Feminists want it both ways.
They claim that all one has to believe to be a feminist is that a woman is a person with rights.
Feminists want to encompass as many people in their camp, as possible to make their political views seem mainstream and authoritative.
I happen to believe that a woman is a person with rights.
That does not make me a feminist.
Because to be a feminist requires much more than that. Some feminists will say so. Some will not. Some will say that most women are feminists, but in practice, they require self-proclaimed feminists to toe the radical feminist/socialist line on social issues.
What if you're a feminist who happens to agree that a fetus is an equal? Does that still make you a feminist? No, it doesn't. I know Feminists for Life would disagree with me, but the bulk of feminists reject the pro-life feminist philosophy.
The truth is, to be a feminist, you need to encompass a worldview that is much broader than simply accepting the humanity, the personhood and the equality of women. These words have a definite meaning among feminists. To the general public, they are undefined, so that as many women as possible are persuaded that they are part of the movement-- when in fact they're not. But in truth, if you do not accept abortion on demand and most other politically correct beliefs, you are not a true feminist.
The anti-choice/anti-life side of the debate would have us just take for granted the concept of a zygote as a fully independent person, and that the woman is purely incidental to the process; they argue from this perspective without establishing facts and then are shocked when it's discovered not everyone shares this viewpoint, as if one denied gravity.
I'm not shocked that not everyone shares the viewpoint. I am shocked at how unscientific the other side really is. Some proponents of legalized abortion are actually educated and admit that a fetus is, at the very least, a homo sapiens, and that abortion, in essence, kills a human being. However, most proponents of legalized abortion, that is, the average person on the street, doesn't have a clue. They have no idea. They don't even bother researching it. In a debate, they recoil at calling a fetus a "human being" because of the moral implications. The hardcore proponents of legalized abortion have completely re-arranged their moral beliefs so that they can believe that, in the end, it's okay to have an abortion: it doesn't matter if you kill a human being. It does not matter that a human being does not have equal protection before the law. The ownership of the uterus makes a woman supreme over any occupants in it, and if she wants to kill any human beings inside, that is her business. Never mind we would never tolerate such logic in any other scenario. We did not tolerate the invocation of privacy and property to justify wife-beating. But when women want to do it other human beings well that's different.
The pro-choice/pro-woman side of the debate declares that the woman comes first.
That's right. It comes to feminist supremacy. Anyone else's welfare or considerations are secondary. If someone else has to suffer in the name of legal abortion, that's just too bad.
And I know feminists hate this comparison, because they consider women to be the class under threat. White Supremacists used to engage in scaremongering, saying that if people of colour were given rights, the white race would be enslaved. Feminists say the same thing now: if the unborn is given rights, women will be enslaved.
You only have to look at the power dynamics: was it realistic for white supremacists to think that blacks would take over? Who had the real power?
Again with women, look at the power dynamics: if unborn children are given rights, will women be enslaved? Consider when abortion was illegal: were women without rights? They managed to win rights for themselves without abortion. That doesn't sound like an enslaved minority, to me.
For more social conservative news check out BigBlueWave.ca