In which I pessimistically call the 2008 Election for McCain

20080829wap_mccain_palin_500 I think it’s over folks. I really do. You heard it right here before anywhere else: McCain will win this election to the detriment of everything I hold dear. Who will be responsible for this tragedy? Who can we blame?

The answer is liberal men and pundits. McCain, by choosing Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, will cause the most vocal members of Obama’s campaign and the Democrats to split the entire party in two. The only way this catastrophe can be averted is if liberal pundits realize that their mischaracterization and disdain for their monolithic idea of female voters, as blinded by the vision of anything with a vagina, will do nothing but drive actual women to seriously doubt the sincerity of Obama and his supporters’ claims of being for women’s issues.

I say that this is kind of proactive self-evaluation is currently impossible for the likes of male liberal pundits. The Democrats show no sign of ever regarding the concerns of women as the lynchpin of their party. My recent posts on Obama’s dismissal of a serious threat to reproductive rights and his pandering to evangelicals should be enough evidence. They are more content to tell us how to vote, blackmail us with visions of Roe overturned, and accuse us of stupidity than ask us to vote for them by addressing our concerns with something other than censorship and straw-man misconstructions of our goals.

McCain is not stupid. If Bush can win two elections with little political maneuvering, I think it is entirely likely that McCain can do the same given the fact that he has Obama on the defensive, and he seems to know exactly how to get liberals to put their foots in their mouths.

I am by no means an expert on politics. But I can see clear as day how McCain’s nomination of Palin came to pass, why he chose her, and what exactly he wishes to accomplish. McCain’s choice for a running mate was probably cemented a long time ago, or at least the motivations for such a bold move were clear if he had not already decided on Palin. McCain had already put Obama on the offensive for months about his “inexperience”. Oddly enough, the average voter is extremely dissatisfied with the status-quo, which would lend to the fact that they probably would, honestly, prefer someone with less ties to Washington over someone firmly entrenched in the old partisan politics. Obama, due to his actual inexperience, failed to communicate that counterpoint to the voters.

McCain specifically framed it as “inexperience” so that he could draw attention to his long political legacy and Obama’s relative anonymity before the Democratic primaries, while he, of course, gained voter confidence in his ability and simultaneously courted the old Washington elite for campaign donations. To say, however, that those were his only goals would be to be simplifying the issue.

At first, I could honestly say that I thought that McCain’s jab at Obama’s inexperience was just run-of-the-mill mudslinging. However, McCain’s nomination of Governor Palin suddenly revealed his purpose to me, when I was unable to see it before.

McCain specifically put Obama on the defensive so that he could maneuver in relative anonymity while the nation watched Obama betray his slogan of “Change” by agreeing to debate for the first time in an evangelical church, emphasizing his religion—while liberal and moderate voters express their dissatisfaction with the erosion the separation of church and state—, and then picked a running mate that was firmly entrenched in the party politics of Washington.

McCain had placed Obama exactly where he wanted him. Now, McCain could nominate a little-known centrist Republican from Alaska as his running mate to undermine Obama’s reputation for change, and re-invent himself, yet again, as the political maverick he was once painted as. Now that he had amassed plenty of donations from the Washington status-quo, he was free to abandon their support while simultaneously getting Obama to put himself in a position where he appeared closer to the Washington elite, whom are responsible for the mess of the last eight years, than McCain himself.

However, that is not the end of the story. Lest we forget, Palin is a woman. Unlike Melissa McEwan at Shakesville, who claims that McCain’s choice is disrespectful of women because it paints them as monolithic and blinded by anyone with a vagina, I do not think that McCain actually hopes to pick up women voters solely by the nomination of a woman. In fact, I think he wants the media to think that so that his real motivations can be concealed.

His scheme to gain women voters is nowhere near as straight-forward as that, and much more ingenious. McCain knows that the loudest and most vocal women voters are those who place things like abortion rights at the top of their list of pet issues. Both McCain and Palin are anti-choice, and McCain is not stupid enough to believe that simply putting a woman on the ticket will be enough to sway women who vote Democrat because the Democrats are stronger on women’s issues. Like Cara at The Curvature said, McCain himself has revealed that he is blatantly misogynist, and women are not likely to forget that point.

Palin herself is not what will undermine the traditional trend of women voting Democrat. She is just a target for the sexist media, who is already gearing up their new bigoted slurs that were temporarily placed in a box after Clinton lost. But unlike Obama, McCain will defend his running mate. He will decry the sexist media, because now they are presumably working against him instead of for him with their past slander of Clinton.

But, again, that’s not what’s really going on.

If the media gears up the sexist attacks against Palin (which they already have) and McCain does not stand idly by like Obama did, he will put serious doubts in the minds of those who believe that Obama is stronger on women’s issues (my disclaimer: he is, but marginally so). What will only cement his win is when liberal pundits, whom have a history of sexist slurs for female politicians, declare Palin fair game, even fairer than Clinton, because she is their political foe and a woman. McCain specifically chose Palin over other conservative women because she is young and conventionally attractive. This will compound the sexism slung at her as liberal pundits inevitably crack jokes about her age, and “fuckability”. As already uttered by a liberal male contact in my political sphere:

Sarah Palin is an attractive and strong woman with five kids one has down syndrome. She is the governor of Alaska and also I would have sex with her.

Palin was chosen specifically because just about every facet of her history is an easy target for misogynists. Conservative pundits, notoriously and blindly loyal, will probably keep their silence. Liberal pundits, however, will inevitably comment, especially negatively, on her:

1) Age: McCain, 72, is so much older than Palin, 44, that two of his children are older than than her. Liberal pundits, even the female Wonkette, will and have made cracks about how, standing next to McCain, she looks a lot like the traditional gold-digging woman who manipulates an older man with her sexuality to ride his coat-tails.

2) Physical Appearance: Palin won a beauty pageant in her hometown to become Miss Wasilla, was a runner up in the Alaskan state pageant, and was featured on the cover of Vogue last year, unashamed of her status of governor and the proud owner of breasts. I surmise that statements of how people would like to fuck her, much like the one quoted above, will be issued daily as if they were serious news or political commentary.

3) Children: Palin has five children, the oldest in the army and the youngest born earlier this year with Down Syndrome. People have already speculated that Palin, because she is a woman, should be at home mothering and taking maternity leave instead of accepting the VP nod. Expect other liberal pundits to slam Palin for daring to go into politics instead of being a dutiful housewife.

4) Husband: Sarah Palin’s husband, Todd Palin, has ties to BP oil, whom he worked for, as a laborer, for twenty years. Nevertheless, apparently both her and her husband are outspoken against oil abuses in Alaska, and for increased taxation of oil. However, her husband also recently went on leave from his job to reduce conflict-of-interests between his employment and her political office and to support their family:

At home, Todd Palin takes care of the cooking, the bills and other domestic paperwork, in addition to driving the kids to extracurricular activities like basketball and soccer, according to his wife. He divides much of his time between Wasilla, where Track is recovering from shoulder surgery, and the capital in Juneau, where the Palin daughters are in school… “There is no way I could have done this job without his tremendous contributions to the home life. He’s able to keep it organized, like a well-oiled machine.”

I am waiting for someone to make some comment about how she emasculates him because she’s the primary earner while he is “her bitch” at home.

Palin, believe it or not, is probably a decent person and a fair politician. Although she is a Republican and, thus, supports their deplorable stances on women’s rights, I would say that I prefer her a million times over almost any other Republican I can name off-hand. As a feminist, I cannot use gender-specific character attacks against her without compromising my entire ideology. In fact, I feel obligated to defend her. Because the Republican ticket has a woman, and the Democratic ticket does not, this again will play neatly into McCain’s hands.

Regardless, as the election moves forward, pundits will be so blinded by her gender that the entire liberal party will be so focused on the fact that she has a vagina that they completely neglect to comment on her actual policies, and perhaps, neglect McCain’s as well.

This absolutely benefits McCain. If Obama chose to run his campaign mostly or only on the issues, I surmise he would win by a landslide. There simply are not enough people in America who actually like the status-quo who would defend it when McCain regurgitates it. Obama, because he actually is inexperienced came out of the primaries weak and continues to defend himself rather than go on the offense. For this reason, he will lose. He has appointed Biden, who makes comments about race and gender, to be his attack dog. He lets misogynist liberal pundits like Olbermann do his dirty work without a peep. Obama has outsourced his offensive team to the media, presumably so he can pull off the “nice guy” with his messiah charm. Then, he lets McCain back him into a corner when put on the defensive so that Obama does exactly what he wants him to, and McCain comes out smelling like roses or with an advantage (like Biden) that Obama unknowingly granted.

When it comes to campaigning, McCain obviously, despite his slow start, has the advantage. He held his seats for Arizona in the Senate and Congress for 26 years, and won his re-election campaigns in my state with considerable margins each time. He’s campaigned for the Presidency before. McCain, despite cracks at his age, knows exactly what he is doing. His overwhelming historical popularity in my state should be evidence enough that, given an inch, McCain takes the entire miles-long road to the governmental position he wants with considerable ease.

And Obama hasn’t just given him an inch, he’s given him a yardstick.

McCain, by nominating Palin, is not courting women voters in the way the news would like you to believe. Rather, he is whipping the entire nation into such a frenzy of attacks, defenses, and sexism that nobody will pay attention to the issues and women, half of the entire population, will wind up so angry at the Democratic party for leveling misogyny at Clinton and then Palin, ignoring their issues, letting their pundits slander them with cries of “Clintonistas!” and “Hilltards!”, and demanding that they vote for them—blackmailing them with accusations of making the Democrats lose, their stupidity, and the specter of Roe‘s reversal—that women will throw their hands up in disgust and vote for McKinney, vote for McCain, or not vote at all.

Obama will lose. He does not know how to manipulate the media to quiet his “defenders” that would chase the people more likely to vote for him than white men into the arms of a third party, the enemy, or voter apathy. He lets McCain put him exactly where he wants him. He says one thing and does the other. He panders to the right while alienating the left. Instead of defending his wife’s positions, he silences her and throws his pastor under the bus. He nominates the one Democrat so incompatible with his cry for “Change” that he winds up looking like a hypocrite. He talks endlessly about empty slogans and religion and his personal life and fails to communicate the issues.

In November, McCain and Palin will take the White House, aided by Obama’s actual inexperience, liberal pundits, sexism, voter machine fraud, and the daily occurrence of Biden putting his foot in his mouth.

You heard it here first.


Update: Well, that didn’t take long. Thanks for proving my fucking point Bill Maher with your opening remarks about the “Maverick and the MILF”. I hope you enjoy your shit sandwich when the Democrats lose. Thanks for nothing asshole.

Advertisements

Posted on August 29, 2008, in Feminism, Fuck America, Liberal Dudez, Media, Offended White Men, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. 24 Comments.

  1. wait a minute mc cain is liberal!

  2. I’m not sure that you and I are watching the same election here.

  3. The first thing that went through my head when I learned of his choice was “That clever bastard”.

    This is where Obama’s inexperience shows the most. Because he’s not nearly as good at the slime-game as an older politician. Being unspeakably slippery and conniving is something one gains from years of politics.

    I don’t doubt he’ll also use this like so: Lately, he’s been digging at Obama for not taking Clinton as VP, and not only can he use that, but combine it with this, to say “Obama isn’t “progressive” enough to choose a woman, but I am!”

    There will be so much spin over this.

    (Though, voter machine fraud won’t mean a whole lot. Popular vote doesn’t elect presidents, the EC does. Just ask Gore about winning the popular and losing the election anyway.)

    Bah.

    One can only hope McCain’s campaign of “Let’s bomb everybody” turns enough disgust towards him.

    I don’t feel like dealing with another 4 years of Bush. Er… McCain. (Who might as well be just called John Bush.)

  4. I see Obama focusing on the issues, I see the Dems focusing on women’s issues and remarked on this personally numerous times during the DNC, how they’re actually seeking the women’s vote especially with their talk of equal pay. If their current track record is any indication, Obama and Biden will focus on nothing but the issues. I don’t see Obama as being even remotely only “marginally” better on women’s issues. I don’t understand where you’re coming from with any of that at all.

    And besides that, I just disagree with you on numerous points. The main ones being that Obama is inexperienced — and even if he were making mistakes here, that would mean that his advisers are inexperienced more than anything — and that women are actually going to throw away the country based on something that liberal political commentators who do not work for Obama’s campaign may or may not say. I think women are much, much smarter than that. And in any case, we’re not actually talking about “women” — we’re talking about white women.

  5. @ Cara –
    When I say “marginally”, I’m speaking of how he hasn’t publicized the new proposal to take away federal funding from medical facilities that don’t let their practitioners refuse women birth control and abortion, the vibe that his first debate and equivocating comments on when life begins at Saddleback Ranch, and Biden’s history of some anti-abortion positions such as support of the partial-birth abortion ban. For their entire political history, Biden and Obama has been undeniably more pro-choice. However, in this election they have equivocated enough that that stance has been called into question, at least for me. Sure, he corrected his views at the DNC, but the majority of voters don’t watch the DNC, and if they watch anything, they’re going to watch debates and news clips. Without viewing the DNC, Obama gives the impression that he is equivocal about abortion during this election season.

    And I could run with the assertion that it’s Obama’s advisers that are inexperienced. Nevertheless, McCain has always ran a slick campaign locally in my state, and I was expecting him to whip out something that would put Obama between a rock and a hard place. This is it. I don’t think that Obama is going to be able to counter assertions of sexism when he and Biden go on the offense against Palin, even if they aren’t being sexist, because I guarentee that the liberal and centrist pundits will have said so many disgusting things about Palin that it’ll be plausible enough for some voters to believe. Besides, even if Obama does defend Palin from the callous remarks of sexists in his own party, he’s going to scratch that scab about Clinton and sexism, and it’s not going to be pretty. I really doubt that he, or his advisers, are going to be able to pull this off.

    McCain just has better control over his own party, or his party is more willing to fall lock-step into doing anything to get him elected. There’s an awful lot of liberals, as I’ve already linked to above, willing and able to level sexist smears against Palin. It rankled with Clinton, and now it’s going to rankle again.

    Women are not going to throw away the country, the media is. I expect the popular media to be so whipped into a frenzy of “attack, defend, sexism” that nary a thing is publicized about the issues. More than anything, I think this is going to be a campaign season of character rather than issues. I also think that McCain specifically constructed it that way, because he knows that, on the issues alone, he cannot win.

    I also don’t think that white women are going to be the only ones potentially disgusted by the upcoming sexist attacks on Palin. Of course she appeals to them a hell of a lot more, being white and the vision of white middle-class that she is.

    I really do hope you’re right, and that women and men don’t fall into the traps that McCain has laid here today.

  6. some anti-abortion positions such as support of the partial-birth abortion ban.

    (Which has provisions that allow it to save the life of the mother.

    So, unless you support post-viability abortions when both mother and fetus are healthy…

    I’m pro-choice, but a line needs to be drawn. You can’t decide post-viability that you changed your mind, and want to abort a fetus that can currently live outside of you.

    At that point, the “my body, my choice” doesn’t work anymore. Because the body inside yours doesn’t specifically require you to live anymore.)

    I was expecting him to whip out something that would put Obama between a rock and a hard place. This is it. I don’t think that Obama is going to be able to counter assertions of sexism when he and Biden go on the offense against Palin, even if they aren’t being sexist, because I guarentee that the liberal and centrist pundits will have said so many disgusting things about Palin that it’ll be plausible enough for some voters to believe.

    Ding. This.

    Just like ANYONE with a penis that said “I don’t like Clinton” was automatically termed a sexist/misogynist, so too, will Obama face the sting.

  7. I’ve always said that if anyone wants the truth about liberal men’s attitudes toward women, all they need to do is listen to Bill Maher’s “jokes” and take them literally.

  8. The thing is, I think that Maher takes his own jokes literally. You can’t call it satire when the butt of your joke is the victim and not the victimizer.

  9. Bill Maher is the world’s biggest asshole, but he’s pretty representative. I don’t know why I haven’t done so before, but I think I’m about to write a post about his role as the spokesman for liberal dudes.

    I’m not ready to be as pessimistic as you are about this election. I mean, Obama leaves a lot to be desired, but I don’t think I see him losing as of yet. Have you seen the footage of the RNC? SNORE. I know this may seem silly of me, but I think the flash factor is going to matter a lot, and the Republicans are blowing it. They’ve got a candidate that may very well be more boring to listen to than discarded footage from a fishing show, and their message is just more of the same bullshit that people have been hearing for years. Plus, their presentation of it makes PBS titling sequences look like Super Bowl graphics. Call me cynical, or misanthropic, whatever, but I think Americans are so stupid that a good graphics package and a few catch phrases ought to do it.

    The GOP thinks they’ve scored big with this female VP candidate, but she’s proving to be more of a liability, as far as I see things. First off, she’s got no national-level or international experience, which will be the excuse a lot of right-wingers use to stay home. They’ll be thinking they’re worried that McCain’ll croak and we’ll have a female in the White House, but what they’ll say is that they’re afraid he’ll croak and we’ll have someone with no federal or foreign policy experience. And this business about her daughter isn’t going to do them any good. Plus, she’s insane. McCain thinks he’s going to capture disaffected Clinton supporters with a female candidate, but I’ve yet to meet a woman who was all about Clinton who would vote for a fascistic anti-American (others may know these as anti-abortion types). I don’t know. Maybe I’m out of touch because I’ve lived in blue states since 1998, but it doesn’t look good for the old guy. But then again I thought Kerry had it in the bag in 2004.

  10. @Nine Deuce-
    If you did a post on the spokespeople of liberal dudes I’d be the first to read it. No joke.

    I think I jumped the gun, because now I see exactly what you’re looking at with the RNC. I haven’t touched Photoshop in a year and I could probably do better. I think they’re counting on more “scandalous” news to be published about Palin so that they can rally around and defend her and take media attention away from Obama. Even if she isn’t the best public speaker, the GOP looks like they are putting her up there as a target so they can ride in on their biblical white horses and save the damsel-in-distress. Republicans love that sexist shit.

    Nevertheless, I think that the majority of the GOP can forgive her for being a woman. Since they agree with her 100% and she comes off as inexperienced and non-threatening, they like her because, deep down, they think they are better than her. Clinton made them feel inferior (because they undoubtedly were) so they didn’t like her. It’s like empowerfuzzled feminists whose expression of “agency” only takes the form of taking off their clothes. Men love that shit. They get exactly what they want while they get to pretend that they’re really giving up some concrete kind of power to women.

    Of course, Palin is insane. She’s about as far from my sense of the world that one could get without being Huckabee. Then again, I live in a red state–the home state of John “Cunt” McSame no less–so my few of the world is bit misanthropic due to the amounts of conservativeness I have to deal with daily. Unless, of course, I’m on campus, but that’s the drunken kind of liberalism that looks cool without actually doing anything progressive.

  11. Wow, I really disagree with this:

    “I’m pro-choice, but a line needs to be drawn. You can’t decide post-viability that you changed your mind, and want to abort a fetus that can currently live outside of you.”

    Why does a line need to be drawn? Why do you (or anyone else) get to draw that line for other women? Why doesn’t each woman get to draw her own line? You just said that you are pro-choice, but it doesn’t seem that way to me. I don’t get it.

  12. Why does a line need to be drawn? Why do you (or anyone else) get to draw that line for other women? Why doesn’t each woman get to draw her own line? You just said that you are pro-choice, but it doesn’t seem that way to me. I don’t get it.

    Because “My body, my choice” doesn’t hold any water at that point.

    If the fetus is viable, you can’t claim “it’s a parasite that needs my body to live!” anymore.

    If it were to be removed from you, and would survive without your body, it’s no longer a dependent organism, it’s a separate living thing. I mean, if you’re asking for the rights to abort at any point up until birth, then I can’t agree with that.

    The line needs to be drawn simply because you can’t decide at 8 months that you want to abort. I mean, if you ask for that, do you also expect the choice to abort immediately after natural birth?

  13. Why can’t I decide at 8 months that I want to abort? Because you think it’s wrong? I don’t think it’s wrong.

    As long as it is still in my body, then I still get to choose. It’s still living off of my body, even if it could theoretically survive outside my body. But it’s still in my body, so I get to choose. As long as I’m supporting its life, then it is NOT a “separate living thing.”

    How come you get to decide when is too late to have an abortion? Don’t you get that pro-choice means exactly that- CHOICE. Not YOUR choice, the woman’s choice. Get it? You don’t have to like the choice, but it doesn’t matter what you think- it’s not your choice.

    If you draw a line, you are not pro-choice.

  14. Also, D, who decides when a fetus is “viable”? It’s different in every case, and I’m not comfortable letting people with no medical education (lawmakers) delineate something so important without the knowledge they need to do so. As of now, the law says that abortion is between a woman and her doctor, and I certainly don’t think there are any two people more qualified to make medical decisions than a patient and doctor working together.

    Still, let’s say, as a joke, that we could decide that at 8 months a fetus is viable outside the womb. What, would you force women who did not want to carry fetuses to have c-sections or induce labor? Who, then, will pay for the intensive care that the “viable” fetus will most certainly need to survive? The state? If the state wants to force women to birth fetuses they no longer want to carry, they’ll need to foot the bill, as well as provide potentially life-long care to that child, because they’ll likely have special needs, which means the state will have a hard time finding adoptive homes willing to take them. Or would you force her to use her body to provide support to a fetus she does not want to, or cannot continue to, carry? Would you allow late-term abortions to save the life and/or health of the mother? If so, why does physical health warrant an exception when emotional health does not?

    And what of the birth distinction? Before a fetus is delivered, it has no ability to fear for its life. Late term abortions are painless for the fetus as it is anesthetized prior to the procedure. So, if you oppose late-term abortion, you need to admit that you care more about some purportedly moral stance with regard to the suffering (that won’t even occur) of a fetus than you do about the right of a woman to decide what to do with her own body and to decide what kind of suffering she is willing to endure to support the life of a fetus, “viable” or not.

    Let’s just admit that we’re talking about privileging fetuses here, hmm?

  15. Ex-fucking-actly buggle and Nine Deuce-

    The most intrinsic part of the pro-choice stance is the adherence to the idea that no one, save medical professionals and the mother, has the right to choice either abortion or carrying the fetus to term. The objection that an 8-month fetus would, therefore, be aborted on nothing more than an unwillingness to continue with the pregnancy is ridiculous. It presupposes two things: (a) that there exists medical professionals willing to perform the abortion at such a late term for such a reason (and there really aren’t, given the risk of complications) and (b) There exists a subset of pregnant women that are completely happy to be pregnant for eight months and than have an extreme personality change and decide, without medical reasons, to callously abort the day before she is scheduled to go into labor.

    In short, the argument that women would abort in late-term has the same fallacy as rape-apology: that a great enough portion of the female population exists that would abort eight months into the pregnancy when they would have not have aborted before, or that women are so vicious that they’d run around willy-nilly accusing all men they dislike of rape, and that the courts would be helpless.

    For either objection to take, courts and doctors would have to be much less careful and lackadaisical than they actually are. Also, women would have to be quite a bit more vicious than they are in reality. What holds in theory does not hold in reality, and any ideology that fails to contemplate the real consequences of its premises and conclusion is fundamentally flawed and thus, easily discarded for the purpose of applicability and expediency.

  16. If you draw a line, you are not pro-choice.

    False.

    Abortion is not an “any time” right. It’s why doctors won’t perform them after a certain point, unless your health is in danger.

    If you’re up for a surgical procedure (which, by the way, an 8th month “abortion” most certainly would be), then go ahead and have a C-section.

    Also, D, who decides when a fetus is “viable”?

    Medical science. For instance, despite buggle’s assertion that an 8th month abortion is a-okay, an 8th month pregnancy isn’t a fetus, or clump of cells anymore. It’s an almost completely fully developed human baby.

    If you removed it from the mother, it would most certainly survive.

    What, would you force women who did not want to carry fetuses to have c-sections or induce labor?

    If she did not want to carry it, she had 8 previous months to decide this.

    The argument of “pregnancy will damage my body” is out the window, because the damage has long since been done.

    After all, we can force men who never wanted to be fathers to pay for the children of women that wanted them. An extra month and then handing it off to adoption wouldn’t kill them in the long run, now would it?

    The idea of inconvenience is right out, as well, as 8 months has been spent in said inconvenience, 4 more weeks is nothing.

    Would you allow late-term abortions to save the life and/or health of the mother? If so, why does physical health warrant an exception when emotional health does not?

    The law already does.

    Because “emotional health” is subjective, and the law does not pay mind to feelings and emotions. That, and because if your emotional health was traumatized by pregnancy, why did it wait until you were nearly due?

    So, if you oppose late-term abortion, you need to admit that you care more about some purportedly moral stance with regard to the suffering (that won’t even occur) of a fetus than you do about the right of a woman to decide what to do with her own body and to decide what kind of suffering she is willing to endure to support the life of a fetus, “viable” or not.

    Oh, no. It has nothing to do with morals, per se. I hate children. Deeply. I hate the very idea that humans procreate, and worse, are allowed to do so freely. It disgusts me on many, many levels.

    (That said, thank you for not assuming some nonsense like “you’re trying to protect fetuses just in case you get a woman pregnant. I appreciate the lack of a conclusion jump. It’s not often seen.)

    I simply have respect for the law, the rule of it. Being that if something lives, and can live on it’s own, to kill it is to break that law.

    It’s nothing to do with suffering. It’s more that it’s no longer some blob of unrecognizable cells, nor is it a barely formed fetus. At that point, it’s basically a whole, complete, separate creature.

    Let’s just admit that we’re talking about privileging fetuses here, hmm?

    Not as such. I simply place a distinction between a “potential” human being, and an actual one.

    The objection that an 8-month fetus would, therefore, be aborted on nothing more than an unwillingness to continue with the pregnancy is ridiculous. It presupposes two things: (a) that there exists medical professionals willing to perform the abortion at such a late term for such a reason (and there really aren’t, given the risk of complications) and (b) There exists a subset of pregnant women that are completely happy to be pregnant for eight months and than have an extreme personality change and decide, without medical reasons, to callously abort the day before she is scheduled to go into labor.

    Well, according to buggle, that should be her right.

    I already made the distinction for issues of physical health.

    In fact, she stated she “doesn’t think it’s wrong” to abort at 8 months, making no claim of health issues, simply those of convenience.

    In short, the argument that women would abort in late-term has the same fallacy as rape-apology: that a great enough portion of the female population exists that would abort eight months into the pregnancy when they would have not have aborted before, or that women are so vicious that they’d run around willy-nilly accusing all men they dislike of rape, and that the courts would be helpless.

    Well, when you have a woman on your own page advocating it, it rings less true. Besides which, if you aren’t going to do it anyway, why care if there’s a law against it? The only reason one would care if there’s a law against (non-health-related) late term abortion, is just in case they ever planned to use it, or believed a woman would use it at some point.

    That said, on the rape issue, don’t assume that because one bears a vagina, that they are incapable of viciousness, or are “better than” their male peers. Humanity is vicious. Not just men, not just women. Humans in general.

    I’m aware that given your radfem position, you’re more likely to assume the best of women (and simultaneously the worst of men), but mine is a position of assuming the worst of everyone.

    I find that you’re disappointed much less often when you assume that given the chance, people will do disgusting things. Because they often do, if given that chance.

    For either objection to take, courts and doctors would have to be much less careful and lackadaisical than they actually are.

    Tell that to the men just now being freed after nearly 20 years of incarceration for rapes they did not commit. Judges, lawyers, courts, doctors, no one is perfect.

    Also, women would have to be quite a bit more vicious than they are in reality.

    See my above statement on viciousness. I’ve seen incredible, unspeakable venom and downright cruelty from women. Being female doesn’t make one a better person than anyone else.

    All it means is that you can potentially carry a fetus, you probably have two X chromosomes, and you might very well be capable of multiple orgasms. Other than that, you’re no different, and no better than the rest of us.

    What holds in theory does not hold in reality, and any ideology that fails to contemplate the real consequences of its premises and conclusion is fundamentally flawed and thus, easily discarded for the purpose of applicability and expediency.

    Well, as said, if you’ll never use it, then why care if it’s illegal?

    If the law already allows exceptions for the health of the mother, then why care that late-term abortions for the sake of convenience are illegal?

    Would you care if riding a donkey on an airplane was illegal? I’m certain you would never have cause to do such a thing, so why would something that, in your own words, will never be done for such purposes bother you, if made illegal?

    This post was way too long.

    It only tends to be you that brings out my argumentative side.

    I think it’s why I keep coming back. :D I hardly get the chance anymore.

  17. Oh, to be on topic, here’s a gem for you:

    “Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a “task that is from God.”

    Oh, barf.

    And in an address last June, referred to a gas pipeline as “God’s will”.

    I would really prefer someone that unhinged not being in the white house. Or near it. Or near anywhere she has the power to shape or change laws.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war

    See, that kind of talk will both win McCain votes, and cost him votes.

    It remains to be seen which will be more weighty.

  18. Abortion is not an “any time” right. It’s why doctors won’t perform them after a certain point, unless your health is in danger.

    You’re not a doctor; legislators aren’t doctors either. Thus, because every case is extremely different, it’s the interests of expediancy to keep this issue out of the hands of the government at all levels.

    After all, we can force men who never wanted to be fathers to pay for the children of women that wanted them.

    Now you are conflating the issue of “choice” with the upkeep and right to support of a legitimate human being by all definitions of the word. Children are entitled to the support of their parents. Since the state cannot require anything but monetary support, there you go. This issue has nothing to do with “equal rights” because it effects both parents, nor abortion, because it concerns an actual child, not a fetus.

    Because “emotional health” is subjective, and the law does not pay mind to feelings and emotions.

    That is not for you, me, or the law to decide. A psychologist, a doctor, and the mother have far more insight into such a nuanced and delicate matter than any law-maker wrapped up in various interest groups and religious ideologies. It’s best, given the reality of our capricious and inconsistant law, to leave this issue up to the people qualified to decide and the people it immediately concerns.

    Well, when you have a woman on your own page advocating it, it rings less true. Besides which, if you aren’t going to do it anyway, why care if there’s a law against it?

    Buggle’s point is that it’s her input, and that of her support circle and doctors, to decide this issue, not an unschooled voter or a politician. Nobody is more qualified to make that kind of decision than a mother and her doctors. Certainly not the state. Furthermore, if you aren’t going to do it anyway, why care if there isn’t a law against it? The law should only be imposed in those cases in which it is immediately necessary. Otherwise, law makers run the risk of having a special case come up and having it decided unjustly by a law that was not designed to handle such a case.

    I’m aware that given your radfem position, you’re more likely to assume the best of women (and simultaneously the worst of men), but mine is a position of assuming the worst of everyone.

    I am not holding the Vicious Olympics. My point is merely that as rational people, we can say that an abortion in the case of the highly unlikely situation you purpose is probably unjust. To suppose that the rest of the human population is not similarly inclined, especially since the intended audience of my blog is almost as radically progressive as myself and probably unanimously pro-choice, is nearing the absurd.

    I find that you’re disappointed much less often when you assume that given the chance, people will do disgusting things. Because they often do, if given that chance.

    Which is why we so often hear of these capricious late-term abortions. Or not. Humanity is more cautious than one would expect, especially in those issues as fraught with controversy and posturing as abortion. For every hundred people that silently cheer when an abortionist is killed, there’s perhaps only one that would abort in the third trimester callously for no concrete medical reason.

    Tell that to the men just now being freed after nearly 20 years of incarceration for rapes they did not commit.

    Your metaphor here is fundamentally flawed. I recommend you take a look back at my prior post on the rape conviction rate for exactly why.

    Well, as said, if you’ll never use it, then why care if it’s illegal?

    Probably beause of things like this or this or this.

  19. D, if medical science made it so that a foetus was ‘viable’ at two weeks’ gestation, would you then say two weeks should be the limit for abortions? Viability is a poor reason for banning abortion.

  20. Ok, I lost interest about halfway through D’s comment. Blah. You certainly are not pro-choice, I’d argue. The beliefs you have, and the nonsense you are spouting sounds quite like the forced pregnancy crowd. You can certainly have your beliefs, but don’t call it pro-choice!

  21. How is it “forced pregnancy”? If you get pregnant, and manage to carry it for 8 months, no one forced you to do that.

    I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but abortion at 32 weeks isn’t an option.

    How is that “nonsense”? I’d say it’s nonsense to advocate 8 month abortions.

    There’s no such thing as forced pregnancy, anyway.

  22. Well, if I am 8 months pregnant, and decide (for whatever reason) that I can’t carry it to term, and if you tell me I can’t have an abortion, then you are forcing me to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Forced pregnancy. Simple, really.

    I’m not advocating abortions at 8 months. Where did I advocate that? I’m saying that each woman has the right to make her own decision about anything having to do with her body. I’m advocating for women’s right to choose, not advocating for abortions at 8 months.

    Why isn’t abortion at 32 weeks an option? You still haven’t given any reason for that other than your own FEELINGS about it. You don’t feel it’s “right” so you think it shouldn’t be allowed. Since when do your feelings set policies and laws? They don’t.

    Are you SURE you are pro-choice?

  1. Pingback: Republicans are the new feminists. Either that or they’re pro-rape and anti-family. « Rage Against the Man-chine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: