Goldberg: Only “women’s health” issue libs care about is abortion
Conservatives want to leave it to women to make their own choices: about what to eat, whether to smoke, how fast they can drive, whether they can own a gun, etc.
Many conservatives would also like to see women live long enough to have the chance to make those decisions, rather than be snuffed out in utero.
Of course, this argument will be wholly unpersuasive to the folks shouting the loudest about “women’s health decisions.” Which raises an even greater irony.
The basic conservative or pro-life view is that abortion is different from other health-care decisions because there’s a harmed party other than the mother. This fact, not sexism or traditionalism or theology, is what trumps the general conservative preference for individual freedom. You don’t have an unfettered right to harm someone else.
But once you get beyond abortion, conservative public policies treat women like autonomous human beings capable of making their own choices — about health care or anything else.
It’s the abortion-rights extremists who boil down the vast range of issues and choices raised by the term “women’s health” to a single issue, sexual reproduction, as if women were nothing more than breeders.
And yet conservatives are the ones who are called sexists.
~ Jonah Goldberg, National Review, June 28
[HT: Hans Johnson]
He hits the nail on the head.
At a Planned Parenthood Lobby Day at our state capitol, I observed their supporters fawning over a pink uterus someone had knitted. I made the comment “Way to reduce womanhood to being just a sex object.” If a conservative had done the same thing, he or she would be tarred and feathered as a sexist. I thought feminism was more than an obsession with a person’s lady parts.
25 likes
Conservatives want to leave it to women to make their own choices: about what to eat, whether to smoke, how fast they can drive, whether they can own a gun, etc. – no speed limits is conservative policy? Wow, way to swing voters!
The basic conservative or pro-life view is that abortion is different from other health-care decisions – yeah, we know. Any excuse to retain at least some control whilst feigning support for equality.
This fact, not sexism or traditionalism or theology, is what trumps the general conservative preference for individual freedom. – actually, the sexism, ‘traditionalism’ and theology are the fact.
But once you get beyond abortion, conservative public policies treat women like autonomous human beings capable of making their own choices – ROFLMBO
It’s the abortion-rights extremists who boil down the vast range of issues and choices raised by the term “women’s health” to a single issue, sexual reproduction, as if women were nothing more than breeders.- ROFLMBO X 3 – he hasn’t seen sites such as this one then?
This guy is a clown.
3 likes
Reality,
Your “answers” to Jonah Goldberg have about the same weight as Beavis and Butthead chuckling. You’ll have to do better.
26 likes
I think he nails it quite nicely. Well put.
12 likes
This guy is a clown.
Then you’re the crowned prince of self-humiliation, as you’re here CONSTANTLY condescending to women with your paternalistic white-knighting.
19 likes
It is odd how modern “liberals” never ever talk about personal freedom — except when supporting abortion. All the rest of the time, they are extremely fond of elitist rulings concerning how everyone else should eat, smoke, drive and think.
The favorite enthusiasms of liberals are environment, health, population control, gun control, education, and regulating business. The overarching attitude is that regular Americans are doing it wrong, and an elitist class needs to “bring the change” for us.
Denise: The single-sex village is an ancient Christian concept. It was called a Monastery or Convent. It was also the perfect socialist society…. everyone owned in common, and no one owned personal property.
It worked because the persons living there freely chose a life of celibacy and gentle poverty, and dedicated themselves to prayer and charity. Communism failed because it was forced poverty, and the natural urge for most of humanity is to gather security for one’s family. Likewise, this Saudi experiment may work if it is voluntary, but it will fail if the celibacy is forced. The natural urge of most of humanity is toward marriage and children.
12 likes
Jonah said it perfectly. There is nothing more I can add.
6 likes
Excellent, Mr. Goldberg.
7 likes
1:59 is an example of why I assumed he was under 25.
Goldberg is so on target, I wish I could take out a billboard ad with this quote of the day.
7 likes
We live in a country where nobody is guaranteed the right to food security, healthcare, affordable education, a clean environment, safe neighborhoods or labor protections because we privilege corporate inretests above the health of our communities.
But by golly every fetus will be squeezed out of every vagina and everybody can bring their guns to school heeeeeehaaaawwww
6 likes
We live in a country where nobody is guaranteed the right to food security, healthcare, affordable education, a clean environment, safe neighborhoods or labor protections
Or the right to LIFE. You forgot that one, and without that one, there are no others.
Heeeeehaaaaawww.
13 likes
…which isn’t an unfettered right.
3 likes
It is in the case of minor children in regards to their caretakers. It’s actually kinda legally-backed by laws and law enforcement.
Oh, except in the case of abortion.
15 likes
“…which isn’t an unfettered right.”
It should be except in extreme cases of self-defense. Abortion, the death penalty, “preemptive defense” strikes on countries, etc.. all wrong.
11 likes
ROFLMBO = Real-stupid-ity, Obsessively Fawning Lackey Mesmerized By Obama
12 likes
If the pro-choicers trust women so much, then why are abstinence and chastity looked down upon and birth control and abortion touted as the savior of unwanted pregnancy? Why can’t people hold themselves to a higher standard and exercise self-control? Are we all just ruled by our hormones/instincts/impulses without the ability to ascertain if path 1 is right or path 2 is right? I thought our ability to reason was part of what makes us unique as a species.
So often people act like abortion is the ONLY choice. On the Live Action videos there’s some doc saying that abortion is safer than childbirth. That totally discounts the many, many women who give birth every single day without serious health risks. If abortion was so much better than how come there’s women suffering every single day in health, mind, and body from the decision to abort?
If abortion was so fantastic folks like Carla wouldn’t be on here saying there was a problem. Rachel’s Vineyard wouldn’t exist. There wouldn’t be women having so much regret or other issues. There wouldn’t be any sort of link to breast cancer. Yet, they exist and STILL pro-choicers insist on saying is so safe and wonderful.
Call a spade a spade. I’m a woman and I know the difference.
21 likes
“Your “answers” to Jonah Goldberg have about the same weight as Beavis and Butthead chuckling.” – that’d make it a balanced argument then.
“Then you’re the crowned prince of self-humiliation” – I’ll take self-humiliation over the humiliation of having someone else tell people what they can do with their bodies and their reproductive choices because of their beliefs or desire for control any time.
“as you’re here CONSTANTLY condescending to women with your paternalistic white-knighting.” – I would have made the same response if a woman had said what Jonah did.
Supporting womens freedom and rights is condescending, right. I’m not the one trying to make womens choices for them.
5 likes
Pro-lifers look at the sky on a nice day and see the color blue. Abortionists? Not so much.
7 likes
I would have made the same response if a woman had said what Jonah did.
I’m not saying you wouldn’t. Something tells me you would’ve relished making such a response all the more, had it been a female.
Supporting womens freedom and rights is condescending, right. I’m not the one trying to make womens choices for them.
Treating women who oppose the legality of killing children in utero as if we are stupid because we are (supposedly) trying to take away our own “rights” and have other people “make [our] choices for [us]” RATHER than face the actual facts of the matter-that we are trying to protect the basic human rights of children-is condescending. Yes.
18 likes
“Pro-lifers look at the sky on a nice day and see the color blue. Abortionists? Not so much.” – we see so much more because we aren’t blinkered – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky
“Something tells me you would’ve relished making such a response all the more, had it been a female.” – you might want to seek some answers about that within yourself.
“Treating women who oppose the legality of killing fetuses in utero as if we are stupid” – not at all. I treat you as being wrong.
“because we are (supposedly) trying to take away our own “rights” and have other people “make [our] choices for [us]” – if they’re rights and choices you don’t want then what you do against yourself isn’t such a big deal. What you do against those who do want their rights and choices is a big deal.
“RATHER than face the actual facts of the matter-that we are trying to protect the basic human rights of children-is condescending. Yes.” – deeming the rights of a developing fetus to be greater than those of an existent woman is worse than condescending.
3 likes
The point is pre-born human beings already exist. Just because they’re not out of the womb doesn’t change that fact.
I’ve watched for years as women are told that giving birth is more risky than abortion, then reading about the sub-par conditions in some of these “clinics” and the way some of these women dying in horrible ways from being mutilated from the inside out. I’ve read these articles, I’ve watched the videos of these people telling women “Oh abortion is no big deal. It’s not a baby, it’s just cells.” That’s demeaning to women and to life itself.
As a woman, I’m insulted people twist the facts to say abortion is okay and doesn’t do anything bad. It’s an insult and a degradation to the medical field (and to women) and a violation of the Hippocratic oath that we’d condone a woman ending the existence of a pre-born human being simply because that being is “inconveniently” within that particular woman’s womb.
It’s time we were honest about what’s going on. Fetal development isn’t about some inanimate cells, it’s about life happening…at the very beginning.
15 likes
“if they’re rights and choices you don’t want then what you do against yourself isn’t such a big deal. What you do against those who do want their rights and choices is a big deal.”
Like we’ve said, millions of times, that we aren’t against “rights and choices” that don’t involve harming an innocent party. I know like maybe half of pro-lifers are pro-death penalty, and I’m pretty sure there are only like three vegetarian pro-lifers including me lol, but at the very least we all agree that babies, fetuses, toddlers, and other children deserve to be protected from harm in all circumstances.
“– deeming the rights of a developing fetus to be greater than those of an existent woman is worse than condescending.”
No, if we thought the rights of a developing fetus were *greater* than a woman, you wouldn’t have the vast, vast majority of pro-lifers supporting the termination of the pregnancy if the woman is going to die. You don’t see people trying to force women to carry ectopic pregnancies until their tube bursts and they bleed to death, you don’t see people claiming that if a woman’s septic an emergency section or whatever isn’t okay to remove even a ten-week-old baby that will die as soon as he or she is removed. Women and babies have the same basic rights (fetuses actually have LESS even under a pro-life ethic, obviously they aren’t voting until they are older lol), and opposing abortion is perfectly consistent with that.
And I’m never going to get over the irony of you telling women that you’re protecting women’s rights. Especially X, with her daughter who is female but wouldn’t even exist if X weren’t the woman that she is.
10 likes
“Like we’ve said, millions of times, that we aren’t against “rights and choices” that don’t involve harming an innocent party.” – so no-one here is against non-marital sex? Or gay marriage? Or even the most basic contraception?
“I know like maybe half of pro-lifers are pro-death penalty, and I’m pretty sure there are only like three vegetarian pro-lifers including me lol, but at the very least we all agree that babies, fetuses, toddlers, and other children deserve to be protected from harm in all circumstances.” – there are pro and anti death penalty people who are pro-choice. And vegetarians who are pro-choice.
Have you not noticed the arguments that rage here when aborting to save the woman arises?
I would defend xalisae’s, or any other woman’s, right to not have an abortion – especially at the behest of a man – just as much as I would defend her right to have one.
4 likes
” so no-one here is against non-marital sex? Or gay marriage? Or even the most basic contraception?”
Actually, I believe that most of the people here are *against* premarital sex and contraception, but most of them don’t want it illegal. They just see what they think is a healthier way and advocate for that. I might get upset and butthurt about it, but I do believe that if you think that something is better and healthier for people it’s not wrong to advocate it. I don’t want it illegal to eat meat but I do (when I feel like getting into the argument lol) advocate against it. I don’t think promiscuity is healthy, don’t want it illegal, but I’ll tell my kids it’s not a healthy way to go when they’re older. There are, however, right and wrong and effective and ineffective ways to go about this advocacy, and there are certainly people around here that go about it the wrong way in my opinion. But it’s not wrong to hold a viewpoint that a certain way of life is better and healthier and to advance your viewpoint.
Gay marriage is a tricky one for me. I do not think marriage in itself is a right for anyone, honestly. I do however believe that being treated equally under the law IS a right. So I’m of the opinion that either gay marriage should be legal, or the state should rid itself of the language of “marriage” and simply issue couples domestic partnerships for taxes and other legal benefits. But I do agree, that this is one issue where people around here are wrong on.
When it comes to things like abortion, however, it is right to try to criminalize acts that harm a non-consenting party, especially a child. Same reason I’m anti-female and male circumcision for infants and believe it should be illegal.
” Have you not noticed the argumants that rage here when aborting to save the woman arises?”
I think a lot of that has to do with pro-choicers trying to act like aborting to save one’s life is the same type of choice as the majority of abortions that have to do with things like finance. That’s why you get people claiming that an ectopic pregnancy being terminated isn’t an abortion (technically, it is), or that inducing labor at 14 weeks gestation isn’t an abortion (technically, it is, all abortion means is the termination of a pregnancy). I do believe that there are maybe much less than one percent of pro-lifers who would advocate that a woman not be able to end her pregnancy in some way if it is killing her, a lot of the arguing seems to be nitpicking about language in my opinion.
” I would defend xalisae’s, or any other woman’s, right to not have an abortion – especially at the behest of a man – just as much as I would defend her right to have one.”
Yes, but Maggie? X’s daughter, who will be a woman soon, you wouldn’t defend her right to even be alive if her father had been able to convince her mother that she needed to be terminated. You wouldn’t support my daughter (who will be a woman someday) in her right to life if my ex-wife had for some reason not wanted to allow her to be born. You won’t even support legal protection for female babies who are born alive after an abortion attempt. You support rights for some women, sure. Not all of them.
9 likes
There are some who believe that homosexuality, or at least the expressing of it, should be illegal. There have been laws against oral sex for crying out loud – and that was aimed at heterosexuals!And don’t start telling them how some hetero couples indulge in sodomy either, they’ll get the vapors.
I have been thinking something similar. Perhaps the legal, state apparatus in regards to marriage should focus on the contractual elements of any marriage between two consenting adults and churches can provide religious recognition rituals of marriages.
“a lot of the arguing seems to be nitpicking about language in my opinion.” – arrrgh, I nods me head ;-)
What if Maggie had been Michael?
“You support rights for some women, sure. Not all of them” – all of them. All women. Developing fetuses of either gender, not so much.
2 likes
“There are some who believe that homosexuality, or at least the expressing of it, should be illegal. There have been laws against oral sex for crying out loud – and that was aimed at heterosexuals!And don’t start telling them how some hetero couples indulge in sodomy either, they’ll get the vapors.”
Well I don’t believe the majority of people who frequent this blog/are active in the pro-life movement believe in criminalizing homosexuality. I know this because of I’ve asked several of them either on here or privately through email, or in real life, and they said they wouldn’t support such a law. It doesn’t mean I condone how they feel about or treat homosexuality and LGBT people, but I am really trying not to judge people unfairly. And lol, I do get what you mean about them ignoring the fact that “homosexual acts” aren’t exclusive to homosexuals, the people who do that amuse me.
” I have been thinking something similar. Perhaps the legal, state apparatus in regards to marriage should focus on the contractual elements of any marriage between two consenting adults and churches can provide religious recognition rituals of marriages.”
This is what I believe would be right. All “marriage” (which I prefer they would just call civil unions or domestic partnerships) should be at the state and federal level is a contract between two people that has certain responsibilities and benefits, should be open to all couples, and has the goal of strengthening all families and providing stability for relationships and the children of these couples. Marriage can be a religious thing, I believe most religious people see marriage as something a lot different from what’s appropriate for legal recognition anyway. I think this is a reasonable solution and it’s just rather theocratic to oppose it.
“What if Maggie had been Michael?”
Well, I’m not the one who thinks men are lesser than women, you are the one who admitted to that lol. I think both a Michael and a Maggie deserve to be treated like any minor child, gestating or not, should. Be kept safe from non-self defense attempts on their life.
“all of them. All women. Developing fetuses of either gender, not so much.”
It’s not just developing female fetuses that you don’t think deserve rights like females of other ages do, though. You also don’t think that infants that are no longer sharing their mother’s body should be legally protected (dare I bring up that dramatic thread where we argued about letting babies living outside their mothers after an abortion attempt).
8 likes
“I don’t believe the majority of people who frequent this blog…believe in criminalizing homosexuality” – I tend to agree. But a lot of the ‘leaders’, the ones who have the political and legal leverage do.
“homosexual acts” aren’t exclusive to homosexuals, the people who do that amuse me.” – he he, some hetero couples do stuff that some gay couples wouldn’t dream of doing.
“I think this is a reasonable solution and it’s just rather theocratic to oppose it.” – I dig.
“I’m not the one who thinks men are lesser than women, you are the one who admitted to tha” – uh uh, I said women are stronger than men. Mainly because of what truth or ken or someone had said about women being intrinsically inferior.
If the intent is to terminate then termination should be completed, within the legal parameters. What I have said seperately to this, not to conflate the two, is that some of the more preposterous arguments I see here at times cause me to undertake further pondering of what Singer has said. Self-recognition etc. Or as someone else here suggested(not a pro-choicer), once sexual maturity is reached.
3 likes
Yep, once you conclude that some innocent human beings can be killed at the wish of another, it causes you to “ponder” just which humans are worthy of life. Disgusting.
11 likes
Jack, regarding your 2:37 comment: I’m anti all of those things, and more. I’m also anti slavery and anti torture – conditions the pro-life movement gladly inflicts on women to uphold the “right to life.” Funny, though, how the “right to life” becomes a little less absolute after birth. For instance, you are not obligated to donate one ounce of bone marrow to your kids if they need it. I’d certainly hope that you would, but I recognize that you’re a person with rights whose body shouldn’t be treated like some kind of organ mine.
2 likes
” Funny, though, how the “right to life” becomes a little less absolute after birth. For instance, you are not obligated to donate one ounce of bone marrow to your kids if they need it.”
The problem here is that the two situations are certainly not analogous. First of all, in most abortions, you are directly killing an innocent human being as a means or an end. By simply not choosing to undergo bone marrow donation, you do not actively kill your child. In other words, in abortion, the death of the unborn is a direct result of you killing teh fetus i.e. the fetus died because you killed it and would not have died had you not killed it. In teh bone marrow analogy, the child dies because of a defect in his body (or whatever), because his body was lacking something. He dies naturally, as opposed to being killed directly by his parent. This is an important moral distinction that needs to be considered. For we do not hold that the morality of an action is determined solely by the ends (utilitarianism or consequentialism) but by the means taken to arrive at those ends as well.
In addition, there is the fact that final cause of pregnancy is to give birth while the final cause of an individual’s bone marrow is for his body, not the body of someone else. Again, the very reason the womb exists and pregnancy exists is for the sustenance and birth of a human being. This does not in any way imply that women ought to become pregnant, but that IF they do, it is wrong to take action that directly destroys that life within her. On the other hand, there is nothing about the nature of an individual’s bone marrow that implies that it exists for use by another.
8 likes
”I’m also anti slavery and anti torture – conditions the pro-life movement gladly inflicts on women to uphold the “right to life.””
Yet we’re the ones who are accused of inflammatory rhetoric? You’ve seriously just given up any right to complain when people compare abortion to the Holocaust or whatever.
7 likes
Oh and the term is right to life, not “right to life”. Unnecessary quotation marks don’t magically improve sentences.
8 likes
I’m also anti slavery and anti torture
LOL. Blue Velvet thinks motherhood = “slavery and…torture”!
Grow up.
“Funny, though, how the “right to life” becomes a little less absolute after birth. For instance, you are not obligated to donate one ounce of bone marrow to your kids if they need it.”
You’re not required to donate any bodily organs or tissues to your kids before they’re born, either, even if abortion was illegal, that wouldn’t be the case. If you would’ve allowed your child to live long enough to exit your womb in a healthy state, you would’ve found yourself quite intact. I’ve given birth to live, healthy children twice and I still have all my organs, bone marrow, etc.
Being pro-life didn’t reduce me to “some kind of organ mine”. It recognized me for the mother I was, even back when my first child was still growing within me.
8 likes
As usual, JDC offers nothing in the way of substantive criticism. What else would you call the practice of forcing somebody to participate in labor they didn’t consent to? What else do you call subjecting somebody discomfort and pain for the benefit of somebody (or something) els
3 likes
“It recognized me for the mother I was…”
Or it gave you some kind of purpose when you were 20 and bored.
3 likes
“What else do you call subjecting somebody discomfort and pain for the benefit of somebody (or something) els”
Love?
8 likes
Right, BB. If done voluntarily.
3 likes
I actually do get where you’re coming from Megan, I wish I didn’t but I do. It does seem horrendously unfair that women have to suffer through labor, wanted or not, in order for a baby not to die. I mean, my mom has hated for YEARS that she suffered for someone she never wanted in the first place. But I don’t see any workaround here. I can’t ever justify the deaths of children. I’ll always push for less-error prone birth control and sex education, I suppose, try to reduce the amount of people who are hurt by this.
8 likes
Touche.
3 likes
Or it gave you some kind of purpose when you were 20 and bored.
Right. Because God-knows there wasn’t anything else I had on my agenda back then, and I’ve always been the kind of person with nothing in the way of life goals or plans besides motherhood. 9_9
Get off it, Megan.
“What else do you call subjecting somebody discomfort and pain for the benefit of somebody (or something) else?”
Civil obligation. Parenthood.
13 likes