Posted on 10/14/2014 4:12:33 PM PDT by Morgana
FULL TITLE: Abortion is great and wonderful and everyone would agree if pro-life activists hadnt brainwashed the public
I usually skim books by pro-abortioniststhe arguments are repetitious and drawn from the same fetid pool of anti-child and (usually) anti-male rhetoric. But I believe I will have to read Katha Pollitts Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights.
Is it because Pollitts book promises a breakthrough, so to speak, a new way of defending the indefensible? Not if you read the 100% sympathetic reviews that have appeared in the usual places (Slate, the New York Times, Salon, etc., etc.) But thats not the point, although you keep hearing notions that an abortion absolutist is somehow reaching out to people who share none of her militancy or her views.
So what does Hanna Rosin, writing for Slate, like about Pollitts new book? (There are a few quibbles, but that is a subject for another time.)
First and foremost, Pollitt reaffirms Rosens own condescending prejudices. For instance, its so 1950ish to think there could possibly be anything wrong about abortion, anything the tiniest bit problematic.
Why cant the movie Obvious Child make a joke out of the lead character obliterating her unborn child? We shouldnt need a book explaining why abortion rights are important, Rosin writes. We should be over that by now.
So why arent we collectively over that by now? You guessed it: us.
The reason were not, according to Pollitt, is that we have all essentially been brainwashed by a small minority of pro-life activists.
Before I go any further, it is always instructive to remember how contemptuous pro-abortionists are not just of uswhat else would you expect?but of the American public. They are all fools, dolts who can be manipulated by a handful of anti-abortion whackos.
Is it any wonder the abortion militants increasingly have an image problem, one some of the saner types are trying to rectify by sort of giving up on the content-free pro-choice idiom?
And, by the way, if you are Rosin, you would think youd be more careful talking about brainwashing. It was her side that dredged up the ridiculous, reason-free war on women meme, one which, as the public thinks more deeply, is beginning to lose its hold.
Anyway, back to the review.
Again, I havent read the book yet, but can anyone read the following paragraph (pro, con, or have no opinion on abortion) and not smile?
Pollitt aims her book at the muddled middle who have been infected by the awfulization [of abortion] without thinking about it that much. To win them back shes crafted a lengthy Socratic response dissecting the contradictions on the pro-life side.
Socratic? Please.
Note who the muddled (or mushy) middle is, besides being infected (gosh, now were reduced to spreading viruses?). In fact, as polling data going back decades reveals, it refers to all those Americans who are told they are pro-choice when, in fact, they oppose the reasons for which 90%+ of all abortions are performed.
Rosin/Pollitt might concede the numbers (not my conclusion, of course), but counter thats just they havent had the benefit of reading Ms. Socrates wisdom.
Just one other point (there are at least four or five more worth considering but ). For reasons that make sense only to the hard-core pro-abortionist, Pollitt believes (Rosin writes) that the moral high ground is in reclaiming the right to have an abortion, regardless of the circumstances.
None of this hard case nonsense for the abortion on demand without apology crowd. That simply breeds defensiveness, an invitation to defeat.
So, Pollitt/Rosin and their ilk believe that the way to the American publics heart is through .abortions at any stage of gestation, for any reason, or none, paid for by you and me. Honestly, they really do believe theyve stumbled on the key that will unlock the mystery of why they havent secured abortion-on-demand.
Heres the distilled essence of philosophy of the absolutist times ten pro-abortionist:
The fog of regret has meant no one is able to confidently defend or even cleanly describe whats actually going on: Three in 10 American women have abortions by the time they hit menopause. They are not generally victims of rape or incest, or in any pitiable situation from which they need to be rescued. They are making a reasonable and even admirable decision that they cant raise a child at the moment. Is that so hard to say? As Pollitt puts it, This is not the right time for me should be reason enough. And saying that aloud would help push back against the lingering notion that its unnatural for a woman to choose herself over others.
Rosin proudly tells us between her second and third (living) children, she aborted a baby. In so doing, clearly she pushed back against the lingering notion that its unnatural for a woman to choose herself over others.
Did she have post-abortion regret? Naw, although Part of me thinks the shadow aborted child stayed with me and created a space for the last one to be born. But dont draw any of the wrong conclusions. Rosin was too busy working and caring for her two children to even think about the one she didnt have time for.
Here is Rosins conclusion, which is as chilling as it is sad:
Like Pollitt said about the pro-lifers, I recognize that the fetus and the mother have a complicated relationship without being able to fully articulate what that is. The aborted fetus hung around as a concept, nothing at all like the living children I already had. Having an abortion left me with a sense of what a great power it is to be able to give life but also a sense that I can trust myself to use it carefully.
Rosins complicated relationship was that she and her husband brought that child into existence buttrusting in her own wisdomchose not to give him or her life (birth). Sorry, kid, your timing was off.
It reminds me of the woman we wrote about earlier this week, the one who posted a letter on Reddit to the child she was about to abort:
I promise I will see you again, and next time, you can call me Mom.
Just how many of these folks are volunteering to be personal care givers to the Ebola-infected folks in Dallas and East Africa.
Heck, if they get infected no harm no foul...it is just retroactive birth control.
This is a solution that would make Margaret Sanger smile....
Don’t give them any ideas.
However, they could be infected with Ebola just the same. Ebola is fair, it infects everyone equally.
Abortion is bad and horrific and everyone would agree if pro-”choice” activists hadnt brainwashed the public
I’ve been told by pro-abortion women that, as a man, since I don’t have a uterus, I have no right to an opinion about abortion.
I ask them how they feel about male homosexual rape or infant circumcision. Do they, lacking the requisite equipment, have a right to an opinion? I have yet to get a good answer.
“Ive been told by pro-abortion women that, as a man, since I dont have a uterus, I have no right to an opinion about abortion.”
I’m telling you as a pro life woman, Since you are a man, and have a penis, please for the love of life don’t impregnate this type of woman.
Can I be anymore blunt than that?
Trust me. In the realm of the possible, my chances of impregnating one these harpies is only slightly more likely than me getting Eleanor Roosevelt in a family way.
cwii. don’t miss it. lots of work to do.
these people are itching for it. they want to take out all those tht won’t go along with their liberal worldview.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.