A little anti-choice paternalism to start your morning (as good as coffee!)

Jamie Lynn Spears must be so pleased that her decision to have a baby meets with the approval of a republican presidential hopeful that she’s (likely) never met.

“Apparently, she’s going to have the child, and I think that is the right decision, a good decision, and I respect that and appreciate it,” [Mike Huckabee] told CBS News.
“I hope it is not an encouragement to other 16-year-olds who think that is the best course of action. But at the same time I’m not going to condemn her…”

You know, unless she decided to have an abortion. Then I’d call her a sinning whore. I realize that Spears herself has made her pregnancy public (though given her celebrity it seems unlikely she had any other choice), but I don’t see how this means that random men she doesn’t know have the right to comment freely on her situation and its moral implications. Of course, antis like Huckabee think that it’s their right to judge all women and their reproductive decisions so I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked.
In a way, Spears has come to represent an anti-choicers dream–the universal American teen they can wax misogyist about. She’s a pretty white teen who is being “responsible” by keeping her baby. But she had premarital sex, which makes her ripe for chastising. And the anti-choicers swoon! (I wonder how giddy they’d be if it was a young woman of color who was in the spotlight….just saying.)
The point is, Spears is a person–difficult to fathom, I know–and perhaps people should treat her with a little dignity, rather than as a political argument.

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

49 Comments

  1. feministorbust
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    And the sick thing is–well, all of it’s pretty disgusting, but anyway–that with people like Huckabee potentially in office before too long, this complete disregard for allowing women the privacy and agency to live their lives will be totally obsolete. It won’t just be Jamie Lynn Spears people like Huckabee target, but every woman in the country who wants to make decisions about how she experiences daily life.

  2. Ben
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    No credit to Ben for sending you this story, Jessica? Ouch! ;-)

  3. feministorbust
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    I was really fired up when writing the last comment. A more articulate (I hope) viewpoint:
    This is all pretty nauseating, but the part that really puts me over the top is the fact that for people like Huckabee, criticizing and patronizing Jamie Lynn Spears is just the beginning. If he becomes president, this complete disregard for women’s agency and privacy to make decisions about how they want to life their lives will just permeate to other celebrity and non-celebrity women alike. Yet another example of religious right propaganda clouding over the fact that women’s bodies and lives (let’s face it, men’s lives too) are deeply affected by reproductive freedom–and the lack thereof. There is so much wrong with this picture. Talk about frightening.

  4. annajcook
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    The point is, Spears is a person and perhaps people should treat her with a little dignity, rather than as a political argument.
    Right on, Jessica. I know there are people who argue that celebrities put themselves out in the public sphere, which they do, and thus deserve the attention they get. But I don’t think a person’s celebrity gives any of us the right to dehumanize them or presume to pass judgment on their personal life decisions.

  5. Jessica
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    Hey Ben, actually about ten different people emailed us this link–when it’s that many folks it’s just to difficult to give hat tips. I’m sorry though–and thank you (and others!) much for sending the link along.

  6. Ben
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    No worries, J – I figured as much. Happy New Year, ~B
    P.S. You’re welcome!

  7. Jovan1984
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    I just want to retch listening to Huckabee, (Ron) Paul, Vern Simon and the rest of the anti-choice douchebags judge women, let alone the Spears family about their choices. The Republicans are all about big government and controlling women’s lives.
    BTW, Jessica ,the sexism tag would have been most appropriate for this thread.

  8. locomotivebreath1901
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    “…Spears is a person.” Correct. An underage person. A minor child, to be exact. Statutory rape is still on the books.
    Or is that notion too quaint & antiquated?
    But that’s mundane, Let’s damn them @sshat right wingers!
    How dare they prefer a teen age girl birth the unborn woman in her womb as opposed to killing it.
    Such intolerance. But, no! It’s misogyny. Has to be.
    I’m pro-choice & I riot.
    Golden.

  9. lyndorr
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    As much as I agree with everything said, I think this is partly just a case of how much we want to know about and comment on the lives of American TV and movie stars and forget that they are people. It’s odd really. In Canada we have entertainment news shows and last time I watched it was mainly about American stars!
    I know a politician wouldn’t be commenting on the situation unless it was something related to his values but I’m just pointing out that nothing seems not allowed with any stars.

  10. Jessica
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Jovan1984, so added.
    locomotivebreath1901, what’s quaint and antiquated is that you think you can troll on my site without getting your ass handed to you. have fun!

  11. Posted December 28, 2007 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    It’s almost not worth the time to hand his ass to him. He’s already done a bang-up job of making his own self look like an idiot. It’s frustrating that people like him have the vote and choose to use it to punish women for existing, all in a pathetic bid to feel better about themselves. I don’t blame your average misogynist for their self-loathing they project outward onto women; I too loathe them, since they are contemptible. The irony is if they gave up the misogyny, they’d already be moving up the scale on acceptable human beings and would have less reason to hate themselves.

  12. acranom
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Underage or not and irregardless of a politician’s preference, Huckabee shouldn’t comment on the situation to make a political point.
    If he knew Spears and wished to express his thoughts to her, he’d be entitled to. If he wants to have a private discussion with his family or religous community about her and her decisions, fine. But she’s a person and her status as a celebrity doesn’t cancel that out and turn her into a political puppet.

  13. itazurakko
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    Statutory rape in Tennessee is:

    “Statutory rape to sexually penetrate a person at least age 13 but less than age 18 if the actor is at least four years older than the victim. Any actor under age 18 must be tried as a juvenile and cannot be transferred to adult court.”

    As I understand Ms. Spears’ case, the sex was consensual and the age difference only 3 years (her boyfriend is 19, isn’t he?) so it shouldn’t apply.
    Mind you, I’ve not been following Ms. Spears’ life or career, so there might be other details affecting things.
    What I did hear in the uproar following the announcement was a lot of people upset that the actor was having sex, when the character was a pure virginal type high schooler, or that sort of thing.
    Personally I think it’s a good lesson for kids, to keep straight that the actor and character are not the same thing at all.

  14. Jayble
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    For me the issue is wealth. Jamie Lynn can afford to raise this child with her army of nannies. Most 16 year olds don’t have the option of being wealthy and able to hire people to raise their children. By using Jamie Lynn as an example of “responsible” behavior, all these politicians and pundits are negating the challenge and hardship most teenage moms face – which is why the decision to have an abortion can be so hard for people.
    But then again, I kind of expect Huckabee to be a sanctimonious prick.

  15. Kmari1222
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Huckabee is a fuckin tool. seriously.
    the only ‘right’ decision is the one she chooses to make, not what anyone else thinks she should choose.

  16. SarahMC
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    Sort of OT:
    Holiday gatherings always come with a risk that I will get into a political argument with my parents or another relative. This year was peaceful because when my uncle started voicing his support for Obama (which invited others to talk about their candidates of choice), I slipped out of the room so to prevent myself from going off on anyone. Seconds later, as my BF and I sat in the next room, my mom exclaimed, “I like Huckabee!” My mouth dropped open and my BF just whispered, “Let it go… let it go…”
    Dog help us all.

  17. Olivia
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    Spears’ boyfriend is 19 according to the reports I’ve read. And he was living, at least part time, with Spears’ and her mother so I doubt statutory rape charges would apply. Nor does it need to. If the sex is consensual there is no reason to punish teenagers for it.

  18. monkeyhaterobot
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1576941/20071220/spears_britney.jhtml
    An interesting story addressing the legality issues of the pregnancy from MTV. Apparantly, it is unclear where the baby was conceived, which means that it is unclear whether or not statutory rape occurred.
    I’ve actually been thinking about how young female celebrities don’t really have an option other than having a baby once they are pregnant. I mean, what are they going to do: have an abortion and watch their careers shrivel up? Either way, these young women are under a magnifying glass making an already difficult choice nearly impossible. They can’t exactly adopt out the child because they have the monetary means to raise a child even if it means the quality of love and attention wouldn’t be there.
    Just some interesting things I started considering…Perhaps I can be even more articulate on the issue later.

  19. locomotivebreath1901
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    Jessica,
    ‘my @ss handed to me?’
    Why so serious?
    I’m simply a devil’s advocate offering an alternative viewpoint (which benefits your site traffic, btw).
    Or is dissent not patriotic?
    Happy new year.

  20. Destra
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    “Of course, antis like Huckabee think that it’s their right to judge all women and their reproductive decisions so I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked.”
    As hesitant to defend Huckabee as I am, I want to point out that anyone anywhere is allowed to criticize and judge others actions. That’s what happens when you step into the public sphere. We do it to Huckabee’s personal life decisions, and we do it to Spear’s decisions.

  21. Posted December 28, 2007 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    SarahMC – Sounds like my holiday… you know, one uncle who says a woman can’t be president in a household of Hillary supporters, and another uncle who says a Republican will win in 08 because Dem front runners are black or female.
    This coming from a “Democrat” family. Sigh.

  22. acranom
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    Destra, we criticize and judge Huckabee’s personal life decisions?
    Like what?
    (Beyond, obviously, his scary political, public actions and statements.)

  23. lazyfat-fat
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    acranom-
    I don’t know if it’s been talked about on this site, but there’s been discussion about Huckabee’s son relating to a dog incident and something about a knife at some airport. If you’re going to be a celebrity (politcal, hollywood, etc), I think you really just have to expect this. Especially if you sell the story of your pregnancy to a gossip mag. If people aren’t allowed to talk about news and state their opinions, what would we have to talk about?
    Jovan1984-
    There’s judgment on both sides. Republicans are “judging” women who get abortions and Democrats are “judging” those who think abortions are wrong. Are people not allowed to have opinions? I think the problem is a lack of understanding. I understand that pro-life people might believe that a fetus isn’t actually “life” and so a woman should have the right to choose whether to terminate it or not. However, a surprising number of those pro-lifers refuse to (or maybe just haven’t taken the time to read the opposing view) acknowledge that the pro-life stance just might be based upon the idea that abortion is the act of killing what we consider to be a person.

  24. meownette
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    I subscribe to US Weekly (ahhhh, I know, awful but necessary somehow), and I can not believe the vitriol directed at the Lynne Spears on this week’s cover, the headline of which is “Destroyed by Mama.” The sub-headline is actually “Shame on Lynne Spears” with no punctuation or anything, which makes it seem like some kind of incantation, like US Weekly is hoping to publicly shame her or curse her or something. I just can’t believe that this headline and article pay NO attention to the Spears father, and suggests that the Spears daughters are “destroyed” by having sex before marriage. Agggghhhh, it’s incensing on so many levels.

  25. meownette
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    I subscribe to US Weekly (ahhhh, I know, awful but necessary somehow), and I can not believe the vitriol directed at the Lynne Spears on this week’s cover, the headline of which is “Destroyed by Mama.” The sub-headline is actually “Shame on Lynne Spears” with no punctuation or anything, which makes it seem like some kind of incantation, like US Weekly is hoping to publicly shame her or curse her or something. I just can’t believe that this headline and article pay NO attention to the Spears father, and suggests that the Spears daughters are “destroyed” by having sex before marriage. Agggghhhh, it’s incensing on so many levels.

  26. acranom
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    lazyfat-fat, I haven’t seen anything about Huckabee’s son or a dog or a knife on any site I frequent (and not this one!).
    I understand that we are all allowed to discuss celebrities and people in the public sphere. I’m not arguing that. What I’m uncomfortable with (and what I think the original post was about) is Huckabee using Spears personal decision as his own personal campaign rhetoric. He has an opinion of what’s right for Spears and what’s wrong and what she should do with her body. He’e not saying, “I’m glad she made a difficult choice for whats best for her.” He said, “She made a difficult choice for what I think is best for her.”

  27. lazyfat-fat
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    http://perezhilton.com/?p=10642 (sorry, it was a gun not a knife apparently)
    and
    http://perezhilton.com/?p=10620

  28. acranom
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    or rather, he’s saying… (that is not a direct quote, just how I understand it)

  29. tofutti
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    How dare they prefer a teen age girl birth the unborn woman in her womb as opposed to killing it.
    Locomotive, that’s pretty much just twisting around words so they can mean what you want them to mean. Or are you just not aware that pro-choice parents exist?
    You wouldn’t be able to point out one single person on here who is upset about Spears keeping her baby. The only thing that is being discussed is how a political candidate is using her situation to back up his own campaign. Also, all this talk about how she’s “at least taking responsibility”, as if there is only one way to do that if you’re pregnant.

  30. rileystclair
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    layzfat-fat–i also have no clue about huckabee and a dog or whatever else you’re talking about.
    the difference between us “judging” pro-lifers like huckabee and the pro-lifers judging pro-choicers is pretty simple, really. of course people are free to believe that life begins at conception. just like i’m free to believe that chihuahuas are satan’s spawn and that no one should wear ugg boots, ever. the difference is that i’m not advocating legislation of my beliefs re: outlawing annoying dogs and bad fashion and huckabee and his ilk are all about doing just that.
    the awesome thing about being pro-choice is that it is about CHOICE. if you think abortion is wrong, you’re completely free in a pro-choice society to not have one! protecting reproductive choice for everyone doesn’t restrict any individuals with respect to their own bodies.

  31. lazyfat-fat
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    All you have to do is google “huckabee son” or some other variation and the first three links take you directly to the stories I was talking about. (Also I linked them a couple comments above you.. the perezhilton links).
    Also, rileystclair- you can make that argument about anything. If we lived in a murdering pro-choice society murdering could be legal and if you don’t agree with it you can just not murder. Same with stealing or whatever else you can think of.
    And one could argue that protecting “reproductive choice” (abortion) does indeed restrict those who are aborted.

  32. Ayla
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    “And one could argue that protecting “reproductive choice” (abortion) does indeed restrict those who are aborted.”
    “those who are aborted.” Umm… can you name someone who has been aborted? No? Oh, that’s right because PEOPLE don’t get aborted. Fetuses do. You can’t restrict a someone who doesn’t exist.

  33. lazyfat-fat
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    Ayla-
    In your opinion, when does a “non-existent” fetus become an “existent” person? Once it’s born? Once a head is poking out? A strand of hair? Maybe at least half of it has to be outside the lady? It’s so arbitrary. You might think that restricting abortion is a slippery slope towards taking away women’s rights, but consider it the other way around. If we’re allowed to “terminate” fetuses, why can’t we kill babies? They’re the most helpless creatures for their size and completely unable to support themselves, much like fetuses. They need an energy input on our sides to survive. Isn’t it a pro-choice argument that a woman shouldn’t have to relinquish her nutrients, etc if she doesn’t want to? Well what if someone doesn’t want to care for the baby once it’s born? Would it be so wrong to just throw it away?

  34. rileystclair
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    this is the last of my troll food for the evening, lazyfat-fat, but you’re changing the focus of your argument.
    first off, just because people out there in the great wide interwebs somewhere are talking about huckabee personally doesn’t mean we are. it’s been illustrated that no one here even knew about whatever you’re talking about, hence your criticism doesn’t apply here.
    secondly, you started out talking about how people on this site “judging” anti-choicers is exactly like said anti-choicers’ judgment of those who get abortions. i explained how it’s not the same. now you want to argue whether a fetus is a person or some other such topic, which is not what i was responding to in the first place. anyway, whether a fetus is a person is an entirely different and debatable issue. it’s not going to be resolved anytime soon or likely ever. in the meantime, there are about a bazillion other practical reasons that protecting reproductive rights is the right thing to do, but that is another thread entirely and you’re not interested in debate anyway.

  35. Ayla
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

    Until the fetus has been delivered or removed from the woman’s body, it’s not a person in my opinion. The woman whose body is supporting the fetus should have absolute control over what to do with something that is, at that point, a part of her body.
    That being said, the idea that someone would partially deliver a fetus, look down while it’s still attached or partially within the birth canal and say “oh, never mind, could you just abort it?” seems a bit silly, no? I’ve never bought into the whole “gray area, slippery slope” BS line and never will. Once the a baby has been born, the mother doesn’t HAVE to be involved at all. She can relinquish the baby at any point as long as she leaves it in an approved, safe area. (at least this is the case in Texas where I live and other places as well. Regular adoption is also another extremely obvious option)
    Killing a person of any age is called murder and I’m pretty sure that most people will agree that murder will not be made legal anytime soon… regardless of what the future may bring for abortion legislation.

  36. judgesnineteen
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    Not that this is (ahem) the appropriate thread to get into an abortion debate, but since you asked, lazyfat-fat, the difference between the fetus and the baby is that the fetus has to be dependent on one particular woman before it reaches the point of viability, while the baby is dependent on SOMEONE, but that person is not REQUIRED to be one particular woman. We have such a thing as adoption, not to mention relatives who can help raise a child. The other difference is that me handing you food and you taking nutrients out of my bloodstream are not the same, just as me putting you in a room in my house differs from you living inside my body and using my muscles and bones for support.
    While it is sad for a person to die because they need a heart or a kidney, we do not require people to be organ donors either before or after death. Thus, you can still think it’s sad for a fetus to die because a woman isn’t willing to donate her body to it (as sad as you would be over a fully developed human, if you want, although they are not the same), while believing that it’s wrong to require more from pregnant women than we do from any other person in this society. If you come back and say “well she shouldn’t have had sex in the first place and since she did she has to deal with the consequences,” then we’ll know why you’re really against abortion.

  37. lazyfat-fat
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    Yikes! This is why I generally don’t argue with people. Nobody wants to hear a differing opinion and if they do, then they jump on you!
    rileystclair:
    1. I don’t understand the need to call anyone who presents a different opinion a “troll”. It just seems mean to me, and completely unwarranted (at least in my case…I agree that some people comment on here just to be stupid).
    2. I specifically said that I didn’t know if it was talked about on this site. I was just pointing out in case anyone was interested to read it, a story involving Huckabee’s (or rather his son’s) personal life. What criticism are you talking about? I’m confused.
    3. I never said anyone on this site was judging. I said Republicans and Democrats so that I could point out what each side says. (Obviously not every R is pro-life and not every D is pro-choice, but you get the idea..) Either way, I’d still say that the judgments are the same. They’re opinions. Clearly, a serial murderer without a conscious might think that murdering is okay. That’s his (or her) belief. To him (or her), banning murder would be someone else legislating their beliefs and thus restricting him (or her). In my opinion, the real basis of the abortion debate should be whether or not a fetus is human life. If it’s determined to be life and awarded the same rights as other people, then it shouldn’t be aborted. Obviously people who think it isn’t life would say the basis of the debate should be whether or not the woman should have choice. This is why this issue is so difficult to deal with.
    4. I agree that it will probably never be agreed upon whether a fetus is alive, but by electing a president who believes one way or the other we are democratically deciding upon a viewpoint which we may or may not agree with.
    5. “you’re not interested in debate anyway” I haven’t personally attacked anyone and I’d appreciate the same respect. Also, why would I be on here debating with you if I weren’t interested?
    Ayla-
    I think I’d like you. It’s nice to have someone who will respond to me in a respectful way and present her (his?) opinions with humor and without any meanness. While I obviously disagree about when someone becomes a person, I see where you’re coming from and the things you pointed out are exactly why abortion is such a debated issue. Thank you.
    judgesnineteen-
    Pretty much the same thing I said to Ayla. But also in response to this:
    “While it is sad for a person to die because they need a heart or a kidney, we do not require people to be organ donors either before or after death. Thus, you can still think it’s sad for a fetus to die because a woman isn’t willing to donate her body to it (as sad as you would be over a fully developed human, if you want, although they are not the same), while believing that it’s wrong to require more from pregnant women than we do from any other person in this society”
    A good point, but I would say that those situations are slightly different in that there is a more active role in abortion, as compared to someone needing a transplant and simply not getting one.

  38. judgesnineteen
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    Fair enough. Sorry if I came off snarky – I’m really fed up with trolls and I think I got the wrong impression of you. Nothing wrong with respectful disagreement. But for what it’s worth, I do think the fetus is alive, but I still think the issue is about the woman’s choice.

  39. lazyfat-fat
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

    judgesnineteen-
    I was reading the little blurb on your site about your choice of username, and I’d kind of figured it was along those lines, but what you wrote was nice and a good idea.
    PS- I like your blog.
    PPS- I feel like I’m hogging up the comments section and will now take a little break. Goodnight!

  40. Regan
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 12:43 am | Permalink

    I would like to point out that Jamie Lynn Spears got into acting when she was 11. Something tells me that she didn’t fully understand that she could be turned into a political hot button at any time in the future. Who can actually understand those things at that age. I honestly don’t agree with the whole “you put yourself out there” argument, but I don’t see how anybody could argue that about a child star!
    Furthermore, Huckabee is turning out to be one of my least favorite people ever. Why would he even say something about this? He respects 16 year olds having babies? That’s a great campaign slogan. “I respect teenage mothers!”
    But on a more serious note, nobody has the right, especially a politician, to tell women what to do with their bodies. What he said is wrong and inappropriate.

  41. UltraMagnus
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 1:05 am | Permalink

    Jessica asked,
    (I wonder how giddy they’d be if it was a young woman of color who was in the spotlight….just saying.)
    Well, if it were a black teenage girl then the media would either roll their eyes or wink to each other and there would be Don Imus style jokes involving variations on the words “ghetto” and “baby momma”. Although, Beyonce Knowles younger sister got pregnant at a very young age (18 I think) and no one batted an eye or made fun of her (as far as I heard). Then again, she got married to the babies father right away but they are now divorced.

  42. rileystclair
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 1:32 am | Permalink

    lazy–i’m sorry if i was a bit hasty in my judgment, i just don’t come to this site expecting to see anti-choicers post unless they are trolls. also, i don’t really feel it’s my duty to explain why a pro-choice position is the only practical and ethical (and feminist, in my opinion) stance to everyone who pops up here spouting anti-choice rhetoric. there is a wealth of information on the subject out there you could read if you were genuinely curious. so forgive my skepticism, but i don’t think it’s entirely unfounded.
    i was honestly trying to explain the difference to you between believing that abortion is wrong according to one’s personal morals and believing that no one else should be allowed to have an abortion. this isn’t the same as your murder scenario. if we have to condone murder, we can’t really have a very stable, modern, democratic society, can we? whereas we can carry on just fine with legalized abortions, so there is a social utility aspect to punishing homicide independent of ethics.
    anyway, to respond to your organ donor comment, the critical difference is that your view necessitates that women ultimately choose to become pregnant. if you acknowledge that even if a couple take all possible precautions, that a woman can still become pregnant, that it is not ultimately up to her conscious control , how can you obligate her to use her body to support what is essentially a parasite, that she did not choose to grow in her to begin with?
    there was a very, very good article that was referenced here recently that i’ll refer you to now for some of the best, most articulate arguments on this issue. here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jill-filipovic/questions-for-prolifers_b_58563.html
    it’s clearly more focused on anti-choice as advocated by those in public office, but it should be required reading for anyone who supports those people.

  43. Posted December 29, 2007 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    Being that I only know anything about JLS because of this site (I don’t even have a t.v., let alone live in North Am) – is the baby’s father getting this much attention? Are there comments about him making the “right” decision?

  44. ulli
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    lazyfat-fat:
    so, here’s the thing.
    I think the organ donation analogy is great.
    A good point, but I would say that those situations are slightly different in that there is a more active role in abortion, as compared to someone needing a transplant and simply not getting one.
    See, I think if the decision I make is active or passive doesn’t have anything to do with it’s.
    If I refuse to give my kidney to another person, this choice will be respected, no matter if the other person dies.
    If some other person sneaks up on me while I sleep and somehow connects itself to my blood stream, I have every right to remove this connection, even if the other person dies in this process. My bodily inegrity trumps his/her life.
    And, if I initially agree to give daily blood donations to someone else for an extended period of time (say 40 weeks) and this person will die without my daily donations (this is a bit constructed, I know, but please bear with me here), and then I discover I get dizzy and feel sick every day, or I can’t afford transportation to the doctor, or I simply don’t WANT to do this anymore, I still have every right to interrupt my donations. It certainly wouldn’t be nice of me, but no judge would order me to make those donations, no police car would come, drive me to the doctor, strap me to a chair and take my blood against my will.
    And in all those examples, the question if the other person is a human or not isn’t even touched. Your bodily integrity trumps someone elses survival, person or not.
    Except when the body belongs to a woman of course… (sorry, couldn’t resist a bit of snark)

  45. ulli
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    lazyfat-fat:
    so, here’s the thing.
    I think the organ donation analogy is great.
    A good point, but I would say that those situations are slightly different in that there is a more active role in abortion, as compared to someone needing a transplant and simply not getting one.
    See, I think if the decision I make is active or passive doesn’t have anything to do with it’s.
    If I refuse to give my kidney to another person, this choice will be respected, no matter if the other person dies.
    If some other person sneaks up on me while I sleep and somehow connects itself to my blood stream, I have every right to remove this connection, even if the other person dies in this process. My bodily inegrity trumps his/her life.
    And, if I initially agree to give daily blood donations to someone else for an extended period of time (say 40 weeks) and this person will die without my daily donations (this is a bit constructed, I know, but please bear with me here), and then I discover I get dizzy and feel sick every day, or I can’t afford transportation to the doctor, or I simply don’t WANT to do this anymore, I still have every right to interrupt my donations. It certainly wouldn’t be nice of me, but no judge would order me to make those donations, no police car would come, drive me to the doctor, strap me to a chair and take my blood against my will.
    And in all those examples, the question if the other person is a human or not isn’t even touched. Your bodily integrity trumps someone elses survival, person or not.
    Except when the body belongs to a woman of course… (sorry, couldn’t resist a bit of snark)

  46. ulli
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    sorry for the double. i knew i shouldn’t have clicked the post button twice, but i got a bit impatient

  47. Webbess
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    I knew it was going to be Huckabee from the first sentence. That man is like Bush 2.0 (to borrow the term from a friend of mine), smarter and more extreme. Scary, scary guy.

  48. Persephone
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    Taking responsibility? Wouldn’t using a condom have been taking responsibility?
    Why is she being held up like a goddess for getting pregnant anyway?

  49. Daniel
    Posted February 12, 2008 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    “The point is, Spears is a person–difficult to fathom, I know–and perhaps people should treat her with a little dignity, rather than as a political argument.”
    Except he was asked his opinion on it and would be berated if he chose to say that it was none of his business. I don’t find it unlikely that he may have been thinking “What kind of question is that?”
    If I were to point a finger for Jamie Lynn’s lack of privacy, which I guess is what I’m doing, I’d point it at the person who asked Huckabee the question.

Feministing In Your Inbox

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

224 queries. 1.071 seconds