Skip to comments.Women 'Must Be Prepared to Kill' Unborn Children to Protect Autonomy: Times Writer
Posted on 07/06/2010 3:55:35 PM PDT by wagglebee
LONDON, U.K., July 6, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After contemplating the immense mysteries of human life and sacrificial love in comparison to a woman's "right to fertility control," a writer for the Times of London concludes that attempts by pro-aborts to dismiss the life of an unborn child are a "convenient lie" hiding the fact that, "Yes, abortion is killing.
But, she concludes, it's the lesser evil."
Columnist Antonia Senior in a June 30 column (available by subscription only) says that, despite the fact that the abortion debate hinges upon whether the unborn child is a unique life or not, women who wish to assert the cause of their freedom from male domination "must be prepared to kill for it."
Senior begins by linking the cause of abortion to that of religious martyrs.
Cradle Tower at the Tower of London is an interactive display that asks visitors to vote on whether they would die for a cause, she says. "Standing where religious martyrs were held and tortured in Britains turbulent reformation, I could think of one cause I would stake my life on: a womans right to be educated, to have a life beyond the home and to be allowed by law and custom to order her own life as she chooses.
"And that includes complete control over her own fertility."
However, she admits that her "absolutist position has been under siege" since she gave birth to her own child.
She notes how "having a baby paints the world an entirely different hue" by revealing the underlying selfishness in what at first appears to be courageous self-affirmation.
Senior gives the example of Leo Tolstoys adulterous heroine Anna Karenina in the book by the same title, writing: If you read the book as a teenager, you back her choices with all the passion of youth. Love over convention, go Anna! Then you have children and realise that Anna abandons her son to shack up with a pretty soldier, and then her daughter when she jumps under a train. She becomes a selfish witch.
Senior then launches into discussing abortion, which she says "hinges on the notion of life," no matter what other arguments or tactics are employed. "Either a foetus is a life from conception, or it is not, she notes.
Senior then admits that: "What seems increasingly clear to me is that, in the absence of an objective definition, a foetus is a life by any subjective measure. My daughter was formed at conception, and all the barely understood alchemy that turned the happy accident of that particular sperm meeting that particular egg into my darling, personality-packed toddler took place at that moment. She is so unmistakably herself, her own person forged in my womb, not by my mothering.
"Any other conclusion is a convenient lie that we on the pro-choice side of the debate tell ourselves to make us feel better about the action of taking a life.
"That little seahorse shape floating in a willing womb is a growing miracle of life. In a resentful womb it is not a life, but a foetus and thus killable."
This fact, she says, leaves feminism with a "problem," to which she attributes the "groundswell" of young pro-life feminists.
But, she insists, "you cannot separate womens rights from their right to fertility control."
"The single biggest factor in womens liberation was our newly found ability to impose our will on our biology."
She concludes therefore that, "As ever, when an issue we thought was black and white becomes more nuanced, the answer lies in choosing the lesser evil in this case in choosing "the expectation of a life unburdened by misogyny," which she suggests can only be achieved through abortion.
Hence, she says, "The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too."
This is the most incredibly twisted stuff I've ever read.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
It’s from the pits of hell.
Pretty sick logic, it leads directly to the ovens.
Killing for the right to kill? That certainly takes no moral courage, rather, total depravity.
Another example of twisted, perverted thinking that originates in the bowels of the devil himself.
I have never understood the logic of this argument. If what they say is true, why should the rules change at birth. They should continue to apply until at least the beginning of first grade. If before that first day of school, a woman’s need for autonomy or self esteem, etc., etc. becomes threatened, then the little tyke should be done in, terminated, wished into the cornfield, ground up into fertilizer. What’s the difference?
She gets close to a pro-Life realisation of what an unborn baby is, and then tortures herself into a killing rationalisation.
There is hope for this woman, just as there was for the leader of Planned Parenthood. Keep praying for her, FReepers!
This person is a raving lunatic — and very possibly a danger to her own child.
Just my opinion of course.
I never understood it either. Being a mother has always been part of my identity, even before I’d met their father.
As a matter of fact, the love and sense of responsibility I’ve always felt toward my unconceived children helped guide all of the major decisions I made as a teen and a young woman... whether or not to try drugs, who to choose as my lifemate, how far to continue my education, etc. I felt that I had to make the better choice for *their* well-being and that short-term satisfaction and instant gratification wasn’t fair to them.
I think that it was good for a young person to not be so self-absorbed.
Satan comes out from hiding...
All demagogues sneak an unsupported conclusion at the end: having plowed through the rest of the text, the reader gets a feeling that this is merely a conclusion of a well-exposited argument. This a trick of many scoundrels (Pat Buchanan is particularly fond of it).
The supposed implication "If you are willing to die... you must be prepared to kill" has the same structure as "if you are sleepy, you must also eat;" or, "if you are willing to go to college, you must be willing to take guitar lessons, too."
Is any explication necessary to show that this is nonsense? The shear stupidity of the author is breathtaking.
She is basing her whole argument on the commonplace liberal idea that the end justifies the means.
And in this case, the “means” is killing of unborn children.
Even Uncle Joe only killed "as long as it was necessary."
She's right, though, you know. She's just killing the wrong people. The babies have nothing to do with it; she should be honest and go after the men.
Trouble with that is, we would fight back.
God, these people are shameless.
Proof that the pro-death cultists are primarily motivated by envy of God. “Autonomy”, “Freedom”, “In control”, etc are the key words.
“I own myself so I can do whatever I want; I serve no one, I am God to myself” etc.
Of course, this also includes being “God” over others so it’s okay to kill them, too. Playing God always leads to kiling other people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.