Woman aborts child because baby is a boy—and she is the “victim”

 

By Dave Andrusko

nomenWe’ve written about this before, but, since the theme is behavior coming full circle, it seems appropriate to ponder it once again.

Those of us who grew up in the 1960s remember well the hate that consumed parts of the “Women’s Movement,” not just for men but for unborn children who had the bad judgment to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I also remember how, if you were a man, to bring this up would be proof-positive that you were part of the very problem they lamented; or, alternatively, that you were caricaturing all feminists as “man-haters,” which, of course, was not true, then or now.

If you read many pro-abortion feminist sites these days, it’s déjà vu all over again. The loathing for men simply is limitless which (while not productive) is, of course, their right. However this not infrequently links up with aborting “unwanted” children, unwanted for many reasons but made worse because there is man involved.

Take that together with a release we posted earlier today from women’s groups in Great Britain. They are calling for support for an amendment to a bill that would make it clear it is illegal to abort babies on the basis of their sex—almost always because the child is a girl. (The larger bill is intended to address abuses against born women.)

Not an hour later I ran across a post that referenced “Lana” and her blog called “Injustice Stories.” So I pulled it up. I’ve read a lot of posts from pro-abortionists but never quite one like Lana.

The moral, so to speak, of the story is that because there is a virtual omnipotent, omnipresent Patriarchy, if some guy is a cad to you on a plane on your way to an “Occupy Wall Street” rally, that is the last straw and a signal that the world will be a much better place if you abort your five-month-plus unborn child because the child is a boy.

Now this woman has, to put it gently, issues. But if you read her account, you can see why it makes a kind of inverted, loopy sense to Lana.

Having that abortion means when she does have a girl (which she subsequently does), there would be one less man “around to hurt her progress,” one less boy to “demean her or call her names.”

Of course, the “victim” in Lana’s story is….Lana. Under the headline, “I Aborted My Baby – Because it was a Boy,” she tells us

Over the past 3 years, I have lost many friends, and several of my own family members have completely cut off communication with me. I now know that these are “adults” who just cannot handle the fact that I have the right to make choices, and that these choices ultimately hardly even affect them.

Get it? She not only has the “right” to abort a child, she has the “right” to be free of any judgments being made about her behavior.

The world has not stood at attention and saluted her as she goes through a self-purification/consciousness raising to the point of absurdity rite. People (mostly men) don’t understand she is a warrior in the battle against Patriarchy. There are going to be casualties, such as her unborn baby boy.

There is no need for (or room for) self-reflection, let alone remorse.

But just so people don’t misunderstand, she adds, “I don’t hate men.”

What does Lana hate?

I hate the patriarchy, what men, and even some women, turn into, I wasn’t going to let that happen with my offspring. The chances were greater that it would with a male, it was unacceptable.

If the curse returns, I would do the exact same thing all over again.

There is the customary chord running through her account (and her subsequent response to critics): Empowerment. Lana writes

To me, the experience was liberating, the emotions I felt when deciding what I should do, and after learning my fetus was male was something I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. Coming out of it a liberated woman though was more than worth it. If I had to do it all over again, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Not much you can say to someone who believes that, is there?

The whole substructure of this exercise in adolescent self-pity is that men done did her wrong (although there were exceptions but their acts of kindness and charity just get in the way of the narrative).

But if the tables were turned, would that justify a man inflicting cruelty on an innocent third party?

Of course not.

It’s impossible to miss the irony of her conclusion. Referring to her critics

I find it hard to hate anybody, their faults are not their own, but usually rather the product of an environment or social circle they have been exposed to.

If true, one can only speculate what kind of environment or social circle Lana has been exposed to that would result in this kind of hard-hearted cruelty.