Yes, standing up for the rights of middle-aged women to have access to cosmetic enhancement is part of the work of contemporary feminism, [NOW president Terry] O’Neill told me this week.
First abortion, now cosmetic surgery, with "feminism" saying that women aren't good enough without surgical intervention. How is any of this celebrating the inherent value of women?
19 comments:
It doesn't celebrate the inherent value of women. But at least they are defending a woman's right to control her own body in a way that doesn't kill her baby.
Yup.
What really grates my cheese is the way they go on and on about abortion not only as the woman controlling her own body (conveniently ignoring the fact that she's "controlling" her body by destroying somebody else's) -- they *don't* get their knickers in a twist over how hard it is for a young, healthy woman to get a tubal ligation. I've had women post in my comments that they'd begged doctors to tie their tubes, but they get a condescending lecture about how sad they'd be if they ever changed their minds. Three, four, five abortions, one after the other while the woman is using contraception. The woman in question doesn't want a string of abortions, she wants her tubes tied. The loathsome patriarchy is patting her on the head and assuring her that Doctor Knows Best. And all the bastions of Reproductive Rights and Self Determination can't muster a work in protest. But let a law be passed that you have to offer her an ultrasound before shredding her baby, and they're screaming like banshees about how the woman knows full well what she wants and so forth.
Oh -- and in every frozen embryo case, in which the embryos are *not in any woman's body*, they side with who? The MAN! Who wants the embryos destroyed, over the objection of the woman.
Then we're supposed to believe the "prochoice" movement is about women controlling their own reproductive destiny!
Can you give me a link to that Frozen embryo case - it sounds very interesting?
The one that got the most attention was the Junior and Mary Sue Davis case, here. I've not noticed a single frozen embryo suit in which the self-proclaimed champions of women's reproductive rights sided with the woman who wanted to reproduce; they've always sided with whoever wanted the embryos destroyed -- typically the man.
ITA with you about tubal ligation. If a woman wants to be sterilized at any age, because she knows she never wants to get pregnant, she should be able to without question.
I'm not happy with cosmetic surgery, except in cases where it's needed (let's face it, nobody would say that burn victims should only have enough reconstruction to function, without looking like they did before the burn). Although I do like the misplaced priorities of a system that will subsidize breast enhancement surgery (for non-mastectomies) and viagra, but not birth control.
Christina,
Have you actually read the link you sent me?
I just have and there is no way you can honestly say that this embryo should not have been destroyed? In fact, its blatantly obvious that these two people were not destined to be parents and noone should have the right to give away someone else's sperm or egg without their consent?
Please tell me how you see it because for the life of me I just don't understand?
These were frozen embryos, not stored sperm and eggs. Junior Davis had gone to a lot of trouble and expense to reproduce. Why should he have the right afterward to insist that the new human beings he created quite deliberately should be put to death?
You can't claim that the embryos in question were intruders who introduced themselves in an unwelcome manner to poor hapless parents who somehow didn't realize that sex makes babies. Junior deliberately created them and stuck them in the freezer.
Christina,
Firstly he created them for the purpose of raising them himself - not to give them away as presents to those who don't have any? he didn't say no to her having them, he said no to her giving them away. Its like a women telling a man she is on the pill but using him to get pregnant - its called theft - a big no no!
Second, they are not humans, they are the possibility of humans ie a collection of cells that could have been inseminated and not survived anyway. You are aware that we are able to clone now, using any cell from the body so does that mean we can't destroy any human cells? What about human tissue we can produce in petri dishes so that we don't have to torture any more animals in drug experiments?
Lil, people typically reproduce with the intention of raising the kids themselves. John List, for example, surely intended to raise his kids himself. So I guess it's unreasonable of that sick rat bastard John Walsh to sic the American public on him and put him in jail for his unwillingness to just give his kids away to somebody else when he no longer felt able to raise them.
Chrsitina
I'm not familiar with that case so I can't comment but its liek a motehr giving a child up for adoption - she has to get the father to agree and if he doesn't he gets custody - or at least that's how I think it works.
But to be honest - you cannot compare children who are already here to frozen embryos who could not have resulted in a baby anyway.
Lil, if a father doesn't want to relinquish a child for adoption, he doesn't get to just have it shot. He has to take responsibility for the child. Junior Davis wasn't refusing to relinquish custody so he could take responsibility for the offspring he deliberately created. He was insisting that any child of his that he changed his mind about parenting should be killed. What a slimebag! That guy took "deadbeat dad" to whole new levels. And self-proclaimed "feminists" took his side!
Junior couldn't take responsability for his offspring (if you want to call the embryo that) because he doesn't have a womb. He delibrately created the possibility of a child with his then wife. She also doesn't want it - why are you being hard on the Dad and not the Mom?
Lil, after the divorce, Mary Sue originally wanted full custody of the embryos. She wanted to go ahead and have them implanted. Junior blocked her, stating that he had changed his mind about being a father. The original court case was basically to decide were the frozen embryos children or property? Was this a custody case or a divorce property settlement? The first judge backed Mary Sue, saying that the embryos were children and that the parent who didn't want to flush them down the toilet got custody, since that was in their best interests.
Junior put forth the spurious argument that this would somehow be forcing him to be a father "against his will" -- a hard thing to argue, since he'd gone to a lot of trouble and expense to create the embryos in question. Mary Sue at first tried to pursue legal means for Junior to simply relinquish custody, and then tried to have the embryos released for adoption by another couple. Junior argued no, and appealed the original ruling and won. Frozen embryos were declared to be property -- a cause of great joy to abortion supporters everywhere, since if a deliberately created embryo that wasn't in anybody's uterus to cause her problems was no more than a thing, like a teakettle, that could simply be trashed at the owner's request, then how much more so could an embryo or fetus that was unwelcome in a woman's body be just so much trash to dispose of?
Of course, it was only a victor to women who have animosity toward their own unborn children. The precedent was set, and in frozen embryo custody battles the decision now goes to whichever parent wants the embryos to die -- usually the father. This was hailed by "feminists" as a victory for "women" -- by which they mean women who want their own embryos destroyed. Women who did not want their embryos destroyed found themselves out in the cold.
When it comes to choice, the prochoice side UNIVERSALLY sides with whoever wants the unborn entity -- at whatever stage of development -- to die, regardless of what the mother wants.
But think about it realistically - I don't know if you have had a divirce or long term relationship break up - the last thing you want to do is have anything to do with the man - never mind having his children. In divorce cases, children suffer this arrangement as there is no way out - but why would you want to create a child after a divorce?
I would want to know whow exactly its possible for this women to have wanted a child with a man that didn't want her or anything to do with her anymore? You areforever going on about people having babies without committed marriages - how come you are alright with this women having this baby after a divorce?
THE CHILDREN IN QUESTION WERE ALREADY CREATED.
You talk as if she was insisting on having a right to his frozen sperm or something.
Once you make the baby, the baby is your responsibility. This bastard MADE THE KIDS then demanded that they be killed because he'd changed his mind.
This isn't a matter of "the condom broke" or "How was I supposed to know sex caused babies?" This was somebody who took a lot of trouble and put a lot of money into creating kids that he later had put to death because he changed his mind. That makes him the most heartless rat bastard since Mengele.
They are not children. They are frozen embryos. If you cannot tell the difference then I worry about your mental health.
Lil, it's your OPINION that they're not children. You also seem to equate them with frozen sperm.
Well its an opinion based on the high rate of spontaneos miscarriage rates and also when a woman mourns a miscarriage she mourns for the loss of a fantasy child ie the fantasy of the child she could have had vs a mother mourning a real child that existed outside her imagination with its own personality.
Lil, guess what? Human beings have a 100% mortality rate. Every single freaking one of us dies. Does that make us "fantasy people"?
Post a Comment