Reproductive Freedom. Its a phrase on the lips, websites, and blogs of every feminist alive. And why not? we all want to be free to reproduce. Of course when feminists use the term, what they really man is the "freedom" to slaughter and unborn child like a pig while its still in the womb and possible the "freedom" to sell the murdered corpse for scientific research. But there are those, millions of them, who are actually fighting for Reproductive Freedom, that is to say the Freedom to reproduce. Here in the states we call them "The Chinese"
As many know, China has an official "One Couple/One Child" rule. What many don't realise, or choose to ignore, is how that policy is enforced. To put it simply, if a woman in China is found to be violating this rule, she will be forced to have an abortion whether the child is "wanted" or not. Furthermore, all women who go to the state hospitals to have their first child, are required to be sterilised afterwards. China also requires all unwed mothers to have abortions, whether they want to or not. Finally there are severe penalties beyond the murder of ones child for violation of said policy including imprisonment and in some cases execution.
As I'm sure you can imagine violent reader, this leads many, many Chinese couples, in an effort to have actual reproductive freedom, to flee China, primarily for the USA. Until recently it was the USA's policy, to accept asylum applications from both parents in these matters, as both are penalised for for their "crime" DHS, which, of all the federal agencies is the one most corrupted by feminist theory, wants to change that policy. You see according to the DHS, fathers don't matter.
Ever since Bill Clinton attempted to end defining forced abortion as a form of persecution, when he deported 13 pregnant Chinese women back to china, (yeah the Clinton's really care about women) and the passing of the Hyde-Smith law, there has been a lot of opposition to it from the left. Apparently somehow, preventing women who want their children from being forced to abort them is not included in "reproductive freedom".
And now the DHS, has decided it might be able to keep at least half of them away. According to (apparently successful) arguments made by DHS counsel before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, The fathers of the unborn children these couples are fleeing to save, are not protected from deportation due to their wives being forcible sterilised or forced to get abortions from the Chinese government. The mothers are, the father's aren't.
Because after all, who needs a father right? As long as you got a mommy your'e good, (if you got two you're even better) but a dad? Pfft, useless as tits on a bull.
Bush, early in his first term refused to fund the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)because it was shown to be assisting the Chinese government in enforcing its policies, And hopefully he will take a stand here as well.
But the fact remains that this type of "policy" would never even be an issue if DHS weren't a cesspool of feminist theory. If it hadn't been hijacked by ideological extremists who believe the average man is little better than a walking sperm bank, no one there would have drank enough Kool-aid to believe this policy makes sense in the first place. I have said before that "family law" would, if we were being accurate, be referred to as feminist legal theory, as its assumptions of female superiority and male guilt are uniquely feminist in nature. Its blatant in domestic violence statues which force cops to assume the male to be the aggressor even when the evidence obviously shows different, its inherent in the practise of automatically awarding custody to mothers unless the father can prove she is unfit, (which is damn near impossible to do)its blindingly apparent in the fact that after a divorce a man is required to pay his ex-wife's living expenses, in the form of alimony, until she remarries, and its immediately noticeable upon even the most cursory of examination of the inequities of abortion/paternity laws.
For a mroe indepth anaylsis of this new policy and the histroy of it, please see David Freddos's excellent article China's Doomed at NRO
BTW one last question, Knowing that Bill had a policy of deporting pregnant women back to China because he didn't consider forced sterilisation and forced abortion to be a form of persecution, and given that Mrs Bill Clinton supported these policies, do any of you feminists out there think that maybe you're backing the wrong horse?
Doesn't the fact that both Mr. and Mrs. Bill Clinton think a government forcibly sterilising women is A-OK even the slightest bit disturbing?
Friday assorted links
6 hours ago
9 comments:
See, this is wierd. On one or two points I think you go a little to far and bring in your assumptions on other peoples reasoning, but for the most oart here, you right well; with a clear, logical style, and make some very valid points.
Why you dont do this all the time is beyond me (particularly your tendency to respond to critism on chat sites with baby talk, school yard `I know you are, but what am I' type combacks and jother such jiberish). I mean presumably you'd like to convince some people of the `rightness' of your veiws, so why don't you try this hard all of the time, instead of just being a dick?
You making a false assumption. You think Im trying to convince people. Im not.
I know I'm right, why should I care if you are? I just put these words out there, so the few of you capable of seeing it, have a chance to. That 90% of my readers (if not mroe) are too undisciplined, too emotional, and too thin skinned to even see, much less get my points, is assumed.
For the same reason that evangelical christians preach, they believe that they're right and that those who disagree are sinners sure to go to hell, so they try and convince us (read `save our souls'). I mean, good luck to them, but still, you gotta give people credit for following through on their beliefs (hopefully in the course of trying to convince people they'll realise that its they themselves who are wrong, but thats another point).
Or the same reason that we have public health anouncements, or that the feminists you hate actually try and argue their case... because people matter, and opinions matter, and opinions worth having are worth fighting for (not pysically fighting, but y'know what Im saying) because `the truth' has worth, and unlike most things sharing it increases its value.
So, I'm a big beleiever in the whole `I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it' bit. However, I normally clarify that with `but for the gods sake, if you are gonna say something, try and do a good job of it, cause I sure as heck don't want to die for nothing'.
And that's why you piss me off so much! Not because I disagree with what you say allot of the time (which I do, although sometimes I dont) but because you go about making your points in such an imature, purile and mean stirited fashion so much of the time. And its such a waste!
(NB My hope that ridiculous opinions, such as those held by aggressive religious extremists of all nominations, racists `nationalists' etc, will crumple in the light of day of rational open discussion may be a pipe-dream, but you've got to aim high sometimes! And not just be content in pissing people off).
Heres the difference. Evangelicals, care about you. They want to save you. I dont.
I beleive in saving yourself. I intentionally make my posts as offensive as possible, in order to obscure my points. I wanna make sure you deserve my wsdom before you get it. So I make it easy to be minimised, I make it easy to laugh what I say off as the rantings of a madman. Most of you are going to anyway, a few of you will be able to seperate your emotions from your reason and see the points I have buried in my posts. Those of you who do are worthy of them, those of you who dont, aren't.
Plus Im never sure which voice will escape my head as I put fingers to keyboard.
Oh, I see. I believe, on the other hand, that all people are equal and that an individual's worth is assumed first. Therefore it is opinions, which we all have a right to have, that are the things that need to be proven, earned and made worthy, through rigorous testing and debate, in order for the truth to be discovered and tempered. I believe, through an analysis of the evidence, that morality is a work in progress and rather than `the way things’ are being dictated to us from on high, that people by and large have discovered what `the right thing to do’ is by listening to each other and deserving each other’s reactions (I.e. Oh, you don’t like it when I steal your stuff? Ok, I’ll stop doing it then) and that every single person should endeavour to lead by example, with both their actions and their words. If you did just spout garbage, I would be saddened, but it is because you sometimes say sensible things, but most of the time-hide it with insults and rudeness and arrogance and a close-minded unwillingness to even consider the possibility that you may not have all the answers on a particular issue, that instead, I am angered. (Although kudos for admitting to being out argued on some of the `gays in the military’ points in your earlier posts). I guess I’m an intellectual environmentalist and it’s wasting resources that most offends me! But, thank-you for clarifying your position; now that I know that you act like a jerk because of your admitted and unashamed selfishness, it will be easier for me to merely pity you.
Respect is given? An individuals worth is assumed? Have you ever met any people? Do you honestly think stealing was "found" wrong because thieves figured out it bothered others? How do you survive with terminal naivete?
Respect is earned, not given. Assuming people have worth is a great way to be killed, and stealing is "wrong" becasue we all have stuff we dont want stolen, not becasue many of us are btohered by the fact the people being stolen from dont like it.
You wanna be polyanna thats your right, me Im the Rational Fucking MadMan.
"I intentionally make my posts as offensive as possible, in order to obscure my points."
You'll be disappointed to know that you fail on both points. You're not offensive as much as you are so blatantly stupid (although I do find it offensive that such stupidity exists, but that's not due to any intentions on your part). Meanwhile, your points are as clear and reactionist as day.
Awww wookit da widdwe eunuch, hes a cute widdwe bawwess bastard inst he? Yes he is, Yes he is.
"Bawwess." That's interesting. Your range of illiteracy has no bounds it seems.
Post a Comment