God, they say, is against abortion. Here is a two-part response to this pressing dilemma:
1. This used to bother me, even as I continue to wax and wane in my spiritual beliefs, but it doesn’t anymore. This is because I’ve learned to recognize the fact that the “godly” utopia that religious fundies of stripes push on us has never existed, and will never exist, on this earth. The laws of the world are not the laws of God. Not that abortion is even included in “God’s Law,” especially if you’re a Christian. The prohibition against abortion was made by the Church. It’s interpretive.
God does not define women solely on the basis of their reproductive potential. A society that bans abortion, however, does. Because God and society are two separate entities; the people who wish to ban abortion want to merge the two. They are afraid of the realities of life on this earth – the idea that if women have babies not because they want babies, but because the STATE tells them they must, women will, once again, cease to be viewed as human beings by law.
How many of these idealists (and i use the term loosely) are interested in taking a teenage, unwed mother into their home, and not just for a few days? How many of them are committed to babysitting a single mother’s kids, and not just once every few months, whenever the mood strikes them…? Even if the majority of them did this today, tomorrow, right this second – it wouldn’t be an argument for banning abortion. It might be an argument for respecting their position, though, and I am all about respect. I want to respect others, but they continue to spit in my face and in the faces of those like me.
Of course, these are not logical arguments – there is nothing remotely logical about God (or Gods or gods, for that matter), our belief in God, our worship of God, from Christianity to those who still worship the deities at Mt Olympus. I wish more people would see this.
2. God is against abortion – yet it would appear that She is the world’s greatest abortionist. 25% of pregnancies are naturally rejected by the body at an early stage, the same stage that, fundies argue, the fetus is already a “human being.” It’s is natural, not unnatural for a woman’s body to reject a pregnancy. The problem only arises when a woman decides to reject a pregnancy. Which is really weird – because her health (both physical and emotional), and her economic situation – are both natural factors that contribute to the situation.
So we are left with the idea that throughout the entire pregnancy – what’s growing inside the woman is a human being. Which is really interesting because if I’ve ever gotten pregnant and didn’t even know about it before my body said NO (which can happen, more often than you’d think) – a human being passed in and out of my womb, like a drifter.
It’s a concept that doesn’t sit well with me, both from a religious, scientific, and personal perspective. My body is not a HALFWAY HOUSE, and I refuse to see it as such. When I have MY babies, they are going to be brought into this world as human beings, as people I want to spend time with until the end of my days, not as little buns I pop out because the patriarchy tells me to.
Of course, none of the above matters if you’re for the separation of church and state.
I am.
I speak all about this, knowing that my own parents were told to abort me. They were unmarried, and my mother was worried about some pills she had taken when she did not yet know she was pregnant with me, and everyone screamed abort.
Difference is, my parents wanted to have me.
Would it have been a good idea for me to be born, unwanted, left in an orphanage, in the dying years of the Soviet Empire? I don’t know.
I’m glad I wasn’t bloody forced on my parents, I can tell you that much. I’m glad they chose me. This is why I am pro-choice.
Natalia A. 
I LOVE YOU THAT IS THE BEST THING I HAVE EVER READ. I want to have your babies. I’ll never abort them.
“God does not define women solely on the basis of their reproductive potential. A society that bans abortion, however, does.”
This is an obvious non sequitur. Society bans all sorts of actions. Are they attempts to define the restricted parties solely on that basis, whatever it is? A society that bans abortions probably finds abortion to be abhorrent and justifies banning it as a crime against a helpless victim. Is it really unimaginable to those who think abortion victimless, that others may not, in good conscience? Is it really only those who wish to keep women barefoot and pregnant who could consider a PBA to be infanticide? C’mon.
“Of course, none of the above matters if you’re for the separation of church and state.
I am. ”
How does this work? The only religious who I know, or read about in the media, who are for theocracy are Islamic. But you are not serious, I bet. If a church preaches against murder or rape, is that a matter of “church and state entanglement”? No, of course not. Would you complain about such meddling by religious who support abortion rights or gay rights? Tell me if I’m wrong. Abortion rights supporters are comically selective about when they are offended by the influence of religion in other’s lives.
“I’m glad I wasn’t bloody forced on my parents, I can tell you that much. I’m glad they chose me.”
And that is a wonderful sentiment. Your parents obviously did a good job taking care of you.
How about those who were in fact ” born, unwanted, left in an orphanage, in the dying years of the Soviet Empire”? Do you seriously wonder whether they would have chosen to not live at all? Life is full of possibilities, as long as there is life. Without it there is no possibility for happiness or fulfillment in the face of adversity.
Also, the “Nature allows miscarriages, therefore abortion is in tune with Mother God’s plan” stuff (my condensing) leaves out the obvious, doesn’t it? That babies which the body rejects are either non viable or already dead. That’s a bit different, isn’t it? And we really don’t believe that what Mother Nature allows, men or women may do also without moral qualm, do we?
Abortion supporters should stick to Supreme Court decisions and “it’s mine to terminate” rather than the attempts to make moral an ultimate act of selfishness and self interest (and as a tribute to womanhood). It’s not, regardless of how one paints it.
Again, Natalia, thanks for letting me comment. Out of respect for your fairness in doing so, and your giving consideration to my views, I would like to offer to stop commenting here voluntarily. I enjoy commenting here, but I don’t want to make something you enjoy doing into something tedious, especially since I am probably going to be in disagreement with much that is posted here. So just let me know if my comments are or become unwelcome.
They’re not “babies.” I wasn’t a “baby” until my mother viewed me as such.
It is not the church’s job to enforce law and order, and us abortion supporters know that damn well.
And if I want to talk about God and abortion – that’s my right. Blog for Choice days is for everyone who wants to participate – not just for those who wish to engage the Supreme Court.
This is my blog, and no one is putting a gun to anyone’s head. 😉
“I wasn’t a “baby” until my mother viewed me as such.”
I’m not surprised you feel that way since you identify as a feminist. The most potent symbol of American Feminism today is of a living human being emerging from the womb and having its skull punctured, all supported by taxpayers. Thumbs up or thumbs down, biological reality, human rights and decency, granted or denied. All riding on a meer utterance from a woman. Baby…not a baby. Mother Goddess fantasy stuff indeed (and isn’t that a shame). That’s hardly a celebration of women’s rights, but isn’t it telling that feminists feel that it is?
Late-term abortion is performed when there is a serious complication. And abortion is not covered by Medicaid, as far as I know.
Statistics have shown that long-term crime rates drop hugely when abortion is legalized, for the simple reason that unwanted kids tend to be neglected, hence more likely to commit serious crimes. Thus legal abortion is healthy for society, which to me is far more important than the ‘life’ of individual fetuses.
Comments?
Oh my God….I agree with Rann….. (hiding under my bed now)
Not true, Natalia. PBA is not restricted to medical complications. No abortion is restricted. And that’s the whole point of your remark, ” I wasn’t a ‘baby’ until my mother viewed me as such.”, isn’t it? Doctors say that it is not nearly as rare as abortion advocates spin, and furthermore, that it is almost exclusively a “mother’s remorse” decision.
I don’t know if Medicaid does or does not pay for PBA, but almost all the organizations that provide abortion referrals, advocacy, support etc. are granted tax exemptions. That is taxpayer supported, as activist lawyers remind us almost daily.
“Thus legal abortion is healthy for society, which to me is far more important than the ‘life’ of individual fetuses.”
First off, I distrust these “statistics show” and ‘all studies to date show’ statements. Often, they don’t do anything of the sort, if they exist, and when they do they are often “assembled” by very interested parties, not disinterested parties.
With that said, and if true, I’m surprised that abortion rights people continue to use this as a rationalization. Planned Parenthood and its supporters have gone to great measure to hide the racial eugenics origin of it’s organization, and founder Margaret Sanger. (And don’t bother, people, I’ve read too much about her, including that written by her apologists. She was dedicated to, and Planned Parenthood was founded for the purpose of limiting the “poisoning” of Society by the races they felt were not up to standard.)
There are people today, Natalia among them, whose advocacy of abortion is based on abortion as a woman’s right. But the abortion industry that has educated her to that belief was founded on principles that I want to believe she would reject as evil. It is something to think about.
Only a few holdover Southern Democrats would support a KKK organized “civil rights group”, regardless of any arguments or spin they used to “explain” their previous racist purposes. I think the difference is telling and advocacy of Planned Parenthood very instructive.
MK: you know, we should actually meet some time (I don’t think I’ve met you, have I?) You may find you agree with me on more than this. Anyway, I hope the underside of your bed is pleasant.
As for mike, well, I just won’t bother.
Random: everyone should go see The Last King of Scotland. Really great film.
Freakonomics authors argue strongly in favour of the abortion = lower crime rate paradigm.
And here’s another big point here aside from them evil women’s rights:
People fuck.
They don’t do so merely out of an innate desire to procreate. Nature even makes pregnant women horny as hell.
People fuck.
Thank you! 🙂
Ya, Freakonomics is the latest (and most commonly quoted) study on this stuff, but the stats have been around for a while now.
And yes, indeed 🙂
No they don’t. *covering my ears*
Don’t worry, it’s not your ears they’re after.
Mwa ha ha.
“And here’s another big point here aside from them evil women’s rights…”
Great response, Natalia. You’ve got your mind set right. I complain about racial eugenics (Margaret Sanger/Planned Parenthood) and you immediately respond as if it epitomizes women’s rights. Women’s right’s is as noble a goal, but no better, than anyone’s rights despite the Mother Goddess fantasy you swoon over while castigating men for our past chauvanism.
You know, it would be comical if not so deadly. Campus education and academic careers are designed around deconstructing, searching for hidden signs of past racism etc. in the writings of famous authors etc. And when they can’t find it, they read between the lines. But give a critical thinking feminist something as obvious as Margaret Sanger and the origins of Planned Parenthood and…Whoa! How dare you!! Smear campaign! She didn’t mean it that way!!!…. It takes a real strong stomach for hypocrisy to stay true to the cause, eh?
“They don’t do so merely out of an innate desire to procreate. Nature even makes pregnant women horny as hell.
People fuck.”
Oh, thanks for the revelation. As if my very first scenario on men’s right didn’t state exactly that, if not in such “liberating” terms.
Well, maybe some people do want to have sex with Anna’s ears! Then she could have a brain baby.
Maybe we could perform a brain baby abortion by sticking a coat hanger in her ear. I’m sure mike would approve.
Owwwwwwwwwwwwwwie
I’ve decided that hardcore prochoice and pro-forced-birth folks probably shouldn’t even try to debate one another. Everything anyone can say re: this debate has already been said and there is still no consensus. It’s not even a question of whether or not a fetus is a “real” baby. Bottom line:
Pro-forced-birth folks believe the life of a fetus is worth more than the desires (or even the LIFE) of the incubator . . . er, the woman . . . carrying it.
Prochoicers believe the opposite: That the desires (including the very LIFE) of the pregnant human trump the potential life of a growing fetus.
The two sides will never agree. Might as well let the debate rest, and fight for our ideals in the legislature and the courts.
As for myself, I believe a woman’s ability to say YES or NO to what happens to her body is absolutely fundamental to her status as a human being. Men are given this right as a matter of course: They may legally refuse to have things done to their bodies against their will (except in criminal cases). That a woman should not be able to say NO: To sex (in the case of rape, including by her own husband – still legal in several states), to conception (many woman are denied access to birth control, and many husbands refuse to use it), to birth (many women are still denied access to abortions where they are legal), strips her of her humanity. She is a breeder, no more human than livestock, and to me this is unacceptable.
“… abortion by sticking a coat hanger in her ear. I’m sure mike would approve.”
Just like anti death penalty activists would approve of plastic shredders, just not gas chambers or injection, as the execution device. Maybe they prefer lynchings to state involvement. For sure, it’s not killing criminals they actually abhor, right?
Stick to celebrating other’s misfortune, Rann. It matches your psyche.
I haven’t said anything to you about Sanger. Unlike you, I don’t need Sanger to tell me that poor women in this country often do not have a choice in regards to whether or not they should get an abortion, especially when it comes to the state they live in. Democrats offer them only abortion, Republicans just make laws that make it harder and harder for them to obtain one.
Of course, you’re confusing basic choice-feminism with other, more complicated, directions of feminist thought.
And Mother Goddess fantasy? Wow, someone’s gotten cheap in his insults. 😉
“Unlike you, I don’t need Sanger to tell me that poor women in this country often do not have a choice in regards to whether or not they should get an abortion”
Oh, so she just wanted to help the “defective races”, eh. Doesn’t that have a nice Southern Democrat ring to it. All that rationalizing about saving society from the increasing numbers of inferior races was just a smokescreen for her deep commitment to empowering the “Negroids”.
Well done, you can sleep well now having straightened that out for fellow “critical thinkers”.
” I haven’t said anything to you about Sanger.”
Your “evil womens rights” remark immediately followed my remarks about Sanger and PP. Was I wrong in assuming you were responding to it?
And I realize that you have not called yourself a Mother Goddess. But between mothers having a special place in society that require men to relinquish their rights and the regal “not a baby until a woman calls it a baby” declaration, the Mother Goddess fantasy seems an appropriate description. And let’s be frank, Natalia. Do you ever come across the rare instance of a womens rights advocate describing someone like a pro-lifer as paternalistic, chauvanistic, holding on to fantasies of male domination? Once in a while maybe? No? OK.
Lots of pro-lifers are paternalistic, chauvenistic, and deeply enamoured of fantasies of male domination.
Lots of pro-lifers also happen to be women – my mother’s a pro-lifer, for example.
So what?
My mother has an entire conceptualization of a healthy society – a lot of which I happen to not agree with. We don’t even talk about people like Sanger, however. Hell, we don’t even argue.
“Lots of pro-lifers are paternalistic, chauvenistic, and deeply enamoured of fantasies of male domination.”
The other way around too, which is my point?
“We don’t even talk about people like Sanger, however.”
Chuckle. You got me. What am I missing here? You and your mom don’t discuss Sanger/Planned Parenthood so my point is moot, not applicable, or what? And I don’t think ignoring the racist origins of a group that is such a big influence among women’s rights activists is something to be proud of, or even unconcerned about. But hey, I’m not a trained “critical thinker” like your fellow academics.
You think that Planned Parenthood is the end-all, be-all of the pro-choice movement. But what I’m concerned about is the principle of the thing – and the millions of women that PP has helped, especially since we do not have socialized medicine (a major problem, imho, which cuts across all forms of racial divides).
The Founding Fathers of this country were slave-owners, as we all know.
Does this discredit the existence of the U.S.?
And anyway, what are you self-flagellating for?
“The Founding Fathers of this country were slave-owners, as we all know.
Does this discredit the existence of the U.S.?”
Just in case you are being clever, no, it doesn’t bring into question whether the US ever existed.
Otherwise, are you freaking kidding me!?! What planet are you on? Yes, the fact that slavery existed and in fact was accepted as a settled matter in half of the then nation is a stain on the US and a direct rebuke to the principles supposedly upon which this country was founded. It’s why we went to war with ourselves.
And why are you trying to use a nation, “founded on equality” that tolerated slavery for too long, as a co-example to an organization like PP, founded for expressed racist purposes? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to compare it to other expressed racist organizations, like the KKK?
The US was founded with stated noble principles, and the existence of slavery in clear direct contradiction to those principles has since been a freely acknowledged stain on America. Did you miss all that? Do you not hear much criticism of America in that regard. C’mon.
You want me to believe that PP is racist – but the truth is that it provides a lot of low-income women, black and white, with help.
A good friend of mine is married to someone who works in PP, and I trust her work, and value her contribution to the community she works in.
The question I posed had to do with whether or not the U.S. should exist at all – which, I believe, it should (Rann might have other ideas. Yoo-hoo!). Same goes for PP.
Ta-ta for now. 😉
Sorry, Natalia, but you are sounding like an unashamed hypocrite. You are way too cute in dismissing the racial eugenics purpose of PP as not central , and all because you know someone in PP as a friend and you would never consider her a racist. Very loyal, both to your friend and PP. And simply because PP provides other services (how about an example that is not PP purpose related?) is a rather week defense against their own founder’s words that “just coincidently” coincide with their actions today.
I mean, Jeez, Natalia, the first post I read of yours was a stand up post for the Duke players, while at the same time decrying the Patriarchy you work under. Forget all the evidence that points to the exact opposite. Doesn’t the fact that Duke provides services for women preclude that charge, even if it were 100% male staffed? Even if it actively discouraged women from entering? You know, because we know a Duke staff member and he is not a sexist.
You are remarkably generous in overlooking obvious flaws in things you support.
I never said that Duke was “sexist.” I said that sexism and racism are realities at Duke, but that doesn’t make Duke = sexist. So I’m missing your point.
I honestly don’t know the origins of Planned Parenthood, so I can’t comment on Sanger’s intentions for the organization, but what Natalia is saying, and what I’ll repeat now, is that Planned Parenthood as it stands now provides an invaluable service to women and men (as far as testing) of all races and economic backgrounds, services that I and many of my friends have made use of.
Things aren’t always black and white, Mike. You may be completely justified in your dislike for Sanger, (like I said, I don’t know), but why does that discredit the services that Planned Parenthood gives (and I’m not even talking about abortions).
It’s like saying that a dislike for organized religion automatically makes someone a godless satan worshipper.
Same goes for Duke. Don’t mess with Duke 🙂
Anyways, I’m pissed because I never leave anything besides inane comments about boobies and now look what you’ve made me do!
“You may be completely justified in your dislike for Sanger, (like I said, I don’t know), but why does that discredit the services that Planned Parenthood gives (and I’m not even talking about abortions).”
Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood. It was founded for the purposes she espoused. You don’t think that has any bearing on judging the purpose of PP abortion activities?
And clearly what I have pointed out does nothing to discredit PP’s non abortion related services (as you stipulate), just as the fact that a KKK outfit might sweep the sidewalks does nothing to discredit volunteer clean-up activities. But we would certainly take into account their racist origins if they tried to claim that their proposed poll tax wasn’t meant to hurt blacks, wouldn’t we?
“I never said that Duke was “sexist.” I said that sexism and racism are realities at Duke, but that doesn’t make Duke = sexist. So I’m missing your point.”
From one of Natalia’s previous posts that I read:
“Let’s put aside the team’s boorish behaviour, as well as the embedded patriarchy at Duke (it’s there, girls and boys, I’m not going to deny it)…”
That’s pretty clear. I don’t think I’m off base. It’s also abundently clear that the gender that is most often mocked, marginalized, and made to feel unwelcome at Duke is NOT female, despite your “embedded patriarchy”.
I sincerely applaud your courage in defending the victims in the Duke Lacrosse case. (Seriously, from the heart.) But you look around Duke, with all the programs, services and study fields designed to attract one gender exclusively and find an embedded patriarchy. That’s not realistic.
Should I point out that many of the founding fathers were not only slave owners, but advocated their ownership as morally sound and socially productive? Sure I should 🙂
So mikie baby, does that discredit the US as a country?
I mean, the US does provide a useful service in ridding various parents in various poor countries of their children. A good number of them in Iraq recently, par example. So us pro-choice merchants of death should wholly support this great country, non? Anna, Natalia, what think thee?
As was pointed out before: the world isn’t black and white….
I think we are in dire need of more comments about boobies.
“Should I point out that many of the founding fathers were not only slave owners, but advocated their ownership as morally sound and socially productive? Sure I should
So mikie baby, does that discredit the US as a country?”
Laugh out loud. Way to stay alert, Einstein.
Mike, in case you misunderstood – when I was talking about the patriarchy, I was talking about the students.
I don’t have a black/white outlook on these things; I don’t believe the Rolling Stone article that said that “Duke’s social life is divided into the core 4 [or whatever the fuck it is, I didn’t really pay attention to that crap as an undergrad] and everyone else who’s dying to get in, and all the girls in that group are busy giving blow-jobs to guys that mistreat them.”
But there are those power-dynamics at work in any group; there are the guys who treat girls like shit, and the girls who let them. There are the girls that come to Duke looking to score that Mrs. Degree, and guys willing to exploit that (“he’s sooo jet-set. And so what if he cheated on me?”). There are the guys who act like they’re friends with a girl, gallantly offering to walk her home, then raping her, then acting as if they did nothing wrong and loudly complaining about what a “bitch” and “whore” said girl is.
All of this doesn’t define Duke. But it does exist – and to deny it would be very, very silly. I was very happy at Duke for 3/4 of my undergraduate career – Duke gave me everything. But there are a lot of guys who come to Duke feeling entitled when it comes to women, and a lot of girls who allow said entitlement to flourish – and the results of that can be horrible.
One of my friends was grabbed and molested by her date outside a party as a freshman. One of her older female friends saw the girl as she was being literally carried away, passed out and helpless. A few minutes later, another friend showed up – she had received a text message from said freshman – “Help me, I’m wasted. I need to go home. I’m scared.” What did the older female friend do? She said, “don’t worry, let’s have some drinks, they’re probably getting fresh air. Hahaha.” The friend didn’t believe this, and found the freshman on the ground, with the guy practically on top of her at that point. She started yelling and screaming, and scared off the guy. The older girl could’ve cared less – she knew that the guy was a creep, but he was a creep with “important friends,” so getting molested by him in some bushes was obviously a “good thing” for a clueless little freshman. After all, the same sort of thing happened to her a few years ago. Why should it be any different for the new generation of Dukies? Right?
I know a girl who was raped by an upperclassman as a p-frosh, and her so-called friends told her that “it’s OK, honey. He’s cool. You should be excited he picked you. It wasn’t really rape, right?” And HIS friends told her that “you better not press charges. You wanted it, slut.”
I know a girl who was anally raped by some guy who just wanted to “try something new,” and didn’t report it because of how humiliated she felt, and because his friends were high-fiving him about it in the cafeteria the next day, right in front of her eyes.
This stuff is real. It doesn’t mean that patriarchy = Duke. But it’s real. Now what were we talking about? Boobies. Yes. I much rather prefer to talk about boobies then about how PP is supposedly like the KKK. *yawn*
Oh, and any rants about how girls should just be good little angels and never leave their dorm rooms and never, EVER get drunk with their friends, because don’t they know that men are animals who can’t control themselves – yeah, those will be ignored without comment.
Mike, sweetheart, you (once again) missed the point. You stated that the founding ideals of the US were in contradiction to slavery. That’s utter nonsense. While the constitution was in many ways a radical libertarian document, almost all its writers morally justified slavery and stated that it was entirely constitutional. In fact, those few who were involved in the process who were anti-slavery (eg Tom Paine) were by-and-large expelled from the newly-independent US, partially because of their objections to slavery.
Anyway, you are saying that Sanger’s history (which is disputed, by the way) discredits PP. That’s utter nonsense. The existence of PP has prevented countless backstreet abortions, has provided support for countless young mothers, mostly of working-class background, etc etc. Whatever Sanger’s position, it is indisputable that PP is doing a hell of a lot of good now.
If you are merely going to look at founders, it’s pretty easy to discredit any political movement whatsoever. That approach doesn’t make any sense and is typical of reactionaries on both the left and the right.
Stick to your real argument: you have a moral objection to abortion, therefore you hate PP and groups like them. Fine. But don’t try to play the race card from the right. It’s entirely pitiful.
“I much rather prefer to talk about boobies then about how PP is supposedly like the KKK. *yawn*”
Yeah, a big yawn about that racial eugenics stuff. Who cares? The important thing is, they promote abortion. Admirable mental discipline.
The PP is not the KKK, but they both were founded on the belief that blacks represent an inferior race. But I can tell you don’t care, so like you said, YAWN.
You relate some sad and painful experiences that you remember from Duke. I despise them as you do, including the women who told the girl she was lucky to be raped by such a great guy. (If you hadn’t said it, I wouldn’t believe it.) No wonder you despair at times.
But, even though I want to tread lightly out of respect for your experiences, I’ll point out that the vast, vast majority of men, at Duke and elsewhere, think that rape is a crime second only to murder. No guy I have ever met, and I’ve dealt with some losers, have talked as if that wasn’t true. I’m sure there are some, but they hide themselves from other men! To cite what a very small percentage of men do, and their like minded friends, male and female, say, as symptoms of an embedded patriarchy (especially on today’s campuses) is assigning an attitude among criminals and other slothful creatures as representing half the human race. Duke itself may not be a functioning patriarchy, you explain. Well great, but you move on to assign the blame to male attitudes in general. Thanks, but for what?
You would scream bloody murder if I spoke about high black crime rates and the Black Supremacy they represented, no matter how small a group of blacks I tried to target with the remark.
Rapists have always been despised. Sentencing guidelines did and still reflect that. What HAS changed in American society is that the normal rules of evidence have been set aside inorder to assure that fewer guilty rapists go free. That specific result may be admirable, but it also means the opposite, which is worse.
I’ll also take strong issue with the whore and sluts remarks. Call me a liar, call me wrong, but I used to be a social creature and in my experience women by far (!) are more likely to use those kind of demeaning terms against women. By far.
I’ve got more, but I need to get some sleep. Sorry about your experiences, hope they are never repeated.
Hey- i just finished your manuscripts. I LOVE them, but have a bunch of comments about pacing and tone. Let me know if you want to schedule a call, or I can mail you my notes?
Mail me my notes. The pacing is off-the-wall, but that’s something I need to work on during the re-write – I need to set up the story first, and then slow it down.
But I’m sure it’s a pain in the ass to read, and I apologize.
My reader in Durham is pretty frustrated with me at this point.
it’s not a pain in the ass at all- you just need to flesh your topics out a bit. My notes are all over the place- i’ll stick it in the mail tonight. I really like the opening 3 paragraphs, very powerful if you can get rid of the slight cheese factor. I think my comments should help you do this. I also like the way you introduce the characters, but you need to structure the way you describe them a bit more. Some of your paragrahps should be broken into 2-3 and each idea fleshed out- some things just don’t match although I see what you’re getting at and I really like it.
This is not completely on-topic, but I wanted to call attention to a 2006 book by Professor Randall Balmer of Barnard College (Columbia U.) entitled, “Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right is Distorting the Faith and Threatens America.”
I haven’t read the book, but it is reviewed on a 06/23/2006 segment of NPR’s Morning Edition on the NPR website (search “Randall Balmer” on the NPR website search engine) where a passage from Balmer’s book is excerpted.
In the excerpted passage, Balmer describes the “abortion myth” and how the anti-abortion movement was actually started as political cover for protecting racial discrimination by far-right Protestant schools, in response to the January 1975 ruling by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service that revoked Bob Jones University’s tax-exempt status on the grounds that the school practiced racial discrimination.
In the same excerpted passage, Balmer describes how the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973 actually met with a muted response from the conservative Christian community, with one Southern Baptist leader even applauding the decision.
The book review and excerpted passage on the 06/23/2006 segment of NPR’s Morning Edition (on the NPR website) provide instructive reading about the origins of the anti-abortion movement.