Posted on 11/17/2014 5:41:49 PM PST by Morgana
Rebecca Traister attempts to come off as some authority on women, feminism, and the reality of abortion in her New Republic piece entitled “Let’s Just Say It: Women Matter More Than Fetuses Do.” She fails at this task.
She opens her piece by commenting on how she woke up one day in September and realized the implications of the fact that she was 24 weeks pregnant—it meant she had “lost one of the most important tools available to women: the ability to exert control over what’s going on inside my uterus.” Despite the fact that she is carrying a baby she and her husband planned, she comes off as pushy and dramatic. Not too long ago we would chide chauvinistic men who seemed to think they had a right to dictate what happened because they possessed male genitalia. Traister sounds like the female version of that personality, asserting she should have all the control, always, simply because she possesses lady parts.
She says as much when she discusses how all the power should belong to her:
“Public discussion of abortion has come to inexorably privilege fetal life over female life. The imaginary futures—the ‘personhoods’—of the unborn have taken moral precedence over the adult women in whose bodies they grow.”
And they should take moral precedence, as it’s universally regarded as immoral to kill an innocent person. It’s difficult to fathom how Traister can deny that a fetus is a person when her own fetus has a heartbeat and much, much more.
While 24 weeks is not full term, many babies born at 24 weeks have gone on to live full and healthy lives. Babycenter describes 24 week fetal development and shows the reality of life at 24 weeks. Traister seems to lament her loss of a choice to kill a human being – with lungs and a brain and fingerprints and unique cells – more than she celebrates the baby she planned.
But even as she sits 24 weeks pregnant, with a live baby inside her, she argues that abortions are not about the babies.
“And so we need to make it clear that abortions are not about fetuses or embryos. Nor are they about babies, except insofar as they enable women to make sound decisions about if or when to have them. They’re about women: their choices, health, and their own moral value. It might sound far-fetched to suggest that the public debate about reproduction could ever sound this sensible. But there have been times in our history when it did—even when (and sometimes because) women had far fewer rights and freedoms than they do today.”
There it is. It doesn’t matter who lives and dies if a woman gets what she wants. Really, there’s no difference in this and any other “choice” people want to make. We don’t get to eliminate people we don’t want because we, ourselves, don’t regard them as such. But Traister hails abortion as downright admirable:
“This is certainly true within my own family. My paternal grandmother had an abortion when she and my grandfather accidentally conceived during the Depression. ‘She felt that bringing a baby into that world was just not conscionable,’ her daughter, my aunt, recently told me. ‘So she didn’t.’”
It’s not just her own family she admires for killing their babies. She writes about a legislator too:
“They can take a cue from the Nevada Assemblywoman Lucy Flores, who in 2013 testified to her colleagues that she was the only one of seven sisters not to have had a baby in her teens. Why? ‘Because at sixteen, I got an abortion,’ Flores said, adding, ‘I don’t regret it because I am here making a difference.’”
The reasoning that, because she is making a difference in the legislature, somehow her abortion is perfectly fine, is fallacious. One is not related to the other. It’s truly unconscionable to celebrate killing a baby as a herald of feminism and choice.
Trasiter tries to argue for the rightness of abortion, but her ethos falls as she proves instead that behind her abortion, there is a selfish person who regards some humanity as having more value than others.
So true, HiTech. he people who most push loveless lifeless sex, look miserable-— ever notice their protests and so forth? Their faces in action, in speech and shouting and even “song”, are bitter, harsh; their faces in repose are not peaceful.
One of the things love is, is jealous (not envious, jealous). And when it is treated as something common, the jealousy slops over onto everything it touches and become a pollution rather than a guardian. The result is, yes, the ugliness you have described.
Her physical appearance is not relevant. In her soul is a moral abomination ... THAT is relevant.
Mao made the same argument about Death.
That stopped me right there!....lol...”realized the implications of the fact......the “FACT” is...YOU screwed up 24 weeks ago..not your damned uterus!
The two go hand in hand.
She never had any intention of having an abortion, but she’s a liberal and feels the need to support abortion. So she wakes up one day and “suddenly discovers” she can’t legally have an abortion where she lives, and is sorry because she forgot to put “have an abortion by this date” in her to-do app.
I truly wish that the level of lying, of rank stupidity, immaturity, deceit and moral depravity she is displaying was unique to her, and not the fingerprints of liberals in general.
But it is.
It is totally narcissistic murder. We know that. The child.is murdered because the child interferes with the parent.
Any fool who calls the child a clump of cells is a murdering liar.
The sexual revolution wasn't about sexual freedom. It was about REVOLUTION. It was designed to “smash monogamy”, “smash the patriarchy”, and “smash the state”.
Destruction of the “nuclear family” has largely been achieved.
Free love isn't free, it leaves a trail of human debris.
Socialists don't care about broken eggs when they are making omelets.
I wasn’t talking about “unintended pregnancies”, I was talking about women who think sleeping around is just part of the game.
However, those women don’t seem to realize the consequences of that action.
The reason is .. instant gratification is all they are looking for .. and a child was never part of the picture.
So, therefore, it was HER responsibility to protect herself.
Then, the only thing a selfish person thinks of doing is getting rid of the evidence that she’s sleeping around. And, this is the main reason abortion is so popular in the first place. But, if she had used protection, nobody would have known she was sleeping around; and she wouldn’t now be contemplating an abortion.
Plus, the best part of using birth control - about 99% less chance of breast cancer.
Dubious, since:
Well .. there is “research” which specifically shows that the first bodily changes after being impregnated are the milk glands in the breasts.
And .. what they won’t tell women .. WHERE THE CANCERS ARE LOCATED IN THE BREASTS .. the milk glands.
So, people can rely on the “Internation” stats if that’s their choice .. and they can ignore the truth.
I have a family member who almost died from using Ortho-Novum .. but fortunately, a great doctor figured it out and saved her life. However, there are still other methods of contraception if people really do not wish to have children at that time.
If your breasts develop fully mature mammary tissue with the first pregnancy (without interruption) and then are used as intended to produce milk and feed baby, the incidence of cancer --- while not 100% eliminated -- is substantially reduced. Almost like there was some kind of design.
Sorry, I don’t need lessons in breast feeding.
LOL. It was for other readers— perhpos there are ne or two who are interested in the topic you brought up about minimizing their breast cancer risk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.