« Pakistan and the American Presidency | Main | The Coming Conservative Civil War »

The Politics of Juno

28 Dec 2007 02:01 pm

Now that I've seen the movie, I can safely agree with Ann Hulbert: Juno is a film about hot-button subjects (abortion, teen pregnancy, adoption, etc.) that succeeds artistically precisely because it complicates, rather than over-simplifies, every one of the thorny issues it raises. The only thing that's remarkable about this cinematic approach to controversy is how rare it is in Hollywood: Juno's shades-of-gray approach the culture wars ought to be required viewing for Brian De Palma, Paul Haggis, Robert Redford, and just about every other Hollywood filmmaker who's turned out a lousy movie about the Iraq War in the last year or so.

In my dual position as a movie obsessive and a pro-life scold, though, I have to take issue with Hulbert's characterization of the film's take on abortion:

The real flashpoint issue in the film, of course, could have been abortion. Here [Diablo] Cody's politics (presumably pro-choice) are at odds with her plot needs (a birth) and, who knows, maybe commercial dictates, too, if studios worry about antagonizing the evangelical audience. It's a tension the screenplay finesses deftly, undercutting both pro-life and pro-choice purism. Pregnant Juno at first reflexively embraces abortion as the obvious option, and her best friend is at the ready with phone numbers; she's helped other classmates through this. But just when pro-lifers might be about to denounce this display of secular humanist decadence, Juno stomps out of the clinic, unable to go through with it.

She isn't moved by thoughts of the embryo's hallowed rights, however, but by a sense of her own autonomy. And for her, that doesn't mean a right to privacy, or to protect her body ("a fat suit I can't take off," she calls it at one point). Juno is driven by the chance to make her own unconventional choice.

Well ... sort of. I would say that Juno goes further than Knocked Up in presenting abortion as a plausible choice for a girl in the heroine's position, and doesn't go nearly so far as Apatow's movie in making the advocates of abortion look like heartless creeps. And Hulburt's right that Juno McGuff's decision to bear her child to term is an act of personal autonomy that's of a piece with her broader nonconformity, and that deliberately sets her apart from the conformist (and judgmental) world of parents and teachers and too-chatty ultrasound technicians.

However, the crucial decision isn't cast as a Dead Poets Society-style validation of nonconformity for nonconformity's sake; it's cast as a case where being a nonconformist happens to be the right thing to be. And while Juno may not be moved by thoughts of her embryo's "hallowed rights," exactly, she certainly seems to be moved by the unremitting grossness of the abortion clinic (complete with a pathetic-seeming girl receptionist who tells her that they need to know about "every sore and every score") - and more importantly, by the declaration, from a pro-life Asian classmate keeping a lonely vigil outside the clinic, that her child-to-be "already has fingernails." (Careful viewers will note that while Juno sits in the clinic, filling out paperwork, the camera zooms in on the fingernails of the other people in the waiting room.) Just as the movie as a whole charms viewers (and particularly critics) with Juno's hyper-articulate tomboy cynicism, but ultimately asks us to admire the idealism at work under the cynical shell, so too does the scene at the abortion clinic invite the audience to giggle at the Asian girl's pro-life idealism ("all babies want to get borned," is her lisping chant), while simultaneously giving her the sincere line that makes all the difference in Juno's decision.

None of this means that movie is a brief for overturning Roe v. Wade; far from it. But like Knocked Up, it's decidedly a brief for not getting an abortion.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/24204

Comments (89)

Perhaps it's our different politics, but I didn't perceive an anti-abortion message in Knocked Up. My sense is that because it's not even ever a serious option for the parents, you don't get a chance to really have a message one way or another. There's never any sense that Ben and Allison keep the baby because they're bothered by abortion.

In one of the two scenes where abortion is discussed, whatshisname looks like a heartless creep, but the other whatshisname looks like a ninny--he can't bear to hear the word 'abortion' and ends the scene with him loudly calling himself a patriot as he pounds his maple-leaf tattoo. Meanwhile, Ben (the one who is actually making the decisions) is not even a part of that discussion.

An anti-abortion message would be one where someone who doesn't really want the child keeps it because the alternative is so terrible. That's not the dynamic in Knocked Up.

"An anti-abortion message would be one where someone who doesn't really want the child keeps it because the alternative is so terrible. That's not the dynamic in Knocked Up."

I'd argue that that is precisely the case in Knocked Up. In the movie, abortion is so terrible, so unspeakable, that neither of the two unplanned parents can bring themselves to discuss it as an option.

The nice thing about both movies is that the pregnant women were able to make a ... yes, that's right ... wait for it ... CHOICE about their lives, their futures and their families.

No one was forced to have an abortion.

No one was forbidden from having an abortion.

What Woody said. There may actually be a few "advocates of abortion" in this country, but generally speaking, "pro-choice" is more than just a euphemism. Even if Juno can be accurately termed a "brief for not getting an abortion," it is certainly not a brief for taking away a woman's ability to make her own choice.

Juno isn't being shuttled off to some creepy home for wayward girls, where she can secretly give birth and deliver her "shame" to its new adoptive parents. She isn't being disowned by her father, loudly condemned as a harlot by preachers, or (God forbid) being stoned to death for bringing dishonor on her family. She's supported by her family and friends as a good person who made a mistake, and she is given the freedom to make her own moral choice. The message of the film cuts both ways.

I will continue to argue the point that the recent decline in the US abortion rate owes a great deal to the liberalization of sexual mores and the broader social acceptability of unwed motherhood. If you genuinely oppose abortion, then oppose the cultural conservative jihad against all non-traditional lifestyles, stop trying to impose restrictions on women's choices, and instead make it easier and less traumatic for people to choose life.

Next, LaFollette will want to make motherhood easier and less traumatic. Then, why not mountain-climbing? Aerobic workouts--those should be definitely easier and less traumatic. And when it comes to "choices," lets make picking a marriage partner easier and less traumatic. How to invest money--too hard, too traumatic.

LaFollette's so-called progressive agenda is a progression to the abolition of heroism via a morality without restrictions. I for one can't wait.

Remember, Chris, "progressives" only care about the "quality" of a person's life, not life itself.

Is it just me, or is there a new crop of popular comedy rising up (between Apatow, Cody, Arrested Development...pretty much anything in which Michael Cera is involved) that feels a lot less contrived than what we're used to? I can't quite put my finger on it, but these new films are so refreshingly relaxed, skeptical, and, most of all, honest. It really does feel like a generational change, of some sort, is taking place, and it's a very hopeful thing.

I think there's a certain narrative logic at work. As many people have pointed out, no matter how pro-choice Hollywood is, in conventional contemporary TV and movies, the story is usually "Woman has unexpected pregnancy, woman agonizes (because it's her body and her choice), woman chooses to have baby. Yay!" I don't think this is because Hollywood is afraid of offending Evangelicals, but because of narrative pressures inherent in conventional Hollywood storytelling. If the woman has the baby and keeps it, facing many trials and difficulties to do so, she gets to be the hero of the story, and there's built-in closure. If she is unexpectedly pregnant, agonizes, and has an abortion in order to go to college or whatever, that can't be the climax of the script--there's no closure there and the woman isn't the hero, anymore than the firefighter who runs away, leaving a child in a burning building can be the hero of a Hollywood blockbuster. What happens next, we ask? Where's the real hero? She could still be the hero of further plot developments (perhaps continuing medical school and treating children in refugee camps), but a woman is not the hero of her own abortion. Interestingly, in the only movies I know the plot of (Cider House Rules and Vera Drake) where there is abortion and heroism, it's the abortionist who is the hero, and the pregnant women are merely victims and secondary characters, rather than heroes. I've heard High Fidelity has an abortion storyline, and would be interested to hear if it conforms to these "rules." (This comment was inspired partially by Eve Tushnet (especially about maternal heroism) and partially by Barbara Nicolosi (the stuff on Hollywood's aversion to abortion storylines in which the abortion takes place).)

Amy P writes: "If she is unexpectedly pregnant, agonizes, and has an abortion in order to go to college or whatever, that can't be the climax of the script--there's no closure there and the woman isn't the hero, anymore than the firefighter who runs away, leaving a child in a burning building can be the hero of a Hollywood blockbuster. What happens next, we ask? Where's the real hero? She could still be the hero of further plot developments (perhaps continuing medical school and treating children in refugee camps), but a woman is not the hero of her own abortion."

There's a film coming out next year in which a young Barbara Bush (I know, hard to imagine) aborts the fetus Dumbya. She's very definitely the hero of the movie, at least up to that point.

In High Fidelity, no one was really the hero with regards to the abortion (which is only mentioned as something that took place before the events of the movie). John Cusack's girlfriend had an abortion after he got her pregnant because he cheated on her.

"I'd argue that that is precisely the case in Knocked Up. In the movie, abortion is so terrible, so unspeakable, that neither of the two unplanned parents can bring themselves to discuss it as an option.

Posted by Amy P | December 28, 2007 4:21 PM"

I saw that as more not wanting to have the evangelicals protesting over hearing the "a" word, thus acknowledging their cop-out and the fact that with the abortion, there would be no movie. Personally, I thought that the anti-choice guy was portrayed as a bit kooky and silly. In addition, in Knocked Up, it was Heigl's choice of whether to have the baby or not and she didn't seem particularly interested in Rogen's input. When she said "I'm keeping it," that was in a way discussing whether or not to have an abortion, but it was her dictating her choice to Rogen of what to do with her body.

You shouldn't kid yourself. "Juno" is a fantasy for suburban parents, those who generally support abortion rights but still find abortion itself distasteful.

The important people in the movie are the girl's parents. They're cool, they're loose, they're protective of the girl--they're everything a suburban parent would like to think they would be in the horrible event that their teenage daughter got pregnant.

Except, of course, the entire movie is absurd. Would that the teen girls getting pregnant were middle class, spunky, smart white girls who could gift their baby to an overachieving, sterile career woman.

Instead, the teens getting pregnant are extremely poor, not terribly bright, disproportionately black or Hispanic, and keeping their baby because the government will hand them a paycheck--which is far more than any man in their lives will be likely to do.

Gosh, I wonder if Justin Batemen and Jennifer Garner would want a baby from a 13 year old black girl whose boyfriend is in jail for murdering a subordinate gang member who got ambitious?

It's a fantasy--a feelgood picture sold to both conservative and liberal elites who will pretend that some larger social issue has been portrayed and solved. In fact, that's part of the fantasy.

LarryCurlyandMoe:

Good to see you again. Thanks for opening the session talking about mothers. Last time we spoke about your father and you expressed your admiration for his liberal politics and the fact that he read three papers a day. You didn't say anything about his relationship with you. You also didn't speak about your mom. Do you guys get along? Why this hostile rant about a mother aborting her child? Did your mother want to abort you? What is this about? Finally, you keep repeating "Dumbya." I want to start exploring your use of these child-like jokes.

I agree that you don't see a lot of middle class white girls having babies in their teens thanks to a variety of factors: less procreative sex, more soccer and violin, less unsupervised free time, and the occasional abortion to "fix" things. I haven't seen Juno yet, but I think there is some value in having Juno be a white, middle class girl, even if it's uncommon for them to get pregnant, continue the pregnancy, and go through adoption. Keeping race out by making her white does mean that you can concentrate on the issues of pregnancy and adoption better, without adding complicating factors like race and class. If Juno were Black, there'd be the real danger of veering into such film cliches as the magical Black person or the magical nice white lady who brings hope to inner-city teens, etc. Plus, realistically, infertile white American professionals would either be adopting a white American child (a longshot) or doing an international adoption (China, Latin America, Russia, Ukraine, etc.)

There was a memorable New York Times or New York Times magazine article a couple years back, written by the professional parent or parents of a 15 or 16 year old girl. She had gotten pregnant and was stubbornly insisting to have the baby. Her parents had a big intervention with her, bringing in a big group of friends and relatives to persuade her to have an abortion. And she did. Choice was victorious!

Just saw the movie yesterday, and enjoyed it quite a bit. I've gotta agree with the folks he see the movie more as a clebration of Juno's autonomy (and choice) than any kind of anti-abortion brief. Everyone in the movie, including Juno's parent, is open to her getting an abortion, and ulimately respects her choice not too. It's far less abortion-averse than Knocked Up.

The main issue here is narrative. Juno gets an abortion, her life goes on as before, more or less, and then you don't really have story. Pregnancy is a ready-made narrative arc with a beginning, middle, and end. I could see Juno having an abortion in the course of the film, a la Jennifer Jason Leigh in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, but as in the that film, the abortion would be one event in the course of Juno's story, not the foundation for the narrative.

Chris, all your talk about "maternal heroism" is creepy and absurd. Yes, let's limit women's freedom over their bodies, make suffer, stigmatize them is thay breed in the approved fashion, and compell them to endure childbirth for what? So you can feel like some kind of romanticized "heroism" still exists in the world? Is wishing suffering on others in order to feel more noble the defining trait of modern conservatism?

Amy, the problem with the idea that they don't discuss abortion because it's too terrible is that abortion does get discussed in their presence, and they don't react the way they would if it were too unspeakable. Someone who views abortion as a horror would respond differently in those conversations.

On a side note, the idea that Arrested Development is not contrived is kinda silly. Part of the fun of it is the over the top contrived sit-com logic.

Here [Diablo] Cody's politics (presumably pro-choice) are at odds with her plot needs (a birth)

Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. I understand that equating the two is a common libel, but I'd expect The Atlantic to hire people with more integrity. Back to the James Fallows blog, I guess.

Justin,

I guess what I mean is that for the filmmakers, of Knocked Up, abortion is so awful that they can't really have the main characters talking seriously about abortion as an option. You do get other characters (his friends, her mom) talking about abortion, as a sort of proxy for the two main characters. You may be right about the guy's reaction to the conversation. But there is a scene with her mom where her mom tells her to have an abortion like another young woman, so she can later get married and have a "real baby." From Heigl's expression, you can see she doesn't care for that argument. The filmmakers don't belabor the point, but I got the feeling that they want you to feel that it's rather creepy to sacrifice the current baby in favor of the hypothetical "real" baby that would be the product of a hypothetical future relationship with an ambitious, professionally successful guy.

I agree with you that these newer comedies are contrived, but they really do feel fresher, because the material hasn't been done to death. (I loved Shallow Hal, too.) Remember how tired romantic comedies were starting to feel a few years back?

Justin -- Who is wishing suffering on anyone? The point is that suffering happens, often in the context of things that are worth doing or are the right thing to do. Who cares if it makes you feel more noble; the goal is to be noble. The progressive viewpoint as expressed by LaFollette thinks suffering--physical or psychological--is so unthinkable that we ought to erase it and, in the process, erase nobility/heroism/virtue/whatever you want to call it. Modern conservatives, if they are standing up for such things (and I don't know that they always are), are merely trying to preserve the best in humanity. Progressives of the modern stripe want to anaesthetize humanity because they lack the imagination to conceive of evils beyond that of pain and death.

What's funny about the "pro-choice" position is that what it means by providing "choice" is providing a decision without consequences. Like it's some pinnacle of freedom to say, "Either way, it'll turn out fine. Do what you like." If they would couple choice with responsibility, they'd see the other side of the coin. Such as the choice and the consequences of getting knocked up in the first place.

Undergoing an abortion is the consequence. Obviously. Funny how abortion is alternately devastating (Stenberg v. Carhart) and a non-consequence (the above post), depending on the antis' convenience.

z -- My point, perhaps poorly stated, was that the pro-choice position would have it that it is equally easy and unimpactful--"inconsequential," you might say--on a woman (et al) for her to have an abortion or to have a child. No shame, no wonder, no difficulty, no struggle, no pain. So I never claimed that there were no consequences to an abortion or that an abortion would not be the consequence of an unwise sexual encounter, only that pro-abortion types feel it's necessary to make that consequence as insubstantial as possible. And, as expressed by LaFollette, childbirth as well.

I hope my fellow pro-choicers don't go by crazy comment-thread pro-lifers--I'm sure most of them have better reasons for opposing abortion than preserving the heroism of suffering.

If anything, I think a policy of state enforced suffering and toil is the worst threat to heroism of all. It's like a New Deal boondoggle in a spiritual rather than economic form. A necessary struggle is heroic, but a state-mandated struggle is meaningless. The latter turns our trials and tribulations into a hamster wheel--just something to keep us in too much agony to ponder the greater, more subtle mysteries of life.

Pain is only a struggle if we actually try to overcome it--otherwise, it is merely a prison.

I think one point Ross is making that has gotten subsumed in the larger political discussion is that "Juno" is a really well-made, well-written movie, about a believable, individual, memorable character that contains no black and white absolutes, but rather complexities in shades of gray. And sadly, that's a rarity in Hollywood films.

What makes the movie so good is that it's about Juno, who you walk out of the theater thinking of as a real person. At least, I did.

I knew coming out of it that various pro-life and pro-choice people would take it up as their own standard, but I think that's a shame. It's a good movie; can't we just enjoy it at that level without having to politicize it?

(And yes, that was a rhetorical question, I know it's impossible to make a movie about pregnancy in this country without turning it into politics, but a guy can dream, can't he?)

Did Chris Floyd actually read the post by LaFollette Progressive to which he/she claimed to be responding? If LFP had actually advocated abortion as the less-painful alternative to pregnancy and childbirth, then CF's riff would make some kind of sense. But what LFP really said is that we should discourage abortion by minimizing the various discomforts -- presumably the social ones -- associated with carrying the baby to term.

As a response to that argument, CF's position looks like sadism pure and simple. Is it really being argued that pregnancy and childbirth should be as painful as possible? Say goodbye to the epidural? For all pregnant women, or just the unmarried ones?

Think how heroic dental work could be if we did away with novocain.

Let's just bring back puerpal fever. I guess anyone who doesn't flawlessly conform to your personal moral calculus deserves excruciating pain, CF. No lung cancer treatment for smokers, no dental care for people who eat sweets, no ambulance for careless drivers, etc.. It's a lovely world, isn't it? Better yet, let's flog men who have sex, so that they can be heroes too.

"No shame, no wonder, no difficulty, no struggle, no pain."

Right, that's the plan. No discomfort whatsoever. Because we feminists are all-powerful and can definitely accomplish that. Men can become parents without excruciating physical pain and permanent damage-- what's so wrong about wanting that for women too?

CF, you've done a dandy job of unmasking the premises behind the anti-choice position. It's about punishing women for being autonomous, sexual beings. Yes, let's bring a child into the world to punish mom for having sex. That's a humane position.

No one is saying suffering can be utterly eradicated, but I'm of the utilitarian frame of mind that if a society can improve people's lives and reduce suffering in a resonable fashion, it should do so. Is that so crazy? CF, if you want heroic suffering, go flagellate yourself or climb Mt. Hood naked. Leave the rest of us out of it.

The reasons women in these movies keep their babies is because: (1) an abortion ends the story arc and (2) movement conservativism would protest to no end if a sympathetic character in a big-time Hollywood film had an abortion and, like most women who have them, was glad she did so and went on with her life.

In the real world, of course, Jamie Lynn Spears aside, many young women who get pregnant as teenagers have abortions. And many of them are glad they did so. And of course, having that option allows sexually active women to enjoy the types of activities that conservatives believe that an imaginary supernatural being disapproves of. Pissing off that imaginary supernatural being is a good in itself.

LaFollette Progressive wrote:

"I will continue to argue the point that the recent decline in the US abortion rate owes a great deal to the liberalization of sexual mores and the broader social acceptability of unwed motherhood."

The abortion rate hit a high mark of 1.6 million abortions in 1990, and has declined to roughly 1.3 million abortions today. What sexual mores have changed in the last two decades that could plausibly bring out about this decline?

"If you genuinely oppose abortion, then oppose the cultural conservative jihad against all non-traditional lifestyles, stop trying to impose restrictions on women's choices, and instead make it easier and less traumatic for people to choose life."

I will boldly join you in condemning any stoning of a pregnant teenager, and I think my fellow cultural conservative jihadists will also join me in opposing something that never happens in this country. I think the number of abortions obtained to avoid the wrath of screaming pastors and threatening fathers is much higher in the imagination of progressives than it is in real life.

A majority of abortions today are obtained by poor minorities, many of whom lack fathers period, let alone responsible ones.
But I will continue to rail against men who abandon the women they impregnate, which causes more abortions today than the screaming-pastor scenario does. If that makes me a cultural conservative jihadist, then so be it.

Dilan Esper wrote:

"Pissing off that imaginary supernatural being is a good in itself."

Seriously Dilan, how old are you?

I don't think the camera focused in so much on people's fingernails in the abortion clinic as it focused on their hands; and it did so because they were making noises with their hands. Juno was becoming hyperaware, particularly of the seediness of her surroundings, as she became more anxious. That was obviously the point--wasn't it? And I didn't for a moment think she repeated the Asian protester's remark about fingernails for any reason other than that she found it absurd.

It seemed to me that she bolted from the clinic primarily because she found the other people there trashy. I found this to be one of the film's less attractive moments.

it's a movie about a girl who is so infectiously adorable that the writers needed a plot line to keep us focused on her; so, being a 16 year old girl, the best subject was pregnancy. but the movie isn't about abortion, adoption, or Roe v. Wade: it's about how a teenage girl can act like an adult without losing her youth.

torourke quotes and asks: ""Pissing off that imaginary supernatural being is a good in itself."

Seriously Dilan, how old are you? "

I love how theists see making jokes about their sky fairies as a sign of immaturity. These constant "how old are you" rejoinders from torourke and his ilk simply seem peevish and stupid.

There is nothing "mature" about theistic belief. A much larger percentage of children are believers than are adults. This is related to the ability of some adults to develop critical thinking skills. The rest are content believing in omniscient, eternal superdaddies who are greatly concerned with how we use our genitals.

Seriously, torourke, which sort are you?

I throw up a little in my mouth every time I hear people say Knocked Up is a pro-choice movie. The reasoning goes something like this:

"Katherine Heigl's character ends up having the baby, but the deciding factor is that SHE made the CHOICE to not have the abortion. Nobody was forced to have an abortion, and nobody was FORBIDDEN from having one."

Yeah, except within the parameters of the movie she would never have been forbidden from having an abortion. It's set in California. For the sake of realism, the directors have already assumed there aren't stringent abortion laws, as is the case in real life, so the act is technically legal. Yes, she made the decision, but that's a non-sequitor: in liberal California, she is the only one who could have made that decision. But rather than weighing abortion and having the kid equally, as a pro-choice Knocked Up would have had her done, Heigl's character barely even considers the former.

The movie does not have to create some parallel universe where California is Kansas for it to be pro-life. All it has to do is take the view that abortion is a morally unsound decision. And it does. In an abortion-permissive reality that is California, the protagonist views the act as unconscionable. Its advocates are painted as bourgeois materialists hell-bent on keeping an "acceptable" upper-middle class lifestyle.

Or, let's sum it up this way:
A pro-choice Knocked Up would have sent this message: "Abortion is just not the right lifestyle decision for me."
A pro-life Knocked Up sends this message: "How could you be so inhumane as to consider abortion? Are you sick mom?"

I would cheerfully suggest that any lifers dim enough to think that Apatow is seriously presenting their own message in "Knocked Up" could find the same message in "The Omen," another highly successful comedy.

FWIW, "Juno" screenwriter Diablo Cody has said that the germ of the idea for her screenplay was the notion of a pregnant teenager sitting across from prospective yuppie parents. It was the unusual dynamic of these successful people having to prove to a supposed screw-up that they were worthy of adopting her child.

So she said in this "Fresh Air" interview:
http://tinyurl.com/22w7jv

Sure, authorial intent is not the final word. But at least from Cody's perspective, the narrative arc necessitated Juno's deciding to put the child up for adoption.

Doctor X -- least fun person to go to the movies with, ever.

Seriously, that is a complete and utter load of crap, Doctor. Your view that certain things are implied and assumed because the movie is set in 'liberal California' is so insipid that a fourth-grader wouldn't turn it in as part of a book report.

And this point that you and your cohorts keep making:

Its advocates are painted as bourgeois materialists hell-bent on keeping an "acceptable" upper-middle class lifestyle.

keep missing an important point - the characters are portrayed that way because it's fun to laugh at people like that. Only an idiot hell-bent on cocooning extrapolates this crap to the ridiculous extent you are here. I don't think that all local news anchors in the 1970s were thick-headed blowhards just because I saw 'Anchorman.' Do you? (Side note: That was set in San Diego. Is that 'liberal California,' too? Or Orange County? I've been to those places; they ain't liberal.)

You obviously believe that all pro-choicers are like the character of Heigl's mother, but you believe that because you are delusional. You people have created a twisted fantasy world where pro-choice women run out having abortions willy-nilly and never think about how it will affect their lives or their future, and in fact are looking forward to their next one.

Here, by the way, is what your great anti-abortion ally Judd Apatow has to say on the subject:

Part of what is interesting to me is that it’s two people trying to do the right thing and keep the baby. They are trying to decide if they ever could like each other, which is probably something most people don’t do and that’s what hopefully makes it an original concept. I am pro choice and I don’t think anyone should tell anyone else what to do with their bodies or their points of view. I think those decisions are very personal and no one has the answer, so I am pretty solid in that position. But, I also think it’s a very interesting story when you decide not to get an abortion. I am also kind of surprised that it’s shocking to people that they don’t get an abortion because some people say, ‘Wouldn’t they just get an abortion?’ Is it so weird that in this day and age that people are uncomfortable doing that?

So there you go - a pro-choice director made a pro-choice movie. I only state it that way because you and people of your ilk insist on injecting politics into every single thing you see on the screen, desperately searching for validation for your strident point of view. In truth, it's just a movie. But you insist on making it more than that - a statement of some sort. So there you go. Unfortunately, the statement you think has been made, in fact, hasn't.

(Apatow sounds a little like Bill Clinton, actually - Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Amen to that.)

roac and z -- I guess it makes it easier to address my criticism by caricaturing it as sadism or a desire to punish people I don't like. (Perhaps I'm guilty of doing something a similar with LaFollette's comments, and stretching them beyond the limits he intended. I did, however, read his comments carefully and, I believe, responded to what he really said. I did not set out to make any kind of political or moral argument against abortion.)

As I stated before, no one is wishing pain on anyone else. Only in the most two-dimensional view is it equivalent to sadism to suggest that it could be normal, acceptable, and potentially edifying to simply cope with the discomfort and pain that result from one's own choices and obligations. What I contend is that excising that discomfort and pain appears to be an underlying goal of the progressive worldview; if taken too far, I believe that might eradicate the very things we mean by "choices" and "obligations."

Justin K cuts to the quick of my contention by pointing out that this impetus is a natural outgrowth of a purely utilitarian and consequentialist philosophy. No, I don't think utilitarianism is crazy, and of course I believe in alleviating pain when feasible and beneficial. But I don't believe that eliminating pain is the foundation of ethics. (It might, in fact, mean the collapse of ethics.) Nor do I believe that autonomy and sexual expression are rights to be served up in boundless quantities. Why today we seem to have the same attitude toward the pleasure of sex that the decadent Roman nobility had to their food and vomitoria (which we now, I think, find rightly repulsive), I can't explain.

Justin is less perceptive when he thinks that I would prescribe a child as punishment for sexual misbehavior. I don't tend to think of a child as punishment for anything.

(For the record, I also object to the rather strange egalitarianism expressed by z, which states that if men can "become parents without excruciating physical pain," women are entitled to the same. I'm not against analgesia in childbirth. But only in science fiction could men and women have the same or even similar experiences in childbirth. The word "parents" is a misleadingly general term in the context z uses it; we can only talk adequately about childbirth and childrearing by referring to men becoming fathers and women becoming mothers, as the two are quite different things--and not, in the common misperception of our day, purely due to reasons of "social construction." It's a matter quite plainly of biological construction.)

I just watched it again, a week after my first viewing, and liked it even more this time.

Even though I enjoyed it last week, being pro-choice definitely caused the abortion politics aspect of the movie to linger in my mind throughout the film.

This time I was able to focus more on the 'can two people stay together/who is right for you' angle, and how it relates to two main couples in the movie. Ultimately, that is really what the movie is about. And that is pretty danm well done.

As someone said much earlier, at the end of the day it is simply a really good movie.

But CF, you are suggesting that women be forced to undergo pain that could be avoided, to punish them for having sex. Would you impose similar denials of medical care on any other groups? Smokers? People with venereal diseases? Careless drivers? Overeaters? Do tell. A morality check at the hospital door?

I don't think the camera focused in so much on people's fingernails in the abortion clinic as it focused on their hands; and it did so because they were making noises with their hands. Juno was becoming hyperaware, particularly of the seediness of her surroundings, as she became more anxious. That was obviously the point--wasn't it? And I didn't for a moment think she repeated the Asian protester's remark about fingernails for any reason other than that she found it absurd.

Seriously? Watch it again. That scene is all about the sound of fingernails. If this was an unintentional coincidence, it's a pretty carelessly made movie.

For the third time, I am not suggesting that pain is a punishment for having sex or that there ought to be some policy that makes it so. I'm saying that the attitude that insists that whatever choices we make we should be insulated--the more completely the better--from the pain, discomfort, confusion, difficulty, and danger that may result from those choices is strange, impossible, and misguided. I think it has serious implications for the development of virtue in human beings. There is no morality test of any kind: When I objected to LaFollette Progressive's statements, we were both referring to "those who choose life" and later I referred to the consequences of those who have an abortion. I object just as strongly to insulating people from the difficulties of having babies as I do to insulating people from the difficulties of eliminating them.

Again, I'm not making a political argument, but a philosophical one. I am challenging the stance, basically, that mitigation of pain and avoidance of suffering is the vital core of ethical behavior, public or private. It is true that I see this utilitarian view as a primary--probably an inextricable--element of the pro-choice position and a significant flaw in its ideology.

I think CF's argument is that if pain and suffering is eliminated as a consequence of one's decision, the decision to go through that torment ceases to be noble. If you eliminate all painful outcomes, then the person who makes a choice to go through with the painful choice ceases to be better than the person who makes the other choice.

For example: If pregnancy and childbirth are rendered merely uncomfortable, then those who choose pregnancy over abortion are less enobled by their decision.

It's all about proving how much BETTER you are than everybody else who takes the easy way out.

Or something.

I feel so sorry for Chris Floyd's poor wife. I really do. But I'm just a soft liberal weakling, so what do I know?

Chris Floyd writes: "I am challenging the stance, basically, that mitigation of pain and avoidance of suffering is the vital core of ethical behavior, public or private. It is true that I see this utilitarian view as a primary--probably an inextricable--element of the pro-choice position and a significant flaw in its ideology."

Similar stupidity is often used as an argument by people who want to deny sick people the use of medical marijuana, or by opponents of assisted suicide. The notion of great pain and suffering as an opportunity for the display of heroism or nobility always sounds better when you're not the one doing the suffering, I suspect.

I see some true heroism in the efforts to alleviate suffering. I even see this in the efforts of some doctors to keep abortion clinics operating despite the constant threats of violence from "pro-life" fanatics. But perhaps that's just me.

Easy there, Woody, with the ad homs. In all actuality, I'm a libertarian who sits on the fence when it comes to abortion. In fact, you and I probably share the same views when it comes to abortion policy: safe, regulated, and rare. My only beef with pro-choicers is their insistence that it is a "woman's right," as if collective gender rights existed, or more importantly, as if we should wholly and totally dismiss the ethical dilemma of "killing" embryos. In light of the fact that we are unsure what constitutes life, we should go forth with as much caution as possible. It doesn't mean we should throw mothers or abortion doctors in jail, but it does mean that we shouldn't permit women to "assert their reproductive rights" with free reign.

So yes, if you must, you can group me with my "cohorts."

But let's get to your arguments:
1) Is the mother figure portrayed as a yuppy bitch because it's funny? I don't know, but if so I didn't find her very funny. I just thought she was despicable.
2) Does it matter that Apatow is pro-choice? I'm one to dismiss the views of authors and directors and artists etc ex post facto unless the work is about them. Once they've created their piece it is open to any and all interpretations, provided one can justify that position. (ie. Dumbledore is not gay, and Gone Baby Gone is a closet neoconservative movie)
3) And so, what I was getting at before: in a movie set in a state with more relaxed abortion policies, it's not enough to argue that the film is pro-choice simply because the protagonist had a choice. By default she does, as does any person in California. The real reason I find that movie to be pro-life is because in an environment where choice was provided, the protagonist barely considered it a viable option (running contrary to conventional expectations from someone of her age and socio-economic status). And it's not just some fluke. Heigl openly rejects her mother's suggestion to "take care of it," as if it were some insane, murderous idea. And to a pro-lifer, it is.

It may have only been a personal decision, and in that context, it is not a political movie. But Heigl's ethical stance is pretty firmly on the pro-life side, and when we are talking about such an ethically intensive issue such as abortion, personal, ethical positions have political resonance.

Btw, I don't think all pro-choice women are like the protagonists' mother. I think they seriously consider their options and understand the gravity of their decisions. But I also think most pro-choice women are NOT like Heigl: somebody who barely considers abortion as a viable option at all.

"Again, I'm not making a political argument, but a philosophical one."

Bullshit. What you are doing is trying to create some ridiculous theoretical justifications for stripping women of a set of hard-won rights - and that is a political act. Don't be surprised by the pushback you get for doing that, Chris, or by the contempt you receive from those who see women as something more than playing pieces in your sad little parlor game.

Two notes:

1. There don't seem to be a lot of women participating in this thread. I wonder why not? One possible explanation is that the tone has gotten nasty enough to drive a lot of possible female participants away. Plus, in all of this highly chivalrous defending of women's reproductive rights, let's not forget that American women are more often pro-life than not.

2. Doctor X's argument that the text is independent of the author goes by the name "death of the author" with the lit crit crowd. I'd take a compromise view that the author's interpretation deserves a hearing, but that it's often one among several plausible interpretations. A text with literary merit tends to be polyvalent and slippery, as eager to escape its author as the ring was to escape Frodo.

Good Christ.

"LaFollette's so-called progressive agenda is a progression to the abolition of heroism via a morality without restrictions...", etc.

What rank nonsense is this? Where the hell do you get the idea that I wish to abolish heroism or virtue and eradicate pain? Or advocate a morality without restrictions? You claim to be addressing what I actually wrote, but that's just simply absurd. I'm sure that all the amoral, heroism-hating liberals who live in your head were deeply shamed by your brilliant riposte.

The simple facts are that unwed motherhood is far less stigmatized than it once was, and the abortion rate peaked in the early 1990s and has declined substantially since then. You can rationalize away this correlation all you want, and promote some myth-steeped agenda of chastity, purity, reducing lifestyle choices for adults, and opposing efforts to make life less difficult for working mothers. You can claim that efforts to alleviate pain and suffering will destroy heroism and virtue. Go right ahead. I'm perfectly happy to put those questions before the voters.

"I think the number of abortions obtained to avoid the wrath of screaming pastors and threatening fathers is much higher in the imagination of progressives than it is in real life."

I think that regardless of how high that number is, it's certainly lower than it was 20 or 30 years ago. I also think you're severely underrating the quieter, more powerful effects of social taboo.

I also think you're slightly nuts if you think that progressives and feminists have any higher regard for scumbags who impregnate and abandon women than cultural conservatives do. The difference is that cultural conservatives tend to support the punitive policies and attitudes toward unwed mothers that have traditionally led such women to choose to have abortions, whether legal or otherwise.

I suppose that Magdalene Asylums were "heroic" from a certain point of view. But that point of view deserves nothing but scorn.

tweez -- It might surprise you to find out that I don't hold the blatantly silly summary of my position that you've outlined. Is a person who suffers better than a person who doesn't? Not at all, although a person who knows how to deal with suffering may be better off than one who doesn't. I have less fear of the actual removal of pain and suffering from the equation (which, after all, is in all likelihood impossible) than I do of the impulse to that removal and its broader implications. To use a literary shorthand, I worry that the thrust of the agenda voiced by LaFollette and others is in the direction of a Brave New World, where materialistic utilitarianism leads to hedonism leads to slavery. Not through some authoritarian politics, but through a philosophical and moral deadening and defining down of freedom, choice, and responsibility.

LaFollette Progressive -- I extrapolated pretty wildly from your original point and it was unfair of me to thereafter attribute any of the opinions I was describing to you personally. But I also think the further discussion bears me out, and that the "progressive agenda" I was talking about of solving problems by alleviating pain is not just imaginary. Its extreme consequences (an "abolition of heroism") are, in a different sense, imaginary, but I don't think that makes them meaningless figments, but a thought experiment into where such an impulse leads. I will point out that your argument about the abortion rate and sexual liberation (which I'm not qualified to assess) is clearly utilitarian and pragmatic in nature, which probably doesn't bother you in the slightest. But there will at least be some reasonable pro-lifers who refuse to follow your logic that the ends of a lower abortion rate justify the means of broadened sexual license. I suppose that if the dialogue that has taken place here (for which I sincerely thank all my interlocutors) proves anything, it's that certain debates on policy--or film criticism, for that matter--will remain irresolvable because the fundamental assumptions of what constitutes morality and propriety are, often unknowingly, disputed.

Amy P writes: "There don't seem to be a lot of women participating in this thread. I wonder why not? One possible explanation is that the tone has gotten nasty enough to drive a lot of possible female participants away. Plus, in all of this highly chivalrous defending of women's reproductive rights, let's not forget that American women are more often pro-life than not."

I'm not sure what magical powers enable Amy to discern the sex of the (at least) 11 gender-neutral screen names up above, but if she doesn't know that political blogs attract a predominantly male audience she hasn't been doing this for very long. A conservative site like Ross's is even more unbalanced in this regard, since so many paleocons come here to thump each other on the chests while bragging about how much they hate everyone else on the planet.

I suspect that when it comes right down to it, most American women know other women who have had abortions and have been supportive of them in one way or another. I'm certain most of them don't think having an abortion should be a criminal offense.

Chris Floyd: I am honestly trying to understand and to engage with your argument, and to damp down the flame wars, by giving you a chance to back off from the literal implications of what you have said.

Do you really believe that all efforts to alleviate human suffering are philosophically pernicious and tend toward Huxleyan dystopia?

I invited you to say that you are not against anesthesia, and you didn't bite. I now repeat the invitation. What about antibiotics? Safe drinking water, and the consequent elimination of that inspiring occasion of heroism, the cholera epidemic? Central heating? Warm clothing? Fire?

If as I hope you are not against any of these, I suggest you say so, and then provide some concrete examples of what you b>are against. Why volunteer to be a straw man?

Who cares if it makes you feel more noble; the goal is to be noble. The progressive viewpoint as expressed by LaFollette thinks suffering--physical or psychological--is so unthinkable that we ought to erase it and, in the process, erase nobility/heroism/virtue/whatever you want to call it.

There are a number of problems with CF’s arguments. First, CF simply assumes his conclusion -- that choosing to experience painful results is an "obligation" that progressive policies then evade. (But many of us don’t consider, say, pregnancy and end-of-life suffering as obligations in the first place.) Second, and in a similar vein, it’s not that we are against virtue or good action as such, but rather that there are actually alternate conceptions of virtue to which many of us subscribe, ideas with rationales far better developed than those of the poorly explained difficulty-centered view CF expounds here.

One such alternate notion would hold that CF has largely confused means and ends. Heroism is important primarily because it reflects dedication to the cause or value its efforts seek to advance, which we must first admire in order to find much meaning in the ostensibly heroic behavior being considered. Only to a much lesser degree and in a more contingent sense is struggle sometimes valuable for what it may do to the struggler’s psyche (for it’s own sake, as it were). The quick way to understand this distinction is to say that soldiers on both sides of a battlefield are engaging in struggle, but that they probably are not therefore equally praiseworthy, that war is not supposed to be an end in itself but rather about something, that unless one side’s cause is indeed better than the other’s and thus more worthy of support that the war is an absurd and unjust waste of lives, and that it’s really something of an insult to troops’ sacrifices to suggest that they should be or are fighting not for particular values, such as (one hopes, in a just war) freedom, national security, humanitarianism, and their own and their colleagues’ lives, but merely for the sake of fighting.

I would have written my last post somewhat differently had I read CF’s 11:11 post first. So let me add, more responsively, that the problem with the dystopia of Brave New World, as I see it, was not its commitment to sexual freedom, pleasure, and personal happiness (“hedonism”) but its adherents’ shallow, ill-considered notions of which lifestyles can be expected to yield much of these goods. To blame hedonism and suggest “responsibility” is the central missing concept is in a sense to duplicate an error the immature denizens of Huxley’s world made, namely that of confusing the periphery with the center. Responsibility is not something they need to learn for its own sake (although learning it has beneficial consequences), lest they accept the unjust burdens of, say, the helpers of our society, often overworked, underpaid, and underappreciated, who burn out and leave, say, the field of teaching or nursing after only a few years, made worse off and cynical for their embrace of the ethic that suggests responsibility or doing good ought to be its own reward. No, the Huxley characters need to learn responsibility because maturity -- the comitment to a deeper kind of happiness, which would probably include a substantial indentification of one’s well-being with that of other people and the community -- requires it; and such a notion of maturity would allow them to keep changing their roles and deepening their well-being over time, as they sought lifestyles and social structures that took their changing experience seriously (as opposed to mocking this attention by equating it to “if it feels good, do it”). The truth is that reducing suffering and attending to issues of equity in one’s life and society require plenty of responsibility, rather than being opposed to it.

The problem with too many of the pro-choice commentators on this thread is that they appear not to understand the meaning of Christ on the Cross, and that they appear to have a childish understanding of suffering. Either it is something bad to be avoided at all costs, or something good to be embraced at costs. But that is an absurd and childish way of looking at things. A thing can be evil in its essence, yet it can also be necessary for a good to come about. Again, the crucifixion was simultaneously the most evil and the most good thing every to happen in the history of the universe.

In general, we cannot understand the concept of good without evil to oppose it. This is part of the reason that I hold the heretical belief that the Devil has existed eternally.

More specifically: I believe that the attempt to build an economy based on substituting machine labor, more and more, in every possible case, for human labor is inherently evil. I believe that the invention of economic structures to allow people to receive incomes based on property and not on labor, and the dream of a future in which machines do all the unpleasant work, are inherently evil. I believe that the attempt to genetically improve the human race or to develop treatments that allow us to live to 200 years of age, are essentially evil.

To use a simple example, consider John 15:13. The clear implication is that a world without death would be a world without suffering, hence without sacrifice, hence without love. Death is what gives meaning to life. This was perhaps the hidden meaning within the old Spanish war cry, "Long live death."

Death, physical labor and pregnancy are all analogous in that they were all traditionally universal constants (labor was at least until the invention of private property) to which all humans were subject, and which served as tokens of our ultimate subservience to God. This is the hidden, metaphorical sense in which I take the Garden of Eden myth. The attempt to separate pregnancy from childbirth (i.e. abortion) is of a piece with the attempt to separate death from life, or labor from reward, and is equally immoral.

You should all read the last two chapters of 'Road to Wigan Pier'. Orwell (a socialist and atheist by the way) makes the case that socialism must recognize the importance of struggle, suffering and sacrifice if it is ever to form a creed that can inspire anyone.

Hector writes: "The problem with too many of the pro-choice commentators on this thread is that they appear not to understand the meaning of Christ on the Cross, and that they appear to have a childish understanding of suffering. Either it is something bad to be avoided at all costs, or something good to be embraced at costs. But that is an absurd and childish way of looking at things. A thing can be evil in its essence, yet it can also be necessary for a good to come about. Again, the crucifixion was simultaneously the most evil and the most good thing every to happen in the history of the universe."

Or it can be seen as a slapstick farce, which is what my li'l nickname here suggests.

Taking the Christian myths as written, if this Jesus was real he was divine, and knew every step of the way that his existence wasn't ending, and that he'd be buzzing up above with the other sky fairies after his inconvenient weekend. I would suggest that this isn't true heroism at all, and that millions of human beings have died more heroic deaths, since a human offering up his life for someone else really is facing into the abyss of uncertainty. I'm Spartacus! Jesus wasn't Spartacus. Jesus had a Get Out Of Death Free card.

If anything the saga of Fetus Jesus is much more heartbreaking and a much more impressive sacrifice. Spending 9 months in a damp, windowless environment with no TV and little freedom of movement is very impressive. Sure, maybe he had Thai food sent in once in a while, but with no Singha to wash it down, that would be little solace. And as a fetus, he couldn't even chew.

LaFollette,

I should make it clear that I do, basically accept much of your argument about what we should do to reduce the number of abortions. I'm certainly opposed to stigmatizing unwed mothers, and I'm also opposed to the idea that pre-marital intercourse is always wrong. I don't imagine that you want to do away with heroism, virtue, suffering, and death. Some people do, I think, and they need to be challenged.

I also think that however much you make it easier for women not to become pregnant or to carry babies to term (through better sex education, more extensive contraceptive availability, less stigma towards unmarried sex and motherhood, which are all good things), you are going to need legal or at the very least moral sanctions against abortion as well. Otherwise, abortion is simply too attractive an option. It's cheap, easy, and safe. The proof is that abortion (or infanticide which is closely related) was common in most societies throughout history. Only by making it illegal or at the very least stigmatized, _in combination with_ better adoption, education, contraception measures, can we hope to reduce abortion.

Moe,

I believe that the general understanding is that Our Lord was simultaneously possessed of a divine and a human nature, contained within one person and two intellects. His divine nature suppressed certain aspects of itself so as not to subsume his human nature. The ability to see the future was one of the things that He suppressed, which is why He disclaimed knowledge of when the apocalypse would come. Similarly, when he prayed to His Father on the cross, He was praying in virtue of his human nature, which was not gifted with foresight. So he didn't KNOW he would rise again, he _believed_ it, which is why it was a miracle of faith.

This makes sense to me, though it may not to you.

Hector replies: "I believe that the general understanding is that Our Lord was simultaneously possessed of a divine and a human nature, contained within one person and two intellects. His divine nature suppressed certain aspects of itself so as not to subsume his human nature. The ability to see the future was one of the things that He suppressed, which is why He disclaimed knowledge of when the apocalypse would come. Similarly, when he prayed to His Father on the cross, He was praying in virtue of his human nature, which was not gifted with foresight. So he didn't KNOW he would rise again, he _believed_ it, which is why it was a miracle of faith."

Since I was raised Catholic, Hector, I know all of that. Since I have educated myself about these things, I know that that interpretation of the Gospels took a long time coming and is no more present in the initial writings than the Creature From The Black Lagoon is.

Theologians had a long time to concoct a not-so-savvy load of nonsense about a story which didn't make much sense in the first place. You can consider it a "miracle of faith," but the actual phrase used is "mystery of faith," and it's called that essentially BECAUSE it makes no sense.

MLAJ,

There are lots of women online who don't bother to conceal their gender, even on political blogs. It does seem like the friendlier the online community, the more likely there are to be women there, and the more likely they will post with recognizably feminine handles. I would argue that the ad hominem quality of a lot of your postings is the sort of thing that causes female commentors to stay away in droves, or to veil their gender. Firstly, because there's no point in communication without respect, and secondly, because one might be unwittingly attracting the attention of some sort of creepy stalker person. With all due respect, MLAJ, that's what you sound like on bad days. I'm only bothering to write this because I think you are smart (judging by some of your remarks on books), but need a new hobby other than interacting with people you don't respect. So, if you'd like more women to participate on political blogs (and I'm sure you do), keep it civil. (Also, don't you think that this subject matter would normally draw a lot of "I as a woman..." comments if there were a lot of women posting?)

I think the thread so far has been combining a discussion of the legality of abortion with a discussion of the advisability of abortion, which is quite a different matter. MLAJ correctly states that American women do not want to punish women who've had abortions. That doesn't prove much, though, because traditionally in the US, legal punishments were reserved for abortionists. Simply suspending medical licenses would be a very big deal. If abortion were to become illegal (or at least more regulated), that would presumably be the model to return to. Other options would be increased health and safety regulation of abortion clinics, ultrasounds to determine stage of fetal development, improved patient education and better informed consent, and/or giving the abortion industry the tobacco industry treatment.

It's interesting how rare adoption is for unplanned American infants. Young women either have the baby or abort it--there's no acceptable third option in contemporary life. A college student or an unmarried working woman is not going to go through the adoption process. I don't know why that is, exactly, but I can guess. If you give birth to and adopt out an infant, it's like a public confession that things are not going according to plan and your life is not working out the way you wanted it to. And it would be socially really awkward to be publicly pregnant for half a year and then not pregnant, and have to go around telling people that you were giving up your baby. (A nice big scarlet A would be preferable--at least you don't have to explain the thing.) I can see how single motherhood would seem a better option, especially when you've already commited to the hard work of gestating and giving birth to the baby.

This is already long, but I'd like to mention that I've been amazed by how many married upper-middle class, American women wind up with unplanned "bonus" babies. We as a nation aren't that great with birth control, apparently. Also, I'm going to need to remember to mention early and often to our kids that if they had an unexpected pregnancy, we would pitch in, that it wouldn't wreck their lives or our lives, and they wouldn't have to give up their baby.

Amy P replies: "There are lots of women online who don't bother to conceal their gender, even on political blogs. It does seem like the friendlier the online community, the more likely there are to be women there, and the more likely they will post with recognizably feminine handles. I would argue that the ad hominem quality of a lot of your postings is the sort of thing that causes female commentors to stay away in droves, or to veil their gender. Firstly, because there's no point in communication without respect, and secondly, because one might be unwittingly attracting the attention of some sort of creepy stalker person. With all due respect, MLAJ, that's what you sound like on bad days. I'm only bothering to write this because I think you are smart (judging by some of your remarks on books), but need a new hobby other than interacting with people you don't respect. So, if you'd like more women to participate on political blogs (and I'm sure you do), keep it civil. (Also, don't you think that this subject matter would normally draw a lot of "I as a woman..." comments if there were a lot of women posting?)"

Sorry, Amy, but that's just foreign to my experience. At least half of the people who email me with positive responses to my posts are women. It may be true that any women shy away from aggressive posting, but at least just as many seem to appreciate such posting when the targets are dimwitted knuckle-dragging anti-feminist Repiglicans. And yeah, I know that's a really redundant phrase, but I enjoyed writing it.

I am aware that I tend to be more civil towards posters that are female - it could be because I'm aware of what you're saying, or a product of my upbringing, or just that very few women posting online are as dense as Chris Ford or Fitz or torourke.

In any case civility isn't always the best course. The Democrats in the House and Senate should be a whole lot more uncivil these days as far as I'm concerned.

But presumably the women who think (based on your postings) that you might have a thing for Jodie Foster and a trunk equipped with hacksaw, plastic sheeting and duct tape are going to steer clear of you. The question is not how many women write you applauding your stuff, but how many feel comfortable writing to disagree with you.

Amy P again: "But presumably the women who think (based on your postings) that you might have a thing for Jodie Foster and a trunk equipped with hacksaw, plastic sheeting and duct tape are going to steer clear of you. The question is not how many women write you applauding your stuff, but how many feel comfortable writing to disagree with you."

That's your question, not mine. I would say that women who think I'm a Hinckley-in-waiting are exceedingly stupid. You don't even think I'm that yourself.

I suppose if I werre interested in conversing with timid women I'd include references to kittens and flowers and the Baby Jeezass in all of my posts. But let's face it - I'd never have any particular reason to speak with the kitten/flower/Baby Jeezass women. What would the topics be?

I think you have a very different view of women than I do. I think most of them can handle a few harsh words here and there. Laura Bush seems as demure as they come, but she bangs a war criminal and doesn't seem fazed by it.

LaFollette Progressive wrote:

"The simple facts are that unwed motherhood is far less stigmatized than it once was, and the abortion rate peaked in the early 1990s and has declined substantially since then. You can rationalize away this correlation all you want, and promote some myth-steeped agenda of chastity, purity, reducing lifestyle choices for adults, and opposing efforts to make life less difficult for working mothers."

This was not addressed to me, but it relates to our exchange, so I'll take a stab at it. The correlation that you note is true enough, but the causation analysis is mistaken, as there is no evidence that the decline of roughly three hundred thousand abortions over the last two decades is due to any decline in the stigmatization of unwed-motherhood. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimated that this drop was primarily due to the decrease in the number of abortions among the 15-17 cohort, which would seem to support your thesis. The problem is that the birth rate also declined for this cohort, so any decreasing stigmatization of unwed motherhood would not apply. AGI suggests in their own analysis that the drop in the teenage pregnancy rate is about three-quarters more effective contraception use and one-quarter delayed sexual activity use.


"I think that regardless of how high that number is, it's certainly lower than it was 20 or 30 years ago. I also think you're severely underrating the quieter, more powerful effects of social taboo."

Look, I agree with you that the decline in the scolding of unwed mothers a la Hester Prynne is a good thing. It was uncharitable, and unfair in its application as the fathers usually escaped condemnation. But since I think your analysis of the decline of abortions over the last two decades is wrong, I will plead innocent to your charge of not fully appreciating the social taboo at hand.

Let me add that I am greatly impressed at the nerve on display of a progressive like you suggesting that a cultural conservative jihadist like me is not sufficiently attentive to a change in social taboos. What's the word for chutzpah in Wisconsin?

"I also think you're slightly nuts if you think that progressives and feminists have any higher regard for scumbags who impregnate and abandon women than cultural conservatives do."

Well, they have certainly fooled me on this one given the extent to which the left has ignored or minimized the problems of illegitimacy in our nation's underclass. The left was not exactly receptive to Daniel Patrick Moynihan's report on the declining black family in the 1960's, and I rarely, if ever, encounter any meaningful discussion of the problems of illegitimacy as they relate to the underclass in left-of-center publications. Ignoring or minimizing the problem is not a celebration of it, but to imply that the attitudes toward illegitimacy have been about the same on the left as they have been on the right is, well, simply nuts.


"The difference is that cultural conservatives tend to support the punitive policies and attitudes toward unwed mothers that have traditionally led such women to choose to have abortions, whether legal or otherwise."

I think I have covered the attitudes part, but you'll have to specify the punitive policies part for me to respond.

"I suppose that Magdalene Asylums were "heroic" from a certain point of view. But that point of view deserves nothing but scorn."

Well thank goodness you cleared that one up, because I was wondering where you stood on the issue of the way some sadistic 19th-century Irish nuns treated young women. I think we can add this unfortunate chapter of history to the stoning of pregnant women on our list of things we both dislike.
To head off any future strawmen, let me declare once and for all that the Holocaust was also one of history's really bad things.

All snark aside LaFollette Progressive, you are easily my favorite lefty commenter on this board, and your posts are generally a breath of fresh air in comparison to the juvenile rantings of Dilan Esper and MoeLarryandJesus. I don't even hold