Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Recommended reading | Main | Swords Crossed »

May 21, 2006

Scott Wins a Prize


Scott Wins a Prize.jpg, originally uploaded by Lindsay Beyerstein.

Pro-choice BINGO was a huge success.

As you can see, Scott Lemieux won big.

More photos later this evening.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00d834c165a569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Scott Wins a Prize :

Comments

Not to be a buzz kill, or anything, but the term "pro-choice" itself is a compromise. The term is Pro-reproductive rights. Abortion is not a choice, it's a right. It's a human right.

I like the chick with the blue hair. I wish there were more blue-haired chicks here in Casper (besides the 80 yr. old women, that is).

Isn't the choice to have an abortion a choice?

Mudkitty, I don't understand how the term "pro-choice" implies a compromised committment to re-productive rights. On the contrary, it's your suggestion that "abortion is not a choice, it's a right" that strikes me as a dangerous characterization of the notion of human rights in the context of re-production. I assume that if every woman were guaranteed access to abortion but did hot have the option of carry a fetus to term without approval from the goverment, you would find the situation abhorent. It's "the right to choose that seems to me to deliver a more comprehensive statement of respect" for a woman's autonomy regarding her own body.

Its just playing semantics, on the level of 'my rhetoric can beat up your rhetoric'. The pro-lifers actually did a better job in this case since 'the right to life' is actually in the american declaration of independence.

A lack of access to abortion, for women who want it, is shortsighted and stupid of course, but calling it a 'right' is just another sales job. Double plus good.

Reproductive rights and blue hair women. Yay!

Is bodily autonomy not a right? Or is it just not a right if it's a woman's body?

I suspect, Joe, that you have no idea what Newspeak really is. It was an attempt to get rid of words like "rights" so the government had an easier time taking those things from people.

On another subject: Yea, Scott! WOOT! All bingo games require blue-haired ladies.

So who is the charming person with the blue hair? And is it a wig?

Actually there was more to it than that Amanda. It was about removing certain 'concepts' entirely through a process that not only included removing words, but also manipulating and distorting other words, as in 'war is peace', and their meaning to fit political ends.

'Reproductive rights' is a euphemism, a watering down of language so people don't have say abortion, when really that is exactly what we are talking about. Abortion is not about reproduction, its about stopping reproduction after all. Thus: Newspeak.

And if you think having a 'right' to a thing translates even remotely to 'having access' to that thing I'd say you don't know what 'access' means. I'm for women having ACCESS to ABORTION, if they want/need it. And I don't need someone else to tell me how to say it. But thanks for your help.

Oh, and blue hair and bingo does nothing for me, but to each your own.

You people are pathetic. "Who's the chick with blue hair?", reminds me of the first "Take Back America" conference when I was one of the few younger people at the aftershow and Arianna Huffington was performing. As a guy surrounded by mostly middle aged guys with nothing to do and no creativity as to how to have fun in D.C. in the evening, I found them drunkenly calling for Arianna to "take it off!" when, in the course of her act, her top fell a little bit...

Better to go out and eat Ethiopian food in DC than to be found making an ass out of yourself because you're a repressed middle aged progressive who get's their kicks off of harassing Arianna Huffington.

Oh drat, this sort of puts negativity into the comments section....

The lovely lady in the blue wig is half of the Missile Dick Chicks. I believe her stage name is "Nemesis." They're a parody burlesque act who, I must say, looked totally hot (despite their, um, prostheses).

They were certainly vamping it up, much to the delight of the predominantly female crowd. All in good fun, and to benefit a worthy cause.

I still like "pro-choice" as a frame. Maybe they should have called the party "Right To Choose Bingo," or something. But since one of the beneficiaries is called Mississippi, I can't be too critical.

Sure, the right to life is guaranteed. But so is liberty, not to mention the pursuit of happiness. What is liberty, after all, if not the right to make your own choices?

"Reproductive rights" is the most accurate synopsis of what we're fighting for. Abortion access is a very important component of the struggle. However, it's not the whole story. Women in China have access to abortion on demand, but they don't have full reproductive rights because the government can force women to abort or punish them if they have children outside the law.

Imagine if our society had access to free abortions on demand, but zero access to contraception or sex education. In that case, abortion access would allow for some reproductive freedom, but not the full exercise of reproductive rights.

You make a good point, there are instances where 'reproductive rights' might be a valid phrase. It just seems self-contradicting with regards to 'abortion' and I've never been much impressed by the empty rhetoric that gets thrown around and around, be it pro or con. It seems to me, the reality is, human 'rights' are better described as privileges of wealth and/or citizenship. That is my own bias.

China is a good example where pro-choice is an even a better phrase though, as it emphasizes the 'liberty' aspect which is so lacking there... not just on the reproductive front.
To be fair, I think china has a moral dilemna the west hasn't really faced. Clearly overpopulation demands some sorts of action. But as humans, we are often prone to do too much or too little and then for the wrong reasons. Its easy to criticise of course.

Similarly, I think sex-ed and contraception, although obviously positive things in my own mind(knock on wood), can easily be seen as threatening to someone with differing core values. You can't educate around someone's belief in a soul, or the things that they believe might harm it. Ridiculing their belief doesn't help much either. Freedom of religion is another liberty.

I think giving people options is the best one can do. Access and choice. I also think slogans and pendantic nattering about definitions only makes a person look foolish.

But now I sound harsh...I'm typing too much, and I still don't get the blue hair, although the missle cocks obviously speak for themselves... such mockery the simple penis must continually endure...

I think I've determined that the phrase "not to be a buzzkill" will be followed by a buzz-killing, fun-thwarting, unnecessary diversion about 99.87% of the time. More info on Ms. Fire Thunder, less semantics.

So you guys don't think abortion is a right?

You can choose between a lollypop and an ice cream cone. I think the term pro-choice is much weaker phrase than the phrase "reproductive rights." It's weaslely and apologetic, as in "it wouldn't be my choice, but I wouldn't presume to make the choice for someone else..." You hear that crap all the time. It's a phrase that reinforces the concept of "abortion should be legal and rare" when it's nobody's business in the first place how many abortions a woman does or doesn't have. "Keep abortion safe and legal" is the proper phrase, unless you want to get rolled by the opposition. Pro-choise is a lousey frame.

Hell, just call me "Pro-abortion."

How many others here thought the was LB it the wig? I htought it was why he "won big".

And Summerisle, enjoy your Ethiopian food. (Damn, I used to be so hip.) It won't be near as hot as the chick with the smile. And the blue hair.

Somewhat off-topic, the NY TIMES magazine's May 7 article on contraception notes that an editorial in HUMAN EVENTS made the disturbing and increasingly-often articulated point that poor people shouldn't be having sex. This is, of course, nothing more than a tarted-up version of "Only the fittest [as evidenced by their economic standing] should reproduce."

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=2653&topicId=100020589&docId=l:383478903&start=1. The quote is in something like the 45th paragraph.

Good grief, what made this thing think I'm Thom? A thousand apologies, Thom, whoever and wherever you are.

The comments to this entry are closed.