I am shocked at their superficial knowledge of the abortion debate.
Take for instance this blogpost from The Abortion Gang called "The Inconvenience Myth". Reema complains that antis oppose abortion on the basis that women have them for convenience.
QUOTE:
Now, if you ask an anti about the inconvenience myth, they usually end up saying something like “most women say that they had their abortions because they didn’t want to interrupt their education, because they want to carry on with their career, or because they just didn’t want to have a child” and they equate this with “inconvenience”. In other words, they’re saying that a woman’s needs never matter. They portray reasons such as a woman’s career or education as trivial, immature reasons for having an abortion, as if the only reason the woman is having an abortion is because she would rather splurge on $1,000 purses from Saks Fifth Avenue (and honestly, even if that is her only reason, who are we to judge her?). They neglect the fact that men are not the only ones who need an education and a job, and that women don’t all want to be (or can be) stay at home moms. They call a woman who is not ready for a child “selfish”, because she is recognizing her own needs and capabilities at the time instead of entering the world of motherhood prematurely. In other words, they’re telling women that they don’t matter, that their mental and physical health does not matter, and that their future does not matter, and sadly, none of this surprises me. The notion that pregnancy is a mere “inconvenience”, like having to take the stairs instead of the elevator or having to wait to be seated at a restaurant, is ridiculous and misogynistic. It’s another way to hold back women and to demonize them for caring about their own health.
They always seem to miss one vital point in the whole debate.
And that's the life of the unborn child.
If there was no unborn child involved, then she might have an argument.
But the "abortion of convenience" argument is the fruit of weighing the value of human life, versus whatever motivates the woman to have an abortion.
So yeah, in light of taking human life, which to anyone with a conscience, is a very immoral act, pursuing a career, an education or just not wanting to bother with the expense of a child is a "convenience".
For feminists, the debate is about everything EXCEPT the actual act of abortion and the value of prenatal human life.
It's about a woman's health.
It's about a woman's goals.
It's about a woman's autonomy.
Anything and everything, except ABORTION itself, and the issue of taking human life.
And, unable to mentally assimilate the issue of the fetus, they jump to the conclusion that there is no debate and that pro-lifers are just misogynists.
Not people concerned about the value of human life. They can't be. That would be giving them too much moral credit-- and that would undermine the feminist position.
The abortion/fetal rights debate must not be about what pro-lifers allege it to be. Their motives must be questioned. The facts must be denied even if they're easily provable.
And another thing. Do feminists think that socially conservative are that dumb?
Do they think that social conservative women who support fetal rights DON'T CARE about their own health, their own dreams and aspirations...that they're the only ones?
Of course they care.
So if they care about their own health, then it's not a stretch to think that they care about the health of others.
Name any hard luck situation, and a so-con woman has been pregnant at that point.
And did not choose abortion.
How come?
Maybe because she realizes that taking human life is a graver evil than postponing or foregoing whatever desires she had for herself.
But see, that's all misogynistic. That's caring equally about the rights of one set of human beings as much as those of women.
In the end, it's about feminist supremacy. Feminist rights and concerns reign supreme.
And if someone else has to die because of it, oh well.
