These attacks are so lame, you would think that Warren Kinsella is still running the OLO war room.
(...)
Vellacott has noted the link between abortion and breast cancer and pointed out that reckless men ‘benefit’ as much from abortion as feckless women when they are able to avoid the consequences of their sexual activities. Are those views really odious, vile, insulting and denigrating? Do pro-abortion zealots think there can never be any criticism, any questioning of abortion. (The answer is yes.)
What I find insulting is the notion that women cannot handle being more fully informed about abortion. What I find odious is that there can never be a discussion about abortion and what it is and what are its consequences. Hardcore abortion supporters should stop treating women like children who must be protected from any information that might discomfort them. That is denigrating.
I find the conflation between "women" and "ideology" to be oh-so-irritating.
Lisa Zarac, Anita Neville and others are not defending women. Women are not a special interest group. Women are not a monolithic entity. From the standpoint of intellectual honesty, they cannot be treated as having one will, one interest. Women oppose each other. So how can any one ideology claim to represent women as a whole?
Feminists routinely accuse their opponents of disrespecting women when in reality, their offense consists of opposing an ideology.
Opposing abortion is not disrespectful of women.
Anyone who equates opposing abortion to disrespecting women is an ideologue attempting to smear their opposition as misogynists and shame them into silence.
I wish more women would stand up against the ideology that co-opts their gender and claims to know what women think, want.
True equality would consist in treating women as diverse as men. Men don't treat themselves as a monolith. Why should women allow themselves to be treated that way?
