Mr. Wankenstein Strikes Again

Dalton Conley is at it again. (If you missed his first go-round, see here, or better yet, Maria Luisa Tucker’s piece here.)

Atrios aptly sums up Conley’s newest attempt to cast his views on abortion as anything but complete and utter claptrap:

I should not have written that a man should be able to get an injunction against a woman having an abortion when what I meant was that he should only be able to get such an injunction by paying just compensation for the temporary seizure of the women's uterus as determined by independent arbitration.

What. A. Wanker.
Indeed.

Frankly, I think everything you need to know about Conley can be summed up in this sentence from his new screed:

Think of men’s inability to conceive as a disability that needs to be overcome by law where science is not able: nowhere is this brought into sharper focus than in the differences between female and male same sex couples. Someday there may be an artificial womb that will allow (gay) men to have kids by rushing off to the ova bank…
Good lord. There are so many things wrong with that passage, I don’t even know where to begin. It is, however, extremely interesting that, should science be able to help men clear the hurdle of their “disability,” Conley implies that only gay men will take advantage of it. Straight dudes like him will still have their bitchez handle the baby business.

That seems to sum up his position pretty well—he wants all the choice and none of the responsibility. Douche.

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus