RH Reality Check’s Strangest Pro-Abortion Tirade Yet
Because it’s impossible for pro-aborts to claim the moral high ground when debating abortion on the procedure’s merits, it’s more common for them to shift the conversation to different criteria that superficially cast pro-lifers in a less sympathetic light.
This weekend, RH Reality Check published an article by Ann Rose, a diarist at the rabidly left-wing Daily Kos, which purports to explain that pro-lifers aren’t interested in saving babies at all; we just want to dominate women’s sex lives:
[A]n anti-abortion right-wing Republican gets pregnant and doesn’t want to be, she has a “good reason” for not wanting to be pregnant and get an abortion. You see, her reason is different and more justifiable than the pathetic excuses of all those sluts in the waiting room at the abortion clinic. All those sluts are getting an abortion for “convenience” and “selfishness” and maybe even “punishment” for being a slut.
I’ve seen it with my very own eyes. One day, they’re out picketing the abortion clinic. Next day, oops, they’re inside getting an abortion. Then, they’re back outside picketing. Major disconnect.
I’m sure there are women whose pro-life principles crumble when they find themselves pregnant. I’m also sure there are pro-abortion misogynists, gun control activists who pack heat, ministers who lie, charity workers who cheat on their taxes, environmentalists who litter, and school choice opponents who send their own kids to private schools. So what?
Human nature is fallen, and hypocrisy occurs in all walks of life. But unless that hypocrisy is practiced by a statistically significant percentage of a group, or condoned and encouraged by that group, it’s irrelevant. And while Rose clearly wants her readers to think pro-lifers are secretly aborting left and right, she offers no evidence whatsoever that it’s true.
There are 45,000,000 women out there who have had legal abortions in this country since it was legalized in 1973, 39 years ago. You’d think that would be a major voting block that politicians wouldn’t want to piss off. But, the politicians continue to hammer away and women who’ve had abortions and their families continue to turn a deaf ear.
Boy, that is weird. It’s almost as if women were individuals with a diverse range of viewpoints, or their experiences with abortion weren’t uniformly positive…
Additionally, using birth control is equated with being ready for sex. And this puritanical society has told us that it’s not good or “ladylike” to be anticipating sex. The underlying meme of the anti-abortionists is that sex should only be for procreation within the confines of marriage. So, I guess that women in menopause who can’t procreate or sterile men should be denied the pleasures of a sexual relationship, eh?
There’s so much wrong with this paragraph that one scarcely knows where to begin. Anticipating sex is one thing; anticipating sex without respect for the potential consequences is something else entirely. Pro-lifers certainly believe in keeping sex within marriage, but not because we have any interest in ensuring that nobody has sex without the express purpose of reproducing; rather, because marriage best prepares people for the possibility of reproduction, and is the best environment for whatever children they may bear. And Rose’s talk of “denying” people sexual relationships is absurd—last time I checked, adult extramarital sex was legal, even among the infertile, and nobody’s trying to change that.
Oh, but somehow Viagra et al are OK. But, what are all those men going to do with all those erections if nobody can have sex with them? So, the men get to freely manufacture erections, but the women who get pregnant from those erections aren’t allowed birth control or abortion.
Aaaaaaaaaand here’s where the author abandons any semblance of a rational argument. Women are certainly “allowed” birth control; they’re simply not allowed to force other people to pay for it. To the extent that there’s any sort of double standard for Viagra coverage, her quarrel is with someone else—does anyone seriously think that pro-lifers want the government forcing private insurers to cover any sex-related drugs?
When someone so completely avoids discussing her opponent’s main argument, it’s usually a sign she’s acutely aware of her own position’s weakness. In this case, Ann Rose wildly overcompensates for her inability to substantively defend abortion by lashing out against pro-lifers for the most bizarre offenses imaginable. It doesn’t speak well of RH Reality Check that this is apparently what they consider “evidence-based information, provocative commentary, and interactive dialogue.”