The pro-abortion zealots reach to great lengths to justify the barbarity they support. Thers at Whiskey Fire put up a snark-filled "rebuttal" to this RedState post from the Directors, replete with the typical dehumanization of the unborn, as if the unborn were somehow a different species, and an inane accusation that the RedState post might incite violence. But Thers isn't alone; Media Matters also makes the same accusation. Go ahead and read them.
The key question I had after reading them, did these people get an education or were they simply passed from grade to grade to get them though and out of the education system?
Thers' post includes this portion of the RedState post:
Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location.
Thers' response [emphasis from original]:
Their "physical location" is, as an aside, inside a human being. These "physical locations" do not, as per the Red State Directors, get to say anything, as is appropriate, since when was the last time you had a conversation with a warehouse?
Thers makes a claim that the RedState authors are dehumanizing women. But if you read it properly, Thers is projecting; women are human beings you can have a conversation with, while the unborn, who cannot speak, aren't in any way human beings, which justifies killing the unborn. This isn't unique; the pro-abortion zealots repeat this argument with alarming regularity. I'd really like to ask these people what a human being being developed in the womb is. Would it be a gazelle? Would it be a pine tree? Perhaps the zealots think a developing human is a doorknob. For all I know, the zealots might think so since they do everything but define an unborn human being as a human being.
The post at RedState includes a paragraph that is partially quoted by both Thers and Media Matters [emphasis mine]:
Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.
Both Thers and Media Matters accuse the RedState Directors of an attempt to incite violence. Is it true? For anyone who knows their history, which leaves out Thers and Media Matters, the answer is a resounding no.
The argument at Media Matters is completely pointless and deserves no further scrutiny. Thers, on the other hand, takes inanity to the limit without an understanding of what he says [emphasis in italics from original]:
Well, that's a bit of a threat, isn't it? It hardly takes the "mass bloodshed" otion [sic] off the table, anyhow, whatever about the guff as to "lawful political processes" in the first paragraph.
And if you follow the pompous logic of the line-drawing, it shouldn't. If Roe really is worse or even on a plane with the grievances that justified the Revolution and the Civil War, well, there is no legitimate moral argument whatsover against anyone who takes the law into his or her hands and shoots an abortion doctor. And also every woman who has ever had an abortion is at best on the same moral plane as someone who hires a contract killer.
Earlier in the RedState piece, the Directors say:
Twice in our nation’s history, arrogant and power-mad Supreme Court Justices have declared that certain humans are exempt from the promise of the Declaration and the guarantees of the Constitution.
That would be Scott v. Sandford (Dred Scott) and Roe v. Wade. I think the Directors are right, although I believe it was at least six times the Supreme Court did this, in Wickard, Korematsu, Casey, and Kelo as well (subject for another post). Going back to the Whiskey Fire quote, Thers (and the Media Matters clown) deliberately misleads people on what actually happened following Scott. Who started the Civil War? Was it the abolitionists? No, it was those who wanted to maintain slavery. It was those who agreed with the Supreme Court in Scott. There had been extralegal attempts to get rid of slavery, most notably the attempt by John Brown when he made his raid on Harpers Ferry. While Brown may have elicited much sympathy from abolitionists, the abolitionists didn't try to duplicate Brown's actions to goad the pro-slavers into war. What happened is the pro-slavery crowd had been backed into a corner due to the increasing legislative maneuvering by the abolitionists, all of it quite legal. Eventually, the pro-slavers had had enough, raised militias, and attacked the United States at Fort Sumter. As stated in the RedState post, it was mass bloodshed (along with eventual passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments) that repudiated the Supreme Court, but the bloodshed was started by those who did not repudiate the Court in Scott.
For the most part, conservatives have continuously made the case that Roe is an awful decision which needs to be overturned or made irrelevant. Over the years, there have been inroads into getting this done through every legal means in the book. Obviously, a very few have taken a similar path in attempting to end abortions to the one followed by John Brown in his attempt to end slavery; as with Brown, there is some sympathy for those individuals, albeit by a very small number of people (I am not one of them; those criminal acts are not justified, despite what Thers thinks). But on the whole, those who are pro-life are using legal means to squeeze Roe into oblivion. The reasons are obvious as what has been going on in Pennsylvania for nearly 20 years readily attests. The pro-abortion zealots keep lying about how it was the "lack of access"to "reproductive health services" or whatever the phrase du jour is (it's euphemisms such as this that are used by the pro-abortion crowd to continuously dehumanize the unborn) when page 9 of the grand jury report points out the exact opposite [emphasis mine]:
The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased, even though, as Gosnell proved, that meant both women and babies would pay.
As I mentioned earlier, it wasn't the abolitionists who started the Civil War; the abolitionists used every legal means at their disposal to end slavery, to the point where it was those who were pro-slavery who fired the first shot. Here in the present, we have a bunch of people who make it a point to treat unborn human beings as anything but human beings, just like those who treated certain people as property instead of as human beings. Euphemisms like "women's reproductive health" are used to make abortion sound innocuous. There are claims from pro-abortion zealots that abortions are to be "safe, legal, and rare" or that abortion needs to be "destigmatized". And then there are the outright lies about how the "lack of access" brought about the Gosnall atrocities. And when the debate gets too close to home, the zealots will use Roe as a fallback to end any discussion, saying it's settled law and will never change (a logical response would be to mention Plessy was settled law as well, until it wasn't).
As we've seen, the pro-abortion crowd's "concern" about human beings is very selective. I would say this selectivity needs to be repeatedly put to the test. This was done to great effect last year when Obamacare was passed; even though federal funding for abortions are in the law, President Obama was by and large forced to issue an Executive Order to disallow this funding provided the Hyde Amendment is maintained. While it didn't go nearly far enough, at least there was enough concern voiced by the American people to require something be done or Democrats' "signature legislation" may very well not have passed (it shouldn't have anyway, but for many reasons I won't go into here). The next step is to support Republican efforts to pass H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," to remove all federal funding from anyone who provides or covers abortions. After that, it's the removal of federal funding to any group that supports abortions, most notably Planned Parenthood. We'll see how far the kicking and screaming of the pro-abortion side goes as the pro-life screws are tightened.
For a couple of weeks now, conservatives have been hit with a litany of accusations from the Left about how our harsh rhetoric somehow enticed Jared Loughner into his murder spree. They use Loughner's anti-government rants as "proof" that he was not only crazy, but a conservative. If anything, Loughner most definitely opined on things spouted by liberals: he hated George W. Bush, he hated Christianity, he was a 9/11 Truther, and he didn't seem to have any qualms about abortion, even making sick jokes about abortions and dead babies that caused people who knew him to wince. Is that proof Loughner is a liberal? No, not by a long shot. Even President Obama acknowledged politics had no role in these crimes; the American people also soundly rejected the notion that politics, anyone's politics, influenced Loughner, although more than half of Democrats in this poll would disagree (I guess "messaging" is all the Democrats have). At the same time the Left deliberately avoids any mention of similar rhetoric and violence from their own side, despite evidence that shows quite the contrary (H/T: Power Line, The Blaze), and pro-abortion zealots profusely proclaim their "love" of humanity and their peaceful intentions (to support the killing of unborn human beings). As I mentioned, the pro-abortion zealots' "concern" for people is very selective and does not extend to every American, especially those not yet born. As conservatives push all legal means to end the travesty that has resulted from Roe, I'll reiterate that we'll see this selectivity be put to the test and find out how far they go. Let's hope they haven't forgotten the lengths those who supported (Dred) Scott went and choose the peaceful path they say they believe in.
UPDATE: Related to this, leftists are attempting to mislead a statement from Arizona State Senator Linda Gray. Ben Smith reported:
It is ironic that today today is the day 38 years ago that the Supreme Court said we do not have to respect the life of an unborn and we have gone through now more then a generation of people, a large number of people who believe that it is fine to take an infant prior to it being born and to kill it. What type of respect is that for human life? So now we have this generation of people who have that idea and it continues on, that why respect life if we can kill an infant who can’t defend themselves. It goes back to the value in the creation of life and the respect for that life and if your not trained and have that type of character in realizing that all human life deserves respect this is what our country has come to.
The left is saying she is trying to tie Loughner to Roe v. Wade. But that isn't what Gray is saying at all, as you can easily see. theblogprof has more, including a relevant quote from President Reagan.