"[Do you believe women have the right] to bear children when they wish to?"
I suspect this is a trick question that deals with abortion, and not actually women’s natural right to bear children when they wish to. All females in the animal kingdom have the natural right to bear children, as I have already pointed out in a previous post.
Also, note that women are the ones who are in control. They choose to either abstain or get naked and spread their legs. They are the ones who know best when they are ovulating and thus are directly in control of “The Rhythm Method.” They are the ones who have the pill, condoms, IUD’s, spermicides, diaphragms, hysterectomies, the “morning after pill,” and abortions at their disposal. After giving birth, they are the ones who can decide to keep the baby, put it up for adoption or anonymously abandon it at a hospital, police station or fire department without fear of legal repercussions.
A man has only the choices of abstaining, condoms or vasectomy.
And yet, society whines relentlessly at the man for “getting her pregnant.”
This is entirely absurd, and it would appear to anyone on the outside looking in that women are complaining of oppression because they are the ones with all the choices.
But, I digress. Let’s get back to abortion.
I am sure that feminists will fast point out that 2/3 of the population supports abortion. But, as with almost everything that feminists say, they are only speaking in half truths.
What these types of abortion-support statistics are based on is that when surveyed, 1/3 of the population supports abortion-on-demand, 1/3 does not support abortion-on-demand but does support abortion in cases of incest, rape or when the mother’s health is at risk, and the remaining 1/3 are opposed to all kinds of abortion.
Feminists are quite aware that most un-informed people naturally choose cohesion to the larger group and that is why they dishonestly skew these statistics to make it appear that most of the population supports abortion. Everybody wants to be a “moderate” who is in agreement with the majority. It is a well known psychological phenomenon, sometimes even used in brainwashing techniques, and feminists manipulate it ruthlessly.
When one examines things a little closer though, it becomes apparent that abortions performed on victims of rape and incest, or those performed when the mother’s health is at risk; make up such a miniscule percentage of the total amount of abortions performed that it is far more accurate to say that 2/3 of population are opposed to the majority of abortions – that being, abortion as a means of birth control.
What a sneaky little trick that our “esteemed academics” have played on us with this wordplay.
Stalin, Hitler and Goebbels applaud them heartily from the depths of hell.
But, this whole argument gets even more absurd than it would first appear, precisely because feminists have successfully fought for the “right to choose.”
In a previous article, I pointed out that children are the product of woman's sexuality, which she owns 100%. It used to be that upon marriage; a woman "sold" her sexuality to a man and took his surplus labour as "payment" for it. Thus, the children of a marriage used to be considered the husband's children, while children born out-of-wedlock were considered to be the woman's "property."
In times past, it was often considered the “morally right thing for a man to do” to marry a woman who got herself pregnant by irresponsibly using her sexuality out of wedlock. Society benefited from this socially manipulated moral pressure, as it has always been known that fatherless children were detrimental to society, thus the negative connotations associated with the word “bastard.” But, under no circumstances was a man legally obligated to “give the child his name,” to take ownership of the woman’s sexuality through marriage, and thus, make her child into his own.
But we live in different times today than we did in the past. We now have a plethora of birth control methods that have been made available to women. (Not men. Aside from a permanent vasectomy, men’s birth control methods have not changed much at all). And, to top it all off, if a woman fails to use all of the various birth control methods available to her, she is still offered the ultimate choice to kill the baby via abortion. And, let’s make no mistake about it; it is HER CHOICE, not the man’s, and not anyone else’s. Is this not the core of the feminist mantra, "A Woman's Right to CHOOSE"? Is not this “right to choose” enshrined in the laws of almost every Western nation?
So, I want to put a little comparison into your head to fully illustrate how absurd this argument has become.
Imagine Dick and Jane, two platonic friends, are walking down the street together and they pass a car dealership, Fembot Motors. They stop and admire a shiny new Corvette together. They both get a twinkle in their eye and smile as they see the other has the same thought: “Let’s take this car for a test drive!”
So, Dick and Jane roar out of the dealership in the Corvette. First Jane drives the car, then they switch positions and Dick drives it home. Ah, the joy of driving! Their hearts pound with excitement. The exhilaration of controlling a powerful beast! But, they never had any intention of actually “buying” the Corvette. They are just joy-riding.
Upon returning to the dealership, they toss the keys back to the salesman, say “thanks,” and carry on walking down the road together without a care in the world.
But, alas, a month later Jane calls up Dick and informs him that she returned to the dealership after their test drive and purchased the Corvette, signing a 4 year lease with payments of $1,300 a month. Now she wants to know if he will “man up” and help her make the payments on it, because after all, they went on the original test drive together. Jane claims that he planted the seeds of desire into her head which caused her to choose to purchase the Corvette.
Of course, Dick tells her to get bent. She chose to purchase the car of her own free will and he is not responsible for her choices.
Jane does not allow things to just quietly go away and take responsibility for her choices, however. No indeed! In fact, she gets herself a lawyer and Dick is served a summons to appear in court where Jane is bringing a lawsuit against Dick, to force him to pay for her new Corvette.
Dick goes to court as he is required to, and walks out completely dumbfounded by the judge’s decision:
Because Dick went on the original test drive with Jane, the judge declares that Dick is liable to pay “damages” to Jane. After all, Dick planted the seeds of desire in Jane’s head by agreeing to go on a test drive with her. Therefore, the court declares that Dick is responsible for Jane’s choice to purchase the car.
Since Jane is the one who has the responsibilities of driving the car, washing the car, and providing a parking space in the driveway for the car, Judge MacKinnon rules that it’s only fair that Dick contributes his share to the upkeep of the Corvette: Dick must make the $1,300/mo lease payments, in addition to paying for the insurance, gas and maintenance to operate the car.
Dick requests of the judge that he be given the right to drive the Corvette himself from time to time, but Judge MacKinnon rules against Dick’s request because it is not his car, and therefore he has no "rights" to it!
You can see why being a Dick is not a good thing to be.
But, is this not the exact situation we are now presented with since “women have the right to choose?"
Most places have laws on the books called “Fetal Murder Laws.” Take states like California or Texas, for example. Fetal Murder is considered to be a Capital Crime, punishable as if the fetus were a living, breathing human being.
Killing a fetus in these states is considered equal to murdering a human being.
But, how come then, a woman and her doctor are not charged with murder in the event of an abortion?
It is because of the woman's right to choose, which even supercedes murder laws!
And, let’s just clear this up a little. It is not that the woman is choosing whether she wants to have a fertilized egg inside her or not. She has already passed up on choosing several safe and easy birth control methods before she got to the Right to Choose phase.
What a woman is “choosing” is whether what is inside of her is a human life to be honoured and revered, or just a useless piece of tissue to be flushed down the toilet.
If she chooses that the fetus is just a useless piece of tissue instead of human life, then the state fully backs her up and says the fetus is not alive, and therefore she cannot be guilty of murder when she rids herself of it.
But, if she chooses that the fetus is to be a baby, then the state backs her up and says that if someone causes her fetus to miscarry, that person is guilty of homicide – of taking a human life.
So you see, while a woman may have a fertilized egg inside of her as a result using her sexuality with a man, the “right to choose” dictates that it is nothing until the woman chooses, of her own free will, whether or not she wants “this thing” to be a baby or disposable garbage.
And, God forbid that she loses that right to choose. Why, that is enshrined as a woman’s civil right, and to deny her this choice is to oppress her! (Mother Nature is a really oppressive bitch).
But, it is clear that if a woman has “a right to choose,” then she does not actually become pregnant until after conception. She becomes pregnant only when she chooses to of her own free will.
So, how on earth can feminists and the corrupt courts possibly demand that a man should be legally and financially responsible for her choice?
If she “chooses” for it to be a human life and have a baby, then it is absolutely no different than if she chose to go into a fertility clinic and become pregnant through artificial insemination. And, in such situations, she is responsible for the consequences of her choice, including financial responsibility.
A man should only be responsible for the child if he himself has chosen to be so of his own free will. And, that choice usually comes through marriage.
Are women to be treated as children in our society? Why don’t feminists demand an end to this insulting farce and declare that women are independent and can handle responsibility for their own choices? Why do they insist that others should pay for their choices?
“Rights without responsibilities” is the state of a child.
“Responsibilities without rights” is the state of a slave.
“Rights with responsibilities for one’s own actions” is the state of a full fledged citizen; a full “person” under the law.
Why do feminists keep demanding that women be treated like children and men like slaves?
Why don’t women stand up and declare their equality by refusing to be coddled as though they're toddlers who cannot be held responsible for their own choices?
Why are women granted the right to be “dead-beat citizens?”
It’s time to choose to “woman up,” ladies.
What’s taking you so long to choose to grow up?
Previous Index Next
Read more about this subject on Angry Harry’s site:
Rant Against the CSA
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to have a Baby?