Gynocentrism, the tendency of advocating a dominant or exclusive focus on women, and concerning everything exclusively from a female (or feminist) point of view is becoming a norm in society and the judiciary.
The other day, I came across a feminist article that while indoctrinating that women’s rights are human rights went on to the extent to claim that since it’s a woman’s body that has the ability to give birth to a child, her wish to abort the pregnancy is also her human right and those having a contrary view are confused and double-minded. It’s her body, so it has to be her choice to continue with the pregnancy or not.
Considering the judiciary’s view through a few judgments and the government’s undue inclinations towards women’s rights, I see their scale also favoring the views expressed in the article. It appears that the general perception is that women’s rights and human rights are the same thing and almost always interchangeable, and anything that is against women’s rights is necessarily against human rights as well.
I wonder how it makes sense! How can one even equate women's all gender-based rights to human rights?
Say, for instance, we are in the old times of princely states and a question is asked whether men's rights are human rights? The answer would've been "Yes". Next, if it's asked if enslaving someone is a man's right, again the answer would've been "Yes". Remember, in those times, not only rulers used to enslave even the enemy's family after defeating them, but also rich and wealthy people had the right to own slaves. Therefore, with feminist logic, slavery is a human right. Correct?
Next, let's assume, we are in the pre-independence era when Hindu Code Bill wasn't passed and a question is asked whether men's rights are human rights? The answer would've been "Yes". Next, if it's asked if having over one wife is a man's right, again the answer would've been "Yes". Therefore, with feminist logic, bigamy is a human right for Hindus. Correct? If someone doesn't agree, he is confused and double-minded?
Leftists and feminists master the art of putting forward even the most illogical points galvanized as a matter of human rights and liberty. For me, gender-based rights and human rights are two entirely different things and these rights as defined by societies in prevailing circumstances at some point in time in the past weren’t necessarily always the same.
Human rights are intrinsic and inalienable rights that range from the most fundamental - the right to life - to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty; and are given to all of us by God at the time of us coming in existence.
When, by virtue of being inalienable, human rights cannot be taken away, transferred, or denied to any person, how can the 'right to abortion' that ends the life of an unborn is a human right?
When, both slavery and bigamy, once human rights, granted not by God but by state, are no more rights as both violated the human rights of some others, how can the 'right to abortion', denying life to an unborn be a human right?
The defense and right to life of an unborn, who is not at fault for his existence, should be inalienable for justice and must be accepted over someone's 'right to abortion'.