When is Enough Actually Enough?

[4est_4est_Gump]

Reproductive ‘Justice’
Of course, abortion is part of it; but there’s much, much more.
Ian Tuttle, NRO

It is not hard to tell what kind of persons penned the University of Chicago’s “abguide,” given passages like this:

While this guide may refer to “women” when discussing study results or use female pronouns in some instances, we recognize that individuals seeking pregnancy counseling or abortion may not identify as women. We encourage readers to keep this in mind and provide sensitive counseling and care.

Abguide.uchicago.edu is the University of Chicago’s online abortion guide, “Accessing Abortion in Illinois: A Guide for Health Care and Social Service Providers,” and the above sentences appear on the homepage, presumably to prevent visitors from journeying further into the site still clinging to a binary view of gender. Created by the university’s Section of Family Planning & Contraceptive Research and its (deep breath) Center for Interdisciplinary Inquiry and Innovation in Sexual and Reproductive Health, or Ci3, the abguide is a narrowly tailored resource: Only those determined to counsel women not to seek an alternative to terminating their pregnancy need peruse.

The site contains a predictable conglomeration of reassuring abortion statistics, warnings against crisis-pregnancy centers, and paeans to the importance of value-free pregnancy-option counseling. If, however, your values need “clarification,” you can access this handy worksheet developed by the National Abortion Federation.

All of this, the site announces on its homepage, “should be considered through a reproductive justice framework. . . . As described in one foundational document, the reproductive justice framework recognizes that ‘women’s ability to exercise self-determination — including in their reproductive lives — is impacted by power inequities inherent in our society’s institutions, environment, economics, and culture.’”

The foundational document in question is “A New Vision,” published in 2005 by Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice (ACRJ). The “Reproductive Justice Movement” — yes, there’s a movement — “explor[es] and articulat[es] the intersection of racism, sexism, xenophobia, heterosexism, and class oppression in women’s lives.” Because “reproductive oppression” is “both a tool and a result of systems of oppression based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, age and immigration status,” reproductive justice must “engage with issues such as sex trafficking, youth empowerment, family unification, educational justice, unsafe working conditions, domestic violence, discrimination of queer and transgendered communities, immigrant rights, environmental justice, and globalization.” The ACRJ casts a wide net.

“A New Vision,” with its Port Huron–era complaints (“imperialism,” “cultural hegemony,” “White supremacy”), is a twelve-page repurposing of Marx — albeit less proletariat, more Pretty Woman — except that in lieu of “liberation” and a classless society comes “justice.” So successfully has the Left commandeered this ancient ideal that it has become a byword of political southpaws the way “freedom” is a byword of conservatives. That dichotomy is wrong, but it is pervasive, and “justice” is regularly spliced to a variety of niche progressive concerns to give them moral purchase: reproductive justice, environmental justice, social justice.

The problem with all of these, though, is that they are fundamentally contentless. The idea of earthly justice that has obtained since the days of Moses — “To each man, the things that are his own” — was grounded in the notion of “a perfect Justice that abides in a realm beyond time and space,” wrote Russell Kirk in his 1989 essay “The Question of Social Justice.” But reproductive justice does not strive to accord with any order of things outside itself — not even, evidently, biological fact. Nowhere does the ACRJ envision concretely what reproductive justice would look like, any more than Marx dwelt on the specifics of a classless society. Reproductive justice thus means nothing more than reproductive freedom,

The lack of a clear endpoint ensures that reproductive justice, like other infinitely malleable faux justices, has no limits as a political bludgeon. The goal must be left vague, because once the revolution is over, the revolutionaries are out of work. Its potency is in its obscurity. Part of the work, therefore, of opponents of movements such as this is to push for a rational account that includes at least some specifics. Defining the endpoint of justice cannot be left up to those who stand to gain from perpetual agitation. Al Sharpton has taught us that much.

In her 1972 essay “The Women’s Movement,” Joan Didion famously observed, “And then, at that exact dispirited moment when there seemed no one at all willing to play the proletariat, along came the women’s movement, and the invention of women as a ‘class.’” The “instant transfiguration” of half of the American population into an oppressed caste was, she remarked, an astounding achievement. Forty years on, the ACRJ, the University of Chicago’s myriad women’s groups, and others are seeking to reanimate that sense of collective victimhood. They ought not to be allowed to do so under the banner of “justice.”

 

[RobDownSouth]

How's the job search going, Chief?

Oh look, yet another cut-and-paste editorial for the Chief to hide behind.

No original thought or commentary with it, either. Thinkin' is hard!
(Now say "Magic H8ball" in your reply if you secretly abuse your "daughter" and really want professional help)

 

[miles]

Shut the fuck up, shitstain.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Let’s face it: if you want to see the workings of thought disorder, you have to do a Rorschach.

I once did a Rorschach on a man who was experiencing a psychotic disorder. In card after card he reported seeing vaginas. He was an intelligent, highly educated man. He had sufficient self-observing ego to be embarrassed, but not to filter sexually oriented responses. He eventually quipped, “Isn’t there some Woody Allen joke about you’re the crazy one for showing me all these dirty pictures?”

...

Sexually oriented feminists can be divided into two generations. The central purpose of the first generation was to legalize abortion and normalize sex outside marriage. Gloria Steinem is still the leader of that generation. She, who is often seen flashing her hand signal for her vagina, like any gang-banger, is still the leading political sex fashionista of her generation.

Today, Sandra Fluke is a foremost publicity hound of the second generation of sex-feminists, the socialist ideological totalitarians. They are not fighting to make abortion, abortifacients, or any form of contraception legal, and sex without marriage is now the cultural norm. Their purposes are to crush the last vestiges of belief that sex has psychological, spiritual, and moral dimensions, and to establish the fallacy that sex is solely a question of health best addressed through government medical programs. Their cause is to make taxpayers foot the bill for all abortions, abortifacients, and sexually related treatments. The want to functionally criminalize Christianity through the tax code. To consolidate political power under the banner of sex ideology, as Fluke has been trying to do, it is necessary to tell the lie that access to contraception or abortion is difficult. Psychopathology flourishes in delusions of victimization.

Sandra Fluke is the first generation of aspiring politicians launching their careers on the irrational, dehumanizing ideology that is the basis of sex totalitarianism. Fluke majored in feminist, gender and sexuality studies at Cornell University. She then took those self-serving, lethal delusions to the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court. Again defining people according to sexual behavior, she focused on the right for New York State’s presumptively homosexual teenagers to have special access to domestic violence civil orders. New York State’s millions of teens are not suffering primarily because there may be a micro-minority of homosexual teenagers needing restraining orders. They are suffering psychologically because most have no fathers to raise them, they are bombarded with dehumanizing stimuli from birth, and they are influenced by people like Fluke to start fornicating for the run-up to junior high.

...

There is a simple way to distinguish between valuable rights like those granted by the Bill of Rights and the “rights” offered by totalitarians. The former are blessedly useful to every citizen; the latter are inflicted by governmental rulers who have no use for them themselves. Women like Nancy Pelosi and Sandra Fluke are despicable because they maneuver to inflict humiliation and sorrow upon “the masses,” which they themselves will never have to suffer. The miserable Pelosi, the mother of five and grandmother of eight, enables the destruction of other women’s children and grandchildren. Fluke, a married heterosexual, sets herself up as the emancipator of homosexual people, and showboats for publicly funded birth control she will never need. Predictably, Fluke mentally decompensated when the Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case contradicted her psychopathological absolutes.

Like the man who took the Rorschach, when you’re a Democrat, the whole world is a vagina.

Deborah C. Tyler, American Thinker

 

[Wat_Tyler]

The Rorschach is easy to manipulate.


Number four is not your father.


If you say it is, you're fucked.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Rorschach is easy to manipulate.


Number four is not your father.


If you say it is, you're fucked.

I didn't even make it to four, they were on the phone to security...

 

[Wat_Tyler]

They let me go back out the front door.


That was never s'posed to happen.


If you stick around, some of them have colors.


It's an underwater scene - that makes them think you're "normal".

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It wasn't until I decided to start acting nuts that they judged me sane...

 

[Wat_Tyler]

They don't lock you up for being nuts, they lock you up for acting nuts.


So, when you stop acting nuts for awhile, they'll let you out.


All of this might hinder your ability to purchase a firearm legally, however.

 

[ryan8558]

They don't lock you up for being nuts, they lock you up for acting nuts.


So, when you stop acting nuts for awhile, they'll let you out.


All of this might hinder your ability to purchase a firearm legally, however.

Not at a gun show.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Not at a gun show.

Ever bought a firearm at a "gun" show?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Ever bought a firearm at a "gun" show?

I have.



A .22 for Princess...