Finally, one of them admits it.
Here in Pro-Choice Land the real motivations of the fundies in the anti-choice movement have long been suspect. Our logic -- call it "women's intuition" -- tells us that it isn't about "saving fetuses" at all, but a sick obsession with controlling the sex lives of women, and exacting punishment on those who dare to indulge their sexuality while trying to avoid a follow-up package. From a fundie standpoint, having sex for procreative purposes is fine; having it for enjoyment, not so much. It's nothing new: the Madonna/Whore dichotomy is as old as Christianity itself.
Anti-choicers routinely deny this, saying they couldn't care less about our sex lives, only their occasionally accidental results. Yet here's Mark Noonan at "Blogs For Bush" questioning Roe v. Wade because of its basis on privacy rights, not the "right to life" of a fetus:
"A right, per our sublime Declaration of Indepence, is something we are edowed with by our Creator. While there can be debate about application, there can be no debate in the fundamental existence of the thing. A right to privacy, if such exists, means a right to not have our personal business exposed to public scrutiny unless we choose to make it so. Does this sound like something our all-knowing Creator would endow us with? There is certainly nothing private from God - so why should there be anything private from our fellows?" (...)
"...There is a right to not do stupid things; there is a right to keep one's mouth shut - by keeping the trap shut and not doing stupid things, we'd find that we have no need of a right to privacy because we'd have nothing we'd want to hide from public view."
So he questions the validity of Roe because he apparently believes that there's no such thing as a right to privacy. The right to privacy, in the world according to Mark, only exists to protect people from public scrutiny when they've done what he deems as "something stupid". Something like, oh I don't know... getting laid? The stupid, slutty stuff that you don't want anyone to find out about.
It's interesting, because it's the first anti-choice argument I've seen that didn't once refer to a fetus... just the activity that produced it. If this represents the thinking among the anti-choice movement, I wonder how long it will be before they drop the pretenses and openly demonize women just for being sexual.
(via pandagon)
Anti-choicers routinely deny this, saying they couldn't care less about our sex lives, only their occasionally accidental results. Yet here's Mark Noonan at "Blogs For Bush" questioning Roe v. Wade because of its basis on privacy rights, not the "right to life" of a fetus:
"A right, per our sublime Declaration of Indepence, is something we are edowed with by our Creator. While there can be debate about application, there can be no debate in the fundamental existence of the thing. A right to privacy, if such exists, means a right to not have our personal business exposed to public scrutiny unless we choose to make it so. Does this sound like something our all-knowing Creator would endow us with? There is certainly nothing private from God - so why should there be anything private from our fellows?" (...)
"...There is a right to not do stupid things; there is a right to keep one's mouth shut - by keeping the trap shut and not doing stupid things, we'd find that we have no need of a right to privacy because we'd have nothing we'd want to hide from public view."
So he questions the validity of Roe because he apparently believes that there's no such thing as a right to privacy. The right to privacy, in the world according to Mark, only exists to protect people from public scrutiny when they've done what he deems as "something stupid". Something like, oh I don't know... getting laid? The stupid, slutty stuff that you don't want anyone to find out about.
It's interesting, because it's the first anti-choice argument I've seen that didn't once refer to a fetus... just the activity that produced it. If this represents the thinking among the anti-choice movement, I wonder how long it will be before they drop the pretenses and openly demonize women just for being sexual.
(via pandagon)
|