Example #5,671 why you can't reason with the Pro-Life Anti-Woman Lobby
If there were any doubt that the anti-abortion people have very little to with preserving the lives of the womb babies, and a whole lot to do with punishing the sluts for being irresponsible man-teasing jezebels with wicked, wicked naughty bits, one needs only cast one’s gaze over to the state of Misery, er, Missouri, which is contemplating changing its motto to “The Don’t Show Me State”. The Repugnican legislators there are falling all over themselves, giddy with the annointing of Alito to the Roberts/Scalia/Thomas court, and are no longer able to hide their true intentions.
From Fired Up! Missouri comes this e-mail from Rep. Cynthia Davis (R-Victorian Era). Surf over and read the whole thing… but here’s a tasty tidbit:
I appreciate your dedication to your legislative duties while on Spring Break. Your letter seemed to indicate that if we create chemical and pharmaceutical ways to tamper with mother nature, then we will solve the problem. Even if you solve a physical problem you still have not solved the moral, emotional and spiritual problems that come with a promiscuous lifestyle.
When I was listening to the debate last week I wondered what kind of man would want to enjoy free sex and then expect her to provide for her own contraceptives? These are the kind of men who want free whores. Any man who would be so low life as that does not deserve to have any woman love him. Smart women will stay away from men who use them and abuse them.
Yeah, that’s it, Cindy. It’s us men who are using and abusing women by sticking our pee-pees in their hoo-hoos without the expectation of love, marriage, and the potentiality of procreation. We men want the free sex and we want the irresponsible promiscuous women as our free whores.
Notice how this is always about how the women are these evil temptresses, denying any possibility that the women themselves might actually have an interest in enjoying sex for pleasure free from worrying about pregnancy? Of course, that fits in with their view of women as subservient brood mares for the state, now, doesn’t it?
My fellow Oregonian at Alas, a Blog takes a look at the conundrum that is the alleged “pro-life” position, which claims that human life begins at conception and deserves the same constitutional protections as a living, breathing child, by masterfully comparing how “pro-life” positions, when applied to an actual living, breathing, four-year-old child, are absolutely ludicrous (click to the site for a handy comparison chart):
A lot of people who favor forced childbirth for pregnant women say that they believe that an abortion, even early in pregnancy, is identical to child murder. Have an abortion, shoot a four-year-old in the head; morally, it’s the same. Or, anyhow, that’s what they claim to believe.
In contrast, pro-choicers tend to think that the abortion criminalization movement is motivated by a desire – perhaps an unconscious desire – to punish women for having sex.
A few of the examples include:
* Abortion bans which explicitly protect the mother from legal consequences… well, you wouldn’t extend that protection to a mother who murders her four-year-old child, would you?
* Abortion bans that make exceptions in the case of rape or incest… well, you wouldn’t extend that protection to a mother who murders her four-year-old child conceived by rape or incest, would you?
* Opposing contraception and sex education for teenage girls… well, that’s how Belgium achieved the lowest abortion rates in the world, and if your goal is fewer abortions… you get the picture.
Molly over at Molly Saves The Day takes a similar tack by posing Twenty Questions – Baby Killing Edition, asking questions that you’d easily say “yes” to if they were asked regarding the murder of a four-year-old child:
- Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
- If a woman’s husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?
- Should abortion doctors receive life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
- If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder?
- If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide?
- If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies?
- If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?
- If a pregnant woman reports to her doctor that she is smoking during her pregnancy, should her doctor be mandated to report it to the appropriate agency for dealing with child abuse?
- If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die?
- Should children who are disabled be allowed to sue a parent for any negligent conduct during pregnancy that may have caused their disability — for instance, smoking or consuming alcoholic beverages?
- If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed?
Molly continues on another couple of posts, More questions for people who want to make abortion illegal and Which is it?, as she gets many responses from the anti-woman crowd about how “abortion stops a beating heart” and how we need to do all we can to preserve the “sanctity of life”:
If the government wanted to force you to donate blood monthly, would you be okay with this as legislation?
What if the government passed a law mandating that all children who are able to donate blood without dying should donate blood as well as all adults?
If someone living is a tissue match for someone else who needs a kidney, should the government be able to force them to give the kidney to the other person?
If it is okay to commandeer a woman’s uterus in the name of preserving a life, why wouldn’t it be okay to mandate the use of blood, bone marrow, or kidneys from living people in order to preserve lives?
If it was really about life, forced organ donation would be mandatory for living people who had organ matches with other living people. If it was really about life, every single anti-abortion person would have said that 1/3 of American women (that’s the number who’ve had abortions, folks — and it’s worth noting that in the early 20th century this proportion was higher, not lower) are murderers who should be given the penalty for premeditated murder.
But what I did see, over and over, were people saying that there should be “responsibility.” That when you have sex, you know there is a finite chance it will result in pregn
ancy. That was the difference most people complained about in the forced organ donation questions — that in one case, you are responsible for a life.
Guess what that means? It means it’s NOT ABOUT LIFE. If abortions should be illegal but there should not be forced marrow donations from living donors, the distinction isn’t one of life, it’s one of responsibility.
See, another place where this sort of “sexual responsibility” doctrine comes into play is with the new HPV vaccine, which could prevent cervical cancer almost entirely. You’ll note that cervical cancer, by definition, can only happen to women. Well, government officials have been steadfastly opposed to allowing this vaccine or making it part of the rest of the vaccinations we give young people. Why? Because giving them the vaccine would “encourage promiscuous sex.” Apparently, people who have sex just need to “take responsibility” for their actions — which could mean, among other things, getting cervical cancer.
Yes, people do realize that sex can result in disease or pregnancy, in much the same way that a bungee jumper knows the cord could snap. But in the same way we don’t deny medical treatment to a bungee jumper and say “hey, look, you knew the consequences, now you can die to take responsibility,” we shouldn’t deny it for sexual consequences.
It’s all about the sex, people, and it always has been. Ever since the birth control pill came out, ever since the SCOTUS decisions that allowed women access to that pill, ever since the women began burning their bras and demanding equality and – gasp! – having sex for pleasure, the ideological descendents of our Puritan ancestors have been hell-bent on returning us to an age of prudishness and covered ankles and fruitfully multiplied families where women who like sex have no choice but to birth a litter. It’s hard coded into their religious dogma from the very first book of the Bible and that slut Eve who ruined Eden for all of us by discovering she had a clitoris and it felt good to touch it.
They just can’t stand the idea that anyone out there, especially lowly not-men, is having any of the fun they deny to themselves.