It seems that ladies at Birth Pangs don't get that the abortion debate is really about the fight for equality for unborn children.Because then that makes them against equality.
And we can't have progressives against equality, now, can we?
That would be...reactionary.
They have to continue to act like the fetus is a blob of tissue. They can't deal with the science that shows otherwise. Not unlike the White Supremacists of the past who couldn't face the truth about Blacks.
It's the 21st century, folks. Science has confirmed that fetuses are human beings.
It simply remains to assert their equality, as all human beings are equal. Every attempt in history to separate personhood from biology has led to oppression and unjust discrimination.
DeBeauxOs writes about pro-lifers:
they crouch under the cloak of self-righteousness by associating their cause with respectable human rights concerns.
We don't have to cloak.
Fighting for the equality of unborn children is respectable.
It is the pro-abortion movement that cloaks itself in respectability, afraid to show the results of its option. It accuses pro-lifers of showing fake abortion pictures, without showing their own photos of aborted fetuses. That would be the easiest way to for them to show they're fake. And it would be easy for them, as they have access to abortion clinics. But they hide the truth.
They crow about reproductive choice, then when a woman exercises her right to choice many times over and has 17 children, she is criticized as being freaky and unnatural. Her vagina is mocked as a "clown car".
No, it is they who are cloaked.
Then they call those who fight for equality "fetus fetishizers" just like white supremacists called those who supported Blacks "nigger lovers".
There are other similarities between the white supremacist movement and radical feminism.
White supremacists wanted to keep Blacks down and ulitimately be able to kill them when necessary.
Feminists wanted to control their fetuses to ultimately be able to kill them when necessary.
White supremacists ostracized anyone who attempted to protect Black people.
Feminists ostracize anyone who attempts to protect the unborn child.
And so forth.
Those who supported the civil rights movement did not set off bombs nor assassinate anyone.
There have been fetal rights supporters who have resorted to violence. Their acts have been overwhelmingly condemned by the mainstream pro-life movement. The pro-lifers who lobby for changes in laws are overwhelmingly peaceful.
However, the history of the fight against white oppression has countless episodes of black-initiated violence to assert their rights, episodes of violence on a far larger scale than a shooting of an abortionist or a bombing of a clinic.
Consider the Nat Turner Rebellion. Or the uprising at Harper's Ferry. Many racial riots in the 20th century that began as black resistance to white aggression. Malcolm X advocated self-defense against white brutality. The Black Panther Party was created as armed defense against white oppression. I don't know of any specific killings on their part, but they were certainly ready to gun down anyone who threatened them.
Did that make the movement towards racial equality a violent movement?
Oh, they will say, there were many streams of black resistance against oppression.
I guess it would be too much to ask to make the same nuance with respect to the pro-life movement. The people who bombed abortion clinics weren't trying to change laws. They were fighting anti-fetus oppression. I condemn abortion clinic bombings just as I condemn racial riots.
There was much more violence in the struggle for racial equality than there was for fetal equality.
Observe how smoothly those who would enforce compulsory pregnancy divert criticism away from their goal of controlling women’s reproductive capacity
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I agree that I want to control women's reproductive lives.
To what end?
To save an equal human being.
In society, we control people in order that they do not kill others. We control drinking and driving. We control use of firearms. We have labour laws so that people don't die on the job.
Social control in the name of saving a life is perfectly respectable.
It's not the social control aspect that is wrong. What is wrong is that they do not get to be supreme. From the radical feminist perspective, it does not matter whether the unborn child is an equal or not. In their book, he's in her body, he must die for the sake of her interests if she opts for an abortion.
I repeat: they are prepared to accept that an equal human being-- someone like you or me-- should die in the name of their social-political advancement. If someone could shrink you and plant you in a womb, they would say that that woman had the right to kill you because it's her body, and what she says goes.
Think about that.
That's what they mean when they say that the status of the fetus does not matter.
As feminists, they cannot see that it's about anything except women. It's only about women. Nobody else counts.
Feminists know that if the public started believing that the unborn child is an equal human being, their philosophy would never sell because most people do not believe it's okay to kill human beings. That's why feminists try to frame the subject in terms of "controlling women". That's why they want to make it seem that the unborn child is a nothing, a blob of tissue, a being of no concern, because if the unborn did take on some moral status, they know the public would turn on them. So they don't make it about the unborn child, just like white supremacists didn't frame the subject in terms of blacks, but of what would happen to whites if Blacks obtained equality.
However, if one wanted to draw a parallel between two distinctive social justice movements that are fuelled by similar motives, these are the ones who share a common vision of civil rights.
I would suggest it's not a common vision. Because the civil rights of the 1960's was about the equality of ALL human beings.
Feminism is about the supremacy of women.
_________________________
Visit Opinions Canada
a political blogs aggregator
_________________________
