Cognitive Dissonance

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather boa!" - Allen Ginsberg

Posts tagged Abby Johnson

180 notes


I got this.
Meet Abby Johnson. She thinks women have too many rights. Seriously. From toomanyrights.org:

Today, a hundred years later, women’s rights have come very far, but there is one of these rights that many Americans would question… The right to abortion is considered a “reproductive right” by many. They say it is the right of a woman to exercise control over her body, but is that what the issue is really about?

Ahem… 
Yes. That’s what it really is about. I invite Ms. Johnson or her supporters to read The Fetal Focus Fallacy. An excerpt:

Although fetuses cannot enjoy legal personhood, anti-choicers argue that fetuses do have a right to life that outweighs the right of the woman to control her fertility and her life. But many anti-choicers support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, a threat to the woman’s life, or even health. This clearly indicates that they believe the right to life of a fetus is negotiable, certainly not absolute or paramount. By compromising their “right to life” definition in order to accommodate a woman’s rights, they inadvertently acknowledge that women’s rights are more important than the right to life of fetuses.
Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. For example, the state cannot force people to donate organs or blood, even to save someone’s life. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will. In response, anti-choicers say that being pregnant is not the same as being a Good Samaritan, because the woman chose to have sex, voluntarily accepting the risk of pregnancy. This argument is sexist and puritanical because it punishes women, not men, for their sexual behavior. Moreover, sex is not a contract for pregnancy - people have a constitutional right to non-procreative sex because of legalized birth control, which implicitly provides the right to have sex without reproducing.

In conclusion, no. A woman does not have too many rights, Ms. Johnson — particularly with folks like yourself running around and attempting to limit them.

I got this.

Meet Abby Johnson. She thinks women have too many rights. Seriously. From toomanyrights.org:

Today, a hundred years later, women’s rights have come very far, but there is one of these rights that many Americans would question… The right to abortion is considered a “reproductive right” by many. They say it is the right of a woman to exercise control over her body, but is that what the issue is really about?

Ahem… 

Yes. That’s what it really is about. I invite Ms. Johnson or her supporters to read The Fetal Focus Fallacy. An excerpt:

Although fetuses cannot enjoy legal personhood, anti-choicers argue that fetuses do have a right to life that outweighs the right of the woman to control her fertility and her life. But many anti-choicers support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, a threat to the woman’s life, or even health. This clearly indicates that they believe the right to life of a fetus is negotiable, certainly not absolute or paramount. By compromising their “right to life” definition in order to accommodate a woman’s rights, they inadvertently acknowledge that women’s rights are more important than the right to life of fetuses.

Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. For example, the state cannot force people to donate organs or blood, even to save someone’s life. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will. In response, anti-choicers say that being pregnant is not the same as being a Good Samaritan, because the woman chose to have sex, voluntarily accepting the risk of pregnancy. This argument is sexist and puritanical because it punishes women, not men, for their sexual behavior. Moreover, sex is not a contract for pregnancy - people have a constitutional right to non-procreative sex because of legalized birth control, which implicitly provides the right to have sex without reproducing.

In conclusion, no. A woman does not have too many rights, Ms. Johnson — particularly with folks like yourself running around and attempting to limit them.

Filed under Abby Johnson too many rights anti-choice abortion reproductive rights politics seriously conservative Planned Parenthood I can't even