This story is a follow up to the one I blogged about recently:
Anti-abortion movement rebrands, adopts human rights focus - Politics - CBC News:
It reiterates, more or less, the points I was making but in a more detached -- more scholarly -- way. The "human rights" discourse of anti-choice activists is based on very thin or non-existent evidence, they adopt a progressive discourse to broaden their appeal while trying to maintain their traditionalist conservative views. IOW, the "gendercide" focus of anti-choice activists is more manipulation then an effort to actually do something progressive for women.
This might be true. I suspect it is and said as much in a recent post. But, it raises, for me, another question: should we expect ideological positions to be ... well ... ideologically consistent? Can one support "women's right" and oppose them at the same time (say, opposing gendercide but arguing that the state should regulate women's bodies)? I don't have time to address this right now because its after midnight here in NB. But, perhaps this is matter that deserves some attention. What do you think?