Oh, white male antichoicers, you are so dim

Spotted on the Men Against Abortion NZ lolfest (and considered so hilarious and convincing they reposted it):

maanz mexico

Yes.  That amazing life and liberty experienced by Mexican immigrants, documented or otherwise, who on crossing the border into the US are immediately welcomed with open arms, given all the rights and freedoms of white Americans, and not at all oppressed with racist, punitive legal systems and scary fucking vigilantes.

Or maybe they’re referring to Americans travelling south, and “life and liberty” is antichoice rhyming slang for tequila?

~

On a more serious note:  gosh, it’s almost like NZ antichoicers have copied-and-pasted rhetoric from US antichoicers.  That won’t end badly at all unless you’re a healthcare worker.

25 comments

  1. Susan Leslie

    Extremists on both sides are making a rational debate on the issue very difficult. There’s a lot of sensible middle ground between “It’s okay to kill a baby” and “No abortion even if it kills Mum.”

    • QoT

      I invite you to provide a single citation of a person, while discussing abortion, saying it’s OK to kill a born baby.

      • Susan Leslie

        That’s what I told my husband when discussing your blog but he tells me he has come across it (as sick as that is.). And while the person in question was probably trolling one of the people commenting on the above link says just that.

        • QoT

          I’m sorry, you’re actually going to take the comments of someone on Facebook, who from the looks of things is a firstyear commerce student, and who actually says *nothing* about abortion rights because he’s having a philosophy-wank about the inherent value of human life, as representative of some “extreme” prochoice views?

          Pardon me if I don’t find this compelling evidence about “extreme” prochoicers “making the debate difficult” and continue to assume you’re running a massive straw argument.

        • Susan Leslie

          BTW I never claimed this viewpoint was representative of a pro-choice view but it is the most extreme example, which is why I used it. And I kinda think that the way you’re jumping down my throat because I disagree with your position is a good example of what I’m talking about.

        • Susan Leslie

          PS: talking about assumptions, you suggest I’m saying it’s pro-choicers making the debate difficult, when I said no such thing: “both sides” means just that. In fact I’m usually in agreement with pro-choice advocates.

          • QoT

            Ah, Susan. I do kind of love how you don’t understand that everyone can see exactly what you wrote, which is “Extremists on both sides … [make] a rational debate difficult.” Then you couldn’t name any of these “extremists”. Now apparently any position which is more prochoice than yours is “extremist”. And you’ve even done me the courtesy of making two more comments after flouncing when I’ve called you on the fact that you want to impose your moral standards on others.

            Don’t let the door hit you, etc.

        • Susan Leslie

          Yes, I freely admit I “flounced” as you put it, but after calming down I wanted to clarify my position. This is an issue I feel strongly about, as you obviously do too. I don’t think it reasonable of you to ask me to spend time researching the names of extremists when everyone knows they exist. I don’t claim to be an expert in the field, I just wanted to express an opinion. Isn’t that why you write about these controversial issues, to encourage debate? If so, insulting people who do so is not the way to go. Yes, on this issue I do want to impose my moral standards on others. The imposition of generally accepted moral standards is where law comes from. When the number of people who agree with you outweigh the number of people who agree with me the law will change. I would be happy to support a law change that is more pro-choice than it is now. I believe a lot of other people would also do so if it wasn’t for the fact that the issue brings out the crazy in a lot of people. Hence the original comment. FYI the “crazy” wasn’t directed at you.

          • QoT

            What utter tosh, Susan. You made the assertion. You can’t back it up. You want to throw around labels like “crazy” and “extremist” but don’t want to actually take any flak for it. You would have served yourself far better to stop digging about four comments ago.

      • V

        As a blogger/mod, you probably find Susan’s comments frustrating – but omg they’re also hilarious.

        “That’s what I told my husband when discussing your blog but he tells me he has come across it (as sick as that is.).”

        My husband’s friend’s cousin’s brother once talked to a drunk wizard who said he’d totally seen….

        “BTW I never claimed this viewpoint was representative of a pro-choice view but it is the most extreme example, which is why I used it.”

        It’s not ‘the most extreme example’ of a pro-choice view, because it’s not a pro-choice view. It has nothing to do with abortion or reproductive choice. By that logic, advocating the death penalty for certain crimes is a “pro-choice view”. It involves killing, right? And pro-choicers are all about killing and murder, right? Oh… that’s just anti-choice rhetoric? Huh.

        “I don’t think it reasonable of you to ask me to spend time researching the names of extremists when everyone knows they exist.”

        Everyone *doesn’t* know they exist, because they don’t exist. That’s why the invitation to provide an example.

        “I’m pro-choice, but also dislike the need for abortion as it does kill a potential person. ”

        I wonder if Susan also frowns on sterilisation, birth control, and male masturbation. WON’T ANYONE THINK OF THE POTENTIAL PEOPLE?

        • QoT

          I must admit, I let through the annoying ones because in hindsight they’re such funny examples of what we’re up against.

          And seriously, why DO we never hear anything about male masturbation? Millions of potential lives down the drain every time! Oh, wait, maybe it’s because that argument completely blows the “sanctity of life” idea out of the water – if God really thought conception was so sacred he wouldn’t have built such massive redundancies into the system.

        • V

          The people I’ve asked say it’s not a real potential person until sperm and egg join. I tried asking exactly when in the process of joining it becomes a “potential person”, since that’s not instantaneous, and got accused of trolling. I think they realised that admitting there might be a process involved could be dangerous for their argument that an embryo is exactly like a born baby…

          • QoT

            Sometimes I wonder if it’s a defence mechanism, like, as soon as you get into the fact that conception/pregnancy is a really complex system, their brains throw out alarm signals, because their whole belief is based on the idea that there’s a clear line which “objectively” defines “life”.

            Also, then they have to acknowledge the sheer number of conceived “new lives” which get literally flushed down the toilet due to implantation failure.

  2. adam

    I think your blog was the first time, I’ve just thrown up in my mouth whilst reading a blog. I’ve been close on occasion with other blogs – By I think Jonathan Doeity just made the sickest comment I’ve ever read, and I’ve read being reading blogs for a long time – and coupled with, I’ve been helping friends in the States deconstruct the tea bag meta-sphere – some of which is quite sick.

    And Susan – Never, never, never have I seen – heard – or even in jest, had anyone on the choice debate say it’s “OK to kill a born baby” Myself and my friends find anything which hurt children (Including poverty) despicable. The “pro-women bashing lobby” or as they call themselves pro-life – now see it as their right and duty to go to an extreme to justify there actions. Which I may add, includes violence against women and violence against doctors. The “pro-women bashing lobby” has given up rational and measured argument – and relies on hate and malice in the extreme to push it’s agenda.

    It’s a women’s body – her choice – end of argument. Any other argument is just undermining women and I am sick of women being seen as something less than human and undermined. I’m also sick to death of dealing with the results of that attitude towards women. And when you push these men – and I do – it comes back to women hating bullshit – that nine times out of ten is a parrot of the crap the “pro-women bashing lobby” rant on about.

    • Susan Leslie

      Please see my reply to QoT with regards to my comment. I’m pro-choice, but also dislike the need for abortion as it does kill a potential person. Much better to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible through education and free birth control. Obviously it’s a woman’s choice to end an early pregnancy, but do you not think that a foetus should also have some rights once it’s viable? And I’m not religious, it’s just my personal opinion.

  3. Frank Macskasy

    “Extremists on both sides”?!

    I am pro-choice. Ie, it’s up to a woman to decide. Ie; it’s not my decision to make what another human being decides to do with her (or his) body.

    So… how does that make me “extreme”, Leslie?!

    • Susan Leslie

      What made you think I was referring to you Frank, or any other pro-choicer? I was referring to the disgusting comments made on the Men Against Abortion Facebook page on the link above, along with other extremists I have come across during abortion discussions. I am pro-choice myself, but don’t believe it’s right to abort after a foetus is viable except in extraordinary circumstances. Is that unreasonable?

      • QoT

        Well, Susan, you were throwing about assumptions about “Extremists on both sides … making a rational debate on the issue very difficult.” And you’ve provided a sum total of 1 example of this, plus “oh my husband said so.” I think Frank thus has just as much right to ask whether his stance is reasonable as you do.

        Also: you get to make whatever decisions you like about any pregnancies happening in your body. As soon as you want to make blanket statements about when it’s “right” to have an abortion, you get kicked out of my chapter of the prochoice club.

        • Susan Leslie

          That’s just fine, I wouldn’t want to be in that club anyhow. Yes, I think saying abortion at any stage of pregnacy for any reason is extreme. Just my opinion. Sorry, I didn’t know that only your version of pro-choicers are allowed to comment on your blogs, I won’t make that mistake again.

  4. Moz in Oz

    Just because I can read the comments doesn’t mean I can understand them. It’s a pity google translate doesn’t have a gibberish to english option.

    I actually have a lot of sympathy for the “protect potential life” position. I think banking eggs and sperm makes a lot of sense. Well, up to a point I suppose, keeping every egg and every sperm ever produced by anyone would be a bit over the top, but if every post-puberty punter had a backup, so to speak, there’d be a lot less angst about fertility. Put it down on my list of “after I solve world poverty, freedom and peace” somewhere.

    I thought the real pro-choice extremist camp was the one supporting abortion *and* euthanasia?

    • QoT

      Preserving semen and eggs isn’t really relevant to the issue of abortion. And I don’t see much that’s “extremist” in supporting people’s choices – whether it’s over their pregnancies or the end of their own lives.

      • Moz in Oz

        I think supporting choice is exactly the matching extremist position. The “pro-life” crowd tend to be very “do what we say or we kill you”, making the antithetical position “do what you wish and we will support you”. Bounded in both cases by the ethics of the groups.

        Once anti-abortion goes down the “must save potential life / zygotes” preserving eggs and sperm is the next obvious step. Why does an egg become magic only once it’s found a sperm? I mean, obviously to some people, because nothing female is complete without a male, but in the other world, why?

        • QoT

          Ah, but the most vocal antichoicers would argue that the natural opposite is “pro-abortion”. Or “pro-death”. Because despite always talking about choice and supporting people, well, obviously we actually just want to kill babies.