February 12, 2014

"Governor Walker says it's 'ridiculous' to comment on the state of women's health care in Wisconsin because 'no one is talking about those issues.'"

NARAL is urging people to "Call Governor Walker every Wednesday during the legislative session and tell him women's health matters!" I went to that page as a result of email from NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin with the subject line "We ARE talking about women's health." (I don't know why I get email from them. I see how to unsubscribe from their email list, but I choose not to.)

There's a short clip at the link with Scott Walker responding to an interviewer, deflecting a question about women's reproductive rights on the ground that "women I talk to in my state never talk about that issue." Here's a longer clip, and I can see that the interview is from August 2012, in the heat of the presidential campaign, and his point was to focus on the economy:



Actually, even that longer clip is out of context. The interviewer, Amy Goodman (of Democracy Now!), is shown in the middle of something and ending "On choice, on abortion, with Paul Ryan being the vice-presidential candidate, do you share his views?" What views? What did Paul Ryan say as paraphrased by Goodman? Walker's response is "That’s a ridiculous question." What, exactly, did Walker call "a ridiculous question"? NARAL would like you think that Walker — now, even after the presidential 2012 race is over — thinks "the state of women's health care in Wisconsin" is beneath his concern.


Goodman did follow up with: "You’re saying women’s reproductive rights is a ridiculous question?" And Walker — who is one guy who takes a position and sticks to it — says "It is." I would have gone all lawprof and said "Women’s reproductive rights is not a question. It's a phrase. You'd like to catch me minimizing concerns about women's health, but you know that is not my point. My point is that this is a presidential campaign, and what is at stake right now is the economy, and what I'm saying is that women and men alike are going to vote based on which candidate is best suited to deal with economic problems."

But Goodman got him on record saying "it is" to "women’s reproductive rights is a ridiculous question," and now NARAL is fundraising and campaigning against Walker. They're trying to get this hashtag going: #WeAreTalkingWI.

I'm posting about this because I'm interested in following the way Republicans — especially my Governor — are playing the "war on women" political game. Saying the real issue is the economy is one good move, but it shouldn't be the only move. And your opponents are always looking to snag that one line that will be used against you.

ADDED: Goodman asked her question shortly before Paul Ryan spoke to the GOP convention in 2012, and I consulted the text of that speech to see if I could extrapolate what views of his might have been presented to Walker to elicit that "ridiculous." There's no mention of abortion or birth control or even health care. I did a search for "women" and every single time Ryan used that word, it was in the phrase "men and women." Republicans don't want to talk about gender, but they will be forced at least to talk about not talking about it. They've got to figure out how to do that well and without offending female sensitivities, and they've got to remember that their opponents will always be prodding women to feel offended by whatever can be portrayed as misogynistic, mean, or just uncaring.

Clue: Women hate to be called "ridiculous."

147 comments:

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

I'd use a paraphrase of Coulter's line: If there IS a war on women, it's kind of ironic that the only confirmed kill so far is by Democrat Ted Kennedy, though Bill Clinton does have several wounded to his credit.

Jason said...

You can no longer talk to liberal women as if they were adults.

EDH said...

"Democracy Now!" What other news show has an exclamation point in its title? By its own billing it's a socialist tantrum.

Hagar said...

"Women's reproductive rights" is an identifying badge, so what Walker said was "No, I am not a progressive Democrat," which most people in Wisconsin presumably already know.

Brennan said...

NARAL sucks at gotcha politics.

Quote from 2 years ago. CHECK.
Video from left wing crank. CHECK.

Just sick the pink communists on ole Scott. They can force the conversation decked out in pink from head to toe.

Temujin said...

#WeAreTalkingMoronsWI

Does anybody outside of a University and over the age of 18 buy this stuff?

Oh, let's toss in the entire State of California…and Oregon, Washington, New York. They buy it, but that's it: Universities, under 18 year olds, California, Oregon, Washington, New York. ….And Maryland. And Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, DC. That's all. Plus Ann Arbor, Madison. Really…does anyone still buy this stuff? Virginia. Pennsylvania. New Mexico.

Jesus…this country is pretty much screwed for the foreseeable future.

Renee said...

Our reproductive choices are based on our economic prospects. More men with jobs would increase our reproductive choices, but when did NARAL care about women choosing to have children?

Women can't postpone pregnancy forever. That why the term unintended vs intended pregnacies don't tell the full socioeconomic picture of our choices.

One of the founders (a doctor who performed abortions) converted to Catholicism.

I will almost always vote for the local Democrat with a lower NARAL rating over a Republican in Massachusetts.

duntov283 said...

The NARAL women, they just want to keep having the unborn women killed, is that not the idea?

How is killing the unborn women not a "War on Women"?

The white, middle class women in America, they are the show poodles. Yipping, yipping, yipping, always in the center ring of the show.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rusty said...

Whatever happened to "My body, my self" and the 'right to privacy'?
Why are your "reproductive rights" all of a sudden the Republics business?

Inga said...

Abortion Bills US Congress 2013

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/subjects/abortion/5897

Curious George said...

"Women’s reproductive rights..." is not a "woman's health issue. It's not even about reproductive rights...I don't know of any woman who is denied to the right to reproduce.

This is about killing a human fetus.

Why is every progressive position varnished over to hide it's truth?

rhhardin said...

Pander to the women. They're idiots and they vote.

Inga said...

Republicans will lose this battle. First of all the notion that there is no war on women's reproductive rights is ludicrous. The tactic of making it appear that no one is talking about it and therefore isn't a concern is very foolish. The attempt to describe women as people who are being marginalized by the Democratic Party because they have concerns regarding their reproductive rights, yes that includes access to abortion, is doubly foolish. Democrats do not think women are helpless creatures, that is the notion that Republicans want to project to manipulate voters.

Women are not fooled, nor impressed.

It was an issue that helped win the Presidency in 2012, as it once again will in 2016, because some people never learn.

MadisonMan said...

First of all the notion that there is no war on women's reproductive rights is ludicrous

Just last night the mortars were flying through the sky here, explosions shaking the foundations of all the houses in the neighborhood. This war on women's reproductive rights is a take-no-prisoners kinda thing I guess.

Does this mean the War On Christmas is over?

Illuninati said...

Inga said:

"Women are not fooled, nor impressed."

Perhaps Inga meant to say, Inga is not fooled, nor is Inga impressed. There are many women who disagree with Inga.

Inga said...

State Level Assalt on Abortion Rights Continues

Anti abortion legislation in the states.

donald said...

Don't be ridiculous and nobody will say you are ridiculous.

Anne and Inga does not speak for the vast majority of women I know. They think crap like this is well, ridiculous.

garage mahal said...

What did Paul Ryan say as paraphrased by Goodman?

Rape is just another form of conception.

donald said...

Don't be ridiculous and nobody will say you are ridiculous.

Anne and Inga does not speak for the vast majority of women I know. They think crap like this is well, ridiculous.

Lyssa said...

Sigh. I've got nothing. Apparently, a number of women want to be pandered to; they want to have drugs handed to them while people who have actual illnesses are required to pay; they want to be patted on the head and told they are victims and will be saved from the evil oppressors; they want to be children who are not responsible for their actions no matter who gets hurt or even killed.

It's not every woman, but it's too many. Inga proves that in spades. I don't know what to do about it.

Brennan said...

Republicans will lose this battle. First of all the notion that there is no war on women's reproductive rights is ludicrous.

This is a nice, shiny, red herring.

The point is, citizens are not asking Scott Walker about it. If they're not asking him about it, are they even talking about it?

This is about public policy priorities and "women's health" is one that you have to force on politicians at this time.

Inga said...

Inga said:

"Women are not fooled, nor impressed."
-------------------------
"Perhaps Inga meant to say, Inga is not fooled, nor is Inga impressed. There are many women who disagree with Inga"

2/12/14, 8:50 AM
--------------------------
Illuninati, not enough to win any elections. This is not a winning issue for conservatives. It only makes it more likely Republicans won't win any Presidential elections any time soon. The veto pen is mighty. Whatever did happen to conservatives focus on the economy rather than women's issues?

Illuninati said...

Abortion as a form of birth control is a moral issue and I side with the antiabortion forces on that. Asserting the right to human life is not a "war on women." On the other hand, Ronald Reagan said he was against abortion except for when the life of the mother is in danger, when the baby is the result of incest, and in cases of rape. Some of the antiabortion proponents are unwilling to permit those carve outs. I believe that those who would deny abortion under those circumstances really do intend to infringe on a woman's civil rights.

Rusty said...


"It's not every woman, but it's too many. Inga proves that in spades. I don't know what to do about it."

Help them to become lesbians.

Mark said...

I am sure we will hear about the ultrasound bill Walker signed, the one even McDonnell in VA was smart enough to not sign.

Walker appeased the pro lifers in this state through a couple bills. He should expect to hear about bills he signed.

Lyssa said...

Whatever did happen to conservatives focus on the economy rather than women's issues?

Exactly my point. Walker says "this is ridiculous, let's focus on the economy" and women who want to be child-like victims hear "War on women" and complain (lie) that the focus is on women when it should be on the economy. People just want to be victims; they'll hear anything to make it so.

Inga said...

"I am sure we will hear about the ultrasound bill Walker signed, the one even McDonnell in VA was smart enough to not sign.

Walker appeased the pro lifers in this state through a couple bills. He should expect to hear about bills he signed."

2/12/14, 9:01 AM

Oh yes he certainly will.

Illuninati said...

Inga said:
"Whatever did happen to conservatives focus on the economy rather than women's issues?"

So far as I know, conservatives have always opposed abortion. Claiming that people who have a moral objection to terminating the life of an innocent human being are conducting a "war on women" is reprehensible. I would much rather lose elections than to promote something which is immoral.

John said...

Could someone define "Women's healthcare" for me?

SOunds like it is not really about health, illness, disease, insurance or anything else that we might normally think of as "Healthcare"

Sounds like it is just a euphemism for abortion on demand.

Why can't they just call a spade a spade and demand Walker talk about abortion rights.

(rhetorical question. I know the answer, of course)

John Henry

Inga said...

If you Republican women want to be victims, have at it. Democratic women would rather stand up and fight.

Titus said...

Sorry old white pubes but if you can't win women you lose....deal with it.

Single women really no likey you.

Inga said...

"I would much rather lose elections than to promote something which is immoral."

2/12/14, 9:05 AM

Be our guest. No problem.

Lyssa said...

Some of the antiabortion proponents are unwilling to permit those carve outs. I believe that those who would deny abortion under those circumstances really do intend to infringe on a woman's civil rights.

And who are those people? Is Scptt Walker one? Are any of them running for president or any significant office?

This is a boogyman to scare people who want to be scared and rescued.

Illuninati said...

"Sorry old white pubes but if you can't win women you lose....deal with it."

Someone is letting their own racism and ageism show.

Big Mike said...

Let's just make abortion mandatory. That would make NARAL happy would it not?

Illuninati said...

Lyssa said...
"Some of the antiabortion proponents are unwilling to permit those carve outs.
And who are those people? Is Scptt Walker one? Are any of them running for president or any significant office?"

Lyssa, I'm sorry to tell you that in the last debate I watched for what I believe was lieutenant governor of Texas, not one candidate was willing to go on record to allow abortion for rape.

Bruce Hayden said...

First of all the notion that there is no war on women's reproductive rights is ludicrous.

At least right now, the war isn't about women's reproductive rights, but rather women's right to fetalicide, or near infanticide. The debate today is about 3rd trimester abortions of viable fetuses that are an emergency C-section away from full legal personhood as babies. And, thanks to feminists like Inga, the doctors performing these late term abortions don't seem to observe this distinction that closely - killing the babies mistakenly delivered in a botched late term abortion just as if they had been killed in utero. Remember that abortion doctor who was recently convicted of murder? Thanks to pressure by the feminists, the state inspectors had quit inspecting his clinic decades earlier.

The right to third trimester abortions is under siege right now because it is seen by a majority in this country as murder. A lot of reasons for this, and one of them is that we now can easily see what a 7, 8, 9 month fetus looks like in utero via ultrasound.

In my view, the question ceases to be about women's reproductive choices, and rather becomes about murder of the expectant baby when the fetus becomes viable. If a woman wants reproductive choices, she can abort in the first trimester. And, if she snoozes, she loses. Third trimester, and she is stuck parenting the child, unless she and the father give it up for adoption.

So, yes, let's talk about women's reproductive choices - and realize that aborted girl babies don't have any.

Inga said...

Thanks Illuninati for that honesty.

Texas has gone so far as to require a dead woman to carry a fetus.

Illuninati said...

Inga said:

"Texas has gone so far as to require a dead woman to carry a fetus."

Actually no. That woman and fetus are underground now.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Renee said...

NARAL plays on a woman's fear of being pregnant and abandonded. And it works.

"I am alone. I am abandoned. I am trapped. Nobody can feel what I am feeling, and there is nobody who can help me out of this place I find myself in. I am utterly alone.

That is what drives most abortion-minded down to the nearest Planned Parenthood or women's 'services' clinic. It isn't politics. It isn't even religious beliefs, or a lack thereof, necessarily. It is loneliness, and the fear that accompanies the desolating poverty of options that a woman facing a crisis pregnancy perceives.

My parents will kill me. My boyfriend will leave me. My Church will reject me. My husband will walk away. Her husband will find out what we've done. I'll lose my job. I'll lose my friends. I'll lose my life."

http://www.mamaneedscoffee.com/2014/02/abortion-hollywood-gets-it-right.html

One of the more frustrated lines I hear is that those who are pro-life do not care about the family after the child is born. Again it is this fear of abandonment that NARAL promotes.

We all fall for it as young women.

n.n said...

Victoria father welcomes healthy baby Iver, says goodbye to wife on life support

The father celebrates his wife's life by welcoming their child. The mother will be laid to rest, now that her body has fulfilled its last obligation. The child will learn of her mother's tragic end and honor her memory. The father made the right choice.

There is a similar case in America. The father requested to remove his wife's body from life support in order to abort their baby. The judge concurred and ordered the hospital to comply. The civil and human "rights" activists were overjoyed with thoughts of a million and one abortions dancing through their collective heads.

Make life, not abortion.

Inga said...

Inga said:

"Texas has gone so far as to require a dead woman to carry a fetus."
-------------------
"Actually no. That woman and fetus are underground now."

2/12/14, 9:18 AM
--------------------
Yes I know, and may they rest in peace, at long last.

bbkingfish said...

No one Walker knows is talking about these issues.

Illuninati said...

Inga said...
"Late term abortion opponents will only make it harder to reform or overturn Roe v. Wade, by all these anti abortion measures which include far more than late term abortion restrictions. I refer you to my links."

I can't imagine Roe v. Wade being overturned anytime soon. In a sense Althouse's question whether the debate would be different if Roe v. Wade were overturned is interesting. Right now the debate is largely hypothetical.

Lyssa said...

Lyssa, I'm sorry to tell you that in the last debate I watched for what I believe was lieutenant governor of Texas, not one candidate was willing to go on record to allow abortion for rape.

It's already allowed. Were they stating that they would support legislation (and a Supreme Court fight) that would take it away? Or were they simply taking a position on the morality of it, which others would spin into a threat?

n.n said...

Renee:

It is precisely the situation you described which motivated traditional wisdom to call for marriage before sex. The progressive culture emphasizes gratification over function. The traditional culture emphasizes function over gratification. The former has caused corruption. While the conflict has engendered irreconcilable differences.

Ralph Hyatt said...

"Republicans don't want to talk about gender, but they will be forced at least to talk about not talking about it. They've got to figure out how to do that well and without offending female sensitivities"

Some people are going to be offended no matter what. You can always take something someone said out of context and make them sound bad.

"Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him"

Cardinal Richelieu

Illuninati said...

Lyssa said:

"It's already allowed. Were they stating that they would support legislation (and a Supreme Court fight) that would take it away"

They didn't go into details about what they would do. The lefties have largely reduced the debate to epithets. The result is that some of the defenders of life are defensive and are not able to articulate the legitimate reasons for abortion.

Renee said...

But married women can be pressured as well, but harder to abandon a married women yet also in a position for the husband to be more coercive.

Inga said...

If you are in favor of restricting late term abortions, as I am, it will only make it harder to reform or overturn Roe v. Wade, by enacting all these anti abortion measures which include far more than late term abortion restrictions. They are more concerned with outlawing most abortion. I refer you to my links.

Curious George said...

"Inga said...
they have concerns regarding their reproductive rights, yes that includes access to abortion, is doubly foolish."

What other than abortion does "reproductive rights" include Inga?

Bruce Hayden said...

The problem with carve outs for rape, etc., at least for adult and near adult women, is that we are talking third, and maybe late second, trimester abortions. The woman has had 6-7-8-9 months to have an abortion, and then waited until the fetus was viable to abort. Concentrating about rape is just trying to confuse the situation. She had 4-5-6 months to abort, and snoozed through that.

Remember this - Roe v. Wade, et seq., are the law of the land. First trimester abortions are very unlikely to become illegal any time in our lifetimes. That decision essentially talked about a sliding scale, throughout pregnancy, with the primacy of interests starting with the woman in the first trimester, and moving towards the baby as the woman nears term (or is delivered prematurely). These laws that Inga, et al., are fighting against deal with late term, mostly 3rd term, pregnancies, where the fetus is viable, and an emergency C-section away from being babies with full legal rights. Not the day after, or even a couple months later. What she is complaining about are laws that would not allow a woman to abort a near term, fully viable fetus, on the grounds that she had been raped 6-7-8-9 months earlier. As I said earlier - my view is that if carrying the baby to term and raising it (or giving it up for adoption) were so horrible, the woman has had 5-6-7-8-9 months in which to abort it.

n.n said...

Abortion is not principally a women's right issue. Women have the right to forgo sex or prevent conception until they are ready, if they are ever ready, to accept responsibility.

The relevant issue is when and by whose determination does a human life acquire value?

Most people agree, and a minority will concede when pressed, that a human life does not remain a commodity throughout its evolution.

The other issues are dependent, but are only symptoms, not the cause.

The minority cases of involuntary and superior exploitation must be addressed separately, but they do not change the fact that the human life to be aborted is wholly innocent.

SGT Ted said...

NARAL and the Dems need there to be a War on Women, so they are stirring one up. Especially since there isn't one going on. Women won, but they keep campaigning like they lost.

Democrats want to keep talking about vaginas when no one can get a job and have lost the healthcare they liked and could afford due to the ACA replacing it with a more expensive plan that they cannot afford. None of the Democrats bullshit lies claiming that "no one lost their insurance" is sticking with anyone who isn't a kool-aid drinker already.

Its just the usual leftist press bullshit. The only reason this shit sticks is the corruption of the press in collusion with one political party. They have less and less credibility.

Amy Goodman isn't a "reporter"; she's a leftwing activist. No one outside of the fever swamp left or a righty who reads the left knows who Amy Goodman is, nor do they listen to "Democracy Now!" which is a niche NPR program dedicated to the latest lefty whine about whatever.

She got her precious sound bite and yea who the fuck cares about NARAL?

Aren't women about evenly split on abortion? NARAL is preaching to the choir.

The Dems have NOTHING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT EXCEPT WOMENS VAGINAS.

Because they have been complete and utter failures on everything else they have been talking about fixing and everybody knows it and are calling them out on it. The economy, healthcare, the War with Radical Islam, attacking the energy industry, their criminal abuse of Government power going after dissenters. President Obama behaving like a Banana Republic dictator issuing lawless decrees.

That "vagina" stuff will not win them elections. Not this go round.

Renee said...

I speak with sensitivity on this. I completely understand forced sex means forced pregnancy against a women's consent.

Its are argument to make against the rape exception.

I'm on a position that the fetus is still a human life, and not less of a human life because of rape. The fetus didn't rape the woman, no one gets to choose the circumstances they are conceived in.

Are there any good laws that help women who choose to keep the pregnancy from their
rapist from asserting parental rights?

It is easier to prove rape from a stranger vs. someone the woman knows. So what laws can help rape victims who want to go full term
with the pregnancy.

n.n said...

That woman and fetus are underground now.

They made the wrong choice. In order to accommodate the father's unstable state of mind, they executed a wholly innocent human life.

It's telling that groups like the ACLU did not protest this gross miscarriage of justice. They seem to be more concerned about leverage or reducing the problem set than civil or human rights.

Illuninati said...

Bruce Hayden said...
"The problem with carve outs for rape, etc., at least for adult and near adult women, is that we are talking third, and maybe late second, trimester abortions."

I won't disagree with your experience but in my own experience that is not the debate. The opponents of abortion in the case of rape I've heard usually do not limit their statements to late term abortion.

Renee said...

Argh...

'So what is the argument to make against the rape exception."


Not "Its are....."

My apologies.

SGT Ted said...

How is killing the unborn women not a "War on Women"?

Because those women in the womb don't count; they aren't "real women", just like Sarah Palin isn't a "real woman". Like all totalitarian thought controllers, they have to dehumanize their targets to justify what they do to them as "OK" and right.

n.n said...

Lyssa:

Both women and men need to accept responsibility for their choices. Bringing a new life into this world is a two person affair. This natural relationship needs to be emphasized, and both the father and mother need to be held responsible. Neither should be afforded the luxury of dissociating responsibility from their actions.

cubanbob said...

Half of the population are woman. Half of the pregnancies would lead to the birth of woman. Unless sex selection is used to determine which fetus are female and only male fetuses are aborted then woman will be Waging The War On Woman. Of course if sex selection is used then woman will be waging a one front war-The War Against Men.

The argument made about funding abortions by the left is that woman shouldn't have to pay for abortions and a woman shouldn't have to get the money from the guy who got her pregnant. Other people who had no carnal knowledge of the woman should have to pay for the abortion. Rights for me and obligations for thee.

jr565 said...

This is so obviously a "look over there. Squirrel!" Type move on the dems part. They have overseen the most anemic economic recovery ever. And rather than address that they want to talk about abortion and wars on women.

n.n said...

SGT Ted:

They believe in spontaneous conception. It's a comforting faith which has served to rationalize their actions. At best, it prevents a rational discussion. At worst, it deludes them into a false understanding of reality.

Illuninati said...

Renee said:
"I'm on a position that the fetus is still a human life, and not less of a human life because of rape. The fetus didn't rape the woman, no one gets to choose the circumstances they are conceived in."

You are correct that the fetus is not responsible for the rape. If the woman who was raped chooses to abort the baby, the baby is a victim of the rapist just as the mother is the victim.

In Western society, each person has sovereignty of his/her own body. That is on of the few (almost) absolutes. No one is required to give up that sovereignty to save the life of another. For instance, if you have a rare type of blood, and if you could give a blood transfusion at no risk to yourself, and if that transfusion would save another person's life, we do not believe anyone has the right to force you to give the transfusion.

The issue is consent. When a woman willingly has sex, she has given her consent and should live with the consequences. A raped woman has not given her consent.






jr565 said...

Duntov238 wrote:
How is killing the unborn women not a "War on Women"?


Good point. You can see this clearly in China where they don't value women all that much, so when faced with the choice of which baby to abort will go for the girl. And as such has skewed the population to be under represented by women.
Usually if you have a war you have actual casualties, and in this case you have millions of girls every year, killed before they have a chance to excercise their rights as women.

RecChief said...

getting tired of the left's preferred style of politics.

Saint Croix said...

I am sure we will hear about the ultrasound bill Walker signed

If Walker signed an ultrasound bill, he should talk about that. You can easily and forthrightly frame an ultrasound as protecting a woman's right to an informed choice.

Abortion doctors have to do ultrasounds.

You need to do an ultrasound before the abortion to see how many babies are in the uterus, and how old they are.

You need to do an ultrasound during the abortion because abortion is a blind procedure and the doctor can't see what he is doing without an ultrasound.

And you need to do an ultrasound after the abortion to make sure you've gotten all the tissue. Dr. Hern (author of Abortion Practice) estimates 5-10% of first trimester abortions leave baby tissue in the uterus. If this happens you will be going back to the doctor (or the emergency room).

99% of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics use ultrasounds. The worst abortion doctor we know about, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, always used an ultrasound. It's an utterly common practice in abortion clinics.

The Republican ultrasound bills require the doctor to share the ultrasound with his patient. If you're protecting "choice," you can hardly object to this. It gives a woman factual information in regard to what she is about to do.

jr565 said...

Illuminati wrote:
In Western society, each person has sovereignty of his/her own body. That is on of the few (almost) absolutes. No one is required to give up that sovereignty to save the life of another.

well that's not absolute is it? you can't be a prostitute for money, so can't sell your body for sexual purposes (though you can get paid for having sex on camera. Go figure) And things like heroin are illegal.
But the wrinkle in your argument is that the body being destroyed is not the woman's body, but the fetuses body. Does it not have any sovereignty over its own body? That fetus is only in the woman's body because of actions she engaged in.

RecChief said...

Rusty said...

"Why are your "reproductive rights" all of a sudden the Republics business?"


Because they want the Republic to pay for it (through tax dollars)

SGT Ted said...

Democrats do not think women are helpless creatures Yea, they do. They don't think woman can be the equals of men unless they have Big Daddy Government to run to for protection. They act like Victorian women and head for the fainting couch when a man says something they don't like, so that they can get other men.

They respond to intellectual challenges that contradict their ideological assertions with emotional outbursts more suited to teenage girls, not adult women. Inga is case in point with her reactions to the notion that a member of the GOP continues to be anti-abortion and disagrees with a lefty feminist activist that it is the most important thing in the whole world, as opposed to the inability for men and women to get a non-burger flipper job in Obamas economy.

They think women are incapable of paying for their own contraception, that it is some sort of hardship to buy a pack of condoms, so it should just be given out free via legal mandate.

The Democrat Party is the home of the weak sisters and female wimps that need men to be subservient in order to feel empowered.



RecChief said...

Inga - you link to gutmacher and slate to prove your point?

I literally laughed out loud at that.

Saint Croix said...

If a pregnant woman cannot bear to look at an ultrasound before an abortion, the doctor should not perform that procedure.

Inga said...

Saint Croix, she knows exactly what she is about to do, without being forced to view an ultrasound.

Renee said...

@Illuninati

I understand the consent issue, but what types of laws can protect women who were raped and still
choose to have the child.

We had a case in Massachusetts, where the criminal judge tried to move a portion of the case to family court, because the woman choose to keep the baby.



Bruce Hayden said...

I won't disagree with your experience but in my own experience that is not the debate. The opponents of abortion in the case of rape I've heard usually do not limit their statements to late term abortion.

I am not talking about my experiences, but rather, reality. The laws that Inga and other feminists seek to prevent limit 3rd trimester abortions. Not 1st trimester, or even much of 2nd semester. But 3rd trimester. That is because any state law that would limit 1st trimester abortions would be facially unconstitutional. They have to be limited to 3rd, and maybe late 2nd, trimester abortions to survive Roe v. Wade, et seq.

Sure, there are plenty of Pro-Life people who want to ban abortion entirely. But that isn't going to happen in our lifetimes, given Supreme Court precedents, and the difficulty in overturning them. Moreover, the country has evolved to a middle ground, where the bulk accept early term abortions, and oppose late term abortions.

RecChief said...

Inga - I guess you are at war with a very large portion of this country:

80 percent support parental notification before a minor can obtain an abortion.

79 percent support a 24-hour waiting period prior to having an abortion.

76 percent oppose allowing abortions to be performed by non-doctors.

62 percent want to change laws to allow for some restrictions on abortion.

58 percent support showing a woman an ultrasound image of her baby at least a day before an abortion.

57 percent believe abortion does a woman more harm than good in the long run.
55 percent — including 6 in 10 Millennials (adults 18 to 32) — want continued debate on the abortion issue.

On a related note, the survey also found that more than 7 in 10 Americans (71 percent) also believe that freedom of religion should be protected above government laws.

http://www.kofc.org/un/en/resources/communications/marist-poll-abortion-restrictions2014.pdf

If you're skeptical of the Knights of Columbus connection, and I would expect you to be, even though it is a Marist Poll, there is this from CNN/ ORC:

CNN/ORC POLL May 2013 Abortion Should Be Legal In What Circumstances? All 25% Most 11% Few 42% No 20% +/-3% pts

Inga said...

Renee, is anyone forcing abortions on rape victims? Or any pregnant woman for that matter?

RecChief said...

"Walker appeased the pro lifers in this state through a couple bills."

I don't understand how signing a bill that aligns with a person's beliefs about not killing babies in the womb is "pandering".

Titus said...

You guys will still win all the grossie red state governorships but no more national elections for you any more.

History and Demographics are not on your side.

sorry.

You will always have the po, uneducated and "takers" new confederacy.

Saint Croix said...

The issue is consent. When a woman willingly has sex, she has given her consent and should live with the consequences. A raped woman has not given her consent.

I agree with this. To me there's a fundamental distinction between women who are raped and women who engage in reproductive sex. I think the failure of the Supreme Court to discuss rape has been as disastrous as the failure of the Supreme Court to discuss infanticide.

Roe v. Wade should have found a right for rape victims to use emergency contraception. The right to birth control is protected by Griswold. Yet birth control can be used in the hours after sex. Birth control pills, day after birth control pills, the IUD, all can prevent a zygote from attaching to the walls of the uterus. In many cases these forms of birth control work as birth control (pregnancy does not happen right away). But in other cases these forms of birth control may destroy a zygote, thus actually would be an abortion.

Roe should have found a right for rape victims to use emergency contraception.

As for the rest of us who volunteer for reproductive sex, we are responsible for the babies we create. That's what autonomy is all about. We are responsible for our own actions.

Renee said...

Igna,

If a woman chooses life, the state may FORCE the child to have a relationship with the rapist.

Igna, Where ever you lost your heart as a human being I suggest start looking for it STAT!

mccullough said...

Walker needs to up his political skills a bit. First, just ignore questions from left wing loons. Second, get a response to questions like this.

cubanbob said...

Saint Croix, she knows exactly what she is about to do, without being forced to view an ultrasound."

Why not? Is she ashamed about what she is going to do? The State executioner also has the see what he is about to do. Inga tell us why a woman gets a pass and the executioner doesn't.

Marty Keller said...

Although her vapid and self-centered comments are always humorous, Inka provides a good look into the belief system of the victimology industry that is the postmodern left.

This is the tell:

"Blogger Inga said...

'I would much rather lose elections than to promote something which is immoral.'

2/12/14, 9:05 AM

"Be our guest. No problem."

Yes. Power over morality; ends justify the means; blah, blah, blah: the Left's eternal play--and the mark of a severely malformed ethical system that masks a deep fear of individual freedom and responsibility.

But it still not hegemonic, at least not yet.

"Illuninati, not enough to win any elections. This is not a winning issue for conservatives."

Yes, Governor Barrett can cling to this smug assurance.

cubanbob said...

I wonder if Titus will be such an advocate of abortion if and when the orientation of a fetus becomes possible to determine in the womb.

Renee said...

Not sure how ultrasounds help reduce abortions?

I mean anyone can Google pregnancy development prior to an appointment.

And I assume most people have seen other people's ultrasounds.

Most young adults have seen themselves in ultrasound taken when their mother was pregnant.

mccullough said...

Titus,

You do realize that the po, uneducated in red states and blue states are disproportionality black and Latino?

Mississippi is 38 percent black. Massachusetts is 6 percent.

New England is as white as the plain states. For some reason, blacks don't want to live in either area. Maybe they are not Red Sox fans.



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

jr565 said...

" well that's not absolute is it? you can't be a prostitute for money, so can't sell your body for sexual purposes (though you can get paid for having sex on camera. Go figure) And things like heroin are illegal.

But the wrinkle in your argument is that the body being destroyed is not the woman's body, but the fetuses body. Does it not have any sovereignty over its own body? That fetus is only in the woman's body because of actions she engaged in."

Those are all good arguments. You could have even gone further and could have pointed out that in some states someone is not allowed to sell their own blood for transfusions.

None of those examples are quite the same as the example of forced transfusion, forced organ donation, etc. to save someone else's life. If we do wish to force people to use their bodies to save other people's lives we should not stop with the women, but should state a general principle which applies to everyone.

A non viable fetus in the womb would be similar to the person needing a blood transfusion. If the baby can live outside of the uterus, it should be given that opportunity. The moral issue is if we were to force the woman to donate her uterus to the fetus against her will.

RecChief said...

I was walking past a protest group once in our capital city (6 or 7 of them) one of them screamed, "what if the fetus grows up to be gay?!?!?!" Obviously assuming that all people who oppose most abortions simply must be anti-gay as well. I retorted, "what if the baby you kill would have been gay?" she got out of my face and moved to the other side of their chant circle.

Illuninati said...

Renee said:
"We had a case in Massachusetts, where the criminal judge tried to move a portion of the case to family court, because the woman choose to keep the baby."

Good point.

Saint Croix said...

Saint Croix, she knows exactly what she is about to do, without being forced to view an ultrasound.

Why is it so awful to look at a picture of what is going on inside your uterus? I don't understand this fear. You're afraid of information? You're afraid of knowledge?

The ultrasound might confirm for you that you are not killing a baby, and make the aborting woman feel better about her choice. Or if the ultrasound confirms her fear that she is about to kill a baby, isn't it far better to recognize this truth before you have the surgery?

Once you have the abortion it is too late.

RecChief said...

I'd like to hear the pro-abortinists here address the Marist or CNN polls I cited. Looks to me that your positions are in opposition to the majority, and in some questions, a wide majority, of the American public. Yet you fight tooth and nail over things like parental notification, requirements for hospital admitting privileges, and ultrasounds.

Why are you so intent on defying the will of the people in this country?

damikesc said...

Women are not fooled

Evidence proves otherwise.

Whatever did happen to conservatives focus on the economy rather than women's issues?

Well, women like you don't want to discuss it. You want to pretend that people want to ban birth control.

If you are in favor of restricting late term abortions, as I am

That's a provable lie based on your entire posting history.

SGT Ted said...

They believe in spontaneous conception. It's a comforting faith which has served to rationalize their actions..

I disagree. I think it is that deep down, many women don't think men are truly equal, or deserving of equality, if it means women have to give anything up.

That's why they are all too happy to support laws that burden men with things they reject for themselves.

That's why men can be forced to be fathers, but women cannot be forced to be mothers. That's why men have to register for the draft to get aid for school, but women do not. That's why men are routinely expected to buy their condoms, but women's BC is an onerous expense, to be paid for my someone else. That's why we have plunging numbers of men attending college, but the focus is on using Title IX to go after men at college using a phony "rape/sexual assault crisis" that uses fake science and phony statistics as its "proof". They are demanding Civil Rights of men be stripped away on campus; if a woman accuses a man of a sex crime, but law enforcement won't prosecute due to lack of evidence of a crime, they want the college to prosecute and punish the man and all the proof they require is the accusation.

Men have the highest suicide rates, boys are far more likely to be on medication for being boys, suffer from wartime PTSD in higher numbers, are beat up, shot, stabbed and killed in far greater numbers, and the only gender specific legislation we have that addresses violence is the "Violence Against Women Act".

What the feminists are doing isn't about "equality". It is about supremacy and forcing male deference to women's desires. The assumption is that if a woman wants something, it is the duty and obligation of men to shut up and provide it. It's sexist and people like Inga like it that way.

David said...

Renee said...
Not sure how ultrasounds help reduce abortions?

I mean anyone can Google pregnancy development prior to an appointment.

And I assume most people have seen other people's ultrasounds.

Most young adults have seen themselves in ultrasound taken when their mother was pregnant.


Now that's a nice comfortable middle class thing to say. The universe of everyone is not just the group you see at Starbucks and Whole Foods.

But since you must be right, that issue of prenatal health care being unequal among groups is a crock, correct?

RecChief said...

Also, Wendy Davis supports restrictions on abortion!!

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20140211-wendy-davis-backs-20-week-abortion-ban-that-defers-to-women.ece

And yeah I read the article so don't tell me I am mischaracterizing it. I think she just realized how much her story of "success" was bullshit, and now she realizes that the out of staters from the liberal bastions of MA, CA, IL, et al. didn't know what they were talking about when they said she could be the next Governor of Texas. You should always be suspect of advice coming from people who you have no disagreement with.

Saint Croix said...

Who is pro-science, by the way? The pro-life position is derided as a religious fantasy. And yet it's pro-lifers who want people to use technology and see the truth.

As a legal matter, we are denying the humanity of an unborn child from conception until birth. An ultrasound allows us to peek inside the uterus and see the baby. Why hide this from women? Why are liberals so terrified of science, information, and knowledge?

n.n said...

Illuninati:

That's an imperfect analogy. It equates extrinsic and intrinsic processes. Pregnancy is not an invasive or accessory process. It is integral to the character and function of a woman. It is an unconditional process by which all human life evolves from conception to premature or natural birth.

The point is that the issues in a blood transfusion, organ donation, etc. are not comparable to those present in pregnancy. It's the same discrepancy which arose and justified the execution of a child when life support was withdrawn from it's dead mother's body.

The issue which needs to be addressed. The issue we seem adamant to avoid resolving. When and by whose determination does a human life acquire value?

n.n said...

Saint Croix:

Ironically, the viability standard is justified by an article of faith. Its proponents rationalize their choice with a belief in spontaneous conception.

Renee said...

David, I live in Massachusetts. Low income women on MassHealth get ultrasounds too.

Renee said...

And deliver at the same hospitals... but few white middle class folk don't have babies in Massachusetts.

Inga said...

Renee, the trouble isn't with my heart. I have four children of my own, no abortions. However forcing women to go through with a pregnancy, no matter what the circumstances seems unusually cruel and heartless.

damikesc said...

However forcing women to go through with a pregnancy, no matter what the circumstances seems unusually cruel and heartless.

Much like your opinion on men and forced child support, she had her choice when she opened her legs without being on birth control. Her choice is over at that point...assuming you actually want equality as you falsely claim.

Inga said...

Damikesc, rape victims should try harder to keep their legs together.

jr565 said...

Renee wrote:
Most young adults have seen themselves in ultrasound taken when their mother was pregnant.

and they only are here to see what they looked like in the womb because their mother chose to not kill them. Everyone of us talking was once that same clump of cells.
I happen to like my life. And would not be too keen on my mom not letting me get a chance to live it because she didn't feel like having me.

n.n said...

Abortion doctors have to do ultrasounds

require the doctor to share the ultrasound with his patient

informed choice


This is perfectly rational. An informed choice cannot be made without relevant knowledge. By preventing a mother from observing her child's development, she is effectively directed to making a preferred choice.

A woman's choice between the life and death of her baby cannot be considered lightly and should not enjoy the luxury of dissociating from its consequences.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
Renee, the trouble isn't with my heart. I have four children of my own, no abortions. However forcing women to go through with a pregnancy, no matter what the circumstances seems unusually cruel and heartless.

and similarly killing kid no matter what the circumstances also seems unusually cruel and heartless. You keep citing rapes, but we all know that that makes up a tiny portion of abortions. More likely a woman will abort a baby, just because. Fill in the blank for her reason. It could be as banal as not wanting a girl or a black baby.

jr565 said...

Saint croix wrote:
"Who is pro-science, by the way? The pro-life position is derided as a religious fantasy. And yet it's pro-lifers who want people to use technology and see the truth. "
Yup. People like Ritmo would deride pro lifers as anti science yet still called fetuses in the womb "a clump of cells". Was that really the depth of his knowledge of the development of a baby in the womb? a clump of cells?

RecChief said...

Inga- what are the statistics regarding the number of pregnancies caused by rape? incest? Number of abortions as a result of the same? in percentage terms please.

So far this year, there have been approximately 135,000. Of those, approximately 1300 are because of rape or incest, that is about 1%. Being pro-life, what to do in the case of rape or incest is a moral conundrum. However, why don't we keep working on that question, and put the restrictions that most americans want on the 99% of abortions.

Illuninati said...

n.n said...
"That's an imperfect analogy. It equates extrinsic and intrinsic processes. Pregnancy is not an invasive or accessory process. It is integral to the character and function of a woman. It is an unconditional process by which all human life evolves from conception to premature or natural birth.

The point is that the issues in a blood transfusion, organ donation, etc. are not comparable to those present in pregnancy."

I'm not sure I understand your point about intrinsic and extrinsic processes. I think I agree with you when we are discussing pregnancy from consensual sex. Rape is not (or should not) be a natural part of the reproductive strategy of human males. On the other hand, if we force women to bear a rapist's child we have by that act made rape a viable reproductive strategy.

n.n said...

What the feminists are doing isn't about "equality".

I agree. Still, the sane mind must rationalize to mitigate its dissonance. While there are direct causes for their motives. There are proximate causes for their justification. The spontaneous conception faith is one such cause. They should enjoy no comfort in their choice.

Saint Croix said...

Ironically, the viability standard is justified by an article of faith.

Yes, faith in our unelected authorities.

Most people are quite ignorant about abortion law. They don't know that thousands of viable babies are aborted every year. They don't know that the standard is arbitrary, and unenforced. They don't know that viability is based on the weakness of the child. They haven't thought about the argument that it's okay to kill somebody because they are too weak to survive.

Abortion relies on ignorance. The censorship of abortion photographs is an obvious indication that we all view abortion as an atrocity. And yet legally we are saying there is no atrocity. It's a "right," and the baby is defined as sub-human property.

If abortion was right, we would have no fear about looking at them. But abortion photographs are like war photographs. Awful atrocities that nobody wants to see.

We hide abortion photographs for the same reason we often hide war photographs. The government is afraid our people will be upset if we know the truth. And the media, rather than speaking truth to power, helps the government hide the truth.

If we see the atrocities, public opinion will turn.

Walker has probably seen polling data that says abortion is a losing fight in Wisconsin. But polling data reflects a lot of ignorance about abortion. Republicans can and should make press bias a campaign issue.

The fight over ultrasounds is a perfect example of this. Liberals rely on lies ("ultrasound is rape!") and censorship of truth. Confront them with what they are doing and the polling data will shift.

Renee said...

Igna,

I'm arguing that the state should do more to protect women who CHOOSE to carry the baby.

If the state gave these women legal protection from rapists after the child is born, women in these situations have more options.

I'm for reducing abortions, not just making abortion illegal. Giving women pregnant from rape a significant amount more protection from the rapist, will help those women who are strongly pro-life and choose to carry to term.

RecChief said...

Inga - you keep bringing up rape as a reason for abortion as if most abortions are due to rape. But we have seen that abortions due to rape and incest make up only about 1% of abortions. And the obama administration has helpfully defined 5% as a "small fraction" (number of people who had their individual policies cancelled due to Obamacare). And we have seen that a large majority want some restrictions on abortions and abortion providers.

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

Saint Croix:

Hence, the slogan: make life, not abortion. I think it's kind of catchy. It's a bitter irony that it is not favored by the "make love, not war" crowd, since the issues of life and death are easier to resolve before birth than they are after.

It's a further irony that the causes of war and conflict coincide with the demand for abortion.

Sigivald said...

I like how "women's health" seems to mean "women's reproductive rights" which seems to mean only "abortions".

It'd be nice if people could actually use words that mean the things they're talking about, not euphemisms and outright deceit.

(And no, "women's health" isn't the government's business - to fix, or anything else.

Nor is "men's health", or even "health".)

n.n said...

Illuninati:

I am only stating that the new life is wholly innocent. I am proposing a beginning for argumentation, not the end. However, preserving a pregnancy until the child is born, does not equate to condoning or promoting rape as a viable reproductive strategy. The risk can be mitigated, beginning with our choice of normalization. The calculus will in part depend on the leverage which can be exerted by threats of neutralization, including death.

The conversation, and certainly the policy, should not be set by minority issues. Individually and collectively we have an interest to preserve the value of human life, as well as individual dignity. This is why some violations, notably murder, are considered crimes committed against the individual, society, and even humanity.

Abortion is murder. It is the premature termination of a life. Exceptional abortion is a crime committed against the individual and society. Normalization of abortion is a crime against humanity. Its discussion must be framed to preserve its character.

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

Renee,
i can agree with you on giving women more protection from their rapists and if they choose to not abort, state protections from the rapist having any claim on the child is more than appropriate.

n.n said...

Renee:

You bring up a point which is often overlooked. The responsibility of the community which follows from its effort to preserve the value and dignity of human life needs to be part of this discussion. While that responsibility varies before and after birth, its inclusion is imperative to ensuring the integrity of this debate.

Unknown said...

Harris v. McRae "a woman's freedom of choice [does not carry] with it a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices."

Unknown said...

Inga: Is it possible to talk about "women's health" without using the word abortion?

Inga said...

Unkown, not if one is being honest. Unfortunately abortion is a part of women's health concerns. Since biology dictates we carry and give birth, abortion and pregnancy would be a part of women's health.

n.n said...

Abortion is not part of women's health. Pregnancy is part of women's health. The former description frames the issue to favor abortion. Whereas pregnancy is the actual choice.

The issue is women's choices. The issue presented by pro-abortion/choice activists is a dissociation from responsibility. That is the benefit some women are demanding, and their patron males are enthusiastically supporting.

eric said...

Curious George wrote;

""Inga said...
they have concerns regarding their reproductive rights, yes that includes access to abortion, is doubly foolish."

What other than abortion does "reproductive rights" include Inga?"

Did Inga ever answer the question? I didn't see it if she did.

Saint Croix said...

Unfortunately abortion is a part of women's health concerns.

It's an obvious form of propaganda to substitute the word "health" for "abortion." But the deeper lie is that pregnancy is a danger to women, and a miscarriage is a cure.

The normalization of abortion has within it the bizarre claim that miscarriages are normal and healthy, and pregnancies are dangerous.

Of course, it can be dangerous to be pregnant. But most of the dangers of a pregnancy revolve around a miscarriage. A miscarriage signifies that something is wrong with your pregnancy.

Abortion is thus quite weird in that it is intentionally doing a dangerous thing to a woman: causing her to have a miscarriage.

Most abortions are not the practice of medicine at all. You're not curing anything. Abortions are elective, like plastic surgery.

Women who abort their first pregnancy have a small but significant increase of risk for breast cancer, and for future tubal pregnancies, and for future premature births. Also there is an increased risk for suicide.

How does elective abortion protect your health? Answer: it does not.

RecChief said...

@Eric- Inga doesn't answer questions that are inconvenient to her position to answer

Delayna said...

"Texas has gone so far as to require a dead woman to carry a fetus."

And? The IRS requires dead people of both sexes to file income tax.

RecChief said...

"Texas has gone so far as to require a dead woman to carry a fetus."

And? Dead people often vote for the Democrat Party

MattL said...

Shorter Inga: We can all count on LIVs to make sure the Orwellian war on unborn children continues.

Sadly, I tend to agree with her, though it's interesting that Abortion Barbie is walking back her entire claim to fame.

Freeman Hunt said...

"You think there's no other political issue as important as maintaining your God-given right to kill other people? How interesting! No, no, Honey, you're not ridiculous. And don't you ever let anyone tell you differently." nose kisses, head pats

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Inga,

Unfortunately abortion is a part of women's health concerns. Since biology dictates we carry and give birth, abortion and pregnancy would be a part of women's health.

See, this is the sort of thing that drives me up the wall. Women are, generally speaking, fertile from puberty until their early 40s. That means that a sizable majority of women in this country couldn't get pregnant even if they wanted to.

heyboom said...

David said:

But since you must be right, that issue of prenatal health care being unequal among groups is a crock, correct?


As Renee responded regarding prenatal care in Massachusetts, here in California the state will pay for prenatal care through MediCal, even if you are an illegal immigrant. It's the woman's fault if she doesn't avail herself of it.

B said...

I have four children of my own, no abortions.

What a despicable point to make considering what you say about enforcing the highest standards on Texan abortion clinics.

YOU would never have had an abortion, and YOUR daughters would never consider having one. Yet you feel so fucking superior not only that it is unnecessary to mandate that Texan abortion clinics are as prepared as possible to deal with anything that might threaten the mother's life but that such a mandate contributes to some war on women.

I guess it's ok as long as its some other mother's life not being safeguarded since you, and of course, your progeny would never need or want the services of an abortion clinic.

I think you represent the worst of the most unprincipled, amoral, and unethical arguments for abortion and its equivalence to women's rights that I see on any blog.

Oh, and buy the way. Republican women who don't agree with those Democratic women who 'would rather stand up and fight' are not the victims in your war on women. The victims of your war are the unborn and you never seem to give a shit about them as long as you can plead that, 'well, I don't like the killing, but it's the law'.

Good little German.

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

It's not women's health.

It's a woman's predicament.

We just can't walk away from the pregnancy, like everyone else. We can't 'abandon' the fetus, like everyone else.

It's not just easy to say get an abortion, just as it's not just easy to raise a child with no emotional/social supports.

Abortion just seems like a failure on the part of humanity to address the predicament the women is in. Abortion means defeat as a civilization, if we think this is really the answer to the situation.

A century ago, when even an primary school graduate knew some Latin, the word 'Matrimony' was known as 'act of being a mom'. A young person at least had some idea, that sex within marriage gave women the social support to raise the child if she was to become pregnant. The women benefited from having a husband, and the child benefited from have a father.

Now this ideal only worked if everyone chose to play by the rules.

But at least we had this ideal and valued it.

Today, what do we have as the ideal?

What do we value in terms of culture and community for the needs of pregnant women without ending up with the Life of Julia?

Kirk Parker said...

Inga: so sorry, but I cannot keep it straight where you stand on this.

Are you FOR or AGAINST women having the right to murder their own offspring?



Lyssa,

" I don't know what to do about it."

I'd say, don't find your meaning in Identity Politics, but then of course you already don't.

So instead, I'd say: just live your live free of identity politics and use that as a platform to say to others, "See? You don't have to let others pigeonhole you into a gender/ethnic/racial box if you don't want to. Think for yourself!"


Bruce,

". A lot of reasons for this, and one of them is that we now can easily see what a 7, 8, 9 month fetus looks like in utero via ultrasound. "

Yes, and onother HUGE reason is the increasing survival rate of ever-younger premies.

damikesc said...

Unfortunately abortion is a part of women's health concerns.

Democrats haven't named a single one outside of abortion in years now.

The party you fervently support views you as an orifice and nothing else.

That would hurt people who were more clever.

rape victims should try harder to keep their legs together.

...or go to the police in anything resembling a timely fashion.

If it takes a woman about 5 months to report a crime, then the existence of said crime is a little circumspect.

heyboom said...

@B

Your comment brings to mind a quote I like to bring up during these types of discussions that goes:

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

RecChief said...

Renee said...
"Abortion just seems like a failure on the part of humanity to address the predicament the women is in. Abortion means defeat as a civilization, if we think this is really the answer to the situation."

You know, if the Left in this country hadn't torn apart and torn down social institutions like marriage and religion, perhaps there wouldn't be so many women in this predicament.

Michael said...

""Democracy Now!" What other news show has an exclamation point in its title? By its own billing it's a socialist tantrum."

Barnum! did.

Douglas said...

I think every Republican politician should answer every question about "women's issues" with a comment about Bill and Monica and Hillary. That goes double for questions from NARAL.