I stumbled across yet another classic example of the logical inconsistency of the pro-choice ideology last week.
It was an article on the militantly pro-choice website RH Reality Check, and it was about a pregnant woman who was fired after her employer claimed that she was taking too many toilet breaks and trips to the bathroom for morning sickness.
The pro-choice blogger from RH Reality Check quite clearly considered the treatment of this woman to be unjust and completely out-of-line – and, of course, she is absolutely right, it was totally unjust conduct on the part of the employer.
But there’s just one problem, her opposition to the treatment of this pregnant woman is completely inconsistent with the pro-choice ideology she chooses to preach in her other blog columns.
This very same pro-choicer who regularly claims that women should not be forced to have babies they didn’t consent, is actually more than happy for employers to be forced to accept babies that they never consented to.
As a pro-lifer, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent with me opposing the actions of this woeful employer.
But when a pro-choicer demands that employers should be forced to accept and adjust their working lifestyle in order to accommodate the difficulties that a baby in utero brings to their workplace, they are effectively denying that employer the right to be pro-choice about unborn human beings like they are.
In effect, they are demanding that the employer be forced to endure a pregnancy that they never consented to, and that employers should be forced to suffer the financial losses associated with pregnancy which, according to these same pro-choicers, pro-choice woman should never have to endure.
I wonder how this zealously pro-choice blogger would feel if I said to her; “don’t like employers who mistreat pregnant employees? Well don’t work for one then”.
Or: “my corporate body, my corporate choice”.
Isn’t it funny how, with one magic wave of the ideological wand, the very same feminists who think that women shouldn’t be forced to accept babies they never consented to, actually start demanding that employers (many of whom are women) should be forced to accept babies that they never consented to.
I chuckled when the pro-choice RH Reality Check blogger ended her post with the bold assertion: “women are in the workforce. Women get pregnant. Companies simply have to find a way to cope.”
I doubt she’d be so sympathetic if a pro-lifer retorted: “women have sex. Sex makes babies. Women simply have to find a way to cope.”