BOOK COVER FROM URLINK.jpg
RICK.jpg
About Us
  • White Facebook Icon

© 2023 by Going Places. Proudly created with Wix.com

The True Violation of Women's Rights

The political power that comes with gaining the support of the women's vote is phenomenal. More than half the active voters in the nation are women and the passion and organization of this segment of the voting population dramatically heighten the influence they have in determining what candidates will serve in political office. For this reason, politicians are desperate to portray the image of their being a champion of women's rights and the one who will best represent their interests. 

 ​

A problem arises when politicians fabricate their "own" version of what women (or any other interest group) need and that their interests will best be filled by the politician. This sometimes involves creating a "myth" that is consistent with, and supportive of, the politician's proposed remedy. ​One of the most prevalent, common, and destructive, myths active today is that the child in the mother’s womb is a mass of impersonal, inhuman, tissue.

This proposition that the "presence" that enters a woman's body upon conception is something less than a human being should be considered a "myth" due to that lack of substantive evidence to support it. The preponderance of logic, medical, and scientific, evidence would support the alternate proposition;  that this is a human child.

 

The proposition that this is not "a child" has become such a weak argument in supporting abortions that even those politicians who formerly denied the reality of this life in the womb are now referring to this as being a "person/people". To justify continued support for abortions,  those politicians and advocates for abortion now subscribe to the notion that "The elimination of this 'person's' life is still allowable due to their not having the rights of being 'citizens' until they are delivered."

Other strong evidence in support of this being a human being is that the assessment of this “presence” changes simply by a change in the circumstances of those involved in the decision to keep or destroy the infant. If a couple experiences unwanted, inconvenient, pregnancy, they often address it by eliminating the child they have conceived. To support the morality of that decision the "presence" is assessed as being an inhuman mass of tissue. On the other hand, if the pregnancy is desired in lieu of favorable finances and life circumstances it is celebrated as being "A BABY!!"

There are intentional efforts and conspiracy made by the “abortion rights” activists and politicians to mislead and deceive the pregnant mothers. The undeniable evidence of such a conspiracy is shown in the adamant opposition abortion-rights organizations have whenever any government or “life-advocate” entity suggests that pregnant women have more information. One would think that anyone who had the genuine interest of women in mind would welcome the full and open disclosure and dialogue regarding all circumstances involved. But ignorance is the most effective instrument of oppressors seeking to gain and maintain control and power.

 

How can anyone advocating “women’s rights” suggest that all women should not be given unbiased disclosure of what such an important life-decision entails? Women deserve and have a right to this full disclosure of information. They should, and must, see what is taking place in their body and know the details of what is involved in procedures involved in its elimination. The same should be demanded of any medical procedure, especially those involving such extreme circumstances. To prohibit women being informed about such matters is to propose that you are better equipped to decide what she should do than she.

 

Why have politicians chosen the position of opposing the full and open disclosure

of the person living within a mother's womb as a means to make abortion

a more viable alternative to unwanted pregnancy? 

1. It reduces the threat of offending those women who have already been misled into having abortions so as to make them more likely

    supporters of the politician at election time.

2. Children in the womb have no "voice". They are unheard and thereby pose no opposing threat to politicians who support their

    demise.

3. Defending the rights of those children in the womb offers little voter gratification compared to other social issues that might obtain

    voter support for the politician.

4. "Abortion" is a highly profitable industry having strong special interest lobbying power among politicians in Washington.

 

Advocating women to have abortions is entirely a position for political expediency, not a genuine concern for the best interests of women.

 

There is an equally heinous position to deny the emotional impact that such traumatic, life-ending decisions are likely to have on the mother. Women are not informed, educated or counseled adequately in schools, abortion clinics, and doctor’s offices about the likely emotional and psychological consequences that come with their acting out the decision to destroy the infant within them. The fact is that women who lose their infants prior to delivery by abortion, miscarriage, or any other cause, experience serious depression, sorrow, and regret, that remains for years, and perhaps a life-time. These women need and deserve to be directed to counseling and compassionate assistance to help them cope with the hurt that has occurred. 

 

This is indeed a personal, intimate, extremely important decision. The answer is not to avoid full disclosure of all details, facts, and consequences to those women involved. To the contrary, it is time that our nation, and our women, had a leader who genuinely has their interests at heart. A leader is needed who is bold in "doing what is right" for women, children, and our nation.