Do Tea Partiers hate America? October 11, 2010 Jill I’m not sure what else explains their desire to elect these people.
There’s a Tea Party candidate who wants to turn prisons into dormitories for welfare recipients, where they will be taught, among other things, “personal hygiene”? Somehow, I doubt it’s all Americans that Tea Partiers take issue with…
Bah. I hate how often that O’Donnell masturbation quote is pulled. If she were pro-masturbation and had said that, it would be all over headlines too. There’s no way to win on the masturbation subject if you’re willing to broach the topic. That said, I hate her political beliefs. Also, Paladino is pretty much a worthless human being, especially in light of what he told that group of Orthodox Jews the other day. And today I learned I’m a Nazi because I believe in the separation of church and state!
Yes and no. They seem to hate anyone who doesn’t fit their narrow definition of ‘American’. And I’m sure some Americans do fit their definition. But America isn’t a place only for those people, and it never was — America’s always had feminists and social reformers and progressives and immigrants and minorities and the poor and GLBT* folks and non-Christians and saying otherwise is either ignorance bordering on willful ignorance or outright lying. * Well, as long as people have called themselves that, Americans have been GLBT.
Obviously…America includes Mexico and we all know how the tea partyers feel about Mexico…. But more specifically…the tea partyers must hate the US or at least the majority of it…you know the parts that aren’t rich, white, male and sociopathic….
They hate everything not like them. But they don’t really go in depth to be self-reflective about what they say. Instead, they’re reactive.
The Tea Party is like the KKK in that each *thinks* they love America. However, America is based on E Pluribus Unam, which is a far more important part than “in God we Trust” or “the real America is like us”. America, the country, is based on the idea that that which makes us different brings us together. As weird as we find each other, we’re in this together for the right to stay weird. To the Tea Party, it’s all about being safe, familiar, and on your own. Just another example of how nationalism, in America, is an enemy of patriotism.
This seems like a pointless post. I’m a tea partier and I certainly don’t hate America. Although I’m not sure a “Top 10 Crazy Quotes” list is appropriate, I’m think you’d find one for liberals, democrats, or greens equally hilaristurbing.
Lasciel, I have yet to find an upstanding candidate backed by the Tea Party. Using politico’s top ten tea party candidates to watch (and only looking through the first five because I got sad), you’ve got Joe Miller in Alaska (called Murkowski a whore and decried Obamacare despite the fact that he’s getting government healthcare), Jesse Kelly – pro-life (from conception, that is – not after actual birth because he’s anti-government spending), Ken Buck (pro-life except in the case of mother-death, but at least he’s pro-contraception), Dan Maes (who wants to abolish state unions and remove funding for Planned Parenthood), and five others who included Rand Paul who’s just a dickwad. Please point me to the Tea Party candidates who aren’t anti-woman. Tea Party-ers might not hate America, but they certainly aren’t friendly to half of us.
Jill, I guess their America would be a country full of white, straight, religious extremists, who don’t want to see progress in this country. Their backward thinking is quite scary, really. And to see women who go against the very thinking that gave them the right to vote is appalling to this white, straight, Atheist, boomer woman!
WingedBeast: Unum. I hate this back to the 1950s cult mentality. The 1950s were America’s dark ages. Sadly this nonsense will stay with us until the economy recovers. Lasciel: Look, these people are our enemies. We’ve got to hit ’em with everything we’ve got until they go down for the count. And if they’re going to say it, we’re going to make sure it stays in the public eye, so people can see how awful these people really are. If you’re a tea partier, what in the world are you doing on this site? Go find a book to burn or something.
As many of you have already said, their version of America is upper-class, white, Protestant, straight, and Republican. Anyone else, regardless of how long they’ve been here or what their civil rights are, is merely hinging upon their well-being as rightful heirs to the throne of the United States. This right here is what makes us look dumb to other countries. This right here. Except for Spain, which is pretty friggin’ racist too.
Tea Partiers are a scary bunch of biggots and if we progressives and sensible liberals do not fight back our notion of America will be destroyed. If we let these people take control of the American government there will be no equal rights for anyone, no viable educational system, no regulation for companies who make money off of making us poor and you can forget freedom to live the life you want to live b/c they will be in your bedroom dictating who you can sleep with, let alone build a family with. I could go on and on but the point is we need to stand up against these nutbags and push the party of progressive to be progressive, we need to push them to focus more on doing what we put them in office to do instead of trying to appease the leftist of this country who would have us go back to the jim crow, pro-endless war, anti-anyone not white or male of the past.
Being pro-life does not mean a person hates women, or is anti-woman, as much as everyone would like to pretend. I’m not denying many pro-lifers are anti-woman, but many others are just misguided. And if I can’t support parties that support pro-lifers, I guess I can’t vote Democrat either then. Most Democrats in my state are not very pro-women (or pro-choice) and are not exactly out there screaming for QUILTBAG rights. Frankly, seeing all the disgusting stereotyping and ignorance in this thread (all Tea Partiers have some white-supremacist religious extremist utopia dream? I should be out “burning books” if i’m a Tea Partier?) has simply cemented my support. Thanks for showing me the “open mind” the other side has.
They hate us because of our freedom — and I’m not even being snide or snarky. Either that or they’re an elaborate prank, America’s Top Trolls or somesuch. That’s how I reassure myself that people like that aren’t for real and I don’t need to build a doomday compound in the woods.
Anti-patriot. n. Person who claims the mantle of patriotism while espousing reactionary views and vitriolic or even violent opposition to the government. Anti-patriots often hold an ideology that conflates patriotism with loyalty not to a state, nation or Constitution, but to a theologically or ideologically defined polity, and endorse revolution, secession, ethnic cleansing or other extreme and violent measures to achieve the political ascendency of that polity.
@Lasciel, I specifically made sure that these were people who would vote pro-life – that is, be willing to overturn Roe v Wade. The only person who I think is remotely okay is Scott Brown because he deigned to suggest that gay marriage and Roe v Wade were “over and done with” – so he wouldn’t vote against them. Yeah, if you’re voting FOR pro-life measures, you’re REALLY FUCKING ANTI-WOMAN. Willing to vote to take away a woman’s autonomy and her right to sexual health (and funding for women’s sexual health – especially in light of the fact that women make less than men especially if they’re WOC) is horribly fucked up. Point me to the mass of candidates who aren’t like this. I can name a bunch of democratic candidates who aren’t voting like douchebags. Can you name a bunch of Tea Party candidates who have a moral compass? It’s not like I started with a shitbag list like in the link in the OP – I started with a list of the Tea Party’s “rising stars” – and the first five were still assholes.
Lasciel: Oh, right, because denying women bodily rights is totally feminist. Frankly, some districts are just too red for any pro-choice candidate to even get a toe-hold. But then the people in the pro-choice districts have to vote in order to get power away from the antis. Secondly- the racist thing is a stereotype how? A lot of those guys are carrying openly racist signs and proudly displaying confederate insignia. Turn on the T.V. and watch a tea party rally and count the confederate flags. Heck, take a few seconds to count all the African-Americans you can see. There’s a reason teabaggers tend to be white.
Hmmm….Tea Partiers, under the rosiest of glasses, are a conservative movement that seeks, almost by definition, to at least maintain existing power structures. Existing power structures are oppressive on a number of fronts. Fighting to maintain oppressive regimes and in many cases fighting to create an even more oppressive regime is wrong. So yeah….tea party = worst of all possible current options.
From what I can tell, Tea Partiers don’t want to elect those people because they are super down with the anti-abortion, anti-gay, stuff. They want to elect them because of these magic words: Less government, less spending, less taxes. This current liberal government caused all our problems, we’re mad as hell, so elect me and I’ll change everything. I get the sense that reproductive and gay rights probably aren’t that important to most of them, so they’re willing to accept a candidate’s extreme socially conservative stances because they tell them what they want to hear. Also, being politically anti-choice IS being anti-woman, because you want to restrict women’s autonomy over their own bodies, over their own futures, and that is an utter assault on our dignity. Every time I hear an anti-choice sentiment expressed, every time I see a group marching under an anti-choice banner, every time I see a politician running on an anti-choice platform, I feel less safe, less free, and less powerful. Being anti-choice doesn’t mean that you hate women, but it does mean that you agree with policies that completely undermine women’s lives and futures, and that seems pretty anti-woman to me.
@Lasciel, I can understand wanting to not be painted with the same crazy brush as everyone else, but the fact of the matter is that these are the candidates that people who identify with your movement are electing. These are the candidates that call themselves Tea Party Caucus members, who say that they are part of that movement; they are the vocal mast heads of the Tea Partiers. And if you don’t like it, then do something about it, but those of us watching can only say with absolute dead certainty that we do not want these people to be elected to the United States Senate because they’re extremists who have made barely veiled threats of violence, who demean and debase other Americans because of who they are, and then turn around and argue that the codifying of the rights of others would infringe upon their freedoms? That’s what society is about. Your liberties end where mine begin. You are free to do anything up to the point that it deprives me of my rights. You cannot take my life, my liberty, or my property without committing a crime. So these candidates want to get the government to do it for them – to diminish the rights of women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, transsexuals, single mothers, Muslims, pagans, and pretty much anyone else who doesn’t fit their heterosexual, anglo-saxon, protestant mold. If you don’t like being painted with this brush I can completely understand it, but these are the people that are associated with your movement because the leaders of your movement have ordained them. If you don’t like it, either change your movement or choose to part ways, but as long as you call yourself a Tea Partier, you will be associated with these Tea Party candidates.
Oh my god, are we really going to be all “All Tea Partiers are douche supremes!” “I’m offended because you used a negative generalization about a group with whom I identify!” “Well it’s true, douche supreme!” “See, now that you’ve done that, I can safely negatively generalize YOUR side and use that negative generalization to tell you that’s why I won’t be voting for your side’s candidate!!” WILL IT EVER END?!
Yeah, if you’re voting FOR pro-life measures, you’re REALLY FUCKING ANTI-WOMAN. Willing to vote to take away a woman’s autonomy and her right to sexual health (and funding for women’s sexual health – especially in light of the fact that women make less than men especially if they’re WOC) is horribly fucked up. PrettyAmiable, I agree with you wholeheartedly, but you’re playing into the same old, tired, overused, boring, redundant, ineffective, rhetorical trap that is continuing to make sure no one gets anywhere. The people who oppose abortion rights are doing so because they believe the life of the fetus trumps the mother’s bodily autonomy. Some believe the life of the fetus trumps the bodily autonomy of the mother up until her own death; others believe in less strict enforcement of that rule. Let’s stop (and the collective “let’s” here; I’m referring to all abortion debates now) arguing that it’s all about the woman’s personal autonomy, and that anti-abortion rights people are just not getting it. Because not all anti-abortion rights activists are stupid and mean misogynists just looking for ways to make sure women get punished for having sex, and it’s just irresponsible to act like that’s true. I don’t know why anyone continues to argue for or against abortion rights in the same way anymore. It’s always “YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT WOMEN!!” vs. “YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT BABIES!” It is not that simple, and jesus h. christ, WE ALL KNOW THAT! Why are we pretending otherwise? And haven’t we had enough of this “har har, ‘prolifers’ are all ‘prolife’ until the baby is born! Then they don’t care if it lives or dies!! snark, snark!” No one’s ever made that connection before! That’s also just a useless piece of garbage that puts meaningless spin on a piece of equally as meaningless rhetoric. The “prolifers” who don’t then go ahead and vote in favor of laws that give government money to families and education and quality sex ed aren’t doing so because they hate babies and want babies to die. Jesus. Does anybody who spouts this BS actually believe any of that? The majority of people opposed to abortion rights are really anti-child? REALLY? And what’s “anti-child” mean to you, to us, and to them? Because that’s just another useless debate. As useless as the whole “Family values? That’s not family values! What I say is what family values really means!” When they vote against those bills, it’s because they want less government spending, it’s because the legislation opposes their Biblically-informed moral beliefs, etc. None of which are something I agree with or would personally vote for, but let’s stop making it sound like they actually hate babies and are actively trying to kill all the non-white ones. Because it’s not true. DUH. And that’s so goddamn obvious to every side involved that it makes us look really petty, and like a bunch of liars, and a bunch of assholes. Finally, answering their idiotic rhetoric with a bunch of “our side’s” rhetoric, playing the same dirty game, spinning the same actual facts, is not better. I don’t get it. Why are we doing that? I know this is just a damn blog and not the center of the political universe, but these things that everyone is saying keep being said all over the internet, on political ads, on the radio, on podcasts, in debates, everywhere. And it’s poisonous. And stupid. And useless. Why are we still engaging in this game? This game needs to be changed, not pandered to, not played by different people. CHANGED. I thought we all agreed on that, anyway?
@Lasciel I am curious… why do you identify as a tea partier? What do you like or think is “right” about this movement? Not being snarky…. I am genuinely curious. I would ask this same question if you had come out and self-identified as a Democrat or a Liberal or a Green or a Republican or whatever. I don’t identify with any party and when it comes to elections tend to pick and choose based on the candidates’ personal records and stated goals and opinions. I have difficulty understanding what would make someone identify strongly with a particular party and am always interested in gaining insight.
@Pretty: guess what, you’re voting pro-life regardless of party here, unless you vote Green Party (which rarely gets a candidate on the ballot). Claire McCaskill (a dem my family has voted forand supported) voted yes to “-Authorizes states to enact laws prohibiting abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in the state” Cause those laws would never be enacted in one of the most pro-life states, nope… the other Dems here are all similiar. Where are these Dems who aren’t voting like douchebags? I suppose I have the chance to vote for Obama in 2012-how sweet and un-hypocritical it would feel to vote for a man who thinks marriage is a sacred thing between a man and a woman. It’s ok though, it’s because of religious reasons 🙂 Hey, isn’t that the excuse a lot of Republicans try to use to deny me marriage and abortion… Really though, you’re perfectly welcome to try and find 5 non-douchebag Democrat politicians in Missouri. I wish you luck. The first 5 will probably still be assholes.
Yeah, if you’re voting FOR pro-life measures, you’re REALLY FUCKING ANTI-WOMAN. Oh, silly PrettyAmiable, Lasciel isn’t anti-woman! She loves women! She just hates sluts. And incubators. And whatever other non-“woman” creature the female of the species becomes as soon as she’s got a sperm in her! purechastewhitevirginalchristianWomen are totally fine by the Tea Partiers!
Bagelsan: Yeah, if you’re voting FOR pro-life measures, you’re REALLY FUCKING ANTI-WOMAN.Oh, silly PrettyAmiable, Lasciel isn’t anti-woman! She loves women! She just hates sluts. And incubators. And whatever other non-”woman” creature the female of the species becomes as soon as she’s got a sperm in her! purechastewhitevirginalchristianWomen are totally fine by the Tea Partiers! That is so remarkably unproductive. Lasciel, are you even anti-abortion rights? I’ve checked out your blog, and haven’t seen anything indicating that to be true.
April: The people who oppose abortion rights are doing so because they believe the life of the fetus trumps the mother’s bodily autonomy. Some believe the life of the fetus trumps the bodily autonomy of the mother up until her own death; others believe in less strict enforcement of that rule. Let’s stop (and the collective “let’s” here; I’m referring to all abortion debates now) arguing that it’s all about the woman’s personal autonomy, and that anti-abortion rights people are just not getting it. Huh? So let’s stop arguing that its all about personal autonomy (ahem…not only women become pregnant…lets not ignore trans men and others in these discussion like we always do) because some people think that the life of the fetus trumps the pregnant person’s bodily autonomy? This makes no sense. Clearly it IS about bodily autonomy and some people just DON’T get it. Also, see above for why this isn’t just a rhetorical discussion. If you want to continue the existing power structures…you are doing something unethical. I’m sorry if this makes people feel bad about themselves…but tough.
@April I think you bring up some excellent points. There are people who advocate for abortion rights who say pretty irrational, immature things in favour of abortion rights and women’s rights, and pro-choice people do need to be held accountable for what they say. We can’t be using dumb, exaggerated, unfair arguments and attacks against our ideological opponents and still expect to be taken seriously. We need to treat them fairly, and with respect. By the same token, just like pro-choice people need to be held accountable for what they say and stand for, so do pro-lifers. Being against abortion rights and voting against measures that provide funding for sex education, teen mothers, etc. doesn’t necessarily make you anti-woman, anti-child, or anti-poor. But you have to take responsibility for the fact that your views/voting record hurt women and children, more specifically poor women and children, and make their lives harder or even brutal; not just a little bit, but a lot. And you may be okay with that. But I’m not, and I won’t put my support behind anyone who preaches that message. And that’s where we differ. Also, I’m not specifically referring to Amy in this post, and I don’t want it assumed that I am.
@April- I am pro-choice. I don’t know why people are insisting I’m pro-life when I’ve already said it comes down to a decision of voting for a bad, pro-life Dem, an evil, corrupt pro-life Republican, or a decent pro-life tea-party supported Republican. The Tea Party movement says nothing about abortion in it’s goals-it’s mostly about economics. I do not, and will never, support the branding of all pro-lifers as evil woman-haters. I find your summation of the way most pro-lifers think more accurate. They may be wrong, or believe lies, but it’s ignorant to try to misread their intentions as malicious when they aren’t. @Kara-I originally looked into the Tea Party movement when the bank and auto bailouts were happening. Apparently that makes me a woman-hating white-supremacist in some people’s eyes, but so be it! 😀 tea partiers endorse independant candidates as well, not just Republican ones, so I’m not sure why people get the idea that you limit yourself to one party by being a tea partier. It’s also not a totally unified movement-just because Alaska endorses a hater doesn’t mean Missourians do. The tea partiers have been successful at ousting a lot of corrupt Republicans: I hoped we could do the same here in ’10 but the tea party-backed candidate narrowly lost. @Cat-why should anyone change their party to prevent people making biased assumptions against them? If you voted for Obama in 08, should I assume you’re anti-same-sex marriage? Or maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you had other issues you prioritized higher. @Bagel-we’ve both been posting here long enough that you should know better.
@April… Lasciel never said zie was against abortion rights. I wasn’t inferring such. If I had inferred as much, maybe then I would have given a poignant philosophical position on the many reasons why being anti-choice is wrong. However, since I wasn’t arguing an anti-choicer, I merely pointed out a simple reason that being anti-choice is necessarily anti-woman and thus why the vast majority of Tea Party candidates are not pro-half of America. Seriously, though, nice derail. @Lasciel, given that I live in Missouri and am voting in Missouri, I understand that your voting options are shitty. However, if your choice is between a crappy Democratic candidate and a moderately less crappy Tea Party-er, I’m not going to deny you the opportunity to vote for the lesser of two evils (especially since I have the same choice to make). However, saying that you are unequivocally a member of the Tea Party without understanding the ramifications of endorsing a party that cannot be divorced from the hatred it personifies? I don’t understand how you can get upset when people point out that most Tea Party candidates are pricks. Also, “given Missouri, name five good Democratic candidates” is not the same as “given the US, name five good Democratic candidates” (i.e., the latter is easy to do). Given the US, I still cannot name five decent Tea Party candidates. I’m struggling to say Scott Brown is alright, and that’s as far as I can get.
@April Goodness, that’s an amazingly well put voicing of the irritation I also feel in these sorts of conversations. The abortion question, to me at least, is rooted in an ontological question. And there’s not much arguing about that. Once you’ve decided what side you come down on in the “is the zygote-embryo-fetus a full, complete person or not?” question, it seems like there’s some, but fairly little wiggle room. I’m personally pro-choice in every circumstance, because I don’t think an unborn child is the equal to his/her mother. If I thought otherwise, I’d be pro-life, at least in cases where the mother’s health isn’t in danger. It wouldn’t suddenly make me a raving misogynist, it would just make me someone with a very different idea of what a “person” is. One I personally find very, very difficult to conceive, and annoying, but still, I don’t see anything essentially anti-woman in it, or anything productive in spewing histrionic vitriol in lieu of conversation.
April: We’re never really going to get anywhere until the baby-boomers die out or the God thing gets thrown out. So at this point, we’ve got to keep fighting the same old fights to keep the very little amount of ground we’ve gained. I’m sorry you’re sick of it, but unless you snip your tubes (and thanks to the godbotherers that’s pretty tough) you’ve got a dog in this fight. If you wanna throw up your hands and go on home, that’s fine, but when we lose Roe, you’ll be sorry. ‘Cause next, they’ll go after Griswald and contraceptives, and those of the female sex that don’t want to be incubators’ll be sh*t outta luck.
rice: The abortion question, to me at least, is rooted in an ontological question. And there’s not much arguing about that. Once you’ve decided what side you come down on in the “is the zygote-embryo-fetus a full, complete person or not?” question, it seems like there’s some, but fairly little wiggle room. Errr…only if you believe that full human beings are entitled the use of another full human beings body. Last time I checked random strangers are not permitted to borrow my kidneys for 9 months…
“Why are we still engaging in this game?” Um, because forced-birthers and their mushy middle allies have enacted policies that have very directly and personally affected many of us.
“The abortion question, to me at least, is rooted in an ontological question. And there’s not much arguing about that. Once you’ve decided what side you come down on in the “is the zygote-embryo-fetus a full, complete person or not?” question, it seems like there’s some, but fairly little wiggle room” I don’t think most people put their positions on abortion in exactly those terms, though (and I’d say there’s a lot more wiggle room on the “no” side of the question than on the “yes” side; saying something’s not a full, complete person isn’t the same as not giving it any protection under any circumstances). I suspect most people, if they had to pin down their feelings, have a certain (varying) amount of discomfort with abortion, with those who aren’t likely to actually have one feeling free to have more discomfort, while still admitting to the necessity of it. The willingness of people to impose restrictions under some circumstances but not others doesn’t necessarily make them hypocrites; it means the question’s a lot more complicated to them than human life/not human life. I don’t refer here to most politicians who are pushing abortion restrictions, as they, I think, are either genuinely absolutist on the question (camel’s nose, foot-in-the-door) or playing to the crowds, or trying to appear centrist by giving way on what to them are small matters. But there does appear to be a large ambivalent middle on the abortion issue.
Kristen J.: Huh? So let’s stop arguing that its all about personal autonomy (ahem…not only women become pregnant…lets not ignore trans men and others in these discussion like we always do) because some people think that the life of the fetus trumps the pregnant person’s bodily autonomy? This makes no sense. Clearly it IS about bodily autonomy and some people just DON’T get it.Also, see above for why this isn’t just a rhetorical discussion. If you want to continue the existing power structures…you are doing something unethical. I’m sorry if this makes people feel bad about themselves…but tough. (Quote this comment?) I should have made myself more clear. Yes, it is about bodily autonomy, but it is highly unproductive to also make it about murderers, baby-killing, sluts, baby-haters, woman-haters, misogynists, slut-shamers, etc. But anyway, the argument continues to be about people who believe that putting pregnant people’s bodily autonomy above the life of the fetus is murder, vs. people who believe that pregnant people’s bodily autonomy comes first. @PrettyAmiable: @April… Lasciel never said zie was against abortion rights. I wasn’t inferring such. If I had inferred as much, maybe then I would have given a poignant philosophical position on the many reasons why being anti-choice is wrong. However, since I wasn’t arguing an anti-choicer, I merely pointed out a simple reason that being anti-choice is necessarily anti-woman and thus why the vast majority of Tea Party candidates are not pro-half of America. Seriously, though, nice derail. I was responding to Bagelsan, as is made clear by the block-quoted text right above the comment you’re, for some reason, responding to. @Sheelzebub- Um, because forced-birthers and their mushy middle allies have enacted policies that have very directly and personally affected many of us. This is true, but I fail to see where you and I disagree. You responded as though I said that we should stop fighting for abortion rights. Please point to where I said that. If you say “why are we still engaging in this game?” is where I said that, then you would be wrong, because you took that question out of context in your response to me, failing to acknowledge the examples of what said “game” was. (Hint: it was not “talking about/fighting for abortion rights.”) If you weren’t responding to me as though I was suggesting we stop talking about why abortion rights are necessary and must be protected, then your response doesn’t make any sense.
Well, then, April, what were you going on about? Because what I saw was a screed and a tone lecture about how mean we are in calling anti-choicers misogynists (and throwing in stuff about how they’re baby killers or baby haters or whatever–except from what I can see, no one on this thread said that). Pretty Amiable made a good point. You apparently agree with it, but seem to have a problem with her making it since the rhetoric is, according to you, old and overused. At least, that’s the best I can glean from your post. You seem to not like the arguments people are making in the abortion debate. Well, I make no apologies for them. If you hold a fetus as more important than me, and try to force me to carry one to term, I do consider that misogynist. Shrug. What would you have us do? What would you have us say?
April, I still think you are mischaracterizing the argument. The fetus’ bodily autonomy is not impacted by the question of whether it can (ethically) be expelled from a person’s body. The distinction relevant distinction is between a person’s bodily autonomy and a fetus’ life.
Kristen J.: April,I still think you are mischaracterizing the argument. The fetus’ bodily autonomy is not impacted by the question of whether it can (ethically) be expelled from a person’s body. The distinction relevant distinction is between a person’s bodily autonomy and a fetus’ life. (Quote this comment?) I know… that’s what I said. Other than the fact that I may have written in a less-than-clear manner because I’m at work and a bit hurried, I don’t understand where the confusion is. Sheelzebub- Well, then, April, what were you going on about? Because what I saw was a screed and a tone lecture about how mean we are in calling anti-choicers misogynists (and throwing in stuff about how they’re baby killers or baby haters or whatever–except from what I can see, no one on this thread said that). I didn’t call anyone mean, nor did I insinuate such a thing. I said that calling all people opposed to abortion rights misogynists, and making the reduandant claim that “prolifers” are not pro-life because they have political reasons for not supporting certain programs that would give financial support to the mother and baby is inaccurate. Every time we get into a debate on this blog, it goes the same way: I say something, you sarcastically retort with words you put in my mouth, I correct you, you sarcastically retort with more stuff you invented, I correct you, you sarcastically retort with more made-up shit. You’re clearly incapable of having a straightforward and honest conversation. I’m not going to further expend any more energy continuing to correct your continual misrepresentations of things I say.
@Sheelzebub- so basically, your argument is that it’s okay to misrepresent people’s intent and motivations as long as you disagree with them. Good to know.
rice: The abortion question, to me at least, is rooted in an ontological question. And there’s not much arguing about that. Once you’ve decided what side you come down on in the “is the zygote-embryo-fetus a full, complete person or not?” question, it seems like there’s some, but fairly little wiggle room. I would further specify that this ontological question is where it begins and ends for most people who are pro-lifers, but on the pro-choice side have already begun to look past it, as Kristen J. points out, “…only if you believe that full human beings are entitled the use of another full human beings body. Last time I checked random strangers are not permitted to borrow my kidneys for 9 months…” If you haven’t already, you should read A Defense of Abortion by Judith Jarvis Thompson. Which is where the discussion of bodily autonomy comes in. This actually really perfectly illustrates what I was trying to say: The idea of the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person either never crosses the pro-lifer’s mind, or it has, but they consider the (potential) life of the fetus to be more important, and the 9 months it would take to gestate it should be considered an inconvenience, maybe, but not worth the (potential) life of the fetus. Of course pro-lifers differ in the exceptions they’re willing to make if it becomes more than an inconvenience; but this is all under the assumption that most pregnancies are not more than inconvenient, in their general, usually ignorant, assessment of the experiences of women who are pregnant and don’t want to be. Anyway, I don’t think it’s accurate to call the whole lot of them misogynists, etc. And I think accuracy is important and it drives me up a wall to see the entire blogosphere and political world and media and everyone doing it constantly, which just halts any productive, progressive dialog. /soapbox Hope that made what I was ranting about make a little more sense to anyone that apparently thought I was saying something different.
April: I was responding to Bagelsan, as is made clear by the block-quoted text right above the comment you’re, for some reason, responding to. I like how you ignored that I was primarily explaining why your critique of my post was ridiculous since I wasn’t explaining why the anti-choice movement is wrong. I wasn’t “preaching to the choir,” so to speak. But I’m done with this conversation. I’m not arguing anti-choicers when there aren’t any around. Also, again, this is still a derail.
Kristen J.: Errr…only if you believe that full human beings are entitled the use of another full human beings body.Last time I checked random strangers are not permitted to borrow my kidneys for 9 months… You make a fair point, that “well, is your personal autonomy more or less important than preventing action which will lead to the death of a fellow equal person?” comes into the equation, but it seems to me like that’s a less contentious issue, honestly. @Ledasmom You very well may have a point about the gradations of personhood. I don’t really think of it in those terms, but I can see how the emotionalism and naturally foggy ground of “what is a person” could mix together to form a more complicated landscape than I think the question is.
rice: You make a fair point, that “well, is your personal autonomy more or less important than preventing action which will lead to the death of a fellow equal person?” comes into the equation, but it seems to me like that’s a less contentious issue, honestly. Nope…its the heart of the debate since in no other situation do we require a person to share the use of their body without their consent.
I think a lot of this sturm and drang is because a lot of us on the left believe that people are, in some way rational beings. They aren’t. An individual can be rational, a group of humans is never, ever rational. They can be jerked to the right or the left with the appropriate emotional reigns, but they aren’t actually thinking.
Lasicel–@Sheelzebub- so basically, your argument is that it’s okay to misrepresent people’s intent and motivations as long as you disagree with them. No. I’m saying that I’m not going to back away from expressing my opinion, which is that such a view is misogynist. And when you (the general you, not you personally) put the value of a fetus over the value of me, yes, I think that’s misogynist. If you (the general you, not you personally) think the fetus takes precedence over my rights to make decisions about my body, I think that is misogynist. That’s not misrepresenting someone’s position, that’s my opinion of their position. April: I didn’t call anyone mean, nor did I insinuate such a thing. You said that we are coming across as petty, as liars, and as assholes. I’m not putting words in your mouth–hell, “mean” to my ears sounds a lot milder than “petty,” “asshole,” or “liar.” And I’m still wondering who on this thread made any of the arguments you’re railing against. No one here talked about pro-lifers wanting babies to die or any of that–other than PA pointing out that their anti government-aid policies do actively hurt children and women, and that the candidate who was against government aid didn’t seem to care about this. The TP candidates she cited weren’t small-time, fringe candidates–they were the top candidates that got full support of the movement. Frankly, I think it’s fair to point out the consequences of someone’s positions and policies. I am still unclear as to why it is that you agree with PA’s position but seem to feel that she shouldn’t use the rhetoric (that you apparently agree with). And I am unclear on what it is you suggest we do or say as an alternative. But no matter. You have made it clear will not answer me–and I have yet to get an honest and good faith reply from you in any thread on this blog in any case.
And now, just a question/observation about the Tea Party. I get that they are concerned about government spending and taxes and bailouts, etc. But where where they when George Bush ran up the deficit by fighting a war on two fronts and charging it to the nation’s credit card? He didn’t tax and spend; he borrowed and spent. I am so heartened that folks have discovered fiscal responsibility. I just wish they discovered it and found their voice, oh, when we started running up the nation’s credit card again.
NPR Fresh Air did a show on the Tea Party, Glenn Beck and the John Birch Society called “Glenn Beck: Drawing On 1950s Extremism?” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130534982&ft=1&f=13
Lasciel: I read over my comments and I’d like to offer an apology. This election cycle has set my temper on a hair-trigger. I don’t like the tea partiers for the same reason I don’t like most Christians: they don’t share any values I have, and if they gain any power at all, I and most women stand to lose a ton of rights. Being a matroshka doll is not my cuppa tea, and I’m very very sure they won’t stop there.