Another day, another clueless Hollywood “feminist” gets involved in the abortion debate:
(CNN) — It’s been a little more than a week since Cynthia Nixon flew back from filming “Sex and the City 2″ in Morocco, and she’s already diving headfirst into the debate surrounding abortion and health care reform.
Nixon, a longtime abortion rights activist, says she can’t keep quiet about the recent health care bill amendments that would limit insurance coverage for abortions.
“It’s a very basic female right that we need to protect,” Nixon said. “What’s so frightening about this Stupak ban is that he’s found a backdoor way to basically not cover abortion for the vast majority of American women.”
CNN: In addition to the issue being complicated, some … have pointed to a problem of complacency as well. How do you broach this topic with a generation that has always had some sense of reproductive rights?
Nixon: I think we can continue to tell stories about backstreet abortions and how horrible they are. The idea of making access to safe abortions harder and more expensive and more difficult, having to travel across state lines — that puts women’s health and lives in jeopardy, which is something I think no one wants.
CNN: Let’s pretend for a minute that the health care bill never existed. Was there anything that worried you about reproductive rights before health care reform?
Nixon: The people who concern me the most are the people who want to illegalize abortion, and even more scary to me, they also want to make contraception hard to get. I don’t want women to have abortions. The people who really are trying to reduce the number of abortions through sex ed and contraceptive information and distribution, I think they have the exact right idea.
CNN: “Sex and the City” did the now-famous episode where your character, Miranda Hobbes, chose to have an abortion only to change her mind at the last minute. Was there a message in that episode? What was it?
Nixon: The message was choice. Miranda is a fighter. If she had to fight to get to that abortion, if there were forces working against her, she would have fought and fought and fought to get there and she might not have stopped to think, “What do I really want in this situation?”
But she was able to sit there in that doctor’s office, about to go have an abortion with the support of her friends, and think to herself, “You know, I don’t think this is what I want to do.” This should be all about choice. We should not be pushing women to have children they don’t want or can’t care for.
No, Miranda isn’t a “fighter.” She’s a complete idiot. I wrote about the episode in question two and a half years ago:
I remember flipping channels not too long ago and stopping on an episode of S&TC just out of curiosity, because two of the characters were in a clinic. One of them was waiting to have an abortion, while the other one was there to provide ‘moral support’ to the distraught friend who was there for the woman. It struck me as odd that the woman was so distraught, considering that she looked at the baby as an inconvienience, which is why she was aborting it. After all, if someone really is looking a fetus as an inconvienience rather than a human life, what’s there to get all emotional about, right?
The next scene after the commercial cut to all of the S&TC women in the apartment of one of the women, and there were flowers around, food being delivered, etc, in apparent show of sympathy and support to the woman who had been at the clinic to have the abortion (although I don’t know why there was sympathy involved if the baby wasn’t actually considered a baby, but anyway) – all the women gathered around the woman who had gone to the clinic to have the abortion, when she announced she didn’t have the abortion, that instead she wanted to keep the baby. All of a sudden, in the matter of an hour or so, that “inconvienience” became a baby. Of course, the writers didn’t explore this aspect, because it wouldn’t fit in with the show’s feminist mindset of ‘free choice.’
Think about it: In the blink of an eye, the fetus went from a blob of tissue that Miranda wanted to abort to an actual baby – all based on how the mother felt about it from one second to the next. Abortion has got to be one of the few issues where the definition point for “what is a baby” is pretty much up to the mother, not the law (up until the third tri). This is also why uber-feminist groups fight against laws that criminalize the murder of an unborn child that happens during an act of violence against the mother – at any stage. They know that if someone can be prosecuted for the murder of an unborn child at any stage, then it would not be a stretch to haul before the courts women who choose to have their unborn child aborted, nor would it be a stretch prosecute the doctors involved in the procedure – again, at any stage, thereby negating a woman’s “right” to decide whether or not a baby is a “blob of tissue” or a developing human.
It’s both fascinating and saddening to me to read about Hollywood “femnists” like Nixon and Ashley Judd who encourage others to be selfless with their time and money in volunteering to help the less fortunate, yet they advocate one of the most selfish acts known to humankind: Abortion. And they do it by playing the rape, incest, health of the mother/baby card, but they don’t mention that less than 8 percent of abortions in this country are done for those reasons. But ask them if they’ll compromise with you on the issue by only supporting abortions in those instances. They won’t. It’s all or nothing with this “all about me” crowd.
They also don’t mention that the vast majority of abortions done in this country are for convenience purposes – the mother is in college, just starting a new job, doesn’t think the father will want to stick around to help raise the child, doesn’t want the child to be around because it would be a reminder of the father, don’t think they’d be able to support the child financially (even though numerous, numerous programs exist out there to help in these situations), already has the number of children they want, wanted a girl rather than a boy, didn’t want a child born with a cleft lip and palate, etc.
And even though they talk about the “tough choice” it is for a woman to make when considering whether or not to have an abortion, they never explain why they believe it’s a “tough choice.” If it’s a blob of tissue, a parasite, then what’s so “tough” about having a doctor suck that tissue out of a woman’s body? The fact of the matter is that whenever you hear a liberal talk about what a “tough choice” it is for a woman to have an abortion, you know that they must realize deep down that the little “blob of tissue” growing inside of a pregnant woman is actually a little life breathing and growing. Perhaps they know that at 5 weeks, the baby’s circulatory system, brain, spinal cord, and other vital organs begin developing. Maybe they’re aware that you can hear/see the heartbeat at the 6 week mark.
Then again, there are those who really don’t think it’s a “tough decision” to make. Perhaps Ms. Nixon should talk to the friends of celebreality star Kourtney Kardashian, who encouraged her to get an abortion, friends who, in Kardashian’s eyes, treated the issue of getting an abortion like it was “no big deal.” Ms. Nixon should also talk to the women to whom abortion is their method of birth control. It is not a “tough decision” for these women to make, obviously.
In fact, I’d really like to know exactly how many of the women who’ve had abortions considered the decision a “tough” one to make. My bet is that most did not, because we live in an era in this country where human life has little value – except if you’re a death row inmate who has simply been “misunderstood.” The unborn, on the other hand, have gotten the shaft since 1973, thanks in large part to a selfish liberal gender “feminist” movement that has de-emphasized the importance of motherhood and the two-parent family in favor of irresponsibility and immorality – at the expense of the unborn, the family unit, and society. And how did they pull it off? By basing their movement on lies.