Emily at Tiger Beatdown has an amusing post up about the way that right wingers are abusing cupcakes for evil instead of good, concluding that cupcakes are therefore evil. She suggests other baked goods—including cookies, cakes, and macaroons—are also tainted with evil. I suggest brownies or my favorite, zucchini bread, as a liberal-friendly alternative. (And for the humorless wingnuts reading this site, I want you to know that the previous trashing of baked goods is a joke. I realize that wingnuts take very seriously the idea that some foods are "conservative" and some are "liberal", and that eating of arugula instead of Burger King will cause their testicles to shrivel up, but seriously, liberals aren't as interested. Sometimes a cupcake is just a cupcake. Really.) But what I thought was really interesting was the anti-choice cupcake fuckwittery:
…once a year, on October 9th, we would bake as many birthday cupcakes as humanly possible and hand them out for free wherever we can. When people asked whose birthday it is, we tell them these cupcakes are for celebrating the birthdays of every person who never gets to have a birthday. People respond in all ways – from refusing the cupcake, to sharing about abortions they’ve had in the past and the regret they carry, to just wanting to know more.
But really, they're selling the whole "never will get a birthday" thing short! After all, there are many, many, many more potential people that never come into existence than just those who may have been but for an abortion. After all, there are children you never had because you use contraception (to be fair, anti-choice activists are also against that). But there are also children you didn't have because you didn't have sex in the first place. Not fucking is clearly murder in these cases. Every time you're ovulating and you elect to go to bed alone, you have deprived someone of a birthday! So women like Lila Rose and Jill Stanek, who claim that contraception is a sin and therefore expect us to believe they simply use abstinence to keep from having babies, are also horrible deprivers-of-birthdays with all that abstaining. Stanek is in her 50s and has only one son, I do believe, meaning she's deprived approximately 400 children of their chance to have a birthday. That's a lot of cupcakes! Lila Rose is only 23, which means she's probably only been preventing precious babies from having the birthdays they deserve for a little over a decade. So let's give her the benefit of the doubt and assumed she's carelessly disregarded her ovulation 130-ish times, preventing a precious, precious baby from having the birthday he deserves. But between them, that's 500 birthdays that will never happen, because, by their own measure, they're selfish shrews who don't care about "life". Honestly, I don't see how they have a right to judge anyone else with their track record of not giving their precious babies a chance.
Unless of course this has nothing to do with potential life and has everything to do with sex, and anti-choice anger that women can having it without paying a steep penalty for it. Because if it's really about not preventing potential babies from being born with "sinful" methods like contraception and abortion, Stanek and Rose—who, I must remind you, have prevented the birthdays of 500 children—have a lot of non-babies to answer for.