Wednesday, November 14, 2012

"Pious Rhetoric"

A look at the abortion culture by a Canadian journalist.
In our times feminists contend that social equality is a compelling reason. They interpret it as women having no burdens imposed on them that aren’t also imposed on men. Since nature imposes pregnancy only on women, in order to even the scales, women should be entitled to an absolute license to terminate their pregnancies on demand.

This is the essence of the feminist argument, though it’s seldom put so bluntly. The matriarchy needs popular support to achieve its ambitions, and while members of the Me Generation are ready to pull the plug on anybody for selfish reasons, few face the logic of their position. They can’t quite bring themselves to grant women a licence to kill, like 007. This is why the debate is filled with pious rhetoric about women controlling their own bodies, or lives aborted not being “life.” Ironically, the pro-choice crowd usually oppose capital punishment — except for the crime of inconveniencing a woman.

Inconveniencing men is okay. Fathers can’t opt out of child-support if the mother decides to keep the baby, no matter how “inconvenient” fatherhood may be for them. Nor could a father save his child’s life even by assuming sole responsibility for its maintenance.

Men and women are supposed to be equal. What’s sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. Yet fatherhood is compelled by law, while motherhood is a matter of choice. How do lawmakers get around this hurdle? In the same way they get around any question for which there’s no answer in logic or equity. They ignore it. (Read entire article.)
Share

4 comments:

MadMonarchist said...

I have been ranting about this for ages (wrote an article about it once). The idea that before birth the baby is only "her's" and she can destroy it if she wants to without a word to the father. Yet, if she doesn't, THEN it suddenly becomes "his" and he has to start coughing up the cash. You cannot force a woman to be a mother but you can force a man to be a father or at least pay the bills of one.

Of course, ideally, we would not murder the truly (and only) innocent at all, but it seems to me that if women are going to claim absolute power of life and death over a child in their womb with the father having no say in the matter, that should be the end of all child-support payments too.

Unfortunately, I don't doubt most men these days are vile enough that they would favor their gf having an abortion just to get out of child support. Responsibility is fast becoming, not only unfashionable, but a threat to "human rights" in today's world.

Matterhorn said...

Pro-slavery people in this country also claimed, ironically, to be defending their rights and freedoms. Rights and freedoms to take away the rights and freedoms of others....They even claimed to be defending equality: just as people from free states could take their property into new territories, they insisted they should be able to drag their slaves into new territories.

The author points out the fact that defenders of legal abortion are often opposed to capital punishment. Is that because they would not want to face up to the consequences of their own crimes? Not that I'm saying we should execute women who get abortions, I just mean that the "be nice to murderers" mentality is self-serving.

MadMonarchist said...

I never cared for the comparisons of abortion and slavery. Depriving someone of their freedom hardly compares in my book to depriving someone of their life -even a chance for life. Yet, today people remain aghast at the very idea of slavery but think abortion is an issue of "women's reproductive rights".

Matterhorn said...

Abortion is much worse, but the idea of an institutionalized injustice, a national crime that is widely accepted and not seen as a crime, connects the two.