The War on Women

[Sarcelle]

One of the myths of the pro-abortion movement is the hidden fact that a very large proportion of women are forced into having abortions by fathers, husbands, mates, pimps and other significant male figures and NOT by the choice of the women involved.

I find it rather perplexing to call pro-life support a “war on women” when the stacked bodies of the 55 million casualties in the US alone are determinably not women, but very tiny human beings of both genders. Since when does a “war on…” result in such an obscene toll (collateral damage?) on the innocent by those who are purportedly the ones “warred upon?”

This is decidedly a war on the yet-to-be-born by the oligarchy of the living who wish to have their conveniences, pleasures and privileges AND rationalize that fact by hiding behind a mantle of alleged victimization.

If you look at abortion worldwide, the victims of abortion are mostly female babies. That is the real war on women.

 

[Murmurs]

Men have to go through 18 years of child support if she chooses to keep the baby. Men have to go through 0 years of child support if she aborts the baby. The woman is trying to run from her responsibilities by getting an abortion.

More importantly, why should only the woman choose whether or not to murder another man’s progeny?

Well the man isn’t carrying his progeny about inside his actual body, is he? Unless he is a seahorse.

That’s the point that a pro-abortionist could justifiably make. Also I think it’s pretty abhorrent to say that women get abortions just to “run from…responsibilities.”

#WarOnMen

I really hope you are not being serious…

One of the myths of the pro-abortion movement is the hidden fact that a very large proportion of women are forced into having abortions by fathers, husbands, mates, pimps and other significant male figures and NOT by the choice of the women involved.

Very large? Kindly prove it.

But it’s not actually an argument against abortion at all. It’s an argument in favour of empowering women, because by your logic that “very large proportion” are having their own bodily autonomy sidelined by powerful men. Which is ironically what those of us who don’t support abortion want to happen anyway, but that’s beside the point. If what you say is true (I have no doubt it can be but not sure about the “very large” claim…), then we need to unpick the patriarchy, which is the disease, and not go right for abortion, which is the symptom, because by tackingling only the symptom these women are still under the sway of ‘significant male figures’, and unless that figure is Jesus Christ, (and ideally I suppose through His gift to the world in His wife, our Church), I think I find that rather problematic, don’t you?

I find it rather perplexing to call pro-life support a “war on women” when the stacked bodies of the 55 million casualties in the US alone are determinably not women, but very tiny human beings of both genders. Since when does a “war on…” result in such an obscene toll (collateral damage?) on the innocent by those who are purportedly the ones “warred upon?”

This is a gross misrepresentation of what abortion is and the reasons why woman seek them, and while of course I agree with you about the abhorrence of abortion you should be thoroughly ashamed for writing such nonsense. The reasons are complex and vary from woman to woman but I guarantee you no woman has ever had an abortion just to make a point about a war purportedly waged against them by male interest in controlling them. You are just being ridiculous now.

If you look at abortion worldwide, the victims of abortion are mostly female babies. That is the real war on women.

Enough said really. Yes.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Both my sons delivered pizzas, and they told me the most expensive satellite TV sports packages could be found in the poor sections of town. Besides, B/C pills are available free from PP. With the introduction of politically correct victimhood as a vocation, whole new horizons were opened up. Ordinary complaining became an academic endeavor. Protests against “inequality” naturally come to be seen as a more productive activity than personal effort. Reality doesn’t conform to ideology, and when people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination. Ergo, go crying to a political group and have them paint the situation as a denial of equality and VOILA! victimhood, and the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Hit the nail.
On
The
Head.
Bam!

This couldn’t be put more perfectly.

 

[billcu1]

Remember also that some people are impervious to reason.

Yes very much so. I have noticed young people, they have not developed a logical sense of things. Especially an objective one. They don’t understand everyone doesn’t think like them. I don’t quite see a “War on women.” Perhaps a “War on womanhood” by leftist extremists who are wanting to basically say “do whatever you want”. Some people never do anything logically.

 

[CompSciGuy]

True of course but beside the point. Men don’t get abortions, obviously. So abortion restrictions might impact the ability of certain variously nefarious men to get away from their ill-gotten responsibilities, but they never have to go through with it themselves. It is never a choice any man has to make for himself. It’s because of this obvious biological fact, that the anti-abortion movement has to come primarily from other women. Because abortion IS a thing bound up in emotion, and the most loving and caring (or indeed the most callous) father in the world can never experience what a mother does in this regard

I have seen men at pro-life rallies who mourn lost fatherhood. I have seen men whose wives aborted their children and they are hurt by it. You can try and diminish their pain all you want but that doesn’t change a thing.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Very large? Kindly prove it.

You should try being a sidewalk counselor or prayer warrior for a stand-and-pray ministry outside of abortion clinics. You will see it all the time. I remember witnessing men pressuring their girlfriends to get out of the car and the women crying, who clearly didn’t want to go through with it. If you are very involved in this kind of a ministry, this is a common occurrence that you will see regularly.

 

[Murmurs]

You should try being a sidewalk counselor or prayer warrior for a stand-and-pray ministry outside of abortion clinics. You will see it all the time. I remember witnessing men pressuring their girlfriends to get out of the car and the women crying, who clearly didn’t want to go through with it. If you are very involved in this kind of a ministry, this is a common occurrence that you will see regularly.

Pressuring, or supporting?

 

[vz71]

If you look at abortion worldwide, the victims of abortion are mostly female babies. That is the real war on women.

Not just the babies.
Abortion wounds all involved parties.

Peter Plato is right. If you want to know who the real war is against, look at the casualties.

 

[SWolf]

But it’s not actually an argument against abortion at all. It’s an argument in favour of empowering women, because by your logic that “very large proportion” are having their own bodily autonomy sidelined by powerful men. Which is ironically what those of us who don’t support abortion want to happen anyway, but that’s beside the point. If what you say is true (I have no doubt it can be but not sure about the “very large” claim…), then we need to unpick the patriarchy, which is the disease, and not go right for abortion, which is the symptom, because by tackingling only the symptom these women are still under the sway of ‘significant male figures’, and unless that figure is Jesus Christ, (and ideally I suppose through His gift to the world in His wife, our Church), I think I find that rather problematic, don’t you?

Abortion on demand is a fruit of feminism, not “the patriarchy”.

 

[SWolf]

Well the man isn’t carrying his progeny about inside his actual body, is he? Unless he is a seahorse.

Irrelevant. If a man is off to war for 9 months with a child at home, she has no right to kill his child.

That’s the point that a pro-abortionist could justifiably make. Also I think it’s pretty abhorrent to say that women get abortions just to “run from…responsibilities.”

That’s the point. If abortion is legal, in order to be consistent with equality, a man should have equal say in whether she gets an abortion. If that sounds abhorrent, it should.

90+ percent of women get abortions to run from the responsibilities that come with consencual sex.

I really hope you are not being serious…

It’s just as stupid as the WarOnWomen meme. Logic gets thrown out the window, and the newest oppressed class is the one that yells the loudest.

 

[Murmurs]

Irrelevant. If a man is off to war for 9 months with a child at home, she has no right to kill his child.

Well legally she does, although I agree if she doesn’t discuss it with him then there’s a problem in their relationship. It being a pretty awful thing to do doesn’t take away her right to do it.

That’s the point. If abortion is legal, in order to be consistent with equality, a man should have equal say in whether she gets an abortion. If that sounds abhorrent, it should.

But men aren’t the ones pregnant! That’s why abortion supporters have the impression of this issue being about men wanting to control women’s bodies in the first place!

90+ percent of women get abortions to run from the responsibilities that come with consentual sex.

Ok well that’s a figure but where does it come from? But for what it is worth I entirely agree (most abortions are not about medical emergencies while many people, or at least me, would support the right of a woman to make that decision - on her own - at that point). The attitude bound up in most (not all) abortions is yes a “now isn’t the time for me to have (another) baby”, so yes it’s about convenience. It’s a cheapening of life. This is exactly why abortion is generally so wrong. i was just curious for a source for this kind of number…

Abortion on demand is a fruit of feminism, not “the patriarchy”.

Yes, I guess. Although without patriarchy (it exists, not scare quotes please) there’d never have been a need for feminism to begin with. Feminism came about because living under a male-dominated society most women found to be pretty awful and as soon as it became apparent they could do something about it, millions did, and we have all reaped the rewards of that, men and women alike. Just because one aspect of feminism - personal autonomy - ended up towards abortion it doesn’t make either that autonomy nor feminism in general invalid.

Not just the babies.
Abortion wounds all involved parties.

Peter Plato is right. If you want to know who the real war is against, look at the casualties.

There is no deliberate war against children. Or at least, you could see the abortion industry being kind of like that, but that’s a different issue from the war on women, although clearly linked. A woman deciding to have an abortion doesn’t make that decision because she wants to inflict harm on her unborn child, or on anyone else. The dead baby is, I suppose, the outcome of a woman asserting her right to bodily autonomy, and like it or not a baby while obviously being alive and having the character, I/we think, of person-hood, is also basically a parasite in terms of how it feeds on the mother - albeit a parasite genetically very similar to its host.

The war on women, however, extends much further than abortion - we could cut abortion out of the debate and there is still a ‘war’ - which is represented by, for instance in continued differing standards between men and women (regarding dress, deportment sexually and otherwise). A lot of this war is I will readily grant perhaps unwitting. But it is sustained and damaging.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is no deliberate war against children. Or at least, you could see the abortion industry being kind of like that, but that’s a different issue from the war on women, although clearly linked. A woman deciding to have an abortion doesn’t make that decision because she wants to inflict harm on her unborn child, or on anyone else. The dead baby is, I suppose, the outcome of a woman asserting her right to bodily autonomy, and like it or not a baby while obviously being alive and having the character, I/we think, of person-hood, is also basically a parasite in terms of how it feeds on the mother - albeit a parasite genetically very similar to its host.

If your criterion for “asserting bodily autonomy” is whether or not the dependent child is being “parasitic,” then, in effect, you are declaring war on all children since all children are parasitic to more or less the same degree on their birth parents.

The dependency is mediated by space and by physical “accidents” after birth, but the dependency exists to more or less the same degree.

Ultimately, you are claiming that if no other options exist for the expectant mother SHE has a right to kill the baby. Why wouldn’t the same conditions exist after birth if the mother has no options? Hello?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Ultimately, you are claiming that if no other options exist for the expectant mother SHE has a right to kill the baby. Why wouldn’t the same conditions exist after birth if the mother has no options? Hello?

I wasn’t aware that it was legal to kill children after birth. Hello?

The law and the courts have given women the right to have abortions. Absurd statements aren’t going to convince them that they should give up that right.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I wasn’t aware that it was legal to kill children after birth. Hello?

The law and the courts have given women the right to have abortions. Absurd statements aren’t going to convince them that they should give up that right.

The laws and courts in the past in nations in various parts of the world have given “rights” to, for example, slave owners and racist regimes to subjugate and kill human beings that were not given recognition by those courts and laws. The existence of laws does not make actions morally right.

By the way, it is fast becoming legal in some countries to kill children after birth on the same principles argued for by Murmurs. Hello?

The CMP videos show that birth poses no special restraint for those who think they are immune to morality and can hide their actions behind what is “legal.”

 

[CatholicHockey7]

Ok well that’s a figure but where does it come from? But for what it is worth I entirely agree (most abortions are not about medical emergencies while many people, or at least me, would support the right of a woman to make that decision - on her own - at that point). The attitude bound up in most (not all) abortions is yes a “now isn’t the time for me to have (another) baby”, so yes it’s about convenience. It’s a cheapening of life. This is exactly why abortion is generally so wrong. i was just curious for a source for this kind of number…

It probably comes from the Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood’s own research group) which estimates cases of rape and incest account for only 1-2 percent of all abortions in the US annually.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I/we think, of person-hood, is also basically a parasite in terms of how it feeds on the mother - albeit a parasite genetically very similar to its host.

From where I stand, calling another human being a “parasite” is effectively a declaration of war on them because it places them in a position of enmity. Declaring a relationship “parasitic” is intended to justify ill towards them in the sense of warranting severing ties with them by whatever means necessary.

Even combatants in war are “genetically very similar” to each other.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I wasn’t aware that it was legal to kill children after birth. Hello?

The law and the courts have given women the right to have abortions.

This “right” to have abortions endowed by “the law and the courts” presumes that these entities have the authority to endow basic rights like the right to life on human beings along with the “right” for some to take the lives of others from them. If the “law and the courts” do have that kind of authority to endow those kinds of rights, then it logically follows that they must have presumed to themselves the authority to revoke the right to life FROM some human beings. In this case, unborn children.

Where exactly did the law and the courts obtain the authority to endow and revoke the right to life? Human governments - and, by extension, legal systems - are collections of human beings. Since when do collections of human beings assume to themselves the authority to determine the right to life or moral values in general? At what critical mass point do human societies obtain the authority to revoke basic moral rights? Can you answer that?

The larger point that I am making is that human moral agents have a responsibility to live up to the standards of morality. We - no matter how many of us band together - do NOT retain the authority to originate or rewrite morality. We are obligated to morality, we do not have authority over it.

The law and the courts (and the legislative bodies that are above these) have the responsibility to uphold just laws to the best of their ability. Just laws derive from sound morality and do not determine morality itself. When the law and courts (or any government) takes upon itself the authority to author morality, that is when these have superseded their just responsibility by attempting to originate rather than uphold morality.

Absurd statements aren’t going to convince them that they should give up that right.

The most absurd statement relative to abortion was made by Justice Kennedy in the Casey Decision when he basically stated that human beings have a right to determine their own morality, thus undermining all moral systems and laws, and supplanting them with moral relativism. We have been seeing the fruits of that “decision” ever since and will continue to do so until this “civilization” collapses under the moral chaos tacitly endorsed by a legal system which has given absurdity and immorality free reign.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Just a reminder that the topic of this thread is not whether abortion is right or wrong. It’s whether there is a war on women, either real or perceived.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Just a reminder that the topic of this thread is not whether abortion is right or wrong. It’s whether there is a war on women, either real or perceived.

Determining whether there exists a “war on women” - especially if the claim depends upon whether denying women the “right” to kill their unborn children is morally permissible - hinges on whether abortion is right or wrong.

If women have NO moral right to kill their children, then a claim that denying them that so-called “right” is tantamount to a “war” on them and their rights, is rendered groundless.

 

[Murmurs]

Ultimately, you are claiming that if no other options exist for the expectant mother SHE has a right to kill the baby. Why wouldn’t the same conditions exist after birth if the mother has no options? Hello?

They don’t as far as I can see. This is one reason while I was thoroughly opposed to abortion (in 95% or so of cases) looong before I ever considered becoming a Catholic. You hit the nail on the head.

…it is fast becoming legal in some countries to kill children after birth on the same principles argued for by Murmurs. Hello?

Is it? Belgium’s utterly awful “euthanasia” law etc, isn’t on the basis of inconvenience to the parents, but on the desire of the child to end their own life. Now I hope I don’t need to say that I can’t remotely see any possibility of when this is actually ok…it’s just not…but maybe some people do. But when is it legal to “kill children after birth” and where? (I’m curious now and angry if what you say is true!)

The CMP videos show that birth poses no special restraint for those who think they are immune to morality and can hide their actions behind what is “legal.”

Again, not necessarily disagreeing, but just wondering if you could clarify this; not sure what you mean.

From where I stand, calling another human being a “parasite” is effectively a declaration of war on them because it places them in a position of enmity. Declaring a relationship “parasitic” is intended to justify ill towards them in the sense of warranting severing ties with them by whatever means necessary.

I don’t think women hate their unborn children even if they are considering aborting the pregnancy. But that said…I agree that this kind of thinking (which I do not share!) probably helps as a legitimator for any action they take in that regard.

This “right” to have abortions endowed by “the law and the courts” presumes that these entities have the authority to endow basic rights like the right to life on human beings along with the “right” for some to take the lives of others from them. If the “law and the courts” do have that kind of authority to endow those kinds of rights, then it logically follows that they must have presumed to themselves the authority to revoke the right to life FROM some human beings. In this case, unborn children.

Ummmm, I think it is less about the right to life and more about the question of when the right of one being to life overtakes the right of another being to life, and what is happening in one’s own body is necessarily a decision about one’s own life, right? That’s where it comes from as far as I can see.

Where exactly did the law and the courts obtain the authority to endow and revoke the right to life? Human governments - and, by extension, legal systems - are collections of human beings. Since when do collections of human beings assume to themselves the authority to determine the right to life or moral values in general? At what critical mass point do human societies obtain the authority to revoke basic moral rights? Can you answer that?

Well that’s a huuuugely complex sociological question you’re asking, but generally I think we all agree that human beings for their own common and personal interests, band together to form larger groups, societies, one expression of which is the nation-state. Further, to help secure both common and personal good, some members of that society either take for themselves (with a degree of consent) or have given to them with full consent (as happens in a democracy), to regulate or mandate how life should be conducted by the whole. If it’s natural for human beings to form societies and so rules to make those societies work, then it’s natural that those societies might develop an interest in defining what is moral and what is not. That this may contravene God’s law as we understand it is at this point kind of moot, I think.

The law and the courts (and the legislative bodies that are above these) have the responsibility to uphold just laws to the best of their ability. Just laws derive from sound morality and do not determine morality itself. When the law and courts (or any government) takes upon itself the authority to author morality, that is when these have superseded their just responsibility by attempting to originate rather than uphold morality.

Fair enough, but who does define morality? Especially when in a secular world we can’t (sadly, perhaps), legitimately obtain it from Scripture in the eyes of the majority?

The most absurd statement relative to abortion was made by Justice Kennedy in the Casey Decision when he basically stated that human beings have a right to determine their own morality, thus undermining all moral systems and laws, and supplanting them with moral relativism. We have been seeing the fruits of that “decision” ever since and will continue to do so until this “civilization” collapses under the moral chaos tacitly endorsed by a legal system which has given absurdity and immorality free reign.

Absolutely.

Not all of this plays into the perceived/real ‘war on women’ however. It is relevant of course to the abortion question but the purported war goes further than that, and includes many actions which are detrimental to women’s interests either deliberately or through lack of coherent thought.