Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc.

[spookyhandle]

I was so proud of my adopted home state last November. Not only did our country elect the presidential candidate I'd thrown my weight behind, but so did Virginia. We were a swing state in that election, and we came through (as much as our options allowed) for women's and gay rights

Comments

[elmo_iscariot]

That said, how any self-respecting woman could support a candidate who wants to take away her reproductive rights is something I've never been able to understand).

Quite simply, not all self-respecting women agree that access to abortion on demand is a fundamental reproductive right, nor an acid test of a politician's support for women's rights.

I support the individual's right to choose whether to use force to protect himself from violent crime, but don't think the general principle of "choice" gives me the right to unilaterally decide in all cases whether to kill another human being for my own benefit. Many, many of our fellow Americans (it may be a majority at this point) think similar standards should be attached to abortion, and for them (and me) dismissing concerns about the balance of rights involved by simply insisting that the killed party isn't a person rings hollow.

I've come around on abortion to the point that I _think_ I accept giving the individual the option of using deadly force to preserve his or her own personal autonomy, which would both legalize abortion-on-demand and, for instance, remove requirements that assault victims prove that their lives were in danger in order to use deadly force in self defense. But the mainstream voice of abortion activists doesn't seem to want to have a discussion of the wider implications of their policy wishlists, or even acknowledge the ethical complications of the topic at all. The most commonly articulated access-to-abortion position boils down to "disagreeing with me is 'anti-choice', which is inherently bad", "disagreeing with me is misogynistic", and "the ones I'm advocating killing aren't _real_ people anyway". Support for elective abortion is losing ground in this country, and frankly, as long as that's the extent of the common public debate, I'd expect that loss of ground to continue.

I know there are plenty of smart people out there who've gotten past the "choice" signwaving and dehumanization of the fetus, and have come to robustly defensible positions for access to elective abortions (I _think_ it was Camille Paglia who made the decisive argument that turned me around). When the movement embraces those voices, I think it'll probably see more success than it is at present.

[Also, I don't know much about McDonnell, but am _thrilled_ to see NJ actually get past the scarlet R to kick out a bad incumbent, and have some tiny glimmer of hope that it can turn into the first step in building a less corrupt, expensive, and intrusive government here. With any luck, someday soon we may be able to vote for a _good_ candidate (D or R), not just kick out one crapsack for another.]

[spookyhandle]

I'm with you that abortion is an inherently complicated moral issue, and while I'm personally pro-choice, I fully respect the opinions of people who disagree with me here. There is no obvious cut-and-dry answer, and while I've arrived at a conclusion which I feel is morally sound, I recognize that other people will come to their own moral-from-their-own-perspectives conclusions. And that's fine.

However, the issue of reproductive rights extends far beyond the pro-choice/pro-life debate. I was, in fact, thinking more about the bit of McDonnell's thesis in which he proclaimed that unmarried women should not have legal access to birth control. I'm talking about Cuccinelli's (our new Attorney General's) attempt to cut out funding for Planned Parenthood--which yes, offers abortions, but also helps women like me get birth control at an affordable rate (not to mention annual paps, etc).

[elmo_iscariot]

...McDonnell's thesis in which he proclaimed that unmarried women should not have legal access to birth control. I'm talking about Cuccinelli's (our new Attorney General's) attempt to cut out funding for Planned Parenthood...

I'm sitting here gearing up to point-by-point this on small-government grounds, pointing out our relatively fine disagreement over how long you can hold somebody responsible for failed positions, or whether individuals should be forced to pay for other people's elective medication period, let alone medical procedures and treatments they're opposed to... But that has very little to do with your post. The bottom line is that I read something into the OP that you didn't intend. Mea culpa etcetera.