No One Wants To See a Really Truthful Ad About Abortion

Rather than spending their

By: hackmananne | Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:36

Rather than spending their ample resources trying to restrict others' access to safe abortion, I wish the pro-life movement would focus on providing support to women who might choose to have a child if they had the support they felt necessary to do so. It's one thing to demonstrate in front of a clinic, but quite another to offer help with child care so someone can finish high school. What's disingenuous is spouting 'choose life' rhetoric but not being willing to put your time/money where your mouth is.

Addressing the point: fail.

By: closetpuritan | Wed, 02/10/2010 - 23:28

I agree with dkosullivan:
"I have yet to hear Rachael adress the fact that the pro-life movement isn't about increasing the number of happy families, but about taking choice away from women and giving it to the government."

She claims she wants to "respond to KJ's post", but she doesn't respond to the point presented. The point was not "your ad is one-sided"--the point was "But I'd argue that your ad is disingenuous—because you're selling babies, not a world where abortion is illegal." Larimore did not address this; she talked about the argument she WISHED KJ had made, because it was easier to argue against. (Or because she didn't understand KJ's argument? No, I'm too much of a cynic to believe that.)

Usually when someone says they're "pro-life", they don't just mean that they wish more people would choose not to have abortions, they mean that they want to restrict abortions. So even people who still desperately do not wish to become mothers, even after seeing a cheery commercial about how great babies are, are still forced to carry their pregnancies to term, or else skirt the law with back-alley abortions (or if they can afford it, go to a place with more liberal abortion laws to get the procedure done). If Larimore was making an honest ad, even a one-sided, positively-slanted one, she'd show the mothers who DID NOT WANT to have a child, saying something like, "it wasn't so bad--I gave my child up for adoption, and although giving up a child can hurt (and hurts me) like nothing else, I'm sure that my child and his new family are very happy." Or maybe, "Well, it wasn't realistic to try to become a doctor if I wanted to raise the son I gave birth to at 17, and life has been hard as a single mother, but I really really love him, and he's brought such joy into my life. If I'd had a choice, I would have gotten an abortion at the time, but I can't imagine life without him."

Does Rachael truly understand what pro-choice means?

By: dkosullivan | Wed, 02/10/2010 - 00:26

I'm sure she does, seeing as she works closely with a number of pro-choice women, but whenever she writes a pro-life article like this one I get the distinct impression she's missing the point. Being pro-choice is not about being pro-abortion. I'm about as pro-choice as you can get (I think medicaid should cover abortions), but I would love to live in a world where there were no abortions because there were no unwanted pregnancies. I think most pro-choice proponents would agree with me. The difference is I think the decision should rest with the woman whose body is involved and not with the government. The problem I have with Rachael's articles, and most pro-life arguments, is that they try to sell the idea of the happiness a child brings into a life, something that most certainly be weighed when a woman is making her CHOICE. I have yet to hear Rachael adress the fact that the pro-life movement isn't about increasing the number of happy families, but about taking choice away from women and giving it to the government.

And by the way

By: Katie27again | Tue, 02/09/2010 - 07:41

just in case there is any confusion of what's really at stake here. It would seem Rachael, in addition to wanting control of the reproductive choices of women at large, is perticularly resentful that she can't control the reproductive choices of the unsavory folks at her local Target. And here I was thinking this was about "the right to life" or something.

"I don’t come by my pro-life views easily..."

By: MichaelB67 | Tue, 02/09/2010 - 00:24

"It’s impossible to go through life—or even through Target some days—without thinking, “My god, who let them have a kid?” or “OK, some people clearly should have abortions!” when you see some of the less-than-stellar examples of parenting that abound."

What an astonishing sentence. Rachael, do you seriously think that anyone is pro-choice because they secretly fantasize about forcing other people to have abortions? That characterization is both facile and vicious. We define ourselves as pro-choice because it reflects what we actually believe: that women have the right to make choices about their own bodies, including some that may be difficult and painful, without legal interference. It's not about judging other people at Target, and suggesting that it is simply trivializes the issue.

If you haven't agonized...

By: akgirl | Mon, 02/08/2010 - 22:57

Am I to assume from the comments here that no one who is pro-life has ever wrestled with that appellation? Every pro-choice advocate has agonized over their stance, but the anti-abortion crowd is just knee-jerk. Isn't it possible that Rachael means exactly what she says- that she doesn't come by her pro-life views easily. That she's grimaced when she has a thought that she knows is not in keeping with what she believes in her heart. I would consider myself pro-choice. I've thought long and hard about it. As much as I find abortion distasteful, I'm not willing to condemn the minority (medical emergencies, incest victims, teenagers, fetuses with significant abnormalities, etc) to death or hardship because of the majority. The majority of abortions are not emergencies. They function as birth control. I think if the pro-choice crowd wants to see access to abortion remain unrestricted, when they lobby (and they should) it pays to be intellectually honest and prove that benefits outweigh the costs. But we do have to acknowledge the costs. Larimore does that on XX (and for Slate). Her voice is hardly overwhelming on this site, but we do her and her work a serious disservice if we dismiss her because we know she'd agree with us, if she'd REALLY thought out what she was saying.

"I don’t come by my pro-life views easily."

By: K_Allen | Mon, 02/08/2010 - 20:24

I find that so incredibly hard to believe. I would love to believe that anyone who would condemn women to agonizing pregnancy-related deaths at least thought hard about it, but I am constantly amazed at the lack of reflection put into your posts. And the extent to which you dodge the real issues. No one contests the fact that women could die during a legal abortion. So why bring it up? What we're all really wondering is how you can justify taking such a hard-line stance against abortion when it is, for many women, a medically necessary procedure, and for others, a procedure that allows poor women to finish high school and lift themselves out of poverty? The only real solution to the problem is to work to reduce the need for abortions, not to take abortion away.

Annoying kids at Target

By: Madeline | Mon, 02/08/2010 - 21:17

It’s impossible to go through life—or even through Target some days—without thinking, “My god, who let them have a kid?” or “OK, some people clearly should have abortions!” when you see some of the less-than-stellar examples of parenting that abound.

a) That's a mighty smug (and ugly) outlook.
b) All those people in Target who were "allowed" to have kids had the option of having an abortion and chose not to. Or do you think the the opposite of your "hard-earned pro-life stance" is forced abortions for people you personally find offensive?

Hey Rachael,

By: Katie27again | Mon, 02/08/2010 - 18:49

Know what IS disingenuous? Pretending that the pro-choice equivalent of the Tebow ad would "show women who have been able to do more with their lives and careers because they were better able to plan their families." Nice move. "Prolifers" really excel at pulling the trump card and trivilaizing women's lives. You talk about careers in this context? Good for you. Excellent juxtaposition: Woman risking her very life v. woman who, like, wants a better career and all. The pro-choice equivalent of the Tebow ad would be to showcase a woman who ISN'T DEAD because she didn't chose her fetus. She chose HERSELF. She doesn't have a Timmy. Perhaps she doesn't have anything at all that could be showcased as a reward for her choice, other than, ya know, her life. Unfortunately, there is no pro-choice ad equvalent of the Tebow ad. Because woman's lives outside of procreation/caretaking aren't really valued at all, are they? And THIS is the heart of the pro-choice movement. We choose WOMEN'S lives. And we don't need the smug and the lucky Pam Tebows of the world imploring us to "chose life." We're choosing our own lives. Sorry that isn't enough for you. So, while I'm sure most people didn't find this ad offensive (and see Amanda Marcotte's funny take on what most people probably gleaned from this ad), it's offensive that the pro-choice movement couldn't have the sympathetic equivalent ad, and that even if it did, CBS's Mad Men would reject it every time.

Wow

By: fi_burke | Mon, 02/08/2010 - 19:57

“My god, who let them have a kid?”

Really? That's what makes you think abortions should be legal? Because I picture a woman, 38 years old and nearing the end of her fertility, who desperately wants a child but is carrying a baby destined to die immediately post-delivery because he or she isn't developping a brain. I want that woman to be able to choose to end this pregnancy for a chance at healthy child before its too late for her to conceive. And I want to spare her the pain of carrying a fetus to term, being obviously pregnant, and having to explain to her friends, family, and coworkers that there is no bundle of joy.

And I picture 12 year old girls who got pregnant before they even had a sex education class in school who have been abused their whole lives, and who had one adult in her life who had the decency to try and give this kid back a piece of her childhood.

Even if its the people in Target who end up being the typical person who gets an abortion, its the outliers that make me want to make sure its still a legal option for everyone.