Feminism, Abortion and reconciliation of female foeticide

Cognitive dissonance or simply double standards lie at the edifice of post modern feminist discourse. It becomes even more apparent when this framework is applied without any careful thought to the Indian context because whites did not design the system for non-western, non-Abrahamic audience. Even careful mental gymnastics on the part of Indian feminists cannot clarify its vague incoherent framework and comes out in the open to haunt feminists in the abortion vs female foeticide debate.

One of the problems with feminist discourse is its malicious attempt at obscuring the true implications of the buzz words it uses. The phrase “bodily autonomy” or “My Body My Choice” is another such attempt. On the surface it sounds like something any sane person would endorse- the right to choose what to do with one’s own body. But well-meaning individuals fail to account for the fact that humans are bags of flesh littered with emotions. They are not driven by logic but by fear, longing and other primal urges. Simple pheromones can alter human behaviour. For this reason, it is important for humans to be guided less by their emotions and more by the structure and order provided by the shastras.

In the abortion debate, the foremost thing to consider is the definition of life. Leftists will argue that the child inside of you is not a human but a clump of cells. Other degenerate liberals will call it a parasite, the justification being that such terminology is supported by Science. This is an obfuscation since scientific terminology is not strictly scientific but inherently philosophical. By extending the principles of “parasitism” –  a newly born baby is also a parasite, unable to function on its own, a life form which relies on its parents for sustenance. In a very similar sense, the old, the infirm and even unemployed (permanent ones) are also parasites since they are forced to leech off on their kith and kin or the society they are in. Would it be humane to simply murder one’s parents once they reach an age where they may be “scientifically” considered a burden? Left liberals would have you believe that the people who have raised you, tended to you while you were ill and comforted you when you were afraid are burdens for you to rid of. Marxist literature exhorts men to cut familial ties, consider women tools and destroy social bonds to further their revolution. Destroying the institution of the family will achieve the total annihilation, since married men commit less crime. Feminism (or to use the more cumbersome term – cultural marxism) destroyed the Roman Empire, and even a bachelor tax couldn’t get men to enter the institution of marriage willingly.

Before going any further, it is important to provide a metaphysical definition of what is “alive”. The fact remains that there is no scientific way to discuss what is alive since there is no way to determine what death is. Bruce Charlton discusses it here; reproduced for your benefit:

For example, I heard the top British doctor-expert on coma and other ‘near-death’ states, assert that we should not think of death as an event, but rather as a process. So there was no ‘moment of death’ but only a period of time on one side of which was life, and the other death. The implication was that some people are stuck in this process for very long periods – maybe years.

(He was responding to the fact that various definitions of death may conflict – cessation of the heart, activity in various parts of the brain, responsivity of the pupils, decomposition of internal organs such as the pancreas and adrenal – these signs do not co-occur simultaneously, and may be dissociated in some situations (i.e. signs of death while still alive); plus of course they are, to some degree, reversible – so death cannot be conclusively pronounced until there are several or all of these signs in place for some length of time.)

A simple solution to this conundrum can be stated thus:

If a human one is alive due to the sustenance drawn from its environment, a foetus is alive similarly.

Now that we have established that a foetus is alive, the topic of abortion shifts from – should women have bodily autonomy to-

Should women have the right to murder their own young

Pro-abortionists are not truly trying to help women. They degrade them further by introducing the seemingly innocuous idea of free love, the idea that there are no consequences to casual sex. Of course women who have premarital sex tend to get divorced more, are more depressed, more disease ridden and less happy but leftists only like science when it comes to bashing the religious, they do not actually engage in the scientific method.

One defence of this cold-blooded murder is that a woman may not be financially well equipped to bring a child into this world. It suffices to say, that no one would calmly explain to a woman with a 3-year-old, that since times are tough it may be financially prudent to lop off the child’s head and dispose off the body quietly.

This is not an argument for a total ban on abortions. Life which is the product of rape or medical condition can be made an exception. The shastras endorse allowing abortion when the life of the mother is threatened. For all other cases, it is important for the civilized to restrain their carnal urges.

It is important to follow through with the consequences of allowing the right to kill one’s own young based on certain conditions. Consider this: If a condition x exists to allow for abortion other than the two I have mentioned above, then it follows that we may use this condition to allow for abortion according to preference of gender. Females are financial burdens more so than men, because of the costs associated with raising a girl. And this is a universal phenomenon. In India and other eastern societies it is even more pronounced because men are supposed to man up and take care of their old parents while daughters have no such social responsibility. It follows from this that feminists must necessarily support the perpetuation of female foeticide.

These conclusions are self-evident, requiring only a small amount of reasoning. Most feminists in India do not have the intellectual fortitude to follow through with their own logic for which they can be labelled as Morons among leftists. It is important to note that the Moron is only used as a tool by the Evil for the destruction of Hindu society. It is incumbent upon the right thinking Hindu to discuss these ideas being forced down the collective throat of Hindu society by the media before our children are murdered under the guise of “women’s rights”.

The author blogs at khatvaanga and tweets at @PaganTrad.

Another interesting article on same issue here.

Image Credit: 


  • TheCommunal

    I found you article on feminism a well researched one, looking for more form you in future.

  • anonymouse123

    Self-flagellation may at times produce more result than showing a mirror to progressive idiots. I’d not be surprised if you come under increasing attack from liberal turds. Truth is something which these progressive idiots are rather selective about. Most abortions in west, aren’t necessary, with even availability of many many options of contraceptives. It’s an industry which is being kept alive, and these raakshasas, don’t realise the same.

  • Pingback: Abortion and Pre-Marital Sex is a lose-lose proposition for everyone – YugaParivartan()