You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Anti-Choice Mendacity’ tag.
The war on women and their rights continues to chug along, it can get depressing having to digest all the misogyny that leaks from the anti-choice, anti-woman side. Despite all the shite that is going on stories get out that are inspiring, here is a excerpt from the NYmag article about the first legal abortions and the doctors that were performing them.
““No matter how much you shame and scare them, women will still come for abortions. Pretty recently I had this young woman, 15 maybe, and we did the procedure. I said, ‘Your uterus is empty, the procedure is over. I have to go check to make sure we got everything,’ and I left the room to examine the tissue. Then I came back and told her, ‘Everything’s fine, your uterus is healthy.’ And she said, ‘So … when are you going to use the steel ball?’ I picked my jaw up off the floor and said, ‘Steel ball?’ She said, ‘Well, I went to the crisis pregnancy center and they told me you’re going to put a steel ball that’s covered with sharp blades into my uterus and twirl it around.’ And this kid still came! I was thinking, How did you ever make yourself walk in the office believing I was going to do that?””
Trust women.
Oh and a big heart-felt fuck you to so called ‘crisis pregnancy centres’ that are always filled to the brim with toxic bullshit. We need you like we need smallpox in the world.
Religion treats people like shit, the further away you are from the white male ideal, the shittier your deal will be. The recent anti-choice propaganda wave in the US caused enough whinging in wordpress blogosphere that I felt compelled to wrestle with the full-blown stupid that is the anti-choice position. .
.
I went to this saintly dudes page and left my usual inflamatory comments – women are people, they have rights et cetera – the mind-blowing stuff that makes the zealots wail and froth.
.
.
But rather than approve my comment, this dipstick emails a response to me because apparently, tainting his blog with reality is just a touch beyond the pale for his religiously addled sensibilities.
We’ll spend some time going over this condescending POS’s response.
.
.
“I offer a few responses (with the disclaimer that my words are not at all said with malice or ill-will, but with blunt plainness) to your comments, particularly the ones, that to me, seem to be emitting an abundance of hypocrisy:”
.
.
Oh you just know this is going to be good and chock-full of projection, and of course, Full Bonus Points for a mansplination of why teh abortion is the evils for the womenz.
.
“Any sex men or women engage in should be within the bounds of husband and wife, legally and lawfully married.”
LoL-forever. And all time spent by teenage boys on the internet is time spent listening to the heavenly music of the spheres and praying to god. Are there any other idealized states you’d like to discuss as if they were relevant to the topic at hand?
“Obviously there are additional purposes of sex than procreation alone, such as strengthening the relationship of husband of wife and expressing love within that marriage; however, procreation is certainly one of the main purposes of sex and that should not be taken lightly.”..
Ah yes, and in this ideal world men only wish to engage in sex to make babies. Why not? Unicorns also exist in this world, and fairies too!
.
.
“You seem to think people should be allowed to kill children that are unwanted simply because it is easier to let people do that than to teach them proper moral and values; I think you should put a little more effort into seeking the moral option and not the easy way out.”
Ah, there we go. Let the anti-choice false equivalency begin. It is so typical of the pro-slavery crowed to make this fundamental error and then proceed to base their entire ‘argument’ on it.
.
.
A fetus is a fetus, not a child. It has none of the rights we give to born children. So, let’s not go into hypotheticals because you are really terrible at making them jive with reality. (He will, of course, but first we need to be offended about his sky-daddy not being afforded the proper respect.)
.
.
Predictably, whiny-pissbaby gets all up in arms because I dismiss the patriarchal religious bullshite angle he goes for in his post. My comment first, then his.
[Me] “LOL. Religion has been oppressing women since its inception. Maybe citing a book that is famous for its murder, rape, and genocides isn’t the best source to strengthen your case?
Cherry picking your favourite bible verses to make a ‘point’ is about as useful as spitting into the wind, or pissing up a rope. Your choice.”
—–
“Again, I find it very hypocritical that you dare say I am ‘cherry-picking’ bible verses when you scoff and ‘lol’ at the very idea of religion. It couldn’t be more obvious that you haven’t read the bible or other religious text in any recent time, if ever at all; so you have no ground to stand on in saying I ‘cherry-pick’ verses”
Oh hey there cherry picking is what you fucking zealots do to justify your shitty claims about reality.
Ah, christianity, so moral, so ethical. Thank god for the bible…
Let’s take a peek at what the bible says:
“The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).”
Daaaaaamn son. You step back now and think about owning up to the bullshit in your magic book before you get all out of sorts about being called on your cherry-picking. Of course being held to a truthful standard is going to get more painful as this email continues…
“Also, try to remember that America is a Christian nation.”
Holy LoL-copters Batman! America is a secular nation and is founded on the belief that church and state should be two separate entities, although do feel free to keep pining for theocracy.
“Over 80% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, so the scripture verses I quote mean a great deal to most people and greatly affects their decision-making processes.”
Billions of horseflies love eating shit, should we also embrace the luscious poo-banquet ideal just because so many do it? Bad ideas are bad ideas – how many people that endorse said (bad) ideas is irrelevant.
“It would be an extremely arrogant prospect to think that you are personally wiser than 86% of the world’s current inhabitants, as well as the billions of people who lived before now, that all came to the conclusion that there is most certainly a God.”
Most thought the earth was flat, the earth was the centre of the universe and knew fuck all about germ theory. Why I’m not accepting their ‘wisdom’ shouldn’t be that hard to piece together. What is more troublesome and more pertinent to the discussion is the fact that *you* do and you seem to be proud of that fact. This is officially Scary-Unhinged-Stuff to those of us who inhabit rational land.
“You appear to identify with the 2.4% of Americans who don’t believe in a God, or the 14% of the world who don’t believe in a God, and that is your choice, but don’t for a second assume that because you personally do not or have not found the value that scriptures hold or found a relationship with God, that others are also unable to find those things.”
Less than two-shits, I say, is all I care about identifying with other people when it comes to living a world based on rationality and evidence rather than superstition and myth. Hey it’s great you have a relationship with your sky-daddy, I hope he tucks you in and changes your nappy at night and gets you warm fucking milk – but believing in bronze age mysticism in the 21st century is no badge of honour. It is about as noble as admitting that yes indeed, you have fart-beans for brains and any coherence you manage to display is just a sad accident.
Dude finally gets back to why autonomy and women shouldn’t mix. Thank you, kind readership, for not glazing over yet the sheer amount of religious-wordfap is positively stultifying.
“According to bodily autonomy, a mother could not be judged harshly for smoking, drinking, doing coke, and going skydiving (hopefully not all in the same day) while 6 months pregnant. If you really believe that a woman’s body is autonomous — that she has absolute jurisdiction over it — then you must defend a mother who does things that could seriously harm her unborn child, even if she hasn’t chosen to abort it.”
Why yes. That thing with breasts and arms and a brain and stuff is not just a walking womb. It is almost like she is human being deserving full human rights and autonomy. But we should get on with your important reasons on why women should be brood-slaves.
“Most pro-aborts will not (vocally) defend abortion at 8 or 9 months. But — if bodily autonomy is your claim — you must. Is a woman’s body less autonomous when she’s been pregnant for 35 weeks? There is no way around it: bodily autonomy means that it is moral to kill a fully formed baby, at seven months, or eight months, or nine months. You say that our bodies cannot be ‘used’ without our ‘consent.’ “
If you believe that women are people then yes, it is her choice whether to remain pregnant or not. You may begin to clutch your pearls now.
“Why should this apply only to pregnancy and organ donations? Children, at any age, create profound demands on their parents’ bodies. Whether it’s waking up in the middle of the night for the crying baby, working long hours to pay for their food and clothing, carrying them around when they cannot walk, staying home when you’d like to go out, going out (to bring them to the doctor, or school, or soccer practice) when you’d like to stay in, etc, etc, etc, and so forth. “
Hmmm…well this might be a complicated answer for you, but when the fetus is in the woman’s body it is her choice whether to keep it or not. Once born, the exclusive use of a mother’s body is over and thus other external actors can care for the child. So yah, I hope you’re not going the false equivalence on top of a false equivalency argument. Let me review your first fail and append the second that I just bet you’re going for – because this is a long article –
1. A fetus is not a child
2. Before birth and after birth are functionally different states.
“An argument for absolute bodily autonomy means that it can’t be illegal, or considered immoral, for a parent to decline to do any of these things, so long as their decision was made in the name of bodily autonomy.”
Game, set and Match?? Hmmm… Apparently you are that fucking dense. Way to try and compare apples to octopuses. Parental responsibilities to their children (because they are born now, separate entities) are not the same as a woman’s pregnancy. [meta thought: The fact that this needs to explained is troubling.] [meta-meta thought: Arguing with the religiously deluded is like trying get a close shave with a banana.]
“If I can ‘do what I want with my body,’ then it becomes very difficult to launch a salient moral or legal attack against a man who chooses to sit in a playground in front of children and pleasure his own body. I’m often accused of oversimplifying, but I’ve never oversimplified to the extent of you bodily autonomy proponents.”
This shit is rock-solid argumentative GOLD! If you ignore context. And reality. And the structure of good arguments…
“Once we’ve considered every complexity and nuance, we can rightly say that our bodies are autonomous in some ways, and in some circumstances, but not in others. We cannot say that they are absolutely autonomous, and I find it hard to believe that anyone truly thinks that.”
Because apparently fapping in public is the same issue as whether a woman is a incubator slave or not. OH religion! You are sooo silly when you try and talk all rational and stuff.
Here comes some amazing reasoning. Just let it wash over you, like toddler up-chuck.
“Any claim or responsibility placed on me, automatically includes a claim and responsibility on my body. Everything I do involves my body. I am my body. CS Lewis would say that I am my soul and I have a body. I agree with him, but for our purposes in this discussion, leaving souls and spirits aside, we are our bodies. Whether we are expected to pay taxes or drive the speed limit or provide a safe and sanitary home for our children, we are using our bodies to meet these expectations. We experience and participate in life with our bodies. Absolute bodily autonomy is inexorably linked with personal autonomy. If my body is autonomous, my person must be autonomous, and if my person is autonomous, then my very existence is autonomous, and if my very existence is autonomous, then it is simply unacceptable and (by your logic) immoral for anyone to expect me to do anything for anyone at any point for any reason.”
1.*Le Sigh* – CS Lewis.
2. Taxes and driving the speed limit – social constructs not autonomous obligations.
3. “ it is simply unacceptable and (by your logic) immoral for anyone to expect me to do anything for anyone at any point for any reason.” – Free will; what the fuck is it?!?!?
This argument seems a little to pat to be coming from your typical anti-choice zealot. The ‘gotcha’ at the end is, on the surface, compelling, but only if don’t worry about the little things – burden of proof, arguing charitably, et cetra.
“If you concede that we ought to be expected or even required to do certain things, then you are placing limits on our bodily autonomy. If you place limits on our bodily autonomy, then you are admitting that limits can be placed on our bodily autonomy. If you are admitting that limits can be placed on our bodily autonomy, then you must consider whether abortion falls within or outside of those limits. And here’s the rub: if you contend that abortion falls within the limits on bodily autonomy, you must justify that belief beyond simply reasserting our right to bodily autonomy.”
Wow. The knock down argument of the day….*sigh* This ‘argument’ was lifted from another anti-choice douche – Matt Walsh. Of course, it is bullshit and refuted in full here. I’ll reproduce the conclusion – meeting copypasta with copypasta. The next quote from the Daily Kos article:
“And again, Matt’s got his burden of proof all wrong. It’s not up to pro-choicers to prove that a woman should be able to decide when and if she will be pregnant. It’s up to pro-lifers to prove that she shouldn’t – because that’s their position. When people say that a person’s right to free speech should be curbed in relation to inciting mass panics, we can (and have) present(ed) good reasons as to why this is the case. When we say that a person’s right to bear arms can be curbed if that person is a violent felon, good reasons have been provided. When we tell Matt’s masturbating man to stay away from playgrounds, we have good reasons for limiting that use of bodily autonomy or expression. But Matt is alleging that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy should be limited inside of pregnancy; and every bit of evidence he provided for that is nonsense that crumbles under the slightest honest scrutiny.
I don’t have to prove that it’s wrong to limit my free speech; the person trying to do the limiting has to prove why it’s right. I don’t have to prove that it’s wrong to take away my ability to make my own medical decisions; the person trying to take that power from me has to prove that it’s right. I don’t have to prove that it’s wrong to incarcerate me; the person attempting to do so has to prove that it’s the right choice. And I don’t have to prove that it’s wrong to limit my choice to be pregnant or not; that falls to the person trying to do the limiting.
Though the burden of proof is on him, Matt didn’t prove his case.”
So, my religiously-deluded-christian-pro-patriarchy-hack, funtime is almost over. The christian fart-beans you shat out – cheekily masquarading as arguments – have been humanely put down and thus, the religious shit-show is concluding…
“I mean you no ill-will and I fully support your right to an opinion, I simply hope that my comments have shed some light on the weak foundation your current opinion stands. I wish you the best and hope you will come to see truth in its proper light.”
Umm…your comments had shed light on where your arguments are coming from: straight out of your ass.
It is amazing the fuck-wittery that metastasizes when you combine religion and anti-choice thinking. I’m so disgusted and anguished over the deceptive practices at these so called Crisis Pregnancy Centers that I’m reproducing the entire article by Caitlin Bancroft written on the Huffington Post Blog. A big hearty frak-you goes out to our anti-choice christian friends. Read on about how the work of good christians in action.
“I wasn’t considering abortion. I wasn’t considering adoption, or parenting, or childcare. I wasn’t even pregnant, and I definitely wasn’t scared — at least not at first.
When I volunteered to visit multiple crisis pregnancy centers in Virginia, I thought I knew what I was getting myself into. Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are the foot soldiers in the war against women. These anti-choice non-profits pose as women’s health clinics then use lies and manipulation to dissuade pregnant women from considering their full range of reproductive options (ie: abortion and birth control).
CPCs use a variety of tactics to lure women into their buildings: they offer free pregnancy testing, are known to list themselves under “abortion” in online directories and search results, and may use misleading names with the hope that women will confuse them for legitimate healthcare providers. Once inside, women are treated to a carefully crafted program of manipulation designed to dissuade them from choosing abortion, birth control, and if they’re not married – sex.
In Virginia, there are over 58 CPCs, more than double the number of comprehensive reproductive healthcare centers in the state. Still, most people are unaware that CPCs exist — let alone understand the harm they cause. But I knew exactly what I was up against when I walked into “AAA Women for Choice” in Manassas, Virginia.
At first glance, the center resembled a doctor’s office. The waiting room looked like it belonged to a pediatrician, complete with magazines and children’s toys. The atmosphere provided a sense of credibility and legitimacy. Under different circumstances, I would have trusted this façade; it would have put me at ease.
After checking in, I was introduced to my “counselor,” a conservatively dressed middle-aged woman who led me to one of the back rooms. She sat across from me with some forms on a clipboard I was not permitted to see. Much like the décor, the set-up reinforced the sense of professionalism and expertise. The consultation began with the standard questions: name, address, age, date of last period?
Right as I began to relax, the Q&A took a turn for the personal and invasive. “What is your relationship with your parents like?” “How is your financial situation?” “Have you told the father?” “What is his religion?” “Are his parents religious?” “How many people have you slept with?” “Would your parents be excited about a grandchild?”
As I sat there having my life probed, the purpose of the questions dawned on me. In case the test was positive, my “counselor” wanted to know which tactic to use to persuade me to continue the pregnancy — exactly where my resolve was the weakest. Was there a loving Christian boyfriend who would make a great dad? Did I have kind supportive parents who would be excited by the idea of a grandchild? I knew I wasn’t pregnant — knew exactly what she was doing — knew she wasn’t a doctor. But my body reacted instinctively to her questions with guilt and shame. It felt like a kick in the gut when she asked if I had told my brother about the baby, and I felt a creeping sense of selfishness as I imagined the door slamming on my shared apartment, my twenties, my life. Would my parents want me to have this child? Would it matter?
The woman stopped between questions to comment on my answers and lie. “Oh, you’ve taken birth control. Let me tell you how that causes cancer and is the same a medication abortion.” I was told abortion would scar me for the rest of my life — would damage all of my future relationships and leave me “haunted.” I was told the pill could cause breast cancer, that condoms are “naturally porous” and don’t protect against STIs, and that IUDs could kill me. She lectured and lied to me for over an hour before I even received the results of my pregnancy test.
Also interspersed in the deception were subtle judgments of my life decisions. “So you do have some scruples about you,” she said at one point, referring to my low number of sexual partners. One of the most disturbing comments came when I was pressed about the sexual experience leading to my visit, the reason I supposedly needed a pregnancy test in the first place. I told her an all too common story of acquaintance rape. I had been at a party, I said, severely intoxicated and unable to consent, “I didn’t remember anything… I just wished it hadn’t happened.” Her response made it clear that the situation was my fault, “Oh so he took advantage of you. Well just don’t do it again sweetie; just don’t do it again.” It made me sick.
It only got worse after a positive pregnancy test. At another CPC (the deceptively named “A Woman’s Choice” in Falls Church, Virginia) I could hear two employees whispering before entering my room, plotting strategies to reveal the test results and best manipulate my reaction. When they did finally clue me in, my concerns were casually brushed aside and used as ammunition for their agenda: I could care for a baby with no job, my parents would certainly help, and I could absolutely handle the stress. They even argued that I could be a law student while pregnant: “It will probably be good for the baby,” the woman said, “because you will be sitting down all of the time.”
At this center and elsewhere, the conversations were always the same. It didn’t matter how many times I said that l didn’t want to be pregnant or be a mother the CPC staffer would continue to bully me. Their tactics were so blatantly manipulative that I should have been able to fight back. I wanted to have a response, some kind of self-defense. But I couldn’t find anything to say. I am pro-choice feminist activist and I often discuss these kinds of difficult and emotionally sensitive topics at work and in school. Yet these women’s so-called concern left me defenseless, struggling to find a response that didn’t play right into their hands.
The way that these women treated me made one thing very clear: they didn’t care about me, my future, my happiness, or my relationships. I was simply a shell that needed to be distracted and kept questioning until it was too late for me to make my own choices, and too late for me to decide if this is what I wanted — or not. I truly can’t imagine the pain that CPCs inflict on women who are actually struggling with an unintended pregnancy. I left each CPC feeling humiliated, terrified, and panicked… and I wasn’t even pregnant.
I think we can all agree that it is wrong to shame someone seeking guidance. It is wrong to lie to someone in order to manipulate her future. It is wrong to treat women like walking wombs. Yet these tactics are core to the mission of Virginia’s crisis pregnancy centers. They advertise to scared women who need help, and they claim to offer unbiased information, guidance, and support to those who need it. But instead CPCs treat women the way they treated me — like disobedient children who need to be schooled in religion and saved from their own decisions. To them a woman is a vessel for a future baby, nothing more.
Ultimately, my undercover CPC investigations allowed me to witness firsthand the cruelty and deception at the heart of the anti-choice movement. As a result, I am even more dedicated to ensuring that every woman has the freedom to make her own deeply personal reproductive health decisions. Surprisingly, I also realized that I agree with Virginia CPCs on one point: when a woman walks through their doors, a life is at stake. But throughout all of my investigations, I was the only one who thought it was mine.”
Hypocrisy is flowing from the anti-choice sites like turds from a overfull diaper. The idea that they are somehow committed to the preservation of life is the weapons-grade bullshite that religious thinking actively promotes. The pious f*cks are equating abortion to the recent mass murder at Sandyhook Elementary School.
How dare you?
You (fetus fetishists) purport to have moral standards and then crassly use the murder of children to further your own anti-woman agenda. I’m certainly glad that religion is such a fine moral compass and guide for behaving as a caring empathetic, human beings.
An image repost, but hey its still amazingly relevant.
So stop, just stop with the “what about the baaaaby” whinging and try to clear your addled cotton-filled heads for one microsecond. Promote your toxic anti-female agenda – go to town (usually church) – awesome, we need exemplars to show how incredibly wrong you are.
But don’t use the deaths of innocent people to enhance(?) your attack on women. It is gross and disgusting.
This post magically disappeared. Looks like someone has a shred of decency.
A neat tidbit from the slacktivist. I’ve excerpted a bit here:
“If you’re a disabled worker, then you’re protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you’re a pregnant worker and not hindered in job performance, or if you’re pregnant and completely unable to work, then you’re protected under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. But if you’re a pregnant worker and able to perform some, but not all, of the functions of your job, then you slip through the cracks and you’re SOL. That means that some pregnant women may be forced to choose between keeping their job and keeping their pregnancy.
Now, since the “pro-life” and “pro-family” movements of the religious right are all about preventing pregnant women from choosing not to keep their pregnancies, this would seem like legislation they ought to be supporting.
And yet, as I noted last month, I haven’t yet seen any support for this, or even any mention of it, among such groups. The PWFA would help to remove one powerful economic incentive for abortion — a real situation that real people face. Anti-abortion groups therefore ought to support it. But if any of them are supporting it, they’re doing so very, very quietly.
Maybe I’d just missed their statements backing this bill? To double-check, I asked the folks at NWLC if they had heard of any support for this workplace protection from anti-abortion groups. Liz Watson, a senior advisor at NWLC, responded:
Supporting pregnant workers so that they can continue their jobs and have healthy pregnancies, is something people of all political stripes should agree on, regardless of their stance on other issues, including abortion. As yet, we are not aware of any support from pro-life groups, however.”
Hypocrisy in action. *sigh*
Considering the usual abuse of logic and science on the behest of the fetus – fetish crowd, it is really quite unsurprising that on yet another of their talking points – The majority of women who have abortions are emotionally scarred for life – is bunk. The Guttmacher Institute sent this little gem out via email.
“An authoritative new study from researchers in Denmark, noteworthy for its exceptionally strong methodology, confirms what the best scientific evidence has long shown—that there is no causal link between abortion and mental health problems. The new study, “Induced First-Trimester Abortion and Risk of Mental Disorder,” by Trine Munk-Olsen and colleagues, was published in the January 27, 2011, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.”
The study succeeds in addressing several critical limitations that have afflicted some other studies that purport to show causation between abortion and subsequent mental health problems. It can be viewed as unusually rigorous for this type of research for several reasons.”
Wow, correlation does not equal causation. The review of the study continues:
• The sample was very large, comprising 84,620 women who had first-time, first-trimester abortions between 1995 and 2007.
• It did not rely on retrospective self-reports from women, who typically underreport abortions. Instead, it was based on complete patient medical registries, which include virtually all mental health disorders, births and abortions experienced by the Danish population: the Danish Psychiatric Central Register and the Danish National Register of Patients.
• The study has strong controls for women’s mental health prior to abortion, a critical factor that many other studies do not control for sufficiently, if at all.
The study found no higher rate of mental health problems among Danish women in the 12 months following an abortion than in the nine months prior to the procedure.
So, yet another talking point dispatched. Score another for science and truth.
“Not all studies on the mental health impact of abortion are created equal. In fact, according to the American Psychological Association, methodological flaws are “pervasive in the literature on abortion and mental health.” Antiabortion activists often attempt to capitalize on the fact that the public and many policymakers cannot distinguish between studies that allow legitimate conclusions to be drawn about the effects of abortion and those that show only associations between abortion and mental health outcomes.”
The forced birthers not being academically or scientifically honest? Admittedly, there are not many other options to take considering the frail house of cards most anti-choice positions are built on.
“Antiabortion activists have relied on questionable science in their efforts to push inclusion of the concept of “postabortion syndrome” in both clinical practice and law. This latest study strongly confirms the existing body of methodologically sound evidence in clearly refuting the idea that abortion causes harm to women’s mental health. The body of evidence is now so robust that researchers should consider shifting their focus to related issues that might be more valuable to explore, such as the factors that cause women to experience mental health problems in the first place.
Of course, the anti-choicers won’t, as the health and welfare of women are secondary to their mendaciously insipid assault on women’s rights.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…