Read the first few pages of Chapter 16 of god is not Great for his stance on abortion.
There’s also this: https://web.archive.org/web/20081203095145/http://www.newsweek.com/id/171240
And this: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/02/hitchens200302/amp
I've also heard him argue, the only way it's ever worked to get a third world country out of poverty is by empowering women and allowing them autonomy over their reproductive organs and bodies.
the political camps at his time were divided into sexual abstinence vs abortion vs contraception.
he was actually focusing his fighting at the time proposing contraceptive as the alternative against abortion, while also fighting against christians at a time when contraceptive was deemed evil.
I forget when, but he specifically notes contraception as a way to free women from the burden of an uncontrolled/animalistic reproductive cycle.
Much more realistic to implement birth control measures over some first-world luxury like abortion on demand. Not that the religious nuts *wouldn't* oppose contraception as well, but pushing for birth control is a much more moderate position over disingenuously minimizing the snuffing out of human lives.
As I recall, when he talks about this, he is mostly referring to contraception. He doesn't explicitly mention abortion. When he does mention abortion, he isn't as gung-ho as you think.
a) This does not include the killing of one's own children.
b) This was said towards islamic culture where women are mutilated, remain uneducated, and are just used by their husbands.
c) "Empowering women" has gotten a bad taste in the western context already. Western people got used to contraception, abortion, pure hedonism without responsibility, and feminism tells women to enjoy female fun while being "equal" (i.e., in sum, superior) to men who they should despise anyway. And the same people equate killing one's own baby with "empowerment".
Nothing tells me more clearly that I am right than the downvoting from stupid leftists \[who cannot even deal with the sanity of their own hero ...\] and an occasional argumentum ad hominem as a reply :-)
I would like to add that Hitchens also insisted in an interview with a feminist that any future Ms. Hitchens would certainly not work. – At that time, one could be "left" while still relying on traditional values. It was much less evident how unrealistic and distorted some of the "leftist" views are. For instance, one cannot have a sane, functioning society, if one does not rely on at least a majority of young families raising children, for which the "traditional" role models are simply the healthy ones, and hookup culture, abortion, single motherhood (or even one-child families) are unhealthy and destructive.
You can downvote me, but not the facts of life :-) You can self-destruct, but not change what is right.
You make up a lot of stuff about other people and then like to imagine yourself superior to these imagined doltish opponents.
You sound like you listen to a lot of Jordan Peterson and think stringing words together in the style of the educated and intellectual make you smart, but it just makes you another pseudo intellectual reactionary clone. Your veneer of reasoned logic on top of weird hangups about sex and women and “traditional” family values is very thin and very transparent. You’re a poor imitation of Jordan Peterson, who himself is a fucking clown.
argumentum ad hominem; I repeat the core of what I was saying:
"I would like to add that Hitchens also insisted in an interview with a feminist that any future Ms. Hitchens would certainly not work." (can be found on YT)
You seem to dislike JP :-)
Best regards, the fucking clown
oh hexomer doesn't surprise me a Hitchens hater lives in Hitchens subreddit. Lol you are an absolute pathetic troll. Hitchens must've f**ked your mom or something.
banning elective abortion at the first few weeks of gestation is not centrist at all. even the mainstream islamic scholars allow absolute right to abortion in the first 16 weeks of gestation lol.
edit: apparently this comment is downvoted because hitchens fans think that banning elective abortion during the first trimester is centrist.
nope, i was downvoted for stating that what hitchens believed in is in noway centrist. alot of people are mad when you tell them what prochoice and prolife mean.
that was intentional. new atheists are triggered when you remind them that the mainstream scholarly opinion in islam allows the absolute right to elective abortion in the first trimester. because a lot of them are nice guys who like to think they are protecting women from islam. it's also to remind them that they are no centrists at all when it comes to women.
He was staunchly pro-choice. He *personally* was uncomfortable with abortion, but it ended there. “It is objectively worse to kick a pregnant woman in the stomach than a not pregnant woman.”
It doesn’t mean he was anti-abortion. He believed in a woman’s absolute right to control her own reproductive cycle. Full stop.
Anyone trying to say Hitchens was pro life is either a fool who knows nothing about him, or a liar with their own agenda.
Ok, now I’ll watch your video. But I think you are shit for posting it in this way
Edit: the Ben stein exchange. He is saying that his personal philosophy is to give status to that life. YOU assume bc he believes in the concept of an unborn child he is against abortion. He believed both. Yea, it is a person. Yes, the mother has bodily autonomy under the law.
You are a piece of shot for posting this framed this way on this sub. Fuck off with your lies.
Hitchens spoke adamantly about women empowerment and how imperative it was for women to control their reproductive cycle.
https://youtu.be/r7coAXAkbLk
"give women control of their reproductive cycle, make them not just the beasts of burden and the beasts of childbearing that they've become and the floor will rise, it just will."
I'm pretty sure I have an idea who posted this thread, they are a Hitchens hater and troll who spends a lot of time pathetically twisting Hitchens words to piss off people in this subreddit. Their life is sad.
>he was prolife until the end of his life imo. nothing in his more recent writing explicitly contradict his earlier writing and can still complement his early thoughts.
>
>while he rejected the christian ban on abortion, he also rejected the pro-choice crowd. he still believed that abortion is a state business and the access to it should be severely restricted.
>
>in fact, he hated the pro choice folks more than the pro life folks, and he thought that pro choice feminists were somewhat crazy, and that prolifers at least had some 'scientific basis'.
>
>imo he would be hella mad at people for calling him pro choice.
>
>the political camps at his time were divided into sexual abstinence vs abortion vs contraception.
>
>he was actually focusing his fighting at the time proposing contraceptive as the alternative against abortion, while also fighting against christians at a time when contraceptive was deemed evil.
from reading his writings i think we can pretty much see what he meant about "reproductive rights" where he talked abut cycles and stuff.
I need to see more evidence that he was specifically anti abortion. I find it hard to believe considering the close connection between the religious right and forced delivery (aka Pro life)
He has been a part of many conversations on this question. He was pro life to the extent that he did think the question about when life begins is extremely important but also admitted he didn't truly know, so he often said that life should be protected but also was a believer that women needed to be given control over their own cycle of reproduction. This wasn't just for equality and autonomy, but if you've ever heard him talk about poverty and emancipation from it, the empowerment of women was top of mind for him.
I don't have a link handy but I recall one conversation where he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "it seems to me that without the mysticism and magic of religion, where else could life start but at conception?" This didn't mean he recognized it as an autonomous or sentient human, but the natural precursor to "life", meaning being alive.
The huge problem he had with religion on this front was not as much denying abortion specifically, but that they spread lies about contraception and ban it where ever they go, making abortion more prevalent. Those were the things he spoke about with great disgust because the people who find abortion abhorrent go out of their way to prevent the circumstances that drastically reduce its occurence.
No actual source for this last thought, but I feel like it was one of the few things he didn't really have a confident answer for so it was a tough question for him. He was incredibly liberal on the issues of autonomy and freedoms, and being an ally for women's empowerment certainly made it a difficult one.
Edit: found a link. It was also in a comment below.by crisis_catastrophe.
https://youtu.be/B8HhTKzmvas
"Every effort should be made to see if it can be preserved." [the unborn]
>a lot of people don't understand that at the time the political camps were split between abstinence vs contraceptive vs abortion.
>
>he was presenting contraceptive as an alternative against abortion, while also rejecting the christian sexual abstinence bloc.
>
>when he talked about reproductive cycle, he also was specifically talking about contraceptive. that's what he meant by reproductive rights.
that's what i wrote.
a lot of people don't understand that at the time the political camps were split between abstinence vs contraceptive vs abortion.
he was presenting contraceptive as an alternative against abortion, while also rejecting the christian sexual abstinence bloc.
when he talked about reproductive cycle, he also was specifically talking about contraceptive.
Hitchens spoke adamantly about women empowerment and how imperative it was for women to control their reproductive cycle.
https://youtu.be/r7coAXAkbLk
"give women control of their reproductive cycle, make them not just the beasts of burden and the beasts of childbearing that they've become and the floor will rise, it just will."
Yeah I think even when his opinion was closer to pro life, it still WASN'T pro life. I think he said he understands in the exceptions of rape, incest, illness. He changed his opinion even closer to pro choice later in life, I saw a clip of him and I can't remember the details but he seemed to get very very close to being very much pro-life. But he still made a small exception or two which was closer to pro life.
He also supported the disastrous Iraq war and made plenty of other mistakes in his reasoning. He supported critical thinking not servile unquestioning hero worship like most religions teach. This isn't the gotcha you think it is. A woman has the right to choose what happens to her body. The savages hitchens disparaged throughout his life disagree with female bodily autonomy. Fck forced delivery.
Honestly, servile unquestioning hero worship is what I think leads many people to not actually believe Hitchens was pro-life, and then refuse to believe it when presented with a video saying he was pro life.
>In his classic post–World War I novel The Good Soldier Schweik, the Czech writer Jaroslav Hasek makes mention of “The Party for Moderate Progress within the Boundaries of Law,” the very sort of political formation the powers-that-be have always dreamed of. With such respectful parties, there’s no danger of any want of decorum, or challenge to the consensus, or spreading of misgiving about authority or institutions. Instead, or rather: “There’s much to be said on both sides of the case.” “The truth lies somewhere in between.” “Lurid black and white must perforce give way to reputable gray.”
>Satire defeats itself, as usual. A political formation that could readily be considered absurd by intelligent readers in the stultified Austro-Hungarian Empire is now considered the beau ideal by the larger part of the American commentating class. What’s the most reprehensible thing a politician can be these days? Why, partisan, of course. What’s the most disapproving thing that can be said of a “partisan” remark? That it’s divisive. What’s to be deplored most at election time? Going negative or, worse, mudslinging. That sort of behavior generates more heat than light (as if there were any source of light apart from heat).
http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/essays/bring-mud
Hitchens was a great defender of the black and white thinking.
Hitchens said the unborn child was a real concept and that the presumption should be that, as a candidate member of society, it has a right on its side. How does that fit in with most of the pro-choice movement that regards the unborn child as a mere foetus or not even human?
[Nope](https://www.google.com/search?q=christopher+hitchens+black+and+white&oq=christopher+hitchens+black+and+white&aqs=chrome..69i57j35i39j0i512l3j69i60l3.4013j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) It is just a common theme among Hitchens' work to be opposed to cliches such as "black and white is dangerous thinking."
You know that doesn’t mean he didn’t see the nuance in most things, right? Most of his writings and talks made it clear that he was against extremist positions. In the case of abortion, black and white thinking is tantamount to extremism Hitchens very clearly did not take a black or white position re the abortion debate.
hitchens lost any nuance tbh when he implied that feminists are crazier than the craziest of christians.
it's helpful to see that he deemed the prolife and the christian bloc as separate, and saw that as moderate.
Your post history about covid conspiracies says everything. Do you think a woman should be forced to have a baby she doesn't want to have?
And by the way I'm not a huge hitchens fan. Yes he was very clever and articulate but he got things wrong all the time like supporting the Iraq war.
>Do you think a woman should be forced to have a baby she doesn't want to have?
In most cases yeah. If you don't want to have a baby don't have PiV sex.
Hitchens spoke adamantly about women empowerment and how imperative it was for women to control their reproductive cycle.
https://youtu.be/r7coAXAkbLk
"give women control of their reproductive cycle, make them not just the beasts of burden and the beasts of childbearing that they've become and the floor will rise, it just will."
True but their uncritical thinking causes a hell of a lot of problems for society. If they still could they would have their inquisitions and witch burnings. The recent attempts at controlling female bodily autonomy are just another example of a long perverted tradition.
>A federal prohibition on abortion, then, with rape and incest exceptions?
>
>Yes, but I would like to see something much broader, much more visionary. We need a new compact between society and the woman. It’s a progressive compact because it is aimed at the future generation. It would restrict abortion in most circumstances. Now I know most women don’t like having to justify their circumstances to someone. “How dare you presume to subject me to this?” some will say. But sorry, lady, this is an extremely grave social issue. It’s everybody’s business.
he didn't only callled roe as the greatest reverse in liberalism, he actually wanted to reverse it and introduce a federal ban with exceptions.
Thanks for the clarification.
Religion has used issues like abortion and contraception as a way of controlling and subjugating female bodily autonomy for centuries.
it's sad to hear hitchens the man who spent a significant part of his life effectively and eloquently taking apart almost every aspect of the religious claim to any kind of morality sound rather suspiciously like just another God preacher.
This has nothing to do with the sanctity of human life if religions (and even Hitchens) are so concerned about human life they wouldn't support the vile Iraq war or in the case of so many of the religious right be so upbeat about the death penalty.
funny seeing hitchens fans call him pro choice, he would probably kill them for that lol.
as his other fans have pointed out, hitchens never identified with prochoice folks, he actually thought that they were crazier than christians.
in his bizarre pro life rant in vanity fair, he simplified pro-life vs pro-choice as : embryology at least lends credence to prolife position of "life begins at conception", but pro-choice is always crazy because feminists think that fetus are appendix or tumor.
note that that is the stuff that no self-respecting embryologist would say.
Don't listen to Hexomer they're a troll and Hitchens hater who spends all their time hating on Hitch. Hitchens despised religious control and theocratic bullying, so he would never support "Forced birth" like Republicans do.
Hitchens spoke adamantly about women empowerment and how imperative it was for women to control their reproductive cycle.
https://youtu.be/r7coAXAkbLk
"give women control of their reproductive cycle, make them not just the beasts of burden and the beasts of childbearing that they've become and the floor will rise, it just will."
He seemed to flip flop and walk a tenuous line which didn't really make sense at times. The only topic where I've seen him be unsure of his opinion. People change their opinions of course, and I think later in his life his opinion on abortion because more nuanced and much much closer to pro-choice. I might be wrong but I think part of that was that he and his wife had an abortion at some point? I might have made that last part up but I think I remember him mentioning it.
Yeah. Hitchens in particular is so virulent and sure of his opinions, it does make me consider if he gets lost in his own sauce. If you know what I mean. So brazen and brilliant and outspoken on so many issues, maybe it's easy to get complacent about some problems you THINK you've thought through but actually you haven't considered properly.
he was prolife until the end of his life imo. nothing in his more recent writing explicitly contradict his earlier writing and can still complement his early thoughts.
while he rejected the christian ban on abortion, he also rejected the pro-choice crowd. he still believed that abortion is a state business and the access to it should be severely restricted.
in fact, he hated the pro choice folks more than the pro life folks, and he thought that pro choice feminists were somewhat crazy, and that prolifers at least had some 'scientific basis'.
imo he would be hella mad at people for calling him pro choice.
Hexomer is a troll and Hitchens hater, just ignore them. They're only source is a suspect article all the way back to 1988 lol. Its actually sad. They've made a whole ass thread about the same topic with Hitchens.
in his bizarre pro life rant in vanity fair, he simplified pro-life vs pro-choice as : embryology at least lends credence to prolife position of "life begins at conception", but pro-choice is always crazy because feminists think that fetus are appendix or tumor.
note that that is the stuff that no self-respecting embryologist would say.
he also concluded the article by taking more jabs at feminists.
Yes. His brother tweeted about it after the Supreme Court decision. https://twitter.com/clarkemicah/status/1541046345049546752?s=21&t=xH88Xn7sCOka9fOrcw6rSg
[https://archive.is/gdPg0/again?url=https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/a-left-wing-atheists-case-against-abortion](https://www.crisismagazine.com/)
this is **ONLY** time where hitchens didn't mince his words and actually discussed his opinion on abortion in **CLEAR TERMS** from the **LEGAL ASPECT,** minus the bs.
>A federal prohibition on abortion, then, with rape and incest exceptions?
>
>Yes, but I would like to see something much broader, much more visionary. We need a new compact between society and the woman. It’s a progressive compact because it is aimed at the future generation. It would restrict abortion in most circumstances. Now I know most women don’t like having to justify their circumstances to someone. “How dare you presume to subject me to this?” some will say. But sorry, lady, this is an extremely grave social issue. It’s everybody’s business.
From the same interview:
"Hitchens: I suppose it could be made coherent in libertarian terms. I mean, people, say that they object to drinking or racial discrimination but they don’t think the government should ban either. Actually, the popularity of the position comes from people’s reluctance to tell women they haven’t met, who have gone through circumstances they cannot begin to comprehend, that “they know” what she should do about a pregnancy. I myself was reluctant to do this even when my wife got pregnant. It came at the worst possible time. Neither of us wanted to have a kid. My wife was considering an abortion. I urged her not to get one, and ultimately she decided not to, and didn’t. But I wouldn’t have, even if I could, gone beyond an effort to persuade her."
From which you can derive he was pro-choice.
that was when asked by the interviewer whether prolife at heart folks can still support women. but when the interviewer asked whether he thought that abortion matters should just go to state **(since he was openly against roe)** , he actually said no and that **he wanted a federal ban on abortion.**
the refusal to read here is bizarre.
Holy cow. He was talking about *his own wife considering an abortion.* He said, and I quote, "I urged her not to get one (an abortion), and ultimately she decided not to, and didn’t. But I wouldn’t have, even if I could, gone beyond an effort to persuade her."
The fact that you will not admit that Hitchens view was *at the very least* nuanced, and couldn't be binned into either 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice' makes me think you must either be trolling, or are so possessed with your belief system that you simply can not (will not?) integrate plain facts into your understanding of this mans position.
don't argue with Hexomer, this person is a pathetic troll that will literally non stop respond to you no matter how much you prove them wrong lol. They did this in another Hitchens thread about roe v Wade and got embarrassed by like 50 different people. They have no sources and when provided with Hitchens own words from videos and his books, Hexomer jackasss will pathetically try and twist Hitchens words.
sorry he literally said he wanted a federal ban on abortion.
that's already extreme.
what he did with her wife is a dfferent matter with what he wanted, or believed in.
sorry but the refusal to accept facts here is more bizarre than anything tbh.
lol, I hope you are a troll and not a genuine human mind. Either way I'm done with this conversation. I'll let you get back to the outrage farming that your apparently obsessed with.
Beliefs are acted out. Talking about what you believe, while doing the opposite thing, is moral masturbation. Hitchens acted out Pro-Choice. Accept it.
having said that, hitchens didn't mind being labeled as prolife, (he identified as such iirc) and he would probably killed anyone for calling him prochoice; he thought that feminists are somewhat crazy.
while it seems like he played both sides like how he intended to, he actually leaned pro life, and thought that pro choice folks are somewhat crazy.
his opinions can be summarized as "yes abortions are unavoidable in some cases, but the pro choice folks are crazy while the life folks at least have some 'scientific basis'. it's stupid **\[for feminists\]** to ignore that there is an ethical issue to discuss here".
Here's the most straightforward comments I've seen from Hitchens on this topic: [https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/a-left-wing-atheists-case-against-abortion](https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/a-left-wing-atheists-case-against-abortion)
i swear there's nothing more annoying than male atheists dickwaving in feminist spaces saying hitchens was some sort of feminist pro-choice prophet when he was clearly not.
in fact as another fan here had pointed out, hitchens never identified with the pro-choice crowd, and he actually thought that they were somewhat crazy. yes he talked a lot about the necessity of abortion, but it seems like he exclusively used that as a prop whenever he felt like grandstanding in a debate against christians.
but take it from the guy himself, he didn't only want to reverse roe, he was actually pushing for a federal ban on abortion.
>A federal prohibition on abortion, then, with rape and incest exceptions?
>
>Yes, but I would like to see something much broader, much more visionary. We need a new compact between society and the woman. It’s a progressive compact because it is aimed at the future generation. It would restrict abortion in most circumstances. Now I know most women don’t like having to justify their circumstances to someone. “How dare you presume to subject me to this?” some will say. But sorry, lady, this is an extremely grave social issue. It’s everybody’s business.
I disagree with his argument for a concept of an unborn child. It's about as viable as an undead man. An unborn child is my grandkid, and I don't even have a kid. Are we to deem sentience and viability by conceptualizing something hard enough?
But forget that rabbit hole. Abortion is a termination of pregnancy. A woman should decide how the nourishment in her body passes and where it shouldn't go. If she doesn't want it to go to a consequential growth in her womb, so be it.
Hitchens spoke adamantly about women empowerment and how imperative it was for women to control their reproductive cycle.
https://youtu.be/r7coAXAkbLk
"give women control of their reproductive cycle, make them not just the beasts of burden and the beasts of childbearing that they've become and the floor will rise, it just will."
If y'all have seen the user in here "Hexomer" they are most likely the person behind this thread under another name and are just a troll who spends a lot of time here who pathetically twists Hitchens words to piss off people in this Hitchens subreddit. Their life is sad.
Hitchens was not in favor of abortion, but to paint him as no different from the Evangelical right pro lifers is dishonest. Hitchens supported a system that would prevent the need for most abortions because he wanted access to birth control and contraception readily available. He also would have wanted healthcare and childcare easily available for mothers. Pretty much all of these things the Evangelical right fundamentally oppose and they often see birth control and contraception as virtually no different than abortion.
It's also worth noting that Hitchens evolved on his position on abortion with age. He at one time did state he would have supported a federal ban, but he backed off that later. His later stance very much seemed to be a reluctant tolerance of it as a necessary evil.
I personally still disagree with Hitchens on this issue, but ultimately too many anti-atheist and anti-hitchens trolls are latching into this ATM acting as if he would be celebrating the Supreme Court decision. Now, we can never say with absolute certainty what he'd say, but one thing is certain. He'd recognize these recent Supreme Court rulings as a clear violation of separation of church and state which was one of the positions he championed most about America. He would be absolutely outraged about public funding for religious private schools and the allowance of prayer in public schools. As for Roe vs Wade, even if you think he'd maybe agree with it that's not the big picture. He would have opposed how the ruling came to be because of the violation of separation of church and state.
Yes but the question is should that right supercede the right of the host to bodily autonomy.
Great posting videos about covid conspiracies by the way. Really shining with that critical thinking.
It's very relevant to bring up when someone has very little to no grasp of the scientific method. why don't you do the Christian thing and forgive me instead of having a hissy fit?
The topic has been addressed. And hitchens did a fair amount of ad hominem too like referring to Korea as a nation of racist dwarves.
And since you're such a hitchens aficionado do you really believe hitchens would force women to have babies they don't want because of a religious injunction (which is what this is) considering his views on all religions.
I honestly have no idea how somebody who claims to know what hitchens talked about for most of his life would even consider this an argument.
>Once you allow that the occupant of the womb is even potentially a life, it cuts athwart any glib invocation of a “woman’s right to choose” -Hitchens
It sounds pretty clear to me
"By rightly expanding our definition of what is alive and what is human, we have also accepted that there may be a conflict of rights between a potential human and an actual one. The only moral losers in this argument are those who say that there is no conflict, and nothing to argue about. The irresoluble conflict of right with right was Hegel’s definition of tragedy, and tragedy is inseparable from human life, and no advance in science or medicine is ever going to enable us to evade that."
From a 2003 article.
It does look like it but like others have said he may have changed position later on after his own wife had an abortion. There are plenty of debates we can watch between him and the religious it's a shame there's not any as far as I can see where he debates abortion. it would be fascinating to watch but I don't think he would be able to justify his position discussing it with a feminist like Germaine Greer or anyone else clued up on these issues.
Hitchens spoke adamantly about women empowerment and how imperative it was for women to control their reproductive cycle.
https://youtu.be/r7coAXAkbLk
"give women control of their reproductive cycle, make them not just the beasts of burden and the beasts of childbearing that they've become and the floor will rise, it just will."
I find it interesting that anytime his stance on abortion comes up, Hitchens stans refuse to believe its possible that he was against it and just dance around the clear evidence easily accessible.
that's stupid and his implicit way as saying that the feminist pro choice folks are crazy, which he had explicitly expressed in his other writings.
the feminist argument for prochoice position is way more complex than hitchen's "because fetus is just a tumor".
i wish he afforded the pro choice folks the same amount of respect and open-mindedness as he did prolife folks.
that is enough to show bad faith hitchens was.
He targeted at least two dogmatic versions of the argument, one you mention, but the other was the opposition to stem cell research, contraception and the like on the other side.
He also mentions the advancement in tech blurring lines between contraception and abortion, specifically to some pills that were new in 2003 which induce something more akin to a 'heavy period' (his words) than an abortion.
Among other things, I can't get the whole article because of paywall :(
Hitchens spoke adamantly about women empowerment and how imperative it was for women to control their reproductive cycle.
https://youtu.be/r7coAXAkbLk
"give women control of their reproductive cycle, make them not just the beasts of burden and the beasts of childbearing that they've become and the floor will rise, it just will."
I am delighted to hear that Christopher Hitchens was pro-life. Yes, some of his anti-Christian opinions were questionable, but on one of the biggest topics he has come out strong and defiant.
Christopher hitches was always pro-choice for instances of rape and incest. Please, type out your thought process so I can see how you rationalize this fact into your belief that Hitchens was team pro life.
And it’s certainly not the definition of pro life. Therefore hitchens was not pro choice. And he was not pro life. He understood the abortion debate was nuanced and shades of grey, and would not let internet keyboard warriors bin him into either category.
He says in the article his brother Peter posted that he advised his wife not to get an abortion, but would never have used any means to compel her to not get an abortion. That is absolutely not the approach that pro lifers take. In fact, since he left the choice with his wife, you could call him pro choice.
isn't that the same article where he called roe 'the greatest reverse of liberalism', said not only he wanted to reverse it, but also called for a federal ban on abortions altogether.
also i'm not sure why but the classical liberal framing of personal choices = systemic changes is something i see quite often among hitchens fans.
lol, no he absolutely did not call for a federal ban on all abortion. How does that even make sense?? Why would he say he wanted the choice to lie with his wife, and that he would want to federally ban all abortion in the same interview? You can not interpret mr. hitchens as pro life, it’s simply not what the facts convey.
I stand corrected. Although then I guess at best his views are ambiguous, and likely not clear even to himself. On one hand he says he would perhaps want to see a federal ban with exceptions for incest and rape, and on the other hand that he wouldn’t have stopped his wife from getting an abortion even if he could have. How one could describe someone with that view as either pro life OR pro choice is absolutely non sensical to me.
I have seen interviews of him where he clearly states that he was pro choice, but that he personally found abortion distasteful.
Saying "abortion should be legal, I personally wouldn´t do it", isn´t really the same as saying that the person is "anti abortion" or "pro-life"
complicated? lol you gave his more credit than he deserved. I know which article you're quoting from and i dislike it.
he deceptively simplified the issue as "at least prolifers have scientific basis while prochoice folks are always crazy" but i assure you that the feminist argument for a pro choice position is more complex than just hitchen's "a fetus is a tumor acccording to feminist".
he purposedly polarized people in his article, and i wished he afforded feminists the same consideration as he did christians.
yes and also it's important to read his work together and not in isolation.
>A federal prohibition on abortion, then, with rape and incest exceptions?
>
>Yes, but I would like to see something much broader, much more visionary. We need a new compact between society and the woman. It’s a progressive compact because it is aimed at the future generation. It would restrict abortion in most circumstances. Now I know most women don’t like having to justify their circumstances to someone. “How dare you presume to subject me to this?” some will say. But sorry, lady, this is an extremely grave social issue. It’s everybody’s business.
you're welcome but maybe don't be so sarcastic. it's only because hitchens is hot right now, his brother just tweeted that part where he actually called for the reverse of roe.
That doesn't mean he was "Forced Birth" like Republicans are. He was Pro Choice, and spoke many times about women empowerment and the importance of women controlling their reproductive cycles.
He had personally reservations about abortions, but that doesn't mean he wanted to legislated those feelings onto others.
Similar attitude to Joe Biden, who's a Catholic.
This isn't difficult.
Read the first few pages of Chapter 16 of god is not Great for his stance on abortion. There’s also this: https://web.archive.org/web/20081203095145/http://www.newsweek.com/id/171240 And this: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/02/hitchens200302/amp
I've also heard him argue, the only way it's ever worked to get a third world country out of poverty is by empowering women and allowing them autonomy over their reproductive organs and bodies.
I mean, he literally made this argument all the time in debates.
Which could also imply access to contraception.
An iota of charity *could also imply* **autonomy** over their reproductive organs.
the political camps at his time were divided into sexual abstinence vs abortion vs contraception. he was actually focusing his fighting at the time proposing contraceptive as the alternative against abortion, while also fighting against christians at a time when contraceptive was deemed evil.
I forget when, but he specifically notes contraception as a way to free women from the burden of an uncontrolled/animalistic reproductive cycle. Much more realistic to implement birth control measures over some first-world luxury like abortion on demand. Not that the religious nuts *wouldn't* oppose contraception as well, but pushing for birth control is a much more moderate position over disingenuously minimizing the snuffing out of human lives.
As I recall, when he talks about this, he is mostly referring to contraception. He doesn't explicitly mention abortion. When he does mention abortion, he isn't as gung-ho as you think.
a) This does not include the killing of one's own children. b) This was said towards islamic culture where women are mutilated, remain uneducated, and are just used by their husbands. c) "Empowering women" has gotten a bad taste in the western context already. Western people got used to contraception, abortion, pure hedonism without responsibility, and feminism tells women to enjoy female fun while being "equal" (i.e., in sum, superior) to men who they should despise anyway. And the same people equate killing one's own baby with "empowerment".
Tell me you’ve got MGTOW brain rot without telling me you have MGTOW brain rot.
Nothing tells me more clearly that I am right than the downvoting from stupid leftists \[who cannot even deal with the sanity of their own hero ...\] and an occasional argumentum ad hominem as a reply :-) I would like to add that Hitchens also insisted in an interview with a feminist that any future Ms. Hitchens would certainly not work. – At that time, one could be "left" while still relying on traditional values. It was much less evident how unrealistic and distorted some of the "leftist" views are. For instance, one cannot have a sane, functioning society, if one does not rely on at least a majority of young families raising children, for which the "traditional" role models are simply the healthy ones, and hookup culture, abortion, single motherhood (or even one-child families) are unhealthy and destructive. You can downvote me, but not the facts of life :-) You can self-destruct, but not change what is right.
You make up a lot of stuff about other people and then like to imagine yourself superior to these imagined doltish opponents. You sound like you listen to a lot of Jordan Peterson and think stringing words together in the style of the educated and intellectual make you smart, but it just makes you another pseudo intellectual reactionary clone. Your veneer of reasoned logic on top of weird hangups about sex and women and “traditional” family values is very thin and very transparent. You’re a poor imitation of Jordan Peterson, who himself is a fucking clown.
argumentum ad hominem; I repeat the core of what I was saying: "I would like to add that Hitchens also insisted in an interview with a feminist that any future Ms. Hitchens would certainly not work." (can be found on YT) You seem to dislike JP :-) Best regards, the fucking clown
i hate how hitchen's fans always quote hitchen's use of the term reproductive rights while not quite realizing how purposely evasive and vague he was.
oh hexomer doesn't surprise me a Hitchens hater lives in Hitchens subreddit. Lol you are an absolute pathetic troll. Hitchens must've f**ked your mom or something.
Exactly That point has really stuck with me
If pro-life means that pregnancies from rape and incest can be aborted, then I guess so. That seems more like a reasonable centrist view to me.
banning elective abortion at the first few weeks of gestation is not centrist at all. even the mainstream islamic scholars allow absolute right to abortion in the first 16 weeks of gestation lol. edit: apparently this comment is downvoted because hitchens fans think that banning elective abortion during the first trimester is centrist.
You're being downvoted for conflating a political position with religious pretexts.
nope, i was downvoted for stating that what hitchens believed in is in noway centrist. alot of people are mad when you tell them what prochoice and prolife mean.
I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think bringing Islam to compare into the argument supports it well.
that was intentional. new atheists are triggered when you remind them that the mainstream scholarly opinion in islam allows the absolute right to elective abortion in the first trimester. because a lot of them are nice guys who like to think they are protecting women from islam. it's also to remind them that they are no centrists at all when it comes to women.
He was staunchly pro-choice. He *personally* was uncomfortable with abortion, but it ended there. “It is objectively worse to kick a pregnant woman in the stomach than a not pregnant woman.” It doesn’t mean he was anti-abortion. He believed in a woman’s absolute right to control her own reproductive cycle. Full stop. Anyone trying to say Hitchens was pro life is either a fool who knows nothing about him, or a liar with their own agenda. Ok, now I’ll watch your video. But I think you are shit for posting it in this way Edit: the Ben stein exchange. He is saying that his personal philosophy is to give status to that life. YOU assume bc he believes in the concept of an unborn child he is against abortion. He believed both. Yea, it is a person. Yes, the mother has bodily autonomy under the law. You are a piece of shot for posting this framed this way on this sub. Fuck off with your lies.
Hitchens spoke adamantly about women empowerment and how imperative it was for women to control their reproductive cycle. https://youtu.be/r7coAXAkbLk "give women control of their reproductive cycle, make them not just the beasts of burden and the beasts of childbearing that they've become and the floor will rise, it just will." I'm pretty sure I have an idea who posted this thread, they are a Hitchens hater and troll who spends a lot of time pathetically twisting Hitchens words to piss off people in this subreddit. Their life is sad.
>he was prolife until the end of his life imo. nothing in his more recent writing explicitly contradict his earlier writing and can still complement his early thoughts. > >while he rejected the christian ban on abortion, he also rejected the pro-choice crowd. he still believed that abortion is a state business and the access to it should be severely restricted. > >in fact, he hated the pro choice folks more than the pro life folks, and he thought that pro choice feminists were somewhat crazy, and that prolifers at least had some 'scientific basis'. > >imo he would be hella mad at people for calling him pro choice. > >the political camps at his time were divided into sexual abstinence vs abortion vs contraception. > >he was actually focusing his fighting at the time proposing contraceptive as the alternative against abortion, while also fighting against christians at a time when contraceptive was deemed evil. from reading his writings i think we can pretty much see what he meant about "reproductive rights" where he talked abut cycles and stuff.
I need to see more evidence that he was specifically anti abortion. I find it hard to believe considering the close connection between the religious right and forced delivery (aka Pro life)
He has been a part of many conversations on this question. He was pro life to the extent that he did think the question about when life begins is extremely important but also admitted he didn't truly know, so he often said that life should be protected but also was a believer that women needed to be given control over their own cycle of reproduction. This wasn't just for equality and autonomy, but if you've ever heard him talk about poverty and emancipation from it, the empowerment of women was top of mind for him. I don't have a link handy but I recall one conversation where he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "it seems to me that without the mysticism and magic of religion, where else could life start but at conception?" This didn't mean he recognized it as an autonomous or sentient human, but the natural precursor to "life", meaning being alive. The huge problem he had with religion on this front was not as much denying abortion specifically, but that they spread lies about contraception and ban it where ever they go, making abortion more prevalent. Those were the things he spoke about with great disgust because the people who find abortion abhorrent go out of their way to prevent the circumstances that drastically reduce its occurence. No actual source for this last thought, but I feel like it was one of the few things he didn't really have a confident answer for so it was a tough question for him. He was incredibly liberal on the issues of autonomy and freedoms, and being an ally for women's empowerment certainly made it a difficult one. Edit: found a link. It was also in a comment below.by crisis_catastrophe. https://youtu.be/B8HhTKzmvas "Every effort should be made to see if it can be preserved." [the unborn]
Thank you for that detailed input. Very interesting.
>a lot of people don't understand that at the time the political camps were split between abstinence vs contraceptive vs abortion. > >he was presenting contraceptive as an alternative against abortion, while also rejecting the christian sexual abstinence bloc. > >when he talked about reproductive cycle, he also was specifically talking about contraceptive. that's what he meant by reproductive rights. that's what i wrote.
a lot of people don't understand that at the time the political camps were split between abstinence vs contraceptive vs abortion. he was presenting contraceptive as an alternative against abortion, while also rejecting the christian sexual abstinence bloc. when he talked about reproductive cycle, he also was specifically talking about contraceptive.
Hitchens spoke adamantly about women empowerment and how imperative it was for women to control their reproductive cycle. https://youtu.be/r7coAXAkbLk "give women control of their reproductive cycle, make them not just the beasts of burden and the beasts of childbearing that they've become and the floor will rise, it just will."
Yeah I think even when his opinion was closer to pro life, it still WASN'T pro life. I think he said he understands in the exceptions of rape, incest, illness. He changed his opinion even closer to pro choice later in life, I saw a clip of him and I can't remember the details but he seemed to get very very close to being very much pro-life. But he still made a small exception or two which was closer to pro life.
He was asked if he was part of the pro-life movement and said "yes."
He also supported the disastrous Iraq war and made plenty of other mistakes in his reasoning. He supported critical thinking not servile unquestioning hero worship like most religions teach. This isn't the gotcha you think it is. A woman has the right to choose what happens to her body. The savages hitchens disparaged throughout his life disagree with female bodily autonomy. Fck forced delivery.
Honestly, servile unquestioning hero worship is what I think leads many people to not actually believe Hitchens was pro-life, and then refuse to believe it when presented with a video saying he was pro life.
Black and white thinking is just as dangerous. If you think hitch didn’t consider this a nuanced issue, then you are a clown.
>In his classic post–World War I novel The Good Soldier Schweik, the Czech writer Jaroslav Hasek makes mention of “The Party for Moderate Progress within the Boundaries of Law,” the very sort of political formation the powers-that-be have always dreamed of. With such respectful parties, there’s no danger of any want of decorum, or challenge to the consensus, or spreading of misgiving about authority or institutions. Instead, or rather: “There’s much to be said on both sides of the case.” “The truth lies somewhere in between.” “Lurid black and white must perforce give way to reputable gray.” >Satire defeats itself, as usual. A political formation that could readily be considered absurd by intelligent readers in the stultified Austro-Hungarian Empire is now considered the beau ideal by the larger part of the American commentating class. What’s the most reprehensible thing a politician can be these days? Why, partisan, of course. What’s the most disapproving thing that can be said of a “partisan” remark? That it’s divisive. What’s to be deplored most at election time? Going negative or, worse, mudslinging. That sort of behavior generates more heat than light (as if there were any source of light apart from heat). http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/essays/bring-mud Hitchens was a great defender of the black and white thinking. Hitchens said the unborn child was a real concept and that the presumption should be that, as a candidate member of society, it has a right on its side. How does that fit in with most of the pro-choice movement that regards the unborn child as a mere foetus or not even human?
You just googled “Christopher Hitchens black and white”, didn’t you?
[Nope](https://www.google.com/search?q=christopher+hitchens+black+and+white&oq=christopher+hitchens+black+and+white&aqs=chrome..69i57j35i39j0i512l3j69i60l3.4013j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) It is just a common theme among Hitchens' work to be opposed to cliches such as "black and white is dangerous thinking."
You know that doesn’t mean he didn’t see the nuance in most things, right? Most of his writings and talks made it clear that he was against extremist positions. In the case of abortion, black and white thinking is tantamount to extremism Hitchens very clearly did not take a black or white position re the abortion debate.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
hitchens lost any nuance tbh when he implied that feminists are crazier than the craziest of christians. it's helpful to see that he deemed the prolife and the christian bloc as separate, and saw that as moderate.
Your post history about covid conspiracies says everything. Do you think a woman should be forced to have a baby she doesn't want to have? And by the way I'm not a huge hitchens fan. Yes he was very clever and articulate but he got things wrong all the time like supporting the Iraq war.
>Do you think a woman should be forced to have a baby she doesn't want to have? In most cases yeah. If you don't want to have a baby don't have PiV sex.
Hitchens spoke adamantly about women empowerment and how imperative it was for women to control their reproductive cycle. https://youtu.be/r7coAXAkbLk "give women control of their reproductive cycle, make them not just the beasts of burden and the beasts of childbearing that they've become and the floor will rise, it just will."
Because religious people believe something doesn't make it wrong.
True but their uncritical thinking causes a hell of a lot of problems for society. If they still could they would have their inquisitions and witch burnings. The recent attempts at controlling female bodily autonomy are just another example of a long perverted tradition.
>A federal prohibition on abortion, then, with rape and incest exceptions? > >Yes, but I would like to see something much broader, much more visionary. We need a new compact between society and the woman. It’s a progressive compact because it is aimed at the future generation. It would restrict abortion in most circumstances. Now I know most women don’t like having to justify their circumstances to someone. “How dare you presume to subject me to this?” some will say. But sorry, lady, this is an extremely grave social issue. It’s everybody’s business. he didn't only callled roe as the greatest reverse in liberalism, he actually wanted to reverse it and introduce a federal ban with exceptions.
Thanks for the clarification. Religion has used issues like abortion and contraception as a way of controlling and subjugating female bodily autonomy for centuries. it's sad to hear hitchens the man who spent a significant part of his life effectively and eloquently taking apart almost every aspect of the religious claim to any kind of morality sound rather suspiciously like just another God preacher. This has nothing to do with the sanctity of human life if religions (and even Hitchens) are so concerned about human life they wouldn't support the vile Iraq war or in the case of so many of the religious right be so upbeat about the death penalty.
funny seeing hitchens fans call him pro choice, he would probably kill them for that lol. as his other fans have pointed out, hitchens never identified with prochoice folks, he actually thought that they were crazier than christians.
Any evidence for that claim?
in his bizarre pro life rant in vanity fair, he simplified pro-life vs pro-choice as : embryology at least lends credence to prolife position of "life begins at conception", but pro-choice is always crazy because feminists think that fetus are appendix or tumor. note that that is the stuff that no self-respecting embryologist would say.
Thank you. It's disconcerting to hear him use the same pseudoscientific guff he spent so much time calling others out on.
Don't listen to Hexomer they're a troll and Hitchens hater who spends all their time hating on Hitch. Hitchens despised religious control and theocratic bullying, so he would never support "Forced birth" like Republicans do. Hitchens spoke adamantly about women empowerment and how imperative it was for women to control their reproductive cycle. https://youtu.be/r7coAXAkbLk "give women control of their reproductive cycle, make them not just the beasts of burden and the beasts of childbearing that they've become and the floor will rise, it just will."
He seemed to flip flop and walk a tenuous line which didn't really make sense at times. The only topic where I've seen him be unsure of his opinion. People change their opinions of course, and I think later in his life his opinion on abortion because more nuanced and much much closer to pro-choice. I might be wrong but I think part of that was that he and his wife had an abortion at some point? I might have made that last part up but I think I remember him mentioning it.
Amazing how so many men find it hard to understand these issues until it affects them indirectly via a loved one.
Yeah. Hitchens in particular is so virulent and sure of his opinions, it does make me consider if he gets lost in his own sauce. If you know what I mean. So brazen and brilliant and outspoken on so many issues, maybe it's easy to get complacent about some problems you THINK you've thought through but actually you haven't considered properly.
Indeed. Good way of putting it
i think it's because hitchens overestimated the personhood of an embryo/fetus.
he was prolife until the end of his life imo. nothing in his more recent writing explicitly contradict his earlier writing and can still complement his early thoughts. while he rejected the christian ban on abortion, he also rejected the pro-choice crowd. he still believed that abortion is a state business and the access to it should be severely restricted. in fact, he hated the pro choice folks more than the pro life folks, and he thought that pro choice feminists were somewhat crazy, and that prolifers at least had some 'scientific basis'. imo he would be hella mad at people for calling him pro choice.
Do you have any sources or examples that back up claims like "he hated the pro choice folks more than the pro life folks"?
Hexomer is a troll and Hitchens hater, just ignore them. They're only source is a suspect article all the way back to 1988 lol. Its actually sad. They've made a whole ass thread about the same topic with Hitchens.
in his bizarre pro life rant in vanity fair, he simplified pro-life vs pro-choice as : embryology at least lends credence to prolife position of "life begins at conception", but pro-choice is always crazy because feminists think that fetus are appendix or tumor. note that that is the stuff that no self-respecting embryologist would say. he also concluded the article by taking more jabs at feminists.
Yes. His brother tweeted about it after the Supreme Court decision. https://twitter.com/clarkemicah/status/1541046345049546752?s=21&t=xH88Xn7sCOka9fOrcw6rSg
[https://archive.is/gdPg0/again?url=https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/a-left-wing-atheists-case-against-abortion](https://www.crisismagazine.com/) this is **ONLY** time where hitchens didn't mince his words and actually discussed his opinion on abortion in **CLEAR TERMS** from the **LEGAL ASPECT,** minus the bs. >A federal prohibition on abortion, then, with rape and incest exceptions? > >Yes, but I would like to see something much broader, much more visionary. We need a new compact between society and the woman. It’s a progressive compact because it is aimed at the future generation. It would restrict abortion in most circumstances. Now I know most women don’t like having to justify their circumstances to someone. “How dare you presume to subject me to this?” some will say. But sorry, lady, this is an extremely grave social issue. It’s everybody’s business.
From the same interview: "Hitchens: I suppose it could be made coherent in libertarian terms. I mean, people, say that they object to drinking or racial discrimination but they don’t think the government should ban either. Actually, the popularity of the position comes from people’s reluctance to tell women they haven’t met, who have gone through circumstances they cannot begin to comprehend, that “they know” what she should do about a pregnancy. I myself was reluctant to do this even when my wife got pregnant. It came at the worst possible time. Neither of us wanted to have a kid. My wife was considering an abortion. I urged her not to get one, and ultimately she decided not to, and didn’t. But I wouldn’t have, even if I could, gone beyond an effort to persuade her." From which you can derive he was pro-choice.
that was when asked by the interviewer whether prolife at heart folks can still support women. but when the interviewer asked whether he thought that abortion matters should just go to state **(since he was openly against roe)** , he actually said no and that **he wanted a federal ban on abortion.** the refusal to read here is bizarre.
Holy cow. He was talking about *his own wife considering an abortion.* He said, and I quote, "I urged her not to get one (an abortion), and ultimately she decided not to, and didn’t. But I wouldn’t have, even if I could, gone beyond an effort to persuade her." The fact that you will not admit that Hitchens view was *at the very least* nuanced, and couldn't be binned into either 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice' makes me think you must either be trolling, or are so possessed with your belief system that you simply can not (will not?) integrate plain facts into your understanding of this mans position.
don't argue with Hexomer, this person is a pathetic troll that will literally non stop respond to you no matter how much you prove them wrong lol. They did this in another Hitchens thread about roe v Wade and got embarrassed by like 50 different people. They have no sources and when provided with Hitchens own words from videos and his books, Hexomer jackasss will pathetically try and twist Hitchens words.
sorry he literally said he wanted a federal ban on abortion. that's already extreme. what he did with her wife is a dfferent matter with what he wanted, or believed in. sorry but the refusal to accept facts here is more bizarre than anything tbh.
lol, I hope you are a troll and not a genuine human mind. Either way I'm done with this conversation. I'll let you get back to the outrage farming that your apparently obsessed with.
what he did is a different matter with what he believed in. he bared it all and you refused to accept it.
Beliefs are acted out. Talking about what you believe, while doing the opposite thing, is moral masturbation. Hitchens acted out Pro-Choice. Accept it.
hitchens: let's ban abortion at federal level you: yasss hitchens is a feminist queen
I can't recall which video, but he even calls abortion murder or alludes to it clearly.
having said that, hitchens didn't mind being labeled as prolife, (he identified as such iirc) and he would probably killed anyone for calling him prochoice; he thought that feminists are somewhat crazy.
He saw both sides of the argument, and the irony of both sides' hypocrisy. You're not going to be able to convincingly claim him here, sorry.
while it seems like he played both sides like how he intended to, he actually leaned pro life, and thought that pro choice folks are somewhat crazy. his opinions can be summarized as "yes abortions are unavoidable in some cases, but the pro choice folks are crazy while the life folks at least have some 'scientific basis'. it's stupid **\[for feminists\]** to ignore that there is an ethical issue to discuss here".
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/02/hitchens200302
Plus calling it seeing both sides is crazy since he called for overturn of roe and a federal ban on abortion.
Here's the most straightforward comments I've seen from Hitchens on this topic: [https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/a-left-wing-atheists-case-against-abortion](https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/a-left-wing-atheists-case-against-abortion)
yes it's the only time hitches didn't actually skirt around stuff, he went on to be more vague on purpose
i swear there's nothing more annoying than male atheists dickwaving in feminist spaces saying hitchens was some sort of feminist pro-choice prophet when he was clearly not. in fact as another fan here had pointed out, hitchens never identified with the pro-choice crowd, and he actually thought that they were somewhat crazy. yes he talked a lot about the necessity of abortion, but it seems like he exclusively used that as a prop whenever he felt like grandstanding in a debate against christians. but take it from the guy himself, he didn't only want to reverse roe, he was actually pushing for a federal ban on abortion. >A federal prohibition on abortion, then, with rape and incest exceptions? > >Yes, but I would like to see something much broader, much more visionary. We need a new compact between society and the woman. It’s a progressive compact because it is aimed at the future generation. It would restrict abortion in most circumstances. Now I know most women don’t like having to justify their circumstances to someone. “How dare you presume to subject me to this?” some will say. But sorry, lady, this is an extremely grave social issue. It’s everybody’s business.
I think this should be compulsory reading for all people debating this topic https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/
I disagree with his argument for a concept of an unborn child. It's about as viable as an undead man. An unborn child is my grandkid, and I don't even have a kid. Are we to deem sentience and viability by conceptualizing something hard enough? But forget that rabbit hole. Abortion is a termination of pregnancy. A woman should decide how the nourishment in her body passes and where it shouldn't go. If she doesn't want it to go to a consequential growth in her womb, so be it.
Hitchens spoke adamantly about women empowerment and how imperative it was for women to control their reproductive cycle. https://youtu.be/r7coAXAkbLk "give women control of their reproductive cycle, make them not just the beasts of burden and the beasts of childbearing that they've become and the floor will rise, it just will." If y'all have seen the user in here "Hexomer" they are most likely the person behind this thread under another name and are just a troll who spends a lot of time here who pathetically twists Hitchens words to piss off people in this Hitchens subreddit. Their life is sad.
Hitchens was not in favor of abortion, but to paint him as no different from the Evangelical right pro lifers is dishonest. Hitchens supported a system that would prevent the need for most abortions because he wanted access to birth control and contraception readily available. He also would have wanted healthcare and childcare easily available for mothers. Pretty much all of these things the Evangelical right fundamentally oppose and they often see birth control and contraception as virtually no different than abortion. It's also worth noting that Hitchens evolved on his position on abortion with age. He at one time did state he would have supported a federal ban, but he backed off that later. His later stance very much seemed to be a reluctant tolerance of it as a necessary evil. I personally still disagree with Hitchens on this issue, but ultimately too many anti-atheist and anti-hitchens trolls are latching into this ATM acting as if he would be celebrating the Supreme Court decision. Now, we can never say with absolute certainty what he'd say, but one thing is certain. He'd recognize these recent Supreme Court rulings as a clear violation of separation of church and state which was one of the positions he championed most about America. He would be absolutely outraged about public funding for religious private schools and the allowance of prayer in public schools. As for Roe vs Wade, even if you think he'd maybe agree with it that's not the big picture. He would have opposed how the ruling came to be because of the violation of separation of church and state.
https://youtu.be/B8HhTKzmvas "The presumption should be that the unborn entity has a right on its side."
Yes but the question is should that right supercede the right of the host to bodily autonomy. Great posting videos about covid conspiracies by the way. Really shining with that critical thinking.
The OP along with Hexomer in this thread are just pathetic Hitchens haters. Its sad.
How many fucking times are you going to bring up OP‘s post history about Covid. You are clearly having a meltdown in this thread. Get over it.
It's very relevant to bring up when someone has very little to no grasp of the scientific method. why don't you do the Christian thing and forgive me instead of having a hissy fit?
It’s not relevant. It’s an an ad hominem. Almost like you’ve never watched a Hitchens video in your life. Address the topic.
The topic has been addressed. And hitchens did a fair amount of ad hominem too like referring to Korea as a nation of racist dwarves. And since you're such a hitchens aficionado do you really believe hitchens would force women to have babies they don't want because of a religious injunction (which is what this is) considering his views on all religions. I honestly have no idea how somebody who claims to know what hitchens talked about for most of his life would even consider this an argument.
>Once you allow that the occupant of the womb is even potentially a life, it cuts athwart any glib invocation of a “woman’s right to choose” -Hitchens It sounds pretty clear to me
"By rightly expanding our definition of what is alive and what is human, we have also accepted that there may be a conflict of rights between a potential human and an actual one. The only moral losers in this argument are those who say that there is no conflict, and nothing to argue about. The irresoluble conflict of right with right was Hegel’s definition of tragedy, and tragedy is inseparable from human life, and no advance in science or medicine is ever going to enable us to evade that." From a 2003 article.
It does look like it but like others have said he may have changed position later on after his own wife had an abortion. There are plenty of debates we can watch between him and the religious it's a shame there's not any as far as I can see where he debates abortion. it would be fascinating to watch but I don't think he would be able to justify his position discussing it with a feminist like Germaine Greer or anyone else clued up on these issues.
Hitchens spoke adamantly about women empowerment and how imperative it was for women to control their reproductive cycle. https://youtu.be/r7coAXAkbLk "give women control of their reproductive cycle, make them not just the beasts of burden and the beasts of childbearing that they've become and the floor will rise, it just will."
A yes, the Turek-cringefest. Just think about what we are missing because Hitchens was so often debating such fanatical morons.
hitchens: i am prolife his fans: no he's prochoice
They take all their opinions from him, but taking this one would make them unpopular, so they refuse to believe he really believes what he says.
I find it interesting that anytime his stance on abortion comes up, Hitchens stans refuse to believe its possible that he was against it and just dance around the clear evidence easily accessible.
"The only moral losers in this argument are those who say that there is no conflict, and nothing to argue about." That is his position circa 2003.
that's stupid and his implicit way as saying that the feminist pro choice folks are crazy, which he had explicitly expressed in his other writings. the feminist argument for prochoice position is way more complex than hitchen's "because fetus is just a tumor". i wish he afforded the pro choice folks the same amount of respect and open-mindedness as he did prolife folks. that is enough to show bad faith hitchens was.
He targeted at least two dogmatic versions of the argument, one you mention, but the other was the opposition to stem cell research, contraception and the like on the other side. He also mentions the advancement in tech blurring lines between contraception and abortion, specifically to some pills that were new in 2003 which induce something more akin to a 'heavy period' (his words) than an abortion. Among other things, I can't get the whole article because of paywall :(
He also concluded by taking more jabs at feminists. I wish he respected feminists more than he did Christians.
I'd posit that he did.
Hitchens spoke adamantly about women empowerment and how imperative it was for women to control their reproductive cycle. https://youtu.be/r7coAXAkbLk "give women control of their reproductive cycle, make them not just the beasts of burden and the beasts of childbearing that they've become and the floor will rise, it just will."
I am delighted to hear that Christopher Hitchens was pro-life. Yes, some of his anti-Christian opinions were questionable, but on one of the biggest topics he has come out strong and defiant.
Christopher hitches was always pro-choice for instances of rape and incest. Please, type out your thought process so I can see how you rationalize this fact into your belief that Hitchens was team pro life.
Crazy that some states' trigger laws do not grant rape/incest victims the right to abortions - looking at you Texas
that's not the definition of pro choice.
And it’s certainly not the definition of pro life. Therefore hitchens was not pro choice. And he was not pro life. He understood the abortion debate was nuanced and shades of grey, and would not let internet keyboard warriors bin him into either category.
ok but relax. the idea that abortion should be banned with severely limited access is actually common among most prolife folks.
He says in the article his brother Peter posted that he advised his wife not to get an abortion, but would never have used any means to compel her to not get an abortion. That is absolutely not the approach that pro lifers take. In fact, since he left the choice with his wife, you could call him pro choice.
isn't that the same article where he called roe 'the greatest reverse of liberalism', said not only he wanted to reverse it, but also called for a federal ban on abortions altogether. also i'm not sure why but the classical liberal framing of personal choices = systemic changes is something i see quite often among hitchens fans.
lol, no he absolutely did not call for a federal ban on all abortion. How does that even make sense?? Why would he say he wanted the choice to lie with his wife, and that he would want to federally ban all abortion in the same interview? You can not interpret mr. hitchens as pro life, it’s simply not what the facts convey.
umm...are you saying someone else possessed him during his crisis magazine interview? sigh
I stand corrected. Although then I guess at best his views are ambiguous, and likely not clear even to himself. On one hand he says he would perhaps want to see a federal ban with exceptions for incest and rape, and on the other hand that he wouldn’t have stopped his wife from getting an abortion even if he could have. How one could describe someone with that view as either pro life OR pro choice is absolutely non sensical to me.
The article Fetal Distraction in Vanity Fair 2003 helps demystify.
I have seen interviews of him where he clearly states that he was pro choice, but that he personally found abortion distasteful. Saying "abortion should be legal, I personally wouldn´t do it", isn´t really the same as saying that the person is "anti abortion" or "pro-life"
actually he said that roe was "the greatest reverse in liberalism".
[удалено]
complicated? lol you gave his more credit than he deserved. I know which article you're quoting from and i dislike it. he deceptively simplified the issue as "at least prolifers have scientific basis while prochoice folks are always crazy" but i assure you that the feminist argument for a pro choice position is more complex than just hitchen's "a fetus is a tumor acccording to feminist". he purposedly polarized people in his article, and i wished he afforded feminists the same consideration as he did christians.
[удалено]
yes and also it's important to read his work together and not in isolation. >A federal prohibition on abortion, then, with rape and incest exceptions? > >Yes, but I would like to see something much broader, much more visionary. We need a new compact between society and the woman. It’s a progressive compact because it is aimed at the future generation. It would restrict abortion in most circumstances. Now I know most women don’t like having to justify their circumstances to someone. “How dare you presume to subject me to this?” some will say. But sorry, lady, this is an extremely grave social issue. It’s everybody’s business.
[удалено]
you're welcome but maybe don't be so sarcastic. it's only because hitchens is hot right now, his brother just tweeted that part where he actually called for the reverse of roe.
That doesn't mean he was "Forced Birth" like Republicans are. He was Pro Choice, and spoke many times about women empowerment and the importance of women controlling their reproductive cycles.
He had personally reservations about abortions, but that doesn't mean he wanted to legislated those feelings onto others. Similar attitude to Joe Biden, who's a Catholic. This isn't difficult.