“Economy, prudence, and a simple life are the sure masters of need, and will often accomplish that which, their opposites, with a fortune at hand, will fail to do” – Clara Barton
Over the past week I ran across quite a few headlines in the “War on Women”. It’s a struggle that many will define in different ways, and while I may not agree with all their definitions, it is hard to deny that there are certain aspects of human dysfunction, violence, and immorality that are directed specifically at the fairer sex.
Th Front: Abortion …
The major front in the war on women, as I see it, is the practice of widespread abortion (infanticide) in this country and across the developed world. We noted here that unfettered access to abortion (infanticide) has actually led to greater “gender selective” abortions – where people intentionally kill girl babies in favor of having a boy baby later.
I bring it up here because a recent Time magazine cover and story had some interesting things to say about abortion. Life News has a nice article here (the Time article requires subscription). The article notes first that the early feminists were pro-life (e.g., Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, and Charlotte Lozier). It goes on to note that the youth movement is swinging back in the direction of being pro-life.
Not only does this young generation of pro-life women shun the notion that abortion somehow liberates women; it views abortion as the civil- and human-rights cause of our day. Abortion is an injustice that permeates our society. Forty years after Roe v. Wade, we realize that a third of our peers are not here to share our progress and our hopes. It is our loss as well as theirs.
Our fight transcends elections and legislative battles because our fight is in our hearts. This is why, 40 years after Roe, our movement is still growing. We won’t give up; we can’t give up. Our fight is for life.
Violent Action …
There have also been a number of headlines recently about rape. The most widely published has been the discussion of the violent rape of a 23 year old medical student in India. I will warn you, if you haven’t followed the story closely, the details of the attack are grizzly – you may not want to know. The young lady eventually died from her injuries.
The attack sparked massive protests in India, which according to reports “caught the government by surprise” … that’s telling. We discussed a while back in “India’s Gendercide” that there is a problem in the country with the systemic devaluation of women. Perhaps it’s not a surprise that protests in response to such a horrific act surprised the government [… it was just a girl, after all].
The Violence Against Women Act …
I’ve also caught a few headlines about the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). I’ve given a cursory glance to these stories but I still can’t find exactly what the issue addressed by the bill is. It seems that the major contentions have something to do with legal rights granted to American Indian tribes to prosecute crimes on their reservations, and whether the “special protections” of the law apply to illegal aliens and transgender “women”. I won’t try to dissect these issues here, as what I’ve been able to find is fairly light in its coverage.
I will note however that I may part ways here with my “feminist” friends over the issue. Not that I support violence against women, hardly, but rather that I don’t support “special protection” from the government for one class of people over another. Violence against women is already illegal. Making it “more illegal” won’t make it more illegal – because it’s already illegal.
Further, the government always does poorly when it makes one class of people more valuable than another. Leviticus 19:15 tells us “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Now, the verse is talking about the poor and the rich, but as a general principle I hold that we struggle when we try to make sympathetic judgments beyond the fact that all men are created equal – created in the image of God.
That’s not to say that in our personal actions we cannot take a greater concern for one person over another, or one group over another. We can certainly make reasonable decisions that one person is able to care for (or defend) themselves while another is not. My point is simply that when the government defines one person’s life and safety as greater than another’s, it probably misses the mark.
Destroying the Young Women …
Another article out recently showed that the number of US children living in single-parent homes has nearly doubled in 50 years. From the article, 15 million children (1/3) live in a home without a father; 5 million without a mother. While this clearly has an impact on boys and girls, I will simply note that young girls tend to draw their greatest sense of self-worth from a healthy relationship with a father. That’s 7.5 million girls (give or take) that are growing up without a father … think that will impact their self-worth?
Abortion, rape, fatherless homes … we have work to do.