Skip to comments.Is There a Woman's Right to Be Born?
Posted on 06/16/2012 12:35:08 PM PDT by rhema
[ . . . ]
. . . No argument for the abortion license has been more inflexible than that a woman's choice to terminate her unwanted child must remain shielded from all evaluation whatsoever. Abortion advocate Michelle Goldberg recently explained her opposition to a ban on sex-selective abortion, even though she considers the practice "odious," by saying, "Banning it means allowing the government to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate a pregnancy, and forcing doctors to try to discern the motives of their patients." Stated otherwise, killing unborn girls because they are girls may be "odious," but our current abortion regime forbids judging that choice by any criterion outside the absolute will of the mother -- which can never be questioned. In spite of years of lectures about the sacred relationship between a woman and her doctor, even the abortionist is denied the competence to look into the reasons behind the "medical procedure" he is called upon to perform. In order to remain truly free, a woman's choice can't have any strings attached tying it to any standards of law, morality, or even good manners. To be genuine, the freedom to choose must be an exercise of arbitrary power.
Rather than detracting from the logic that abortion is an act of pure will, the shockingly bad reasons women offer for terminating their children actually ensure that the freedom to choose is not being "burdened." Like with the Queen of Hearts and her impulsive commands to behead her subjects, it's the very capriciousness of her decisions that proves that she wields sovereign authority.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I love it when the “progressive” hypocrites get caught in their own hypocrisy!
You know how the death cult worshipers will respond to such a question: “When it’s a mass of cells, it isn’t yet a woman.”
But if it starts to get widely known that mothers are killing off their female offspring in significant numbers just because their regressive cultures place more value on boys than girls, then pro-abortion advocates will find themselves goosed against the pointy horns of their own hopeless dilemma. A problem is a problem, after all, and abortion fixes all. The pro-abortion left isn't going to be able to straddle contradictory public positions that the government must be allowed to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to be terminated from her job, but can't be allowed to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason for an (unborn) woman to be terminated from her existence.
Someone has got to force the left to be consistent.
They can’t be allowed to frame this as killing unborn girls when in the same breath for abortion rights they don’t consider ANY fetus a person - so gender is not even an issue if it’s not a person - as the left always trumpets at us.
So either the left must be stopped in framing it this way because a fetus isn’t a person so any gender issue for aborting isn’t even an issue, or they must finally openly admit abortion IS murdering a person if they want to start talking about “killing unborn girls”.
They don’t get to flip flop between abortion not killing people because they are fetuses, and abortion is killing unborn girls (ie persons).
No one will be able to force them to be consistent because the Big Abortion poobahs like Cecile Richards just clam up about atrocities like sex-selection abortions. The silence of the pro-abort feminists is deafening.
And no, no matter what my airmen may have said, I don't eat babies for breakfast.
It’s also making women second class citizens. I wonder if the Left and media realize that?
"One may ask where are the feminists in the face of this disastrous practice that marginalizes all women? Where are the champions of women and their reproductive rights? They are mostly silent. They championed choice and now that choice is being used to kill millions of female fetuses and subjugate women, they have nothing to say lest the sacred abortion cow be slaughtered. Pro-abortion writer Mara Hvistendahl understands that the pro-abortion feminists are abandoning their Asian counterparts in the name of choice. She boldly declares in her book Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men:
In a world in which women are unnaturally scare, the right to abort will be the least of our worries.
I like your reasoning, and you are right on target.
Unfortunately, the article is only poignant because it involves the seemingly contradictory situation of free-choice women aborting their little girls, as though somehow for these women, that makes it particularly odious. If it serves the purpose, so be it.
Otherwise, the entire subject is so obnoxious, so horrible, that we are to believe that somehow if the little babies being targeted were males, that it would be OK for the women to abort them simply because they had male plumbing? Nothing about abortions makes any sense. Instead of having an abortion, the mother could carry the child to term and allow adoption of the baby. But, no, they would rather murder their unborn offspring, whether male or female.
Most likely these feminists think they are being very respectful of their cause by refusing to see how silly and horrid their actions are. Their cause trumps aerything, their sons, their daughters, their county’s well-being - nothing matters than the BIG me and my airhead boyfriend.
The left cannot be inconvenienced with facts. Otherwise it wouldn’t be the left.
Yep, the morons preach to us act like second class citizens and here they are.
I love it when the progressive hypocrites get caught in their own hypocrisy!
Why have men allowed, tolerated, or participated in a decision that only women have the so-called "right to choose" to destroy the life which two individuals participated in creating?
Putting aside the tired old argument that it involves only the woman's body (schedule, desires, ambitions, health, etc., etc.), one is left with the conclusion that since 1973, only women may decide who lives and who dies.
"Ideas have consequences!" - Weaver
Jefferson: "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them (life and liberty)."
The left cannot be inconvenienced with facts. Otherwise it wouldnt be the left.
Great title, we are being governed by godless people
Funny how so many other things that involve only one’s own body, seem to be the business of the government...smoking, seat belts, helmets, large size soft drinks, prostitution, etc. It seems it is just this one particular area that is totally nobody else’s business...and yet it does affect others...the would-be child, would-be father, would-be grandparents all have a vested interest and DNA invested.
I have asked that question here on FR, not only about abortion but about other aspects of law in which men are disadvantaged. I’ve been told that, although men constitute the vast majority of all legislators and judges, women are, nonetheless, 100% responsible for the legal situation.
For example, because Norma McCorvey, “Jane Roe” of “Roe vs. Wade,” was a woman, the fact that the Supreme Court which enacted the unlimited abortion license was made up of men is irrelevant. Women are responsible for the law, completely responsible for all abortions, completely responsible for all conceptions.
And they need to stand behind their bottom line here: that it is better to be dead (never born) than to be denied an abortion of your baby. The right to abort thus trumps the right to live.
And the they must explain from where they get this insane rights hierarchy.
The fact is that bigamy can overcome a shortage of men, one fertile male can father children with a whole group of women but a shortage of young women creates an intolerable situation. A woman with six husbands will likely have no more children than if she only had one. Anyone who grew up on a farm knows that males are simply more expendable than females, at least up to a point.
Most men are decent and want to be good fathers if they become fathers.
But back in the day of early pro abortion, these feminists were fighting for the rights of creepy men who wanted lots of consequence sex, often with naive or underage girls.
Abortion is excellent for abusers and molesters.
Um, lack of consequence sex
Assuming there is a boyfriend around, still. This is the entire result of disassociating sex from procreation. Not an unexpected outcome or a terrible consequence if you’re committed to each other in something like, you know, marriage.
And for thsoe that say 50% divorce rate, I say eliminate “no fault” divorce, bring back all the “fault” divorce reasons, and make adultery a criminal offense again.
That picture caption has just described the last 16 months I have lived in Wisconsin dealing with the public sector union liberals, especially teachers.
Not more expendable.
They are more able to be fertile and fertilize. They aren’t off-the-market so to speak for 9-12 months of a pregnancy. There is also more potential genetic diversity there.
A very good point. However, we now live in a country where FACTS are ignored in favor of emotion and sensationalism.
Women are responsible for the law, completely responsible for all abortions, completely responsible for all conceptions.
When the truth is...
Women are stuck with the law, completely stuck with all abortions, completely stuck with all conceptions.
None of it makes any logical sense, my dear, because those who are behind it all want to keep men-women, whites-blacks fighting each other so that we don't notice they have completely invaded and taken control of our nation, it's government, all it's resources, and we are the slaves.
Yes, I agree. If they can keep the people divided, fighting each other for handouts from Master, they win.
Still, it is frustrating to be held responsible for a situation I certainly don't want. "Don't you think," I once asked, "that, knowing the legal status of fathers vs. mothers in our current climate, a man might say, 'If I have sex with this woman, whom I know to be of poor character, we might conceive a child. My child's life and future would, then, be 100% under the control of this woman, whom I know to be of poor character. Therefore, for the good of my possible child, and for my own financial and legal wellbeing - after all, tomorrow she could claim I raped her - I will not have sex with this woman, although she is available.'? "
No, I was told. It is unreasonable to expect a man to pass up available sex simply because of the potential bad consequences for himself and his child. Whatever happens is completely the woman's responsibility, both practically and morally.
The enemy of human freedom has made this the basis of its only true attack. All other tactics serve this one. Whether humanity lives or dies is based on whether the human race figures this out in time, or not.
Unfortunately, the "best and brightest" have parlayed their moral cowardice into working for the enemy, in the "hope" that once they have succeeded in crushing their own human race for their masters, their masters will then employ them as jailers.
Their treason is so foul they have to exalt themselves in secret, lest anyone realize the atrocities they are doing against their own kind.
But God sees - and will repay.
13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mothers womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.
Job 12:10 ~ "In His hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind."
12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
They do, but there is a sad logic in not wanting one, albeit a misguided one. In many parts of the world, the status of women is very, very low. The Islamic world is the most obvious example, but there are many others where being female is a crime in and of itself and their lives are sentences to be served. If you lived in one of those cultures, would you want daughters, knowing how terrible their lives would be?
It’s ironic that abortion is killing mostly minorities and women, and they don’t care. Can they be that stupid?
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
“But if it starts to get widely known that mothers are killing off their female offspring in significant numbers just because their regressive cultures place more value on boys than girls...”
The fact of the matter is that once reproduction is off the table/not a priority, there are many obvious reasons to select a male over a female child. In their heart of hearts many females apparently know this, as this practice spreads.
If you lived in a “civilized” Western country, and reproduction was no longer an issue (as is becoming more widespread in the West), would you want daughters?
“Anyone who grew up on a farm knows that males are simply more expendable than females, at least up to a point.”
That’s right; while the female has value in generating more product in terms of animals, they certainly don’t have the same value when it comes to people operating the farm.
Once reproduction is no longer a priority, I don’t know why anyone would prefer a female child. Despite nonsensical, theoretical blather to the contrary, they DON’T bring any additional value to the table in the work force. I’ve worked with some bright competent, women; I’ve worked with more that will not work the hours put in by male counterparts, or do as much in the same amount of time.