In the interest of fairness, here is Ann’s response to Insty’s response to her… I’ll quit now.
I will not attempt to pick apart systematically what is so evidently a Queen Hamster response to criticism. I merely leave this as an example of what an “intelligent” woman, steeped in a liberal environment, thinks – while she calls herself “libertarian.” Notice, for all her supposedly moral posturing, she never does criticize women who use fraud to conceive and entrap men in child support, does she? For all her “FOR THE CHILDREN!!!” reasoning, she nimbly dodges any imputation of her favoring traditional marriage, even though she quite obviously described it favorably previously, as the bedrock of civilization.
Presumably her pro-abortion (and her implication that ANY restriction on abortion is an affront to a woman’s freedom) stance is not in conflict with her deep, deep concern that men be held financially responsible for their children even though, due to PREGNANCY BECAUSE I SAID SO, women are not responsible for their children until they decide that the child actually does exist as a child instead of… some other thing that can be discarded as unwanted waste. Because pregnancy! is! unfair!!! (No duh, really? So “because pregnancy” is sufficient reason to let women have as much promiscuous sex as they want without risking the commitments of parenthood, right up until the woman decides to get a man to pay for her desire to become a babymomma, with or without his knowledge or consent?)
Actually, it’s interesting that Althouse equates abortion restrictions with MEN controlling women’s bodies. What about all the FEMALE pro-life voters? Apparently we don’t count. It’s all teh ebil Men’s Fault controlling the Wymyn’s Bodieeezzz if they can’t get abortions whenever they want!! (Paging Kermit Gosnell)
Allow me to quote another female blogger, this one, note, not a law professor, but, if you read the previous link, you know that she is in fact an abortion survivor herself. If you haven’t read the previous link, go read it.
Abortion is, of course, one of those complex things. It is not a natural right. It can’t be a natural right because a human woman in a state of nature who tries to abort will more often than not end up offing herself along with the child. You could say infanticide is a natural right, as it has been practiced by most civilizations throughout the ages, less so in Judeo Christian lands, but impossible to stamp out just like murder is impossible to stamp out. Of course it violates another person’s natural right to life, but in the case of infants that is always iffy as “natural” as they require someone else to defend them. So, it is a very complex thing, not from a moral but from a NATURAL point of view.
So. Why should Althouse care if the child is deprived of his father’s financial support, if she is willing to allow the mother to kill him in utero? And especially since she implies (quite possibly falsely: Althouse loves to imply something, then claim this was not her opinion at all. For someone who loves baiting her own commentariat, I was quite surprised to see that this blog-debate spawned a firestorm of sufficient strength to cause her to eventually shut down comments entirely) that any form of restriction on abortion constitutes men controlling women’s bodies (but since that would mean more children born, who would then be entitled to child support from the men, does this make any sense since Althouse is complaining that men are trying to get out of their responsibilities for fathering children, even if they unwittingly do so?).
Think about this: is the state’s requirement that biological parents support their offspring a form of men controlling women’s bodies (and vice versa)? Objectively, yes. Why is it permissible, in Ann’s mind, for the Sinister Cabal of Men to control a woman’s body and command her to care for her offspring after birth, but not before birth? Because the woman could get out of responsibility by putting the child up for adoption after its birth but not before? (When has a man been able to get out of paying for an unwanted child’s upkeep by putting the child up for adoption after birth? Never. If the mother wants the child, He WILL Pay For The Child. No matter what he thinks of the matter, or if the child was conceived through carelessness, accident, or fraud.) Why does she expect Women to be able to command Men’s bodies after the birth of their children if the man not only did not have the woman’s options after conception, but also if the woman expressly lies to the child’s father in order to conceive? Her only answer is “for the sake of the child” and “because pregnancy women deserve special privileges!” Like, oh, say, the privilege of sole decision making about the child and the right to demand payment from its father.
Excuse me while I laugh. She’s soooo concerned over all these irresponsible men who don’t want to pay for their own child’s upkeep – but even when trying to defend herself, she can’t quite bring herself to criticize directly the WOMEN’S promiscuity – complete with demands that other people subsidize their bedroom activity – that is destroying Western Civilization itself.