The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

18 August 2005

More victimized than thou

La Shawn Barber posed this question to the pertinent segments of the population:

If a significant number of women begin choosing to abort their babies because doctors discovered a "gay gene," would your stance on the "right to choose" change or shift in any way? Would the number of women killing these "defective" babies make a difference? Is one potentially gay dead baby one too many?

Not being a fan of abortion anyway, I wouldn't have to budge on my own stance. (Killing someone for being gay is heinous; killing someone for potentially being gay is more so.) But I can see how balancing this particular equation could be difficult for some people.

One version of the mathematics of it, according to ShrinkWrapped:

I would suggest that this is not as much of an issue as La Shawn might expect.

In the world of PC, all groups are valued in relation to their degree of victimhood. Homosexuals are ranked very high as victims. Pro-choice women are also victims but the moment a pro-choice woman decided to abort a pregnancy because of a "gay" gene, she would lose her status as a victim, becoming a homophobe and therefore an oppressor. Her rights to an abortion could then be abrogated without much concern.

And that would seem to be that, though I'd like to get hold of the Official Victims List and the methodology by which it is prepared. Presumably there is a unit of victimization, and each entry on the list is valued at some number of units. (Bonus points if you can come up with a name for the unit.)

Posted at 9:22 AM to Life and/or Death , Political Science Fiction


It seems to me that the people who are likely to get abortions (for any reason) are the ones who are least likely to care about the baby's sexual orientation.

The hard-core anti-gay types are also the ones least likely to approve of abortion, which probably leaves this whole mental exercise as nothing more than that.

Posted by: timekeeper at 9:37 AM on 18 August 2005

It seems to me that the people who are likely to get abortions (for any reason) are the ones who are least likely to care about the baby's sexual orientation.

That's a spinoff of the alleged Roe effect reasoning, which argues that there will be fewer liberals over time as more liberals than conservatives have abortions.

It's tempting, but the "pro-choice" types keep insisting abortion isn't about politics but about privacy (never mind that they're the ones most inclined to holler about abortion every time a conservative politician gets elected to high political office -- especially one which includes the authority to appoint judges).

Posted by: McGehee at 10:32 AM on 18 August 2005

hmmm
Victites
Victichloridianes
Victoids
Victimites (as opposed to victimitenots)
Mitcivs
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa's (or Wa9's for short)

Posted by: Dwayne "the canoe guy" at 10:43 AM on 18 August 2005

This is the dumbest-ass dumb-ass attempt at logic I've heard all week, and that's saying something, because I read the Internets.

A right to choose means "other people can't force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term." It's her body, it's her choice; no more, no less.

Alleged qualities of the fetus may factor into her choice, but that's all. It's like asking "If you knew a pregnancy would produce the next Albert Einstein, should the woman be allowed to end it?" That's the same question as "If you knew a pregnancy would produce the next Pol Pot, should the woman be forced to end it?" It's presuming that more information somehow leads women to make worse choices, and I think the 14th Amendment kind of prohibits encoding such sexist assumptions into public policy.

Of course, some women do make dumb-ass choices, both about beginning and ending pregnancies. Still, it never ceases to amaze me how some conservatives can complain about the "liberal nanny state" in the same breath as trying to make a woman's most personal choices for her.

You'd think after 40 years of the "drug war," people would figure out that the way to get rid of something you don't like is not to restrict the supply but to reduce the demand. Ah, but that's just logical, what am I thinking. Some recent non-Republican president said that abortions should be "safe, legal, and extremely rare," and from that moment onward, conservatives couldn't stop thinking about his penis.

Posted by: Matt at 11:46 AM on 18 August 2005

And, for that matter, the next Albert Einstein might have the disposition of a Pol Pot. (Actually, some times I think of me in those terms.)

The Drug War connection is instructive, since subscribing to its tenets apparently requires a set of blinders — non-partisan, of course, since no one dares appear in favor of drugs.

Posted by: CGHill at 4:22 PM on 18 August 2005

I saw this yesterday and "the dumbest-ass dumb-ass attempt at logic" was the phrase that came to mind.

The pro-choice position is based on the right to privacy and female bodily autonomy, and demanding that a woman give a reason (whether it be a "gay gene," or anything else) before "approving" an abortion isn't going to be demanded by anyone with a Pro-Choice stance.

Posted by: aldahlia at 6:49 PM on 18 August 2005

Bonus points if you can come up with a name for the unit.

I'm not sure what it could be, but nothing's better than "util."

Posted by: Erica at 2:26 AM on 19 August 2005

How about the .ack unit of measurement? ... As in the sound one makes when shocked or suprised by an infuriating or scary thing. It is sufficiently ambiguous to please both the pro and con scale and sure to bring about plenty of infighting on each side of the issue (each side sure the "ack" was meant to bolster their side). Just snarky enough to satisfy the accomplished blog fire starter and precise enough to make your average blog sniper get a woody.

I'm just here to help ...

Posted by: ron at 11:18 AM on 19 August 2005

The unit should be the "marginal", of course--as in "How marginalized is this particular group?" "Oh, about three marginals."

Posted by: Will Duquette at 1:41 PM on 20 August 2005