Dumb or Dishonest?

I just discovered that the teabagger contingent is protesting health reform by appropriating the old familiar feminist slogan, “Keep your laws off my body.” Except there is a big difference between the spirit of the original meaning and how it applies, or doesn’t, to health reform today:

Unlike the issue of abortion rights – wherein the same noisy faction that opposes healthcare for others also aggressively campaigns to prohibit women from controlling their own bodies, and to force them to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against their will – the proposed plan for universal healthcare access doesn’t impose any unwanted procedure on anyone’s body.

Exactly. Not to mention that the same folks who want to “keep America’s health care laws off their bodies” also oppose abortion funding under any health care plan that is passed, which serves the dual function of opposing reform for the sake of being contrary while also being remarkably hypocritical. Or just remarkably dumb. I can’t tell anymore.

[Via]


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

16 comments for “Dumb or Dishonest?

  1. September 20, 2009 at 10:30 pm

    C) All of the above.

  2. September 20, 2009 at 10:37 pm

    How about, “Keep your modern medicine off my body!”

  3. September 20, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    I don’t think it makes much sense to refer to natural processes, such as pregnancy, as being “forced”. You may as well say that bans on forced organ donation “force people to die of kidney failure, and prevents people from controlling their own bodies”. Or that laws against euthenasia “force people to live”, or something like that. It’s linguistically absurd.

    How is it hypocritical for opponents of abortion to oppose funding for it? Funding abortions not only increases the abortion rate among poor women, it forces taxpayers who view abortion and infanticide as being one in the same to pay for abortions.

  4. September 20, 2009 at 11:12 pm

    Austin, wrong blog.

  5. September 20, 2009 at 11:14 pm

    This is feminist-exclusive? I thought that liberal blogs were interested in hearing arguments from people who disagreed. I always try to seek out people who have different worldviews, and argue with them. What’s wrong with that? It’s not like I’m being rude or anything.

  6. Ben
    September 20, 2009 at 11:29 pm

    I don’t know what it is with these people taking the phrase, but I’d guess most of them are ignorant rather than intentionally stealing the phrase. It’s really too bad that they aren’t figuring out that anti-abortion laws violate women’s bodies much more than publicly-run health insurance would.

  7. September 20, 2009 at 11:33 pm

    I’d say that they’re intentionally stealing the phrase, and rightfully so. Anti-abortion laws don’t violate womens’ bodies any more than banning infanticide in ancient Rome did. Think about it: they didn’t have adoption back then, so the baby had to either attach itself to her chest and use her body for its own survival, or die. If you wouldn’t call that “violating womens’ bodies”, why would you use that term to refer to abortion restrictions?

  8. September 21, 2009 at 3:19 am

    “Funding abortions not only increases the abortion rate among poor women…”

    What? Funding medical care increases the rate of poor women who can obtain medical care? Are we supposed to be outraged?

  9. Jordan
    September 21, 2009 at 8:28 am

    Most conservatives think being anti-choice is keeping pro-abortion laws off the bodies off adorable, innocent “preborn” babies. They’re not guilty of hypocrisy just of being wrong in what they say and what they do.

  10. sonia
    September 21, 2009 at 9:35 am

    I think for every dollar of funding that gets taken off of reproductive care or abortion about 10 times as much should have to be made available for programs that aid in raising children. That way pro-lifers can be certain to be pro-lifers all the way.

  11. JessSnark
    September 21, 2009 at 11:52 am

    Austin: “I always try to seek out people who have different worldviews, and argue with them. What’s wrong with that? It’s not like I’m being rude or anything.”

    Basically, because this is not high school debate club and people aren’t here just to argue for the sake of argument. You can probably find another blog where people do want to do that, or start your own. These issues are personal to us – the federal government’s ban on federal funding for abortions could actually have life-or-death implications for some of us – and treating them as if they’re in the same level of importance as “The school cafeteria food sucks, yea or nay?” is genuinely offensive. See derailingfordummies.com.

  12. GrannyT
    September 21, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    “Funding abortions not only increases the abortion rate among poor women….”

    Who says? Austin, can you back that statement up with any meaningful statistics? And keep in mind, not all abortions are government funded, some are not done in medical facilities at all. Think coat hangers.

  13. Ozymandias
    September 21, 2009 at 5:20 pm

    Austin, they did have adoption during ancient Roman times. Augustus, for instance, was adopted by Julius Caesar. True, it was more a method for childless men to get sons from families who couldn’t afford political careers for all their children, but it still is completely wrong to say it didn’t exist. I am not sure if infanticide was illegal in Rome; it wasn’t in Greece, and in fact sometimes acted as a de facto adoption, in which childless families would pick up unwanted children exposed to die.

  14. September 21, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    Ozymandias, thanks. I was just about to call him out on the adoption line. Adoption has been around ever since there were humans. Animals will adopt other animals, so why wouldn’t humans considering we are animals too?

  15. September 22, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    I would have to say that was both dumb and dishonest!
    I think for every dollar of funding that gets taken off of reproductive care or abortion about 10 times as much should have to be made available for programs that aid in raising children. That way pro-lifers can be certain to be pro-lifers all the way.

Comments are closed.