Why won’t feminists stand up for unborn females’ rights?

Why won’t feminists stand up for unborn females’ rights?

This piece is dedicated to the light of my life and the sweetest, most gentle person I’ve ever known — my daughter, Sky — whose mother threatened to abort her twice. If third-wave feminism and pro-choice rhetoric rather than my vehement implorations had prevailed, Sky would be dead today. It’s Women’s History Month, and as we move toward National Abortion Recovery Awareness month in April, remember that some females never recover from abortion because their mothers had them killed in utero.

It’s funny … someone kills 17 children in Florida and it’s a tragedy — but when an unborn child is killed, it’s “my body, my rules” and the murder is thereby morally neutralized. Huh.

Feminists argue that they — and only they — should have say over what happens to their bodies, and by and large I’d say that they’re damned correct in that assertion. But I would also say that the same should be extended to the defenseless females who are still stuck in utero. For a larger, stronger female to impose her desires upon a smaller, weaker female in a way that eradicates her life with prejudice is the essence of an evil and a tyranny inconceivably more despicable than mere rape — and the most utterly unfeminist thing of which I can conceive.

My argument that pro-choice feminists are hypocrites is twofold: First, we use language to render unborn humans less than human, and secondly, because they are powerless to stop us, we kill them because they are inconvenient. Yet this is somehow advocated for under the umbrella of “feminism” … whatever that is anymore.

After all, a fetus is a thing, right?

I’d like to begin by pointing out how by calling them “fetuses,” we make it easier on ourselves to pretend that these small human beings somehow aren’t fully human.

Deanthropomorphization by language makes abortion more palatable

One of my favorite feminist authors is Carol J. Adams, author of “The Sexual Politics of Meat” and “The Pornography of Meat.” A common theme of these books is how society uses language to deanthropomorphize fellow mammals (and women), referring to animals’ decomposing corpses as “meat,” “beef,” “steak,” “venison,” “mutton,” etc. Only creatures who are already sufficiently inanthropic — like salmon, chickens, or asparagus — are called by their proper names when their remains are being devoured.

As creatures who depend heavily on language in our thought processes and who have a strong tendency towards categorical thought, the words that we ascribe to certain things can have a powerful effect upon our perception of them.

Adams’ premise is that we do the exact same thing with women: Even if sometimes unconsciously or subconsciously, both males and females mentally demote them to a less-than-human status by referring them to them as “tail,” “chick,” “babe,” “shorty,” “bitch,” etc. I’m sure that this language is often used innocuously (although maybe less often in the case of “bitch”), and I believe freedom of speech absolutely trumps any other concern in cases like this, but my point is that it can also be used to distance a women from her humanity in the view of the speaker if that is his or her intention.

This is the “might makes right” principle rearing its ugly head, and it is the cornerstone of totalitarianism and tyranny.

Similarly, it’s easy to pretend that a human being — one who is for all intents and purposes a fledgling citizen of the United States of America — is somehow less than human by referring to him or her as a fetus.

After all, a fetus is a thing, right?

And as Adams points out, through deanthropomorphization by means of language, one can distance him or herself from the inarguable humanity of an unborn person by referring to him or her via a term that has a rather dry, abstract, and biological feel to it. A fetus is referred to as an “it,” not as “he” or “she” … or, you know, “xe” or “xer” or any of the other nine gorillion pronouns we now have — the point is that in our language, “it” refers not to a sentient being but to a thing that, as a consequence of being a mere thing, has no bodily autonomy, no recognized self interest, and no rights. Does a rock have rights?

So we deanthropomorphize unborn human beings by calling them fetuses, and somehow it’s easier to murder them.

See, we’re only used to seeing human beings after they’ve been growing for about nine months, just like we’re not used to seeing ribs as Babe or hamburgers as Ferdinand. We’ll coo and giggle over a piglet but salivate at the sight of a pulled pork sandwich (well, I’m vegan so I definitely wouldn’t, but others would). We’re not used to seeing a six-month-old or a three-month-old baby. But if one will admit that a baby is a person, it’s impossible not to admit that a three-month-old human — or I would assert even a two- or three-week-old human — is a person.

An unborn child is still a person, after all. Like a child, he or she is just a small and still-developing person. I’m not talking about a cluster of cells, I’m talking about someone with  fingers, toes, a nervous system, and a heart. (And according to religious people, a soul.) After 22 days, his or her heart is beating. Just because he or she doesn’t look like a human of another age doesn’t make him or her any less human. Does a toddler look like a 90-year-old?

But by relegating a tiny, defenseless human being to the status of a thing by referring to him or her with gender-neutral terminology, we make it easy to pretend that he or she doesn’t have rights.

This is the “might makes right” principle rearing its ugly head, and it is the cornerstone of totalitarianism and tyranny.

And weirdly, it is the argument that pro-choice feminists use in favor of abortion: “It’s just a fetus.”

A brief note on my position, like you care

I’ll pause here and say that I agree that some abortions are perhaps for the best. Where that line is exactly is subjective and debatable, and I won’t get into that here. I can’t say that I agree with either the pro-life or the pro-choice positions. Minimizing suffering is perhaps the most important factor to me. As such, I am basically an antinatalist at heart, and I don’t believe in souls as there is no more evidence for their existence than there is for the existence of the Tooth Fairy.

Furthermore, I believe that the human tendency to favor human life over that of other species is merely a manifestation of Darwinian principles rather than an underlying moral imperative that is woven into the cosmic fabric — which is to say that I don’t believe that anyone really has the right to take any sentient creature’s life … we have simply convinced ourselves that it is so and arranged our laws so as not to inconvenience ourselves legally with those creature’s own rights to bodily autonomy and self sovereignty. It’s pure geneocentricity and nothing more, but it makes sense that our tendency to think this way has been naturally selected.

So with that out of the way, I said about a thousand words ago that I agree that a woman should be able to do what she wants to with her body. And I do.

Might makes right is a feminist position?

She should be able to do what she wants to with her body, but there’s always a limit to what one can do with one’s body when other people are in the equation.

Consider that what she wants to do with her body is this: She wants to pick up a knife and stab me in the ribs repeatedly for writing that there should be a #MeNeither hashtag or because I referred to the baffling Women’s March as “a hissy fit of epic proportions.” Or whatever. So here it hopefully becomes clear that one can’t really do anything with his or her body just because one is in possession of his or her body. When one decides to use his or her body to violate the rights and personal sovereignty of another, the argument of “my body, my rules” is no longer valid.

My body too, ma’am. Hands off.

(Oh, and thanks for not killing me, mom! I guess.)

If third wave feminists take things any further, they’ll be the patriarchy.

And so I am bewildered that feminists who claim to be underrepresented, powerless, voiceless, and vulnerable appear to think that it is not only morally defensible but actually in line with feminist values to take the life of an even more underrepresented, powerless, voiceless, and vulnerable female under the rationale that a female should be able to decide what happens to her body.

Huh?

By that argument, the younger, smaller female should also have the right to decide what happens to her body.

Yet she is denied that right by the abortionist or the coat hanger, and not because it is morally defensible but because the law will allow it.

If pro-choice third-wave feminists take things any further, they’ll be the patriarchy, determining with impunity whether or not unborn females who cannot defend themselves will live or die.

To be clear, not all but many women kill their unborn children because they feel inconvenienced by their presence. Second-wave feminists won sexual liberation for them, and rightly so, but some refuse to take responsibility for that freedom. In these situations, a pregnancy was an unintended and undesired consequence of sex — the sole activity by which the species propagates itself and an activity in which the sexually active and consenting female bears full responsibility for the consequences of engaging. Another human should not have to die because of another’s sheer negligence; to argue to the contrary is a decidedly unfeminist position.

So a female has brought another female into the realm of existence — she seldom does it single-handedly, but she is usually an active participant in the endeavor — and now, because she is bigger and stronger and because she has power, voice, and privilege that the younger female does not have, she is able to maneuver herself into taking the life of the smaller female.

Might makes right. My body, my rules.

This is immoral, but more central to my argument is that it’s totally out of line with anything the term “feminism” could possibly refer to unless we’ve reached the point of definitional inversion where yet another term is so mangled through misuse as to become oxymoronic.

This behavior and feminism are irreconcilable

The symbol taken to represent the feminist movement is the symbol for Venus (or Aphrodite if you’re Greek). The goddess represents beauty, prosperity, sex, fertility, and reproduction. In Roman mythology, which is certainly no wackier than any present-day religion (wink wink), she was the mother of the entire Roman people. To them, she was the mother.

Feminism takes the sign of this goddess because like her, the feminine is that which sustains and nourishes. The feminine doesn’t kill everything in sight because it doesn’t want to be bothered with it or because it didn’t intend for it to be there. That would be a masculine trait. Venus didn’t abort Aeneas.

How are those virtues applied to a movement that bases its behavior purely on a position of might makes right? Because that’s exactly what it is. “I’m bigger than you, thing. You’re like a cancer to me, and I’m going to excise you from my body so that you can no longer inconvenience me.” Whether or not this position is admirable isn’t my point; my point is that there is nothing about it that resonates with what femininity is — there is no aspect of the feminine to be found in it.

A modest proposal, or a proposal for modesty

So here’s a simple solution that pro-lifers and pro-choicers can converge upon.

Women, none of us wants to see you hurt, abused, or suffering. Please protect yourselves, and be responsible with your bodies, because they are built to make more people out of you. Keep your legs closed, use birth control, get a dildo, bang a dog, or be a lesbian, and learn self defense techniques — or better yet, get a concealed-carry permit. And don’t dress like rape bait and get drunk in public. While I’m not a proponent of marriage, even I will admit that if you’re going to have sex, you should probably at least consider getting married — and consider that if you’re not in a position to get married, you may not be in the position to deal with the potential consequences of having sex with people.

Just a thought. I can only say this as it’s how I’ve lived my life — though I haven’t banged a dog. While I’m not married, I am engaged, and I’ve never had sex with someone I didn’t at least intend to marry.

To be clear, I’m not arguing whether or not abortion is morally defensible in this piece. That’s an argument for another day. I’m not arguing whether it should be legal. I’m not arguing whether certain methods of abortion are better or worse than others. I’m not arguing whether the government should be able to control what women do with their unborn children. I’m not arguing whether or not fetuses feel pain and when. I’m not questioning aborters’ motives or ascribing intentions. I’m not arguing that it should be permissible in certain situations but not others, and I’m not arguing what those situations might be. I am not arguing whether children born with debilitating deformities that cause them immense suffering would not indeed be better off dead. I am not arguing whether women who are impregnated during rape do not experience an anguish that I don’t even think I can imagine. I’m not arguing whether women who are unable to support a child should abort them. And I’m definitely not arguing whether rapists should be thrown in prison to rot and force-fed a smoothie made from their own severed balls — because they should.

I am simply asking how a self-described feminist can possibly allow — nay, argue in favor of, promote, and encourage — the wholesale mass murder of countless female human beings who weren’t given the opportunity for so much as a squeak of an objection before their lives are snuffed out forever and continue to call him or herself a feminist.

If the pro-choice stance of “my body, my rules” — extended to the point that it threatens the life of another female — is what we are calling feminism these days, then the third wave has finally turned “feminism” into a parody of its former self.

And a totally fucked up one at that.

The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.

Articles related to “Why won’t feminists stand up for unborn females’ rights?”

Feminist schmeminist: feminism and eating meat are incompatible

Father’s Day reflections: How a man’s brain changes as the primary caregiver

Let’s face it: vegan ladies are hot

How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent

Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard: