Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Don’t say “believe”. Say “accept”. Previous entry: New Year’s Food Thread

Why being anti-choice is misogynist, period

Ross Douthat proves once again why the NY Times was foolish to hire him, because he can’t help but write op-eds that read more like afterschool specials about the evils of fornication mixed with crappy prayer cards than actual greatest-newspaper-in-the-country editorials. He includes a poem about a fetal heartbeat, people.*  That’s not NY Times level editorializing.  I’d imagine the editors at two bit Midwestern newspapers that dedicate 50% of their content to high school sports would balk at running a poem about fetal heartbeats in the letters to the editor section. 

As Douthat is plugged directly into (though he pretends not to be) the anti-contraception, anti-sex, virulently anti-woman activist anti-choice community, his column is a regurgitation of the same talking points that Jill “Chicago hospitals deliver babies and then stab them in the head with scissors, I swear, I totally saw it, why would I lie just because I’m a wild-eyed ideologue nutbar?” Stanek is pushing: that the sadness and doubt felt by some of the young women indicates they should have been forced by law to have babies they didn’t want, that contraception is evil because people didn’t even consider fucking before it was invented, and that MTV is biased because they present facts and allow women to speak for themselves. He does not, sadly, engage in the conspiracy theory about how MTV was paid off by the shadowy condom industry with under the table payments to promote sex to people who would otherwise be perfectly happy playing pinochle, which was my favorite response to the “No Easy Decision” program, but he needed room for the fetal heartbeat sentimentality, and his particularly misogynist addition to the right wing talking points hastily thrown together when they realized silencing these women wasn’t an option. 

But before I get to that, I want to point you to today’s column at RH Reality Check, where I respond to the anti-choicers Douthat is taking his talking points from, like the lazy fuck he is. I’m particularly annoyed at how anti-choicers, including Douthat, latch on to two of the women in the program’s feelings of sadness at having to choose abortion when they love babies.  It’s mostly because antis are trying to deprive these women of their basic rights as citizens while pretending to be concerned, but their faux concern is exposed by the fact that they lie and misrepresent what was said.  Markai’s distress was obviously due to the fact that her very recent childbirth made her quick to attach herself to the idea of another baby.  How do I know this?  Because that’s what she said.  Antis are latching onto her getting angry with her boyfriend momentarily because he calls the embryo a “thing”, but what they neglect to report is that she says then that the “thing” could develop into a baby.  But she doesn’t say that it’s already a baby; a distinction that is critical, particularly since they accuse Markai of being mentally ill when there is no indication from her behavior that she is suffering from any kind of trauma. 

Anyway, read the rest of the column to get my take on the notion of wistfulness about the road not taken, and why using that as a weapon against legal abortion doesn’t withstand the slightest scrutiny.

What I like is that while the talking points Douthat works off of highlight the importance of feigning concern for women to avoid accusations of misogyny just because you’re, you know, lying about what women say and trying to silence them, he can’t even bring himself to feign concern for more than a paragraph before he lapses into straight up demanding that women be reduced to breeding machines whose mental health is of no more consequence than the mental health of your xBox.  We cannot afford to treat women as human beings when the supply of white infants on the market is so dangerously low!

The show was particularly wrenching, though, when juxtaposed with two recent dispatches from the world of midlife, upper-middle-class infertility. Last month there was Vanessa Grigoriadis’s provocative New York Magazine story “Waking Up From the Pill,” which suggested that a lifetime on chemical birth control has encouraged women “to forget about the biological realities of being female ... inadvertently, indirectly, infertility has become the Pill’s primary side effect.” Then on Sunday, The Times Magazine provided a more intimate look at the same issue, in which a midlife parent, the journalist Melanie Thernstrom, chronicled what it took to bring her children into the world: six failed in vitro cycles, an egg donor and two surrogate mothers, and an untold fortune in expenses.

In every era, there’s been a tragic contrast between the burden of unwanted pregnancies and the burden of infertility. But this gap used to be bridged by adoption far more frequently than it is today. Prior to 1973, 20 percent of births to white, unmarried women (and 9 percent of unwed births over all) led to an adoption. Today, just 1 percent of babies born to unwed mothers are adopted, and would-be adoptive parents face a waiting list that has lengthened beyond reason.

Well, obviously, having your life plans to have a baby thwarted is a humiliation no Caucasian should ever have to suffer. Clearly, there is only one solution, which is to return to an era where being a sexually active, unmarried woman was de facto criminalized so that your labor could be forcibly extracted from you to benefit people who do a much better job than you of keeping up appearances. 

There’s a lot of human rights violations that Douthat glossed over in his chillingly inhumane euphemistic phrasing “this gap used to be bridged by adoption”.  By “bridged by adoption”, what he means is young white women (and some young black women, though there was less demand for their babies, and subsequently less forcing them into maternity homes) who turned up pregnant were forced to give birth to babies and forced into maternity homes where they were restrained and often subject to torturous behavior so they couldn’t resist when their babies were snatched from them against their wills.  He’s right that Roe v. Wade had a lot to do with turning this around, and it’s not just because women had an option to abort instead.  It’s also because once it was enshrined in law that even pregnant women have rights, it became harder to justify the existence of maternity homes and coercing women to give up babies.

This is why the concern for women’s mental health is such obvious bullshit.  Anti-choicers who blather about “post-abortion syndrome” have exactly no problem with reinstating a situation where women are put through the very real and often lifelong trauma of having a baby taken from you against your will.  Often, the mental health consequences of this were very real and very long-lasting.  As are the feelings of being alone and abandoned by the world.

I think one of the biggest surprises was that many of the women I interviewed were themselves unaware of the fact that hundreds of thousands of other women had surrendered children during the ’50s and ’60s and that so many shared their sense of grief over the loss of a child. Women who had not discovered “birth parent” support groups felt very alone. They had been told they would move on and forget and they saw their inability to do so as yet another personal failure. Often at the end of an interview, a woman would say to me, “Have you interviewed any other women who feel the way I do?” That question made me want to weep. After all these years, so many women were still suffering in silence.

I realize that dim-witted anti-choicers don’t understand how someone whose first choice may have been abortion then would cling to the baby after giving birth with all her might, but they are acting out of willful ignorance. If you actually listen to women, then how that works makes sense.  Markai in “No Easy Decision” explains it perfectly, that if she started to feel the baby kick, she’d fall in love and there would be no adoption. 

In other words, the “gap” that Douthat thinks is so easily bridged is bridged by stomping all over the hearts of actual living, breathing, feeling women. 

Look, I really feel bad for people suffering infertility.  It can be maddening and horrible, though I will point out that the notion that people resort to infertility treatments after adoption doesn’t pan out has it exactly backwards—-most people prefer biological children and then turn to adoption if they can’t have their own.  And some women willingly give babies up for adoption.  But the fact that, as Douthat notes, the percentage of babies born that are given up for adoption immediately went into freefall after coercion stopped means that the coercion really was pretty fucking coercive.  That he glibly offers to deprive unmarried women of their human rights in order to sop up the pain of infertility of women he deems more worthy because they did a better job at taming their sexuality with the approved channels of marriage is misogyny, pure and simple. And it’s the misogyny that lies underneath all anti-choice arguments, which forever go back to coercion.

*I wonder what the poet thinks of this.  His poem is about the joy of expectation, but unlike Douthat, grown-ups often can tell the difference between what a fetal heartbeat means to someone who actually wants a baby and someone who doesn’t.  Fetuses have heartbeats, but so do brain dead people on life support and tissue grown in the lab—-which are both closer to what a fetus pre-brain development is.  Being able to run blood through something doesn’t make you human—-in many cases, it makes you a dialysis machine.  Having a working brain strikes me as the cut-off point in any case that doesn’t involve trying to control female sexuality because you loathe and resent women.

 

------

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 10:41 AM • (260) Comments

We cannot afford to treat women as human beings when the supply of white infants on the market is so dangerously low!

I attended my little brother’s high school graduation a couple of years ago, and having graduated from a Catholic school, his class had decided to suck up to the resident priest and have him be their guest speaker. The graduation speech - the GRADUATION speech - was about how there weren’t enough white babies on the market anymore and you shouldn’t use condoms because they don’t work. The only thing that kept me from standing up and walking out (which would have been wonderfully obvious because I was valedictorian of that same school six years prior) was my grandmother’s wheelchair blocking me in. SO mad.

Comment #1: Hobbes  on  01/03  at  12:15 PM

There’s not enough white babies on the market, so don’t use condoms because [fill in transparent lie]. I love how obvious they’re being, trying to discourage contraception use with the faint hope that there will be more white babies on the market.  Of course, it’s a fool’s errand.  The vast majority of women they shame into skipping contraception and getting pregnant unwillingly will either abort or keep the babies.

Comment #2: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/03  at  12:29 PM

When my wife and I had our kids, we went with a midwife and chose to have them at home. Our midwife looked very young, and I was surprised that she was actually more like 40, when she looked about 30. We knew she did not have children, though she also clearly loved her job and loved children.

She also hosts a picnic every year for the parents of children she has helped deliver. Last one we went to was… 2009, I guess, not long after our son was born and not long before we went to Japan. She was pregnant, with twins. Being so granola about a lot of things, she seemed almost ashamed to admit she and her husband had needed “a little help.”

TL;DR version: other side of this is also sucky and ridiculous, that society seems to view it as a personal failure for a (white) woman not to have kids. That people feel embarrassed to use some kind of assistance to do have a baby they clearly want is also part and parcel of that whole thing.

Oh, and Hobbes@ #1 - I thought it slightly worse when getting proselytized at a funeral. Especially since I’m pretty sure I was actually the only person at that funeral who didn’t go to that same church.

Comment #3: Matthew, Patron Saint of Affogato  on  01/03  at  12:39 PM

I’m always struck by how people like douthat and priests think that going through a pregnancy is like going around with a pillow under your shirt - “just have the baby and give it up!”  I was still Catholic when I was having my babies, and spent the first three months of each pregnancy on the bathroom floor puking.  I often wished my “just choose life!” priest and bishop could take part in that particular joy before they shot off their mouths about it.  Not to mention the swollen ankles, hemorrhoids, sleepless nights from being too huge to turn over…well, I could go on.  Then close to 1/3 of all US births are c-sections, so you have all the risks and pain of major abdominal surgery, and the expense if you don’t have good health insurance.  That’s “just finish the pregnancy”, and I wish Douthat could share the joy. My recently-pregnant friend’s Catholic husband, once he saw what the discomforts were really like, said “nobody should have to go through this unless they really, really want to.
And the new “pro-life” Republican majority’s first order of business is to cut off funds for Planned Parenthood, because making contraception unavailable will totally cut the abortion rate.
Great point, too Amanda, that people do all the fertility stuff first, and just go for adoption when none of it works.

Comment #4: gretchen  on  01/03  at  12:40 PM

This kind of nonsense could only be written by a white man who read “The Handmaid’s Tale” as porn.  does he have his own “Ofross” at home, I wonder?

Comment #5: Radicalhw  on  01/03  at  12:46 PM

This article in the NY Times Mag is many things, but one thing especially is it proves your assertion, Matthew.  The amount of pressure on white people of means to demonstrate fecundity it immense. I was sort of alarmed at the extent that people will go to in order to uphold the illusion of biological parenthood where it doesn’t exist.

Comment #6: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/03  at  01:03 PM

I would say this article shows that Douchat is not even pretending to care about women anymore, but then again, this case really illustrates that the Catholic church in general really thinks bitches ain’t shit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/us-catholic-bishop-hospital-abortion

Comment #7: kitten parade  on  01/03  at  01:36 PM

Meanwhile, anyone who has been involved even tangentially in modern adoption practices knows that the current system would be entirely unable to handle a huge influx of babies “needing” adoption. The paperwork, the essays, the home visits, all the other things make make adoption time-consuming, expensive and unpleasantly invasive would have to go out the window, and you’d be back to pillars of the community placing “unwanted babies” with upright god-fearing families. Some of whom would no doubt make sure the adoptees were fully cognizant of the enormous debt of gratitude owed to their new parents.

Comment #8: paul  on  01/03  at  01:36 PM

It was just coincidence, I suppose, but the Times’ “surrogacy worked great for us” article and then this really does seem like a lot of pro-motherhood propaganda.  Especially since the last Times’ magazine article about upper-class woman writer becomes a mother via surrogacy story wasn’t so long ago.
I wonder why those surrogacy stories aren’t ever written by the father?  If they were really family-formation stories and not about “motherhood” wouldn’t men be writing them too?  Well, I suppose there might be some gay fathers out there writing stuff that doesn’t make it to mass culture.

In 1916, Leta Hollingworth, a sociologist and member of the Heterodoxy group that also included Crystal Eastman (of “Marriage Under Two Roofs” fame) wrote a great article on what she identified as the “social devices” by which society/culture “impel women to bear and rear children”  or to say it more briefly, “compulsory motherhood.” Many of the still exist (one fascinating idea she had was about art, how the numerous images of mother and child, which are also often connected to the power of religious authority, but even the popular images on, say calendars, can have an effect on girls growing up). 

In some ways, we might be seeing something similar to what happened after WWII—just as society/culture then moved in conscious and unconscious ways to move women back into the home, women are faring somewhat better in this recession, so it might be unsurprising that there are efforts (conscious and unconscious) to get more women out of the workforce, or at least backing off from their work-comitment in favor or motherhood and child care.

Comment #9: elisabeth51  on  01/03  at  01:37 PM

[H]is column is a regurgitation of the same talking points… that the sadness and doubt felt by some of the young women indicates they should have been forced by law to have babies they didn’t want

I just watched the special and Markai said (8 minutes, 20 seconds) “If I have an abortion, I’m always going to think, ‘What if?’ If I have the baby I’m always going to think ‘What if?’ If I put the baby up for adoption I’m always going to think, ‘What if?’ So I just want to make the best ‘What if?’”

She spelled it out plain as day.

Comment #10: MissCherryPi  on  01/03  at  01:38 PM

I was immediately struck by that comment about waiting lists for adoptive parents. Really? Or is there simply a waiting list for healthy babies that look like you? I’m not judging anyone for their choices in adoptive children, but let’s not pretend the orphanages are full of cricket sounds and cobwebs just because not all of the babies are white.

Comment #11: ACG  on  01/03  at  01:39 PM

I just read that NY Times mag article. Do you think anyone, anywhere, is working on some kind of test for fertility, so people who want to have children can plan their lives in case that are at risk of infertility? 

I personally, and my circle of friends, have had such radically different experiences with fertility in our 30’s and 40’s, from a honeymoon pregnancy at 42, to easy conception in late 30’s, to wrenching fertility treatments and eventual international adoption, to modest fertility treatments and healthy pregnancy, all of these sprinkled with several miscarriages and false alarms.  I don’t think the personal circumstances of any of us would have pushed us to try to have babies in our 20s, but I suppose if some of these friends knew, definitively, at 25, that their fertile years would end at 32, they might have aimed for a different life. But it seems like it is much more likely that we will continue to scare people into thinking that motherhood is impossible after 35, even though my experience and that of several other people says that it’s very possible.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have an ultrasound that counted your eggs, a blood test that measured your hormone levels, or something like that, so you would be able to know something about your fertility BEFORE you tried to get pregnant? (Not to mention all the money and worry over contraception you would save if you knew you weren’t fertile).  Just an idea, scientists!

Comment #12: kajey  on  01/03  at  01:41 PM

Adoption is expensive, which is probably why doubthat is promoting it because he knows that only upper middle class/rich people have the kind of money it takes to adopt domestically. I know this because I went to an adoption class where we learned that adopting a baby in the United States costs more than in-vitro fertilization. (Unless the baby is not white, then the costs are lower than IVF) For white women dealing with infertility, the math makes sense to try IVF (if you have insurance that covers it) before adoption because the odds are actually more in your favor with the invasive medical procedure than with the five year long waiting list for adoption.

Comment #13: serious bette  on  01/03  at  01:54 PM

kajey, the only problem I see with that is I know at least 2 women who were told they’d never get pregnant without intervention, and both trusted their doctors enough to skip the contraception.  Each now has a child.  I wouldn’t trust a test that told me I am infertile.

Comment #14: syfr  on  01/03  at  01:55 PM

One of the issues that I have never seen addressed, in any sort of scientific study sort of way, is the incidence of depression/regret/mental illness - whatever - in women who have had abortions vs. women who have children. I had an abortion in my early 20s (failure of a Dalkon Shield, lucky I’m alive), two naturally conceived children in my 30s, with a miscarriage between them. I have suffered far more sorrow and depression around my live children (whom I love dearly), and how my life might have been without them, than I have ever suffered around my abortion. “What if ...” is something that we all can ask. The father of my aborted embryo died of testicular cancer at the age of 40 (long after we divorced). The father of my live children, my husband of many years, is still here.

So, this is the study I am looking for: women who have had abortions vs. women who have children - incidence of depression or other mental illness. I’m betting we all have sorrows.

Comment #15: ixnay  on  01/03  at  02:06 PM

kajey:

you could do such a set of tests, but it’s not clear that it would provide useful results for individuals. Variance is way high, and you only need a couple of unlikely events to have a family. In addition, at least some fertility issues are fertility with a particular partner. Last but not least: eek. There are so many other factors pushing men and women to have kids before they’re ready. Maybe if we all just froze our eggs and sperm at age 25…

Comment #16: paul  on  01/03  at  02:23 PM

Wouldn’t it be nice to have an ultrasound that counted your eggs, a blood test that measured your hormone levels, or something like that, so you would be able to know something about your fertility BEFORE you tried to get pregnant?

I’m not a doctor, but here’s my bio degree talking: you don’t hit menopause because you run out of eggs (also one’s eggs do not all reside fully-formed in one’s ovaries) so I don’t think that would necessarily be very informative, and your hormones vary (hopefully) cyclically all over the place—not to mention individual variation—so I’m not sure how you could standardize a comprehensive test for “fertility” based on hormones. I think fertility is really a lot of factors together, basically, and not many of them well understood; it would be difficult (impossible?) to predict it accurately, especially for all <strike>women</strike> female-bodied people. And there’s always the bad luck element, as with my friend’s mother, who might have been perfectly fertile ...up until her surprise emergency full hysterectomy.

Comment #17: Bagelsan  on  01/03  at  02:42 PM

Wait… If abortion is the choice for less than a quarter of all unwed mothers; would that mean that there are other factors at play as well (even if smaller) that there is less than 1% of out of wedlock children being offered for adoption?

And didn’t children often (and still do) go unadopted then?  I wonder what the rate used to be…

Comment #18: Crissa  on  01/03  at  03:13 PM

ixnay: then you mustn’t have gone looking for it.

Therapeutic abortion has generally been associated with a slight increase in depression rates.

Comment #19: protected static  on  01/03  at  04:00 PM

I have heard that a huge portion of female infertility is due to HPV. Hopefully for the women in my generation who tend to have been vaccinated, infertility will be less of a problem.

Comment #20: alysia  on  01/03  at  04:08 PM

My apologies to ixnay - I misread your post. My understanding of the literature is that, not terribly surprisingly, women who enter into their reproductive decisions feeling supported in their decision do better than women who feel unsupported or coerced. Depression rates are similar among those women who felt unsupported and/or coerced, regardless of their decision, while rates are lower among women who felt supported in their decision.

Other psychological symptoms are pretty much too rare to make meaningful comparisons - depression is the biggie.

Comment #21: protected static  on  01/03  at  04:08 PM

elisa, I found the NY Times Mag story refreshing, actually.  I think she was really good about making it just about herself and her desires—-she even goes out of her way to applaud women who decide against children.  I think she managed to subvert a lot of gender essentialism, from insisting that the women who carry her babies be compensated fairly to rebelling at the weird ways the system discourages you from thinking you’re the real mother if you don’t perform certain biological functions.

Comment #22: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/03  at  04:09 PM

I just read that NY Times mag article. Do you think anyone, anywhere, is working on some kind of test for fertility, so people who want to have children can plan their lives in case that are at risk of infertility?

Yes and no.  Two of the biggest causes of it—-untreated STDs and PCOS—-are detectable early, but aren’t screened for enough.  If you just got those out of the way, you’d find that infertility wouldn’t be such a problem.

Comment #23: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/03  at  04:11 PM

One interesting side to the “No Easy Choice” interviews is that these women are doing something very similar to what a lot of mushy anti-choice people do. These women, who have in some way rejected motherhood, must still affirm that they are not broken human beings. Much like women who declare “well, I think abortion should be legal but don’t get me wrong I would never be such a monster as to have one,” the women who talk about their abortions discuss that the pull of motherhood would have been just so strong that they couldn’t possibly be such a monster as to give up their child for adoption.

Not to say that forced adoption isn’t horrible, or that adoption isn’t fraught, but I think that there might be other reasons that women don’t want to go the adoption route that they’re covering up from with the “oh, I would just love the baby too much” reason.

Comment #24: Mighty Ponygirl  on  01/03  at  04:32 PM

There don’t seem to be many studies on the subject, protected static.

Comment #25: Crissa  on  01/03  at  04:56 PM

Crissa: Nope, there haven’t been.

Comment #26: protected static  on  01/03  at  04:58 PM

Nobody wants to ask women who had kids whether or not they regretted it and feel bad about being tid down to kids for eighteen years.

Comment #27: ginmar  on  01/03  at  05:14 PM

Wow.  This was really powerful.

My mom was adopted by my grandparents.  When she finally saw the birth certificate, the name of her birth mother had been cut out by my grandmother.  She often wonders about her birthmother, wishes to reach out and wonders why she was given up.  This coercion doesn’t just affect the women whose infants were taken from them, but it also affects the children taken.

Is it bad that after the many pieces of hate and crap I have seen him write, my brain just automatically turns “Douthat” into “Douche-hat”?

Comment #28: Katey  on  01/03  at  05:26 PM

One online poster (a father) likened having children to being pecked to death by adorable ducks. From what I have observed of parents, he is absolutely right.

Comment #29: Mighty Ponygirl  on  01/03  at  05:27 PM

Katey—interesting that you bring that up, because I know at least one woman who sought an abortion because should couldn’t guarantee that she wouldn’t be “found” by her offspring 18 years later if she gave up for adoption.

We put such an emphasis on soft-focus reunion stories that we miss the very real potential that a woman might want to remain anonymous and put the adoption behind her, and that having her child turn up again 18 years later could actually destroy her life.

Comment #30: Mighty Ponygirl  on  01/03  at  05:30 PM

I love the “the Pill makes zme forget all about my fertility” nonsense.  Because you know women are just so fucking stupid!  We need to have laws that protect them from themselves, because they forget that they aren’t having babies because they are using contraception.

I mean, if a woman’s not having babies, she’s not really a woman, is she?  Which means she’s not thinking things through.  Because she’s stupid.

You know the only woman more invisible to the forced gestation crowd than a pregnant woman?  A woman who gave up a child for adoption.  She did her duty, so now she can be forgotten.  Don’t worry about her pain or depression—it’s not like she’s human anyway.

As long as she provided a healthy white baby to a good Christian family, why else should we concern ourselves with the slut?

Douchehat is just such a hateful person.

Comment #31: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  01/03  at  05:41 PM

Ginmar, I don’t think our society is ready for that.  We are very invested in believing that women just LOVE kids and ALL want to be mothers!!!!!!!  It’s what they live for!!!

I know I often get strange looks when people ask why I only have one child and I say that I couldn’t stand motherhood.  Love my kid, but there isn’t enough money in the world to make me have or raise another child.

Comment #32: Pockysmama  on  01/03  at  05:48 PM

I’m embarrassed to share a facial hair style with that man.

Comment #33: BrianX  on  01/03  at  05:52 PM

he can’t help but write op-eds that read more like afterschool specials about the evils of fornication

Are you sure they weren’t just soap operas?

Comment #34: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  01/03  at  05:54 PM

Nobody wants to ask women who had kids whether or not they regretted it and feel bad about being tied down to kids for eighteen years.

You know, we don’t. 

However (and it is horrible that I have to preface with this, but), much as I love my kids, if I had to do it over again, I don’t know that I would.  I definitely wouldn’t have done it twice.  And many of the women I know who have kids feel the same that I do.  Not all, not even most, but many.

But there is a definite stigma about admitting that out loud.  Partly because, honestly, it would probably hurt the kids terribly if they knew that mommy wished she’d never had kids.  But also because then we’d have to admit that we’re not “perfect women and mothers.”  And that is very, very taboo in this particular culture.

Comment #35: ks  on  01/03  at  05:56 PM

I wonder why those surrogacy stories aren’t ever written by the father?

Presumably because they’d be really creepy in a “my wife’s genitals are *my* playground, yuck yuck yuck” kinda way.

Comment #36: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  01/03  at  06:01 PM

I wonder why those surrogacy stories aren’t ever written by the father?

Presumably because they’d be really creepy in a “my wife’s genitals are *my* playground, yuck yuck yuck” kinda way.

...IOW, expect to see that as a Salon feature any day now.

Comment #37: Mighty Ponygirl  on  01/03  at  06:16 PM

Ks, yep I think that’s one of our biggest taboos.  I was shocked myself when I started having friends tell me, over the years, that if they had it to do all over again, they would not have children.  I guess I was shocked because no one ever mentions that some women might feel that way.  At the same time, these women would die for their children.  Hard to hold those two thoughts in your head at once?  Nope.  It wasn’t for me once I let it sink in for a while.

I even have a friend who left her husband and her children.  She sees them, but her husband is the custodial parent. I had never known her to be happy until recently, now that the deed is done.  Talk about taboo.

Comment #38: Daisy  on  01/03  at  06:21 PM

”...he can’t even bring himself to feign concern for more than a paragraph before he lapses into straight up demanding that women be reduced to breeding machines whose mental health is of no more consequence than the mental health of your xBox.”

If only they did routine lobotomies on girls — no talk-back, no attitude, no independence, no need for education, just simple unquestioning obedience.  It’s a Win/Win for the Patriarchy! 

(I’m kind of surprised that we haven’t heard someone in America seriously suggesting something as evil as that.  After you take away women’s suffrage, women’s careers, no-fault divorce, women’s property rights, make women property again, setting back Women’s Rights a few thousand years, why not?  Maybe they could get the Coulterbeast or the Malkinator to volunteer to give it all up for the cause and be an example for All Good American Women.  I’m sure guys like DoucheHat would love it…)

Comment #39: MikeEss  on  01/03  at  06:29 PM

I even have a friend who left her husband and her children.  She sees them, but her husband is the custodial parent. I had never known her to be happy until recently, now that the deed is done.  Talk about taboo.

I know someone who did that.  Her boys live with their dad and she sees them several evenings a week and on weekends.  They’re all a lot happier that way.  But, while nobody would blink twice about a dad who left his family and was not the custodial parent (while still being actively involved in his kids’ lives and still being a good parent), she’s become something of a pariah among their mutual circle of friends and acquaintances.

Comment #40: ks  on  01/03  at  06:35 PM

I went to a Catholic high school.  The priests I knew there were all liars, many of them were pretty stupid (one of them once overheard me mention that I was an atheist; he proceeded to offer some of the most infantile arguments for the existence of a god that I had heard to that point and I think he was surprised that I not only didn’t try to argue the point with him, but laughed at him), and one of them was not very long ago defrocked for having been yet again another priest/child molester.

What I find tiresome beyond all belief is these ridiculous and endless pretenses that there is an argument against abortion other than the one that lies at the heart of all the arguments that come from religious extremists:  their god tells them that abortion is bad (or so they think).  Not enough white babies?  So freaking what?  It’s all about how some god says everyone in the world should do X, so they want a law to make everyone in the world do X.

All these anti-abortion assholes who pretend to argue from some “logical” position (hint:  logic doesn’t support them at all) are talking out of their asses.

Comment #41: DBK  on  01/03  at  06:39 PM

The thing about it, is this: women are branded as being naturally, hormonally, biologically mommy material. That’s all we want from life, all we should want from life, and all we deserve from life. Everything is colored by that. If male soldiers weep over fallen comrades it’s because they’re noble and brotherly. If women do it, it’s because it’s misplaced maternal feelings about those kids we either should have had, didn’t have, or left behind.  We don’t get credit for intellectually taking on compassionate jobs or having children or shit like that because we’re supposed to. And if we don’t have kids, we get slammed because we’re unnatural. And it ties in neatly when it comes to sex, too, because realwomen only want to have sx to have precious babies.  Women aren’t fulfilled unless they have kids, but men can do just about anything. Kids are an afterthought. Oh, wait, no, the kids are taken care of by the staff—-the wife. Women get defined that way as biological creatures, but men are defined as intellectual things, driven by their brains.

My mom admitted early on that if she had had to do over again, she wouldn’t have kids, but the pressure—she was born in 1926——-was unrelenting and ugly.  She had no choice and no options, not in any real way. 

Pockysmama, I actually think your comments might be healthier for your kid than any amount of fake sentiment and shit like that.

Comment #42: ginmar  on  01/03  at  06:44 PM

Even if, for the sake of argument, we stipulate that a fertilized ovum is a person from the moment of conception, the moral equivalent of any breathing, conscious person outside of the womb, with the exact same human rights as said breathing, conscious, post-birth person (and in real life I concede no such thing), I would still be pro-choice on the grounds that one human being doesn’t get to occupy another human being’s body for 9 months without permission.  It’s that simple.

Comment #43: MTS  on  01/03  at  06:51 PM

I wonder why those surrogacy stories aren’t ever written by the father?\

I wonder why they’re never written by the surrogates…  That’s a way more interesting story IMHO.

Comment #44: didntmeantolaugh  on  01/03  at  06:51 PM

...IOW, expect to see that as a Salon feature any day now.

Ah, Ponygirl - so cynical, so young.

I blame the interwebs.

Comment #45: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  01/03  at  06:59 PM

I wonder why they’re never written by the surrogates… That’s a way more interesting story IMHO.

I recall seeing such a piece a few years back.  My memory of where escapes me, but I might see if I can track it down again.

Comment #46: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  01/03  at  07:00 PM

So, Mr. Douhat wishes to return to the days of the orphanage, that institution that took up the slack pre-Pill and legal abortion for even those white babies and children not cute enough (or whatever) to be adopted, or for whatever reason because there was a definite gap in demand for orphaned children.

Nice. Or perhaps we should return to the 19th century, when orphanages that dealt primarily in abandoned babies were nicknamed “angel hospitals,” because a large percentage of those infants tended to die while in the tender care of too few attendants and attention.

At any given moment, there are approximately 500,000 American children in foster care, a percentage of whom are available for adoption: “Nearly One Quarter of Foster Care Children Are Waiting for Adoptive” Families

“In 1999, the latest year for which totals have been finalized, there were about 581,000 children in foster care in the United States.[1] Twenty-two percent of these children—about 127,000 kids—were available for adoption.[2] “

Has Ross Douhat done his bit in adopting at least several out of the system? No? Why not? Doesn’t he care about children? Not just the babeeez?

Have the pro-lifers done their part and given homes to over one hundred thousand children who need homes—or aren’t those kids young enough/white enuf for ‘em?

Adopting from foster care is easier, faster—and much less expensive—than private adoption, but the Russ Douhats could give a shit because: “Almost 60 Percent of Waiting Children Are Black or Hispanic.” and “60 Percent of Children in Foster Care Waiting for Adoptive Families Are 6 Years of Age or Older”

Guess who is taking up the slack, not the Russ Douhats, but “Minority and Older Children Are More Likely to be Adopted by Single Women than by Married Couples “
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview/foster.html

Comment #47: judybrowni  on  01/03  at  07:01 PM

I’m always struck by how people like douthat and priests think that going through a pregnancy is like going around with a pillow under your shirt - “just have the baby and give it up!”

This is a particularly insidious way to start children thinking about pregnancy and adoption, though. I think Amanda has mentioned that kids and young teens easily identify with “babies”, and not having any personal experience with pregnancy or birth (especially since US culture isolates those experiences so completely from the rest of life) they just don’t have any reason not to.

I know as a middle schooler and young teen I thought the same thing—that it was awfully selfish to “kill” a “baby” just to avoid a mere 9 months of being pregnant and giving the baby up for adoption.

My son is old enough now (11) that I don’t lose my shit when his grandmother tells him clueless anti-choice shit, because he comes home and tells me about it and we have a discussion. Most of the time he can see for himself what’s wrong with what she says, but she genuinely had him with this one until, of course, I explained the labor and health risks and job risks and family risks and misery and work and pain and emotional turmoil that can come with carrying a pregnancy to term, told him about forcible adoptions before Roe, and explained that adoption is for women who don’t want to or can’t parent a child, abortion is for women who don’t want to be pregnant, and they are two separate things. Then he completely understood.

The sick thing is that my MIL had hideous health problems and a completely miserable time with both her pregnancies and should totally know better than to spout that garbage, but I guess once it’s ingrained enough it just sticks. Which is why I have no intention of letting anyone ingrain it into my kids.

ks@40, when I was a kid one of my best friends’ parents divorced and the kids lived with their dad most of the time. My mom said she didn’t know what kind of mother could leave her own children—not parent mind you but mother. Lard forbid a woman make difficult decisions to give herself a happy and fulfilled life. That’s for the menfolk.

Comment #48: kristin  on  01/03  at  07:02 PM

If only they did routine lobotomies on girls — no talk-back, no attitude, no independence, no need for education, just simple unquestioning obedience.  It’s a Win/Win for the Patriarchy!

Well, it does explain all the wingnut love for Terri Schiavo: No higher brain functions, no will of her own—but a functioning reproductive system!  Jackpot!

IIRC, her parents did make noises about using her to produce some grandchildren, which was epically creepy.

Comment #49: Sour Kraut  on  01/03  at  07:07 PM

I do NOT feel bad for people experience non-fertility.  Not when there are literally MILLIONS of children needing care in the world.

Get a fucking grip people: you have to have your own goddamn DNA out and running around?  Fuck off, go help some poor kid that already exists.  Jeeze.

Comment #50: Eric_RoM  on  01/03  at  07:12 PM

Rather than make it a priority to test early for low fertility, how about education and counseling to help prepare teenagers for the possibility that they may be unable to have children, and that they can have wonderful lives without being parents.

After I became a parent, I developed a much greater appreciation for the non-parents around me: the teachers, soldiers and managers who find other uses for their energy and creativity.  An author of children’s books once told me she would rather be the Louisa May Alcott for some child in the next generation, rather than his/her mother: “Louisa always understood me better than Mom did”.

Comment #51: Dr. Psycho  on  01/03  at  07:15 PM

There’s lot of roles other people can fill in a kid’s life, but the anti-choicers don’t want that to get discussed because it tends to dillute the absolute male control of women and kids that they lust over.  You can be the neighbor, the aunt, the Big Sister, and so on.  If people who could parent were given support and training, and people who couldn’t weren’t bugged and found their own niche, what would happen then?

Comment #52: ginmar  on  01/03  at  07:55 PM

Eric_RoM@50

It’s a bit more complicated than just wanting your own DNA. I am not able to have children biologically due to illness and an early radical hysterectomy and I can tell you that the feelings I have around being infertile are much more complex than just a selfish need to have a little me running around.

In addition, the money involved in having children that are legally mine (adoption) are expensive and subject my life to a scrutiny that I may not “pass”.

Helping children in need is a great thing to do and should not be limited to those that can’t have kid of their own.

Also, fuck off? Tone it down a bit.

Comment #53: HooksInMyHead  on  01/03  at  08:04 PM

Pockysmama, I actually think your comments might be healthier for your kid than any amount of fake sentiment and shit like that.

My parents have been pretty honest that, while they liked me okay as a kid and everything… I’m a lot more fun to have around the house now that I’m adult, financially independent, and infrequent. :p Which frankness I quite appreciate, actually; I’m not so self-centered as to think I was a particular joy as a child (and the less said about my teens the better) so now I feel confident that when they tell me “you’ve improved a lot” it’s true. *backpats self for being a tolerable grownup human*

I don’t have any kids myself or any immediate plans for them, but I know that personally I like best the people I can reason with, which doesn’t include many small children on a reliable basis (or most adults…) so I’d probably also tolerate a kid or two but would hate to be submerged in a giant gaggle of them for any sustained period of time. I’d lose my damn mind if I had to orbit a baby 24/7.

Comment #54: Bagelsan  on  01/03  at  08:07 PM

Sorry for the numerous typos, I was a bit pissed off.

Comment #55: HooksInMyHead  on  01/03  at  08:10 PM

@53:  {eyeroll}  Riiiiiiiiiiight, ‘cuz the tone here on Pandagon is so delicate and refined.

Comment #56: Eric_RoM  on  01/03  at  08:11 PM

The notion that there’s a surplus of adoptable children is somewhat of a myth.  Yes, there are a lot of abandoned children out there, but I think it’s fallacious to say they’re adoptable by most people. If you get a baby when she’s just an infant from an orphanage, your chances of being able to have a normal life are pretty good.  But I don’t think someone is obligated to take on child that suffers from attachment disorder simply because she’s cursed with infertility.

Comment #57: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/03  at  08:25 PM

Barf-o-rama Pandagonians - did you see TPM’s post about Rep Steve King out of Iowa? He talks to young kids about abortion. Can you just imagine the framing of that conversation? 

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hd6UkU4zuz

Comment #58: ondrayah  on  01/03  at  08:59 PM

Megan McArdle who usually writes about economic matters has posted on this. www.theatlantic.com/megan-mcardle

Comment #59: TonyWu  on  01/03  at  09:01 PM

@56

Right, because that was totally my fuckin’ point.

Your attitude was hostile and dismissive, I don’t like being told to get over it and fuck off by someone who has no idea of what my situation is or feelings are.

Yes, I am personalizing it because it was an aggressive criticism of a situation I am living through.

That being said, I actually agree with a large part of your opinion. I just really FUCKING HATE the way you said it.

There is a lot of privilege at play and a lot of money spent that could be better allocated. However, that is not the situation for all women who are infertile and looking into ways of having children.

Comment #60: HooksInMyHead  on  01/03  at  09:05 PM

Eric_RoM

How about you fuck off, you misogynist creep.

If you don’t see how your statement that infertile women should “just adopt” is buying into the same bullshit that the anti-choicers spew then you really need to inform yourself, dig a little deeper, and get a fucking clue.

Amanda is absolutely correct about the myth in our culture that there is a large surplus of children awaiting adoption these days.  A large percentage of children in foster care these days are simply unavailable for adoption for a multitude of reasons, adoption from foreign countries is both extremely expensive and fraught with cultural and other hurdles, and private domestic adoption is extremely expensive. 

The freedom to decide what to do with my reproductive system is supposed to extend equally towards how I choose to reproduce as it is also supposed extend to my choice not to reproduce.  I will say that Ross Douthat is once again full of it on this issue as he is on everything else.  All 3 of my kids were conceived via IVF (I know, how selfish of me Eric) and yet those experiences in no way impacted my pro-choice stance.  It really is outrageous to posit that being on the pill somehow lulls women into forgetting that their fertility isn’t something will remain constant indefinitely.  The female condition is such that one really isn’t given the option of forgetting that our bodies are capable of reproducing, but since Ross is so patently incapable of understanding the female condition I don’t find it so surprising that he came up with such a canard.

Comment #61: Lolagirl  on  01/03  at  09:08 PM

@Amanda at #57 - Having a biological child of your own is no guarantee of the child’s health, mental or otherwise, nor is adopting an infant.  I think that’s something that bears mention, that a lot of people gloss over, particularly in discussions of adoption. 

Separate Issue:  I know I don’t get the whole “have to have babies thing” because I have the maternal instinct of a rock, but I just really, really don’t get the drive to have your own, even if (as in the case of a friend) pregnancy has an exceptionally high likelihood of KILLING HER.  And I’m not talking your run of the mill chances of misadventure, I’m talking would have to go off medications necessary to her survival for months before pregnancy in order not to run the near certainty of birth defects, and then the pregnancy itself. 

I really just don’t get it, to the point that I DO have a hard time empathizing.  Maybe the flaw is in me, and I try to be kind, but it just doesn’t make any damned sense.

Comment #62: GeekGirlsRule  on  01/03  at  09:18 PM

I think people can have strong opinions about adoption vs. IVF without being misogynists. It’s not exactly a clear-cut ethical issue.

Comment #63: Bagelsan  on  01/03  at  09:23 PM

I really just don’t get it, to the point that I DO have a hard time empathizing.

Well, to be a little cold about it, having kids (especially as an American, who use a shit ton of resources per person) is already inherently pretty selfish. No matter how you produce them. FSM knows we don’t need more people. So I sympathize a bit with the people who choose to be parents, because sometimes I also really really want selfish things and goodness knows I selfishly like existing, but yeah…no way around it, more babies is a bit “coals to Newcastle.” :p

Comment #64: Bagelsan  on  01/03  at  09:30 PM

I understand that there are people who want kids, I totally get that.  For them. 

I don’t understand spending shit-tons of money on it, and doing awful, awful things to your body (anyone who thinks IVF is a walk in the park has never watched anyone go through it, let alone done it), particularly if it is contraindicated for your continued survival. 

Then again, there are a lot of things I don’t understand spending shit tons of money on.  I bring up purebred dogs/cats -vs- pound critters at the risk of being accused of false equivalency. 

Although, a purebred dog is no guarantee of a smart animal, either.  We had a lab with impeccable bloodlines who was the sweetest and dumbest damn animal on the planet.  Loved her to pieces, but man was she a dumb dog.

Comment #65: GeekGirlsRule  on  01/03  at  09:52 PM

We had a lab with impeccable bloodlines who was the sweetest and dumbest damn animal on the planet.  Loved her to pieces, but man was she a dumb dog.

Yeah, duh, she was a lab. *proud former owner of a Border Collie mutt* ;p

Comment #66: Bagelsan  on  01/03  at  10:32 PM

“I think people can have strong opinions about adoption vs. IVF without being misogynists. It’s not exactly a clear-cut ethical issue.”

I’m trying to come up with a scenario where it isn’t sexist for a man to dictate to me the terms under which it’s acceptable for me to reproduce, and I’m coming up empty.  It’s nobody’s damn business what I choose to do with my body.  Full stop. 

I’ve been through 5 rounds of IVF (I know, drag me out to the public square for my flogging, can you believe the hubris?) and I would do it all again in a heartbeat.  I’m a strident, pro-choice feminist, but I also wanted to mother via conceiving and bearing my own children.  Carrying and bearing a child is a deeply and intensely personal and emotional process.  That’s why it’s so very wrong to force women to undergo that experience if they don’t want to.  But there’s still nothing wrong with wanting to experience it if that is a woman’s choice to do so.  I personally found it to be one of the most empowering experiences in my life, but I also feel the same way about passing the bar exam and lobbying my state (Illinois) legislature to pass recent legislation in favor of civil unions for same sex couples. 

I can’t believe I would have to explain this to left-leaning types.  Being in favor of insuring a woman’s right to choose abortion for herself doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive from choosing to reproduce oneself.  As far as the supposed ethical issues surrounding IVF, I once again insist that you keep your nose out of my personal business and your hands off my ovaries and uterus.

Comment #67: Lolagirl  on  01/03  at  10:42 PM

Hey, now, Bagelsan, I have also known some very smart Labs.  Our poor cheerleader of the animal kingdom’s sire was one.  Alas, it did not breed true. 

However, most of our smart dogs HAVE been mutts.  Newfoundland/shepherd/lab mix, sharpei/australian shepherd mix, sharpei/lab mix…

Comment #68: GeekGirlsRule  on  01/03  at  11:47 PM

Honestly, Lolagirl, you cannot deny that there are ethical issues with a lot surrounding IVF.  How hard it is on the mother’s body (both harvesting eggs and making sure the uterus is as receptive as possible), the disposal of unused, unwanted embryos, do you reduce in the case of multiple embryos when you only wanted one, and the cost, and I’m sure there are many others I’m missing. 

To pretend the whole thing isn’t ethically loaded, regardless of how badly you wanted it, is kind of disingenuous.  I’m not judging your choice, your body, your money, your choice…  But you can’t pretend it doesn’t come with a lot of baggage. 

*dons asbestos underwear*

Comment #69: GeekGirlsRule  on  01/03  at  11:51 PM

That he glibly offers to deprive unmarried women of their human rights in order to sop up the pain of infertility of women he deems more worthy because they did a better job at taming their sexuality with the approved channels of marriage is misogyny, pure and simple.

It occurs to me that a married, infertile woman that Douthat wants to reward for “doing a better job at taming her sexuality” could have been a wild, wanton woman before marriage, but did not get “punished” with an unwanted pregnancy because she was, you know, infertile all along.

Comment #70: MadLibrarian  on  01/04  at  12:12 AM

Having a biological child of your own is no guarantee of the child’s health, mental or otherwise, nor is adopting an infant.

Yeah, but that’s a red herring.  The possibility of a child you bear being relatively healthy is statistically much higher than a 3-year-old you adopt from an orphanage being healthy.  That’s like saying, “Because it’s always possible that someone can cheat on you and bring home a disease, going condom-free in a relationship is exactly the same thing as sleeping with strangers condom-free.”  Risks are relative.

Comment #71: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/04  at  12:31 AM

I understand that there are people who want kids, I totally get that.  For them.

I don’t understand spending shit-tons of money on it, and doing awful, awful things to your body (anyone who thinks IVF is a walk in the park has never watched anyone go through it, let alone done it), particularly if it is contraindicated for your continued survival. 

Well, if you apply pure logic in this form to all human endeavors, relationships in general don’t make sense.  Let’s experiment:

I know that people have the desire for sexual release, I totally get that.

What I don’t understand is leaving your house, spending time and money meeting people to have sex with, when there’s such a high to certain risk of heartbreak, a risk of disease and pregnancy, and certainly a lot of money and time spent.  Not when you could stay home and masturbate without all that fuss.

See what I mean?  I don’t want kids, either, but I grasp that humans are social animals, even if the particulars of it don’t seem to make logical sense in certain lights.  In fact, desire itself never makes sense.  Why hang art on your walls or wear nice things, when all it gives you is a feeling of fulfillment?

Comment #72: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/04  at  12:39 AM

the disposal of unused, unwanted embryos,

Why is this an ethical issue?

Comment #73: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/04  at  12:43 AM

In fact, I fail to see what the ethical problems are with IVF per se.  The problem would only arise if a woman was doing it to fulfill a patriarchal obligation, but in and of itself, I see no issue with it.  And even if it was done to fulfill an obligation, I fail to see why beating the woman who is surviving the best she can up fixes the problem.  Focus your energies on renouncing compulsory motherhood.

Comment #74: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/04  at  12:46 AM

“Honestly, Lolagirl, you cannot deny that there are ethical issues with a lot surrounding IVF.  How hard it is on the mother’s body (both harvesting eggs and making sure the uterus is as receptive as possible), the disposal of unused, unwanted embryos, do you reduce in the case of multiple embryos when you only wanted one, and the cost, and I’m sure there are many others I’m missing. 

To pretend the whole thing isn’t ethically loaded, regardless of how badly you wanted it, is kind of disingenuous.  I’m not judging your choice, your body, your money, your choice… But you can’t pretend it doesn’t come with a lot of baggage.”

Honestly, I can’t understand why you would care how hard it might have been on my body or what I do with my extra embryos.  If you’re anti-choice, then I can see why you would get all het up about these things, but really, they’re just four to eight cell embryos, not miniature babies, and wanting them to eventually become a healthy baby doesn’t magically make them so.

I frankly think it’s disingenuous to say to a woman, oh really, I support your right to choose, while still trying to dictate how she negotiates these decisions (with or without the counsel of a partner and her physician) for herself.  Really, it does sound like your judging, using terms like “harvesting” eggs (the proper medical terminology is actually retrieval of eggs) makes it sounds all science fiction-like when it’s really not.  Yes, it can be hard on a woman’s body to undergo IVF, but so can pregnancy and childbirth.  If can you accept abortion as an ethically acceptable and straight forward decision (which I do, absolutely and without wagging my finger in judgment) then I really can’t see why you would declare IVF to be an ethically loaded issue. 

And make no mistake, the anti-choicers are desperately trying to make inroads into regulating IVF and the handling of embryos as part of their larger mission to outlaw abortion and take a woman’s right to make decisions regarding our reproduction away from us.  The anti-choice movement wants us as a society to get all sentimental and weepy over the fate of the poor, defenseless embryos and to assume that women like me who undergo IVF are somehow being victimized and lied to by the medical community.  But here’s the thing, spreading this sort of propaganda doesn’t make it so (remember, rule number one in the right wing douchebag playbook is if you repeat your lies enough and shout them from the rooftops eventually everyone will accept them as gospel.)

Comment #75: Lolagirl  on  01/04  at  12:51 AM

My cousin was a surrogate mother for her friend. Worked out very well, though they were all surprised by the legal papers she had to sign immediately after the birth. She was already friends with the mother, so she still has contact with the child she bore. She also has three of her own children, the surrogate pregnancy was the fourth. She figured she was good at it, so she’d help out her friend.

My wife’s mother is also one of the mothers who left. My wife has an older sister, and the older sister had basically moved out by the time their mother left, but my wife was only 14 or so at the time. Both parents have since remarried, and things were not always stellar with her dad when she was still living at home, due in large part to his very definite ideas on gender roles… he expected my wife and her sister (when said sister was home) to do the cooking and the bulk of the cleaning. My wife did not live up to his expectations.

Still, these days, good relationships all around. Her stepdad cares more about my wife than he does about his biological kids, it seems.

Comment #76: Matthew, Patron Saint of Affogato  on  01/04  at  12:53 AM

That heartbeat poem made me sad. So I wrote my own poem, entitled “Dead on a Kleenex.” It’s about my sperm.

My boys can swim
They’re full of vim
Don’t let them die
It makes me cry
Oh why, oh why, oh why?

Comment #77: manboobz  on  01/04  at  01:21 AM

Manboobz: I can’t tell if your poem makes me laugh or makes me a little sick. However, your’s is one of my new favorite blogs.

Comment #78: alysia  on  01/04  at  01:31 AM

Mighty Ponygirl:  I always get ‘Doubt that’ out of his name.

Comment #79: Crissa  on  01/04  at  01:44 AM

The big ethical issue of IVF, in my opinion, isn’t the discarding of embryos.  Three others off the top of my head.  First, we have little idea whether it imposes long-range health consequences on women.  It was unfurled as the Great Solution without any longitudinal study; it could be dangerous.  Second, it’s allotted pretty much on an ability-to-pay-cash basis.  Third, women who don’t fit the het-married profile are disproportionately denied it.

Comment #80: Unree  on  01/04  at  02:07 AM

Disposing of any human or animal tissue has ethical issues in proper disposal, possibility of theft and misuse, etc.

Human embryos or any reproductive tissue just happens to ramp up the theft and misuse portions.

I don’t buy into the ‘it is a human life crap’, though.

Comment #81: Crissa  on  01/04  at  02:19 AM

Well, I guess the only thing to do is have a sperm, fetus, and placenta barbecue. Talk about recycling!

Comment #82: ginmar  on  01/04  at  02:24 AM

Cosign Unree @ 80. Other possible ethical concerns with IVF include:

~ increased ease of sex-selection, selection for other traits, etc. (preimplantation genetic diagnosis) which is not federally regulated in the US

~higher chance of multiples leading to increased medical risks for the resulting children (premature birth, low birth weight, birth defects, long-term disability) and mother; these risks are not well understood

~ possible increased risk of the aforementioned due to infertility or mother’s age; its possible that we’re helping unhealthy gametes produce children when these gametes really ought to be selected against

~ low success rates, which can lead to financial incentives to implant high numbers of embryos (especially for poorer women)

~ no federal regulatory oversight (in the US) of IVF, only voluntary “best practice” guidelines

~ very high prices for donor eggs (tens of thousands of dollars), often with poor informed consent for donors

~ even questions like, if a couple splits up, or the patient dies, who gets the embryos? who decides what happens to them?

Comment #83: Bagelsan  on  01/04  at  02:26 AM

Hopefully, Lolagirl, you knew all this ahead of time? A lot of it should be discussed for really good informed consent, imho.

Comment #84: Bagelsan  on  01/04  at  02:29 AM

@27

Nobody wants to ask women who had kids whether or not they regretted it and feel bad about being tied down to kids for eighteen years.

Heh, we don’t want to make that mistake again, do we?

Comment #85: rain  on  01/04  at  02:30 AM

Manboobz, you’ve inspired me! Female version:

My eggs don’t swim on command
so God doesn’t think it’s a sin
the things girls do with our hands
unlike those baby-killin’ men.

Fem masturbation is a myth
so I can do what I please;
what never happens can’t offend
those prudish birds and bees.

Comment #86: Bagelsan  on  01/04  at  02:42 AM

ivf has been around a long time, long enough for long-term effects to show up if there were any.  I was surprised to find out that three of my 22-year-old’s contemporaries were ivf babies.

Comment #87: gretchen  on  01/04  at  03:08 AM

@27 and 85: 

OK, this is going to date me horribly, but I remember quite distinctly when I was a teenager reading a book by none other than Ann Landers in which she DID ask her readership the question: 
“Would you have kids if you could do it all over again?”  And I think the response shocked even HER.  If I remember right, it was something like over 50% of her readers said No, they wouldn’t.  I want to say it was like 60%. 

I do miss that old gal.  Dear Abby was just never in the same “Wake up and Smell the Coffee” league of Straight Talk as Ann Landers.

Comment #88: Gone2Ground  on  01/04  at  03:29 AM

gretchen, IVF has been around since 1980-ish in the US. Which is a long time to me but not to an entire population. (A lot of those kids would just be starting to try and have their own kids around… now, right?) Also, a lot of the techniques currently used were developed much more recently.

Comment #89: Bagelsan  on  01/04  at  03:52 AM

In fact, I fail to see what the ethical problems are with IVF per se.  The problem would only arise if a woman was doing it to fulfill a patriarchal obligation,

Wait, what - there’s a jus primae turkibasta now? A droit de syrette?

Comment #90: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  01/04  at  06:09 AM

I’d like to see a repeat of the Ann Landers column. That question was asked of parents before legalized abortion could affect the results. Now that’s it’s less compulsory, I imagine a higher percentage of folks don’t regret having children.

Comment #91: kaje  on  01/04  at  08:31 AM

call me cynical but I think that the numbers are still pretty high. First of all, pregnancy is still pretty compulsory—between a who generation now having had abstinence-only education and not knowing how to properly use BC (over half of all pregnancies in the US were unintended) and abortions being unavailable in many parts of the country and women who still feel pressured to do what is expected of them, not to mention the over-the-top politicized judgement-factory that’s set up against women and their reproductive choices, I think a lot of women are either having kids unintentionally, or if they wanted them, they are realizing the hard way that it’s not all soft-focus morning snuggles with newborn in one hand and the coffee/newspaper in the other and that the absolutely wretched bits tend to outnumber the wonderful heartwarming bits.

The problem is that there aren’t a lot of excuses available to us like there were: We’re caught up in the cult of free will, where each decision is somehow rational and independent and so if we’re unhappy with our decision, then it’s because we were too stupid to know what we wanted, and no one wants to admit to that. So women use code phrases like “don’t get me wrong, I love my kids to death but…” to indicate that ultimately, parenthood was the right decision, even though they’re miserable and will now hold forth on just how miserable they are.

Comment #92: Mighty Ponygirl  on  01/04  at  10:59 AM

who generation is supposed to be whole generation.

Comment #93: Mighty Ponygirl  on  01/04  at  11:01 AM

Funny how a fair number of those “white babies” were either given up by or stolen from light-skinned African American or Native American mothers, often on the black market.

My family’s fear of government people and nurses showing up and taking kids fell into place when I read about how Navajo kids were just taken away and never seen again, only to be adopted out to white families.  Ditto for the part of my mother’s family that feared this sort of child stealing the most - mostly white multiracial people best described as “high yeller”.

I suspect that my half-Mexican boyfriend’s mother’s pathological fear of even taking her kids to the hospital in an emergency was also borne of this practice of just taking the kids away.

Comment #94: Ms Kate  on  01/04  at  11:25 AM

Having my unplanned child is what’s finally made me take charge of my finances so I can get the F out of my uninteresting marriage and tepid sex life before my 40th birthday. I might not have given up on this shitshow for another 15 years without the baby exposing my husband’s true colors so I guess I regret nothing

Comment #95: Yawgmoth  on  01/04  at  11:28 AM

First, we have little idea whether it imposes long-range health consequences on women.

How long do you think these technologies have been around?  The first IVF child has been a mom for several years now, and IVF has been common for well over a decade and a half - long enough, with enough numbers, to study it.  Not that studies have necessarily been conducted - but patterns would be emerging by now one would think.  It would also be difficult to parse out an expected rate, since the primary infertility in itself might be a risk factor for many negative long-term outcomes, and pregnancy itself is protective for others.

Comment #96: Ms Kate  on  01/04  at  11:31 AM

Yawgmoth, that’s what choice is all about!

Comment #97: Ms Kate  on  01/04  at  11:32 AM

That he glibly offers to deprive unmarried women of their human rights in order to sop up the pain of infertility of women he deems more worthy because they did a better job at taming their sexuality with the approved channels of marriage is misogyny, pure and simple.

To hear my many great-aunts and uncles talk, there seemed to be a correlation between women who were more freely sexual and women who were infertile.  Whether that was because they contracted STDs that caused problems, or because they realized that they were infertile and, like elders now do, partied down with it I don’t know.  Possibly a bit of both.

Comment #98: Ms Kate  on  01/04  at  11:41 AM

~higher chance of multiples leading to increased medical risks for the resulting children (premature birth, low birth weight, birth defects, long-term disability) and mother; these risks are not well understood

Bagelsan, this is yet another bit of misinformation out there regarding IVF.  In fact, IVF has a much lower likelihood of multiple births because it can control precisely embryos are transferred into the uterus.  Those of us who end up with multiples do so because we knowingly have more than one embryo transferred, in my case after a few failed attempts we opted to put back the 3 embryos I had that made it to blastocyst stage.  But here’s the thing, we knew the chances for low order multiples would be increased and we were open to having twins if that occurred (which it did.) 

The vast, vast majority of higher order multiples out there that we read about and see on the news are the result of something called IUI.  IUI involved stimulating the woman’s ovaries and then transferring male sperm directly into the fallopian tubes in the hopes that a pregnancy will result.  There is very little ability to control for multiple conceptions when this happens, and most Reproductive Endocrinologists will cancel an IUI cycle if they see more than say 4 follicles ready for ovulation.

As far as informed consent is concerned, my experience was that my RE (who is one of the most well regarded in the midwest and who I apparently have in common with Giuilaina Rancic) went out of his way to make sure that I knew all of the pitfalls and potential outcomes before we moved forward with a treatment plan.  Which relates back to my earlier point about how so many people, especially anti-choicers, want to portray woman who seek infertility treatments as poor, helpless victims of the “IVF Industry.”  In my experience, this is really just a load of bunk that insults the intelligence of women who are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and making the appropriate medical decisions for themselves.  Sure, the drive to have a child can make us more likely to consider avenues we might have never entertained prior to finding ourselves infertile.  But do you not see how insulting it is to assume that we then must all loose our common sense and good judgment the moment we walk through those clinic doors?  As far as I’m concerned, it all just plays back into that classic narrative that we women will instantly become irrational and crazy when presented with a stressful situation.  You know, which is why we shouldn’t be able to decide what to do with our bodies, or entrusted with the power to vote or own property or any other sort of fundamental right.

Comment #99: Lolagirl  on  01/04  at  11:57 AM

Lolagirl, spot on.  I’m not a big fan of IVF and I question the use of insurance money to pay for it, but overstating the risks or pronouncing something that has been common for two decades as having “unproven risks to health” is hogwash.

IVF results in twins more often than “natural” (1 in 90 or so), but it only results in litters when a young fertile woman is given eight embryos! That results in a doctor losing his license. 

High order multiples are usually the result of Clomid or other egg stimulating medication, plus a lack of an ultrasound to count folicles/eggs coming off as a result. This is how the Macaughey Septuplets arose, and I believe that such lack of follow-up monitoring is now considered to be malpractice due to the clear risk of high order multiples.

Comment #100: Ms Kate  on  01/04  at  12:08 PM

Getting back to Douthat’s column, I think it really speaks volumes about his own misogyny that he sees women as little more than vessels to produce babies for middle and upper class people who for whatever reason haven’t themselves reproduced.  Adoption can be a wonderful thing, but only when the birth mother is seen as more than a baby making machine for the intended parents of her offspring.  Adoption is an emotionally fraught and complex process (setting aside all of the legal shenanigans involved) where the intended parents must understand and respect the birth parents and the role they will always have in that child’s life.  Douthat still holds a rather imperialistic and paternalistic view of adoption as was once so very common up until quite recently, where babies need to be plucked out of the jowels of poverty and saved from single parenting so that they may be raised by upright, god fearing folk.

Comment #101: Lolagirl  on  01/04  at  12:39 PM

Get a fucking grip people: you have to have your own goddamn DNA out and running around?  Fuck off, go help some poor kid that already exists.  Jeeze.

OK, I just have to add that no child should ever be adopted out of pity or as a favor to the child.  It’s not like adopting a puppy from the animal shelter.  It’s never a good idea to go at with the attitude of rescuing some poor helpless kid.  That attitude will come through and the kid will always feel indebted to their parents.

Comment #102: bananacat  on  01/04  at  01:02 PM

I don’t want to be a misogynist, but I’m Catholic.

You’re joking, right?  This is like saying “I don’t want to eat little wafers, but I’m Catholic” or “I don’t want to go to Confession, but I’m Catholic”.  A non-misogynist Catholic makes as much sense as an invisible pink unicorn.

Comment #103: bananacat  on  01/04  at  01:05 PM

Catholic teaching specifically states that pregnant women should die rather than have life-saving abortions so yeah being a “good” Catholic requires misogyny.

Comment #104: Yawgmoth  on  01/04  at  01:29 PM

Tyler, it’s “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” not “Greater love hath no man than this, that men in power deny a lifesaving medical procedure to a woman and decide for her that she’ll die painfully.”

There’s this tiny little thing called “having a choice” that’s kind of, oh I don’t know, THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT HERE.

Comment #105: kristin  on  01/04  at  01:50 PM

Not to mention letting the woman die kills the fetus so with an abortion we would have 1 dead person but with no abortion we end up with 2 dead people. 2>1 so anyone who was actually “prolife” would support a woman having a lifesaving abortion. But as far as the Church is concerned women who’ve had sex - even with a husband - are filthy whores who deserve to die.

Comment #106: Yawgmoth  on  01/04  at  02:18 PM

I’m working from the assumption that Tyler is really just trolling here, but for the sake of discussion I will say that he’s still missing the point entirely (aside from Kristin’s astute observation.)  That quote from John assumes that the person in question is giving up his own life to save another’s.  When it comes to the sort of medical conditions that necessitate emergent and life saving abortion the embryo or fetus is going to cease to exist anyway if the life of his host mother is not saved.  Therefore this sort of scenario is more like taking down the entire ship in the name of honor instead of fighting to the end in order to save the life of one’s comrades in arms. 

Then again I’m a recovering Catholic, so this sort of guilt-based faux logic has little effect in swaying my opinion.

Comment #107: Lolagirl  on  01/04  at  02:23 PM

Also pointing out that up until recently, the church’s position on abortion to save the life of the mother was centered around the primacy of the family unit, of which the mother was a head. So having the mother die would not only deprive the world of future blessed offspring from her and her husband, but it would also cause her to abandon any existing children who rely on her.

Strangely, in the last ten years or so, the Church completely reversed its position on that, perhaps deciding that you can’t go wrong with full-on misogyny. Die, mommies, die!

Comment #108: Mighty Ponygirl  on  01/04  at  02:28 PM

having her child turn up again 18 years later could actually destroy her life.

The employee newsletter where I worked several years ago chronicled such a case. With the utmost sympathy for the adoptee, the newsletter described how she had hired a detective agency to track her birth mother down. Her letters to the woman went unanswered, her phone calls hung up on. Undaunted,  she traveled to her birth mother’s home town and knocked on her door—only to have it slammed in her face. I forget now if she actually went around to the neighbors to find out more about her birth mother, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

After reading this I thought, “Who wouldn’t choose abortion after reading this?”

Comment #109: Hector B.  on  01/04  at  02:46 PM

Mighty Ponygirl, do you have a citation for the earlier point-of-view?  I myself, a recovering Catholic, have been noticing that the ideas are trending to a dogmatism that used not to exist.  I remember reading that St. Thomas Aquinas said a fetus wasn’t “ensouled”  (and therefore, a person) until quickening, but now it’s a person the second the egg is fertilized.  Where did that belief come from?  It’s not in the bible, or in Aquinas, where did it come from and how did it get enshrined?

Comment #110: gretchen  on  01/04  at  02:47 PM

Perhaps paradoxically, shouldn’t people like Amanda have a lot of babies? If only the Ross Dullthoughts have kids, that will propagate misogyny. Recall the Mormon strategy to inherit the earth by having lots of kids and preparing for disasters.

Comment #111: Hector B.  on  01/04  at  02:52 PM

Perhaps paradoxically, shouldn’t people like Amanda have a lot of babies? If only the Ross Dullthoughts have kids, that will propagate misogyny.

Ahem.  Misogyny is not a heritable trait.  It’s a learned behavior and education and reducing poverty are the best ways to combat it.

Comment #112: bananacat  on  01/04  at  03:05 PM

Thank you for this article, Amanda. When I read Douthat’s article I was overwhelmed and unable to articulate all the misogyny in his article. But when you said “human rights violation” that hits the nail right on the head.

Amanda, why doesn’t the pro-choice movement go after the anti-choicers with the language you use? Its time for people to be screaming “misogynist” and “women-haters” every time this shit is shoveled out.

Also (and I really hope you respond to this) where’s the College of Ob/Gyn? They, out of anyone, know the huge medical impact of the anti-choice movement. The AMA always seems to be front and center when government goes after medicare. Yet, COB never seems to be around.  Am I wrong?

Comment #113: jackie  on  01/04  at  03:16 PM

Misogyny is not a heritable trait.  It’s a learned behavior and education and reducing poverty are the best ways to combat it.

Fine, but who’s going to persuade Ross’s future brood not to listen to their dad? I’m sure he’ll be doing his best to transmit his values to his offspring.

Consider that the well-educated, well-off William F. Buckley had ten children. How many rebelled against their dad’s conservatism?

Comment #114: Hector B.  on  01/04  at  03:44 PM

Sure, the drive to have a child can make us more likely to consider avenues we might have never entertained prior to finding ourselves infertile.

The drive to have a kid can make anyone entertain ideas ranging anywhere from “new and awesome” to “mind-numbingly horrifying,” not just women. Women aren’t uniquely baby-crazy. (We’re sure not the ones who decided to deem half the world walking incubators because we. Fucking. Love<strike>fearenvydesireomgittouchedavagina</strike>. Babies. :p)

But more to my point, there are pressures unique to IVF—there are financial and emotional pressures to opt for multiples being implanted, which is “optional” (yay) but not without detrimental health consequences (boo.) It’s the rational choice, in fact, in many cases, but it still results in a higher incidence of problems with the pregnancies and resultant kids. You might decide that it’s worth the increased expense and risk, that’s fine with me* (and obviously you did decide that), but you can’t just handwave these basic facts and claim there aren’t non-misogynistic ethical issues.

But do you not see how insulting it is to assume that we then must all loose our common sense and good judgment the moment we walk through those clinic doors?

I certainly think nothing of the sort. (For one thing, it would make all the female doctors/nurse/etc. in there pretty ineffective…) What I do think is that most <strike>women</strike> people walk through those doors without a medical degree or really much of a biology/health background—and unlike you, they could walk into a pretty shitty clinic because the field is still not well or consistently regulated. It’s that kind of thing that concerns me, basically. With great technology comes great new fuck-ups, to mangle a phrase.

*full disclosure, I love me some biology/medical tech. I don’t have a huge problem with any of the science or medicine aspects, really, just I think that IVF truly introduces some new ethical questions to medicine. Which I like thinking about (I’d like it more if those unwanted clumps of cells were up for grab to scientists, of course… smile) and which I genuinely feel some responsibility to think about/debate, as a uterus-having scientist-in-training.

Comment #115: Bagelsan  on  01/04  at  03:52 PM

How does wanting to protect the unborn translate into hatred of women?

Does it pass the sincerity test? That is, does the person professing that desire want to protect the born as well? If not, why not? How much does this person contribute to providing food, shelter, and medical care to pregnant women?

Comment #116: Hector B.  on  01/04  at  03:53 PM

How does wanting to protect the unborn translate into hatred of women?

Gee, good question. Too bad that darn Amanda has been so silent on the subject. If only she’d ever written about the topic before…

Comment #117: Bagelsan  on  01/04  at  03:56 PM

gretchen—no citation, just remembering previous discussions I’ve had, but I don’t suppose it would be hard to find. IIRC, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the primacy of the family thing and the switch to “bitches deserve to die and leave their kids motherless because Eve was a dirty slut” is a very recent thing, and probably driven by the Catholic Church’s alignment with the protestant evangelicals.

Comment #118: Mighty Ponygirl  on  01/04  at  03:57 PM

Hey Tyler, how does refusing a life-saving abortion “protect the unborn”? The mother dying kills the baby. Again 2>1. Two dead people is more dead people than one dead person. Trust me, I majored in math.

Comment #119: Yawgmoth  on  01/04  at  04:10 PM

Yes, of course the Catholic church wants to protect the born as well.

In the words of a rather bitter talk show caller I heard, regarding the Bishop of Phoenix’s removal of the word “Catholic” from the hospital that performed the lifesaving surgery: “The Church needs a constant supply of children to be molested, that’s why it opposes abortion.”

Comment #120: Hector B.  on  01/04  at  04:23 PM

Tyler:  so why did the bishop of Phoenix say that they should have let that woman die rather than perform a life-saving abortion?  This isn’t theological theory, this is a real situation with real consequences to real people.  When presented with the case of a mother of four, 12 weeks pregnant, who would die if her pregnancy weren’t terminated, said that the abortion was wrong.  If he had been consulted, he would have let woman and fetus die, leaving a widower and four motherless children.  How was that protecting anyone at all?

Comment #121: gretchen  on  01/04  at  04:37 PM

what explanation do Athiests have for the extraordinary love people feel during near-death experiences?

Chemical reactions in the brain.

And you can be a Catholic all you want.  You just can’t impose your beliefs on me or any other woman.  In other words, mind your own business.

Comment #122: Kristen from MA  on  01/04  at  04:37 PM

@88
I guess that link was a bit tl;dr, eh?  smile
The percentage of people who wrote in to say they wouldn’t have kids if they had to do it over again was 70%.  It’s interesting to see how there was no small amount of scrambling afterward to show how the survey results must be wrong:

http://www.stats.uwo.ca/faculty/bellhouse/stat353annlanders.pdf

Good Housekeeping did another survey and they got a no doubt comforting 95% yes response.  Not surprising, since the underlying message of GH’s repeat survey was, “C’mon, that Ann Landers survey can’t possibly be right.  Show us that you women aren’t monsters.”  While there is a problem with self-selection in both surveys, I think the author at the link underestimates Ann Landers’ role in providing an outlet for publicly, albeit anonymously, saying taboo things like, “I regret having kids”.

Comment #123: rain  on  01/04  at  04:41 PM

I don’t expect to draw people to anything.  Not all of us feel compelled to prosyletize, you know.

Being pro-choice doesn’t impose anything on anyone.  You can believe and do whatever you want.  You just don’t get to have a say in my business.  Deal.

Comment #124: Kristen from MA  on  01/04  at  05:01 PM

“I remember reading that St. Thomas Aquinas said a fetus wasn’t “ensouled” (and therefore, a person) until quickening, but now it’s a person the second the egg is fertilized.  Where did that belief come from?”

Paradoxically, I suspect it comes in part from the knowledge that modern science brings us.  The one thing the Catholic Church has been pretty consistent on is believing that it’s a child the moment one is completely sure that conception has taken place.  Way back when, when no one was really sure how sperm and eggs and all that good stuff worked exactly, and there was no such thing as scientific pregnancy tests, that moment was generally accepted to be quickening.  Now, with modern knowledge of how conception works and fairly accurate home pregnancy tests - it’s more commonly considered to be either the moment the sperm and egg have merged or the moment of implantation.

It’s not the way I would have taken the news, and it’s still increasingly misogynistic, but it does have a certain symmetry to it.

The other big part is that the leadership of the Catholic Church, like many institutions who see their privilege dying, have decided to cling desperately to that privilege rather than addressing it and accepting that fundamental change.  So when given options they tend to the misogynist choice as this shores up their belief in the rightness of their own privilege.  Which works for a while but tends to fall apart pretty spectacularly in the end.

Comment #125: jennygadget  on  01/04  at  05:05 PM

@9
Thanks for pointing out Leta Hollingworth, elisabeth51.  Here’s a link to “Social Devices for Impelling Women to Bear and Rear Children”:

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Hollingworth/children.htm

Some of those century old feminist writings are amazingly (and depressingly) relevant today.  I wonder if one could refute all contemporary anti-feminist positions by simply quoting these old essays.  I like Crystal Eastman’s “Now We Can Begin” for discussions of housework and childcare:

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_eastman_crystal_1920.htm

Comment #126: rain  on  01/04  at  05:05 PM

It occurs to me that if we have to pick between having too few babies to satisfy a demand amongst families with intractable infertility problems and having so many uncared-for babies around that nobody raises an eyebrow about stuff like this, even absent the attendant miseries and injustices inflicted on women and families under the old system, we’re far better off picking the one that doesn’t result in truckloads of unwanted and indifferently-cared-for children.

Comment #127: preying mantis  on  01/04  at  05:06 PM

El oh el! Having abortion be legal is not the same as having it be required. This, folks, is why religious loons want fornication, birth control, adultery, and swear words illegal. They really think that if something contrary to their beliefs is available, they will not be able to resist doing it. I don’t honestly want to quote Jesse Ventura saying “Religion is a crutch for the weak-minded,” but the loons are making it tough to resist.

Comment #128: Yawgmoth  on  01/04  at  05:09 PM

Tyler, I’m pro-choice.  I’ll drive a woman to her prenatal checkups, or to an abortion clinic.  Her choice.

Comment #129: syfr  on  01/04  at  05:14 PM

Tyler—I know chemical reactions in the brain must be a very weak argument to someone who believes that the heart is where emotions live, but believe it or not, the brain is a very complex thing, and it has a number of defense mechanisms in place, including the ability to flood a distressed brain with calming chemicals. This happens all the time. You can literally make a rabbit lie down and die if you create a situation where its perceives that it is in a situation where it will be killed and there is no escape, because its brain will trigger a sort of “chemical self-destruct sequence.”

If the human brain recognizes that the body is shutting down and that death is imminent, it’s going to release chemicals in an attempt to relax the body and keep suffering to a minimal. Seratonin, Dopamine, etc. Doctors can replicate these sensations fairly easily. The fact that you can trip balls on ecstasy (which does pretty much the same thing) is not proof of God.

If you took a broader view of things, you might be amazed that the God that created the universe manufactured brains that could react accordingly to the most traumatic of experiences.

Comment #130: Mighty Ponygirl  on  01/04  at  05:15 PM

“Mental hardships?” Wuss. Why don’t you just waltz on over to namby-pamby land, you jackwagon!

Comment #131: Yawgmoth  on  01/04  at  05:18 PM

the disposal of unused, unwanted embryos,

Why is this an ethical issue?

Because unused, unwanted embryos is PEEEEOPLE! PEEEOPLE!

I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist. Actually, for pro-forced pregnancy types, I guess that’s actually what they think.

Comment #132: twg_  on  01/04  at  05:20 PM

<i>Chemical reactions in the brain?!  That’s it?!  That’s all you’ve got, and you expect to draw people to Atheism with that weak shit?  That’s pathetic. <i>

I’m sure we could spin some pseudomythological mystery and add a fictitious sky god and some juicy morality tale to it if you want, but its still chemical reactions in the brain for the win.

Comment #133: Ms Kate  on  01/04  at  05:23 PM

The present legality of abortion imposes mental hardship on those who are pro-life.

Tough.  Your rights end where mine begin.

Comment #134: Kristen from MA  on  01/04  at  05:24 PM

twg_, then lets ask ... no REQUIRE bigmouth snowflake baby worshipers to accept the implantation of these embryos.  They can attach to livers and grow to viability in males, right?

Comment #135: Ms Kate  on  01/04  at  05:25 PM

The present legality of abortion imposes mental hardship on those who are pro-life.

So sorry if thinking is so very too hard for you that it causes mental strain to understand where your religion and body end and the rights of others begin.

Hate and judgment are so much easier than compassion, respect, and fundamental understanding of the legal structure of a democratic society.

Comment #136: Ms Kate  on  01/04  at  05:28 PM

Tyler, except that I believe that God is infinitely more forgiving, understanding, and pragmatic than you do. I believe that God knows me better than you do, and if I have my reasons for having an abortion, God will understand and not think me a murderer, and that reality precedes potentiality by a longshot. I believe God has better things to do with His time than set up impossible tests of faith for people crawling around the face of the world. I don’t think the Bible is His word, I don’t believe in Hell, and I generally find that people who want to make the being that created photosynthesis, spiral galaxies, RNA, the food chain, and evolution some big dumb hater so that He looks more like they do will claim to speak For God when in reality they’re just speaking from that tiny little dark spot in the back of their brain that never advanced beyond the age of 2.

So yeah, I think there’s plenty on which we can disagree.

Comment #137: Mighty Ponygirl  on  01/04  at  05:32 PM

The present legality of abortion imposes mental hardship on those who are pro-life.

So sorry if thinking is so very too hard for you that it causes mental strain to understand where your religion and body end and the rights of others begin.”

No, that’s totally a legitimate argument that puts it right on par with being pro-choice.  I mean, the mental hardship on anti-choicers by other people being free to follow their own consciences vis-a-vis their own bodies stacks up pretty evenly with the mental, physical, and financial burdens imposed by forced gestation, right?  I’m pretty sure there’ve been studies to that effect, and it really does make perfect sense unless you insist on being “realistic” or “rational” about any of it.

Comment #138: preying mantis  on  01/04  at  05:36 PM

Continued LOL at Tyler. I never said I was an atheist, you wussy jackwagon! May the invisible sky person of each person’s choice please save us from hypersensitive pro-lifers hysterically demanding their stupid little feelings be cosseted.

Comment #139: Yawgmoth  on  01/04  at  05:42 PM

Trust me, if we can’t even agree about whether we agree, there’s lots of disagreement. Whether or not you want to show your belly and declare that you agree with me is entirely up to you, but you’re not fooling anyone.

Comment #140: Mighty Ponygirl  on  01/04  at  05:43 PM

@ Yawgmoth #140:

:D

Comment #141: Kristen from MA  on  01/04  at  05:45 PM

Tyler—the only question that is not impertinent is your first one, and to that, I will point out that you basically declared that you want to go out and shoot people because they’re going against the will of your God. You see yourself as the vengeful arm of an angry God, I see myself as a tenant in the reality of a bemused and forgiving God.

Comment #142: Mighty Ponygirl  on  01/04  at  05:53 PM

If you experience “mental distress” because abortion is legal, you are a fucking pansy, I don’t care how much combat experience you have.

Comment #143: Yawgmoth  on  01/04  at  05:53 PM

When you said we deserve to die if our pregnancies will kill us. That shit makes ladies feel hated.

Comment #144: Yawgmoth  on  01/04  at  05:59 PM

Tyler is a Marine! I’m a twenty year old guy with ass-length blue hair who slays demons with a crystal sword! Fantasizing is fun!

Comment #145: Planet of the Blue Monkeys  on  01/04  at  06:00 PM

You pretty clearly posted in support of the idea of women not having lifesaving abortions, but I see no reason to even try anymore. Nancy boy pansy. Go cry some more about Teh Widdle Dead Babies. Christ you suck, I bet you’re a Cowboys fan

Comment #146: Yawgmoth  on  01/04  at  06:11 PM

Yep. Cowboys fan. You can always tell.

Comment #147: Yawgmoth  on  01/04  at  06:15 PM

Tyler broke already. Shoddy troll workmanship.

Comment #148: Planet of the Blue Monkeys  on  01/04  at  06:15 PM

You can’t really blame him, the Cowboys fucking sucked this year, and everyone not from Dallas found it hilarious. That can make even non-pansies all defensive and angry and stuff.

Comment #149: Yawgmoth  on  01/04  at  06:21 PM

”The present legality of abortion imposes mental hardship on those who are pro-life.”

And once again the anti-choice side utterly fails to grasp the finer points of the nonsense they spew.

A woman’s decision of whether or not to have an abortion has absolutely nothing, zero, nada to do with your delicate sensibilities, Tyler.  It just isn’t about you, nor should it be.  I think that really is the biggest problem with the religious right and the right wing Republicans with which they keep company, they just don’t understand that their freedom to believe whatever illogical bit of nonsense flies into their heads does not include the corresponding right to then enforce their personal belief on others.  The decision to have an abortion is a deeply personal one and unique to each individual set of circumstances, and your supposed heartache over this choice is just completely irrelevant.  Does your tendency towards narcissism so all encompassing that you can’t wrap your mind around this reality?

Comment #150: Lolagirl  on  01/04  at  06:22 PM

Here’s a reading for comprehension lesson for you.

Lesson #1: Paragraphs consist of a collection of sentences upon a single topic or idea. So when you write:

The present legality of abortion imposes mental hardship on those who are pro-life.  You tell me that I can believe and do whatever I want, but you don’t really believe that.  You don’t want me to go around murdering people.

The last sentence is directly referencing the first sentence.

If that’s not what you meant, than I would suggest that the problem is not my reading for comprehension, but rather your writing for comprehension.

Comment #151: Mighty Ponygirl  on  01/04  at  06:23 PM

Tyler, Good grief.

If the unborn lives and the mother dies, that’s way better than the mother, already living with four living kids, terminating a pregnancy. Yeah, that’s what making you seem hateful.

And while abortion may cause pro lifers mental distress, guess what? Being forced to carry a pregnancy, being unable to access birth control, being forced to choose between living for your four kids or dying for one not even around?  All that causes mental distress-to the people involved and yes to us, the advocates who are for choice.

Whose mental distress gets to win? Yours because you believe in a god of some kind? I really hope that doesn’t wind up the case.  If I take birth control or have an abortion the chances are pretty damn high that you, Tyler will never ever know about it and thus? I won’t ever ever be causing you any distress.

Keep those beliefs and pro life laws out of my life and out of my body.

Comment #152: JulesAboutTown  on  01/04  at  06:25 PM

That’s not much better, leaving a motherless and probably premature infant behind for your grieving partner/parents to care for with no help. To say nothing of any other, older children who might like to have Mommy in their life for a few more years.

Take heart man, Tony Romo is said to be well on the road to recovery.

Comment #153: Yawgmoth  on  01/04  at  06:26 PM

your supposed heartache over this choice is just completely irrelevant

Repeated for emphasis.

Comment #154: Kristen from MA  on  01/04  at  06:28 PM

As far as Tyler’s point that the Catholic Church is not a misogynistic organization, I also have to vehemently disagree.  Maybe it’s because Tyler is a man and can’t see past the haze of his male priviledge, but as a woman who grew up Catholic I was constantly given the message that women were considered less than, not equal to and the cause of all suffering in the world.  We aren’t capable of sustaining an equal role with men within the Church because our inferiority is supposedly ordained by God, so we must always atone for this inferiority by remaining subservient to the men and continue to unquestioningly play the role of brood mare and produce lots of good little Catholics (except since I’m infertile I’m supposed to suffer this injustice gratefully and with the knowledge that God must supposedly have a plan for me that will reveal itself when the time comes.)

Comment #155: Lolagirl  on  01/04  at  06:32 PM

What does the molestation of children have to do with abortion?

If the Church hierarchy cared so much about born children they wouldn’t have sexually abused them and protected their abusers from the consequences of their acts.

There probably is a good RICO case to make that the Church—at least certain dioceses—is a criminal enterprise—at least as strong as the DoJ’s against Blagojevich.

Comment #156: Hector B.  on  01/04  at  06:35 PM

Hector B. WORD!

Comment #157: JulesAboutTown  on  01/04  at  06:36 PM

I believe, personally, that each woman will make the right choice FOR HER as to whether or not to have an abortion. I am going to assume she knows her financial, physical, medical, family, and spiritual situation better than I do.

Comment #158: Yawgmoth  on  01/04  at  06:40 PM

@145 Ms Kate, yes! That sounds good to me—just like in the movie Junior!

Comment #159: twg_  on  01/04  at  06:41 PM

Tyler, I do believe women can and do make the right choice for themselves when given the opportunity to do so. Abortion and methods of birth control have existed for hundreds if not thousands of years which means to me that women (and likely men) realized that sex caused pregnancy and sometimes those pregnancies were not wanted, needed, or in any way helpful. In some cases pregnancies can cause death to the mother.

So I think women can make reasonable thoughtful choices and do make those choices, dealing both with the stress of making a choice to begin with and any after effects. 

The prolife camp does not seem to believe that women can make that choice on their own either that a) women can not be trusted with their own bodies and should not have sex for any reason but procreation and b) that they don’t know their own minds and hearts in the case of accidental or dangerous pregnancies.

It’s demeaning at best and misogynistic all the time.

Comment #160: JulesAboutTown  on  01/04  at  06:42 PM

Well Ty, I once again want to point out that your right to believe that abortion is murder does not come with the corresponding right to impose that opinion on others via force of law.

“Feelings don’t matter?  This coming from a woman?  Aren’t women always asking men to express their feelings?”

And with this highly insulting statement you really do tip your hand as a sexist and priviledged man to the core.  Maybe the highly suggestible women you encountered at those CYO shindigs as a teenager thought that way, but no, we don’t all feel that way.  In fact, I would argue that your emoting all over this discussion has only served to undermine any sort of logical argument you may have been trying to make.

Comment #161: Lolagirl  on  01/04  at  06:47 PM

Make that emoting and expressing whatever random non-sequiters that pop into your head.

What the hell does Rush Limbaugh have to do with this discussion?  Seriously, stick to the point and please try to follow a logical line of argument.

Comment #162: Lolagirl  on  01/04  at  06:50 PM

And with this highly insulting statement you really do tip your hand as a sexist and priviledged man to the core.

Exactly, but let me add that your feelings, Tyler, don’t matter one whit to me.  I don’t care if you think I should have an abortion or not.  It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  You are entitled to an opinion, but you don’t get a say.  Got it?

Comment #163: Kristen from MA  on  01/04  at  06:51 PM

What about the women who don’t believe in the pro-choice position?

Then they doesn’t have to get an abortion if they don’t want to, just like people who don’t believe in my religion don’t have to go my church, or people who disagree with my political beliefs don’t have to vote for my political party.  That’s what “choice” means.  See how that works?

Comment #164: Blue Jean  on  01/04  at  06:55 PM

@Tyler-158: Politics isn’t just a mere catfight. Politics is war by other means. It’s always been thus. There can be no compromise between women and misogynists, just like there can’t be compromise between the working class and the owning class.

Comment #165: BlackBloc  on  01/04  at  06:59 PM

And yet, you support those who go around murdering doctors—and especially doctors who have saved the lives of mothers who would die unless they received a life-saving abortion.

It’s your line of thinking that supports those who would kill doctors in their 700th month of life—that would also kill the mother and the fetus in that Catholic Church case.

And yet, every time your argument is proved a fallacy, you simply switch to a new nonsense argument.

Comment #166: judybrowni  on  01/04  at  07:08 PM

Why does Tyler think that mothers should die so that another person oughtn’t be killed?

Does he also prescribe to killing a bus full of passengers so that the driver doesn’t run over a single puppy?  Running over puppies is also wrong.  We don’t prosecute train engineers for running people over, either.

There’s these things called motive, intent, and circumstance.  This is why there is ‘self defense’ or ‘accidental’ in defense of murder.

Comment #167: Crissa  on  01/04  at  07:14 PM

Hector B:  The right-wing court decided that RICO only applied if the force was in pursuit of cash profit, not merely forcing people to arbitrary commands.  So it can no longer be used against organizations which use coordination (including illegal activities) for other ends than cash profit.

Comment #168: Crissa  on  01/04  at  07:17 PM

An unborn isn’t an American, because they haven’t been born yet.  See also the 14th Amendment.

Comment #169: Crissa  on  01/04  at  07:20 PM

Yes, I do recognize the right to choose is a right only women possess since only women can birth a child.

Wrong. Some men can birth children, too. Also, you as a cis dude are perfectly welcome to dispose of any foreign tissues in your genitals/reproductive organs. It’s not just a lady right; bodily autonomy is a very equal right.

The rest of it didn’t sound too bad, however. Which begs the question… what the hell are you flipping out about? You are pro-choice. That’s fantastic. Please shut up, sit down, and eat your cookie, and stop flailing around in defense of the kind of douchebags who disagree with you that killing women is bad. Okay? Ya don’t need to play <strike>devil’s</strike> Church’s advocate on this.

Comment #170: Bagelsan  on  01/04  at  07:32 PM

I love it when Tyler protests he’s really liberal and all that while the most appalling sexist crap comes out. Gee, we dumb chicks are too stupid to figure that out!

Comment #171: ginmar  on  01/05  at  12:01 AM

What about the women who don’t believe in the pro-choice position?

A woman who believes abortion should be legal IS PRO CHOICE, whether or not she would personally consider having an abortion.

You can’t CHOOSE to continue a pregnancy without having a CHOICE.

Why is choice such a fucking difficult concept for so many people to grasp? Do you fall over foaming when the waitress asks for your drink order because there’s a beverage you don’t like on the menu? Jesus wept.

Comment #172: kristin  on  01/05  at  12:20 AM

“I love it when Tyler protests he’s really liberal and all that while the most appalling sexist crap comes out. Gee, we dumb chicks are too stupid to figure that out!”

Don’t forget, he’s also a sensitive guy too!

I tried to give Tyler the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was playing devil’s advocate, but now I’m going back to my original premise that he was really just trolling all along.

Comment #173: Lolagirl  on  01/05  at  12:36 AM

Do you fall over foaming when the waitress asks for your drink order because there’s a beverage you don’t like on the menu?

But, don’t you understand? Because of that damn menu, people are drinking something I don’t personally like! Just knowing that somewhere, someone has chosen a sub-par drink pains me emotionally! (Coke? Coke? I don’t believe in Coke.)

So no, I don’t fall over foaming, I get up and slap the drinks out of those stupid bastards’ hands—that’ll teach them! And then I make them all order what I want to drink. (Deadly allergic to milk? Bite me, it’s delicious.) And then I tell their children that Coke makes you go to Hell. And then I burn the menu. And excommunicate the waitress.

Comment #174: Bagelsan  on  01/05  at  01:48 AM

*surreptitiously drinks a Coke, but it’s just ‘cause I need the caffeine, really…*

Comment #175: Bagelsan  on  01/05  at  01:59 AM

Tyler @166:  You were under the impression the unborn would live?  The Phoenix case, where the bishop would have forbidden abortion, involved a critically ill woman 12 weeks pregnant -several months away from viability.  If she died, the fetus would die too, leaving her four children motherless.  or they could save the mother but not the fetus.  Fetus is hopeless either way.  Was the bishop right?

Comment #176: gretchen  on  01/05  at  03:28 AM

But, don’t you understand? Because of that damn menu, people are drinking something I don’t personally like! Just knowing that somewhere, someone has chosen a sub-par drink pains me emotionally! (Coke? Coke? I don’t believe in Coke.)

That’s one opinion.

Another opinion is that that Coke is a sentient being equal with a human - give it time, and it will spout legs from its can, make big googly eyes and start lisping “Dada?” to a tanker truck somewhere.

And yet another opinion is that Coke makes women horny as and when yhey wish, which is why the god-fearing should keep it out of women’s hands, lest they become sluts.

Comment #177: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  01/05  at  04:50 AM

Tyler, the right of women to determine what happens to their own bodies has nothing to do with anyone else’s feelings or beliefs or preferences about those women.

It is worthless to argue about abortion with anti-choice misogynists like Tyler.  You can discuss abortion with some anti-choice types, but Tyler is a type whose position is as calcified as the position of his beloved child-rapist church.  Take my word for it because I have seen these same discussions for roughly twenty-five years and there is never a new argument from the anti-choicers.  I cut my teeth on the Tylers.  They are, at this point, boring as hell.  Their desperate attempts at logic leave one with the impression of a drowning person in search of a buoyant object.

Comment #178: DBK  on  01/05  at  12:57 PM

Oh, and the fact that Tyler dismisses “chemical reactions in the brain” so easily without actually understanding the subject pretty much puts paid to the value of discussing things with him.  All he wants to do is live in the world of his beliefs and facts are things to be dismissed, just as logic, reason, and women are to be dismissed.

Comment #179: DBK  on  01/05  at  01:03 PM

Awesome, a “tone” argument, an irrelevant Chris Rock reference (no one else has mentioned him), and “argument by credential.” You are the NFC West of internet commenting

Comment #180: Yawgmoth  on  01/05  at  02:00 PM

Tyler, you may be trying to walk the line that separates sexism from straight up misogyny, but I would submit to you that some of the things you have said here do stray into misogynistic territory.  In all, supporting a Church whose underpinnings rely on a scarcely disguised hostility towards women really doesn’t support your assertion that you aren’t a misogynist.  In addition, while you may have thought you were being jokey with some of your off the cuff comments about women supposedly wanting men to be more emotional and your supposedly being a sensitive guy they really don’t come off that way in a room full of feminists.  Finally, I think your inability to see how your positions rely on a basis of well-entrenched male priviledge also further make us suspicious that you really are a misogynist trying to masquerade as a “good guy.”

Comment #181: Lolagirl  on  01/05  at  02:06 PM

I’m more bored than mean, Tyler.  You have nothing new to offer.  Just the same, tired, misogynist arguments I’ve seen for decades.

I’m not looking for followers.  Your remarks about “gain no followers” are just dopey.

Who cares where you went to college?  You’ve mentioned it twice.  Big whoop.  Some of us went to Ivy League schools.  Some went to less well-known schools because the school excelled in a specific subject.  Some of us never went to college.  What matters here is the quality of your argument, not who founded your school.  So far yours have been tired as hell.

You know, it took me about one minute to google a web site that both describes the research on near death experiences and how they originate in the brain as chemical reactions.  The article also cited the original research.  You could try looking something up before dismissing it.  But then you wouldn’t be able to just believe whatever you want without regard to facts if you did that.  I can see why the child rapist church is so appealing to you.  They don’t really like it when people think for themselves in that group.

Studying American history is one of my favorite pastimes.  Hamilton was brilliant (possibly the brightest of the Founders—Chernow’s biography is very good), but his religion is completely irrelevant to anything we’ve discussed.  Jefferson was brilliant and he was a Deist.  Franklin was brilliant and he was, I believe, a Deist as well.  Paine was brilliant and he was famously an atheist.  Madison, Jefferson’s partner in anti-Federalism, was an Episcopalian (and likely anti-papist).  Washington’s particular beliefs and affiliation have never been clear.  Given that the vast majority of people were and have been brought up in some religion or other, and that the people who founded the US were brought up in Christian religions, it is far more revealing that so many of them rejected Christianity than that some of them accepted it.

As I stated earlier, all anti-choicers eventually are revealed to be arguing on the basis of religious belief.

By the way, since you seem to think personal experience is a solid basis for argument, I went to a child rapist church (Catholic) high school.  The director of my high school was later defrocked (as in 25 or so years later) for being a child molester (fortunately, he never hit on me, but then I was already an atheist so he probably didn’t think I could be bullied).  Your pope was part of a massive cover-up of child rape and has no standing to discuss morality.  One of the biggest star priests is Fr. Marcial Maciel.  Read up on his escapades some time.  If my name for the Catholic church pains you, it’s probably accuracy that troubles you.

Comment #182: DBK  on  01/05  at  02:14 PM

By the way, Hamilton would have probably been as caustic as I have been.  If you ever look into the history of what led to the Burr-Hamilton duel, you’ll see how rough a player Hamilton could be.  I recommend Ellis’s Founding Brothers for a great description of what took place on a ledge just below the cliffs of Weehawken, NJ (I’ve been to the site) and why it happened.

Comment #183: DBK  on  01/05  at  02:19 PM

“The first time, I wanted people to know I went to a university founded by a liberal.  The second time, I wanted to show how ridiculous it is to claim that a graduate of Thomas Jefferson’s university is not well-versed in logic and reason.”

You went to a university founded by a liberal?  So what?  There are liberals and conservatives at every school in the country.  Your second claim of relevance is also meaningless.  Going to this school or that doesn’t mean you have any skills in logic or reason.  I’ve known lots of people who went to college and had no skills in logic or reason, and some of them went to schools more highly acclaimed that UV.  You think that if you went to this school or that your arguments have authority.  If you actually did have skills in reason or logic then your arguments would stand on their own merits.  They don’t.

That’s the bottom line on your irrelevant second clause.  You wouldn’t have to mention your school if your arguments demonstrated logic or reason.

I took some classes in playing the drums when I was in grammar school.  Doesn’t make me Gene f***ing Krupa.

Comment #184: DBK  on  01/05  at  03:10 PM

Tyler, I went to a university founded by T. S. Eliots’ grandfather, who was a Unitarian, and therefore a liberal.

I have a rather old-fashioned BA in Biology, but that should tell you about my ability to use reason and logic as well.

If you want to dismiss and wholly condemn the Catholic church for the mistakes it has made, I can’t stop you.

Nice use of the passive voice there.

Keeping pedophiles from justice isn’t a fucking mistake, neither was the treatment of Galileo, but you’re the one with the monopoly on reason and logic.

When you and I can get pregnant, then we’ll have an opinion worth listening to on the matter.

Let remind you what Christ thought was important:

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40   And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41   Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42   For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43   I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44   Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45   Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Comment #185: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  01/05  at  03:21 PM

Wow.  Tyler went from possible troll to full blown obvious troll in, what, two posts.  Impressive fail.

Comment #186: Rare Vos  on  01/05  at  04:08 PM

You don’t seem to know the difference between criticizing the style of an argument and the argument.  I don’t think school will help you.  Ron White said it better than I could.

Comment #187: DBK  on  01/05  at  04:10 PM

Having won Superbowls in the past is completely irrelevant, the NFC West was uniquely terrible this past season, and I am surprised you are defending it since every single game by all 4 teams was an abortion. Heyooooo

Comment #188: Yawgmoth  on  01/05  at  04:11 PM

P. S.  We know you’re a troll because, on a thread about a douchey misogynist’s dimissal of women as thinking, feeling human beings, you blow in with your “PAY ATTENTION TO ME!  TALK ABOUT ME! EDUCATE ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME!” bullshit, derailing the topic. We’re not talking about the issue of the post, we’re talking about Tyler, his blindess, his misogyny, his male privilege and his emotional attachment to Kiddie Raper, Inc.  That’s trolling.

Comment #189: Rare Vos  on  01/05  at  04:13 PM

There are conservatives who graduate from UVa, but no wingnuts.

Quite a pedigree (and I’d be fascinated to know your methods for determining it!) innit? I went to a very small, liberal, women’s college but sadly I’m sure we’ve had a wingnut or two. Little bastards get around.

And uh, more to the point, it is actually physically impossible to take someone seriously who starts name-dropping their college in an online debate. Unless it is directly relevant—like something actually about the school—it causes an instant reaction of “bullshit” (chemicals in the brain control this, you know how it is.) Is there more to your argument than a list of rather meaningless credentials?

Comment #190: Bagelsan  on  01/05  at  04:26 PM

You do whatever you want.  I really, REALLY don’t care.  Though I do understand why you think we care about you and your uninteresting, stale, flaccid misgoynistic tropes and non-sequitirs. 

I know you’re a sincere troll. I totally get that you have no idea what you’re talking about, have no idea about feminism, have no idea how silly and vapid your arguments are and have no idea how freaking tired we all are of having to deal with trolls like you. 

Boooooring.

Comment #191: Rare Vos  on  01/05  at  04:33 PM

Bagelsan, everyone in this thread got it long ago except the guy you’re explaining it to.  I don’t think he CAN get it, which is why I mentioned Ron White.  You really can’t fix stupid.  There’s no pill you can give for it and no matter how much and how long you explain, he won’t get it.  He seems to think this is about believing or not believing in magic sky creatures.

Comment #192: DBK  on  01/05  at  04:37 PM

“Should we boycott Countdown with Keith Olbermann, i.e. not watch it? “

You can do whatever you want, big boy. Ur a Marine—no silly little woman can tell you what to do!

Comment #193: Planet of the Blue Monkeys  on  01/05  at  04:51 PM

Oh no, someone committed an ad hominem attack on the internet! I’m going to go call the internet police.

Comment #194: Yawgmoth  on  01/05  at  04:56 PM

I agree with you that it is a very serious internet crime. David Caruso and his sunglasses will be here to take your statement shortly.

Comment #195: Yawgmoth  on  01/05  at  05:00 PM

“Have you ever heard the term ad hominem attack?”

Yes, I’ve heard that term.  It’s used by people who have no training in formal logic, so they frequently misuse the term (and the concept of) argumentum ad hominem.  These people think that, if someone says “It isn’t worth arguing with him because he doesn’t understand the arguments”, that is an “ad hominem attack”.  It isn’t argumentum ad hominem if one has already disposed of the person’s arguments directly and without reference to the person’s personal abilities.  At that point, it’s just stating the facts.

Where’d you go to school again?  Some place where they teach reason and logic, wasn’t it?

Comment #196: DBK  on  01/05  at  05:21 PM

Oh, but maybe you meant “ad hominem abuse”.  I forgot about that one.

Still doesn’t qualify.  Once one disposes of the arguments, it’s just plain old abuse.

“I run into pissants like you on the Internet all the time.”

Such a telling remark.  I’ll bet he never figures out what it means.

Comment #197: DBK  on  01/05  at  05:25 PM

Tyler, you just don’t get it that you lost the audience completely with your little “joke” about women and feelings, do you?

That kind of shit doesn’t play here. Tough crowd, I know, you’ll need some good material. Or possibly a personality transplant.

Comment #198: octopod42  on  01/05  at  05:45 PM

Well, if “victory” can be approximated by “one’s opponent totally ruining their own credibility in the eyes of bystanders”...well, man, he’s got you there.

Comment #199: octopod42  on  01/05  at  05:55 PM

I’m still trying to figure out where you think I was trying to convince you or anyone that there are no gods.  That was just dopey.  Oh, wait.  Couldn’t be dopey.  You went to a school founded by Thomas Jefferson university.

He must be so proud.

Comment #200: DBK  on  01/05  at  05:58 PM

That’s okay.  You didn’t get it when you first read it.  Going back won’t help.

Comment #201: DBK  on  01/05  at  06:09 PM

Oh, boy, Tyler’s using anecdata! Because a quote from a random celebrity totally wins the… whatever the hell is going on here.

For the record, my husband has to get some wine down me before I’ll talk about my feelings. Monkey negates Gwyneth. [blows raspberry]

Comment #202: Planet of the Blue Monkeys  on  01/05  at  06:13 PM

Tyler, think of it this way.

I tell you that your blood contains a precious substance. You must donate a lot of it all the time, every week, and I can prevent the miscarriages of thousands of wanted fetuses. This will make you very weak, and you might die. You might get violently ill occasionally. Your life will be hell. After nine months, I will perform an extremely painful operation that you will not entirely heal from. Your job will not be considerate of this. I will then remove more blood until you are sick, again and again, for maybe even a year afterward; maybe for the rest of your life. Meanwhile, you will have to return to work immediately, but will under perform because you are so ill. You may lose your job. You may have no one to support you; no health insurance.

Would you agree to donate blood, if that was the case, and you could save many potential children? Knowing that kind of physical turmoil would be what you faced? Knowing that risk? Would you agree if you already had a child and spouse to care for? And would you force another person to do it—would you tell your wife or child they should do it?

That, Tyler, is not a worse case scenario. MOST pregnancies are like that, with only one potential life to save instead of thousands. The human body doesn’t like being pregnant and doesn’t respond well. As a Western male, you have likely been sheltered from most of this. But pregnancy is not a quiet, peaceful experience followed by a birth and normality; it is agony, it tears the body apart, the birth is extremely painful and causes permanent changes, and it will take months, years to heal. Many women never heal all the way.

You have stated you disagree with the church on the point of gay marriage, so you are not an extremist or a hard-liner. Consider that pregnancy is extremely damaging to the body—this is scientific fact. Consider that our society doesn’t actually support pregnant or postpartum women very well—many companies will not provide paid leave, so women spend this agonizing time working, and may lose their job. Consider too that it is emotional turmoil, as one must decide “would I be a good enough parent,” “can I afford to/ am I able to care for another baby,” and the hardest turmoil of all, “could I survive and live with myself if I gave the child up for adoption.” Consider that, when you think to judge a woman’s choice, or try to sway her to your point of view in the future. Think to yourself—would Jesus turn to a desperate woman and say, “You must suffer terribly, with great emotional agony and physical pain, and anything you do to alleviate your suffering or prevent the suffering of your family will cause you to go to Hell?”

I have read the Bible and the writings of the Catholic Church. I know that if you can be Catholic and not fight against gay marriage, you can be Catholic and support all women in all their pregnancy choices. You can believe, as Thomas Aquinas did, that the soul enters the body when the woman feels the baby move for the first time. You can believe, as most Catholics do, that a woman should never endanger herself for a pregnancy, especially if she has other family to consider. And most importantly, you CAN believe that Jesus will forgive any “murder” that has been done, and would not want you to judge a woman for her actions which you probably don’t fully understand.

Comment #203: BG  on  01/05  at  06:14 PM

Ty, what’s with your crazy obsession with celebrities anyway? 

So many of us came to the conclusion that you’re a troll because you’ve haven’t engaged in straight forward, honest debate from your very first post.  You’ve flopped around and failed to to follow any line of logic through to its conclusion, and then you keep tossing in your truly bizzare non-sequiters whenever things clearly aren’t going your way.  Oh, and there’s also your complete and utter failure to admit that your male priviledge in large part influences your opinions and may very well have prevented you from reconsidering how very wrong you are to begin with.

You know what, if you really are here so that you can get your kicks engaging in pointless verbal sparring with people who clearly disagree with you and who can easily dismantle your flimsy arguments without even breaking a sweat, then just admit it and we can all call it a day.  You seem to be so concerned with convincing us that you’re really, truly being a sensitive and honorable man so prove it and either put up or shut up.

Comment #204: Lolagirl  on  01/05  at  06:34 PM

BG, Tyler probably thinks of gays as men, which means that they’re human. Women aren’t. He’s protested just a wee bit too much since the beginning of the thread. I mean…he boasts about his school and how he’s a Marine? Come on.  Do even twelve-year-old boys do that?  “I went to a school that was founded by a liberal, therefore I must be a liberal, and all you liberals must accept me. Hahahaha, I win.”  He really does think he’s smart. Scary thing is, for his party, he probably is what passes for it.

Comment #205: ginmar  on  01/05  at  08:08 PM

As an alumni of the same university, and a (former) member of the church in that same town for most of my formative life, I’d like to know if you went to Holy Cow, St. Thomas Sits on the Pot, or that wacky one out by the mall which had nasty chunks of bread for communion instead of wafers?  The wafers are way tastier - I used to steal them in CCD.

Comment #206: Mimi  on  01/05  at  11:38 PM

I’ll give him this: he’s got good spelling but, damn, his reasoning sucks. It’s all tricks and manipulation.  So typical.

Comment #207: ginmar  on  01/06  at  12:23 AM

Tyler, I apologize for being so snotty.

Comment #208: DBK  on  01/06  at  10:55 AM

Yes, but surely a good Catholic like you would have gone to Mass while you were in college.

Comment #209: Mimi  on  01/06  at  12:01 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.