"This isn't about life. This is about punishing women for their having autonomy and making her own choices about her body. Most of them do not give a damn about the children, only about making darned sure that a woman who has the temerity to enjoy sex gets what's coming to her. "
Unfortunately, bad quote for bad grammar. Fixed, though.
I often have trouble when people say that the right's issue is about punishing women (or any similar argument). it gets made a lot, and I'm not sure it's true. it sort of implies a conscious effort on their part to dominate women and keep them powerless.
And while that may b the end result, I don't think it's their thinking. I doubt they have back room meetings where they say "We have GOT to do something about these women!"
What I think is that their argument ... almost all of them, are based on religion. And yes, their religion objectifies and dismisses women, taking away their rights across the board and treating them as baby making machines owned by their husbands.
But I think that the fault here is the faith that these people are raised with, not their politics.
And that is not to say that the problem is "Christianity". the problem is that many people follow a broken faith that has become about a few key things (namely fighting abortion, hating gay people, and being terrified of sex). In fact, those three things can be distilled down into one thing. the religious right is terrified of sex. They were raised to believe that sex is *bad* and *naughty* and that they were wicked for wanting to do it.
What we are seeing in our country right now is the logical end result of thousands of years of sexual repression. Of teaching generation after generation that they are innately evil, innately wicked, and that the things that make our very life possible are evil things to be avoided, rarely thought of, and never talked about. They have turned a blind eye to sex for over two thousand years and as a result anything that touches on that subject is something they can never think about with a rational mind.
It's not about hurting women. it's about controlling people via controlling sex. That's what it's always been about with the church.
You're just a tool of the right, and you don't even realize it. Why do you hate women so much?
(Wow, it's refreshing not to have to actually think!)
Most of them do not give a damn about the children, only about making darned sure that a woman who has the temerity to enjoy sex gets what's coming to her.
Or women who don't enjoy it. While some conservative folks will agree that MAYBE abortion as a result of rape would be allowable, most of them don't. Oh sure, it's unfortunate what happened to the woman, but even if they don't think she was somehow asking for it (short skirt? daring to jog in a park at sunset? not equipped with semi-automatic weapons?) she should still be saddled with the body-changing experiece of pregnancy. Then give the kid up for adoption, and pretend like there's never someone out there who may come looking for answers.
Yes, women who get raped asked for it. No matter what the situation. And they should be punished for it.
I am nail-spitting furious.
I think Stupak needs to be introduced to the sister from The Blues Brothers! Break a yard stick over his head and whip out the pointer!
The problem is that the pro-choice movement and the pro-life movement do not speak the same language. People that I have talked to that are pro-choice on don't care who has abortion. They just want to make sure that women's Constitutional rights as free human beings aren't violated. The Constitution is a secular document, Goddess willing, will always remain so. On the other hand you have the pro-life movement who feels that the Constitution should bow down to their religious beliefs, ie if the Constitution does not fit their religious beliefs, it should be changed. When told that this is a matter of Constitutionality, they simply do not understand the issue, because for them, God is running this country, not the Government.
If women are to maintain what freedoms we currently have in this society and possibly gain more, we must never, ever allow the pro-life movement to win.
And just to clarify things, in case folks ask, I don't think I would ever have an abortion. I hope that any child I conceive would be one I wanted to carry, planned for and was conceived of my own free will. But I NEVER want my government telling me what I can and cannot do with my body. That is a sign of totalitarianism and that is what we fought the Revolution to get away from. No matter what reason the pro-life movement gives for what they are doing, it comes down to the fact that they want a totalitarian theocracy and I don't.
You illustrate your own point nicely. The point of the pro-life movement is that it isn't about you can do with your body, but rather about what you can do with your child's body.
The question of whether the unborn can be considered children, or if they can hold rights that are at odds with their mother can certainly be informed by religion, but that is not always the case. In the most recent polls by Gallup 31% of people with no religious identification considered themselves pro-life.
2010-03-19 08:37 pm (UTC)
Re: The hate industry of the right
I believe in debate, absolutely. But the notion that inflammatory remarks and bald lies serve as debate for some people is frustrating and unhelpful.
Alas, the appeal of extremism in place of considered thought leads to all kinds of fundamentalism.
I *love* the "don't have sex if you're not prepared to live with the consequences" argument. Damn, your kids are "consequences"? Glad you're not my parent.
Who wants to live their life out as some divine punishment, really?
Yup, my kid was a consequence. Of my ex's unwillingness to actually pay for anything -- and the abortion had a time limit on it, and the midwife was willing to wait, so a kid there was. Still is, actually, although he's grown now.
If you don't get the concept of consequences, especially for sexual activity, then I'm glad *I'm* not your parent too. My kid knows better. Have a very nice day.
Right, left or otherwise, that post is despicable. I have never seen that blog before and will be glad to never see it again. I regret giving him traffic.
I wouldn't deign to provide traffic if it weren't for the fact that this guy is far from alone. It's appalling that this guy, Limbaugh, Coulter and Beck draw so large an audience to their rhetoric of hate.
But, like terrorists, the loud-mouthed, hate-filled minority are the ones who make the news and drag the agenda. They are vicious, intentionally hurtful, and, yes, terrifying. It's pathetic that they are the voice drowning out debate.
Unfortunately the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And the deranged squeaky wheel gets even more grease, and that grease is put on a continuous loop of coverage.
When I heard about Senator Reid's wife and daughter, my heart went out to him and to his family. Same as it did when the Lion of the Senate announced he had cancer. I don't agree with them politically, but these are people, man.
I'm not sure what can be done to change the tenor inside or outside of the beltway. W ran as a "uniter, not a divider." Obama said he would "change the tenor in Washington." We know how W fared, and politics seem to have become even more bitterly partisan over the past year. I don't fault President Obama for that - I'm not certain a single person can change this.
It is rather depressing.
It's extremely depressing.
This is precisely why I avoid reading sites like DailyKos, Democratic Underground and Firedoglake. Even if pointing out the crazies on the other side might be satisfying on some level, talking about them is also a distraction from the real debate.
All I can say is that those sites don't have nearly the visibility - can't remember the last time I saw a Daily Kos article on the front of Yahoo. But I agree that stupid rhetoric is not limited to one end of the spectrum.
Allow me to quote the late, great George Carlin: Preborn, you're fine; pre-school, you're fucked.
I know that most conservatives are caring people who struggle with moral questions and have empathy. That they are thoughtful, respectful people who think issues through and come to different conclusions than I. I have lots of conservative friends whose opinions I value, even if I don't agree with all of them, because they are trying to address problems that they recognize as difficult.
I'd say "many conservatives", but otherwise agree with you line by line on this part. And also agree with your discouragement (or would that be disgust?) at the hate industry and the blowhards who populate it.
It was interesting to reunite with an old friend recently, to discover she had become staunchly (as in, party leadership) Republican. We sat and talked issues, and still found interest in the same issues -- we still both had consciences and brains -- we just reached different conclusions about how to best get there. ::grin:: Glad we each only have one vote! I'm also glad we're still friends, before during and after that conversation.
"... they rejoice and gloat in being hateful and unreasonable" indeed. It's not a party thing, it's a class and style thing. Which makes me wonder, actually -- since the same objections were raised and the same epithets were laid at the civil rights marchers, who are only on the side of the angels in the 20/20 rear-view mirror of history -- are we seeing another form of social Darwinism at work? Another 'cultural revolution', we don't need your steenking theenkers and civility? I hope not, but that does seem to be a parallel model.
Mrrrrrmph -- sorry I thought of it, now I have to go wash my brain out with soap.
I think you are right. It's just appalling to watch when we're talking about getting kids health care.
The big problem in these debates is the tendency of one side to demonize the other. You know I am pro-life, not because I hate sex or want to see women controlled (being a woman who loves sex, that would be incredibly stupid, eh?) but because I think it's wrong to kill a child simply because it's inconvenient. It's about the child's rights vs. the mother's rights, and IMO the mother loses. A child who is 2 days old can't be killed because the mother doesn't want it, so why should we allow it to be killed when it is -2 days old?
I agree with -2 days old. I agree that abortion once a fetus has reached viability should not be allowed.
I don't agree that a nonviable fetus is a person whose rights trump those of a woman. I think abortion is unfortunate and that we need to do more to decrease the need for it through better education and availability of birth control. But I don't think that a fetus is a person.
Abortion has been with us all along. It's only in the last century that it became a public issue at all.
Ugh, At least I now know Dan Riehl is scum and that will color any other time I may hear his name.
The post of his is disgusting. Both sides have their problems, but I never see this kind of hatred soaked inhuman glee and abundant misinformation from the left, or at least not from people with comparable visibility. Anecdotes about what some self important kid at a rally said hardly count. They might point out the irony of a situation, or horrible poetic justice, but the active hope of harm to even the most tangentially involved people isn't there. The right seems so much more vicious and alarming.
Read the comments if you really want to make yourself sick.