Monday, May 21, 2007

Not all misogynists are religious

Something the anti-choice movement has started thinking about recently is the need to change the public perception that they're all ultra-religious fundamentalist flakes. They've realized that the religiosity makes most people uncomfortable, and that it's weakening what they see as their potential to influence moderates, those who might characterize themselves as "reluctantly pro-choice". A recurring theme of late is that, as pointed out in this 9-year-old essay, they might command more attention if they stepped away from the religious aspect and convinced people that it's not necessary to be religious in order to be anti-choice. So something that's causing a flurry of excitement as it makes the rounds of the anti-abortion wingnut-osphere today is an article by Townhall's Dean Barnett titled "I'm pro-life, but not religious":

"Because we don't know where life begins, the only logical thing to do is to err on the side of caution -- the side of life. In other words, because an abortion might take an innocent life, it should be avoided. It should also be illegal in most cases."

Nice try at using logic to back up the illogical. But it cuts both ways: since we "don't know when life begins", the only logical thing to do is to assume it starts when we absolutely know it starts, which is when the fetus peeks its' little noggin out of the birth canal and becomes a non-fetus. And logically, the best person to make decisions about how and if that will happen is the woman, assisted by her doctor. Not the government. Not the supreme court. And certainly not the church, or the anti-abortion movement and all its' incarnations, from peaceful to violent.

So no, you don't have to be religious to be anti-choice. You just have to be a misogynist who thinks women should be forced to be incubators. Who knew?