Pro-abortion ideologues are fretting after one of their own went off the reservation and publicly decried sex-selective abortions.

On September 22 feminist columnist Laurie Penny (pictured right) could almost have been mistaken for a pro-lifer when writing at New Statesman:

[A]ll over the world, from eastern Europe to India, millions of baby girls are missing.

There is a gap in the census. It howls with the ghosts of girl-children who died young, or who never lived – tens of millions of potential human beings, neglected to death, murdered at birth or (in increasing numbers) terminated when an ultrasound scan showed that a woman was due to come into the world….

After acknowledging the killing of preborn girls has indeed spilled over from Asia into Eastern Europe, feminist blogger Hannah Mudge (pictured right) still worried more about “playing into anti-choice hands”:

How can we encourage effective, productive debate on sex-selective abortion?…

[W]hat poses a problem here is the extent to which any discussion is obviously going to provide fuel for anti-choice fires.

The way in which discussion on all of this is likely to become unproductive was demonstrated perfectly by Laurie Penny…. writing of “missing girls” and the “howls” of the “ghosts of girl children”….

[S]everal people commenting chose to attack Laurie for what they saw as her “hypocrisy”, writing that she “can’t have it both ways” and insinuating that her belief that abortion should be safe and legal is an enormous contradiction of her stance on sex-selective terminations. Obviously this is untrue, but I know it made a lot of people wonder how, as feminists, we can move forward in discussing the issue without falling into the trap of using phrases that wouldn’t be out of place in anti-choice literature and playing into the hands of those who are quick to call “hypocrisy!”…

Stop. It is not “obviously untrue” that one can be pro-abortion and anti-sex-selective abortions. If you are pro-choice, you cannot oppose a woman making the choice to abort for a reason with which you disagree. It’s her choice, right? Keep your nosaries out of her ovaries. It most certainly is hypocritical to support abortion for reasons acceptable to the Western European culture but not for reasons acceptable to other cultures. That’s sexist, ethnocentric, and racist.

Pro-abortion feminist writer Sofie Buckland totally got the problem. Every one of her tweets is spot on…

Pro-lifers commenting on Penny’s piece indeed called her on her hypocrisy, but pro-aborts piled on as well, such as…

Penny actually does appear schizophrenic, particularly after writing a scathing pro-abortion piece only one month ago.

Glossed over by most on the other side was Penny’s point, which I give her credit for making – the incalculable tragedy of over 100 million missing females worldwide due in large part to abortion.

Instead, there was much more concern about consistency and appearances. I was fascinated to read just how paranoid pro-aborts are about what pro-lifers think and how we might use any breaches of their party line against them, which we would and do, but why should they care? We’re just misogynist, Bible-thumping, cave people.

Nevertheless, Mudge’s solution was for abortion supporters to more carefully wordsmith…

I think what this demonstrates is the need to be careful with our choice of words, not relying on imagery – such as “ghosts” and “howls” that can easily be turned into an attack from the “other side” and look pretty suspect when we know that we would be quick to criticise the same language if it came from elsewhere.

As the world around them becomes increasingly patriarchal, now not just by brute force but also by numbers, the lopsided demographics of which have never before been seen in the history of the human race, liberal feminists are navel-gazing themselves into servitude or extinction, all to protect the right to abortion.

And all the while they show they really don’t care about women at all.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...