6 posts tagged “choicey goodness”
I just bet Nature Boy $20 that Giuliani is too liberal for the Republicans to nominate.I can see it going one of two ways:
1. He'll go the way of McCain in the 2000 primaries (in other words, getting thrashed by the evangelicals for not being a good enough misogynist and losing out to a proper woman-hater).
2. He'll get the nomination, but he won't be able to count on the fundoid block, which either won't come out to vote at all or will split for a third-party candidate (like Pat Buchanan or one of his lackeys).
Either way, he isn't a viable candidate. Nor is anyone else in the Republican pipeline. They're really up shit creek, so to speak. They've whored themselves out to the Religious Reich since the eighties, but have yet to deliver on such niceties as widespread abortion bans (all they've successfully passed are toothless, nitpicky bits of wishy-washiness that continue to be tied up in the courts), federal marriage amendments, faith-based initiatives, or mandatory school prayer.The fundoids know this, and they're starting to get antsy. On the other hand, though, the far right's politics are finally starting to alienate people in the middle, and if they want to win elections, they'll need to quit with the extremist candidates. I predicted the self-destruction of the Republican Party back in 2000, and I'm pretty excited to see that, once again, I'm being proven right.
Remember, all it takes is one Pat Robertson to split the vote. We'll see what happens.
I hate the end of January. It's dreary, the weather sucks, I have to go back to school, and all the idiotic anti-choicers come out of the woodwork to whine and cry about the evils of abortion (while conveniently ignoring the plight of poor children who are, you know, actually born). Today, the New York Times asks Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome? and does an excellent job of exposing the hypocrisy of the rhetoric of "Silent No More," "Operation Outcry," and other anti-choice groups that try to use a few women's negative experiences with abortion to justify re-criminalizing it.
Evidently, a women who was sexually, physically, and emotionally abused by her male family members as a child and teenager who went on to experience various drug addictions, a string of abusive relationships, and a handful of abortions as a result is infallible proof that Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome exists. Never mind the fact that the Reagan and both Bush administrations have poured millions of dollars into psychological/psychiatric studies that have all turned up inconclusive, that Congressional hearings have never turned up any proof either, nor have those conducted by a number of American medical associations and journals. In fact, the only studies in existence that do show evidence of so-called "Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome" have highly flawed methodologies (most of them rely on extremely tiny, cherry-picked samples that aren't representative), are conducted by researchers or institutions with an obvious agenda, or both. Oh no, we should never let reality get in the way of a good masturbatory hand-wring over those cruel, callous women who kill their babies and cause irreparable emotional damage to themselves.
I am so, so sick of the hypocritical attitude that so many people have towards abortion rights. I am so unbelievably tired of hearing people say things to the effect of "Oh, I hate abortion and think it's cold, vicious, cruel, and totally the wrong decision, but I guess it's better than letting those poor, irresponsible, slutty women breed babies that the rest of us will have to take care of." If you think abortion is mean, vicious, cruel, or whatever else, that's your business, but for the love of god, can you please stop raining condescension and moral judgment down on women who are already dealing with enough? Having an abortion isn't always an easy choice, and until you know every single woman who has ever had or ever will have an abortion to the core of her being, you have no right whatsoever to criticize her; I don't care how many warm, fuzzy feelings you happen to have about fetuses.
The only thing that those attitudes does is legitimate the anti-choice view that all women who have abortions are evil whores (and the "logical" conclusion: that the pregnancy and future child are adequate punishments for promiscuity) and contribute to a cloud of shame and silence that surrounds the women who chose to have abortions, possibly causing a number of the "symptoms" associated with "Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome." While the women who have abortions may not regret their decision, years and years of verbal abuse at the hands of self-righteous asshats can take its toll, especially when even the most reasonable among us are joining forces with heinously misogynic anti-choicers to condemn them. And where does that leave women?
I really recommend that everyone read the rest of the article. It's quite well-written and informative.
I just made a group: http://repro-rights.groups.vox.com/
Join and invite your friends.
I'm pro-choice because I am a feminist, and I know that the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes will never happen as long as women cannot determine their own reproductive destinies. Women bear the entire weight of being pregnant, to the real and potential detriment to their health (both physical and emotional) and employment capabilities. Women take on most of the burdens associated with childrearing, even those who are in relationships. Having children nearly always puts women at a disadvantage in the job market. Until these realities change, equality between the sexes must be predicated upon the ability of women to make their own reproductive choices. There is no way that a society that systematically disempowers women and mothers the way that the United States' does will achieve equality between the sexes without allowing women total autonomy over their reproductive capabilities.
I'm pro-choice because I don't hate women, sex, happiness, or myself. I know that, at the end of the day, anti-abortion policies have little to nothing to do with protecting fetal life from conception and everything to do with restricting women's rights and punishing them for having sex. The classic rape-and-incest dilemma highlights how truly monstrous the anti-choice agenda is. Forcing women to bear the children of the men who raped them is an atrocious violation of their human rights. However, if they agree to allow abortions in the cases of rape and/or incest, which is the humane option, they are being ideologically inconsistent by showing 1) that some fetuses have more of a "right to life" than others (a logical impossibility) or 2) that they only support abortion rights for women who did everything they could to keep their legs shut. Either way, the dilemma throws the hypocrisy inherent to their beliefs into sharp focus. If they really valued human life, they wouldn't demean it by forcing women (who, by the way are alive) into producing it against their will.
I'm pro-choice because, at the end of the day, it's my body and my life, and I should be trusted to do the right thing by myself.
I'll be Blogging for Choice tomorrow in honor of the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Watch for it!
The abortion ban in South Dakota? FAILED.
Parental notification in California? FAILED.
Parental Notification in Oregon? FAILED.
The Democrats have taken the House.
The Democrats now hold 48 Senate positions and are in the lead in three other races.
Best Birthday Ever.
