The reason I bring this up is that, about a squillion times a day, I get the urge to Inigo Montoya the pro-lifers on Twitter. This urge comes on strongest when the oh-so-insightful question “but what about the baby’s choice?” is posed by a pro-lifer who thinks he or she is being terribly clever.

I want to tell them this: “Choice. You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Inigo Montoya-ed!

Let’s assume for a moment that we live in a magical fairyland wherein blastulas, zygotes, embryos and fetuses all have the power of reason and speech. Let’s also assume that a particular magical, creepy talking fetus (no, Judy, not you) has a fatal disease which will condemn her to an extremely short life full of suffering. What if, in this alternate pro-life fantasy, that sentient fetus made the CHOICE to not be born? What if she decided she’d rather die now, pre-suffering, than after a few days, weeks or months of agony? Would the pro-lifers be so rabid in their defense of that baby’s choice? Given the pro-life stance on euthanasia, I’m going with “hell to the no.”

So even if a fetus were capable of making choices, pro-lifers would only allow he or she to choose to be born, making it not a choice at all. They’re all for choice as long as you can only choose the outcome they approve of. To call an action a “choice,” there must be at least two options involved. If you do something because you have no other option, that is not a choice. That is the opposite of choice.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Choice is no choice. Orwell would be proud.

In the context of the abortion debate, discussions of semantics are of paramount importance. Case in point: “murder” is a word I see chronically misused on the pro-life side of the issue. Whether or not you believe abortion constitutes the killing of a human person, abortion is unequivocally NOT murder.

Merriam-Webster defines murder as “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.” While “killing a person” may be up for debate, “unlawfully” is not. When Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, abortion was made by definition not murder. True murder is not just killing; it is illegal, intentional killing. There are other terms used to define killing in other contexts, like “manslaughter” and “wrongful death.” Even if you believe abortion results in the death of a person (I don’t agree, but you have the right to that belief), calling it “murder” is just plain inaccurate.

Pro-lifers, must you abuse both the rights of women AND the English language?

Physical violence is already a part of the abortion debate, so it’s not a huge stretch to visualize a world in which the war of words has escalated into a war of weapons. This is the world Neal Shusterman’s Unwind imagines as our future.

America is fresh off a second civil war, fought over abortion and finally ended with a grim compromise: terminating a pregnancy is illegal, but from the age of 13 until adulthood, unwanted or unruly children can be retroactively “aborted.” This is accomplished through a process called “unwinding,” when the child’s parts are harvested and used to cure the sick and disabled. The rationale is that since 100% of the unwindee continues to live in a “divided state,” the child is still technically alive.

That this compromise is supposed to have satisfied both pro-lifers and pro-choicers is the novel’s one major flaw. Shusterman takes great pains to put the book’s events into historical context for plausibility’s sake, but despite his well-conceived and detailed universe, I found myself continually questioning the basic rationale of unwinding as a solution that could satisfy either side in any universe. It was distracting.

In moments when I was able to hurdle the illogical premise, though, I found the book darkly fascinating. The world of Unwind resembles our own in most ways, but with both subtle and jarring differences. Thanks to outlawed abortion, unwanted children are now so common that wards of the state are named by computers, and state homes must meet quotas of teens sent for unwinding. Unwanted infants can be “storked” by their mothers–legally left on the doorstep of a nice-looking family rather than abandoned in a dumpster. Teenagers live in a state of uncertainty until age 18; if their situation or behavior changes, they could be unwound at the whim of their parents or guardians. Doctors are almost exclusively surgeons, since actually curing diseases has been made unnecessary thanks to a glut of spare parts to replace whatever’s broken.

Unwind follows the story of a group of teens marked for dismemberment. Connor’s parents decided to unwind him because of his rebellious behavior. Risa, a ward of the state, is an unfortunate member of the 5% teen unwinding quota. Lev is the 10th child of creepy religious parents who tithe 10% of everything–including their children. They go AWOL in a last-ditch attempt to remain whole. The world wants them dead for the good of society, although no one is willing to admit that unwinding constitutes death. Hardship forces them to grow up too quickly, as is always the case with kids in bad situations. The runaways, called “unwinds,” are layered and flawed and angsty and believable.  They form the sort of quick, desperate attachments characteristic of those in crisis scenarios. When they mull over the concept of personhood, you get the sense that they’d never really thought it through until their own bodily autonomy was called into question.

Certain haunting scenes have stuck with me, like the chapter that gives an account of a teenager’s unwinding from the teen’s point of view. It’s quietly, serenely horrific, unsettling to the point of nightmares. For a book aimed at teens, Unwind presents death with surprisingly little sugar-coating.

Although it carefully avoids setting up camp on either side of the abortion debate, to me Unwind is a pro-choice fable, a modern Modest Proposal. The logic that allows one to consider dismembered parts “alive” is similar to the logic that leads to fetal personhood. Both fetus and detached parts have living cells with distinct DNA, but neither has consciousness or sentience. Both are an indivisible part of another’s body and are subject to the will of that person. Both illustrate the essential difference between “life” and being a person, a distinction that pro-lifers never seem to grasp. When considered from this Jonathan Swift-ian perspective, Unwind is pure genius.

Even if the unlikely premise is taken at face value, the thought put into this abortion-less modern world makes it worthwhile. If every advocate and protester had to read Unwind before joining the larger debate, our discussion about abortion might be very different.

Taitz was representing a soldier fighting deployment on the basis of presidential illegitimacy (the “Darkies Ain’t Americans” defense) when the judge decided he’d had enough, goddammit. Taitz apparently failed “to follow simple rules” and “wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources.” Judge Clay Land, via the Washington Independent:

At the hearing, counsel failed to make coherent legal arguments but instead wasted the Court’s time with press conference sound bites and speeches.

He also called her conduct “willful,” “delusional” and in “bad faith.” True facts.

Miz Taitz, if even the deep South is laughing your racist drivel out of the courtroom, perhaps you should take the hint.

Next time I hear a conservative go off on a rant about “frivolous lawsuits,” I plan on yelling BIRTHERS! repeatedly until they STFU.

Before you freak out, this absolutely does NOT excuse, justify or mitigate the enormity of Polanski’s crime. I’m just curious about whether his predilection for preying on young teens is technically pedophilia, as opposed to just a disgusting extension of the “barely legal!” fetish genre.

My understanding is that a true pedophile is attracted to children precisely because they don’t look like adults. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent kids who have yet to develop curves/facial hair–that’s what upgrades the perpetrators from “douchebag” to “mentally ill.”

Roman Polanski is a lot of things–rapist, predator, criminal, egomaniac–but pedophile? I’m not so sure.

“We continue to be of the opinion that there is a high risk of flight,” said ministry spokesman Folco Galli, explaining the decision.

SURELY YOU JEST.

But seriously, folks. I realize that the Polanski case has been exhaustively covered over the past week, but I still feel the need to add my two cents to the already huge mountain of editorial loose change.

It should come as no surprise that I fall firmly in the “fugitive child rapists deserve jail time” camp. For a thorough primer on precisely why Polanski needs the book thrown with force in his general direction, please see everything Kate Harding has written on the subject (just go ahead and read her entire site while you’re at it). Please also see Jay Smooth’s fantastic video rant that pretty much proves he’s actually inside my head right now.

What I’d really like to address is Hollywood’s reaction to Polanski’s arrest, and the blogosphere’s reaction to Hollywood’s reaction to Polanski’s arrest. A dramatic reenactment:

THE POLICE: Mr. Polanski, you’re under arrest, and also a douchebag.

POLANSKI: Buh?

HOLLYWOOD: WE ARE OUTRAGED! HE’S ALL OLD AND TALENTED AND STUFF!

FEMINIST BLOGS: What the…?

CONSERVATIVE BLOGS: We TOLD you Hollywood was a vile bastion of corruption and villainy!

ME: *weeps silently in the corner*

As much as I’d like to believe the celebrities defending Polanski just don’t know all the facts, I have a sneaking suspicion they DO know the facts and are letting their personal and/or artistic connections to Polanski trump common sense. Seriously, Martin Scorsese? I didn’t realize that one of the main tenets of our social contract (rape=bad) was up for debate.

But the one who seriously, perhaps irreparably, broke my heart by defending a child rapist was… I can hardly type it… Harrison Ford. This man has been one of my favorite actors since I was old enough to have favorite actors. Star Wars and Indiana Jones are pretty much the first movies I can remember seeing. As soon as I was old enough to swoon, I swooned over Harrison Ford. And now he’s gone and tainted those memories for me. I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to watch Star Wars again without some level of ewwww attached to it.

I suppose I should’ve known. After all, he did accept Polanski’s in absentia Oscar for “The Pianist” back in 2003. I just didn’t put two and two together. I think I was vaguely aware of Polanski’s past before the case blew up last week, but I certainly didn’t know the specifics. Now that I do, it’s fairly jarring to know that an actor whose work I adore holds viewpoints that are, to me, indefensible. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

However, the frothing-at-the-mouth conservatives who insist this is an example of Hollywood’s inherent liberal evilness are way off base. Since when is rape a liberal value? If anything, feminists (who are, you know, usually against rape) are more liberal than Hollywood. If one is both pro-rape and liberal, it’s not because one stance has anything to do with the other. It’s like saying someone who likes cheese and also likes tap dancing likes cheese because they like tap dancing. They just happen to like both. Correlation, not causation.

This is not a “liberal elitists versus middle America” issue. The strange Polanski disconnect Hollywood exhibits has more to do with clannishness than liberalism; certain power players like Harvey Weinstein throw their support behind Polanski because he’s “one of us,” and others follow suit because they either truly believe his body of work should exonerate him or because they’re afraid of being blacklisted by the industry. The latter explanation may also be why so few A-listers have actually denounced Polanski. They value their livelihoods. That, I can sort of understand.

A message to Hollywood, courtesy of the Snarky Liberal: OPEN YOUR EYES. Please, for once, look beyond your own insular industry and see that the people who support you–the ones who see your movies and fill your coffers–are pissed off. Like, really pissed off. Please also see that you’re giving right-wingers exactly the ammunition they need to brand you, and by extension, all liberals, as “out of touch.” Because in this case, you absolutely are.

That’s why I’m inclined to believe this is genuine. Saint he is not, but I think he’s got good intentions.

Comments on this blog do not have to be approved before posting if the commenter has a previously approved post. Otherwise, the comment is held for moderation and I am notified by e-mail, at which point I either approve or delete the comment at my discretion.

Sometimes my Akismet spam filter will automatically block comments that are not technically spam. I receive no notification when this happens, but so far it has only happened once. If Akismet does mark a legit comment as spam, it may look to the poster as though the comment has gone live, but in reality only the comment poster is able to see the comment. If you think your comment has been caught in the spam filter, e-mail me (as opposed to, say, badmouthing me on Twitter). Make sense? Good. Let’s move on.

All that being said, I have always reserved the right to moderate my blog comments. Many blogs on both sides of the aisle do this in order to keep the discussion on track and keep the trolls at bay. Since the genesis of this site, the following has been posted on my comments policy page:

Go ahead, leave a comment. Comment away. You can even disagree with me and I won’t delete you. This isn’t an echo chamber; I believe informed debate strengthens political positions. I might delete you if you start acting like a jerk, though. I reserve the right to delete/ban jerkwads.

Perhaps this needs further clarification. I am happy to have an intelligent, spirited discussion, even if we disagree on specifics. That’s why this blog was created. But if at any time I feel like a commenter is being rude, idiotic, belligerent or intentionally a dickwad, I will delete you and feel good about it.

Why? Because it’s my goddamn blog, and I have the right to kick you out whenever and for whatever reason I see fit. Maybe I just don’t like you. Maybe your name is Shirley, and you remind me of a girl named Shirley who used to steal my lunch money. Maybe because I deem it haiku day, and your post isn’t in perfect 5-7-5.

This is not censorship, and it’s certainly not a violation of your Constitutional right to free speech. Free speech only applies to public speech. If you walked into a place of business and started yelling about how much that business sucks, the management would have every right to kick your ass out. If you walk into my privately owned blog and start verbally crapping all over it, consider yourself booted. Conservatives, you’re all about private property rights, yeah? So you’ll understand when I say that I reserve the right to tell hooligans to get off my lawn.

Calm down, straw-Republican-I-just-made-up-for-debate-purposes. Obviously there are serious practical and moral considerations that prevent things like incest, pedophilia and bestiality (or “man-on-dog,” as Rick Santorum so elegantly described it) from being OK. Polygamy, on the other hand, is clearly the logical next step after gay marriage (according to Straw Republican here).

Here’s why that’s wrong. It’s as simple as the difference between sexual orientation and sexual practice. Everyone has a sexual orientation, whether it’s gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, etc. It refers to the gender or genders to which you are physically attracted (or not attracted, in the case of asexual people). It defines your range of options, and to some extent, your identity. “Gay” is a sexual orientation. “Polyamory” is a sexual practice. Polyamory is something you do, whereas being gay is part of who you are.

People who practice polyamory (straight and bisexual people, at least) still have the option to marry someone to whom they are physically attracted. They can find someone they love and marry him or her. Marrying just one person might not be their first choice, but at least they have a choice. Those who identify as exclusively gay have no choice. The only people to whom they could ever be attracted are the exact same people they can’t marry. Which effectively means that gay people are denied a right that straight people take for granted (and crap all over on a daily basis, I might add). This is why homosexuality and polyamory are not the same.

And the fact that YOU, Straw Republican, believe homosexuality is a sin does not magically make homos hetero or give them the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex. Your religion does not exempt them from equal rights.

This is why I get so angry when conservatives say they’re “against gay marriage, not gay people.” What the hell do you expect your gay BFFs to do, then? Suck it up and marry someone they can’t romantically love? Or just shut up and be content with their status as second-class citizens? Be OK with the fact that they won’t ever have access to partner medical benefits, hospital visitation, even joint guardianship of their kids?

If there are any polyamorists reading this, please chime in. I would love to get your take on this issue (and I hope I haven’t offended you in my zeal to take away the bigots’ slippery slope argument).

Carrie Prejean filed a lawsuit on Monday alleging religious descrimination was involved in her unceremonious booting from the Miss California throne back in June. Whether or not the suit has legal ground to stand on is neither here nor there. The question I find more relevant and intriguing is: where does one draw the line between expressing beliefs and actionable discrimination?

Prejean is an evangelical Christian, so it’s no surprise that she parrots the standard talking points about “defending marriage.” Of course she has the right to that belief. But is she disqualified from the Discrimination Olympics just because she justifies her bigotry with religion? Does that make her viewpoints, for lack of a better word, sacrosanct?

Right-wingers have been gleefully up-in-arms about Prejean’s firing for months, citing rampant “religiphobia” as the culprit. “Religiphobes” (in fact, the term for one with an irrational fear of religion is “theophobe”), in their abject terror of all things Judeo-Christian, persecute righteous believers by firing them from beauty pageants. Or something. Because obviously no one who believes in a higher power could find Prejean’s fame-grasping ways unsavory.

So, according to the religious right, one kind of discrimination is fine and godly and should be protected by law. The other kind is vicious persecution. Conservatives are allowed to discriminate against gays, but by golly, no one better discriminate against THEM. It’s their RELIGION, for pete’s sake.

Carrie Prejean chooses to be an evangelical Christian. Gay people have no such choice in their sexuality. Which group has more reason to cry discrimination?