So you may have heard that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and noted eugenicist and racist has been enshrined with a bust in the Smithsonian in an exhibit honoring champions of human rights. Aside from the absolute absurdity of a racist being honored beside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, there is a sign beneath the bust of this evil bitch which reads, “During her campaign, Sanger became associated with the eugenics movement – which promoted, among other practices, the forced sterilization of those deemed mentally unfit and for a time was endorsed by many of the era’s prominent thinkers.” Not only do I find her inclusion in such an exhibit absolutely repugnant, I struggle to understand what in the actual fuck championing eugenics, racial genocide and abortion has to do with human rights. We have really entered the Twilight Zone here, folks. Someone actually told me that not including Margaret Sanger in this exhibit was “white washing history.” I literally could not think of a reply for almost 10 minutes. Censoring history?? Putting that bitch in any exhibition as a champion of humanity is what’s white washing history. I could not believe this guy said that, especially considering how high the rate of elective abortions is among minorities, specifically African-Americans. ‘Champion of human rights?’ Sounds like her disgusting legacy is still alive and well (so to speak). Of course, when you mention Margaret Sanger or Planned Parenthood for any reason, it inevitably turns into a debate about abortion.
Now, I’ve been involved in the abortion debate for a number of years. 20, to be exact. In that time, I have heard a great many arguments from the pro-choice side and there is one main argument that never ceases to amaze me: “Abortion does not kill a human being.” This is the basic premise on which nearly all other pro-choice arguments rest, such as “It’s not a human being yet” or “It’s not a baby until it’s born” and other scientifically unsupportable gems. The problem with this basic premise is that, well… it’s not true. At all. It’s not even close to true.
The science is very clear here: life begins at conception. This cannot be argued. The only argument is whether or not that life matters to you, but pro-choice people seem uncomfortable actually confronting that. They argue around it, essentially claiming, “Human life matters to me – but it’s not a human yet.” Then what is it? Is it a fish? Is it a dog? Is it a tomato? It’s a human being and there is never a time during human development in which a human being is not a human being. That argument is not only not scientific, it’s silly. It seems to exist solely to dupe vulnerable women into believing they are not killing living human beings. Perhaps some make that argument because to them, the offspring of the poor and of minorities aren’t really human beings.
This usually leads to (or is accompanied by) the argument that a person is not a person until they reach sentience and/or consciousness. This argument actually hurts the pro-choice side though, because the time in development where this occurs is unknown. There is speculation but that’s all. This leaves the door open for the other side to claim that if the time is unknown, abortion at any time under these guidelines would be wrong. Not that it really matters; attempting to quantify (and qualify) life by the yardstick of sentience and/or consciousness is not how it works. It’s subjective emotional argument at best. Science and medicine both agree that life begins at conception. It is only people seeking to rationalize their behavior and decisions who claim that it doesn’t. If we use sentience in particular as the yardstick, it’s OK to kill many living things, not just unborn human beings. The 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham stated in Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation that “The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor… What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” Since this question cannot be definitively answered regarding prenatal human beings – and even many “post-natal” human beings – it is wiser that the pro-choice side leave it out of the debate. You could use the sentience argument to argue for the “termination” of many people, including the profoundly disabled, some elderly folks, people in comas… the list goes on. This particular argument has been used to justify some very nasty things throughout history, and conversely it is used to protect animals in legislature, including animals such as octopus, squids and lobsters.
It all sounds very intellectual for the ignorant and uneducated to use these arguments but I have often found that sounding intellectual is as far as it goes. Too many of them are just repeating something they read and are completely unable to back up what they’ve said or even explain it. They simply keep repeating it verbatim, a sure sign that they don’t actually understand what they’ve said. This is often where the “blastocyst” argument comes in to play. I have heard this I don’t know how many times: “Aborting a blastocyst is not wrong.” Well, that may be your opinion but since a human being is only a blastocyst for a very short time and this is weeks before the woman even knows she is pregnant, I would venture that not too many blastocysts are aborted.
Literally two seconds of research would have kept these people from making such an absurdly ignorant argument, but they don’t do it. The consensus here seems to be, “I don’t know what it means but it sounds science-y and probably no one else will know, either.” Wrong. And I am always happy to point it out. The “chicken egg” argument fits into this area, as well. You know the one I am talking about… it compares an unborn human being to the chicken eggs people eat. There is a meme floating around that has been shared thousands of times which makes this exact comparison and it always makes me laugh. The chicken eggs people eat are unfertilized. They will never grow into a chicken, no matter what happens. Chicken eggs are equivalent to the unfertilized eggs in a woman’s ovaries, not a developing human being in the uterus. They are not comparable in any sense. Do you even science, bro?
There are many like that in this particular debate. They argue in circles and they cannot concede any points in the debate because they don’t actually know enough to know if the other person is right or wrong. These are, coincidentally (or not), the same people who argue that abortion does not kill a human being. People like this are the weak link in the pro choice’s side. They try the religious angle. They try the sentience angle. They try the “it’s not a human being yet” angle. They try every emotional argument they can think of in order to “shame” others into agreeing that they are correct. It doesn’t work with me, and it’s not going to work. You cannot trump science and the science here is very basic and very clear. Abortion is killing a human being, and you will not find even one doctor, scientist or educated individual who tries to claim that it isn’t. Even the president of Planned Parenthood said in an interview with Ms. Magazine that abortion is killing, and that anyone who believes otherwise is essentially deluding themselves because they don’t want to admit it.
- Naomi Wolf (noted feminist author and proponent of abortion) stated in Our Bodies, Our Souls that, “Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. …we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death.”
- Ann Furedi, CEO of the largest independent abortion provider in the UK, stated flatly during a debate that “the point is not when does human life begin, but when does it really begin to matter?”
- Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL Pro-Choice America stated, “There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole.” (Dr. Nathanson later recanted his support for the pro-choice movement.)
So keep on arguing that abortion does not kill a human being, my ignorant friends. Science does not agree with you. Medicine does not agree with you. The educated people on your own side do not agree with you. In fact, you embarrass them. And why? Because they are educated. They know they cannot refute this simple fact – and they don’t try. This ridiculous argument is only used by people who are ignorant. If you are OK with this kind of killing, then just say so. Stop pretending that it’s something else. If you have to do that, maybe you are not as OK with it as you claim to be. These people cannot accept the facts, and instead try to advance opinions as facts. That cannot be done. If you want to argue an opinion, then you have to accept facts. The fact – according to sweeping consensus medically and scientifically – is that abortion kills a human being. Either accept that as a fact and be OK with it or don’t, but don’t keep trying to advance your opinion as a fact. You can argue your opinion, such as why you think killing a human being in this instance is OK, but you cannot argue that the facts are not facts. It’s irrational and it makes you look foolish.
The simple truth is that these particular people refuse to just flat out say the life of an unborn human being does not matter to them. They argue around it, and in that direction but they will never just admit it. They try to use science to avoid having to say it, or to justify their feelings. They use emotional argument to try to shame people into agreeing that unborn human beings are less important than the rest of us – ironically while they are blasting the pro-life side for using emotional argument and being too blinded by emotion to use logic. Like I said, do you even science, bro? It is the pro-choice side using emotional argument, flawed logic and pseudo-intellectualism to advance their agenda. Anyone who does not agree, they attempt to insult, browbeat and shame with absurdities:
- “You want women to be forced to have babies!!!” No, I want women to use contraception like responsible adults. I don’t subscribe to your insulting, ridiculous theory that humans are not above rutting dogs in the street that can’t control themselves. This argument sickens me.
- “Yeah, well… accidents happen!!!” They do, which is what the morning after pill was invented for. It does not terminate a pregnancy. It prevents conception. Huge difference.
- “You want rape victims to have their attackers’ babies!!” Again, the morning after pill. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology did a study that concluded pregnancy results from about 5% of rapes. But since pregnancies resulting from rape and incest account for less than 0.03% of abortions, save your strawman arguments and talk about a real problem – such as the staggering amount (over a million) of elective abortions performed in this country every year that terminate pregnancies created by irresponsible consensual sex. To put it into context: according to RAINN, there are an average of 293,000 sexual assaults (a phrase which encompasses a variety of despicable things, not just forcible rape with vaginal penetration) every year. Even if every single one of these sexual assaults was a rape that resulted in a pregnancy, and even taking under-reporting of rape into account, that still means that over one million children are aborted in this country every year as a result of consensual sex. As an aside, abortion after rape actually occurs at a lower instance than abortion in the general population because abortion inflicts another trauma on the woman – and worse, it is one that puts her in the position of aggressor.
- “You want women to have back alley abortions that aren’t safe!!!” It was generally doctors performing abortions when they were illegal, just like it is generally doctors performing them now. That is not a genuine concern. What should be of concern is that women are neither counseled about nor made aware of the health risks of abortion, both mentally and physically.
- “You want to control women’s bodies!!!” No, I want women to control their own bodies and stop getting pregnant with babies they don’t want and/or can’t take care of. It’s pretty simple and it’s really not that difficult to fucking do.
- “You’re not pro-life! You’re pro-birth!!!” My husband and I have 3 children and helped raise 5 – yes, 5 – children that are not ours, including having 4 of them live with us for years, bringing the total in our home to 7. We are parents to them in every way, even to this day. Their children will be looked upon as grandchildren by us. They were not foster children and we received absolutely no financial help with their care whatsoever from their parents or the government. My interest and concern for human beings does not end with the birth canal. Come at me.
- “You don’t care about women’s rights!!!” Yes, I do. Women are human beings and I care about human rights. Unborn human beings belong in that category. If we are making emotional arguments here, allow me to counter yours with my own: Why do you think people should have the right to kill their own children just because they want to? If it’s OK to kill them in the womb, why is it not OK to kill them later? Are newborns human beings? Are they sentient? Are they conscious in the way adults are? I read a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics a few years ago entitled, “After-birth Abortion: Why Should The Baby Live?” that endorsed the killing of born babies using the same arguments made to justify abortion. The authors stated that “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” The paper claimed that babies are “morally irrelevant” and that it is “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.” The crux of the argument is that a fetus and an infant are “morally equivalent.” These arguments have been made many times, by the way; in some cases regarding children up to a year old – or older. This particular paper endorsed “no threshold.” If you are a person who agrees with the justifications for abortion, you are left with absolutely no argument for what these people are saying, other than “Because it’s just wrong after the baby is born.” That isn’t much of an argument and it begs the question: if one is OK and not the other, what does this mean? It means you either have to agree that killing babies after they are born is morally acceptable or you have to agree that abortion is not morally acceptable. It can’t be both ways. The larger question is: This is all OK because of women’s rights? I once had a lady say to me, “If you take politics out of it, it’s really a women’s rights issue.” I said, “Ma’am, women’s rights is politics. You take that out of it and all we are talking about here is dead babies.”
Often, the people making these emotionally-overwrought accusations try to construct their pro-choice arguments within the sketchy framework that “abortion is the compassionate option for unwanted children” but they are too afraid to just come out and say that because they realize what it sounds like. It sounds like “These people are better off dead.” And they’re right; it sounds every bit as bad as they think it does. If I may be permitted to indulge in an emotional argument myself here, where does anyone get off claiming they know what is best for another person? Isn’t that the whole point of the pro-choice movement? “You don’t know what’s best for me and you can’t make my decisions for me!” But they think they should have that power? They believe that a person will not have a “good life” once they are born and they think they should be able to make the decision that the person is better off dead? Where does this self-righteous, narcissistic mindset stop?
It’s ironic and amazing that those who claim to be championing freedom and choice think they should be able to hold the ultimate power over others.
I’m so tired of the whole feminist/chauvinist thing, especially regarding relationships. All you hear all damn day long is “Stop kissing these hoes’ asses!” and “Stop letting these bastards oppress you!” #nomoresimping #yesallwoman everywhere. Well, here is my advice to all of you:
There are many different kinds of people. There are just as many different kinds of relationships. Some you may feel are more equal than others. Here’s the thing about that, though: It’s absolutely none of your business. None. At all. It does not matter what you think the societal implications of such a relationship might be. It doesn’t matter what you think the long-term chances of such a relationship might be. It doesn’t matter what you think of the motives of the parties in the relationship, their feelings or anything else. It. Does. Not. Matter. What consenting adults do is not your concern in any way, shape or form. Your judgement is not needed or welcome. Period.
I cook for my husband. I clean up after him. I bathe him sometimes. I brush his hair, I shave him, I cut his hair. I massage him. I made him French toast at 4 o’clock in the morning the other night. He gets what he wants. In return, I ask for respect, faithfulness and kindness. He doesn’t ask me to do these things, or tell me to. I want to do them. I like doing these things. It’s my personality. I don’t see him as superior to me, or feel I have to do anything for him at all. I just like doing things for people I care about. It makes me happy. I’m (obviously) no shrinking violet; I’m fully capable of standing up for my rights should they be trod upon. But then I have people saying things like, “This ain’t the 1950’s. Come out of the kitchen. He’s oppressing you.” as if it could never be my choice. My answer is always the same thing: “You’re right. This isn’t the 1950’s. It’s the year 2014 and that means I can choose to do whatever I want to do. Stop trying to ‘liberate’ me out of my personal choices.” Liberation and independence are supposed to be about doing what you want to do and making your own choices, not the choices that everyone else agrees with or thinks you should make. On Facebook, someone made a great point about Muslim women, and how Non-Muslim Americans want to “liberate” these women of their head coverings without even sparing a thought to the fact that Muslim women choose to wear them.
People who engage in this type of ridiculous judgment and life-policing are the reason for all of this BS, because they simply cannot keep their noses out of other people’s business. If a man wants to elevate his woman to the status of Empress of the Universe, that’s not your business. If a woman wants to wait on her man hand and foot as if he were God Himself, that’s not your business. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, nobody’s marriage or relationship is your business. So instead of worrying about all the other men and women in the world and why they are not doing exactly what YOU think is the right thing, worry about your own partner and your own life.
And shut the fuck up, too.
As I’ve stated in other posts, I have a few problems with the anti-rape culture movement. The purpose of the anti-rape culture movement seems to be to reduce women once again to helpless victims. To me it looks like women who are being groomed to be victims because they are being taught that they have no power here. I stand in staunch opposition to this and always will. Thinking that more education and sensitivity training is going to protect you in this world is a pipe-dream and it’s a dangerous one. You cannot “cure” or educate someone out of being a rapist. It is impossible. Making women put on clothes is not going to change things and women running around naked telling everyone not to look is not going to change things, because these things have nothing to do with why rape occurs. Rape occurs because a person feels powerless and wants to assert control over another human being in order to feel more powerful. No amount of sloganeering or naked protestation is going to change that.
This video is my statement to the anti-rape culture brigade: Enough, already! THIS is why rape occurs: because a person puts (or sees) another person in a vulnerable situation and takes advantage of them. Period.
It has nothing to do with any of the political bullshit that these assholes are talking about. It is not society causing it. It is not because of some lack of education or sensitivity. People don’t need to be “taught not to rape,” because people already know that rape is wrong. They do it anyway because they don’t care.
This video is also a rebellion against being branded as a sex object. Attempts were made to look not sexy but pathetic. The simulated rape and forced servitude shown here is not just the message but the subtext as well; it is symbolic of being forced into a role you do not want to occupy.
It used to be if you wanted to shut down the opposition, you shouted racism, sexism or any other -ism designed to marginalize their words and them as a person. Now instead of simply crying “(Fill-In-The-Blank)ISM!!” whenever someone wants to shut the other person up, there is a smug, smarmy little phrase being uttered all over the place: “Check your privilege.” This means for example, that if you are white you cannot comment on racism, becuse by default you can’t have experienced it and therefore, your input has no value. Allow me to address this “Check your privilege” thing right now. You’ve not seen what I’ve seen or been where I’ve been. You have no idea what my privilege would be. You are making a snap judgment based on what I look like and nothing else. If that’s not bullshit, I just don’t know what is.
I’m white, so I can’t have experienced racism.
I have certain things, so I can’t have experienced poverty.
I’m not a drug addict, so I can’t have experienced addiction.
I’m not overweight, so I can’t have experienced body shaming.
I’m not gay, so I can’t have experienced discrimination because of who I am.
Here’s a newsflash: Every single one of these things is wrong. You have no idea where I come from or what I’ve been through. Check your privilege before you tell me to check mine. Not everyone fits into your prescribed boxes of how “victims” are supposed to act. I mean, I get it. I’m a jerk. I’m opinionated. I say things that most people will not say. I’m brash. I laugh at things that aren’t funny. I make inappropriate jokes that people find offensive. I laugh at other people’s jokes that are offensive. I will laugh at jokes about almost anything if they are funny enough. You know why? Because I’m an asshole and because I’ve been through enough that I think I can laugh at whatever the hell I want to laugh at. If you don’t like it, go find someone who gives a shit and tell them how to run their life. “Check your privilege, honey.” Oh no, sweetheart. Check yours. You labor under the incorrect assumption that you have the privilege of judging me based on what you can see. Well, here’s a little thing you can’t see: You don’t know me like that and I will make you feel stupid. Not that you shouldn’t already, talking some insane, presumptuous shit like that.
Racism, gender inequality, discrimination because of sexuality, rape, domestic violence or anything else that has happened – or will happen – to me doesn’t define me, and it doesn’t have to define YOU.
I am not religious but the growing discrimination against Christians and religious people in general is beginning to alarm me. Those who I’ve debated with don’t seem to really be offended on behalf of gays or women or other hot button issues. Not really. They seem to have actually been offended by the mere mention of religion. For many, it seems to be a platform for them to express their own bigoted and discriminatory views — against Christians and/or religion in general. I’m no expert but it would seem that the answer to perceived bigotry and discrimination can hardly be more bigotry and discrimination.
I find it sad and a shame that people who claim they are all about equality and fair treatment for all just ignore this, or worse – they participate in it. Discrimination against anybody should alarm everybody. But it doesn’t, and that alarms me. I really feel that if, say, religious people were all rounded up to be shot simply for being religious, many of the people in this country would not protest or even care. I find that terrifying. “First they came for the Communists” and all that.
What I don’t get is, do they not realize how easily that actually could be them? Do they really think that could never happen? What about when it’s me? What about when it’s you? I tell myself every day not to give in to my ego or superego or whichever it is; that people cannot possibly be as stupid as I sometimes think they are. But every day I hear things like that (“Oh, it’s OK if it’s them, because it’ll never be me!”) and it gets harder and harder to believe that. I think they really do believe that. It’s frightening.
But what can you say about a society where scientific studies are done and psychiatric illnesses are dreamed up solely for the reason of giving people an excuse to escape personal responsibility? Not much, I guess.
I posted this picture on Facebook a few days ago:
Someone commented, stating that he saw a piece on the news the other day in which they stated that one third of the ‘millennium’ generation is just gone. He went on to say that it was “kind of startling when you think about it.”
It certainly is.
I am shocked that people are still falling for the whole “rights” gambit. Women have actually been programmed to believe that killing their own children for any reason they deem fit is not only justified but is a right which must be fought for, and that anyone attempting to oppose this right is seeking to oppress them. Pretty unbelievable when you really look at it.
Once I got into a thing about abortion with somebody who said, “When you take politics out of it, it really is a women’s right issue.” I said, “Ma’am, women’s rights is politics. When you take that out of it, all we are talking about here is killing babies.” This has been so masterfully obscured, wrapped in the flag and obfuscated with images of a misogynist society trampling women underfoot. They have gotten women to fight for the right to kill their own children using the oldest trick in the book: the bait and switch. It boggles the mind.
You always hear that “more education” is needed to help prevent abortions and pregnancies. While I applaud the sentiment, I’ve never understood what this actually means. According to the CDC, 40% of women who have abortions have had more than 1 previous abortion and almost 1/4 of them have had more than 2 previous abortions. You mean to tell me these women cannot figure out how they are getting pregnant? They can’t stop it from happening over and over again? I’m supposed to believe that women are so stupid, so helpless and so weak that they cannot prevent a pregnancy from occurring? They are strong and empowered because they can kill their babies after the baby is conceived but too helpless to prevent conception in the first place?
Or could it be that they are simply the victims of an indoctrination program that teaches them that an abortion – which scars the uterus, can cause miscarriages later in life and serious emotional and psychological trauma – is just no big deal? “Pregnant? That’s OK. We’ll make it like it never even happened. No sweat.” Maybe if killing babies was not treated as the medical equivalent of having a wart removed, people would be a little more careful.
Here is where people usually bring up rape, incest and sexual freedom. Let me address that right now:
1. Rape and and incest do not even account for 0.03% of the astronomical amount of abortions in this country so for the purposes of debate, it is simply a strawman argument. Women who are raped and become pregnant generally have a lower instance of abortion than the general population because abortion adds another traumatic experience and worse, it puts them in the position of the aggressor.
2. I am as sexually liberated as the next person. Probably more so than many, actually. I don’t care who you sleep with, where you do it or how often. But are we rutting dogs in the street? A stray bitch in heat cannot prevent herself from getting pregnant but I expect more from a human being. Maybe I shouldn’t, but I do. I resent the idea that women are somehow not above stray dogs and that abortion is necessary because of this.
True feminism empowers women. True feminists do not champion causes in which women are tricked, duped and brainwashed. This is what has happened with abortion: women are applauding their own programming. Women are still being kept in their place. The place has just changed. In the past, they wanted you to have babies. Now they don’t. The only thing that has changed is the rhetoric. Sorry to all the modern feminists out there but killing your children because a patriarchal society decided for you that you should has not empowered you. It has turned you into a knee-jerk reaction demographic, not empowered individuals. If you want to talk empowerment, women own the reproductive power of society. Abortion allows them to take that from you. Women are still being controlled by the uterus and their reproductive role.
You don’t believe that, do you? Think about it. Put your emotions aside and really think about it. In the past, if you did not marry, stay home, have lots of kids and keep house, you were a traitor to women. If you had less than 3 kids, you were maligned by society and other women as not dedicated to your family. In the present, if you do not work, have a career and support abortion, you are a traitor to women. If you have more than 2 kids, you are maligned by society and other women as a “breeder.” Notice any similarities? The only thing that’s changed is what they want you to do. Their way of getting you to do it is still the same.
I thought we were tired of being controlled. Wasn’t that what women’s lib was all about?