And how it's ludicrous to force a woman to bear the cost of these children if she doesn't want them.
She asks:
What is the wisdom in forcing someone who does not want a child to have one? To force someone who does not have the huge amount of money it takes to raise a child, to have one?
Abortion supporters act like the pro-lifer's problem is that women aren't forced and that the proposed solution is to force women.
And they are completely mystified about what possesses pro-lifers to force a woman.
It's like they can't discern the metaphorical elephant in the room: the fetus.
Oh sure, they might say why would we force a woman to bear a fetus. That's about as far as the discernment goes.
It seems that they think that if they don't acknowledge the actual point being debated maybe it'll go away.
What could possibly motivate pro-lifers to compel women to carry an unwanted, unloved, undesirable fetus (as if women had the right to not love their offspring).
Maybe it's because the alternative is that...a human being is killed?
Gee, you think that might have something to do with it, Shayna?
...And not the conspiracy theories about "anti-choicers" trying to force women into unwanted maternity?
Did you ever notice that when their opponents' stated intentions are rhetorically inconvenient, leftists invent ulterior motives for their opponents?
Like if people don't like Obama's policies because it can be shown to lead to the bankruptcy of the American government, it can't really be about basic math-- the underlying motive MUST be racism. Because it's impossible to question progressive ideas on their own merits. Progressive ideas are infallible and logically airtight, therefore they cannot be questioned!
And when abortion supporters address the issue of abortion from any angle other than that of the fetus, that is what they do. They assume that they real motive for opposing abortion could not be a heartfelt concern for the human rights of unborn children.
It's really about forced maternity. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Any reading of the issue that might give credence to the pro-life position-- even to suggest that they are sincere is verboten.
This is among the many reasons why feminists will eventually lose the abortion battle.
They are completely unable to discern the debate honestly and objectively. Perhaps some professional feminists involved in the debate might be able to. But not 99% of the feminists out there. And their inability to understand the debate will be their downfall because the people in the middle will come to see they are full of crap when it comes their analysis of the question and their opponents. The feminists will not be able to counter-argue effectively because they are in essence unable to counter-argue. So far, every attempt I've seen to counter pro-life focus on fetal rights has come back to the same "focus on the woman" approach that does nothing to really address the unborn child.
And there's a reason for that, too: because they know that if they engage pro-lifers on their own turf, they will lose.
The only other recourse they have is to frame pro-lifers as "crazies" and hope the stigma stops people from taking our ideas seriously. The problem with that is that when pro-life arguments are presented articulately, rationally, logically, forcefully but with aplomb, it's tough to peg their adherents as "crazies". When you words and your actions don't match the label, in the long run, the label is not going to fit.
I normally don't openly give advice to my opponents. But I'm confident in this case they won't take it. And even if they do, the days of legal abortion are numbered. It may take a long time to establish fetal rights, but it's the only logical, compassionate conclusion to the abortion battle.
