By accessing this blog, you agree to the following terms:

Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.

Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.

One narrative to rule them all

This case was reported in the news for a year before feminists - even local feminists - spoke out against the doctor's heinous actions.

If equality for all is really their goal, what's the reason they couldn't speak out against the inhuman treatment described here? Do not tell me it's because "bodily autonomy," because sticking a sharp object into the back of someone's neck and severing their spine, then letting them suffocate to death is not recognition of anyone's bodily autonomy. It's simply barbaric. And feminists ignored it... not just radical feminists, the mainstream... because it does not fit their narrative. When they finally were shamed by politicians (sad when politicians can shame anyone) into making a statement, they spun the tragedy into political fodder instead of admitting that it indicates a need for oversight to prevent further horrors like this. 

That's what feminism looks like: So callous that it's more important to them to defend a concept than to defend an infant from a horrible death.


USER:chrisrus said...

Why do people today seem to be all either "pro-life"/"anti-abortion" on the one hand, or "pro-choice"/"pro-abortion" on the other? Is it not possible to say that such "abortion methods" as the morning-after pill and post-conception contraceptives are clearly not "murder", late term abortions clearly are. Abortion as a concept should be exactly as complicated as it needs to be. It is wrong to simplify it.

Hannah Wallen said...

In this case, the narrative doesn't even allow for anything but pro-abortion. You can't call a group pro-choice if they're willing to tolerate a doctor forcing unwanted abortions on his patients as they did in the Dr. Gosnell case. That's a point at which it ceases to be about choice, and becomes about supporting the industry and the concept.

That demonstrates the nature of the narrative on abortion at its base - it's not about women, or bodily autonomy, or rights. It's about politics and money. That's all it has ever been. If it were any different, supporters of the industry wouldn't have to be shamed into condemning that kind of abuse. They would simply acknowledge that it's unacceptable, and hold the industry accountable for preventing it from happening again.

With one click... help hungry and homeless veterans. The Veterans Site.

google-site-verification: googlefdd91f1288e37cb4.html