Friday, May 18, 2012

Nothing is ever what it really is, to poor-choicers

Joyce Arthur:


Joyce Arthur once offered the advice to pro-lifers that in order to discuss abortion intelligently with poor-choicers that they have to get to know their opposition.

It appears that she has neglected her own advice.

Are pro-life women subordinated to their childbearing function?

Don't pro-life women have careers, interests, and activities beyond that of parenting?

As if pro-life women are out to subordinate themselves, to degrade themselves, to sell themselves out.

The stupidity of this rhetoric is obvious, and people should be calling her out on it.

Pro-life women who oppose abortion are not completely subordinated into their childbearing function.

But Joyce Arthur and the opponents of fetal rights have to do everything possible to make sure that the debate about fetal rights is not about fetal rights. Hence the phrase fetus focus fallacy.


Here's the thing.

Instead of arguing process, why don't pro-aborts just argue on the darn substance of the motion?

Fetuses aren't human beings, case closed.

[EDITED May 19th at 7:16 pm]

No matter how the pro-aborts frame it, in the woman-fetus relationship, the woman always has the power. Always. Even in a case of illegal abortion, the woman can do whatever she wants and the fetus is completely at her mercy.


As opposed to woman focus fallacy, which renders the fetus invisible or irrelevant.

The truth is, there are two beings involved in pregnancy.

Pro-life women are very cognizant of the fact that women and fetuses go through pregnancy.

However, pro-aborts won't even allow our legal system to acknowledge the plain fact that fetuses are also involved in a pregnancy.


Except that most Canadians also see that women have a responsibility towards the unborn, at least at some point in the pregnancy.

See, the thing is, if women want to be treated as full moral agents and equal to men, they cannot only clamour for rights, they also have to accept responsibility.


The issue at hand is whether the unborn child is a human being. That's it. Slave owners once had the right to own people. Should their long-established human right to own people as property have not been examined because it would have violated "white rights"?


No, but if blacks were not persons, then wouldn't it be necessary for Parliament to examine if they are persons, even if it meant curtailing the right to slavery?

You don't get to dictate what is "beyond the pale". Ultimately, truth and the people determine what is beyond the pale, not lobbyists and interest groups.

And sometimes they are poor caretakers, just like there are bad parents. Why should one class of human beings have to suffer in the name of the "rights" of others?

Legalized abortion made sense when the fetus is a "blob of tissue". But as people come to realize that the fetus is a human being, it does not make sense to say that a human being must die at another's fiat.

But that's feminism for you. If some group has to suffer and die in the name of so-called "women's rights" then too bad.

But when she decides he is unwanted, he isn't.