In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Bill Cunningham: Democrats Think “a Woman’s Womb is a Tomb”

Cara

Via Media Matters, Bill Cunningham “discusses” the woman who gave birth to octuplets:

Okay, so . . . is it just me, or does Bill Cunningham’s argument essentially go like this:

Democrats support the right to abortion! Which I think is very, very wrong (and murder, and destroying some kind of sacred femininity or something)! So you should support forcing abortions — which I think are wrong! — on women who want to continue their pregnancies! Because I like my money a whole lot! More than I dislike killing babies!  “Abortions of convenience” are wrong, unless it’s my personal convenience we’re talking about!

Or am I missing something?  I know that I at least got the exclamation point part right.  Oh, and did you catch the part where he referred to the woman’s babies as a “litter”?

This, to me, just further demonstrates that conservatives really, really do not understand the meaning of “pro-choice.”  And probably never will.

18 thoughts on Bill Cunningham: Democrats Think “a Woman’s Womb is a Tomb”

  1. for some reason, prolifers hear “choice” as “murder!” it’s like some sort of aural disease.

    for real fun, go to any DNA website and check out the confusion this woman’s “litter” has caused:

    She’s a warrior for life!
    She’s irresponsible and selfish!
    She has a right to have as many babies as she wants!
    She’s irresponsible and selfish!

    It’s kinda fun.

  2. The fetus is sacred, but his obligation stops at birth. Of course this woman did not have taxpayer funded invitro and she’s gettign a $million book/tv deal.

  3. So, abortions are wrong, but this woman should be punished for deciding to have kids instead of getting an abortion?

    Okay then.

  4. So, abortions are wrong, but this woman should be punished for deciding to have kids instead of getting an abortion?

    Well, right. Since we’re killing babies anyway, can’t we at least be considerate enough to kill the ones that Bill Cunningham wishes were never born? Seems like the least that we could do. (Woman? What woman?)

  5. Yeah, I don’t get this guy’s point either.
    There seems to be a lot of snarky comments about this woman from all “spectrums” of this issue, all of them ignoring the whole point of choice.

  6. Well, right. Since we’re killing babies anyway, can’t we at least be considerate enough to kill the ones that Bill Cunningham wishes were never born? Seems like the least that we could do. (Woman? What woman?)

    And I for one, look forward to the day when abortions are mandatory for all women.

  7. Is it just me or was the conservative guy suggesting that the Democrats are the bad guys and the woman in question should have aborted the pregnancy? Wouldn’t that mean that that guy hates the party that gives people the right to do what he considers to be the right thing? Also, if conservatives value life so much, where does this guy get off complaining that one family will need social services for their kids to do well?

    What a moron.

  8. You people are doing wrong, by letting logic and reason into the equation. Don’t you know that logic and reason are tools of the devil?

    Also, pregnancy, childbirth, adoption and abortion are only right when Wingers decide they are right. Whatever mothers, fathers, doctors, whoever… think is meaningless so long as their political values are upheld. Even if they make no sense.

  9. On talk.abortion and alt.abortion, for a long time the running sour joke was, “Woman? What woman?” But really, in these people’s eyes women do not exist.

    That’s the recurring motif, not just in the discussions of this woman’s pregnancy, but in all such discussions. Whether a woman (especially a poor woman or a woman of color) becomes pregnant in the first place, whether she carries to term or not, whether she rears her own child(ren) or not, has nothing to do with anything she may want. I can’t think of the number of times I’ve seen male pro-choicers accused of only wanting a wider range of prospects for sex: “Then you can just tell her, ‘Go get an abortion’ and walk away!” The notion there is that a woman has no will of her own, certainly not a will to want or not want sex herself; she only exists as a receptacle for a man’s penis and a man’s seed.

    There’s this bizarre concept of “the womb”, as if it were some sort of freestanding appliance, with no inconvenient wishes or desires or needs of its own. And that endless series of “what should she do” questions: a woman or girl is pregnant in some set of appalling circumstances (she’s a thirteen-year-old rape victim, or she has TB and her husband has syphilis, or she’s poor and already has fourteen kids, or she’s single and her fiance is not the father): “Should she get an abortion?” Always with the triumphant punchline: “If you said yes, you just killed Ethel Waters/Beethoven/John Wesley/Jesus Christ!” But I never say yes. I say, to every single question, “Does she want one?” And no one answers. Ever. The question of whether she might want one or not, the question of whether she might have an opinion to be consulted, genuinely does not occur to them.

    The question “Does she want one?” never occurs to these people. Whether a woman gets pregnant, whether she remains pregnant, are entirely in the hands of other people. That she might have a will or a wish of her own actually never occurs to them.

    “Woman? What woman?

  10. I am SO relieved to read these supportive comments about this woman’s decision, even if we may disagree with it or may not have made the same decision ourselves.

    When this story was first coming out, there was a post on Bitch magazine’s blog, also in support. But the number of unbelievably critical and judgmental comments that followed fell far from standard feminist principles. You know, like reproductive justice and rights. (to read the blog/comments: http://bitchmagazine.org/post/the-war-on-choice-when-life-is-chosen-eight-times)

    So, thanks, Feministe-ers (bloggers and commenters) for being here.

  11. I’ve been steadily wincing since the news of this woman’s other children broke, knowing what was coming. I’m with emrez; thanks to all y’all for providing a safe haven for me to hide my judgmental decision to not judge Nadya…

  12. I agree with Cara, the questions about ‘SHOULD this woman get an abortion?’ bug me no end. It’s about if she WANTS one, damnit. I really don’t think prolifers have any concept of choice at all.

  13. if we’re horrifed and unhappy at the reaction to this, can you imagine if she had been a person of color w/ octuplets trying to get a million dollar deal?

  14. There are two things that seem to have been neglected in this debate. One, is that the welfare of the children (the eight new ones) is only considered from the point of view of the mother’s ability to support them, and not from the point of view of the medico who (medically speaking) should never have implanted all of them at once. I have absolutely no issue with her if she chooses to have 7 more kids, but all medical research suggests she should have them one or two at a time for the medical sake of the kids. The responsibility here is clearly with the medico.

    The other, which I find kind of amusing, is that she might well be able to support them, by virtue of selling her story to the media. America hates her, but through the free market, they may well pay for her to raise her kids. hehehehe.

  15. This guy makes sense, if you’re demented enough. (If you aren’t, try drinking a lot.) The government should “take” babeeeez out of the wombs of unwilling mothers, just like they should “take” (his word) these infants away because their mother is…unemployed. Or unmarried. Or something.

  16. AAAArg, the hatefulness towards Nadya Suleman for her choice to give birth to all 8 babies annoys me endlessly! Would I have made the same choices as Nadya? NO. But I respect that she doesn’t believe in abortion, and so felt compelled to continue on with a surprise multiple pregnancy. For me, the story ends there.

    For wingers, as soon as they learned she was unmarried and low-income, this is where the hate began. Nadya is not good enough to be a mother to her children, and I have seen repeated calls that her children be taken away from her. Has she committed a crime? No. Has she abused them? No. Her crime, in the wingers’ minds, is daring to have children while poor.

    There is also a lot of speculation that she is an immigrant who is just popping out lots of children to take advantage of the “American system” and bleed us dry. People have no shame.

    I wrote some counter-arguments to some of the most annoying things I’ve heard said about her, if you want to read further.

  17. Thank god/dess. After that conservative family with the over a dozen kids who’ve been on cable… the Duggars. That’s it. After someone on Pandagon, I think it was, referring to Mrs. Duggar’s vagina being a clown car, I was half expecting the feminist blogosphere to slam Ms. Suleman’s choice for “overbreeding” or something. I’m glad at least some of us remember what pro-choice really means.

    The latest snit is that she has a messy house. Wow, with only six kids prior to this, it should have been fucking Martha Stewart heaven.

    Ten to one everybody who is talking shit about her either doesn’t have kids or isn’t raising them…

  18. This is why sometimes I think pro-lifers will never be happy. Great, Nadya Suleman has chosen life. Everyone rejoice. Wait, you mean someone has to pay for these kids? Certainly not me, it’s not as though I asked for these kids to be here in the first place.

    Ugh.

    When exactly did anyone gain the right to determine what families and children are burdens and which are blessings? Because I’m not seeing much difference between Suleman and a family like the Duggars, except that they are white, married, and blatantly Christian. I guess that makes it okay, even when despite the fact that they can support their kids, they still end up being a burden on the taxpayer’s dollar when these kids have to be fit into an overworked school system, if we’re going to go by that argument, and they have more children than Suleman does.

Comments are currently closed.