Why is it that the only women who can be “pro-woman” are radical liberal pro-abortion feminists?

Cassy Fiano has a must-read post up today about an exchange a pro-life blogger had with a pro-choice blogger over the issue of ‘provocative’ pro-life ads being displayed in New York subways in which the ad implies guilt and/or depression over either a woman deciding to have an abortion or over someone in that woman’s life who encouraged her to have one. The various ads (seen at the Abortion Changes You website). But one in particular really rankled the pro-abortion crowd to the point that one of them took it upon themselves to deface the ad. Here’s the before and after shot:

Abortion Changes You
Abortion Changes You - before and after pix

The ‘debate’ between pro-life blogger Lori and pro-abortion blogger Jessica goes as one typically does, with Lori being mystified as to why pro-abortion women, women who claim to want a woman to be “fully informed” on the issue of abortion before deciding whether or not to have one, always seems to be outraged when alternative arguments – even the very tamest of ones – against abortion are presented (the Tim Tebow “controversy” comes to mind), while Jessica goes on the predictable “pro-life women are anti-woman” rant, acting offended that pro-lifers would suggest that abortions are done for purposes of convenience before admitting later in the post that … yes, a lot of abortions are done for the convenience reasons.

As longtime readers already know, this is a subject I’ve written about many times (see the “Abortion” and “Feminism” categories for more). What really irks radical liberal feminists is the fact that 1) there actually are women out there who don’t follow the rad fem dogma on abortion and sex and 2) the myth that ‘most’ women don’t have abortions for convenience purposes has, over the last decade or so, slowly been busted.

For years, the pro-abortion crowd have tried to insinuate that most women have abortions due to health reasons (either the mother’s or the baby’s) or due to rape or incest. But that’s simply not true, and the stats at the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute (see pages 14 and 17) bear that out. The fact is that most women have abortions for birth control reasons. They either didn’t use birth control themselves and/or neglected to ask the man in the equation to use a condom. Or, more importantly, they didn’t bother saying “no” to unprotected sex, a highly irresponsible decision that has the potential to cost an unborn child its life. It’s especially irresponsible for the woman to make the choice to have unprotected sex, considering she’s well aware of what the consequences could be to her body.

Yeah, I know pro-abortion women like to “blame men” for a woman getting pregnant and having to make the choice as to whether or not to keep the baby, and while men do share some of the blame for not being responsible, the added responsibility is on the woman, because nine times out of ten it is she who is the one deciding whether or not she’ll allow the man to have sex with her. If a woman says no, unless she is raped unprotected sex will not happen. And as a result, there will be no messy decision-making process as to whether or not to keep the child that may result from the irresponsible (and unsafe) act. This ain’t exactly rocket science, folks.

The bottom line is that the absolute best way a woman can be “pro-woman” is make sure she’s and her fellow females are educated and informed on the need to be responsible for all choices they make in life, including the choice as to whether or not to have sex – protected or not.


It’s like they practically salivate over the thought of another woman getting an abortion. I don’t know why, but it’s sickening how much feminists try to actively convince women to have abortions. And of course, never mentioned is the option of not getting pregnant if you absolutely cannot handle a baby at the moment. There’s birth control, and if you can’t afford that, the solution is simple: don’t have sex. But of course, telling a feminist that women shouldn’t have sex if they aren’t ready for a baby might make their head explode. I mean, really, dare you tell women that they should keep their legs shut if they aren’t ready to get pregnant?! Believe it or not, there is an element of personal responsibility at play here. The whole feminist philosophy is disgusting. They tell women to sleep around like men do. When women then get unintentionally pregnant (usually while unmarried), they tell the women to just kill the damn burden growing inside of you and throw it out like refuse. And NO, don’t you dare do any research about abortion, what your baby looks like, or the effect having an abortion can have on you. Just kill the damn thing and get back to your Womyn’s Studies classes because college is the MOST. IMPORTANT. THING. EVER! And no, you cannot do both, you must choose between being a pregnant, barefoot housewife in a kitchen or being a smart, single, feminist womyn with a degree in Gender Studies. If you have the baby you are contributing to the partiarchy! And you will be a victim! Do what we say! Don’t think for yourself!

It’s sickening, truly sickening.

All of this just goes to show how far feminism has fallen. Feminists were once made up of smart, strong women (who, incidentally, despised abortion and rightfully saw it as evil) who were fighting for real gender equality — the right to vote, to get an education.

Now, feminists crusade for abortion. It’s their number one cause. And they don’t even want women to be informed. They don’t want women seeing ultrasounds first because they know it’ll influence them to have the baby. They don’t want women learning that abortion can have devastating physical and emotional repercussions. They don’t want abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare”. Lori’s post showcased another example of a feminist accidentally exposing that trust, and it pissed Jessica Valenti off. Feminists don’t want women to be able to choose what’s best for them; they want women choosing abortion. I can only assume it’s because if women stop choosing abortion, then feminists will lose their last grip on relevance in today’s society. Getting the truth out about abortion and its possible effects, as the “Abortion Changes You” campaign does, terrifies and angers feminists.

It’s pathetic and disgusting, that someone would actually encourage abortion — the murder of the unborn — solely to help maintain their own grip on power and relevance in the world. Anything that harms the pro-abortion movement really is just harming modern feminism. And this ad is just another crack in the feminist “we help womyn” facade.

What Cassy’s talking about is the two kinds of feminism, as explained by feminist autor Christina Hoff-Sommers:

Sommers describes equity feminism as an ideology rooted in classical liberalism, and that aims for full civil and legal equality for women. Experimental psychologist Steven Pinker[2] expands on Sommers to write, “Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology.”

Sommers contends that “Most American women subscribe philosophically to the older ‘First Wave’ kind of feminism whose main goal is equity, especially in politics and education”.[1] However, Sommers also argues that equity feminism is a minority position in academia, formalized feminist theory, and the organized feminist movement as a whole, who tend to embrace gender feminism.


In contrast to equity feminism, Sommers coined the term “Gender feminism” to describe what she contends is a gynocentric and misandric branch of feminism. Gender feminists typically criticizes contemporary gender roles and aim to eliminate them altogether.[1] In current usage, “gender feminism” may also describe feminism which seeks to use legal means to give preference to women in such areas as domestic violence, child custody, sexual harassment, divorce proceedings, and pay equity. Psychologist Steven Pinker[2] described three defining pillars of gender feminism:

Gender feminism is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about human nature. The first is that the differences between men and women have nothing to do with biology but are socially constructed in their entirety. The second is that humans possess a single social motive — power — and that social life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised. The third is that human interactions arise not from the motives of people dealing with each other as individuals but from the motives of groups dealing with other groups — in this case, the male gender domination the female gender.

Sommers argues that gender feminism characterizes most of the body of modern feminist theory, and is the prevailing ideology in academia. She argues that while the feminists she designates as gender feminists advocate preferential treatment and portraying “all women as victims”, equity feminism provides a viable alternative form of feminism to those who object to elements of gender feminist ideology.

Simply put, gender feminists despise men and “gender roles” and don’t strive for “equality” but instead “dominance” over men while equity feminists are like the original feminists in this country who embrace(d) their femininity and at the same time strive(d) for true equality among men. Gender feminists, unsurprisingly, are amongst the most radical pro-abortionists you’ll find, whereas your equity feminist may or may not support abortion, but if they do, you can be sure that most of them don’t balk at the idea of women having to take the lead in being more responsible for the sexual choices that they make.

You get three guesses as to which side is the more “pro-woman” side. The first two guesses don’t count. :D

Back to the “offensive” Abortion Changes You ad, if you happen to be a pro-lifer who is in NYC today, make sure you check out the 2 p.m. pro-abortion “protest” planned against this ad. Jill Stanek has the who, what, when, and where details here.

Comments are closed.