If there was any lingering doubts you may have that the drive against abortion and reproductive rights for women isn't anything but crass woman-hatred and sex-hatred; I hereby present this essay by Digby in his/her blog about some wingnut reaction to one of his/her earlier posts:
I got a track-back from the blog "Responding To the Left" to the post below, specifically the story of the woman who had an abortion because she already had two small children and couldn't afford another. I think it is an eloquent and honest representation of the way that many in the pro-life movement feel and it's great to see it out in the open so we can begin to debate this thing honestly:
[partial quote from "Responding to the Left" blog]
I don't really get it. I am supposed to feel sorry for this woman? Does Digby expect me to sympathize with her? I hope not, because she's a selfish woman who was thinking only of herself.That's right. You read that correctly. She couldn't afford to have another child so she terminated the pregancy. That is selfish.
She wanted to have her fun and get laid, but she didn't want to have to deal with the possible consequences of her actions and guess what people? When a man and a woman have sex and the make is capable of producing sperm and the woman is capable of producing eggs, there is the possibility of the woman getting pregnant.
Digby makes the wisecrack about her not having sex. I can only take from his comment, that he is like so many other's of the same ilk who believe we're all like jungle animals and have to hump when the mood strikes. Of course, that isn't the case. People don't walk down the street and just bump into each other and start screwing (unless it's a Cinemax movie).
We have the mental capacity to be able to take care of such business in private. We also have the ability to abstain. Nothing is going to happen to us if we don't have sex.
And if you're in a position like this woman, a low paying job and two kids already. Guess what? Don't fuck.
[part of Digby's response to this BS]
This person assumes that I believe humans are animals who can't control ourselves, but that is wrong. I don't believe that we are unable to control ourselves, but I do believe it is a fundamental part of life --- unstoppable, inexorable, relentless. It is not immoral (even for poor people) to do it. Nor is it even remotely realistic to think they won't. People have sex and lots of it, even when the "consequences" are severe. It's basic. And sometimes birth control fails or people lose their heads in the heat of the moment. Accidents happen. It is so banal and mundane and common that it's a bit bizarre to even have to make that explicit in the argument. Accidental, unwanted pregnancy happens every single day by the millions on this planet. Nature (or perhaps the "intelligent designer") expects women to get pregnant as often as possible and created the human sex drive to make that happen. Women, independent sentient beings that they are, want to control how many children they have. It's a constant battle and often times "nature" wins. It isn't a matter of morality. Sex between consenting people is simply human. And the right to abortion is simply a matter of human liberty --- a woman's right to decide her own fate and a woman's right to be a normal sexual being. Without both of those things, she can never truly be free. [My emphasis added - Anthony]
No, people aren't mindless animals who can't control themselves. But, saying to women, "if you can't afford another child, don't fuck" is not entirely different than saying "if you can't afford food, don't eat." Of course, she won't literally die if she doesn't ever have sex again (or at least until she's past her fertile years.)But for many women it would be a death of another sort: the death of her humanity. Sex is elemental.
A. Fucking. Men. And, A. Fucking. Woman. Too.
Oh, it just plain tickles me when some of these Sex Nazis go to the "Well, if 'ya didn't want to get pregnant, then 'ya shouldn't have opened your damn legs and had sex anyway" card...as if there weren't any cases where the woman's legs were forced open against her will to begin with. Of course, if the GUY who impregnated her against her will had just the slightest concern for her well being that he had simply wrapped up or not shoved his tool inside her to begin with, then maybe she wouldn't have to face the prospect of an abortion to begin with. But we all know that only rich White women breeding more warm bodies for the Church (or more slaves to produce cheap goods) should have the right to enjoy sex for its own pleasure...as long as she continues to pop out the babies..now do we???
And how about the implied (very thinly, that is) racist assumption that only "animals" (read, poor people, Black people, Muslims, and all other enemies of the Godly people) should have sex merely for its own pleasure???
And....if this fool is sooooo willing to force a woman to bear an unwanted pregnancy just to punish her for the evil "sin" of having sex, then why not compensate her for that invaluable act of bringing a human being into the world and raising her?? Yeah, right....far cheaper to send her to the doctor for the Norplant implant than to respect her humanity and actually offer her and her baby a chance at real life.
Bravo, Digby for spelling it out...consider yourself officially racked. (That is, added to the SmackChron Blogroll.)
Oh, and Amanda at Pandagon gets a bonus +1 for her piling on on the issue. Check her out here.
“Do Marines like cake?” “Does God have a butt?” Conversations with a five-year-old - “Mommy, you’re a hippo.” “I’m a what?! Why?!” “You’re a mommy hippo. Because I want to be a baby hippo.” “Oh.” “I’m a baby hippo, but I’m also Denzel.” “So...
2 days ago