Axinar's Vs. The Chicago Liberal Front

Rush Limbaugh for the last little while has been talking about Obama being thoroughly a product of the Chicago Liberal establishment, so it was quite fortunate that I stumbled across that PSA in The Nation from this organization called The Chicago Abortion Fund.

First of all I found the name striking. Not, "The Chicago Choice Fund" or something of the sort. No euphamisms - flat out - in your face - '60's style - "We're collecting money to pay for poor women to get abortions."

THEN I discover they have a blog called "My Voice, My Choice, My Blog".

Well, at least the title of the blog is a little more "mild".

The first post I saw was from someone named Gaylon who said, in part, "Every human being should have the right to make their own reproductive health choices."

Now I know Gaylon probably didn't mean to say it this way, so I left a comment to the effect that if EVERY human being should have the right to make their own reproductive health choices, then presumably a man should have the right to abort a pregnancy he caused as well. And, in lieu of the Josef Mengele-esque scene that invokes, I'm thinking men should at least have the right to be absolved of the potentially crippling and incarcerating financial responsibility that comes along with producing children.

Now Gaylon responded - not with claiming to have misspoken or anything of the sort but with, "If you don't want children and you are not taking birth control then don't have sex."

Good heavens! That's a PRO-LIFE attitude.

Someone named Emelda then chimed in with, "... if you are engaged in a heterosexual relationship, you should talk about what choices you both think you would like to make if a pregnancy were to happen."

Of course that line put me in mind of a discussion I once heard about movies where sometimes, in the heat of lovemaking the woman says, "Make me pregnant!" and some have commented this is totally unrealistic, but then along comes a gay guy who says, "That's perfectly possible ... I've said that to MY partner in the 'heat of the moment'."

We'll leave that visual for another discussion of course.

Again, Emelda seems to be expressing a "Pro-Life" type of attitude - only it seems very sexist to me - that reproductive considerations stop at the sheets for men, but, I presume, at labor for women.

Then of course I flat out accused her of being sexist and THEN the high test liberal blood floated to the surface:

"Women do not have systematic power in our culture and therefore, by political definition, can not be sexist."

Horse hockey.

I once asked a very dear African-American friend of mine about this concept once. I said we would call a White person who just doesn't "sit right" with Blacks or some other "minority" words like "prejudiced" or "racist". I asked her what they would call someone from her community who just had a problem with Whites.

She didn't hesitate for a second - "ignorant".

Yes, as we learned in the Star Trek episode Court Martial, it's perfectly natural if a person or group of persons has shown hatred and disresect for you for decades, centuries, or millenia, it is perfectly natural to show hatred and disrespect for that person or group in return, but, in so doing, you have become racist, sexist, classist, etc., yourself.

Now, believe it or not, I don't have a problem with this group existing. However, if they truly believed in "reproductive freedom", they would sit with me a great deal easier if they also collected money to help PARENTS raise their children who wanted to keep them as well.

And, yes, they'd REALLY impress me if they collected money to allow men who have no business being parents move on with their lives without being hunted down by The State as if they had murdered 30 people ...

"Every human being should have the right to make their own reproductive health choices."

So I'm taking a look over a posting on the Chicago Abortion Fund blog called "Whose Agenda is this Anyway?".

There's an intensely fascinating line in this post that says, "Every human being should have the right to make their own reproductive health choices."

Oh really?

Note the phrase "human being".

I would presume therefore that the sentiment applies to men as well?

Not that I would generally spin this point to make the argument that abortion should not be allowed, but, under the current set of rules there is a STAGGERING bit of gender inequality on this issue.

You see, if you are a woman and you decide you don't want to be a parent, you have right up until birth to choose to abort a pregnancy. In fact, even AFTER birth you have the option to give a child to an adoptive family.

If you are a man the MOMENT you hop into the sack with someone you take the risk of JAIL if you don't cough up the amount of money the STATE decides is appropriate to care for your children.

That's unfair.

If we really believe in gender equality, men should have precisely the same rights that women do on this issue. Men should have the right to resign from parental responsibility at ANY TIME.

Anything else would be abject institutionalized inequality.

Your Money Needed For Abortions!

So I'm browsing through the August 18/25, 2008 print copy of The Nation when I stumble across what I suppose constitutes the equivalent of a PSA for something called the Chicago Abortion Fund.

According to The Nation notice this fund "helps poor women pay for abortions".

According to their own "About" page they "fight to overturn economic barriers to reproductive choice".

Wow.

Do you suppose we could start a similar fund to collect money to try to overturn the barriers to reproductive choice for MEN - namely the draconian child support laws rampant in the Western world?

There's a couple of concerning sections on the Chicago Abortion Fund values page, probably the most concerning of which is: "We support a woman's right to have children. This right is not dependent on income and we recognize the necessity for pre- and post-natal care, health care, economic supports and affordable, high quality child care."

Okay, let's do the math here - not to sound TOO terribly much like my estimable padawan, KenDiesel, but if someone has the right to have children without income, that means that person, pretty much by definition, has the right to MY income.

Say what???

Not that, vis a vis Michael Moore in his Bowling for Columbine rant that probably just out of respect for our fellow human beings that we shouldn't help out those who are having difficulties, financial and otherwise, with raising their children, but it is an entirely different matter to say that someone has the RIGHT to pick my pocket - particularly through culpable irresponsibility.

Moving on further to the CAF fact page we find that 80% of their clients were African-American.

Well, I suppose they get a healthy stream of donations from the Klan in that event.

Don't get me wrong. I support publicly funded abortions.

We clearly have too many people on this planet already to take care of, and if you think you're not going to do a very good job raising children, you probably won't.

Hell - my parents thought they were ready for it and look what happened to ME.

On the other hand, there is some scary, scary language on this web site.

If Limbaugh is right that this sort of thing may reflect Obama's true opinions, we may be in a fair amount of trouble ...

Related:
Chicago Abortion Fund YouTube page
Chicago Abortion Fund MySpace page
Chicago Abortion Fund blog