The following posts describe some of the most common approaches to abortion by both the conservative right and the far left, both using it a as political currency. By the right, it is used in appealing to voters’ emotions and giving conservatism a humanitarian appearance, whilst the far left, feminism in particular, exclusively paints it as a symbol of liberation, to a utilitarian and sometimes grotesque level.
Conservatives Using Bona Fide Pro-Life Voters
It’s a known fact that issues such as abortion, the nuclear family and values inspired by religion are still used as leverage in western countries by the political right, making it appear more humanist by giving it a spiritual, ethical dimension, which as a whole it does not possess.
Due to the contradictions listed below, this right wing stance seems a mere ploy to lure well-intended voters who feel increasingly cornered by cultural Marxism, as well as disenfranchised amidst rapid, radical changes to their societies.
After elaborating on their stance on abortion, conservative pundits or commentators immediately imply that in order for it to become the norm, conservatism must be adopted as a package, even if the rest of its precepts are harmful (and potentially murderous) to other vulnerable people.
It is my conclusion that abortion laws are not intended for change by the “system behind the system”, as whenever conservatives do reach power, this issue, so often brought up during campaigns, is cast aside and suffers no significant alterations in the end. As a side observation, they are probably aware that changing the law overnight will not end this phenomenon, after generations have already been brought up to be nihilistic.
Progressive nihilism aside, the right-wing ideology in and of itself contributes greatly to the reasons abortions are sought.
Being pro-life, akin to many other stances attributed to a political persuasion, is not a partisan issue, but a human issue.
Berating single mothers and poor families, claiming they “breed for benefits”
Perhaps this should be the first (flaming) red flag when dealing with those who stand against abortion, at the same time incriminating people in a precarious financial situation as irresponsible for conceiving children, either willingly or accidentally.
Some of the main causes of abortion are economic instability, conceiving outside of marriage and the fear of a ruined future (disrupted studies, a diversion from the envisaged trajectory in life etc). Conservatives do nothing to encourage expecting mothers to preserve the hope that they can manage life in this situation. On the contrary – they continually berate them as failures, as promiscuous and future spongers off the state, thus making them think society will shame them if they carry the pregnancy to term. Voices on the far right are known to call for the sterilisation of poor or uneducated people (as the Daily Gutter Mail comment section demonstrates).
In fact, though the general impression is that Planned Parenthood is a product of leftist culture (due to its current support by progressives), its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a renowned eugenicist seeking to purge the US of categories she thought brought nothing to its advancement. She is now chucked in with the cultural Marxist threat, some conservatives failing to see many of their fellow right-wingers openly share Sanger’s views.
By demonising (or even demolishing) the welfare state and cutting assistance for pregnant women in difficult situations, conservatives are going to cause an increase in the number of abortions, not a decrease.
It should be noted that the “poor people should not be allowed to breed” mentality comes at a time when western countries are seeing a downward spiral in reproduction, to the degree of irreversible damage.And still, they insist having children is only moral within the (often temporary) confines of marriage and only when reaching a certain (often temporary) financial situation, which leads to high rates of infertility due to women postponing motherhood. Some of the same people argue women should be encouraged to stay at home and raise families – while aware one provider is often no longer able to secure a high enough income nowadays (not enough to meet their material criteria anyway).
Whereas the left paints the picture of its own utopia, so does the right, without recognising that the “quiet suburban dream” is no longer attainable for many.
Disdain for universal healthcare
You’d think ideologues who care so much about every human being would extend their preoccupation to those who are already born (or pregnant). The reality is right-wingers abhor health care programs aimed at assisting financially disadvantaged people, whom they perceive (and publicly depict) as scroungers.
It looks awfully like they’d be willing to let people die unassisted so healthcare could be focused solely on “those who deserve it” (those who pay into the system). Of course, governments don’t ask for public consent when they spend money on foreign wars, yet when it comes to constructing an internal scapegoat, where taxes go suddenly begins to matter.
As a rational human being, one can only wonder why keeping everyone alive is not the foremost priority of any establishment, next to which anything comes second. Anyhow, claiming to be a supporter of everyone’s right to life and at the same time seeking to deprive vulnerable people of medical coverage is contradictory.
Warmongering and disregarding civilian “casualties”
Equally perplexing, especially among conservative Christians, is the support for military operations abroad, as results are reported back in the form of statistics, after the dead have been counted, many of them innocent civilians, whose lives should matter just as much as those in the west.
One cannot argue for the sacredness of life since conception while turning a blind eye to the massacres committed, in real time, in the name of imperialism.
Disdain for immigrants who apparently “breed like rabbits” and their “anchor babies”
We’re being overrun. It’s like a locust invasion. It’s white genocide. We’ll be minorities in our own countries in 20 years’ time.
The fine, fine irony of this matter is that most of these immigrants come from more conservative countries, which have not yet taken the progressive route. But their traditionalism and strong family values are not wanted by these conservatives. I’m not referring to the warped idea of religious fundamentalists regarding family life, but to the fact that in poorer countries, hedonism and nihilism tend to be less popular. Let’s take Hispanics in the US as an example. In Mexico alone, according to the latest census, 93% of people are Christian and typically have more than one child per family. The type of traditional life US conservatives would approve of, if their own (nation, race) adopted it.
Meanwhile, their children are, when parents are undocumented, referred to as “anchor babies”, which is dehumanising and derisory, as if they had less potential than their peers. The right-wing public discourse is that they don’t deserve to coexist and study with native children, implying they were “born for the wrong reasons”.
For those who are pro-life, conservatism might look like the only option forward – if they believe that politicians and pundits are indeed sincere in their intentions, and choose to ignore the rest of the proposed reforms, seeing this one issue as the most important.
Personally, I understand this and sympathise, but I do not think for a second that it’s anything more than empty rhetoric on conservatives’ part.
If any legislation is passed, it will be punitive and not compassionate or educational, as a culture of genuine compassion is the last thing they seem to be interested in. They certainly do not consider every human being, born or not, a person. These are the same people who advocate for dropping bombs on foreign towns and villages; the same people who advocate tearing families apart through deportation.
The same people who manifest visceral disgust towards the underprivileged, whether they are poor, uneducated, ill, unfairly stigmatised as dangerous or undocumented. What would lead us to think they are really preoccupied with the unborn?
My logical conclusion is that it’s an issue of supply and demand, of securing a voter niche; securing the loyalty of those who reject progressive views in that sense. Nothing more, nothing less.
Feminists, Abortion And The Media – It Doesn’t Get Much Sicker
Three Ways The Media Could Step Up To Stop Abortion Stigma
Whereas many feminist articles are of a cringeworthy stupidity, some are much, much darker. This one is potentially the sickest one I’ve read so far. I think even a segment of those who are pro-choice would agree. These are the main ideas:
- Television and cinema productions should be used as political propaganda (which is the case already, but not overtly), in order to shape people’s moral values according to cultural Marxism. Depictions of abortion on the screen should be policed for conveying anything but the idea that it is always the right choice.
- Abortion should be shown “in all its glory”, portrayed as a normal part of life and a positive decision women do not regret, in order to desensitise people into thinking there is no trauma involved.
- An emphasis should be placed on “all its benefits”, disregarding the “scare tactics” of the “anti-choice” bunch (disregarding disturbing truths about its physical and psychological consequences, as well as the prosperous industry built around it).
Just reading through this is morbid and chilling.
I want to see people on my television having abortions. I want to see them thinking it through, weighing the options, and choosing what’s best for themselves and their families. I want to see people at the clinic, filling out the paperwork.
I want to see them in the procedure room talking to the doctor. I want to see them after their abortions as they wait to go home and in their kitchens having a bowl of cereal the next day.
I want to see people so sure about their choice they don’t think twice, and I want to see people not as sure, but who end up making the decision that’s right for them. I want to see people who never think about their abortions again, as well as people for whom they become a formative experience that impacts their entire life.
These are all things that people experience every single day, and I want to see them on screen. I demand to see them because representation is important, and we all deserve to see the real experiences we have day-in-and-day-out in the media. That’s the only way we can normalize these experiences.
In a matter of years, abortion has gone from being accepted as an extreme choice faced by women in circumstances of extreme pressure, to this – a normal, day-in-and-day-out experience. As a spit in the face to all those who have suffered as a result, in so many ways. The want it promoted. They enjoy watching these scenes; they demand more of them.
These are the same individuals who also demand trigger warnings in literature courses, yet at the same time, revel in depictions of what is, however you want to frame it morally, a gruesome procedure, as described by medical staff who performed or witnessed it.
Never does this person care about the reality of those who regret having gone through with it. Where are their trigger warnings in this frenzied celebration of death?
The only thing I assume she does not want to see is the bloodied limbs scattered on a tray, the severed heads or the babies born alive and left to die. Or does she?
How long will it be until the above-mentioned images are themselved portrayed as normal, against every natural reaction a human being is born with (if they’re lucky enough to be born, nowadays)? I guess that answers it:
The thing is, though: We don’t just need to see abortions. We also need to see factual representations of what abortion actually looks like.
The only such issues mentioned in the other article (if you click on the link) are “cramps, pain, vomiting and blood”. I guess the dead body is not factual enough; we can always leave that one out. The little cartoon also adds “the sense of pride in making the right decision”.
Some would argue that going from the acceptance of an irreversible act to pride is a very long stretch.
I also want to see all the people who have abortions.
Women, women of color, teens, mothers, trans men, non-binary people – everybody! I want to see people experiencing what all of these people actually experience.
Of course. Why should they be left out of the macabre party? The tone is very unsettling; it’s almost joyful.
Instead of depicting abortion using medical falsehoods and anti-choice scare tactics, we need more factual and honest representations that show abortion for what it is: just something that happens to some people.
Talking about honesty while omitting the most relevant aspect of this procedure: a dead body having suffered a horrendously violent death.
Decapitation is also something that happens to some people. Quite often, in certain parts of the world. And they surely celebrate it there. It’s true that certain folks – perhaps even most – can be desensitised to witnessing just about anything. All it takes is enough brainwashing and every natural instinct goes out the window.
Later edit
Actually, I was wrong. It does get sicker, but coming from the same band. Here is an article titled “5 Problems With Keep Abortion Rare“.
Declared proudly by former President Clinton and repeated by “pro-choice” politicians over the last decade, the phrase often accompanies a plea to keep abortion legal.You’ll see it on signs and banners at an abortion rally, with the phrase: “Keep Abortion Safe, Legal, and Rare.” This sentiment is often championed and portrayed as “something we can all agree on.”But is it really a desire we have, let alone one that we should be making heard? Is it even right? How does this kind of logic affect the abortion movement and all those who seek abortions?
Perhaps the logic is in not treating this lightly, as an ordinary occurrence, since it affects lives irreversibly. Perhaps it is in recognising the fact that no one grows up planning to have abortions; it is no one’s intent or desire when starting their intimate life to end up in that situation. Perhaps it is in admitting the difficulty and sensitivity of a decision most times taken after a long emotional struggle. Not to mention the intention to focus on prevention rather than women having to go through this.
As feminists, one would think they are all for this positive focus, instead of encouraging the use of a traumatic procedure as birth control. One would think they want women to experience as little suffering as possible, both physically and mentally. Why not make an issue out of using contraception and reducing the number of abortions then?
1. We Can’t ‘Keep Abortion Rare’ Because It Isn’t
Abortion isn’t rare.
1-in-3 women in the United States will have had an abortion by the time she is 45.
This is an experience that a lot of people have had, and it’s far more common than many of us are willing to admit. Thanks to that big awful bubble of stigma, many of us just keep our stories locked up and hidden away in shame.
Which doesn’t make it the optimal outcome or the status quo in perpetuity.
There were times in history when infant mortality was very high, and mortality in general, due to diseases which are now treatable. Most families would lose a child or two at a very young age, which amounted to grim statistics. And yet, thanks to medicine progressing, those statistics did not last forever.
Also, in our day and age, people are being murdered in remote parts of the world for heresy, homosexuality or adultery. That amounts to very grim statistics indeed – but does not mean that things will remain the same or that change should not be attempted where it is needed.
Beneath the desire to keep abortion rare, people say, is a desire to reduce unintended pregnancies, which is completely legitimate.
Unintended pregnancies are hard, can put undue stress on everyone involved, and can be reduced in pretty simple ways, like better sexuality education and greater access to contraception.
But the word being used here isn’t unintended pregnancies, it’s abortion.
And when people say “keep abortion rare,”they’re promoting a narrative that says abortion is inherently a bad thing.
But abortion isn’t something bad, and it isn’t something to be ashamed of. It can actually be a positive experience for some people and is something that many people are glad that they have access to when they need it.
It’s unfortunate and hurtful to our movement when people who identify as pro-choice continue to view and promote the perspective of abortion as a “bad” thing and something to reduce.
The author somehow seeks to separate the concept of abortion from that of unintended pregnancies – which is disingenuous. To claim that something is needed and has to happen even though it is fully preventable in most cases is downright absurd.
It is never the ideal outcome – in fact it is the worst possible outcome of a sexual encounter (except maybe for HIV, some would argue). It is not a positive experience, but merely seen as the less disastrous option at one point in time.
The fact is, abortion is a relatively simple medical procedure and should be viewed similarly to other medical procedures in that all those who need or want it should have access to it.
Tell that to the families of the women who died during that “life-saving” “simple” procedure (not to mention their offspring, but I understand they don’t matter anyway). Or to the women who became infertile. Or to those who are now regretting it.
I have to quote this in full because it’s not only imbecilic but actually chilling.
3. Not Rare, But Accessible
If we need a slogan, why don’t we make it, “Keep Abortion Safe, Legal, and Accessible?” Because that’s our biggest problem today.
With countless women needing abortions and not being able to have them due to legal, geographical, and financial barriers, the number of abortions in the US is, if anything, actuallytoo low.
When there are women who can’t get an abortion because they live in one of the 87% of counties in America that does not have an abortion clinic, that number is too low.
When there are poor women all over the country who can’t get an abortion because the Hyde amendment prohibits Medicaid from helping women pay for abortions, that number is too low.When are there are girls under 18 who can’t get abortions because of parental notification laws in their state, that number is too low.
When there are women who don’t get an abortion because of scare tactics through crisis pregnancy centers and mandatory counseling laws, that number is too low.
When there are women who don’t get an abortion because of harassment and violence outside of abortion clinics, that number is too low.
When there are women and girls who don’t get an abortion due to the intense cultural stigma and shame surrounding the medical procedure, that number is too low.
We don’t need to lower the number of abortions happening in a time when too many women who need an abortion cannot get one.
I have to take exception to a couple of points. But first, let’s clarify that the number of preventable deaths and traumas in this world is never too low.
The author mentions women under 18. They are not women. They are minors and need protection from decisions which might harm them in the future. There are reasons these legal statuses are in place. You would not allow a minor to sign a legally binding contract but you would allow them to terminate the life of another human being, without being fully developed psychologically to make sure that decision is something they will not regret or become depressed about.
And since we’re on the subject of minors and their right to their own bodies – why not draw more attention to child brides in the Islamic world, female genital mutilation and teens being raped by their “husbands” and forced to give birth naturally at a young age, which can cause irreparable damage?
Secondly, they mention the “scare tactics” through crisis pregnancy centres. These centres save lives day in and day out, not only by talking women out of abortions but by pointing them towards relevant resources which actually get them through the difficult times. They do not hide the fact that nothing is irreversible in this world except death. You can never bring back the dead, no matter how much you wish you could. Financial situations can be changed, studies can be paused and resumed. Relationships needn’t be terminated forever because of a disagreement over having or not having a child. And if they are, there are plenty more fish in the sea.
However, this is not the worst of it. The mask falls off completely in the following paragraphs.
4. Who Cares What the Number Is, Anyway?
Why is the number of women who are having abortions really the issue?
And is reducing or altogether stopping the rate of abortion something we really want? Abortions have been happening since the beginning of time, when women used herbs and other methods to self-induce abortions.
Abortions will never not happen – they always have, and they always will.
The difference we are fighting for is how they happen: in back alleys or in clinics? The difference we are fighting for is who can get them: wealthy women who can afford to get past the financial barriers put in place or everyone?
Women are not a statistic. We need to stop focusing on the number of abortions and the“making it rare” concept as if that really says anything.
Women (as well as trans men and genderqueer people) will continue to have abortions, and the number doesn’t matter. What matters is that those who need abortions can get them.
That was Margaret Sanger’s plan as well. Keep the masses in perpetual poverty and get them to kill their offspring, to stop polluting the gene pool with stupidity. That’s the whole idea behind your wonderful Planned Parenthood.
Why care about the numbers? Because there are enough people dying needlessly in this world, through war, starvation, violence and poverty. There is enough violence in this world to encourage people being ripped apart or burned to death in their mother’s bodies. Because there is enough trauma going around to encourage women to commit unchangeable acts, which they might later regret to no avail. Real trauma, that is – as opposed to reading “triggering” material in a classroom.
Because mass death is nothing to be celebrated or ignored.
Women Pressured Into Abortion – The Subject Feminists Avoid
August 28, 2016
We read so much these days about women’s rights and how abortion should always be portrayed by the media as the right choice in difficult circumstances. We read about how too much counselling before an abortion is an infringement on these rights, as it might get some to reconsider (as if this were a bad thing) or feel undue remorse afterwards.
However, there are sides to this subject feminists just won’t touch (just like, due to the marvel called intersectionality, they don’t go near the horrors suffered by women in Islamic theocracies). Besides ignoring the facts of the procedure (going as far as defending late term abortions), they also ignore an important part of the cause – which is external pressure.
There are shelters for women who are physically harmed by partners; there is protection from so many types of abuse except one – the psychological coercion of a woman to abort her baby, sometimes relentless, which often involves threats of divorce, homelessness, abandonment and the withdrawal of minimal support for her to have the child or even sustain herself.
Pro-life activists are covering this intensely; the debate however does not reach the mainstream, as abortion is seen as a “woman’s right” almost exclusively (excluding the rights of the women being “terminated”, as abortion survivor Gianna Jessen points out).
Again, feminists tend to think this is the right choice in a seemingly impossible situation, such as the father not wanting the child, the economical situation being precarious, the mother being underage and unable to support the baby or herself.
But is it really the woman’s choice of what to do with her body when all the negative factors influencing her are external? When she feels she has to make this decision as she has no alternative, because there is no support available?
Is the only road a woman felt like she could take at one given time the right one for her? How is this defined as her choice in the first place? Saying there was nothing else I could do at the time does not equal this is what I wanted – and yet, this sort of decision would be commended by feminists as mature and brave under the circumstances, without taking the woman’s suffering into account.
People pressuring a woman into an abortion is not an unavoidable fact of nature. It’s a matter of power imbalance, which feminists love to mention every time they feel hard done by when a man gets them to take on more “emotional labour” then they are getting. Power imbalance is mentioned so often – and yet there is no greater power imbalance than the ability to get someone to kill their own child under extreme threats.
Helplessness is not empowerment.
Instead of advocating for women’s right to abort their babies (which they’ve already got), why not also advocate for women’s right to keep their babies when facing this sort of trouble, which I’m sure is not uncommon?
What exactly is feminism’s stance regarding the situation in China, where forced abortions are carried out and newborns are drowned in buckets or dumped in fountains for being female? They say nothing as they want the word “abortion” to build this positive aura around it – which most people viscerally reject, even when meeting others halfway ideologically. I believe little concerns them if not directly relatable.
I can also share a different story – a story about real systemic oppression.
During the later part of the communist period, abortion was forbidden in my country of origin. So was contraception; it was not available. The purpose was to produce as many people who would increase the workforce. Of course the absolute cretins did not ensure that those children could be provided for and looked after since both parents were forced to work and the country was in dire poverty for a long time. That’s how women turned to back alley abortions. Not because those abortions were their choice, but because the nature of the system made it so that they could not have a normal couple life (denying their husbands sex would have ended in being left eventually) or a normal family life (many children brought up in those times were raised by grandparents, part time or full time).
Feminists would jump at this opportunity to shout that making abortion legal and accessible would have solved the problems of women who “clearly wanted abortions”.
Except those women didn’t.
They were forced into poverty, forced into work instead of being home makers and forcibly denied contraception,though it was available at the time (at least condoms were being marketed in Europe but could not be sold here). Those women did not choose abortion because it was “right” or “something they wanted”. Some lived in perpetual hope they would never have to have another one again.
That is a true example of systemic oppression when it comes to reproductive rights.
What I know for a fact is that no woman ever plans to have an abortion at some point in her life. No woman grows up picturing abortion as a part of her future.
Circumstances cause this and some of these circumstances need addressing.
Feminists often speak of the emancipation of teens and the authority teenage women should have over their bodies – especially in terms of being able to access abortions. How aware are they that so many young women undergo abortions pressured by their families, in order not to lose face or not risk compromising their daughters’ academic future?
Many types of pressure are considered criminal and decisions made under duress are not always considered valid.
However, trying to corner a woman in this manner is merely frowned upon in some situations and even commended in others. Maybe it should be criminal. Women who are financially or otherwise dependent on the person trying to coerce them into an abortion should have a way out, instead of having to cave in to the person’s demands.
The Artistry Of Glorified Bullshit 