Why Roe V Wade Wasn’t Actually About Women’s Rights
What a phenomenon we are witnessing.
The global economy is fragmented and the general psychology of the citizenry is in a frenzy.
Coming out of a time where we seemed to have slid towards a state in which the general force of propriety seems to be acting on the belief that emotional based actions and decisions are best and necessary.
We seem to be now in a time where propriety has deemed the upholding of free expression and speech to be contingent on passing moral scrutiny.
When Roe Vs Wade was overturned this faction of frenzied people took it upon themselves to take great emotional offence. This emotional state allegedly grants the emotionee a hall-pass when it comes to balance, reason, and debate.
Often heard in response to RVW is ‘my body my choice’.
Of course this ignores the debate of whether not the to-be-aborted fetus is a person that also has such rights. For this, “my body my choice” actually means “…if you disagree with me I’m going to allow myself to get so offended that I will break all of the rules of reasonable social engagement .”
All of a sudden the idea of living in a world where abortions aren’t needed becomes unimportant versus the right to kill an unborn child and this observation became affirmed under “my body my choice”. It’s too easy to point out the irony in regard to a similar set of people screaming “just wear your damn mask!” (ie your body NOT your choice) but something not as often pointed out is that generally the louder such people are the less likely it is they know the first thing about science.
These of course are the same people that think that having a doctor make political decisions is favorable and makes us a science based society.
I have one such friend that I think I said to him ,“If our health minister told you to jump off a bridge I think you would do it in the name of science” I swear he would respond “…the health minister would never say that”.
So how do we re-solve the “horror” that women have had their rights stripped. And that they now have less rights than decades ago since RVW?
Well first we must consider what a woman is…however, we have dismantled that word when it comes to public and political debates…
It feels very Jordan Peterson-like to me to have to point out the difficultly of defending the rights of a fluid target. For every person that the name Jordon Peterson triggers, who clearly hasn’t calmly considered the point he has been making, I wonder if such persons are also in a self-perpetuating frenzy sickening themselves thinking about the horror of women in the United States not having any rights (which is nowhere near reality).
Woman not having rights would be horrible. Woman having rights taken away would also be horrible. RVW was not that.
Women didn’t actually lose any rights. The idea was just ascribed to the event so that emotion could be used as an excuse for irrationality.
Yet somewhere that assertion triggers someone into getting angry and saying “…yes it did, therefore I’m angry, therefore reason doesn’t matter, therefore yes it did and therefore my outrage is justified, and again therefore yes it did”.
And yet the perpetual destruction of Ukraine wages on:
And so should it, for as long as we perpetuate it with our virtue signals.
As a side note, when it comes to killing people and/or babies. What is all of a sudden the big deal? We aren’t against killing, we never have been.
Here for example a man openly declares to the public he knowingly shot a pregnant mother right in the baby.
He doesn’t care; No one cares.
We kill babies and humans all the time and no one bats an eye.
So then why not just declare a mother has a right to kill her own baby, be consistent, and we can end the debate on when life starts.
We can call it “A woman’s body a woman’s choice (to kill her own child)….
(maybe the caveat can be “as long as the baby is attached and thus part of the woman’s body”)
But all this comes together when we think about the “transgender” archetype and the movement which means to argue about the (improved) fairness of allowing transgender athletes to compete in sports that are not in line with the biological sex that they were born with/assigned.
Here it seems the sadness associated with being unaccepted in a sport in which one doesn’t otherwise qualify in creates an injustice so large for a very very small % of the athletes that it supersedes the fairness of the vast majority of the athletes (who DO otherwise qualify for their leagues).
I’d like to suggest there is no one in the world willing and able to calmly debate that biological men who are transgender woman competing in otherwise female sports makes sense-let alone that it can possibly be in the name of fairness.
I say this because my question to such persons, that I believe don’t exist, would be to ask why Leah shouldn’t simply swim in the men’s/male league where the division, although called men, is really meant to be about the biological and social advantages a male would have.
It would be strange, wouldn’t it, if the answer was an emotional outburst, “BECAUSE SHE’S A WOMAN!!!”.
Yet it is just as strange to hear that its because its not fair for her otherwise (you would think that logic would cancel out with the picture of the podium).
In conclusion I want to consider whether or not the transgender woman should feel the same pain that a biologically born/assigned woman felt on the day of RVW being overturned.
As a side note I would like to point out all of the male partners of the women who are led by the Stephanie Tanner revolution and how it was implicit that they are not to comment on and especially against RVW.
And this is of course is seen as a MORALLY CORRECT type of suppression of free opinion and speech because of how emotionally distraught these woman are about the subject.
In other words, what kind of horrible person would you be if you were for the taking away of woman’s rights (even though the decision had nothing to do with that)!?
But if playing woman’s sports is a moral expressive right of a transgender woman, who is in fact a woman, then shouldn’t the transgender woman also be allowed to participate in the grieving of the loss (of rights) as if they are experiencing the loss of their own (birthing rights)?
Here we can note another relevant “paradox” in regard to missing persons and police suspect reports:
What does it mean to be a woman in a missing persons police report? Is it absurd to ask if there might be a time when its confusing to be looking for a woman when the target is actually a male.
This is again a place where it seems some early form of emotional outrage has granted it unnecessary to apply reason in the form of (for example):
‘would it be necessary or appropriate to include the race of a suspect in a search when the race/ethnicity is stated differently than the actual observable truth’?
I know this is hard for an emotional mind to gather, but why wouldn’t we just not announce the ethnic background/race of the target if it didn’t help the search?
On a similar note of emotional superseding logic I showed the picture below to the friend I mentioned previously. He was upset because a mutual friend of ours was apparently making anti trans-gender social media posts…
To not let the caption stamped on the image impose a bias I balanced the picture with a caption with my buddy’s response. He didn’t seem to be able to say that …
all ages drag shows with sexual innuendo are immoral.
Rather he was intent on pointing out that drag doesn’t mean trans, that’s a woman not drag in the picture, and went on to talk about how there could be a white guy getting chased down by a black kid he stole from and he could take a picture out of context about that.
For that we should be careful when it comes to context.
“Café owner Ryan Taylor said staff received many hateful calls, but one call on Tuesday turned especially aggressive when the caller threatened to “shoot up the place and everyone in it.”
After that call, Sashay Café organizers decided to cancel the event and the incident was reported to Victoria police.
Taylor said staff had been logging calls, which he said expressed homophobic sentiments and mischaracterized the event as “trying to groom children to be gay.”
“Our team was doing its best to try and sort of counter that ignorance and explain that this is a simple dress-up show,” said Taylor. “It’s not by any means lewd or anything but positive.”
The question becomes…why is this for kids? But we need to ask this before the emotionally frenzied people assert their authority on the content of allowable discourse.
In other words WHY is this for kids? What is the reason that this is for kids? Why am I a bigot for thinking this is completely fine for adults to do, but that it’s not necessary whatsoever to include children in?
I’d like an answer, emotional response is the opposite of an answer:
This style of argument is reminiscent of the news story of Tiara Mack that called attention to herself via this tweet where she claims she was ‘twerking’ albeit it upside down and in a bathing suit:
A Rhode Island state senator is getting ridiculed for posting a campaign video of her twerking upside down in a barely-there bikini.
Democrat Tiara Mack, 28, used her official district TikTok page on the Fourth of July to post the saucy clip of her shaking her booty while in a headstand on a beach.
“That ass, that ass, that ass!” someone can be heard saying admiringly, before Mack — wearing a skimpy yellow bikini — turns to the camera and begs, “Vote Senator Mack!”~https://nypost.com/2022/07/06/democrat-tiara-mack-twerks-upside-down-for-votes/
Of course context matters and here it seems the controversy comes from a bill Mack introduced which “would amend Rhode Island’s sex-education law to require courses including discussions of gender and sexual orientation, as well as “affirmatively recognize pleasure-based sexual relations,” between grades 6 and 12.”
In regard to appropriateness I’m not sure why it significantly matters that Mack identifies as “queer as fuck”. I can’t imagine it being appropriate for a middle aged cis gender white male to do coupled with the bill proposed.
Here I think we want to be careful not to stifle any and all conversation and inquiry into the nature and effects of such institutional changes in the name of “I’m not a groomer you are just an asshole”.
And now we can end with a reference to Ellen Page (who was a woman and now is a transgender man) and say that we support her support of Jussie Smollett, who is black and (as long as we are being emotional about it) suffered grave injustice. Here again we don’t need reason as long as an actress or actor can command an emotional performance: