Women Can Have It All? Only If You Abort, Claim Pro-Abortion Feminists

22 Apr, 2010 by Lori Ziganto

Print this article Font size -16+

Last week, an ad campaign aimed at helping women learn about post-abortion syndrome exposed the fact that modern day Feminists rejoice at abortion for convenience and that they are anything but “pro-women.” I wrote about it here and those same feminists, and others, were none too pleased with me.

While they blatantly ignored my point regarding post-abortion syndrome and the damage it does to women, they actually ended up merely validating my claims and admitting that they do, in fact, rejoice at the aborting of a child for convenience sake. With their rationalizations (term used loosely) for the same, they also exposed that they are not just pro-abortion, but they are also misogynists who believe that pregnant women and Mothers are somehow non-functional and disabled.

Jessica Valenti of Feministing and Amanda Marcotte, previously chief blogger for John Edwards’ Presidential campaign, both tried, and failed, to refute my points. Instead, they dug themselves deeper. Marcotte must be used to sinking low, having worked for Edwards. No wonder she thinks he’s such a great guy; by all accounts, he tried to get his mistress to abort their child. Hey, a baby was inconvenient to his hopes and career plans. That makes him aces in Marcotte’s book!

They both latched onto one phrase in my original post, a phrase that had little to do with the key issue. Jessica Valenti writes:

Going to college is a matter of “convenience”? Really? Women want higher education for “co-ed fun”?

It isn’t that anti-choicers don’t understand why women get abortions — it’s that they care so little about women’s lives that any reason given to obtain an abortion is seen as “convenient.” [snip]

So yeah, I guess I would “rejoice” over women obtaining abortions when it’s convenient. (The inaccessibility of abortion for too many women makes actual rejoicing impossible.) Whether it’s for health, financial, and educational reasons — or simply not wanting to have a child yet — it would absolutely thrill me if women’s life decisions were respected, accepted and supported.:  But instead, we live in a world where a woman’s desire for something as basic as education is mocked as selfish.:  And we’re the ones who are “anti-woman”?:  I think not.

Or simply not wanting to have a child yet. Silly me. I thought that if you didn’t want to have a child, one would use birth control or, you know, not have sex. When does that choice come into play, Jessica? It seems to me that you are the “anti-choicer” because you don’t believe that a woman can possibly be smart enough to act responsibly and make choices all on her very own.

Marcotte went one further and called me “grim” and “unhinged”:

Anti-choice blogger Lori Ziganto completely lost it at the suggestion that a woman might have a good reason to go to college and get an education, dropping the sexually charged word “co-ed” and hinting that college was just about having fun.:  Sexy, sexy fun.:  Ziganto seems to imagine that there isn’t much to women besides that which happens in or around their uteruses, so if they aren’t baby-making, then they’re sleeping around. . .

It’s mind-boggling to think of how grim a person you must be to come so unhinged at the idea of college kids having some fun, but more than that, it was startling how naked Ziganto’s contempt for women’s education was.:  Most anti-choicers know better than to just lay it out there like that.:  Most of them, you have to judge by their actions.:  But even by that measure, it’s easy to see this belief that women’s minds and well-being are irrelevant is built in to anti-choice policy ideals.

Sigh. I honestly don’t know if they truly are that dense or if they are just being willfully ignorant.:  It’s hilarious how they are constantly projecting. Obsessed with uteruses? Check! Turn everything into something sexual? Check!

Firstly, they should lose the chips on their shoulders and instead learn a little something called tongue in cheek.:  I suppose that they don’t get the concept of levity, since they are constant grievance mongers and Debbie Downers who thrive on anger and a sense of victim-hood. Also, when did the term co-ed become “sexually charged”? Isn’t that a normal term for college students? Plus, I thought the sexes were exactly the same? Typical narrative from modern day Feminists: try to paint anyone who doesn’t share your “sexual empowerment” beliefs as some sort of puritanical prude.

Secondly, there is no “non-fun” reason not to be able to attend college if pregnant or a mother. Pregnancy or a child doesn’t stop you from being able to attend class or, you know, read. Both Valenti and Marcotte are claiming that a pregnant woman is somehow non-functional, incapable of thought and disabled to the point where she can’t attend college while pregnant — or even after having a child.

Thus, Feminists believe that pregnant women or Moms do not belong in college. How can they function in the workplace either, then, if they can’t even crack a book or sit in a classroom while pregnant or while mothering a child? Feminists think Moms are dumb, incapable, non-functional and should be secluded from the rest of society, apparently. You’ve come a long way, baby!

You see, their misogynistic modern day feminist beliefs have taught them that pregnancy is an illness and that having a baby is a punishment — our own President furthered that belief. They do not believe a woman can, or should, have it all. They believe that motherhood is a detriment when, in reality, it is an attribute and an accomplishment in and of itself. One that is worth way more and has far more true meaning than anything else. In fact, it’s priceless.

I’ve said before that one day I hope to take back the term Feminist, as it has been bastardized beyond any recognizable meaning. I lied. I’m doing it now. I am a Feminist. These women are not. They are, at best, Faux Feminists and, at worst, misogynists. In fact, I think they require a new term: Fem-ogynists.

True feminists, including the earliest leaders of the women’s movement, were, and are, pro-life. Pro-Life is Pro-Woman. Susan B. Anthony was pro-life, as was one of the authors of the original Equal Rights Amendment. I’ll refresh the memories of the Fem0gynists: her name was Alice Paul and she said “Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”

She was right. Little did she know just how far the exploitation would reach and just how many lies would be told to achieve the exploitation of millions of women and the death of 50 million babies. Finally, at long last, more and more women are seeing through the lies. They aren’t good little robotic Stepford Feminists who can delusionally deny the very real immense guilt and deep pain resulting from the aborting of one’s own child; they are real women. With real feelings and real emotions. They are women with souls and with the strength to truly have it all.

I know this, because I know them and I listen to them. Women from all walks of life have reached out to me to thank me for speaking for them. Some have thanked me for simply being a human being and acknowledging the pain and guilt that they are living with their entire lives, some have shared their stories and others have thanked me for being “brave.” The fact that it is considered brave to speak out against the modern day Feminist/Femogynist not only makes me incredibly sad, but it speaks volumes.

See, the Femogynists do not empower women, but rather exploit them. They have taken the miracle of life, that only we can create, and have made it expendable. On purpose. Worse, they’ve tried, and partially succeeded through coercive fear tactics, in often making that the default option. They have taught a generation that they are supposed to abort an inconvenient child, that they can’t be “equal” unless they avoid being punished by a pesky baby.

They play the victim card incessantly, but they aren’t victims. They are the victimizers. Marcotte said:

If there’s ever a conflict between the baby-making functions and a woman’s hopes, dreams, responsibilities, or well-being, the former will always win with anti-choicers.

There’s the difference right there. We believe there is no conflict.

A baby does not crush a woman’s hopes, dreams or well-being. Motherhood enhances your life in ways that can’t even fully be described. A woman can have it all, and should. That’s what we “unhinged, anti-choicers” know.

By the way, Miss Valenti and Miss Marcotte, I wrote this while on a break from home schooling my child. You see, not only can a Mother obtain an education herself, but she can *gasp* educate others. That’s a concept lost on Fem-ogynists like yourselves, apparently.

(Originally posted at David Horowitz’s NewsReal. Cross-posted at RedState and my bloggy)