Brownback says rape survivors shouldn’t have access to abortion

Naturally. Speaking to the National Catholic Men’s Conference in South Carolina, Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback spoke out on rape survivors and abortion.
“Rape is terrible. Rape is awful. Is it made any better by killing an innocent child? Does it solve the problem for the woman that’s been raped? We need to protect innocent life. Period.”
Charming.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

140 Comments

  1. SarahMC
    Posted June 13, 2007 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    Oenophile, my question was as clear as day. But here it is again:
    Why do women who’ve been impregnated by their rapists deserve more rights than the rest of us?
    And Jeff, brace yourself. A female fetus is not the same as a born woman. Just like a male fetus is not the same as a born man. A fetus is a fetus is a fetus. Not sentinent. Completely dependent on a PARTICULAR person for life.

  2. Posted June 13, 2007 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

    “If you think a foetus is more important than a woman, try having a foetus wash the shit stains out of your underwear for no pay and no pension!”
    –George Carlin

  3. Mina
    Posted June 13, 2007 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    “What I never understood is, if a fetus’ life is worth more than a woman’s life, what if the fetus is a female fetus?”
    That might be an issue for the “abortion hurts unborn women!!!” factions of the fetal supremacists.
    It probably isn’t a big dilemma for anyone who opposes abortion but still realizes that women are female *adults.*
    It’s even less of a dilemma for those of us who are pro-choice and realize that women are adults (no matter what kind of “you’re a woman now!!!” speeches matchmakers give to 13-year-olds).

  4. SarahMC
    Posted June 13, 2007 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

    I love how anti-choicers think they’re being really revolutionary and clever when they point out the fact that half of all fetuses are female.
    *crickets*
    Still doesn’t give ‘em the right to leech off my body against my will.

  5. tonireads@gmail.com
    Posted June 13, 2007 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    this is what i find the most odious about the lifers. not-so-hidden behind their disingenuous love for “children” is their passionate and virulent hatred of women.

  6. Posted June 13, 2007 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    this is what i find the most odious about the lifers. not-so-hidden behind their disingenuous love for “children” is their passionate and virulent hatred of women.

  7. ris825
    Posted June 13, 2007 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

    Often when faced with anti-choice people, they use the reasoning that if a woman gets pregnant, then God must want her pregnant. Therefore; women should accept their pregnancy and have the baby. No matter what the circumstances. In Brownback’s case it would seem that even rapists deserve to reproduce, and women do not have a choice on who their “mate” is. I guess they’ll say God chose that person as well. But God also gave every person free will. Isn’t that correct, religious right? It is the height of arrogance for you anti-choicers to assume we insignificant humans can truly change your ‘Almighty God’s GREAT PLAN’.

  8. oenophile
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 1:20 am | Permalink

    Pro-coat hanger? Anti-choice? Pro-forced birth? Anti-woman?
    Hell, last time I checked, I’m just asking people to not commit murder.
    Roymac, you don’t rock. I deliberately ignore the distinction between “human” and “person” because such a distinction was used for hundreds of years to discriminate against women and minorities. If you want to keep it alive, go right ahead – but don’t count on me to do anything besides point out your male privilege.
    I don’t hate women, being one myself.
    I don’t pretend that fetuses have rights and that women are vessels for babies. I don’t think that “consequences” equates to “punishment.” I will NEVER force a woman to be pregnant. I leave that to her and her boyfriend who choose to not use effective birth control. If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, she need not be pregnant. I would not condone a long-term smoker who stated that he has the right to harvest organs from the comatose, because, after all, they are comatose and he is sentient; moreover, to deny him such is to punish him for smoking and to deny him medical care.
    Think about your rhetoric. More than half this country is pro-life. Do you want to alienate us and get trashed at the polls when Roe is overturned, or do you want pro-woman people of all stripes who will figure out a way to make decent laws?

  9. oenophile
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 1:34 am | Permalink

    Why do women who’ve been impregnated by their rapists deserve more rights than the rest of us?
    Easy. When you drive a car, you consent to be pulled over, to show your driver’s license, and to have your car searched. Don’t like it? Don’t drive. The police lack the same right to stop and search someone who is not driving. A person walking along the street has no legal obligation to produce identification.
    Likewise, when you consent to sex, you consent to pregnancy. “Consent” does not mean that you want it or do anything but hate it, but it does mean that you are acknowledging that, as an adult, you know that sex could cause pregnancy and will deal with being pregnant. We’ll give you medical care, because the “consequences” of any action do not preclude medical care. You can try to avoid that – with my full support – but, once pregnancy happens, tough shit.
    There is a comparable duty on men at that point: when they consent to sex, they consent to 18 years of child support. If they don’t like it, they can keep it in their pants.
    Murder is the deliberate ending of human life. The progeny of two humans is always a human. Abortion IS murder, like it or not – and you don’t get to murder because you deliberately (or recklessly) created life and don’t happen to like the fact that it needs your body.
    Your baby is not responsible for the fact that evolution did not deal out the benefits and burdens of sex in a fair and equitable manner. It is not your baby’s fault and it is not the government’s fault.
    Imagine a hard core drinker. Drinking is an actual Constitutional right, not this made up right to abortion or “privacy,” neither of which are in that document. We do not punish drinkers by not caring for them if they get cirrhosis, but we don’t allow them to take the livers out of comatose people because they are sentient and the people in comas are not, and, really, denying them a liver punishes them for drinking and prohibits them from getting basic medical care.

    re: female fetuses. Like in China? Wow – go figure, the pro-life position HELPS women!

  10. Posted June 14, 2007 at 1:46 am | Permalink

    Oenophile said:
    Easy. When you drive a car, you consent to be pulled over, to show your driver’s license, and to have your car searched. Don’t like it? Don’t drive. The police lack the same right to stop and search someone who is not driving. A person walking along the street has no legal obligation to produce identification.
    Not in the US, you don’t. A traffic stop and a search of the passenger compartment must be based on reasonable suspicion. Consent is not implied.
    It seems you know about as much about law as you do about reproductive biology. I’m sure there’s no point even going into the fact that quite a few women who get pregnant take extensive measures to avoid becoming pregnant, which certainly doesn’t indicate even implied consent.

  11. Posted June 14, 2007 at 1:55 am | Permalink

    With apologies in advance for the cross-posting, I’m reminded of a passage in my article on Gonzales v. Carhart, which I quote below:
    Following the passage of the 13th-15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which formally granted (male) African Americans the rights of citizenship, reactionary elements in the South and elsewhere formed terrorist organisations to terrorise the African American community out of exercising its newly won rights. These organisations came to be known as the Ku Klux Klan, and their express mission was to keep African Americans in “their place”. In this regard, they are virtually identical to the terrorist organisations formed to ensure that women’s newly-won rights existed only on paper. The only difference is the relative candour with which the KKK expressed their purpose.
    There can no more be debate with Right-to-Rape groups than there can be with the KKK. As Noam Chomsky said of Holocaust Deniers,


    By entering into the arena of argument and counterargument, of technical feasibility and tactics, of footnotes and citations, by accepting the presumption of legitimacy of debate on certain issues, one has already lost one’s humanity.

    This is so because there is no common ground, no matter on which to compromise, and no mutual understanding to be had. To enter into debate with such groups is no more reasonable than to debate the propriety of human slavery. We would not even think of debating such a matter, even with wholly non-violent advocates of slavery. We have nothing to concede except our own humanity, dignity, and liberty, for that is what these groups seek to take. Chomsky’s statement has never been more literally true. On this we may never waver: We do not argue or negotiate with those who seek to own us.

  12. EG
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 2:01 am | Permalink

    So now my using my own body for pleasure is the equivalent of operating heavy machinery? Who knew my vagina was so dangerous and powerful?
    Yes, a cop can stop me and ask to see my license. What he cannot do is lay a hand on me. Because amazingly, a car and a driver’s license are not actually the same thing as my body.
    When I have penis-in-vagina sex I do indeed understand and acknowledge that there is a small risk that I will become pregnant. And I take responsibility for that risk by understanding exactly how to go about terminating that pregnancy. Having sex with a man does not mean that I give up rights over my body.
    As for “pro-life” policies being good for women because of China? That’s like claiming that the answer to misogynist employment and property practices is patriarchal marriage. Which you did.

  13. Posted June 14, 2007 at 2:05 am | Permalink

    Just noticed this gem:
    Think about your rhetoric. More than half this country is pro-life. Do you want to alienate us and get trashed at the polls when Roe is overturned, or do you want pro-woman people of all stripes who will figure out a way to make decent laws?
    What country are you talking about? If you’re referring to the US, you’re overestimating by about 30%.

  14. Itazura
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 2:09 am | Permalink

    Oenophile
    You and I are both pro-life, and we both hate abortion. But unlike you I know what will happen if we ban abortion. Why do you want to return to coat hanger days?
    You seem to forget that birth control devices fail quite often, and rape victims usually don’t get a choice as whether or not a Birth Control method can even be used. The simple fact is that without access to legal abortions women are going to use the coat hanger, or worse move to Canada (actually Canada’s great but don’t move there for that reason).
    I am pro-choice, because I know the alternative is appalling. We do not want to go back to the dark ages of coat hangers.

  15. samo
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 2:11 am | Permalink

    this makes me so fuuuuuuuurious. as a woman who has faced rape, this makes me so angry that a MAN thinks he can tell a RAPED woman that she isnt allowed to clear her body of the devastating crime that she was destroyed by.
    ach i know you all agree.

  16. samo
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 2:11 am | Permalink

    this makes me so fuuuuuuuurious. as a woman who has faced rape, this makes me so angry that a MAN thinks he can tell a RAPED woman that she isnt allowed to clear her body of the devastating crime that she was destroyed by.
    ach i know you all agree.

  17. EG
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 2:11 am | Permalink

    “Decent laws” don’t involve forcing women to endure pregnancy and childbirth against their will.
    But really, hasn’t the left in general and feminists in particular heard that kind concern-troll advice before? “If you’re not nicer, nobody will listen to you! If you’d just move more toward the center (i.e., my position), you’d get more support.”
    Right. That’s always worked.

  18. Posted June 14, 2007 at 2:15 am | Permalink

    But really, hasn’t the left in general and feminists in particular heard that kind concern-troll advice before? “If you’re not nicer, nobody will listen to you! If you’d just move more toward the center (i.e., my position), you’d get more support.”
    Good point. And why exactly should we be nicer to a reactionary movement that barely garners the support of a third of the population (of the US)? You may catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but who actually wants to catch them when you can just send them packing?

  19. EG
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 2:15 am | Permalink

    Elise, one should also note the inherent absurdity of oenophile, who regularly uses insulting language to address those who disagree with her, lecturing anybody about alienating people with rhetoric.

  20. Posted June 14, 2007 at 2:19 am | Permalink

    Elise, one should also note the inherent absurdity of oenophile, who regularly uses insulting language to address those who disagree with her, lecturing anybody about alienating people with rhetoric.
    Indeed. It’s on the level of a movement that can’t even be bothered to deplore the murder of women, doctors, and other health care workers (and occasionally one or two of their oh-so-important foetuses) and then expects to be taken seriously when it talks about respecting human life.

  21. SarahMC
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 2:26 am | Permalink

    Abortion IS murder

    And yet, rape victims are given a free pass (since they have more rights than non-raped women)?
    If you’re not pro-life w/ exceptions, forgive my mistake. But if you are, consider the absurdity of declaring abortion murder and allowing raped women to do it.
    And let’s say fetuses ARE people. Why should they be allowed to live off my bodily resources when no other people are?

  22. EG
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 2:40 am | Permalink

    It occurs to me that what pro-forced-birthers really want is to live in a fantasy that they imagine to be prior to the invention of abortion. That way, they don’t have to worry about the results of their laws (cf. Itazura), and that’s what lies behind the nonsense about how consenting to have sex means consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. Because the fact is that of course I consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant when I have sex with a man. What I do not consent to is continuing that pregnancy. The fantasy is that since there’s no such thing as abortion, consenting to the possibility of becoming pregnant is no different from consenting to continuing that pregnancy.
    What’s too bad for them, of course, is that we did invent abortion, which uncouples the “becoming pregnant” phase from the “continuing the pregnancy” phase, and there’s no turning back. And we invented it a long, long time ago, I might add. So most pro-choicers don’t see consenting to the possibility of becoming pregnant to automatically mean that one must see that pregnancy through to the bitter, painful end. It’s like saying that because I consented to and acknowledged the possibility that eating sushi might give me food poisoning, that I therefore gave up all rights to visit an ER if it happens. Or that because I consented to and acknowledged the possibility that a stock might go down when I invested my money, I can’t pull my money out when it does start to go down, but must see it through to the very end. Or that because I thought of a poem in a moment of inspiration, I must write it down and try to publish it, even if after the inspiration fades I realize that it’s crap.
    Except, of course, that the stakes are infinitely higher, because money, as important as it is, is just money, and bad poetry is kind of laughable, whereas my body is my one and only, as is my life.

  23. anorak
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 2:54 am | Permalink

    EG, if you don’t mind my saying so, you are bloody eloquent!

  24. Itazura
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 3:48 am | Permalink

    I have never understood why American conservatives want to return to the dark ages. America is probably the only country where it’s conservative political organ wants to do that.
    The world is not flat. The sun does not rotate around the Earth, God did not create the world less than 7000 years ago, and enslavement of women and/or minorities does not make good economic or social sense.
    I am a progressing because I do not want to regress to the dark ages of coat hangers, Jim Crow laws, bad science, and complete corporate ownership of everything.

  25. Posted June 14, 2007 at 4:21 am | Permalink

    What’s too bad for them, of course, is that we did invent abortion, which uncouples the “becoming pregnant” phase from the “continuing the pregnancy” phase, and there’s no turning back. And we invented it a long, long time ago, I might add.
    First of all, I agree with anorak – great post!
    Second of all, we didn’t invent abortion. Actually, we’re just one of the primate species that terminate pregnancies when the conditions are not favourable for childbearing. Abortion is just one of many ways that our species protects itself.

  26. mwalker1119
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 5:26 am | Permalink

    obviously retarded it’s not like there’s good karma in south carolina anyway, north carolina is where all the action is

  27. SunlessNick
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 6:23 am | Permalink

    It’s like saying that because I consented to and acknowledged the possibility that eating sushi might give me food poisoning, that I therefore gave up all rights to visit an ER if it happens. - EG
    Or that by going out at night, I have consented to the possibility of being mugged, so I should neither defend myself, nor take steps to recover what was lost.

  28. Posted June 14, 2007 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    Roymac, you don’t rock. I deliberately ignore the distinction between “human” and “person” because such a distinction was used for hundreds of years to discriminate against women and minorities.
    Yes, it was. That doesn’t make the distinction incorrect- it makes the application incorrect. You know what else was used for a long time as a way of controlling and oppressing women?
    Sex and reproduction.
    If you want to keep it alive, go right ahead – but don’t count on me to do anything besides point out your male privilege.
    By all means, please do. If I’m exhibiting male privilege, I want people to point it out. I know that I have privilege, and I try very hard to be aware of it, but I’m hardly perfect. The person/human distinction isn’t male privlege, though. It’s a legal and moral distinction. Conflating the two is willful ingnorance of the importance of the distinction. A person has moral responsibilities, a human may or may not. In theory, a person doesn’t even have to be human. One might point out that conflating person and human is speciest, but, whatever.
    I don’t hate women, being one myself.
    Keep believing that.
    Membership to a group says nothing about your ability or desire to love or hate that group.
    I don’t pretend that fetuses have rights and that women are vessels for babies.
    You say that, but the rest of your words and the positions you support speak much louder.
    I will NEVER force a woman to be pregnant. I leave that to her and her boyfriend who choose to not use effective birth control. If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, she need not be pregnant.
    That’s right. And when a woman becomes pregnant by accident for any reason, or when she intentionally gets pregnant, but decides that she doesn’t want to be anymore, abortion allows her to retain control over that choice.
    I would not condone a long-term smoker who stated that he has the right to harvest organs from the comatose, because, after all, they are comatose and he is sentient; moreover, to deny him such is to punish him for smoking and to deny him medical care.
    See, there are those ridiculous analogies again. It’s not punishing a smoker by not letting him steal another person’s organs. It’s punishing him if you refuse to let him in line for organ transplants. If you say “Well, we’ve got organs, and we could give them to you, but we’re not going to,” you’re denying him medical care. The fact that you admit that you wouldn’t let him just take the organs, even though he needs them to survive is exactly like a woman refusing to let the fetus use her womb. It’s not the fetus’ womb to use- it’s the woman’s. She has as much right to deny the fetus the use of it as any other person has the right not to donate organs.
    Think about your rhetoric. More than half this country is pro-life.
    That is patently untrue. You repeat it over and over as though that will somehow make it true. It won’t.
    Do you want to alienate us and get trashed at the polls when Roe is overturned, or do you want pro-woman people of all stripes who will figure out a way to make decent laws?
    I’m not concerned with alienating people who’ve already made it clear that they’re not my ally. You’ve already put your chips on the table and made it clear where you stand. Nothing I say is going to convince you, so… No.
    I don’t care if you feel alienated by this discussion.
    I’m concerned with the people who aren’t sure yet. Who are wavering. Who haven’t staked their position yet. Those are the people I’m interested in, because those are the people who can still be shown how offensive and wrong your position is. I don’t care if you feel alienated in this discussion because no law that you’re going to support is going to be acceptable to me unless you, like Itazura, recognize that your personal feelings about abortion shouldn’t have an effect on other women’s right to get one. You are not my ally in this conversation.
    You may not be anti-woman in other conversations. You may be my ally, then.
    Here?
    When it comes to abortion?
    You are the enemy. You’re wrong, and the position you support hurts women. Not only does it reduce them to walking incubators, as others have pointed out, but it kills them.
    Let me repeat that: Your position kills women.
    Easy. When you drive a car, you consent to be pulled over, to show your driver’s license, and to have your car searched. Don’t like it? Don’t drive.
    That’s untrue. The fact that you’re driving does not give the police the right to search your car without probable cause. They are allowed to ask for a driver’s license because you have to be able to prove that you are legal to drive. If the police have probable cause, they can search your car. Of course, if they have probable cause, they can search you while you’re out walking, too.
    it does mean that you are acknowledging that, as an adult, you know that sex could cause pregnancy and will deal with being pregnant.
    Obviously.
    The difference in our positions being that abortion is one way of dealing with pregnancy. If I got in a car accident and was injured, I wouldn’t expect to be told “Well, you knew the risks when you started driving. Deal with the consequences now.” I’d expect my medical needs to be met.
    Murder is the deliberate ending of human life.
    No, it’s not. That’s an incomplete and inaccurate definition of murder. Murder is the unjust talking of a person’s life. There are many instances of completely justified taking of human life. If my life is in danger, I may use lethal force to protect myself. That is not murder. In some circumstances, the police may use lethal force against a criminal. That is not murder. In certain circumstances, doctors may remove a patient from life support. That is not murder.
    Abortion IS murder, like it or not – and you don’t get to murder because you deliberately (or recklessly) created life and don’t happen to like the fact that it needs your body.
    Thank gods for the rest of us that you’re currently wrong. As it currently stands, women can get abortions.
    Your baby is not responsible for the fact that evolution did not deal out the benefits and burdens of sex in a fair and equitable manner.
    Nor is a fetus repsonsible for being created after rape or incest, but you don’t seem to be bothered by that as much.
    Oh. Right.
    Because it’s not really about the fetus. It’s about The Consequences of that slut’s actions. I almost forgot, but thank you for reminding me.
    Wow – go figure, the pro-life position HELPS women!
    I’m sure the women who die in back-alley abortions will be glad to hear that.

  29. EG
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    Many, many thanks, anorak! That’s very nice!

  30. EG
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    evolution did not deal out the benefits and burdens of sex in a fair and equitable manner.
    Indeed evolution did not. One of the burdens of having sex if you’re a woman and you’re having sex with a man is that you might become pregnant. In which case you are faced with the burden of either continuing the pregnancy or not.
    Evolution did not hand out the benefits and burdens of eyesight in a particularly fair manner either; one of the lovely things about being human is that we don’t consider that a good reason to perpetuate nature’s injustices. My mother gets to wear eyeglasses. I get to use asthma inhalers. And we both get to have abortions if we need them.
    Basically, if you’re pro-forced-birth, you are condoning a system whereby women have to live in fear of their sexuality and men do not. We have the technology to change that. I see no reason not to use it.
    Elise, really? I never knew that about other primates! I’d love to hear more about it.

  31. String_Bean_Jen
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    Elise, really? I never knew that about other primates! I’d love to hear more about it.
    EG, I did a paper last quarter on infanticide among not only third world populations currently, but also middle-class populations in the 20th century. Without safe access to abortion, it’s a practice utilized among many populations today.
    Anyway, while I was doing my research, I came across loads of articles on infanticide among primates. I was like, “get out of my research database!” So if you have access to an academic database, look under any anthropology journal and type in “primates” and “infanticide.” I did not have time to read any of those articles as I was quite overwhelmed with articles on infanticide among humans.

  32. Vervain
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    “the rape tips the balance of rights in favour of the woman…One need not be less valuable for the other’s rights to occasionally trump.”
    So, if I’m not misunderstanding you, outside of rape, in your estimation the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the woman?
    Wow, it’s so flattering to know that, in your mind, I rank lower than a blob of nonsentient tissue!
    Oh, I know, it’s not just tissue, it’s a potential life. S/He could potentially grow up and discover a cure for cancer, or something.
    Of course, it’s also possible s/he will grow up to be a criminal or murderer. The mother, on the other hand, is already here, in most cases definitely not a criminal or murderer, actively contributing to society. But the lump o’ tissue trumps? You’d rather bet on the *potential* valuable citizen rather than the existing one?
    I guess that makes you a gambler.

  33. oenophile
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    I’m going to throw up.

  34. SarahMC
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    Oenophile, I’d really appreciate it if you’d respond to my post re: your claim that “Abortion is murder.”

  35. oenophile
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    It’s self-explanatory, Sarah.
    The progeny of two humans is always a human. That’s just biology.
    Contrary to Roymac’s bulls–t, murder is not the deliberate killing of a person, but rather the deliberate killing of human.
    http://www.answers.com/topic/murder
    If you aren’t killing the fetus, why bother with abortion? As someone here said (EG?), the entire point of abortion is to kill the fetus.
    Justify murder to justify your pro-choice stance – but the fact that your pro-choice stance means that you condone murder is not my problem.

    Random question: is the general consensus that you can’t be pro-life and have rape exceptions, or that you have to allow for rape exceptions because it’s inhumane not to?
    I’m sorry, I can’t respond to the other comments. I honestly really want to throw up at the UTTER lack of morality. You all prance around and say that abortion is a big moral issue, but, when it comes to actually pointing out what it is, it’s all of a sudden the moral equivalent of a condom.
    It’s a HUMAN that you are killing.

  36. Mina
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    Speaking of killing human life without killing a person, what about the biological fact that *living* *human* cells are *killed* by all the alcohol in wine?

  37. ris825
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    oenophile, are you going to take care of a ever child that is born because a woman was denied an abortion? Is it not cruel to bring a child into the world that will not be given every chance a child deserves? I know you may say that an abortion doesn’t even give the child a chance to live. But that can not be true. How can a soul that hasn’t been born yet, die?

  38. EG
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

    I honestly really want to throw up at the UTTER lack of morality. You all prance around and say that abortion is a big moral issue, but, when it comes to actually pointing out what it is, it’s all of a sudden the moral equivalent of a condom. It’s a HUMAN that you are killing.
    I do indeed think that abortion is a big moral issue. But I don’t think that the right gets to define morality.
    Abortion is a moral issue because it is immoral to force a woman to endure pregnancy and childbirth against her will. It is the moral equivalent of rape. It is immoral to treat women as as secondary adjuncts to their fetuses. It is immoral to decide that women’s most important role is as life support systems for fetuses. It is immoral to invade a woman’s bodily integrity and autonomy.
    Furthermore, it is immoral to condone a system under which straight and bisexual women must live in fear of their own sexuality. It is immoral to condone a system in which men can explore the full range of sexual activities of which their bodies are capable without fear of bodily harm or permanent repercussions but women are held hostage to biology. It is immoral to inflict a right-wing view of sexuality on the public at large.
    Finally, it is immoral to ignore the real-world consequences of legislation. It is immoral to sacrifice women to painful, unnecessary deaths that could have been easily avoided with a relatively minor medical procedure. It is immoral to tell women and the men who love them that their deaths are acceptable collateral damage.
    Just because the morality in play isn’t your vision, doesn’t mean it’s not morality.
    By the way, oenophile, you keep telling us that it’s a human fetus/embryo that we’re aborting. We know. I’d be very concerned if it were a walrus fetus. But we don’t feel that trumps all other moral considerations.

  39. oenophile
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    Mina,
    Living cells AREN’T HUMAN. If you missed the memo, the purpose of abortion is to END HUMAN LIFE.
    At five weeks after last menstrual period, the embryo has a beating heart. Wine does not kill my heart – in fact, it’s good for it.
    I don’t care when the cells in my body die. I do care if someone kills me. Mina, under your own logic, I should be able to maim and kill you, since your cells are dying anyway. But, not being a murderess, I don’t do that.
    Why is that Feministing commentators insist of proving Summer’s point that women are too dumb for science? By a show of hands, who doesn’t understand what a human is? Who doesn’t understand that, once sperm has met egg, you have reproduced? Who doesn’t understand the difference between cells, tissues, organs, and entire organisms – i.e. who missed the hierarchy?
    Ris – If you want to ensure that rape is always illegal, will you suck off the men who can’t get off otherwise? You do that, and I’ll raise the kids from unwanted pregnancy.
    I’m not supposed to provide every person in America with all his material wants, simply because I want theft to remain illegal. I’m not required to pleasure would-be-rapists, offer myself for a beating to would-be batterers, personally provide counseling to psychos, educate every child that would otherwise be truant, or do a host of other things.
    It’s called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. We have the right to non-aggression from other people, and we have a similar duty of non-aggression. Sorry, that includes the child that you deliberately created inside of you.
    But that can not be true. How can a soul that hasn’t been born yet, die?
    Well, if it’s not alive, you’ve miscarried and don’t need an abortion. The point is to end human life.
    ==
    As for my “calling people names,” can you all get a grip on your hypersensitivity? I’ve been called:
    -pro-coat hanger
    -anti-choice
    -anti-woman
    -rabid
    -RACIST (LawFairy forget to take her Midol that morning)
    -stupid
    -told to take a quarter and buy a brain (thanks, Moxie)
    -told to “shut the fuck up”
    -yeah, I’ve lost track of the other crap shoved in my direction.
    What have I done? Said “honey.” Omigod, I once used a synonym for “prostitute” to refer to a stripper, without realising that it would offend people.
    Vervian – it’s not potential life. It’s a HUMAN. I don’t care if it grows up to cure cancer or become a criminal. Under your theory, why not murder toddlers that could be criminals? After all, they are potential adults, and, after all, child care does inhibit women’s careers in a disparate way.
    EG,
    My mother gets to wear eyeglasses. I get to use asthma inhalers. And we both get to have abortions if we need them.
    Of course. Your mother does not, however, get to maim other people and take their perfectly-functioning eyes. And she’s not even responsible for her nearsightedness, the way that women choose to risk pregnancy.
    Roymac,
    Acquire a clue.
    The difference in our positions being that abortion is one way of dealing with pregnancy. If I got in a car accident and was injured, I wouldn’t expect to be told “Well, you knew the risks when you started driving. Deal with the consequences now.” I’d expect my medical needs to be met.
    Where did I argue against prenatal care? Wow, I didn’t.
    Do you think that your “medical needs” after a car accident would include harvesting organs from your chosen victim, simply because that would medically help you?
    Hell, no. MEDICAL NEEDS DON’T ENCOMPASS MURDER. A pregnant woman’s medical needs involve prenatal care, abortion to save her life, and delivery. It doesn’t involve abortion for her own lifestyle choices.
    Abortion isn’t about medicine. Only 3% of women who abort do so for medical reasons. The other 97% have everything to do with lifestyle.
    You are the enemy. You’re wrong, and the position you support hurts women. Not only does it reduce them to walking incubators, as others have pointed out, but it kills them.
    Let me repeat that: Your position kills women.

    I’ve SUPPORTED ABORTION TO SAVE A WOMAN’S LIFE. I don’t kill women.
    You, on the other hand, take a position that KILLS HUMAN CHILDREN. So it’s not okay for me to espouse a position that does NOT kill women or babies, but okay for you to espouse one that condones the killing of 1.3 million children a year (and, also, kills women).
    That hatred makes me want to throw up or cry. Now, if I used a lot of appropriate words to describe you, I would be called a stupid rabid bitch, and I’ve had enough for today.

  40. Posted June 14, 2007 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    Wow, oenephile, I’ve heard you rabid & insane before but this is a new low. In a previous post, you said you were blonde & conservative–I’d ask if you were Ann Althouse but you make her look coherent. Are you sure you’re not Anne Coulter? I can see you now, hooked up to a chardonnay drip & trolling feminist blogs.
    I promise, I will start a charity to buy you a brain. I’ll even donate the first quarter.

  41. EG
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    Who doesn’t understand that, once sperm has met egg, you have reproduced? Who doesn’t understand the difference between cells, tissues, organs, and entire organisms – i.e. who missed the hierarchy?

  42. legallyblondeez
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    oenophile, I usually try to stay out of this stuff because it’s sort of painful to watch people dogpile on you even though I agree with them. But some of your language in your last post makes me want to throw up.
    Most notably:
    “Why is that Feministing commentators insist of proving Summer’s point that women are too dumb for science?”
    “If you want to ensure that rape is always illegal, will you suck off the men who can’t get off otherwise?”
    and
    “LawFairy forget to take her Midol that morning”
    I know you were trying to be flippant and that people have called you some unflattering names on this thread, but these statements make me as angry as you seem to be.
    The first, well I don’t think it’s actually a matter of biology whether we consider a mass of cells that does not yet exist separate from its human host to be a being of equal humanity to a born human. We can agree that it will be a human once it is born and disagree about what society should allow in terms of what happens before it is born. The second statement implies that rape is about sexual desire (which it is not) and that somehow if men’s sexual “needs” were fulfilled rape wouldn’t happen (it most certainly would). And the second just employs a stupid, offensive stereotype about women’s menstrual cycles making them unreasonably bitchy, which doesn’t belong in a post by someone who I thought respected women.

  43. EG
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    Who doesn’t understand that, once sperm has met egg, you have reproduced? Who doesn’t understand the difference between cells, tissues, organs, and entire organisms – i.e. who missed the hierarchy?
    Apparently, you, if you think that one cell–a sperm and an egg together make one cell–is a full human being.
    I’d love to see the evidence of a scientific consensus agreeing that once a sperm meets an egg, you have reproduced, in much the same way that I’d love to see a unicorn. And not a goat that’s been bred to have horns set close together and kind of twisted. An actual unicorn.
    Sorry about the tag fuck-up on the previous post.

  44. Posted June 14, 2007 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    embryo = human
    brain cells = not human
    Good to know. Here I was, thinking that ALL of my cells are human. Now I realize that only some are. And not only that, but some of those microscopic cells are actually full human beings. Only the cells that oenophile and Sam Brownback choose, of course. Won’t someone think of the microscopic children?

  45. EG
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    Law Fairy forget to take her Midol that morning.
    This is so the person I want to take lessons on conciliatory rhetoric from.
    Your mother does not, however, get to maim other people and take their perfectly-functioning eyes.
    And that’s exactly why a fetus doesn’t get to use her uterus without her permission. It’ll die without it? Tough shit.

  46. EG
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    “If you want to ensure that rape is always illegal, will you suck off the men who can’t get off otherwise?”
    Much in the same way a fetus doesn’t have a right to my reproductive, circulatory, and digestive systems, a man doesn’t have a right to my mouth, vagina, anus, or anything else of mine. You keep making these analogies, and they do not mean what you think they mean.

  47. Posted June 14, 2007 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

    Why do we keep letting oenephile derail good discussions? I’m being serious, everyone else has pretty much reached a consensus & then she comes in with her pseudoscience & hysterics & we react, which is just what she wants.

  48. Posted June 14, 2007 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

    As I’ve been saying for some time, Moxie! But I was met with fierce resistance to the idea last time.

  49. Mina
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    “Mina,
    “Living cells AREN’T HUMAN.”
    If the cells of yours that you kill when you drink wine aren’t human, then what species are they?

  50. Mina
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    “Why do we keep letting oenephile derail good discussions?”
    Just another case of a drunkard being the butt of sober people’s joking, I guess. ;)

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

219 queries. 1.021 seconds