Claims of pro-life misogyny irrational
Even if one could magically rid all misogyny from the world, there would still be a basis for an anti-choice movement: the belief or the conclusion that nascent human life deserves legal protection. This proposition needs no misogyny to originate or gain widespread assent. And assent it has.
So unless you can show conclusively that this specific assent historically originated from and continues to originate from misogyny, then there’s no rational sense to think a desire to demean women explains anti-choicers.
Anything less and you’re at best overgeneralizing and almost surely wrong.
~ Kyle Cupp, The League of Ordinary Gentlemen, February 4
[Image via inshredz.blogspot.com]
Feb.07, 2012 3:00 am |
Apologetics, Feminism |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Feminism went wrong when it took the assumptions of male chauvinists — the things men did (working outside the home, political power, etc.) were better and more socially valuable than childrearing and housekeeping — and turned them into a ritualized, rationalized hatred of motherhood and marriage. If they want to find men that are clinically misogynist, they’ll have more success finding them among the boyfriends and pimps who force women into abortions than they will looking in pro-life groups. Oh, wait a minute — I forgot we’re dealing with confirmation bias … they’ll only find it among pro-lifers, because that’s the only answer they’ll accept; truth has nothing to do with it.
Well, gee. Thanks for the left-handed compliment, I guess. But I doubt this will soothe Amanda Marcotte.
You, sir are indeed quite ordinary, but you’re no gentleman. A true gentleman would lay down his coat for both mother and child to cross safely. And he would fight for the right of all to make their choices without trampling on those of the less able.
No, we are not misogynists. But apparently you side with misanthropes. And a particularly petty, bullying faction of them to boot.
After all, who would pick on a child? Not very gentlemanly. Or ladylike, for that matter. Pip pip and cheerio.
well as my 81 year old mom puts it ” womens lib has destroyed men and women.” you wonder why men father 10 kids with different women? because women think its normal. just get on welfare. good luck with getting child support. OR men are now going with ” just have an abortion.” and women will do as they are told. now society is in shambles. liberation means freedom and if you take a closer look its really the ultimate bondage. women told men ” get out ” and they have. where is their choice if they DONT want her to have the abortion. ive heard a few women b###h ” i wasnt gonna be hitched to the loser for 18 years with a kid!” BUT the loser was okay to have sex with a few times. oh God have mercy on the world.
pro aborts hate women. they dont want you to have babies. they want you to hate your reproductive systems. they are women killers because little baby women are killed in americas abortion clinics by the thousands every day. but they are too stupid to see that an unborn child is a life in the womb so to them they dont count. pro aborts indeed live in their own worlds.
Wow. Never thought I’d see the day. But at least he gets it. …Which is a major step forward from abortion apologists in general. Not only do most of them fundamentally misunderstand the pro-life movement, they don’t even bother to try and get it right. (Which, given the momentum behind the pro-life movement, is something the fail to do at their own movement’s peril.)
I keep making this point, and no proaborts can offer a retort (hey, I’m a poet this morning!):
We are not the misogynists. In America today, between 3500-4000 preborn babies will be killed. Half of them will be girls. We are fighting for their lives. Proaborts are fighting for their deaths. THEY are the true misogynists.
I especially love when pro-abort males tell me that I am misogynist. Um really? I AM a woman.
I’ve seen abortion hurt friends of mine physically and emotionally. Is it misogynist to want to spare other women the same hurt? My friend scheduled her second abortion then backed out at the last moment. And 7 months later a baby girl was born. A FEMALE that would be dead if the Kyle Cupps of the world had his way. Talk about misogynistic.
And yes Kyle, misogyny has nothing to do with it. We just think all human beings should be allowed to live. Call us crazy. Its a nutty idea, I know.
I’m always being called a misogynist. I think people use that when they don’t have an actual response.
If they want to find men that are clinically misogynist, they’ll have more success finding them among the boyfriends and pimps who force women into abortions than they will looking in pro-life groups.
Don’t forget that pornographers are the biggest supporters of abortion on demand, men such as Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt. Does anyone really think that they have the best interestsof women at heart?
I never understood the “prolifers hate women” meme. I don’t hate myself, my daughter, my mother, sisters, or niece. And it’s we anti-choice radicals who are there to listen to women who regret their abortions, and offer hope and help for those who want to have their babies. This is “hatred?”
Considering half the babies aborted daily are female, their ‘misogyny’ strawmen are worthless. They can never manage to answer when I ask how aborting a girl because you wanted a boy is ‘lifesaving’ or ‘necessary medical care’. Misogyny has become a catch-all term that they slap on whatever they don’t like and have no valid arguments to refute with. Prochoice is the most antiwoman movement of all time, pitting women against their own biology, against their own children, against men, and against each other. There’s nothing equal about their vision of equal rights-it’s all about feminist supremacy and nothing else.
Feminism went wrong when it took the assumptions of male chauvinists — the things men did (working outside the home, political power, etc.) were better and more socially valuable than childrearing and housekeeping
(Denise) One of the reasons — one of the MANY reasons — I am a big fan of “The Andy Griffith Show” is that Aunt Bee was such a powerful figure. Although she branched out from her domestic role in the program’s later years, she was wonderfully powerful within it. I love hearing a character rhapsodize about “Aunt Bee’s fried chicken.” Cooking a good meal is an accomplishment and ought to be treated as such.
Unfortunately, the “women’s libbers” of the 1970s weren’t the first to denigrate domestic work. Rather, they just built on an unfortunate tradition of seeing such work as somehow “lesser” work.
Anything less and you’re at best overgeneralizing and almost surely wrong.
I agree – there have been some misogynistic pro-lifers that posted right here on Jill’s site, but they are a small minority, and in no way does “pro-life” necessarily mean misogynistic, per se.
phillymiss:Don’t forget that pornographers are the biggest supporters of abortion on demand, men such as Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt. Does anyone really think that they have the best interestsof women at heart?
(Denise) Hefner always has a bunch of young blonde girlfriends. You never hear about them having babies. Does anyone know why this is?
I can think of 2 reasons:
1) Hefner has had a vasectomy.
2) He asks the women to agree to abort if they get pregnant and only accepts as gfs those who agree.
Did I just see ‘soothe’ and ‘Amanda Marcotte’ in the same sentence? Talk about your oxymorons, LOL.
You can be a woman and also be misogynistic – it’s internalized.
Riiiight. You hit the nail on the head Elizabeth. I secretly (internally) hate my gender. Thats why I embrace all the uniquely feminine things about myself….like um, having babies!
I hate women. Thats why I want to spare them the pain of abortion and let them experience the wonder and joys of motherhood. I hate women. Thats why I want to support them emotionally and financially through difficult crisis pregnancies.
I hate women. Thats why I want to see sex selection abortions stop and females protected from being targeted in the womb simply for being female.
You got me Elizabeth. You got all of us. We’re internalizing our absolute hatred of women. Your side is sooooo pro-woman. Thats why you tear women apart in the womb. Thats why you put the women who carry those babies at emotional and physical risk. Thats why men like hugh Heffner and Larry Flynt who made careers out of exploiting women are on YOUR side.
Doug, who are the misogynistic pro-life women on this blog?
You can be a woman and also be misogynistic – it’s internalized.
Hmmm….is that your explanation for women who are pro-abortion?
I found this interesting, from Wikipedia:
According to sociologist Allan G. Johnson, “misogyny is a cultural attitude of hatred for females because they are female.” Johnson argues that:
“Misogyny …. is a central part of sexist prejudice and ideology and, as such, is an important basis for the oppression of females in male-dominated societies. Misogyny is manifested in many different ways, from jokes to pornography to violence to the self-contempt women may be taught to feel toward their own bodies.“[3]
Michael Flood defines misogyny as the hatred of women, and notes:
“Though most common in men, misogyny also exists in and is practiced by women against other women or even themselves. Misogyny functions as an ideology or belief system that has accompanied patriarchal, or male-dominated societies for thousands of years and continues to place women in subordinate positions with limited access to power and decision making. […] Aristotle contended that women exist as natural deformities or imperfect males […] Ever since, women in Western cultures have internalised their role as societal scapegoats, influenced in the twenty-first century by multimedia objectification of women with its culturally sanctioned self-loathing and fixations on plastic surgery, anorexia and bulimia.”[4]
Dictionaries define misogyny as “[h]atred of women”,[5][6]”a hatred of women”,[7] and as “hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women”.[8]
I’ve heard over and over again from pro-choice women who believe their reproductive abilities (a functioning uterus and ovaries) hold them back from opportunities that men have. Has the modern feminist movement bought Aristotle’s lie?
And don’t forget, Sydney, WE hate women, that is why those on Elizabeth’s side call we women who have given our children life rather than death endearing terms like, “broodmare”, “sperm receptacle”, and “incubator”.
It’s because WE hate women, and definitely not them. Nope. They don’t hate women at all.
Planned Parenthood teaches girls that little boys can treat their legs like the drive-thru at McDonald’s to pick up their happy meals, leave the wrappers, and be on their way.
I need no lectures on the source of misogyny. It seems pretty clear.
To Dr. Nadal:
Oh NO he di-ent.
Exactly, X!!! You NEVER read terms like “broodmare” on any of the popular pro-life websites. Oh sure, I bet you could find it somewhere if you looked hard enough, but google such terms and you’re going to get a whole lot of pro-choice articles!
To be pro-choice is to be pro-abortion. To be pro-abortion is to hate the female reproductive abilities. I remember the first girl in my class to come to school pregnant. I remember how she held her books in front of her, sheepishly. I remember thinking, “Wow, someday there’ll be a daycare at this school and the girls won’t be embrassed to have their babies.” Then I went off to college, and Planned Parenthood came to my old hometown. They never built a daycare at my old school. They didn’t need to because all the babies were dead. Real pro-woman, huh?
Hmm, well there can definitely BE misogyny on the pro-life side… specifically the people who talk about the “sluts” who have abortions who should “shut their legs”, without even mentioning the men who got them in that position in the first place. Some people seem to really unfairly blame pregnancy and abortion on women where, well, it’s a bit impossible for women to get pregnant and get abortions without men involved. I don’t think that it’s remotely the basis for the vast majority of pro-lifer’s views at all, though, even though pro-choicers tend to characterize it that way. Of course, people tend to forget the objectification and hatred of females sometimes found in the pro-choice side, the denigration of pregnancy of somehow lesser than any other choice a woman might make, and the insistence that casual sex can’t possibly be objectifying to women.
i know they wont look but please visit the site “CEMETERY OF CHOICE” all you woman hating pro deathers! go and read about all of the women who have died in safe and legal abortions..oh i know i know every surgery has risks. so it was their choice and they died along with their children. oh well….shrug ( aint that right pro aborts?)
I haven’t even read the rest of the comments yet so I’m just going to address Sydney’s original statement. If being a woman made you automatically NOT misogynistic (like you seem to think) then are all pro-choice people not misogynistic as well?
Anyone that calls a woman a brood mare or a sperm receptacle from EITHER SIDE is a misogynist and is missing the point. Don’t pick the worst of the pro-choice people to base all your opinions off of and I’ll do the same for you.
Also I’ve noticed that you guys seem to do that a lot – to “win” an argument or prove your point you go to some weird extreme thing that some pro-choice person supposedly said along the way and pretend like that’s part of the credo. It’s not. You know it’s not, I know it’s not. Let’s not insult either of our intelligence by using that kind of stuff as fact.
Anyone that calls a woman a brood mare or a sperm receptacle from EITHER SIDE is a misogynist and is missing the point. Don’t pick the worst of the pro-choice people to base all your opinions off of and I’ll do the same for you.
Umm…since I’ve been debating this topic on various websites for more than half a decade now, I can safely say that this type of talk has either been directed at me personally or just generally thrown around towards women who don’t abort REGULARLY. I know you’re kinda new to the party and everything, but stick around awhile. You’ll hear it. Try heading on over to Moronic Pro-Choice Quote’s site sometime. You’ll see it. ^_^
Elizabeth–I just have to say, I wish that wasn’t true. But everytime I post on a prochoice site, I am called a host of horrible names, and someone ALWAYS drop the F word. No lie.
Well I wish that wasn’t true as well, Courtnay. I think what you don’t realize is that a lot of the stuff YOU are saying is very offensive to them and then they’re put on the defense – and I’m sure they don’t realize that the same goes for their own language.
What difference does casual swearing make, Courtnay? I swear all the time when I’m not commenting here, doesn’t mean that my points aren’t valid. :)
Also, I’d like to point out that Mr. Nadal’s comment was misogynistic in it’ own special way. Why must it be that either the poor feeble woman is tricked and then used for a man OR the promiscuous temptress lures the man away from his good values. It’s very Madonna-wh*re complex and it’s sad. Why can’t the woman have wanted to have a consensual, healthy sexual relationship that she enjoyed? Any sexually active woman would take the McDonalds analogy as offensive and misogynistic and respond accordingly.
Xalisae, can you point me in the direction of a few instances where women were called sperm receptacles and not called out by the pro-choice community at large? I can believe it happened once, maybe twice – but I really can’t imagine that sliding by in the circles I run in, both pro-choice and pro-life. It’s blatantly offensive and anti-woman, no matter who says it.
I think what you don’t realize is that a lot of the stuff YOU are saying is very offensive to them and then they’re put on the defense – and I’m sure they don’t realize that the same goes for their own language.
Translation: “I don’t like your opinion, so I’m just going to assume from here on out everything you say is offensive and in that case you started it, by default.”
Elizabeth, here on this site alone, where we get numerous pro-choice commenters, the term “breeders” has been used many, many times. I don’t go to other message boards, so I don’t know what they’re saying there (perhaps the term “sperm receptacles” is used), but “breeder” is used often.
You could search Jill’s site for any article on the Duggars, for instance. Pro-choicers loathe the Duggars, even though it’s their personal choice to have children and not use birth control.
The “breeder” term is also often used alongside religious slander, with the claim that Christian men only want to use women to be breeders. So, it’s not only an insult to Christian women in particular, but to Christian men as well, who are of unlike faith to those of the pro-choice mentality.
No, Xalisae… translation: I am GENUINELY sorry if someone directed name calling or offensive language at Courtnay. I truly believe in my heart of hearts though, that using the f-word maybe just wasn’t as offensive for the person using it, or maybe they were just SO HURT by the language that was directed at them that they lashed out. You guys are in this weird vortex where you are always calling offense when something little is said even once but you don’t realize that the language you use over and over and over again or the way you paint other viewpoints can be just as offensive.
Please don’t try to twist my words. I’m being straightforward, genuine, and civil here. Don’t treat me as if I’m acting any other way.
Well I wish that wasn’t true as well, Courtnay. I think what you don’t realize is that a lot of the stuff YOU are saying is very offensive to them and then they’re put on the defense – and I’m sure they don’t realize that the same goes for their own language.
One, claiming that abortion apologists routinely fail to realize that they use misogynist and demeaning language (yes, routinely, as I have more often had misogynist language directed at me than a civil conversation) makes their use of misogynist language worse. Because now, not only are they being misogynists, they’re doing it without even realizing they aren’t supposed to. Deliberate parody is rude and wrong, but there’s no excuse at all for misogyny ingrained and unrecognized.
Two, defending abortion offends me. It is a direct assault against the most fundamental rights of innocent and defenceless human beings and it is offensive. The very existence of the pro-abortion movement offends and angers me. And if I can manage to have a civil conversation anyway, then so can they. Either you enter the conversation as an adult with self-control or you go home and let those of us who are adults do the talking.
She’s since deleted it from her stream, but @SineQuaN0n via Twitter said as much to me, and I can assure you she was applauded by her pro-legal-abortionist peers at the time. This was one of the first times I was ever discussing the topic on Twitter, so I didn’t know about screen caps and all that nice stuff. But, it sticks out in my mind because I couldn’t believe how anti-woman and anti-mother all those people are.
But Alice, what I am saying is that they are saying the SAME THING ABOUT YOU. Anti-choice rhetoric is offensive to a lot of people. So maybe the things you’re saying sound civil to you, but not to someone on the opposite side AND VICE VERSA.
Xalisae, I’m sorry she said that and it’s terrible but I don’t think you can use one example to paint all pro-choice folks. I’d like to assume that not all pro-life folks think that murdering an abortion doctor is okay, so let’s both agree not to use extreme bad examples to characterize the whole group.
Riiiiight. Stop by Twitter sometime. You’ll see that that kind of language is the rule for their side, not the exception.
As far as instances where a large group of abortion proponents has used misogynist language and not been called out, there’s this thread (adult forum, any given post or avatar may be NSFW), where after an absolutely ludicrous incomprehension of the pro-life position, someone pens a poem comparing women to aphids (since they are “easy to breed”) and is praised for their cleverness.
I have only recently started bookmarking, so I don’t have as many examples as I have experienced, but there’s my contribution anyway. Basically, this is not an “extreme” scenario; it happens often and is rarely rejected as a tactic by the abortion apologists who see it. More frequently they laud it as an appropriate characterization of pro-lifers, no matter how much misogynist language they use.
Alice, nice post.
Please show me more examples then, Xalisae.
Alice, that poem is, I believe, satire on your position. They aren’t saying THEY believe women should be “easy to breed aphids”, they are saying that from their perspective that is what your side sounds like a la Stephen Colbert, The Onion, etc.
I couldn’t give a rat’s tail if I offend the likes of Amanda Marcotte. You know what’s offensive to me? Chopping up babies and calling it “choice.”
You pro-aborts can whine all you want about being polite and civil. There is nothing polite or civil about abortion. Those jars aren’t filling up with rainbows and unicorns. For decades most pro-lifers were silent “oh I don’t want to impose my views…” while abortionists impose the death penalty on new human beings. We’ve been too polite. So here it is: Abortion is brutal and has NO PLACE IN CIVILIZED SOCIETY. And I’m sorry if wanting to prevent the deaths of innocent humans is so durn offensive.
Also, I understand that you think they misunderstand the pro-life position but I have tried to point out multiple times that I think most of the commenters of this board misunderstand the pro-choice position as well. I’ve also seen plenty of words thrown around either in satire or complete seriousness that are offensive, name-calling, rude, or disgusting at pro-choice people ON THIS VERY BOARD. So I’m sorry but I don’t think your satire example proves anything.
mmhmm. Excuses for the other side, “Oh, well, that’s just satire!” and everything’s our fault, of course. I wouldn’t expect anything less. :)
Hi Elizabeth. My opinion is that no woman is truly misogynist whether pro-life or pro-abortion.
Thanks for making the point about extremes, by using an extreme point about abortion doctors being killed. Anyone who is truly pro-life would not want the doctor killed, since that doctor is also part of our human family.
I understand both positions – and let’s keep the name-calling/label-making to a minimum.
The pro-life position is that we are trying to protect all humans, regardless of gender, from hurt, usury and death. Pro-Choicers think that any talk of limiting abortion must be anti-woman, since it limits a woman’s choice in some shape or form.
Pro-lifers are talking about HUMAN RIGHTS here – to avoid death, harm and usury when there are other options. Abortion should not be the first option – if a woman has a problem with housing, her housing problems should be addressed, not the ending of a human life to alleviate problems. The same for education, jobs, relationships, etc.
We want all women whole and functioning. We want all women not to be coerced, used, debased or objectified. We want all woman and families to flourish. A woman can be successful – and if she is a mother, she can still be successful.
Abortion is a non-natural answer to a natural occurrence. Abortion is a permanent answer to a temporary ‘problem.’ While true, once a woman is pregnant, she is a mother – but any woman can choose to deflect her motherly responsibilities by choosing another to help raise her child(ren). No woman need to take on the motherly responsibilities if she does not wish. We think that no one must be hurt to have a woman yield her motherly responsibilities.
And the child, who may be a female, can still live, instead of being chosen to be ‘dealt with’ thru abortion.
We offer help to women in crisis. We offer her help and encouragement. We believe in women and help her to deal with the reality of her situation – that she is pregnant with a human child, a child that deserves a chance at life, like she had. We see solutions and offer assistance. We do not offer death as a solution. No anti-woman bias – we have a pro-human bias – we want all humans to thrive, not just some.
It doesn’t matter if it’s satire. Honestly, people use that excuse so often. Nine times out of ten that’s the excuse the abortion apologists use to justify their abusive and misogynist language. “Oh, that’s only what they think! We, of course, do not think such horrible things, and would never use this language seriously!” Never mind the fact that it’s demeaning to use it at all. This technique is right out of Derailing For Dummies and is a classic excuse to use insulting and demeaning language without having to take responsibility for it. “I was just being satirical!” is not an excuse. If they want to be satirical, drop the misogyny.
I…. don’t understand. Do you guys really not see that the poem was satire? As in, they were mocking what they interpret your side to be? They don’t actually believe women are aphids?
So what you’re saying is that I provoked the f-bomb on myself…..yeah, okay.
Elizabeth, only one of us can be right. BY DEFINITION. Either abortion is murder or it’s not. OK? I am 100% convinced that abortion is murder, and in the last 24 hours 3,500 to 4,000 babies have been murdered in this country alone. IF it is murder, how would you have us act? Is anything less than outrage acceptable when babies are killed by this amorphous concept you call “choice”?
I AM OUTRAGED. By your apathy. By your sisters-in arms’ apathy. And yet I have never dropped the f-bomb. I have never seen it used here. Jill is NOTHING but respectful. And if Dr. Nadal’s words bother you, stop hiding behind the word MISOGYNY. Could they be true?
“between 3500-4000 preborn babies will be killed. Half of them will be girls. We are fighting for their lives. Proaborts are fighting for their deaths. THEY are the true misogynists.”
Right. You’re fighting for the rights of the fetus over the rights of she who is carrying it. Do you have any question as to why women, walking into abortion clinics of their own free will, tell you to leave them the F%#k alone. What they do with their bodies is none of your business and the more you make it so, the more you alienate yourselves from the real world.
Also, guys, if you’re against misogyny in every form – including satire – are you going to scrub Mr. Nadal’s comment up there comparing women to a McDonald’s drive thru? I’d appreciate it.
Thanks!
“Thats why I want to spare them the pain of abortion and let them experience the wonder and joys of motherhood”
Here’s the thing, Sydney. Not all women embrace “the wonder and joys of motherhood.” I worked in child protective services so I know that your little happy babyland isn’t exactly the real world. But stay in your little fetus fetishist bubble. It must be a very happy place.
No Courtnay, I’m not saying you provoked the f-word. I’m just saying that if both sides are screaming the same thing about each other then you cancel each other out.
Mr. Nadal’s comment doesn’t bother me because it’s true – it bothers me because it’s demeaning to women. Does the satire poem about aphids bother YOU because it’s true?
I…. don’t understand. Do you guys really not see that the poem was satire? As in, they were mocking what they interpret your side to be? They don’t actually believe women are aphids?
No, I get that. That is, as I said, usually the excuse used by abortion defenders when they drag out the misogyny and abuse. “It’s only satire.”
I’m saying it doesn’t matter. Abusive language is abusive language is abusive language. (So, yes, if I were a mod and had the power, I would scrub Dr. Nadal’s comment.) It is totally irrelevant why someone chooses to characterize women as “breeders.” When they do, it is insulting, demeaning, and misogyinist, no matter what their motives are. Honestly, why would you defend that language in any context?
“so it was their choice and they died along with their children. oh well….shrug ( aint that right pro aborts”
Oh, thank you Heather for just underscoring how the anti-choice movement sees women, who died in back alley abortions, as just collateral damage. Oh, thank you Heather for a wonderful screen print that underscores the misogyny of the fetus fetishists. Ban abortions, women die, screw them. Am I right?
You’re fighting for the rights of the fetus over the rights of she who is carrying it.
Yep. Sometimes children have to be protected from their parents. Hence Child Protective Services. I’m sure THOSE people get cussed out a lot too during home visits, and are told to mind their own F- business often. Sad world we live in, huh?
Well then please leap to every pro-choice commenter’s defense when they are called evil, mentally ill, bad parents, or promiscuous because they disagree with you. If abuse is abuse is abuse then call for the McDonald’s comment above to be deleted.
Just saw the post where CC said she worked for CPS. OH IRONY OF IRONIES! Protect those kids from their parents-UNLESS THEY HAVEN’T BEEN BORN YET, THEN IT’S OPEN SEASON! RUSH ‘EM THROUGH THOSE DOORS, BABY!
” I’m sure THOSE people get cussed out a lot too during home visits, and are told to mind their own F- business often. Sad world we live in, huh?
Correct. But child abuse is against the law. Abortion isn’t.
No. I do not owe it to you to act in ways you say I should simply because we happen to agree on one point. Nor do the words “promiscuous” or “bad parent” constitute slurs, when they are used in appropriate contexts (such as killing your unborn children; not a winning parental strategy). There are lots of ways to fight misogyny and kyriarchical language in general. Being a jerk at every possible opportunity is one of them, but it’s not very effective.
“UNLESS THEY HAVEN’T BEEN BORN YET, THEN IT’S OPEN SEASON! RUSH ‘EM THROUGH THOSE DOORS, BABY.”
You do realize that government has NO LEGAL JURISDICTION over adult who are not deemed incompetent. But in your world, any pregnant woman who smokes or drinks will be subject to state intrusion. Am I right?
Correct. But child abuse is against the law. Abortion isn’t.
Wow. Well then. I’ll just let your words speak for themselves then. No wonder the foster care/child welfare situation is what it is in this country. It would appear if they only legalized child abuse, you’d be handing out belts and ushering parents through doors to have their kids euthanized.
You do realize that government has NO LEGAL JURISDICTION over adult who are not deemed incompetent
That’s great and everything, but I’m not talking about ADULTS. You’re once again ignoring completely the minor child. But otherwise, you’d have to face the truth, and you can’t have that, can you.
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=1+J.+L.+Fam.+Stud.+277&key=bb2595561fc8b1993f1a1d225bcbb9b2
Elizabeth, I think you’ve missed the point (deliberately, perhaps) of Dr. Nadal’s post. HE does not personally BELIEVE that little girls should be TREATED in such a manner, but he believes that Planned Parenthood TEACHES them that they are not worth anything other than to be treated as SEXUAL OBJECTS by boys – just as long as they “play safely” with condoms, not caring if emotional or physical wreckage is left behind.
I seriously think you guys want to believe so badly that we’re misogynists, that you are deliberately misconstruing comments here. It’s ridiculous, and it’s a perfect example of what the quote is talking about.
““so it was their choice and they died along with their children. oh well….shrug ( aint that right pro aborts”
Oh, thank you Heather for just underscoring how the anti-choice movement sees women, who died in back alley abortions, as just collateral damage. Oh, thank you Heather for a wonderful screen print that underscores the misogyny of the fetus fetishists. Ban abortions, women die, screw them. Am I right?
Again, you can’t be this dull. Well, maybe you can. But seriously, Heather is stating that this seems to be the attitude of pro-choicers toward women who die in legal abortions.
” No wonder the foster care/child welfare situation is what it is in this country”
So your complaints about the foster care/child welfare situation related to the reality that we have no legal right to intervene in situations where competent, adult women chose to terminate a pregnancy? That makes no sense. But are you saying that government should control pregnant women? And BTW, if you get your way and abortion is criminalized, the foster care system will be overloaded and there won’t be any other resources. Oh right, the churches will step in. Oh, right.
” Heather is stating that this seems to be the attitude of pro-choicers toward women who die in legal abortion”
Heather, as usual, is wrong. Any death, for any reason, caused by incompetence of the surgeon is wrong and possibly criminal. But if you get your way and criminalize abortion, there will be lots more of these deaths – not that you care about that. Am I right?
I think the point about the aphids poem is this: these words are thrown around to describe women who become pregnant and keep their baby. If a women has a baby, then she is considered an aphid. Its the idea that our bodies doing exactly what they are designed to do – having sex, and if pregnant, housing and caring for our offspring until birth – somehow turns us into breeding machines or sperm-recepticals or aphids or whatever else people come up with. Its the idea that being pregnant reduces us to such terms that is so misogynist, and any comment associating pregnancy with such rudeness simply shows the world exactly that – that the pro-choicer who uttered those words believes that a pregnant woman, who accepts her situation and is given the opportunity and support needed to care for her child, is a breeder, an aphid; in short, they see pregnancy as a reduction of a woman’s value. THAT is misogynist imo!
No, my complaint is that we obviously have people working in those institutions who very plainly don’t give a rat’s ass about the children involved, and you’re living proof.
I’m saying that the government should pass laws to protect children from their parents if they need to be protected from their parents, even in utero. Those laws are obviously needed, or things wouldn’t be the way they are right now.
And BTW, if I get my way and ALL children are protected by law from anyone who might try to harm them, including their own parents, the foster care system should be reformed so that it becomes easier to adopt those kids who actually have parents lined up, but just can’t get to them because of red tape and bureaucrats. But yeah, churches should be allowed to go back to the role they used to play in such situations, as well.
“You’re once again ignoring completely the minor child. But otherwise, you’d have to face the truth, and you can’t have that, can you”
You cite the 1999 Whitner case from South Carolina (not exactly known for its progressive attitudes) involving an African-American woman. Meanwhile, a Wisconsin court’s ruling was very different.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-05-27/news/9905270079_1_deborah-zimmerman-cornelia-whitner-appellate-court
“I’m saying that the government should pass laws to protect children from their parents if they need to be protected from their parents, even in utero.”
Those laws would not pass constitutional muster. And with state resources being so low and protective caseloads being even higher given the cut back in state social workers, how do you think a state would be able to manage this. Where is the money coming from given the costs that would be attributed to social and court related services. And how dare you accuse social workers of not caring about kids. How dare you. Have you ever stood in front of a judge and argued the case that two very young girls, one of them non-verbal, needed to be taken away from their mother who pimped them out to her drug dealing sex partners? Have you ever stood before an elderly, Catholic judge who said that 16 year olds, who say their fathers rape them, are liars?
“But yeah, churches should be allowed to go back to the role they used to play in such situations, as well.’
Like what happened in Ireland? And BTW, in my state, the Catholic churches are closing because they’re going broke thanks to stuff like what happened in Ireland. What kind of bubble do you live in?
And xalisae, weren’t you the one who said that you couldn’t live in San Francisco because of the “freaks.” This city is one of the most beautiful, tolerant cities on the planet. That you think it’s abnormal says a lot about the strange bubble that you live in. Talk about freaks. But then,that’s what the reality based community thinks about the fetus fetishist movement. Fetus rosaries…please…
I don’t really give a flying leap what court you stood in or what you said about any of those children, because when it comes down to it, ALL OF THEM, right down to the 16 year old, could’ve been killed by their mothers before you ever would’ve known they existed and you would be just fine and dandy with it. Not only that, but you would APPLAUD THEIR DEATH and celebrate it as their mother’s RIGHT. So don’t tell me you care about them. Helping those kids isn’t going to bring back the ones who get walked through the clinic doors and discarded as medical waste.
I have a problem with people so open-minded their brains fall out. Present company included. ;)
Heather, as usual, is wrong. Any death, for any reason, caused by incompetence of the surgeon is wrong and possibly criminal.
Interestingly enough, the line about “there will be more of this if abortions are illegal!” is pretty much all we hear from pro-aborts when women die from legal abortion.
That, or crickets. Never anything else.
Thank you for the link, Jill. For the record, I am pro-life. I used the term “anti-choice” as it was the term used by Marcotte, to whose argument I was responding. Cheers!
CC you MISSED MY FRIGGIN point!!!!!!!! the “cemetery of choice” is a site of tons of women who are DEAD because of safe and legal abortion! these women didnt die pre roe. what are you even talking about you ignorant abortion pimp?
Kel,
Thanks for explaining things to Elizabeth.
Kel and Nadal, I was making my own point. Just as Nadal believes that this is what Planned Parenthood teaches, those other commenters believe that Pro-life folks want women to be breeding aphids. I’d like to believe that both are wrong but I notice you only take offense and call for vilification of one.
OK, how come if we say that a mother’s life and her child’s life are of equal value, the abortion devotees always come off with “you put the child ahead of the mother!!!.”
This is why we still don’t have equal pay for equal work, because the abortion devotees who hijacked the feminist movement do not know what the word EQUAL means.
Total shameful waste of their tuition money… so sad.
I am 100% convinced that the abortion devotees are caught up in their own particular religious fervor. Abortion uber alles!! Death makes you live!! Slavery is Freedom!! No animal shall sleep in a bed.. with sheets!!! (with respectful nods to George Orwell)
Elizabeth, please dont miss my point: Whatever the language used, whatever the epithets called out (and I’m a big girl, so I take it for the team), the fact still remains: today, and every day abortion is legal, the body count gets bigger and bigger and bigger. 3500 today, and tomorrow, and next month, next year. Call me whatever you like; on your side are dead.
@Kyle: My apologies for mischaracterizing you. And good job on getting the conversation going. ;)
i dunno about you cc. im beginning to see that no matter how many degrees a person earns it doesnt make you smart. someone gave you a piece of paper and you become experts on everything. spare me. so i want to know……since you pro aborts like to say that we pro lifers have a fetus fetish i must conclude that you pro deathers have a fetus fetish also……just as long as they are dead. do you also have a suction machine fetish since you love abortion so? and all that rap about abortion clinic bombing…a bomb fetish?
Elizabeth,
You recently addressed me as ‘moron’ on another post here. Laughing at your faux caring for women and hypocrisy.
X-thanks for the blog rec :) in additional to all the names mentioned by X, they nearly always refer to me as ‘he’ (has been done here too) until they find out I’m female, as if it’s out of the question women might have opinions against abortion. Prochoice is sexist and misandrist as well as misogynist, but hey, at least they’re consistent, right? (giggles)
CC says: “Here’s the thing, Sydney. Not all women embrace “the wonder and joys of motherhood.” I worked in child protective services so I know that your little happy babyland isn’t exactly the real world. But stay in your little fetus fetishist bubble. It must be a very happy place.”
Bitter. Bitter. Bitter. I am in a very happy place. Shame you’ll never experience that CC. I have a beautiful little boy and another on the way.
Sure I know some women will never embrace the joys of motherhood. Is the solution then to kill children? Or maybe the problem isn’t the children but the selfish attitudes of the adults involved?
Oh btw CC, since you say “child abuse isn’t legal. Abortion is” and that is what makes child abuse wrong and abortion right…
Then was abortion wrong when the law said it was illegal prior to 1973? If abortion were made illegal again would it suddenly be immoral in your eyes?
We are arguing that abortion is wrong regardless of whether it is legal or not. I believe you agree that legality doesn’t matter. You think it is right no matter what the legality of it is. So for you to argue “child abuse isn’t legal and abortion is” is disingenuous.
Referring to mothers as “breeding aphids” Elizabeth. Yeah, that’s not misogynist at all. LMAO. Typical ‘prowoman’ poorchoicer.
“Hi Elizabeth. My opinion is that no woman is truly misogynist whether pro-life or pro-abortion.”
Eh? I have met some women who are absolutely vicious to their own gender, while giving men a pass for the exact same things they judge women for. What do you mean by “truly misogynistic”?
And CC, not to be mean to you (I do have a lot of respect for social workers, it’s basically a thankless job), but I don’t see how you do it. I have seen you talk about abortion as though it’s some sort of a solution to unwanted and abused children. If you care about the kids that you helped, which I am sure you do, how in the freaking world can you think it would have been preferable for them to be terminated before birth? I don’t understand that at all.
Alright, MPQ. Was your use of “mangina” the other day somehow a subversive reclamation of derogatory terms for our female anatomy? Gosh, I must have missed the rhetorical cleverness there. Also, Sydney, speaking of selfishness–doncha think it’s a little “selfish” to be having kids your family can barely afford? Or is it not my place to determine whether somebody’s reproductive decisions are selfish or not?
I think it’s just reprehensible to classify some human beings as “unaffordable” and have them exterminated.
Megan, I think its selfish to kill children who didn’t ask to be conceived in the first place. And “your family can barely afford.” Do you mean my family personally or families in general? Its funny that a lot of people who think they can’t afford kids can. They will just have to give up their expensive lattes and maybe not buy name brand clothing all the time. Maybe they will have to curb expensive vacations or find ways to be simple and frugal in other ways. Children should never be killed so that mommy and daddy can continue their accustomed lifestyle.
And CC, not to be mean to you (I do have a lot of respect for social workers, it’s basically a thankless job), but I don’t see how you do it. I have seen you talk about abortion as though it’s some sort of a solution to unwanted and abused children. If you care about the kids that you helped, which I am sure you do, how in the freaking world can you think it would have been preferable for them to be terminated before birth? I don’t understand that at all.
THIS. THANK YOU, JACK.
Jack, just because some women act bitchy towards other women doesn’t mean they are misogynistic. Would you say that men who get into a fist fight with other men feel misandry? No. Cause we know that men can absolutely love being male and yet not get along with other males. Same with women. It doesn’t mean they hate their own gender because they are competitive with other women.
“Jack, just because some women act bitchy towards other women doesn’t mean they are misogynistic. Would you say that men who get into a fist fight with other men feel misandry? No. Cause we know that men can absolutely love being male and yet not get along with other males. Same with women. It doesn’t mean they hate their own gender because they are competitive with other women.”
Well, bitchiness is one thing. Absolutely having one standard for men and another for women, with women coming out on the bottom, is really misogyny. I also know this one woman who thinks that women are genuinely inferior to men, she makes me sad. And I consider myself almost a misandrist, ha. I don’t like the male gender as a whole, to be honest. I think it’s possible to dislike your gender, even act in discriminatory ways toward your own gender, and still be okay with yourself in some weird special snowflake way.
Elizabeth,
If you don’t like being called a moron, or being regarded as one, then perhaps you should elevate the level of your dialogue and analysis.
You either deliberately mischaracterized my clear communication, or were unable to comprehend it. At that point you used your (idiocy/illiteracy choose whichever fits) to justify your repugnant statements, a la:
“Hey, how come it’s okay for Nadal to be a misogynist?”, when my statement was all about PP’s misogyny.
Grow up.
Elizabeth,
You ask us to treat pro- “choicers” with respect, but look how disrespectful YOU’RE being.
It’s DOCTOR Nadal, not just “Mr.” or “Nadal”.
Elizabeth,
You ask us to treat pro- “choicers” with respect, but look how disrespectful YOU’RE being.
It’s DOCTOR Nadal, not just “Mr.” or “Nadal”. He EARNED that title.
Thanks, Pamela. Unfortunately, when pounding the table fails, all Elizabeth and Co. have is disrespect. I’m fine with being called Gerard, or Gerry. When it becomes just the last name, it’s usually a sign that the individual is off their meds.
God Bless.
Kyle Cupp,
Oh, the humility! I assumed you were of Marcotte’s ilk when you used the term “anti-choice.” Clearly, I should have dwelled on your blog longer. I apologize.
How ungentlemanly of me. :(
Dr. Nadal, just so we’re clear. I’m on my meds today!
MPC, please point me to where I called you a moron. Was I referring to your name?
LET ME REMIND YOU, that the POEM that you guys are using as an example of pro-choice misogyny is SATIRE of the pro-life side. So why, again, is it okay for Mr. Nadal to use a misogynistic statement to explain what he interprets Planned Parenthood to be, but it’s not okay for a pro-choice person to use a misogynistic statement to explain what they interpret pro-life to be?
I understood what you were saying, Nadal. I am TRYING to point out ever so diligently that you’re all being incredibly hypocritical or incredibly blind to your own faults.
Also, do you not think that saying someone is “off their meds” is disrespectful or insulting? Abuse is abuse is abuse, right?
Let me remind YOU: Our idealogy saves lives. Your idealogy fills jars with the blood of children.
Why do you come here, because us poor widdle pro-lifers just don’t understand how necessary it is to kill off children? I’m so pathetic because I think humans should live. Poor me.
Here’s an idea, I’m sure cc will agree: there’s a lot of animal abuse that goes on in this country. Obviously, we are not killing enough animals. We need to get more of them dead, because only if enough animals die, can we stop animal abuse.
Personally, I cannot imagine being a child and looking at the face of someone like cc, who, instead of having a spirit of service and generosity, looks at me and thinks, “If you’d only been aborted, my job would be easier.”
Ninek, I’m not arguing with the fact that you believe abortion is murder. I’m pointing out all the hypocrisy on this board. You guys will stoop SO LOW and then scream about evil and misogyny and blah blah blah while not even looking straight into the mirror. Every single thing I’ve seen you guys complain about is done HERE and often times much much worse. And when you do recognize that what you’re doing isn’t the best or most Christian or most respectful thing? Well, guess what, it’s okay because you guys are RIGHT. Don’t you think the other side feels the exact same way?
I don’t care how a bunch of murderous abortion advocates FEEL. They murder children because of their FEELINGS not because of anything scientific or biological.
I am not here to win a popularity contest with bullies who think living human beings don’t deserve to live because said bullies have the means to destroy them. That’s what you advocate, Elizabeth. Look in the mirror and admit to yourself that you advocate murder and then you come here and whine to us.
The OTHER SIDE may think they’re right, in the sense that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, but they are wrong, DEAD wrong. Over 60 million in the US alone DEAD WRONG.
You love women, sure, all abortion advocates do. You love them to DEATH.
Ninek, that’s fine if you don’t care how abortion advocates FEEL but then please stop crying when pro-choice folks don’t care how you FEEL either. I would think that as a Christian you cared about loving every person but…. of course not. Only the ones that agree with you.
You’re still not seeing the hypocrisy and that’s fine. I’m just saying… look at where this post started out with pro-life people claiming “abuse is abuse is abuse” and feelings and we should all be respectful and misogyny is bad blah blah blah… thank you for being honest that REALLY you only care that people are respectful to YOUR SIDE, not misogynistic to YOUR SIDE, and not abusive to YOUR SIDE.
I’m merely trying to point out that when you rail up and down against what you perceive to be the faults of the pro-choice side (beyond disagreeing about the actual SUBJECT AT HAND, abortion) you guys are just as guilty. Nice try sitting on your high horse though.
Wow, see that point over yonder? You missed it.
YOU are the hypocrite. It is pro-choicers who have been crying since over 40 years ago that being pro-life is anti-woman. Pro-choicers. My horse? It’s just one of those 50 cent rides in front of the store. Your horse? Dead, and you’re still beating it.
Nevermind the name-calling through insinuation.
“YOU JUST WANT WOMEN TO BE BROODMARES!”
“YOU JUST VIEW WOMEN AS INCUBATORS!”
Which they tell me after I tell them I carried my daughter to term rather than killing her in an abortion even when her birth was the result of a crisis pregnancy. That implies that I am a “broodmare”. That implies that I am an “incubator”.
But I guess it’s ok for them to call me that because I obviously must’ve said something mean or insulting to them first. Riiiiight.
X, of course!
Just to remind Elizabeth of her own comment:
“Mr. Nadal’s comment doesn’t bother me because it’s true – it bothers me because it’s demeaning to women. Does the satire poem about aphids bother YOU because it’s true?”
Because, on Planet Elizabeth, we deserve to be insulted for daring to be pro-life. But abortion advocates should be protected and insulated from satire, sarcasm, or anything else that might offend them, because, y’know, they’re professional victims.
X, you brought that on yourself. ;)
I love all this talk about demeaning women. I mean, really. Don’t you think it’s ironic that this comes from the proabort side, when the ultimate act of demeaning would be a woman who kills her own child becuase she’s in competition with him/her?
I feel demeaned to live in a culture where life is disposable.
Xalisae, I was reading through the comments and and I saw yours about people being so open-minded their brains fall out. It cracked me up. I often feel the same way. I am definitely quoting you. It’s brilliant.
Doug, who are the misogynistic pro-life women on this blog?
Courtnay, none that I can think of at the present time.
ninek: “I am not here to win a popularity contest with bullies who think living human beings don’t deserve to live because said bullies have the means to destroy them. ”
Hear, hear.
There’s really no comparison between killing unborn children — and advocacy of such — on the one hand, and any of a vast number of varieties of insults directed at such advocates.
I mean really. There’s no comparison. If I gratuitously call Elizabeth a craven slut (and I won’t), consider for however long you wish how that mere rhetorical boorishness compares with indifference to, or outright advocacy of, the killing of unborn children.
Hypocrisy? Not in the least. When pro-choice folk ascend from their lunatic pit of murder to the high moral ground of base insult, then there’ll be some level ground for talk of hypocrisy. Until then, insults may be offensive and counterproductive, but from EITHER side they don’t hold a candle to the crimes against humanity advocated by smiling, suburban, nice, cheerful pro-choice monsters.
JackBorsch: “I think it’s possible to dislike your gender, even act in discriminatory ways toward your own gender, and still be okay with yourself in some weird special snowflake way. ”
But then there’d be nothing wrong with being discriminatory toward the opposite gender either. Nothing whatsoever. The act is morally bad, if at all, because it’s discrimination. The gender of the discriminator has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the act is bad. Existentially we may FEEL that it does — but it really doesn’t.
So did you really just admit that you’re no better than a misogynist?
I didn’t say misandry was right, anymore than I would say misogyny is right. Both are wrong regardless of the gender of the person perpetrating the discrimination. I was just pointing out that I think it is certainly possible that a woman can tend towards misogyny , just like I, a man, tend toward misandry.
So, the desire to give legal rights to a dependent organism (fetus) that resides INSIDE another organism (pregnant woman)… and the total and willful lack of consideration about the will of the of the pregnant woman carrying the fetus — how is that not misogynistic again? Bear in mind, the pregnant woman is ALREADY a person under the law, with protections against government intrusion into HER life, government interference with HER will and the pursuit of HER deepest desires and dreams…. How is forcing a pregnant woman to carry her fetus to term without any regard for the particulars of her situation (health risks, maturity level, relationship to the male who impregnated her, economic resources, already existing children and other family / social / economic obligations, etc? You cannot be in favor of giving a fetus rights without diminishing the rights of the woman carrying it.
So, the desire to give legal rights to a dependent organism (fetus) that resides INSIDE another organism (pregnant woman)…
Why does location matter? What is the moral significance of a short journey down the birth canal? Is degree of dependency really any reason to deny legal protection to a human being? Doesn’t society usually offer more generous social programs to more vulnerable members?
and the total and willful lack of consideration about the will of the of the pregnant woman carrying the fetus
This is a strawman. Pro-lifers do consider the will of the pregnant woman. They even set up resource centres to offer options and aid to women experiencing difficult pregnancies. The only options we oppose are the violent ones that kill or harm human beings.
how is that not misogynistic again?
Because it isn’t. Misogyny is hatred of women. One can be opposed to a pregnant woman’s right to kill her child without hating women, just as one can be opposed to a man’s right to rape his spouse without hating men. Some pro-lifers are even women themselves.
Bear in mind, the pregnant woman is ALREADY a person under the law, with protections against government intrusion into HER life, government interference with HER will and the pursuit of HER deepest desires and dreams….
There is such thing as an unjust law. There was a time when plantation owners were considered persons under the law but black slaves weren’t. So the fact that a pregnant woman is already considered a person and a fetus is not really has no relevance. We wouldn’t let a mother kill her toddler, even if it would help her in the “pursuit of HER deepest desires and dreams”. The law should protect the more fundamental right, the right to life.
How is forcing a pregnant woman to carry her fetus to term without any regard for the particulars of her situation (health risks, maturity level, relationship to the male who impregnated her, economic resources, already existing children and other family / social / economic obligations, etc?
This fragment doesn’t make sense. Would any of those things justify killing a toddler? If not, what differences exist between a fetus and a toddler that would make it acceptable to kill the former, and why do they matter?
Carrying to term is something the pregnant woman’s body does naturally, not something that we force them to do. Pro-lifers don’t support forcibly impregnating women. Abortion proponents, however, support forcing unwanted babies to die before they’re born.
You cannot be in favor of giving a fetus rights without diminishing the rights of the woman carrying it.
Sure you can. You just have to make the law recognize that parents have moral duties to their minor children. Interestingly, as xalisae pointed out, some jurisdictions already do this. Abortion is, counter-intuitively, an exception. The law can tell a pregnant woman not to harm her unborn child but can’t tell her not to kill her unborn child. How does this make sense?