In this post, Ace brought to my attention President Obama's statement on the 41st anniversary of the legalization of abortion and the emotional response I had to that statement lingers. As I was talking about it with a friend a bit ago my chest felt physically heavy as I considered the words "opportunities to fulfill their dreams". How can one encourage another to "fulfill their dreams" at the cost of an innocent human life?
Someone dear to me chose not to bear the only child she was ever given a chance to carry. For her, every Mother's Day is filled with pain and sadness. Loss. Her dreams often include a vision of, she imagines, the child she will never know. These are the dreams that sprang to mind as I read President Obama's words.
128 comments:
Life, it's like a private club.
I was in an office waiting and only one other person there waiting too. A large-leaf philodendron-type plant nearby a with two fronds opening. I looked at the plant and remarked,
"I like the way new leaves come out of the dirt like a spear." No response.
"The way they unfurl as they grow resembles a rocket shot up to space." No response."
"It is an aggressive affirmation of life. A forceful assertion into a new reality." No response.
"The appearance of a new baby leaf standing up defying gravity, the birth of a human baby is aggressive and forceful and assured far more than death which is resignation." The man burst out laughing. At me! Then stood up and walked over and looked at the leaves withe me.
Thank you, Darcy.
I read a few minutes ago that the number of aborted babies in NYC last year is enough to fill the stadium for this year's Super Bowl. How awful.
We remember the horror of the millions of Jews and Christians and others forced into Hitler's gas chambers and ovens....how can 55 million dead children be any less horrible?
Well written, Darcy - those are profoundly sad and true sentiments.
Thanks for posting, Darcy. Me and some of the others take up too much O2 around here sometimes. Time for a breather. You are like fresh air.
Very well said, Darcy. That Obama felt it was a good idea to run his mouth on this occasion says a lot.
We remember the horror of the millions of Jews and Christians and others forced into Hitler's gas chambers and ovens....how can 55 million dead children be any less horrible?
I'll suggest googling "multiple congenital abnormalities pregnancy complications" might provide some sobering insight into how.
Doesn't mandating zygote-to-delivery pregnancy sound as extreme as saying that abortion at any time and for any reason is morally immaculate?
Last words from me on this round: Savita Halappanavar. There are consequences to wishful legislation. In this case, the pointless death of someone who was no less alive than a zygote or a mortally congenitally devastated fetus.
Abortion lovers are about all that is left of Obama's base. The Endless Obama Recession [TM] has turned off most of the rest of his diehard supporters.
AJ, do you actually know anyone who "loves" abortion?
I suppose all that remains to be said is that Lefty paradises like Seattle and San Fiasco are notable for their childlessness.
Rhythm and Balls said...
We remember the horror of the millions of Jews and Christians and others forced into Hitler's gas chambers and ovens....how can 55 million dead children be any less horrible?
I'll suggest googling "multiple congenital abnormalities pregnancy complications" might provide some sobering insight into how.
Tell it to Stephen Hawking.
AJ, do you actually know anyone who "loves" abortion?
We could start with Alisa LaPolt Snow and go from there!
Dr. Gosnell?
Nancy Pelosi, the evil people who run the mis-named Planned Parenthood, almost every Dem Congress critter, etc.
Touché, Sixty. But I think we should be honest and admit that everyone agrees he was a beast of a different feather altogether.
We remember the horror of the millions of Jews and Christians and others forced into Hitler's gas chambers and ovens....how can 55 million dead children be any less horrible?
The question I've never heard a good answer to is: if you really believe that's happening, why are you just sitting around talking about it?
If I knew that, right now, someone was preparing to murder a child, I'd be on the phone to the cops. If I couldn't get them on the phone I'd be racing there to physically stop the killer myself, with lethal force if need be. Most adults would, I'd think.
But supposedly a third of the country thinks thousands of children are being murdered EVERY DAY in their own cities... and you sit around doing nothing. On those rare occasions when someone DOES kill an abortion doctor, you quickly distance yourselves from him. Why? You don't distance yourselves from soldiers who kill terrorists, and terrorists haven't killed one one-thousandth the Americans you claim abortion doctors have.
Explain to me, in a way that makes sense, why you're sitting around on your ass while 55 million children are brutally murdered. Because the only answers I'm coming up with are "you don't really believe it", "you're a bunch of pussies", or "your moral compass is way out of whack".
My guess? Deep down, you don't really believe a clump of cells really counts as human, either. Late-term abortions, sure. But facing life in prison to save an organism that doesn't even have a functioning brain? That's not something you're up for.
He is far from unique. I know for a fact that as long as medicine has been practiced there have been baby butchers. He just got caught.
Well, AJ. It seems like Michael and Darcy have sincere intentions in what they want to discuss tonight. It doesn't sound like your 8:37 comment approaches from the same standpoint, but I guess that's how commenting works sometimes.
Tell it to Stephen Hawking.
Hawking developed MS in his twenties. I'm pretty sure even Planned Parenthood wouldn't sign off on a 70th trimester abortion. :)
He might not be unique. I'm ok with you going after and catching every one and applying the same fate to anyone else like that.
That is very sad Darcy. I am sorry for her.
"Explain to me, in a way that makes sense, why you're sitting around on your ass while 55 million children are brutally murdered."
You are delusional to believe that.
Oh, so you've killed abortion doctors, then? How many? Just curious.
Or did you you mean it is delusional to consider 55 million abortions equivalent to 55 million dead kids? If so then I must point out that I *don't* consider abortion equivalent to child-killing. You, however, do, so explain yourself.
I started to make a smart ass post but this thread does not deserve it.
There are many who regret having an abortion. They are very seldom heard from because the pro-abortion industry will attempt to discredit or destroy them.
Oh and one other thing.
Wendy Davis loves abortions.
I think, Ritmo, that you might use all your intellectual greatness, here (Hi Chip A :)), and still not come out well at the end of it.
I on occasion think about the two children my wife and I could have with us today, and regret not having them with me, now.
We had good, sound, logical, reasonable, ever so political (in hindsight) reasons for our choice. Though, having our heads up our asses, contributed most to the decision perhaps.
I'm not against abortion, especially in circumstances with which you are trying to guilt trip us. But I do not think its use has been a boon to mankind in any way, shape, or manner.
Revenant, I will respond to you even though you don't deserve it.
You think abortion is not killing a human being because you choose to create a false reality. Just like Germans who participated in the Holocaust (who were for the most part normal relatively moral human beings) twisted reality by saying those they murdered were not human.
Abortion is the law of the land. But I see people all the time protesting in front of Planned Parenthood. They relish when they can convince someone not to go through with it. They support groups that help pregnant women get financial support so they can keep their babies or put them up for adoption.
But let me turn your question around, why is it okay to kill another human while they are in the womb (and abortion is mostly legal right up to the ninth month in the USA) but illegal the second they are born. Okay, I get the argument that early on it is just a "clump of cells" but when does that clump become human?
The death of innocent human life is a travesty. When you fuck and the egg splits the onus to both of you is created. At that point it is your responsibility to do everything to allow the child to be nurtured and make its entry into the world. To negate this is infanticide. To kill a child because of convenience is evil. I cannot put in any other terms.
But hey, it’s the way of the Western world, me first Baby, me first. And so the downward spiral continues. Alas alack, but I couldn’t afford it or I’m not ready. Many acknowledge that this a major form of birth control, pity. 55 million is too many. How many of these children could have brought something new into the world from the US: a cure for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, liver disease. What about new modes of transportation, auto, trucks, stellar drive for us to expand throughout the galaxy.
But I digress, what if.
How dreadful for your friend! Darcy, your story reminded me that I've sometimes thought... maybe abortion should be entirely legal, but include mandatory sterilization. And the truth is... how many women would get an abortion if they knew that this was their only chance to have a child? But it might be. For many women I'm sure it was and they now face having no child at all.
Revenant said...
Tell it to Stephen Hawking.
Hawking developed MS in his twenties. I'm pretty sure even Planned Parenthood wouldn't sign off on a 70th trimester abortion. :)
The point is that any such condition could theoretically be used to justify abortion.
And I wouldn't trust Planned Barrenhood, its founder's BFF carried out 70th trimester abortions all the time.
I think you have a point, XRay. I already spoke to Haz in a way that goes along the same lines on a previous post. I'll keep my nose out of it. The place for appreciating fetal life in the way that you and Darcy and Haz (and most here) remind us of is not easy to separate from the ways that promote all care from the earliest points on. Perhaps impossible to do, from the standpoint of basic human attachment. So I'm taking note of that, appreciating the parts of it I can sincerely accept, and moving along.
Rev - What is your point? You are okay with abortion for your own reasons, I get that.
But what is the point of your idiotic comment about me? Do you really think that I'm a crazed something or other who'd go around killing abortion doctors?
Seriously?
Revenant, I will respond to you even though you don't deserve it.
While you did, indeed, respond, you didn't answer my question. The closest you came was saying that abortion is "the law of the land", like that answers anything.
We're talking about an event that you and Haz claim is five times worse than the Holocause and happening in your own backyard. You think "hey, the law says the murders are ok" counts as a legit reason for standing by and doing nothing? Tell it to the Nuremberg courts.
As for the notion that waving a sign counts as doing something -- bitch, please. Fifty million murder victims and all you do is wring your hands and say "something must be done"?
So, no, sorry. You need to come up with a better reason than "it's the law". That kind of excuse might work for a left-winger who thinks the State is the end-all and be-all of right and wrong, but you conservatives supposedly believe in objective morality. Explain how doing nothing (except complain) while the state allows tens of millions of murders *isn't* a clear-cut example of abject moral cowardice.
But let me turn your question around, why is it okay to kill another human while they are in the womb
It's the law of the land! :)
And no, that's not my real answer. But it'll do for one until you come up with a better answer for my question.
"If I knew that, right now, someone was preparing to murder a child, I'd be on the phone to the cops. If I couldn't get them on the phone I'd be racing there to physically stop the killer myself, with lethal force if need be. Most adults would, I'd think."
And that would stop abortion, how?
You certainly are well aware that the moral necessity to "do something" is entirely false if the "something" isn't going to actually work. (And even then, an injustice is not the only criteria defining the moral necessity to act.
So... you run off to murder the murderer before the murderer can sacrifice the child on the altar of Baal... and you die... and they kill the baby anyway... and continue to kill babies because now they've got YOU to point to as an intolerant murderer, Tiller Killer, psychopathic danger to society and hold you up as the reason that no one can even QUESTION the worship of Baal and the sacrifice of infants.
Or, I suppose, if a person really believes that it's murder, they ought to kidnap women going into abortion clinics and hold them until the baby is born.
Do you imagine that that would stop the practice of abortion? Of course you don't. You're not stupid.
So why demand that people MUST to stupid, extreme things that have no chance to gain any ground against the injustice, that they have to be utterly self-defeating, before you'll admit they're sincere?
If the actual and real point was simply that murdering a fetus is treated differently than murdering a child, it is. But lots of things that are very well and accurately referred to as "murder" are not treated all the same, either by our courts or by society.
Hey, R&B, your nose is appreciated.
I'll move along also.
I did forget to thank Darcy, thanks Darcy, for broaching the subject.
Dialog is what keeps us human, we must maintain a way to talk to each other, no matter how disparate our views.
Except perhaps, for Revenant. He is in a league of his own.
But what is the point of your idiotic comment about me? Do you really think that I'm a crazed something or other who'd go around killing abortion doctors?
Well, no, Michael, I don't think you would go around killing abortion doctors. Thus my question: why aren't you killing abortion doctors?
The average abortion doctor performs several thousand abortions during his career. Each and every one is worse than any serial killer this country has ever seen, and they're all getting away with it. Why would a man have to be crazy to shoot one? What's crazy about it -- unless you don't really think they're killing children?
I rest my case.
Revenant - I'm not going to waste time on you.
And that would stop abortion, how?
Supply and demand. The number of people willing to be abortion doctors is low as it is. If the job was a death sentence the number would drop to near zero.
Revenant - I'm not going to waste time on you.
I'll let you get back to your busy schedule of empty posturing and hand-wringing, then. Let me know how that forty-year record of totally failing to prevent abortion works out for you.
Why would a man have to be crazy to shoot one? What's crazy about it -- unless you don't really think they're killing children?
Some people involved in the plot against Hitler had personal moral qualms about killing him. Atheism would have resolved that dilemma.
I hope God wins this thread, BTW.
@Revenant,
The question I've never heard a good answer to is: if you really believe that's happening, why are you just sitting around talking about it?
And what if they did call the cops, Rev? What would the cops say: "Sorry, Ma'am. It's perfectly legal."
There's no obvious answer to what one does when one is in the middle of a state-sanctioned atrocity. A cursory glance at the behavior of populations in the middle of the 20th century's multiple state-sponsored atrocities will tell you it's not easy to know what to do when a whole society seems to be arrayed against an individual conscience.
There have been multiple anti-abortion activists who have killed doctors or bombed clinics. What these activists accomplish is mostly to harden the resolve of the pro-abortion side that pro-lifers are terrorists who seek to rob women of their constitutional rights, a message abetted in its dissemination by a fully compliant media.
You seem to think that to be consistent that ultimately the pro-life position should lead to a state of guerrilla war against their fellow pro-choice citizens who have the full weight of the law on their side. Remember, the movement calls itself "pro-life", and a civil war may be many things, but it is not "pro-life".
It's their movement, Revenant, and the pro-lifers have been at it a long time, with a large cast of players spanning multiple faith traditions, including none at all. Have some trust that they've figured out their basic premises by now.
chickenlittle said...
I hope God wins this thread, BTW.
How would you know if she did?
Thanks for posting, Darcy. Me and some of the others take up too much O2 around here sometimes. Time for a breather. You are like fresh air.
I second that.
YH, thanks for the response. "It wouldn't work" is a fair answer, although I strongly disagree with it.
For every Gosnell there are probable 10 to 20 more that we simply don't know about because the industry has been left to pretty much to it's own devices.
In terms of regulation, more attention is paid to McDonalds that to abortion clinics. I'm sure of it.
Darcy, that was lovely and terrible.
For some, an abortion haunts forever.
For others, it's less than zero.
Revenant is an example of the latter, where abortion is meaningless. The problem is that that meaninglessness is too fast and too easily extended to others. The old, the impaired, the powerless.
Terribly sad.
Rev would be hit by lighting.
My late girlfriend grew up with someone who by the age of 42 had ten abortions. Why, I don't know, but she was very proud of the fact. It's almost impossible to comprehend.
How would you know if she did?
If it ends?
@Rev,
It's not "It wouldn't work". It's that you can't be pro-life & declare war on your fellow citizens. Many of those fellow citizens, are, because of the state & culture's overwhelming support of abortion, in a state of what the RCC would call invincible ignorance & thus are not really morally liable for their "go along to get along" support of abortion.
If you look at all the statements Obama has made each year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, you'll see he's pared it down now to the point where he doesn't even use the word "abortion," let alone words like "adoption" and "family" that he’d used earlier. Heck, in 2012, he even gave a nod to the notion that it was “a sensitive and often divisive issue.” Guess he's evolved to the “meaningless” stage Pogo mentioned above. Or maybe it's because he's not running for office again and was there all along.
2009/36th: On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services. On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere.
2010/37th: Today we recognize the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which affirms every woman’s fundamental constitutional right to choose whether to have an abortion, as well as each American’s right to privacy from government intrusion. I have, and continue to, support these constitutional rights. I also remain committed to working with people of good will to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and families, and strengthen the adoption system. Today and every day, we must strive to ensure that all women have limitless opportunities to fulfill their dreams.
2011/38th: Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
Synova, let me be a little more specific.
I'm not talking about just one guy up and deciding to kill abortionists. I'm saying that there are something like a hundred MILLION adults in the United States who claim to believe that abortion is murder. It isn't a question of why any one guy doesn't do something. I'm asking why there aren't tens of millions of people out there taking personal action to forcibly stop it from happening.
YH thinks the end result would be civil war. I don't think it would, just because "access to medical procedures" isn't the moral imperative that "preventing murder" is. Nobody picks up a gun to fight for surgical procedures, least of all ones that aren't even medically necessary nineteen times out of twenty. But, ok, maybe that works as an explanation.
The rest of Obama's statements:
2012/39th: As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue--no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
2013/40th: On the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we reaffirm its historic commitment to protect the health and reproductive freedom of women across this country and stand by its guiding principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters, and women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care. Today and every day, my Administration continues our efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and minimize the need for abortion. On this anniversary, we recommit ourselves to supporting women and families in the choices they make and redouble our efforts to promote safe and healthy communities.
2014/41st: Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health. We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom. And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children. Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.
@Revenant,
Duly constituted state authorities declare states of war. Citizens do not, especially not on each other.
This is not splitting hairs. This is solid Christian (& Jewish) doctrine that we must submit to lawful authorities as much as we can within conscience. The American state has permitted wide latitude for pro-lifers to act on their beliefs within the political process. Until it is clear that that avenue is blocked or somehow exhausted, it is not licit to commit acts of violence.
These men are all talk. What we need is action—action! ~ John Brown (1859)
R., you may have a misunderstanding of citizen. Or, civil, or, of America.
To a fault we allow freedom in all its manifestations.
That's why we're, at present, so fucked up.
I'm sure I would never want to change that, but it has its price. A price that many of us rue and would prefer different. Though if different we wouldn't be Americans.
You bring nothing to the discussion, really.
@Lydia: That was brilliant! It cries out for a legal, comparative document "red line" analysis.
I salute you!
Duly constituted state authorities declare states of war. Citizens do not, especially not on each other.
Before you said that pro-life people didn't do that sort of thing. The above is not a pro-life position. It is a pro-government position. It is also an odd position, given our own country's history. Our founders formed their own government and declared independence for reasons a heck of a lot less important than fifty-five million dead children.
This is not splitting hairs. This is solid Christian (& Jewish) doctrine that we must submit to lawful authorities as much as we can within conscience.
"Christian" and "Jewish" are *also* not the same as "pro-life", but whatever -- I'll give you a pass on that for now. I'm familiar with the concept.
But you and I both know that it has never extended to an obligation to obey governments that are complicit in mass murder, so how does it apply here? You've got Michael Haz up there saying abortion is worse than the Holocaust -- the argument that this doesn't sufficiently offend the Christian conscience to merit breaking the law is a no-sale.
The American state has permitted wide latitude for pro-lifers to act on their beliefs within the political process.
They are forbidden from in any way restricting the vast majority of abortions, regardless of how many people vote to do it. That's not "wide latitude" by any stretch.
Hell, advocates for legalized child molestation have more political freedom than pro-lifers.
Until it is clear that that avenue is blocked or somehow exhausted, it is not licit to commit acts of violence.
YH, it has been blocked for 41 years now. Fifty-five million corpses. Now, maybe that isn't enough to merit disobeying The Man, but if so I'd dearly appreciate it if pro-lifers stopped *claiming* abortion was a moral catastrophe unprecedented in American history. We fought a REAL civil war over less.
There is nothing to be gained by violence to end abortion. Reverant's argument is just bad faith baiting. At least some pro choice people (Camile Paglia for one) admit what abortion is. The only way to reduce it is to convince people it is wrong.
Upon further reflection, I decided my 3:20 post was too nasty.
The shorter version: EBL, just because you can't think of a good answer to a question doesn't mean I asked it in bad faith. I don't understand how you think and I would like to. This has nothing to do with convincing you or anyone else that *my* position on abortion is right, or even that yours is wrong. You can make a good case for banning abortion (albeit not one that I agree with) even if you DON'T think fetuses count as human. I mean, hell, we ban *cockfights* on grounds of cruelty.
There is nothing to be gained by violence to end abortion.
I can't say that I remember your politics, but I know a number of the pro-life people here support the war on terrorism. Using violence -- killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process, many of them innocents -- to combat a largely-unknown enemy that killed a couple of thousands of Americans. *That*, many of you think, is a legitimate use of violence.
But killing the few thousand people who actually perform those millions of abortions? Crazy talk, apparently. No way THAT could ever help anyone, because [handwaving].
Explain. How is it that in this one *particular* case, actually shooting the people responsible for the mass-murdering can't work?
Revenant your questioning is in bad faith. You want justification for your own position. It is obvious from your tying the "war on terror" to abortion. What is that about? Does one have to be Amish to be pro life (not that being Amish is bad)?
Barack Obama is all about abortion and the freedom of choice and has no problem sending drones all over the world. I do not equate self defense of the nation with killing innocents and the US military does attempt to avoid doing so (I recognize that does not always happen).
You then try to justify killing abortion providers to show you are somehow morally superior? I find your attempts at being clever tedious. I choose not to engage in this nonsense. The only reason I am responding is so others know my position.
Revenant, I wonder that too.
The thing is, I AM posturing. You busted me. Of course, everyone agrees it is an important issue, 55 million dead fetuses is too too despicable to allow but, no, I am unwilling to go blowing things up and burning down houses.
And that terrible number heaped on a law is an unfair number because women will do as they will whether legal or not. Whether I am fierce either for or against, or not.
Further, beyond philosophy, in this world I do not have a dog in this fight, oh dear, sorry fetuses for comparing you to dogs, sorry dogs for comparing you to dead fetuses. shit. okay, forget the dog fight thing, look, I get your point. Your point is taken. I accept what you are saying. I too wonder why a huge wave of righteousness doesn't overtake the entire discussion by force and impose its morality and like you conclude other things such as having a limp along if immoral society must be more important. For now.
I'm busted because In these matters we must know what the law is to be regarding one's own sexuality and a deeply personal moral decision between oneself and God.
I cannot answer you to your satisfaction. Yes, I am a schlub.
Wow. I'm very grateful for the discussion here. Thank you all.
@chickenlittle
He does and He will. :)
Someone here said, not long ago, ( and I forget who it was) that even if you are pro-abortion, 'to be honest you must admit that abortion is infanticide.'
(I paraphrase, that's not the exact quote.)
Stop with the delusional "It's just a clump of cells."
And why won't the right get with the program and force the left to OWN late term abortion?
Because they do.
Lydia - excellent. Now Obama won't even say the word "abortion".
"He does and He will. :)"
Does and will what? Spontaneously "abort" pregnancies? How sad. Awful. Terrible.
Come on, Meade. Did darcy's friend miscarry?
WTF is wrong with you?
While the left scream about "war on women" - why can't we ask why so many radical leftwing progressive democrats are fine with late term abortion?
"Apparently wanting [to force] more girls [and boys] to be born" [to women who don't want to be pregnant] is the way to defeat modern feminism. Say hello to the next hundred years of Democrats in the White House, ladies and gentlemen.
I think Rev has a good point, except I think it's only partly a matter of people not really thinking it's a child yet. I suspect that if killing born week-old children was the law of the land, that generally the public would let it continue, because, well, cowardice I guess. That's all I can think of. I don't think it's because we see a bright line at birth. We see a bright line at taking violent action to stop something, and for some people that line is never crossed.
I bet Rev thinks that our killing of civilians or even troops in far away lands to often be immoral, yet likewise he would sit on his ass about that too, or maybe he sees it differently.
chickenlittle said...
"Come on, Meade. Did darcy's friend miscarry?"
No, it sounded like she murdered her baby. So why aren't you calling for her to be prosecuted? What is wrong with you, chicken little?
Darcy, thank you for this post. Your sentiments were heart felt and true. It has also been revealing.
@Lem
For every Gosnell there are probable 10 to 20 more that we simply don't know about because the industry has been left to pretty much to it's own devices.
In terms of regulation, more attention is paid to McDonalds that to abortion clinics. I'm sure of it.
Indeed.
Don't forget Christie. Geez. The media won't let up. It's as if a traffic snarl is worse that one of our embassies burning to the ground.
The first time I ever had sex, we got pregnant. I was 16, she 15, and we were in middle school. I had some money in a bank account, we pawned a few gifts we had given each other, and scraped together $158 in 1974. We stole my parents car, skipped school and drove to the big city to get it done, and were back home before our parents got home from work. Nobody ever found out.
Neither of us had any second thoughts at the time. We were in total agreement about it having to be done. We had no prospects of raising the child, and we did it very early. As soon as she missed her period, she went to the doctor, and it was done about a week later.
We stayed together through high school, but broke it off when I was in college. I still talk to her every year or so, and we even spent some time together last year driving around the Pennsylvania countryside talking old times.
Thankfully she married and had a bunch of beautiful kids and a good life. That was an enormous relief to me. I do know other women who had abortions and never later married or had kids and that is probably a deep regret, no matter how much sense it made at the time.
Personally, I feel it must be a woman's choice through at least the first trimester, and in practicality always will be. She will get it done if she wants to, and there will always be someone to do it.
If you can do something, even if it's illegal or immoral, and nobody will ever know, that thing we be done often, especially if it's as important and life-changing as becoming a parent.
Hitler=Stalin=bagoh20.
Others hope that Godwin wins the thread.
I was 16, she 15, and we were in middle school.
Were you both held back in school?
"Others hope that Godwin wins the thread."
Ha ha. Well played.
But seriously, chicken little, you are pro-life, right? Why isn't bagoh20 an accessory to a murder?
Darcy's post is beautiful and moving. It deserves a better thread, but you go to comment war w/ the thread you've got, or something.
Revenant's comments raise a profound question w/ both moral and strategic aspects: What is a just person to do in the face of state-sanctioned evil? The greatness of MLK lay in his answer to this question, and more importantly in the movement he led to overturn the old order.
Who is the MLK of the pro-life movement? Where are the jails filled w/ nonviolent protesters devoting much of their lives to the ending of an enormous evil?
Perhaps the answer is that this battle can only be won by changing people's hearts. Writing like Darcy's can do that. But the civil rights movement said in response to the "hearts and minds" strategy...too late; we've waited long enough.
Revenant is simply asking whether the rhetoric matches up w/ the action. The futility of calling the cops didn't deter MLK, or the many thousands of others who mobilized against segregation.
Asking why it deters you isn't a ridiculous question or a personal insult or an endorsement of abortion. It may well be an uncomfortable question, though.
Thank you, Chip. I do hope to change hearts, just as mine did when as I carried my son.
I don't think it will ever be illegal, nor am I pushing for it to be illegal. I prefer to focus on encouraging our children and society to respect the creation of life. It's a wonder and a miracle in my view.
I think we can do better.
"It may well be an uncomfortable question, though."
And the reason that question is so profoundly uncomfortable is this: Even the majority of "pro-life" Americans - such as Darcy and others here - in their hearts do not ultimately wish for the state to have the power to force an individual woman who is pregnant but does not want to be pregnant - to carry that pregnancy to term.
That, ultimately, gives government too much power over the individual.
Right. The pendulum has swung too far. Lines have been crossed that should be re-drawn. A majority in this country are against late term abortion.
Yet, there it is.
Tax payer funded abortion? I don't think that is right either.
Let's change hearts, but lets also talk policy and force to the left to take a look in the mirror.
If you can get past the left's screaming about "war on women" - I see Gosnell.
It is sad that we've gone from Clinton's "safe and rare" to Obama's 'it's not abortion, it's just health care.'
Wrong direction.
There's an evolutionary explanation for all of this, probably.
Great post Darcy. Comments - not so much.
Chip S., I don't disagree with asking serious questions. I do not think Revenant was doing that (at least not in good faith). The baiting of Michael Haz showed that.
And John Brown was no hero.
As for legal or not, as Scalia noted abortion was not a right nor was it barred by the Constitution. It is up to the states to determine their laws. I doubt most states would completely bar abortion now, but many would restrict it. Most of Europe (including Northern European countries) have far more time restrictions on abortion than the U.S. does. But in a democracy, shouldn't those limitations be done by the people as opposed to that superlegislature known as the Supreme Court?
I want to see people change so whether it is legal or not is no longer the primary issue--that the vast majority of people just don't do it. It is a complex issue and it will never be eliminated (just like killing persons already born, justifiably or not, is a complex issue and not ever going away).
Amazing how easy it is to derail a subject. I see this all the time on border security. Try to discuss Border security and stopping illegal aliens from breaking into the country. Immediately, the open border fanatics will derail the discussion into "You can't deport 12 million people". Which of course, is not the subject. But people always take the bait.
Same with Abortion. Talk about how bad it is, and immediately you get derailment. Skip over the ethics of Abortion and go directly to "Are you going to put Doctors in jail?" "Are you going to put women i Jail?". Again, not the subject.
Meade said...
Hitler=Stalin=bagoh20.
You really are a total chicken-shit troll aren't you?
Question for you punk: Have you ever killed a human face to face?
You seem to advocate for prosecution of it, so I figure you have immediate knowledge. Or are you just bull-shitting as usual? performance.
BTW...Renevant had a point, overlooked, and perhaps even he/she didn't mean it.
@rcocean
You're right, it was not the subject. But I will keep trying.
"Talk about how bad it is, and immediately you get derailment. "
I see what you mean. Darcy opens the thread with a post about how bad she feels for her friend who aborted her baby. Just 2 or 3 comments in, Michael Haz goes all "Hitler's gas chambers and ovens" and asks us to imagine filling up the Super Bowl with dead babies.
Meade...nobody asked you jack shit, you imagine it. You drop by, pollute, and move on...that is your style.
I'd have joined this conversation long ago except that the author of this thread allows you to remain in play, so there is no point.
Answer my question bitch boy: You ever kill a man?
Revenant said…
We remember the horror of the millions of Jews and Christians and others forced into Hitler's gas chambers and ovens....how can 55 million dead children be any less horrible? (-M. Haz)
"The question I've never heard a good answer to is: if you really believe that's happening, why are you just sitting around talking about it?"
Geez Meade, doesn't your keeper have anything for you to do today?
I realize there is snow on the ground, so your one marketable skill is inoperable, but she can't find some housework for you to do?
Earn that room and board in the house you didn't pay for.
You don't want Althouse to "abort" your gravy ticket marriage do you?
And as to the topic at hand, I have evolved (hate that expression but will use it here) in my views on abortion now that my twenties are behind me.
With current medical technology there is absolutely no reason that an abortion should be performed after 20 weeks, excepting in the case where the life of the mother is significantly threatened. Not just feelings hurt, I may have a scar on my body, bullshit excuses, but actual "but for, I will die."
To my knowledge I never knocked a girl up, although did have one scare in high school, but it turned out she just wasn't menstruating due to a combination of excessive exercise and a touch of anorexia. I have always been to some extent pro choice, but the advances in prenatal imaging and medical technology extending viability make me think that Roe v. Wade needs some serious updating.
I had been coming to this conclusion slowly, but the recent premature birth of a friend's child at 24 weeks and now fully healthy infant has caused me to realize that anything after 20 weeks is ghoulish, and that might even be pushing it.
Meade is merely following the hoary Alinsky approach:
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)"
Well put, Pogo.
...I'd be racing there to physically stop the killer myself, with lethal force if need be. Most adults would, I'd think.
Then why aren't you? If you cared to look, you'd find places all around the world where child murders are virtually guaranteed along the same lines as abortion.
Why aren't you on your way to save the children?
@chickenlittle
It's done in bad faith, "demanding" action not because he believes it, but because I/you do.
The bad faith is yours alone, Pogo. You don't believe what you purport to believe. No wonder you changed your nickname. But you aren't even dead. You're just stuck. And all you can do is despair and flail and take personal shots. No humor. No joy. No hope. Just low level toxins.
I hope you find your faith, Pogo.
There is a personal way to counter Alinsky tactics link but there needs to be a way to counter it politically other than than calling it out publicly. Because we are knee deep in it at the national level.
No humor. No joy. No hope. Just low level toxins.
I think you're blinded by something, Meade.
It's a toxemia of presidency.
You should be wary of conversing with the devil.
He will use the words of the Lord to confuse you.
You know that abortion is wrong. It is evil. It is a choice. It is a choice to do evil.
You can make all the excuses and plea bargains you want but it is still wrong. As wrong as wrong can be.
Spoken by someone who knows (but doesn't care) just how wrong wrong can be.
No humor??
I guess abortion jokes aren't my thing.
I get it. But, yeah, you've lost something.
I know you're supposed to be dead. But maybe you could see a doctor who could help you.
Stay away from quacks though. You know that would break poor Crack's heart.
Maybe I'll try gallows humor.
"M'dabrim 'al ha-khamor, ve-hinei hu ba"
How come we never see pictures of aborted fetuses?
And, what happens to those aborted fetuses?
How are they discarded?
Are they just thrown into the trash, and then on certain days the waste management garbage trucks just pick them up, and, then what do they do with them?
Are they then dumped into the landfill, and along comes the bulldozer and smoothes out the pile of discarded fetuses.
Is a layer of, you know, just regular garbage from households spread over them?
Is there a special place in a garbage dump reserved for them?
Or, are they placed in an oven-type structure and burned.
Kinda like a Jew.
To put the question on an even playing field would require that people couldn't avert their eyes, or choose ignorance, or push the truth out of their minds. If they had to watch what happens during an abortion and also a forced birth and understand what they are seeing, then abortion would be far more offensive to most people than being forced to give birth - an act which most women voluntarily and gleefully choose repeatedly anyway.
"Were you both held back in school?"
You know, you're right. Our middle school was 9 - 10th grade.
I remember that not only did we steal the car, but I had no driver's license yet, and I had not tried pot yet either, so yea, I must have been 15, and her 14. Sheese, that's young. We should have tried pot instead of sex.
I've never worked out how people who oppose capital punishment are pro abortion. Or how vegetarians who abhor killing animals can be pro anortion.
Lol. "Speaking of a donkey…" ;-)
Meade said...
"Hitler=Stalin=bagoh20."
Excuse me, but I deserve more respect than that. It should be:
bagoh20 = Hitler = Stalin.
My agent assured me that I would get head billing in all appearances with those second rate amateurs.
I just now saw Brit Hume's strong Roe v. Wade anniversary comments: The Moral Case for Allowing Abortion Grows Ever Weaker.
The last part of his comment highlights the Newspeak aspect of all this:
"[abortion] advocates resort to ever more absurd euphemisms to describe what they support. They're not really pro-abortion, they've long said, they're pro-choice. This isn't about killing unborn babies. it's about reproductive health. And the biggest chain of abortion clinics in the country refers to itself as Planned Parenthood.
In 2012, this organization says it carried out -- quote -- 'abortion procedures' 329,445 times. Whatever that number represents, it's not parenthood. These protesters here today understand that there is something deeply false and wrong about all this. They come each year to remind the rest of us."
Good for him, and all praise to those who continue to go to D.C. to clarify the issue every year.
Even more respect:
bagoh20 = Hitler X Stalin.
rcocean wrote...
"Even more respect:
bagoh20 = Hitler X Stalin."
bagoh20 = (Hitler X Stalin)^2
With all due respect, bags...
Darcy, You spoke from your heart. Unfortunately, some can speak only from their ass. Jake Tapper is a good reporter. He reported on the pro-life rally yesterday. Jake interviewed the new leader of the pro-life movement. I was so heartened to hear them take the POSITIVE approach of adoption over abortion. As a couple who went through 10 years of infertility treatments, it is about time that someone FINALLY saw the opportunity to turn a negative into a positive. Thanks for providing this thread. Thanks for bearing your heart. And let the haters go shit in their hats. Just like dogs shit on their lawns.
"And the reason that question is so profoundly uncomfortable is this: Even the majority of "pro-life" Americans - such as Darcy and others here - in their hearts do not ultimately wish for the state to have the power to force an individual woman who is pregnant but does not want to be pregnant - to carry that pregnancy to term.
That, ultimately, gives government too much power over the individual."
I just wanted to make a point of acknowledging a thoughtful comment with which I find much to agree.
I will say, though, that the charge of wanting to "control" women and their reproduction and force them to have babies (and giving ourselves though the government the power to do so) is pretty much a scare tactic argument from the pro-abortion side who simply will not *ever* seem to admit that anyone really cares about the unborn in between wanting to put women in chains.
I would like to see this end, but not at the cost of giving the government that much more power. The stories may be apocryphal but I don't want the government investigating every miscarriage like we heard about some central american country. I don't want us having witch hunts for anyone who might be suspected of having an unnatural miscarriage. But I don't want 13 year olds to have strangers arrange to secretly abort their babies either. And I don't want our society to view viable infants as non-human because of their physical residence.
But I'd rather try to change opinion than give more power to the State.
I don't like the government power either, but protecting innocents from being unnecessarily killed by others simply out of convenience, laziness, or a simple desire to not have them around seems like one of the more justified uses of that power. If a government doesn't try to do that, then it can hardly justify it's existences at all.
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: "It might have been!"
Ah, well! for us all some sweet hope lies
Deeply buried from human eyes;
And, in the hereafter, angels may
Roll the stone from its grave away!
John Greenleaf Whittier
Synova said...
"But I'd rather try to change opinion than give more power to the State."
Thanks, Synova, for eloquently returning the discussion to a key point. In my opinion, the most effective political position for someone who genuinely wants abortion to become "rare" is pro-choice/anti-abortion. In 2014, "pro-life" absolutism is a political loser.
Post a Comment