Friday, May 18, 2012

Nothing is ever what it really is, to poor-choicers

Joyce Arthur:

I'm speaking of course of the abortion debate, in which anti-choicers pretend that it's all about saving an unprotected class of "human beings" -- fetuses and embryos -- and not about completely subordinating pregnant women to their childbearing function, including forcing women by law to forfeit their own health and lives if necessary.

Joyce Arthur once offered the advice to pro-lifers that in order to discuss abortion intelligently with poor-choicers that they have to get to know their opposition.

It appears that she has neglected her own advice.

Are pro-life women subordinated to their childbearing function?

Don't pro-life women have careers, interests, and activities beyond that of parenting?

As if pro-life women are out to subordinate themselves, to degrade themselves, to sell themselves out.

The stupidity of this rhetoric is obvious, and people should be calling her out on it.

Pro-life women who oppose abortion are not completely subordinated into their childbearing function.

But Joyce Arthur and the opponents of fetal rights have to do everything possible to make sure that the debate about fetal rights is not about fetal rights. Hence the phrase fetus focus fallacy.

The motion would establish a parliamentary committee to examine the scientific and medical evidence as to whether fetuses should be included in the Criminal Code definition of "human being." This of course would give legal personhood to fetuses so that abortion can be re-criminalized.

Here's the thing.

Instead of arguing process, why don't pro-aborts just argue on the darn substance of the motion?

Fetuses aren't human beings, case closed.

The supreme irony of Woodworth's motion is its faux concern over our Canadian law "that decrees some human beings are not human beings," even while the effect of the motion would be to remove "human being" legal protections from pregnant women and give them to their fetuses instead.
[EDITED May 19th at 7:16 pm]

No matter how the pro-aborts frame it, in the woman-fetus relationship, the woman always has the power. Always. Even in a case of illegal abortion, the woman can do whatever she wants and the fetus is completely at her mercy.

Here, Woodworth got tripped up by the anti-choice movement's "fetus focus fallacy," which renders women invisible or irrelevant

As opposed to woman focus fallacy, which renders the fetus invisible or irrelevant.

The truth is, there are two beings involved in pregnancy.

Pro-life women are very cognizant of the fact that women and fetuses go through pregnancy.

However, pro-aborts won't even allow our legal system to acknowledge the plain fact that fetuses are also involved in a pregnancy.

He still doesn't realize that most Canadians can see women just fine -- including the inseparable connection between their human rights and reproductive rights.

Except that most Canadians also see that women have a responsibility towards the unborn, at least at some point in the pregnancy.

See, the thing is, if women want to be treated as full moral agents and equal to men, they cannot only clamour for rights, they also have to accept responsibility.

The problem with Dion's reasoning is the underlying assumption that the potential curtailment of women's rights is still a legitimate topic for debate and negotiation, even in the age of the charter and its supposed guaranteed protections.

The issue at hand is whether the unborn child is a human being. That's it. Slave owners once had the right to own people. Should their long-established human right to own people as property have not been examined because it would have violated "white rights"?

Surely, no all-party committee would recommend a backbencher's motion that, for example, wanted to examine whether black people should go back to Africa, or whether Muslims should have freedom of religion.

No, but if blacks were not persons, then wouldn't it be necessary for Parliament to examine if they are persons, even if it meant curtailing the right to slavery?
Some things are just beyond the pale in modern Canada -- except apparently, the basic human rights of half the population.

You don't get to dictate what is "beyond the pale". Ultimately, truth and the people determine what is beyond the pale, not lobbyists and interest groups.
However, pregnant women are the sole biological caretakers of fetuses and always have been.

And sometimes they are poor caretakers, just like there are bad parents. Why should one class of human beings have to suffer in the name of the "rights" of others?

Legalized abortion made sense when the fetus is a "blob of tissue". But as people come to realize that the fetus is a human being, it does not make sense to say that a human being must die at another's fiat.

But that's feminism for you. If some group has to suffer and die in the name of so-called "women's rights" then too bad.

. When a pregnant woman is safe and healthy, so is her fetus.
But when she decides he is unwanted, he isn't.