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.

Sarah Palin, Noted Fauxminist

There’s a whole lot of whatnot and hullabaloo flying around about Sarah Palin. She’s a supermom. She managed a meteoric rise to power while raising five kids, snowmobiling the tundra and terrorizing the local moose population. She went back to work three days after giving birth. She’s got awesome optical accessories.

In the rush to enumerate her accomplishments, women are losing sight of the fact that Sarah Palin is not a feminist. She is a token woman, a ploy to simultaneously appease disgruntled Hillary supporters and the reluctant religious right. John McCain needed some feminist street cred; Sarah Palin was the solution.

Women, especially liberal women, who support Palin solely on the basis of shared genitalia are undermining feminist causes and playing right into McCain’s hands. I’m talking to you, PUMAs.

Feminists believe in equal pay for equal work. Feminists believe in a woman’s right to control her own body and make her own reproductive choices (Feminists for Life is a contradiction in terms). In a Palin America, a woman who is raped and impregnated would be forced to carry that rapist’s fetus to term. In a Palin America, teenage girls (and boys) remain blissfully ignorant when it comes to contraception.

Not to mention, liberal ladies, that Palin’s platform of issues is textbook scary conservative. Pro gun. Pro death penalty. Pro creationism in schools. Anti gay marriage. Anti environment. (Seriously, who still believes global warming isn’t our species’ fault?) Pro oil drilling. Pro gunning down wolves with helicopters. She attends a pentecostal church (although she now conveniently labels herself as “non-denominational”). She supported the bridge to nowhere back when it was politically convenient. Oh, and she doesn’t concern herself with things like the war in Iraq–not with so many square miles of tundra to govern.

Sarah Palin’s candidacy is a false milestone. It undermines the feminist movement to support a candidate who touts feminism while advocating the rollback of much of what the movement has achieved in the last 50 years. It’s a shame that her personal life is making news, because it distracts from what we should be talking about: Palin’s faux feminist beliefs and sheer inadequacy for the job.

[digg=http://digg.com/political_opinion/Fauxminism_Palin_the_Fake_Feminist]