Abortion: “Basic equality” for women?
The common denominator is to render abortion impossible. The goal is to render women powerless….
Abortion is difficult enough without these new laws….
The Republican-controlled House is railing against the deficit and slashing social programs while refusing to raise taxes. But its microfocus is on depriving women of their basic equality – the right to privacy, the right to control their own lives and the right to make their own decisions without help from the government.
~Gail Yamner, “Basic Equality for Women — Denied,” RH Reality Check, May 11
[Photo via abortion.smarthealth-guide.com]
May.12, 2011 6:00 am |
Feminism |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Ugh. They are so alarmist. The pro-life movement wants no such thing. We just want women not to kill their babies. That is all. Do whatever else you like, but killing your children is not equality. It’s not even close. It’s quite the opposite actually. Basic equality ONLY THROUGH ABORTION? What a crock.
So women aren’t equal without a surgical procedure?
That’s empowering?
What a cynical attitude.
Seriously, Chris. My liberty hinges on my ability to kill my own child in order to compete with men? Um, I don’t think so. Killing people is not a right.
So they want to make the decision without help from the government but they want the government to help them accomplish that decision? Whatever.
They want the government to infringe on other people’s choices in order to promote abortion. Their claim of being pro-choice and us anti-choice is sheer hypocrisy.
So let me get this straight – men are wombless, and they are most equal, so in order for me to be equal, I have to pretend I am wombless too. Honestly, how can any woman buy that load of cr*p.
No thanks! I’ll keep my baby-making superpowers, and men can keep their appendages. There, much better.
You got it, Susan. Women are naturally inferior to men because they have an extra component to their being (their fertility) which, since it is part of what it means to be a woman, makes them by nature less valuable than men. Thus any hope of being equal to men requires destruction of that part of the woman which is causing them to be inferior; namely, their fertility.
The logic doesn’t even follow. “You believe the unborn have the right to life, therefore you want to make women powerless!”
…Wait, what? No, really. What?!?
The only way that this could make sense is if you assume that pro-lifers all secretly agree that the unborn are not people but are pretending, in concert, like they are out of spite. Which tells me that this woman has not thought things through clearly–or even at all.
That’s what I don’t understand, Alice. Why would I–an educated woman–ever want to squelch someone’s rights? How is NOT KILLING YOUR BABY keeping women in their place? I actually read a comment on HuffPo (I know, slap me, seriously) that said we’re living “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Give me a break. We’re not forcing women to be incubators and pop out children. We are saying that we must act with accountability and justice; and killing our babies for the sake of “liberty” (i.e., a promotion, a boyfriend, etc.) is NOT JUSTICE. It is unthinkable. Abortion is the most anti-feminist thing a woman can do….Why can these pro-aborts see that? Exercising your right to kill your child? How could that ever be okay? Ever?
“Without help from the government”
So I guess that means they no longer want the 330 million dollars worth of “help” that the gov gives them in tax dollars. Thats good to know!
No, what they really mean to say is this: “We will do whatever we want with whomever we want and if that results in some of us being pregnant then give us the money so we can kill the baby and keep your mouth shut about whether it’s moral or not because really, we don’t care, just give us the cash!”
Hey Gail, How about NO! We won’t shut up telling you that murder is wrong, we wont stop trying our best to defund your baby killing ways and just like you, we won’t apologize for it either! And yes, our goal is to rend you powerless; powerless in your goal to murder the innocents!
http://www.shoutingitloud.com
IMO, pro-aborts cannot defend abortion, so they have to attack pro-lifers. It is a lot easier to scream baseless, crazy claims about pro-lifers than actually defending the right to kill one’s offspring. It is the most common way to avoid an argument…if you do not have a decent point that people will buy, just attack the character of the person making the argument
Even if all pro-lifers were fanatical crazies who just want to oppress women, abortion would still not be moral or ok.
“Abortion is difficult enough without these new laws….”
Who ever claimed killing humans would be easy, Gail?
Good point, Praxedes. I noticed that, too. Oh really, Ms. Yamner? Abortion is difficult??? I thought it was just a “choice” you make, like what flavor of ice cream to have? You pro- “choicers” make it sound so EASY.
Good grief!
That sign should tell it like it REALLY is: “Child murder on demand and without apology!”
That’s what you want , ladies…own it.
Glad to know that I have to kill my kids in order to be equal to a man.
They really hate women, don’t they?
Hey, pro-aborts! Here’s a newsflash for you. I know it’s hard to swallow, but bear with me here. Ready? here we go:
Equality does not mean that two people have to be the same in every way.
Ok. So let’s follow this through. To make men and women equal does not mean women have to surrender their ability to have babies. (If that’s your logic, the civil rights movement should have been about running around and bleaching black people’s skin – they would then be “equal” to white people, right?)
But anyway, why do they try to make this about women’s rights? It’s not. No one, male or female, has the “right” to kill another person.
Pro-aborts scare me. It’s as if they are trying to eradicate the beautiful intricacies of gender differences. For supposedly open-minded and tolerant people, they sure are fighting hard for a very uniform world.
Well Step out of your echo chamber and think from our point of view for just one minute. A fetus or embryo is not a person. You are not killing a baby you are stopping the process in which a baby is made in the early stages of the process. If you went to Ford Motor Company and went to the beginning of the assembly line and pulled one chassis off the line and recycled it you would be recycling raw materials, the things that make a car.
We fight for a woman’s right to choose when she will have a baby through birth control and abortion. You do realize that the word abortion comes from the phrase “Aborting a pregnancy” not let’s all kill our babies. You guys are trying to inject your moral superiority upon others to shame them for their choices and behavior. You do not have the right to do that.
Every single bit of life on this planet is made up of all the same genes in all of our DNA and we all feed on other life to live. Life and death are both part of the world we live in. To try to hold a moral absolute like “Thou shall not kill” is ludicrous and simply impossible. These moral absolutes you hold onto come from a long time ago when man thought it was the top of the food chain and this world was created for us… Now we know better, there is no top to the food chain because it’s not a chain at all, it’s a continuous cycle. When you die other organisms will devour your body and everything you were until you are nothing again.
You guys are trying to argue science with logic that is from literally the dark ages. The simple truth is that as far as the universe is concerned your life is worth the exact same as a tape worms. There is nothing that makes humans better than anything else. We are all made of the same DNA components and we all came from the very same first organism.
Just remember that your very old moral distinctions are just that, YOURS and the rest of us Americans do not have to live by them or even pretend to give them a shred of creditability. Your logic is flawed and your science is out dated but your hypocrisy knows no bounds…
How can you claim to defend life when you destroy and devour it every single day? Who gets to decide what life is sacred and which ones are not?
Biggz, you are SO RIGHT! I wish everyone had your enlightened point of view. If they did, I might not be in the mess I’m in. See, a few months ago, I got tired of my stepmother and took an axe to her head. I tried to explain to people that she was no more valuable than a tapeworm, that we all destroy life to live, and that I was simply helping her participate in the continuous cycle. “You’re imposing your dark-age moral values on me,” I told them. “You’re just trying to shame me for my choices and behavior.” But did they listen? Nooo! They keep telling me that I did something “wrong” (as IF that ancient idea even applies anymore). Could I maybe hire you as my lawyer?
(Sarcasm mode off for one second: the ‘raw materials’ that make a baby are called sperm and eggs, and I do not care what anyone does with those separately. But once they combine? Congratulations, you’ve got a brand-new human! Who is no less human, real, or valuable than me, even though I’ve been born for 24 years, because the value of humans cannot be judged by how big or intelligent they are or how long they’ve existed!)
Biggz – in a nutshell you don;t believe in human exceptionalism (see Second hand smoke blog – very interesting), and ‘a rat is a pig is a cow is a boy’ ((or something like that – is the name of a book written by Wesley Smith, who blogs on human exceptionalism).
So if humans don;t have worth by just being, then of course one would think that there is nothing to having abortion – because we are aborting something only worth a worm. But when you DO recognize that humans and human life is special (and animal life and plant life is also special – because it is all God’s creation – although I know you don’t believe that or see that. And before you say all that life is the same – only humankind was made in the image and likeness of God and has specialness in that sense.
And while you BELIEVE that we all came form the same first organism – you are at once close, but far off – yes we came from ONE, the FIRST and ONLY – Ever-present GOD, not from primordial ooze. And with His imprint – humankind is special. Remember – evolution is also only a theory.
Are we supposed to be custodial to the Earth and take great care of her? Yes. Are we supposed to also take care of each other? Yes. So if you want our Earth to be treated with kindness, respect and care – why not for the other creation here on earth – humankind? We can start by helping all the baby humans in the womb, helping all the baby humans in their families and all the families.
There – taking care of humankind and the environment and animal kingdom. Why do we have to choose to hurt anyone thru abortion and other means?
I’m a woman and I don’t need abortion to feel like I have equality. I also don’t believe women need this so-called choice to be equal.
Oh Biggz…..tell me about this magical time when a fetus suddenly becomes a person! Tell me what a fetus is before this magical day that you pro-aborts arbitrarily decide upon! Tell me what criteria are needed to consider someone a human being, since just being human doesn’t seem to qualify!
Biggz, it is not convenient for me to admit the unborn are persons. But there is no other conclusion; to say otherwise is simply twisting of words to justify killing. Even other pro-aborts admit that these are babies….why can’t you? And if they are babies (and they couldn’t be anything else but), why is it all right to kill them? Might makes right? Mothers decide if their children’s lives are worth more than their promotions/boyfriends/etc.? How fascist! How frightening! How ignorant. How dangerous.
Bigzz@ “Viability (the point when an unborn baby could survive outside of the womb) is an arbitrary concept. Why isn’t personhood associated with heartbeat (begins just 21 days after conception), or brainwaves (43 days after conception), or something else? The actual point of viability constantly changes because it depends on technology, not on the unborn baby.
Based on the same viability logic, many “born” people are not viable because they cannot survive on their own without the aid of others. Should we abort them too?”
from abortion TV
This is a very good question. When in fact do they become human to you? It can’t be viability because that changes and will continue to change.
Also, if you do use this arbitrary date of viability to put worth on the baby then you defeat your own argument because the pro-aborts fight constantly against laws banning abortion after viability. Why is that?
Also, you said “To try to hold a moral absolute like “Thou shall not kill” is ludicrous and simply impossible.” I bet you would change your mind about that if Biggz were the one that the killer were after. All of a sudden there would be absolutes. It is a hypocritical stand that all pro-aborts make. You are for abortion until someone tries to abort you. What if all of a sudden a law was passed that said all pro-aborts were to be put to death. You would fight like crazy to preserve your life. You would hire lawyers, yell, scream, cry, demand, even pray, that your life be spared but you don’t give another that same mercy. It reminds me of an old twilight zone episode where this guy is going to be blown up by his captors but somehow the tables get turned and he himself has to beg the guy he was just going to blow up for his own life. You live in a world of hypocrisy built on semantics that have no true foundation. If life has arbitrary value and there are no absolutes then yours has no value and there are no absolutes protecting it. Fetal age has nothing to do with it anymore than a 20 year old is less valuable than a 50 year old. It’s just time.
http://www.shoutingitloud.com
Biggz @
Viability (the point when an unborn baby could survive outside of the womb) is an arbitrary concept. Why isn’t personhood associated with heartbeat (begins just 21 days after conception), or brainwaves (43 days after conception), or something else? The actual point of viability constantly changes because it depends on technology, not on the unborn baby.
Based on the same viability logic, many “born” people are not viable because they cannot survive on their own without the aid of others. Should we abort them too?
Taken from abortionTV
I think this is a very good question. Just when exactly does the baby all of a sudden have worth? It can’t be viability because that changes. It’s obviously not the heartbeat or the brainwaves. What about pain reception? No, that’s not it, you guys are fighting those laws too. So, when is it? what is the point of cut off where one day it doesn’t deserve to be protected and the next day it does? Is it the third trimester? If so why do you fight those laws? The point that it becomes valuable is the point when you decide you want it. Thats when. If you wanted that child you would fight anything that came in your path to preserve it’s life. If you don’t want it then you come up with all sorts of “reasonings” to defend your “right’ to kill it. The idea of a person not wanting something giving them the right to kill it is ridiculous. I may not want my dog but I don’t have the “right” to suck it’s brains out through a vacuum cleaner hose. Heck, I would be arrested for animal cruelty, but yet, it is legal to do that to an “unwanted” human. It’s craziness!
Also you said, ” To try to hold a moral absolute like “Thou shall not kill” is ludicrous and simply impossible. These moral absolutes you hold onto come from a long time ago when man thought it was the top of the food chain and this world was created for us…”
WHAT???????? Are you serious? There are moral absolutes! If there weren’t we would all be animals, killing each other off on a whim just “because.” I can guarantee you that if someone were coming after Bigzz to kill her she would find a moral absolute and it would definitely be “thou shall not kill”. You live in a world of hypocrisy built on semantics with no foundation. Let’s suppose that all of a sudden a law was passed that said all pro-aborts were to be put to death. You would beg and cry, hire lawyers, pray, scream, demand and try anything else that you could to try and preserve your own life. All of a sudden you would see that there are absolutes and life would have value. Why is is that you don’t give your child the same mercy that you would seek? Fetal age has nothing to do with it any more than a 20 year old is less valuable than a fifty year old. It’s not about fetal age. It’s about the “want” factor. This is why the pro-aborts arguments change with the wind. One day it’s “my body, my right” the next it’s “not viable”. It used to be that it’s “only tissue” until science proved that wrong. Now it’s becoming about the pain issue. No, even though we pro-lifers use these issues to get laws passed we all know what you know but ignore which is that is has worth because it’s a human being!
Privacy and abortion have a curious relationship. The Supreme Court fanatically guards our “right to privacy” even though “privacy” is not mentioned in the Constitution. And we have a culture in which nothing is private and everything is paraded on TV. We even have “I Had An Abortion” t-shirts advertising this supposedly “private” right.
Another thought: If the unborn are considered babies, should a woman be eligible to receive welfare for the baby as soon as she can prove she is pregnant?
Should pregnant woman be able to drive in lanes for people with two or more in the car?
Actually low income women are eligible to receive welfare when they find out they are pregnant in the form of W.I.C. and Medicaid.
I don’t know about driving in the car pool lane. I don’t really see the point of it although technically I suppose she could.