« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Feminists Rejoice At Idea of Abortion For Convenience

They Are Also Anti-Woman

Feminists rejoice at the idea of abortion for convenience. They are also anti-woman. Most of us realize that the whole “safe, legal and rare” thing that pro-abortion advocates spout is lip service only. But, if you ever had any doubt, this should set that doubt aside once and for all.

John Hawkins at Right Wing News points out an example of liberals/leftists and feminists fully admitting that they think abortion for convenience sake is perfectly acceptable, based on their response to a very mild ad campaign:

When conservatives point out that liberals believe in killing children for convenience sake, what do liberals usually say? Typically, it’s some variation of, “Why, nobody wants more abortions. We just believe that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare!” Of course, then they follow that up by trying to make sure that as many children are aborted as humanly possible.

For example, take a look at this anti-abortion ad from Abortion Changes You:

A very mild ad, indeed. And an accurate one; abortion does change you. While feminists sneer at the idea of post-abortion syndrome, it does exist. And if they actually cared about women, they’d admit that fact and would stop encouraging women to have abortions without disclosing the trauma that can occur to the woman.

It’s clear that they don’t care about the dead babies, but they also need to stop insisting that they are For Women ™ , when they most obviously are not. You see, feminists, an unborn baby is not just a clump of cells. Many women who abort their babies, therefore, suffer intense pain and immense guilt. Their entire lives.

They may just be nutty wing nuts to you, but they are real people with true feelings. Because you do nothing but sneer at those feelings, in fact lie about their very existence, your For The Women card is hereby pulled. You are more concerned with one Supreme Court case, that you constantly use as a wedge and a pawn, than you are with actual women.

Which brings us to Jessica Valenti at Feministing, that hot bed of predictable feminist shrieking. The above ad infuriated her and her fellow pro-abortion travelers. In fact, one of them was so enraged, they saw fit to deface the ad:

Want to go to college, but there is a pesky baby growing inside of you? Abort! A life is far less important than your co-ed fun and career plans, right? Your dreams are all that matters, baby be damned. Can’t let that get in the way! Follow President Obama’s thinking and don’t let yourself be “punished with a baby!”

Jessica Valenti called the abortionchangesyou.com ad “heinous.” Do you know what she said about the defaced ad promoting abortion for convenience? She called the vandal a “pro-choice hero” and then said:

Love. It.

Loves encouraging abortion for convenience. Loves encouraging abortion because a baby, a human life, doesn’t fit in with your super fun college plans.  Denies the trauma that abortion may cause to the woman, but rejoices at the thought of killing a baby who isn’t timely.

But you want it to be safe, legal and rare? Baloney.  Willy nilly matters of convenience are not part of that definition. You have devalued life to the point where *convenience* over-rides a life itself, in your minds.

That is heinous.

(Cross-posted at NewsReal)

COMMENTS

  • ciscoguy

    I’m still waiting for a pro-abort to explain that one to me.

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      …feminists generally have embraced a cultural framework with regard to sex that has a point-to-point correspondence to the most lurid fever dreams of sixteen-year-old heterosexual males.

      • GCBWI

        you’d think they’d have noticed this, Moe.

        Or is it that N.O.W. has decided that the lurid fever dreams of a sixteen-year-old heterosexual male are a worthy goal for all people?

    • onemorevoice

      It should be rare, preferably non-existent. Those of us who support a woman’s right to choose are also heartbroken by the rate of abortion in our country, but we don’t think the answer is to force women to have a baby they aren’t ready for. In fact, there is no one answer. Sex education is part of it, so women can avoid getting pregnant in the first place. Fixing foster care and increasing adoption of minorities in our country is another option, so that women can believe their baby will have a home if they need to give it up. Raising wages so that families will feel able to support a child. Maybe national childcare, so that women can have a safe place for their child while they work.

      • mbecker908

        are supporters of abortion on demand and infanticide. You are part and parcel of one mind and one soul with those who willing murder the unborn and the just born.

        You play word games to justify your abomination.

        There is a special place reserved in Hell for you.

      • ciscoguy

        But if the choice is made to roll the dice, I don’t see why an embryologically certified, nascent human being needs to pay the price.

      • gigi36b

        I bet the women who suffer from post abortion trauma could tell you a thing or two about “heartbroken”.

      • nivlem

        You live in a “dream world” apart from the reality of what is happening in the
        pro-abortion movement. What planet do you live on? (ooops…I slipped on
        the being nice part).
        In my job experience, I have met many, many, many women that are not even close to what you think is happening in the realm of choosing to have an abortion. If you think this is all about poor, helpless women, you are so, so wrong. I know many middle class women that have had SEVERAl abortions.
        They certainly know how to prevent it.
        As far as sex education goes – are you joking? It is everywhere!! If you don’t have a clue, how much more exposure and money has to be spent to educate you. Give me a break!!
        There are more adoptive parents than children in this society. Taking a phrase from the immigaration movement, let us “bring them out of the shadows” and let women decide. They can absoultely believe there child will have a home if they need to give it up. This is not where foster children come from.
        Raising wages!!! Oh my gosh!! Do you realize the subsidies they get??? Do you realize the rent, the food, the medical care all the “stuff” they already get?
        My daughters would have had it so much easier if they had their children out of wedlock and not married the father than they have had. There are so many
        that simply do not get married and live together because it benefits them due to the government subsidies.
        Check out the real world. You are clueless on who needs and why they
        get an abortion. There is an answer…..make it difficult, educate them on the
        realy that they are taking someone’s life, and there is no way you will walk away “free” and be who you were before. Give them hope when they have are afraid. Give them options and choices. Stop covering up the pain and
        agony of having a child ripped out of your body.
        The abortion movement was never about “choice”. It was about manipulating and confusing people into minimizing life on several issues.
        Once they were confused, you could pitt them against each other, and start to
        gain control based on this manipulation. What better word than “choice”.

        • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com Conservative Phantom

          Limbaugh invented the term, “Feminazi.”

          Completely appropriate and totally accurate as the non-aborted lib trolls here so generously demonstrate.

          A teachable moment.

        • realineplatonus

          You clearly do not know what you’re talking about, OR you somehow manage to live on a few hundred dollars a month. It doesn’t benefit anyone to live off of govt subsidies (by remaining a single mother), unless you consider the alternative of being a victim of domestic abuse, or trying to raise children in a crack den.

          Call your local social services office and ask how much they pay for a single mother of one per month to live on. Then figure out how they manage to pay rent, buy food, and raise a child on that pittance.

      • aesthete

        I’m glad to see that your preferred solution is, to spare women the burden of raising their children, to coldly vacuum pre-born children’s brains out of their skulls, then to throw them away like so much refuse. Yes, I’m *sure* that you guys are heartbroken, really.

      • streiff

        you don’t think we have sex education now?

        And wow, you’re poor little pro-abort heart is just broken over the logical outcome of your pro-abort philosophy. Don’t play me for a chump. Please.

      • mdd1956

        You must be talking religious or moral education as it is impossible to find any person of breeding age in our country that does not know what causes pregnancy.

      • Common_Cents

        but i signed up for one.

        I am pro choice. The choice to have protected sex or not and live with the possible consequences of my choice.

        Oh, so the story about a stork surprising a woman with a baby is really true?

      • Bill S

        The woman ALWAYS has a right to choose – she can choose not to have sex. She can choose to take birth control pills. She can choose to say no.

        The baby is the one who needs the right to choose – to choose not to have its brains sucked out by a murderer.

    • alvnjms

      Nobody WANTS a friggin abortion! The reason they aren’t as “rare” as they should be is because it is rare that young people get comprehensive sex education and information on contraception. The vast majority of the people who are getting abortions are teenage girls and drug addicts. Don’t you want these people to pop out babies that they can’t afford and can’t take care of-all the while you dont want funding for the “social” programs that would benefit these kids and their unprepared parents because that’s “socialism”. You guys should want more abortions seeing as it may lower your taxes.

      • ciscoguy

        If it’s the former, why not make abortions as common as root canals?

        • pilgrim

          It’s that Sanger and Hitler final solution kind of deal for those people to not reproduce. Got to have a master race doncha know.

      • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

        And not a little disturbing, either.

      • nivlem

        and facts from?
        Please provide a source for your information. My experience does not validate what you are stating.
        Please give me a source because I do not believe you.

      • jeffreywturner

        1. If nobody “wanted” an abortion, there would be none.

        2. The reason abortions aren’t as “rare” as they should be is that unlike other forms of murder, abortion is legal.

        3. While many who kill their children are teenage or drug-users, they do not constitute a majority. There are any number of studies from diverse sources that will bear this out.

        4. “Us guys” don’t mind funding programs that actually work. When implemented properly, most of these programs could cost a fraction of what they do now, without negatively impacting any people who actually NEED them. For reference see the welfare reforms enacted by Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin in the early 1990′s.

        • nivlem

          nt

      • inblack

        Nobody wants an abortion?
        - did you really type that because there are a lot of dead babies for no reason then. Obviously they wanted the abortion.

        If there was only enough education…
        – Why do people like you state over and over that with enough indoctrination you can control anyone and override a basic instinct like sex.
        – Guess what smokers know the risk of smoking, addicts know (or at least did before they fried their brain) the risk of drugs and everyone knows what making babies and VD is about. (Except when people like you call 90% effective condoms safe sex.)

        The mother doesn’t have a right to kill the baby because the baby is human. It doesn’t become non-human if it happened through rape. It’s still human if conceived through incest.
        – If you stopped telling people that delivering a baby is a terrible life ruining burden they might realize that many people stay in college and raise a baby or even put it up for adoption while they live their lives.

        Aborting a baby is an act of selfishness and murder. That leaves a very deep scar.
        Delivering a baby is an act of life.

        The vast majority of people who get abortions are teenagers.
        – Nope another lie – only 6%.

        Social Engineers are not content to just ruin their own lives.

      • streiff

        to the point that we were willing to kill people, we’d be more inclined to hunt scum like you as part of a reality series.

        • rangerwife

          Excellent idea :)

      • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

        the majority of Abortions are NOT teenagers. it is young women in their twenties. Furthermore every child in public school gets extensive sex education. Why do you think they do not? Sex education has been a part of the curricula for decades.

        Teenagers know what causes babies, a lot of them just don’t care.

        Not everything in human thought and action can be shaped by some liberal school program.

        By the way, you are pretty stupid, get educated yourself.

        • Scope

          Many years ago I knew a 20 something year old who had just graduated from law school. She was in her first year of clerking for a judge in the local courthouse. She had also just had her third abortion via Planned Parenthood. Not sticking up for PP, but, they asked her if abortion was her preferred method of birth control.

          I talked with her some years later, and, she was on the appellate court in that state. She had gotten married, and, had just lost a child, which she and the hubby wanted. She was devastated that she lost the child. This was someone who most assuredly knew what she was doing, but, chose convenience rather than being punished with a baby that would have interfered with her career goals.

        • davesinsanantonio

          You make abortions easy to get, including in some places secrecy for the teen, and thus secrecy for the male if incest is involved, and you advertise the ease and secrecy aspects while ignoring all negative impacts on the woman, and then there are lots of abortions which you blame on lack of information. It almost seems the opposite is true, huh? So much one sided information can’t help but cause the thing you are advertising.

      • rangerwife

        HEY HERES AN IDEA, HOW ABOUT DONT HAVE SEX UNTIL YOU ARE MARRIED AND CAN HANDLE THE CONSEQUENCES?? WHY DONT LIBERALS EVER THINK OF THAT??

        More sex education? Sex education IS the reason for more abortions! They push kids into having “safe” sex knowing the consequences because the abortion industry needs kids to sleep around to keep them in business, as do the condom companies you idiot! Why aren’t you liberal wackadoos out picketing THOSE corporations huh?? You HATE it when big business makes lots of money, but it’s ok if they are making money by murdering defenseless children??

        There is more at stake here than money to us God fearing people, which is why we don’t want to murder children at the expense of saving a few tax dollars. Its called principles, morals, compassion, and doing what is right according to God.

        May God have mercy on your soul!

        • NoDoze

          goes far deeper than the superficial views of alvnjms (probably an acronym for Alvin Jennings) and his friends. However, their psychoses so blinds them that they will not see reality.

          The whole culture of promiscuous sex promotes the breakdown of marriage, and a stable two-parent family. “Sex education” as it is currently practiced agrees with, and enables promiscuity, and the big-government Socialist/Progressives encourage this breakdown in morals and family structure. Government benefits by greatly expanding the dependency of single parents (mostly mothers), who form a dependable voter base for the Socialists in perpetuity.

          The reasons for the drastic rise in abortions since the ascendancy of Progressivism/Socialism are fairly obvious, to anyone who is not blinded by the psychosis which is Liberalism/Socialism/Progressivism.

      • BA Cyclone

        “The vast majority of the people who are getting abortions are teenage girls and drug addicts.”

        As a point of fact, assuming you are interested in that, data shows that most abortions are given to 18+ white women, across all socio-economic classes, and a large share to middle-class white women in their 20s, 30s, and 40s.

        Here is a wonderful article that highlights a side effect of “choice”:
        Gendercide

    • hellome

      why would it be important to have cancer treatments available?

      if, for instance, a quite effective but controversial treatment curing skin cancer became available, i assure you the doctor who created it would not say you shouldn’t use sunscreen and protect yourself in other ways so that the use of such treatment would be “rare.”

      now i am NOT saying that a baby is a cancerous growth, like the comparisons some of the hardcore feminists have made in the past. i am trying to point out how something can be a social positive, and yet still desirable for it to be rare.

      [i do happen to be pro choice, but not for the callous reasons which might be inferred from my example if it was taken too literally...i'm a more libertarian conservative than a social conservative]

      • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com Conservative Phantom

        pro abort feminazi trolls to come out on this topic, did it?

        Aren’t you high-minded cretins glad that you weren’t aborted?

        • hellome

          but i’m also glad that if my sister gets raped she won’t have to carry the baby to term and raise the child.

          this is a very hard issue to be ideologically pure on.

          if you want to be a pure prochoicer, i don’t see how you can possibly ignore the fact that there is no sense in which a fetus is not living, and if it is living it is certainly human (as opposed to animal, vegetable, or mineral), and worth of consideration as a candidate member of society.

          if you want to be a pure prolifer, i don’t see how you can possibly defend the idea that a 14 year old girl should be forced to carry to term a baby conceived after rape without doing some serious squirming in your seat.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • joayn

            Aaron, you must have been reading my mind.

            And, BTW, that’s a classic liberal example pro-choicers use.

          • NoDoze

            The rape/pregnancy straw dog is a deception. If we research the facts, we find that pregnancy as a result of rape is extremely rare. But if it does occur, WHAT DID THE CHILD WHO IS CONCEIVED DO TO DESERVE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?

          • From ME to You

            thankfully they haven’t failed you.

          • mbecker908

            I would also be willing to grant an exception for rape and incest. But only under certain conditions. For instance, since we’re talking about the commission of a felony – and that includes statutory rape – it would have to be reported within a specified time – I would opt for 48 hours. A medical exam would be required at the time of reporting to verify the claim. Under no circumstances would a report be allowed at a time when the “victim” has discovered her pregnancy.

            Rape and incest are the mental masturbation of the “pro-choice” movement. The numbers are too small to be reliably measured but let’s say they are 5% of abortions. Your play at language does nothing less than doom the other 95% of babies aborted to a violent death.

          • aesthete

            Gotta love how the 90+% of abortions are presumably covered by the perversely sacrosanct clause of Incest and Rape. As a side note, it seems to me that incest is an even worse reason to abort than rape; in the case of incest, the only person directly affected by genetic defects would be the pre-born child him or herself. Besides, using genetic purity as the standard for whether one lives or dies is shockingly callous.

          • Next93

            It seems to me that if the penalty for rape and incest is to murder the resulting fetus, shouldn’t we also condem the rapist to death? And, for that matter, how about the other children he might have conceived, regardless of age or circumstances of conception.

            And, once we’ve reached that point, maybe we should look into death sentences for the children of other kinds of criminals. I bet *that* would put a dent in embezzlement prosecutions!

          • mbecker908
          • davesinsanantonio

            By far!

          • Next93

            I’m the first to admit that the older I get, the more I realize I don’t know, so when someone i normally am in agreement with calls me an idiot, he’s probably right. But I *am* a little surprised by your response.

            I was trying to point out that our society doesn’t require the execution of the children of other criminals, even murderers , and if we’re going to demand the murder of a fetus because his father was a rapist, then (a) we shouldn’t be squeamish about executing the perpetrator, and (b) why stop at just THAT child – all of his other children are just as “guilty” as the fetus.

            Legalizing abortion for rape and incest attempts to address one huge injustice by allowing a second, bigger one. Yes, it’s terrible that the victim has to carry the perpetrator’s baby, but killing that baby isn’t the answer.

          • mbecker908

            all at once. We’ve got to learn a thing or two from the left. We seem to be picking up Alinsky and that’s a good thing to turn on them. We need to learn incrementalism as well.

            The most generous estimates I’ve seen of rape and incest abortions runs around 4%. The left uses that 4% as a “moral imperative” to keep killing the other 96% and they also use it as a wedge in the pro-live movement to keep people (like you it seems) insisting that we can’t save 1.5 million lives next year because 75,000 will still be killed. It’s an unconscionable argument that butchers babies.

            Secondly, if we put a system in place where there is an exception for rape and incest as I noted above we’d find that the actual number of rape/incest abortions is probably more like .4%.

            You’ve got your head so far up your morality you can sleep well while millions die. You are worse than those who promote either a “pro-choice” or an out-and-out pro-abortion position.

          • Next93

            The fact that I consider the rape-and-incest argument to be morally shaky doesn’t mean I don’t recognize political reality. I’d be perfectly happy to see my state implement exactly what you described, and I’d vote for any politician with the testicular fortitude to make it a part of his/her platform.

            The use of the “rape and incest” figleaf by the abortion-for-convenience crowd justify a despicable act by callously using innocent victims as human shields. It’s hard to beleive that anyone can make murdering an infant even MORE repugnant than it already is, but apparently anything is possible.

          • E Pluribus Unum

            Using the Rush device of “illustrating absurdity with absurdity”.

          • nivlem

            I cannot defend the idea of a 14 year old forced to carry a term baby after rape, but I can love, support, and honor that child at 14.
            Here is what I cannot do…..I cannot tell that child that she is bad by sucking that living being out of her body, and she should never remember that child.
            What I can do is support and heal her, and never let her regret or remember
            that life that was violently removed from her body – just as it came in.

          • inblack

            You can explain that this baby growing inside her is not guilty just as she is not guilty. That one act of violence against an innocent does not require another act of violence against another innocent.

            You can love her, nurture her and help her to realize that whatever evil got her there, that that baby is pure life that she can love and care for. It is not evil or guilty. That the baby is not sad but joy.

            But you would rather encourage her to kill the baby. To extend the act of rape to an act of rape and murder.

            Don’t act like your position is one of love or pity. It’s a position of hate and death and cowardice.

          • mom2oneson
          • jeffreywturner

            Why does everyone always get off on the tangents?

            Why focus on the exceptions rather than the rule?

            Most abortions are electively performed on healthy mothers with healthy children conceived in a consensual manner.

            There is such a thing as a just-killing. Innocent people die in war. Siamese twins are separated with the knowledge that one will die. You can always debate when taking a life is necessary.

            The debate at hand however, is whether it is acceptable to use abortion as birth control. This seems simple to me. If you do not believe that life begins prior to birth, then there should be no problem with using abortion like birth control, save for maybe the cost. If on the other hand you believe life begins at conception, then people shouldn’t be allowed to snuff it out without the due process of law and just cause.

          • nivlem

            and why is it unaffordable??

          • Next93

            Seems like a pretty steep cost so that someone doesn’t have to miss a semester of college.

          • JamesSmith130

            because the “hard cases” are why we lose this argument. Americans strongly oppose abortion in the “easy cases” (abortion for convenience), and support it in the hard cases (rape, incest). Look what happened in South Dakota.

            The entire reason why we lost the referendum to ban abortion there in 2006 was because there was no exception for rape and incest. And in 2008, we had lost the referendum because we had already lost the trust of many who opposed abortion except for the “hard cases”.

            I know that for many, such an exception is morally wrong and is inconsistent. (If you support life, it is no less of a life because of rape or incest). But pragmatically, we will save many more lives by leaving an exception in the hard cases.

          • Menlo

            I think they were mostly all pro-abortion from the start. Between the polling data and their representation. it was obviously not like Louisiana or Utah. If anything, some people (such as the state’s pro-life group) opposed the 2008 measure because it made exceptions.

            Regardless, it should not be up for majority rule. It’s a matter of equal protection in which the minority should not be stripped of right by the majority. It should not matter what the majority, who doesn’t care much anyway, thinks.

          • mbecker908

            and note that I said STRICT – not the current “life and health” which makes no sense – what you will find out is that there are almost zero “rape and incest” abortions necessary. See “morning after pill” in the instance of reported rape and the number will be insignificant.

          • jeffreywturner

            I’m not saying that I don’t support exceptions, I am simply saying that we are wasting too much of our time debating them, and we let liberals win if we let them rope us into those debates.

          • mom2oneson

            The whole feminist garbage of pregnancy is the most awful thing a female can experience.
            Was it Dan Quayle? that said a raped women shouldn’t be traumatized again. Liberals always want to “do something” it’s like they can’t think that people can’t survive in hardship. Also aborting the baby will not stop her from being an emotion cripple from the trauma of rape, it doesn’t go back in time to stop the rape, it just gives her more problems. Just a side note maybe the love and snuggles and responsibility that go a long with caring for her new baby may help her heal her soul from the rape. If I knew of a teen I’d try to raise money so she could have duola with her at birth to support her and tell her ways she could finish her education at home while caring for her baby.

      • gigi36b

        the doctor who discovered the miracle cure would tell you the side effects of the drug? Do you think he would let you know that the drug could cause death, breast cancer, depression, suicidal thoughts, sterility? Yes he would wouldn’t he?

        I think the point of the ad is just to provide information for women making the choice. Do you make choices without the facts often? Why do you think it’s OK for pregnant young women to make uninformed choices?

        • hellome

          the question was asked, how could something be a positive and also be desirable for it to be rare. and that’s what i answered.

          your entire statement is a straw man attacking points which a) i did not make, and b) i would not make, since i agree with you about every last bit of information being made available to women before they make choices

          • gigi36b

            You are comparing an abortion to a skin cancer cure.

            I’m asking you if you would expect the doctor to disclose negative side effects of the drug before giving it to you.

            Well, the ad is like a warning label for abortion.

            So you have no trouble with it then. Great!

          • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com Conservative Phantom

            “i agree with you about every last bit of information being made available to women before they make choices.”

            Well, gee, if that’s your position then you certainly would have absolutely no problem at all with those women who demand an abortion having to view a video of the actual procedure, would you?

            No? Well, why not?

            Infanticide snuff films are all the rage with feminazi purists, ya know. Some of them get off on it. Margaret Sanger did. Can’t be much different than Saddam Hussein watching live people fed into tire shredders.

          • From ME to You

            Studies have shown that women change their minds a majority of the time when they see a human baby and not a clump of cells!

      • ciscoguy

        Now, I have to wonder what kind of cancer treatment would be more “controversial” than one that leaves another dead. Grabbing a guy off the street and ripping out his liver to replace your cancer riddled liver? Let’s also say the cancer was 100% preventative if a certain activity were avoided or very simple precautions were taken if you do. In other words, your analogy is bogus. You’re trying to rationalize that which you want but know is wrong.

        • hellome

          among most libertarians that abortion should be legal. so i don’t know why that should be a problem with my libertarian leanings.

          but imagine in order to acquire the treatment dozens of acres of rainforest had to be uprooted to find enough of some herb to treat it. millions of environmentalists would find the extermination of an ecosystem as objectionable as you find the taking of a single human life.

          as to 100% prevention, skin cancer pretty much comes from sun exposure. you likely won’t get skin cancer if you stay indoors…but guess what? i like playing golf.

          Also, i like having sex. Even the best birth control methods are only 99% effective. Apply that to, say, 100 million couples in childbearing age ranges and you have a million couples a year faced with unwanted pregnancies even if they take perfectly proper precautions.

          i agree with this author from the Cato Institute:

          “I believe abortion is morally wrong, but I also believe that in a conflict between mother and fetus, a woman

          • hellome

            it all comes down to social costs and social benefits.

            we could save many more human lives if we scrapped half of our economy, and trained 50% of the population work as EMTs standing on nearly every street corner in major cities in the country. it would not be optimal, but it would save lives.

            people WILL die today because we have not conscripted an army of medics to vastly improve response times to 911 calls. but we don’t talk about the sanctity of protecting those lives, because it is fairly plainly a suboptimal answer. in my opinion, so is a blanket ban on abortion.

          • gigi36b

            Logic isn’t your strong point.

            “it all comes down to social costs and social benefits.”

            Is followed by some weird scenario that equates car accidents with abortions.

            I’m waiting for a logical follow-up to
            “it all comes down to social costs and social benefits.”

            Give me something about single moms or some other strain to the economy, not the EMS warriors.

            Maybe when you said:
            “it all comes down to social costs and social benefits.”

            you meant all those urban black single moms who invariably have a big PP abortion clinic an E-Z bus ride from their homes. Are they taking more than their fair share by having kids? Are they the downside of the socio-economic equation? Hey, it’s OK Margaret Sanger thought the same thing too.

          • ciscoguy

            And because we don’t do this to protect all of those people, we might as well scrap all the murder laws on the books, right?

          • aesthete

            Biologically, a fetus is alive. Evidence continues to show that neural activity, interactivity, and cognitive responses develop in the brain. I ask you, in what meaningful way is a fetus different from a newly-born infant, whose killing would result in legal consequences? If you argue that we should use utilitarian methodology to determine the optimal level of abortions, should we also endeavor to find the optimal number of infanticides? If you don’t, then you are a hypocrite. (If you do, you’re a terrible person, but we already suspected that.) Regarding Common Law, there’s a reason that Great Britain and its derivatives enacted laws prosecuting abortion: biologists found out that the fetus was biologically alive, and pushed for criminalization. I’ll bet you didn’t know that because, hey, it’s easier to assume that the bible-benders down South just demagogued their way to anti-abortion laws.

            As much as I like and respect the Cato Institute, I can see why you agree with the author of the piece: she’s a d*** fool. Using the rationale that carrying one’s child to term is involuntary servitude, but so are taxes. Last I checked, libertarians acknowledge that taxes (“involuntary servitude”) are a necessary evil in defense of negative rights. Since a pre-born’s fundamental negative right to life is violated through abortion, it’s hypocritical for the author to use the “involuntary servitude” argument in this context, unless she argues it from an anarchistic perspective. (In which case, why is she writing for Cato?)

            “Most libertarians” are wrong, and violate their own principles by upholding a citizen’s convenience above another’s right to life. The violation of the negative rights of the fetus far outweigh the violation of a woman’s right to convenience, and saying otherwise contradicts most (though, unfortunately, not all) libertarian beliefs on the ordered society.

            Seeing as how your proposed EMT at every corner severely curtails our negative rights in favor of positive rights, such a policy would contradict libertarian principles in a way that anti-abortion policies wouldn’t.

          • mbecker908
          • ciscoguy

            Does your libertarian compass tell you it’s ok to kill randoms for reasons of convenience? No, that’s anarchy. Do you think that a bench of 9 unelected lawyers should be able to make up laws with no Constitutional basis and call it liberty? That’s insane.

            I don’t really care what Cato says – it doesn’t lend any legitimacy to your argument. You’re trying to draw a comparison between prevention of a possibly terminal condition and prevention of a temporary, non-terminal condition which perpetuates our race. Does that sound like a fair comparison?

          • eastbaylarry

            This policy made perfect sense when infant mortality was high, (just 100 years ago!), but today a normally developing fetus can survive and prosper at an earlier stage of development year after year.

            It might be argued that a fetus is now ‘viable’ at conception, since in vitro fertilization has become so common.

            How is killing even a fertilized egg not murder?

          • nivlem

            You have got to be kidding me if this is what constitutes intellect in today’s society.
            I don’t even know where to begin…let’s start here; a comparison to the
            rainforest is ome sort of “leap’ in connecting some sort of “dots” to a woman chosing to have an abortion that I really don’t get ….I just don’t get it….
            Then you skip to “suntans” …I mean, really??? You are not serious….you are comparing skin cancer to taking the life of a human being? Wow…keep me off your medications.
            I really think I lost you at “playing golf”. Do you really think a woman choses the risk of having an abortion in the same context of whether or not to hit a “nine iron or a wedge”.?
            And I shiver to think I might ever have sex with the likes of you. Never mind…
            it’ll never happen. I got over the likes of you as a Sophomore.

      • nivlem

        What is this world coming to if this is as good a thought pattern on life issures as we can get…..
        Gimminee Creepers.

        • nivlem

          oops

        • hellome

          in order to protect the life of a baby inside her, why shouldn’t you be able to force her to change her life to protect the lives of people walking on the street? this is a completely consistent point of view for a pro lifer.

          • hellome

            i TOTALLY sympathize with the view that fetuses are humans and deserve consideration as such. it is extremely difficult issue for me, and i have great respect for both sides of the issue who approach the issue with the respect it deserves. the only people i don’t respect are those who think abortion is a toy or a band-aid to fix a boo boo.

            i’m really trying to probe some of you deeper, since growing up in los angeles i rarely met someone with a truly strong conviction against abortion in all cases. and yes i’d like to challenge some of those who maybe come from places where the opposite is true.

            please understand where i’m coming from, don’t ban me for intellectual curiosity!

          • Aaron Gardner

            And the fact that you just admitted that you were acting like a moby.

          • hellome

            ?

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            someone who pretends to be like minded, but is not, for instance If I went on Daily Kos and pretended to be a lefty, but then really slammed them. I would be a conservative moby.

            We have many lefty moby’s on this site.

          • aesthete

            A fetus is human, or that it isn’t. If you believe that a fetus is alive, and also believe that it is acceptable to terminate his life in service of a woman’s right to property (her body), then I suppose that you would have no problem with a man who contracts someone to shoot two people who get trapped in his locked basement simply because he has no key to said padlock. If you don’t believe that a fetus is human in like manner that an infant is, then treat it like the garbage that you believe that it is, and stop worrying about it! College for women is more important that dithering about something that isn’t, after all, human.

            In point of fact, I respect people who treat fetuses like unwanted refuse much more than I do people who spout the bs “legal and rare” line: at least their position is intellectually consistent, if cold, ignorant, and unscientific. Stop being “conflicted”, and either believe that fetuses aren’t “human” and treat them accordingly, or man up and be consistent to your purported libertarian beliefs and your belief that a fetus is alive. Otherwise, stop polluting our site with your unintellectual and uninformed bile.

          • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com Conservative Phantom

            Case in point:

            “Also, i like having sex. Even the best birth control methods are only 99% effective.”

            Actually, the best birth control methods are 100% effective. Those would include abstinence and, for admitted sex addicts like yourself, vasectomies. Please get one soon.

            Male feminazis such as yourself are the worst of the worst: “Hey, baby, it’s okay…I’ll pay for the abortion and, heck, I’ll even drive you to the clinic.”

            When you look up you see pond scum.

          • eburke
          • southernilpat

            My daughter’s best friend growing up was the child of a couple who had BOTH been surgically sterilized before they got married. The ONLY method of birth control that is 100% effective is abstinence.

          • Achance

            In fact, if I had had a vasectomy and my intact wife became pregnant, I think I might want to see some DNA testing, ’cause somebody might be hiding in the woodpile.

          • southernilpat

            Vasectomy: .2%
            Tubal ligation: .5%

            Which means a couple who have both been surgically “sterilized” have a .001% (1 in 100,000) chance of getting pregnant. Not great odds if it’s something you would like to happen but not impossible, either.

            Sorry you don’t trust your wife.

          • Achance

            odds on something that has a much more likely explanation. And I do trust my wife, but over the years I’ve had some experiences with other wives and other people’s wives that give me to believe that not all of them are trustworthy.

          • mbecker908

            in Germany in 1932.

            “Sympathy” is not an argument. Sympathy is what gets a million and a half babies butchered every year.

            You have respect for people who approve of – and wholeheartedly endorse – the murder of unborn human children. You’re not “intellectually curious”, you’re an enabler to murderers. We know exactly where you’re coming from and the first four letters of your screen name could not have been better chosen or more appropriate.

      • Menlo

        People with self-described libertarian leanings as you describe them constitute all of four percent of the voting population. Not surprisingly, of those four percent, most supported Obama. I am fairly certain most of those four percent are being disingenuous. Of course to hear the establishment media, one would think you were a force to be reckoned with.

      • Scope

        that you are a Libertarian conservative (whatever the hel1 that is). It is already apparent that you are morally vacant. I guess the Libertarian part of your philosophy is necessary to give you excuses, and a free pass to do to your body whatever you wish, and, ignore the consequences, because someone else said it was a valid excuse, and therefore OK. Don’t the Libertarians believe that you can use, abuse and destroy your own body, because it is your property to do with as you wish, as long as you don’t hurt someone else? I guess the baby doesn’t have those same rights, even though it is also a living being who didn’t choose to be killed or even conceived. With abortion, you are treading on another person’s right to it’s own body and life.

  • yoyo

    …of legalizing abortions at 32 years. Where she is concerned.

    What a waste of a clump of cells.

    • ciscoguy

      Besides, post-natal abortions are protected under the 4th Amendment, right? Right to privacy? Who’s going to tell me that’s not what Madison meant when he wrote it?

      • Othniel ben Kenaz

        Let’s not go there.

      • Next93

        I’d love to take credit for that, but it was Anne Coulter’s response to a very predictable shriek from a liberal interviewer.

  • rfpzzzzz

    I think people hate this but killing a child that is -6 months or +6 months is essentially killing the same person just a bit older. If you are OK with killing your 6 month old then abortion should sit well with you years later when you think about it from a safe distance. It would be nice if proponents would be honest about how parents feel years later after killing a child of any age.

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    STOP subsidizing poverty!

    Stop SCHIP, food stamps, free housing, free vaccinations for children, free school lunch and breakfast programs, free prenatal care, free day care , WIC, welfare, and on and on and on.

    On one hand the Left laments that there are so many poor and on the other they subsidize it through countless poverty programs none of which demand accountability from the recipients. The fact that they subsidize poverty results in countless unwanted pregnancies among young and poor women who are then urged to have abortions.

    Stopping the subsidization of poverty will greatly reduce the demand for abortions.

    • nivlem

      my experience is…the more children, the more subsidies…..not sure how this reduces abortion….
      Abortion has never been about the poor. The poor always received more the more children they had.
      In addition, the extremely inflated numbers of “back-alley” abortions never applied to the poor due to the government subsidies.
      Look deeper….

      • Scope

        were successful in getting Welfare reform. There was a limit to how much money you were eligible for in Welfare, and, additional children did not qualify for higher or more money. From what I read, it was a successful program, and got many onto the worker roles and out of the reproduction business. Unfortunately it is now rushing back to pre-reform status with the current Progressives.

        • nivlem

          They certainly like to keep people dependent on the government, don’t they?
          What a shame.

          It’s a beautiful day for a tea party, don’t you think?

    • streiff

      I’d be astonished if you could find empirical data that demonstrates that reducing subsidies results in improve decision making or a greater ability to anticipate consequences.

      • BA Cyclone

        We certainly have plenty of evidence over the last 50 years, that INCREASING subsidies does not provide those benefits.

        It does not prove correlation, but it’d sure be interesting to see what happens when poverty is not subsidized.

        There is plenty of data to suggest that the odds of poverty overwhelmingly decrease when children:

        1) Graduate from H.S.
        2) Get married before having children.

        If we are going to subsidize something, it ought to be teaching children how to be educated adults, prepared to raise a family inside marriage.

  • DONTREADONME

    I am curious to find out what would happen to me if she had decided to have an abortion somewhere in the last 34 weeks. We almost had the twins last weekend, I had to fly back from Las Vegas to DC in an emergency to get to my wife and what I thought would be children in ICU. I wasn’t the same once I got that call, so I can imagine my wife’s (or girlfriend hypothetically) decision to abort those children. I guess everyone must wonder why I dropped off the radar here, well wife’s pregnant with twins, that pretty much changes priorities for a period of time. This (redstate) will be my out when the children decide to breath on their own.

    • penguin2

      Have followed you and your wife’s beautiful story all along, especially because you shared with us how difficult it was to achieve this miracle in the first place. Each passing week strengthens those babies, and prayers have been ongoing for them since you first told us.

      The shame in our society is this tragedy of the easily destroyed lives, and those of us who have desperately wanted children, yet had difficulty achieving pregnancy or it was just not meant to be.

      May God Bless you, your wife and those precious babies, indeed miracles.

    • gigi36b

      on the impending family expansion.

      God bless

    • Scope

      your wife and the little ones. Prayers for all. Somehow I believe that when the whole family is home, you will still not be here quite as often. You will be busy busy busy.

      • DONTREADONME

        Sorry for my long absence, the last 1.5 months of my wifes pregnancy have been a roller coaster. Trent the boy and Reagan the girl are still a few weeks premature but are doing well. I am a proud father, give me a few months and I will back to my role as the peanut gallery here at redstate. Thanks, to all for all you do; hopefully, I will find a way to be more active than I have been lately.

        • JadedByPolitics

          MAGNIFICENT :) loving those Conservative names as well. God has blessed you mightily and I will be praying for those little ANGELS to fatten up and to gain rosy cheeks to look like the cherubs they are!

        • penguin2

          new conservatives.

          May God Bless you, Mrs. DTOM, and the precious babies.

        • Scope

          I remember you posting a little while ago about waiting for the little ones to arrive. God has blessed you and they are here. Prayers for the little bundles that have brought you joy, and also for you and the wife.

        • Jack_Savage

          I am also the father of fraternal twins (two girls) who were full term, and one daughter who was 6 weeks early (3 pounds 14 ounces).

          You think the last few months of the pregnancy were a roller coaster….!

        • janis

          Thank God that the babies are well! What lovely names you have chosen for them and I’m looking forward to your story someday when you explain to your children why you chose the names you did.

          I echo Jaded above, you will be so busy at home that you won’t be around here all that much. But your time with your children, especially when they are little and think that you hung the moon, is unbelievably precious. Just enjoy loving them and watching the miracle of their growth. Consider yourself on active duty with your kids– permanently.:-)

        • discerningconservative
  • Othniel ben Kenaz

    I think we should revive one of the moral arguments that has lapsed since the 19th century: that promiscuous women should pay a price for their lack of self-control. It’s unfortunate that the abortion debate concentrates solely on the issue of the life of the fetus when the problem of sexual immorality itself is also important.

    • aesthete

      If promiscuous women should pay a price for their lifestyle, government shouldn’t be the institution demanding payment. A person doing injury to another person directly, simply as a matter of convenience, is, on the other hand, a legitimate concern that should be met by government. Promiscuous women already pay a price: social ostracizing, STDs, degradation of their own value to prospective husbands, etc. Just because government isn’t slapping a fine on casual sex doesn’t make its costs trifling.

      • Othniel ben Kenaz

        If promiscuous women should pay a price for their lifestyle, government shouldn

      • qixlqatl

        I assumed that “social ostracizing” et al was what he meant.

        • aesthete

          Then I, in principle, agree.

    • qixlqatl

      the men who consort with them aren’t free of responsibility, either.

      • Othniel ben Kenaz

        I’m definitely a supporter a strong child support laws.

        • qixlqatl

          though I absolutely believe that a man who neglects that responsibility is nearly as bad as a woman who has an abortion, but self control as well.

          I’m pretty sure that foregoing sex won’t kill a man (else I’d be dead as a hammer :D )

    • JadedByPolitics

      look like a bunch of Neanderthals post here you STOOGE however that is not the case! The bottom line is BOTH men and women need to learn to contain themselves and use contraception but to fly in here to post some CRAP about “paying” shows your true IGNORANCE!

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      Thanks for validating your banning; and yeah, I just banned your original account too, sockpuppet.

  • nivlem

    you see, in their world, you really have no value. That was the whole idea… Women become equal with men..In oder to do that they had to make
    the fetus of no value, so you would not have any input (or control as they see it).
    If they could confuse the importance of male and confuse the public on the
    viablity of the fetus, they could pitt one against the other.
    Try going into a court room as a father agains a mother and gain any custody rights.
    But, to those of us who do value the fetus and the father, congratulations, and God bless you and the twins . We will be lifting them up to our Lord in prayer.
    He is the healer and protector. May he heal and protect your family.

    • BA Cyclone

      I heard a pro-aboritionist woman trying to debate on the radio a few weeks back, trotting out this mantra as a talking point. Women deserve reproductive equality! Egads.

      This was a woman who had never carried a child to term. I was shocked to learn that.

    • BA Cyclone

      I heard a pro-aboritionist woman trying to debate on the radio a few weeks back, trotting out this mantra as a talking point. Women deserve reproductive equality! Egads.

      This was a woman who had never carried a child to term. I was shocked to learn that.

  • Adjoran

    think the arguments they have presented in any way explain their positions, or make them morally acceptable.

    Once you have convinced yourself that unborn babies aren’t human, killing them becomes pretty easy. And the more you do it, the easier it gets.

    It’s sort of like the way German soldiers adapted to being assigned to death camps. If these creatures aren’t even human, it’s not so awful to kill them.

    • Common_Cents

      If they could logically define when life begins they’d have some ground to stand on.

      As soon as someone is a human being they get full support of right to life so there is no negotiations or situational exceptions.

      But they won’t, instead they go off tangent w/ some other euphemisms.

      they must be made to define the point at which life begins and have irrefutable proof. don’t we always err on the side of caution?

      We do for death row inmates. Why not for the unborn?

      How can you possible talk abortion without first, defining the point of life?

  • jbinvirginia

    is that being a feminist is inherently pro-life. Please spread the word about Feminists For Life (www.feministsforlife.org), whose message is clear, inspirational, on-target, and gives young women who *need* to be *pro-woman* a new reason to be pro-life.

    I sat on the fence of, “I think we should have a choice, but it’s not the choice I’d ever make,” for many years. There comes a time when that little voice in your head makes you really take sides. Hopefully, these women, like me, will take the side of the innocent and unborn.

  • paulrph1

    1.) your parents should have aborted you.
    2.) read Luke 1:41
    3.) truly care about yourself.

  • renny

    fourth girl who had just discovered she was pregnant and thought the “boyfriend” was going to marry her.
    The joke was two of the three people talking had also been pregnant by the young man in question and had had their abortions while in high school.
    Worse, their “take” on the situation was how foolish and stupid the fourth girl was that she would even THINK of marrying just because she was pregnant.
    “Feminists” have not improved the status of women vis a vis sexual attitudes but have simply adopted and substituted libertine adolescent male porno ideals, where women have no value except as sexual tools, women are entirely responsible for their own physical and emotional involvement (such as it is), and women are ultimately abandoned to “choices” in which males are not in any way associated.
    Instead of gaining “freedom,” young women have a more oppressive system than the old double standard, where at least men were looked at as having SOME moral knowledge of their actions.
    The problem is society has had abortion so long that younger generations are familiar with nothing else and have been taught by a media and school system that values abortion as a casual disposal for idiot actions.

  • cactusjack

    Another winning article/post on this subject Lori Z, thank you again. Here is the argument for which the pro-choicers have absolutely no response primarily because in order to maintain their worldview, they have to have no knowledge of world or American history save the last five minutes or so (and that only as reported to them by CNN). Why did France collapse in 4 weeks 1940 so fast after she had fought & hung on to victory so magnificently in the First World War? Stock Answer: brilliant German battle tactics or chaotic French interwar politics. Real Answer: Between the wars, her birthrate fell to below population replacement, while Germany’s well exceeded population replacement. She was overwhelmed in raw numbers from the get go. Abortion and destruction of the family not only kills babies, it kills nations. And quickly, within a generation sometimes. When we consider all the abortions performed in the US since Roe v Wade, it roughly equals the number of undocumented workers from Mexico.Central America in the US today (“we have the jobs, we just didn’t have enough native borns to take them”). It’s happening today again in Europe – the native populations in Netherlands, France and Germany, -oh and Russia too – are dying out, now hovering at 1.3 replacement rate per putative couple. Who is doing the work? Who is maintaining traditional family in Europe? Millions and millions of immigrant Muslims, of course. By 2050 it’s estimated France will be over 1/3 Muslim. The thousands of new mosques will be well attended; the cathedrals will be museums occasionally visited by tourists (much as they are today). We were offended when France didn’t support us in the Iraq War. We thought it was the French being obstreperous and arrogant to us. No, it was the French terrified they’d have uncontrollable riots, trashed neighborhoods and burning cars on their hands by millions among them. So we see, there is a national and economic interest in this issue. To which the “pro-choicers” have no response but to – as with so many other arguments – dodge, ignore, obfuscate, and call us names.

    • Achance

      had more troops, tanks, and, I think, airplanes as well in the field than the invading Germans had. They were in the wrong places, they were badly led, and they generallly had no will to fight, but the French were not overwhelmed by superior numbers.

      Much of the French leadership was actually pro-German. Many of the soldiers were communists or members of commlunist unions and at the time, the Soviets and the Germans were allies, so many of the soldiers were pro-German as well. Bottom line, France was a social and political mess for a variety of reasons, but they weren’t defeated by a low birthrate.

      • cactusjack

        Wasn’t arguing France was outnumb ered in the field, in fact she had more tanks in 1940 than the Germans, your point is well taken. What I was pointing out was, in the big macro view, the population balance between archcombatants France and Germany had already started to shift as I recall back in the mid 19th century. Previously France had b een bigger; thereafter forever Germany was more populous. It was about this time Bismarck & the German Empire decided: “we can take ‘em.” They tried thrice and succeeded twice (1870 and 1940). I do stand by my assertion that many Europeans’ native populations are, well, permanently depopulating, and millions of guest workers from Pakistan, Turkey, Algeria, etc., now there into their 2nd and 3rd generations, are filling in the gaps.
        Most came to provide for their families, but if anything there are millions more now (esp France) now, than when I lived there. This is going to have incredible political consequences sooner than most realize.

  • earlgrey

    it makes them feel better to know others do it too. The more normal you can make a behvior the easier it is to bargain with yourself that you have done nothing wrong. I think sometimes that phenomenon is at play in this debate.

  • Scope

    morally vacant people must destroy traditional christian moral values. If you have any conscience or moral bearings, you would not accept the premise that promiscuity, which results in creation of life, is something that can be eliminated or ignored, with no destruction to ones conscience. I agree with earlgreay above, some need the excuse that others have done it so it must be OK. It’s like saying that others have robbed banks, so it must be OK.

    From what I understand, the woman in Roe v Wade never did have an abortion. She apparently decided that she could not condone the murder of a human being. Yet, we are still stuck with bad law.

  • jdw4america

    They like to masquerade as being truly sad over the “necessity” of having to choose an abortion, but they are not.

    The fact that a public service ad which depicts a young woman speaking of how she regrets HER OWN experience with “the procedure” can elicit such rage on the part of people who declare themselves to be supportive of “choice,” only emphasizes their lies. The only choice they favor is abortion. The only choice they defend is abortion. The only choice they tolerate is abortion.

    All the while they proclaim they tell us that they do not wish us to impose our morality upon women in a difficult situation, they shriek like stuck pigs at the thought that those of us who speak of innocent life are allowed a voice at all. They certainly have no problem forcing us to accept their morality, since tax dollars have always been used to fund “planned parenthood” – the world’s largest abortion provider. Now with barry’s masterpiece being dragged over the 216 demarcation, the rivers of dollars to fund infanticide will flow into their coffers unrestrained by little beaver dams like Hyde.

    Look at the society that the “feminists” have, with their lecherous friend in high places, have constructed. Women were once considered ladies, unless they proved otherwise. Since the sexual devolution, women have become free to say yes, but they can no longer say no. The result? If a man buys a woman dinner, he can expect to “hit that,” or he will walk. His right to intimacy with her is normative, whether he loves her, likes her, or whether he ever wants to see her again.

    The “feminists” used to speak of how we were treated as sex objects before we asserted our “rights.” How absurd! NOW we are sex objects. We exist for one reason : sex. Witness the videos from Spring Break or Mardi Gras! Watch MTV. Listen to the lyrics of popular music or rap. Merciful God, they were selling bikinis for children with padded tops until yesterday! 7 year olds with padded bras!

    The flotsam and jetsam of the dehumanization of women is not only the 1.5 million babies aborted for the past 40 years. Their mothers too are being washed up onto a shore of desolation. Their have murdered their children, they have violated their own bodies, and have brutalized their consciences and their souls. Worse yet, they are forbidden to speak of their suffering or their regret – dismissed by their victimizers as hypocrites who seek to deny others what they themselves were free to choose.

    Were they free? All the data shows that the overwhelming majority of girls and women who have chosen abortion have done so at someone else’s bidding. The boyfriend, the husband, the parents, the boyfriend’s parents – one, sometimes several of these people pressure a vulnerable woman – and every pregnant woman is vulnerable, as any mom can attest – to kill her child. Not because they are thinking of the child, and not because they are thinking of the mother. They have issues and agendas which are not compatible with a baby, period.

    If they succeed, they do not have to live with the consequences of this “wonderful, liberating gift of freedom.” The mother does. Some women are better at seeming to cope. Many of these become rabid supporters of abortion, probably to deny their guilt, and to lie to themselves that it was not the fix it seemed. Many more, thousands more, nay millions more, grapple with this “choice” every day, most alone. The boyfriend or husband she did this for usually leaves within a year. The parents “know” that their daughters lives are better without the burden. Everybody’s happy.

    Only the childless mothers know. Members of this once silent group suffer from disorders ranging from post-traumatic stress, alcoholism, drug addiction, depression, inability to bond with any subsequent children, Inability to conceive, breast cancer, ectopic pregnancy to suicide. The lucky ones find Silent No More or Rachel’s Vineyard.

    Less than 1% of all abortions are for victims of rape and incest. Both are reprehensible acts. We obviously condemn them. As difficult as these things are, we cannot yield on this issue. the harm to the mother’s well-being are far too grave.

    And the infant in her womb is a human being. It is , as the abortionists say, the object of conception, in this case a baby. The object of all conceptions animal or human, are offspring. The offspring of each species is a young member of that species. Cats cannot conceive emus. Wildebeests do not conceive squirrels. In this amazingly ordered universe of ours, creatures produce young of their own kind, and ONLY of their own kind.

    Human beings conceive human beings.

    So, is the conceived human being alive? Forget neonatology. Forget fetology. Forget ultra-sound. Go back to Sesame Street, where they teach pre-schoolers that if something grows, it’s alive, (the core dictum of the field of biology, where there is growth, there’s life).

    So we have a living, human being. Period. Everything, including the real harm to the mother is secondary, as important as it is. Either we accept that killing a baby is an acceptable way to solve a problem, or we do not. I firmly believe that a nation which murders its children is not only doomed, its already dead. That’s why we go on fighting this evil.

    • GCBWI

      Maybe it SHOULD be a diary…

    • rbdwiggins

      I agree, this would be a good diary on its own merits.

      I do have one minor quibble though: 1.2 million human beings were aborted in 2005 ( last year of complete data). The US passed 50 million abortions in January 2010.

      But, not that minor: Approximately 1/6 of the current US population has been exterminated since Roe.

  • leehazel

    If I commit and armed robbery and shoot a pregnant bystander and the lady and the child both die I will be charged with two murders. Also, such a crime in many states would would carry the death penalty as particularly heinous or because the baby was killed.

    Why is the death of this child a “murder” of a child and an Abortion on Demand (AOD) of a viable fetus, particularly in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, is not.???
    Is abortion (AOD) not a “willful” act of the Mother that results in the death of her child???
    Isn’t the Clinic (eg Planned Parenthood) the “broker” providing/hiring the “shooter”???
    Isn’t the Doctor/Abortionist the “Shooter”/agent performing the actual deed???
    How does this differ from any “Hired Killing”???

    A second question: How can the same people defend the practice of Abortion on Demand (killing an unborn or partially born child) and condemn Capital Punishment, specifically the Death Penalty, as wrong, primitive and a social abomination??? Schizophrenia maybe.
    PC is Thought Control

    PS, Yes, a majority of these “mother”/killers suffer some psychological trauma following an abortion of their child.

  • GCBWI
    • http://snarkandboobs.wordpress.com/ Lori Ziganto

      That is very much appreciated.

  • Pingback: Jessica Valenti: college is totally worth killing babies over