No Apologies reports on some writing from the McGill Tribune by a Pro-Choice historical revisionist.
The problem I see is that people believe this trash and then operate in it. At least the folks over at No Apologies take a stand against it. I hope you will read what they have to say. I have skipped the revisionist history part but here is what No Apologies had to say:
(The writer) goes on to outline the basic premise of the pro-choice argument, noting: “At its most basic, ‘the right to choose’ means respect and bodily sovereignty: each individual person defines and makes decisions for their own body. These decisions are made according to their own understanding of their body, morality, and reality. Furthermore, the appropriate context for these decisions is a personal and community framework, as opposed to a moral or legal code.” What Vashist refuses to acknowledge, both in her historical survey of abortion and arguments supporting the procedure, is that the pro-life debate transcends the right of a woman to choose. The rights of other family members (both men and women), and more importantly, unborn children (both male and female) need to be taken into account. Vashist also refuses to acknowledge the pro-choice movement today appears more indebted to latent racism and contemporary Western colonialism in deciding which children should be aborted than the pro-life movement.Bodily Sovereignty - Give Me A Break.