Anti-feminine feminists at it again...

Perhaps the greatest college football player in the history of the game is making waves this week because he and his mother are telling their story in an ad taking place during the Super Bowl. The ad is pro-life, about how Tebow's mother chose life. As an avid college football fan, and someone who is not a big Florida fan, I do have to say that Tebow is a great human being.

Nonetheless, it did not take the modern feminist haters long to spout their usual venom towards anyone who is not a nihilist like themselves. The anti-feminine feminists, the ones who are power-mongers, liars, and silencers were quick to state that Tebow and his family were infringing upon a "woman's right to choose." Interesting how they always shroud their murderous ways in the guise of freedom.

Let us ask these wannabe men, these nurture despisers, nature haters, and women hurters (yes, they do hurt women by discouraging marriage which increase abuse, by forcing abortion on them when over 90% of women regret them) what 'freedom' actually means, shall we? If we needn't worry about the objects of our acts (i.e. what we intend and the outcome) then we are all free to do whatever we please. Here we confront Nietzsche all over again -- freedom in the feminist mindset is domination of the weak by the strong. Freedom is doing what we are capable of; doing what we have the potency for. Let us tangle them in their own web of inconsistency, shall we?

A feminist would rightly be opposed to a man's right to choose to abuse his wife? Correct? A feminist would rightly be opposed to a man's right to choose to rape a woman? Correct? A feminist would rightly be opposed to a man's right to victimize a female child? Correct? "Wait!" shout the nihilists, " Those are not rights! It is not a man's body that he damages in committing those crimes. When a woman has an abortion it's her rights over her own body." Really?

So different blood types, different heart rates, and even different sexes, makes the fetus "the same body"? The real issue is one of the ontological status of the embryo. We can say de facto that it is a human being simply by genetic testing. The difference between a feline embryo and a human embryo is testable. Whether or not an intellectual -- rational soul -- is present is not testable. To make the claim that the human being is not a "person" in vitro is to make a metaphysical claim. Alas! Our materialists are at last view metaphysicians! The God and spirit deniers are actually spiritualists!

Anything genetically human is per se rational irrespective of it functional capabilities based on the rational telos of its nature. So the anti-feminine feminist claim that it is a woman's right to choose is simply a relativist claim to freedom. If we needn't worry about the objects of our acts as the feminists claim with abortion, then the feminists cannot make moral claims anywhere else. At bottom, the justification for morality becomes power. Do only that which you are powerful enough to do. Sound familiar? The feminists are Nietzscheans. If a woman has the freedom to choose to abort, then the murderer has the freedom to choose to kill a prostitute, simply because she is weaker than him. Will the anti-feminine feminists want to approve such a position? If not, then we must ask them to be silent about their misguided freedom.

Bravo, Tim Tebow, Bravo! You made the snakes writhe, which makes me smile.