Julie Culshaw brought up Joyce Arthur's Fetus Focus Fallacy tract.
Joyce writes:
Focusing on the fetus always has dire legal and social
consequences for women. As soon as we give special rights to
fetuses, we separate them from their mothers and create an
adversarial relationship that hurts both.
Focusing on the fetus also devalues women, because it usurps
their moral decision-making, as well as their bodies and wombs.
The best way to protect fetuses and children
is to support pregnant women and mothers.
When we protect the interests of fetuses, we sacrifice women's rights
and autonomy, and end up harming their children in the long run.
We can trust pregnant women to act in the best interests of their
fetuses – and that can mean having an abortion.
What Joyce is stating is this: if you consider the issue, you are in fact undermining women's power for all the stated reasons.
Power is the determing criterion of truth. Desired results, not Truth, are what matter.
So if the question undermines a woman's power, it must not be considered. Therefore, do not consider the fetus. The strong able-bodied, reasoning female human being with resources must prevail over the weak, unconscious human being with no resources and no voice.
That's feminist supremacy.
She writes:
The best way to protect fetuses and children
is to support pregnant women and mothers.
The best way to protect fetuses?
How about protecting fetuses from abortionists? What's the best way to protect fetuses from them? Aren't they the number one threat?
Joyce Arthur doesn't give a damn about the fetus. She just said so herself-- focusing on the fetus devalues women. She can't be sincere.
The
practice of abortion is unrelated to the status of
the fetus—it depends totally on the aspirations
and needs of women. Women have abortions:
regardless of the law
regardless of the risk to their lives or health
regardless of the morality of abortion
regardless of what the fetus may or may not be
Therefore, do not examine the issue. Avoid it. The only party's interests who matters are the woman's.
Since they have abortions no matter what, the issue must not be considered, otherwise a woman's power might be undermined.
Again, the strong must be able to oppress the weak in order to maintain female "equality".
And consider this: she's saying it's absolutely irrelevant whether another human being is killed in abortion. The ONLY party who matters in the abortion debate is the woman's. If she dies that matters. If the fetus dies that doesn't matter.
Women will have abortions no matter what, but they can stop themselves. Abortion is self-inflicted.
Fetuses do not want abortions, no matter what. It is inflicted on them.
Women should be held somewhat responsible for the choices they make. Otherwise, that would be patronizing.
In other words, women have abortions because they’re responsible – they want to be good mothers to their existing children or to their future children.
I love how she promotes "protecting fetuses" but then turns around and says that abortions-- which do not protect fetuses-- are "responsible".
Ergo, the responsible thing is to NOT protect fetuses.
The mental gymnastics....
A woman with a born child is under no obligation to donate a
kidney or blood to save her child's life, so how can a fetus have even more rights over the woman than her born child? It can’t.
A fetus is the child of the mother. People may not have an obligation to donate a kidney, but mothers have an obligation to take care of their children.
It's all about that "best way to protect fetuses".
And I object to the notion that the person who needs the kidney is not entitled to one. While I agree that no one can be made to give a kidney, society certainly has an obligation to make the best effort to make sure that that person remains alive. For society to treat such a patient as disposable is a very callous attitude. The same goes for the fetus. We have a responsibility to protect his life.
