A-f*cking-men

It has been and will always be about controlling women.

how deeply entwined outright misogyny is with the American "pro-life" movement.

Always has been, and always will be.

It goes deeper than this. The same people who oppose abortions also oppose any form of birth control, an mind numbingly obvious cognitively dissonant set of positions. Untying that Gordian knot is simple. Once woman are deprived of any way to control when or if they get pregnant they revert back to chattel and the property of men. Simple as that.

I read this article this morning on my way to work and I can't begin to describe how enraged I was after reading that passage. They really don't see any downside to admitting that the whole point of the "partial abirtion ban" was to leave woemn with the more dangerous option for a second trimester abotion.

Women who have sex are supposed to be punished.

This is the bottom line.

For as long as I can remember, the core of the "pro-life" movement has been pushing to make birth control illegal. They have said so publicly, repeating this avowed purpose numerous times.

Yet, for reasons I have not been able to divine, neither the national media nor the pro-choice advocates--nor even the Democratic Party--have seen fit to highlight this. If pushed to the fore, it would reduce the "pro-life" movement to a handful of nagging prudes. After all, if there's one thing that truly unites Americans it's the idea that we can and should fuck our brains out. (See Viagra, Cialis, and Pill, The.)

That the partial-birth ban is only now being recognized for what it is tells me how desperate our culture is to avoid calling the pro-lifers out for what they really are.

After all, if there's one thing that truly unites Americans it's the idea that we can and should fuck our brains out. (See Viagra, Cialis, and Pill, The.)

Actually, it's only that men should be able to fuck their brains out. Women? Eh, not so much.

(And yes, the logistics -- not to mention logic -- of that double-standard are a little tricky, but it's not as if much thought is involved.)

Controlling women is the ONLY thing it's EVER been about. Anyone who doesn't realize that just hasn't been paying attention.

Not unlike the opposition to the HPV Vaccine: Cancer ought to teach young women to not to have sex.

I read the WaPo article. Not one woman quoted or mentioned...all the religious guys are fighting over abortion to save me from myself. Sigh. Thanks boys, but I'm capable of taking care of my own uterus which disappeared awhile ago during a medical procedure that was absolutely necessary to save my life. I didn't get Dobson's permission, but I suppose Haggard and the boys would call it a pre-pregnancy uterine finalization. You know, all our uteruses are theirs.

The right has given us the rest of the Orwellian trappings, why not the Anti-sex League?

Pitiful conspiracy theories--I can't wait til some of you actually grow up.

No, it's not "about punishing women for their sexual choices," it's about delimiting the legal rights women have. The "abortion right" is a good place to focus because as far as rights go, it ain't pretty-- these people blow this up into a "right to kill."

Also, about the "controlling womens's sexuality" thing. They sure are out to control male sexuality too, which is being sucessfully reworked into "predation."

So, there you have it. Sure, it's ugly but so is the fast and loose culture. I'm weighing, I'm weighing...

Pitiful conspiracy theories--I can't wait til some of you actually grow up.

Posted by: Akbar's Left Nut | June 4, 2007 03:12 PM

English Translation: ALN knows that we're right and he's wrong, so he resorts to flinging ad hominems because he's fresh out of poo.

So the mask comes off, eh?

When revealed in the light of day, the face of the Religious Right makes the Phantom Of The Opera look like Brad Pitt.

Couldn't everything said in this article about the Partial Birth Abortion ban also be said about laws limiting the right to an abortion in the third trimester? After all, any restriction on abortion at all would imply "that women can't be trusted to make judgments about their own lives".

Does anyone here want to stand up and argue that the only possible reason a person might oppose aborting an 8th month fetus would be because they are aching to punish women for having sex? If not, doesn't that strongly suggest - nay, prove - that a person can oppose some aspects of abortion without wanting to enslave the sexuality of all women?

all your uteri are belong to us--the Religious Right

Fluffy: abortions at 8 months are banned in most states with exceptions for the life and health of the month. The life and health exceptions are determined by doctors and the women involved this is considered far too lax for pro-lifers because they are convinced that women are having abortions of "convenience" at 8 months.

At the bottom of all of the late term abortion ban arguments is that women cannot be trusted with their own bodies and their own medical decisions because they are as a group frivolous, emotional, stupid and out of control.

There is no comparison to predatory sexuality unless sexual predators are raping tiny humans growing inside their prostates you have no basis for that argument. As of now in human biology a male rapist and his victim have two very indepedent bodies... the same cannot be same for a woman and the fetus that will blind/kill/render her infertile.

"Does anyone here want to stand up and argue that the only possible reason a person might oppose aborting an 8th month fetus would be because they are aching to punish women for having sex? If not, doesn't that strongly suggest - nay, prove - that a person can oppose some aspects of abortion without wanting to enslave the sexuality of all women?"
****

Works for me. I think this whole control women's sexuality line of argument is just lack of anything substantive to say. And don't most of the comments on this thread suggest, nay prove, that's the case?

It also misses what's interesting about the Washington Post article-- that some pro-life clergy are actually incensed at Dobson et al for pimping the partial-birth abortion ban as a means of funneling money to the Republican Party under false pretenses.

This suggests that these clergy have at least some other reservations about the Republican Party they've been supporting. True, they're mostly mad because they really want an all-out repeal of Roe v. Wade, but it's still interesting that they resent having given them their money.

"There is no comparison to predatory sexuality unless sexual predators are raping tiny humans growing inside their prostates you have no basis for that argument."
****

The comparison to predatory sexuality is "the right to kill." Pro-life advocates view abortion on demand as a legal "right to kill."

There's nothing hard to understand about that basic idea. That's why pro-choice advocates have eagerly followed the pro-life incrementalist approach into the hair-splitting thicket of particular instances and particular methods, where it's easier to try to lose that basic idea.

You know, if the pro-choice lobby keeps saying it's about "controlling sexuality" maybe the pro-life lobby will forget that they thought it was about killing babies.

Do you think it will work?

I think this whole control women's sexuality line of argument is just lack of anything substantive to say.

Wow, Ms. Anonymous, truly that is the most thorough rebuttal ever attempted of the points Professor Lemieux has raised in those numerous links in his post (See, you can click on the colored words, and they take you to some of the arguments you supposedly want us to rehash here for your benefit). Granted, I don't see how your cogent dismissal squares with opposition to a particular abortion procedure that leaves more dangerous abortion options legal, opposition to the HPV vaccine, a desire to roll back Griswold as well as Roe, or relentless flogging of demonstrably ineffective "abstinence-only" programs that engage in flagrant lying. But I'm sure it's in there somewhere, and I'm just missing it while blinded by your holy scorn.

Oh, I see, opposition to contraception is because they think it's about "killing babies." Thanks for clearing that up. And once we return to the halcyon days when only rich women are able to reliably obtain safe abortions, the baby killing will end. And yes, other women will die, but the life of the fetus is more important than a woman's life anyway. Thanks for clearing that up, Ma'am!

"Wow, Ms. Anonymous, truly that is the most thorough rebuttal ever attempted of the points Professor Lemieux has raised in those numerous links in his post (See, you can click on the colored words, and they take you to some of the arguments you supposedly want us to rehash here for your benefit)."

"Professor" Lemieux's repeated rehashing of the "controlling women's sexuality" line, completely out of context, in every other post on this blog about a variety of decisions on abortion is patently ridiculous.

Citing other liberal loudmouth men on other likewise unrefereed blogs wailing the same complaints hardly constitutes evidence that what the pro-life lobby is really interested in is controlling women's sexuality rather than chipping away at abortion per se, a little at a time. No one said they were nice about it. No one said they were "concerned" about women.

If you ask me, there is far more effort to "control" women's sexuality going on here in the vocal male pro-choice lobby than almost anywhere else.

It has been and will always be about controlling women.

Agreed, and I'm going to venture to make that more specific. Taking away abortion rights is about giving men control of the reproductive process before sex, during sex, during pregnancy, up to birth, and during childhood, so that women have no say over any of it.

Anti-choice males imagine they can run the whole operation so that women won't be able to interfere at all. If the man wants a baby, he has sex with a woman. Nine months later the baby is handed to him with no backtalk and no extraneous options.

The whole thing is a fantasy of total control. It's very childish.

"If you ask me, there is far more effort to "control" women's sexuality going on here in the vocal male pro-choice lobby than almost anywhere else."

Yeah, then they wonder why the religious nuts grab their daughters and stick them into abstinence only class rooms-- oh wait, here comes my kid. Gotta go.

Anti-choicers, like no one else, can see a mountain of evidence towering over them like a great big towering thing and say "why, that's a molehill if ever I saw one!"

Ably demonstrated by a few commenters on this thread, I must say.

complaints hardly constitutes evidence that what the pro-life lobby is really interested in is controlling women's sexuality

On the other hand, the fact that they support policies (like "partial birth" abortion bans and opposing contraception) that are either neutral or actually increase rates of abortion makes it pretty clear. Anyway, I do hope you keep posting because at some point you may make a substantive argument! OK, that's pretty clearly not the case, but I'm an optimist....

No one said they were "concerned" about women.

That statement is demonstrably false.

Ha ha, excellent server.

See, for instance, feministsforlife.org or operationoutcry.org. Both organizations claim to be concerned about women. Or Kennedy's flight of fancy in Carhart II, wherein he worries that women may regret getting an abortion, but has no reliable evidence to support that statement, and no logic to explain how that justifies banning intact D&E.

Perhaps anonymous and others can explain opposition to administering HPV vaccine or for that matter abstinence only programs that avoid discussion of condoms and why many anti-choice people are at the forefront in these matters. Why is it that it seems a growing number of anti-choice people want to see Griswold overturned.

The relationship is unmistakeable.

What's important about abortion is that in the aggregate it's beneficial to society. "Every child a wanted child" sums it up--unwanted children tend to be abused, do poorly in school, commit crimes, and then pass on the cycle to their own (unwanted) children. In this sense, America would be better off with more abortions. That's why I support federal funding, etc. and oppose all these incremental laws designed to harrass those who realize abortion is the better choice.

Further, Ms. Anon has not in any way rebutted the arguments linked to, except to say that they are by men and are whiny (unlike her, of course).

But being liberals they're /girly/ men, no? Isn't that what makes them whiny? So surely they understand, being feminized, pussy whipped, etc?

Women absolutely have the right to make moral and ethical judgments about the lives growing inside their own bodies because all people have the right to control their own bodies.

Pregnancy represents a unique circumstance that is unlike anything else encountered in human life and society. Personally I am opposed to abortion because I am opposed to violence except in self-defense.

However the denial of medical services to women who seek them, by the state, is itself a form of violence as evidenced by death and injury rates in every country where abortion is illegal.

Abortion bans do not save unborn babies they only kill women. If you want a culture of life you need to change the culture not the law.

People like myself who are ethically opposed to abortion for reasons that are different than yours will continue to fight you as long as your try to take these decisions away from inidvidual women.

'America's tiny minority of serious, principled "pro-lifers"'

??

Move along folks, no facts to be found here.

nyxrb lemnxfz jhlerqi hncmvjb bmhv plosgmr xhwv

dtief nmiubo nctr ucpz gmke bwyodnchs uoxrsjvpa http://www.uxblwm.thdqv.com