Green Room

Re: BroChoice takedown

posted at 2:01 pm on July 12, 2013 by

Katie, that was indeed an epic takedown of “BroChoice” by our good friend Emily.  There’s nothing quite as weaselly as pushing abortion as a means to ensure lots of responsibility-free sex for yourself, and nothing that demonstrates as much of a lack of manhood as insisting that abortion has to be late-term to ensure it.  Obviously, these are “men” who view women as discardable sex toys rather than partners or equal in humanity to themselves and to their own gonadal urges, in this case explicitly so.  Otherwise, they’d be around a lot sooner in the pregnancy to get their desired outcome.

However, that argument really isn’t much different than any other I’ve heard for abortion from its advocates.  Other than the statistically rare cases (in terms of actual abortions performed) of rape and incest, it always comes down to convenience. Those who want abortion on demand want it so that the intrusion of another human life doesn’t overly inconvenience them, whether that is in the form of restricted choices on education, jobs, or just being able to “be young.”

This is why most pro-abortion activists can never bring themselves to admit that conception produces, beyond a scientific doubt, a human with its own individual identity apart from the mother. To acknowledge that would be to put the convenience argument in its actual tawdry and self-absorbed context.  While it’s easy to lampoon the BroChoicers, they are offering essentially the identical, utterly materialistic, and self-centered rationalizations that all of their political allies in this debate offer. We shouldn’t let the non-BroChoicers off of that particular hook.

Recently in the Green Room:

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

This is why most pro-abortion activists can never bring themselves to admit that conception produces, beyond a scientific doubt, a human with its own individual identity apart from the mother. To acknowledge that would be to put the convenience argument in its actual tawdry and self-absorbed context. While it’s easy to lampoon the BroChoicers, they are offering essentially the identical, utterly materialistic, and self-centered rationalizations that all of their political allies in this debate offer. We shouldn’t let the non-BroChoicers off of that particular hook.

Blast from the past:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/magazine/18LIVES.html

ebrown2 on July 12, 2013 at 2:32 PM

It seems to me that this is the same self-absorbed, pandering type of agenda that got the current administration elected and seems to underlie most of their proposals.

EdmundBurke247 on July 12, 2013 at 4:28 PM

“Brochoice” is just face under the mask.

Count to 10 on July 12, 2013 at 7:20 PM

I don’t know who this Emily is, but man I love her writing style. At first I thought it was Erika being allowed to let the snark loose at 100% volume.

Loved it.

ButterflyDragon on July 13, 2013 at 8:08 AM

Keep it in your pants boys and if you do not and the inevitable happens…MAN UP for crying out loud

crosshugger on July 13, 2013 at 9:01 PM

I have always thought that Feminism was not so much about “liberating” anyone as about encouraging women to act more like men, whose most reprehensible behavior in society they envied.

flataffect on July 14, 2013 at 5:52 PM

… conception produces, beyond a scientific doubt, a human with its own individual identity apart from the mother.

Well, that is certainly untrue — so why make the claim?

There is substantially more involved. Why deny it?

It is not as if there were some supernatural process involved which magically trumps reality.

goodold_lucifer on July 14, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Well, that is certainly untrue — so why make the claim?

How is what Ed said untrue? In fact, abortion is designed to kill a developing human being before he or she is born and becomes a legal person. “Every child a wanted child” implies that unwanted children have no innate right to succor — to life — even after birth.

There is substantially more involved. Why deny it?

No. What is involved here are the natural rights of a human being. Our Founding Fathers had definite views on those natural rights, very much in keeping with the views expressed by God. We can satisfy every ethics/morality without appeal to God merely by scientific examination of His creation.;

It is not as if there were some supernatural process involved which magically trumps reality.

goodold_lucifer on July 14, 2013 at 6:09 PM

For most conceptions, there are no supernatural processes involved. The New Testament describes two, and the Old Testament six. For the rest of us, we make use of the gift (curse?) God gave to Adam and Eve.

unclesmrgol on July 15, 2013 at 2:58 AM