Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

‘Choose Life So That You May Live’

Who knew free will has such serious consequences?

Susan L.M. Goldberg


September 8, 2013 - 4:00 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page


Biblical Feminism recognizes that life is a choice.

Life comes from God. Unlike pagan cultures, we do not believe that the sole purpose of a woman is to give birth in the service of mystical or political ritual. Rather, life is a gift that results from a three-fold cord union between spouses and God. Human beings can create physical bodies; God is the giver of the soul. The question of who has the power to terminate life, that is, who has the ability to choose whether another living being may live or die, is the crux of the abortion argument.

Today’s feminism teaches that women are in sole control of their bodies and therefore have the choice to end that life at their own discretion. The argument is wholly based on the idea that men don’t have the burden of carrying a baby and can walk away from sex without any consequences, so why shouldn’t women? The entire feminist’s viewpoint lusts after a man’s perspective, once again illustrating that contemporary feminism has more to do with wanting to be a man than celebrating being a woman. Moreover, the idea that men can walk away from sex consequence-free implies they are both physically and emotionally superhuman. Not only must they be immune to one of the many sexually transmitted diseases that could plague them for a lifetime or even kill them, they’re also stone-cold morons with no feeling. Only contemporary feminism could harbor a mindset that worships men as gods while slapping them in the face at the same time.

The man-worship feeding contemporary feminism stretches even further into the modern female psyche, implying that her sole concern in life should be the ability to terminate her child’s life at whim, from the moment they are conceived until he or she is bursting forth from the womb. For “a woman’s right to choose” advocates abortion is the only issue bringing women to the polls. (Outside, of course, of unacted upon platitudes about equal pay.) In fact, liberal male politicians garner a huge fan base for their pro-choice stance (so much for that “consequence free male” theory) while anti-abortion politicians are “waging a War on Women.” In either case, reproduction transforms from a natural part of human life into a political threat, furthering the notion that it is as easy to stamp out a life as it is to cast a ballot.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (2)
All Comments   (2)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
You have one major misunderstanding with the Haredim is Israel. There opposition wasn't to the material per se, but the language and images used as well as making it religiously sensitive. What they use in stead of what they excised out, is a variant used by American Haredi schools that tailors it to both genders and leaves out certain images as well uses religiously sensitive language. Also in the Haredi world sex education is the parents job, not the schools, and biology is not dismissed but edited and tailored in a way that most Evangelicals would embrace. Do research before promoting your ignorance of this group, and the Forward is not a legit source, they are more anti-haredi than Der Sturmer was to Jews. They are a hateful left-wing rag. But also do research before writing (oh and the term Ultra-Orthodox is considered a demeaning slur, the term is Haredi, if you had done research you would know that)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
These message is directed directly to Susan Goldberg. I lament not getting around to reading your article until now. I will barely try to begin to explain why I feel graditude. My wife of fond memory never formulated her thoughts in the way you have, but she did live her life in a way reflective of your views. Were I young enough to seek marriage, I would seek the type of Biblical feminist that you describe. But, I am an old man and my thoughts are calmer now. Even if I were young, I must admit that I might avoid marriage as I am tired of being judged to an oppressor of feminity. Such constant guilt feeling is onerous. At times I feel, against my will, even a certain hostility. Then I think of a past love and I am resolved.

What has most struct me is the "feminist" female's search for a "self" by means of the identification of her womanhood with her body, claiming absolute control (= a feeling of "power") and even proving it through killing the unborn. I suspect such feminists are playing the male game of power. For my part such self-conscious identification of one's self with one's body seems strange. Obviously I do it as a man, but quite naively and, say, spontaneously. It is no problem for me. Is it really so that women, or enough of them, can only come to self-awareness as a female by means of such an egregious focusing upon the ownership of a body biologically female?

I do wish to point out that feminism, conceived as producing an antagonistic opposition between a self owning female body and men, may be in the process of making such itself obsolete. Here in Germany (and I think also in the US) there is imerging the next step of liberation from man-woman-familial love and that is de-gender-ization. In vague outline: The individual self should be encouraged to chose the maleness or femaleness of one's body indepenent of the biological status of that body. Thus, a secular femininist may find herself one say bereft of a female body, only possessing a body that she may, if she wishes, designated as female or as male. This choice is to be recognized by society. In other words, if a (biological) woman tells me that she is a man because her body is male per designation, then I am required to so view the person as identified not with the biological, but with the willfully designated male body. I am not talking madness. I find inchaote tendencies in this direction in the "Grüne Partei" here in Germany. I believe that as of Nov. that German parents can list legally their new born as male, femal or intersex (or some similar designation). The last designation leaves it up to the child to chose which sex IT wishes to be as adulthood approaches. All this is leading to PANsexualism. "Pan" in the sense of "universally spread about", a meaning derived perhaps from the Greek god PAN, who enchants things together to form a certain type of universe (as Prof. Klaus Held, a classicist, has noted).

This comment is too long. I sincerely thank you for your thoughst and ask that you continue on developing and publishing them.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All