The REAL truth about the Abortion Debate
 

finally: common sense words about the TRUE aim of the "Pro-Lifers" (note: partial article)

The abortion row in the US is not about babies. It's about power-mad grown-ups who despise each other

Lionel Shriver
Thursday March 9, 2006
The Guardian

I've suffered a dizzy sensation this week because my native United States is hurtling backwards through time. South Dakota has just passed a total ban on abortion and half a dozen other states have similar legislation in the pipeline. The new law makes no exception for rape or incest, so that even a 13-year-old knocked up by her own father would be obliged to take her baby to term. The intention, of course, is that the law ends up in the supreme court, where the American right hopes that, with the help of Bush's two new appointees, the court will overturn the evil Roe v Wade, which legalised abortion nationwide in 1973.

Neither you nor I have the appetite for debating the abortion issue once again, so let's skip to the interesting bit. What's really going on here?

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilisation is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society," the governor of South Dakota opined on Monday. "The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society."

Lofty rhetoric. But I have studied the eyes of the fanatics who regularly picket abortion clinics in the US and I do not see love of tiny unborn babies. I see hatred.

What is really going on here is the same culture war that has been raging in America since I was a kid - the same stand-off between the strait-laced, self-righteous toe-the-line types who wear hats to church, and the grubby, licentious long-hairs brandishing peace signs with whom I grew up. Both factions are still shouting at each other across the cultural divide, and these poor foetuses are just weapons flung like ripe tomatoes. The abortion issue in the US is not about babies. It's about control, about power, about who can tell whom what to do, about who despises whom and their disgusting lifestyle. In short, it's about grown-ups.

The term "pro-life" could not be less apt. (Enjoy the irony that many a "pro-lifer" also supports capital punishment.) Only the abortion rights movement has a genuinely positive agenda, the protection of a woman's right to make her own decision about an admittedly thorny moral issue whose implications are intimate. The emotional force driving pro-lifers is profoundly negative; alas, it is our negative emotions that usually pack the most punch. The anti-abortion movement is fired up with loathing - for permissive, Godless lefties who don't even get nervous when threatened with eternal damnation since they don't believe in it (which must be terribly frustrating). Thrilled with the sudden realignment on the supreme court, the right is power-mad, and relishes the prospect of telling the heathens what they can and cannot do. This is a very personal showdown, but it is a showdown between folks who are generally at least five feet tall. The babies are useful tools, but emotionally irrelevant.

I spot exactly the same hypocrisy in the animal rights movement, which is also driven by hatred of fellow bipeds, and which appears to have very little to do with beagles that are punched in the nose. This is another cadre giddy with its own power, high on self-righteousness and, considering their ostensible area of biological expertise, one strangely oblivious to the fact that the people whose cars and labs they bomb are animals too. In hounding (if you will) Oxford students or investors of Huntington Life Sciences, Animal Liberation Front types are less driven to protect caged rats than to push other people around.

In kind, the fastidious urbanites who successfully outlawed fox-hunting never struck me as especially fussed about foxes. Oh, they talked about the poor little foxes, but the foxes themselves were mere rhetorical pawns. The emotional colour of the hunting-ban argument was negative and authoritarian, if, in this case, of a leftwing brand. The fox-hunting debate has always been about people - people you don't like and people who will bolster your own sense of victorious domination once you get to ruin their weekends.

This is so true, it's sad. I will never understand why anyone thinks its his or her business what another person decides to do with his/her life. Anyway, does anyone think there will be a coat hanger drive to send to South Dakota? They'll certainly be needing a lot more... :rolleyes: :mad:

hahahaha, can i help with the drive?

This actually explains the rationale (or lack thereof) behind alot of issues. The superior and self-rightious hypocrites want to control the inferior, dumb regular people. The good, hard-working people want to gain control of their lives from the evil, hypocritical fat cats.

well, now, I think I would characterize it just a bit different:
the evil, superior, self righteous hypocritical fat cats want to control the inferior regular hard working people.

YEP. Thats about the size of it.:shocked: :eek:

I guess, but I don't think the fat cats see the regular people as hard working. I also think they seem them as stupid. They would have to with the type of sh*t they try to pull! My first statement was written from the perspective of the fat cats and the second from that of common folks. Sort of, there's some fairly obvious bias in there. :laugh:

I may be one of the few people on hear who does not agree with abortion. Its not anything religious, but I just do not like the thought of killing an living thing. However, I will say, that I think abortion should be legal, because it is not up to politions or the government to tell people how to live their lives. I have many friends that have had abortions - just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean that I hate my friends because of it. Its not my body, so who am I to say what you can and can't do?

After all, how could dummies like you and I know what to do if they didnt tell us?:rolleyes: :mad:

foxyluva: I wish more people thought like you did, I can understand people being against the idea, but I can never figure out why they then feel it is their right to push their opinions on another person...it's a pity people feel pro-choice translates to pro-abortion when it really translates to pro-letting people make thier own best decisions.

I do wonder what is going to happen when some minor gets pregnant by her relative and how that will play out in public...is that state who passed this insane bill going to pay for all the child support and counseling the kid will need, or does it just get swept under the rug as a problem no-one really wants to examine. They had a similar issue on Boston Legal a few weeks ago with a rape victim and the morning after pill...(great show btw).

Thank You. I've always felt that if you don't agree with something then DONT DO IT. How dare you tell other people what they can and can't do.

I think that these so called 'people' who allowed this to become law should be made legally accountable for any unwanted pregnancies that people are now forced to have. Should they should have to adopt the children :shrug:

The pro-lifers seem only care about the fetus...once the baby's born, they could give two ****s about it.

Because they control the news & talkradio shows (especially Fox News...my God is that the Republican/Religious Right mouthpiece masquerading as "news" or what?), they think we're stupid because they think we'll buy into their lies...that we're brainwashed. (Just listen to how absurd & ridiculous people like Sean Hannity, a friggin whack-job incarnate, are...it scares the **** out of me to realize that those people are SO insane that Pat Buchanan actually sometimes makes sense.)

It is EXACTLY what the Nazi's did in 1930's Germany, it is EXACTLY what Stalin (and his successors) did in the Soviet Union, it is EXACTLY what the Republican party is doing to us now. TELLING us what & how to think. What can we do? Well, vote against the Republican party candidates...if that doesn't work...civil disobedience, revolution, anarchy.

We were discussing this today at work because we were trying to figure out how to editorialize on it. I feared I may have gone on a little long about the subject, especially since my immediate boss (the editorial page editor) I'm pretty sure leans pro-life. I was sitting here lamenting having said, "The pro-life movement is all about moral superiority and punishing sluts," because I feared it may have been a little much. But now I feel so vindicated!

It's all so true! If these people were truly interested in life, they would be going in and finding out why women have abortions and try to deal with those issues instead of just trying to outlaw abortion.

I bet paid maternity leave would have some women reconsidering having their baby. Or affordable day care and pre-school. Or knowing there's little chance of the father being able to skip out on helping take care of the baby.

Now there's a pro-life agenda...

OK Let's go back 40 years in time to when Ozzie and Harriet lived!!
 

The stats are something like 90% of the news outlets are owned by 5 companies and they are all Republican. It is crazy and very frightening how many people believe the lies. :eek:

Hannity is absurd. I love listening to Stephanie Miller make fun of him, her voice guy is always doing his "What about the buses?" bit.

As long as I don't have to pay for it.