Abortion? Ok. One Immoral Trade for Another.

—“I have been fighting for reproductive rights for over 40 years, yet some forced birthers still appear to think that their justifications (exclusively religiously based) are so persuasive they will magically change my mind. Save your emails people, I’ve heard ’em all.”—Jane Caro @JaneCaro

An excellent example of Pilpul (Sophism). So, you want to restore the right of mothers alone to kill fetuses, just as women have killed newborns, and young children for thousands of years by exposure, suffocation, and strangulation when they were too much of a burden. Women have murdered more children then all the wars of men combined. In fact, women’s murder of children is outdone only to the great plagues and Islamic conquest.

But let’s not pretend it’s not murder. It is. It’s just justifiable murder in a woman’s eyes. How about a trade? End alimony and child support in exchange for juridical license to murder before their born, rather than after? Restore man’s choice if we are going to restore woman’s?

That is a Just trade. Men want their offspring and their genetic lines to survive because they have no other choice. Women don’t want the burden of bearing, birthing, surrendering to adoption, or caring. If women will not pay to birth them then men should not pay to raise them. That is a reciprocal exchange.

Trade license for one immorality for another. Or is your moralizing just a shallow attempt to obscure the underlying costs and privileges? Are you just seeking another privilege for women at another cost born by men?



Leave a Reply