Skip to main content

There is a diary on the rec list now that makes the supposition that anyone who believes abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape and incest is by definition anti-sex.  These people are only against abortion because they want to punish people for sex, the diary says.  

I know some of these folks, and I also understand basic human emotions and thought processes, and I am here to say that this supposition is certainly not true, and all of the accompanying misinformed bashing of these people in that diary is not going to help our side.

Like I said, the supposition is that anyone who believes abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape and incest is must be motivated by a desire to punish women for sex rather than to not kill babies.  The reasoning behind that hypothesis is that if someone thinks killing fetuses is wrong, it should be wrong in all circumstances, regardless of how the fetus was conceived, and since these folks are making exceptions based on how the fetus was conceived, they must not actually care about the fetus itself.

But this ignores the fact that different people employ different moral reasoning than you do.  People can make moral and ethical calls that don't seem logical or internally consistent to you, but make sense to them.  We all do it all the time!

Many people who are anti-abortion except in cases of rape/incest feel as follows:  Killing fetuses is morally wrong and therefore abortion should be illegal in most cases.  However, making a woman have a rapist's child is more wrong, and therefore, having to weigh one immoral thing against another, they make the call that there should be an exception for rape/incest.  Lesser of two evils.

You might not agree with the logic they employ or the moral weight they assign to things.  Hell, I don't agree with it.  But it's there, and that's what's in their heads.  Incorrectly diagnosing them as sex-haters is not going to win any hearts and minds.  In my experience, people who believe in exceptions are actually the more moderate people on the 'pro-life' side, and the people we could be making common ground with in terms of contraceptives and so on.  

If you don't believe me, here's an example of a moral conundrum that different people resolve differently:  I would bet that a number of people here think it is wrong to kill animals for sport.  However, I would bet that a much smaller number of people here are actually vegetarians.  Does that mean that everyone who is not a vegetarian secretly lusts for killing animals?  No, it is just that they are weighing one moral value (not killing animals), against another (not feeding meat to their family) and making their own decision.  It is, by the way, not the decision that I make, and I could try to persuade them otherwise, but I won't do so if I incorrectly identify them as people who lust for blood and killing on the basis of the call they've made.

Finally, I have some real life examples.  My mom is a liberal,  a feminist, not religious, and not particularly anti-sex, and yet she believes that abortion should be illegal.  Believe me, myself and others have tried to convince her otherwise for years, but it hasn't worked.  She believes that fetuses are essentially little helpless people in developent, and if it is wrong to kill people, then it is wrong to kill fetuses, and it should be illegal.  But she also thinks that it is more wrong to make a woman have a rapist's baby, so there should be an exception.  I don't agree with it, but that's her opinion, that's the decision she has come to.  She is entirely motivated by fetuses, and would be all for giving condoms to anyone and everyone if it prevented unwanted pregnancies.

Another example is an ex-girlfriend of mine.  Again, she's liberal, educated, and I can assure you with fond memories that she is most certainly not anti-sex.  But she believed that fetuses are almost babies and it is wrong and illegal to kill babies so there you go.  We debated it frequently but I could never convince her otherwise.  Her moral universe also led her to make an exception for rape/incest.  I don't agree with her logic, but that's how it is.  Again, she is entirely motivated by fetuses, and not at all motivated by sex.

The bottom line is that some people who believe that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape/incest are nice, normal, sex-positive, and sometimes even liberal folks.  Sure, if someone is anti-abortion and also anti birth control, then they probably don't give a shit about fetuses and they are just anti-sex.  But the same just isn't true for people who just make a rape/incest exception.  Many of them could be our allies in making contraceptives more available and encouraging family planning.  

Update Ok folks, reading is fundamental.  The purpose of this diary is not so you can debate me as a proxy for someone else about whether abortion should be legal or not.  We settled that on this site long ago - abortion should be legal.  The purpose is to show you that some of the people who disagree with you, who think that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape/incest, those people are not necessarily anti-sex -  or "bullshitting hypocrites" as the author of the other diary put it.

Originally posted to the wonderful world of reality on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:30 PM PDT.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (19+ / 0-)

    All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

    by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:30:26 PM PDT

    •  Let me get this straight - Trisomony 13 or 18 or (9+ / 0-)

      TD1 or Campomelic Displasia or any number of FATAL (in nearly every case) conditions that a fetus could have -- things that would cause it to not survive birth much less infancy...  

      Your mother is against abortion in those cases?

      The risk to the birth mother (especially since some of those have hydroencephalic heads and will require MAJOR SURGERY) is significant.  You can't get preeclampsyia if you're not pregnant.  A pregnant woman is at much higher risk for disease and/or death than a non-pregnant woman.  Forcing her to bring a child to term that will die shortly after birth if not right before, possibly requiring surgery just to give birth -- where exactly is the efficacy in that?

      What about a stillborn fetus?  The preferred method is D&X, or is she against it then, too?

      Does she not realize that there are times that the risk to the mother outweighs a simplistic line in the sand of "no abortions, period?"

      I am so incredibly p*ssed.  I know people that have had to make really difficult decisions.  This kind of insanely STUPID attitude is why I have little tolerance for people that have attempted to impose their will upon others without even giving a thought to who those people might be or their specific circumstances.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      -Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:51:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ranting Roland

        Whoa there.

        Get ahold of yourself.

        I haven't sat down with a clipboard and gone through with her exactly in what circumstances what should happen in regard to which potential birth defects.  But look, she's a decent, intelligent, liberal person who potentially holds a different opinion than you do.  I'll tell you this, she thinks it is more important to have universal health care than it is to make abortion illegal.

        All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

        by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 07:01:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "potentially holds a different opinion than you" (0+ / 0-)

          Nice bit there.

          She hasn't had to make the same set of decisions that other people have, either.  And I dare say that without walking a mile in someone else's shoes it is f-ing inappropriate to make those kinds of judgements.

          This subject strikes entirely too close to home for me and I've been itching to chew someone out for about three weeks.

          Maybe I shouldn't have unloaded on you.

          But ignorance with an "opinion" really hacks me off.

          (The joy of the internet is that you don't know where I live so you won't throw a brick through my window after I do it.)

          Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
          I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
          -Spike Milligan

          by polecat on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 07:07:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You might have a point (5+ / 0-)

          if her "different opinion"  didn't require eliminating my opinions entirely.  

          Forgive me if I am not sympathetic.  Choice means you can choose to have an abortion or not.    

          •  reading comprehension, my friend (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ranting Roland, Wolf Of Aquarius

            The purpose of this diary is not so you can debate my mom via me about whether abortion should be legal or not.  The purpose is to show that people who think that abortion should be illegal but with a rape/incest exception are not necessarily anti-sex.

            All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

            by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 07:20:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The position of (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BYw

              the other diary is pretty simple: for many anti-abortion rights persons, it is primarily about punishing the woman for having sex by making her have the baby. The people aren't anti-sex so much as they are pro-punishment.

              Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

              by crose on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 08:05:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  oh no (0+ / 0-)

                That's not the position of the other diary, and don't try to pretend it is.

                Here is the position of the other diary, as expressed in a comment by the diarist:

                do they believe there should be exceptions made for rape/incest?  That's the kicker.  If no, then they're sincere, but part of an extreme minority.

                If yes, they're bullshitting hypocrites.

                There ya go.  Anyone who believes in a rape//incest exemption is a bullshitting hypocrite.

                All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

                by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 08:25:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Well, maybe they are not anti sex (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              polecat

              They just want to put me in jail. Somehow, I really have a hard time with that.

    •  You are in a tiny Minority (0+ / 0-)

      If you don't understand that is is about sex and the domination of women. Your mother has bought into your myth.

    •  I don't even have to read the comments... (3+ / 0-)

      ...to know you're going to get flamed.  Be that as it may, you said what needed to be said.  I wanted to reply to the rec'd diary, but found yours first and you stated the case much more eloquently than I could have.  Thank you.

    •  fizziks, I wish you'd rethink this statement: (7+ / 0-)

      These people are only against abortion because they want to punish people for sex, the diary says.

      I believe the anti-abortion movement could care less about punishing people for having sex, as long as the sex is within their guidelines -- that is to say, within marriage and for the purpose of having babies. Oh, and men can have as much sex as they can handle, and that's okay.

      It's women having sex, and especially women having control over their own sexuality -- choosing with whom they want to have sex, refusing to have sex solely at (and entirely for the satisfaction of) a man's desire, and expecting to be able to have sex if they want and not have to risk pregnancy.

      It's not that they want to punish people for sex generally, but women for sex they consider out of bounds specifically and women particularly for wanting control of their own bodies and destinies.

      Texas: Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Lady Bird & LBJ, Ann Richards, Sam Rayburn, Dan Rather, Ike, Sully Sullenberger, Lloyd Bentsen. It's No Bush League!

      by BlackSheep1 on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 08:09:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  meh (0+ / 0-)

        For many people on the 'anti' side - not the really vocal people or the ones out there protesting clinics or whatever, but many of the 40% or so of 300 million Americans who identify as pro-life - it is just more of an instinctual, gut decision and reaction.  They look at a picture of a fetus, it looks kind of like a little baby, they love babies, and there you go.  They oppose abortion.  It just doesn't have all of this psychology behind it that you think it does.

        Now of course there are the Focus on the Family types, and for them it IS all about sex

        All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

        by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 10:52:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  j'repete: it's not the sex, it's the women (0+ / 0-)

          who won't obey them about sex.

          Texas: Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Lady Bird & LBJ, Ann Richards, Sam Rayburn, Dan Rather, Ike, Sully Sullenberger, Lloyd Bentsen. It's No Bush League!

          by BlackSheep1 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 08:34:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  i feel sorry for you. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David Boyle, fizziks

      because you are silly enough to introduce a nuanced argument in which political opponents are represented as something other than ogres.

      the response is going to a lot of adamant sloganeering based on what is essentially a pop-psychology analysis of the Enemy. you might as well try to persuade people that sometimes rape is actually about sex.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 08:41:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I read the diary you reference. (0+ / 0-)

      The point was that logically those who would allow abortion based on how a healthy fetus was conceived but would oppose abortion for of a severely ill fetus were not acting as if a fetus was the legal or moral equal to a breathing infant. How would you explain those 'pro-lifers' who hold the nature of conception as a reason to allow abortion but not the length or kind of life a fetus can expect?
      Is there a reason why you completely ignore B in the formula : If A and B equals C? That well reasoned diary clearly did not say A equals C.

      Blackwater is changing its name to Xe.

      by Toon on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 08:46:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Except that in rape, she is NOT motivated (6+ / 0-)

    for the fetus. So it's OK to kill that helpless person in development, but not any others.

    I think this is the disconnect the author was speaking about.

    •  this comment appeared awful fast (0+ / 0-)

      I find it hard to believe that you could have read it in that amount of time.  I could be wrong though.

      All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

      by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:35:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your mother and ex are not (8+ / 0-)

        exactly motivated by the fetus if they can see exceptions.

        The real point is...why does what ANYONE think about what a woman does in the privacy of her own body is their business anyway?

        fine to debate what CHOICE your mother or ex would make, but their beliefs and opinions are no better than mine

        •  did I say it was? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          burrow owl, Naniboujou, marykk

          fine to debate what CHOICE your mother or ex would make, but their beliefs and opinions are no better than mine

          I said several times that I disagreed with them.  But that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to understand where they are coming from.

          And again, it is possible to be motivated by fetuses and be motivated by other considerations, and reach an accomodation within one's own head.

          All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

          by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:42:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If their beliefs are right and yours are wrong, (0+ / 0-)

          then of course their beliefs are better than yours.  That goes without saying.

          We are building a team that is continuously being built. - Sarah Palin

          by burrow owl on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:43:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadRuth, HighSticking, BYw, Vita Brevis

    agree.  Some people care about a clump of cells far more than an actual human being.  Human woman that is.

    If Republican men could get pregnant anti-choice wouldn't even be an option.

  •  Why is it wrong? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadRuth, Wufacta, middleagedhousewife, BYw

    Killing fetuses is morally wrong and therefore abortion should be illegal in most cases.

    I'd think it'd be wrong b/c it's a person.  And if it is a person, it really doesn't matter what the circumstances of conception were.

    We are building a team that is continuously being built. - Sarah Palin

    by burrow owl on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:37:53 PM PDT

    •  That's YOUR logic (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burrow owl, marykk

      and I agree with it.  But other people are using different reasoning, and allowing for more ambiguity, weighing one bad thing against another bad thing and reaching their conclusion

      All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

      by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:40:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The question is whether their reasoning (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MadRuth, Tonedevil, BYw

        is coherent.  And I'm not so sure it is; you kinda left out the hard part of your project by not expanding on this as-yet-unexplained reasoning.  You gesture at it (viz., your mom thinking of a fetus as a kind-of-person), but stop short of the hard part. (I'm not blaming you for that; I appreciate the effort, in fact!)

        We are building a team that is continuously being built. - Sarah Palin

        by burrow owl on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:42:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  even if it is incoherent (0+ / 0-)

          and a good case could be made that it is, the point of this diary is motivations, and I am trying to say that the motivation is not necessarily anti-sex.

          All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

          by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:51:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If there's no coherent reason, then the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tonedevil, middleagedhousewife

            person is just in bad faith.  Perhaps they don't think it's about their hatred of female freedom and bodily integrity, but it is.

            We are building a team that is continuously being built. - Sarah Palin

            by burrow owl on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:55:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well it is (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cedwyn, middleagedhousewife, BYw, Toon

            because the whole idea is that a woman didn't choose rape, she didn't choose to have sex, it was forced on her. Therefore, she shouldn't have to live with the 'consequences'. But if a woman does choose sex, then too bad... it doesn't matter what other reason she might have for not being ready for a baby... she chose to have sex, therefore should not have any choice.

            •  Real life example (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cedwyn, BYw, Pris from LA

              From a South Dakota state senator who supported the state's 2006 abortion referendum, on who is exempt from the aboriton ban:

              BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

              http://www.feministing.com/...

            •  So did you read the diary? (0+ / 0-)

              I'm telling you how their thought processes can work in their head so that they are not motivated by what you think they are, and I'm giving you two real life examples, and I'm giving you an example from another realm of morality for context

              All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

              by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 07:03:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah I did, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BYw, Toon

                and it doesn't explain the rape exception. All you say is that your mom is entirely motivated by fetuses but she supports a rape exception. But you never try to explain how this is possible. A fetus is a fetus, whether it was the product of a rape or not.

                I can't possibly see into your mom's head or out-argue you about what she thinks :) but the only real explanation for why you would be for a rape exception is if you were considering something else, NOT the fetus, and in lieu of some sort of explanation, I don't see how anyone can be expected to think differently.

                •  yes, exactly, considering something else (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tmo

                  What they perceive as the moral tragedy of making a woman have a rapist's baby.

                  All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

                  by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 07:11:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't think we actually disagree on much, fizziks, except I see considering "the moral tragedy of making a woman have a rapist's baby" as coming under the umbrella of "sex" as thereisnospoon (rather crudely) put it.

                    It's not an either/or. We both agree that most people consider lots of different factors on this issue. Whether it is about the fetus or about something else is a false dichotomy.

                    •  But it's still not about punishing for sex (0+ / 0-)

                      or trying to discourage sex, and that was the claim of the other diary.

                      All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

                      by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 07:17:11 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well it does (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Cedwyn, BYw, Pris from LA, Toon

                        make a distinction between women who did and did not choose to have sex, and gives the latter a moral claim but denies it to the former. So it does punish and discourage sex, if implemented. And if you read the Napoli quote from above, it's clear that there are a people for which this is part of their worldview about the purity of women.

                        •  logical fail though (0+ / 0-)

                          And if you read the Napoli quote from above, it's clear that there are a people for which this is part of their worldview about the purity of women.

                          That doesn't mean it applies to all or even most people with this certain view about abortion.

                          All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

                          by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 07:26:28 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Napoli is just the most egregious (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BYw, Toon

                            example that was publicly spoken and recorded. No doubt most people are far, far, from his view. But the whole idea that the circumstances that a woman is in should determine whether or not abortion is legal completely makes it about the morality of the woman and her moral standing based on what she did, in other words judging her.

                            I think what you're trying to say is that not all those who hold those views to some extent are bad people, or as extreme as being made out in thereisnospoon's diary. Which I agree.

                          •  I'm saying something more than that (0+ / 0-)

                            One can see rape as a great tragedy without viewing womens' sexuality as a bad thing.

                            All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

                            by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 07:45:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh no (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            st minutia, BYw, Pris from LA, Toon

                            it's not about seeing rape itself as a tragedy. It's about seeing women who have been raped as automatically somehow deserving of a choice while women who have not been raped do not. Women who have not been raped can still have pretty compelling reasons for having an abortion.

                            Of course, the pro choice position is not that X is more worthy than Y but that the decision should be up to the woman and not the government.

                            The official pro life position is that life (as in full moral personhood in our society) begins at conception and that is the clear, bright dividing line. That is important becacuse that is what they use to refute us: they argue that choice is irrelevant because when you have full personhood, you can't choose murder. thereisnospoon was reacting to that official position, rather than what pro-lifers actually send out as signals, and pointing out that the two are incompatible.

                          •  ok but (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Wufacta

                            I guess what I am saying then is that many pro-life people, including people that I know, have a more nuanced view than the official position.

                            They believe, I guess, that a fetus is a being deserving of some protection and consideration, but not as much as a full person.  Therefore, moral weightings come into play for them, and they weigh the fetus against other considerations and come to their conclusions.

                            I suppose that, yes, the 'official position' and the rape/incest exemption are extremely incompatible.  But a) that diary was not calling the official position bullshitting hypocrites but rather actual people that I know, and b) if we are going to change people's minds even a bit we need to engage with their actual feelings.

                            All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

                            by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 07:56:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  Of course there are exceptions (8+ / 0-)

        Here is a quote from the diary you object to:

        But Markos actually understates the case.  It's not just a big chunk obsessed with sex rather than the fetus; it the vast majority

        The vast majority is not everyone.  The fact that you know some people who are different doesn't disprove the premise of that diary.

        Looking back through the Bush years for his Positive Accomplishments is, for me, like picking through my toddler's diaper for the undigested corn. - Thers

        by MadRuth on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:46:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  here's a comment from the author of that diary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          burrow owl

          after I raised the points I made here:

          do they believe there should be exceptions made for rape/incest?  That's the kicker.  If no, then they're sincere, but part of an extreme minority.

          If yes, they're bullshitting hypocrites.

          There you have it, the diarist is saying that anyone who holds the view that abortion should be illegal with an exception for rape/incest is a bullshitting hypocrite.

          That diary was saying that some anti-abortion people may not be anti-sex, but that anyone who thinks that abortion should be illegal with an exception for rape/incest is.

          All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

          by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:54:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Right (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Toon

        Exactly what they want to deny the actual women carrying the fetus the right to do.

    •  So I guess what you're trying to articulate (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MadRuth, Tonedevil, marykk, BYw, Toon

      is a grounds for thinking abortion wrong that turns on neither the personhood of the fetus nor the immorality of sex.

      So why would your mom think it wrong if not for one of those two reason?  I'd like to see that explored a bit more.

      We are building a team that is continuously being built. - Sarah Palin

      by burrow owl on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:40:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well, it is slightly dependent on the personhood (0+ / 0-)

        of the fetus.

        The thinking is that the fetus is basically like a very helpless baby in preparation, and we don't kill babies, so how can we kill fetuses.

        All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

        by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 07:49:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      middleagedhousewife, BYw, Toon

      Except a fetus is NOT a person.....

      Just as a Chrysalis is NOT a butterfly......

      When the fetus becomes viable outside the womb and can breathe on its own - THAT is an objective milestone in its journey from biological entity to person.

      I don't have "issues". I have a full subscription!

      by GayIthacan on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:43:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know that, and you know that, and the diarist (4+ / 0-)

        seems to know that, but s/he is up to something different: s/he is trying to reconstruct a third alternative that doesn't turn on a sharp binarism person / non-person.  It's an interesting project.

        We are building a team that is continuously being built. - Sarah Palin

        by burrow owl on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:45:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, I don't know that. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fizziks, BYw

          Mere physical independence isn't constitutive of personhood.  If that were the case, we'd have to believe that adult conjoint twins aren't actual people (since they can't live independent of another).  That doesn't seem right, ergo the theory that entails it can't be right.

          We are building a team that is continuously being built. - Sarah Palin

          by burrow owl on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:46:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I'll give the same comment I did to that diary... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burrow owl, marykk, BYw

    Not convinced...

    What would advance your argument would be a breakdown, cross tabs between men and women.  Do women, even conservatives ones, want to be punished for having sex?

    Certainly there are those who are pro-life who are also prudes who want to punish any sexual activity.  And as for being against contraception, other than those who are following the arcane teaching of the Catholic church, I would guess it's pretty rare.

    This is something where there isn't much room for compromise.  But to see those who are against abortion as being also against sexuality, needs some more evidence.  

    •  nope, cuz mine isn't as extreme of a claim (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      arodb

      That diary claimed that anyone who believes that abortion should be illegal except in rape/incest is necessarily anti-sex, or a "bullshitting hypocrite" as the diarist put it.  That can be disproved with one counterexample.

      My claim is simply that some people who believe that abortion should be illegal except in rape/incest are not anti-sex.

      All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

      by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 07:10:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The rec list diary seemed (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadRuth, Ranting Roland, fizziks, arodb

    to make no case.  I thought it was a stretch.

  •  It's not ALWAYS about sex (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burrow owl, Wufacta, fizziks

    I know a woman who buys into the argument that the diaphragm sometimes allows conception but causes the conceptus (it's not a fetus yet) to not attach. Hence, she doesn't use a diaphragm -- she uses "natural" methods. I don't think she goes so far as to say that no one should use a diaphragm, though. For her, it really is about what she considers to be a human life.

    OTOH, it doesn't take much listening to some of the pro-life zealots to hear them all but say that girls who have sex should be punished for it. (The guys, not so much.) So there are people in that category.

    But not everyone who opposes abortion thinks that way, and of those who do, some are there because they believe the stories that contraception often causes a conceptus to not implant, and hence is abortion.

    •  Huh???? (0+ / 0-)

      I think your acquaintance is Too Stipud TO Live. A diaphragm is a BARRIER method--it attempts to prevent sperm from reaching the egg, and does nothing to prevent implantation. The Pill and IUD may though few actual scientists believe this.  The same is true of Plan B.  Your pal has such a glorious ignorance  of how birth control works, her right to have sex should be rescinded.

      The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

      by irishwitch on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 09:20:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Um, you DO know that (0+ / 0-)

      most of the ANti-Chocie Crowd also oppose most forms of birth control (the Pill, IUD and Plan B) with low fialrue ratings?  ANd that most are strongly against any sex ed which mentions contraception or STD prevention because it will encourage kids to have sex, which they explicitly state is sinful before marriage?  I visited the sites of over 200 groups and only ONE didn't hold to the other two positions (on birth control and sex ed) which seems to indicate that preventing sex before marriage is pretty damned important to them,.

      The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

      by irishwitch on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 09:22:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's much of the A-C crowd (0+ / 0-)

        But there are people out there who are anti-abortion, just because they are, but support contraception and use it themselves.

        All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

        by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 09:45:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  VERY VERY FEW. (0+ / 0-)

          And the only organization that doesn't oppose it as well as comprehensive sex ed is the National Right to Life Committee which takes no position on it. Event he so-called "Feminists For Life" oppose it.

          The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

          by irishwitch on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 09:54:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again, I'm talking about individuals (0+ / 0-)

            You know those polls that show roughly 40% of people being 'pro-life'?  Well, obviously 40% of 300 million aren't out there protesting abortion clinics, nor denying themselves contraceptives, and so on.  So there are a large NUMBER of people like I am describing.

            All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

            by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 10:44:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I live in Fundy COIuntry. (0+ / 0-)

              I think I know a lot mroe than you do--since msot people here are anti-chocie. SOrry, there are a small minority like you describe. A SMALL minority.

              The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

              by irishwitch on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 04:02:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've lived in all kinds of places (0+ / 0-)

                And besides, it makes sense that in Fundy country you are running into a lot of anti-sex people.  That's where they are.  But again, if you think everyone who is anti-choice is a fundy or living out there in the red areas, you are wrong.  

                About 25% of Americans identify as white evangelical christians, a percentage that has held remarkably steady for the past several decades.  About 40% of Americans identify as pro-life.  That's a considerable number of pro-life people who aren't 'Fundies' in the sense that we usually think about it.  Maybe those people aren't where you are, because where you are is full of fundies.

                All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

                by fizziks on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 04:09:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  It is not either/or (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, Iranaqamuk, BYw, Toon

    When people put the circumstances of a woman's impregnation as at a higher moral plane than the fetus, then it does become about the sex, not the fetus. They may care about the fetus, but they are subsuming that concern in this case.

  •  Ah, but you see, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irishwitch, Pris from LA

    For the ones for whom it is about the fetus, it is about the fetus...

    until that fetus comes out of the womb - and then SCREW the kid.

    "I would much rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

    by Georgianna Darcy on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:56:48 PM PDT

    •  And I apologize for the flippancy (7+ / 0-)

      I do realize that there are a good many people who genuinely do care about those lives they feel are being extinguished - people like your mother and, actually, my own.

      But there are also too many who only seem to care about those fetuses until they emerge from the womb and then couldn't care less, and in fact abandon those kids and their welfare (so to speak) to fate. Very bad fate, indeed. People like that congresswoman who would have them get jobs at McDonald's for their one meal a day, because to receive meals at a local church would be getting a bad lesson (what bad lesson, I simply cannot begin to understand, but it seems to be something to do with socialism; it surely isn't to do with the Christianity that woman was taught).

      "I would much rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

      by Georgianna Darcy on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 07:00:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Empathy (0+ / 0-)

    Not my thing, but I'm thinking that some put their own existence next to the fetus, and assume that the fetus wants to live and be born, just like they did.

    They seem to not know that many, many conceptuses fail to develop and often before the woman even knows that there has been a fertilization.  That tiny clump could be the next Obama; we will never know.

    The End and the Beginning by Wislawa Szymborska

    by ThirtyFiveUp on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:59:26 PM PDT

    •  I've Often Commented On This Astronomical (7+ / 0-)

      problem for their so-called thinking.

      It means for example that failure to thrive is humanity's only important cause of death.

      We research cures for heart attack, but that only kills maybe 10% as many as natural abortion. If eggs and fetuses are people, we have to redirect all our medical and maybe most of our scientific research on saving the lives of most people who never see the light of day.

      Nuts, nuts, nuts.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 07:28:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This Is Anti-Reasoning Religion Every Way You (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iranaqamuk

    slice it.

    It's still religion, it's just got slightly more tolerant triggers.

    So you can't reason with these people and you can't ally with them. All you can do is solicit votes where they may support some particular policy that the rational side has worked out.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 07:26:07 PM PDT

    •  The world isn't so black and white (5+ / 0-)

      All of us are guilty of cognitive dissonance or faulty logic in some realms.  And most of us, especially the smart ones, can be persuaded by the right combination of new experiences and new perspectives.  

      All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

      by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 07:28:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and almost everybody denies it. (3+ / 0-)

        the left is just as guilty as the right.

        there are people in PETA who if they had the power would ban the eating of shrimp, while at the same time endorsing abortion rights. (and i make that observation as someone who is relatively sympathetic to much of PETA's agenda.)

        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

        by UntimelyRippd on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 08:47:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  thank you (0+ / 0-)

          I myself recognize the potential conflict in being vegetarian, yet supporting abortion rights, and also not really caring when stray dogs and cats get put down.

          All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

          by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 09:41:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Boy you sure touched a nerve. :) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    latts, Toon

    When you say that your mother and former girlfriend are not anti-sex. I believe you. But enjoyment of sex doesn't mean they are not subtly judgmental about the sexual expressions of women. It is popularly presumed that men are more judgmental of the sexuality of women, however, I have been continuously amazed at the criticism of women by women for being sexually expressive. Proper "mom" behaviour could be accurately termed "non-sexual." It didn't get that way by accident.

  •  Honestly, I don't care that much (0+ / 0-)

    about the whys and wherefores, although it's true that I hold the sexual-repression crowd in particular contempt because... well, they're controlling, misogynistic asshats.  But whether it's a sentimental, Precious-Moments attachment to fetuses growing in other women's bodies, or the self-indulgent existential navel-gazing about matters that are not within the practical scope of law in a free country, or sheer old-fashioned misogyny, the bottom line is this: I am not accountable to the general public for what may or may not be going on in my own body.  I could be two or five or fourteen weeks pregnant right now, but as far as you people are concerned, nothing's happening, thanks.  And if I was obviously five months or so along and you met me, clearly not pregnant, around Labor Day (the September holiday, I mean) this year, I'm still not obligated to answer any of your questions.  Of course, even most anti-choicers would balk at confronting me; they want the law to limit my options, claiming that they & society have standing to restrict my use of my own body due to an assumed sexual contract, without forcing them to face me.  Keeping their hands clean and their beautiful minds pure, I guess.

    As I've said before and will continue to say, I owe no one a baby or even a passive acceptance of pregnancy, and I certainly do not implicitly or explicitly consent to all the risks and burdens of gestation every time I have consensual sex.  If a) I don't share news of a pregnancy publicly and b) society's not going to have a valid, vested interest in an actual new person, then as far as the rest of you are concerned, there is no baby, no person, no nothing.  The moral philosophizing is others' exercise, not my legitimate burden.

    "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

    by latts on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 09:15:13 PM PDT

    •  whatever (0+ / 0-)

      That's great.  You and I are both agreed that abortion should be fully legal and anything to do with a pregnancy is entirely up to the woman.  

      But that doesn't have anything to do with the diary.

      All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

      by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 09:35:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm... well, if we do leave aside motives (0+ / 0-)

        I suppose that's true, but anti-choice fetal champions are still claiming a societal stake in other women's bodies, which is offensive no matter how nice they seem to be.  There's just no getting around the fact that people who want to outlaw abortion demean women, regardless of whether that's an unfortunate side effect of their existential concern for not-yet-babies or a deep fear and loathing of women themselves.

        "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

        by latts on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 09:46:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ok you can try to convince them that (0+ / 0-)

          they're demeaning women.  I don't think you'll make to much headway.  Because for so many people it is just a gut level reaction.  They see a picture of a fetus, it looks like a helpless little baby, they like babies, and there you go.  They don't approach it as misogynists*.

          I, on the other hand, will try to work the angle that, ok, since we should maybe allow it in cases of rape/incest, then what about all of the complications if a woman is afraid to report a rape/incest, and what about having to travel far, and so on, and maybe I'll just convince them that the most ethical thing is for it to be legal.

          * I am talking, of course, about 'soft' pro-life people like I am talking about in this diary.  Obviously the hard core types are anti-sex.

          All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

          by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 10:56:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course I won't (0+ / 0-)

            because how could it possibly be demeaning to want women to act like, y'know, good women, instead of coldhearted, selfish sluts?  We're an adolescent, emotional, self-absorbed society, so it actually doesn't occur to many people that others' rights aren't contingent on broad social approval-- that's why they've been written down and often decided through courts, not popular opinion!-- and that actually a lot of people are going to do a lot of things of which we may not approve (hell, just ask me about how all these kindhearted people raise their kids someday).

            I don't think there's any cure for people whose heads are firmly wedged in their posterior regions, except for the cold, hard, slap of reality that may or may not strike them personally at some point.  That's why I fight them, though, because most of what they get socially, through the media, etc., is validation of their feelings, not challenges of their assumptions.  They've got no grounds for their legal demands other than those feelings and some theological nattering.

            Okay, I'm going to bed.  

            "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

            by latts on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 11:24:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry. I also know a lot of thse folks, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alexandra Lynch

    and the REAL reason most grudgingly permit an exception to save the mother's life and for rape or incest is because they know that  not doing so makes them look completely unsympahetic and totally lacking in compassion (which many are, because many also oppose any form of aid to unmarried mothers as well as govt. sponsored healthcare for the poor--encourages them to have more babies and  stay poor and mooch off the rest of us).

    You also ignore the fact that many also oppose any form of birth control which actually works--all hormonal forms and the IUD, which have a 1% or lower failure rate--which actually would rsult in more abortions, not fewer.  And they oppose anythign but abstinence-only sex ed because, as they frequently state, anythign else encourages sinful pre-marital sex.

    Sorry, but the facts indicate your Mom (and HOW is she a feminist? What positions does she have which a e feminist?) is a tiny minority--because I actually visited the websites of well over 200 groups--and all but ONE also wanted hormonal b/c and the IUD banned, and were hysterically pro-abstinence-only sex ed.,

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 09:17:01 PM PDT

    •  meh (0+ / 0-)

      You should check out the thread I had with Wufacta above.  We came to the conclusion that there is a difference between the 'official' anti-abortion position, which you are probably encountering on these websites, and the feelings of many people who are anti-abortion.

      I think that if you were to stop fighting this 800 lb gorilla that we all hate and start talking to some real and non-extremist anti-abortion people, you would find more nuance than you expect.  I know I have, ever since I was shocked to discover that my mom was anti, and it has only increased since then, as I run into people with that viewpoint (most of them female, BTW) here and there.

      All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

      by fizziks on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 09:40:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I KNOW reality. (0+ / 0-)

        I've also done clinic escort duty and talked to a LOT Of anti-0chocie types over the years.  {Precious little nuance there.  I DO run into technically pro-chocie types who don't want to repeal Rope or ban abortion but who woudl never have an abortiont hemsleves--two of my best friends feel that way--but they aren't anti-chopcie, and both used birth control and are staunchly pro-comprehensive sex ed.

        Seems to me you're chraterizing me incorrectly.

        And who the blazes do you thinkl SUPPORTS thsoe 200+ organizatioons I looked at but the average anti-chocier?

        The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

        by irishwitch on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 09:57:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  WRT the diarist's mother... (0+ / 0-)

    ...it's also worth remembering that the policy positions people assert when they know themselves to be powerless are not necessarily the same as the ones they adopt should they acquire influence.

    Freedom isn't "on the march." Freedom dances.

    by WarrenS on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 09:45:31 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site