Destroying the pro-life movement from within

That’s not what Tim “Because I Got” High has in mind, but anyone wishing to roundly dismiss abortion opponents as shrill, knee-jerk zealots whose monumental ignorance is rivaled only by their naked, unapologetic bias can certainly point to this surreal spectacle of errancy and hypocrisy as an archetypal example.
Put aside your own feelings about abortion and read what this fellow has to say about it. As for my reaction, it’s so much about abortion per se as it is a treatise on the benighted, agnosognosic mind.


First, “Highboy,” striving as always to make Pat Robertson appear a left-wing pillar of feminism, comments on a news brief he discovered in Ms. Magazine Online (oh, how it must tweak his nutlets to force-feed himself such unflinchingly uppity tripe). He quotes selectively from the brief:

The Ohio House passed a bill (68-25) on Thursday to codify several longstanding limitations on using public funds for poor women seeking abortions, as well as abortion counseling and referrals … “If a woman’s pregnancy is a threat to a woman’s mental health, she is out of luck,” [Ohio House Minority Leader Joyce] Beatty said.

In response, Highboy states:

Long overdue. The government can make them pay for their sick form of birth control on their own dime, not mine. But not House Minority Leader Joyce Beatty, who of course wants exceptions … Whatever. It is all subjective, as she well knows. We oppose exceptions, and Beatty illustrated why just beautifully: because then everything, even something as trivial as a headache, becomes a reason to have an abortion. The idea that someone can get an abortion due to “depression” is moral depravity at historical proportions, and illustrates extreme selfishness.

What Highboy doesn’t mention is that the funds in question are earmarked for clinics which “also provide treatment for sexually transmitted infections and other reproductive health care,” according to the news brief. But that’s not really the worst of it. This exemplar of absolute disregard for consequences, who purports to be all about the rights of the unborn, genuinely does not care that women with psychiatric problems and a clear intent not to enter into motherhood may not be ideal candidates for raising children, and calls them “selfish” for denying the world the chance to see this potential family in action.
His response such a challenge, as it’s been in the past, would surely be that “if she isn’t ready for motherhood, she should keep her damned legs closed.” Highboy is a strident supporter of the f*cked-up war in Iraq; what would he say to anyone grieving the loss of any of the 3,000 or so American soldiers who have died for a purpose the government has yet to spring on us? That they should have never listened to the damned recruiter? Does he allege that pregnant rape and incest victims have especially strong thigh adductor muscles that they callously choose not to engage at critical moments?
I’m wondering, too, about the number of women who cite headaches as a primary motive in seeking to terminate their pregnancies. Hey, that excuse obviously didn’t work in the sack, so why trot it out anew? And I suppose there’s no useful reason to dwell on the irony of his using scare quotes when mentioning a mental disorder as well as omitting them when he speaks of moral depravity, but there it is.

This debate is not an attack on womens’ rights, as the feminists would have us believe.

Right — it would be batty to construe railing against the entire concept of abortion an attack on women’s (or womens’) rights when it’s clearly a campaign to ensure that unwanted children all wind up in safe, nurturing households patrolled by mentally stricken mothers with uncooperative leg muscles. Nor, I suppose, is indicting any and all feminists for their feminist views an attack on women’s rights. Women should just shut the f*ck up, as Highboy’s every salvo propounds.
Highboy quotes from Life News opinion piece that is itself a reckless assemblage of inept reasoning:

Without consideration for the status of the unborn fetus, there simply is no abortion debate. If the fetus is not a person, who cares? But if it is, then the Constitution applies, we are faced with competing rights and there are a number of other considerations that are admissible, one of which is the fetus’s right to life, liberty and security of the person. But how many of us frame the debate this way? Not many. In high school and university, in the media and the movies, almost everywhere a woman turns, women’s rights are pitted against the pro-life position.

She’s full of shit, obviously; the WHO or some such body could whimsically decree just this second that personhood begins at the moment of parturition, thereby reinforcing the law of American land, and pro-lifers wouldn’t budge a millimeter, although they’d certainly pour that much more energy into combating the sex act itself. And every pro-lifer frames the debate in terms of the fetus being a person entitled not only to the same rights as the mother, but infinitely more of them. All she’s saying is that she’s pissed that the law doesn’t cater to this belief.
Highboy opines:

This is exactly where the debate should be, and this is exactly why we need laws that draw a clear line between what is to be considered human and what is not. The fact that we have left this matter up for grabs is ridiculous and totally reprehensible for a civilized society. There has to be a point in nature where a non-living organism crosses the line to be a living organism.

A line Highboy wants drawn at the moment of conception, thereby neatly rendering abortion another mode of murder under the law as well as in Highboy’s feeble ember of a mind. Or perhaps he has other ideas — elusive to scientists and bioethicists — about exactly where that overwhelmingly necessary line should be drawn, but is keeping them to himself.
From the Life News column:

Seeing an abortion in real life or on video prior to having one is not something that many women get to witness. Planned Parenthood says it won’t resort to “hysterical” videos like that. That’s like telling a student who wishes to learn about China and has an opportunity to travel there that she is actually better off staying home and reading her Lonely Planet.

Anyone offering seminars in effective analogies should contact the writer posthaste. Is she claiming that all Americans with a desire to visit China should be given unambiguously slanted, emotionally charged material (i.e., propaganda) specifically aimed at dissuading them from going through with their plans?
Says Highboy:

It is very telling that Planned Parenthood would consider a video of the abortion procedure “hysterical”.

As telling as a pro-lifer who calls abortion “sick birth control” and (see below) nothing but a profiteering scam? As telling as thinking that women should not only have children they can’t properly care for, but should be denied public assistance as well? Just whom or what is being advocated for here, may I ask?

What is also hilarious is the fact that pro-choicers consider the religious right to be so “intolerant”, yet they compromise nothing when it comes to abortion.

And what do anti-abortionists cede? Specifically, what is Tim “Fetus > Mother, ”We oppose exceptions'” High willing to grant to the pro-choice side? And if he’s permitted to be absolute in his ideas about what the law should permit, why does he expect those with opposing ideas to play softball with his blind and unyielding ilk?

They oppose any regulation of the procedure, such as limiting the justifications. They want it totally accessible for any reason under the sun. They oppose any parental rights whatsoever for the parents of those young teens seeking abortion. They oppose the right of any father of any fetus to have a say in whether or not a child is terminated in the womb. They oppose any law requiring doctors to give all the available information, such as fetal pain.

Leaving aside Highboy’s bold exaggerations and factual inaccuracies here, it’s interesting that he fails to see the slippery slope underlying this reasoning despite his ardent application of same to pro-gay-marriage arguments. He believes, in other words, that gay marriage is a predecessor to people marrying their own mothers, yet ignores the fact that his side wants nothing more than concession after concession by pro-choicers until every door leading to an abortion procedure is slammed shut.
Right-to-lifers of Highboy’s type fight tooth and nail with bullshit, stupidity and dogmatic hate until they get exactly what they say they want, at which point they scream for more. The only way to keep them at bay is to give them nothing and fairly engage the court system. Many people are absolutist in their positions, but Highboy lacks the insight or the wilingness to see that his are the strictest positions of all, as well as the least externally and internally tenable.

In other words, they do not want women seeking an abortion to be as informed as possible. They even oppose the requirement of having a board certified doctor to at least be present during an abortion procedure. (Thus endangering the life/health of those having the abortion)

Here Highboy links to his own scatterbrained rant about an unfortunate situation in Alabama that should be addressed as the op-ed states, but which Highboy naturally generalizes in the extreme: “Its obvious to anyone with a brain that these clinics and the abortion industry as a whole are simply out to make money and to save money.” So abortion clinics in a state which is underserved in every imaginable way can be taken to represent the norm? “They” want all women to be ignorant, trundled like so many sheep through the entirety of abortion procedures without a scrap of information as to what they’re undergoing? When I mention pro-lifers, may I speak of all of “them” as misogynistic, semiliterate Dipshits for Christ with an eerily well-honed flair for self-contradiction?

Last but not least, they oppose any absolute line being drawn that demonstrates when a life becomes a life.

I’m still waiting for explicit mention of where this line should be drawn. Highboy reminds me of the Duddits Cavell character in Dreamcatcher (in more ways than one): “I see the line…

To put it simply, they are pro-abortion, not pro-choice. They favor no choice at all, and oppose any choice but abortion.

So they favor the termination of any and all pregnancies, regardless of whether the prospective mother wants children? That is draconian. I’m just wondering what might happen if Highboy ever lets his emotions overrule his intellect in building his screeds to a rasping crescendo.

It sounds ridiculous to be sure, paranoid even.

This reminds me of one of my favorite lead-ins people use in conversation, one that Ronald McDonald’s plaything over there appreciates as well: “Not to bring this up, but…”

But the stances that the pro-choice base has made speak for themselves, and they raise more questions then answers.

I guess the strategy is this: When the phrases “speak for themselves” and “raise more questions than answers” seems to work, by all means throw them in, lack of context notwithstanding.

Bottom line: abortion is a mulit-billion dollar industry, and that industry isn’t about to just watch its excess billions go pissing down the privy hole.

How eloquent, with a quaint metaphor to top it off. I don’t appreciate his singling on multiple mullets for ridicule, either.

They can entice scared teenagers with a way out, and brainwash the rest that what they’re killing is not really a life. One last time: it is infinitely harder to protect the human rights of human beings if we leave a grey haze around what qualifies as a human being.

Psst…Highboy…on that brainwashing thing, and the very title of your…ah, forget it. When someone speaks of “killing” something he can’t himself define as alive while complaining of the grey haze belched forth on the issue by people with bad multi-billion-dollar hockey haircuts or something, he’s not worth writing a lengthy blog post about.

Advertisements
  1. #1 by Southern Fried Skeptic on December 12, 2006 - 12:22 pm

    “If the fetus is not a person, who cares? But if it is, then the Constitution applies, we are faced with competing rights and there are a number of other considerations that are admissible, one of which is the fetus’s right to life, liberty and security of the person. ”
    And if they want to take this strong position on the rights of a fetus then they have a lot of work to do. If the constitution applies to the fetus, then it should be treated equally. We should claim deductions for dependents on tax forms from the moment of conception. We should issue a death certificate and official paperwork for every single miscarriage. The refusal to acknowledge that everyone- prolife or prochoice- recognizes a fundamental difference between a fetus and a human (we celebrate “birthdays” right? Not hardly a whimper about conception day) is just dishonesty through language. I did a post on this Word Abuse last month. It’s like the DNA/evolution argument I have used several times. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say a fetus is equal to a baby and then limit its rights when convenient. You can’t deny DNA evidence for evolution and then support using the same techniques to convict the guy who raped your sister. Cherry picking information and using meaningless rhetoric are hallmarks of the “Shout you down” crowd. Rather than immediately reacting defensively to their shouting, I find it is effective to lure them in by giving outrageous concessions, allowing them to fly blindly along until they realize in Wile-E.-Coyote fashion that the ground is no longer under them. Which inevitably happens when their “ideas” are really repetitive cheers with no thought actually being dedicated to them.

%d bloggers like this: