Prolife Gender Privilege: How Feminism Poisons Everything

There seems to be a tacit surrender to feminist argumentation amongst many female Prolife advocates. Or perhaps it is intellectual desperation to get Feminists on board the Prolife side. Either way, it is a betrayal of the dignity of the human person to engage or validate a slogan such as the one above. Although Prolifers are generally very pro family, it becomes very apparent how many female Prolifers will close ranks with the feminist "Sisterhood" when it comes to a man's input in the discussion of the reproductive act. The misandry imbibed by Prolife women in the Postfeminist culture is clearly evident in the discourse I had just recently of Facebook regarding the posting of this image. Indeed, push come to shove, they will take our money, celebrate our attendance at protests and protection against intimidation at those protests; but when it gets down to who really calls the shots in reproduction... men can keep their mouths shut! Now I have to make the obligatory caveat that "not all Prolife women are like that", but enough are to have me post this discourse. I understand that this person is sincere and arguing based on what a Feminist would say, but look at the quick allegiance to what sex is a priority in all of the discourse. The intrinsic value of boys or the input of men is not even affirmed in passing. Only the importance of Women and the privilege of their position in the discourse is asserted. i leave you to make your own observations from the discourse bellow.



Kyle- I think I find this offensive because it buys into the feminist idea that somehow females are of more value than males... that is to say, unborn girls deserve priority over unborn boys...

Kristi- ‎Kyle, the reason why such a saying exists is because all the pro-choicers believe in "Women's Rights"!! So, this statement is saying: What about the rights of the UNBORN women?

Kyle- I understand, however it still buys into the feminist conception of female privilege. If anything, aborting children is the only issue that feminists really do believe in gender equality... either way, this sets up a priority list for who shall be saved from abortion and boys are at the bottom of that list. Abortion is human rights issue, not a gender issue. This slogan is a big step in the wrong direction!

Kristi- ‎Kyle, I disagree with you because abortion is never viewed as a "Man's Right". Men can never have children. It's all about the women, in this case.

Kyle- I beg your pardon? Men have children all the time. In fact I have two myself. Again, abortion is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, not a gender issue. This splitting of the child bearing act is what got abortion legalized to begin with. This is why Mens Rights Activists are now demanding that men be able to legally FORCE women to abort children Men don't want because the child is half theirs! BOTH these positions are erronious and false because it is irrelevant who is bearing the child, who made the child and or who wants the child. The HUMAN Child is the Subject of discussion, not gender privilige.

Kristi- ‎Kyle, my mistake, sorry. I mean to say that men cannot conceive children and carry them for 9 months. Only women can.

Kyle- Even if that is true, this does not validate the argument, nor does it pay to buy into the ideological framework that forms it. For it still presumes "unborn women" are of primary importance in the antiabortion issue. What if girls were not the majority of aborted children? Are we to now accept the argument that we must reduce the number of female abortions so as to stop the fetal oppression of women? you see, we are no longer discussing the dignity of Human Life, but on which sex is more more worthy of consideration and concern. This is the nature of Feminist argumentation and why we must not even rhetorically buy into it to score cheap points in abortion exchanges.

JUDGE DEFENDS INFANTICIDE BY COMPARING IT TO ABORTION

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/canadian-mother-strangles-newborn-gets-no-jail-time-and-judge-defends-infanticide-by-comparing-it-to-abortion/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/09/edmonton-effert-infanticide-suspended-sentence.html

Well it seems as though the inevitable logic of violating the dignity of the human person by way of state sanctioned murder is finally working it’s way out in the Canadian legal system. That is to say, none is safe from being liquidated due to inconvenience or lack of interest. There are several issues that are of concern here.

1) The horrific murder of a new born infant by his mother is expunged because there “is no abortion law in Canada”. Obviously we are not discussing an abortion as the child has been born… but that is irrelevant if it is not the dignity of the child that is of concern, but the dubious thinking of the Mother. Indeed, in this case we are far beyond the “glob of tissue rape product” argumentation. This is a child consciously brought to term and then murdered. But that is irrelevant under the feminist rationale of a judge not bound by law, but ideology alone. For the fact that there is no abortion law for a child in the womb does not somehow remove the law of murdering a child outside of it. We are to believe that after nine months this woman suddenly decided she didn’t want a baby in a country with no law or stigma against abortion on demand? Following this logic when can a Mother not commit infanticide… or outright murder of her children?

2) This ruling is a back handed attack on men by creating two laws; one for women and one for men. Within the Western Tradition of Law, at least following the “Enlightenment”, all equally must be subject to the Rule of Law and be Equal before the Law. This judge offends this principle based on nothing more than ideology. For, although a woman can murder a child due to some dubious claim of stress, depression, or whatever excuse can be plucked from the top beak Mount Improbable, a man cannot. So a man who does not want a baby and strangles it with a pair of underwear is a murderer; but a woman who does the same act, under the same circumstances, is legally blameless. This seems to be a replaying of the Handmaid’s Tale in a Star Trekian alternate universe; AKA the Dominion of Canada. A little known legal maxim that has existed for some time goes like this: Murder is Murder no matter who commits it. But I belabour the point.

3) The Judiciary as the revelatory voice of the People. Nowhere in the Constitution of the Dominion of Canada does it say that the Judiciary’s responsibility is to speak for the people of Canada or to express their will. I know because I have actually read it! The Judges comment that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support” is fine. Many Canadians also prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate; yet that really doesn’t resolve the issue of if it’s lawful to suffocate ones child in a 2 gallon bucket of ice cream. However, problematically the judge transitions into what ALL Canadians believe when she goes on to state: “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.” Do they? ALL Canadians grieve for a mother who “chooses” to strangle her newborn with her panties?! Apparently judges have a mystical connection to the emotional and moral sensibilities of every Canadian citizen. Because if that is not the case, she would be going far beyond her finite caporal duties as stated in the Canadian Constitution and the laws of the observable universe and basically acting as though she was omnipresent. But this "legislating from the bench" is a recurring problem in Canada. Gay marriage, so called Child Abuse via spanking, so called Hate Crimes, and a host of other infractions against the Natural Law politicians won’t touch with a ten foot pole have been foisted on the Canadian public without their consent… oh wait, judges clearly DO know what Canadians consent to by virtue of the occult nature of their office. I’d forgotten.

Just these three issues are enough to cause any thinking person concern for their own safety and the very nature of the judiciary that is supposed to protect and uphold the Rule of Law. If the judiciary can drop laws it is supposed to uphold due to the sex of the offender, none is safe… except baby killing women of course. The only redeeming quality I can see from this sad sully into madness is that there is now a public recognition of the correlation between abortion and infanticide that must now be publicly and legally resolved. At least,although this does not validate abortion, laws governing that murderous act most probably will now come due to this horrendous situation.