Now this is an intriguing case. Besides the fact that it highlights the absurdity of sex without commitment, it might as well be satire on the whole issue of a woman’s body being hers to do with as she pleases (even when it’s not her body) with no say for a man who helped produce that “part” of her body.
It simply confirms Mike Adams’ contention that feminists simply cannot be counted on to speak logically and reasonably.
26. Feminists often see critical thinking (and logic overall) as a “male thing.”
The feminist I just quoted had this to say in her next paragraph:
“Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe in abortion. I think it’s cruel, and I would never have one, but I still believe that a woman has the right to do whatever she pleases with her body. And the baby, when it is inside of her, is her body. Whenever you develop a device that will keep the baby alive to term outside of his or her mother’s womb, go ahead and tell me, but until then, you’re not going to convince me that she shouldn’t have the right to stop giving it her lifeblood.”
When you read this feminist’s first paragraph – the one that twice referred to the baby as a “parasite” – did you get the feeling that having an abortion was much like using anti-bacterial soap or just taking a shower? When you read the second paragraph – the one that referred to the cruelty of abortion – did you get the idea that the feminist was aware of the “parasite’s” humanity?
There is seldom an occasion that a feminist remains logically consistent from one paragraph to the next. The only consistent characteristic of each paragraph is a very strong personal feeling – one that the feminist always describes in excruciating detail. “I feel that it is a parasite.” “The lifeblood belongs to me.” “The decision is mine.”
All the day long, three words dominate her thinking:
I, me, mine. I, me, mine. I, me, mine.
It makes no sense to say that the man has no right to be included in the decision to kill his baby or not, and then to turn around and say that he must support that baby if she decides not to kill it. But the “right to choose” was never about logic, was it? (See the three words above.)
The article is full of gems. There’s this, from Jennifer Brown: “Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government — literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want. There’s nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized.” On the other hand, child-support is clearly not an “extreme intrusion by the government”! Or, what about that other “extreme intrusion” by the government that says that men cannot have a say in whether the woman wants to kill her baby, though he might be fully willing to raise the child. Nope, nothing “equivalent for men” there.
But the prize goes to the ever-quotable Kim Gandy, president of NOW:
“None of these are easy questions,” said Gandy, a former prosecutor. “But most courts say it’s not about what he did or didn’t do or what she did or didn’t do. It’s about the rights of the child.”
Ah yes, the “rights of the child.” No doubt Gandy is known as one of this country’s foremost crusaders for the rights of the child! [I’m banging my head on the desk at the moment.] What can she possibly be talking about? The child has rights when it comes to child-support, but not when it comes to life?
Really, there are no words adequate for response to aangax#@%$*&$zzz….!
[sorry, words fail me…]
Balaam's Ass 