« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The “War on Women:” (Part 1) Reproductive Rights

Whatever that means...

*Promoted from the diaries. – Aaron*

Today’s modern feminist is proud to echo the line once used by Hillary Clinton: “All issues are women’s issues.”  To the feminist this translates to: “There is a larger economic or policy angle to every issue dismissed as ‘women’s.'”  The liberal asserts that to the conservative this means: “There is a woman’s angle to every issue.”  But, one supposes that first we must define what exactly are women’s issues.  A cursory scan of the Internet reveals three broad areas- reproduction/women’s “health”, economic opportunity, and protection from violence.  Ironic is the fact that by treating everyone equally- a conservative idea- it is the conservative who is actually more of a “feminist” than these self-proclaimed voices for women in general.

If we look at all these items, it becomes readily clear that today’s feminist is not truly asserting that all issues are women’s issues, but a truer statement would be: “Look, we are different.  And we need special protections under the law because of our differences.”  In some cases, this means that “we should have total control of our bodies” regardless and ignorant of that life growing in that body.  In other cases it means some type of special affirmative action program for women, or some special legal sanctions by virtue of one’s sex (see: Violence Against Women Act). In effect, every case of domestic violence is a “hate crime,” which this writer also has a problem with, by the way.  However, in practically every liberal article about the “war on women,” they negate this “all issues are women’s issues” mantra since they concentrate on only one aspect- abortion- as if one’s stance on abortion and abortion alone is what determines what side you fall on in this alleged “war.”  One can forget about those other areas; it is your stance on abortion that counts.  In essence, if this war exists, it is not on women per se but on expansive abortion rights by their definition and in that area, conservatives are on the right side of the issue.

Today’s liberal feminist will tell you that the opposite mindset- that of the conservative- simply plays into the hands of the original oppressor- a patriarchal society- and simply creates an excuse for maintaining the status quo.  How else can women have true reproductive freedom (whatever that means) unless they are free to abort a child through the third trimester?  The truly honest liberal feminist will not nuance the issue; they will endorse infanticide.  There will be no “if the mother’s life is in danger” or cases of “rape and incest” exceptions.  The truly honest liberal feminist will say “Abortion now, forever, whenever and for whatever reason.”  I think the less truthful liberal feminist exists to take the edge off the ugly truths behind abortion, but their dishonesty remains just the same.  But at its heart, the truly honest liberal feminist’s idea of reproductive rights boils down to one truism: selfishness.  It is very ironic that while the feminists are trying to essentially emasculate the remainder of society and turn everyone into sensitive feeling creatures, they show no sensitivity nor feeling to the most vulnerable of humans- the unborn.  What can be less “Mother Earth” than the murder of vulnerable human life?

Which somehow leads me to the issue of contraception.  I have always been amazed in this day and age at the statistics involving abortion given the prevalence of contraception.  And by “contraception,” I mean things that deter or prohibit the fertilization of an egg by a sperm.  This includes such things as preventing sperm from ever meeting an egg to things that prevent eggs from developing or being released.  It does not include the Next Morning Pill (or whatever it is called) or any other abortificent.  Given the choice between preventing an unwanted pregnancy and terminating an unwanted pregnancy, I will choose the former any day.  The days of Ozzie and Harriet are long gone and abstinence until marriage is a thing of the past.  Come to think of it, it never was.  Getting bogged down in that mindset is counter-productive for the conservative feminist- male or female.  In fact, it is kind of creepy for males to comment on contraception and female libido as did Mike Huckabee.  Even the religious objectors in the recent Supreme Court case (Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood) are not contesting contraceptives (my definition).  Thus, conservatives making a stand over the morality of contraception makes no sense to me, is a waste of time, and one ends up looking like a creepy Neanderthal in the process and just gives fodder to the talking heads that dominate the liberal feminist views.

Should female contraception be offered as part of Obamacare and the like?  One has to ask, although the options are more limited, are male contraceptives covered?  If so, then so should female contraceptives.  Granted, contraception used by females is certainly more expensive than a condom at your local 7-11 or WaWa.  Personally, I would prefer that all drugs- contraceptive or not- be covered by a health insurance policy, but draw the line at abortificents.  Forget about the morality of abstinence argument because it denies reality.  Hopefully, that is something that is taught in the home.  The ability to say “No” empowers women more than free contraceptives.  However, as part of this paradigm, contraception, since it is not a necessity like insulin or blood pressure medicine, should be a paid-for add-on in my idealistic vision of health care reform.

Getting back to the issue of abortion, three big exceptions are rape, incest and threat to the mother’s life.  However, looking at the statistics on these exceptions, they account for very few (percentage) abortions.  Therefore, the vast majority are either “Oops” situations predicated upon maternal selfishness.  By “selfishness,” I mean that the pregnancy interferes with the mother’s life circumstances- school, a career, just not wanting to have a child at this time, inconvenience (which includes choice of the child’s sex), etc.  Certainly, women are entitled to an education, a career and a life.   But just like any other human- male or female- the remainder of society is entitled to others showing personal responsibility.  In this context, that means having control and exercising control over one’s reproductive rights be that abstaining or using birth control.

If there is such a thing as “reproductive rights,” then they are like any other rights.  For the life of me, unless I am missing something, I have read the United States Constitution frontwards and backwards, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and numerous other documents and still cannot find anything approximating “reproductive rights.”  The closest I get negates the modern feminist notion of reproductive rights- that of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  It is ironic because that first one listed- “life-” is summarily negated by the modern liberal feminist.  But, let’s just assume there are “reproductive rights” for the sake of argument.  With any rights also come responsibilities.  How is responsibility demonstrated by terminating the life of another innocent person?  And yes, it is not some blob of cells akin to a cancerous growth.  If anything, modern liberal feminism is perhaps the most irresponsible mindset today.

Finally in this general area, I know of no conservative who believes that true women health procedures like mammograms and cervical cancer screenings should not be covered as part of a preventive health program.  But for feminists like the haggish Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to assert or insinuate that conservatives and, by extension, Republicans are against these procedures and therefore somehow for cervical and breast cancer only sullies an already sullied existence on her part.  Equating breast cancer screenings with abortion is offensive to feminist and non-feminist, liberal and conservative.  {Note to DWS: before ACA, every state had a mandate to cover mammograms.  The only thing ACA changed is that there is now no co-payment of any type.  Prior to ACA, many states required prostate cancer screening in men with comparable co-payments to mammograms}  But, this is a typical liberal strategy- slippery slope obfuscation.  If they take away abortion on demand today, tomorrow it will be contraception, then breast and cervical cancer screenings.  Not to sound crass, but maybe the feminist has a point.  If abortion on demand was a reality in the past,maybe it could have spared us the likes of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Next: The War on Women- Economic “Empowerment”

 

Get Alerts