A short rant, if I may.
I read with interest the October 24 edition of “Evening Hours” in the New York Times which
NYT Evening Hour
reported on events around the city benefiting the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian, the Korean American Community Foundation, the Frick Collection, the Norman Mailer Center and the International Fine Art and Antique Dealers. Lots of pictures of people in evening gowns and tuxedos.
Then, in the middle of the page, there was mention of a “dinner” at the Pierre hotel where people were celebrating “50 years of women’s advances since the birth control pill.” There was no mention of who was having the party.
Was not that dinner hosted by a particular organization? Or did a bunch of folks, including Cybill Shepard, just happen to be in the neighborhood and decided to party for the night?
I know exactly what is going on here. Even the liberal New York Times felt they shouldn’t stir things up by mentioning that the party was hosted by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.
Shame on you, New York Times…
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
October 27, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Once that “A” word is attached people swallow hard and just hope that no one is gonna say anything!!! It is sickening….it makes me reflect back to a post you did on how many times you can say “ABORTION” how long will it take for people to stop being afraid??? How long before people stop identifying abortion as an ending….instead think of it as a starting over for a woman it is not a “dirty word”…..
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 2:55 pm
maybe some people think that changing what you call something, changes what it is?
how many times do we hear the term “reproductive rights” used an a euphemism for abortion?
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 3:39 pm
I think “repro rights” has a larger definition that abortion to some extent. But, generally, Rogie, I agree. I am tired of the old “choice” stuff. Yes, it’s a choice but at some point the choice is abortion and we should be able to say the word…
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Great point, Lorraine – as always
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Read this again. Then read what Mel says in the post below. And then read “50 years of women’s advances since the birth control pill.” How long will you gullible women, suckered into this nonsense, continue to believe that the poison pill that sometimes prevents conception helps you? It helps adolescent males, that’s who it helps. (Actually it hurts them too but they’re too stupid to realize it.)
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 3:40 pm
I think there are millions of women, John, who would agree that that “poison pill” does and/or did help them. How can you ignore that fact?
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 3:50 pm
I don’t go by numbers.
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 7:49 pm
John doesn’t go by numbers or anything factual. He relies on his own rulebook.
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 8:04 am
I think you’re right, Kate….
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 11:38 pm
ok..it does nt fact da number..it facts fr da host who organized dis party..nd who published dis..its huge shame fr both…
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 4:03 am
Usually the last word is mine, but here I surrender.
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 8:03 am
Thanks, Juwel! Not sure what you are saying but I think you put John in his place!!!
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 8:34 am
I don’t know what she’s saying either, Pat. Maybe she’s putting you in your place?
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Damned if i know!
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 12:54 pm
I don’t think that there is anything wrong with not mentioning abortion. I am pro choice but I do think that this word is to heavy to be throwing around like that.
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 1:43 pm
OK, Julia, let’s compromise, let’s say “torturing children to death” instead.
LikeLike
November 1, 2010 at 4:28 pm
How is it torture?
LikeLike
November 2, 2010 at 10:34 am
The fastest baby killer take at least five minutes to do his grizzly deed. Just imagine someone taking five minutes, or ten, or fifteen, to kill you, Chuckles.
LikeLike
May 27, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Your definition of torture means that putting a worm on a fish hook is torture. Thanks for putting abortion in its proper perspective.
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Julia,
I’d rather we consider how to destigmatize abortion, as a word, like divorce and homosexual have been destimatized, at least among ordinary citizens (there’s no accounting for homophobes and marriage prudes). And clearly we cannot accept the wildly misleading ideas scooped from the bowels of Dunkledom. Children are defined as humans between the stages of birth and puberty. Thus, abortion is never torturing children to death.
And further, I’d argue, as do others, that abortion continues to be stigmatized, not because it’s wrong but because transgresses three cherished socially constructed notions of feminine ideals: perpetual fecundity, of the inevitability of motherhood and instinctive nurturing. But like all ideals, they are not wholly based in reality. Not all women choose to be pregnant ever and certainly there are women who are not by nurturing, which is a learned behavior. Instincts are for animals not humans. Beyond our reptilian brain, we have no instincts. Further, what people accept as normal behaviors is nothing more than norming in a particular culture.
Abortion runs counter to the prevailing view of women’s roles, power and knowledge in this society. Women who choose abortions deeply threaten those who claim that women lack moral autonomy. Even the power dynamics that underlie abortion are part of an ideological struggle about the meaning of familly, motherhood, and sexuality. As one of my colleagues in ACN said so famously amongst us, “Abortion deals with all the biggies: Family, religion, life, death and sex.” And, like the demon in the film The Exorcist, the protesters heads spin when they cannot control women.
LikeLike
October 29, 2010 at 9:53 am
I agree. The abortion stigma has sooo many consequences. It is vitally important that we work to de-stigmatize abortion. But even the pro-choice groups feed into the stigma. Indeed, it drives me nuts when all they say is “choice, choice”. They are afraid of the A word and that ultimately harms women. As you said, Kate, we should strive to make “abortion” as acceptable as “divorce.” I remember in 1964 when Nelson Rockefeller “revealed” he had been divorced. It was national headlines. Now, today, no one cares.
LikeLike
October 29, 2010 at 9:03 pm
you remember THAT from 1964???
my memories of 1964 are simpler. like dancing with my mother to “she loves you”.
jajajaja
LikeLike
October 30, 2010 at 5:14 am
In 1964 we weren’t killing young people legally and divorce was considered horrible. Today we are killing over a million young people annually and divorce is considered OK. Tell you anything?
LikeLike
November 1, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Yes, that abortion and divorce used to be OK only for those who could afford it. Welcome to democracy for women!
LikeLike
November 1, 2010 at 4:31 pm
The neologism, “aborticentric,” uses public dislike of the word as a lever against those who would continue to cast abortion in the worst light possible.
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 6:14 pm
I can’t understand why we haven’t won this war when the enemy’s rationalizations are such gobbledygook.
LikeLike
November 1, 2010 at 6:10 am
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere on this site, abortion is good for children and families, as well as women.
LikeLike
November 1, 2010 at 7:49 am
See what I mean — child killing is good for children?
LikeLike
November 1, 2010 at 9:44 am
I think what she is saying is that the availability of abortion helps women (and men) plan better and that can have benefits for an already existing child in that family….
LikeLike
November 1, 2010 at 4:34 pm
right on, Pat! And of course the aborticentric HAS to define abortion as “killing children;” otherwise, he doesn’t have a crusade….
LikeLike
November 1, 2010 at 6:53 pm
hey chuckles!
welcome back. i’ve missed you.
LikeLike
November 2, 2010 at 11:00 am
Yes, welcome back!
LikeLike
November 1, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Children, young people, preborn human beings, babies — take your choice. The ghoulish thing is calling them growths, humanoids, or parasites.
LikeLike
November 2, 2010 at 11:01 am
Actually, I have never heard any pro-choice person call “it” things like “growths, humanoids or parasites.”
LikeLike
November 2, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Chuckles calls “it” a humanoid. I thought I had cured him of that, but he still does it. The other terms, and worse, have been hurled at me numerous times, and right here on this blog too (see some of Kate’s stuff). As a matter of fact, Pat, you are the first killers’ helper, ever, who has spoken reasonably to me — on the topic. I have good friends who are killers’ helpers, like Erich Schmitt, but they are reasonable only when talking off-topic.
LikeLike
November 1, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Didn’t “the closer it gets” used to be “Charles Gregory”? Can’t you folks do anything else but lie, like your father?
LikeLike
November 1, 2010 at 9:07 pm
that is chuckles.
both katiepoo aand chuckiepoo post using their blog name.
even you have mistaken one for the other.
LikeLike
November 2, 2010 at 11:02 am
I’m confused….Isn’t “Chuckles” CG?
LikeLike
November 3, 2010 at 12:08 pm
chuckles is CG, but sometimes people mistake kate and chuckles for one another because they post using their blogger name.
but making that mistake doesn’t make someone a liar.
LikeLike
May 23, 2011 at 12:14 am
You forced excellent tips here. I accomplished a explore on the subject and learnt practically all peoples will concur with your blog. One of the more amazing steps to consider will be definetely to change the ceiling of your room.
LikeLike
May 23, 2011 at 6:55 am
Hmmmmmm. Uh….thanks???
LikeLike
June 1, 2011 at 6:18 am
Howdy! This post couldn’t be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my good old room mate! He always kept chatting about this. I will forward this write-up to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thank you for sharing!
LikeLike