So wait... my rights are dessert?

I wonder if this conceited little fuck Googles himself when no one is looking. If he does, I certainly hope that this blog comes up, cause I've got a lot to say to Benjamin Ledford of the Idaho Argonaut who wrote this trivial little piece about why the rights of "humanity in general" are more important than the rights of a full half of the human species.

After comparing women's rights to dessert, and proving once again that conservative and conservative leaning men are horrible with analogies (sorry, sexism sucks doesn't it guys?), Ledford goes on to say,

"Of course, I will say it is better to have women’s rights than not to have women’s rights, but the only way to put women’s rights first is if we are willing to say — which I am not — that women are better and more important than humanity as a whole."

Hm... wait, don't women make up 51% of the species homo sapien?

Our irrelevant little idiot goes on to say

"If we agree human rights are actually better, then what does it mean for how we think about current issues? Well, there is one major implication which comes to mind immediately: abortion."

Okay. I'll bite, why is that?

"Whether we want to call them people or not, embryos are human, and they are a separate organism from their mother, not a part of her body. From its conception, an embryo is alive, has a different DNA structure than its mother and is of the species Homo sapiens."

Alright Ben, I've got a quick little quiz for you.

1. True or False: the meaning of separate in this instance is, as used in the adjective, "unconnected; distinct; unique: two separate questions. "
2. True or False: the process of pregnancy fits the dictionary definition, as above, for incubator and incubatee being "separate".
3. True or False: prior to the third trimester, a fetus can survive outside the womb.
4. True or False: women aren't part of humanity and therefore don't deserve as many rights as men, who are part of humanity.

You have the audacity to talk about human rights and then start off on a Logical Fallacy of the Year award winning diatribe about how women don't deserve their rights because they... what? aren't human? Please. Human rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and legally only apply to humans that are breathing. Do dead people have rights? No, they don't. Rights cease after the heart stops and respiration comes to an end, and the rights of the corpse are conferred upon the executor of their estate who provides for whatever care needs to be taken. The corpse is thereafter treated as property, which itself does not have rights.

Fetuses don't breath either. They just don't. Ergo, they do not have rights, and the rights they would have are conferred upon their incubator, whose own rights supersede the rights of the not-yet-born-human.

And for fuck's sake, the skin that just flaked off of my ass while I was untwisting my panties after your retarded argument (no offense to the mentally impaired), that skin can also be classified as biologically human. Does that mean that I am violating the rights of my Skin by scratching myself? Hey, you wanted fallible arguments -- as a student of Logic and Reason, I've got a million arguments that can be tailored to match your "women's rights are equitable to dessert: great, but totally not necessary and it makes you fat" argument; the difference being that I make stupid, fallible arguments on purpose to weed out the hoi moroi like yourself, Ben.

Back to the question at hand: are human rights more important than women's rights? Gee, well, in order to answer that question, which Ben mind-bogglingly answers in the affirmative, you have to make an extremely illogical leap in reality and decree that the rights of humans and the rights of women are mutually exclusive because women aren't, in fact, human. Which brings out one more little detail in the "fetuses are human" argument: what about girl fetuses?

Since we're discussing the pre-born, and it's a well known fact of biology that during development those with XX and XY pairings being their development the same: as gendered females. Later on during the development of the endocrine system, the ovaries drop to become testicles and the vagina folds itself inside-out to become a penis, but only when there is an influx of testosterone as determined by the programming set in motion by the determination of XX or XY.

Ergo, since women aren't humans, that means that fetuses aren't humans until after their endocrine system has decided that they are male. Right? That is what you mean right? Cause that's what you fucking wrote.

So, since women aren't human, and fetuses aren't human until about the middle of the second trimester when gender begins to appear, abortion prior to this time is not a violation of human rights. This deduction is made using your "logic", Ben. Generally accepted logic proves that womne are, in fact, human, and that her rights as a sentient, autonomous being trump those of the not-yet-born, not-yet-sentient, not-yet-autonomous being within her womb. Of course, sentience is no measure of rights, but being born and becoming able to survive outside the womb is a measure of rights.

Infants have rights, I agree. But it's not an infant, not a child, and does not have rights until after it has passed through the birth canal (or been otherwise extracted from the uterus) and takes a breath. Still born infants, as sad as they are, do not have rights, and no court in this country, nay the world, would confer rights upon it.

You want to talk about human rights? Let's talk about them, but make sure you're talking about the rights of those who are capable of having rights conferred upon them. There's on criteria for being able to have basic human rights: respiration.

Finally, in the words of the Immortal George Carlin

"If you think that fetuses are more important than women, you try to get a fetus to scrub the shit stains out of your underwear."

Don't forget your hat.