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

Responsibility and Punishment

Jill

anti-choice
Punish women? These guys? Nah…

This staff editorial manages to put out some of the more ridiculous anti-choice claims about pregnancy, punishment and responsibility. Plus they manage to get in a “reverse racism” slap at Obama, which is always special.

And now, in discussing the need for abortion, Obama says he wants to instill values in his daughters — but if one of them did get pregnant, he says, he wouldn’t want them “punished” with a baby.

The mainstream national media are ignoring it, but he actually said that.

Here’s our official editorial reaction:

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

His comment betrays a tragically dim view of God-given life. A baby as “punishment”? Forgive many of us for believing a child is the greatest gift God can bestow on either a parent or a nation.

Sure, a child can be a gift — if it’s accepted willingly. That’s a baseline for “gifting,” right? Voluntarily given and accepted? And that’s what pro-choice people believe: That a pregnancy can be a gift, and so it should be entered into voluntarily.

But take the next step with Sen. Obama: Let’s say a baby is a punishment to an unwed, wayward teen. It’s then acceptable to kill the baby in order to save the young mother the inconvenience of being “punished”?

I think they misunderstand. Not every pregnancy is a punishment — not even for the “unwed, wayward teen.” A pregnancy becomes a punishment when you’re forced to maintain it against your will.

The staff writers at the Augusta Chronicle don’t seem to bright, so I’ll explain it like this: Giving your kid his own room can be a gift (or it can just be a family decision). But forcing your kid to remain in his room, against his will, for nine months is not a gift. It is a punishment. Giving your wife a diamond necklace? Gift. Forcing her to wear the necklace for nearly a year, as it grows larger and heavier and weighs on her body, and as it impedes her ability to move and to sleep and to work? Punishment.

And since when is pregnancy a mere “inconvenience?” Have these people ever been pregnant? If you actually give a damn about pregnant women, it probably isn’t a great idea to demean their experience — an experience that changes their bodies and their health, that requires significant lifestyle changes, and that can have severe consequences — as just “inconvenient.”

Barack and Michelle Obama are obviously caring, loving parents. But part of loving and caring for your children is to teach them that there are consequences for their actions. To whisk a child off to an abortionist to help her avoid the consequences of her actions is in no way compassionate or caring. It’s quite the opposite. It’s teaching young women a perverse and utterly false notion that they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions — or for the precious, vulnerable little lives they helped create.

Why is it that pregnancy is the only situation in which people are supposed to “take responsibility” in a way that is often totally irresponsible and ignores all other options? Why in the world is it not responsible to terminate a pregnancy that you simply cannot carry for physical, financial, personal or emotional reasons?

New life isn’t punitive. It’s restorative and miraculous and our sacred obligation to accept from on high with humility and gratitude. Rather than a punishment or inconvenience to be escaped, it’s a solemn obligation from our Creator to care for that child as we would want to be cared for.

You want punishment? Shirk that duty!

Pregnancy isn’t a punishment, nah. You will accept that pregnant and you will like it. You will accept it with humility and gratitude because it is your obligation. Bitch.

Thanks to Jovan for the link. You can reach the Augusta Chronicle op/ed pages at:

Augusta Chronicle Letters to the editor

PO Box 1928

Augusta, GA 30903-1928

letters@augustachronicle.com

1-706-823-3345

41 thoughts on Responsibility and Punishment

  1. Forgive many of us for believing a child is the greatest gift God can bestow on either a parent or a nation.

    I’m having flashbacks to Kristin Luker’s Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. This is exactly the distinction she draws between individuals who are pro-life and pro-choice. If you’re pro-life (and I’m using that term loosely here since we know it’s something of a misnomer) and value motherhood as the ultimate expression of femininity, then yes, a child is a gift. If you’re pro-choice, and have a job, social capital, etc. then a pregnancy is a gift if willingly received.

    And round and round and round we go….

  2. And since when is pregnancy a mere “inconvenience?” Have these people ever been pregnant? If you actually give a damn about pregnant women, it probably isn’t a great idea to demean their experience

    Of course they’re going to demean the experience of pregnant women; they have to. If they really acknowledged the reality of the extreme hardships of pregnancy and birth, they would have a hell of a time convincing the public that forcing women to go through it is acceptable.

  3. Ugh, as someone who lived in Georgia for many years, I can solidly attest that the only good thing to ever come out of Augusta is I-20 — the place is basically a nice golf course surrounded by a cesspool. And as a graduate of UGA’s journalism school, I can add that the Chronicle was looked upon as a paper you went to right after graduating and endured for no more than 6-9 months before getting a good job elsewhere.

    By the way, did anybody notice that the editorial excoriated Obama for referring to his grandmother as a “typical white woman” — even though that phrase doesn’t actually appear in his March 18 speech?

  6. there are many reasons why Augusta is called Disgusta.

    Been here 8 years now and this has got to be the crappiest “2nd biggest city in the state!” in the country.

  7. And since when is pregnancy a mere “inconvenience?” Have these people ever been pregnant?

    Some of them probably have been. Probably against their will or after coersion. They are suffering from “if I had to live through it so do you” syndrome: I’ve seen it in senior doctors arguing that you can’t make life easier for residents because then the residents would be getting out of an initiation ritual that the older doctors had had to endure. I’ve also seen it from older, post-menopausal women who argue that younger women shouldn’t have the right to decide whether to be pregnant or not because if they did they’d be getting out of what the older women had to just survive (or not as the case may be.) It’s not a pretty argument, but people do make it.

  8. When I was in first year, one of my roommates was from Augusta, and her best friend from high school also lived on our floor. They were hanging out in our room one day and started talking about how during their senior year of high school it seemed like a new classmate was pregnant EVERY WEEK. Exaggeration, undoubtedly, but there had to be an awful lot of pregnancies for every week to be the exaggeration, instead of every other week, or every month, or every semester. (Every semester would have been a lot for my high school, but obviously I’m only talking about pregnancies that I knew about.)

    I was at my desk in the corner experiencing the biggest culture shock of my life. I’d never heard of abstinence-only sex ed before that day, and I had no idea that the teen pregnancy rate could get so high and the community wouldn’t end up in an uproar over the appalling ineffectiveness of their program.

    I just mentioned this whole thing to my mother, who is very religious and definitely not as pro-choice as us Feministe-ers, but she was horrified. Her exact words were, “He wasn’t saying that the CHILD was the punishment! He was saying that society, and the way it reacts to and judges teenage mothers and puts up obstacles for them and makes it hard for them to finish their educations and get good jobs… that’s the punishment!”

    The moral of the story? Shut up, Augusta. Your way isn’t working, so let’s defer to the person supporting a method that actually DOES work, because people who moralize about things like this also tend to be the ones who want to punish pregnant teens the most harshly. You could prove me wrong, of course. I await your next editorial advocating an increase in funding for WIC and high-quality publicly funded daycares so teenage mothers can continue their schooling uninterrupted.

  9. It’s teaching young women a perverse and utterly false notion that they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions

    And right there, they reveal what they truly think–that forcing a pregnancy is punishing women for their actions, i.e. having sex.

  10. creepy analogy:

    So, I read somewhere that some politician somewhere said something along the lines that being raped was akin to being force fed chocolate cake. Now, I personally think that being force fed anything would severely fuck me up, and the fact that chocolate cake is (theoretically) tasty might actually make it worse, and ruin any future cake eating experiences for me, even if I were to switch to vanilla. But his thought was that since sex was awesome, it should be awesome no matter what. Creepy.

    Anyway, I definitely see a connection between those two lines of thought: in a voluntary situation, where you want it, this thing is good, and wonderful, and full of joy. Therefore, in an involuntary situation, it should still be awesome. Instead of, you know, perverted into something horrible. whyyyy is that so hard to see?

  11. Ehh, Augusta is only the second-largest city in Georgia because Augusta and Richmond County consolidated. The real number 2 is my (somewhat less crappy) hometown of Columbus.

    And I think it’s hilarious that “Disgusta” is listed right up there with the city’s other “nicknames” on its Wikipedia page.

  12. Isn’t “teaching” someone responsibility by making them have a baby (whom I’m sure will grow up to love being a human “teachable moment”) a bit extreme?

    It’s like teaching people to use seatbelts by taking the airbags out of their cars.

  13. Ah, the Augusta Chronicle. Not even worth the paper it’s printed on. Don’t even get me started on Morris Communications, Inc. (They own the Augusta Chronicle and last year they bought out the paper in my hometown from it’s previous owner, CNI.)

    To whisk a child off to an abortionist to help her avoid the consequences of her actions is in no way compassionate or caring. It’s quite the opposite. It’s teaching young women a perverse and utterly false notion that they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions…

    Notice how there’s no mention of the father in any of this? What sort of repsonsibility does the father have to take up? Hmm? Oh right, he’s supposed to marry the girl and provide for her and his offspring, but ulitmately the mother has to take reponsiblity for her actions. If the boy runs off, well she shouldn’t have gotten involved with a two-bit loser like him. Sucks to be her.

  14. So, I read somewhere that some politician somewhere said something along the lines that being raped was akin to being force fed chocolate cake.

    It was this guy in London, a member of the BNP, whatever that is. He had to step down as a candidate for the London Assembly in the subsequent uproar. Good.

    As for that editorial, I’d bet my rapidly diminishing 401(k) that it was written by a man.

  15. So according to the Chronicle, a baby isn’t a “punishment” for women, it’s a “consequence of her actions.” What the hell’s the difference? My wife is from Augusta and I always look forward to reading the Chronicle when we visit. The “Rants and Raves” section is always particularly illuminating, much like the comments on that editorial. I thought the paper would tone down the crazy during Masters week but that editorial seems to be par for the course (get it?). I’m actually going to visit Augusta in two weeks. Pray for me.

  16. It should also be noted that when Obama made those statements he was NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT ABORTION. He was answering a question about his position on abstinence-only “education.”

    These crazy people are so obsessed with abortion that they make everything about it.

  17. Doug- Obama said that the next day on the radio on a local Philadelphia station. In context, it wasn’t a big deal. But context doesn’t bump ratings.

  18. Exactly Pizza…

    I doubt if these editors would ever have the guts to complete their thought…which is: pregnancy is punishment for having sex, period.

    A chill wind is blowing in the bedrooms of Augusta.

  19. Isn’t abortion a consequence of her actions? Hers only, of course. It’s not the other party’s fault. Can’t blame a man for having sex without a thought to the consequences.

  20. Pingback: Barack, Babies, Gifts, & Punishments : Elaine Vigneault

  21. Exactly again. When I argue with the nutjobs that a woman who chooses abortion is taking responsibility for her actions, with the consequence being an abortion…the conversation quickly devolves into the “pregnancy as punishment” debate.

    This is where it usually gets good. If I am unwilling to be punished for having sex, then I am under no obligation to have sex with my husband outside of procreative sex, right? No birth control is 100%, right? And my husband can’t divorce me because divorce is a sin, right? And infidelity is a sin, right?

    Poor nutjobs.

  22. Just got this in an email from an activist buddy.

    Lisa Littman calls out conservatives:

    Their goal is not to decrease abortions, decrease unintended pregnancies, decrease sexually transmitted diseases, or protect the health and safety of women. The goal is to apply severe punishment to teach the lesson that any non-procreative sex is wrong. These measures make the punishment for having sex much more severe. If the punishment is less severe then women can “get away with” having sex. The increase in abortions, unintended pregnancies, and sexually transmitted infections are considered justifiable and acceptable losses in teaching this lesson

  23. What an absurd editorial. But I’m not convinced that the “pro-life” movement in general is motivated by a desire to punish women. Before I say why, let me just say that the authors and commenters at this blog have convinced me of a lot since I’ve started reading it, and I appreciate that. So I’m asking you to convince me that the following argument is mistaken.

    Here it is. Ask yourself what the “pro-lifers” would start to say if medical technology progressed to a point where a fetus was viable from very early in the pregnancy, and could be removed and adopted by means of a procedure that was not more invasive than an abortion. (I know this is somewhat fanciful, but just go with it for a sec–the point is to get at the “pro-life” movement’s motives.) It just seems clear that in that situation, the “pro-life” movement would advocate using this new procedure in place of abortions. But that is not what you would expect if their aim was to punish women with pregnancy, is it? I conclude that this isn’t their aim. Or, at the very least, it is not their primary aim, and it is not even a serious enough issue to them that they would even give it a second thought in the described (admittedly fanciful) case.

  24. But I’m not convinced that the “pro-life” movement in general is motivated by a desire to punish women.

    Chad, were such the case…pro-life organizations would be all over basic access to contraception, comprehensive sex ed, etc. They are in fact, actively opposing any policies that permit women to enjoy sex absent the threat of pregnancy.

  25. Chad, I asked that one of the one pro-life person I still speak to – my mother. She ignored the question (It was via email). I guess it just hurt her too much to think about it.

  26. It just seems clear that in that situation, the “pro-life” movement would advocate using this new procedure in place of abortions.

    A procedure like that would probably be the most damaging thing that could possibly happen to the “pro-life” people, because of the people who are in there naively thinking about “the babies” would immediately rush to embrace this solution, leaving the leadership to come up with some kind of moral and/or religious reason why the procedure is evil.

    That’s the thing: we may argue about which proportions of people involved in “pro-life” are naively worried about babies and are in favor of punishing women, but there are quite a few woman-punishers in there. You can’t convince me that, say, Randall Terry would be thrilled at the idea of letting women slough off a pregnancy for a machine to do the gestating and go off on their merry way.

  27. Chad, they’d call the machine-incubator unnatural. And an unproven technology (they’d be right). And risky, and playing God. You can find all the terms you need from their stances against contraception, the HPV vaccine, IVF reproduction, on and on. Oh, and of course men aren’t natural caretakers of children–so the father of the machine-incubator fetus won’t be assigned any responsibility.

  28. Here it is. Ask yourself what the “pro-lifers” would start to say if medical technology progressed to a point where a fetus was viable from very early in the pregnancy, and could be removed and adopted by means of a procedure that was not more invasive than an abortion. (I know this is somewhat fanciful, but just go with it for a sec–the point is to get at the “pro-life” movement’s motives.) It just seems clear that in that situation, the “pro-life” movement would advocate using this new procedure in place of abortions.

    Yeah, as stated already, the “pro-life” movement loathes contraceptives. You see, they prevent pregnancies and STDs, “punishments” for sex outside a marriage.

    Although I’m not sure the “pro-life” movement is so into punishing women, I think it’s more about controlling them.

    We get “pro-life” people with the pictures of bloody fetuses who picket a local clinic who does abortions among other health care services to women in the economically poorer communities who can’t utilize the PP clinic which is across town. Unfortunately, not much reaction on the harassment of these picketers of women, including pregnant women and medical employees from the local NOW chapters and other feminist organizations. If it were the PP, maybe…

  29. My late mother, who was personally rather pro-life herself, was still intensely offended at self-aggrandizing moralizers shoving their b.s. down other people’s throats. I recall her saying in the 1970s that someday, doctors would learn how to transplant embryos and small fetuses, and boy, wouldn’t that make those holier-than-thou types put up or shut up. If they’re REALLY all about Teh Babeez, they ought to be lining up around the block to receive these gifts.

    *crickets* Oh. Guess not. Game, set, match.

  30. 99 snowflake babies born so far, according to wikipedia, to infertile couples, of course.

    I’m not so sure that the right in general wouldn’t publically condemn (on moral grounds!) the early-removal-mechanical-gestation procedure but practically have no problem, particularly if it were a mandatory replacement for abortion when the embryo or fetus is viable. After all, such a procedure is likely to be much more expensive, and therefore out of financial reach of many women.

    On the off chance insurance (private, or whatever) did cover it, still, no big deal. First, it would re-create the supply of Healthy White Babies for Nice Hetero White Couples to adopt, and because most people won’t adopt anyway, the overflow into the system would be immense enough to pretty much guarantee a built-in underclass.

    So, yes, there would be no legal way to force women to physically suffer for having sex, a bit less getting your girlfriend pregnant so she can’t leave you, and so on, but there would be benefits. (And hey, given the probable state of the system for caring for the unadopted children, maybe it could even be considered child abuse.)

  31. Yeah, that’s why I tend to put parenthesis around “pro-life” when I talk about a political movement that defines itself that way but I don’t believe probably has that as its focus. And it’s difficult for those who are pro-life (oppose abortion, capital punishment, waging war etc. but not wishing to ban abortion) to stand apart and be viewed as being different because often people including feminists blur the two.

  32. Chad, I’ve actually asked that question quite a few times. Here are the responses (paraphrased):

    “We don’t have that kind of technology so whatever.”
    (ignoring the question)

    “Why can’t they just put the child up for adoption? It’s the same thing.”
    (distorting the question)

    “They should have to give birth because it’s a consequence of their actions.”
    (baby as punishment, or at least childbirth/pregnancy as punishment)

    “….”
    (ignoring the question)

    Not ONCE has a pro-lifer said they would support it. I just don’t get it.

  33. Although I’m not sure the “pro-life” movement is so into punishing women, I think it’s more about controlling them.

    This made me think, and it occured to me that there is little distinction to be made between “control” and “punishment.” Women who refuse to submit to unjustified, inexcusable and misogynist efforts to control their lives are to be subsequently punished for the failure to submit…via the systematic removal of choices. Access to birth control, abortion, information, etc.

  34. Ahunt, speaking of punishing women. Will Obama nominate judges who will stand up for women? I hope so. I wouldn’t want to see any women get punished with the custody of a child. Anytime a dad wants custody, he should say “please don’t punish my exwife with this child”.

  35. an experience that changes their bodies and their health, that requires significant lifestyle changes

    I know what you mean here, but having a baby requires significant life changes, not just lifestyle changes. Using the word “lifestyle” changes just gives opportunities to the “abortion-for-trivial-reasons” mob to take you out of context.

  36. I love the logic of “OMG, the babies aren’t a punishment, they’re a gift! Also, those stupid whores should be forced to have them as a punishment for their whoritude.” Or something.

    But here’s what I really love: If you believe that abortion is akin to infanticide, shouldn’t you be GLAD that the women who want abortions are having them? Because by anti-choicer logic, those women want to kill babies. Do they really think that women who want to kill babies should…have babies?

  37. GNoc…get back to us when you have discerned the distinction between unwanted pregnancy and children of one’s own.

  38. You can’t convince me that, say, Randall Terry would be thrilled at the idea of letting women slough off a pregnancy for a machine to do the gestating and go off on their merry way.

    Right, I’m sure he wouldn’t be thrilled. But the question is whether he would nevertheless prefer that a woman undergo the machine gestation rather than an abortion. If he would, then punishment is not his only aim. And, if he would strongly prefer the machine gestation, then punishment is not his primary aim (though it might still be a consideration). Now I might be misinterpreting what I know of the pro-life movement, but (as I said) it seems just clear that they (even including the leadership) would strongly prefer that the woman undergo the machine gestation procedure. So “punishment” is not their primary aim. It seems that the commenters here are saying that I am misinterpreting the pro-life movement when I suggest that they would strongly prefer the new procedure (despite not being thrilled with it). I’m not sure how to tell who’s right about that without doing a survey or something.

  39. chad – my suspicion is that the pro-life movement would theoretically embrace the idea of a mechanical gestation while simultaneously insuring that as few women as possible actually had access to it – for reasons of safety, control, encouraging teenage sex, etc. etc. Check out the reasons given for opposing the HPV vaccine while giving lip-service to the goodness of the idea of preventing cervical cancer.

  40. @akeyuuu
    You took the words right out of my mouth!

    ” A child is the greatest gift God can bestow on either a parent or a nation.”

    “To whisk a child off to an abortionist to help her avoid the consequences of her actions is in no way compassionate or caring.” (emphasis mine)

    I call a logical phallacy. A=/=non-A. Something cannot be the greatest gift from God whilist simultaneously being a punishment for someone’s alleged “stupidity.”

    On a similar note, a year ago I went to a baby shower for a 17 year-old friend of mine from high school who got pregnant (I was 18 at the time). Even though my friend and her boyfriend were Christian, they both wanted an abortion. But of course their parents wouldn’t let them have one, and from what I understand their parents basically gave them this same argument. I was crying during the shower because I was so pissed off that someone would punish their teenager for having sex by forcing them to experience something so drastically life-altering as bringing another human being into the world, especially against their will.

    Personally, I wouldn’t punish my teenager for having sex or having an unplanned pregnancy, but if a person were so inclined, wouldn’t a simple, “If you want an abortion, I’ll take you to get one, and we’ll pick up a nuva ring while we’re there, but when we get home you’re grounded for a week and I’ll be taking possession of your car keys for a month,” suffice? I mean, Jesus o.0

  41. Pingback: “Pro-Life” Myth No. 3: Pro-choicers hate babies! « The Radical Notion

Comments are currently closed.