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.
Yes, the post hoc fallacy.
Assuming the difference she is making isn’t just to carry on the idea to more women that abortion is fine.
Abortion is not the unforgivable sin. But abortion is not fine.
Murdering children ... [shrug] ... some people are just into it.
Who dies, idiot? You or the baby?
If she wanted “control”, she should have considered a condom or birth control.
This is exactly how people think who support abortion. The life of the child doesn’t matter .. it’s just more of me me me me me me. Selfish, self-centered people should never have had children to begin with.
If she still thinks it’s about her and not that infant she is still too selfish and immature for motherhood. I wish she had waited a while longer.
“Who dies, idiot? You or the baby?”
Well actually both.
She dies mentally. Sometimes she dies physically.
They are claiming selfishness is a virtue?
I guess selfishness seems like a lesser sin than murder so they are grasping at it.
“Women Matter More Than Fetuses Do.” I don’t suppose she realizes that women (and men of course) used to be fetuses. At what point does she suppose women’s lives have value?
I can’t think of a bigger soul stealer than to be raised in the notion that selfishness is a virtue.
bump
spoiled and entitled from the get-go
And with such a shrunken idea of life.
This is because contraception has two principal results, one intended and one unintended.
A contraceptive reduces the odds of any particular act of intercourse resulting in pregnancy.
But the easy availability of contraceptives spawns a mentality which holds that intercourse, once intended for procreation and for pleasure, is now intended for pleasure and nothing else.
The first (intended) consequence has resulted in fewer births per x number of acts of intercourse, albeit with a 3% - 30% typical-use failure rate (Link about contraceptive effectiveness, a disturbing one if you're naive about this subject). The second (unintended) consequence has been a massive increase in the frequency of intercourse between people who are not married to each other, hardly even like each other, are not building a life together, and/or, even if married, have no intention of being co-responsible for a baby.
Altogether, 53% of unplanned pregnancies occur to women who are using contraceptives (that includes the Pill, condoms, jellies, jams, and sprays), but nearly 100% of these women are surprised, affronted, feel angry, betrayed, etc. by the now-shocking fact that sex led to pregnancy.
Contraceptives were the paraphernalia of Ye Olde Sexual Revolution. That's old news. That happened 50 years ago. What's happened since --- the 50 million American abortions and the 30% American illegitimacy rate (in the most contraceptive - subsidized communities, 70% illegitimacy) is the result.
What an evil witch. I cannot imagine how awful a ‘mother’ she will be
Maybe having an actual live baby will change her mind. Many people have learned that you cannot be selfish and be a good parent. On the other hand, maybe if it cries too much at 3 am and interrupts her womanly sleep, she’ll just smother it.
And the irony is there are other couples who are doing everything short of whistling Yankee Doodle on their heads to conceive somehow, anyhow.
And also that patiently sharing love with one who needs it generally has gratifyingly good results.
And thus made indiscriminate sex more and more common.
And yet. Even if somehow we COULD factor out the children (for pure hypothesis’ sake) we can’t erase the fact that there isn’t any condom for your heart. Love is cheapened when it is treated as a sport.
It is truly sad selfishness. May God grant her the grace to see that true love is to willingly sacrifice self for others.
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.