You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Abortion’ tag.
George Carlin in his usual raw, uncensored style examines how silly the anti-choice, anti-woman position is.
George not doing his routine.
When one searches for “Feminism Canada” it is surprising that the REAL Women of Canada website comes up so quickly. They indeed must have their google-fu locked and loaded because the shite they are peddling is quite amazing. On abortion, they have the anti-choice playbook covered and pretty much have the standard fetus-fetish boilerplate canardage in spades.
“REAL WOMEN OF CANADA reaffirms that the family is society’s most important unit:[Well, stating one fact is good, it quickly goes downhill from here] we value equally every family member, born or unborn [*sigh* So the stupid assumptions begin. The unborn are just that, unborn therefore not entitled to the rights we grant people]. Reproductive choice is exercised prior to conception, because conception and birth are consequences of choice; not choices in themselves [And condoms never break, nonconsensual sex never happens and frack, once your ladyparts are in incubator mode *your* autonomy is over]. Anyone who is not certain that there is a second human being[we have terms for this, blastocyst, embryo etc. Mislabelling a blastocyst, by calling it a human being is misleading – Most, “what about the baaaabeeee! nonsense origates from shite like this] growing within the pregnant woman[You don’t mean incubator with legs here do you?] should clearly give that human life the benefit of the doubt.[*facepalm* Oh you do..]“
The red pen of justice and commentary? Gentle readers, the amount of anti-woman sentiment going in this car-wreck of a “statement on Abortion” deserves nothing less. Appealing to emotion, ignoring reality and eliminating the bodily autonomy of women, all in one paragraph. Amazing.
It is said repeatedly by feminists that society over the years has oppressed women and that feminism is the answer to overturning this oppression. How, then, can the genuine feminist justify, in turn, aborting her unborn son or daughter[actually its quite easy, you forced-birth-douche-bags along with rest who would want to have their say over what goes in my body can go frack-yourselves, you see easy.], the most deadly kind of oppression[A more pernicious type of oppression is a group of people identifying themselves for women’s rights but instead promoting patriarchal values and the disenfranchisement of women; essentially subverting the very notion of women’s rights.]
In a democracy, there is the acceptance and practice of the principle of equality of rights, opportunity and treatment for all[Nice statement, if it was actually true, you might be able to base your assertions on it.]. The unborn child must be included because we cannot arbitrarily take away the rights[Funny, it seems like you are making the rights of the female go *poof* without any compunction whatsoever.]of one group of human beings without giving assent to the withdrawal of rights from other categories of human beings. Since we are pro-family, we cannot discriminate by allowing an attack on one member of the human family such as the[don’t forget unborn sperm & eggs too, I’m guessing ‘REAL’ women are not much for masturbation or menses either.] unborn child. Doing so has opened the door to attacks on other vulnerable members of the family [citation needed, otherwise your rhetoric is just sympathetic tripe], such as the aged, and the mentally and physically disabled.
Sends shivers deep into the rectal area, doesn’t it? It is always appalling to see this sort of nonsense take root in one’s own country. I shudder to think of what being a woman in the US is like, with rights to one’s bodily autonomy and reproductive choice under constant attack. For instance, Mr.Rick Anal-Froth Sanatorum hates women, observe:
[transcript excerpt] Santorum: You know, the Supreme Court of the Unites States, on a recent case, said that a man who committed rape could not be killed, would not be subject to the death penalty—yet the child [sic] conceived as a result of that rape could be. That to me sounds like a country that doesn’t have its morals correct. That child [sic] did nothing wrong. That child [sic] is— [pauses for audience applause]. That child [sic] is an innocent victim. To be victimized twice would be a horrible thing.
“It is an innocent human life. It is genetically human from the moment of conception—it is a human life—and we in America should be big enough to try to surround ourselves and help women in those terrible situations—they’ve been traumatized already! To put them through another trauma of an abortion I think is, uh, is too much to ask, and I so I would, I would just absolutely stand and say that ONE violence in enough!
[Melissa McEwan from Shakesville commenting on said video]
“Yes, Rick Santorum, to be victimized twice would be a horrible thing—and many women who get pregnant via rape consider being forced to carry to term a pregnancy caused by rape and bear their rapist’s child a revictimization of their bodies. Which is why women have a choice. No pregnant rape survivor is required to get an abortion; and no pregnant rape survivor should be denied an abortion, either. And if you genuinely believed that to be victimized twice is a horrible thing, you would agree with me, you despicable, body-policing, misogynistic, hypocritical dipshit.”
“I have said before that I ardently believe, by virtue of what giving birth demands of the human body, the anti-choice position to be inherently violent. To take an anti-choice position in the case of a pregnancy resulting from rape is to turn the inherent violence up to 11.
“Let me be blunt: Rick Santorum is suggesting that after a man violates my body without my consent, sticks his penis in my vagina without my consent, ejaculates into my body without my consent, impregnates me without my consent, that he, Rick Santorum, should then have the right to force me to submit my body for nine months to a pregnancy I do not want, force me to submit my body to all that pregnancy can entail, from morning sickness to milk-engorged breasts to stretch marks to potentially life-threatening complications, and then force me to push out a baby I did not consent to conceive through the same vagina that was raped nine months earlier, and then decide whether to parent my rapist’s child or give up my child for adoption.”
Thanks but no thanks Mr.Anal-Froth. Time to take your misogyny marbles and head on home.
Liberty in the land of the brave, and the home of the free seems to be missing a clause somewhere because liberty is not really working well for women, especially if looking for access to reproductive health services such as abortion. The Alternet article lists the top 10 states where Abortion is virtually illegal. For me this is a bottom 10 list, and I will highlight the lowlights of this particular list.
“1) Idaho. Even though the constitutional right to abortion has been established for 38 years, a woman in Idaho was arrested and charged for aborting her pregnancy. The woman bought some drugs online to terminate her pregnancy, and was ratted out by an acquaintance who disapproves of a woman’s right to choose.”
2) Iowa – Christine Taylor accidentally fell down some stairs and went for treatment at the hospital. While telling the nurse about her personal problems, a common enough situation at a hospital, Taylor let on that she had briefly considered abortion early in her pregnancy. The nurse called the cops, claiming the accident was an attempt at self-abortion. Taylor suffered three weeks of purgatory before the D.A. dropped the charges, but the fact remains that a woman was arrested and charges were considered on the grounds that she’d thought about exercising her constitutional rights.
3) Utah. As Michelle Goldberg explained in the Daily Beast, no woman’s story is too heart-rending for anti-choice zealots not to try to put her in jail for attempting an abortion. A pregnant 17-year-old who lived without electricity or running water in rural Utah, who may have been exploited by an older man and who certainly had no way to get to a doctor or pay for an abortion, paid a man $150 to beat her in the stomach.
4) Louisiana. Using law enforcement creatively to get around the legal right to abortion is done in ways other than prosecuting women, of course. There’s also the practice of targeting abortion providers and hitting them with unnecessary, harassing regulations that aren’t applied to any other medical facilities.
5) Kansas. It may still be legal to get or provide abortion in Kansas, but it’s become increasingly dangerous to do so. Human rights aren’t really being secured if trying to exercise them means facing threats of violence, as the civil rights activists of the past can tell you. Already one abortion provider in Kanas, Dr. George Tiller, has been assassinated, which dropped the number of providers in the state from four to three.
6) Virginia. Virginia is quickly rivaling some of the more deep South states in the art of using legal harassment to run abortion providers out of business. Not only is the legislature trying to pass regulations that hold abortion clinics to hospital-level standards, but anti-choicers are trying to interfere with the Department of Health’s decisions allowing abortion clinics to operate in the state.
7) Mississippi. The legal battles continue over whether or not it’s legal for the state to issue a ballot initiative on the question of whether a fertilized egg should be legally considered a “person.” If civil liberties groups challenging the ballot initiative lose out, it will probably pass into law, which not only threatens abortion, contraception and IVF access, but could result in legal actions taken against women who merely miscarry or give birth to stillborns.
8) Indiana. Indiana has dropped from 15 providers in 2005 to 12 in 2008. Law enforcement in the state has been looking for creative ways to put women in jail for failing to bear live children. A woman who attempted suicide while pregnant, only to give birth to a baby who didn’t survive, has been charged with murder.
9) Ohio. Luckily, legislation that would ban abortion of any pregnancy where the fetus has a heartbeat is currently stalled in the legislature, but if this bill moves forward, it could be nearly as dangerous as a bill defining a fertilized egg as a person.
10) South Dakota. South Dakota legislators passed the most stringent waiting period law in the country, requiring a woman to wait 72 hours for an abortion and consult with a registered anti-choice pregnancy center before getting her abortion.
As no anti-choice centers have signed up yet, the law functionally bans abortion in South Dakota.
My personal favourite is Mississippi where they are really going wild-crazy-sauce with trying to legislate into existence the definition person being a fertilized egg. It just scary really how far the anti-choicers are willing to go force pregnancy on women. Women are not incubators yet it seems Mississippi legislators are doing their best to turn them into exactly that.
Hopefully, there remains some sensible people down south who can throw out this attack on women.
Snipped from a Pharyngula Thread –cowalker says:
“It has long been one of my patented rants that all the poor menz who are out there weeping over aborted embryos and picketing women’s clinics should instead be policing their brother’s dicks. All this time they’ve been whining about the perfidy of women, the solution has been within their power.
Why don’t they start a movement to get all men everywhere to stop having sex with women who won’t carry any resulting babies to term? It wouldn’t be difficult. All a guy has to do is spend months and months getting to know a woman’s character and ethical beliefs, her family and friends, her plans for the future and her reactions under stress. Then he can be sure how she will react if he goes ahead and has sex with her. If she wouldn’t have the baby, he can end the relationship.
Or he can just get a vasectomy.
Abortion problem solved.
Any men who behave otherwise should be shunned by other men instead of lauded as “players.” Shoot, they’ve already got a role model in Edward, in the “Twilight” series.”
Ah yes, as the shoe is now on the other foot, will the pro-life hordes pour their energies to contain the men? It might encroach a bit on the Patriarchy, but I’m sure that Pro-life Men for the Sake of the CHILDREN would make this sacrifice….
Its so frakking funny it hurts.
I follow the news at the Guttmacher Institute. I have reprinted many of their articles here at DWR because of they are factual, easy to comprehend and generally reflect my views about the reproductive rights of women and their bodies. They recently produced a video about abortion in the US, take careful note about what they identify as the root cause of many of the problems women in the US face today, they identify,correctly, inequality as the culprit. Address that and so many of societies problems are lessened or even solved. The first step, of course, is making taxation progressive so we all contribute our fair share toward the overall benefit of society.
I cringe a little on the inside when I put up abortion posts because it is a dog whistle for all sorts for the anti-choice cranks who seem to regard the female as a secondary player in the reproductive process. C’est la vie. :)
Considering the superheated stupid that regularly ejaculates from the rusty brainpan of this this individual should we be surprised when he comes out against female autonomy? The Guttamacher Institute summarizes his vapidly brainsick musings succinctly in a recent press release.
“Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) asserted earlier this week that Social Security’s future solvency is in jeopardy because of what he termed the U.S. “abortion culture.” Santorum is quoted by the Los Angeles Times as saying, “Well, a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion.”
Did he just scrape his brain out of a mint jelly jar? It is not fair to mint jelly, but Mr.Santorum might as well be saying we should ban cars because some 32,000 (2010) people die every year because of car accidents.
“More importantly, however, there are two main reasons why it is simply wrong to assume that every abortion reduces the U.S. population by one person: One, most women obtaining abortions are younger than 30 and are postponing childbearing. They typically want to wait to have children, or already have one child and don’t want another at that time. In either case, the abortion delays a birth, it does not eliminate it—and there is no impact on the overall population. Second, some abortions terminate pregnancies that would have ended in miscarriage, so again one cannot assume that every abortion would have otherwise resulted in a live birth.”
Enter the factual analysis of what is actually going on, Women planning their childbearing so they can best accommodate having and raising a child. Holy-responsible planning Batman! Forced birth advocates rarely seem to acknowledge that women *may* have a good idea when they are ready to accept the dangerous responsibility of giving birth and then the commitment needed to raise a child. It’s like their lady-brains are actually capable of evaluating when the time is right for us to do what we want for our selves and our bodies. Some pretty heavy radical shit, I know.
“But where Santorum really misses his mark is his failure to grasp a very simple idea: Most Americans want two children, and they try to time childbearing and space their births so that they have those children when they feel best capable of taking care of them. Overwhelmingly, this is accomplished through contraceptive use. When faced with an unwanted or mistimed pregnancy, some women decide to obtain an abortion. But the key point is that whatever demographic challenges Social Security may be facing, they are not due to abortion, but rather to the fact that most Americans desire—and generally achieve—small families.”
Interesting. Rick’s assertions really have no basis in reality then. The issue of course is those damn women and the rights they think they have to their bodies.
“The natural extension of Santorum’s purported solution for bolstering Social Security would be to require American women and couples to have more children than they want. Any possible scenario for achieving such a goal would be deeply disturbing—for example, banning both contraception and abortion, or trying to institute some form of mandatory three- or four-child policy through tax penalties or other punishments for those not complying.”
George W. Bush’s flatulence has more credibility than this turgid woman hating vomit stain of a human being. The next legislation from Mr.Santorum will be the banning of shoes from women so they can assume their rightful place in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant until they die in childbirth or hit menopause.
“In essence, what underpins Santorum’s argument is a lack of support for the ability of women and their partners to decide for themselves when to have children and how many children to have.”
You know that Mr.Santorum is a huge free-market supporter and will trot out arguments for how great the market is because of choice people have while out of the other corner of his lick-spittle mouth will talk about stripping away bodily autonomy and reproductive choices for women. The best part of this is that this individual was actually elected to public office by people with the same sort of cracked world-view that he routinely barfs into the public arena.
It is nice to see the infringement on the rights of women abortion debate framed in such a succinct manner.
“As I’ve said before (and will almost certainly have occasion to say many times again, until everyone is yawning about what a goddamn broken record I am), the anti-choice position is inherently violent, no matter how politely it is stated. If anyone else suggested that I should be forced to submit my body against my will to nine months of potential discomfort and pain, followed by an act that might include the skin and muscle between my vagina and anus being torn open, I don’t think we’d mince words about whether they were using violent rhetoric. But because we can couch it in the bullshit terminology of “a pro-life position,” that’s supposed to be evidence of civility.
That’s supposed to evidence of an unyielding belief in the sanctity of human life.
LULZ.
I am a human. That does not in any way feel like a respect for the sanctity of my life, or the quality of my life, or the agency over my life to which I am meant to have a public (and, according to Huckabee’s own religion, divine) right.
No one can argue, with any honesty or credibility, that they give a fuck about the sanctity of life if they would force a woman to carry to term an unwanted or unviable pregnancy against her will. That is the opposite of a respect for life, if the definition of “life” is to have any meaning at all.”
Run along anti-choice zealots…run along.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…