Posts Tagged ‘abortion’

That Devastating Argument against Pro-Lifers

November 6, 2017

Patrick S. Tomlinson has come up with what he considers to be the argument that will silence the people who are against abortion once and for all. He puts forth his argument on Twitter, not, perhaps the best place to find reasoned debate, but here it is.

Whenever abortion comes up, I have a question I’ve been asking for ten years now of the “Life begins at Conception” crowd. In ten years, no one has EVER answered it honestly. 1/

It’s a simple scenario with two outcomes. No one ever wants to pick one, because the correct answer destroys their argument. And there IS a correct answer, which is why the pro-life crowd hates the question. 2/

Here it is. You’re in a fertility clinic. Why isn’t important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. 3/

They’re in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled “1000 Viable Human Embryos.” The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one. 4/

Do you A) save the child, or B) save the thousand embryos? There is no “C.” “C” means you all die. In a decade of arguing with anti-abortion people about the definition of human life, I have never gotten a single straight A or B answer to this question. And I never will. 5/

They will never answer honestly, because we all instinctively understand the right answer is “A.” A human child is worth more than a thousand embryos. Or ten thousand. Or a million. Because they are not the same, not morally, not ethically, not biologically. 6/

This question absolutely evicerates their arguments, and their refusal to answer confirms that they know it to be true. No one, anywhere, actually believes an embryo is equivalent to a child. That person does not exist. They are lying to you. 7/

They are lying to you to try and evoke an emotional response, a paternal response, using false-equivalency. No one believes life begins at conception. No one believes embryos are babies, or children. Those who cliam to are trying to manipulate you so they can control women. 8/

Don’t let them. Use this question to call them out. Reveal them for what they are. Demand they answer your question, and when they don’t, slap that big ol’ Scarlet P of the Patriarchy on them. The end. 9/9

I wonder just how many people on the pro-life side Tomlinson has actually talked to, because it seems to me that almost everyone would agree to save the five year old child. I don’t think that anyone would dispute that the life of a child who can think and feel pain is worth more than the life of an embryo who has not yet developed a nervous system. After all, everyone, no matter how strongly pro-life, agrees that abortion is permissible to save the life of the mother precisely because the life of an adult women is considered to be worth more than the life of an unborn embryo or fetus. A great majority of people who oppose abortion concede that abortion is acceptable is cases of rape or incest. This does not mean, however, that the life of an embryo is worth nothing at all or that it is acceptable to abort an unborn baby for trivial reasons or for no reason at all. Mr. Tomlinson actually addresses this in a follow up tweet.

Because a lot of people are missing the point, it is not being argued the embryos are not alive. Nor is it being argued they are without value. All that is being demonstrated is their value is not equal to that of a human child. That’s it. That’s the point.

Good, then we are in agreement. However, it does not follow that if an embryo is of lesser value than a child that it is acceptable to abort or destroy the embryo for any cause short of preserving the life of a more fully developed human being. Nor does it mean that somehow arguing against abortion is lying or being hypocritical. It is possible to concede the relative lesser worth of an embryo while still being concerned to protect the life of that embryo. Notice,also, that Tomlinson uses the adjective human to modify child but not embryo, a subtle  suggestion that the embryo is somehow not really human.

Tomlinson also misses, probably deliberately,  the distinction between a difficult decision between two evils and  decision to commit an overt act which may be considered evil. To illustrate the difference, consider these two scenarios.

First, suppose there is a mother at home with her five year child and their cat. Suddenly a fire breaks out and engulfs the house. The mother only has time to save either her child or her cat. She cannot save both. I think that everyone but the most fanatic animal rights lunatic would agree that she should save her child. Why? Because the life of a human child is worth more than the life of a cat. This does not mean, of course, that the life of the cat is not worth saving, or that the woman is lying when she expresses concern for the life and well being of her cat.

Now for the second scenario. Suppose that a mother is at home with her five year old child and their cat. The child tells his mother that he is bored so to amuse the child, the mother takes the cat outside, lights it on fire, and they both have a good laugh as the cat runs around the yard burning to death. I think everyone would agree that such behavior would be reprehensible. Why? Because even a person who is not sentimental about animals would recognise that torturing a living thing for no reason is an evil act.

What is the difference between the two scenarios? In both cases the cat suffers a painful death by being burned alive. The cat suffers the same level of pain in both scenarios. Does it make any difference? I think it does. The difference is between a regrettable choice and a deliberate act. In the first scenario the woman is blameless. In the second scenario the woman might be a psychopath. The end result is comparable, as far as the cat is concerned, but the motive is different and that is what makes the difference. It is one thing to allow an embryo or even a thousand embryos to perish while saving a child, it is quite another to deliberately destroy a human embryo who, if left alone, will develop into a human child

That is the core of the controversy about abortion, whether or not abortion is the destruction of a human being, the one thing that no one on the pro-choice side wants to discuss. They prefer to use euphemisms like “women’s health” or impugn the motives of pro-lifers by suggesting they are not interested in preserving life but oppressing women or establishing a Christian Theocratic patriarchy, anything to change the subject. My advice is don’t let them get away with it.

Advertisements

Chelsea, Hilary and Faith

February 22, 2016

I see a lot of posts on social media or on the Internet telling that I am going to be disgusted or shocked at the latest outrageous act or statement of some politician or celebrity. I don’t much like reading them. For one thing, I think that I am able to decide for myself what I find to be disgusting or shocking and I really don’t need someone else telling me how I should react to someone’s actions or even whether I should care. For another, I am actually starting to be a little disgusted at this point of view in which people are always finding reasons to hate or distrust one another and always assuming the worst possible motives for their political opponents’ actions. Maybe we would all get along better if we stopped trying to find reasons to be outraged. Besides, most of the time, the alleged outrages are so minor or petty, I can’t imagine wasting the time or effort to have any emotion at all about them.

So, when I read this column at the Daily Wire about the latest outrage from Chelsea Clinton, I did not feel ill, as the headline suggested I should.

Sunday, Chelsea Clinton, stumping for her pro-abortion mother, showed she has learned her lessons well from her parents, as she offered a Byzantine defense of Hillary Clinton’s supposed faith.

Chelsea Clinton, in an attempt to limn her mother as a religious person, told an audience at a fundraiser that the reason she left the Baptist Church as a child stemmed from the church’s discussion of abortion when she was six years old. She wheedled, “I find it quite insulting sometimes when people say to my mom, my dad or me . . . that they question our faith. I was raised in a Methodist church and I left the Baptist church before my dad did, because I didn’t know why they were talking to me about abortion when I was 6 in Sunday school — that’s a true story.”

Uh-oh. When a Clinton claims something is true, watch out for what else is in the bag.

I see no particular reason to doubt her story, though it does seem unlikely that a six year old girl would be mature enough to decide to leave her parents’s church over the question of abortion. I doubt many six year olds have much of an understanding of the issue, though perhaps Chelsea Clinton was precocious. She is, after all, the daughter of the smartest woman in the world.

But I don’t really care about her religious or political views, and I wouldn’t bother writing this post except for the next section in the article.

Sure enough: “My mother is very deeply a person of faith. It is deeply authentic and real for my mother, and it guides so much of her moral compass, but also her life’s work.”

And: ‘I recognized that there were many expressions of faith that I don’t agree with and feel [are] quite antithetical to how I read the Bible. But I find it really challenging when people who are self-professed liberals kind of look askance at my family’s history.”

Now, if the child of a Republican presidential candidate had said that her parent was very deeply a person of faith who was guided by her faith, the progressive left would have a fit. The candidate would be denounced as a card carrying member of the Religious Right in all the usual media. There would be accusations that the candidate was planning to overthrow the sacred constitutional doctrine of absolute separation between church and state (found nowhere in the actual words of the first amendment, but in one of the penumbras that only left wing jurists can see) and institute a Christian theocracy. Editorials would be written which explain that in the secular government that our founding fathers created, no office holder should permit his private religious views to have influence over his actions and decisions because that would be the worst sort of religious discrimination against those who do not share his views. If the candidate’s religion has negative views on leftist hobby horses such as abortion or gay “marriage”, he would be called to repudiate the beliefs held by his more unenlightened co-religionists.

Hilary and Chelsea Clinton can say that Hilary’s faith motivates her and provides guidance, yet somehow this isn’t an offense against decency and democracy. If the progressives didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.

 

Bless This Abortion Clinic

December 15, 2015

I wish that I could say that this news story from Breitbart.com surprised me, but the liberal, mainline protestant churches have drifted so far from anything that might be considered traditional Christian teachings that nothing representatives of the more liberal denominations is truly surprising.

Some ordained ministers are throwing their support behind abortion providers. Last week, for example, clergy for Episcopal and Methodist churches were among religious leaders who gathered in Cleveland to bless an abortion clinic.
“I’m here today standing alongside my fellow clergymen and clergywomen to say: thank God for abortion providers,” said Rev. Harry Knox, president and CEO of Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) which supports abortion rights and what it refers to as “abortion care.”

Knox, who is in a same-sex marriage, was the founding director of the Human Rights Campaign’s Religion and Faith Program, the first program director at Freedom to Marry, and executive director of Georgia Equality.

The Very Rev. Tracey Lind, dean of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, blessed the abortion clinic, saying, “Bless this building. May its walls stand strong against the onslaught of shame thrown at it. May it be a beacon of hope for those who need its services.”

The blessing event outside the Preterm abortion clinic was arranged by Rev. Laura Young, a United Methodist minister who is executive director of RCRC’s Ohio chapter, reports theColumbus Dispatch. Young calls herself a “progressive theological thinker and a feminist,” and says her goals include urging more clergy members to advocate for organizations that provide abortions and contraception.

At the abortion clinic, clergy members held up signs that read, “Pro-Faith, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice.”

Chrisse France, executive director of Preterm said, “At a time when abortion care providers are under attack, we are so thankful to be surrounded by the faith community as they share their powerful voices in saying no to the shame and stigma.”

I can understand praying for the safety of the people who work in abortion clinics considering that there is a lunatic fringe that does not quite understand the concept of being pro-life, but how can anyone who considers themselves a Christian possibly ask God to bless a an institution that exists for the sole purpose of murdering innocent human beings? Isn’t this more than a little like clergy blessing a Nazi concentration camp? Ought they not rather pray that the people in the abortion clinic see the error of their way and repent of the evil they are doing? Why shouldn’t abortion providers feel shame and stigma? They are doing something truly detestable. Even if one takes the position that abortion is a sad necessity because of adverse conditions, surely it is blasphemous to ask the Lord of Life to bless an abortion clinic. Executions may also be necessary, but no priest or minister would bless a gallows or electric chair.

It comes as no surprise that one of the clergymen involved in this event is in a same-sex marriage. I have long held the position that any church or denomination that permits or endorses same-sex marriage is in a state of apostasy and cannot be considered to be Christian. It is not so much that the issue of same-sex marriage is important in itself, although it is, or that the issue alone determines whether a church is truly Christian, it does not, but rather, I believe that if a church rejects Biblical Christian teachings on marriage and sexuality, they are very likely to reject other Biblical Christian teachings such as the death and resurrection of the Son of God, or the supreme value of human life and dignity.

These Episcopal and Methodist clergy men and women seem to have rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ and replaced it with the gospel of leftism. They have ceased to follow the standards of Christ in favor the standards of the world and have decided to bow down to the golden calf of political correctness. They have chosen to worship Baal and to sacrifice infants in the fire rather than the Living God. May God have mercy on them for leading their flocks astray. It would be better for them to have had millstones hung around their necks.

Defending the Indefensible

July 27, 2015

You wouldn’t think that anyone would be able to defend a practice as grotesque as dismembering babies and selling the parts to cover costs, at least not outside of a Nazi concentration camp or a Planned Parenthood Clinic, although to be fair, I don’t think that even the Nazis went that far. Still, there are some willing to defend what most people would regard as utterly indefensible for political reasons, particularly a certain political party and their supporters at Moveon.org.

Dear MoveOn member,

Breaking news: Reuters reports that Senator Rand Paul is trying to force a vote to block federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has started a “fast-track process” to bring Paul’s legislation to the floor for a vote soon.1

This is just the latest attack against Planned Parenthood since a heavily edited, blatantly misleading video was released attacking Planned Parenthood two weeks ago.2

“The folks behind it are part of the most militant anti-abortion movement,” said Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards today. “This entire effort is a political smear campaign.”3

We’re launching an emergency effort to defend Planned Parenthood, and we have to get going immediately. Will you make a contribution now to help us defend Planned Parenthood?

Yes, I’ll chip in to help defend Planned Parenthood and stop the attacks on abortion rights.

Within days of the video’s release, Republicans in Congress started scheduling votes to defund Planned Parenthood—and preparing even broader attacks on abortion rights.4

Then, another deceiving, doctored video was released, continuing the smear campaign against the largest reproductive health care provider in America.5

And now—today—Sen. Paul announced he’s trying to force a vote to eliminate Planned Parenthood’s federal funding.6

It’s clear we’re facing a highly coordinated attack on reproductive rights. To fight back, we’re recruiting local voices all over the country to speak out in defense of Planned Parenthood—including doctors, women and men who have visited Planned Parenthood clinics, and others.

Planned Parenthood urgently needs people to stand with them now. Will you show your support?

Yes, I’ll chip in to help defend Planned Parenthood and stop the attacks on abortion rights.

The mainstream news media has done a miserable job fact-checking this story, so let’s set the record straight: The claim that Planned Parenthood profits from the sale of fetal tissue is a disgusting lie.

Here’s the truth: When a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy and donate tissue for medical research, Planned Parenthood honors those wishes. These donations are hugely valuable for research into diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.7

This is 100-percent legal, consistent with medical ethics, and no different than what happens in thousands of other medical situations every day.

Here’s something else you might not have heard in the media: The anti-choice activists behind the video probably broke the law with their secret recording.8 And one of their leaders runs an organization whose members have bombed abortion clinics and assassinated an abortion provider.9

We don’t have much time to fight back—Republicans in Congress are pushing to schedule votes to defund Planned Parenthood as soon as possible.

With your help, we’ll flood Capitol Hill with phone calls and mobilize grassroots voices all over the country to defend Planned Parenthood. Will you chip in $3?

Yes, I’ll chip in to help defend Planned Parenthood and stop the attacks on abortion rights.

Thanks for all you do.

–Victoria, Maria, Matt, Nick, and the rest of the team

P.S. Planned Parenthood is under attack because of its strong advocacy for reproductive rights and abortion services. But the organization is also a health care provider more generally. Over 2.7 million people turn to Planned Parenthood’s nonprofit clinics in the U.S. each year for affordable health care services—including cancer-prevention tests, well-woman visits, and access to birth control.10

This is it. If Sen. Paul’s bill passes and gets sent to President Obama’s desk—or the vote is even close—it’ll lead to even more vicious attacks on Planned Parenthood over the coming months and years. Will you chip in $3 and stand with Planned Parenthood right now in the face of this outrageous smear campaign?

 

I have not seen the videos myself and do not really wish to. It is quite possible that certain statements made in the videos were edited and taken out of context. I have to say however that I cannot imagine a sentence like;

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

could ever be said in any context that is not horrific.

Notice that Planned Parenthood’s defenders cannot really bring themselves to state frankly what it is that they are defending. They do not say that dismembering fetuses that are recognizably human is a practice worth defending. Instead they refer to tissues being donated and pregnancies being terminated. It is not the killing of unborn babies but reproductive health. If abortion truly is simply a medical procedure with no real moral issues involved, why can they not talk about it without using euphemisms and circumlocutions.

They cannot defend what is going on, so they bring up side issues in an attempt to divert attention away from the grotesque reality. They note that Planned Parenthood is not profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. The money they collect is only to cover the costs of collecting and delivering the tissue. Well, so what? The Nazis didn’t profit from Auschwitz. The Holocaust was an enormous diversion of resources and the German government didn’t even begin to make any sort of profit from it. Does that make the Holocaust any less of an atrocity? Even if Planned Parenthood were not making a single penny off of their practice of using fetal tissue, it wouldn’t make it any less wrong.

It may be that these donations are valuable for medical research. So were many of the experiments performed by doctors in the concentration camps. If dismembering human beings to acquire tissue for medical research is not a violation of the law, that says something about the morality of our laws and how well they accord with the divine law which is the source of man made laws. This practice may be legal. So was slavery. Being legal doesn’t make it right. If it is illegal to expose such heinous practices, than the laws which would conceal them from the public are bad laws and should be abolished. I cannot imagine how these practices could possibly be consistent with current ideas about medical ethics unless such ethics are the ones enunciated by the likes of Dr. Josef Mengele.

Why does Planned Parenthood get any federal funding at all, considering that a large number of tax-payers opposed to what they do? I know that no tax money goes directly into providing abortions, but any tax money received allows them to spend more money on abortion that would otherwise go into other programs. Why should the millions of Americans who oppose abortion have to pay for a practice they consider abhorrent, even indirectly? Planned Parenthood ought to be completely defunded as soon as possible. It ought never to have gotten any federal fund at all.

P.S. Planned Parenthood is not under attack because of its advocacy of reproductive rights. It is under attack because it is an evil organization dedicated to the destruction of human life. It’s founder, Margaret Sanger, started Planned Parenthood in order to decrease the number of people she, and others like her, considered unfit and inferior, especially those dark colored people. Planned Parenthood is the only organization I know of that makes the Nazis look good in comparison.

 

Obvious Child

July 11, 2014

Obvious Child is the name of a new film which seems to be a romantic comedy exploring the lighter side of abortion. Apparently some critics like the idea while most conservatives hate it, along with the audience, whose opinion should matter most considering they are the ones who are expected to buy tickets to see the movie. Jonah Goldberg has some things to say about the wider implications of this film’s failure at the box office which I caught in his column at Real Clear Politics.

In the film Obvious Child, Jenny Slate plays Donna Stern, a stand-up comedian who specializes in making jokes about her private parts, with the occasional foray into fart humor. She is about to go onstage. Her friend offers her some encouragement: “You are going to kill it out there!”

Donna replies: “I actually have an appointment to do that tomorrow.”

Donna’s talking about her abortion appointment.

Get it? It’s funny because it’s true. Or if you’re like me, you think it’s not funny because it’s true.

Many critics think it’s funny. One dubbed it “far and away the most winning abortion-themed comedy ever made.” Of course, as an artistic genre, that’s setting the bar pretty low, like serving the best gas-station sushi in the state of Oklahoma.

Since it opened last month, the film has grossed less than $2 million. Compare that to 2007’s Juno, a brilliant film widely seen as pro-life (at least among pro-lifers), or Knocked Up, a raunchier romantic comedy also hailed by abortion foes, both of which grossed more than $140 million domestically. Obvious Child, then, seems less like the cultural watershed its friends and foes make it out to be and more like a barely successful art-house flick.

 

My late friend Andrew Breitbart liked to say that politics is downstream of culture, meaning that any truly successful political turnaround needs to start by changing popular attitudes. Adam Bellow, a storied editor of conservative books, has a similar conviction and is trying to launch a conservative revolt in the world of fiction.

I wish them great success. Still, I think there’s something missing in this ancient conversation on the right (conservatives have been making such arguments since the 1950s — if not the 1450s, with the publication of the Gutenberg Bible). Conservatives refuse to celebrate, or even notice, how much of the popular culture is on their side.

Sure, Hollywood is generally very liberal, but America isn’t. Judging by their campaign donations, Hollywood liberals are very supportive of abortion rights. But there’s a reason why sitcoms since Maude haven’t had a lot of storylines about abortion. Indeed, nearly every pregnant TV character treats her unborn child as if it’s already a human being.

The Left may be anti-military, but such movies tend to do poorly, which is why we see more pro-military films. Similarly, it’s a safe bet that Hollywood liberals loathe guns. But you wouldn’t know that by what they produce. Not many action stars save the day by quoting a poem. Most Hollywood liberals probably oppose the death penalty, yet they make lots of movies where the bad guy meets a grisly death to the cheers of the audience. The Left rolls its eyes at “family values,” but family values are at the heart of most successful sitcoms and dramas.

I think he is right, as far as it goes and certainly Hollywood is missing opportunities for profit by taking up such a position of opposition to the values of so many mainstream Americans, but I think there is a more fundamental reason why Obvious Child is not doing better at the box office. Abortion is not funny.

Abortion is a serious matter. As with most matters of life and death, it is not a subject that can be taken lightly. For people on the pro-life side, abortion is murder on a large scale and a comedy about abortion is in as much poor taste as a comedy about the Holocaust. People on the pro-choice side may not feel quite the same way about abortion, but except for a few extremists, the sort that Rush Limbaugh used to call “feminazis”, they are aware that it is a serious and controversial subject. Thus, a movie like Obvious Child which seems to treat abortion as of no greater significance then getting a pedicure, is going to offend everyone but those few extremists.

I am glad that Obvious Child is not doing well. The degeneration of our popular culture seems to be accelerating at an ever faster pace and I am glad for any sign that there are still limits to  what we are willing to watch.

Moloch

May 8, 2014

In ancient times, one of the practices that distinguished the Jews, and later the Christians, from their pagan neighbors was that they did not expose infants. This practice, which was accepted among the Greeks and the Romans, was the placing of a deformed, sickly, or simply unwanted infant in a deserted place so that it would die of hunger or exposure. The most common deformity which required getting rid of a baby was the lack of a penis, and girls were exposed far more often than boys.  The people that practiced infant exposure were not monsters. They believed that exposing infants was a sad necessity in a world in which you could not be sure there would be enough food to go around. In times of hunger, it was better to discard another hungry mouth than have the baby’s older siblings starve. The parents who exposed their baby could at least take some solace in the idea that their child might be found by a shepherd or goat herder and go on to live a happier life.

The ancient Canaanites and Carthaginians were said to sacrifice children to their gods, particularly the god Moloch. There is some question whether this was true or simply Hebrew and Roman propaganda, but child sacrifice has been attested in many cultures. Again, the people who performed such sacrifices were not necessarily monsters. They doubtless loved their children as much as anyone, but they believed their gods demanded sacrifices, and the ultimate sacrifice was the thing they loved most. I imagine that such sacrifices were normally performed in times of great trouble.

We would like to think that we are more civilized than the people who lived centuries ago. Surely, we have made a lot of progress. We have abolished slavery. We no longer burn witches or heretics at the stake. We believe in equality and justice for all. Surely, we are a lot more civilized than the barbarians of long ago who murdered their own children.  Maybe. Maybe not.

In the news lately, is the story of an abortion councilor who decided to film her own abortion in order to show that having an abortion is not at all a negative experience. The story is all over the place but here is an account in the Washington Times.

Emily Letts, an abortion counselor in New Jersey, said she wasn’t ready to have a baby, even though she was pregnant, and decided that the best solution for her would be to have an abortion — and film it.

“I found out I am pregnant,” the 25-year-old said in the video she uploaded onto YouTube. “I’m not ready to have children.”

So why the video of the procedure?

“[I want to] show women that there is such thing as a positive abortion story,” The Blaze reported.

The video does show her going through the procedure, but minus the graphic details. The camera predominately focuses on her face, The Blaze reported.

Her conclusion at the end of the video: “I feel in awe of the fact that I can make a baby. I can make a life. I knew what I was going to do was right, because it was right for me and no one else. I just want to tell my story.”

The video is titled “Emily’s Abortion Video.” In a followup story published on Cosmopolitan.com, Ms. Letts writes: “We talk about abortion so much and yet no one really knows what it actually looks like. A first trimester abortion takes three to five minutes. It is safer than giving birth.”

It wasn’t safer for the baby nor was it likely to find being killed a positive experience.

Consider the reason this woman decided to have an abortion. She wasn’t ready for a baby. She lives in the most  prosperous nation in history. No matter what her financial situation might be, there is virtually no chance that that child would have starved nor would any other child have to do without food because of it. The poor souls in ancient Greece and Rome had to make decisions about life and death that most people in the developed world never will. They could be said to have a good reason to kill an infant in order for there to be enough for others. She cannot say that.

I do not know what this woman’s religious beliefs are, but I am certain that she is not a worshiper of Moloch. The people who sacrificed their children believed that they were doing a good thing that pleased the gods. If the sacrifice of a child was what it took to turn away their god’s wrath in a national emergency, then the sacrifice of the child saved the lives of everyone else in the kingdom. She was only having the abortion because she didn’t happen to want a baby.  To her, this baby was no more than an old tissue to be thrown away. It was not a human being to her. It wasn’t even alive to her. I doubt very much if she would kill an animal so casually.

No, we are not more civilized than the people who lived in ancient times. I think that most of the people who felt they had to expose or sacrifice their children would have preferred for those children to be alive. If the people who lived centuries ago could see how prosperous the our lives are in the twenty-first century and could learn how we have defeated most of the diseases which killed their children, they would wonder that we didn’t value our children more highly. They wouldn’t understand why we would want to kill any of our children. I doubt even the Romans, who enjoyed their gory gladiatorial contests would want to film a baby being murdered for the amusement of viewers.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Honesty About Abortion

January 13, 2014

One of the peculiarities about the debate on abortion is that one side, the “pro-choice” side is unwilling to talk about just what the debate is actually all about. They like to speak in terms of “right to choose” and “women’s health” while trying not to even consider the possibility that a human life may be ended by abortion. Mary Elizabeth Williams believes that the time has come to end such evasions. In her article at Salon.com, So what if abortion ends life, she argues that pro-choice advocates should affirm that abortion really does end a human life, and that is irrelevant.

Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word “life.” Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants be on the side of … not-life? That’s why the language of those who support abortion has for so long been carefully couched in other terms. While opponents of abortion eagerly describe themselves as “pro-life,” the rest of us have had to scramble around with not nearly as big-ticket words like “choice” and “reproductive freedom.” The “life” conversation is often too thorny to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.

As Roe v. Wade enters its fifth decade, we find ourselves at one of the most schizo moments in our national relationship with reproductive choice. In the past year we’ve endured the highest number of abortion restrictions ever. Yet support for abortion rights is at an all-time high, with seven in 10 Americans in favor of letting Roe v. Wade stand, allowing for reproductive choice in all or “most” cases. That’s a stunning 10 percent increase from just a decade ago. And in the midst of this unique moment, Planned Parenthood has taken the bold step of reframing the vernacular – moving away from the easy and easily divisive words “life” and “choice.” Instead, as a new promotional film acknowledges, “It’s not a black and white issue.”

It’s a move whose time is long overdue. It’s important, because when we don’t look at the complexities of reproduction, we give far too much semantic power to those who’d try to control it. And we play into the sneaky, dirty tricks of the anti-choice lobby when we on the pro-choice side squirm so uncomfortably at the ways in which they’ve repeatedly appropriated the concept of “life.”

Notice that Ms. Williams cannot credit the pro-life side with any sort of honorable motive, such as wishing to preserve human life. They are diabolical anti-choice fanatics who play sneaky dirty tricks with words. She is not trying to reach some middle ground.

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

There is more about the evil tricks of the right wingers, such as showing ultrasounds to women considering having abortions to remind them that it is a tiny human being and perpetrating the sentimental fiction that abortion stops a beating heart. She concludes with this.

My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to. And if you believe that it begins at birth, or somewhere around the second trimester, or when the kid finally goes to college, that’s a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless. We can’t have it if those of us who believe that human life exists in utero are afraid we’re somehow going to flub it for the cause. In an Op-Ed on “Why I’m Pro-Choice” in the Michigan Daily this week, Emma Maniere stated, quite perfectly, that “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that abortion saves lives, too.” She understands that it saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families. And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.

Such honesty is as refreshing as it is horrifying. The reason that most abortion advocates have not taken the step that Ms. Williams advises is that once you have accepted the premise that all lives are not equal and some are worth sacrificing for the comfort and convenience of others, you do indeed start to sound like a death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm trooper. If you start to do away with the idea that human life is somehow special and should be preserved, then it is not easy to determine where to stop. At least now, they argue, somewhat uncertainly, that the fetus is not yet a human being. What if the argument turns to, yes,it is human and so what?

Consider the rising cost of healthcare. For most people, the medical costs of the final year of life equal or exceed the costs of the entire rest of their life. If we could determine when that final year is and cut off any medical treatments, except to make them comfortable, we could save a lot of money. Maybe Obamacare would actually work if that was part of the health care reform. We could also refuse to treat people with chronic illnesses or children with handicaps.Whatever contribution these people might make is not likely to justify the costs of keeping them alive.

Most people would consider such proposals abhorrent. Why? Because these are human beings we are talking about and human beings have a right to life. Civilized people do not let the sick die. One of the reasons that, despite what Ms. Williams believes, more people are turning against abortion is that it is becoming increasingly obvious that a fetus is indeed human. Changing the terms of the debate from the fetus is not human to the fetus is human but it is acceptable to kill it if you want to is not a step forward for any kind of rights. It is a step backward to a more savage past.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Terror in Albuquerque

November 9, 2013

Something terrifying is about to happen in Albuquerque, New Mexico according to Organizing for Action.

David —

Something pretty scary is happening in Albuquerque right now.

Voters will cast ballots on November 19th on an initiative that would ban abortions after 20 weeks with virtually zero exceptions.

This is a serious attack on women — and it’s a deliberate attempt by extreme interest groups to test their latest anti-women strategy.

We can’t let this initiative succeed in Albuquerque — add your name right now and fight back against this attack on women’s health.

The groups behind the ballot initiative are extremely well funded and — if they win in Albuquerque — you can bet they’re going to take this approach to cities and states across the country.

OFA is working with a strong coalition of organizations that are dedicated to fighting back on the ground in New Mexico. But we need anyone who cares about this fight to stand in solidarity no matter where they live.

Join in and stand up for women in Albuquerque and anywhere else their rights are threatened:

http://my.barackobama.com/Stand-with-Albuquerque-Women-Today

Thanks,

Kaili

Kaili Lambe
Women’s Issues Campaign Manager
Organizing for Action

—————-
The other side will spend millions to maintain the status quo. We’re fighting for change — chip in $5 or more to support OFA today.

Actually it seems that the other side are the people who want to change something while Organizing for Action is trying to maintain the status quo.

Whenever I see the word extreme these days, I can’t help but think of Inigo Montoya.

hC56543CD

In the case of abortion, according to a Quinnipiac University poll taken at the end of last July, 20% of respondents thought abortion should be legal in all cases, 38% legal in most cases, 25% illegal in most cases, and 18% illegal in all cases. What is more, 55% thought abortion should be legal without restriction up to 20 weeks, and 30% legal up to 24 weeks. Those were the only two options given in the poll but 7% stated that abortion should never be legal and 1% that abortion should always be legal.

It would seem then, that the mainstream public opinion in America is disapproval of abortion but a reluctance to outlaw it. Americans generally support legal abortion up to 20 weeks and a large minority up to 24 weeks. Beyond that, Americans grow increasingly uncomfortable. With all this in mind, the proposed ballot initiative is well within the mainstream of public opinion while the position taken by Organizing for Action, which seems to be for legal abortion right up to birth, is the extreme position.

As long as we are speaking of women’s health, I wonder if Ms. Lambe is aware that one of the most popular reasons for abortions world wide is sex selection. In many cultures, particularly in Asia, boys are much preferred over girls and parents will abort the fetus if they think it is a girl. There is a real war against (unborn) women in countries like China and India. I don’t expect Organizing for Action to ever say very much about these women’s right to be born.

 

 

Women’s Health Care

June 20, 2013

The Democrats are not too happy with the vote by the House of Representatives to ban abortions after 20 weeks, when there is good reason to believe that the fetus can feel pain.

David —

Last night’s House vote wasn’t a bad dream.

It’s actually terrifying that 228 members of Congress voted to stand between a woman and her doctor when it comes to her health care decisions, but here we are the next day, and that’s what happened.

These moments can’t pass with a shrug of the shoulders, or by crossing our fingers and hoping that it never becomes law. The reality is that bills like this are making headway in state legislatures across the country — and if people like us don’t speak out now, then how will we stop them?

Add your name today to say you’ll stand up to threats on women’s health:

http://my.barackobama.com/Stand-Up-For-Womens-Health

Thanks,

Organizing for Action

———-Original Message———-
From: Lindsay Siler, BarackObama.com
Subject: I can’t believe this just happened:

Friend —

This just actually happened:

The House of Representatives passed one of the most unbelievable, unconstitutional attacks on women’s health in a long time.

It’s a bill written by Republican Arizona Congressman Trent Franks, which would ban abortions after 20 weeks, except in extremely limited circumstances — a direct legislative challenge to Roe v. Wade.

And 228 members of Congress just voted for it.

Maybe they weren’t paying attention to the reaction of Americans across the country last year who rejected candidates who wanted to restrict a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care.

That’s a message they need to hear loud and clear right now — if you think politicians have no right to get between a woman and her health decisions, add your name and say you won’t stand for it.

This bill made it out of the House Judiciary Committee thanks to the votes of 23 Republicans — all men, of course.

And Rep. Franks objected when opponents tried to raise the issue of rape, saying, “…you know, the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.”

Women made their voices very clear last year when it came to the extreme positions that some elected officials took on women’s health. But that hasn’t stopped conservative politicians from trying to repeal Obamacare, block the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, and push an agenda that uses terminology like “legitimate rape.”

Making progress on smart health policy isn’t easy, but when Congress is spending its time actively trying to chip away at a woman’s rights, it feels impossible.

We can’t just sit back and hope it goes away — we need to speak up.

OFA supporters are going to be on the front lines reminding Congress we’re here and we care about women’s health.

Join the fight today:

http://my.barackobama.com/Stand-Up-For-Womens-Health

Thanks,

Lindsay

Lindsay Siler
National Director of Issue Campaigns
Organizing for Action

What does abortion have to do with women’s health? Is a woman’s health improved when she has an abortion? It would not seem that the health of the patients of Dr. Kermit Gosnell were greatly improved by his services. And, of course, abortion is decidedly unhealthy for those girls who haven’t had the luck to be born yet.

Notice how they never really want to talk about abortion. I think they would just as soon not use the word at all. Instead they say “women’s health” and “choice” and refuse to credit pro-lifers with any motive except to put women down. Why all of the euphemisms? Why don’t they simply come right out and say, “We believe a woman has an inalienable right to destroy her child right up to the moment of birth, and maybe a minute after”? Why can’t they bring themselves to say, “Yes, we know the fetus might feel pain but it isn’t really human and the right of the mother to eliminate it takes precedence over its right to life”? That really is what they seem to believe. Why not say it? Why the effort to evade the simple fact that abortion is the destruction of a fetus and the debate really should be whether or not we are killing a human being when we perform an abortion.

That is the debate they don’t want. Instead they try to make it about “choice” ignoring the small matter that the person, or thing, at the center of this debate is given no choice at all. Some people label themselves as pro-choice, stating that even though they oppose abortion personally, they believe that every woman should have the right to choose for herself. This is nonsense. If an abortion is simply another medical procedure, removing a shapeless clump of cells, then there is no more a moral component to the matter than having an infected appendix removed. If, however, this is a human being, than abortion is murder, pure and simple. This is what the debate ought to be about, not choice.

For, if an abortion involved the murder of a human being, then there can be no individual choice about the matter at all. I may not say that I personally oppose robbing banks but believe that everyone should be have the right to choose whether to rob banks. Nor is morality an individual matter, no matter what the moral relativist say about it. The important moral or ethical questions always involve out relations with out fellow human beings. A person alone on a desert island need not consider any moral questions at all, and is free to do whatever they like. I cannot kill my neighbor for blowing leaves onto my lawn and then say to the police and the court, “your morality says that killing is wrong, but my morality says that it is perfectly okay to kill”. The judge would probably assume that I am trying for the insanity defense.

So, this is the question. Is the fetus alive and human. If not, than abortion is simply another medical procedure and the state has no right to ban it. If so, than abortion is murder and a greater evil than slavery ever was and the state is under an obligation to end it.

War on Women

March 18, 2013

As everyone knows, anti-abortion or anti choice activists are only motivated by a hatred of women and a fanatic desire to prevent women from exercising their reproductive freedom. It should come as no surprise then to see a woman attacked outside an abortion clinic for daring to express her opinion.

It seems I was mistaken about some of the details about this incident. The woman attacked was a pro-life activist who was documenting the arrival of an ambulance at Planned Parenthood to take care of a victim of a botched abortion. Evidently a woman who is either an employee or a client of that esteemed organization took exception to this and decided to physically assault her. A compassionate tolerant liberal no doubt. I wonder who is really leading a war on women, and why Planned Parenthood should get a dime of taxpayer’s money.


%d bloggers like this: