Thanks to Cannonball101, I became aware of Jezebel’s ridiculous article on Arizona’s new abortion laws. I’d already read up on the issue via the Huffington Post which actually had a proper, fact-based write-up. Jezebel, on the other hand, either willfully or ignorantly omits a very important fact.
Arizona is “redefining” pregnancy to include the two weeks before conception. Technically, you’re not pregnant - no sperm has entered an egg.
Of course, at first glance, this seems insane but any parent knows that medical professionals already do this. That’s right - your due date and your baby’s age are calculated by your Last Menstrual Period or LMP which is typically two weeks before conception. Why, you ask? Well, I assume, because that’s when the female body starts preparing to grow a baby. Or, at the very least, because it’s better safe than sorry for those wishing to track their pregnancies.
This confuses many new moms and, I can attest, takes some getting used to. But it is not a theory or some new fangled idea. This is simply how it’s done scientifically.
So, Arizona is actually amending its laws to reflect science. It’s not insane. Uteruses are not weeping - at least, not ones who read a reliable article on this decision. It makes perfect sense.
Now that we’ve concluded that the staff at Jezebel are either purposefully trying to incite anger with their readers or are so ignorant and incapable of being proper journalists who do research that it’s laughable (not that I ever considered them to be journalists - pah!), let’s move on to their wrath over education.
Really, Jezebel? You have a problem with women being told that adoption is a better option than abortion? This makes you upset?
It also dictates that schools make teaching about birth and adoption a priority. Healthcare facilities will have signs that warn against abortion “coercion.”
This statement absolutely blew my mind. It’s as crazy to me as if someone said, “It also dictates that schools make teaching about math a priority. Math classrooms will have signs that warn against skipping class in favor of smoking pot behind the dumpsters.”
Do we really live in a world where women think that educating and promoting alternatives to abortion is an infringement on women’s rights? Women are certainly coerced into abortion all the time - not least of all by men! (Isn’t it funny how feminism worked out? Sexual freedom means men get to have sex with us without strings attached because we’ve been “liberated” meanwhile we’re left damaged and confused and floundering insecurity because women are wired to invest their emotions in sex. And the men score! We abort our children and they don’t have to raise them. And the men score again!) It would seem that the author would prefer that women get abortions whether they want them or not.
This kind of article is an embarrassment to all of the women who fought for actual women’s rights like the right to vote and own property. Having an abortion isn’t a woman’s right. It isn’t a “right” at all. Where else in society is there a right to kill or “terminate” if you will, a life? Nowhere. We are all so consumed with protecting life - animals, trees, starving African children. But suddenly when it’s a fetus, it’s not worth protecting and we must do everything we can to not consider it life so we can get rid of it whenever we please.
I could go on and on but I leave you with this point from a list of 20 questions for pro-choice people. I hope you all consider it and maybe even read through the other points on the website. This is not a little issue. If all the babies who have been aborted in the womb had been systematically murdered by an evil terrorist when they were one year old, we’d be in World War 3.
Please, please reconsider if you’re pro-choice. And definitely reconsider getting your news from, I dunno, anywhere else but Jezebel.
If you think abortion should be allowed, can you consistently maintain that there any human rights at all? Human rights are presumably rights that belong to us in virtue of our being human—that is why they are called “human” rights. They are prior to decision or convention, precisely because they depend upon our nature. We have them simply because we are human beings, not because of an acquired characteristic or accomplishment. But if the fetus has no rights, then there are no human rights, because the fetus is clearly a human being, and if there were rights that followed from simply being human, the fetus would have them. If there are no human rights, then of course the so-called “right to privacy” or “right to an abortion” is also not a human right.
So you cannot consistently deny the right to life of the fetus, and assert the right to privacy of the mother. Talk of brute power, or domination, or “getting your way”, if you wish, but don’t misuse the language of human rights, which you in practice reject. In fact we need to ask the more fundamental question: What distinguishes a claim of expediency or self-interest from a claim that one has a right? You claim that there is a right to an abortion, but why should anyone believe this? Why aren’t you just saying: “I want this, so you should give it to me?” (And it is a curious fact that the idea that there is a right to an abortion seemed to arise at just the same time as the sexual revolution. Before 1970, no one had ever asserted that there was a right to an abortion. From the point of view of history, it might appear that this rights claim has more to do with the people conceiving a child in circumstances in which a child would be unwanted—and abortion happens to be an effective remedy. But this is far from establishing any “right”.)
But what is a right? Exactly how many rights are there? Why is the right to an abortion one of these rights? —Can you give an argument for your view, or is it mere assertion?— How can there be a human right that only women have, but not men? Are there any other rights that only one sex possesses? And if abortion is a “necessary evil”, as it seems almost everybody grants, and hence in some sense wrong, then—to raise a question that Lincoln asked Douglas about slavery— how can there be a right to do a wrong? Are there any other rights that we know of that have this feature?
But suppose we say that the so-called “right to an abortion” is not a human right,prior to convention or human decision. It is therefore a consequence of human law: we could even say that the Supreme Court created this right, in 1973. But if that is the case, then we cannot argue that abortion should remain legal because there is a right to an abortion. That would be an entirely empty argument, equivalent to saying that “abortion should be legal because abortion is legal.”