abortion, bare-foot and pregnant, celibacy, civil rights, contraception, feminists, lesbianism, misogyny, political hysteria, politics of reproduction, reproductive rights, Roman Catholicism, sterilisation, sub-human status, the war against women, the war for the womb
I was recently reading about the foeticide laws in USA. I was shocked. So a woman’s life is classed as the legal equivalent of her foetus, even though pregnancy is a potentially fatal activity for the mother and can cause extreme damage such as brain damage (in the mother), ending up in a wheelchair, and a host of other permanent medical damages. I have always thought that there is only one argument in respect of women’s reproductive rights for contraception/sterilisation/abortion – and that is self-defence. End of topic. How can anyone possibly justify that another person MUST engage in an activity which can cause their death/huge physical damage?
But the arguments rage on. Why? I think part of the answer is that women themselves are a large part of the problem. Women are too nice for their own good.
Consider this alternative model. Suppose the normal mind-set of all women was to put their own interests first, at all times, and never cheaply to sacrifice their own interests for those of men/children. Obviously self-preservation would be their highest priority. How would feticide laws work with women who thought like this? The women would conclude that others viewed their lives/well-being as expendable the instant they became pregnant. Their status, from that of an adult citizen entitled to act so as to protect their own life and physical well-being obliterated from the moment of impregnation, being instantly reduced from the status of a person to that of a non-person. Their reaction to the foeticide laws would be unanimous. They would refuse to ever become pregnant. End of problem.
Women must examine themselves when they have problems to determine whether they perhaps are the part of the problem which defeats ever finding a solution.