Writer’s note: This is a response to a blog post by Jim Jordan, entitled: Why Prochoice Is Misogynistic. As always, italics below indicate language taken directly from that site.
Misogyny – hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.
Many years ago an idea deceived millions of women into believing that a right to abortion was a fundamental human right for women. It has worked extremely well. To use a Herman Cain term, women have been “brainwashed” into thinking abortion is automatically good for them to “be able to choose”.
Deceived? Um, no. Reproductive rights are a fundamental human right, as indicated by all the major human rights instruments which touch on the topic.
As for being “brainwashed,” if you don’t believe that women should have a choice in their reproductive health, in determining the number and spacing of their children (a fundamental human right), then I’d say that you really don’t trust women. And that sounds pretty damn misogynistic to me.
The prochoice logic goes like this: Women know that babies alter lifestyles dramatically. Even if they give them up for adoption once they are born, that pregnancy itself is a dramatic experience. They might not want to deal with the pregnancy or the baby at that time. Prochoicers fight to keep that option open for women.
I’m shocked. This sounds almost accurate, even if your wording is a bit…shall we say, argumentative? Prochoice fights for ALL reproductive options to be available to women because they are FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS. And pregnancy and childbirth ARE strains on a woman’s body, and can even be fatal. Women should be able to CHOOSE whether they want to take the risk of continuing with a pregnancy. As a side-note, I’m not sure why adoption even figures into this discussion as it’s a parenting decision rather than a pregnancy decision, but whatevs.
Before we go any further, we should ask the question, “What is an abortion?” Well, click here if you have an empty stomach. It is grotesque. In the video, you see clearly the severed head of the child in the grips of the abortionist’s utensil. In abortion, that baby growing inside the mother is murdered.
Ah, what would an antichoice article about abortion be without a link to some fetal gore porn. That actually doesn’t show a typical abortion so much as this does, but keep on pretending that late-term abortions are the norm. Just please stop telling other people that they are…because it’s a lie.
Abortion kills females gratuitously.
If you ARE using the word correctly, you would be incorrect. Access to abortion helps ensure that women are able to exercise their fundamental human right to determine the number and spacing of their children, as well as their right to the highest standard of health, their right to life, etc, etc. I’d say that’s pretty necessary.
And this is good for women?
Protecting the human rights of women is good for women? Yup.
I think not first of all because half of those babies are female.
First, we really need to work on your grasp of the English language. Words have meanings for a reason. While gestating, a member of the human species is not a “baby.” It is a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus (ZEF).
As for half of abortions resulting in the termination of a pregnancy and the death of a female ZEF, well, we don’t really KNOW that (most abortions are performed before sex can be determined), but, for the sake of argument, we’ll pretend that it’s true. Even taking this as a truth, however, it doesn’t matter. Women’s rights are about protecting the rights of women, aka BORN female persons. ZEF aren’t born persons. If abortions were being disproportionately performed on female fetuses (as we have seen in some other parts of the world), we can begin to talk about the problems with this in terms of the impact it has on the rights of born persons, but until then, the sex of ZEFs affected by abortion does.not.matter.
Advocating the killing of females does not qualify as “women’s rights” to me. And you?
Advocating for the killing of women and girls doesn’t sound like women’s rights to me. Permitting women and girls to terminate pregnancies containing a female ZEF, however, does. Because rights don’t attach until birth, and women are girls are born, while ZEF are not.
Prochoice activists gloss over this problem with a huge, deceptive lie. They say the fetus is “not human” or “not a human being” or even the absurd “it’s just a glob of cells”. These are offensive statements to anyone who uses their brain to process data.
Abortion terminates pregnancies. But, in doing so IT PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN (aka, female persons). NO ONE whom I know says that ZEF (zygotes, embryos, or fetuses) aren’t human, or that they are a blob of cells. And I make it a point to correct anyone who says so. But they are not persons. Rights are derived from one’s status as a person. So the fact that the prochoice movement is concerned with protecting the rights of women makes absolute sense. And is not in any way a reflection of misogynistic ideals.
How do the benefits of abortion outweigh the negative consequences? And if you say abortion is a good thing and you had one, you’ve lost your mind; a sign of abortion’s dire consequences!
How the hell does this have anything to do with misogyny? No matter, we’ll address it anyway, below.
Ah, sexism. How I (don’t) adore thee! For many women, being a mother is an important part of how they express their status as a woman. For many others, however, motherhood does not figure into how they express their womanhood. BOTH ARE VALID EXPRESSIONS OF WOMANHOOD. To pretend that all women dream of being a mother, however, or to insinuate that a woman is not a woman unless she is a mother, is incredibly insulting to women and, dare I say it, misogynistic.
How is killing the child in utero good for her?
Again, please to be using correct terminology. There are NO children in utero anywhere in the world. If there are, we have a BIG problem. In utero, members of the human species are known as zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, or fetuses. When they are referred to as “child” or “baby” it is as a term of endearment. But given that we’re talking about a medical procedure, and the legality of said procedure, it’s best that we still to technical, medical, and legal terminology.
As I have explained before HERE all post-abortive women show signs of suffering, whether masked or not.
Multiple research studies have shown that abortion DOES NOT negatively impact a woman’s mental health any more than childbirth. What DOES impact a woman’s mental health is whether or not her pregnancy was/is wanted or unwanted. The APA agrees with this assessment. Further, other studies have shown that IF women do experience negative feelings after undergoing an abortion, it is largely due to the actions of the antichoice community.
Let’s face it, if you watched that video of an abortion and came away saying, “That is a good thing!”, you’re a sociopath.
A sociopath? Really? I’m pretty sure my therapist would have mentioned by now if I’m a sociopath. Again, let’s not throw medical and scientific terms around willy-nilly, k? Sociopathy isn’t really used all that much anymore, particularly by psychologists, but it’s a fairly severe form of anti-social personality disorder (you can read the characteristics of that in the DSM-IV). Seeing an abortion and recognizing that, as long as a woman chose the medical procedure freely, it is a GOOD thing that women can exercise ALL of their reproductive rights (for example, their right to determine the number and spacing of their children) is not an indication of anti-social personality disorder. But nice attempt at a smear tactic.
Finally, attacking women who have undergone a legal medical procedure for feeling good about the fact that they made the choice that was best for them and were able to exercise their reproductive rights, reveals a HUGE mistrust of women’s ability to make decisions. If that’s not misogyny, I don’t know what is.
I don’t see how the benefits are “good for women”. We have millions of post-abortive women in the US, many have turned to pro life causes and become great warriors.
And many more haven’t. Remember, 1 in 3 women has had an abortion. I really don’t think the antichoice cause has that many women in it. But whatevs. Who cares about accuracy, right?
Some have become bitter monsters hurling profanity-laced insults at pro-lifers…until they break down and cry. No lie. I’ve been excoriated by prochoice activists on Twitter and on this blog only to find they are “fragile” and I shouldn’t traumatize them with “grotesque pictures”.
Ah, the insults. Can’t you just feel the antichoice love? When prochoice individuals on twitter tell you to stop posting fetal gore porn, it’s because we are sensitive to the fact that some individuals really just don’t like seeing gore. Doctors don’t hang up pictures of open heart surgeries in their waiting rooms for the same reason. That doesn’t mean we’re “break[ing] down and cry[ing]. It means we respect the idea that some people just don’t like to see gore. But, again, nice try.
Summation; the benefits are dwarfed by the harsh consequences of killing your own child.
SIGH. The benefit is that a woman is able to fully exercise her FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT to determine the number and spacing of her children. That benefit is HUGE!!!! And you’ve yet to show me a negative that I haven’t debunked using..*gasp* science, so…. Also, again, it’s not a child. In utero, a member of the human species is a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus. PLEASE learn the correct terminology and use it.
So how is tricking women into murdering their children “pro woman”? It isn’t.
If someone is “tricking” women into having an abortion, that’s wrong. And is definitely NOT prochoice or pro-woman. But if someone is helping a woman who WANTS to have an abortion obtain an abortion, that is prochoice. And helping women exercise their fundamental reproductive rights IS pro-woman.
Also, again, words have meaning for a reason. I’ve said many times in this post that abortion does not involve children. It is also NOT murder. Please see EVERY SINGLE STATUTE ABOUT MURDER in the United States to find that abortion, as a medical procedure, is excluded form all of them.
Remember the prochoice movement’s key martyr, Geraldine “Gerri” Santoro? Here’s her story:
In 1963, domestic violence prompted Santoro to leave her husband, and she and her daughters returned to her childhood home.  She took a job at Mansfield State Training School, where she met another employee, Clyde Dixon.  The two began an extramarital affair — Dixon was also married — and Santoro became pregnant as a result.
When Sam Santoro announced he was coming from California to visit his daughters, Gerri Santoro feared for her life.  On June 8, 1964, six-and-a-half months into her pregnancy, she and Dixon checked into a motel in Norwich, Connecticut, under aliases. Their intent was to perform a self-induced abortion, using surgical instruments and a textbook, which Dixon had obtained from a co-worker at the Mansfield school. However, when Santoro began to hemorrhage, Dixon fled the motel. She died, at age 28, and her body was found the following morning by a maid.
Your attention please: “Dixon had obtained (a textbook) from a co-worker at the Mansfield school” and “Dixon fled”. Why were they doing this? Prochoicers wax emotional and cry foul over illegal abortion. But this man forced his girlfriend to risk her life to kill her child – HIS child. And for what?
WHAT.IS.WRONG.WITH.YOU? The thinly-veiled misogynistic statements, outright lies, and feats of extraordinarily bad logic in this are astonishing.
First, “The two began an extramarital affair” – this is relevant because….? Because you think it’s okay to punish a woman for entering into a relationship with another man before she divorced her husband, who was so abusive she had to flee? Yeah…there’s some misogyny for ya, right there.
Second, “But this man forced his girlfriend to kill her child – HIS child.” And for what?” ::deep breath:: WHERE, in any of the readings about this case, do you get the impression that Dixon forced Gerri to undergo this abortion. Where? Please point it out to me. Because EVERYTHING available on this case suggests that the two MADE THE DECISION TOGETHER because Gerri feared for her life if her husband saw that she were pregnant, and feared that she would lose her other children if he noticed the same.
Who does abortion benefit, immoral men or women?
In very few cases did the real “choice” come from the woman.
While abortion coercion is a real concern, the idea that it is as prevalent as you suggest is a flat out lie. And it belies your misogyny that you don’t believe that women are capable of making this decision on their own.
Abortion is a watershed right for MEN, not women. Abortion is the right of choice for libertine men like Clyde Dixon. Irresponsible men have been setting women up for failure for millennia.
MEN are not the ones who carry a pregnancy. MEN are not the ones who risk their very lives in carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering. MEN are not the ones who undergo an abortion procedure. MEN are not the ones whom society has determined are primarily responsible for childcare.
So please to be correcting this nonsense about abortion being about men.
Prochoice is their chance to flee the consequences and conveniently pin the guilt on the woman.
Summation: The prochoice joke is on women. Abortion rights are the worst form of misogyny; punishing women with a lifetime full of guilt and mixed up emotions so men can have THEIR lifestyle.
I know this sounds insensitive, prochoice women. Women have been injured more deeply by abortion than by any other action in the last 100 years. Rethink your position on abortion. Post-abortive women are the backbone of the prolife movement. Things can change. Forgiveness is available to you. Choose well. Choose life.
Ah, and here we come to the crux of your misogynistic article, and I’ll share the crux of my response.
Abortion is one of many ways that women can exercise one of the many reproductive rights that are fundamental human rights. Trusting women to make decisions regarding their pregnancies is in NO WAY misogynistic. It is, in fact, the direct opposite of misogyny. Infringing upon that right in any way, on the other hand, negatively impacts women, and is both illegal and immoral. Infringing upon that right because you don’t trust women to make decisions that are best for them is MISOGYNISTIC.
I hope this post has cleared up any confusion Mr. Jordan’s post may have caused.
Till next time,
p.s. I almost forgot, for your efforts, Jim, I have a gift for you. A free pass to this club: