The radical feminist philosophy on abortion literally dominates airwaves in Canada and the US. It also pervades the op ed pages of our major newspapers. The talk is very articulate, often highly emotional and quite intolerant of anyone holding a pro-life view. The rhetoric is characteristically strident, as one would expect it to be in any discussion that tries to uphold such an objective evil as the destruction of the unborn.

Let`s begin with the name these women have given themselves - feminists. Has there ever been a more ironic name for women who look upon human reproduction as a major stumbling block to their happiness? One definition I find applicable is that of women who are so dumb they don`t know how much power they have and have to call themselves something else.

These elitist women - who purport to speak for all our mothers, wives and daughters - use 'reproductive choice' as their favourite expression, one which their brilliant minds refuse to recognize as a euphemism for killing the child in the womb. Like the equally obnoxious 'pro-choice' expression - so frequently used it now sounds like a mantra - these expressions are a capitulation to blind ideology that makes no concession to biological science and the wondrous view it gives us of the humanity of the child in the womb.

A reputed feminist can thus make the following asinine statement and get it published in Canada`s national newspaper The Globe & Mail: "As a liberal and a feminist, I respect a woman`s right to choose. I acknowledge that abortion is not everyone`s answer, but I abhor the conservative view that a fetus should have more rights than the baby it will become." Such stupid beliefs are the essence of the radical feminism that dominates the North American scene. Here are just a few more: 

"Abortion is a positive good." (Joan Dunlop President, International Women`s Health Coalition)

"We want abortion for the sake of our children." (Ruth Roemer, J.D. Professor, School of Public Health, California)

"One cannot have effective fertility control without abortion as a backup." ( Planned Parenthood of America)

"Is it the one inch tissue you are concerned about?" (Pro-abortion supporter, TBS broadcast, 1989)

"The anti-choice people are the no-choice people. They really don`t care about women and they really don`t care about children." (Christina Pickles, pro-abortion actress).

In order to construct a fireproof shield around the right to abortion, even reality must be bent beyond recognition. Radical feminists do this by now telling us that reality doesn`t really exist as such but is purely relative in nature: "Your reality is not by reality!" (logical offshoot of "your morality is not my morality!"). They find it necessary to carry on a euphemistic blather about "difficult personal choices," "a woman`s right to control her own body," and "a private matter between a woman and her doctor" (the latter coming from male abortionists who have never met their clients before and who have a financial conflict of interest in their decision).

The oft-heard feminist assertion of "the right to control our bodies" without caring for the consequence of the action, is particularly goofy. It can be interpreted as giving an assassin, for example, carte blanche to carry out his deadly work. "All I was doing was squeezing my finger on a trigger," a sniper might explain. "I was simply controlling my body without regard to the consequence of my action." That is exactly the grounds upon which a woman who aborts her unborn child is able to justify her action too. Isn`t this an invitation to murderous anarchy?

As it turns out the concept of "unwantedness"itself, so often bandied about by the radical feminists to justify abortion on demand, is inappropriate even by their own standards. These 'fetuses' are in fact more than wanted by those in the business of harvesting baby body parts for research in such vaunted medical centres as Nebraska University and Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

For millions of North American women, abortion has now become vital to full participation in social life. How horrible it is to think that something so hideous could have become necessary to women...that they have to sacrifice their children to succeed! Can`t they see how terribly they`ve been manipulated? Can`t they understand, as most everyone else now does that the argument for abortion as a way for women to control their own bodies has the effect of freeing men or society of any responsibility in caring for children. It`s not unreasonable any more for a man to say, "It's your body, it's your choice, it's your problem." 

Want another gem of brilliant sophistry? The rarest is found in the abortion-rights slogan that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." Has anyone ever heard of anything good that should be rare? Should health be rare? Should wealth? Should beauty? You only want bad things to be rare, like disease or poverty... or abortion.

Other such pearls of wisdom abound in the world of radical feminism. They work their soul-destroying effects in the minds of women who are increasingly falling for its deceitful abortion propaganda. I offer six more glaring examples of these shameless abortion propagandists.

Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger: "The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Molly Yard, late president of National Organization of Women (NOW), re China`s policy of compulsory abortion after the first child: "I consider the Chinese government`s policy among the most intelligent in the world...Women are not incubators!"

Feminist philosopher, Mary Ann Warren: The unborn child as "an entity far below the threshold of personhood."

Toronto University Law School professor: "The technological visibility of the fetus has been used to render the woman increasingly invisible."

Ann Rauhala, Globe & Mail columnist: "A vigorous minority of Canadians believe that humans in utero are so precious that they must be protected." 

Michele Landsberg, another Globe & Mail columnist: Talks about "the cult of worship of fertilized eggs."

That feminist advocates of abortion rights are reduced to such blatant misrepresentations shows how weak their position really is. They give superb illustration of Orwellian doublethink, the ability to hold two contrary ideas at the same time. How`s this for a definite example? "We believe that...abortion is a fundamental human right." The right of one human being to kill another for personal reasons - two mutually exclusive ideas if ever there were any. 

Radical feminists define violence as male, yet they prefer the violent termination of an inconvenient pregnancy rather than a natural and constructive one. That`s weird! Homicide being the greatest of crimes, how could they redefine killing in order to make an exception for women? Wouldn`t they expect women to be held to the elementary standard of decency we demand of men? Killing merely because of inconvenience? They make women look so spineless. If a man were known to get himself out of a jam at the cost of someone`s life, he would be regarded as a coward. Who but radical feminists could see cowardice as normal for pregnant women? Don`t these macho-feminists realize they sound like absolute nitwits?

Anne Quindlen, columnist in the New York Times sums it up this way: "We feminists believe flatly that women cannot be free unless they can control when they will carry a pregnancy to term." To me this is a declaration of utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

Thaddée Renault

Fredericton, New Brunswick

Return to the Unborn Children's Website

Return to Council #9496