On politicizing women's health

I think there is no small overlap in the venn diagram of "People who want to protect unborn fetuses" and "People who want to punish sluts." I have heard pro-life people use the idea that there need to be consequences for having sex as part of their argument against abortion. However, just because that part of their argument is crazy, it doesn't invalidate the rest of their argument, or mean that everyone who else agrees with that other part agrees with the crazy part.

I think that would more likely apply to those who want to ban contraception than those who only oppose abortion.

Malor wrote:

This, by the way, is why we keep having this fight. Conservatives say they want to stop abortion. So liberals propose policies that provably stop abortions, because most liberals don't like them either.

But most liberal initiatives make sex safer in the process of preventing abortions, and that is absolutely unacceptable to at least mainstream conservatism, whose real goal is to force people into marriage to have sex. And they put the screws to women because, biologically, they're easier to compel into 'correct' behavior.

Conservatives don't want what they claim to want, and that's why this fight just keeps going around and around and around.

You know, Malor, I once heard a similar argument being made against gay marriage. Essentially, "they" had a hidden agenda, it was less about two people who love each other and more a referendum on the social acceptability of homosexuality itself. This was "proven" by the fact that "they" continue to push for marriage even when offered equivalent civil benefits. In other words, if it were really about x, they wouldn't push for y, therefore argument z is disingenuous and moot. Not precisely the same argument as yours but the framework is definitely there. Do you think it's a fair one to make or not?

The gay marriage thing is more about rejecting the idea of 'separate but equal'. If the civil rights are truly equivalent (that is, they are 'identical' as in the logical concept of 'identity') then marriage must necessarily refer to both sets of civil rights (because they are the same set). If you use two different names for homo and hetero marriage, with neither term describing the other, you are logically implying a distinction between the two. (I would actually claim that the notion of using 'marriage' and 'civil union' for hetero and homo relationships respectively is an Orwellian maneuver meant to circumvent logic.)

I think Malor's argument could benefit from a bit of nuance and context, however. In logical terms, it is definitely possible to be against both contraception and abortions without possessing a unified motive for those beliefs. There are also a number of unified motives that do not necessarily involve slut shaming, such as the Judeo-Christian idea of 'not wasting your seed'. And yes, the baby is a larger burden on the mother than the father, but I find it disingenuous to imply that conservative values don't also mandate that the father provide for the child (as far as I know very few people are against child support laws). We should be encouraged by the fact that our society does not tolerate honor killings or the majority of that horrible stuff (even if it is still super weird about rape and rape victims).

That said, Malor is correct in noting that the emphasis on abortion reeks of sexism and hypocrisy. The 'don't waste your seed' aspect of some religions, which is the male side of the equation, often takes a back seat to the craziness surrounding women and their virginity. It is common to see people jeer at women as they enter an abortion clinic, but few are there holding 'masturbation is murder' signs and screaming for the father to be put to death in the child's place (or protesting outside vasectomy clinics or condom manufacturing plants). It's one of those insidious sexist control structures designed to oppress women.

Robear wrote:

I think that would more likely apply to those who want to ban contraception than those who only oppose abortion.

Yes, that's why I said it was only part of their argument. Malor takes the statement too far by applying the anti-slut motives to everyone opposed to abortion, but there's probably a much larger percent of the anti-abortion movement that also have anti-slut motives than Nomad would like to think about. I'm not saying that Nomad is wrong when he says he doesn't know anyone who bases their opposition to abortion on "the desire to punish sexual indiscretion" (language that itself indicates that their actions are wrong). I am saying that he's kidding himself if he thinks that there isn't a very large group of pro-lifers who don't, in addition to wanting to protect the unborn, also want there to be a punishment for people who have casual sex. It might not play a big part (they may be 90% saving unborn babies, 10% punishment), but to claim that the majority of pro-life people don't even take it into account is as silly as claiming that all pro-life people hate sluts and don't care about the babies.

4xis.black wrote:

Comments in this thread so far.

Everything you've said so far has summed up my sentiments perfectly. Much better than I could ever say. You also make some excellent points. Bravo.

I also see that you live in my town. I hope you like beer, because I'm inclined to buy you one at the next S&T.

Well, any generalization about a group of people won't cover every single one. It couldn't possibly. (well, okay, except "they're people", and even that's a bit questionable sometimes.)

But the punishing-slut motive is absolutely dominant in the conversation about abortion. It is the driving force behind the vicious arguments. It's why things are never settled. Liberals offer solutions that decrease abortions, but also decrease the dangers of sex, so conservatives find them unacceptable. They find them unacceptable because they violate the real goal, which is stopping extramarital sex, and punishing women who engage in it.

They want to force people into marriage and family units, because they think that's good for society. They'd probably punish men too, but women have this nice biological handle they can twist.

I've cited many examples of this thinking. It is very easy to find. It completely dominates the conservative side of the argument. There are occasional sane anti-abortionists that are ACTUALLY trying to reduce the number of abortions performed to the minimum possible, and are willing to use evidence-based policies to get there, but their voices are almost completely drowned out by the angry mob.

Malor wrote:

There are occasional sane anti-abortionists that are ACTUALLY trying to reduce the number of abortions performed to the minimum possible, and are willing to use evidence-based policies to get there, but their voices are almost completely drowned out by the angry mob.

Pretty much. The pro-life movement basically scares off any individual who might lean that way with not only how it treats women in other contexts, but how it treats *children* in other contexts. The only time pro-life people seem willing to stand up for the rights of children is when they're trying to write Genesis 3:16 into the law books. The rest of the time they tend to be the ones who do the most to deny children their human rights.

In some ways, the worst enemy of the pro-life cause is the pro-life movement as it exists today. There's probably no more persuasive argument for keeping the government away from a woman's body than the thought of those people writing the laws.

Right, and what they're REALLY upset about is most of that 97%, the part that makes sex safer. That's just Not Acceptable to mainstream conservatism.

See all that contraception and STD screening? From their perspective, this is enabling immoral behavior.

It's the 70% of what PP does, not the 3%, that has conservatives frothing. But they can't admit that in public. So they yell about the abortions. This is very similar to how 'welfare queens' is coded racist talk about black people.

It's not the pro-life movement. It's the anti-sex movement. And women are just the most susceptible targets. A baby is a huge stick they can hit those sinful sluts with.

While, of course, simultaneously going and getting abortions themselves.

And it looks like Komen violated its own policy by giving a $7.5 million grant to Penn State.

CheezePavilion wrote:

The only time pro-life people seem willing to stand up for the rights of children is when they're trying to write Genesis 3:16 into the law books. The rest of the time they tend to be the ones who do the most to deny children their human rights.

For a group of people who seem to think whitewashing women who've had abortions as "sluts" is a huge crime, I'm certainly seeing a ton of generalizations about the character of the other side bing tossed around. I'd love to hear which basic human rights pro-lifers would like to see denied to children, and your post ignores the existence of organizations like Birthright, and indirectly through any number of general charity groups.

clover wrote:

Pie chart!

Not sure what this is supposed to prove - spending 97% of your time in church and only 3% of your time killing hookers doesn't mean people who think killing hookers is wrong should let it slide.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

The only time pro-life people seem willing to stand up for the rights of children is when they're trying to write Genesis 3:16 into the law books. The rest of the time they tend to be the ones who do the most to deny children their human rights.

For a group of people who seem to think whitewashing women who've had abortions as "sluts" is a huge crime, I'm certainly seeing a ton of generalizations about the character of the other side bing tossed around. I'd love to hear which basic human rights pro-lifers would like to see denied to children, and your post ignores the existence of organizations like Birthright, and indirectly through any number of general charity groups.

From the Birthright International website:

BIRTHRIGHT DOES NOT
...use "scare tactics" or pressure.
...show abortion slides or pictures.
...picket or harass abortion clinics.
...evangelize.
...lobby for legislative changes or engage in the public debate on abortion.

Not exactly part of the pro-life movement, is it?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
clover wrote:

Pie chart!

Not sure what this is supposed to prove - spending 97% of your time in church and only 3% of your time killing hookers doesn't mean people who think killing hookers is wrong should let it slide.

You're missing the point.

PP has been demonized by the right as being a Satan's Hollow for abortion services, as if that is the main focus of PP.

I certainly remember Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) getting up on the floor of the U.S. Senate and stating that 90% of what PP does is abortions. When called on that lie, he backtracked and stated that his statement on the floor of the Senate of the United States of America (!) should not be taken as a "factual statement."

Abortion is not the focus of PP.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Not exactly part of the pro-life movement, is it?

Well in reality it's staffed and supported by people involved in the pro-life movement (although seems kind of nit-picky since you used the term "pro life people" interchangeably).

For a group of people who seem to think whitewashing women who've had abortions as "sluts" is a huge crime

Yes, I think that is a crime, at least if you use that labeling to then punish those women. You clearly think that 'slut' is applicable, you're saying it here, but 'slut' means having inappropriate sex. I don't think you'd be comfortable with that word if you weren't focusing on the sex.

Lots of conservative, anti-abortion women have themselves had abortions, because they just made a little mistake, they're not like those slutty liberals.

I mean, coming at it from a different angle, what you pretty much just did was to get judgemental with us for complaining about calling a spade a spade.... you say there that it's stupid that we're up in arms, just because you're calling a slut a slut.

I think you just resoundingly proved my point, Norman.

Malor wrote:

You clearly think that 'slut' is applicable, you're saying it here

Malor, that's kind of a ludicrous claim - I'm simply restating a percieved grievance expressed by the pro-choice side in this thread, in order to point out that you're also whitewashing the other side. I guess I could quote you saying "they want to punish sluts" and make the exact same argument, but that would clearly be in bad faith.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
clover wrote:

Pie chart!

Not sure what this is supposed to prove - spending 97% of your time in church and only 3% of your time killing hookers doesn't mean people who think killing hookers is wrong should let it slide.

You're missing the point.

PP has been demonized by the right as being a Satan's Hollow for abortion services, as if that is the main focus of PP.

I certainly remember Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) getting up on the floor of the U.S. Senate and stating that 90% of what PP does is abortions. When called on that lie, he backtracked and stated that his statement on the floor of the Senate of the United States of America (!) should not be taken as a "factual statement."

Abortion is not the focus of PP.

So, granted, the Kyl thing was clown shoes at is finest, but to the pro life side, that chart is still red meat.

It's like someone shows you a graph that proves capital punishment gets the right person 97% of the time. Does that make our judicial system worthy of support? If you're already against the death penalty, certainly not.

Komen changed their mind.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...

I like to think it's because of GWJ.

The pie chart upthread put them over.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

So, granted, the Kyl thing was clown shoes at is finest, but to the pro life side, that chart is still red meat.

It's like someone shows you a graph that proves capital punishment gets the right person 97% of the time. Does that make our judicial system worthy of support? If you're already against the death penalty, certainly not.

Er. What? "3% of an organization's resources go to thing A which you disapprove of" is not quite the same as "3% of the time, when thing A that you disapprove of is done, it's also done inappropriately." Not... quite.

Seth wrote:

Komen changed their mind.

Wow! Didn't expect that to happen so quickly.

Huzzah! A friend of mine works for PP's Seattle office, and has been reporting a pretty massive upswing in donations coming out of all this, to boot.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Huzzah! A friend of mine works for PP's Seattle office, and has been reporting a pretty massive upswing in donations coming out of all this, to boot.

And how. My Facebook for the last few days has been various folk vocally and vociferously making donations.

Jonman wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Huzzah! A friend of mine works for PP's Seattle office, and has been reporting a pretty massive upswing in donations coming out of all this, to boot.

And how. My Facebook for the last few days has been various folk vocally and vociferously making donations.

Yup. Mine too, though we're both living in heathen, liberal enclaves.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Huzzah! A friend of mine works for PP's Seattle office, and has been reporting a pretty massive upswing in donations coming out of all this, to boot.

And now they're apparently putting their PR money toward... pink handguns? Because women's health and handguns go together like, er, look! pink!

IMAGE(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/7/2012/02/medium_ccc6cd2951aa2ee497251131d163dffd.jpg)

Oh for the love of Mike.....

Katy wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Huzzah! A friend of mine works for PP's Seattle office, and has been reporting a pretty massive upswing in donations coming out of all this, to boot.

And now they're apparently putting their PR money toward... pink handguns? Because women's health and handguns go together like, er, look! pink!

IMAGE(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/7/2012/02/medium_ccc6cd2951aa2ee497251131d163dffd.jpg)

Now that's the kind of contraception Republicans can get behind.

momgamer wrote:

Oh for the love of Mike.....

Further reports note that the page on the Discount Gun Sales website has been pulled, and a spokesperson for Komen says there was never any association. (Huffington Post)

Maybe someday I will remember that anything that shows up on Gawker ought to be verified before throwing the story around. Not that it's easy to find actual (as opposed to regurgitated) reporting online.