September 29, 2007

Update: Mike Huckabee

Just a little something else I noticed, from the Mike Huckabee on Abortion page.

Certainly good day for America when Roe v. Wade is repealed

Q: Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?

ROMNEY: Absolutely.

BROWNBACK: It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom.

GILMORE: Yes, it was wrongly decided.

HUCKABEE: Most certainly.

HUNTER: Yes.

THOMPSON: Yes.

McCAIN: A repeal.

GIULIANI: It would be OK to repeal.

TANCREDO: After 40 million dead because we have aborted them in this country, that would be the greatest day in this country's history when that, in fact, is overturned.

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

Notice who is making these statements:
White males.

Notice what they are leaving out:
Any mention of women.

Notice who would be most affected by this:
Women, who would now be chained to their reproductive organs, unable to make choices about what to do with their own uteruses (uterii?), forced to give birth whether they want to or not.

Notice what they do not regard women as being:
Human, since repealing Roe would be a "glorious day of human liberty and freedom."

You have got to be frakking kidding me.










9 comments:

Matthew said...

Notice who is making these statements: a woman (most likely white) wealthy enough to have a computer and internet connection, with enough spare time for a blog.

Notice what she is leaving out: the vast majority of women in America get abortions because they cannot afford to have children, as they are below the poverty line. They have no choice but to have an abortion.

All this talk about choice is pure bourgeois bullshit when it doesn't deal with the underlying problem of which abortion is a symptom: poverty

Bonnie said...

So if poverty was magically eradicated, women would stop having abortions? I don't think so.

A great many women have abortions because at that point in time they don't want to be pregnant.

I'm reading a book right now that proves this point. It's called Behind Every Choice is a Story, and while I realize the plural of anecdote is not data, in the majority of stories told here, money is not a major factor. Time and age is. Many of the women in this book had children later on, when they felt ready to handle them.

You're also not addressing the travesty of men taking away women's rights as human beings when they attempt to (or succeed) in banning abortion.

Matthew said...

Banning abortion is really stupid. There you go. Doing so is ignoring the real issue, just as arguing about "choice" is. No one gets an abortion because they want to exercise their right to choose.

As Jones, Darroch and Henshaw make clear in their article, 'Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000–2001', in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(5):226–235, women below the poverty line are four times as likely to have abortions as those above the poverty line. Black women have abortions four times as often as white women. Hispanic women two and a half times as often as white women. When asked to give reasons for their abortions, three-quarters of women say that they cannot afford a child.

If poverty were eradicated, no, abortion would not magically disappear. But it would certainly put an enormous dent in the number of abortions, which, even if you have no qualms with abortion, would be a damn good thing.

the bewilderness said...

Most of these men are old enough to remember the bad old days of the back street abortion and the coat hanger. I think what fills them with glee is the idea that women will suffer more, more, more.
These men have built their carreers on the suffering of women.

Matthew said...

I think they're just out for votes.

Pai said...

Matthew -- Is there a reason you jump to the unfounded conclusion that Bonnie doesn't give a damn about poverty, just because it's not mentioned in this one post on Roe v. Wade? And is there a reason you can't seem to comment without sounding incredibly hostile and condescending?

Matthew said...

This is not Bonnie's first post on abortion, and of her posts on abortion I have never seen her put it in the context of poverty, but always in the context of rights, which misses a great deal of the story. I never claimed that she doesn't care about poverty, just that she never seems to make the connection between poverty and abortion.

If I sound hostile and condescending it is probably an (unintended) reaction to Bonnie's incredibly hostile and condescending tone. I'll try to play nice. Unless I'm not wanted here and then I'll be off. Either way is fine.

the bewilderness said...

Well Matthew, what with you being of the male persuasion, you are not in a position to know how tired women get of being told by men that we are not qualified to speak and that we are not speaking about what you think we should be, the way you think we should. It is the first think men usually have to say when they show up at a womans blog. It's off topic.

jpechin said...

If any individual takes the risk of sexual intercourse, they need to deal with the natural consequences of their actions. CHAINED TO YOUR REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS??? Give me a break!!! They're a part of your body. If you don't want to be 'chained' to them, get rid of them - you certainly have the right to do with your body as you wish, as long as you don't harm yourself or others in the process. The baby, which is NOT a part of your body, but a human life that is equally dependent upon you for sustenance as it is once it leaves your body alive, should not be murdered so you can live your self-motivated vainglorious life. It is time that people took responsibility for their actions, rather than rutting like animals and then killing babies for their 'mistake'.