Poirot,
I do agree. I think the tea party members are only economic libertarians and couldn't care less about the abortion issue, any more than they do about illegal immigrants. It's rather a satisfying irony actually that the conservative heartland of the US and elsewhere is being patronised by the Godless money-merchants for their votes.

Briar Rose,
I respect your position fundamentally (pardon the pun), we just differ in the particulars. I agree that women are misogynists too, under the umbrella of patriarchy, but that's wearing a little thin (patriarchy ain't what it used to be) and, moreover, the implication is that women don't have the balls(?) to stop being brain-washed by maledom. Women are well-represented at church, ANZAC parades, football matches, indeed all macho/ceremonial occasions. It seems to me, by this reckoning, the vast majority of women are misogynists--or maybe women are just naturally passive/religious/conservatives?
In any event, my only real grumble with your position is you keep on trying to defend "free choice" as a virtue in itself, when your own premises--oppressive auto/misogyny--indicate that possibly most women are incapable of making a "free" choice. Now it could be argued that exercising free choice is the first step towards empowerment and emancipation, but that's surely a cold victory for those women tough enough to endure their pariah status in a place like the US, or its conservative religious enclaves. For emotionally fragile women it must be a nightmare.
So while I'm pro-choice, I argue that promoted as a virtue in itself it's indistinguishable from libertarianism, which is either (for me) socially despicable or ethically shallow. Either way, women feel the pain; their feelings are either commodified or rationalised.

tbc

...
I'm a mere male but I'm trying to empathise in saying that for many women an abortion must be an extremely emotional, even devastating, act of violence against themselves. There are in imo many excellent reasons and justifications for taking such a step (not least saving the planet!), but the least of them is "free choice", and I for one am never going to be completely comfortable with the necessity. Nor should any of us take it lightly. let's not denigrate women's maternal-intelligence--which women surely "feel"; it isn't programmed by men--by treating such a momentous decision as perfunctory. If we're going to defend women's right to an abortion, let's explore the morality of it, which surely redound to her credit, and respect and do justice to her feelings--and at the same time confound and give the lie to the manic and hypocritical ethics of fundies.
Citing "free choice" is a cop-out and gives the moral high-ground to the fanatics.

Squeers,

I think Tea Party members are concerned about moral issues such as abortion. I also think that that kind of puritanical viewpoint is naturally at home with a libertarian economic philosophy - they are perfect bedfellows.

It's a kind of Protestant mindset where the "good" are rewarded and the immorally impure are shunned and/or controlled by those operating from an exalted sense of righteousness - a God-given approval to ignore the suffering of the lower orders, etc....

We only have to look at the way the new middle-class inhabited the best pews in the church during the Industrial Revolution while presiding over inhuman work practices to glean the connection between libertarian economic practice and a sense of "higher morality" - their consciences were clear.

I see the same attitudes forming a tell-tale slick on the surface of American politics and society. Recent examples of GOP leaders pandering to this mindset are disturbing, yet probably predictable. As you pointed out, this type of "return to the past morality" tends to surface when countries begin to sense that their glory days are numbered.

@Squeers I don’t make the claim that some women are misogynist entirely as a result of introjecting patriarchal attitudes. That’s reductionist. There are complex factors in play of which patriarchal indoctrination is but one.

Neither do I agree that women can be defined as misogynist by virtue of participating in “macho ceremonies.” As for lacking “balls” – many people lack the will/capacity to resist “brainwashing” by the orthodoxy, this isn’t peculiar to women. Hegemonic masculinity also “brainwashes” men, and many men lack the balls to interrogate their own indoctrination. I’m not sure that framing this lack of will/capacity as gender based is useful.

I don’t think I use the term “free choice” at all in my article, so I’m not sure where your argument with me on this is coming from.
I am pro choice in the matter of abortion. I don’t know anyone who is pro abortion.

However, since you brought it up, I think “free choice” like “free speech” is something of a misnomer – neither can be entirely “free” and neither is a “virtue”, rather both are a responsibility. Being “free to choose” to have an abortion doesn’t strike me as an offensive concept, and certainly that choice incurs serious responsibilities. I haven’t yet heard of a woman who perceives abortion as a practical demonstration of her exercise of free choice. As you rightly note, the experience is not a pleasant one. Most of us would undertake it only as a necessity. When faced with that option the only bearing free choice has on the matter is our freedom to access safe and legal procedures, having made the choice to terminate a pregnancy. The choice may not feel exactly “free” depending on a woman’s circumstances. I do have some sympathy with the feminist argument that calls for a society in which women (and men) are far more supported in child rearing, so that termination doesn’t feel as necessary. I don’t think our culture is particularly child friendly, or friendly enough to parents.

Poirot,
Sorry, I haven’t been able to reply till now. I tend to imagine the classic individualist libertarian as amoral and socially anarchic, a la the Peter Hume representation. But this impression is probably more an archetypes than the stereotypes you invoke. I think you make an excellent point!

Briar Rose,
Thanks for stating your position a little more fully and acknowledging some of the complexity beneath populist pro-choice jargon. What you say, particularly in your last paragraph seems very reasonable to me.
Just a couple of things; when you say that lacking “the will/capacity to resist “brainwashing” by the orthodoxy … isn’t peculiar to women. Hegemonic masculinity also “brainwashes” men, and many men lack the balls to interrogate their own indoctrination”, that’s exactly the point I was making in one of my posts above, ergo I don’t frame “this lack of will/capacity as gender based”. And while I agree some women are misogynists, I don’t believe the issue is based on misogyny in the main on either side, which “is” reductionism.
I didn’t mean to imply I was quoting you when I put inverted commas around “free choice”, but was criticising your condemnation of pro-life on the basis of pro-choice, and the want of any in-depth discussion of the ethics and agonies of pro-choice, or, conversely, critique of the complexities/vacuity of the pro-life lobby—though admittedly you were only dealing with the GOP set. Nevertheless it seems to me the article was heavy-handed with rhetoric and light on argument. The fanatical pro-lifers are their own worst enemies and should, imo, be taken to task on their own crackpot premises, as well as their hypocrisies. By the same token not all social or religious pro-life discourses can or should be lumped together and dismissed en masse. I think the best way to defend a cause against criticism is to take the opposing viewpoints to task on their own terms, while compellingly espousing your own reasoning. Oftentimes you’re never going to defeat prejudice or dogmatism—except little by little in undermining it—but close reasoning will at least impress thinking people.