When reality gets in the way of your story line? Deny reality

After reading this post (language warning), I think the above must be Amanda Marcotte’s policy when it comes to abortion. She writes,

If you correctly assume that the anti-choice movement is motivated primarily by a misogynist need to punish women who have unapproved sex, then you can see how offering social support to mothers is already, from their point of view, a compromise of their basic beliefs, from two angles:

This is completely absurd. Could Amanda for one second explain how the work of thousands of prolifers to help women in unplanned pregnancies during and after pregnancy could be motivated by a misogynist need to punish women? How is giving diapers, furniture, strollers, formula, baby food, to women who’ve chosen life a means to punish them? Maybe in bizarro world where up is down and down is up.

It’s like she’s so tied to this simpleton storyline which casts prolifers as women-hating bullies who want to punish people for having sex, she can’t look at the abortion debate except through that warped lense. Maybe that’s why her writing is so entirely unpersuasive. I also wonder if that’s one of the reasons the writing of Jill from Feministe on the subject of abortion has really gone down the tubes in recent years. If you can’t look at and take your opponent’s position and arguments in good faith for more than a second, then it becomes increasingly difficult to provide a thoughtful response to them.

Memo to Amanda: Providing support to pregnant and parenting women isn’t a compromise for prolifers. It’s part of what we do every single day.