Congrats, Pro-Lifers, You Won! Now I Have Just a Few Questions for You

[niyad]

Congrats, Pro-Lifers, You Won! Now I Have Just a Few Questions for You

What would your abortion compromise look like? What will you do for pregnant women who can’t afford a child? And more.


I’m writing this column before the results of Tuesday’s election are known, but I’ll go out on a limb and predict that abortion opponents will do very well. Assuming that’s true, we’ll be hearing a lot from them. We’re all familiar with their talking points—day-before-birth abortions, confused women, coercion, pro-choicers as a “death cult,” whatever that means. But surely that’s not all they’ve got. So in the spirit of rational discourse, here are some questions for abortion opponents—real questions, not rhetorical—that I’ve tried to frame in an open-ended way. I’d love to hear some thoughtful answers.

1. Illegal abortion. You often talk as if banning abortion would drastically reduce or even end it. You don’t seem very concerned about death and injury to women who have illegal procedures. (In fact, you tend to discount pro-choice claims about the danger of illegal abortion, while portraying legal abortion as vastly unsafe.) But what about the simple fact that illegal abortion is widespread in countries where abortion is virtually banned? In Brazil, for example, there are between 1 and 4 million abortions a year—at least as many as in the United States in a much smaller population—and more than 200,000 women land in the hospital with injuries or infections. Do you believe illegal abortion can be prevented, and if so, how? If not, what makes criminalization worth so much harm to women?

2. Compromise. You present pro-choicers as intransigent and yourselves as wanting modest restrictions: a twenty-week ban, stricter regulation of clinics, waiting periods. We both know that this is a tactic, and your goal is the end of legal abortion—yet most Americans don’t share this goal. Do you see any chance of a stable compromise? What would it look like?

3. Birth control. It is obvious to most Americans that birth control is the way to lower the number of abortions. Yet the fight over the Affordable Care Act’s no-co-pay birth-control provision is only the most recent demonstration that many abortion opponents want to restrict contraception too. True, a few anti-choice politicians propose putting the pill over the counter, but no major antiabortion organization supports contraception, and many opponents are redefining modern methods—the pill, the IUD and emergency contraception—as “abortifacients.” Is contraception a lesser evil than abortion or just more of the same evil? If the former, would you accept universal provision of birth control to any and all, including teens?

Follow-up: Would you support such a provision if it was limited to condoms, diaphragms and other methods that no one, not even you, can call dangerous or abortion-causing?

. . . .


http://www.thenation.com/article/188465/congrats-pro-lifers-you-won-now-i-have-just-few-questions-you

[Hekate]

1. It's all about punishing the woman, as anyone who has stood in counter-protest can tell you

To me the picket sign that says it all is: "The selfish woman plays; her unborn baby pays." Simple, black & white, to the point.

Pregnancy is punishment for sex, especially unauthorized sex. Bad, dirty, unauthorized sex. Everyone will know what shameful thing you've been doing, as your belly gets bigger. Then you'll have that bouncing baby, and the struggles and hardships of caring for it are just your further punishment, just what you deserve.



They don't have a plan, as such. No prenatal or postnatal care, no food assistance, no childcare, no low cost housing vouchers. They'd cut every last one of those things if they could. Lest anyone wonder why, I simply refer you to to what I wrote above: women are being punished for having sex.

[niyad]

6. you are exactly right about them wanting to punish women for having sex. at the heart

of every anti-choice argument lies a profound hatred for women.

[progree]

2. That was by Katha Pollitt, a LONG time twice monthly columnist for The Nation

Thanks for posting!

Much more in that column -- very much worth continuing reading. All the way through #9 (and don't skip #8 -- why are women infantilized by the "pro-life" crowd?)
http://www.thenation.com/article/188465/congrats-pro-lifers-you-won-now-i-have-just-few-questions-you

Also, an excerpt from Katha Pollitt’s new book, Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights http://www.thenation.com/article/184321/exclusive-excerpt-how-pro-choicers-can-take-back-moral-high-ground

[niyad]

5. you are most welcome--I am on a LONG waiting list in this ultra-re/conservative town

for that book!

[progree]

8. Sorry to take such a LONG time to reply, but just ran across a review of Katha Pollitt's book

Katha Pollitt's new book takes on abortion debate
http://news.yahoo.com/katha-pollitts-book-takes-abortion-debate-132940724.html

The review is a good read, and *not* LONG

[niyad]

9. thank you, will read it while waiting for the book.

[Doctor_J]

3. Very surprising that the Nation uses the "pro-life" misnomer

Since most of the anti-choice zealots are also pro-war, anti-childcare, and pro-death penalty, they are definitely not pro-life.

[progree]

4. Well, but, but, they are pro-Blastula. And they are against Medicaid expansion with all its

death panels u know ("they" in the title being the anti-choice zealots)

[niyad]

7. . . .