This brilliant article is the perfect response to those who believe that anti-choicers are not misogynists but simply people who care about babies:
Fundamentally, the debate over abortion is a debate over what we make of the fact that some of us in this world can have babies. For pro-choicers, “being able to make babies” is a nifty thing to be able to do, like being able to play the piano or being able to bake pies. It’s your skill, your ability. You should use it how you like. We would no more force a woman to make a baby because she can than insist that someone who can play the piano drop everything they’re doing at a moment’s notice to play because we want them to.
For anti-choicers, the fact that someone can make a baby means that making babies is what she is for. People mistake the term “objectification” to mean “looking at with lust,” but what it actually means is “reducing someone to an object to be used.” Sexual objectification is assuming that because women turn you on, they are for sex, instead of a person whose sexuality should be an expression of their agency. What anti-choicers engage in is reproductive objectification. Women are among an array of objects to be used. The refrigerator is for storing food. The bookshelf is for holding books. The woman is for making babies. You no more give her a choice in the matter than you would give your refrigerator veto power over what food it holds because it didn’t like your method of shopping.
Do read the entire article. It’s the most brilliant piece of writing I have read in a while. We will not defeat this mentality until we understand as clearly as possible where it comes from.
Clarissa's Blog 
The article is spot-on about the attitudes of “pro-life” people towards women. I like Ryan on economic policy. I have always been “right wing”/pro free-market on economic policy. However, Ryan’s attitude towards women in general is quite disturbing. I really do think the base assumption of most social conservative men is that women are incapable of independent volition, which flies contrary to Rand’s worldview that Ryan has expressed admiration for.
And do realize that Ayn Rand was, indeed, a woman and not a man.
LikeLike
How much of this do you think is about feeling women should not have sex of their choosing, and enjoy it, and not pay some price or get punished in some way.
One of Akin’s supporters just came out with the pronouncement that pregnancy caused by rape is a “blessing.” Suddenly I realized it all made sense in a way: that means the mother *definitely* did not enjoy begetting the child, so she is truly virtuous, it is practically immaculate, so of course conception in these circumstances is a reward. (Convoluted, I know, but in a parallel universe kind of way it seems to work out. ?)
LikeLike
“Suddenly I realized it all made sense in a way: that means the mother *definitely* did not enjoy begetting the child, so she is truly virtuous, it is practically immaculate, so of course conception in these circumstances is a reward.”
– Jesus. The worst thing about this is that I think you are right.
LikeLike
Welcome to the American religious right wing. There’s a whole parallel culture out there that has been under-reported.
I would venture to say that many or most non-pious fiscal conservatives still view “women” as dependents. Women who are too accomplished to be dismissed are viewed as “honorary men”, the exception to the rule.
Patriarchy is theft of women’s labor, including reproductive and child-rearing labor. Religion merely bolsters a pre-existing patriarchal ideology and system. Notice that truly egalitarian heterosexual couples are relatively uncommon. The social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives have a stake in preventing gender egalitarianism – social conservatives consider the strict hierarchical social organisation of the family to be God-given, and fiscal conservatives benefit by having greater-than-full time (usually) male workers and “casual” or part-time (usually) poorly paid female workers, rather than two full time workers.
LikeLike
“Notice that truly egalitarian heterosexual couples are relatively uncommon. ”
– I notice. To my horror, I notice this horrible inequity even among highly intelligent, professional people. Even among those who make their living teaching Gender Studies and feminist theory.
LikeLike
That’s postmodernist irony for you. I often find that those who seem to superficially understand gender issues love to express themselves through the ironic postmodernist mode of dominance and submission. “But at least we now know exactly what we are doing!” they proclaim. “What harm is there in that?”
LikeLike
Deep inside, these sexist idiots are dying to be dominated by a woman. They are insecure in their masculinity and need punishment. Being degraded is the punishment they seek.
LikeLike
You know, I’ve actually come to conclude that recently myself.
LikeLike
Rewrite: http://unsanesafe.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/patriarchal-metaphysics.html
LikeLike
It really is simple. Most conservatives don’t hate women. They are primarily guided by the belief that once a fetus crosses a certain point (the extreme right says conception, many others say 2nd trimester of 24 weeks – around viability) that terminating that fetus is tantamount to murder. Every pro-choicer agrees if you terminate a pregnancy a day after birth.. its murder. Many conservatives think that murder label applies earlier.
There really is not much more complexity than that.
You can call those assumptions crazy, you can say that religious belief which is a huge component of these opinions shouldn’t dictate policy (both potentially fair points!), but saying its proof that half the country hates women is really silly.
Gets frustrating when instead of arguing the points I make which are reasonable arguments for your side everyone goes hyperbolic and accuses the right of “hating women”….
Obviously this article won’t change the national dialogue on the issue but in general the hyperbolic rhetoric on the “liberal” pro-choice side is tiring and ineffective I believe.
LikeLike
There is no pregnancy a day after birth. No doctor in the world considers a patient pregnant the day after she gave birth. What is there to terminate if there is no pregnancy?
I know you are an intelligent person, but on this particular topic you come up with such a bizarre collection of statements that nobody can take you seriously. Did you honestly think that women in the maternity ward who gave birth recently are considered pregnant? Honestly? I’m sure you don’t believe that because it’s insane.
Then what makes you attribute these ridiculous beliefs to pro-choicers? Do you notice whenever I claim that woman-haters say certain things, I offer textual proof in the form of a quote from somebody who actually said these things? So where is your proof that the pro-choice movement considers women who recently gave birth pregnant? If you accuse people of this kind of egregious ignorance, some proof is in order!
LikeLike
two points. I clearly mis-spoke when I said terminate a pregnancy a day after birth. I meant end the life of a 1 day old baby. Obviously you cant end a pregnancy after birth 🙂 (slip of the mind….I get the feeling you still may think the point is crazy… but that is the correction i meant to say)
Abelard, I am glad that you seem to agree that for those who don’t focus on regulating sex and birth control, that my opinion/explanation on abortion is logical 🙂 That is a start!
Now you are certainly right that a small bit of social conservatives do want this fixed path of life etc. but now you are entering what I would say is 5-10% of the population, not the 40-60% who want abortions (or at least certain types of abbortions) banned. So at the extreme, Clarissa’s and your point and the articles point is true. And to be fair these extreme views are the ones who get the most media attention, but the vast majority of conservatives do not hold these extreme of views. Many friends and family I know are very religious, and I can only think of a handful who would hold the extreme views. The rest, while solidly conservative, have no problem with birth control and aren’t trying to mandate a path on life in general.
LikeLike
” I clearly mis-spoke when I said terminate a pregnancy a day after birth.”
– I hope you do realize why this kind of carelessness might be disturbing to people whom you want to force into unwanted pregnancies and labor against their will. Carrying a pregnancy to term and the process of labor and giving birth are very complex and fraught with any number of risks. A woman’s health gets impacted forever with this process. Giving birth always requires a significant process of recovery. These are important issues, yet all I hear from the anti-choice side is a complete dismissal of this reality. It is very difficult not to get annoyed when people who want to force all of this on you against your will don’t even give themselves the trouble to find out what a pregnancy even is, when and how it ends, and what the process of giving birth entails. In short, this is not the kind of carelessness you can afford to exhibit in this discussion. When I go to a blog of somebody whose biological reality is entirely different from mine, I just sit quietly, trying to learn before I make any pronouncements.
“Many friends and family I know are very religious, and I can only think of a handful who would hold the extreme views. The rest, while solidly conservative, have no problem with birth control and aren’t trying to mandate a path on life in general.”
– In the next Link Encyclopedia, there will be a link to a post by a fellow literature prof who tried to teach the ancient epic of Gilgamesh and was then harassed by fundie students who are upset that one of the earliest literary works of humanity didn’t conform to their sense of morality. I have seen a few conservatives who don’t want to control people’s bodies by force, but they are few and far between. Most just say completely ridiculous things that make it impossible to take them seriously.
LikeLike
I would agree with you if the social conservatives concerned themselves only with the survival of fetuses and nothing else. They do not. Many of them want to regulate contraceptive use, even those that are clearly not abortifacts, as well as sterilization. They also seek to regulate acts between consenting adults even in cases where there is no possibility of pregnancy (i.e. gay sex, oral sex) and, hence, no fetus to be protected.
To get back to the original point of the article, many social conservatives are obsessed with pushing women into having kids even if they have no desire to do so in the first place.
Pro-life seems to be more than just protecting the unborn. It seems to be about pressuring people into living a fixed life pattern (grow up, get married, have kids, grow old, and die) regardless of whatever dreams and goals people may set for themselves.
LikeLike
“Pro-life seems to be more than just protecting the unborn. It seems to be about pressuring people into living a fixed life pattern (grow up, get married, have kids, grow old, and die) regardless of whatever dreams and goals people may set for themselves.”
– GOOD point. I’m glad to have you here, Abelard.
LikeLike
oh shoot, I thought this was really about Reproductive rights.
I thought oh no, now they (who?) are going to take these rights (organs) away at birth label and store them and at a certain age, say 35 you can file for a return of your organs. Of course that would involve a fee and an application, we need to make sure that you can proof you are a stable person with enough wits to raise a child, have the finances, or at least are not homeless etc etc. Than when approved after an OBJECTIVE evaluation you can have a child; second child we’ll check again, see how you did with your first one; turned out bad? sorry no more children for you.
Voila, problem solved, no more unwanted children, no more abortions. Everybody is happy. I just wonder what this would do for the economy?
A generation later we certainly would miss millions of socially and financially challenged “consumers” sitting in front of the tube internalizing all the wonderful ads and running out buying all that crab; never mind if they could afford it or need it. That would really be bad for the economy, wouldn’t it?
Come to think of it, maybe that’s why the conservatives with the cashola are against women rights?
… just thinking!
LikeLike
Pro choice is a misnomer. It should read “her choice”, thats it, thats all.
LikeLike
You are confusing an adjective and a noun.
LikeLike
I would go a step farther and say that these men loathe women and their bodies. It’s part of the fascist mentality. The icky way they talk about sex organs and secretions and so on is the tipoff.
They are really sick in the head about women.
LikeLike
Absolutely. They are consumed with rage and hatred. These feelings ooze out of every word they say about women.
And the sad part is that such obviously diseased people run for political office.
LikeLike
I disagree with this article. I’m undecided on my stance of abortion. I don’t like the act itself but I can understand the importance of having the choice, especially in instances of rape.
However I believe that at some point that fetus becomes a child. Late term abortions being done not for the sake of protecting the mother are something I have hard time accepting. When they become human? I have no idea that’s why I a say my stance is undecided.
My concern on the matter isn’t about forcing women to see it out through the end but the ethical treatment of the life that was created.
LikeLike
“However I believe that at some point that fetus becomes a child.”
– We all believe that. This “point” is called birth. I notice fairly often that men see birth, the process of giving birth as fairly unimportant. Hence, all the discussions about “the moment after birth”, a point, etc. This is an instance when an alternative biological reality is so incomprehensible to one that it gets dismissed.
LikeLike
“We all believe that. This “point” is called birth.”
At some point it gets arms, arms, legs, a heartbeat. I’m not a biologist but isn’t it alive? not necessarily at any of those points. Isn’t it human at some point before birth? If you disagree with one or both of those statements how do you see it?
LikeLike
A fetus is as “alive” as any other body part. It cannot survive outside the body, just like my ear or my toe can’t. Why the sudden interest to control this specific body part as opposed to any other? If, at least, this were a movement that proposed legislation that mandated people not to alter any of their body parts in any way, that would have some logical consistency.
And to anticipate the “potentiality argument” (a fetus has the potential to turn into a life, etc.), I can say that every one of us has a spare kidney and spare parts of our liver that can give life to other people. Should the government force us into giving life to others by donating these organs against our will to save lives?
Let’s at least try to be ideologically consistent here. Either we support the government invading people’s bodies or we don’t. If you support the government’s right to manage, invade and control every citizen’s body by force, then I can respect that position. I don’t agree with it but since it is logical and consistent, I will absolutely respect it. But if you support selective governmental intrusion into some bodies but not others, to create / save some lives but not others, I cannot respect that.
(When I say “you” in these discussions, I don’t mean you personally, of course.)
LikeLike
A fetus is as “alive” as any other body part. It cannot survive outside the body, just like my ear or my toe can’t(Clarissa)
Really? Remind me of that the next time there is a premature birth of the fetus, or to be technical, premature baby.
LikeLike
Abortions are only legal in this country until the 12th week of pregnancy. No fetus is viable at that stage.
When did you suddenly become an anti-choicer?
LikeLike
When did you suddenly become an anti-choicer?(Clarissa)
Im not. I just dont think it is as black and white as most people want to make it. In Canada I believe abortions are legal well past 12 weeks.
LikeLike
Canada is a great example here. In spite of having no restrictions on the stage of pregnancy when abortion is legal, there is absolutely no record of any rush for “last minute abortions.” The abortions that happen after 20 weeks are few in number and always have to do with non-viability of the fetus or the health of the woman. This tells us that anti-choicers can unclench already and trust women to make our own rational choices.
LikeLike
ideologically we agree that the government should not have forcible control over anybody’s body.
The main difference as I see it is that you don’t affirm the fetus as a person until it is born. I am uncertain whether heart beating/brain activity or some other factor affirms the baby as a person.
Considering we both agree that the government should not have forcible control over a person’s body this would apply to the child when they become a person. If you see that as when a child is in the womb in the late stages of pregnancy then at that point it also becomes an issue about control over the babies body.
I just don’t see how that line of argumentation would be considered hateful or objectifying women as baby making fleshy robots as this article would seem to imply.
LikeLike
I don’t know what it means “to affirm a fetus as a person”. It is either a fetus or a person. I also don’t see how it’s my place to “affirm” other people’s body parts without their direct request. If I start categorizing what is inside THEIR bodies according to MY system of beliefs, what is that other than an intrusion?
When will we stop “affirming” fetuses and start recognizing that the issue involves people whose personhood is not in question according to any system of beliefs, namely, women?
Of course, if a person decides to consider the fetus growing inside them as a human being at absolutely any stage, I would never dispute that right. Why do they want to invade me if I don’t plan to invade them? Because they like their system of beliefs better than I do mine? Just look at the basic injustice here: I only want to control what happens inside me. They want to control what happens inside other people.
LikeLike
Thank you for your well explained points. I don’t know I agree with you but you’ve definitely given me something to think about. I would write more but I think a need a bit more time to mull it over. Nothing I’m coming up with now feels right. It’s not a simple issue that’s for sure.
LikeLike
“I believe that at some point that fetus becomes a child.”
This is just echoing Clarissa above but I don’t understand why the moment of birth is suddenly so fuzzy when it comes to abortion rights. We honor that moment with a birth certificate; doctors record the _exact_ minute the child was born; we celebrate birthdays etc etc. So in every other capacity we recognize that birth is what transforms a fetus in to a baby. Why in the case of abortion does the line get so fuzzy? Anti-abortionists claim that this has nothing to do with controlling women but it’s hard to see how that’s true………….Also, Mark mentions “late term abortions.” That’s such a strawman. Do you know how very very few pregnancies are terminated late term? Think about it: who is going to go through 6-7 months of morning sickness, weight gain and general discomfort just to terminate? Late term abortions are ONLY performed under extraordinary circumstances and are rare. I personally get so annoyed when they are brought in to every single discussion on abortion.
LikeLike
Evelina: I agree completely. We keep hearing about abortions “a minute before birth” and this is the “big gun” anti-choicers roll out every time with scary self-righteousness never recognizing how ridiculous this “argument” is. First of all, there is no “minute before birth.” Labor takes time, often a lot of time. Two ow my closest friends were in labor for up to 40 hours.
Second, there are no recorded cases of anybody in their sound mind requesting an abortion on their due date. If you believe that women are capable of assuming the risks and the psychological, physiological and emotional costs of 40 weeks of pregnancy only to change their minds the day before the contractions start, you need to hate women with a scary abandon. Not only does this point of view presuppose that women are completely irrational, it also defines us as an uncontainable, incomprehensible force of nature that is illogically destructive for absolutely no reason.
And then the anti-choicers wonder why we call them woman-haters.
LikeLike
“At some point it gets arms, arms, legs, a heartbeat. I’m not a biologist but isn’t it alive? not necessarily at any of those points. Isn’t it human at some point before birth?”
At Mark: I think it’s better to turn the question back at you. What then is DIFFERENT about birth? Why do we bother to celebrate a birthday? Why not celebrate “Hooray-you-have-grown-legs-day”? Why is citizenship granted at birth instead of conception? How is birth different from being in the womb? I think if you answer those questions, you will understand Clarissa’s point.
LikeLike
After reading the sample, I have no desire to read the rest of the article.
It was just crap.
But that’s nothing new. Both sides in the “abortion debate” habitually and routinely misrepresent the views and motives of the other side, and will continue to do so, as the except you quoted from the article makes clear.
LikeLike
This is simply not an issue that any man can understand and feel in the same way that a woman does.
I feel vicarious shame for men who don’t understand how deeply wrong it is for them to have all these opinions on the subject of somebody else’s biological reality.
LikeLike
I feel disappointment that you dont understand that in some instances you have a real, honest, compassionate father who will be deeply affected by the unilateral decision of someone else. It is not so simple as just a ” biological reality”. 😦
LikeLike
“I feel disappointment that you dont understand that in some instances you have a real, honest, compassionate father who will be deeply affected by the unilateral decision of someone else.”
– If a woman’s father is so affected by her reproductive choices, he needs to:
a) start having a sex life of his own immediately;
b) have his head examined.
Don’t you see how deeply unhealthy the situation you describe is?
LikeLike
Ok Clarissa
http://www.titfortat6.blogspot.ca/2011/02/can-equality-and-pro-choiceas-used.html
LikeLike
I’m not sure if that is meant to be a response to what I wrote, as it doesn’t seem to bear any relation to anything I said. But let me respond with a link that someone gave in response to one of your other posts:
http://chroniclesandconcepts.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/an-emotional-extension/
LikeLike
I already commented on this link. Just imagine how much more honest it would have been of this woman to terminate the pregnancy while there was still no person for her to torture. 😦 I have no doubt she will continue popping them out and destroying them. And how many more cases like that would there be if abortion becomes illegal? 😦
LikeLike
Again Clarissa, its not black and white. I dont say abortion should be banned I just dont think in its present form(her choice only) that it is fair for all concerned. Its a difficult situation that needs more open and reasoned dialogue.
LikeLike
Titfortat: feel free to have a nation-wide referendum on what happens inside your body, if that’s what pleases you. But let other people manage their bodies on their own, without anybody’s input, if that’s what they want.
LikeLike
@Clarissa
This is where you and I part ways. It takes two to make a fetus/baby. Whether you like it or not there will be more legal challenges to the notion that its “only” going to be the womens choice whether she can terminate the pregnancy unilaterally. Without open dialogue on the matter you can rest assured you are only going to make the extremists more extreme in their demands. Shutting down moderate voices does nothing for your position.
LikeLike
“This is where you and I part ways. It takes two to make a fetus/baby. Whether you like it or not there will be more legal challenges to the notion that its “only” going to be the womens choice whether she can terminate the pregnancy unilaterally. Without open dialogue on the matter you can rest assured you are only going to make the extremists more extreme in their demands. Shutting down moderate voices does nothing for your position.”
– I have no idea what you are trying to say because everything is so vague. We were discussing whether a woman’s father should have a say in her pregnancy. Now, it started to sound like you are talking about her male sex partner. Or are we discussing cases when a pregnancy happens as a result of incest?
If we are talking about male sex partners, any woman with an ounce of brain matter would immediately abort a pregnancy resulting from sex with a freakazoid who wants to decide what happens inside her body. Who needs to have such a diseased man in one’s life? If he has such a total disrespect for you, then let him go and get pregnant, give birth, etc. on his own. As for “legal challenges”, you call somebody who’d SUE a woman to make her go through an unwanted pregnancy moderate? “Insane” is a term that would work better here. But maybe we can compromise and call him “moderately insane.”
LikeLike
What if it is a married couple and the wife is schizophrenic and stops taking her medication and then decides to abort a fetus baby when she is in paranoid state. Would the husband(man) be moderately insane or a freakazoid to attempt to stop it?
LikeLike
“Would the husband(man) be moderately insane or a freakazoid to attempt to stop it?”
– Both. One has to be a very nasty human being to make a schizophrenic to give birth against her will. It is beyond abusive and horrifying. Using a mentally sick person as a vehicle for your weird reproductive goals against that person’s will is disgusting!
Besides, just think about the future of a baby born to a schizophrenic who was taking haloperidol or whatever during pregnancy and whose mother was forced into carrying the pregnancy to term by a jerk of a father. Abortion is a lot more honest in such a situation.
LikeLike
One has to be a very nasty human being to make a schizophrenic to give birth against her will(Clarissa)
Well technically it would seem her “will” wouldnt have much to do with it considering she would be off her meds. I would assume her “will” would be much better when on the meds and more likely to want the baby she decided to have while medicated. It must be comforting to live in such a black and white world.
LikeLike
“I would assume her “will” would be much better when on the meds”
– Wow, you really have no boundaries. Unless you are this person’s attending physician, it is SO not your place to have an opinion on whether she should or shouldn’t take medication. Even if you were her physician, of course, the ultimate decision on whether to take medication should always be her own.
Where does this need to “assume” things about other people’s meds, pregnancies, bodies and lives come from? Do you really disrespect other to the extent of thinking that you know best what pills they should take and which pregnancies carry to term?
I’m also quite bothered by your contempt towards the mentally ill.
LikeLike
I’m also quite bothered by your contempt towards the mentally ill.(Clarissa)
Unfortunately when my mentally ill brother was dying in my mothers arms he stated “I dont want to die”. Life doesnt always give you a do over, so when he was off his meds he decided to “off” himself. My mother can only wish that someone could have made sure he took his meds. If I was a husband whose wife decided to make such a dire decision based on a non medicated thought pattern you can rest assured I would have no problem ensuring it did not go through.
LikeLike