Pro-life bloggers mark 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade
posted at 3:02 pm on January 22, 2007 by Allahpundit
This isn’t my issue, and even if it were, I lack the absolute moral authority to opine on it that comes with being possessed of female genitals. Fortunately, E.M. does not share my affliction. You’ll want to read all of this one, filled as it is with delicious snark about the Patriarchy and her formal declaration, delivered in the unmistakably “rational yet shrill” Zanotti voice, that this is now and should henceforth ever be known as … Blog Against Choice Day.
If conservatives had come up with the concept of abortion, it would be liberals who would be protesting it as necessarily racist, sexist, size-ist, discriminatory. Its statistics certainly bely its terrible roots–60% of women who have abortions are minorities. 60% of all abortions then, are likely minorities. Conventional wisdom would say that liberals have more abortions than conservatives. Liberals, then are being destroyed at a rate much higher than conservatives. One in four children conceived since 1973 has perished in an abortion–25%. If 25% of children were dying in any given third world country, Angelina Jolie would be crying on the steps of the UN and George Clooney would be begging for intervention. If 25% of any given generation were meeting its fate at the blade of a knife, they would be making documentaries, signing petitions and supporting passage of needless Congressional bills to save them. But because our society views abortion as a convenience and not as a destructive force, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Diane Fienstein, among others, feel confident that they are not in complete contradiction for touting their own uteri as magical decision-making devices, and yet supporting the near-remorseless disappearance of perhaps 25% of the next generation of women, maybe more, since generally, 1% more girl babies are born than boy babies.
It seems that we are only adding to our own destruction by supporting abortion. Freedom of choice is exercised in many other ways. We choose whether or not to listen to those sex education classes and use the appropriate form of effective birth control. We choose whom we want to have sexual relationships with. We choose whether to have sexual relationships in the first place, and we have plenty of choices both before and after the fact that would prevent an “unplanned pregnancy” all choices of which are entirely accessible without a prescription and often, if you play your cards and decisions right, without costs. We have plenty of choices when it comes to our decisions as women to get pregnant, ending the life of another human being does not necessarily have to be one of them, and its not even the best choice in the field of choices.
That is why we, today, aren’t interested in blogging for Choice. We’re interested in making sure no one has to ever make the “choice” again, both because the choice isn’t really a choice at all, and that choice isn’t really beneficial to the society in which we live.
If that red meat didn’t fill you up, Vent alumnas Mary K and LaShawn Barber (who has a post up entitled “Baby Killing as a Civil Right”) will be participating in a Blogs for Life panel discussion at 3:35 ET. You can watch live over the web.
Update: Texas Rainmaker has a “grim milestone” assessment you won’t ever see from the AP.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I’ve got a problem with that line of thinking… did it not take a man to get a woman pregnant? It’s not just “female genitals”, it’s something that was created with the genitals of both male and female. Why is it that people have no problem with men being forced to pay child support for a baby they may not have wanted to keep, yet the man has ABSOLUTELY NO SAY on whether a woman keeps a baby (yes, there have been cases of women aborting babies, against the will of the father).
This “my body” womens’ rights line is crap… it’s not “your body”… it’s a body, living inside of yours.
RightWinged on January 22, 2007 at 3:16 PM
The article is red hot. It summarizes the whole concept in one sentence. I blame science in the first place for not clarifying the reproduction process. I can’t show the source, but I read it from some scientific magazine. A blastocyst even show signs of consciousness. They discovered some nerve cells that has to do with consciousness. At that level, I was defintely amazed. first Trisemester period and crap does not matter to me. Scientists need to clarify the reproduction process before it falls into the hands of ideologists adding opinion, instead of verified facts.
Ouabam on January 22, 2007 at 3:19 PM
http://www.lashawnbarber.com/
LaShawn has a deliciously red selection of meat on her blog today. I’m talking they just knocked the horns of the cow red. The best is the founder of Planned Parenthood being a eugenist and targeting blacks for population control.
Theworldisnotenough on January 22, 2007 at 3:29 PM
How about a new red meat pic?
Valiant on January 22, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Pah. That meat’s practically well-done.
Slublog on January 22, 2007 at 3:37 PM
LaShawn mistakingly used gasoline intead of kerosine. She set that blog on fire while disecting the meat. That article is a must read.
Ouabam on January 22, 2007 at 3:40 PM
I do as well (though not with Allah personally). It always feels like men are too afraid of this issue and always dismiss it with a “I can’t get pregnant”.
If that were the point of the Pro-life movement, then there may be a case here. But it’s not. The point is that these abortions are killing human beings. If someone can support or not support capital punishment without being sentenced to death row, can’t a man support or not support abortion without having a uterus?
And again, really, it’s his child too. It’s bad enough that men don’t have a say when his child’s life is on the line. It’s even worse that men think they need to stay out of the general debate altogether.
As a woman, I am sick of this being a debate about a woman’s body.
What, are conjoined twins allowed to sacrifice the other twin just so they can have a normal life? Why are pregnant women exempt from rules given to everyone else in the world?
Esthier on January 22, 2007 at 3:41 PM
as a man I’m sick of it being about trampling a father’s right to his child. I don’t suffer from that “too afraid of the issue” disease you talk about.
It makes me livid women some feminazi goes off about how it’s “her body”, and I say “it’s my child, and if someone murders my child there’ll be hell to pay”.
I have two kids. I would have had three. The first was actually a tubla preganancy that nearly killed my recent ex. I felt what it did to me, and watched helplessly what it did to her.
My child died that night. That couldn’t be helped. Abortion for the sake of preserving one’s “good time” is in my estimation genocide for the sake of convenience.
It makes us damn near worse than the nazis.
One Angry Christian on January 22, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Along with the others, I’m surprised you’re taking this position AP. To say you don’t spend time blogging about an issue because of time/other pressing concerns is one thing, but to use the tired old feminazi excuse of not having a say in the matter because of your sex?
And OAC, you’re perfectly correct that this should also take into account fathers’ rights. I’ve argued with feminists many times that abortion isn’t fair to the father… the woman gets to decide the life or death of a child, but once she makes the decision, the father has to deal with the consequences… this is fair?
When I was 18, my g/f surprised me with the news that I was going to be a daddy. She wanted to get an abortion, but I begged her to carry to full term and let me adopt him; we eventually got married and had the child, but it would’ve been heartbreaking to know that my child, even an unplanned one, was murdered.
dalewalt on January 22, 2007 at 4:15 PM
It all boils down to one simple question;
How many fetuses/zygotes,(whatever you wanna call them), would have developed into dogs, cats, mice, elephants, or gooney-birds?
Limerick on January 22, 2007 at 4:19 PM
This represents my view, almost exactly, regarding the issue of “choice.” Women, and men, can and do make dozens of choices regarding relationships and sexual activity. A pregnancy (or lack of pregnancy) is the consequence of those choices. At that point, the game is over. There are no more choices. Time to deal with reality and accept responsibility for one’s choices. Of course, abortion supporters have trouble with the concept of “responsibility.”
Mallard T. Drake on January 22, 2007 at 4:23 PM
OAC, I’m sorry for your loss. I can’t even begin to imagine, nor do I understand why anyone would choose the same experience for themselves when they could carry their child to term.
It is sad that this movement leaves thoughts like yours out of the debate simply because of your reproductive organs.
Esthier on January 22, 2007 at 4:31 PM
And yet legally, you had no authority in the matter. She could have forced you to pay child support, but you could not have forced her to do anything.
It’s nice to know that you were successful though in convincing her to change her mind. I hope the two of you cherish the child you kept. I’ve known several people who made the opposite decision and have regretted it ever since.
Esthier on January 22, 2007 at 4:37 PM
You’re right, Esthier, and that’s not fair. I’m not sure what the answer is; because (assuming abortion stays legal) the father trying to force the mother to have the baby isn’t fair either. (The only fair solution to all concerned is to make abortions illegal).
Yeah, though he’s given me quite a few headaches in the past 25 years, I wouldn’t have made any other decision.
dalewalt on January 22, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Oh you’re right in one aspect about that, but there’s more to it than that. They leave me out because I’m a “religious zealot”, and “religion has no place in politics”. Therefore my opinion is moot and my views are glazed over as “extremist” when there are millions out there that agree with me.
You see, I’m not pro life in the extreme. When the Mother’s life is in physical danger it should be up to the mother. I believe in a functional policy that would and should keep mothers alive and protect their bodies while holding people who are sexually active accountable.
Just because you go screwing around and get prego doesn’t give you the right to remove another persons life.
Sometimes … those kids survive the abortions (plural for the many attempts on some of their lives), and you realize that the only people opting for this BS freedom of “choice” are those who were never subjected to the business end of that choice.
Selfish bastards … the lot of them.
The sad thing is though that many people don’t realize until years later how terribly their choice effected them. Many women and men suffer from emotional distress due to losing a child to abortion.
They wonder, would I have a son or daughter? What Color would their hair be? Ten years later they wonder “would they have liked sports? What would their favorite movie be right now? Twenty years later they wonder “what would their major in college be right now?”
and it goes on and on.
I call myself a father of two, but really I’m a father of three. I’ll just never see my third grow up.
Here’s a little something to think about when the libtards tell you that you arent compassionate or caring because you support the war in Iraq.
Tell them to stick it where the sun don’t shine.
One Angry Christian on January 22, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Don’t take this personally, AP, but that is a spineless cop-out that I hear from Liberals.
.
GT on January 22, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Interesting opinions from everyone. If I can find the article I’ll post the link later but in townhall.com or realclearpolitics.com there was a long article about abortion close to a year or so back. The gist of it was that had abortion been pushed back to the states for the voters to make the call on it would have taken one of the most contentious issues of our time out of the political arena and left dems and repubs with wars and money to argue about instead of morals.
My personal opinion on the issue is just that – personal. My take on how it should be handled? Overturn Roe V Wade and push it back to the states for a vote. Not everyone may like that approach as it is reasonable to expect that some states may very well vote to allow all types of abortion. But our government needs to stay out of the moral issues as much as possible. Inevitably it will over or under reach in these matters.
We sometimes forget that when voters go into that voting booth by themself to vote on weighty ethical/moral questions, it is just them and their conscience at that point – gut check time to be sure.
Bradky on January 22, 2007 at 5:25 PM
My problem with this is that the “health of the mother” is overly broad.
Is there any actual life-threatening circumstance that necessitates this taking place?
I’m not a doctor so its a serious question.
jman on January 22, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Allah…This isn’t your issue? It most certainly is…it’s ALL of our issue…any one of us could have had our lives snuffed out purely on the decision of one person.
And that’s wrong.
For a long time, people have been arguing where to draw the line at where they believe a fetus is a human life. We ALL go through the same stages of life from the instant that sperm hits the egg…and the chromosomes start doing that little square dance and begin splitting…
If there’s a line to be drawn, it must begin at conception. When women talk about “My body, my choice” they are so wrong. Yes, their body is involved…and so is another.
And as inconceiveable as it sounds…there is a way to prevent pregnancy with a 100% effective rate…don’t “let the plane in the hangar”.
Of course, there are certain cases…rape, incest, and the possible threat to life of the mother…when abortion may be necessary. But abortion on demand is murder…it is a willful termination of human life.
And it’s our national shame.
JetBoy on January 22, 2007 at 5:40 PM
For good or bad, most laws are legislating morality – just a matter of who’s morality.
Obviously some of them such as murder and stealing seem to be universal, others are not.
jman on January 22, 2007 at 5:41 PM
It’s not simply a “moral” issue… It’s a science issue. Abortion is killing, plain and simple.
RightWinged on January 22, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Bradky, this article refers to several others, but covers the topic, as you mentioned…
Entelechy on January 22, 2007 at 6:06 PM
That is your opinion. For the same reason one shouldn’t try to use science to argue that there is not a god, one should not use it as the sole basis for the abortion argument. I could use the “well, abortion is not specifically mentioned in the bible” and evoke a blistering reply from you but won’t use that as my point.
But be that as it may it is a moral issue. The question is “Do you think that voters should have the final say on whatever variation of abortion is acceptable, if at all?”
It comes down to a matter of faith of both sides – if the pro-choice advocates really believe a majority of voters will vote for unfettered abortion rights or the pro-life advocates believe a majority of voters feel life begins at conception and must be protected, then neither group should be afraid of a vote.
The reality falls somewhere between the two sides. What if a mother’s life is in danger, as in the example of the tubal ligation? That is where the moral aspect comes in and needs to be defined by the voters. What are they comfortable with?
But in my opinion the extreme elements of both sides have done much harm in keeping it from being debated as a real issue. I’m not knocking their sincerity, but the tactics turn off that 60% moderate I always mention. Showing a picture of dead fetuses is just as tacky as someone deadpanning that until the moment of birth the baby is not “really” human.
Bradky on January 22, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Sorry Jman, got the quotes messed up again -
“And these behaviors have been around as long as there have been humans. Abortion was not technologically feasible on the scale we see now until the last 50 years or so. Ditto the cloning, stem cell research, etc. Better to responsibly debate the issues and let the voters decide now rather than later.”
was meant to be a reply to your post at 5:41
Bradky on January 22, 2007 at 6:24 PM
RW, I actually wrote a paper on “Men’s Abortion Rights” in law school. In it, I argued some of the same points you raised.
TexasRainmaker on January 22, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Entelechy – thanks for finding that – there may be one other, will see if I can find it “googlemaster he is young jedi!” j/k
Bradky on January 22, 2007 at 6:29 PM
for those interested – these were the ones I had seen
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ArmstrongWilliams/2002/06/19/roe_v_wade_revisited
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=after_roe_v_wade,_then_what&ns=LarryElder&dt=08/18/2005&page=2
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MaggieGallagher/2006/01/24/looking_ahead_to_a_post-roe_world
Bradky on January 22, 2007 at 6:46 PM
It is possible to attack Roe as a hatchet job on the Constitution and a monument to judicial legislation without passing on the question of choice. Although I understand E.M. is attacking choice itself and not the case that made it a fundamental right.
But still, I do have to wonder just why guys like you, A.P., and Taranto always feel the need to preface any discussion of abortion on your site by stating that you support the right to choose.
I mean, I do as well, but it’s not like lefties are gonna fall to their knees to kiss your ass. As far as most of them are concerned, if you stray one bit from their agenda, you’re a warmongering c***-swinging Bible-thumper.
Mark V. on January 22, 2007 at 6:47 PM
This is actually the point I was making. Thank you for solidifying it.
jman on January 22, 2007 at 7:13 PM
I,too, am tired of abortion being framed as a “women’s issue”. Believe me, I know plenty of lesbians that would love to be able to reproduce without a man/penis involved, but that day is not yet here. Until that time, both participants should have equal rights to the child in the womb if both participants want equal rights. I can hear the shrill screaming already from Planned “Parenthood”, but who cares? Not I!
SouthernGent on January 22, 2007 at 7:19 PM
I’ve always been perplexed by the so-called Pro-choice arguments. On the one hand they claim they are all about choice and on the other get livid when a woman is talked out of an abortion. Doesn’t sound like choice to me. Keep it legal but rare. I can think of no other law where that argument is made to keep that law in place. It’s the woman’s body so she should have the right to make the choice. Some of these same people then say that Playboy magazine and others like that(Miss America Pagent among others)are exploiting women even though women themselves made the choice to do these things. I can’t think of one legitimate argument for continuing the practice. Abortion, like liberalism itself, has become the left’s religion..and now they all bow at the altar of the DNC……..
ritethinker on January 22, 2007 at 7:21 PM
I suspect there is a lot of $$$$$ involved. Abortion is a money making business and the pro-life movement steals their customers.
jman on January 22, 2007 at 7:25 PM
I just saw the Planned Parenthood name and I’m always reminded of a funny Carlin line. If you guys want to have some fun sometime walk into a Planned Parenthood office and say “hey, which one of you bitc#es wants to come home with me and cook me dinner and give me a blow@ob”…..
With all apologies to the ladies on the list…..
ritethinker on January 22, 2007 at 7:25 PM
I don’t support the right to choose. I support the right of states to determine whether they want abortion in their state or not, and what restrictions they would like. I don’t support the judiciary usurping those fundamental rights in order to throw a bone to liberals whose ideology isn’t prevailing in the legislature. Theres a lot thats wrong with the idea of a “right to choose” the least of which is that, in order to have any “right” you have to believe in those “natural rights” which proceed from the human condition; rights which don’t exist in a morally relativistic brand of logic such as that of the liberals who support unfettered rights of access to abortion itself. Roe is crap, but its crap that came from somewhere. The idea of substantive due process emerged in Griswold, mutated in Eisenstadt, and it was only most used most publicly and with the most incredible results in Roe. The whole line of legal reasoning is wrong, but its not really about the legal reasoning. If the entire judicial system does a 180 tomorrow, it may change the law, but it won’t change society.
Liberals aren’t going to kiss my ass. Far from. I don’t want their nasty germs, and I sure as hell don’t want them believing that I in any way support their cause. There are far more considerations, however, than just “I am pro-life” vs. “I am pro-choice.” There are reasons for every decision, and a real need for solutions to problems that currently abortion is touted as a solution for. Repealing Roe isn’t going to suddenly destroy the presence of abortion in our society. We have a lot of work to do before that happens, if it ever does.
Allah, you do have a stake in this. Knowing that there are men out there that are pro-life is a comfort to a lot of women in this day and age where men are generally happy with the idea that they can get free sex from slutty Womens Studies major female chauvinist pigs; if men out there exhibited some interest in the family as a fundamental unit of society, and of preserving that family for the good of, if nothing else, Federalism, we might be a little better off.
E. M. on January 22, 2007 at 7:26 PM
True, but neither is any specific method of murder. However, may I raise one eyebrow and refer you to the 6th commandment?
I’m curious to know if the degree of murder ( 1st, 2nd, manslaughter)was ever put up to voter decision? It is not a matter of putting my faith in voters when the decision about murder is on the line.
I’m not sure what a “moderate” voice about the murder of an unborn child is. I used to also think that the tactics of pro-lifers were extreme, but then realized that it was pretty selfish of me to be “turned off” by tactics at the expense of the voice of the unborn.
Again, I realized that this issue was not about my comfort level when an unborn’s life was in the line. In fact, it might have been benefitial to have been exposed to images of the reality of abortion. The other example of “the baby is not ‘really’ human,” is the denial of the reality.
geckomon on January 22, 2007 at 7:32 PM
abortion is a money making racket that is propped up by the ideology of margaret sanger, a racist, socialist, eugenicist kook, who saw and used abortion as a way ‘filter’ the undesirables from society… she and her ideological ilk are part of the overall root that springs forth their subtle shade of evil…
Asmodeus on January 22, 2007 at 7:47 PM
I also believe abortion is like murder, however, I am struggling with the following argument:
If a capital punishment is applied to a person who commits murder, wouldn’t it also have to be applied to a person who commits abortion if this is truly murder?
To be clear: I am NOT advocating this.
One more time: I am NOT advocating this
Which brings me to my logical problem – if the abortion really is the same as murder, why can we not say the punishment should also be the same?
Is it that we value the unborn baby any less in our heart of hearts? I would hate to think so, but I can not think of any other explanation.
Any solution to this (other than capping abortion doctors in the head) is appreciated
jman on January 22, 2007 at 7:51 PM
No. Society gives government the authority. It does not give it to the individual.
If society were to be consistent, yes.
Because society is rarely consistent.
Solution: Changing the heart and mind of society one person at a time.
.
GT on January 22, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Ooops…please ignore the first paragraph.
.
GT on January 22, 2007 at 7:59 PM
No matter what we call it – it (abortion) is murder and agaisnt God. We have allowed more innocent human beings to be murdered in America through this “procedure” than were killed in Nazi Extermination Camps during WW II.
For this, Hitler would have been proud of Modern America.
Emmett J. on January 22, 2007 at 8:01 PM
I stopped ready your post after the part I put in bold because you used the liberal “don’t push your religion on me” tactic, despite me not saying anything about religion. And I’m not accusing you of being a liberal (I’m not sure who you are), but you used an annoying liberal tactic. It comes up any time I argue against gay marriage.
Cool, I’ll check that out later, thanks.
I assume you may have been saying it jokingly, but if you were serious, please explain what you mean by “yet”?
RightWinged on January 22, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Well, I’m not really all that pro-life. I’m pro-choice up to the earlier of the point that the embryo is conscious or can feel pain. Which, admittedly, comes pretty early on during gestation, but still — this is not an issue I’m passionate about.
Allahpundit on January 22, 2007 at 8:15 PM
The confusion may lie in the misconception that supporters of pro-life automatically are pro-capital punishment, something I am not a proponent of.
Your struggle may reveal your observation of a hypocrisy in those who are pro-life, yet support capital punishment.
Barring capital punishment, yes, the punishments should be the same, to be determined case by case.
geckomon on January 22, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Yes, that’s exactly it. Early in the pregnancy, the fetus does not have much in the way of a nervous system, and is not conscious. So, there’s less there to sympathize with.
That’s how I see it, at least. Unlike the pro-choicers, I don’t shrug my shoulders and claim that abortion is morally OK. But I also feel like calling an early-term abortion “murder” is too much (and is hurting the pro-life movement).
sandberg on January 22, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Because legally the crime of “murder” is based not only on the fact that somebody was killed, but on the killer’s intention. If I accidentally run somebody over in my car, I have killed somebody, but I’m not a murderer.
Almost no woman getting an abortion is in it for the baby murdering. She just wants to avoid a pregnancy. We all know she doesn’t think of it as murdering a baby.
This is why I find pro-lifers’ use of the word “murder” so distasteful, despite the fact that I agree that people should not have abortions. It’s demonizing people, rather than convincing them.
sandberg on January 22, 2007 at 8:38 PM
… um, a few questions.
–So a murder is only murder if it is intentional, are you then insinuating that performed abortions are ‘accidental?’
–Would you feel better if the word ‘manslaughter’ were used? Does the life of an unborn teter on semantics?
–Are we so worried about demonizing a person who aborts a baby that we rationalize abortion until less harsh language can be created?
I think you just pointed out something that should be considered. The fact that she doesn’t realize it’s murder (ahem . . . manslaughter).
geckomon on January 22, 2007 at 8:55 PM
I’m wondering what difference it makes to the BABY what we call it. “That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Killing, murder, manslaughter, procedure, abortion, choice. What’s the difference? The baby is just as dead.
Let’s get off the semantic high horse. It IS murder, duh, but it’s so common and so convenient that our culture accepts it. Why do we punish the children for the sins of their parent(s)? I thought we gave that up along with the dark ages?
The feelings of a mother who has her baby killed are of no concern to me. The life of the baby, however, is a concern to me. Human life is more important than how you feel.
Mojave Mark on January 22, 2007 at 9:02 PM
The pro-life view is the minority opinion in this country. Apparently, you prefer to keep it that way.
sandberg on January 22, 2007 at 9:12 PM
The young women who are getting abortions are getting their concept of right and wrong from society, and most of society tells them that abortion is not only OK, but is expected.
You expect young women in a tough situation to be better moral philosophers than the majority of the country? That’s not realistic.
It’s society in general which is to blame for abortion. The girls getting abortions are victims, too.
sandberg on January 22, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Just a couple of musings:
The Declaration of Independence recognizes that the Creator, not the government, endows us with the Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
The government is supposed to protect life and warns that when it becomes destructive of these ends, the people have the right to overthrow the government. Jefferson wrote this in the 18th century because the colonies were being deprived of the Rights to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
However, relying on Locke, Jefferson recognized that the right to pursue happiness is contingent upon the right to liberty. Ultimately, liberty and all other rights are based on the Right to Life. Without a Right to Life, everything else is meaningless and their ordering in the Declaration was not coincidental.
If you don’t think abortion is your problem, you’re obviously lucky enough not to have your life snuffed out without due process. However, if they can take away your neighbors’ Right to Life, you have no rights. You’re living off the good graces of the oligarchy.
cmay on January 22, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Right Winged said
Which means you are not interested in dialogue – just forcing your opinion on others? Too bad you didn’t take the time to read the rest.
Bradky on January 22, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Regards GeckoMom post at 7:32
Understand your sentiments and I think your position on the issue. But at some point you will need to decide whether attaching the passion and emotion to it are really obtaining the results you are looking for. Change is a process, particularly in this country. Like it or not it is the system we have and seems to work pretty well.
The fact is that the electorate has not been given the opportunity to choose. I understand the comparison to murder but 10000 years of human history have borne out murder is wrong in any society – abortion in the present state is a new thing.
I don’t think you have any facts to back up this assertion.
Bradky on January 22, 2007 at 10:32 PM
The way I see it its pro-life versus pro-selfishness. In my country abortion is still 100% illegal (thank God). As for choice, either choose to sleep with someone or don’t. If you concieve a child then take responsibility for your actions. In Christianity sex is an expression of love between and woman and a means of reproduction, not just something you so on weekends.
aengus on January 22, 2007 at 10:38 PM
So was the idea of rebelling against King George III and forming a new nation. Funny how that worked out.
.
GT on January 22, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Excuse me Bradky?
Let’s review… despite me saying NOTHING ABOUT RELIGION you said:
In shock (well not really, because I’m beginning to assume you’re a liberal, because as I said, it’s liberals who respond like that when they have no argument). Here it is again:
And you have the nuts to come back and say:
?
Are you f-ing kidding me?!
Not that it was necessary to read the rest of the original comment, because the point was your liberal mind on this issue forced you to create me as some religious nut in your mind, despite the fact I made no comments about religion… but I did go back and read your comment now just to further make an ass out of you. No where in your comment do you rectify your statement about the Bible and my position, which was tantamount to a flat out lie… so why should I have (as I now have) read your entire comment? It doesn’t change ANYTHING.
Let me make it even more clear… not that I agree with what you’re saying at all, but even if you ended the debate with those few extra paragraphs, it would still not clear you for having basically lied about my position.
Thanks for playing. So don’t be condescending to me, telling me that I oppose abortion for religious reasons without an basis for that comment, then when I bust you for it, tell ME that I’m the one not interested in dialogue, just trying to force my opinions on people. Why have a dialogue with someone who does this?
(By the way, I’ll drop it as soon as you admit that you jumped the gun, because for whatever reason you can’t recognize that people oppose abortion for reasons other than Christianity, and by jumping that gun you move in to the emotional/liberal type realm instead of just dealing with facts and why would I waste my time on you after you did that?)
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 12:04 AM
And to clarify one more time Bradky, I don’t know if you’re a lib or anything about you… for all I know, you’re a reasonably person most of the time… But I’m just sick of people bringing religion in to a debate to accuse others of using it as their basis for their position. It’s a weak tactic played out by liberals too many times, and it’s just beyond obnoxious. If you “misspoke”, I’d be willing to accept that, but you’ve so far been defiant in admitting that your comment was baseless.
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Accept in the many instances of court innovation.
For example, separation of church and state, abortion, disarming citizens, … These are all recent innovations of the courts.
AZ_Redneck on January 23, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Rightwinged,
Rest of the post in FULL context
But be that as it may it is a moral issue. The question is “Do you think that voters should have the final say on whatever variation of abortion is acceptable, if at all?”
It comes down to a matter of faith of both sides – if the pro-choice advocates really believe a majority of voters will vote for unfettered abortion rights or the pro-life advocates believe a majority of voters feel life begins at conception and must be protected, then neither group should be afraid of a vote.
The reality falls somewhere between the two sides. What if a mother’s life is in danger, as in the example of the tubal ligation? That is where the moral aspect comes in and needs to be defined by the voters. What are they comfortable with?
But in my opinion the extreme elements of both sides have done much harm in keeping it from being debated as a real issue. I’m not knocking their sincerity, but the tactics turn off that 60% moderate I always mention. Showing a picture of dead fetuses is just as tacky as someone deadpanning that until the moment of birth the baby is not “really” human.
Bradky on January 22, 2007 at 6:22 PM
The visceral reaction you frothed at the mouth with in your 12:04 a.m. post just proves my point. I said that I could use a comment such as that to elicit a blistering remark — you blistered away even though I said it was an example. If you read the entire explanation you will see that I don’t care for extremes on either side. Nowhere did I say you were an extremist, religious fanatic, etc.
I didn’t misspkeak – you took it out of context, felt you had a reason to “be offended” when you couldn’t even read everything written. Had you been rational you would have made the connection between the first paragraph and subsequent paragraphs. You were looking for a reason to be offended and this seemed like the easy button for you. – Congrats you are a victim – here’s your sign…. geez
Bradky on January 23, 2007 at 12:58 AM
…speaking as a former fetus…
It all comes down to whether or not human life has value. If it does, then it must be protected. The value of human life trumps any other arguement that could possibly be made. The fact that the 9 little emperors think differently is irrelevant to the (ala Schaeffer) true truthfulness of human worth. The gang of 9 also thought that slavery & segregation were just fine too.
In my own life I went round and round with this until I just gave in to the simple truth that human life has value and every other consideration must be subjugated to that fact.
Mojave Mark on January 23, 2007 at 1:06 AM
And those were changed through due process and using the system we have in place. The same could happen for abortion – asking the politicians at the federal level is not the right approach — no one really feels any stake in it unless they actually have to cast their vote of conscience. My opinion.
Bradky on January 23, 2007 at 1:09 AM
“Almost no woman getting an abortion is in it for the baby murdering. She just wants to avoid a pregnancy. We all know she doesn’t think of it as murdering a baby.” — sandberg
The woman who presents her body so that her baby can be ripped apart, dismembered, and sucked out via a hose by an abortionist is already pregnant, otherwise she would not be in an abortionist’s lair, submitting herself to medical rape and abuse of her body, and submitting her baby for slaughter.
The women is not avoiding pregnancy, she is already pregnant. What she is doing is terminating her pregnancy, or, rather, hiring someone else to terminate her pregnancy.
In terminating her pregnancy her living baby is killed, the baby’s life is snuffed out, forever.
For what reason?
Here are a few of the major reasons that women and their babies are subjected to the abuse of abortion-child dismemberment:
1) Coercion – a large number of women and teenaged girls, are coerced into the abortuary because their husbands, boy friends, employers, uncle or other statutory rapist, or even their own parents, forced, threatened, and cajoled them into the abortuary. Many thousands of women are abused, beaten, threatened, and many are murdered, because they will not willingly submit to abortion. Others are threatened with loss of a job, and many, including daughters, are forced into the abortuary by their parents.
Actress Ellen Barkin is alleged to have claimed that she would take her own daughter, kicking and screaming against her daughter’s will, to the abortuary were her daughter ever to become pregnant.
2) Convenience – a form of post conception birth control. Many women are errantly told that their baby is not a baby, is not alive, is not human, is only potential life, only a potential human being, a clump of cells, a glob or blob of protoplasm, or a blob of cells. All of those are scientifically inaccurate statements. The woman who believes this is either in denial, is uneducated, wants to believe it for convenience’s sake, is stupid, or just does not care and has no morals and scruples. Nevertheless, those who feed the woman this line of lies is every bit as culpable in a lie and distortion of the truth, and that includes “doctors” and “nurses” and abortion clinic personnel who distort and twist the truth and play with the mind and consciousness of the woman before and during her “abortion” experience.
3) Is frightened and trying to hide something. Planned parenthood was found deceiving the authorities, breaking the law, as their counselors told young women not to reveal the father, a violation of the law. This allows underaged females being abused by of age males to continue to be abused and taken advantage of via statutory rape by 25, 37, 45, and even 60 year old males, and uncles, fathers, big brothers, cousins, etc.
4) If raped, many women are told that they should abort. They are treated like scum unless they abort. If you don’t abort then you might be treated as if you were never raped. In other words, women who are raped seldom become pregnant, but, if and when they do, they could use more support, not more scorn. If they don’t wish to abort they should be supported in their decision, yet many women find that they are treated like they are doing something detestable by keeping a baby who is the result of rape.
The baby and the mother had nothing to do with the rape. The baby is innocent and should not be killed because her father raped her mother. The mother must not take part in the dismemberment and destruction of an innocent third party. It never helps the mother. She is still a rape victims, but by killing the baby, she then has taken part in extending the crime of the rapist by killing an innocent third party.
It might surprise many to know that a large portion of rape victims who do become pregnant actually choose not to abort the baby. Many do raise the baby, and find that their baby did not grow up to be a monster like their rapist, but they turn out to be good, bright, happy children and contribute to society.
5) Career. These reasons overlap. Another reason that women might abort is that they think they must in order to pursue their career, believing that having a baby is a detriment to a career.
This excuse does not wash. Many women have had babies and raised them and outperformed their barren female peers, as well as their male peers – peers who will never raise a child, in their career field.
Nevertheless, many women who chose not to abort their baby for their career, are quite happy that they did not abort, for they found the love, joy, and happiness they and their child experience, more than compensated for a career without their baby.
6) Lack of knowledge of what they are doing. Many women are not aware, and are kept from learning, that they are killing their living baby. They are sold a bill of goods about how this is not a living thing, not alive, not human, only potential life, only potentially human, all false, scientifically inaccurate claims.
Those are a few of the main reasons women go for an abortion. Medical necessity is among the least necessary reasons to abort. An ectopic pregnancy is one in which the conceived child does not move into the womb and implant itself, but implants in the fallopian tube instead. This form of “pregnancy” is dangerous and cannot survive, and puts the mother in great danger. This is not the same procedure as what people refer to when they talk about abortion, the willing destruction of healthy babies already in the womb for the “convenience” of those involved, and for the termination of a pregnancy.
In summation, abortion is not for a woman who wants to avoid pregnancy. The woman is already pregnant, so she is not avoiding pregnancy, but she is avoiding responsibility for her actions, and her freedom of choice that she exercised in becoming pregnant.
So, contrary to what was stated in the quote above, women, and those who push them into it, are into abortion for the baby murdering, for that is why they get the abortion in the first place.
“This is why I find pro-lifers’ use of the word “murder” so distasteful, despite the fact that I agree that people should not have abortions. It’s demonizing people, rather than convincing them.” — sandberg
I disagree with your explanation, but, technically, abortion cannot be called murder.
Why can’t abortion technically be called murder?
Because it is legal to abort, or kill, innocent babies. That is the only reason that it cannot, technically, be called “murder.”
It is similar to the Dred Scott decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that a slave is property of their owner, and not a full human being. The law gives permission to comit “legal murder” on babies via abortion, and, since it is legal, it is not murder, even though it does kill an innocent, living human being.
I do not know why you would be so sympathetic to people, and so careful not to hurt their feelings in the context of using the term murder as “demonizing” people. There is nothing wrong with shunning people and shaming people who engage in destructive, irresponsible behavior such as killing an innocent, living human baby.
The woman involved could be treated with more compassion and sympathy than one might wish to treat the abortionist and his or her co-murderers (okay, co-dismemberers, since, technically abortion is legal, hence it is not murder – a stupid technicality. When the law says that it is legal to kill blacks, Chinese, Jews, or women, then people will be up in arms, but some people try to justify killing babies who live in the womb, as well as those who are already out of the womb, as in late term, partial birth, D & X abortions.)
Men and women should take responsibilities for their children that they conceive, not kill them. It would be good to make certain that, instead of killing babies via abortion, that those responsble for their existance take responsibility to care for them. There are millions of couples all willing and able to give children a good home which means that it is not necessary to kill babies because they are a “burden” or “unwanted” for the babies are wanted, wanted by the millions of people willing to raise them, as well as uncles, aunts, grandparents, etc., who would love to see that their grandchildren, or nieces or nephews do not fall under the same fate as approximately 45 million other children conceived in the US since Roe v Wade, that fate of a date with the abortionists knife and suction hose.
To jman, I agree. The law should provide the same penalty for killing innocent babies via abortion. The first to receive the penalty should be the abortionists and their assistants.
William
William2006 on January 23, 2007 at 1:24 AM
William2006 on January 23, 2007 at 1:24 AM
Well said.
geckomon on January 23, 2007 at 3:08 AM
Well, I did and personally believe RW made the correct decision, especially after reading this:
Sure, it’s a moral issue, just like it’s a moral issue anytime a life is taken.
Yes, Wayne Gacy’s acts were immoral.
Andrea Yate’s actions were immoral.
Jake the Ripper was an immoral man.
So please, tell me how what you’ve written has done anything to advance the discussion? Are you going to call the men and women who condemn the actions of those above as religious zealots?
And seriously, I’m sick of hearing about all the poor women who find themselves in these horrible situations. Millions are aborted each year. Is anyone sincerely naive enough to believe that one million poor women each year are so scared and vulnerable that they’re too incompetent to be able to take care of themselves and a child?
We’re making abortion common place.
We’re putting it into our sitcoms.
We’re making it an acceptable form of birth control.
Is that what pro-choicers what? Abortion instead of taking the pill?
Esthier on January 23, 2007 at 8:32 AM
It was not out of context. You’re making the claim that abortion is nothing but a moral issue, leaving any discussion outside the relm of morality out. You’re shutting down more than half of the dialogue.
Esthier on January 23, 2007 at 8:40 AM
But to break it down for even the most dense of people
“That is your opinion. For the same reason one shouldn’t try to use science to argue that there is not a god, one should not use it as the sole basis for the abortion argument. I could use the “well, abortion is not specifically mentioned in the bible” and evoke a blistering reply from you but won’t use that as my point.
But be that as it may it is a moral issue”
Sentence two said using science as the sole basis in the abortion debate was just as disingenuous as using science to say there is not a god. Science not religion — following so far?
Sentence three used an example of how the discussion can be distorted by using religious comparisons or arguments pro or con. I could use…. but won’t use that as my point…
That means that I have presented you with an example — following so far?
As to your comparisons to murder the definition I found is from http://www.answers.com/topic/murder
and reads “The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice”
See that word “unlawful”? – in order for it to be made murder then the immorality of abortion would need to be codified into law saying it is indeed murder before you could really make the comparison. Currently it is lawful. When you make that comparison you have engaged in a moral debate (moral is defined as “based on strong likelihood or firm conviction rather than actual evidence; “a moral certainty” according to http://www.wordreference.com/definition/moral)
The remainder of what I had to say raised the difficulties of making it an all or nothing proposition. Risk to women’s health being the primary concern. To make it a law you must take those issues into account. Who is better suited to do that – a handful of judges or the citizens of the country through the voting and legislative process?
Bradky on January 23, 2007 at 9:14 AM
This entire discussion cracks me up.
People want to stop Genocide in Darfur but protect it as a legal right in the states … wow. Just … wow.
Someone said that it’s not a matter of whether we legislate Morality, but rather whose morality we legislate.
First off, quit stealing my lines. Secondly, someone replied with “that’s your opinion”.
Like it or not laws are based upon a moral standard. It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of fact.
If you care to debate that then I’d like to see you argue the morality of murder. Is murder imoral? Is that why we have out lawed it, or do you have some other pseudo intellectual argument to offer based on conjecture and theory that doesn’t float in reality?
Liberals love that stuff. Ya know, the stuff that doesn’t function anywhere but in the minds of so-called “intellectual greats”. I think it’s akin to socialis. It works great on paper, but in reality? Not so much.
One Angry Christian on January 23, 2007 at 9:27 AM
Dead is dead.
Dead.
Dead is not being poverty stricken. It’s dead.
Dead is not being held back. It’s dead.
Dead is not a lack of opportunity. It’s dead.
Dead.
All this nine-paragraph clap trap garbage, for or against it, is FPMO.
A dead human is a dead human. I’ll take the poor, traumatized, uneducated, held back, oppressed LIVE human to a dead one anyday.
Limerick on January 23, 2007 at 9:53 AM
Seriously, if you believe everyone in the room is dense, maybe you’re pointing your finger in the wrong direction.
Which you can’t say, because you haven’t yet proven that abortion is nothing more than a moral discussion. That’s the point that’s been completely lost on you here. You keep trying to go to your third or sixth point without even proven your first one.
Do you understand?
Yes, I understand that you believe you are being brilliant. But you’re still getting nowhere without proving your initial point.
I guess you’re the one who isn’t reading now. Please, when did I use the word murder? By defining the word “murder” you’re only proving that you didn’t get my point.
Murder is a legal term. It’s a legal term we’ve defined. We did so by looking at actions that were previously just considered immoral.
In fact, we’re still defining what is and what is not murder. We do so on a case by case basis. In some cases, terminating a pregnancy is murder. In others, it isn’t.
As you said, the only thing that defines murder is the word “unlawful” and law is decided by people, the same people who decided what murder is in the first place.
The only difference between the two is that the unelected elite decide to reverse this one. Abortion has only been legal a few decades.
You must be a real gem outside of the internet.
Really????? Do you always state the obvious, or only when the points others make go entirely over your head. You’re making my point here. Again, the only reason you can’t call abortion murder is because legally it isn’t.
But I didn’t call it murder. I only spoke of other “immoral” actions that people decided to rule illegal. The only difference here is that people decided that didn’t want abortion to be illegal anymore. So at one point, “the immorality of abortion” was “codified into law”. So what then, do I now need to wait until what Gacy did becomes legal to make the comparisions?
And again, you haven’t proven your first point. Giving the definition of the word isn’t proving it either. Do you not grasp the concept of proof (which means: “evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth” by the way)?
Unless you can prove (see above if you still need the definition) that all of the laws that have been passed were passed through a moral debate, then you haven’t proven your first point just by saying abortion isn’t illegal.
So really, do you think we defined “murder” as being illegal simply because it’s immoral to take another person’s life without a legal justification to do so? Is that the only reason to outlaw it?
Or is it possible that a civilized society actually has an interest in keeping its people alive and protected?
And no, I don’t mean morally. I just mean logically. Is a civilization better served when life is valued or when life is not valued? Do you need me to prove this to you?
And again, none of the rest of what you wrote matters because you build your argument out of straw. Straw simply cannot support the bs you put on top of it.
Esthier on January 23, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Why yes I am and thank you for the compliment.
Bradky on January 23, 2007 at 10:33 AM
‘Two humans enter. One human leaves!’
‘Two humans enter. One human leaves!’
‘Two humans enter. One human leaves!’
Take your Master Blaster logic and stuff it.
Limerick on January 23, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Bravo bradky you spinmeister.
Now you’ve gone in to your next stage of dishonesty, by claiming I quoted you out of context. Notice when I first quoted it, I quoted the whole thing (so as not to leave you that out) and then upon your request, which made no difference, I did read the entire comment… NO CHANGE. Why can’t you just admit what you did?
I don’t care if you claim to not care for extremists on either side. I’m not talking about that… why can’t you stop dodging and diverting, and just admit that you took the classic liberal angle (whether you’re liberal or not, maybe it’s just MSM brainwashing) and accused me of opposing abortion strictly on religious grounds. You can call it an example all you want, but you know that’s crap:
Either you’d completely missing the point, or you’re just so weak you can’t admit that you were wrong. Your “context”, has nothing to do with what I’m talking about here, what don’t you get? All of your comments. You could say you hate abortion no matter what and you make an effort to punch abortionists in the face… that has nothing to do with this. I’m not even talking about agreeing or disagreeing on abortion in general… which again, is why the rest of your comment is completely irrelevant, and no “tie in” to the first paragraph changes my point.
YOU ACCUSED ME (like liberals do on abortion, gays, evolution/creation, etc. etc.) of basing my position strictly on religion, when it couldn’t be further from the truth. I make sure to never use that when talking about these kind of issues, because all someone has to say is “I’m not a Christian” and the discussion is over. So for you to give me the “don’t push your Christianity on me” attitude, is bull, because I never did. It’s almost always the lefties that have to do that, when the right never even considered using the Bible as their argument.
B…b…. but.. .read my other paragraphs… read the context. Enough… there’s nothing in your other paragraphs that gets you out of it. This isn’t about you equally opposing extremists on both sides, etc. etc. It’s about your dishonest tactic you opened with.
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 11:23 AM
As I said before….. Here’s your sign
Bradky on January 23, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Back atcha pal, you’re wrong, I’m right. Has nothing to do with the fundamental issue… just your dishonest tactic that you won’t own up to.
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 12:34 PM