Tag Archives: abortion

Look! Another Thought Catalog piece!

31 May

Seems like maybe the mainstream media is ready to start considering some issues we have been discussing for a long time.


Better late than never, right?



Five rights feminism delivered for women, but doesn’t want to share with anyone else

22 Jan


Modern feminism, with its incessant whining and complaining and victim proclamations has quite rightly come under increasing fire not only from sites like this one, but in the mainstream media, too.

The recent brouhaha surrounding Jezebel placing a $10 000 bounty on Lena Dunham’s head, demanding to see the unretouched photos from her recent Vogue shoot, serves as an illustration of just how far feminism has strayed from its original roots.  In a fit of mean-girl spite to make Regina George herself blush, Jezebel was absolutely positive that Vogue had grossly retouched Dunham, because there is no way she is actually that pretty.  Lena is ugly!  Let’s prove how ugly that bitch is!  Someone get me the unretouched photos, stat!  Here’s $10 000 for the favor.

Charming. Turns out Vogue hadn’t retouched Lena all that much, and Jezebel ended up looking like exactly the group of bitter, jealous cunts they are. And “good, it’s about time” is all I can say to that.

With feminism seeming to be on a self-destruct cycle all of its own, I thought this might be a good time to reflect on the good things feminism has accomplished and then ponder just why it is that feminism doesn’t want those gains to be extended to everyone?

Could it be that feminism isn’t about equality at all, but more about power and dominance?

Let’s investigate.

1. The right to reproductive freedom

Margaret Sanger and Otto Bobsein are credited with coining the term “birth control” and were early proponents of the wide spread adoption of family planning.

By the 1960s the birth control pill was available for women and unleashed a social revolution that broke the bonds between sex and reproduction. The ability to choose motherhood yet still have sex offered women a freedom that had never been possible for all of human history, and women took full advantage of that freedom. Freedom given to them by mostly male scientists, by the way.

Women had the children they wanted, when they wanted them.

The 1973 Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court Decision further solidified women’s reproductive rights, allowing them to abort children they did not want before they were born.

Recent attacks on abortion rights are rightly seen as an affront to womankind itself.  The right to choose parenthood is absolutely essential if women are to realize their full human potential.

That is not a statement that is contested with any vigor by feminists.  Planned parenthood.  There can be no other way.

Curious, then, that the push to make parenthood a choice for all humans is resisted by feminists specifically.  Amanda Marcotte, writing for The Raw Story is completely dismissive of that half of humanity which would also like the right to choose parenthood.

There are absolutely writers who question why feminism appears to be concerned only with women’s choice, but few will venture further than curiosity.

What is it about feminism that insists women must have the right to summarily confiscate male assets while retaining the absolute right to choose for themselves whether they will dedicate any resources at all to parenthood?

Equality seems to have gone missing from the argument.

2. The right to have rape taken seriously

Caveat:  let’s keep in mind that raping white women, or even the allegation of having done so, was always a serious crime when the defendant happened to be a black man.  It was generally punishable by death.

In 1793, 17-year-old Lanah Sawyer was pushed into a brothel and raped by a seemingly respectable man who had taken her for a walk in the streets of New York. In court, her assailant’s attorney said she had basically consented to sex when she agreed to go walking with him, and warned the jury against placing “the life of a citizen in the hands of a woman.” The man was acquitted.

By the 1970s, the National Organization for Women was busy drawing attention to the leniency most rapists received and the brutal questioning victims were forced to endure.

The Oscar-winning film The Accused, starring Jody Foster as a drunk woman who was gang-raped on a pool table as bar patrons watched was a watershed moment that convinced Americans that rape was a serious crime and that perpetrators deserved to be punished.

The subsequent rape-hysteria of contemporary feminism is not the topic of this post, but I will remind readers that rape hysteria is utterly out of control. As if you needed such a reminder, right?

What I am interested in is the curious phenomena of feminists dismissing male rape statistics and willfully ignoring the fact that boys are raped more often than girls. Not to mention giggling over actual cases of male rape.

Feminism succeeded in making rape a serious crime.  When the victim is a woman.

Why then is feminism so reluctant to extend the same sympathy and legal protections to male victims that are afforded female victims? And just to be clear, I don’t mean sympathy extended by the courts or the general public.  I mean sympathy extended by feminists, who insist that every woman who claims she has been raped must be believed, no matter how fanciful or spurious the claim.

What is that about? Again, it doesn’t look much like equality from where I sit.

3. The right to have mental health issues taken seriously

Anxiety, depression, despair, hopelessness, traumatic responses to events long passed, anorexia and suicidal thoughts were often thought to be the product of women’s innate hysteria, often relieved through the thoughtful (ahem) application of vibrating machines (double ahem) applied to a woman’s genitals (holy ahem!).

Feminists worked hard to demonstrate that women’s mental health issues were linked inextricably to their life circumstances, and rightly so.  Simply dismissing the despair of some women as inherent to women was grossly insulting and reductionist.

Interestingly enough, our modern feminist sisters have no problem claiming that men’s mental health issues are inherent to men and masculinity:  it is the very concept of “manhood” that creates mental illness. Describing men as “emotionless dickbots”, Anna North proposes that all masculinity needs is a good dose of shame.

But do men need, in addition, “a positive, masculine gender identity?” It’s something of a strange concept — few feminists would ever say that women needed “a positive, feminine gender identity.” While plenty of women take pride in being female, “femininity” is so loaded with patriarchal expectation that, for feminists, it’s kind of a dirty word. This may not be a bad thing — in fact, I’d argue that “masculine” should go the same way.

What is going on here?  Women have genuine, human emotional problems that are most certainly not the simple result of being women, but mental health problems in men is proof of “toxic masculinity”?



4. The right to NOT be assumed natural caregivers

Feminists have long railed against the stereotype that women are “naturally more loving” than men, and therefore better suited to be caregivers for small children.

Of course, these very same women hire other women to care for their children when they are occupied with something more important, and are reluctant to even contemplate hiring an occasional babysitter who is male, but we’ll ignore the inconsistency for the moment.

If women have no innate advantage over men when it comes to caring for small children, why then are feminist organizations so opposed to shared parenting and automatic joint custody when parental relationships fail?

What’s up with that? Are men and women equally suited to be providers of care, or are they not?

5. The right to genital integrity

Feminism has worked hard to lift the veil on the grotesquely cruel practice of genital mutilation, but only if the genitals in question are of the female variety.

Indeed, some feminist websites openly mock men for being anti-circumcision, claiming the “intactivist” movement arises because men feel the “world revolves around their dicks”.

As opposed to all those mutilated girls who probably think the world revolves around their vaginas?

Circumcision: only cruel when it’s done to girls.

What are we to make of this curious state of modern feminism?

Reproductive rights, but only for women.

Rape awareness, but only when women are victims.

Mental health awareness, but only when women are affected.

Assumption of natural caregiving ability, but only when the option is to have a man care for children.

Genital integrity, but only for girls.

How can anyone possibly see feminism as a movement to achieve equality between men and women when feminist organizations and individuals actively work to ensure that the hard fought rights their older feminist sisters won apply to women, and women only?

I personally think it’s important to separate modern feminists from their historical counterparts. When we critique feminism, I think we should make it clear that we are critiquing modern feminism.  Some might argue that the current state of affairs is not a bug of the feminist system, but a feature:  that feminism intended to end up exactly where we are.  I’m not convinced that is a productive conversation to have.

I think we can celebrate the triumphs of feminism while being wholly and deeply critical of the limitations.  There is no room left to maneuver in modern feminism.

The rights women have gained for women now need to be extended to everyone. Reproductive freedom, the right to make rape accusations and be given a fair trial, the right to have mental health issues taken seriously, the right to be assumed a loving caregiver and the right to genital integrity.

You won’t find those issues championed at NOW or Ms. or feministing or Jezebel or any other mainstream feminist media site.

But you will find them championed here.

Feminists have completed their work and now have nothing to do but circle their wagons and try to keep others from achieving the same rights.

Well, when they’re not busy calling other women ugly and paying $10 000 for proof of just how ugly.


Fuck feminism.  It’s over.

The game is now ours.  And we will fight for every last right.

For everyone.

Lots of love,


A fetus isn’t a person, unless it’s a female. How to have your cake, eat it too, and blame the whole mess on men.

8 Sep

Five years ago, I had a second trimester miscarriage.  Sixteen weeks into a very much wanted pregnancy, severe cramping came over me very quickly, and I started to bleed.  For some reason I can no longer recall, I had a measuring cup in my bathroom, and when I called the midwife to let her know I was in trouble, she wanted to know how much blood I was losing.


8 ounces in about 30 seconds.

Hang up the phone, she said, and call 911.

By the time the ambulance arrived, I had lost over half the blood in my body, and my blood pressure had dropped to 60/40. And I had, wrapped up in a tissue, the body of my unborn son. He was not a “fetus”. He was a tiny little human being who had died before he could be born.

Perhaps owing to my Germanic blood and my experience with a late term miscarriage, my views on abortion are decidedly practical and lean perhaps towards the Machiavellian.

Abortion is killing a human being.  This does not seem the slightest bit controversial to me.  Calling an unborn human a “fetus” might make the killers feel better, but it doesn’t change the fact that aborting a baby is killing a human.  I think of it as similar to calling the enemy a “gook”, or a “Kraut” or a “raghead”.  You dehumanize your victim to make it easier to kill him.


As a society, we sanction the use of lethal force in any number of ways.  I doubt there are any modern cultures that prohibit the use of lethal force against an equally lethal threat, meaning that every citizen has the right to use lethal force in the right circumstances.  We have military forces and police officers and armed bank guards and the death penalty (which I don’t agree with at all).  We disconnect life support machines in hospitals knowing the outcome will be death.

By that logic, the only acceptable moral justification for abortion would be when the unborn baby really does present a lethal threat to the mother.  And that does happen.  It happened to Savita Halapannavar in Ireland, and since abortion for any reason is prohibited in Ireland, Savita died.


I had a very similar condition.  In my case, the baby was dead, and had come out of my body, but the placenta was still inside me, and I had an emergency D&C to remove the “products of conception” as they are called. After I was put into hypothermia because there wasn’t enough time to warm the blood for the transfusion.  That was fun.  In Savita’s case, the baby was still alive, with no hope of surviving, and she was allowed to die of the eventual infection that set in.

When a pregnancy literally and uncontrovertibly threatens a woman’s life, abortion is morally justified.

But that isn’t why most abortions are carried out.

Aborting a baby because it suffers from some catastrophic abnormality opens up a whole can of ethically fraught worms.  In that scenario, the baby is being killed not because it poses a threat to the mother’s life, but “for its own good”.  Often, the abnormality is simply that the baby carries the dreaded extra chromosome that results in Down Syndrome.  But if we can abort a baby because it is defective, why not euthanize newborns with undetected abnormalities who weren’t aborted but surely WOULD have been, had the parents known about the condition?



Why not allow parents to decide if the baby is “good enough”?

Obviously, that is grotesque, but not more grotesque than a late term abortion.

Most abortions are carried out in the first trimester because, for whatever reason, a woman does not want to be pregnant.  Perhaps she feels too young.  She is too poor to care for her child.  She has other plans.  She does not want to parent with the father of the child.  She conceived the child as a result of rape or incest.

None of those things pose a threat to a mother’s life.  They are not strictly morally justified.  I am personally very much in support of women aborting children they cannot afford – the last thing the world needs is more poor people.  And women who do not have the voluntary support of the fathers should also not be having children.  We don’t need any more single mothers, either.  Ideally, the children should be placed for adoption, but there are two giant problems with that:  it’s easier to kill a baby you can’t see than it is to give away a baby that you have cradled in your arms.

Adoption is a very emotionally hard choice to make.  Abortion seems easier, especially in a culture that treats unborn humans as nothing more than a gooey gob of cells. A fetus.

And most adoptive couples are white, in search of white children.  There.  I said it.  Black babies, and brown babies are less valuable on the adoption markets.  Most adoptive couples are white and they prefer white babies. Yes, that is profoundly racist.  I’m not making it up.  It’s true.

Just because something is really ugly doesn’t make it false.


So if we are going to allow women to abort babies because they just don’t want them, even though that is not a morally justifiable reason, but is instead the least worst choice for society as a whole, how can we then set any limits on why and when a woman can use lethal force against her own unborn child?

It’s fun to watch feminists spin their wheels when confronted with an uncomfortable dilemma:  what if a woman wants to abort a baby simply because the baby is a girl?

no girls

The whole “fetus” argument gets dropped in a heartbeat when that happens.  Suddenly the unborn babies are not clusters of cells at all, but “girls”.

The figure [of missing girls] is 60 million, about the population of the entire UK, which Hundal surmises is comprised by those “aborted before birth, killed once born, died of neglect because they were girls, or perhaps murdered by their husband’s family for not paying enough dowry at marriage.”

Should the genocide continue, there will be an extra 28 million men of marriageable age.


While there is certainly a problem with neglect and murder in India, it looks like most of those girls were victims while still in the womb.

Abortion is killing girls in India.

India’s 2011 census shows a serious decline in the number of girls under the age of seven – activists fear eight million female fetuses may have been aborted in the past decade.



It’s easy to turn up our noses at faraway cultural practices and consider ourselves to be ever so much more enlightened, but it turns out that the practice of aborting girls is one that travels.

Canada has a problem with it, and the National Post calls sex-selective abortion the “real war on women”.  When your fetus is a female, it’s not a fetus any more.  It’s a “woman”.


The UK has a similar problem, and a recent event there has thrust sex-selective abortions into the spotlight.  Reporters from the Daily Telegraph approached abortion providers to see if they would consent to a late term abortion based only on the fact that the baby was a girl.


It is illegal to abort babies based on sex in the UK, but nevertheless, the Telegraph found two doctors (out of nine questioned) willing to terminate a pregnancy simply because the baby was a girl.

Since it IS in fact illegal to abort babies based on their gender, prosecutors in the UK took an interest in what the Telegraph found. Both doctors were caught on tape agreeing to abort girls.  The evidence is a slam dunk.

Prosecutors declined to press charges.

Sources familiar with the Scotland Yard investigation said that prosecutors saw the issue as “sensitive” and that it had become “political”.


Sensitive indeed.

Abortion is one of those issues that highlights the fact that feminism as a political ideology is not concerned with equality and is certainly not concerned with morality.  Feminists champion untrammeled access to abortion because it is a visceral, blood-soaked proclamation of the real goal:  female superiority.

Women will determine who lives and who dies.

The culture is not quite ready to accept that, so we use ideas like “fetus” to veil the real agenda. If we openly admitted that abortion is killing a human being, and then fiercely defended women’s right to take the life of any human who begins existence inside her body, we are veering dangerously near the truth of the matter.

When abortion is used to murder female humans for no reason other than the fact they are female, the veil is lifted, even if only temporarily.  Fetuses become girls.  Unwanted cells become women.  The embryo becomes human.

And the death of enough of those humans becomes genocide.

Here is Janice Turner, desperately trying to have her cake and eat it, too.


She begins by claiming that gender-based selective abortions are something only those icky brown people do anyways.

So, other than undercover hacks, who are these girl-killing British mothers? Are they trivial-minded control freaks who, having spawned one daughter, are so furious at this second female foetus that they rush to dispense with it, so they can get cracking on conceiving a boy? Have you come across one? Me neither.

The other scenario is that women settled here from countries where there is a real and acute problem with gender-based abortion, are eradicating female foetuses here.

She then goes on to claim that even if women really ARE aborting their baby girls, it’s not their fault anyways!

Yet it is unfair to blame women for gender-abortion. A third of expectant mothers surveyed in India, with its distorted male ratio of 112, said they would prefer a boy and almost none a girl, but two thirds said they didn’t mind. (Even American men have a distinct preference for boys, while women are evenly split.) The impetus for sons is not generated by mothers. Women do not expel the potential life in their bellies without good reason.

Okay, so whose fault is it then?  Whom shall we blame?  Who is it that generates the impetus for sons?  Who has provided this “good reason” to expel life?

Janice doesn’t really answer, but based on her other columns, I think we can all take a guess at who is to be held responsible for this.

Women’s libido isn’t the problem. Men’s is.


Men haven’t been keeping their side of the bargain. They’ve ditched their power tools but still won’t pick up a duster.


Why do men commit almost all the crime?


It’s all part of desperate spin to retain women’s rights to determine life and death without alerting the wider society to that fact. Sex selective abortion calls into sharp focus the fact that almost all abortions are morally indefensible.  The babies pose no threat to the mother’s life.  They pose a threat to her accumulation of power.

And power is really what the struggle is about.

I admit 100% that I am still tripping on how I feel about abortion, especially late term abortion. It is a power than women MUST have, because it is in our best interest as a society to make sure that we limit the number of unwanted babies born into impoverished circumstances with no father present.

Those babies tend to grow up and cause mayhem and chaos.

“[C]ontrolling for income and all other factors, youths in father-absent families (mother only, mother-stepfather, and relatives/other) still had significantly higher odds of incarceration than those from mother-father families.”


But that doesn’t mean the power to terminate human life shouldn’t be tempered with strictly enforced limits.

Ideally, I would like to see all abortions prohibited once the baby has become a person, and I define that in terms of neural activity.  Once there is an “I”, a person, a human being who thinks and is self-aware, no one can take the life of that person with the sole exception we apply to all humans:  when it presents a lethal threat.

Abortion rights must take into account the reproductive rights of both parties involved.  No man should be able to compel a woman into being a mother, but no woman should be able to compel a man into becoming a father, either.  In cases where a woman has waited too long, and her baby is a fully conscious human being, she should have no choice but to bear that child.  She does not have to assume responsibility for the baby, but neither can she simply kill him.

The biological father should have the first say in assuming responsibility when the mother declines.

The power to end another person’s life comes with huge responsibilities.  It cannot reside in one person only, with no limits of any kind.

Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Feminists will need to pick another method to establish women’s absolute power over life.

Rape, and the regulation of (mostly) male sexuality looks promising, no?


Lots of love,


%d bloggers like this: