archive

Saturday, January 16, 2010

How to Avoid Needing Abortions

This, bumped up from two years ago:


I really don't want to write this. But what am I for?

An opinion piece on Abortion. From two collaborators of La Times ... oops ... the L.A. Times. And I meant writers, two writers. Shall I quote it? Very well:

Abortion means many things to many people. It is a very good thing. To some, it seems bad. To others it seems good. It means many things. Many people have different ideas about it. Some think it is good. Others think it is bad. It means many things. People like it, while other people do not. The different ideas that many people have about it mean many things to them. There are many opinions. Many people have opinions about this. It is a very good thing.
I kid. You know that's not from the LA Times, because it's so even-handed. There is only one opinion about abortion: it is a good thing; what those who disagree with that fact have is called a bias.

"Thirty-five years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed in Roe vs. Wade that women have a fundamental right to choose abortion without government interference."

"...affirmed..." Self-evident things are affirmed by reasonable people. What actually happened was that the court imposed its will on America, subverting the democratic process in a move that even Ruth Bader Ginsberg affirmed was ill-advised: the matter should have been decided politically, thus avoiding the rancor of the following decades.

"...a fundamental right..." How odd. One would presume that fundamental rights had been affirmed in the Constitution, at the time of its establishment -- and one would assume and affirm that no right would be affirmed and assumed that was alien, abhorrent and indeed anathema to the Framers. Can there be such a thing as a new fundamental right? Would this be an example of Evolution at work? I'm not a man who refuses to affirm it when he's been wrong.

"...to choose abortion..." Choice. It's such an American word. A synonym for freedom. How can having a choice be wrong? It can't be. It's just the thing that is chosen that might be wrong. The thing? Abortion? I have to point out the sad oversight of the opinion-piece writers. They didn't actually mean to say "abortion." Abortion is such an unsightly word. It needs a pleasant-sounding alternative. Like, say, choice. They meant to say that "women have a fundamental right to choose choice." Ah, that sounds so much better. As we know, there are no wrong choices. Only different choices. Oops. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say "different." I meant diversitous, because diversity is what America is all about. Whereas differences are bad. Why else is there Affirmative Action? It will make us all even, after a while -- a few centuries or millennia -- Evolution will decide.

"...without government interference." What else is it that governments do but interfere? The question is, where and how. The Left supposes that drug-use and baby-killing are morally neutral choices, while extorting taxes on threat of imprisonment or death to support social engineering is a good thing. The Left has no qualms about wielding government power. As long as the Left can choose the victims -- babies, mostly.

Well. That takes care of the first sentence.

Oh God I can hardly stand it.

...that landmark decision...” Gravemark. Except medical waste doesn’t get buried -- well, maybe in a landfill.

“...the United States has some of the most restrictive policies on abortion in the developed world.” Yeah. The developed world, developer of mustard gas and death camps, and partial birth abortion. We should be more like the developed world; as it is, we’re the only developed-world country with a non-shrinking population. Damn those restrictive policies.

“...the U.S. forbids the use of federal funds for abortions...” Here, can I get you some more crystal meth? Maybe help you insert that gigantic vibrating phallus into your anus? Cuz that’s what I’m for -- providing resources for your vices -- facilitating your degradation.

“...the Supreme Court has upheld state laws that require parental consent or notification...” Draconian. A word closely related to Dracula, notorious drinker of the blood of the innocent. “...mandatory waiting periods...” Gun purchases should require a waiting period, but abortions for minors should not. Cuz, uh, guns kill people. And stuff. I guess. “...and antiabortion counseling.” The gall! Sex education obviously works so well for teens, but only the “have it” kind ... I mean the “have sex” kind. Don’t have “it”, the “baby”. That would be restrictive.

“The court's 2007 decision on so-called partial-birth abortions was an unprecedented infringement on physician autonomy.” Y’see, here’s how it works. A doctor knows that when a woman is in labor but doesn’t want to be an actual mother, cutting up that baby in the womb is a better medical choice than, say, a C-section. Giddit? And even if s/he doesn’t know that, h/er/is autonomy shall not be infringed. It says so right there in the Second Amendment. Unprecedented. Simply unprecedented. Like when Lincoln sort of threw out the Dred Scot decision, and infringed the slave masters' autonomy to whip the niggers to death.

“...public opinion has been relatively stable and favorable to legal abortion.” It must be true. The abortionists who wrote this opinion piece have been accurate on every other point. “Early efforts to overturn Roe failed miserably.” And the fact that the body which might have done the overturning was the same body that imposed the ruling in the first place? I’m sure my question must be illogical in some way. Us Bible-thumpers are so irrational, after all. And we just know that if that same body hadn’t invented this new right, it would have arrived anyway, being a historical inevitability, like Communism. Inevitable I say. Aren’t we after all appealing to popularity right now? Nevermind those other popular laws -- the ones that so vilely as we have seen restrict abortion -- those ones that the rubes in the square states are shoving down our throats like some horrible thing that belongs to a male chauvinist pig, and you know what I mean, sister.

“...the anti-choice movement changed tactics...” “Twenty years ago, being pro-life was déclassé.” Where’s a mad bomber when you need one.

“Three-dimensional ultrasound images of babies in utero began to grace the family fridge.” Ahem. “Babies”? Your slip is showing. “Fetuses underwent surgery. More premature babies survived and were healthier. ...These trends gave antiabortionists an advantage...” Y’think? I have found that, as with sex, it is easier to kill someone when I don’t have to look them in the eye. That’s too intimate.

“Advocates of choice have had a hard time dealing with the increased visibility of the fetus. The preferred strategy is still to ignore it and try to shift the conversation back to women. At times, this makes us appear insensitive...” No comment. No comment needed. Okay, one comment. It makes them appear insane.

“To some people, pro-choice values seem to have been unaffected by the desire to save the whales and the trees, to respect animal life and to end violence at all levels.” My, that’s an awkward sentence. Let’s rewrite it. Some people think abortionists enjoy a bizarre disconnect, worshiping whales and trees and animals and vermin and cowardice and feckless passivity, on the one hand, while ... while, uh ... well, they don’t quite open up that other hand, for us to see what’s in it. Just something pulpy, I would suppose -- a sort of red paste.

“Pope John Paul II got that, and coined the term ‘culture of life.’ President Bush adopted it, and the slogan, as much as it pains us to admit it, moved some hearts and minds. Supporting abortion is tough to fit into this package.” They speak a human language, these opinion piece writers. I’ll give them that. If only humanity resided in words. Odd, though, this, uh, choice of words. It pains them. Everyone knows pain has no place in a discussion about abortion. Everyone knows fetuses can't feel pain.

“In recent years, the antiabortion movement successfully put the nitty-gritty details of abortion procedures on public display...” Nitty-gritty. Itsy-bitsy. Teenie-weenie. Okie-dokey. Hokey-pokey. Helter-skelter. Willie-nillie. Silly-willy. Wee wee wee all the way home. Fee fie foe fum. Grind his bones to make my bread. If I should die before I wake. “...increasing the belief that abortion is serious business...” People believe the funniest things. “...and that some societal involvement is appropriate.” Time was, all the societal involvement we needed in abortion could be found in a back alley. Maybe I’m thinking of another sort of society. And another sort of involvement.

Those who are pro-choice have not convinced America that we support a public discussion of the moral dimensions of abortion.” I’m a little confused. The words, “moral” and “abortion” in such close proximity -- it’s like mixing bleach and ammonia. Semantical chaos. She-all did it before when she-all used the phrase "pro-choice values".

“Likewise, we haven't convinced people that we are the ones actually doing things to make it possible for women to avoid needing abortions.” Cf. the preceding paragraph on sexual education, which education so clearly outlines the methods most approved “to avoid needing abortions.” Oh, it's so good, that phrase -- "avoid needing abortions". Hey! -- that’s gonna be my tattoo! I AM THE ONE WHO CONVINCES PEOPLE THAT I AM THE ONE ACTUALLY DOING THINGS TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR WOMEN TO AVOID NEEDING ABORTIONS! All Gothic and shit, with skulls and blood dripping from the tips, all across my belly. Way cool! How to avoid needing abortions? I suggest -- per the state-mandated educational curricula -- mutual masturbation, blowup dolls, oral sex, sodomy, bestiality, necrophilia, and intercourse with the extremely aged or with prepubescent children.

“Let's face it: Disapproval of women's sexuality is a historical constant.” Me too! I’m afraid I’ll fall in.

“So our claim that women can be trusted still falls on deaf ears.” Women are trusted to be mothers, one of the two most important jobs ever. Men make better executioners.

“And when the choice movement seems to defend every individual abortion decision, rather than the right to make the decision, it too becomes suspect.” Question: what could these writers ever consider to be a wrong decision? Because if there is no wrong decision, is there a decision at all? -- any more than the tide decides to flow in, and flow out? And if there is a wrong decision, is it sufficiently wrong to remove the option?

“If pro-choice values are to regain the moral high ground...”

Regain the. Moral. High ground. And this is where we must stop.

Words, it seem, do not retain humanity.


J

9 comments:

Will said...

"If pro-choice values are to regain the moral high ground, genuine discussion about these challenges needs to take place."

How exactly does one regain the moral high ground through discussion? The morality of an act is not determined by how you discuss the act, but by the act itself. If you find yourself losing the moral high ground, perhaps that is not simply the result of a rhetorical failure...

Jack H said...

When you stop being so hateful and abusive, I might feel that we could discuss this. As it is, I just feel sorry for you.

Will said...

I don't think that came out right. I didn't mean "you," as in Jack H, I was referring to the authors of the LA Times piece. The quote was from the last paragraph of that article. Let me see if I can rephrase it a little better.

My first point was to question how the morality (or immorality) of an act, abortion for instance, can be changed simply by talking about it in a different way. At least in my view, a different framework for discussing the issue isn't going to make the pro-choice movement any more or less moral - abortion is what it is.

The second point has to do with the authors of the Times article in particular, and members of the pro-choice movement in general. If they assume that all they need to do to regain the "moral high ground" is to find another way to discuss this issue, that might say quite a lot about their assumptions of morality. To the pro-abortion crowd, the moral high ground is not not a fixed position where a person should strive to be, by a fungible political location determined by the strength of your talking points. In other words, the morality of an act isn't governed by the act itself, but by how you can frame the issue.

The clumsy point I was trying to make in my last post was that the article in the Times seemed to illustrate a common thread in the pro-choice argument: if we (the pro-choice side) are no longer seen as having the moral high ground, then it must be because we haven't talked up the morality of our position enough. No where in the Times article is it given serious consideration whether the pro-choice movement should re-evaluate its "all death, all the time" position. They see the problem as the fickle public being too easily swayed by the religious right. I was trying to suggest that the pro-choice movement should reconsider its positions on the act of abortion itself, and not just its rhetoric, if it were truly serious about gaining the moral high ground.

Again, sorry for the confusion on the last post. I didn't actually mean to be hateful or abusive to anyone, and I certainly didn't mean to seem like I was directing that at you.

Will C. said...

My fav line...

“...the United States has some of the most restrictive policies on abortion in the developed world.” Yeah. The developed world, developer of mustard gas and death camps, and partial birth abortion. We should be more like the developed world; as it is, we’re the only developed world country with a non-shrinking population. Damn those restrictive policies.

I tried (without success) to forward this blogoodness to the authors. They're not at FKissling@latimescolumnists.com, KMichelman@latimescolumnists.com, FKissling@latimes.com, or KMichelman@latimes.com. Alas, I'm starting to feel like JOSHUA hunting down Prof. Falken. I just felt that clueless (strike that) "misguided" people like them need to hear what's outside of the echo chamber they live in.

- Will C. (not will)

Jack H said...

I was kidding. I'm always kidding. All through the wretched agony of the despair of my horrid mere existence, I kid. Thanks for reminding me again how hopeless it is, to dare to aspire to dream that somehow, somewhere, there might be some small dim light of understanding peeping though the infinite vastness of unending void. Of course I'm far too stupid to be have been able to understand your meaning without such a helpful exegesis. I do so appreciate that unspoken communication as to the ineptness of my prose and the low estimation in which I am held, regarding my capacity to understand simple declarative sentences. Maybe some day I'll rise to the lofty pinnacle of your ineffable ratiocinations. But no, that too would be too too much to aspire to. Best I remain here, so far below, groveling in the muck of my mediocrity. It's best. It's best.

On a lighter note, how about that professional athletic club that has been performing in such a noteworthy manner! Go team, go! What?

J

Will said...

Good one

Jack H said...

I don't appreciate your sarcasm.

Tee hee.

Seriously, the ladies wouldn't get it. My little effort here is too unserious to make its point to someone not on the same page. It would have to be reframed, and who can bother.


J

will said...

A simple "you suck" would have been sufficient...

Will C. said...

hello! Jack, I'm waiting to hear how witty and clever my "Wargames" reference was. Alas i forget ur a buuk guy an ima movie guy. ;)
On to your last point, I was pulling for the Pat's until today when i heard Tom Brady advising the press to see the Gorical movie...Armegedon i think it was, right?