The news back in August that the state of Texas has outlawed abortion post-fetal heartbeat is welcome. I don’t entirely agree with the drawing of the line at a fetal heartbeat (or viability, or pain) understands the matter completely but I welcome it nonetheless as a step forward in the development of premises that when fully acknowledged and appreciated can only but end where justice demands.
However, that is not the point of this post. Here, I simply what to address what is intimated above, and that is that a women, unless she retains the right to kill her child in the womb, cannot and can never be free. This appears to be a signal principle of present-day feminism and the analogy I want to draw is between this claim and a view put forth by anti-abolitionists in the mid-19th under the heading of mudsill theory.
This theory purported that civilization must always depend upon a base class (the mudsill) that labours on behalf of all other classes above them and upon which these classes rest. Now, the unborn child does not ‘labour’ on behalf of the other classes here, what it does, through its sacrifice, is perpetuate the ‘civilization’ of the other classes. This isn’t just feminism, more broadly, it is the economic and social relations of modernity, i.e. mass participation in the workforce, ‘childcare’, ‘at-will’ divorce, extended adolescence, and the like, which all partly depend upon the free availability of abortion. This class of persons in its earliest stages of development is to be treated, under the new dispensation, as a class beyond the protection of the law, and it is for a time entirely dependent on the caprice of its parents, in order to fortify the economic and social relations upon which modernity rest. Thus, the promoters of abortion argue, just as the ‘freedom’ of women, and modern life, more broadly, depends upon its availability, they are to that extent, no different to the defenders of slavery who completely elided the moral status of the slave (as Caro does above the child in utero) and simply focused on their own alleged rights as slave-owner or beneficiary. In fact, they also treat the unborn child/ slave as chattel; to be treated or disposed of as they see fit.
15 thoughts on “Feminism, modernity, and the new mudsill theory”
At the end of the day we’re all clumps of cells.
You are correct, Dover as soon as someone other than God decides that some lives have sanctity and others do not, evil has won.
Non Aryans, the unborn, slaves, the kafir, Caro should be clear about the company she keeps.
Caro is clearly transphobic.
She clearly does not accept that men can be pregnant too.
Twitter said so.
Caro is a delusional twat, a woman is never the equal of a man. The very basis of leftist politics is that a woman is inferior to a man and must be given compensation in law to make up for these disadvantages.
Caro is clearly insane.
Frightbat gold medallist.
this is the crucial point they miss.
At some point after conception, they become responsible for the continuation of another’s life.
She rails against the ‘stolen generation(s)’- she’d much rather they had been killed off before that decision to adopt had to be made.
Hint Jane – its not always about you.
Thanks, Dover. Well said.
At the risk of digressing the thread (sorry), I feel it might be more accurate if an adjective such as selective, elite, privileged, socialist, or similar, preceded the words ‘feminism’ and ‘feminist.’
These narci-fems claim to represent a whole sex, but in practise (outcome), it is abundantly clear they seek benefits only for their own kind. Rosie mentioned this above.
We need to perceive them as illusionists who use sight & sound (movement, flashes of smoke) to distract the audience from what their other, hidden hand, is doing.
They contribute entertainment, nothing more.
A few years ago I heard Ben Shapiro take on all comers on an abortion wuestion snd he basicslly used the slavery analogy – Slaver: I bought you so you are my property and on my property and I xsn do whatever I want to you and with you.
Woman justifying abortion: you are my property you are in my body, I can do whatever I want with you
Just to be clear, God makes all life sacred, evil men want to make distinctions.
And yes Caro wants privileges for her kind but not her unborn sisters.
Interesting that in light of the absolute carnage inflicted on unborn females in countries like India and China some feminists now baulk at sex selection abortions.
To a large extent, the feminist abortion position is based on extreme blank-slate-ism; the ideology that a person is nothing until the born person is culturally imprinted.
And the family’s response and hopes for the person in the expected child, and the ‘lived experience’ in utero, birth and even babyhood before those retained memories after about three, are assumed/denied out of existence.
And the feminist ethic of abortion rights has galloped off from a consensus ‘Overton window’, to the point that abortion is now moral status display, a sacrament of a reality-denying religious practice.
The fairly recent public performativity over partial-birth abortion and born-alive laws and so forth, made it clear that to these people, their values for children’s lives equate to the baby sacrifice of the religion of Moloch.
Thanks Rose – you beat me to it. Caro really is a staggeringly stupid, stupid woman.
Mark Steyn has cited some interesting data in western countries where chinese and injun “diaspora communities” continue to abort female clumps of cells at a disproportionate rate. But that would require calling out another article of faith held by these disgraceful imbeciles – multiculturalism.
Give me a T for Texas.
So the zygote that is genetically distinct from both its mother and father has no rights?
As Tim Pool points out, the abortion argument is difficult – does a woman have to give up her right to choice by government edict?
Much like vaccination, such choices are best left to the individuals concerned, their trusted healthcare professionals, and their religious/moral advisors – what right has the government to demand, eg, proof that a woman was raped, or the victim of incest, or at great risk to life, before she can have an abortion?
And yet, what of the unborn child – does it not have rights too?
I think it is possible for all to agree that a woman whose labour has already begun should not be getting an abortion “on demand”, and also that it is significantly less immoral to ask for the same at 48 hours after conception.
The issue is where the line is.
We will never get agreement on where that line should be.
So why codify it in law, especially when we live where the state and the church are supposed to be separate?
And even should you argue (even cogently) otherwise, will you simply push such women as do not meet the letter of the law (even though they may meet the intent of the law!) to obtain a “backyard” abortion, which is a significant health risk to them?
Abortions should be safe, legal and rare. Currently, they are no longer rare. Perhaps it is better to understand why they are no longer rare and fix that, than it is to simply change the rules in an attempt to force them to be rare.