We are talking about the holy cow of the abortion debate. The argument that no one dares to question. "Abortion is the the woman exercising her right over her own body". It is socially unheard of to ever ask by what authority the woman claims such a right. But today we'll do it. Today we will shoot the holy cow and have a steak dinner. So get your forks out.
It is almost universally agreed that women, as well as men, possess a certain right over their own bodies, such as the right to life, to liberty and so on. In no way am I disputing that. What I do dispute is that any individuals right to their own body, be it a woman or a man, is elevated to a point of absolute primacy.
I define this point of absolute primacy to be reached when the perceived right to ones own body has trumped every other moral or legal claim made by any other party. When you lay a claim to the right to spill the blood of others in order not to be inconvenienced yourself. This is the pinnacle of selfishness. Yet feminism has made it a virtue. This virtue is no different from the one Muammar Gaddafi is exercising on the people of Libya, or Joseph Fritzl exercised on his family.
So I'm here to make the audacious claim that no one else dares make: It is morally preposterous for a woman to claim that her right to her own body extends to ending the life of her unborn child.
There goes the bullet. If you disagree, you are welcome to take the bullet in the comment section, but I'm not holding my breath. If you need me I'll be in the kitchen warming up the frying pan.
So I'm here to make the audacious claim that no one else dares make: It is morally preposterous for a woman to claim that her right to her own body extends to ending the life of her unborn child.
There goes the bullet. If you disagree, you are welcome to take the bullet in the comment section, but I'm not holding my breath. If you need me I'll be in the kitchen warming up the frying pan.
Posts
Hmm interesting post- deep! and I love the cow picture!
ReplyDeleteI found you through the blog hop/your wife's blog.
Please feel free to drop by our blog. We are new followers!
http://beourbest.blogspot.com/
Ew. You are suggesting that people "take the bullet"? Sounds like you are trying to shoot at people or something. Wow, you should win some kind of prize for being a jackass.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous: I'd grant you that in terms of numbers, it is impossible for any particular woman to achieve the death toll of men like Gaddafi. She'll usually be physically limited to murdering just a handful of her own children during her child-bearing years.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the comparison is more than valid for businesses such as Planned Parenthood who make their living murdering thousands upon thousands of unborn children in cold blood.
And you can say many things about Joseph Fritzl, but at the very least he didn't kill his victims (as far as I can remember the details of the case)
Yes Fritzel did kill. Two of the babies in fact, then their bodies were thrown into a furnace. Do you condone his actions?
ReplyDeleteMay I respectfully ask, why you sit in judgment of woman, or any other people for that matter? I have always been under the impression that there is only one judge.....God.
May I respectfully ask why you sit in judgment of my judgment?
ReplyDeleteI don't...i am respectfully asking why you are judging others as per your article.
ReplyDeleteRegards
Well, I'm sorry, but the fact that you do ask seems to imply that I am wrong for judging, which would be a judgment. If you feel that judging is morally neutral, I do not know why you feel like I need to answer that question.
ReplyDeleteIf you do have to know though, judging would be to pronounce a sentence. Not merely to inform of the law, and make moral distinctions as to what is right and wrong.
"The well-being of the woman and the value of her life plan should always be recognised as of intrinsic nature"
ReplyDelete