Gay Patriot Header Image

A good question

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 11:36 pm - June 19, 2013.
Filed under: Abortion, aborting gays,Gun Control

The House recently passed a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks.

Via HotAir and The Weekly Standard, CNS News asked one of the bill’s opponents, Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado:

“Many Democrats, when they were arguing for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting said even if this saves one life it will be worth doing. Why not support this bill then, if it undoubtedly will save lives of babies that have been carried throughout 5 months of pregnancy?”

Some have characterized DeGette’s answer to CNS as evasive, and I can’t agree that it was. In answer, DeGette stated her belief that the bill is unconstitutional and that the Kermit Gosnells of the world can be handled under criminal law. Ironically, that is the perfect answer to give against gun control (and many other Big Government overreaches).

Having said that: Just because DeGette gave a direct answer doesn’t mean she gave a good one regarding this bill – or that it isn’t a good question, one needing an answer. The Democrats’ “Even if it saves one life!” narrative in favor of gun control cannot be squared with their support for late-term abortion.

Share

13 Comments

  1. Diana is Denver’s representative in the US House of Representatives. She is as predictable a Democrat as they come. Tell me what the legislation is or does and I will tell you how she will vote, even if her office says she hasn’t made up her mind.

    Doubly so when it comes to women’s issues. Whatever position NOW, NARAL-PCA, or Planned Parenthood take, so does she.

    Comment by RSG — June 20, 2013 @ 4:13 am - June 20, 2013

  2. Simple. They do not consider the baby in the womb human. Unless you shoot a pregnant woman in the stomach, and the baby dies. Then you can be charged with murder. But if the woman opts to kill the baby with abortion … somehow that’s magically fine.

    We need to see the Left pushed harder, and comparisons drawn between gun control and abortion, if for no other reason than to demonstrate the hypocracy of the Left on one compared to the other.

    Thanks for posting!

    Comment by acethepug — June 20, 2013 @ 5:55 am - June 20, 2013

  3. It always angers me when the far right links gay rights with the abortion issue, as if they are one and the same.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 20, 2013 @ 8:09 am - June 20, 2013

  4. Should the Supreme Court apply the 14th Amendment to the life in the womb and nationalizes the abortion issues or should it vacate Roe v. Wade and let the states sort it out state by state? Instead, it plays the moderate and pretends it is able to umpire the killing.

    Gosnell is an example of buyer-beware-capilatism which is made possible when political forces assiduously look the other way.

    RINO’s insist that abortion is a taboo topic. Progressives favor killing “it” if “it” slips out of the womb during the abortion procedure. Supposedly, conservatives want to punish women by making them give birth. (Which means that inconvenience trumps life.)

    PETA, on the other hand, has no opinion on the ethical treatment of unborn human animals. Just don’t eat veal.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 20, 2013 @ 10:08 am - June 20, 2013

  5. Abortion is one area where the left is rarely consistent.

    I think we all know this bill goes nowhere in the senate but it is interesting to see how those who support late term abortion jump through hoops to do so.

    Comment by Just Me — June 20, 2013 @ 11:33 am - June 20, 2013

  6. Still not clear why Democrats profess to be outraged by Gosnell. He just did outside the womb what they think is perfectly fine when it’s done inside the womb.

    Comment by V the K — June 20, 2013 @ 1:37 pm - June 20, 2013

  7. If Gun Control is “for the children”, then explain your support for abortion?

    That is the question that should be asked. I’ve asked it a couple of times on twitter.

    Comment by BigGator5 — June 20, 2013 @ 5:27 pm - June 20, 2013

  8. “The Democrats’ “Even if it saves one life!” narrative in favor of gun control cannot be squared with their support for late-term abortion.”

    The comments on both sides of this question are problematic because both sides assume the thing that they set out to defend. Progressives tend to favour “right to choose” whilst conservatives tend to favour “right to life.” The problem is that both sides assume that the fetus is either a human being or it is not a human being. And that is the issue that needs to be engaged.

    If the fetus is a human being–then nothing progressives say can change the fact that the abortion they support is murder. If the fetus is a piece of human tissue, then nothing conservatives say can change the fact that this tissue removal is a private matter that they have no say in. The key point: we need a discussion about what it means to be a human being and how we know this–some of that “objective epistemology” that ILC has been talking about might be helpful.

    Comment by Passing By — June 20, 2013 @ 6:54 pm - June 20, 2013

  9. I agree with what Passing By said.

    Comment by VS — June 20, 2013 @ 8:15 pm - June 20, 2013

  10. Show me the mother who carried the clump of tissue to term who gave birth to something other than a human being.

    This tired old crapola about when life begins/when the life that begins is human/when this and that takes place is just liar’s poker and crackpot grandstanding instead of facing reality.

    The Demonizingrats are all hot to legalize the aliens so they can pump up the voter base they need on their welfare plantation. If they hadn’t been so successful killing people in the womb, they wouldn’t have to import Mexicans.

    The serious person can read a biology book and find out when life begins. The propagandist and definition manipulator has to add all manner of conditionals in order to drag the science onto the slippery slope of their making.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 21, 2013 @ 8:25 pm - June 21, 2013

  11. If the fetus is a piece of human tissue

    If it has a bounded, recognizable human brain, it’s a human being. A fetus of 7, 8 or 9 months which might well survive outside the womb (or which in fact is on the verge of doing so), should not have zero right to life, especially not compared to a fetus of the same age which merely happens to have been moved (naturally or artificially) outside the womb and so granted a legal right to life.

    The brainless early clump of cells is arguably “a piece of human tissue”, which is why I don’t support bans on early-term abortion. (I say “arguably” to allow for the fact that some will make a case, even a good one, that the tissue is still a life.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 22, 2013 @ 8:39 pm - June 22, 2013

  12. The comments on both sides of this question are problematic because both sides assume the thing that they set out to defend. Progressives tend to favour “right to choose” whilst conservatives tend to favour “right to life.” The problem is that both sides assume that the fetus is either a human being or it is not a human being. And that is the issue that needs to be engaged.

    Not really.

    Conservatives, being more versed in science, logic, and reason, recognize that a pregnancy is the result of a series of choices already having been made, any one of which could have prevented the pregnancy in the first place.

    “Progressives”, on the other hand, simply rationalize the fact that they do not want to be responsible with or take responsibility for the choices they make.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2013 @ 1:38 am - June 23, 2013

  13. “If it has a bounded, recognizable human brain, it’s a human being. A fetus of 7, 8 or 9 months which might well survive outside the womb (or which in fact is on the verge of doing so), should not have zero right to life,”

    I think that this is a good place to start, ILC. I agree that the presence of a recognizable human brain is one possible criteria–though, and this is the vexing part–what do we mean by “bounded” and “recognizable”? I also agree that “independent” viability is also a criteria. I think advances in technology is also part of that conversation.

    Comment by Passing By — June 23, 2013 @ 2:34 pm - June 23, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.