Lady Parts Justice

I’m a big fan of abortion. When politicians say “nobody’s pro-abortion,”* I’m the guy who says, “Fuck you, buddy. I’m pro-abortion.” Anyone who wants an abortion should be able to get one, and I’m not interested in attaching excepts to that statement. Any time a woman wants an abortion and gets one, that’s a win for freedom. Like most anyone, I have various emotional reactions to certain kinds of abortion, some of which seem particularly distasteful, but merely being uncomfortable with something just isn’t an acceptable justification for banning it.

Apparently nobody’s told the GOP that, though, because they keep trying to pass harsher and harsher restrictions on abortion services all over the country. It’s to be expected, I suppose, as a natural consequence of their legal inability to outlaw abortion for religious purposes. (That, unlike having tax money go to birth control, would be a violation of the First Amendment.) Since the Constitution and the Supreme Court have both been entirely clear on the illegality of these bans, they’ve been increasingly trying to do away with abortion by making it practically impossible to get one. That’s a damn problem, and I can’t even conceive of how they still have voters.

(Oh wait. Yes I can: religion. “God says abortion is killin’ babies, so it’s wrong. Let’s support the GOP’s attempts to remove a woman’s right to control her own body to please Jesus!” Yawn.)

That’s why I’m incredibly pleased to see this video:

That video comes to us care of Lady Parts Justice (seriously, check them out), the brain-child of one of the minds behind the Daily Show (aka the best news show on television—and it’s not even a news show). The Daily Show uses humor to connect with people. It takes incredibly serious issues and, almost as if by magic, makes them significantly less depressing. It makes being informed entertaining. Not only does it feel good to know stuff, it feels good to laugh, so combining the two is an excellent strategy for spreading an important message.

And this message is important.  Republicans—and some Democrats, yes, but mostly Republicans—are busily fighting their “culture war” against the liberal, uh, reality, and abortion is just one such battle. As with so many other strategies undertaken by the GOP, the war on choice is an attempt to use government to impose their religious values on the rest of the country. Sadly, however, most Americans don’t appear to be terribly concerned with this marriage of church and state. I find it incredibly hard to maintain apathy in the face of this kind of injustice, but it seems the majority does not share my perspective. (What a shame that is!)

This campaign seems like the perfect way to bridge the gap. The crusade against women’s liberty has been underway for a good many years now, and we on the left are still playing catch-up. Making it fun to fight back against oppression is a great idea, and I commend the people over at Lady Parts Justice for their efforts. I look forward to seeing more of this kind of thing from them. The conservative Christian political wing deserves to be mocked. Turning women into cattle is not okay. The war on rationality is not “legitimate.”

*Okay, sure. Some politicians take the “nobody wants to see more abortions” route. This might be true, assuming you mean “let’s prevent unwanted pregnancies instead of terminating them.” I’m all kinds of in favor of promoting open access to birth control, but not at the cost of restricting access to abortion services. We need both.

5 responses to “Lady Parts Justice

  1. I believe it was Oscar Wilde who once said that: “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they’ll kill you.”

    The hypocricy of the pro-life movement is horrible, but I doubt if they are aware of it themselves. If they really wanted to reduce the number of abortions, they would act to enhance the sexual education in schools and reduce misery and poverty in the world, but they do not. Do they?

    If I really, honestly thought that my government is killing babies, I would take up arms against such a government. Not the doctors doing the killing, but against the government sanctioning it. But the pro-life people have no intention of intervining. Their protests outside abortion clinics is a vile act of agression against the weakest link in this chain of events. The poor women, who are in the terrible situation where they need to decide wether they are capable to bring new human being into the world and support it for the next 18 years.

    In Catholic Ireland abortion is forbidden, but Irish women have as much abortions as the British women, they just have them abroad in GB. The fact that they have to trip across the sea, tells us that they have more unwanted pregnancies, because not every woman is going to make the trip even if she wanted to. This is the reality of the matter. Should the Irish be able to deny women access to Britain or should they be able to impose their own morals on the Brits? If not, what is the point of denying the right for abortion on Irish soil?

  2. Of course the Irish shouldn’t be able to deny women access to Britain (or to abortion services). It’s all just rhetoric for the sake of drumming up the conservative religious vote. I don’t believe the politicians who push for laws outlawing abortion actually care about protecting anything other than their own job security. The point is just to maintain public support–to pander to the majority at the cost of the minority.

  3. I am neither pro nor anti abortion or at least not absolutely so. I have reservations about the termination of a foetus for non medical reasons, and am in principle, against all abortions of that type. That would in actuality, however, only lead to illegal abortions which could endanger the life of the mother, so for me it is a question of the lesser of two evils. My reason for being against non medical terminations is because it violates the Golden Rule, which I reference as the foundation of my moral reasoning. If I was a foetus, I would not want to be terminated merely because of inconvenience, so as a logical progression would not wish that on others either

    However, I do in all other respects accept the principle of abortion and the necessity for having a legal limitation, which I understand is the point at which a foetus has a developed nervous system. I also accept that the woman should have the right to the final say – for obvious reasons. I also accept that if at any point during a pregnancy, that her life is in danger, that termination should be granted where all other options have been exhausted

  4. If I was a foetus, I would not want to be terminated merely because of inconvenience, so as a logical progression would not wish that on others either

    Actually, if you were a foetus, you wouldn’t want anything. Wanting is part of consciousness as experienced (most?) humans, and if you were a foetus, you would lack a sufficiently developed brain to experience wanting for most if not all of your existence. (I don’t know when the ability to “want” begins, but it certainly does not emerge before the brain is reasonably developed.)

    I also wrote a bit comparing abortion and vaccine reasoning back in September. If you haven’t seen it, it’s here:

Your feedback is welcome and encouraged.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s