Abortion and Women's Rights

[Bittersmart]

Needs of the nation? What does that mean?

You might understand the meaning of" The needs of the Nation"

better, if I were to order you to put on a uniform and handed you a

rake and a shovel and assigned you to participate in a five year

agricultural program . Helping with the winter harvest to alleviate

hunger among the worker's immediate family members.

What the FUCK are you going on about?! Speak plainly. Geez.

[Bad Wolf]

Wouldn't having more babies create more mouths to feed and so would put more stress on society? Wouldn't the 'winter harvest' need to be much bigger each year?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Needs of the nation? What does that mean?

You might understand the meaning of" The needs of the Nation"

better, if I were to order you to put on a uniform and handed you a

rake and a shovel and assigned you to participate in a five year

agricultural program . Helping with the winter harvest to alleviate

hunger among the worker's immediate family members.

My advice is to actually say what you're trying to say in simple, easy to understand language.

The above just comes off as verbose and thus un-interesting.

[Counterapologistblog]

Then what are you saying?

I'm saying what I've already stated... " Why destroy healthy life in the womb " ?

Please answer this question.

Nobody has a right to use another person's body without that person's consent. The woman is not morally obliged to allow her body to be used for the purposes of incubating another human being if she does not want to. Even if, for the sake of argument, you concede full personhood of the foetus from the moment of conception, this basic principle of bodily autonomy will still make it morally acceptable for a woman to end an unwanted pregnancy.

[Esquilax]

not totally a healthy life in the womb..

"Not ready to be a mother, yet
Cannot afford a child"

The needs of the nation come first in both these instances!

That's funny, because I don't recall "more babies no matter the cost" as being a particular need in an overpopulated, sparsely resourced world with an already taxed foster care system.

More importantly, I don't think you're consistently applying your own logic here; why is it that it's okay to override someone's free will when it comes to pregnancies, but not in other situations where it might benefit the nation?

[Cato]

You might understand the meaning of" The needs of the Nation"

better, if I were to order you to put on a uniform and handed you a

rake and a shovel and assigned you to participate in a five year

agricultural program . Helping with the winter harvest to alleviate

hunger among the worker's immediate family members.

Uh, we've been using these for awhile....

[Hoopington]

Needs of the nation? What does that mean?

You might understand the meaning of" The needs of the Nation"

better, if I were to order you to put on a uniform and handed you a

rake and a shovel and assigned you to participate in a five year

agricultural program . Helping with the winter harvest to alleviate

hunger among the worker's immediate family members.

Not sure I've ever seen a Marxist view on Abortion before.

[John V]

It's claimed that the pro-life movement really exists because pro-lifers don't want women to be equals with men. Being anti-abortion in other words is one major way they can bolster traditional patriarchy. If that's the case, then why are so many pro-lifers women? From my experience, the most vocal (and annoying) pro-lifers are women. Are these women wanting to limit their own freedom? Are they wanting to be subservient to men? Why?

Because most of them have been pregnant and had children and from their experience believe that an unborn child is a life with value.

[Bad Wolf]

But is that value worth more than a persons bodily rights?

[DeistPaladin]

It's claimed that the pro-life movement really exists because pro-lifers don't want women to be equals with men. Being anti-abortion in other words is one major way they can bolster traditional patriarchy. If that's the case, then why are so many pro-lifers women? From my experience, the most vocal (and annoying) pro-lifers are women. Are these women wanting to limit their own freedom? Are they wanting to be subservient to men? Why?

I may take some flack for this but here goes...

I sometimes think women are their own worst enemy when it comes to fighting for their rights. If women could just ban together, they'd have equal rights promptly delivered on a silver plate with full apologies from every male chauvinist. OK, maybe I exaggerate but they represent 51% of the population and are biologically endowed with the very thing most men desperately need.

I look at our society where women have the power of the vote and by rights should be a massive block that ought to make every conservative male politician tremble and yet the GOP has waged a blatant war on women since their romp in 2010 and are still expected by some to do well come 2014. Why are women putting up with this?

The answer is going to involve a complex socio-political analysis of American culture, I realize, but part of it is that women can't go Lysistrata on the GOP's asses because there seem to be so many traitors in their ranks, ready to sell out.

The name that immediately leaps to mind when I ask the question, "who killed the Equal Rights Amendment to the federal constitution?" is Phyllis Schlafly.

Critics of Schlafly see her advocacy against equal rights and her role as a working professional as a contradiction. Gloria Steinem and author Pia de Solenni, among others, have noted what they consider irony in Schlafly's role as an advocate for the full-time mother and wife, while being herself a lawyer, editor of a monthly newsletter, regular speaker at anti-liberal rallies, and political activist. In her review of Schlafly's Feminist Fantasies, de Solenni writes that "Schlafly's discussion reveals a paradox. She was able to have it all: family and career. And she did it by fighting those who said they were trying to get it all for her.…Happiness resulted from being a wife and mother and working with her husband to reach their goals," not in helping other women and families reach their own.

And then there's this darling of the GOP:


She stands on the shoulders of giants that came before her. Her very ability to even vote in America, let alone be governor of a state or seek the second highest office in the land, is only because of the sweat, toil and tears of suffragettes and feminists who fought for those rights. And she threw them all under the bus for her own political career.

And there are sadly so many more where these two women came from.

It reminds me of that scene in Les Miserables where Fantine is thrown out of her job and on to the street. Jean Valjean was tragically negligent, allowing the supervisor to do as he willed and the male supervisor is certainly abusive. However, it was only because the women in the factory turned on one another that Fantine goes through the hell that finally destroys her.