Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
The abortion issue is not solely about a women’s right to choose, it is about the hatred and fear of women’s sexuality. There is a subtext to this movement, shown plainly by the actions of many Anti-Abortion supporters, that goes way beyond the issue of whether abortion is murder. This is not asserting my opinion as to the validity of either side in the Anti-Abortion debate. It is not to stir up a debate for or against abortion. I’ve commented here enough for people to know where I stand on the issue. What has bothered me for a long time on this issue has been whether it is just about being for or against a women’s right to choose? If it is only about the right of choice, then I could at least accept that those who would deny it have sufficient beliefs to justify their actions, without there being another unspoken agenda. Indeed, the original initiator of the anti-abortion issue was the Roman Catholic Church.
The RCC’s position is that society should ensure a safety net to take care of babies and children after they are born. I may not agree with the Church’s teachings, but I applaud the fact that they at least recognize that if you are going to have the State ban abortions, then the State must also have responsibility for taking care of those children not aborted. This makes sense to me as a viable belief to have if you are solely against abortion.
An article in Friday’s Huffpost, got me thinking about this issue and the implications of trying to de-fund Planned Parenthood, a Non-Profit that I believe is providing extremely important services throughout our country. Fully 96% of Planned Parenthood’s services go to identification/treatment of STD’s, Cancer Screening, Contraception, and other vital women’s health services. None of these services include abortions. These are essential services needed by all women. However, the viral opposition to Planned Parenthood funding and the de-funding of its’ programs by various States, comes primarily from those opposed to abortions. Planned Parenthood provides very necessary services to the community at large that government should support. Remember it is a private not public institution, cheaper in provision of these services than can be offered by profit making institutions. Why do anti-abortionists hate Planned Parenthood and other similar Non-Profit services?
One female member of Congress, discussing Planned Parenthood de-funding put it this way:
“The real purpose here, as I’ve come to view it, is to impose a traditional view of a women’s role,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told HuffPost. “Republicans don’t really care what the benefits of Title X funding are in terms of women’s health, so women’s health is held hostage. Planned Parenthood can prevent 4,000 women a year from dying of cervical cancer with screenings and vaccines, but that is not of interest to them because of a personal and philosophical agenda.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/defund-planned-parenthood-birth-control_n_899334.html
What is the personal and philosophical agenda to which Rep. DeLauro is referring? It goes far beyond some peoples deeply held beliefs that abortion is murder. Beyond that belief is that women do not have the right to sexual autonomy and therefore are in need of punishment if they have sex outside of marriage. Therefore, women should be denied birth control counseling, STD identification, and treatment to ensure that they are sufficiently chastened for daring to go beyond the bounds of some people’s religious beliefs. This is the only logical inference to be drawn, and yet if one examines this logically this is highly inconsistent with the ostensible aims of the anti-abortion movement. If they were actually worried that abortions are murder of a fetus, then you would think that birth control, which would prevent many abortions, would be a good thing.
We know that this is not the case. Since the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t approve of birth control, we know what answer they would give. I would suppose those religious fundamentalists who believe in abstention until marriage would also be against it. However, what is a worse sin? Is it “murder” as the anti-choice people deem it, or is it preventing an unwanted pregnancy in the first instance?
I find answer obvious. We generally see murder as the worst of human crimes. One would think that if something could prevent “murder”, better the lesser of the two sins, than the ultimate one. The reasoning of the anti-choice people doesn’t seem to follow that line of logic. Therefore, I can only conclude that the concern to halt abortions is only secondary to the real agenda of some leaders of the anti-choice movement.
My conclusion is that the subtext of this anti-choice movement, at least its leadership, is a hatred of women being autonomous sexually and the concomitant desire to punish them for having sex outside of marriage. This is why they also oppose birth control education. The “abstinence only” meme they push is a failure. As a result we find that incidences of teen pregnancy are higher in states more aligned with anti-choice, anti women’s sexuality values.
“Only a quarter of evangelical teens abstain from sexual activity more than other teens. And expanding access to contraception, rather than abortion, is the best way to delay marriage and promote stable families.”
The above article, a book review, delves more deeply into the subject. The quote I’ve presented provides interesting evidence of the fear that fundamentalist anti-choice people have about female sexuality. Despite all their preaching of abstinence, their teen women are having sex a lot and it makes them angry. Angry at a “permissive” society where sexuality is rampant and angry enough at their “disobedient” children to see them punished for not following their rules. There is probably another dichotomy that exists in that many men are proud when their son has loses his virginity, but enraged if it is their daughter.
The notion of female sexual autonomy is frightening to many religious people, since all major religions have a history of male domination. If women can assert their own right to be sexual beings, then this would also give them leave to assert that they are to have equal footing with men in all respects, including in marriage and worship. This would represent such a radical revolution of ideas to those of religious fundamentalist bent, as to create fear and loathing, which of course translates readily into hatred.
Anticipating objections to funding Planned Parenthood, FactCheck.com presents the following article detailing the funding of Planned Parenthood and showing that the opposition to it can’t possibly be all about abortions. The following relevant quote is from this article:
“Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.”
Mespo writes:
“Unfortunately, the anti-rights crowd likes their religious definition better:
murder, n, the death of any person we care about and who arguably is of our race and religion by persons we don’t care about and whose rights we hold in contempt….”
_________________________________________________________
Mind you it is those evil right wingers who DO NOT ADVOCATE the slaughter of blacks viz a viz abortion (which occurs at a higher rate than whites). The Democrats cheer it on baby! ( Ghoulish pun intended)
In other words it is liberals, leftists, and Democrats who promote snuffing out the life of blacks in the womb at a higher rate than whites.
And in their twisted little minds that means it is the right-wingers who are the racists.
According to the site linked to, Guttmacher brings in black and Hispanic abortion as 60 percent of all abortions (while being minority populations).
White Democrats must be delighted since they have convinced non-whites to reduced their numbers at a higher rate than whites!
http://www.whyprolife.com/abortion-facts/
Try any dictionary Tootie. Do I have to do all of your work.
As to your definition of the crime of “rape,” yes an apple would not be an apple if it didn’t meet the definition of an apple. That would be a peach! Do you have any idea how stupid that question of yours sounds? And that laughing you hear is all of us.
So rape is not rape if it is legally authorized? LOL
mespo
Could you please cite the data on your definition of murder? Where did you get the definition and when was it defined? Before or after legalized abortion in the USA?
AY:
Methinks it was plagiarism of Aristotle by Sts. Augustine, Jerome and Aquinas.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm
SWM,
That is interesting and a change from St. Anthony or I for get St Francis stated pretty much that a fetus does not have a soul until the quickening….whatever that means…
To answer Mike’s question, the anti-rights crowd hates just about everybody not of their religion and everything they don’t know about or with whom they disagree, eschewing forever the old song, “We shall know they are Christians by their love.” Maybe they meant just for themselves.
“That said, what opponents of abortion hate is murder.”
*****************
Then they should learn the definition of this purely legal term. It is:
murder, n, the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.
Abortion, of course, is not murder by definition since is is both legally authorized and in furtherance of the right to be left alone by the government.
Unfortunately, the anti-rights crowd likes their religious definition better:
murder, n, the death of any person we care about and who arguably is of our race and religion by persons we don’t care about and whose rights we hold in contempt. If we care about the killer, then we call the killing “God’s Will.” This applies to persons the law considers “murderers” as well as those people with whom the faithful disagree.
The author writes:
The abortion issue is not solely about a women’s right to choose, it is about the hatred and fear of women’s sexuality.
__________________________________________________________
The author, clearly, hates people who don’t think like he does and that is why he leads off with the subject of “hate”. His standard for what hate is defined to mean anything one decides that it is. And by his own standard, I define his attitude about right wingers to be hatred.
That said, what opponents of abortion hate is murder. This is a reasonable response and something left wingers cannot grasp, because, apparently, they are too stupid.
Yet right wingers , who are supposed to be stupid according to left wingers, have somehow figured out that sex leads to child bearing. They know if you have sex you are committing an act that may lead to children. Thus you don’t do the sex if you don’t want the kids. Or if you do do the sex, you accept the responsibility of your actions.
It is a no-brainer (which means leftist hate-mongers and murderers won’t “get it”.)
To wish to abort after knowing clearly that sex leads to babies, is like robbing a bank knowing it is illegal, then after getting caught demanding the right to “unrob” it.
Too late. No do overs.
It’s instructive to compare the anti-abortion movement of today with the one that existed 40 years ago. the latter was largely based in the Catholic Church and reflected an effort to articulate a set of morally and operationally consistent ideas that could be considered “pro-life”, including opposition to capital punishment and “artificial” birth control. The movement today retains Catholic Church sponsorship, but the most visible Catholic leaders are nearly as crazy and morally inconsistent in their outlook as the evangelical protestants who’ve take over the movement. Under the evangelicals, the abortion movement has been decoupled from other moral positions, except for birth control, a position that the movement now tries to hide. Although the Catholic Church is certainly patriarchal, the dominance of women and the attack on their autonomy is far more central to the tactics and overt world view of the evangelicals.
The defenders of reproductive rights have really failed in the last generation to do anything to take the offensive or develop true grassroots. Poor women are mentioned but not organized. Rights here have been treated as an abstract concept not an issue of daily life and there has been a failure to craft legislation that would reverse attacks on reproductive rights. Abortion has always been common, before and after Roe v. Wade, but kept in a closet. It’s easy to villify abortion opponents for what they are, but it’s equally important to put pressure on the presumed defenders of these rights for what they’ve been…ardent bourgeois fundraisers rather than active grassroots organizers or advocates.
Mike, good post. One of the signs you hit a nerve with the War on Women crowd is when you bring out the trolls.
The post just above this one made me laugh out loud. Mike S. is a bigot. Who knew? Wow!
Mike Spindell,
This article exposes you to be nothing more than a common bigot.
Ad hominem? I don’t think so. Intolerance of the beliefs held by others is the very definition of a bigot.
This is about Slavery.
ALL Anti-Abortion folks, including other women, who pretend this is about ‘protecting’ anything are liars. They want their slaves that they’ve owned for centuries and want to continue that way of life. Even the women in the anti-abortion movement have said either publicly or in private that they have GIVEN UP their right to decide about what happens to their own body. They have, in fact, put their own life in the hands of others who may share as much, but no evidence would support this, desire to maintain this way of life forever.. It is pure, unadulterated slavery. People pay MILLIONS to promote this way of life and have for millennium, and continue to do so thru school, churches, businesses, advertising, hate groups, public rallies, books, etc. and any other vehicle they can invent to keep their dominance alive.
So if you believe that anti-abortion rhetoric is something else, then you need to re-examine your perspective.. Rip the layers of your preconceived notions away from what you think and look at this for what it really is… People willing, from fear or for money, give up the decisions they could make about life or death to someone else. This is a one time deal. Once you or someone else decides, then all your decisions in the future are tainted by this one…. IF you decide that this decision is no longer a woman’s right, you’re a slavery advocate – pure and simple and there is NO going back.
I don’t know if the anti- abortion movement totally hates women’s sexuality. There are some splits in their thinking. Sarah Palin is one of their stars yet fundamentalist men think she is “hot”. She plays it up well..She chose not to abort her Downs Syndrome child. I understand the catholic culture better. The belief is the child has a soul from conception. When I grew up having ten children was not unusual but you were not supposed to think about all the sex these couples had to get the ten kids. I guess it was the immaculate conception thinking again.
Why they are at it….maybe the 18th Amendment needs some tweaking…..
culheath,
You’re right. It’s definitely about control!
It’s about women being second class citizens. It’s about keeping women in their place. And it’s about trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant.
*****
Mike S.,
The Catholic Church is against the use of contraceptives. It approves of “natural forms” of birth control–including the rhythm method and abstinence. Good luck with those forms of birth control!
Unfortunately, at root it is as simple as control and property…and fear of the loss of either.
The complex and various psychological layers grow out of that.
Male genes assuring their continuity…broods, harems and blah blah blah.
Either women are given independent personhood or not – there is no middle ground. I see the entire anti-choice movement as extremely atavistic and demeaning.
I agree that this discussion recognizes the view of some of those, maybe most of those, who would deny funding to Planned Parenthood. However, I do think that there are those who sincerely believe that abortion is the murder of the most vulnerable, and that stopping any organization engaging in that activity is of the utmost importance. I think that most of us would agree that a business that engaged in murder as part of its regular activities should probably be closed down–even if engaged in otherwise beneficial activities. For some people, that is what Planned Parenthood is. I can respect that view, even if I don’t agree, when voiced by those who recognize the importance of providing alternate sources for the many services provided by Planned Parenthood.
Mike,
I don’t know about hate, but they certainly do seem to fear women’s sexuality. It seems to me that they hate women’s freedom as related to their sexuality rather the necessarily hating their sexuality itself. There is that whole “be fruitful and multiply” meme that like to latch on to.