Pro-lifers: please just admit you hate women already

It’s the big pink elephant in the room. We all know it, but it’s like we’re not allowed to say it because accusing someone of being a hater is somehow supposedly worse than actually being a hater. But let’s break down why it’s so obvious.

One of the arguments I keep hearing for voting yes on MS 26 runs something like this:

As a Christian, a black American woman, mother, grandmother and OB-GYN, I know that every person is valuable and has a right to life.

So obviously you oppose the death penalty, and consider serial killers, child molesters and rapists valuable, and support welfare and assistance programs because those lazy jerks who refuse to get jobs are valuable, too? Right?

Why do I never get a yes on that question? It’s so simple. Either you really mean that every person is valuable, or you don’t. Clearly, you don’t, so why are you lying? What is it you really want out of anti-abortion laws?

I think what they really mean is that we’re all valuable when we’re first born, or about to be born, but we can render ourselves value-less by our own actions later on. Okay, fair enough. But apparently, they feel a girl/woman loses all value the minute she’s vaginally penetrated, whether that’s her choice or not. Once she’s been penetrated, then she’s just a baby factory and she should accept that. And I have this sinking feeling that a woman isn’t a whole lot more valuable if she’s never been penetrated. It’s not even like there’s a way for us to win.

Remember when it was all just anti-abortion except in cases of rape and incest or saving the mother’s life, and then abortion rates went down in the 90s, so suddenly it was anti-birth control and no exception for rape or incest or to save the mother’s life? When somebody keeps moving the finishing line like that, you have to doubt that their stated goal is their real goal. And the stated goal now is about allowing rapists to profit from their crimes and killing women both with pregnancy complications and cancer when doctors can’t treat hormonal imbalances. Let’s just ask ourselves what that suggests about the actual mindset of the people we’re dealing with.

Please, people, just admit that you hate women and want them to learn their place already. Your misogyny is so obvious. Admit it to yourself, and either own it, or get some counseling to figure out why you hate women so much. And yes, many of these misogynists are women. It’s called internalized oppression. Don’t ever think that because someone is in a marginalized group, they can’t rather amusingly find ways to identify with their oppressors to avoid recognizing their own oppression – or just to make their lives more comfortable.

A fertilized egg is not a human being. A human being is a fetus that can live outside the womb, and the law already restricts abortion rights accordingly for those fetuses. The law is already very sensible and reasonable. Why are you not satisfied with it? Because it doesn’t hurt women as badly as you want to see them hurting.

Seriously, none of this crap is about preserving life. It’s all about controlling women, and there is no other logical way to read it. Let’s all stop tolerating the pretty terms like “pro-life” and phrases like “every life is valuable.” Let’s raise the logical questions every time someone lectures us about this stuff, and make them confront what they really are: haters.


  1. says

    This Sunday, the TV show “Up With Chris Hayes” discussed this personhood amendment. Of the four panelists, one was Michael Brendan Dougherty of, a conservative and pro-lifer. He was astonishingly open about how (in his opinion) the personhood amendment and, more generally, the whole framing of the abortion issue in terms of civil rights is just a tactic taken by pro-lifers. What they really would like, in his opinion is to create legally-enforceable responsibilities on potential mothers. If this embed code works, this should be him explaining: (otherwise, it’s about 33 minutes in to the first hour).
    Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

    It’s not a very long step from “we think pregnant women have a responsibility to bear the fetus to term, regardless of how they became pregnant or what it will cost them” to formalizing other legal “responsibilities” for women. The show also talks a little bit about the kind of police state it would take to actually enforce this kind of policy.

  2. says

    Damn, none of the links are working. My guess is they’ve pulled the video already. That’s why I HATE news that’s only in video form – just type out the transcript, lazy assholes! I’d have liked to see that discussion.

    But going off what you said, that makes sense.

  3. says

    YES!!!! Mississippi voted this measure down!!!


    Thanks! Okay, so this Freda Bush is just a fucking liar convenient commandment breaker type Christian. What a shock (not). No way in hell can science “confirm” that life begins at conception. Biology begins then, sure, but “life” is something we define philosophically, not biologically.

    That’s a very interesting discussion. I think, like we talked about in my article on Republican word twisting, they’re co-opting the civil rights rhetoric to hide the fact that what they’re trying to do is remove some of women’s civil rights.

    I don’t think people quite get what would happen if women had absolutely no resource to avoid having babies. Rapists have no conscience, so their behavior is largely determined by what their society allows them to get away with. As bad as things are, we’ve actually made progress in the past few decades in how we look at rape, rape victims and rapists. As a result, rapists have had to change their tactics. If we keep making progress, eventually there will just be fewer ways for them to get away with rape, and fewer, and so on. But if we reverse the process – if we say to rapists, “Hey! Get yourself a woman, make her pregnant, and there’s nothing that bitch can do!” we’re basically telling them that we see women just like they do, so GO FOR IT, BROTHER! I don’t think people have the slightest idea how the rapist personality would respond to that. It would be truly frightening.

  4. says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    1.) Thanks for the good news about the measure going down. Sanity in government is rare enough, and it’s nice when it triumphs.

    2.) Just wanted to say I agree with pretty much your entire post…I don’t always speak up when I don’t have anything to add to the discussion, but in this case I wanted to offer you a ‘kudos’.

  5. Chai Latte says


    The anti-choice (I don’t call them ‘pro-life b/c they’re not) side does not care a damn about children….they never have. Otherwise they would supportr all kinds of public funding toward new mothers and children….oh, but surprise surprise, they don’t.

    I remember President Obama saying, in one of his speeches, that both sides could find common ground. I’ve heard a sinilar sentiment expressed from other so-called liberal dudes.

    This is not possible–more than that, it’s positively *insulting* that we are expected to negotiate with those who hate us and want us to suffer to the fullest extent possible.

  6. SunlessNick says

    I know that every person is valuable and has a right to life.

    And yet in no other context is the “right to life” translated into the “right to have another person forced to yield up her body for life-support” – even the dead aren’t required to do that.

  7. says

    Chai Latte,

    There could have been some common ground back in the 80s, when it was “no abortions except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother’s life/medical necessity.” They claimed back then that they would be happy with reduced abortion rates, so that happened in the 90s – not through more legal restrictions, but through the Clinton administration’s focus on helping prevent unwanted pregnancy (including improved enforcement of child support court orders to discourage men from siring kids they didn’t want to support). Suddenly that wasn’t good enough!

    They’re reporting that this MS 26 vote has created a schism in the anti-abortion groups. I’m hoping what will emerge is a group that thinks more like they did in the 80s (“We’d like laws against abortion, with some exceptions, but will settle for reduced abortion rates if you can get them another way”) and another group that, you know, just obviously hates women and doesn’t give a damn about anything else in this argument. If that’s the case, the fringe group will eventually end up shunted to one side, a loud minority that no one takes seriously, and we actually MIGHT have an anti-abortion group that’s capable of logic, reason and negotiation.


    Very well said. It’s just incredible, the irony.

  8. Sabrina says

    Seriously, Pro-Choice is more pro-life (in the actual sense of the wording) than those self-proclaimed “Pro-Life” people. Pro-Choice options are not just abortions but also every other form of birth control and sex education which would lead to less unwanted pregnancies and thus less abortions and overall more *wanted* babies. I do not get why “Pro-Life” people want to force misery onto women and their families. You really have to be some horrible horrible person to actually want that and – as seen as the bulk of bills that were introduced – even enforce it by law. *shudders*

  9. Chai Latte says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    Unfortunately I kind of doubt they would have settled even for that. The restrictions just would have kept on coming until it was downright impossible to access an abortion. They’ve proven thoroughly that they have no regard for the woman’s life. They used to pretend, but they don’t even bother with that anymore.

  10. says

    Chai Latte,

    But they’re talking now about a schism, two diverging views in the anti-abortion crowds, killing MS 26. Based on what’s happened in similar movements, I think there are two groups within this anti-abortion crowd: the ones who really just want to reduce abortions, and the ones who want to hurt women. For a long time, the rhetoric of the “hurt women” group guilted the “save babies” group into going along, but MS 26 finally showed the “reduce abortions” group just how far apart their views are from the “hurt women” crowd. I think the “reduce abortions” group will go back to their 90s stance.

    Which is basically just a “more laws = Good!” stance. Same as people who want tougher laws on drugs or those who supported Prohibition. These things don’t work. Prisons wouldn’t be overflowing if just passing and enforcing laws controlled behavior – they never have.

    I used to talk to the anti-abortion people in the 80s and 90s, and say: “Look, nobody’s against reducing abortions, but they happened when they were illegal, and Prohibition didn’t stop drinking either. What you want is better education on birth control and better programs to support single moms. That’s what worked in the 90s.” And I have converted a couple of them to pro-choice, once they understood it wasn’t “pro-abortion.”

    I think we need to grab this chance to emphasize the schism between women haters and people who just want to see fewer abortions, because pro-choicers DO have some common ground with the second group. I mean, who wouldn’t like to reduce the REASONS women want or need abortions? They’re not a fun or easy experience. No one should have to make that choice after rape (hence the beauty of morning after pills), or because they didn’t know how to use or couldn’t get access to birth control, for example. There’s a lot we could do to reduce the occurrence of both those reasons.

  11. sbg says


    A friend of mine would say that believing every baby, every single one conceived no matter how or if wanted, is a miracle and you don’t kill miracles like that, therefore she’s not a bad person at all. Which is true, she’s not. But I don’t think most diehards who have this philosophy honestly see anything else about the issue, or realize that this stance nullifies a fully grown woman’s right, etc, etc. And, as many have said, most of them also don’t support welfare and don’t seem to care much at all once the kid is out. After that, it’s up to the fifteen-year-old rape victim to know what to do. The baby has a right to life, but that’s no guarantee it’ll be a good one; not their problem. Etc, ad nauseum.

  12. Casey says


    I had an extremely unpleasant experience on DeviantArt with a Glenn Beck-loving pro-life right winger around my age wherein I explained to her everything I could muster about why her political philosophy is garbage and grossly anti-women (obviously not in such a rude manner). She basically said to me, “HAY YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT PRO-LIFE ‘CUZ YOU’RE A STOOPID LIBRULL, THOSE GIRLS AND WOMEN NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS (by having a baby they don’t want and probably can’t afford).” Needless to say, I had to stop talking to her after that (then she bragged to all her friends how she won our argument and that I was a coward).

    The only pro-lifers I’ve ever met just wanted women to suffer unduly for their supposed infractions.

  13. Sabrina says


    Yeah, I’ve heard those arguments ad nauseam and they just don’t work for me – not even the “wonders of nature” stuff cause nature is actually pretty cruel on that department. I’d just like to link them to a 15 year old stand-up routine by George Carlin these days cause he sums it up so nicely.

  14. Jonathan says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    So we should allowe the woman to give her unborn child (whose dna is half from her) the death penalty for a crime it did not commit? It would be like giving you the death penalty for a crime your father committed. I know women who are very good people who were the product of rape and thankfully their mother didn’t abort them because nothing good comes from aborting a child except the abortion clinic who makes money off taking advantage of them. Abortion gives power to women that no human being has the wisdom to exercise over another human being..the power of life and death. Even our laws forbid the taking of human life except after due process in a court of law. So unless the unborn child is guilty of some crime for which deserves the death penalty then abortion should be illegal except in cases like tubal pregnancy. Abortion in cases of rape (of which pregnancies are rare) is only adding an additional assault upon the woman in addition to the rape. Why further traumatize a woman with an abortion to add to the trauma of the rape..abortion won’t make that situation any better. As I said, there is only one winner in abortion..the clinic who is making money off the abortion. Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women and everything to do about’s always about the money.

  15. says


    You are a perfect example. You’ve made up a “just so” story to justify your hate – that, somehow, magically, abortion is more traumatic than giving birth to a rapist’s baby. Or your own father’s baby, as happens not so rarely. You don’t have a womb, so you’ve listened to stories from a few women who suit your views, and will surely wave these around when asked for evidence. Well, (A) I’ve talked to other women who had a very different take on that topic, so that cancels out your evidence and (B) abortion is traumatic because of people like you, and the guilt you heap on women because of your hate.

    And the best point of all? If you really wanted to spare raped women further trauma, you’d be all over making sure they have access to Plan B, which they take before they even know IF they got pregnant. I have NEVER heard anyone express a sense of trauma from taking Plan B. But no, that’s not what you want. You want rapists to have more rights than women.

    Like I said, you people are really transparent. Just own it already!

  16. Tristan J says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    Abortion gives power to women that no human being has the wisdom to exercise over another human being..the power of life and death. Even our laws forbid the taking of human life except after due process in a court of law.

    I’m genuinely confused by this statement. I gather that you consider a fetus equivalent to a living, breathing, thinking human being. You say that nobody has the wisdom to decide if someone lives or dies… but you yourself are deciding whether or not a fetus should live or die? And isn’t ‘human beings of sufficient wisdom getting together to decide whether or not someone can live or die’ practically the definition of ‘courts enforcing the death penalty’?

  17. Casey says

    Is it wrong that I laughed my ass off at Jonathan’s post? 😀

    Also, most pro-lifers are Bible-thumpers, are they not? They keep talking about how abortion needlessly murders a child but doesn’t it say somewhere in the bible that a baby doesn’t count as a human being until after it passes through the birth canal? (in the Old Testament, God didn’t seem to have any problem with people slashing open the stomachs of pregnant women from enemy tribes, either)

  18. Casey says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    Sorry for the double-post but the way he keeps harping on “ZOMG THE ABORTION CLINICS PROFIT FROM DEAD BABIEZ”, it sounds like he’s one of those people who think Planned Parenthood funds a multi-billion dollar business…when it’s only 3% of where their funds go (even though it shouldn’t matter if 100% of their funds go to abortion).

  19. says

    For a really interesting takedown of the modern idea that life begins at conception:

    This is a minister arguing that life begins BEFORE conception (when God first imagines us), and the whole idea of life beginning just after fertilization is a modern concept (and his idea IS more consistent with Biblical teachings). He argues that both “life begins at conception” and “life begins at birth” are arbitrary, and neither has the backing of the Bible, so as a legal issue, abortion/stem cell issues must be settled through “civil debate” rather than “what the Bible says.”

    I didn’t read any other articles, but this guy reminds me of the really sincere Christians I have known; the ones who just want to learn whatever their faith has to teach them, regardless of where it takes them or whether the answers they find are the ones they hoped for. Nice!

  20. says

    “[…] Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women […]”

    I just love the way forced-birthers try to completely erase women from discussions about reproductive choice. Stay awesome, dude!

    I find discussions about “when life begins” to be wrong-headed from their conception. Life never stops: ovaries and testicles are alive, gametes are alive, zygotes and blastocysts and alive, and so on. What we are interested in in the abortion-rights debate is when legal personhood begins. This has nothing to do with DNA (or with the ability to think, come to that); as a society we have ended up in a situation where we need a cutoff point. The most logical, fair, and non-destructive way to decide on legal personhood is to set the time of birth as the cutoff point.

    Even this mark, which sounds so simple ends up a point of very fine debate; is it when the cord is cut? (In a lotus birth, the cord can stay attached for a week or so). When the baby first breathes on their own? (A ventilated-from birth baby is still a legal person in the ICU). When the head emerges from the birth canal? Right now there is a very hotly-debated case where the SA Coroner has actually changed the definition of “signs of life” so that he could determine that a stillborn baby was actually born alive, contrary to medical evidence that pulseless electrical activity of the heart is functionally equivalent to asystole – PEA is a sign of death, not a sign of life. To bring that full circle and back to the feminist sphere: the Coroner has made this determination in the context of a pretty much literal witch hunt, in which medical groups are baying for a homebirth midwife’s blood, and the only way they think they’re going to get it is to force the boundaries of legal personhood to change around this case. (Background: The Coroner has no rights to perform an inquest when the subject was never a legal person in the first place, so inquests cannot be held into stillbirths. The family reportedly have no issue with the care they received, and are not laying any negligence claim.)

  21. Heath Cowled says

    For most of my life, my perspective has run along the lines of “I have never been, and never can be, in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy. Therefore I don’t have the perspective to make a judgement on what should happen in that situation.” That meant males in general should also bow to the opinions of people with real perspective. But a number of people, people who had that real perspective, called me on this. I think passing the buck wasn’t good enough for them, and fair enough.

    “But if you were the father, wouldn’t you want to have a say?” After some thought I decided: “Sure, I’d want a say. But I shouldn’t get the final say.” Aside from supporting the mother, little things like extra pillows or massages, my contribution throughout pregnancy would be virtually zero. And I could always choose to leave. In contrast, the mother would be pregnant 24/7 until labour – another thing I wouldn’t go through. Yes, I could raise the baby afterwards, but that is *afterwards*. If we were really going for even division of effort, we could adopt.

    “But, it’s a life.” Is abortion murder? One of the most thought-provoking things I have heard actually came from a conservative Christian (who actually reads the Bible, rather than doing whatever her pastor tells her to). She pointed out that giving an embryo a chance at life is too simplistic. What kind of life follows for mother and child?

    So, I revisited the issue. I started with the Bible. Call me a “Bible thumper” or, as a friend likes to call me, a “God botherer.” The key verse for me is Matthew 23:37-40. Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God, and that the second-greatest is like it: love your neighbour as yourself. And then, in an oft-forgotten passage, Jesus says: “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” No matter how many other rules you are following, if you break with either of these you aren’t being Christian.

    So, if I had an unwanted pregnancy and someone told me I had to carry the baby to term, would I consider that love? No. I would consider support, information and freedom to be love. Therefore I must offer the same to a woman in that situation.

    I draw the line where a foetus becomes aware, a point that can now be marked with reasonable accuracy. But before that, I don’t accept that an embryo is any more alive than an ovum or sperm cell. Are we going to insist that men only release one sperm at a time, to ensure that each gets a proper chance? It has the *potential* to become a person, after all.

    I still believe my opinion comes a distant second to a person dealing with that situation directly. Pregnancy is not my burden to bear, therefore I don’t believe I deserve the ultimate decision on whether it should be borne. But a) I felt sharing would be acceptable in this forum, b) I thought the logic here might interest others and c) I wanted to point out that not every Bible thumper wants to use religion to control other people.

  22. littlem says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    ” If you really wanted to spare raped women further trauma, you’d be all over making sure they have access to Plan B, which they take before they even know IF they got pregnant.”

    If he really wanted to spare women the trauma of being raped, he’d be encouraging men not to rape.

    But from the tenor of his rhetoric I think we know that’s something he wouldn’t be even remotely willing to consider.

  23. says


    People like that consider rape a natural if unfortunate part of being human. So do a lot of other people. That’s yet another reason why I ban comments about biological hard-wiring: baby’s first widdle assumption about people is they were born that way, and some people never advance beyond the thinking of two year olds, despite getting degrees and acclaim. People, especially truly deviant people like rapists, are MADE, not born, and there is nothing natural about it. Change the culture in the right way, and rape incidence would reduce dramatically.

    But that’s worrrrrk, and we don’t want to do worrrrrrk, even if it means leaving our sisters, mothers, daughters and wives vulnerable to rape. It’s just so much easier to believe it can’t be helped, and oh, what a shame.

  24. SunlessNick says


    Abortion in cases of rape (of which pregnancies are rare) is only adding an additional assault upon the woman in addition to the rape.

    How is it an assault on her if she seeks out an abortion because she doesn’t want the pregnancy? How does that square at all with the meaning of the word “assault”? Or are you just putting words together in an order you think will appeal to feminists and fool them into thinking your diatribe is about helping women?

  25. sbg says


    I have a friend who has a friend who had an abortion and felt traumatized and regretful about the experience as an assault on her emotions, therefore no woman should have an abortion.

  26. Katya says

    I have friends that had to terminate pregnancies whilst at university, and they all feel it was the right choice. They have all achieved a lot academically and are very successful. If they had decided not to have an abortion, they would have dropped out. Education wasted!

  27. ethan says

    abortion is an issue because fundamental pro-lifers who show zero interest in human life once it actually walks the earth, have an axe to grind and want women who have sex, to suffer. they view being pregnant as punishment, as a penance for what eve did to adam. that, sex without conception is a sin, and thus a woman being impregnated is the ONLY reason she should have have sex. and if she gets pregnant, too bad. she sinned by engaging in sex and the child is her punishment to bear for wanting pleasure. i’ve engaged in conversations with ‘pro-life’ protestors, and they don’t care about life killed overseas in war if its children who are innocent, they don’t care about people who need help in poverty or sickness, they don’t follow any sort of morality or humanity in regards to helping a fellow human once they are beyond fetus status. they hate women, and want them to bear a scarlett letter for having sex. its why they are afraid of birth control and contraceptives, as well. they think sex is for babies. its why they thought aids was a ‘gay’ punishment from god.

  28. says


    That’s just it. At the very, very least they should care what happens to born children as much as they care about fetuses, but instead there’s this stunning disconnect – once it’s born, the hell with it. Life of abuse? Poverty? Horrible terminal pain? Destined for death row? Eh, whatever. At least it wasn’t aborted. This stance is just so ludicrous, until you realize it all has to do with the gestational period, and therefore the mother.

  29. Jenna says

    What about those of us who do absolutely believe that the answer to your first question about everyones worth… believe the answer is yes. As a student nurse we are taught that this is called unconditional positive regard and I subscribe to it wholeheartedly. Nobody is the sum total of their actions or circumstances everyone is valuable purely because they are human including those who are yet to be born. I do oppose the death penalty, and consider serial killers, child molesters and rapists of the same value as everyone else. I agree and support welfare and assistance programs because circumstances and attitude do not reduce a persons value or worth. Being pro-life means valuing life across the board at all ages and stages. I believe that subscribing to the idea of pro-abortion means taking the view that “we are all equal, some are just more equal than others” (George Orwell). I do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies, who has value and worth and who doesn’t. I am not a hater of other women or myself or any other human being.

    • says

      How can you not see the lie in what you’re saying? Your position condemns, for just one example, little girls who’ve been raped, often by family members, to bear the offspring no matter what it does to the girl – and also no matter that her child will almost surely be as vulnerable to the rapist as she is. Clearly you not only see rapists as “as valuable as everyone else”, but also see their victims as less valuable than fetuses. That’s your position. It is hateful. Please own that.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *