Can’t We Just All Accept that Campfield Genuinely Cares?

I read this post from Brownfemipower last night before reading this post from Campfied today. Kind of makes for one of those “aha” moments, doesn’t it?

Anyway, it did for me. Just who, exactly, is Campfield comparing to slave owners and Nazis?

Women who need abortions.

I often joke, but I’ve got to tell you, sometimes I feel inadequate to the task before me. This is one of those times. I wish you were, right now, reading someone who could smartly take on Campfield and point out the abhorrent evil in what he’s saying–how he twists the notion of women having control over our own bodies into being on par with us being slave-holders and Nazis. I mean, do you see that?

He’s sitting around being all thoughtful and reasonable sounding about his belief that women having the final say over whether we want to be pregnant or not is just like us owning slaves or committing genocide. And, as Brownfemipower alludes to in her post, it’s not just the accusation, but how the accusation turns us into traitors against humanity.

This is so important–that you see how Campfield is advancing the argument that women are the enemy of life, how we so regularly and systematically strip others of their humanity and then massacre them that, for the good of humanity, we must be controlled–because it’s the unspoken assumption that really drives the abortion debate in this country and I feel like I don’t know how to get it across to you with the urgency it requires.

I know some of you will be tempted to say “But maybe Campfield really does care about the babies and is not about taking control of women because he thinks they’re too easily swayed to do evil!”

Okay, then, consider this.  We know why women have abortions.  We have abortions because we got pregnant when we didn’t want to be.  Or we can’t afford to have a kid right now.  Or being pregnant endangers our lives.  Or we were raped.  Or we don’t have the kind of homelife stable enough for children.  And so on.

If we rule out the women who have abortions because we just don’t want to have kids, anybody who is anti-abortion can make enormous strides in lowering the abortion rate by addressing the other reasons women have abortions.

And yet, do you see Campfield trying to pass legislation that would increase aid to poor families?  Is he supporting and agitating for comprehensive sex ed in our public schools?  Is he advancing legislation that would guarantee women the right to have their prescriptions filled at the pharmacy of their choice?  Is he fighting for more and better healthcare for Tennessee’s citizens?  Is he specifically trying to get funding for research into countering deadly birth defects?  Is he fighting for women’s safety?  He could, for instance, bring a great deal of pressure on the city and state to get us full-time police coverage in the park where we had that brutal rape this fall.  What’s he doing to try to bring more and better jobs to Tennessee?

I mean, really, rather than calling women Nazis and slave-owners, what’s Campfield doing to ensure that, when a woman discovers that she’s pregnant, it’s a happy and healthy occasion?

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “Can’t We Just All Accept that Campfield Genuinely Cares?

  1. Pingback: Volunteer Voters » Right And Wrong

  2. And yet, do you see Campfield trying to pass legislation that would increase aid to poor families?

    Yes, if by aid you mean access to make a living. The free market is the best aid available in the world. Other private orgs give above and beyond all that also may be necessasary for even the neediest. Pre and post birth. Check Choices Resources center or Tennessee right to life in the phone book. Yes I donate my own money to them.

    Is he supporting and agitating for comprehensive sex ed in our public schools? The results vary on the results of sex ed.

    Is he advancing legislation that would guarantee women the right to have their prescriptions filled at the pharmacy of their choice?

    This is done now by many organizations. Call Tennessee right to life for a list.

    Is he fighting for more and better healthcare for Tennessee’s citizens?

    Look at my record and get back to me. I have supported tort reform to lower costs, Risk pools, and The alt plan to the TennCare cuts Phil did. I could go on if you like.

    Is he specifically trying to get funding for research into countering deadly birth defects?

    Although birth defects accounts for less then 0.3% of all abortion pregnancy cases and many of those are probably not deadly I am not against funding the research.

    Is he fighting for women’s safety?

    Yes, Half the babies killed are female. I hope you will support the cause.

    He could, for instance, bring a great deal of pressure on the city and state to get us full-time police coverage in the park where we had that brutal rape this fall.

    At the state level we give money to local communities and they decide where best to deploy their forces.

    What’s he doing to try to bring more and better jobs to Tennessee?

    See free market.

  3. Oh, god. That’s your message? “Have a baby and the free market will take care of things”? “I’m going to do all in my power to make compulsary pregnancy the law of the land, but I can’t be bothered to make things safer for women, but don’t worry, Tennessee Right to Life and the free market will take care of everything”?

    I can just see the new state slogan–“Free Markets and Unfree Women.”

    But, ha, free markets my ass. Aren’t you bitching about illegal immigrants all the time? For a market to be truly free, employers should be able to pay who they want what they want, but you… you’ve made it one of your pet issues to rid the state of undocumented workers, so I guess your faith in the free market only goes so far.

    You trust it to take care of the needs of pregnant women and young mothers, but don’t trust it to sort out who makes the most suitable employees.

    Nice.

  4. Good defense, rep. Are women who get abortions naive, indifferent or “the enemy of life”? I don’t know, but if the shoe fits . . .

    If I remember correctly, AuntB, you had a similar struggle to comprehend why the “How much time?” campaign didn’t send pro-lifers off with their tails between their legs. Some people have concluded (actually most people have . . .) that there are two humans involved in an abortion. And the fact that there are two human lives involved (especially where “late-term” abortions are concerned) ought to relegate many reasons for wanting an abortion to insignificance.

    I think it is wise, pragmatic, Christ-like, charitable, compassionate, etc. to provide abortion alternatives to a woman in a crisis pregnancy. And I am involved in that. However, if it is wrong to end a human life in the womb, I don’t see how anyone has an obligation (other than the male gamete provider) to keep her from doing the wrong thing. There are options, AuntB . . . the options just aren’t as attractive as abortion.

  5. Ned, are you on drugs?

    Seriously.

    First of all, “Good defense, rep.” What in god’s name are you talking about? That was barely coherent.

    Second, in what world do you think having an abortion is “attractive”?

    I mean, please, I am trying my damnedest to come up with a reason why people work to criminalize abortions other than that they hate women and here you come with your “women who have abortions are naive, indifferent, ‘enemies of life,’ insignificant, and so weird that they just find abortion-having so attractive” bullshit.

    Do you say that stuff out loud? Do you find that, when you do, women step back from you?

    Unbelievable.

  6. > And yet, do you see Campfield trying to pass legislation that would …

    Aunt B., Why do you have to go and get all constructive, when there’s a good demonizing going on? Shouting “Harlot!” is free and doesn’t interfere with the engine of wealth concentration that we call the “free market”.

  7. So much for AuntB’s Place Is The Model of Civil Discussion line, huh?

    If it’s a life, and if there are non-life-threatening alternatives, then what other conclusions are there, AuntB?

    And you’ve accused me of lack of awareness/sensitivity or somesuch before, but surely you realize that a lot of women think abortion is murder?

  8. “See free market.”

    WTF? True free markets don’t exist. How is referencing fairy tales supposed to help anything?

  9. “If it’s a life, and if there are non-life-threatening alternatives, then what other conclusions are there, AuntB?”

    Again, WTF is up with the fairy tales? There is no non-life-threatening alternative to abortion. Full-term pregnancy and childbirth are far more life-threatening than abortion.

    Is the sky blue in your world?

  10. Ned, don’t even start with “Oh, my goodness, B. is so uncivil” crap. YOU came in here talking about women being evil. YOU came in here talking about how comparisons to genocide are apt. And you’re the one who came in here talking about “sljdjkobhdkld Tennessee Right to Life jowjeiowajiov ip Free Markets wjiojiwfjbjiod Tennessee Right to Life” being a good point.

    And I’m the problem because I’m not engaging in Civil Discussion?

    So, in your world, you get to say whatever hateful evil things spring to mind (and invoke Christ in the process!) and I’m just supposed to politely let you have your say and that’s Civil Discussion?

    You can scoop all the shit you want down my throat, Williams; don’t expect me to smile while I’m eating it.

  11. So, now disagreeing with you is “uncivil”?

    And, I guess you’re planning on addressing the substance of my response?

    I didn’t even read what Campfield wrote (other than here), but for you to say that those who think abortion is wrong–who think it’s homicide, have some obligation to provide alternatives to it is wrong. As an example, we don’t have an obligation to provide stipends to men who opt for work rather than bank robbery. YOU don’t think abortion is wrong, and YOU think it ought to be legal, but it is hardly a slam-dunk example of hypocrisy for a person to take the position that abortion is wrong and society owes nothing to them for choosing to do what’s right. That’s not true in my case (of course, some will say that it is true of me since I oppose abortion and am not a Socialist) but . . . that’s stupid and disingenuous, I believe.

    I know you don’t like Campfield and I perceive you think he’s insincere, misogynous, mean-spirited, irrational, etc., but that doesn’t mean (even for you) that every word that comes out of his mouth or every argument he makes is wrong or evil.

  12. Ned,

    THAT you disagree is not uncivil but HOW you disagree is quite very much so. It seems this distinction is entirely lost on you for it is also what is at stake in Aunt B’s disdain for Campfield. He claims to care so much about babies, and yet all he seems to have done to help them is to demonize and condemn women who find ourselves with unwanted pregnancies who even consider abortion as a response to such a situation. If he really cared more about babies than about hating women (and either of you really cared about HUMANS, and not just men and children but women too) , then why not do something that will actually make the world better, make it so that less unwanted pregnancies actually occur?

    Further, 1) some people do propose offering basic living stipends to EVERYONE, that is their sense of what is best for societies, but probably more to the point 2) there are ways of reducing the likelihood that people will choose bank robbing short of giving out stipends, especially to past offeners, and simply “supporting the free market” is not one of them. When that was Campfield’s response, it further signaled his insincereity and disdain for all human persons.

    Finally, Aunt B didn’t say that everyone who opposes abortion must have alternatives. She is trying to hold a state represtentative, whose job it is to make the best of our communities, accountable to more than spreading hurtful untruths about women.

    What do you even think that “civil” means anyhow and how do you recognize yourself as fitting the definition while B does not? When and why are we obligated to be so anyhow?

  13. Ned, what the Professor said. Disagree with me. Disagree with me all you want. But doing it in a way so clearly steeped in just plain old hate and expecting it to be treated with respect?

    I mean, seriously, calling people Nazis and slave-owners and you with your misogynistic crap, and then having the gall to complain about me being uncivil is just amazing.

    And the fact that you’re going to sit there and try to play all “What? What did I say?” shows that you not only hate me, but you think I’m a fool, and you just expect, for whatever reason, that you can insult and patronize me and expect me to still play nice.

    No thanks.

    You conservatives are all about there being Truth with a capital T, but you throw around words like we’re just all supposed to assume they don’t really mean what they mean, but instead mean something gentler and kinder that deserves respect.

    And damn straight I don’t like Campfield. Maybe you’ve noticed, but he’s responsible, in part, for governing us and the philosophy he wants to govern us under is anti-woman.

    But I suppose you think I should be nicer in my objection to being treated like an idiot child who needs a strong government to tell me what to do.

    You don’t stand for that bullshit when Democrats do it to you and yet you’re surprised that I object to Republicans trying to do it to me.

  14. AuntB,

    No, I don’t hate you. And I regret that you have concluded that. Inasmuch as it is related to my view that abortion is wrong, I hope that you can eventually understand that my opposition to the act is not related to who it is that wants abortions. I don’t conclude that you hate me simply because you support laws that directly and negatively affect me.

    I’ve laid out my argument, and maybe I should have been more careful not to have associated myself with Campfield or his position when I only know a slice of what he has said or done on this issue. And at the risk of sounding harsh, there are aspects of abortion’s practice in America–assuming one thinks it is wrong and is homicide, that are similar in scope and immorality to slavery and the Holocaust. I know you don’t see it that way, but can’t you see that someone else might? And that someone else might do so with sincerity?

    Yes, the comparison is harsh, but a D&C is harsh, “partial-birth abortion” is harsh, and some people feel that strongly about how wrong abortion is. And of course framing it that way has harsh implications for the people who have chosen to obtain an abortion or pay for an abortion or support abortions, but there are all kinds of potential reasons–other than being evil or the “enemy of life” that people have made those decisions. As I said above ignorance/naivete (moral or biological), or indifference (which isn’t necessarily wrong) and certainly desperation are motivations. Desperation is certainly a mitigating factor even if a person knew something was wrong and did it anyway.

    But here’s my question–and this seems to be a major offense to you on this subject, (harsh analogies aside) do you think that a person can disagree with you on this issue (whether abortion is homicide) without doing so based on spite for you or other Pro-Choicers or without an intention (or illegitimate indifference) to women?

    It seems to me that the fact you hold a different view about this (or any) issue than me is not per se a justification to meet you in the middle or to not challenge your premises or conclusions. Don’t you agree?

  15. I’m jumping in here a bit…

    And at the risk of sounding harsh, there are aspects of abortion’s practice in America–assuming one thinks it is wrong and is homicide, that are similar in scope and immorality to slavery and the Holocaust. I know you don’t see it that way, but can’t you see that someone else might? And that someone else might do so with sincerity?

    Well, even from the days when I had views that were much more in line with the pro-life crowd, even then I recognized that such comparisons were just cheap shots designed to make oneself feel morally superior. That was just me, though. I don’t claim to know what other people’s motivations are; at the risk of understatement, I believe that people’s thoughts are extremely complex.

    I’ll say this though; even if people who use such comparisons, as you suggest, have entirely pure motivations, that matters not one bit to the people they are offending. Good intent does not always equal good effect. Campfield’s statements have offended many people, and for what purpose? To persuade people to agree with him? I rather doubt that.

Comments are closed.