Two of the most popular "trending" topics (admittedly, mostly on my facebook feed) are the current status regarding "women's rights" (I'll explain the quotations later,) and Donald Trump. I would say President Trump, however, part of the controversy deals with whether or not he is, in fact, your president.

I am not discussing the march. I am not discussing how right or wrong it was to participate in the march. And I am certainly not discussing who should and should not have been allowed to sponsor or participate in said march. Just so we are clear. This is not about the march.

This is going to be an observation of definitions and how they translate to action in order to spark the desire for discussion and for women everywhere to critically think about the impact that their beliefs (either good or bad) will have on this world. Strap in folks, this is going to be a long (but necessary) one.

Trump has sparked quite the controversy concerning many areas under the category we know as women's rights. He preaches a message of change. Something that he actually has in common with the feminists who crowded the streets last week. The only difference being they type of change both parties wish to bring to fruition. Which brings me to my first definition. What is the definition of women's rights? According to dictionary.com, women's rights is defined as, "rights that promote a position of legal and social equality of women with men." In a lot of ways, I agree with this. I believe men need women, just as women need men. Where there is a mutual need, then one is not more important or better than the other. We see this parallel quite a bit in many aspects of life. In fact, life is worthless without death. Living forever diminishes the need to survive, which in turn removes any purpose that life is supposed to have. Life without purpose is no life at all. A light cannot shine unless it is in darkness. Darkness ceases to be darkness without the possibility or existence of light to pierce it; it becomes nothing; nothing cannot be something, and darkness is something; therefore, light keeps darkness from nothingness and vice versa. Right and wrong no longer hold power if one is stripped of the other.

So, yes, I agree that women should have the same rights as men. This belief of equality poses another question. At what point do we draw the line between human rights and women's rights? In order to answer this question, we must observe both the definition of women's rights and the definition of human rights together. The definition of human rights is as follows:

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

There are a number of human rights, which you can find here, but today I am going to look at the basic right to life, liberty, and personal security, but more specifically, the right to life. I think it is agreed upon by the vast majority that every person should have these three basic rights. I believe "life" is listed first because you cannot have liberty or personal security if you are failing to be alive. This is the part where human rights and women's rights starts to get a wee bit hairy. If you google the definition of the right to life, the first definition that pops up is, "another term for pro-life." The Free Dictionary defines the right to life simply as the right to live.

Women's rights include, though are not limited to, the right: to bodily integrity and autonomy; to be free from sexual violence; to vote; to hold public office; to enter into legal contracts; to have equal rights in family law; to work; to fair wages or equal pay; to have reproductive rights; to own property; to education.

All of these rights seem absolutely fair and reasonable, up until we hit reproductive rights. Let's take a look at the definition of reproductive rights. The World Health Organization defines reproductive rights as follows:

Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.

A list of reproductive rights include: the right to legal and safe abortion; the right to birth control; freedom from coerced sterilization and contraception; the right to access good-quality reproductive healthcare; and the right to education and access in order to make free and informed reproductive choices; the right to receive education about sexually transmitted infections and other aspects of sexuality, and protection from practices such as female genital mutilation.

Now that we have most of the first wave of pesky definitions out of the way, let's talk about how these all work together, or more realistically, how the rights of women and the rights of humans pit women against humans. Automatically, women's rights discriminate against the right to life based on the size and stage of a baby. If we were to go through this logically, which is how you determine critical thinking and reasoning from idiocy, you should automatically see the contradiction between the basic human right to life and the woman's reproductive right to an abortion. An abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. a human or human being is a person as distinguished from an animal. Now, we all know that humans do not become pregnant with anything other than humans. So the argument that human embryo's are not to be regarded as such should have been laughed at the second it was proposed. But instead, we once again sought the interest of ourselves over the lives of others and accepted that proposal with open arms, simply to justify the murder of children that we just can't be bothered with.

On the other hand, we have the issue of abortions for women who have been victims of sexual violence. The pregnancies resulting from this are clearly not intentional and the woman may not be in a position to raise a child by herself. This seems like a completely fair reason to consider an abortion. However, do the circumstances of the pregnancy justify taking the life of an unborn baby? Furthermore, are there any acceptable circumstances that would justify going so far as to keep a life from having the opportunity to actually live? These are hard questions, and ones that each individual has to think long and hard about in order to come to a conclusion. No matter the reasoning for each decision to abort a baby, it should always be taken into consideration whether or not you believe your "rights" are more important than basic human rights. I put quotation marks around "rights" because the term is up for debate, seeing as it directly conflicts with the right to life for all humans, babies included; thus creating the war between women and humans.

Let's discuss the woman and her uterus. "My uterus, my rules." I have so much I could say about this phrase. For starters, no one has control over the fact that they came into existence in the first place. Therefore, since no one decided that they themselves should be conceived or born, no mere human being has the authority to grant or deny the chance of life to other persons, regardless of the circumstance. Secondly, the women who are unable to conceive have the same uterus as every other woman, but they weren't even given an option when it came to the "rules" of their uterus. Just as fertile women did not decide to be fertile, barren women did not decide to be barren. Logically, it is not possible for the woman to be able to set the rules regarding her uterus, solely for the fact that the job of the uterus is to carry life. Not your life, someone else's life. Referring to a baby as an "embryo", as in not yet a human, is not logically sound since the end result of a full grown embryo is ALWAYS life. Therefore, embryo is equivalent to baby.

Logically, how do we explain considering the seed of a plant as still being a plant, even though it has yet to become a plant? The definition of seed is, "an embryonic plant enclosed in a protective outer covering." How is it that we consider a seed to be a plant at it's embryonic stage, but we fail to consider babies as human life when they are an embryo? Do we regard things that are soulless to be of more value than the life and soul of a baby. This I will truly never understand. Perhaps the question we should ask ourselves is at what point does the soul come into existence? Do pro-choicer's even believe in the existence of the soul? The only thing that could cause someone to believe that babies are less than a plant seed is pure blindness stemming from selfish pursuits. If you disagree with this, please examine your reasoning for your beliefs and truly be honest with yourself about your "why."

Women's rights vs. Human rights. Women vs. Humans. Trump has advocated for the right of life to be lived, void of prejudgments regarding the possible quality or lack of quality that said life might have to offer. Who are we to decide that someone shouldn't live because they might not live a perfect life? Great people come from terrible situations. Perfect situations breed lack of humility; pride breeds lack of compassion; lack of compassion breeds unjust judgement of others, usually based on surface level observations. This vicious cycle creates a society of ME. A society that revolves around "me" is dysfunctional and breeds destruction. We currently live in this type of society, and it breaks my heart. What's worse, we live in this society, while at the same time claim to care for others. Those claims are the lowest form of hypocrisy and lies that I can think of.

Feminism: The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

If feminism has no room for pro-life views, then I want no part of it. If feminism goes directly against the right to life, then I want no part of it. There is no "us" in feminism, only "I", and I want no part of that. Feminism is lonely, exclusive, and it silences under the guise of empowerment. And I want no part of it.

Women. Be strong, courageous and fearless in life. There should be nothing holding you back from being the absolute best you can be. No man, no unwanted child, no self destructive thoughts control your life. Advocating for your right to live how you want over the right of other humans to live is not the best you can be. I would argue that we are at our worst the moment we quit fighting for life. Pro-life is not anti-women, pro-choice is anti-life, which in turn is anti-women. Pro-life is pro-women. So fight for life, live life with genuine love of others, even when they disagree to the ends of the earth. The lie that having control is female empowerment is a poison. Challenge each other for the sake of lifting up, not putting down. Value others, especially the helpless, above yourselves. Be a positive addition in this world. Teach your children, wanted and unwanted, to be positive lights, unstained by the world. You never know what impact you could have. Make it a great one.

Turn "women vs. humans" into "women for humans."

"If abortion is merely about women's rights, then what were mine?"Gianna Jessen, abortion survivor

"When we consider that women are treated as property it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Elizabeth Cady Stanton

"Abortion is inherently different from other procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life." Potter Stewart

With love, sincerity, and a passion for the voiceless,

Winter