The right wing nutters seeking to control reproductive rights of individuals have a lovely little pitch on abortion, completely ignoring the facts of the issue. Armstrong Williams wrote this lovely little conglomeration of swill. The first part, he attempts to say that most abortions are because of the lack of a “male role model,” and the “inability of a woman to raise a child on her own” are somehow to blame. Perhaps this is the case, but this is a motivation for not having children, not for having abortions. In any case, we’ll give this guy enough rope to hang himself…
While, in many countries, pregnancy is considered an honorable contribution to society, in our modern Western civilization, childbirth, especially among women of prime child-bearing age, is seen through the lens of constricted lifestyle and career choices. Women with children are seen as less valuable in the workplace and less likely to succeed in life. Children are viewed, not as our greatest resource leading to a better future for our civilization and the world at large, but as a burden on our individuality and l ifestyle.
Wow, I couldn’t agree less. So let’s start with women with children being seen as “less valuable in the workplace.” Perhaps he can provide some evidence for these premises? No? Really, he can’t, go fucking figure, it’s mindless speculation. But even his mindless speculation is blatantly wrong. What countries consider pregnancy an honorable contribution to society? Please, inform me? Saudi Arabia? Oh, that’s right, in countries where women aren’t allowed to work, drive, or walk without their faces covered…
This choice stems from a prism of values that distort the true nature of God-given equality.
Well, well, well, I’ve identified something interesting. He seems to think our equality is “God-given” and if it’s the same canonical texts I’ve read (Koran, Torah, Bible), women are considered inferior in every single one of them. But I digress, he goes on to say:
This view is not restricted to the Western world, but is surprising given the strides we have made over the past century in upholding and advancing the rights of women. The earliest American feminists, Elizabeth Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, equated abortion with slavery as barbaric practices.
Ironic how both of these women were talking about self-induced abortion which put the mother at extreme risk of infection and death. Perhaps he should look into Margaret Sanger, also…
Stanton was quoted as saying, “When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” Anthony went as far as to refer to abortion as “child-murder.”
Actually, the word she often used was “infanticide,” and not “child-murder,” but perhaps your readers wouldn’t know what “infanticide” is…
These early pioneers of civil rights and women’s suffrage found it abominable that either unborn or fully formed human beings could be considered property, to be used and discarded like animals. In fact, when animals are used in a similar manner, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) goes berserk trying to defend the rights of animals.
I can’t tell you how many errors are present here. In the first, we are talking about an unviable fetus in the modern abortion procedures, which is, for lack of a better term, a parasite on the woman having no cognitive reasoning ability. Animals are fully developed, and useful for at least research. I also think the same of fetuses. We could at least use them for some evolutionary developmental biology studies… Animals are property, fetuses are extensions of the woman’s body. If a woman is unable or unwilling to care for a child, I actually think it is much better for society for her to not have this burden. Consider if a young couple struggling to make ends meet on their own and has no option but to have a child as a result of, say, contraceptive failure. The additional cost of child care would drive the couple even further into poverty, but now, a child is also living in poverty. Is it better for society as a whole to have another child grow up in these conditions? Or, perhaps, is it even worse for the child to grow up in such a condition with parents who are probably bitter towards the child and, as a result, each other? The “rights of animals” likewise are a complete joke. We should instead focus on the responsibilities of individuals owning animals as pets and the results of mistreatment of these animals.
The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) often boasts about advocating those without a voice, yet they sided with the women, who once upon a time had no voice, but who has less of a voice than a baby inside her mother’s womb? Somewhere along the way, feminism became distorted and turned on the very values that gave rise to it. Somehow “convenience” and “comfort” became values more important than the right to life, where a woman can exterminate any chance at life on a whim. Is that where we want to be as a society, where lives can be used as leverage or in some tragic cases, as revenge?
Wow, misstatement here. He’s equating a fetus to a baby. When abortions are performed (prior to the 18 weeks), the fetus is 7 ounces and 6 inches long. This means that the brain is less than 3 ounces when compared to the 14 ounce brain a baby is normally born with. The entire fetus is half the size of a newborn’s brain! What about a woman’s right to reproductive freedom? How is a fetus a “life?”
Equality, whether in gender or societal terms, has been falsely equated with sameness.
When America’s founders evoked the principle that people are created equal, they did not mean that all people are the same. Rather, they implied that all are equal in the sight of God; that our diversity of talents and perspectives as individuals should be properly valued as contributions to the growth of a great civilization.
Here we go with the invocation of his idea of “God” again. The only place any possible reference to a deity occurs is in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Wow, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I suppose Mr. Williams would have us believe that excludes reproductive freedom, happiness without children, and their own lives.
One need not be the same in order to be treated equally under the law. But this view has been distorted in modern feminism: rather than urging a re-valuing of the value of motherhood, modern feminists merely sought to become men in dresses, and some seem intent on doing away with those dresses too.
Equality under the law? Really now? That’s what feminism wants? I don’t think so, not extreme feminism, anyway. I have no problems with equality. The imagery he uses is simply annoying. The “men in dresses” and “doing away with those dresses” lines serve no purpose to his argument and is simply there to make a joke.
In doing so they overlooked the value of the sacrifice associated with motherhood. It should be noted that even under the best circumstances childbirth is an arduous ordeal, fraught with danger. On the other hand, it is perhaps one of the noblest forms of sacrifice that a person can offer to society, and potentially the most rewarding.
Rewarding? How? By satisfying part of the socially induced desire to fulfill part of the contract for a “good Christian woman” which is to have children? Childbirth is fraught with danger? With modern medicine? Really? I always though developed countries have death rates around 17 per 100,000. In other words, .017% or very slightly higher than the death rate among driving! Driving death rate is .014%. In any event, the danger should discourage women from engaging in childbirth anyway. Deaths due to abortion were included under the “maternal death” percentage accounting for less than 2% of all maternal deaths. Usually, in these cases, the abortion was done because the woman’s life was in danger anyway.
We ought not to forget that half of society is incapable of undergoing this sacrifice and having the honor of bringing new life into the world.
And would you want to? Thought not.
Yes, bearing children is a privilege that half of us are not afforded, and when people who have power use it to oppress others in order to gain more comfort for themselves we usually call them tyrannical.
Who is being oppressed?
It’s highly dubious that the intent of the feminist movement was to create tyrants out of teenagers and young women or their families who force them to vanquish an unborn baby. Motherhood and fatherhood are not a useless burden: they are the basic building blocks of a great nation. Without the sacrifice of parents, nations could not exist.
While I agree that children are required to have adults, your tautology does not demonstrate that abortion causes a lack of adults, at most, it lowers the numbers of adults, many people will still have children, and those individuals will do so because they choose to undertake such a responsibility, not because they had no other choice.