As if those with a moral problem with infanticide hadn’t taken enough slaps to the face in the past week, Gosteleradio NPR sends down newspeak rules for dealing with the thorny issue of abortion:
On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”).
Okay, so those who don’t support abortion are against “rights”. Unborn children, apparently, weren’t available for input.
Oh, and if you’ve forgotten, you’re paying for this! đ
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)
Oh, okay. So basically, what you’re saying is this;
I am ColoradoPatriot, and I cried about nothing today.
Thanks for the update.
So, Nick, should opponents of gay rights should be referred to as “defenders of traditional values”? That’s how they style themselves, after all.
And so far we’re two for two on liberal commenters avoiding the issue and instead attacking the person who brings it up.
This is Newspeak for a very simple reason. Both Levi and torrentprime support abortion and push abortion. Why should they then not be called pro-abortion? Why is the left so terrified of being called “pro-abortion”, when it is obvious that they not only support and endorse abortion, but want the Federal government to pay for it.
Let liberals spread their propaganda however they want, but let them do so on their own dime. Its long past time to defund NPR.
I once turned in a paper where I chose ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-death’ as the terms. Prof made me rewrite it. One ‘find-n-replace’ later I have an A paper.
I replaced ‘pro-life’ with ‘anti-choice’ and ‘pro-death’ with ‘pro-choice’ nothing else.
Torrentprime, opponents of “gay rights”, especially gay marriage, ARE defenders of traditional values. Sadly, even some “conservative” gays here and elsewhere share the Left’s contempt for traditional values and those who hold them.
But ColoradoPatriot, I get your point. And thanks for being brave enough to call abortion what it is: infanticide.
Of course it is a matter of rights. Who has the right, and power, to decide if a woman is going to go through with a pregnancy and bring a child into the world?
Shall such power reside in the individual woman, or in the state?
Roe, the law of the land for nearly 40 years now, recognized that, especially early in a pregnancy, the state has no legitimate power to infringe on a woman’s right to make this decision.
That ruling has, obviously, been the issue at the heart of the dispute since then. Shall a woman be recognized to have the right to have an abortion, or shall the state have the power to deny her ability to exercise that right.
The issue is all about that right. “Pro-lifers” may have different motivations, they may be responding to other concerns, hewing to religious dogma, or some view of the sanciticy of the embryo, or something like that. But this is not an issue of what their motivations are – the issue is concerned with what the legal status of the individual woman’s rights are.
Pro-life, and pro-choice are both propaganda terms -made up by the advocates for their own purposes. Abortion-rights supporter or opponent is objective and factual.
Can I claim the right to end you? If I determine that you’re a cancer on the ass of America, can I not cut you off?
Aside from that, can someone tell me what kind of a country we live in where a child needs a permission slip to go on a field trip but not to have a potentially life threatening medical procedure?
Tano:
I believe the Founders would say that “rights” are only granted by the Almighty (i.e., “Nature”, “Nature’s God”, “The Creator”), and, if legitimate (i.e., “unalienable“), it’s government’s responsibility “to secure these rights” (all that stuff’s in some old document that used to matter, but whatev’).
What are those “rights”? Well, I can think of three right off the top of my head, and since the Founders led with “Life”, I’ll defer to them.
Now, you can have your own opinion, that’s one of the great things they put their lives on the line for. But it’s just that your opinion that “Life” isn’t an “unalienable” “right”, “endowed” upon us by “The Creator” and, our government’s role is “to secure these rights” simply is contrary to what they believed.
But the tone of your comment really undescores the huge difference between the sides of most debates in American politics these days. Try this on and see how it fits:
Rights don’t come from governments. It was the attitude that they do that led our Founders to Revolution in the first place.
like making the procedure of abortion illegal is actually going to stop folk from finding ways to not carry a fetus to full term. . .PLEASE
no, abortions should not be funded by monies collected by taxes.
infanticide is the killing of a child after it is delivered and has been happening over the centuries. abortive techniques have been developed and honed over the centuries also. . .nothing is really going to stop folk from aborting a fetus or killing an unwanted child.
helping families, women and men, to make better choices, to provide options of contraceptions and the education / understanding of those contraceptives will help reduce the number of abortions.
in the perfect world, every child would be wanted and loved. . .and for many in the gay community, they truly understand that sometimes that isn’t possible with the families and communities they live in. . .
WOW! The whole “A-Team” has swarmed the site and their feathers are flying. What causes this freak of nature show to occur? Is the multiple personality convention in town? Is it meeting at a table for one at the Purple Foot?
The legal point is that, according to Tano and the abortion crowd, the mass of cells is chattel. The woman owns it. She is the sole owner. She may do with her property what she will. It is not really part of her, because it took another party to get the incubator fired up, but since it is in her sole possession, it is her property.
She may kill it. She may carry it to term. She may sell it or donate it. It is her’s. The absolute best defense for this is not Roe v Wade. The case that best speaks to chattel is known as the Dred Scott decision.
Until some strange point in the pregnancy, there is no state interest or recognition that this “thing” is really anything. Who knows, it might turn out to be wheelbarrow. Okay, it is going to become a human being. An acorn is going to become an oak tree. But, geez, look at all the acorns that squirrels eat. So, geez, what it the issue if the woman decides to dump the hump and clear out the incubator?
It is all so, well …….. morally relevant. Having sex and getting pregnant is a punishment. Obama said so. We accept that unintended pregnancy happens. The only cure is post pregnancy birth control for those who want to play but don’t want to pay.
Killing a fetus is really an incredible second chance. If you stumble and break your leg, you are really out of luck. But if you stumble and get knocked up, you can scramble the eggs and suck them out.
Now, if a man is so unfortunate as to meet a player who decides to keep the fetus, why doesn’t the man (John Edwards) have the right to take her at gun point to the abortionist and get the little nuisance killed, sucked out and flushed?
It the single mom is overwhelmed with the two year old, why should she have forfeited her right to kill it?
Wow! Outstanding, and probably the best pro-life argument I’ve ever heard. helio, I’m stealing this from you!
“Rights donât come from governments. It was the attitude that they do that led our Founders to Revolution in the first place.’
Nick, you are just spouting talking points that pop into your head. I have no disagreement with this statement at all, and have, in fact, argued this very point at length, on these pages – even within the past week.
Part of your problem is this:
“What are those ârightsâ? Well, I can think of three….”
I think, at core, we have freedom – and that is before we have any government. You can get all religious about it and refer back to free will and the Garden of Eden if you want, but even the athiests will agree that freedom is a core human attribute. To parse it out into defined “rights” is inherintly to limit it. And to assume that it is limited in its extent.
The revolutionary American perspective is that what should be limited is NOT the rights of the people, but the powers of government. Start with unlimited rights – then constrain and limit them only to the extent necessary to secure a decent society. Thats why we have a ninth amendment – Madison’s attempt to make clear the point that irrespective of whatever rights are actually mentioned in the Constitution, the people have far more rights, and yes, they do not derive from the government or the Constitution.
But the issue with abortion is quite simple. Difficult but simple. At what point in the development of the embryo, then the fetus, leading up to birth – at what point do the rights of an individual kick in.
There probably is a lot less disagreement about all these issues of freedom and Constitutionality and all that – than people who argue these points pretend. At core, the dispute is just this – when does one assume the rights of an individual.
It is not a clear cut answer. Many cultural practices link the beginning of our lives to our birth. Traditionally in Christian culture, there was a defined moment of “ensoulment” – when the soul was thought to enter the body – that defined individuality. Interestingly, that was roughly the same time that the Roe decision focused on.
In fact if you read the Roe decision, you will see a serious attempt to deal with this question, and understand its history in our culture – and to try to come up with a reasonable response to the question of when individual rights are assumed by a develping fetus, and thus when does the state have a legitimate sphere for exercising its power.
Sorry – I gotta run and stop here….
Tano:
Once again, I am grateful that you do more to disqualify yourself as an intelligent contributor than anything I or any other commenter could in a million posts.
Reading your thesis, it comes down to this:
The Federal government should run as much of our lives as possible (banking, car industry, the media, oh, and our very health care), but they are going far beyond their Constitutional bounds to suggest they defend an innocent life (remember, one of the three specific rights in the Declaration of Independence) against murder and aggression.
That you believe this is comical. That so many of our elected officials do is tragic.
I’ve got a question I’d like to ask any of the pro-lifers that might care to respond. Suppose that we could have it your way, and abortion was illegal. My girlfriend and I decide to have recreational sex, and since we know we have to be extra careful, we’re using birth control pills and condoms. Six weeks later, she finds out that she’s pregnant because neither of those methods are 100% effective, even when combined.
My question is this; would anyone in that situation have any recourse? Could you get a waiver for an abortion if you used birth control and it wasn’t effective? Would we be allowed to sue the makers of the pill and condom to financially support the child we did not want for the rest of its life? Would the government take this unwanted burden of a child off of our unwilling hands in such a situation?
Because you see, nothing about that scenario sounds like it involves freedom and individual liberty. Here’s a better idea; let people do what they want when it comes to sexuality and family planning. If you don’t like the idea of abortion, don’t get one, and have enough humanity to not be so invasive as to tell other people going through a difficult decision-making process that they shouldn’t have one either. It makes no difference to you and has absolutely no effect on your life if people have abortions. Reproductive rights are deeply personal and just as inalienable as all of the other things in the constitution, and no man, woman, organization or government should have the ability to revoke them. This is a freedom issue, and it is rather Orwellian that in the current political debate, the side that claims to be the party of freedom is on the most authoritarian and restrictive side of the argument.
I expect the answer to my above scenario will be that if you’re choosing to have sex, you should be prepared for the consequences of a baby, which is just totally ridiculous. Sex is fun and healthy and people want to have it without thinking about babies and parenthood. This is the worst part of the anti-abortion argument, it isn’t so much pro-life as it is anti-sex. It’s a religious wedge issue and it’s scary to think that so many people want to exert such absolute control over the bodies of our females – but it makes sense when you realize its religious foundations. That’s more disturbing to me than a thousand aborted embryos.
Here’s an idea; why don’t we just focus, together, on reducing the number of abortions that happen? Nobody likes the idea of abortions, even those of us who believe it is as fundamental a right as free speech, and we’d like to see fewer of them and maybe even a day when they’re totally unnecessary. You can do that with social programs and education, but don’t hold your breath waiting for fundamentalist pro-lifers to get on board with those efforts, no matter how obvious it becomes that that is the only way to go on the issue.
I would also like to know what should be the punishment for having an abortion in this country where the practice is outlawed. Does the mom get charged with murder or the doctor? (Dads, presumably, will never have to deal with this category of crime.) Will teens who get abortions be tried as adults or do they get to stay in the juvenile detention system? At some point should we start tying tubes by order of the courts?
And herein lies the problem.
I expect the answer to my above scenario will be that if youâre choosing to have sex, you should be prepared for the consequences of a baby, which is just totally ridiculous.
Not really. It’s called being an adult.
And of course, as you make clear in this whine, you aren’t one.
Sex is fun and healthy and people want to have it without thinking about babies and parenthood. This is the worst part of the anti-abortion argument, it isnât so much pro-life as it is anti-sex.
Actually, Levi, the pro-life argument is all about people taking responsibility for their own behavior and exercising their freedom wisely.
The pro-abortion argument that you make is all about people avoiding responsibility for their own behavior and choosing to exercise their freedom in ways that hurt others.
Only children expect to go through life without consequences. You and your fellow pro-abortion liberals are still emotional and intellectual children and demand that government prevent you from ever being inconvenienced by your choices.
You want to have grownup rights, Levi? Act like one. We prevent children from having sex because they can’t understand the basic concept of consequences for choices. You should be prevented from having sex because you’ve demonstrated that you will murder rather than taking the consequences for your behavior.
Furthermore, Levi, since you don’t want to have children and want to have strictly recreational and promiscuous sex, go have a vasectomy. Then you can have as much promiscuous sex as you want without ever having to worry about producing a baby.
By the way, when you get HIV, are you going to come screaming to us and whining that we should pay for your health care? Or are you going to man up this time and face the inconvenience yourself?
I would also like to know what should be the punishment for having an abortion in this country where the practice is outlawed. Does the mom get charged with murder or the doctor?
Actually, it would be manslaughter, since it’s life lost by gross and reckless negligence. Manslaughter for the mother, loss of license and fine for doctor.
And as far as males go, this is coupled with a very straightforward law; since you were a participant in the pregnancy, you are not legally responsible for the abortion, but you are responsible for the child financially, which means you pay for the necessary health care during the pregnancy and half of all expenses after birth.
And we castrate sex offenders. Why would we not perform vasectomies and tube-tyings on people who have repeatedly demonstrated they are not interested in taking responsibility for their behavior in a similar fashion?
And now for this one:
Nobody likes the idea of abortions, even those of us who believe it is as fundamental a right as free speech, and weâd like to see fewer of them and maybe even a day when theyâre totally unnecessary.
Why?
After all, liberals and the Barack Obama Party state that the baby is a “parasite”, and that it’s taken over the mother’s body completely against her will, and that it’s not even human.
Why would you expect us to believe that you care about what you’ve termed to be a “parasite” and completely dehumanized?
Levi:
I think NDT hits the nail on the head when it comes philisophically to the entire idea of abortion (and why I get into so many arguments with pro-life—yes, I said “pro-life”—people):
What’s wrong with abortion?
Bill Clinton said abortion should be “safe, rare, and legal”. Even Obama says we should strive for fewer. Why? What other medical procedure is treated as a right and yet even its proponents would like to see less of it?
Honestly answering the question of why you, Levi, want there to be fewer (“and maybe even a day” when there are none) would give you a much better perspective into how pro-life people feel. Although, it may cause you to re-evaluate as well.
“The Federal government should run as much of our lives as possible (banking, car industry, the media, oh, and our very health care),”
No it should not. You are reading your comic books again, and not paying attention to the real world. Democrats and liberals do not beleive that the government should run any of these things. The government must REGULATE the banking industry and the health insurance industry. Do you understand the difference between running somthing and regulating it? Its the difference between socialism and capitalism.
Your fantasy world of no regulation is not really captialism – for it would be an unstable world that would quickly devolve into tyranny.
No one believes that the government should run the car industry either. You know that, and yet you lie about this. The Obama administration rescued GM and Chrysler from a certain death because their already difficult position (their own fault) was compounded by the financial meltdown (not their fault) which threatened to sink the company, and along with it tens of thousands of jobs in those companies and related industries – in the midst of a serious recession. The government owns a majority stake temporarily, and it will be sold as soon as possible. This action does NOT come from any ideology that believes in government ownership of industry – but one that recognizes that the government can take certain steps to protect people in extraordinary situations like this.
I guarantee you that any Republican president who had enough common sense to win a majority of votes in an election, would have done the same.
“but they are going far beyond their Constitutional bounds to suggest they defend an innocent life (remember, one of the three specific rights in the Declaration of Independence) against murder and aggression.”
As I wrote before – the issue is at which point do we identify a fertilized egg or an embryo or a fetus as having an individual life, distinct from its mother’s life, such that, although the developing fetus is still part of the mother’s body, the rest of society – operating through the government – shall have the power to override the woman’s basic right to control her own body.
Nothing in your poorly thought out response manages to address the real issue. When do you wish to see the government supplant the woman as the deciding power over what happens within the woman’s body?
“What other medical procedure is treated as a right and yet even its proponents would like to see less of it? ”
This line of thinking seems utterly oblivious to the central point of this issue.
THere are two entirely separate questions here. One – is abortion in any way problematical – is it nice, or nasty – is it something that you would ever have done or approve of having done to a loved one, or not?
But the second question is – should your opinion on these matters be made the law of the land such that other people, who might actually be confronting these issues in their own lives – shall not have the right to decide for themselves.
It is a basic quesiton of freedom. A woman finds out she is pregnant – could be from a rape, or incest, or maybe her own poor judgement – and she does not want to continue the pregnancy and bear the child. Do YOU have any say in this matter? Should society as a whole have any say?
As a natural endowment, the woman has freedom over her own life and her own body. Unless you try to take it away from her, using the enforcement power of the government.
That is the issue. One can think of abortion as horrible, brutal – whatever the adjective. One can set out to dedicate their life to eradicating the practice. One can do all that and still respect the freedom of the individual. Do not try to use government to enforce your case if you fail to persuade everyone – go out and try to persuade.
Isn’t that the real Christian way? DId Jesus try to change people’s souls, or did he play the political game and try to get laws established to prevent people from sinning?
Democrats and liberals do not beleive that the government should run any of these things.
Actually, the Obama Party and liberals openly boast about their desire to nationalize and run industries.
Next:
The Obama administration rescued GM and Chrysler from a certain death because their already difficult position (their own fault) was compounded by the financial meltdown (not their fault) which threatened to sink the company, and along with it tens of thousands of jobs in those companies and related industries â in the midst of a serious recession.
And Barack Obama and his ObamaCare are set to put tens of thousands of people out of work due to massive tax increases on companies in the midst of a serious recession. Not to mention the upcoming losses of millions of jobs in the health insurance industry.
You don’t understand this, Tano, because you are a racist. You simply are not capable of intelligently evaluating anything that Barack Obama does because of his black skin color. As a result, you are regularly beclowning yourself here.
As a natural endowment, the woman has freedom over her own life and her own body. Unless you try to take it away from her, using the enforcement power of the government.
Unfortunately for that argument, pregnancy is not a spontaneous action. It is a result of a series of choices made that result in the production of a new human being.
Women have the freedom to choose to have sex. With the exercise of that freedom, they accept responsibility for the potential outcomes. They are individuals and are perfectly capable of doing that; it’s only liberals, with their built-in misogyny, who believe that women are not capable of controlling their own sexual activity and thus “need” abortion.
Pro-abortion individuals like Tano need to man up and admit that they support killing another human being for their own personal convenience. Furthermore, what makes this hilarious is that pro-abortion individuals like Tano are the first to push the mandates in ObamaCare that take away peoples’ freedom to make their own choices and manage their own bodies in the area of tobacco use, food, and the purchase of health insurance.
As for invoking Jesus, Tano, Jesus in every situation demonstrated that human life has value, and that those who dehumanized others like yourself were wrong. Your promotion of abortion and your demand that those who oppose it be forced to pay for it is 180 degrees opposite of anything that Jesus ever said, and your invocation of him in this case is not only hilariously wrong, but demonstrative of how your Obama Party and liberals like yourself loathe and try to abuse religious beliefs.
Also, the interesting thing to me is this; the liberals’ beloved Endangered Species Act levies the same penalties for the destruction of eggs and nests or causing abortion of offspring as it does for killing an adult animal.
But when it comes to humans, liberals argue that babies are not human and thus can be killed for personal convenience.
#27: Sickening, NDT. Truly sickening. Thanks for the info.
Tano and Levi are like every new crop of sophomores who come along with brilliant “new” thinking. Same old “me” centered stuff. If there is a stop sign at an intersection and you can see for a thousand miles around that there is no car, must you stop?
People who see morality only in the terms of consequences are really fairly useless on the intellectual level. They are amoral. It is not right vs. wrong to them, it is how they must approach a situation to get the most personal comfort from it.
Levi: “accidentally” knock up your sex partner and then abort the result. What do I care? Open an abortatorium at the mall. Start a franchise. Sell kiddie porn. Smoke weed. Tatoo the names of your conquests on your tool. Why “debate” with a reprobate?
Since some abortions can be “sanctioned” by liberals, we get stuck with a wide open door that allows all abortions in general. This is typical of the moral relativist logic. The school system in Washington that “counseled” with the girl and then took her to the abortionist and got the deed done can be defended by any number of moral relativists and liberals.
Right and wrong are clear cut. But we have juries to determine the consequences for the wrong. Plead your case. That is actually the point where you get to try to introduce all the supposed shades of gray and sway the outcome. If a woman has an abortion and abortion is illegal, should she be imprisoned? In a fundamental Islamic country she would consider herself lucky not to be killed. In the US, I can hardly see her being much more than admonished.
Actions have consequences. Planned Parenthood puts its eugenics clinics near black neighborhoods. 35% of all the babies they kill are black which is way out of proportion to the size of the black population in the country. They know that black males are imprisoned, die young, have high unemployment rates, cause all sorts of havoc at enormously high rates compared with other groups in the US. Kill the fetus and you lessen the cost to society, in the eugenists view.
Most of the arguments you hear favoring abortion have a steady ring of “economics” as the main beat. Having an unplanned child is “punishment” in Obama’s mind. You should be able to swap body fluids without any of the messy crap of parenthood.
Well, cut the tubes, Ace. Any male that wants to father a child can bank his sperm and then close down the production. When the time is right to pass along the genes, get the old fertility clinic do the deed. That ought to satisfy manhood just fine.
Why don’t libs go on a crusade for national sperm vaults and vasectomies for every 13 year old male in the country?
Arguing under the rules of moral relativism is idiot’s work.
Honestly answering the question of why you, Levi, want there to be fewer (âand maybe even a dayâ when there are none) would give you a much better perspective into how pro-life people feel. Although, it may cause you to re-evaluate as well.
I’m perfectly capable of recognizing that abortion is a tragedy. It isn’t something that anyone likes to happen and it’s obviously a great moral dilemma. But that doesn’t justify depriving a woman of the ability to determine for herself when she should and should not start having kids.
I’m just going to be on the side of the full-grown adults in this one. I don’t like that a would-be human life has to be snuffed out, but I don’t like the idea of a woman being forced to raise children that she doesn’t want much, much more. And it’s not about shirking responsibility, it’s about being sympathetic to the peoples’ individual and complex circumstances. Part of being responsible is knowing when you are mature enough to handle raising kids, and many people just aren’t. My girlfriend and I would not be good parents at the moment, and we use every precaution to make sure we don’t get pregnant. But even with all we do, there is still some chance that she could become pregnant – why should we be forced to raise a baby? Are you telling me that your definition of responsibility involves only having sex for pleasure when you’re fully equipped to raise a child? Again, that position isn’t pro-life as much as it is anti-sex.
People want sex, I don’t know if you’ve realized this in your travels yet, but it’s true. I think a really sympathetic figure on this question is Bristol Palin. I saw an interview she did where she kept saying how much of a blessing her kid was, but that ‘she wished it had happened in like ten years.’ That pretty much distills the whole issue right there – Bristol knows that she won’t have a college career like most of her peers and that her young adult years will be consumed with caring for a child. She wishes she could have done all those things and then had a baby. It’s sad watching a 17-year old kid trying to articulate that they’re sad about their youth being over before it even began, and she’s one of the lucky ones because of how well off her family is. There’s millions of girls in the world that have been in similar or worse situations, and those are the people that I feel for, not the tiny little smattering of cells that make up a 3 week old fetus.
Tano and Levi are like every new crop of sophomores who come along with brilliant ânewâ thinking. Same old âmeâ centered stuff. If there is a stop sign at an intersection and you can see for a thousand miles around that there is no car, must you stop?
“Me centered stuff?” Hardly. I will never be in this situation, don’t you worry. Not having an abortion is one of the easiest things to do in the world if you’ve got two smart people in a relationship together. I don’t want abortion to remain legal because I lead some reckless, promiscuous sexual lifestyle, I want abortion to remain legal because it’s a womens’ rights issue. And I’m not a woman…. so my position on this issue is about as far away from “me-centered” as it is possible to get.
You, on the other hand, believe that because of how you come down on a contentious issue, everyone in the country needs to respect your opinion and make it into a law for all of us to follow. I would say that is a little me-centered, don’t you think?
People who see morality only in the terms of consequences are really fairly useless on the intellectual level. They are amoral. It is not right vs. wrong to them, it is how they must approach a situation to get the most personal comfort from it.
Spare me. I’m no moral relativist or absolutist. I don’t like abortions, but I don’t like depriving people of their freedom to make their own decisions even more. The lesser of two evils in this case is letting people make choices, how is that amoral?
Levi: âaccidentallyâ knock up your sex partner and then abort the result. What do I care? Open an abortatorium at the mall. Start a franchise. Sell kiddie porn. Smoke weed. Tatoo the names of your conquests on your tool. Why âdebateâ with a reprobate?
I see you’re taking North Dallas Thirty’s approach of talking to everyone you disagree with like they’re the most ridiculous Glenn Beck caricature of a liberal that there is. Let me set you straight, buddy. I’ve been in an exclusive relationship for six years and every single time that we’ve ever had sex we have used birth control. Again, I don’t argue before abortion because I need it personally and because I want to preserve a bail-out for myself because of how many drunken one-night-stands I have. It’s a womens’ right issue. Do you want to talk like a grown-up now, or do you want to keep embarrassing yourself?
Since some abortions can be âsanctionedâ by liberals, we get stuck with a wide open door that allows all abortions in general. This is typical of the moral relativist logic. The school system in Washington that âcounseledâ with the girl and then took her to the abortionist and got the deed done can be defended by any number of moral relativists and liberals.
Yes, that is the idea. Many people have lots of very good reasons to have abortions, so society makes them available. And if you think banning abortions will do anything to reduce the underlying demand for them, then you need to go read about how effective Prohibition was and how easy it is for teenagers to get weed these days. Women will still get abortions, except that they won’t be getting them from medical professionals and many women will die. Nice, now you’ll not only have the fetuses to cry over, but teenage girls, too!
Right and wrong are clear cut. But we have juries to determine the consequences for the wrong. Plead your case. That is actually the point where you get to try to introduce all the supposed shades of gray and sway the outcome. If a woman has an abortion and abortion is illegal, should she be imprisoned? In a fundamental Islamic country she would consider herself lucky not to be killed. In the US, I can hardly see her being much more than admonished.
What is this, 17th century puritan Massachusetts? You think the crime should be ‘admonishment?’ That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard all week. I hereby promise to never admonish anyone for having an abortion, how do you like them apples?
I wish someone would belly up and say that abortion is first-degree murder and that you should be thrown in jail for life if you get one. But almost everyone I’ve ever heard that was directly asked that question comes back by saying there shouldn’t be any jail-time or crime. How is that supposed to work? How are you supposed to ban something but provide no punishment for it?
Actions have consequences. Planned Parenthood puts its eugenics clinics near black neighborhoods. 35% of all the babies they kill are black which is way out of proportion to the size of the black population in the country. They know that black males are imprisoned, die young, have high unemployment rates, cause all sorts of havoc at enormously high rates compared with other groups in the US. Kill the fetus and you lessen the cost to society, in the eugenists view.
Planned Parenthood isn’t a eugenics program. Blacks and minorities are disproportionately poor and uneducated, and thus they’re more likely to have abortions. Poverty is the main factor in determining which segment of the population is more likely to have abortions. It works the same way with crime – there are more poor blacks, so there are more black people in prison. There isn’t anything sinister about it, Planned Parenthood doesn’t try to recruit people into getting abortions, they’re not actively trying to lure in certain minorities. That’s nothing but delusional conspiracy theory based on nothing, nothing at all.
Most of the arguments you hear favoring abortion have a steady ring of âeconomicsâ as the main beat. Having an unplanned child is âpunishmentâ in Obamaâs mind. You should be able to swap body fluids without any of the messy crap of parenthood.
Yes, you should be able to have sex without thinking about parenting. People are going to do that anyway, and if you’d like to stand against the tide on millions of years of human evolution and think that you have even the slightest chance of getting people to stop having sex for fun, well, have at it.
This is where education, social programs, and providing healthcare to poor people can come in handy. Again, people are going to do it no matter what, but with those kinds of community efforts, you can get people to do it in a safe way that is less likely to result in an unwanted pregnancy.
And remember, unwanted pregnancies are the true problem, not the abortion act itself. Pro-lifers would be a lot more credible if they actually spent time trying to reduce the number of abortions through these types of programs instead of trying to intimidate and scare people and scream the loudest. Like I’ve said in this thread, the obvious solution here is to do just that, reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies with methods that are proven to work, while still maintaining the right to abortions. Would pro-lifers be happy if we were able to reduce the number of abortions every year by 15 or 20 percent? I would hope so, though I doubt it.
Well, cut the tubes, Ace. Any male that wants to father a child can bank his sperm and then close down the production. When the time is right to pass along the genes, get the old fertility clinic do the deed. That ought to satisfy manhood just fine.
Why donât libs go on a crusade for national sperm vaults and vasectomies for every 13 year old male in the country?
Arguing under the rules of moral relativism is idiotâs work.
More silliness based around the assumption that I’m some wild sex maniac that hates kids and women. A terrible ending to a terrible post.
Iâm just going to be on the side of the full-grown adults in this one. I donât like that a would-be human life has to be snuffed out, but I donât like the idea of a woman being forced to raise children that she doesnât want much, much more.
Actually, no; you’re on the side of the irresponsible and the cowardly, and you’re doing it for your own personal convenience.
You see, Levi, pregnancy is not a spontaneous event. A woman has a choice; if she is not prepared to deal with the consequences of having a child, she can choose not to have sex. And if she chooses to have sex, she is accepting the possibility that her decision will result in another human life for which she is responsible.
That’s where this whole rhetoric of “choice” becomes silly. The woman already made the choice that produced the child in the first place; the fact that she doesn’t want to deal with the responsibility of that choice is the main issue. She had perfect freedom of action to make or not make the choice; now what she wants is freedom from the responsibility for the choice she made.
That is where your attempt to invoke Bristol Palin, who IS taking responsibility for the choice she made, becomes hilarious. You are much more of a Levi Johnston supporter, who is dodging and trying to get away from the responsibility. Of course, liberals like you support Levi Johnston and bash Bristol Palin. You hate those who take responsibility for their choices and support and endorse those who don’t.
And finally, what makes you truly and completely disgusting is that you are supporting the “full-grown adult” — who had the choice not to get into the situation that results in pregnancy, whose choice resulted in the pregnancy in the first place, who can choose to go to the doctor, who can work to afford the health care, and who can then give the child up for adoption in nine months.
The child has none of these choices. The child could not choose not to exist. The child could not choose not to be born. The child could not choose in which womb it wanted to develop. The child cannot in any way speak for itself, manage its situation, or defend itself. The child in this case is completely innocent and helpless.
You support murdering the innocent and helpless for the convenience of those who caused the issue in the first place.
And that makes you a disgusting coward, Levi. You scream and wet yourself over criminals who have already killed thousands of innocent Americans getting their heads wet, but you absolutely support and endorse “snuffing out” over 1 MILLION innocent, helpless human lives annually in the name of “freedom”.
Finally, to build on the Levi Johnston point, whenever a male liberal talks about “women’s rights” and “choice”, what they leave out is this; when they get women pregnant, it is in the man’s interest to push and promote abortion.
Think about it. A man has zero responsibility for an aborted child legally. But if a child is brought to term and born, that man is immediately responsible for that child’s health and financial well-being.
Conservatives recognize and realize that, which is why they promote fatherhood and responsibility. Levi and his fellow liberals, on the other hand, promote and endorse murdering the child to get rid of that responsibility, and rationalize it under the woman’s “choice”. Instead of simply stating that they want the child dead so they don’t have to have any responsibility for it, they try to rationalize and spin and promote abortion.
This is why Levi and his ilk hate and loathe women like Palin, who say right up front that no, abortion is NOT the right way to do things and it’s NOT empowering to women; it’s taking a life for personal convenience. If abortion ever were banned, Levi and his fellow Obama Party members would have to start taking responsibility for the children they father. Their sex could no longer be recreational love-and-leave; there would be consequences, just as there are for women.
In short, abortion is the best example of misogyny out there; women being convinced that their lives are meaningless if they get pregnant, being ordered to kill their own offspring, and being reassured that this abhorrent behavior is normal, all by men whose only interest is in their own selfish promiscuity.
## 30-31: âIâm perfectly capable of recognizing that abortion is a tragedy. It isnât something that anyone likes to happen and itâs obviously a great moral dilemma. But that doesnât justify depriving a woman of the ability to determine for herself when she should and should not start having kids…Iâm just going to be on the side of the full-grown adults in this one. I donât like that a would-be human life has to be snuffed out, but I donât like the idea of a woman being forced to raise children that she doesnât want much, much more. And itâs not about shirking responsibility, itâs about being sympathetic to the peoplesâ individual and complex circumstances.â
Wow. Levi, I gotta say that your comments on this issue have really surprised me. I thought I had heard all of the arguments that the left has to offer on the abortion issue and I assumed that yours would be same, but now that Iâve read your comments I see that you have taken a unique position that I have actually never encountered.
I have found that when it comes to the abortion issue, liberals are all pro-choice and that while there may be variations in the details of their reasoning, their position is universally anchored by a resolute and unwavering premise that the physical contents of a pregnant womanâs uterus is not a human life at any stage of gestation. I disagree with their premise and am therefore pro-life. However, the fatal flaw in the liberalsâ argument is not the premise itself, but rather their steadfast refusal to hypothetically consider the possibility that their premise is false. They wonât even entertain the possibility that the fetus is a human life because its unavoidable ramifications render their position indefensible and proves them to be homicidal monsters for remaining committed to it.
But apparently (and shockingly), Levi, you donât subscribe the premise above. In fact, you seem to reject it completely which manages to be both intellectually honest and horrifyingly sociopathic at the same time. You unequivocally acknowledge that abortion is a âtragedyâ that poses a âgreat moral dilemmaâ because it accomplishes a âwould-be human lifeâ being âsnuffed out.â But in weighing this against the diverse âindividual and complex circumstancesâ that a pregnant woman may be dealing with, you somehow conclude that the interests of the woman prevail. And whatâs worse, you (either dishonestly or erroneously) cite the possibility of a woman âbeing forced to raise children that she doesnât wantâ as though it were her only alternative to having an abortion (the word âadoptionâ does not appear in any of your comments).
So, in sum, your position is that the pro-lifers are correctâabortion is âsnuffing outâ a human life, but if a pregnancy conflicts with a womanâs desired plans for her life, the greater of âtwo evilsâ would be to allow the unwanted pregnancy to derail those plans. Therefore, âsnuffing outâ innocent human life it is.
I knew you were fu*ked up, Levi, but this really takes the cake. If what is being taught at American universities is producing entire generations of young adults with a worldview as morally detached and nihilistic as yours, then our civilization really is doomed. Moral relativism is a cancer to free and prosperous societies and thatâs exactly what you are. No one ever proudly admits to being a moral relativist. Like you, everyone denies being one even as they dive through flaming hoops of rationalization because even the left knows that the label signifies moral decay. Levi, the question of whether you are a moral relativist is plainly answered by your grotesque analysis of the moral dilemma presented by an unplanned âwould-be human lifeâ and the âindividual and complex circumstancesâ of a womanâs life. The fact that you reach such a repugnant conclusion after weighing the competing interests of the woman and the âfetusâ demonstrates that your âscaleâ is irrevocably broken (your empty assertion that youâre âno moral relativistâ notwithstanding).
In other words, ew.
âI donât like abortions, but I donât like depriving people of their freedom to make their own decisions even more. The lesser of two evils in this case is letting people make choices, how is that amoral?â
The irony here is that you meant the above question to be rhetorical but your comments clearly demonstrate that you really donât know the answer to the question of whether something is amoral or not. Levi, objective right and wrong does exist despite your inability to distinguish between the two.
âThere isnât anything sinister about it, Planned Parenthood doesnât try to recruit people into getting abortions, theyâre not actively trying to lure in certain minorities. Thatâs nothing but delusional conspiracy theory based on nothing, nothing at all.â
No, Levi. Youâre a liar. There is shocking video evidence that has been gathered by Lila Rose in which doctors provided her with scientifically false information and shamelessly pressured her to consent to an abortion because it puts more money in Planned Parenthoodâs coffers. Rose was told that a 10-week old unborn child does not have a heartbeat, which is a lie (embryologists agree that the heartbeat begins around 3 weeks), and a doctor told her that having an abortion will be âmuch safer than having a baby,â warning, âYou know, women die having babies.â Planned Parenthood has also been caught cheerfully accepting donations to be used specifically for the abortion of black babies and agreeing to engage in cover-ups to protect statutory rapists from prosecution when the underage girls they impregnated seek abortions. This is all well-documented on video and Democrats have no objections to it whatsoever as they continue to support Planned Parenthood and court the organization for endorsements at election time.
http://www.liveaction.org/index.php/media/press/106
P.S. Liberals have always maintained that being gay is not a choice and that it is determined by something innate, and likely biological. For years, scientists have been engaged in research to discover a biological link with the characteristic of homosexuality. Thus, if such a link is discovered in the future (and if it is capable of detection in the womb), it is not unreasonable to assume that the characteristic may be used by expectant parents to decide to abort since they may not have âplannedâ to have a gay child. It will be very interesting to see how the leftists respond to such a development and observe how they manage to navigate the issue within the four corners of the box they have constructed for themselves. If they suddenly adopted a pro-life position on behalf of gay fetuses only and sought to prohibit a heterosexual woman from having the choice to abort, it wouldnât surprise me in the least.
So stop paying the f*cking taxes!
The LiveWire @ 5:
I do hope you turned that prof in to higher ups — like the dean of the school.
It seems to me that the pro abortion side is very much preoccupied with sex without consequence, and no personal inconvenience, —- and the anti abortion side is preoccupied with personal responsibility, consequences, and life. Why do those who are pro abortion consider those who are anti abortion preoccupied with sex? If a person refrains from eating chocolate all the time because it is unhealthy, are they preoccupied with chocolate? Or perhaps the person who wants to eat chocolate all the time regardless of the consequences is the one who is preoccupied with chocolate. I have never understood how the “anti abortion position is preoccupied with sex” canard came into being.