On the McCain/abortion thing

Posted in Bad boys, neocon crackpots, News, Political rant, women's rights at 3:13 pm by angela

So John McCain has decided he can’t win without the votes of the ultrafasc-…err…ultraconservative wing of the Republican party (read story below). So he’s decided to come out in favor of overturning Roe v Wade.

I’m missing something here. As far as I can see, the best he could do in this situation is to trade moderate votes for conservative votes, and he’s hoping that the votes he picks up will be greater than the votes he is throwing away.

He’s certainly lost my vote.

Perhaps he’s seeing something else involved. Maybe he’s hoping that the NeoFasci-…err…Religious Right will deliver more money to him, and he can use this to buy back my vote. Sorry, John. I won’t vote for anybody who’s clearly sold his soul. It’s gone way past the integrity stage.

The buzz on the boards is about peripheral issues. They’re arguing about the sanctity of life, about who has the right to decide, about women who should have chosen not to get pregnant, about when a fetus is a “human being”. These are all red herring issues. You can argue until you’re blue in the face, but they have no resolution.


Let’s look at what it’s not about. It’s not about preventing abortion by preventing unwanted pregnancy. The people who oppose abortion are opposed to all forms of birth control.

It’s not about babies, saving innocent lives, or the so-called “sanctity of life”. None of the anti-abortion forces supports programs to raise the standard of living for children in this country. It’s perfectly OK for these children to die from hunger, homelessness or lack of medical care. The old saying, “Life begins at conception and ends at birth” says it best.

It’s only peripherally about women’s bodies. When a woman says, “I have the right to decide what to do with my body,” these people are incensed, because they know that woman are mentally child-like, irresponsible, and would routinely abort at the 9th month if given the opportunity. That is, after all, what the whole so-called “‘partial birth’ abortion” issue is about.

It’s about controlling women’s lives. It’s about punishing women who have sex. Babies are god’s punishment for women who have sex without being owned by men. Women who avoid pregnancy and childbirth in this way are going against god’s will, just like people who avoid AIDS through the use of condoms. Sex is supposed to have nasty consequences. They’re supposed to suffer, at least for the rest of their lives.

Keep in mind that people who are opposed to abortion are more likely to have them than people who support them, probably because they don’t use birth control. That’s right, the “sanctity of life” is only a consideration when they’re trying to control a woman who is not a member of their family.

Women who leave men who act like assholes are just as guilty to these regressionists. They’re supposed to stay married to a man, whether he beats her or has women on the side. All the programs to support “the family” do it at the expense of families without responsible male parents. It’s taking money from the poorest and giving it to the middle class and upper class.

It’s just about controlling women’s lives.

On the lighter side, a quote from Miss Polly telling her opinion about whether men should be able to decide if women can have abortions.

I think men can have valid opinions on this matter. BUT if they are to get involved in the decision making process first let them have a bowling ball shoved up their arse, have to carry it for nine months then be ripped asunder getting it out, have it permanently attached like a ball and chain to an ankle with a recording on a loop that says “Mummy can I have this, Mummy can I have that?” at top volume for the next 25 years.

Once they have done that I will allow them to give opinions on laws and policy regarding termination of pregnancy . See I am fair really!!

Call Miss Polly


  1. Publus said,

    February 23, 2007 at 11:21 am

    I read a study a few years ago — it looked like someone’s dissertation — that described the respective family customs of each of the hundreds of native american tribes prior to the arrival of the europeians. For each tribe, it described the social status of women vs. men (i.e. who had more power, and in what areas); the courtship rituals; who was responsible for child rearing; the customs and taboos relating to sex; and other similar issues. I wish I could find that study; it was really interesting.

    Anyway, the status of women amoung native americans varied widely from tribe to tribe. In some tribes, women were practically chattel property. In others, women had much more power than men. I could see no particular geographic pattern between the male-dominated and female-dominated tribes, but I did see an interesting relationship between matriarchy/patriarchy and sex taboos.

    The tribes that were run by men tended to have much stricter rules about sex than the tribes that were run by women. In a martiarchal tribe, a common scheme was that the woman simply had sex with whatever man she wants whenever it suited her, but the man does not join her family. Instead, any children are raised by the woman and her family (including her brothers, uncles, etc.). Patriarchial tribes tended to have stricter monogamy taboos, complicated rules about who could marry whom and whose permission must be sought first, and severe penalties for breaking any of the above rules.

    It’s hard to say what to make of this, but does get me thinking: Over the past 50+ years, women in our society have attained more and more status, with the modern woman bearing little resembleance to June Cleaver. As that has happened, the monogamy taboo, though still very much in place, is quite a bit weaker now than it was in the past. Is there a direct correlation between patriarchy and monogamy? Or, to put it in reverse, is there a direct correlation between matriarchy and what we would call “promiscuity?”

    Maybe that would be a good topic for someone else’s dissertation. But it makes one think again about the attitudes toward “promiscuity” that you described in your blog entry.

  2. angela said,

    February 23, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    In a matriarchal society, property passes down the female side of the family. In the patriarchal society, it passes from father to son. It is very easy to know who is the mother of a child, and much harder to know who is that child’s father. Therefore, in a patriarchal society they find it extremely important to restrict women’s activities, expecially their possible exposure to unrelated men.

    A while back I read an article in which a person was speculating with a friend on what a polyandrous society might be like. The friend, an Arab woman, could not imagine such a family structure, even though she clearly could see that polygamy was feasable. The reason? There would be no way of knowing any child’s father with certainty. This was so very important to her way of thinking that she was unable to conceive of a society where they might not care about this.

  3. Publus said,

    February 23, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    Leave it to a master educator like yourself to explain something I’ve always wondered about so distinctly. Your explination of why there should be fewer sexual taboos in a matriarchial society makes perfect sense.

    As for what a polyandrous society would look like; it would look like a society with a really low birth rate and a dwindling population. Since there are roughly an equal number of men and women, there haven’t really been that many polyandrous societies. Polygyny has been more common, since it fits with the overall pattern of 1. Men go off to fight wars while the women stay home; 2. A whole bunch of the men get killed, meaning there are more women at home than men; 3. Remaining men practice polygyny, leading to a very high birth rate; 4. High birth rate produces more new men, who are sent off to war while the women stay home; 5. Repeat.

    A polyandrous society wouldn’t really fit that type of pattern, since even if it were women rather than men who were fighting the wars (or dying in numbers disproportionate to men by some other means), polyandry would lead to a very low birth rate — so low that it probably wouldn’t be sustainable.

  4. angela said,

    February 24, 2007 at 2:14 pm

    I started to write about what I know about polyandry, and then I decided to do a search. Don’t you know, I found the motherlode of articles on Tibetan polyandry. It answers all your questions.

    In other words:

    • Yes, women have more sexual freedom, married or not.
    • The population is stable. Consider that halving the birthrate in most traditional societies will result in an increased infant survival rate, and probably a stable population.
    • Probably owing to the rough terrain, minimal arable land, and lack of population pressure, there is no war.