rights movement

Description

The rhetoric and lines of argumentation employed by the prochoice movement primarily seek to justify legal abortion by excusing the mother of maternal obligations. The pro-choice, then, is a campaign against legislation which enforces parental responsibility. Despite this, most postnatal supremacists bastion legal institutions designed to force men and women to support their offspring. This creates a logical and ideological inconsistency. Thus the prochoice movement supports making parenthood optional whenever it is convenient to do so and obligatory in all other circumstances. Demanding parental responsibility from the mother reduces her to a state of maternal servility, but making the same demand of the father is not only acceptable but good. The prenatal rights movement aims in part to resolve this sexist inequality. In this video I address the profound inconsistency between many of the arguments and much of the rhetoric employed by the postnatal supremacy and the position held by most postnatal supremacists that mean should be legally obliged to support their offspring. I also address the applicability of many pro-abortion arguments to later stages of the child's life. This video does not discuss whether abortion should be legal or illegal. It is not an attempt to claim the prolife side is more consistent or reliable than the prochoice side. It simply illustrates the inconsistency of prochoice rhetoric and highlights the need to address fetal personhood.