On January 20th, the anniversary of Trump’s inauguration, over a million women marched for feminism, and against misogyny. At the forefront of their concerns were sexual assault, the lack of political engagement, and Trump’s divisive policies. This seemed noble, as I desire precisely zero of these things for the women in my life. However, overriding each of these is the feminists’ sacred cow of abortion rights.
Abortion is a difficult subject.
At its heart is the antithesis of the feminist movement. Men don’t have the physical burden of carrying a child, while women do, thus an inequality arises. The inequality is overlooked if women have the choice to remain pregnant or not. It’s the not remaining pregnant that raises eyebrows, but rather the termination of the fetus – the killing of something that by many scientific definitions and ethical standards, is alive.
There is no libertarian consensus on the issue. My pro-choice libertarian comrades argue pro-life policies are coercion, and that the fetus is (involuntarily) committing an act of aggression. The pro-life community argues that abortion is itself an act of aggression against the person’s own child.
There are multiple views on the moral status of the unborn. Some believe that the fetus which is dependent on the mother is subject to the choice of the mother by the nature of the fetus coercing her. Others believe that we should be treating anything, animal, human (born or unborn), computer, based on their capacity to suffer, or their capacity to reason. Others argue their human heartbeat ought to have some moral consideration.
My aim this week is not to settle such debates; it’s merely the prevalence of thought control. Pro-life feminists were excluded from having a voice and expressing their opinion. These feminists can seldom articulate the non-status of the unborn as members of the human community. It comes naturally as a corollary from the inequality of pregnancy. One cannot dare to question this premise, free debate is impossible if feminism is to be promoted.
My heart went out to the pro-life women who have experienced hardship as women, who posted their #MeToo in tears and were told that their feminism is invalid because of their upholding the moral status of the fetus.
They were told, utterly reprehensibly, that their standing up against their own abuses was invalid because they happened to believe the philosophically defensible position that the unborn are human life.
Even today, in Canada, Justin Trudeau is restricting government funding for jobs that hire pro-life individuals. People must opine a position that fails to acknowledge the personhood of the unborn in order to receive any government funds.
Thought control isn’t for the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four, it’s for today in the Great White North.
The Women’s March has historically featured communist speakers. Academic feminism is predicated upon the Marxist analysis of power relations, not between the rich and poor but between genders. They opine in favour of Marxism globally, in spite of its starvation, death, and totalitarianism.
Feminists will likewise overlook even sexual assault. They did it with Hillary Clinton’s intimidation and Bill Clinton’s assaults.
Bill Clinton’s support for late-term abortions made him worthy of Gloria Steinem’s 1998 New York Times article urging feminists to view him as a sex addict rather than a predator.
Hillary Clinton herself, as an inspirational and powerful woman, garnered the respect of feminists to the extent that they were willing to overlook her total erosion of women’s right in Libya, the desire of the continued genocide in Yemen, and her instigation of the Syrian Civil War.
It is an odd thing that, in this present age of increasing compassion, compassion extending horizontally around the globe to members of every tribe and vertically to other members of different species, that compassion doesn’t extend to the subsets that most get in our way.
Not to the Yemenis (because this would disqualify the inspiration of a female president) and absolutely not to the unborn, they are the most disruptive, upon which ethics must not have any bearing.
The pro-life movement is silenced in Canada and silenced amongst feminists.
The death of Marx or Hillary’s victims is likewise silenced and ignored. There is an ethical debate. I don’t purport to have clear answers but I do purport to have clear questions, questions that the Women’s March would rather leave unasked and the death of questioning is the death of philosophy, the death of good religion, the death of ethics, and maybe, even, the death of their own children – but they don’t seem to care.
Featured image: Daily Kos
Want to write for Being Libertarian? Click Here.
Brandon Kirby
Latest posts by Brandon Kirby (see all)
- Bad Guy Pro Wrestle Psychology: Why Do You Hate Justin Trudeau? - March 7, 2022
- Donate to the Freedom Convoy - February 7, 2022
- The Dunning-Kruger Effect in Politics - January 22, 2022
Your article fails to differentiate between the majority of “pro-life” libertarians who do NOT want the government involved in the issue and believe open access to contraception and voluntary alternatives to abortion are a better solution than government regulation and prohibition. Libertarians who DO want government intervention properly should be called “abortion prohibitionists”, just like the Demopublicans and independents who want to prohibit abortion.
Have you ever tried to discuss adoption as an alternative to abortion? It falls under the same umbrella of “hate speech” that they wish to silence. See, you have good ideas and things to discuss, but the left bans such ideas from public discourse.
Adoption is not an alternative to abortion. It’s an alternative to parenting. Some women do not want to be pregnant or give birth. Hence, the alternative. Abortion.
Why do people feel the need to bring in this elusive mythological Marxism into everything? Right wing talking heads like Peterson and other assorted charlatans blame everything they don’t like on “cultural Marxism”, without even knowing what that is.
Comments are closed.