Jessica Valenti: College is totally worth killing babies over
posted at 9:10 am on April 17, 2010 by Cassy Fiano
Wednesday, Lori Ziganto (one of my favorite bloggers) wrote a brilliant piece in response to an article Jessica Valenti wrote on Feministing. Another Feministing author, Lori, had heard about the ad campaign called “Abortion Changes You” last month that was putting ads on the New York subway.
Here is what the ad looks like:

Considering feminists cannot abide anything that might paint abortion in a negative light, this made Lori VERY angry. She explained that somehow, this ignores the experiences and reactions women have had with and from abortion.
I’m all for validating and honoring the experience of women who have had an abortion. But there are already TONS of really great support systems for women who have had abortions that are equipped to address a RANGE of post-abortion emotions and outcomes- glee, relief, guilt, sadness, loss, pride, no reaction at all, or a million other possibilities. When an ad campaign chooses to ignore these very real experiences of women who have had abortions, you have to assume that they have an agenda other than helping real women.
Perhaps Lori was blinded by her “ZOMG SOMEONE IS ATTACKING ABORTION YEAAAAARRRGHHHHH!” rage, but the whole point of this ad campaign is to point out how abortion can affect a woman. I know — all things negative relating to abortion must be kept super-secret. But here in the real world, when it comes to medical procedures, most normal women like to know exactly what will be done to them and what the possible risks and repercussions could be. Normal women, even pro-abortion women, don’t see abortion as something to be taken lightly. They don’t look at it the way radical feminists do. Impossible for feminists to understand, I know.
Well, this week, Jessica found out that someone had committed vandalism and defaced the ad. Of course, this just made her day.
Here is what it looked like after it was defaced:

Jessica’s response was to call the vandal a “pro-choice hero” and “Love. It.”
And this is where Lori got involved. She wrote a great post about the whole controversy.
A very mild ad, indeed. And an accurate one; abortion does change you. While feminists sneer at the idea of post-abortion syndrome, it does exist. And if they actually cared about women, they’d admit that fact and would stop encouraging women to have abortions without disclosing the trauma that can occur to the woman.
It’s clear that they don’t care about the dead babies, but they also need to stop insisting that they are For Women ™ , when they most obviously are not. You see, feminists, an unborn baby is not just a clump of cells. Many women who abort their babies, therefore, suffer intense pain and immense guilt. Their entire lives.
They may just be nutty wing nuts to you, but they are real people with true feelings. Because you do nothing but sneer at those feelings, in fact lie about their very existence, your For The Women card is hereby pulled. You are more concerned with one Supreme Court case, that you constantly use as a wedge and a pawn, than you are with actual women.
Jessica has now responded by attacking Lori Ziganto. And while I’m sure she and her fellow feminist zombies thought their responses were just so super intelligent and better than Lori’s post, all they really did was prove Lori’s point.
Going to college is a matter of “convenience”? Really? Women want higher education for “co-ed fun”?
I always wondered what anti-choicers meant when they said women get abortions “for convenience.” Did they think that women were procuring lunchtime abortions so they could go out and booze it up that night? That women didn’t feel like gaining weight and that ending the pregnancy would be so much easier? I figured that they had this bizarre fictitious woman in their minds and that they didn’t recognize the complex, personal, and often selfless reasons women decide to get abortions. But I was wrong.
It isn’t that anti-choicers don’t understand why women get abortions – it’s that they care so little about women’s lives that any reason given to obtain an abortion is seen as “convenient.”
Some things that are convenient: Providing for your existing children. Going to college. Having enough money to eat, pay rent, keep the electricity on. Not dying.
So yeah, I guess I would “rejoice” over women obtaining abortions when it’s convenient. (The inaccessibility of abortion for too many women makes actual rejoicing impossible.) Whether it’s for health, financial, and educational reasons – or simply not wanting to have a child yet – it would absolutely thrill me if women’s life decisions were respected, accepted and supported. But instead, we live in a world where a woman’s desire for something as basic as education is mocked as selfish. And we’re the ones who are “anti-woman”? I think not.
Reproductive health and justice is one of my strongest passions (I work with Planned Parenthood). When people try to block abortion access, I start crying and it’s hard for me to stop. I am still shocked at the huge disregard anti-choicers have for womens lives. They really do have no regard for human life, because, guess what? women are human. This: “Some things that are convenient: Providing for your existing children. Going to college. Having enough money to eat, pay rent, keep the electricity on. Not dying.” made me tear up. And honestly, if I were to become pregnant right now, I would get an abortion because I need to finish college and have enough money to eat, pay rent, and keep the electricity on. I am also bipolar, and I would have to stop taking my medication if I were to have a baby, which would be downright dangerous. Thanks for the post, Jessica.
But the point is that 4 years of college means a completely different life than a life w/o 4 years of college and anyone who doesn’t recognize that is either living in a dreamworld or is being deliberately obtuse. There is nothing “everyday” about going to college – it’s an incredible privilege that changes people’s lives.
And here we go, with feminists making women perpetual victims yet again, rather than empowering them. Jessica and her fellow zombies cannot seem to wrap their minds around the idea of a woman having a child and going to college at the same time. I know, I know — insanity, right? But somehow, my mother was able to work full-time, raise two children, have a loving marriage, and get her college degree. Somehow, several of my friends are raising children and getting their degrees. Where are the feminists encouraging women to do both? Heck, they don’t even have to raise the baby. There’s always adoption, the option that you’ll never hear someone like Jessica Valenti champion. If the college-aged girl wasn’t ready for a kid, all she’d have to do was carry the baby for nine months while she went to school and then she could help a couple who can’t have children make a family. But if a girl gets pregnant and it’s “inconvenient”, all feminists like Jessica Valenti can do is scream at the girl to HAVE AN ABORTION! HAVE AN ABORTION! Sometimes, you don’t get pregnant at a convenient time. I get that. It doesn’t mean that you have to choose between going to college or having a baby. But that’s the only option given to women if they listen to feminists. They have to choose either college or their child, because presumably, having a child at an inconvenient time would be the WORST THING EVER!!!
Look, I know all about not wanting to have a baby at a certain time. I’m engaged, but my fiance is a Marine with an upcoming deployment. If I got pregnant now, the baby would be born while Matt was in Afghanistan. I do not want to go through a pregnancy by myself, and I do not want Matt to miss the birth of his first child. I don’t want him to come home to the son or daughter he’s never met. We also don’t have a lot of money to be raising a child right now. A baby just is not in our plans at the moment.
But it could happen. And if it did, you can bet your ass that abortion would never be an option for us. We would find a way to make it work. Why do feminists never present that as a viable option for women?
It’s like they practically salivate over the thought of another woman getting an abortion. I don’t know why, but it’s sickening how much feminists try to actively convince women to have abortions. And of course, never mentioned is the option of not getting pregnant if you absolutely cannot handle a baby at the moment. There’s birth control, and if you can’t afford that, the solution is simple: don’t have sex. But of course, telling a feminist that women shouldn’t have sex if they aren’t ready for a baby might make their head explode. I mean, really, dare you tell women that they should keep their legs shut if they aren’t ready to get pregnant?! Believe it or not, there is an element of personal responsibility at play here. The whole feminist philosophy is disgusting. They tell women to sleep around like men do. When women then get unintentionally pregnant (usually while unmarried), they tell the women to just kill the damn burden growing inside of you and throw it out like refuse. And NO, don’t you dare do any research about abortion, what your baby looks like, or the effect having an abortion can have on you. Just kill the damn thing and get back to your Womyn’s Studies classes because college is the MOST. IMPORTANT. THING. EVER! And no, you cannot do both, you must choose between being a pregnant, barefoot housewife in a kitchen or being a smart, single, feminist womyn with a degree in Gender Studies. If you have the baby you are contributing to the partiarchy! And you will be a victim! Do what we say! Don’t think for yourself!
It’s sickening, truly sickening.
All of this just goes to show how far feminism has fallen. Feminists were once made up of smart, strong women (who, incidentally, despised abortion and rightfully saw it as evil) who were fighting for real gender equality — the right to vote, to get an education.
Now, feminists crusade for abortion. It’s their number one cause. And they don’t even want women to be informed. They don’t want women seeing ultrasounds first because they know it’ll influence them to have the baby. They don’t want women learning that abortion can have devastating physical and emotional repercussions. They don’t want abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare”. Lori’s post showcased another example of a feminist accidentally exposing that trust, and it pissed Jessica Valenti off. Feminists don’t want women to be able to choose what’s best for them; they want women choosing abortion. I can only assume it’s because if women stop choosing abortion, then feminists will lose their last grip on relevance in today’s society. Getting the truth out about abortion and its possible effects, as the “Abortion Changes You” campaign does, terrifies and angers feminists.
It’s pathetic and disgusting, that someone would actually encourage abortion — the murder of the unborn — solely to help maintain their own grip on power and relevance in the world. Anything that harms the pro-abortion movement really is just harming modern feminism. And this ad is just another crack in the feminist “we help womyn” facade.
Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I like how she says “anti-choice”. Must make it easier to drink the Kool-Aid.
Rightwingguy on April 17, 2010 at 1:58 PM
A good example would be to go visit Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. There are hundreds of young married couples go happen to manage to have children, work full time and go to college.
Warbaby,
I agree with you 100%. We live in a society that denigrates men and seeks to make them disposable or at least cash dispensing ATMs.
But getting back to your point about the pain that some men feel about abortion, I would suggest you read up on the Couvade Syndrome in which men experience hormonal changes and may experience pregnancy symptoms such as vomiting and nausea when their wives are pregnant.
We’re finding that men who are biological fathers have a biologically and psychologically connection to the process of pregnancy than previously believed. There is medically scientific proof that men do have feelings for their children!!
Hence abortion or adoption may be as difficult for the dad as it is for the mother.
There are also two Americas when it comes to taxes. Half of us pay taxes, the other half doesn’t.
Conservative Samizdat on April 17, 2010 at 2:03 PM
Not quite:
…and it happened on the Nazi watch.
unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 2:03 PM
Yeah, they were such humanitarians. I wish we could go back to those days.
You-Eh-Vee on April 17, 2010 at 2:08 PM
Erm. The fact that they were eugenicists should have told you that wasn’t true. Did they have a limit on abortions for their own people? Sure. But they were perfectly fine with forcing abortions on less desirable people. And isn’t that what abortion is all about for the modern day liberal: weeding out people with undesirable traits.
Narutoboy on April 17, 2010 at 2:08 PM
Yeah, I caught that too. Whatever helps them sleep, I guess.
Better to be anti-choice than anti-life.
You-Eh-Vee on April 17, 2010 at 2:09 PM
The vast majority of abortions occurs under 8 weeks. Way to early to detect any “undersirable traits”. The vast majority of abortions happen for one reason: unplanned pregnacies. Going on and on about eugenics, late term abortions is pointless if you are interested in reducing the number of abortions.
Chekote on April 17, 2010 at 2:18 PM
I know women who had abortions in their teens and early twenties that don’t stop to think until much later about their choice. For every one of them with even the smallest conscience suffers regret and loss.
archer52 on April 17, 2010 at 2:18 PM
unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 2:03 PM
The point is that making comparisons with Nazi Germany is a waste of time. If people think that throwing around the term Nazi or the name Hitler makes their arguments more complelling, they are sadly mistaken. That was the point of my post stating “Abortion was illegal in Nazi Germany.”
Chekote on April 17, 2010 at 2:20 PM
You don’t have to wait before you know the race of the baby. Or do you deny that liberals targeted people based on that?
Going on about eugenics is pointless? The largest provider of abortions was founded by a eugenicist. I think that’s important to note.
Narutoboy on April 17, 2010 at 2:22 PM
That is about as relevant as saying that the founders of this country were slave holders.
Chekote on April 17, 2010 at 2:23 PM
Or their economic class. The point was to stop those kinds of people from breeding, believing that the traits of the parents would automatically pass on to the child.
Narutoboy on April 17, 2010 at 2:23 PM
Want to go to college and realize your dreams? Stay abstinent and study hard. No problem.
SilentWatcher on April 17, 2010 at 2:24 PM
What are you suggesting? That the white women who abort their white babies are racists? I am not sure I follow this. Look, women have abortions because of unplanned pregnancies. That’s the main reason. And for 40 years we have had this rhetoric about Nazis, eugenics, Hitler, etc. and guess what? Women still have abortions.
Chekote on April 17, 2010 at 2:25 PM
Not getting the comparison. Some of our founders were abolitionists. What would be Margaret Sanger’s good deed equivalent? Not killing children on weekends?
Narutoboy on April 17, 2010 at 2:25 PM
Margaret Sanger eugenicist
Walter Ashby Plecker eugenicist and Nazi sympathizer.
Plecker’s no-nonsense approach made him a celebrity within the eugenics movement, which was increasingly losing support among scientists and becoming a platform for white supremacy. He spoke around the country, was widely published and wrote to every governor in the nation to urge passage of racial laws just as tough as Virginia’s. He dined at the New York home of Harry H. Laughlin, the nation’s leading eugenics advocate and an unabashed Nazi sympathizer.
In 1932, Plecker gave a keynote speech at the Third International Conference on Eugenics in New York. Among those in attendance was Ernst Rudin of Germany who, 11 months later, would help write Hitler’s eugenics law.
In 1935, Plecker wrote to Walter Gross, the director of Germany’s Bureau of Human Betterment and Eugenics. He outlined Virginia’s racial purity laws and asked to be put on a mailing list for bulletins from Gross’ department. Plecker children in Algeria who were born to German women and black men. “complimented the Third Reich for sterilizing 600 I hope this work is complete and not one has been missed,” he wrote. “I sometimes regret that we have not the authority to put some measures in practice in Virginia.”
Dr Evil on April 17, 2010 at 2:32 PM
No. I’m suggesting that–in America–abortion–in the hands of liberals–was a tool of mass extermination–used primarily against the poor and people who they felt could not contribute to society. That’s its history.
Narutoboy on April 17, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Who gives a damn about Margaret Sanger’s views on race, eugenics and the rest. Would any of the people here upset by PP change their views if Sanger did not believe in eugenics? Talk about wasting time and effort!
Chekote on April 17, 2010 at 2:33 PM
We are not China. We NEVER forced abortion on anyone. You suggesting otherwise is disgraceful.
Chekote on April 17, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Yawn…..
Chekote on April 17, 2010 at 2:36 PM
black genocide org
The purpose of this web site is to expose the disproportionate amount of Black babies destroyed by the abortion industry. For every two African American women that get pregnant one will choose to abort.
A Black baby is 5 times more likely to be killed in the womb than a White Baby.
Statistics from The Alan Guttmaucher Institute
“Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
The most dangerous place for an African American to be is in the womb of their African American mother.
Rev, Clenard H Childress Jr
Dr Evil on April 17, 2010 at 2:36 PM
If you collaborate with respected men–preachers–and you use them to infiltrate people’s communities in order set up your abortion businesses, you don’t need to force anybody to do anything. Once you make it acceptable, the people will willingly flock to you.
Narutoboy on April 17, 2010 at 2:39 PM
The government isn’t mandating abortion. It has laws against most subsidies for it. The courts have merely said that the decision lies with the individual not with the government.Promoting birth control and adoption seem like the two avenues the government could go to reduce abortions.
dedalus on April 17, 2010 at 2:41 PM
It’s too bad Cassy does not understand abortion’s real purpose for the feminists in particular and the left,in general. Leftism is not political as much as it is a belief system, a secular religion, if you will. All religions need what Christians call sacraments as outward signs of their belief. Catholics, like myself, have seven. The Left has many, but can agree on only one. Unfortunately to express their belief in the power of the state, the insignificance of the individual, the dearth of the spiritual the Left has chosen the only possible sacrament to be the outward sign of its vision and belief: Human Sacrifice.
xkaydet65 on April 17, 2010 at 2:42 PM
The alternative is often teen mothers giving their kids to the 30-something grandmothers–neither of them having an education, career, or husband.
dedalus on April 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM
The feminists are also assuming that a college diploma is some magic ticket to a high paying job that changes your life.
As John Stossel correctly reported, most colleges are diploma mills where you won’t learn any meaningful job skills. “I have a BA is communication” will draw a blank stare from hiring employees. In this age of laid off CEOs starting new as interns, you might as well keep the baby and milk whatever government benefits you’re entitled to, and avoid the crushing burden of the student loans.
Conservatives are right to point out that pro choicers often present false choices between the baby and a career. But it’s also true that a pregnant Amercain woman looking forward to college might not receive a broad support from her family.
If my sister was simultaneously pregnant and accepted to UCLA, of course my mother would not allow her to get an abortion. But she might also quit her job completely so she can just baby sit full time. Or my grandmother would. OR an aunt who lives close by who doesn’t work full time. That’s how some Asian families would respond so one of their young can attend college AND keep the baby at the same time.
In America IMO the pregnant woman is more likely to hear “The baby’s YOUR responsibility, not ours”. They’re less likely to change their lives or alter their own careers to help her out.
Mad Kimchi on April 17, 2010 at 2:48 PM
We have sex education in this country in public schools we hear about condoms being passed out freely. But still there is a crop of human beings that require a scythe to be taken to them on a regular basis because they are not coming in to the world in a convenient manner?
Abortion is about people not wanting to feel bad about the less fortunate suffering so they have a mechanism to make less of them? I say feel bad for the poor and unfortunate and all their suffering, but don’t play God with their numbers – they don’t owe it to the rest of us to make us feel good about their earthly condition.
Dr Evil on April 17, 2010 at 2:49 PM
It is their choice. People make it sound like black women are being round up and force to abort because we are a racists society. Sorry. I am not going along with this nonsense.
Chekote on April 17, 2010 at 2:52 PM
Very true. Just watch MTV’s “16 and Pregnant” reality show. Very eye opening.
Chekote on April 17, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Do you support Planned Parenthood allowing people to donate money for the express purpose of seeing less of a particular race be born?
Narutoboy on April 17, 2010 at 2:56 PM
PP is in the business of providing certain services. You have absolutely no evidence that PP is soliciting abortions for the specific purpose of reducing the number of a particular race. The fact that AA have higher rate of abortion is due to the fact that AA have a higher rate of poverty. Nothing to do with racism.
Chekote on April 17, 2010 at 3:10 PM
Oh, I don’t? Not even the video, on Youtube, of a PP employee telling a man, yes, he can donate for the express purpose of seeing less of a particular race be born. That’s not evidence to you?
Narutoboy on April 17, 2010 at 3:12 PM
They don’t owe anything to either of us, but understanding why people might choose a course of action is helpful. Americans of European descent are having fewer children than 50 years ago. Family planning may affect our demographics for better or worse, but, then, people often exercise their rights for individual rather than collective reasons.
dedalus on April 17, 2010 at 3:13 PM
That man happens to be James O’Keefe, if I’m not mistaken. It’s available on Youtube. Just search for it.
Narutoboy on April 17, 2010 at 3:13 PM
The action of one employee do not prove that the entire organization is in the business of reducing the numbers of AA in this country.
Chekote on April 17, 2010 at 3:14 PM
Birth rates are related to education. The higher the education. The lower the birth rate.
Chekote on April 17, 2010 at 3:16 PM
I expected that argument, which is why I made it seem like there was only one. There are more instances of the same thing happening, at multiple PP’s.
Narutoboy on April 17, 2010 at 3:17 PM
Only a dependent woman with no mind of her own could be a feminist these days, it’s such an intellectually vacuous, faddish, inflexible ideology that only the very stunted and narrow minded need apply.
The only thing it has going for it is marketing and celebrity, the two things the inane are very vulnerable to be taken in by.
NoDonkey on April 17, 2010 at 3:19 PM
Yes, the education-to-children relationship works both ways–especially for mothers.
dedalus on April 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM
You know what else is an incredible privilege that changes people lives? Having a baby.
WaltzingMtilda on April 17, 2010 at 4:05 PM
Do you suppose there is any correlation to the high taxes they pay? Look back 50 years could Mom afford to stay home with the kids if she wanted to or was she forced to help provided for the family outside of the home through financial necessity? It was placed on Dad’s shoulders to go out and work. Today could more mother’s stay home if they wanted – could the family afford them not to be working outside the home?
Dr Evil on April 17, 2010 at 4:32 PM
There are many factors, though women are much more educated today than 50 years ago. Most didn’t pursue those educations based on a calculation of future tax rates. Instead, a desire for greater independence and other personal factors motivated them. The result, though, is that they have much greater earning power today.
The cost of living for a family seems terribly high today. Families are making rational decisions based on what they think are the necessities for their children.
dedalus on April 17, 2010 at 4:49 PM
Didn’t they have a government backed program to support abortions to keep the population of undesirable minorities down?
They did.
The worst part is… we too had such a program. It still exists, and we’re funding it with taxpayer dollars.
Of course, the real patriots would love to de-fund the program, but the real National Socialists want to keep it operational and fully funded.
I swear: as a conservative and having been called all sorts of things like ‘Nazi’, ‘Fascist’, and ‘Raicist’ for 8-10 years, I’m about this close to whooping somebody’s @$$.
I’ll get my chance in November though… Mark my words!
Chaz706 on April 17, 2010 at 5:44 PM
I know several women who had abortions. Some close some not so close. Most regret the decision but a few who declared it was right at the time always end with ” I wonder what he/she would have been like” or “they would have been 15 next week. Made me sad. Not judging, just sayin.
faol on April 17, 2010 at 6:01 PM
In a society where we value big houses and new cars it is truly sad.
CWforFreedom on April 17, 2010 at 6:44 PM
I’ve always understood why pro-lifers spend hours and hours defending life; I just held my friend’s newborn baby today while she made those beautiful baby-dream faces. I teared up when she tucked her legs up under her bottom, the way newborns do when they rest against your chest. I can still smell her baby-scent on my clothes.
Why anyone would spend post after post defending the destruction of life is beyond me. What is the satisfaction derived from such an undertaking? That one more college woman goes “unburdened” because one more potential newborn is destroyed?
Grace_is_sufficient on April 17, 2010 at 7:20 PM
One of my law school classmates had 2 babies during our 3 years in law school. She and her husband made a decision to have their children then, thinking it would be easier to have the babies while in school than to wait until after she started working. She graduated in the top 10% of our class. Yes, it would be harder for a single mom, but there is an awful lot of help available for single moms that my friend didn’t qualify for. It is quite possible to have children while attending college, it’s just not easy.
One word – Idiocracy.
mbs on April 17, 2010 at 7:21 PM
Yes, and the pressure to compete in the rat race seems to have increased during the past several decades. Helping people cope with sorting through their values would seem to provide churches with ample opportunity for relevance. It is best if the government stays away from legislating values.
dedalus on April 17, 2010 at 7:32 PM
Not all Republicans and/or Conservatives are staunchly anti-abortion. I have to say, I hate these posts on Hot Air. I typically find Cassy Fiano’s blogs offensive and poorly written.
Not every woman who has an abortion does it with the callousness suggested on HA.
It’s a shame, because I agree 99% with Ed and Allah’s opinions, but this is just such a turn off. While I don’t enjoy the prospect of eliminating a life, I also recognize a woman’s right to choose as a staple of freedom of liberty. Unfortunately, in a free society, we have to stick up for freedoms and rights of individuals we don’t agree with and whose choices are radically different than ours. The thought of appealing Roe v. Wade is a slippery slope towards a society that I don’t want to be part of, even though I’m morally against abortions.
I hope Hot Air takes time to consider this radical promotion of ideals and morals, because this righteous indignation is enough to make me consider why pro-choicers have a valid point that needs to be upheld at the ballot box. It’s a shame.
A few of these posts are okay, but this is getting ridiculous. It makes me embarrassed to recommend this site to friends, asking them to become open minded in reading “the other side”.
Republigal on April 17, 2010 at 7:59 PM
I meant, “the thought of repealing”.
Republigal on April 17, 2010 at 8:00 PM
Don’t worry, I doubt concern trolls “recommend” the site too often.
That “right to choose” crap gives you away.
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 8:02 PM
WTF! Good catch on the MOBY.
Inanemergencydial on April 17, 2010 at 8:13 PM
Haunches, I’ve posted on this site for over a year now, albeit, not very often. I’m no troll. If you don’t want to believe that there are Republican women like me who exist and would prefer that I leave your tent, then there lies the problem.
(I post much more frequently at Reason.)
Republigal on April 17, 2010 at 8:14 PM
You can be in any party you like and think abortion is a great idea or not, however, no conservative believes in the “right to choose”. They might not have a problem with abortion but they do not think that legislating from the bench, inventing “rights” in the constitution, or believe in the “living” constitution. Repealing Roe v Wade is not a slippery slope. It should have been decided by the states and would be if Roe were overturned. If you don’t want to be part of a society where laws are decided as they should be and not by judicial fiat then you should be very worried…about yourself.
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 8:26 PM
Hard for me to have compassion for a woman that chooses “OMGWTF COLIDGE IS TEH HARDZ” over a beating heart that she was party to creating. There is exceedingly little, either in a utilitarian sense or within the bounds of any semi-rational moral system, that she could accomplish with her “hard fought” college degree that could outweigh the life she could have brought into the world.
We, as a society, trade a productive human life for the “fulfillment” of the “dreams” of a narcissist. Big gain. She gains a set of “dreams” that in no way can be reliably predicted to be better than the alternative of bringing up a child (that she, by choice, created).
Abortion is the unilateral destruction of human potential without due process of law. Id est, it is murder.
spmat on April 17, 2010 at 8:32 PM
Haunches, point well taken. And you’re right, if I’m to be truthful to my beliefs, I would defer the Roe v. Wade decision to the states.
I guess my point is that — not all Republican woman are on the cross about abortion and just find the whole tone of these posts offensive, emotional and over the top. That’s my opinion. I think it would serve HA well to filter out these highly moral issues and leave at the constituionality of the Roe v. Wade instead of focusing on the moral issue of abortion. This divides all people, not just Republicans and Democrats.
Republigal on April 17, 2010 at 8:35 PM
Please report to the unintentional irony aid-station on the third floor.
spmat on April 17, 2010 at 8:40 PM
50,000,000 lives. The USSR killed 61,000,000. We aren’t quite there yet but we are approaching that number at 3700 per day.
Do these women find that offensive, emotional, and over the top?
The left has a plethora of reasons for being pro-abortion and pro-eugenics. The right, if they stick to their basic beliefs, especially that man is endowed with inalienable rights, cannot support federally funded 3 trimester abortion.
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 8:58 PM
They do it every day. You’re silly.
CWforFreedom on April 17, 2010 at 9:04 PM
This divides all people, not just Republicans and Democrats.
Republigal on April 17, 2010 at 8:35 PM
Wow you mean the present acceptance of millions of deaths of innocent human beings causes people to argue with each other? Who would have thought?
CWforFreedom on April 17, 2010 at 9:06 PM
Straw man.
Moving the goalposts.
Red herring.
Full of FAIL today.
fossten on April 17, 2010 at 9:07 PM
The government does legislate values. They should do it less and people should look other institutions for values.
dedalus on April 17, 2010 at 9:10 PM
Actually when it comes to the most basic rights the government should step in. It scares me that people such as yourself do not get it.
Now if you want to smoke a doob I do not care.
CWforFreedom on April 17, 2010 at 9:12 PM
Yes, it is, in fact, your choice to vacuum out a genetically complete, entirely separate human being out of your uterus. This (sub?) (partial?) (incomplete?) (non?) (utterly dependent?) human can’t stop you. I can’t stop you. Hell, the father(?) can’t stop you. Only you can.
But you won’t. Because you want to “fulfill your dreams”. Good for you.
spmat on April 17, 2010 at 9:13 PM
It is amazing that people resort to this type of argument to defend abortion. Think. Why would the birth rate or the abortion rate be lower, for that matter, for people with more education? Do those people with more education perhaps have the ability to set apart immediate gratification in pursuit of a goal? Do those people with more education perhaps represent an older population? Do people with more education perhaps have the discipline to use birth control? Does an educated population understand that sex causes pregnancy and that an income is necessary to raise a child?
Abortion rates are lower for an educated population as well. Regardless, why would that be an argument for abortion?
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 9:17 PM
Including that value?
spmat on April 17, 2010 at 9:19 PM
Ok, which values?
Yours?
spmat on April 17, 2010 at 9:20 PM
Wow you mean the present acceptance of millions of deaths of innocent human beings causes people to argue with each other? Who would have thought?
CWforFreedom on April 17, 2010 at 9:06 PM
Yes, much like war, where innocent children are killed in the crossfire every day.
BTW, before you peg me as an infiltrator, I’m consistant as I do actually support the current Afghan/Iraqi war.
Republigal on April 17, 2010 at 9:24 PM
Ok, which values?
Yours?
spmat on April 17, 2010 at 9:20 PM
It doesn’t matter what his or her values are, that’s the point. While I may not agree morally with abortion, I’m not the arbitrator of how people should live their lives.
Republigal on April 17, 2010 at 9:27 PM
We each should handle our own values. The government should intervene when there are contending interests.
dedalus on April 17, 2010 at 9:31 PM
The mothers of any child killed in a war don’t choose for them to die. The government doesn’t specifically fund their deaths. Their mothers aren’t sold on the idea that the deaths of their children (except for perhaps in the case of suicide bombers) will improve their lives. The mothers can’t give their children up to a place where they won’t be killed…..and a thousand other differences.
I do find it very interesting that you profess to be a long time poster (I guess that could be true–anybody recognize her?) and still hold all these leftist talking points at the ready. You might want to examine the company you keep. Do you favor unions, find wall street and corporations evil, southerners stupid, and FOX dangerous too? You might want to lighten up on the MSNBC thing.
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 9:39 PM
With regard to abortion, there is an issue of contending rights at some point (as to when that is, opinions vary). As soon as the government identifies the fetus as a citizen with full rights, it has a challenge on its hands enforcing those rights. It could outlaw surgical abortions (which states have a right to do after viability). However, the drug-induced abortions before 6 weeks seem near impossible to police.
dedalus on April 17, 2010 at 9:39 PM
I think the issue at hand here is how women are SOLD on abortions and how they are not allowed to be informed on the subject before they make that choice. The left is the first to cry that it’s a choice but they want it to be a poorly informed choice. The question is why their interest is not in the legality of the choice but in the desirability of it. Why push it? What is the goal of getting as many babies aborted as possible? I have to come back to Planned Parenthood being a for-profit organization.
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 9:45 PM
The mothers of any child killed in a war don’t choose for them to die.
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 9:39 PM
No, but it’s the collatoral damage of fighting for liberty sometimes, isn’t it?
The government doesn’t specifically fund their deaths. Their mothers aren’t sold on the idea that the deaths of their children (except for perhaps in the case of suicide bombers) will improve their lives. The mothers can’t give their children up to a place where they won’t be killed…..and a thousand other differences.
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 9:39 PM
I agree with you on all these points.
Republigal on April 17, 2010 at 9:46 PM
A goodly portion of the folk that are rabidly pro-abortion are so out of guilt. Many women who have had an abortion feels the need to continually reaffirm to themselves that what they did was morally right, was not selfish, not wrong, and perfectly acceptable. Imagine how difficult it would be to keep telling yourself it’s good when even the law turns against your “choice” and deems it to be “wrong” enough that it should be illegal.
They MUST justify abortion. It MUST be acceptable. People MUST agree with them. They MUST demonize those who disagree with them. It MUST be a right, it MUST be right.
If they can’t, they must face up to what they have done. They killed their own baby, a precious and valuable human being full of untold potential, that will forever be unknown. The guilt they stuff deep inside must be overwhelming. They need to come to terms with the wrong they have done, admit it as being so, mourn that hideous choice, repent, and then heal. You can’t heal from something you continually stuff down deep inside, you can’t heal while still in denial.
flyfishingdad on April 17, 2010 at 9:48 PM
You’re not really equating liberty from the taliban/nazis/dictators with the govt legitimizing killing your own infant?
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 9:54 PM
I think the issue at hand here is how women are SOLD on abortions and how they are not allowed to be informed on the subject before they make that choice. The left is the first to cry that it’s a choice but they want it to be a poorly informed choice. The question is why their interest is not in the legality of the choice but in the desirability of it. Why push it? What is the goal of getting as many babies aborted as possible? I have to come back to Planned Parenthood being a for-profit organization.
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 9:45 PM
Again, I agree, but this different than trying to impose one’s own morality (and often times, religion) on people, IMO. Informed consent is different from outlawing abortion. So, which are you for?
Republigal on April 17, 2010 at 9:55 PM
You’re not really equating liberty from the taliban/nazis/dictators with the govt legitimizing killing your own infant?
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 9:54 PM
No, only that there are consequences to freedom. Sometimes allowing people to make the “wrong” decision is better than trying to save them from themselves, IMO.
Republigal on April 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM
Help an old jarhead out: was Margaret Sanger a white supremacist, a skin head, a member of the Klan, an advocate of eugenics, a feminist, or just a nice lady who wanted to vote?
jarhead0311 on April 17, 2010 at 10:00 PM
jarhead here again about dear ms sanger: how dare you righty’s call her a nazi! you r so meanie mean.
jarhead0311 on April 17, 2010 at 10:03 PM
Help an old jarhead out: was Margaret Sanger a white supremacist, a skin head, a member of the Klan, an advocate of eugenics, a feminist, or just a nice lady who wanted to vote?
jarhead0311 on April 17, 2010 at 10:00 PM
Who are you asking?
Republigal on April 17, 2010 at 10:04 PM
Sometimes you may not want to have a baby and go to college instead. This is a circumstance where a woman might consider an abortion.
Other women would have a baby and put off college or maybe just skip it.
These are choices.
happyfeet on April 17, 2010 at 10:26 PM
Did you read the post?
I am horrified that anyone would take a human life, especially an innocent one, unless it was to protect the innocent.
I am even more horrified that people would encourage others to kill—to impose their own morality—, to fund it through my tax dollars when I am vehemently opposed to it, to use it as a political weapon, to not allow impressionalbe girls to find out what it really is they are doing, to sell it like a service–a pedicure or a tan.
If you don’t want others imnposing their morality then the way planned parenthood operates (for profit) should horrify you.
I also don’t consider my stance “my morality”. Except for the deranged and utter barbarians, it’s universal human morality to not kill especially the helpless and innocent. Religion has had nothing to do with my view on the subject although any religion that doesn’t abhor the act isn’t much of a religion.
The very LEAST we can do is have informed consent. Planned Parenthood–again a for profit organization which is also federally funded–is in an all out war to ensure that their clients are not informed, the better to make a profit. The same people that decry corporate manipulation celebrate planned parenthood.
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 10:28 PM
Sometimes you might not want to have sex and risk getting pregnant if you want to go to college instead.
Duh
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 10:31 PM
And here we go, with feminists making women perpetual victims yet again, rather than empowering them.
That’s deeply silly. Lots of women have abortions and they’re not shattered little husks after. I think it’s people like you what demean the ability of a woman to make a choice and get on with her day.
The shattered ones… guess what? They made a dumb choice, probably cause they make lots of dumb choices. We call these women high maintenance.
happyfeet on April 17, 2010 at 10:32 PM
I’ve always understood why pro-lifers spend hours and hours defending life; I just held my friend’s newborn baby today while she made those beautiful baby-dream faces. I teared up when she tucked her legs up under her bottom, the way newborns do when they rest against your chest. I can still smell her baby-scent on my clothes.
Why anyone would spend post after post defending the destruction of life is beyond me. What is the satisfaction derived from such an undertaking? That one more college woman goes “unburdened” because one more potential newborn is destroyed?
Grace_is_sufficient on April 17, 2010 at 7:20 PM
I wholeheartedly agree! (and I love your moniker!) I held my good friend’s 12-hour old newborn last evening…it was, indeed, a divine experience. They were told it would be a girl and planned for her, name and all. They were just as exhuberant and delighted with a boy…
If you’ve never held a newly born baby before, it could be a transforming experience. It just might affect your position on abortion!
LEBA on April 17, 2010 at 10:38 PM
I have held
manyseveral new born babies. They are very small and cute I think.happyfeet on April 17, 2010 at 10:41 PM
GREAT! Now with that memory firmly in your mind…cudly cute, pink, small…now dismember the baby in your mind. If that picture (of the cudly baby in your arms now dismembered and dead) is clear you will better understand the pro-life position. You need to merge the two pictures…
LEBA on April 17, 2010 at 10:50 PM
I’m sorry, did you mean the woman or the baby?
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 10:50 PM
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 10:50 PM
+1
LEBA on April 17, 2010 at 10:55 PM
LEBA I heart widdle babies. I just saw NG’s ultrasound and you could see his widdle fingers. Too cute.
NG is very happy to be a mom but she said just Friday that it was a choice. She could’ve had an abortion especially since the little guy is ruining the wedding. But she called and the place is happy to move her date back plus there’s no reason not to have the baby so she just switched gears.
We call him by his name already.
But I would have been very supportive either way and if she had an abortion and she was sad we would have just gone and had tasty mexican all week if we had to, cause that’s what friends do.
But I know for sure she wouldn’t have been all devastated by an abortion. She’s very balanced and stable andjust has her act together all around.
happyfeet on April 17, 2010 at 10:57 PM
*and just* I mean
of course the little babies are shattered little husks after an abortion, Haunches… that’s sort of the idea.
happyfeet on April 17, 2010 at 10:59 PM
Holy Shit.
Not ruined the wedding?
She should reconsider and kill him.
Then you could have mexican and she could go on being “stable”. I’m sure she’ll be a great mom, unless he gets inconvenient. He could potentially ruin a vacation or a work thing, or even a hair appointment.
Please don’t ever reproduce.
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 11:04 PM
she’ll be an awesome mom except she doesn’t have a nursery theme yet so she needs to get on the stick I think
happyfeet on April 17, 2010 at 11:12 PM
I suggest vacuums, scissors, and saline syringes.
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 11:13 PM
she was thinking Lakers but that adds up quick… so expensive and the wedding is still gonna be very spendy.
you really can’t suggest things though cause she just has to get there on her own
happyfeet on April 17, 2010 at 11:20 PM
the nursery theme is her choice
happyfeet on April 17, 2010 at 11:20 PM
Did you actually read this before you posted it? You acknowledge that abortion is taking a life, and that you’re morally against it, but you think repealing the law that makes taking this life illegal is a bad thing?
Yea, right.
WaltzingMtilda on April 17, 2010 at 11:23 PM
How many people is she going to kill while decorating?
Haunches on April 17, 2010 at 11:25 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »