good for him. these things always have to start somewhere. and in a country that doesn't respect women enough to respect their right to choose, i imagine that it's probably a good thing that a man is the one to have started the conversation. hopefully it will pick up some momentum.

While I'm glad he's standing up for women's rights, this rubs me the wrong way:

The new Minister of Health, Jose Gomes Temporao, feels that the debate should be moved from a religious and moral one, to one of public health.

But this is a moral issue. We should we cede ground to the conservative Catholics just because they say they're moral? As a pro-choice Episcopalian who believes in a woman's right to choose because denying people their bodily autonomy is immoral, I'm a little irritated at the apparent concession by Mr. Temporao that this isn't a moral issue. I can understand why he did it (in Brazil, saying the Catholic church is missing an issue is one thing; saying it's plain wrong is another), but it's still somewhat disheartening.

I had the exact opposite reaction as Law Fairy. Philosophically and morally, abortion is the height of evil. That child is only in a woman's body (excepting rape) through her own voluntary act. (I'm not saying that pregnancy is a punishment for sex, just saying that one causes the other and I hate the idea of infantalising women to the point where we pretend that they can't be responsible for their actions.) It did not put itself there, nor did the government did not run about with turkey basters putting embryos there.

Every survival instinct and every civilised law goes against killing children and killing innocent people. (Think violence against women is bad? It's justified or done because women are physically weaker than men. Sounds not unlike abortion.)

You only have the right to meet force with the same level of force brought against you: you cannot kill to prevent discomfort. Nor can you assert self-defense when you created the situation that causes you the discomfort.

It's really lovely when women say things about not wanting their bodies used against their will, but did they honestly not know how they got pregnant? Do they not realise that every pro-choice bumper sticker view weighs against them? "It's my body." Honey, it's also the baby's body, oh, yeah, and it's life. "No one has the right to use my body against my will." No one gave you the right to dismember someone's body (even assisted suicide does not allow for that), and dismemberment seems a bit more harsh than pregnancy.

Pro-life rant over... the point is, though, that public health is the single strongest pro-choice argument. Women who die from illegal abortions, no matter how misguided their acts, are still dead. A law isn't pro-life unless it's actually saving lives.

Oenophile firstly women can get pregnant through a failure of contraception as well as a failure to use it. Wanting to abort an unwanted pregnancy that was the result of a burst condom (which not everyone catches in time having found out about one myself after luckily seeing a bit of blue in the toilet the next day - had it not been brightly coloured I could have easily not got the EC i needed) is hardly voluntary impregnation gone wrong.

Then 'honey', you start talking about the 'babies' life but we are talking about aborting fetuses not killing babies. We are not taking away life but the potential to have life. All the cells in my right arm are alive but if I was to lop it off it couldn't happily live by its self and the same is so for a fetus.

As for every survival instinct going against killing children, I'd like to see you explain child slavery, or the infanticide of female babies both of which still persist today. Civilised law going against killing the innocent? Well let me mention war on the way to bringing up property law. If I own a house and someone squats in it I have a right to kick them out through the legal system regardless of whether they have somewhere else to go, or if they may not survive the move. Why not my fetus?

Think violence against women is bad? women are autonomous people capable of survival on their own. The minute I'm not and I'm a coma patient that needs need a ventolator to help me breath they can flick the switch and I no longer am.

Laws are there not to worry about morals, there is more than enough suffering caused by amoral but lawful acts. Many survive on the blood of people who are born, here and actually alive. Laws are there to keep order.

Philosophically and morally, abortion is the height of evil.

That's overly dramatic. Even most pro-lifers would agree that there are evils worse than abortion.

And we kill all the time for our comfort. We kill bugs who irritate us by buzzing around. We kill bears and mountain lions who wander into our backyards and terrify us. We take people off life support (arguably a form of killin) for their comfort (and, in some sense, that of their survivors). We absolutely kill for "comfort."

Also, abortion is hardly about "comfort." Having a kid is not something to be entered into at all lightly. There are very high physical and emotional risks to pregnancy. Dismissing these concerns as "comfort" is insulting and demeaning to women.

Even if we take at face value your claim that pregnancy is the "result" of sex, this argument proves too much. Scientific research indicates that smoking results in lung cancer, and overeating results in obesity. These are problems many people develop largely due to choices they've made. Yet we don't deny them the right to choose to repair their bodies in whatever way THEY see fit. Why are pregnant women less deserving of the same deference we give people engaging in UNHEALTHY activities (whereas sex is a normal and healthy part of life)?

In order for any of your argument to work, you have to prove that an unborn fetus' life has more value than a woman's. It doesn't, and there's really no way to argue that it does.

"That child is only in a woman's body (excepting rape) through her own voluntary act."

If you think it's someone else then you should have no problem at ball with someone wanting it outside her body.

No one has the right to occupy someone else's body against her or his will - no matter if it's one's finger, penis, or entire body occupying her or his body.

"And we kill all the time for our comfort. We kill bugs who irritate us by buzzing around. We kill bears and mountain lions who wander into our backyards and terrify us. We take people off life support (arguably a form of killin) for their comfort (and, in some sense, that of their survivors). We absolutely kill for 'comfort.'"

For that matter, what about when a fertile lady who loves wine takes comfort in sharing a bottle with her husband? Embryos are most vulnerable to alcohol in the earliest stages of pregnancy (before most pregnant women realize they're pregnant), after all...

I agree with the Law Fairy that most people who are anti-abortion would not say "abortion is the height of evil. " I think this is an overly dramatic statement made in order to make women who had abortions feel guilty. Much like when Jerry Falwell said after 9/11 that FEMINISTS, lesbians, gays, pagans and ABORTIONISTS were all responsible for the attacks.

All the people I personally know who say they are anti-abortion I would actually consider pro-choice because even though they personally disagree with abortion, they would never move to make abortion illegal (and would want it to be legal in Brazil, to help the 200,000 women a year that are going to induce them whether they are legal or not). My anti-abortion pals see our society as responsible for “the height of evil,� not individual women who have abortions.

Instead of blaming the women who have abortions for “choosing� to have sex, why not blame our government and economic system which keeps the majority of people poor while a few are rich? If you think about it, wealthy people/capitialism are responsible for abortions, whether or not they put sperm into women with “turkey basters,� because one of the main reasons women have abortions is because they won’t have enough money to support a child. If there was a more equal distribution of wealth, there would be less abortions. Also, if women did not have to choose between being employed/supporting themself and their family or going to school and having children (jobs were more flexible, there was no more pregnancy discrimination, etc), many women would not have abortions.

Also, the fact that sex ed is inaccurate and “abstinence only� does nothing to help young women learn about there bodies or contraception, which results in more pregnancies and more abortions.

Also, we can’t ignore the phenomenon of sexual coercion. Many women get pregnant as a result of rape, but just because a woman wasn’t “raped� doesn’t mean it was her choice to have sex. Many times women have sex with men so they won’t be raped, or because a man gets them drunk or alone wears down their resistence. This especially happens with young women and older men. If men and boys were taught to have more respect for women and really believed that “no means no,� there would be less unintended pregnancies and less abortions.

Although I COMPLETELY disagree with oeno’s anti-abortion rant, I agree that: “public health is the single strongest pro-choice argument. Women who die from illegal abortions, no matter how misguided their acts, are still dead. A law isn't pro-life unless it's actually saving lives.�

You know what's the "height of evil"? Ignoring the babies we actually have on this planet in favor of the theoretical babies with no human consciousness.

Exactly, nausicaa.

There are plenty of children with no clean water, food, shelter, basic medical care -- and probably most importantly, love -- and ones that are abused physically, emotionally and sexually everyday.
Children are also forced to work in sweatshops, fields, as prostitutes and soldiers.

What is "pro-life" about ignoring them? Those are actual, suffering children and it is not debatable whether or not they are alive.

I would rather every living child be a wanted child then for there to be no abortions and lots of miserable children -- and that is not even mentioning a woman's prior right to her body.

here's another "height of evil": calling people you don't even fucking know, who made choice that you know absolutely nothing about "the height of evil." it's obnoxious, offensive, ignorant and i'm really tired of seeing the same person spewing that garbage over and over again on a feminist blog.

oh, and oenophile, please refrain from using words like "honey" towards women unless you know them well enough to fuck them and have asked for their permission first. though i think that your feminist credentials are already dubious at best, using offensive, condescending language like that pretty much obliterates them.

You're absolutely right, doublefantasy. I mean, calling someone "honey" and partial-birth abortions are EXACTLY the same, morally. (Eye roll.)

I don't like male control of the world because I don't think that people should exercise power based on strength alone. The fact that men have had the physical and financial wherewithal to control women does not make it morally right. The fact that 16th century European colonialists had the technology and cruelty to enslave a race of people does not make it morally right, even if it did increase their comfort, well-being, and contribute to the rise of a great country. Sorry, still wrong. Likewise, killing your child is about as evil as it gets. Yeah, it sucks that women have to bear the brunt of the work, but that doesn't mean that it is anything but evil to correct it by murder.

I don't know what pro-lifers y'all are talking to, but they don't think that it's about sex and they CERTAINLY don't think that it's anything but murder.

Again, DoubleFantasy, my apologies. Your thoughts of my "feminist credentials" means a tremendous amount to me and I don't want to do anything to mess that up, including pointing out pesky facts about the nature of the act that you support as the single greatest vindication of women's rights. (Somehow, I don't think that Wollstonecraft and the others were really thinking of abortion rights when they fought for women's rights. So I guess Susan B. Anthony and that crowd are anti-feminist, too.)

oenophile obviously really likes to play devil's advocate or should I say "angel's" advocate. What ever happened to not casting the first stone? What makes you think that you have the moral high ground on which you can judge everyone else? Can you really so easily condemn millions of women as "the height of all evil" for having abortions? Would you really say "killing your [zygote, embryo or fetus] is about as evil as it gets?" What about, as you brought up, slavery? Is a woman having an abortion really worse to you then a man enslaving say 100 people, raping all the women and selling their children who are then raped, beaten, and forced to do hard labor for their whole lives? Or compare someone who commits genocide (killing let's say 100,000 people), is that really less evil than a woman having an abortion?

Why do you have no compassion for women, oenophile?

I have compassion for women.

Under your logic, though, I have zero right to say ANYTHING unless its genocide. Now, Feministry, did you express that opinion on the Duke rape case a year ago? "These boys aren't bad; how can you say that's evil? Who are you to judge?"

Did you say that on the thread about the 10-year-old girl who was raped? That we shouldn't judge her rapist, because it's not genocide? Because who are we to cast the first stone or take the moral high ground?

Sorry, babe. Women here make moral judgments every single day. For some reason, it's okay, unless it's about a woman who got pregnant, doesn't quite feel like being knocked up, and has the fabulous idea of suctioning its brains out to eliminate the problem.

I hate abortionists. I don't hate women who have abortions - mostly, I think that we don't give women any other options (well, Amanda Marcotte makes sure of that with her anti-FFL rants - you know, she's against people who want to make sure that pregnant and parenting students have on-campus resources). We can't work towards reducing abortion, though, unless we recognise a moral dimension to it that you don't get with excising a tumour.

So yeah, I judge. So do you, bitch.

Can't anyone ban Oenophile, please?

The illogical rhetoric is bad enough. But calling another woman a bitch on a feminist blog is a bit over the line.

i was just about to ask, Jenna, if we could vote to have someone banned. i don't know any of the bloggers/mods, so i don't think that they would necessarily care what i think. but i know that enough people on this site have had problems with oenophile that if it was put to a vote, she just might lose.

And in case anyone hasn't been keeping track like I have, because I read this blog obsessively, that's two "bitch"'s and one "whore" from oenophile in the last 48 hours or so. Not sure what the rules are, but there's certainly a pattern brewing.

ha. i've obviously stopped reading a couple of interesting posts, Charity! i think that "whore" might be even more charming than "bitch" is.

1- All I was saying to oenophile was that I was sure she could think of more evil things than a woman having an abortion, like genocide or slavery, which I think disproves her saying that abortion is "as evil as it gets."
2- All abortions are not morally alike. Sometimes a woman is raped or her life is in danger, so I don't think anyone should make blanket statements about ALL abortions being equally "evil," if they happen to think that they are evil.
3- The name calling is totally uncalled for and shows that she is beneath conversating with me. Beware of the troll everyone and please don't feed it. I would REALLY like it banned.

Does anyone else think it's odd that someone with a username which means winelover in English goes on and on and on about how bad she thinks is to abort one's pregnancy, when drinking alcohol can increase the chances of a spontaneous abortion...?

that's two "bitch"'s and one "whore" from oenophile in the last 48 hours or so

"honey" and "babe" on this thread too. it's usually men who use loaded, sexist words like "bitch", "whore", "honey" and "babe.".

this is one of my least favorite paragraphs i've seen on this site:
"Sorry, babe. Women here make moral judgments every single day. For some reason, it's okay, unless it's about a woman who got pregnant, doesn't quite feel like being knocked up, and has the fabulous idea of suctioning its brains out to eliminate the problem."
and there have been some rotten paragraphs. oenophile, i have disagreed with you before, agreed with you, and been borderline enlightened by a viewpoint you've shared. but sometimes your comments just boil the blood in m'body. what gives? do different people use the name or ... what gives. and maybe i have you mixed up with someone else, but i believe you have talked about feeling attacked by people with differing opinions than yours. i want you to think about your language choices and what an attack that you are making against fellow posters here who have had abortions, are pro choice or pro abortion, or are abortionists or do the work themselves. so, honey, babe, bitch, whatever YOU like to be called (i can only assume based on the language you have used, i would prefer to address you by your username)... oenophile, yikes. i understand you are against abortion, but you tend to start a conversation like this on EVERY abortion-related post. and you say the same things so many times, and so brutally. and the same responses (sometimes abortion is the moral, responsible choice even if the woman was consenting to the act that got her pregnant) get made, and seem to go nowhere with you.
i don't know what to make of your posts. they sometimes seem so inflammatory and downright mean. we're all passionate here, and these are loaded issues we're talking about. it's not just that i sometimes disagree with what you're saying that gets the wtf rise out of me. it's the occasional nastiness that just confuses me.

It probably is a man who likes to argue with feminists over the computer because he has nothing better to do.
I only said "she" in my post because Jenna said "calling another woman a bitch on a feminist blog is a bit over the line," and so I assumed that she had some prior knowledge that oeono was female.
I think it is totally over the line. It is one thing to have intelligent conversation --and I think it is important that we talk to people that have different views from ours-- but dehumanizing, misogynistic name calling should not be allowed to happen on a feminist blog. It should be a safe space.

Yeah and it isn't aloud. Oenophile, we will warn once, but ban after. Chill out.

It is not that hard to stick to healthy debate and avoid personal insult.

Oenophile, why do you get so angry with us for actually believing our pro-choice arguments when you've said in the past that politically, you vote pro-choice?

I agree with stellaelizabeth. Sometimes your posts are very thoughtful, and I appreciate reading them. Sometimes, I'm shocked at the vitriol.

And I dislike it when anyone brings up Wollstonecraft and Anthony in the abortion rights debates, because we DO NOT KNOW what their thoughts were on the matter. For all we know, one of our beloved suffragists secretly had an abortion. Or one of them could have had a falling out with a friend over the friend's abortion. We really won't ever be privy to all the intimate details of their lives.

Prairie,

I completely agree that we cannot know people's intimate thoughts. We can, however, figure out what they said. It's a lot like court: you can bring in hearsay for the purpose of determining that a person did in fact say something, but not whether or not it was true.

I doubt that ANY person here would doubt that Betty Friedan had certain thoughts about feminism, sexuality, women's work, homemakers, and the like. Why? She's made it pretty clear what she thinks on those subjects:
"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

Elizabeth Cady Stanton called abortion "infanticide."
"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."
Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library

There's no doubt that early feminists saw abortion as the DIRECT RESULT of inequality and lack of self-determination. They believed that women did not benefit from this procedure and wanted to empower women so they would not need it. 150 years later, we've flipped things around and told women that abortions lead to an empowering life. Pardon me if I get pissed off by hearing that abortion and feminism are instrinsically related.

I know and love several women who have had abortions. Some of them aborted decades ago, but they still cry about it. One of them was with an abusive guy and adoption laws wouldn't let her give it up without his consent. Family law would have also demanded visitation if she kept it. That's not a choice. Those are laws that need to be changed. Until that happens, I can't support a complete pro-life legal framework, but I still think that abortion is wrong.

One person almost haemorrhaged to death after a medical abortion (RU-486, I think). The operation to save her life almost rendered her infertile.

They ALL wish they had other options. The women with decent boyfriends ALL wish they had the support of the guys and aborted, in part, for lack of support by the men who got them pregnant... because they are good enough to sleep with, but not good enough to support throughout pregnancy. That's not pro-woman.

In retrospect, they all wish they had not aborted. They all wish they had other options; one woman said that she had no idea that pregnancy and parenting would have been easier than aborting. Millions of years of evolution have not designed us for to abort without the worst of feelings.

So yeah, I think abortion is evil. I want, more than anything, to come to a point in American society when we can see it as evil and denounce men who don't use condoms and men who don't support women in pregnancy and men who rape women, force themselves on them, push them, pressure them, or coerce them into sex. Until that happens, I grudgingly support a pro-choice framework.

A necessary evil implies both parts: that which is necessary and that which is bad. It's bad for women and it's horrible for the kid.

--
About two hours ago, Moxie told me to take a quarter and buy a brain. I had not said anything to her. Why no threats of banning her? Charity said a similar thing a few weeks back. Apparently, pretending that I'm a brainless guy is the thing to do around here. Oh, yeah, I'm called a guy all the time. My favourite was when someone said that she would "accept my preferred gender designation," as if I were not born with a vagina.

Sorry if I get defensive, but I'm tired of being attacked.

It is not that hard to stick to healthy debate and avoid personal insult

Tell that to Moxie, Charity, and the rest of that gang.

FYI: Amanda Marcotte can tell you that I'm not a guy. I've emailed her, Facebooked her, and emailed her from my university account (where, obviously, they don't give out email addresses in opposite-gendered names).

Oenophile, why do you get so angry with us for actually believing our pro-choice arguments when you've said in the past that politically, you vote pro-choice?

Oh, I don't know. Try seeing the crap I've taken for expressing the opinion that abortion isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. Or that conservative aren't all that bad - looking at, say, the Reagan Administratin's radical expansion of victim's rights and domestic violence prosecution. Heck, 90% of the posters here think I'm a guy and don't believe me when I say I'm a girl. Why do I think y'all would believe me about anything else?

Here goes:

Moxie, when I did not address her:
Oenophile--here's a library-card. Go to the library, look in the card catalogue under "feminist theory" & read what you find there. After you do that, take a quarter, buy a brain & come back here. Then, maybe we'll take anything you say seriously.

I said "honey" with NO ONE IN PARTICULAR in my above post. "Whore" was in reference to a sex worker. (Charity, not being charitable, failed to so mention.) That was followed by several rational, thoughtful posts, and then this by double fantasy:

here's another "height of evil": calling people you don't even fucking know, who made choice that you know absolutely nothing about "the height of evil." it's obnoxious, offensive, ignorant and i'm really tired of seeing the same person spewing that garbage over and over again on a feminist blog.

Posted by: doublefantasy [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 03:17 PM

oh, and oenophile, please refrain from using words like "honey" towards women unless you know them well enough to fuck them and have asked for their permission first. though i think that your feminist credentials are already dubious at best, using offensive, condescending language like that pretty much obliterates them.

Posted by: doublefantasy [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 03:21 PM

Shall we coult the f- words used?

Then, we get to the fact that I "have the moral high ground," and have "no compassion for women."

Enough said.

personally, i don't know any adult, let alone progressive adult, who is offended by the word fuck. using an expletive is not the same as calling someone a name, particularly a degrading name based on gender ON A FEMINIST BLOG. and i think that getting angry whe someone calls your very personal, private life choices "the height of evil" is pretty understandable.

if it is the case that all expletives are not allowed on this site, well, i will be completely shocked and sad. but i will follow the rules.

oh, and if you didn't get the memo, it's not okay to call prostitutes "whores," either. they're prostitutes. or sex workers. and they have to deal with enough degredation without "feminists" calling them "whores," too. and "honey" is still degrading in the hypothetical. i think we have about 7 other posters who just agreed with that. try having a bit more respect for people.

oeonophile-

I empathize with you feeling so attacked and singled out here and I think you have made some interesting arguments, but it seems that in your past couple comments you were the one name calling and declaring women who had abortions “the height of all evil� and “as evil as it gets.� I can see how those are very provoking things to say on a feminist/pro-choice blog where some of the women have probably had abortions/know people who have. Maybe if you went about your comments a little differently and said, “I really wish we could recognize the moral dimension of abortion. Does anyone want to talk about that?� I think people would respond better to you. Many/most pro-choice people DO believe that there is a moral dimension to abortion and don’t believe it is the best thing since sliced bread, but they also don’t think it is “as evil as it gets,� and they don’t appreciate being called honey, baby, babe, bitch, etc. Just some thoughts.

Double Fantasy: I think you can see why I would be upset at the double standard. It's apparently okay for you to swear at me but it's not okay for me to do anything but be utterly civil. Not right.

oh, and if you didn't get the memo, it's not okay to call prostitutes "whores," either. they're prostitutes. or sex workers.

I was honestly unaware of that. I see "whore" as a name without any pejorative connotations, but sincerely apologise if people took it a different way. Not to belabour a point, but the American Heritage Dictionary gives the following three definitions for "whore:"
1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

I'm not asking you to AGREE with me, just to see my word is interchangeable with yours in the most commonly accepted definition. The first, foremost definition is a prostitute (i.e. sex worker). The fact that my use of the term, in its most commonly accepted meaning, was benign but followed up with Moxie telling me to buy a brain and Charity's cruelty, frankly, says more about those two than it does about me. And I have a right to be angry at the vitriol spewed against me. Somehow, though, no one's slapping Moxie or Charity down.

Just sayin.'

Daniella,

Thank you for your thoughtful words.

I've almost NEVER seen anyone here acknowledge the moral dimension of abortion. In fact, I've seen a lot of people who explicitly state that there is NO moral issue with aborting, or that it's immoral to not allow a woman to abort.

Please also notice, while my words are being dissected, that I do not think that women who abort are evil; I think the act is wrong. My condemnation is for the society who puts them in that position where they think the best thing they can do is abort - and I see that callousness as evil and part and parcel of "abortion" as a term.

Somehow, though, my words only get dissected when it works against me.

No problem, oenophile.

My favorite thing you said was that:

I know and love several women who have had abortions. Some of them aborted decades ago, but they still cry about it. One of them was with an abusive guy and adoption laws wouldn't let her give it up without his consent. Family law would have also demanded visitation if she kept it. That's not a choice. Those are laws that need to be changed. Until that happens, I can't support a complete pro-life legal framework, but I still think that abortion is wrong.

All the people I personally know who say they are anti-abortion I would actually consider pro-choice because even though they personally disagree with abortion, they would never move to make abortion illegal (and would want it to be legal in Brazil, to help the 200,000 women a year that are going to induce them whether they are legal or not). My anti-abortion pals see our society as responsible for “the height of evil,� not individual women who have abortions.

I agree that, as you said:

Somehow, though, my words only get dissected when it works against me.

If someone reads EVERYTHING you say in all your posts, I think your opinions have alot in common with some of the other posters, it is just, like I said earlier, some of the language you use that gets people so riled up.

I am personally shocked that some people say there is NO moral dimension to abortion (although I see how in some cases it could be considered immoral to not let a woman abort, like if her life was in danger). I think that each abortion is different, but it obviously has some moral implications, which are important to discuss. Most pro-choice people I personally know (myself included) would rather there be as few abortions as possible (through use of contraception, ec, stopping sexual coercion/rape, etc) for that very reason, although we would not want it outlawed.

I was honestly unaware of that. I see "whore" as a name without any pejorative connotations, but sincerely apologise if people took it a different way.

well i'm glad, then, that something positive was able to come out of this otherwise rather unfortunate exchange. if you'd like further clarification on the matter, calling a prostitute a whore is the difference between saying that a woman has had multiple sexual partners, or is even "promiscuous" (a word with many of its own problems), and saying that she is a "slut."

and again, i genuinely see a very, very large difference between swearing and name calling. i take no more offense to someone saying "you're really fucking wrong" over "you're really wrong." and in fact, i would rather have someone say "you're really fucking wrong" to me than "you're an idiot."

it's true that many other people have said unkind things to you on this blog. but you haven't exactly done an excellent job making friends around here. as you've probably figured out, i disagree with you enormously. and though i still do really, really disagree with you, i do take far less OFFENSE to what you say after you go through the trouble of correcting yourself and being more clear. but at that point, a lot of the damage is already done. i'm tired of this argument, and would prefer to avoid others like it in the future, so i'm trying to be as genuinely helpful to you as i can. and you can take it or leave it. but i think that if you manage to drop the name-calling (and i include "honey" just as much as "bitch) and think about your word-choice and the effect that it will have on this audience more before you post, you might start having an easier time around here.

Meanwhile, the "abortion would be unnecessary if only all men supported the women they got pregnant" attitude seems very comparable to "women wouldn't need suffrage if only male voters kept women's best interests in mind" and "women wouldn't need to work if only men were willing to marry and support all of them" and so on. Sure, daydreaming about a knight in shining armor coming along to do all the work for you can be a fun spare-time activity (akin to daydreaming about what you'd d