“Freedom of Choice”

“Freedom of Choice” January 26, 2012

= “forced abortion”. Black is white. Freedom is slavery. The Orwellian logic of the abortion zealot.

The grimly hilarious thing is that a troll has been patrolling my comboxes explaining that opposition to abortion springs from fear of female sexuality and the need to dominate and control women. So good to know that the apostles of forced abortion are all about liberation. Also, I’m trying to figure out Elizabeth Cady Stanton, or her heirs in Feminists for Life are actually males who fear feminine power and want to dominate women. But my troll wasn’t too strong on argumentation that took more words than could be fitted on a bumper sticker.

"People aren't born evil, but some (just binge watched Ted Bundy on Netflix) have something ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Needless hostility. Goodness, you don't even know me.I have never called the Pope a heretic. ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Sorry. I can't hear you over the screams of thousands of the Greatest Catholics of ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Unless you are blessed with the spiritual gift of reading hearts, I suggest you refrain ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Oregon Catholic

    “The story has outraged thousands on either side of the political aisle. Moe, who suffers from schizophrenia and bipolar mood disorder, was being treated in a Massachusetts hospital. When she became pregnant, doctors were purportedly concerned that her medications could harm the unborn child. So they recommended an abortion.”

    Looks like the story says she became pregnant while hospitalized, i.e., by rape? I wonder how much that had to do with her doctors ‘recommending’ the abortion.

  • Reality Check

    The intellectual dishonesty here is astounding. I am pro-CHOICE. I do not believe or endorse forced abortions. You, however, do endorse forced-birth (and by extension, forced-labor, in more ways than one!) , even if it is the child of a rapist or blood relative.

    And yes, there are women that hate other women to gain the approval of men. You think I’m shocked by this? You cannot be a feminists and endorse the forced-birthers.

    • rakowskidp

      So women who advocate on behalf of the unborn hate other women? That’d be a surprise to all of the pro-life women I know, considering their advocacy on behalf of unborn *girls* (who, God willing, will some day grow up to be women) who’d otherwise die by abortion, and their *mothers*, who suffer terribly in the aftermath of this awful decision.

    • Dale Price

      But apparently, gauging from your dudgeon level and pro-forma disclaimer, forced abortion is less bad than forced birth.

      I guess you can be a feminist and endorse the forced-aborters. Which is supported by the lack of True Feminist™ outrage at forced abortions in China.

      • Mark Shea

        Hey! Dudgeon was my word! Humph.

    • Mark Shea

      And yet, here you are, wasting time bravely protesting people who died 3000 years ago, while doing nothing to protest Planned Parenthood’s enthusiasm for forced abortion. Spare me your dudgeon.

      • dpt

        Many many abortions are forced or coerced in the US as women are pushed into it by a so-called lover or family members.

        • Mark Shea

          Very true. But RC is only interested in women who act as human shields for RC’s appetites. Women who endure forced abortions get a perfunctory wave of the hand and a tepid acknowledgement. But the main mission is to repeat those bumper sticker slogans RC memorized in that women’s studies class at Wilbur Weed Boxtop Diploma Mill and Party School.

    • kate

      Well, it is at least sort of intellectually honest to admit that one’s pro-legal-abortion convictions have nothing at all to do with denying the humanity of the unborn, but everything to do with deciding some humans rights are more important than others. Prolifers seem to have won the humanity question, and have the advantage of philosophical consistency on the question of personhood.

      So now the ground has shifted to the utilitarian question of whose rights trump whose when the life of one human being is (temporarily) dependent on hampering the health of another? “Forced-birth” is a way of taking the argument to these utilitarian grounds and away from the messy (and losing) reality of the pain and death of a child.

      Two immediate problems I see with this rhetorical gambit – firstly, we ‘force labor’ out of people on behalf of their dependents ALL THE TIME. This is the basis of all legal arguments for requiring child support payments, and the basis of all laws requiring parents to provide food, shelter, and education to their children. Heck, we even have laws regarding our responsibility to the animals who are dependent members of their household. All of these laws have the effect of forcing us to work (earn a living) for other people because THEIR rights trump ours.

      Secondly, only in the case of rape could pregnancy EVER be logically considered ‘forced’, and rape cases are so slim a percentage of abortions that it is really a pretty irrelevant red herring. I’d be pretty overjoyed if abortion was outlawed with the exception of rape, since that would in practice virtually eliminate abortion in the US. With the exception of rape, pregnancy is not ‘forced’ on anybody, any more than I can complain that dieticians are ‘forcing’ me to gain weight when I eat a tub of ice cream. I can take precautions to minimize the weight I’ll gain, but it would be pretty ridiculous for me to claim I didn’t ‘choose’ the weight gain when I ate the ice cream.

      • Mark Shea

        Clearly, you fear your sexuality and want to dominate women, Kate. Also you probably want to commit genocide against Canaanites and approve of the well-documented murder of bazillions of womyn spirit healers way back in the Dark Ages by the Vatican.

        • Reality Check

          Well, well, well, is someone getting–dare I say it– a bit of Catholic guilt over the genocidal passages of the Old Testament? You sure keep bringing it up a lot in this thread.

          • Mark Shea

            It’s as though you can read my mind. Yes. I am consumed with guilt for things done by Bronze Age people 3000 years ago. You, however, seem to feel no guilt for murders done in the name of your inhuman ideology right now.

          • RUs

            I applaud your indignation over genocide, RC. A particular religion and it’s associated ideologies is responsible for more murder of innocents than all other groups combined. We call them atheists.

            (Stalin alone outdoes all of them. But there are more, and I’m not even counting the abortions.)

            Fortunately we have religions like Christianity to soften the violent hearts of man.

            • Reality Check

              If the RCC of the Middle Ages or ancient Israelites had had the proper technology, and the world population numbers, they would have done Stalin one better no doubt. Not to mention the Catholic vs. Protestant Wars of Religion in Germany (see how these Christians love one another, indeed).

              • Jared

                Judging Christianity by the failures of Christians instead of actually debating ethics. Strawmaning is so much easier.

              • Mark Shea

                “No doubt”. In other words, it’s the Pee Wee Herman strategy of argumentation: IknowyouarebutwhatamI? You really don’t have anything beside bumper sticker in that head of yours, do you? Forced abortion in China by the millions? Meh. Stay on message! Catholics Evil. Abortion Good! Women want to oppress women! Women fear women’s sexuality! People who disagree suffer from Catholic guilt! Jesus fears women’s sexuality! Try to learn how to conduct an actual conversation. You’re wearing out your welcome.

                • Reality Check

                  What on Earth ever made you think I agree with forced abortion?

                  • Mark Shea

                    I don’t. I merely think you don’t care about it since all your energies go to fighting the gnat of “forced birth” and none of your energies go to dealing with Planned Parenthood’s enthusiastic support for forced abortion in China. You are as concerned about it as the average GOP pol is about ending abortion, which is to say, not a bit. Your interest is not in the oppression of women, but in a perfectly typical suburban American desire to do whatever you want with your crotch and to care about nothing else. You’re a poseur, RC. You talk a good game about the oppression of women, but your priorities, when faced with a choice between caring about pleasuring your crotch or caring about millions of Chinese women forced to abort their children, is to focus on on your crotch every time. And you’d be the same way if the choice was between your crotch and the Chinese government shooting women to the applause of Planned Parenthood. Get used to it, kiddo. You are just another provincial suburban lefty who took a women’s studies course, got your consciousness raised enough to be able to tell people off about your self-indulgence in clever language, and who could not care less about anything or anybody not in the service of your appetites, including women who really *do* face oppression. All things are in the service of your appetites and nothing that isn’t matters to you in the slightest. That’s why you prioritize as you do.

              • RUs

                And now you have added complete fantasy to your list of idiocy.

                I could just as easily say: “If the pro-choicers had the means, they would abort every baby in existence, kill every man, and force all the women left to sit in their own excrement.”

                It is a laughable and utterly ignorant thing for you to say about the medievals, and completely unrooted in reality.

                You simply cannot stop embarrassing yourself, can you?

          • Mark Shea

            And, by the way, you brought it up. I merely continued the conversation by holding you responsible for your brain dead bumper sticker tossoff. Your habit is to fling out a slogan and then dash off before you have to address how meaningless it is. I simply chose to remain with that particular slogan for a bit longer than you did. I realize thinking is hard for trolls. So many empty slogans, so little time.

  • The radical feminism the pro-aborts mindlessly parrot is less an ideology than a collective neurosis. Also, certain arts degrees — particularly one or two that end in “studies” — would rather teach our young what to think rather than how.

    • Reality Check

      Wow, talk about projection. Religion is the original collective neurosis par excellence, and I can’t think of a better definition of “Being told what to think, not how to think” than catechism classes and Sunday schools.

      • Mark Shea

        Poor Thomas Aquinas and Edith Stein. Unable to think. While RC, a regurgitator of bumper sticker slogans is a master philosopher.

      • RUs

        So, let’s see, RC person. You’ve degenerated from making a complete fool out of yourself with your misuse and misunderstanding of question begging, to showing your ignorance with a complete lack of historic proportion (see my post above), to now saying “Nuh-uh! That’s you guys!” (Much like Peewee Herman’s “That’s what you are, what am I?”

        I am astounded at your tenacity and determination to embarrass yourself.

  • Consistency

    I can picture Mark dressed in camouflage with his crossbow in a hide. He has an idiot call in his mouth and he’s smirking as one bounds into view unable to stop the inevitable…

  • Oregon Catholic

    “I am pro-CHOICE. I do not believe or endorse forced abortions.”

    Technically, this wouldn’t have been forced. Her parents sought custodianship so the “Choice” would have been transferred to them. As long as abortion is legal, someone or some entity will potentially have the “choice” to make it happen.

  • Confederate Papist

    I wonder how Reality Check would feel if treated like a foetus in the process of being aborted and feeling that pain and terror? If someone tried to jam a pair of scissors into the head like a late term abortion?

    Ronald Reagan said, and I’m not sure if he originated it or not, “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born”….

    • Reality Check

      ““I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born”….”

      Well, duh, and so is everyone who is pro forced-birth. Ronald Reagan sure was brilliant to figure out that embryos don’t have political opinions.

      • Confederate Papist

        It was a humourous retort to pro-aborts.

  • Reality Check

    I denounce forced abortions. I also denounce Hitler, Stalin, and broccoli.

    • Too bad. Broccoli is one of the healthiest foods in existence.

      • And just in case you think that’s mere conjecture resulting from my insecurity and fear of emasculation triggered by strong autonomous woman here’s some scientific evidence (don’t worry I only looked at it for a second so it shouldn’t be too contaminated by Catholic dark age dogma) http://whfoods.org/genpage.php?dbid=9&tname=foodspice

    • Mark Shea

      And yet, there are virtually no forced births and millions of forced abortions, all applauded by your heros at Planned Parenthood. Why do you strain at gnats and swallow camels?

      • Reality Check

        In this country, there are vritually no forced births thanks to contraception and legal and safe abortions.

        In places like, say, Chile? Plenty of forced-birthing there (along with back-alley abortions, courtesy of the RCC):

        Contraception works better than prayer for reducing abortion and saving lives. Chile is a devoutly Catholic country, and consequently abortion is illegal there without exception. For women of reproductive age, the Chilean abortion rate is 45 abortions per 1000 women each year. The U.S., most devout of all developed countries, has less restrictive laws, and better access to contraception and an abortion rate of 21/1000. The secular Netherlands, with universal healthcare and some of the least restrictive abortion laws in the world have a rate of 7/1000. Chilean women pay for the Church’s anti-contraception stance with their lives. Between 2000 and 2004, back-alley abortion was Chile’s third leading cause of maternal death.


        • Thomas R

          Chile has also been one of the fastest modernizers in the world. It kind of goes against your image of places with such rules staying desperately poor.

          Also why not compare like to like? Compare Chile’s rate of maternal death to a similar nation. According to the UN Chile’s rate of maternal mortality in 2008 was half that of Cuba which has much more liberal abortion laws and fairly good healthcare for a nation at its level of development.


        • Reality Check

          Still waiting for all the “pro-lifers” to explain how Chile has a higher abortion rate than the US, despite the fact abortion is illegal in Chile and legal here. And also why secular, atheistic Netherlands as the lowest abortion rate of all.

          Contraception is greater than prayer in preventing abortion.

          • Mark Shea

            Note how you stay on message and refuse to address the millions of forced abortions in China. All your time is spent here. You use Chilean women as human shields to give a veneer to your defenses of your appetites. But you don’t really care about anything but your own appetites. The giveaway is the fact that you are here and not on some PP board challenging the fans of forced abortion on their hypocrisy. They don’t threaten your all-important suburban bourgeois appetites. So they get a pass. Nothing is more important than your precious suburban middle class self.

            • Reality Check

              Why is the abortion rate of a devoutly Catholic Latin American country where abortion is illegal much higher than the US, and the US rate much higher than that of secular, atheist, humanist Holland? Still waiting for an answer to that question.

            • Mark Shea

              Why are you waiting for an answer when you already believe you know the answer? More to the point, why are you here defending your appetites with blather about “oppression of women” (when there is zero danger of “forced birth” in the US) when your own confreres at Planned Parenthood are cheering for the oppression of Chinese women while you stand utterly silent. Answer: You are a suburban middle class selfish person who only “cares” about oppressed women when they can serve as human shields for your absolutely self-centered appetites. People who do not serve your utterly utilitarian purposes are disposable.


              • Reality Check

                Just curious as to what you think of Chile having a much higher abortion rate despite the fact abortion is illegal there. You do want to reduce the number of abortions, right?

                • Mark Shea

                  No. You’re not curious. If you have made anything clear here, it is that you are not a bit curious. You have no questions whatsoever. Your hermetically sealed mind desires to know nothing, to encounter no new ideas, to listen to nobody. That goes with being the utterly selfish person you are, who pretends to care about the oppression of women, but who does not give a shit about any woman who is not a useful human shield for your will to indulge your crotch.

                  Could you possibly *be* any more transparently phony, RC?

          • dpt

            “Contraception is greater than prayer in preventing abortion.”

            Advocates of birth control promised us stronger marriages, fewer women & children living in poverty, and an end of prostitution.

            It has contributed to a sterile utilitarian culture where abortion is used as birth control.

          • Thomas R

            Your source isn’t exactly academic or neutral. In addition calculating abortion rates of nations like Chile are often guesswork and vary wildly.

            Personally though I think I’d agree abortion, in raw number, happens more in places where birth happens more. The rate of abortions-per-pregnancy tends to be lower in restricting countries, but the amount of pregnancies is higher.

            If you think their should be less people existing than yes the model of a place like the Netherlands is better. If you like existence than yeah more of it means more bad things will happen.

            • Thomas R

              Also you didn’t deal with my statement about how Chile has better maternal mortality than Cuba. Even though the two nations are practically identical on the UN’s health-index with Cuba being slightly higher.


              If Chile’s way is so bad for women why are their women surviving pregnancy so much better than Cuban women? And almost as good as American women?

          • Maybe I can give you some help, R.C. The reason there is such a disparity in the abortion rates is due to the fact that your data is badly skewed and often just plan wrong. For instance:

            Abortion Availability: On request
            Gestational limit: 13 weeks

            Conditions: A five-day waiting period is required between the initial consultation and the performance of an induced abortion. The procedure must be performed in a licensed hospital or clinic. Abortion is allowed after 13 weeks (up to 24 weeks) if she claims to be in a state of distress.

            Since November 1984, women in the Netherlands have been able to obtain abortions free of charge under the government-sponsored national health insurance system.

            Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

            (read the laws for all European countries, it’s very instructive).

            Fr from having the most unrestricted abortion law in the world, the Netherlands, like most European countries, has laws that are considerably MORE restrictive than those in the U.S. Abortion is generally forbidden or restricted after the end of the first trimester. Waiting periods are strictly enforced. Doctors’ consultations and red tape are required after the limit, whereas in the U.S. abortion is allowed in most places up to the end of the 2nd trimester, no questions asked, and in some states, not very much restricted even after that. That is why the Netherlands has a low abortion rate. And why are NARAL and PP fighting tooth and nail to have such sensible restrictions enforced here? I imagine it’s because they don’t really want a low abortion rate at all.

            On the other hand, statistics for places like Chile, where abortion is illegal, or usually wildly inflated guesses put out by abortion proponents, who want to make abortion legal there, and so are pretty worthless. They’re pretty unscrupulous about how they go about it.

            Abortions are basically reported voluntarily the the states in the U.S. so there is no real way to tell if anything we are seeing is real or not.

            But you just go on picking up and believing everything you hear as long as it serves your purposes. Some of us prefer to check or data, but to each his own!!

            RC? Those are mighty suspicious initials. They could stand for Roman Catholic! I knew you were a papist plant, designed to make atheist pro-aborts look bad!

          • I question the numbers.

            RU-486 is legal and I assume Plan B is legal in the Netherlands and I doubt that they are legal in Chile.

            I think your numbers are only for surgical abortions.

            Of course, it’s irrelevant anyway. These two data points prove absolutely nothing about legal abortion or Catholic countries.

        • dpt

          “In this country, there are vritually no forced births thanks to contraception and legal and safe abortions.”

          Not true. Women are coerced into by boyfriends, family, economic circumstances. To pretend women are not used and abused in this way is not justice.

  • Babs

    Maybe it’s the fact that I’m out-here-pregnant, and sour because I can’t sleep without my uterine occupier tap dancing on my bladder, but I’m so tired of the idiot pro-“choice” mantra of forced incubators or birthers or whatever else.

    1. Most people become pregnant by choosing to have sex. Maybe they used contraception, maybe not. But sex = babies, so that’s pretty much where they messed up the whole idea of choice.
    2. For the victims of rape (no need to add incest or what have you, rape covers it); tell me how it makes sense to make a new victim out of being victimized? Yes, let’s tell the victim, “Sorry honey, you are too weak to deal with this, so we’re going to go ahead and save you the trouble of worrying about the future by ripping the life that is growing within out and like magic all you have to worry about is getting over being raped!” Not only are you calling her weak and perpetuating the victim mentality, you are also saying it’s okay to abuse your kids of your husband beats you. Dumb argument.
    3. Science has defined conception as the start of a new organism. That means it has its own DNA, and is really only needs nourishment and protection in order to mature and grow. Therefor, it’s not my body that I’m exercising choice over it’s a new organism’s life. Lots of people thought they could arbitrate whose life was of value and whose wasn’t. Surprisingly they are all on the evil side of history.

    My last part of this rant is directed at those who think that I’m somehow hamstrung because I have operating ovaries and a uterus. I’m not really sure when it became okay to put me down because my fertility functions as nature has dictated, but I really resent the idea that my good health is oppressive in some way. Screw that! I’m educated enough to know I don’t want drugs in my system unless I am sick. I also have something called self control that I can exercise (and did for many years of my fertility). If I don’t want a baby, I don’t have sex. And shockingly I believe men are capable of the same self control. Novel idea, I know.

    • Confederate Papist

      You’re soooooooooooooo barbaric! 😉

      Actually, I think what you said is right on, Babs. God Bless and good luck with the little one.

    • kate

      Oh, you said this so much better than I did!

    • Chris M

      You’re obviously brainwashed by the evil Patriarchy into meekly accepting your role as forced broodmother. /sarc

      (congratulations, by the way!) =D

  • rakowskidp

    RC: Catholics want to force women to carry pregnancies to term agains their wills because they fear and loathe female sexuality

    Us: no, we’re against abortion because we believe every person has dignity and deserves to live, and our Church’a writings bear witness to these facts

    RC: suuure

  • rakowskidp

    Why do we keep engaging RC’s non-arguments?

    • Mark Shea

      Hope. Perhaps she will drop the shell of anger and actually talk like a real human to other real human instead of remain the ticker tape machine of pro-abort slogans.

  • Michael D


    I went and looked up the decision itself, and it’s not quite like the blog said. It’s not that the appellate court stopped the procedure; instead, they sent it back to the trial court for a more thorough hearing to determine whether they would force the abortion. So this woman and her child is still very much in danger if the court finds that she’s not competent to make a decision about the abortion. In that case, the court will allow the parents to make the decision for her. Some choice.

    • Mark Shea

      I’m sure RC will be speaking up at any moment about the Patriarchy’s oppression of this young woman.

      • Reality Check

        I…am…against…forced…abortion. Just like I am against forced-birth.

        • Jared

          If she wasn’t raped, the child was not forced into her. If she was raped, punish the rapist instead the child.

        • Mark Shea

          Yes. I get that. You repeat it–here, for a moment. But you don’t spend any energy on it in pro-“choice” circles condemning Planned Parenthood’s gross hypocrisy. All your energy is spent here straining at the gnat of “forced birth” and none on those in your own tribe who swallow the camel of millions of forced abortions. You make passing mention of forced abortion–like Mitt Romney at an Evangelical rally uncomfortably having to talk about the unborn–then you get back to what truly fascinates and consumes you: your crotch. You are a poseur. You don’t care about the oppression of women in China. You care about your appetites and defeating anything you think threatens them. Phony.

          • Reality Check

            This is the same argument right-wingers use about poverty–“You really care about poverty? Why worry about poor Americans? There’s REAL poverty over there in Africa!”

            • Jared

              His point isn’t just about China’s policy, but also PP’s opinion on the matter. That, my troll-y friend, is in America.

              • Reality Check

                I’m not a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood.

            • Mark Shea

              You don’t give a shit about poor Americans or anybody else. You care about your crotch. Others are just human shields for your appetites.

        • Thomas R

          I actually may get where you’re coming from more than I think the others are, in a way. I don’t think you’re supporting forced abortion or defending “sluts.” I actually think terminology like that may just heat things up unnecessarily or, in the case of the slut thing, does sound anti-woman. And I can see how if you don’t want to be pregnant continuing a pregnancy could be uncomfortable.

          However pregnancy isn’t an illness or a cancer. And life going in directions we can’t entirely control has many good aspects. And of course an embryo is a genetically distinct human life. We were all embryos once. Further the majority of women have abortions do so because they feel they can’t afford a baby. And much Pro-Choice rhetoric has encouraged the idea that it’s better to not exist than be born poor or disabled.

          Ideally a world with more restrictive abortion laws would be one that loves and supports pregnant women more. Rather than feeling “forced into something uneconomical” they could be “surprised by life” or something. However since Roe poor women’s lives have not gotten much better.

  • The “pro choicers” are not angry about being forced to give birth. Instead, they are angry because they feel like the pro life supporters want to take away their rights to be sluts.

    • Reality Check

      Aaand will tells us what it’s really about: “Close your legs, sluts!” It has nothing to do with fetuses.

      Thanks for your honesty Will.

      • Dave

        You seriously kind of scare me, RC. You seem to be unable to even fathom that someone might care about another member of the human species being killed, and are sure that it must be about something else. Yikes.

      • Mark Shea

        As I said, you are a poseur. You don’t care about oppressed Chinese women. You care about your appetites and nothing else. Having learned a couple of bumper sticker slogans, you now repeat them endlessly. But given a choice between your crotch and speaking up against PP enthusiasm for forced abortion, your crotch obviously dominates all your energy.


        • Reality Check

          If I was at an ultra-nationalist Chinese blog, and the author of the blog was telling me how wonderful forced abortion and the one child policy is, maybe I’d say more about forced abortion.

          But I live in America. I’m at a Catholic blog. The Catholic Church, the organization to which you belong, does not endorse forced abortion but they sure as hell endorse forced-birth (up to and including wanting to ban contraception of they got their way).

          • Jared

            We do not support “forced birth”. Rape is evil. What we support is every person’s right to life.

          • Mark Shea

            The reason you are here, straining at the gnat of “forced birth” and not at a Planned Parenthood board, challenging them about forced abortion, is that you are a spoiled middle class suburbanite who cares only about your appetites and does not give a tinker’s damn about anything or anybody that cannot be deployed as a human shield in the service of them. Roe is not threatened. The Catholic Church will never force you to give birth. You are in no danger whatever. But you waste time here straining at the gnat of “forced birth” while ignoring the millions of women your confreres subject to forced abortion. Why? Because you don’t give a shit about oppressed women. You care about your provincial suburban crotch and your appetites and that’s it.

          • Oregon Catholic

            RC, you have bought into the feminist lie that as an autonomous sexual woman you can’t possibly exercise your freedom of choice to make a rational decision about whether to have sex or not and whether or not to accept the rational foreseeable consequences if you do. Nope, when you gotta have IT nothing and no one must stand in the way.

            Now you’re just like one of those males that rapes because a girl got him all riled up and he couldn’t think straight and stop himself. See how feminism has made you just like one of those boys? You just do your raping afterward.

          • Babs

            What about telling women that their health is bad? My fertility works as it is supposed to as nature dictates. That’s good health. But you and your ilk say in order to be “free” I need to warp my fertility, or put some kind of barrier on that inhibits enjoyment of sex.

            Well, pardon me, but that doesn’t seem very pro-woman to me. In fact, it seems far more controlling than saying that a person ought to abstain from sex if they don’t want to be pregnant.

            And BTW, it’s men that made birth control. Mean old controlling patriarchal men.

      • Beadgirl

        Boy, I get sucked into an addictive website yesterday, and I miss out on all the fun.

        Ugh, I SO hate to agree even a little bit with Reality Check, but calling pro-choice women sluts really does not help the cause, and does encourage the *erroneous* notion that banning abortion is about controlling women’s sexuality.

        That said, Reality Check, assuming there is some sort of one-to-one correlation between feminism and being pro-choice, and between misogyny and being pro-life is flat-out lazy thinking and intellectually dishonest. Hugh Hefner, for example, is emphatically not a feminist. Men who force their wives and girlfriends to have abortions are not feminist. And I defy anyone who actually knows me to label me anything other than an ardent feminist (I believe “strident” has been used to describe me more than once. And “man-hating.”)

        Here’s the thing, RC — I used to be pro-choice, even an activist about it (and no, Will, I was not a “slut” and I did not want to be one). The reasons I was pro-choice are still there, I just no longer think killing a baby is the solution. Your refusal to make any real, honest effort to understand why we are pro-life, suggests to me you are one of two things: 1) intellectually dishonest and not interested in a genuine discussion of the issue or 2) afraid to find out what we really think, because it might force you to rethink some of your assumptions and opinions.

        • Marion (Mael Muire)

          calling pro-choice women sluts really does not help the cause, and does encourage the *erroneous* notion that banning abortion is about controlling women’s sexuality.

          Amen. Amen, amen.

          Banning abortion is like banning vivisection and torture: Civilized human beings don’t wreak violence upon the helpless, nor target the defenseless for annihilation.


          To go beyond, and to get sucked into debates about sexual morality, and so on, is to go off-message. Which any halfway decent politician or spokesperson will tell you, is always a mistake that will sooner or later come back to bite you, because your opponent may use it to weaken your position.

          I highly recommend we stay on message: Abortion is not “health care”. Abortion is violence against women and their infants.

          Keep to the high road. It’s the one we’re on anyway; why leave it?

        • Rachel K

          I wanted to just write “this,” but apparently that’s too short. So: Well said, Beadgirl. Not only does calling pro-choicers “sluts” make it seem like a sex thing, but it also overlooks the fact that like it or not, married women get abortions, too.

          And also well-said on the front that abortion does not equal feminism. In fact, quite the opposite. Unplanned pregnancy is a problem because our society has so few safeties and supports in place for single mothers and poor women. Rather than make difficult and far-reaching societal changes to make that easier, we took the easy way out and legalized abortion. This means that women who want to keep their babies but don’t have those supports feel forced into abortions. In effect, they feel as though they have no choice, which makes it hard to call it a “pro-choice” position.

  • Observer

    RC, as a troll, you may be afraid of looking at the truth as standing at day break, or being exposed under the sun, in fear of turning into stone.

    Your argument is trying not to convince anyone of real, honest, and true morality (which you must have in order to call and measure failure. You cannot say a man has done great harm and feel outraged of his failure. Because, you’ve thrown out the measure of morals. You cannot tell me how hypocritical or contrary people of faith are when you don’t even believe in the rule of morality which you are supposedly using to call out such a contradiction. You can in no way say a man is wrong for harming a woman because it’s a right to do away with morality about terming life yet to be born. You throw out the measuring stick of morality; you throw out the argument a woman has been violated.)

    Rather, you argue your convictions of failed hunanity not being able to live up to morality and needing to follow and take flight along the perpetual path of failure in terms of removing developing human life. In the end, your argument is about giving into the harm done onto a woman.

    • Jared

      I like to call that “The Problem of Relativism.” Only a personal God would care about the morality of human acts, so non-theism has no argument for objective morality. A consistent atheist cannot criticize anyone on moral grounds (not that it stops them).

  • Manwe

    Good lord, ‘Reality’ Check, take a chill pill. How much crap are you gonna spit out on this one post?

    Your history is bunk, btw, because it has be debunked. You like to trade in a whole bunch of stereotypes about the middle ages, the vast majority are just that. And you insane idea that if given the time and the technology, the RCC would have killed many more, is just so ignorant, and so silly I don’t even know where to begin.

    You are for abortion,
    we are against it,
    end of story.
    Neither us, nor you, are going to be convinicng each other of the opposite, so why even keep up the fight?

    • Manwe

      Again I make a typo! should read
      “because it has been debunked” ‘been’ being the missing word there

  • paul

    I find it sad that women like reality check would, in railing against the procreative nature of sex, would instead reduce women to a vagina.

    • Mark Shea

      Assuming RC is female, which I suspect, but don’t know.S/he does sound an awful lot like a graduate of too many women’s studies programs though. The hermetically sealed ideological bubble. The inability to engage with anybody outside of a narrow bandwidth of catch phrases, tropes and shibboleths. And above all the insufferable narcissism and use of the downtrodden as human shields for her suburban Sex and the City appetites. No actual woman suffering oppression talks that way. Only a spoiled former college kid with a sense of entitlement the size of Grand Coulee Dam.

  • dpt

    “In this country, there are vritually no forced births thanks to contraception and legal and safe abortions.”

    This is not true. Every day in the US many women are forced to have an abortion because a boyfriend, family member or other coerces (“talks”) them into it. To deny this is to deny women their dignity

  • randy

    Can anyone say with a straight face that the world would be better off with 500 million or so more people in china. Or another 50 million americans with our unequal use of the worlds resourses?.

  • Brent

    Is Reality Check = Anne Rice???

  • My head hurts now after reading!

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    “forced birth” . . . ?

    Utterly oxymoronic. Illogical.

    Birth will happen when outside forces back off and allow nature to take its course.

    To force is to exert power to make happen something that would not otherwise happen of its own accord or at a time it would not happen of its own accord.

    An induced birth or a C-section might be spoken of as a “forced” birth, in that sense.

    What Reality Check seems to want to put across, is that if a mother-to-be demands that some physician target her unborn infant for annihilation, if she demands that he introduce sharp instruments or administer poison into her body so as to attack and to kill her baby, and physicians refuse to commit this atrocity upon her and the baby . . . that they are forcing her to give birth.

    No. She is attempting to require from them that they commit an atrocity upon her and her baby, and in some cases advocates for her position are attempting to influence the government to use its power to command, to force, physicians and hospitals to commit the atrocity of targeting the infant in the womb for a violent end.

  • Hezekiah Garrett


    I’m not really interested in arguing for 50million more Americans.

    But if you want I can propose a new one.

    How about one less Randy?