Filed under: abortion, Culture and Catholicism, depopulation, Muslim feminism, Nobama | Tags: abortion, Barack Obama, Catholic values, feminism, Islam, morality, Obama
The most sacred word in America’s liberal fascist style sheet is the word choice. Uttered unceasingly by President Obama, it annihilates dissent against his party’s relentless pro-abortion policies. But now that holy concept is under attack, from a surprising source. France is trying to take away Muslim women’s choice to wear a veil in public, arguing persuasively that ‘choice’ can be an illusion.
Sidewalk counselors, those people who stand outside abortion mills trying to dissuade women from entering with various resources, have been questioning the choice in pro-choice for a long time. Of the couples going to the mills, too many of the women entering appear to be reluctant to go through the door. They don’t appear normal. They often appear drugged or drunk. Sometimes, too often, they are literally drug in by a boyfriend or a parent.
It’s easy to read the body language. The girl’s eyes will be enormous with fear, or glazed. Her steps will be slow. The Boyfriend, however, will be hurrying along, muttering about being ‘late.’ His arm will be around her neck, it looks so much like an embrace; but it’s actually nudging her along. Approached, he will put himself between her and the sidewalk counselor, as if protecting her, but she will lean forward to hear around him, and it’s plain to see she would stop now for anyone, she’s clearly terrified. But he barks. He barks at the sidewalk counselor, some profanity, and, Get away! But the girl knows at whom the profanity is directed, and she complies completely. She drops her head, she gives up hope. She enters.
It’s the same with the other most frequent grouping, the whole family scene. A girl will be in the center of a small determined group of older women, a mom, an aunt, sometimes a grandmother. She looks the least determined of the lot, but she’s being swept along, and who’s choice it really is could not be more apparent.
Where family is concerned, ” choice” needs something to back it up, or it’s a pretty empty concept.
And now French feminists are saying the same thing: Muslim women are being subtly forced by their culture and their families to enclose themselves in the burqa, and France should pass a law that makes wearing one illegal.
It would be possible to have such a law, proponents say, without strict enforcement, a law ‘on the books’ but without teeth or militia. Merely having the law would suffice, however, because its mere existence “will allow women to use the ban as an excuse to shed garments they don’t want to wear, but were wearing under family pressure.”
That’s exactly what pro-lifers argue for: a ban on abortion, a rollback of Roe v Wade (especially since the Roe has repudiated her abortion that caused the legalization of abortion forty years ago). That would give women an excuse, a useful pretext: ‘I can’t do that honey, it’s illegal! Don’t even go there!’
But aren’t women already free under French law to veil themselves or not? Do not most people admit that women wear the burka and hijab voluntarily? Not at all. Proponents for the new law argue that even though it appears that women wear the veil voluntarily, it’s an illusion. They say,
“’Force’ and ‘compulsion’ can and are achieved all the time without the use of force. It’s SO common. Women will give in to something as trivial as covering up – even if they really, really don’t want to – just to keep the peace…. Families – families who love you and want what’s best for you, and whom you don’t want to hurt – can make you do almost anything.” Don’t pro-lifers see the truth of that, every busy Saturday at the mill!
Another correspondent writes, “Is the choice to cover oneself up really free if that choice is being made by someone who has undergone a lifetime of indoctrination with the message that this is the only proper way for a woman to dress? If a man tells his wife, ‘you’re free to decide whether or not you want to wear the burka, but only immodest women and bad wives choose to expose themselves.’ then that is no longer considered a choice; it’s considered social pressure and coercion.”
Just consider if those words were being applied to abortion: is it a real choice to kill one’s own child if it is being made by someone who has been taught since first grade that unplanned babies are tragedies? Because that’s what little girls are regularly taught. Just a couple of months ago, US little girls were taught by their beloved president that babies are a punishment for a mistake, and abortion fixes it. He was only repeating what they hear ad nauseum at school from teachers, guidance counselors, and school nurses. The pressure is not only psychological, however. Research has shown that 64% of American women undergoing an abortion reported coercion that included threats of violence. And it’s just not threats! Guess what numbers crunchers found to be the leading cause of death among pregnant American women: homicide, dear feminists.
So France’s Sarkozy pretends to champion the rights of women and insists that they need a law forbidding the burqa to give them an actual choice in place of their faux choice, and Obama pretends to champion the rights of women and denies they need a law forbidding abortion that will give them an actual choice instead of faux choice. Neither one cares about the women and both care very much about their political profiles.
Of course, the two situations are unequal. The cancellation of faux choice in the matter of what not to wear would affect about a hundred Muslim women residing in France and cost them the right to clothe themselves in a burqa. They could still achieve their ends, if they so wish, by dressing modestly in the options available to Christian women, which are many. The cancellation of faux choice in the matter of abortion would give about a million and a half human babies every year a chance to see the light of day, instead of the hot flash of cold steel, the last thing they’ll ever feel.
Those who are truly pro-choice for women (and not merely human-hating anti-natalists who take every pretext to limit and end human life on the planet) will support the efforts of Italy’s Rocco Buttliglione in promoting a UN ban on forced abortions by the diabolical ploy of offering women survivors of natural catastrophes food and shelter in exchange for the termination of their child’s life, a common practice promoted by Planned Parenthood and other demons.
8 Comments so far
Leave a comment