November 7, 2013

"I’m pro-choice... Sometimes in my darker moments, I’m anti-choice. I think abortion should be mandatory for about 30 years."

Said Dan Savage, when invited to express a "dangerous idea" that might "change the world for the better."

So, obviously, he's kidding, but what springs to a person's mind upon a particular prompting says something about that mind. You can't know exactly what, and, in fact, even when a person wants to be taken seriously and literally, you can't know that he's conveyed precisely what's in his mind.

We can only speculate what lies behind the outburst "abortion should be mandatory for about 30 years." I'd speculate that Savage isn't just pro-choice, he's pro-abortion. Not that he would require women to get abortions.

Mandatory abortions, of the sort done in China, are terrible impositions on a woman's bodily integrity. I doubt if Savage likes that idea  — although it's possible that he gets a kick out picturing a forced abortions performed on socially conservative women whose offspring are too likely to grow up to be socially conservative voters.

77 comments:

betamax3000 said...

"I'm sad to report that Dan Savage has no Discernible Intellect."

Brent said...

While it is obviously said to provoke, the underlying "issue" is not real. There is no threat of overpopulation today, with many first world countries well below their needed replacement birth rate.In fact, the 11 states with the lowest replacement birth rate in the US are all "blue" states and the most fertile are "red" states. 2/3 of the children born in the US currently are born in Texas)

Overpopulation? Please.Seriously, what is wrong with the mental state and basic intelligence deficiencies of liberals these days? I absolutely want to know. DO they read facts and just refuse to see reality? Every liberal today seems to be another Fox Butterfield.

EDH said...

I'd speculate that Savage isn't just pro-choice, he's pro-abortion. Not that he would require women to get abortions.

"...Not that there's anything wrong with that."

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...

The liberal impulse is always to compulsion. It is always a sense of "the mass of people are too stupid for their own good." We need philosopher kings to rule over them. If you really like your health plan, well you're too stupid to keep it. We know better.

Fandor said...

Dan has a savage battle between good and evil going on inside him. My hope is he'll allow good to win.

Henry said...

Why stop at fetuses, Dan?

madAsHell said...

His genes will not be expressed in the next generation. Maybe he speaks from regret....

Lyssa said...

"So, obviously, he's kidding."

Dead babies and forced impositions on women's bodily integrity. Hilarious.

Whenever I hear someone say how much they like Dan Savage, my respect for them immediately drops significantly. How can people respect these types?

Big Mike said...

So, obviously, he's kidding ...

Why "obviously kidding'" Professor? My own take is that he took one look at the push-back and pretended he had been kidding. I think you're being gullible to accept his "just joking" at face value.

Brent said...

Jim,

You are spot on. The liberal impulse is always to control the lives and choices of others. It's not from a sincere desire to help. It's from the Sinful desire to have power and exert over others. The modern Democrat party provides a home for everyone wanting to have power, no matter how detailed, over other people. The complete opposite of those pushing for freedom and liberty. The road of the Democrat party - and i say this from personal observation over the last 50 years in this country - always leads towards corruption and eventual fascism. It is impossible to not. If conservatives laid down tomorrow (you know, "Why don't Republicans get in line with President Obama - he won" stuff) the country would cease to be the Super Power and leader of the free world in less than 3 years. THAT's how corrupt morally and politically the Democrat Party and it's progressive fellow travelers are in this country today. That's how dangerous to the American ideal.

And, as Dan Savage and his ilk of Overpopulation mental deficients so clearly shows, intelligence and inquiry will be decimated and corrupted as well.

Matthew Sablan said...

I take him at his word; it is an idea that he thinks about, flirts with, but would never seriously propose. I think of a lot of things that hey, would be efficient or effective, but that I would never seriously suggest because of the moral ramifications.

Edward Lunny said...

Mandatory abortion huh. I volunteer dan for one of those, performed by Kermit Gosnell, maybe today. Kermit will need larger jars for dan's feet, but, that shouldn't be any trouble.
I don't doubt for a minute that this sanctimonious asshat gleefully wishes that abortions could be forced on those that he finds distasteful. The most vehement and vociferous libs wish this on their opposition routinely I suspect. He just expressed those thoughts out loud. The thin veil of jest is not convincing.

Matthew Sablan said...

(Of course, I could also take him at his Twitter word, which just means he can't deliver a joke, or he dead pans in situations where dead panning is inappropriate.)

Alana Henkel said...

Dan Savage: "I believe women should have the right to control their bodies."

This irks me. It is implying that without birth control and abortion, my body is out of control. It is telling me that I must use modern and/or lethal science to control what happens to my body once a month. We shouldn't use science to understand how each individual body works and respect it, we need to suppress it with hormones so we can serve our sexual male masters who should get what they want. But no, it's my right to choose what I want to do with my body.

I call bullshit Dan Savage. You are the one who can't control your body. You are the one who can impregnate a woman 365 days of the year. And then to suggest that abortion should be mandatory again, as throughout history, puts the reproductive blame on the woman.

Rusty said...

Neeeever heard of him.

Matthew Sablan said...

I'm not a fan of Dan Savage, I barely know anything he says, but I think that's a very... unforgiving and ungenerous reading of what he says. It sounds like he's fine with people who choose not to have abortions, but that he doesn't want people to deny that option to people. He might be more extreme than that, but I don't get that from what he said.

MattL said...

Nothing says "joke" like, "Your children should have been killed."

I didn't think my opinion of him could get worse, but obviously I was wrong. Why do people so worried about over population not lead by example?

RecChief said...

all his comments did was reinforce the image I have in my mind of the most strident people who call themselves "pro-choice". Margaret Sanger would be proud, I imagine.

Moose said...

Wasn't it "dangerous thoughts" that got Summers' ass kicked while he was at Harvard?

MattL said...

Shortly after my initial reaction, I thought about studies that say that getting birth and breastfeeding before 30 seems to reduce the risk of breast cancer in women.

drozz said...

margaret sanger would be so proud

Bob Ellison said...

"Mandatory abortions, of the sort done in China, are terrible impositions on a woman's bodily integrity."

That's where the outrage lies?

Edward Lunny said...

" margaret sanger would be so proud " Yes, she would. The baby slaughter supporters, however, deny sanger's position and writings on abortion and its use.

Alexander said...

Killing off great swaths of the population one doesn't approve of isn't exactly "obviously joking" material.

I've heard leftists say on numerous occasions that parenthood should require a government license. If you pushed mandatory sterilization (if mandatory abortions were just a tad too much) on the proles, there'd be more than a few in the government-media-academia complex who'd view it as "A Good Thing."

But heh heh, we're just joking between friends, amirite?

traditionalguy said...

Is he implying that those who welcome and support socially approved and financed abortions of babies in other families need to receive the same result in their family? That would be a cruel justice of sorts. But dead babies do not vote, so its a silly thought.

bbkingfish said...

Anne Althouse says:

"Mandatory abortions, of the sort done in China, are terrible impositions on a woman's bodily integrity."

I agree.

If that's true, though, would it not be the case that forcing women not to have abortions (mandatory continuation?) is a terrible imposition on a woman's bodily integrity? Or is it more simply the case that the conservative/pro-life impulse is always to compulsion (as commenter Jim might have it)?

mjoyce said...

I almost hesitate to make such a nasty comment re: Mr. Dan Savage, but... I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire.

cubanbob said...

If the time comes that prenatal testing could determine whether or not the fetus would be gay Dan Savage would be far less conflicted about abortions.

PB Reader said...

Liberals should have all the abortions they want. Please let them stop breeding!

EDH said...

Does Savage say anything about elective abortions if they identify a "gay" gene?

MattL said...

Or is it more simply the case that the conservative/pro-life impulse is always to compulsion (as commenter Jim might have it)?

Indeed. Compulsion against murder is an "always" thing.

The Genius Savant said...

"Mandatory abortions, of the sort done in China, are terrible impositions on a woman's bodily integrity."

Here's a dirty little secret: so are voluntary ones, physically, mentally and emotionally.

Alexander said...

Seconded, I will take that label.

I am always against murdering babies. I don't do nuance and penumbras on that issue. Feel free to call me uncompromising.

The Genius Savant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Carnifex said...

We should ask the survivors of Auschwitz if this is the road liberals want to go down.

On the other hand, if we do all get behind Sanger and her group, we wouldn't have to worry about Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, etc. for very long.

Sounds like Brawndo to me.

Jane said...

Last I checked, progressives weren't very willing to condemn forced abortions in China, but either took the "who am I to judge?" line or even express that, in their situation, it's probably the right policy to combat overpopulation.

I don't think he's kidding. I think there are plenty of people who would be more than happy to require a mix of abortion and forced sterilization in all poor countries with high birth rates.

Seeing Red said...

It's a shame his mother didn't practice what he preaches.

chuckunderscore said...

Dan Savage is only technically a human being.

Greg said...

Yes, what EDH said regarding a gay gene. We have already seen that gender selective abortion hasn't changed anyone's mind. I wonder if sexuality would trump gender for liberals as it has in many other issues.

Renee said...

What no mandatory vasectomies and condom use for 30 years?

Saint Croix said...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her New York Times interview that she thought Roe v. Wade was motivated by population control.

And she was not joking.

handworn said...

The reason for him sometimes wanting to be anti-choice is that he wants cause not to result in effect, as most on the Left do with hated effects, and lacking the ability to make that so or ameliorate the effect with someone else's money, he wants people not to be free to do the cause.

Alexander said...

Gender selection didn't change anything because for each individual women, reality had it as a given that *she* couldn't be aborted, so it's a question of her having the right to abortion versus some other women paying the being aborted cost.

The gay gene, should it exist, will blow the whole game out of the water. It will take a while though - first it will be Asians and Africans aborting their gay babies, and that will be kept under the rug. But as soon as white women jump onto that wagon... grab your popcorn.

Andy Freeman said...

> are terrible impositions on a woman's bodily integrity

Mandatory military service is also a terrible imposition.

Heck, taxes are also a terrible imposition. People die because of work and taxes force people to do more work than they would otherwise.

So, what is different about abortions? Is it abortion or that women can't handle what we expect of men? (trigger alert anyone?)

RecChief said...

Bob Ellison said...
"Mandatory abortions, of the sort done in China, are terrible impositions on a woman's bodily integrity."

That's where the outrage lies"?



Well said sir.

jacksonjay said...


Does Savage say anything about elective abortions if they identify a "gay" gene?

Because, "who would choose to be gay"?

Mike said...

Dan Savage sounds like part of the rape culture to me.

newton said...

"[I]t's possible that he gets a kick out picturing a forced abortions performed on socially conservative women whose offspring are too likely to grow up to be socially conservative voters."

Ya think?

Paul said...

I wonder how old Dan Savage's mother was when she had him?

Below 30?

If so, no Dan Savage!

jr565 said...

"Mandatory abortions, of the sort done in China, are terrible impositions on a woman's bodily integrity. "


If you make it about empowerment then women will do the job on themselves.
China should simply shift and make forced abortions be about feminism.

jacksonjay said...

Dan Savage is one! He is also the bully he condemns!

jr565 said...

I wish Dan's mom had chosen abortion.

sean said...

Many gay men are pretty seriously gynephobic. (I used to have a lot of gay friends and hang out in gay bars a lot.) Both Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage display a strong residue (if not more) of that subculture. So it's entirely possible that Savage is emotionally not displeased by the visual image of forced abortion, although political correctness forces him to pay some lip service to the right of women to control their own bodies.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

We should be careful to distinguish between rights and privileges. We have an unalienable right to life. We have a privilege to terminate unwanted or undesirable life.

What perspective should society normalize? Do we want individuals to unilaterally decide the fate of a human life, whether it lives or dies without cause or due process?

What are the consequences of degrading human life to a commodity status? Should individual dignity only be respected when earned through economic activity or exploited for leverage?

What will we sacrifice if individuals are incapable of self-moderating, responsible behavior? There is a reason why we constrain the liberty of young or immature individuals. There is a reason why we constrain the liberty of individuals who engage in involuntary or redistributive exploitation.

This all begins with a choice between life and death, which sets a reference for our perspective. Hopefully, people will regret their choice, but there is no guarantee that their conscience will survive uncorrupted. Not to mention that a human life was deprived of its unalienable right before it had an opportunity to exercise it corollary right to self-defense.

It's not about pro-abortion, pro-choice, or even pro-life. It is first about an unalienable right to life. We should be careful of unintended consequences when violating fundamental rights... to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

ken in sc said...

He must be a Bible believing man.

“Happy is the man... who smashes your little ones on the rocks” Ps 137, v-9

Paddy O said...

Isn't that proposing a new holocaust?

What was it the editor of the Wisconsin Badger called the letter she published?

"morally repugnant, patriarchal... offensive... the embodiment of rape culture... horrifically misguided... repellent... reprehensible... hateful... infuriating... ugly."

That actually really does apply to Savage's comments, in a non-hyperbolic way.

I suspect he will be defended. Which is the real situation with a rape culture in America.

damikesc said...

Has he ever made an intelligent insight in his life?

The only thing smart coming out of his mouth is the cock of a smart guy.

I'm not a fan of Dan Savage, I barely know anything he says, but I think that's a very... unforgiving and ungenerous reading of what he says.

Arguable. But Bill Bennett certainly got no such concern about misrepresentation of his comments in regards to black abortion and reducing crime rates in referencing Freakonomics.

Jim S. said...

There is a movement that claims existence is a harm. They say that all pregnancies should be terminated, although once the baby is born, killing it would be an even greater harm, so they don't advocate killing people outside of the womb. But the long-term goal is that human beings stop procreating and that we go extinct. There's philosophy books defending this.

MadisonMan said...

Cue the outrage.

I call bullshit Dan Savage. You are the one who can't control your body. You are the one who can impregnate a woman 365 days of the year.

Uh huh.

Because so many gay men are going around raping women.

Continue being outraged.

Savage said something that can be interpreted in a variety of ways (I don't know exactly how to interpret it, as I wasn't there to see it). So he gets a lot of web hits, and you all fall for it.

Hook, line and sinker.

32.and.Stewart said...

Gay Democrats.....

Matthew Sablan said...

I think I'm the only one who read this to mean: "For the next 30 years, no more kids (forced abortions if needed)," not "All women should be subject to abortions until they're 30."

I'm too lazy to read it again to see whether I was wrong or right in my initial reading.

Inga said...

Progressives do not agree with forcing women into abortion in China or anywhere, nor do they agree with forcing women to bear a baby. Why is it that compelling a person to do something or not to do something with legislation is OK when it's what rightists want? Its called freedom of choice. If a woman doesn't want an abortion, she isn't compelled to have one in this country, last I looked.

Saint Croix said...

Why don't feminists analogize a forced abortion to a rape? It seems directly analogous to me.

Certainly more violent than an ultrasound in an abortion clinic.

And what would we say about a straight man who, in his darker moments, fantasized about a society where lesbians would be forcibly impregnated for 30 years or so?

paul a'barge said...

I doubt if Savage likes that idea — although it's possible that he gets a kick out picturing a forced abortions performed on socially conservative women whose offspring are too likely to grow up to be socially conservative voters.

ding dong.

Is anybody home? Srsly?

This guy's track record of vile debauchery and moral turpitude doesn't speak out to you?

Srsly?

MadisonMan said...

think I'm the only one who read this to mean: "For the next 30 years, no more kids (forced abortions if needed)," not "All women should be subject to abortions until they're 30."


FWIW, I read it the same way.

Paddy O said...

me too

Kirby Olson said...

So he's considering genocide and finds it makes him feel cheerful.

damikesc said...

Savage said something that can be interpreted in a variety of ways (I don't know exactly how to interpret it, as I wasn't there to see it). So he gets a lot of web hits, and you all fall for it.

He got no hits from me. "Attention whore" isn't all that entertaining a thing.

The Godfather said...

Assuming the advocacy of forced abortion was a savage joke -- excuse me, a Savage joke -- it's in the same category as jokes to the effect that Hitler's final solution was stopped too soon. Decent people don't tell such jokes.

Bob Ellison said...

"Children are a gift from God."

(heard from a business associate, a good and honest Latino American citizen, about twenty years ago)

n.n said...

Whether it is forced abortion for 30 years, or forced abortion until you are 30 years old, the outcome is the same: denial of an unalienable right to life. Either interpretation is corrupt.

Perhaps he meant forced sterilization of women and men who are unwilling or incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions. They have a right to choose their fate. They have no right to deprive a child of life without cause or due process.

There cannot be an unalienable right to pursuit (or opportunity) of happiness, or liberty, without an unalienable right to life. Our government was instituted to preserve our unalienable rights. Women and men need to make better choices.

pst314 said...

"Progressives do not agree with forcing women into abortion in China"

I know progressives who DO approve of China's forced abortion policy--even its cultural genocide of the Tibetans and other non-Han groups.

Unknown said...

"although it's possible that he gets a kick out picturing a forced abortions performed on socially conservative women whose offspring are too likely to grow up to be socially conservative voters." That sounds perilously like something the Nazis would have done, did do, actually.

MattL said...

Inga said, "Why is it that compelling a person to do something or not to do something with legislation is OK when it's what rightists want? Its called freedom of choice."

I get that there is honest disagreement about this. However, do people who say things such as the above truly believe this or are they willfully misunderstanding the other side? I suppose that can vary from person to person.

What about you, Inga? Has an explanation of pro-life sentiment ever sunk in, or do you really just ignore what people say and make up your mind assuming that plainly stated reasons are just cover for some more nefarious truth?

AJ Lynch said...

I wonder if we should bring back orphanages to house the kids we take away from crappy, loser, dumb, almost criminal parents who are not qualified to raise kids.