All For Choice - Except When the "Choice" Is One I Disagree With!
My dear friend Ed Morrissey has a phenomenonal post up on the utter hypocrisy of the "pro-choice" movement. Today's episode comes courtesy of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Ed then goes on to absolutely eviscerate the "logic" of this press release and turns the abortion industry's arguments against restriction back on the CRR.
I have long argued that the pro-choice movement is no longer about "choice". It is about forcing women to do what the movement wants. Every time you hear about someone like Sarah Palin carrying an imperfect child to term, the pro-abortion lobby tsk-tsks and asks how she could be "so cruel" to bring a disabled child into the world...don't you know it will hold you back? Everytime a young woman is dissuaded from having an abortion she is told that her baby will keep her from getting everything she wants in life - well what if that woman wanted the baby. Shouldn't that be her choice? Not according to the CRR and other pro-abortion groups. There is only one "choice" in their minds....the choice to kill a baby.
However, CPR also opposes gender-selective abortion, which is astoundingly hypocritical (emphases mine):Our shadow letter underlined many areas of concern, including: harmful effects of the one-child policy such as forced abortion, coerced sterilization, and increased trafficking and abduction of women; limited access to infertility treatment; maternal mortality; sex-selective abortions; and deficiencies in sex education. The Committee, through its Concluding Observations, expressed concern over rights violations ensuing from these practices. It advised the Chinese government to investigate and prosecute instances of forced sterilization and abortion and to strengthen and enforce existing laws outlawing sex-selective abortion and female infanticide.
Ed then goes on to absolutely eviscerate the "logic" of this press release and turns the abortion industry's arguments against restriction back on the CRR.
First, why not just protest infanticide in general? Is it only a problem when female infants are killed through direct action or purposeful neglect? I understand that the problem in China is focused on female infants, but if infanticide’s the problem, then we shouldn’t have to get gender-specific about the objection. Their objection looks specifically outcome-based rather than principled...
And doesn’t this negate the knee-jerk argument against outlawing abortions in general? If women want to abort because they carry female babies, then won’t they get back-alley abortions if CRR succeeds in keeping gender-specific abortions illegal? Shall we round up and arrest the mothers? The doctors? And if we can justify doing that for gender-specific abortions, why not do it for all abortions and stop the wholesale slaughter of human life altogether?
I have long argued that the pro-choice movement is no longer about "choice". It is about forcing women to do what the movement wants. Every time you hear about someone like Sarah Palin carrying an imperfect child to term, the pro-abortion lobby tsk-tsks and asks how she could be "so cruel" to bring a disabled child into the world...don't you know it will hold you back? Everytime a young woman is dissuaded from having an abortion she is told that her baby will keep her from getting everything she wants in life - well what if that woman wanted the baby. Shouldn't that be her choice? Not according to the CRR and other pro-abortion groups. There is only one "choice" in their minds....the choice to kill a baby.
Labels: Abortion
posted by The Lady Logician at
4:24 PM
5 Comments:
One question: Do you now or have you ever used birth control? What kind? You know, don't you, that there are religious people out there that want the government to prevent you from using it, even if another pregnancy was not advised by your doctor?
Ok, two questions: How old are you? Have you ever watched the anguished face of a woman struggling to raise many children as she learns that yet another is on the way? Something she could never stop because marital rape laws didn't exist, birth control was illegal, and divorce would have left her destitute?
Alright, three: What happens after your "movement" yields control of your uterus (and those of your daughters) to the government? Right now, the swing of people's thinking is toward making sure all that are conceived are born, no matter what the consequences. There are frightening consequences even now from this approach, especially for women who want vaginal births after cesarean, and those who want to control their own birthing experience by giving birth at home. I'd suggest viewing this video as you contemplate letting the government tell you how to control your reproductive health.
But what happens in a few generations, when the world faces catastrophic overpopulation or food shortages? What if that government you want so much to control reproduction decides that breeding into extinction isn't such a grand idea? Are you (or your sort) then going to demand - like I know you do with respect to the Chinese - that they back off and let you breed as you choose? Too late. Back when Roe v. Wade was overturned, control of reproduction became a legitimate governmental interest.
Your concept of freedom is limiting, frightening, and dangerous. Either you think women are full human beings with dominion over their physical selves or you don't. You clearly don't, and I fear where your deeding of your uterus - and everyone else's - will lead us.
By
Anonymous, at 11:59 AM
What this is really about is the religious right's inability (and as evidenced here, apparently your own) to discern between the sound byte definition of choice proponents propagated by the anti-choice movement, and what the choice movement is really all about.
You "discovery" here is only clever, and insightful if one assumes that the goal of the choice movement is to increase the number of abortions performed each year, with an end goal of (I assume) at least 50/50 birth to abortion ratio.
The only problem with that understanding (aside from it's complete idiocy, of course) is that it's not what the choice movement is about at all. Therefore, the hypocrisy discovered here reads as a ridiculous snake eating itself type of logic to those who do get what "choice" the choice movement advocates.
To those people, you just sound like you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Which, in this case, is a fairly accurate portrayal.
In short, advocating choice is not equal to advocating abortion. The religious right's inability to distinguish between that reality and the campaign blurbs they created in the early 90's is the reason their message falls increasingly on the deaf ears of the better educated on the issues.
By
Jason The, at 5:18 PM
Jason, want to have a beer one of these days?
By
Anonymous, at 8:13 PM
Anon - I will answer your questions if you answer a couple for me.
1) Yes used birth control. When I was in HS and college and first married.
2) had a friend in that very boat.
3) drama much? Just because one does not choose to kill your unborn baby does not mean you have "turned control of your uterus" over to the government for goodness sake?
Now - here is a question for you. Have you ever been in a situation where you wanted a baby and you were unable to have one? Ever known anyone who would DO ANYTHING in order to have a child?
Is it that frightening to you that a woman have a choice between TWO OPTIONS - rather than the false choice that they have now? If that is the case then I pity you that the world is so big and bad and scary.
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 8:56 PM
Anon - neither you or Jason addressed the questions though - which does not surprise me. Why is it infanticide in China and "choice" here in the US? What is the difference???
Rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks or diverting the subject try answering the question? You just might learn something if you did so.
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 9:41 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home