Comments on: This is what Anti-Choice Looks Like

By: SunlessNick

SunlessNick — Tue, 01 May 2007 15:58:35 +0000

Not all of them care about the unborn either. A few years ago, in the UK (I followed it through print and TV media, so I don’t have links; sorry) a woman ended up with a massively multiple pregnancy – octuplets – after fertility treatment. All the doctors said that if she tried to carry all eight to term then all eight would die, whereas if she aborted some of them, the rest would have a chance.

The “pro-life” crowd (I don’t know if this is the case in the US, but over here, “Pro-Life” is also the name of a specific organisation) got involved, saying that she’d be a slutbitchwhore for aborting any of them. And doing their best to whip up a big media frenzy about it. Thing is, not all of them doubted the doctors’ prognosis – they just thought it would start a “slippery slope” to abort any of them (I don’t know why they thought this since abortions are legal here, but…) – and essentially that it was best to let all eight die rather than abort any.

In the end, she tried to carry all eight. All eight died. The “pro-lifers” thought that was sad, but still considered a victory.

This was the point where I decided that the term “pro-life” was an active lie.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:41:08 +0000

The Right to Lifers do not view this as a restriction of women’s rights. They plainly would dismiss this argument because to them it’s all about the life of the unborn. They don’t for a minute think beyond the life of the unborn. The rights of women, the bodies of women, the lives of women [in fact] have little meaning. One could just as surely argue that the Right to Lifers care more for the unborn than the born…but that’s a different argument.

By: TinaH

TinaH — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:15:34 +0000

When anti-choicers promote forced pregnancy, they stand in solidarity with the anti-choice regime in China. All of them believe in restricting women’s most basic rights, and allowing the state to decide what women to with their wombs.

That is far too subtle for a great many antis to figure out.

By: Kenny

Kenny — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:14:10 +0000

It is an interesting question, is there a time when public action must take precedence over personal convictions with regards to reproduction. If there was serious threat of humanity dying out, as impossible as it seems, would legal bans on abortions be morally justified? If we were so numerous that the Earth was overburdened and dying, much more possible, would restrictions on reproductive rights be morally justified? If the fetus were actually a human being, what rights would it possess?

Maybe I am idealistic, but I truly believe that some Pro-Lifers are honestly just that. I also believe that the rhetoric on both sides of the issue has become so vehement that rational discourse on the subject becomes impossible. Each issue, from partial birth abortions to Terri Schiavo, becomes a penultimate struggle against the perfidy and immorality of the opposing side. In this atmosphere considering the opposing point of view is treachery and compromise becomes capitulation. On behalf of those Pro-Lifers wondering about fetuses, sure about what Pro-Life means about health care, child support and militarism, and trying to understand that Pro-Life sometimes means death with dignity, I ask for rational and considered discussion, and for time to decide.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:55:55 +0000

Or, indeed, when are we going to be banned from making any kind of important decision about our own lives, just in case we regret it?

By: Aeryl

Aeryl — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:36:44 +0000

This is my question. Kennedy said that abortions had to be restricted to protect the women who would regret them. I’ve had an abortion, with no regret and know women who’ve given children up for adoption, with a lot of regret. So when is the government going to outlaw adoptions, since they seem to cause more regret than abortions?

By: R. Mildred

R. Mildred — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:18:27 +0000

well teh USSR also had womb police, as a sort of mildly advanced form of how the nazis would lock up women who used contraceptives, pretty much because the distinction betwee stalinism and national socialism is very very thin – everyone is owned by the state, and we’ll look after you as long as you do what the state expects you to do.

nationalism to that extreme end always takes up teh cause of wombs being owned in common by the entirety of the state. Whether communist or corporatist, if you’re a nationalist then the universal ownership of personal uteruses kinda goes with the whole guacomole.

By: micheyd

micheyd — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:14:44 +0000

Well, yeah, Laser Potato…they have to portray *us* as the authoritarians (all this “you’re ‘pro-abortion’” nonsense) or else people will realize that’s what they are themselves.

By: preying mantis

preying mantis — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:12:40 +0000

Yeah, the default response to “What do you think is going to happen a few decades (if that) down the line when the government decides to revisit the Eugenics Policies of Christmas Past, only now with lots and lots of legal precedent explicitly stating that they have the right to dictate the whens and wheres of reproduction?” is “Nuh-uh! This only applies to voluntary abortion!”

By: debbie

debbie — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:11:19 +0000

Oops – should have said issues of abortion and birth control.