d had the choice are usually right.

Comment #26: Mnemosyne  on  02/27  at  12:11 AM

@Cerberus 24, +1.  The essence of real persuasion is to talk about the real thing.

Comment #27: Punditus Maximus  on  02/27  at  12:15 AM

He didn’t turn into a crazy, woman-hating right-winger (that I know of—it’s been 20 years) but I could see how a steady diet of that could.  I think people who are convinced their mother would have aborted them if they’d had the choice are usually right

This actually gives me hope that people born in the US more than six months after Roe was decided will realize a) Mom technically had the choice* to abort me, b) she didn’t, c) therefore, I was a wanted* child and don’t have to worry about the “what if I was aborted” malarky of the anti-choicers. 

A demonstration:
Anti-Choice Guy: “Hey! What if your mom had aborted you?”
Me: “What does that have to do with anything?  I was born in 1984.  Abortion was legal when my mother was pregnant with me.  If she had wanted to abort me, she could have, but she didn’t.  So the legality or illegality of abortion doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that I was born.  So I don’t see why you’re invoking it in a debate over whether or not abortion should be legal.”

(choice, in this sense, equaling “well, she wouldn’t have risked prison time, death, permanent sterilization, etc, but could have been financially/socially/economically/religiously constrained”; wanted, in this sense, meaning “the mere legality of abortion did not push my mother into doing it”.  Perhaps not as great a sense of “choice” and “wanted” as most of us would like, but it’s definitely enough to combat anti-choicers.)

Comment #28: Maureen  on  02/27  at  02:12 AM

paul:

One interesting thing to see will be what happens the next time the same set of wingnuts converge. My bet is that 90+ percent of them will use the same lies that got refuted here.

Exactly. The real test of whether or not fact-bombing works is whether or not the people you fact-bombed will remember it tomorrow. 99 times out of 100, they won’t.

Comment #29: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  02/27  at  02:13 AM

Yeah, but while it wins arguments, it doesn’t seem to actually change people for the better. 

We lost our token TEA activist pro-lifer because we ended up asking, ‘Can we find a conservative argument using reason or science instead of authority or emotion?’  The answer was apparently, ‘no’.  He was unable to find any and decided to leave.

The funny thing is, I’m pretty sure I know a couple arguments that could source an argument - even the one he lost - using reason.

Comment #30: Crissa  on  02/27  at  02:35 AM

Crissa:

We lost our token TEA activist pro-lifer because we ended up asking, ‘Can we find a conservative argument using reason or science instead of authority or emotion?’ The answer was apparently, ‘no’. He was unable to find any and decided to leave.

That’s not an admission of defeat. That’s a temper-tantrum and a flounce-off over having his authoritah challenged. He’s not going to learn anything from it.

In general, the more time someone spends making grandiose declarations of how good they are at “rational reasoning,” the worse they are at coming up with anything that even remotely resembles a cogent argument.

Comment #31: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  02/27  at  05:14 AM

@31, Yeah, I noticed that.  It’s like “I’m not a racist…”

Comment #32: Punditus Maximus  on  02/27  at  05:30 AM

I’d appreciate if you could post an easy-to-read list of all the facts you posted.  The list on twitter is sort of clogged up by the intermittent arguing with the stupids.

Comment #33: Dan Watson  on  02/27  at  05:57 AM

You trolled conservatives in their own forum and they couldn’t ban you because its twitter. Someone should make a list.

Comment #35: pharmakos  on  02/27  at  09:08 AM

Most of the time arguing with antis just makes me want to pin them down and forcibly tattoo their torsos with this: “Nobody is obliged to give birth for you, their family, friends, spouse, society, race, religion, idealogy, or as punishment, as payment, for the country, for the community, for yours or another’s infertility, for the economy, for “freedom”, for privilege, for entitlement, for a legacy, for health, for heirs, for demographics, for the patriarchy. Female humans do not owe the world babies, get it?”

Comment #36: Princess Rot  on  02/27  at  09:25 AM

See, I just wish I could fact bomb this NYT article about the anti-choicers in GA with the billboards, conspiracy theory, and now potential law.

Comment #37: FashionablyEvil  on  02/27  at  11:31 AM

Or we could just play the clip of Rep. Trent Franks, a white politician who calls President Obama “the abortion President” and says African Americans were better off under slavery “because of the abortion and stuff”.

Comment #38: Blue Jean  on  02/27  at  12:46 PM

I just wish I could fact bomb this NYT article

I know! The reporter is so busy practicing she said/she said writing that the article doesn’t even provide basic empirical information like relative poverty rates for black Americans vs. other groups, and statistics on how poverty influences a person’s need for abortion services (e.g., if you’re poor, you probably don’t have a job with health benefits, so paying for birth control is much, much harder).

Comment #39: Witt  on  02/27  at  01:00 PM

I think there’s a subset of these who are really, truly afraid of being obliterated by their mothers.  Whether it’s because their mothers are actual horrible people, or they just never got over mom being bigger and stronger and smarter and just so godlike when they were children for some reason, they both hate and fear women.  They have to invent a bigger meaner god to keep women in line.

This notion is part of the reason for my overly long user name.  Some bozo came in here and said abortion was wrong b/c it gave the Mother right over life and death that rightly belonged to God.  Only God should decide if you should be born, and if a woman makes that decision, it’s like she’s blocking the sun from her children, preventing them from seeing the omnipotence of God.

So Sun-blocker I am.  My kids get to know that I wanted them and I chose to have them.

My favorite assholes are the ones who go with the “I just don’t think abortion should be used for birth control.  Once a woman is pregnant, she should have to go through with it since it’s just a minor inconvenience (followed by a few moments of intense pain) vs. life and death for the baby.

It’s a minor fucking inconvenience b/c they can’t get pregnant and they have no clue whatsoever about what a real pregnancy entails.

And then there’s the expectation that after the slut gives birth and gives the baybee up for adoption, she’s written out of the story.  The focus is on “the family” with the white Christian parents adopting the little angel snowflake.

Women who give children up for adoption suffer.  They have more regrets than those who have abortions, though DAMNIT I can’t find that link.  But no one bothers to think about them, b/c women ain’t shit.

Comment #40: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  02/27  at  01:52 PM

I can’t help but thinking that part of the reason the whole fact bomb approach is so startlingly effective is because we’re so rarely presented with facts in what passes for the largest sources of information in the US. If the MSM were to do this regularly, you’d have a legitimately informed majority alongside a pissed off minority, and the game would be over. They’re not willing to do that because they’d lose that minority audience, especially with Fox around as an alternative. But there really shouldn’t be anything novel about what you’ve done there, Amanda, and it stinks to high heaven that this isn’t the case. I feel pretty confident that your approach could *easily* be applied to other arenas but much less so that it will be.

Comment #41: samanthab.  on  02/27  at  02:26 PM

Someone once called adoption “a triangle of loss.”  We took classes before adopting, and they said everyone comes into adoption grieving: the adoptive parents grieving for our own lack of children and the knowledge that we are not the birth parents, the birth parents in giving up the child, and the child grieving for the birth parents.  Adoption is not to be taken lightly, we are not saving a child, and anyone who adopts to “do the right thing” or “save” a child is doing it for the wrong reasons and will end up hurting the child in the long run.  I have to say it pisses me off that some people (like my parents) think that adoption is the cure all that will fix everything.

Comment #42: Vail  on  02/27  at  02:32 PM

The real test of whether or not fact-bombing works is whether or not the people you fact-bombed will remember it tomorrow.

I’m under no illusion we will change the minds of misogynists.  The question I was asking was, “How does this affect fence sitters?  Will this embolden pro-choicers to make better arguments or not?”

Comment #43: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/27  at  04:34 PM

“a fertilized egg is of equal moral worth as an adult human because it has a soul…” How the hell do you argue with that?

Point out that if the woman must, against her will, permit this fertilized egg (ensouled or not) to inhabit her body and change her entire life, the person making the argument is giving the zygote a privelege far beyond that which any reasonable person would permit an adult human.  They are not actually asserting the fertilized egg’s equality, they are asserting its superiority.

(This is a good place for the hypothetical question, “should you be forced, against your will, to surrender your kidney if it were the only one compatible with the person who needed it?  Is there any other situation besides pregnancy where an adult citizen could be forced to undergo a lengthy, expensive, painful, and dangerous medical process against their will, not for the sake of their own lives but to save someone else?”)

Still my favorite argumenticizin’ tactic (which I’ve spelled out here before), assuming the argument is in reasonably good faith:

1. The question of ensoulment is strictly a religious question and irrelevent to a matter of law.  There exist religions that believe in the ensoulment of animals, but nobody insists on mandatory vegetarianism for all on that basis.  IOW, remind them of what the question is really about: public policy and law, not their personal philosophy or religion.  (If they insist that it is really about them and their religion, you’ve won the argument.  1st Amendment, y’all.)

2. The question is, therefore, really about rights.  Does the zygote have rights that supercede the rights of an adult human woman?  (Here is where you make the argument that the anti-choicers are asserting the zygote is actually superior, and the forced organ donation hypothetical.)  Why exactly does the zygote have greater rights than an adult woman?

At this point, you can probably get them to concede that the question of whether a zygote has humanity and rights at all is a debatable subject: though they are themselves completely convinced, they can accept that others are not.  Reasonable people can disagree, the answer to the question is not really knowable, that their own position is really a matter of faith. 

Get them to concede their own position is one of faith, then to concede the possibility of reasonable doubt by reasonable people in the existence of zygotes’ rights.  Have them re-affirm that this is a good-faith debate, iow.

Once the concept of doubt is recognized as legit, as it must once they’ve conceded that their position is based on faith, ask them if it’s at all reasonable to argue that adult women are not human and have no rights.  Then ask why the zygote, whose rights they’ve conceded are a subject of reasonable debate, should be superior to adult humans, whose rights they’ve conceded are not in doubt.

If they argue that women aren’t human and have no rights, you’re actually dealing with a crazy person, back away slowly.

Comment #44: Chocolate Covered Cotton  on  02/27  at  07:05 PM

told, after I repeatedly cite the DOJ, or AMA or whatever, that I’m an overemotional woman.

Thanks, GeekGirl, for reminding me of the most important debate tactic.  To be taken seriously, always have a penis.

Comment #45: Chocolate Covered Cotton  on  02/27  at  07:13 PM

That most of these friends of mine made a personal decision that they “could never have and abortion” based on lies and disingenuous arguments, made by people who don’t have their best interests in mind.

This is an excellent point. I had my first child when I was 19. It seriously limited my ability to set forth on a life path that might very well have made me a happier person today. I love my son, but I sometimes feel bitter that I didn’t have a choice around giving birth to him—I had the legal choice, but because I was raised in a family that made and bought all the lies and disingenuous arguments, I was never allowed to see abortion as an option.

I still feel mad for the 19-year-old me. It was ridiculously obvious to everyone who wasn’t 19 and stupid that having a baby at that time would leave me undereducated, dependent on a guy I was marrying young, and unable to experience adulthood as anything but a mother ever; and yet although they all would say they cared about me, no one cared enough to let me believe that I had the right to make choices about continuing the pregnancy. With my son, my niece, and my daughter, I make sure to be very vocal about how and why having an abortion is a perfectly acceptable option so they (or the women they love) are never stuck in my same situation.

The legal right to abortion is all but useless if women are raised believing that only the worst kind of people actually take advantage of that legal right.

Comment #46: kristin  on  02/28  at  01:18 AM

Thanks, GeekGirl, for reminding me of the most important debate tactic.  To be taken seriously, always have a penis.

I’m amazed at how often people forget this one.  It’s not like it’s the only benefit, either: you save time waiting in line for restrooms, and you get paid more!

What strikes me as interesting, in the sense of “notably ahistorical,” is the sense that adoption obviates the need for abortion.  Leaving aside the time commitment involved—that part’s visible even if said pregnant person simply “goes to stay with family” for a few months—it’s, uh, a pretty brutal process.  It’s difficult enough that childbirth is quite often compared to warfare in terms of the pain, terror and courage it entailed.  (Oh, and also, the death.  Our species can get by with most children not reaching adulthood and most fertilized eggs not implanting, so we can also deal with quite a few deaths along the way.  Remember kids, for sexual reproduction to work, sex has to be more important than life.)  The right likes to talk about motherhood (well, the birth part, anyhow) in glowing terms, but they tend to stop short of heroic.

This might be because maintaining a pregnancy until birth is actually quite a lot of work, and we have a legal term for forcing people to do work against their will.

Comment #47: Byronic Commando  on  02/28  at  03:17 AM

Women who give children up for adoption suffer.  They have more regrets than those who have abortions, though DAMNIT I can’t find that link.  But no one bothers to think about them, b/c women ain’t shit.

Hmm. 

http://keepyourbaby.com
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090914/joyce
http://www.cubirthparents.org/ (see also this pamphlet)

Links to studies from a Canadian anti-adoption website:

http://www.originscanada.org/park/adoption_separation_trauma/adoption_trauma_to_mothers.html

Comment #48: killjoy  on  02/28  at  02:59 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.