Let’s take a quick peek into the thinking of a young feminist at a state university. Brace yourself—it makes for chilling reading.
I have in mind this op-ed of June 7, 2021 from the student newspaper of Arizona State University. Its immediate aim is to protest a bill generated in the state legislature that, among other things, requires that fetal remains be cremated or buried (as opposed to being flushed down sinks or carted away as medical waste). Apparently, treating our fellow human beings with some semblance of dignity in death is an idea deeply upsetting to gung-ho feministas.
Much of the article makes the argument that abortions make good economic sense and that babies (or “fetuses” as the left prefers to call them) hamper women’s careers (which would be news to Amy Coney Barrett). We wouldn’t want a bothersome thing like an infant to stand in our ways as we climb the corporate ladder or aim for tenure in women’s studies, would we ladies?
I thought I was inured to the casual callousness abortion-hungry feminists towards those with genetic abnormalities or inherited disorders. If a man were casually saying the same thing, a few eyebrows would be raised at least. But the editors of the Arizona State student newspaper did not seem to notice that this is basically eugenics and would lead to the extinction of entire classes of human beings:
In late April, an anti-abortion bill was signed into Arizona law by Gov. Doug Ducey. This bill, Senate Bill 1457, makes it illegal for doctors to perform abortions on women due to genetic abnormalities.
The bill would make it illegal to perform an abortion due to the fetus having conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Down syndrome. Abortions of this nature will only be legal if the mother’s life is at risk. Of course, whether or not the mother's life will be at risk financially or psychologically is not considered.
Doctors and attorneys warned Ducey this action would be unconstitutional and would go against standard medical practices…
Standard medical practices to kill those with cystic fibrosis and Down syndrome. Gad. Think of the horrific practices have been normalized to such an extent that a female college penner of op-eds doesn’t even notice that she is equating the life of a baby with, say, a hefty bunch of student loans.
The writer goes on to say:
the future is not looking so bright for any child with a disability who was born against the mother's wishes and placed into foster care
At least that child has a future, as opposed to his or her more unfortunate, aborted peer whose future was slashed away for financial reasons.
And I don’t suppose there are any psychological repercussions for women who have had abortions. Yeah, no prob. It is clearly our duty as a society to make abortions as easy to get as possible. Babies are bad career moves, the feminists ruthlessly argue.
Don’t you just love the term “safe and legal abortions.” Safe? Would you feel safe as your life was ended by “medication” (as in basically poisoning you) or a “procedure” (as in your skull being crushed or your body being cut to pieces)? Safe (sort of) for one party. Fatal for the other.
There is also the weird twisting of language in the use of the term, “reproductive health care.” Abortion has nothing whatever to do with reproduction. It is designed to prevent it. It is also not “health care” in most cases. It is matter of convenience for some women, not health.
Not surprisingly, the young feminist does not seem to notice when she is making conservative arguments—like here:
single mothers are less likely to finish college when compared to their peers
That is actually a pretty strong argument for marriage. It is indeed hard to be a single mother. All the more reason to embrace not sexually liberated culture, but traditional marriage culture.
She goes on to demand that the president of her school, a state university, take a public stand on a moral issue on which public opinion is deeply divided—something state university officials have no business doing given that state universities are for everyone, not just for feminists:
ASU students and officials need to take a stance against this bill. President Michael Crow needs to put his students first. Student groups, including Planned Parenthood Generation Action at ASU and Young Democrats at ASU, are already condemning Crow for his silence.
This law and future threats are going to affect the student body, especially women and low-income students who cannot afford to raise a child.
Let me get this straight. You want your university president to make sure that there will be far fewer children who will grow up to become college students and you want to make sure that poor women can abort their children as often as rich ones do and this is all to the benefit of poor women?
And is this really good economics? Let’s say that low-income women do put career first and have no children. Who will take care of them when they are old? These women will have to work doubly hard in their careers to sock money away in order to live somewhat securely when they are old because they won’t have children to look after them. Assisted living ain’t cheap. I am 58 and single and childless and know what I am talking about here. Campus-based feminists might want to start pushing marriage and child-bearing and rearing as better for poor women (indeed, all women) than their current obsession with abortion.
And it is weird for feminists to be painting single moms as easily discouraged losers instead of women who are valiantly raising children, many of whom will grow up to become the home health care aides and geriatricians who will look after the career-minded women who aborted their children and live out the tail end of their lives frail and alone.
And the governor of Arizona is the villain of the piece here? No, don’t think so.