« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Shorter Virginia Ironside: Most Adopted Kids Would Rather Be Dead, Anyway

According to author and columnist Virginia Ironside, most adopted kids would be better off dead. As would most children she considers “unfit”. In fact, she says, a “loving” mother would smother a sickly child with a pillow, because the “suffering” of being ill makes that life meaningless and not worth living. She made these vile assertions in defense of abortion while appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning Live during a discussion grossly entitled “Can abortion be a kindness?” First, her odious attempt to argue that abortion is a “loving choice” because some kids, in her mind, are unwanted. Her tunnel-visioned, sad excuse for a mind can’t seem to fathom the fact that the children are always wanted, by someone. You know, like people with hearts and compassion.

Not having an abortion can amount to selfishness…

Abortion can often be seen as something wicked or irresponsible but in fact it can be a moral and unselfish act. If a baby is to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely abortion is the act of a loving mother.

I was rendered speechless when I first watched this. Killing a child for being inconvenient to someone is “loving, moral and unselfish”?  So, having a baby is, therefore, selfish? Besides her utter lack of a soul, she is completely morally bankrupt. And I think she has some explaining to do to very happy and loved children who have been adopted as well as to the mothers who, according to her, were so selfish as to give that child life.  My friend, Rick Sheridan, can teach her a thing or two about what an actual unselfish act is. His adopted baby girl can also teach her what a loving mother actually does. Her mama gave her life and gave her A life. She didn’t kill her. She unselfishly bore her and gifted Rick and his wife with a beautiful baby girl. I suggest Virginia look at a picture of Rick and his beautiful daughter and try to explain to her why she would have been better off dead.

Virginia Ironside then followed up her insane arguments for eugenics due to “unwantedness” (it’s so crazy, it needs its own word) by being a proponent of killing children, unborn or born, whose health isn’t up to snuff  for her standards.

And I think that if I were a mother of a suffering child, I would be the first to want I mean a deeply suffering child I would be the first one to put a pillow over its head. I would with any suffering thing and I think the difference is that my feeling of horror suffering is many greater than my feeling of getting rid of a couple of cells because suffering can go on for years.

Hey, you know what else can go on for years, Virginia? Someone’s life. You should know. You authored a book called The Virginia Monologues – 20 Reasons Why Growing Old is Great.  Yet, you’d willingly kill a child and not give him or her that chance to grow old. Growing old is only great for you and whomever you deem fit enough, huh?

In ancient Sparta, babies who were considered handicapped or in any way not perfectly healthy were exposed to the elements, left on a mountainside to die.  Have to “purify” society and all! That was a long time ago and thankfully modern civilization has come a long way.

Now we use pillows.

Gee, it’s too bad we don’t have a fancy, new-fangled thing called medicine. To pro-abortionists, an illness is a reason to kill a baby. In fact, they believe that life is expendable for any reason if it doesn’t fit into your personal plans. This includes life that is outside of the woman’s body. Ms. Ironside, like most pro-abortionists, also fails to mention those pesky babies who won’t cooperate and who survive abortion attempts. Much like our President, who gives them so little thought that he, as a Senator in Illinois debating a Born Alive bill, said this:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead..

However you want to describe “it”. Sort of like the suffering “things” Ms. Ironside referred to above. And, not coming out limp and dead. How dare they insist on having the human will to live and the strong spirit to survive.

Lest you think Ms. Ironside is just some lone loon, The Guardian helpfully pointed out what monsters Leftists are by running an “article” by one of Ms. Ironside’s fellow travelers:

The decision is always portrayed as being inherently irresponsible and destructive – Ironside argued that, if it prevented an unwanted child or a child being born profoundly disabled, then it was a good decision that a woman could be proud of. It wasn’t the most tactful pro-choice argument you’ve ever heard (at one point, she alludes to “fatherless” children in the same bracket as the unwanted: that will enrage a few single mothers), but it wasn’t a radical new shift in pro-choice thinking.

Yeah, that’s the problem: It might be offensive to some single mothers. The moral bankruptcy is staggering. However, at least she’s honest. It is NOT a new shift in pro-abortion thinking. This is what they believe and it always has been.

The reason it’s controversial is twofold: first, pro-choicers have totally backed out of the abortion conversation, which has in consequence become dominated by anti-abortionists; second, because Ironside collapses “disabled” and “unwanted” into the same category. This is pretty insulting to disabled people..

Oh, we wouldn’t want to be insulting! Killing is okay, but insulting? That’s taboo! Unless of course, you are one of the “unwanteds”. No one cares what you feel.

Of course Ironside is not waging a war against the disabled: she simply said “life isn’t a gift per se”. There are plenty of circumstances that make it more burdensome than joyful.

They have taken the miracle of life and have made it expendable and burdensome. On purpose. There’s the difference between Ms. Ironside and I, and others like me, right there. We know that life is a priceless gift. A child’s life has infinite value that cannot ever be fully measured. No alleged burden can take away from that fact, nor from the multitude of moments of love and joy, of human touch and loving arms, of beauty and grace, of happiness and wonder.

—–

cross-posted from NewsReal

COMMENTS

  • dajeeps

    She’s an American and the survivor of a saline abortion

    I don’t know how to embed so I’m leaving the links to the video of her story:

    Gianna Jessen Abortion Survivor in Australia Part 1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ&feature=related

    Gianna Jessen Abortion Survivor in Australia Part 2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8B1nKGIAeg&feature=related

  • lineholder

    One of the things I’ve found most disturbing about PPACA is that it opens the door for mandatory genetic testing to occur, supposedly for the purpose of “healthcare management”, for both children AND adults.

    I wish there was some means of getting this through to the 20-something age group that this is NOT in their best interest. It’s just a tool that the government will use to try to define the value of a human life.

    • lineholder
      • edwlstr

        She went high school while pregnant and endured the scorn and finished with honors. Attended college while her mom and the other grandmother helped her with chid care, again graduated with honors. Attended graduate school at the University of Alabama, graduated again with honors. MS in nursing and is a women health nurse practitioner. In Guatemala, she saved a peasant woman and her baby’s life at great risk to herself, in a jungle hillside shack in the gathering darkness, all alone, because, ” I can’t say no to women who need my help”. She is motivated to excell so she can be an example to her daughter, the one she could just as easily have thrown away. Her daughter is attending college, with honors, to be a chef. She says she works hard to honor the woman who gave her life. Abortion would have affected at least two lives I know.

        • lineholder

          Pregnant at 17. Thought about marrying the father. I’m glad she didn’t because he’s currently serving time for murdering a baby he had with another girl (5-month old baby girl and he kills her with shaken baby syndrome). My daughter ended up being pretty mixed up mentally. Married a man 12 years her senior. Charming as the day is long but after they got married she found out he has some MAJOR control issues. The marriage lasted about a year.

          So she’s going it alone now, two kids, full-time nursing student. I don’t think she’ll graduate with honors, but she’s holding her own.

          To add to the story, when I was pregnant with her my AFP test came back abnormal, in this case indicating a Down-syndrome baby. The doctor implied that maybe I might want to have an abortion. Needless to say, since she is 22 years old, you can guess what my answer was. The tests were WRONG. There isn’t a thing wrong with my girl (except that she went through a time of making some really bad choices).

          Everyday that I look at her, I can never be grateful enough that I said “NO”.

  • throwback59

    vile 10/10 . org Greenhouse ad which cheerfully blows up children, and now this vile woman who is a strong proponet of abortion.
    Rue Britannia.

    • lineholder
  • itsjoanne

    that anyone would think killing your own child is a “loving” thing. Sick beyond belief.

    • davesinsanantonio

      The “excuse” is that it is the loving thing to do. The reason is that their child is inconvenient in some way.
      It is easy to kill an “inconvenient” child if you view yourself as the center of the universe and everyone else as “things” put here for your convenience. The real evil of the Left is that is exactly how they view the universe; it is their foundational belief. So, “death panels” are a necessity to get rid of their serfs who have become unproductive, or in some other way inconvenient. And abortion or infanticide, even of your own child, is just another procedure to make your life more convenient. Other people do not count, because they aren’t “people”, just things. They assuage their conscience, if they haven’t burned it away yet, by rationalizing that it is “loving” in some way.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    a woman as enlightened as Virginia.

    • lineholder
    • bay0wulf

      It would have to be a “Tsar” or … in her case, A “Tsarina”. This couldn’t be a duly and legally “Cabinet Appointee” (YET)

      It would have to be an ILLEGALLY Appointed “Tsar”. That way they would be totally unregulated and answerable to no-one.

      Tsar = Czar = Caesar = “Any powerful emperor or despot” (Which is EXACTLY what the US of A was created to eliminate.

      DOWN WITH THE “CZARS”!!! Lop off their heads!!!

      Obama … We Don’ need no stinkin’ KINGMAKERS

      • stephaniet

        Why? Because she’d probably think that “tsarina” is sexist, disgusting pig that she is.

  • cactusjack

    Cannot tell you in words how much they are wanted and loved. This woman is misguided and in her viewpoint would have been good buddies with Adolf, no hyperbole there. Pure fascism she’s spouting : the State is supreme and will decide what’s best for you, for a mother, for her putative children.

  • indylawyer

    Having started life as one of those “unwanted” infants before being adopted, I find views like Ms. Ironside’s to be utterly incomprehensible. Wonder what she’d say to someone like me if we had the chance to challenge her.

  • Adjoran

    that she might rediscover her humanity.

    • proudmarinemom

      I’ve spent the past 20 years trying to explain to people that there are no “unwanted” children.

      The two women in South America who gave my children the gift of life did not “give them up” for adoption, nor did they give up on them. They wished for these children a chance to live and set aside their own needs and desires to grant that to them. Their humanity cannot be understood by the advocates of “choice.”

      Praying is really the only thing I can do for those unfortunate souls who have missed the miracle of loving a much-wanted child.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    But then I’m an optimist sometimes…

    • lineholder

      I don’t see any of the eugenics supporters volunteering to go first, do you?

      • stephaniet

        You know, for the greater good and all.

        • lineholder

          then let them be the ones to lead by example.

  • powertothepeople

    I told my business partner that this was the first slippery step into euthanasia. While he agreed with abortion being wrong, he announced to me that it would never come to that, people would never accept it and within a few years, people would rebel against abortion.

    Now, years later with over 1.2 million killings a year, we are only a breath away from what I predicted. People not only did not rebel against abortion, it grew. People quit calling it a baby, now it is a lump of skin. It has progressed year after year and now we are at the point this ladies statements do not cause most to even blink. In fact, many on that side most likely said Amen.

    We have seen more vile type language coming from that side, this lades words were not the worst I have heard. I have heard people in high places calling for forced abortion when dealing with disease, illness, or mental issues in the child. Doctors advise women to have abortion for the same, sometimes even when it is only a chance the child will come out impaired. We have seen assisted suicide made legal in some states and more will follow. While I take no real side on a persons right to end their own lives, I also understand that when the government or sadist are allowed an inch, they take a mile. It is only time until they remove the limitations on how a person can be approved to receive the lethal medication and make it to where a panel of “caring” doctor or family members can make the call.

    Our morality in this world has gone to hell and it will not be long before abortions are mandated to keep “lesser” humans from being born and “lesser” adults from continuing to be a “drain” on society. It will not be long before people have to hide illness or injury from the powers that be out of fear they will be executed. It is Nazi Germany all over again soon.

    May God drop this lady to her knees in repentance or may he, for the sake of the unborn, take her to her day in court, his court!

  • donnylatenight

    Sadly, this woman does not shock me at all. One of my many guilty pleasures is commenting on discussion boards of a popular Lefty blogsite. When a liberal is confronted about the morality of abortion, the reaction is predictable:

    First is the obligatory…..

    “So you think a ten year old that has been raped by her father should be forced to carry the child!!!”

    Next comes the ‘compassion’ angle as illustrated by Ms Ironside:

    “It is far better not to be born into a world where the child isn’t WANTED”

    Finally, if we gave Ms Ironside some more tape, she would inevitably argue that the abortion epidemic is in fact CONSERVATIVES FAULT for not supporting any of a number of Liberal policies which would make the world suitable for women to bring children into.

    “Republicans are PRO BIRTH, not PRO LIFE, because once the child is born they do not believe in: childrens health care, education, welfare, global warming, gay marriage, etc”

    Thank God I was not born a Liberal……….

    • elluchero

      “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”

      –George Washington

      ‘cuz he was.

      • donnylatenight

        Now you’d better get back to Huffington Post, there’s a brand new Levi Johnston Thread…

        • elluchero

          how conservatives dodge issues with insults. All I did was post a quote.

          Here’s some other quotes from great Americans. I recommend double checking them, as they are all legitimate. It is wont to research everything about someone you admire, not just the stuff that supports your belief.

          • aesthete

            Nice try. George Washington was clearly talking about classical liberalism, which is very much different (opposite really) from the sort of liberalism adovcated for today by progressives. Abraham Lincoln was all over the place politically, oscillating from (though he was never a socialist, as far as I know). His economic philosophy was never his claim to fame, nor was it the reason he was elected President. MLK was a democratic socialist, but again, his economic philosophy is not what he is remembered and admired for. I imagine that if his economic philosophy had been put into effect by some political leader, it would have failed in a manner similar to how Indira Gandhi’s terms as Prime Minister were failures.

            Neither passage particularly describes or “sounds like” either capitalism or socialism. And you’re an absolute fool if you think there aren’t wealthy or greedy people in socialist countries.

            At any rate, your entire post boils down to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, and a poor example of the same. Socialism is a poor alternative to capitalism not because of who advocated for it, but because it is a system inherently built on the idea that using force against one’s non-violent, law-abiding citizens to achieve some desired social state is appropriate, and around the corollary that society, and not the individual, is what is important. The dignity of the individual and his or her choices is best realized in a capitalist system, where one’s possessions and rights are absolutes not subject to being yanked away by an authority from on high.

          • elluchero

            are a fool for misunderstanding George Washington’s economic stances.

            Please read this document, it explains them quite clearly. ht tp://www.georgewashingtonmythsymbolandreality.org/Martinez_GW-Ecomomics.pdf

            Goerge Washington’s comments on liberalism tend to revolve around religious freedom, something he was quite adamant about. Take, for instance, the happenings with the Jewish Synagogue.The mainland American population found its existence in a widely puritan country quite inappropriate and wished for them to be shipped off somewhere. Washington was an adamant supporter that, here in America, they had the freedom to do so, regardless of location. Sound familiar?

            Classical liberalism is almost identical to modern liberalism except for the limited government and free market portions. Washington would have been considered a liberal by today’s standards, but a mixed bag back then. I suspect, based on his economic and governmental beliefs that his comments were more in-tune with modern liberalism than that of the classical variety.

            There’s a reason I didn’t quote Jefferson, who was a classical Liberal in every sense of the term.. He has some fantastic quotes that happen to include the word ‘liberal,’ but my use of them would seem quite silly, wouldn’t they?

            I appreciate that you understand the term classical liberal, but please do try to bone up on your US History a bit.

          • aesthete

            All that it says is that a) Washington supported Hamilton’s banking system and proposed federalist system (neither belief outside the periphery of classical liberalism), that he was a “man of action”, and that he sought to make the federal government seem competent: none of those are beliefs foreign to classical liberals, nor are they beliefs that modern liberalism diverges from classical liberalism on. Stick to Thomas Paine if you want a Founder who parrots your talking points.

            Saying that classical liberalism is identical to modern except for free markets and the constrained state is like saying that a ham sandwich and a crap sandwich are identical, minus the part where a crap sandwich is made of crap.

          • elluchero

            *sighs*

            Washington supported Hamilton’s ideas, despite being a southerner. Southerners tended to like the idea of a smaller government and Washington tried that out, but in time in started taxation and larger control than others would have liked on local business. That was the point.

            Out of opposition and, partially, fear of this Thomas Jefferson and James Madison formed a political party aimed at small government.

            This was the first debate between ‘small government’ and ‘large government’ in the states and, guess what? Larger government won. That’s why the Articles of Confederation got scrapped in favour of the Constitution. People viewed the Articles of Confederation as too weak.

            It stands to reason SOME of our founders were in favour of larger government. Otherwise there would have BEEN no debate. You can have Jefferson, but Washington and Hamilton were on the other side of the issue.

            Any intro US History course will teach you this.

            Also, to say that classical liberalism without the free market or the constrained state is, *ahem*, like a ‘crap sandwich’ means, essentially, individual freedom, equality, free speech, and free religion is, well, a less than optimal meal.

            To Washington, who declared himself a liberal, these were not ‘make or break’ items since he wasn’t big on either of them..

            I’m sure those are your favourite parts, and they do receive the most attention nowadays, but you need to understand things in a historical context. Back then, all of the tenants of classical liberalism were equally important. Regardless of your choice of language, it is a slur against their importance in society and that makes me quite fearful if you honestly believe that. To put them on a pedestal above all the others… Surely you would not have gotten along with our founders. Honestly, the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state were, actually, held on a higher esteem than the free market. So if they were to put one on a pedestal… It’d be that one. It was certainly the only one they all agreed on.

            If you’d like me to go into the philosophy behind why that was and the layers of the foundation of the secular America, I can go into the puritans Roger Williams and John Winthrop. Or the whole… Catholicism debacle. I have a distinct feeling, though, that you would prefer your more partisan take on history than quotes or documents such as the letters between John Cotton and Roger Williams. Actually, if you’re into the whole “Church as a part of state” take a look at Cotton – I believe you’d enjoy him. Unfortunately for you, though, his opinion lost popularity as Roger William’s colony, which would later become Rhode Island, grew in size.

            Also, try to take a look at “A Model of Christian Charity,” an essay/speech by John Winthrop. Winthrop was against religion imposed by the state (he put it somewhat candidly as being forced to rape Christ, actually. This was quite odd for him, especially after reading documents as Christian Charity, which used only the most beautiful language), but he was not against politicians being advised by religious officials, as long as they had no direct power. The document, though not addressing this, advises people to come together and form a society using terms that sound borderline communistic. This document, as I said, and as many of the founders noted as well, was one of the primary inspirations for the constitution and the early law of the United States. I’d consider it required reading to anyone pretending to be a patriot.

            Also, I figure I might also say a couple things that people might not know. One serious fact and one fun one.

            1) None of the founders were happy with the constitution. In fact, I believe it was Franklin that said posterity would never forgive him. The reason for this was that they all wanted very specific clauses in it and no one came away happy. This argues against the constitution being a flawless document. In fact, slavery was one of the big topics of debate during its authorship and they opted to allow it since southern slave-owners would not sign on-board without.

            2) Lincoln had an incredibly high-pitched voice. Likened to that of a young girl.

            I do hope you will refrain from such language in the future. It cheapens what could be legitimate debate.

          • elluchero

            And do try to be more respectful.

            I do hate it when conservatives start throwing, well, their own linguistic excrements when attempting to debate. Cheap insults are not appreciated.

            Respect, proper language, and citation is the key to debate. Please do remember this in the future.

          • DONTREADONME

            are using right now. This is fantastic… You are using a very amateur and self-conscious technique by which you attempt to elevate your opinion or interpretation, wrongfully so, of classic liberalism by interrogating the nature of ones question of your intelligence through the projection. Unfortunately, what I am observing is you’re quite incensed by the fact that you feel challenged, and you are grasping for leverage by pigeon-holing your better. This explains the rampant citation of multiple quotes from diverging sources to defend yourself, and then, pbviously, Aesthete has bested you old-chap and you have taken your ball and have gone home as evidenced by your comment below.

            Always good to see the lurkers are still about. BTW, if you didn’t understand what I was trying to say above, go grab some quotes jam them together and your interpretation is what we get. Fantastic.

          • aesthete

            “I’m mad that I didn’t get a racist, jingoistic rise out of RSers, so I’ll do the next best thing and toss out random, intellectual-sounding non-sequiturs to make myself feel superior!”

          • aesthete

            Perhaps before berating commenters on the virtues of civil conversation, you might consider taking a course in logic, given that your two posts were long-form examples of the non-sequitur. Your primary assertion was that George Washington would be considered a modern, post-New Deal liberal. I pointed out that this was fraudulent, and you have yet to post a link which supports your claim. I assure you that, to a man, the Founders (with the potential exception of Thomas Paine) would have been strenuously opposed to the excesses of the Bush and Obama administrations. Also, you have no clue what my views are on religion (don’t like it in government at all, if that gives you a clue) or civil liberties (for them and against many of the excesses of Bush and Obama concerning the same). And no, freedom of speech is worth nothing if you are making said speech from a position of no power, as in a socialist system: it is a cheap vestige of freedom that is cruelly allowed in an anti-freedom system (though I’m glad we both agree on the importance of said liberties). I don’t apologize for my “language”, and only wish that I’d been more forceful in it than I was: your posts have certainly earned more pejoratives than I heaped on them in my initial response.

          • Bill S

            Because you’d still be here if it was.

      • belcatar

        What does it have to do with Virginia Ironside’s comments on abortion? The woman spouted a vile torrent of hateful garbage about the value of a human life, and your response is take a quote from George Washington out of context and put it into a thread where it has no relevance.

        Like you said, all you did was provide a quote. Providing a quote required nothing but the “cut and paste” tool, and relieves you of the obligation to contribute something meaningful to the discussion.

        Of course, your answer to other posters is to provide more quotes. Now I’m no expert on RedState etiquette, but this looks suspiciously like an attempted threadjack.

        • elluchero

          I was not aware our founder’s opinions and beliefs were not meaningful. I do apologize.

        • elluchero

          You do have a point about the threadjacking. It’s never intentional, but it has evolved in a way that is unrelated to the current discussion.

          As such, I propose no further discussion on the topic. I have too much work to do in general to argue anyway, so I do not plan to do post any further. It is difficult to make headway with partisans in either direction, so the arguments I am making are moot in general, just as I’m sure yours would be on some of the more partisan, liberal news sources.

      • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

        George Washington had no children of his own (apparently, due to smallpox). So you can imagine how he might feel about somebody like you using his an out-of-context quote to apologize for an euthanasia enthusiast.

        Shoo.

        • aesthete

          I love the video that you put in elluchero’s posts. I’d never seen it before, and it’s a simply beautiful ad.

  • billyboy347

    Miz Ironside is a twisted woman, full of hate, anger and jealousy. As ugly as she is, there is little chance of her ever being in a position to need an abortion.

  • grumpy_old_soldier

    Would she feel the same way if her mom were the one fluffing up the pillow?

  • ModernAgeFan

    This is similar to the thought process that inspired the Nazis to get rid of the sick and disabled in 1930s Germany. I mean, its not like they are human or anything, right? It is frightening to realize that there are people who have no problems justifying such an obviously evil philosophy. I agree with Adjoran this woman desperately needs us to pray for her.

    • davesinsanantonio

      when there was no general outcry when he began to kill off the insane and mentally handicapped, and the severely physically handicapped, “humanely”, that there would be no outcry when he began to kill others. (It was one of his earliest actions after taking power.) All he had to do was find the right excuse, and he could kill anyone he wanted.
      If we do not continue to cry out about abortion, and other evils of the Left, then we will actually be helping the Left promulgate their evils. God will hold us accountable for our failures.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/bdpaasch Brian Paasch

    So raw anger will have to do. Virginia Ironside is a dark and thoroughly evil monster.

    -brian
    Father of four: two adopted, two homemade

    • stephaniet

      “Monster” is accurate. I’m just aghast that anyone could ever think this…!

      I’ve told my parents that I someday want to adopt children if it will save them from being aborted. And I will. They deserve it, I think. And kudos to you for adopting a pair yourself! I think that’s the sweetest thing, opening your home and heart to a child who doesn’t share your DNA. I have a friend who’s tried to adopt many times. The first time, the government of the child’s home country suddenly shut down all adoptions, so they lost their future little girl. I think my friend and her husband are trying again, though. I hope it succeeds for them!

      • proudmarinemom

        but, stephanie, your well-intended sentiment needs a little steering in a better direction.

        No reputable adoption agency would place a child with someone who wants to engage in a rescue fantasy such as the one you describe. It is not the role of social workers to satisfy your need to save a child. Their role is to find a family for the child, not the other way around.

        Adoptive parents are motivated by the same virtuous selfishness as that which drives others to reproduce. We simply want to be parents. My children don’t owe me anything, other than the respect any child owes a parent. I did nothing noble or generous in embracing them as my own. Their DNA notwithstanding.

        Sorry to be blunt, but the sooner you learn this, the better.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    is that the handicapped may as well be dead.

    This isn’t compassion. The womans’ a sociopath.

  • dwscho

    Perhaps this vile excuse for a human being should do civilized society a favor and figure out a way to herself expire from this earth. This woman has no soul and is morally and emotional bankrupt.

    • Brian Hibbert

      at a loss for words. How utterly hopeless her world must appear…..

      She has a soul, it’s just been so submerged in the killing of babies that it is buried deep inside and not visible from the outside. Pity her……..

      And have DCFS take away any children that may be in her household. Anyone who would willingly smother their child rather than comfort him/her should not be allowed anywhere NEAR a child.

  • rivahmitch

    This 64 year old man was adopted at birth by two loving and excellent parents who had themselves suffered through the depression and WWII. I was loved, raised and educated to be a productive citizen. I enlisted and served in the Marine Corps in Vietnam and worked and paid taxes for my entire adult life. IMHO, while this individual attempts to make the case for abortion in her babblings and writings, she actually is a good case for euthanasia.

  • indylawyer

    One thing I think we need to keep in mind in this debate is how personal this issue is to many of the pro-aborts. We’ve been slaughtering babies with abortions in this country at a clip of over a million a year for more than three decades. That is a lot of women who have had abortions. And a lot of men who have pressured the mothers of their children into having them. And lots more people who have encouraged/helped/forced a friend, sister, or daughter to have an abortion.

    So when we point out that an unborn baby is a human being, and that abortion is murder, we are effectively accusing a huge segment of our population of being murderers, accomplices to murders, or at least of being on a moral plane with those Germans who supported Hitler’s Jewish policy. Quite naturally, they do not like to think of themselves in that light. Some fall to their knees in repentence, but most try to rationalize their actions. Thus they need to either convince themselves either that their aborted baby really wasn’t another person yet, or that they somehow acted out of love rather than selfishness. It’s not just a political argument, it’s what they need to think so that they can look at themselves in the mirror without seeing a monster.

    So while Ms. Ironsides views are monstrous, we should view her and her fellow travelers with compassion and pity. She shares our monstrous nature as fellow sinners in need of Christ. I pray that someday she recognizes this herself.

  • gunslingr45

    wonder how she would feel if her mother felt the same way?

  • earlgrey
  • mecat212

    This woman is a member of the Fabian Society. It is no wonder that she is comfortable with putting to death a “suffering child”. This is their modus operandi regarding the non-functional living. As George Bernard Shaw once said, and I am paraphrasing, Every few years, each citizen should be put before a tribunal and asked what they have contributed to society. If they are non-producers they should be subjected to a “friendly gas” so they will no longer be a burden to that society. These people are proponents of euthanasia, eugenics and abortion. Founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger was a proud member. If you want nightmares, read her stuff.

  • Mississippi Conservative

    can’t possibly comprehend the gift and value of life. This is a life they would say has no value:

    If everyone had the outlook of the Mooney’s, what a better world we would have.

  • http://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/ kilowattradio

    I used to be a fundamentalist that thought all abortion should be illegal. That was until my now ex-wife had a problem pregnancy where she had to have an abortion. At the time we lived in country that had all kind of red tape in regards to performing an abortion. We had to have a medical board approve the abortion and my wife went through hell as did the whole family.
    After that experience I became a believer in letting the mother to decide if she wanted to have a baby and not some do-gooder that think they know best. After all it was the creator that gave a woman the choice whether to carry a baby full term, not some man that could care less what happens to the baby once he or she is born.

    • Uma Richie

      If the medical care providers didn’t do everything in their power to save both your wife’s life and the baby’s, you have been done a great injustice. Many marriages and men and women are literally destroyed in the aftermath of abortion. Even parents who lose babies through clear-cut situations such as ectopic pregnancy or life-saving surgery that results in miscarriage grieve heavily.

      You are not alone.
      http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

  • stephaniet

    …of when my mom found out she was pregnant with me. She and my dad were in France attending language school to prepare for being missionaries to West Africa. Well, lo and behold, I showed up. And when she went to the doctor for her very first sonogram, she looked so shocked to see me there that the doctor looked at her and said simply, “I don’t do abortions.” Thank God that my mother wasn’t even considering that! But thank God also that the doctor didn’t suggest it. After all, if being adopted makes a person unfit to live, according to this monster Ironside, what else does? Being born extremely pigeon-toed, like I was? Being born to one day need strong glasses, like I was?

  • runner12

    I am a pediatric health care professional and I work with disabled children all of the time. It makes me ill to hear this woman talk so callously about the very children I work with on a daily basis. Are there challenges? Yes, there are. But there are so many gifts and blessings as well. These children are human beings with feelings, thoughts, and souls. To speak of them in such a way is monstrous. Miracles occur with these children, some small and some big. I have seen children who were given a slim chance to walk or speak run and play around a playground with other little children their age. Sometimes the miracles are smaller, but just as celebrated. I would be ashamed that this woman was a citizen of my country if I were from Great Britain.

  • soljerblue

    to express the disgust that I feel for this woman and her views. She’s pure eugenics, the philosophy of which morphed into the Nazi experiments with sterilization and other human experiments a-la Josef Mengele.

    Adoption has been and continues to be part of my family’s history, and any of my children, or their children has more human and social value than this slug.

    If I met this woman on the street, I’d be likely to get arrested for an act that could be described as transmitting a certain bodily fluid from my mouth to her countenance.

  • johnt

    Callous to the point of death for others, protective, grasping, and power worship for & in themselves.
    No members of the Hemlock Society here.

  • aesthete

    an illegal immigrant making less than minimum wage in a place where he doesn’t know anyone, Virginia will be cheering me along for doing the “humane” thing. How lovely of her.

    Killing may be necessary from time to time: I know that there are situations where I can see it being the best of many bad options (see: self defense, war, etc). But even in those situations, it is never “noble” or “humane”. It is sickening to think that the word “humane” could ever come close to being used for the scenario described above.

  • citizenjerry

    This is Exhibit A for “something wicked this way comes.” But when a nation forgets it’s Judeo-Christian foundation, this is the kind of people it gets. And when we forget, we all become the grave diggers.

  • harling

    Gianna Jessen, abortion survivor:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ (Part 1)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8B1nKGIAeg (Part 2)

  • rasvar

    I don’t normally comment on items where I completely agree with the poster out of old habits to avoid “me too”. This one, I just can’t leave alone. I know a ton of adopted children who are not only loved but love very strongly back in return. I lack the vocabulary at the moment to come up for what I think about Ms. Ironside (who I guess has likely not been married) that can be said in polite company. That has to be some of the most selfish [insert whatever here] I have ever read. She is a sad sad human being. I really pity her. She will never ever know or understand the real meaning of what it is to love or be loved.

  • simplyright4me

    We wonder what has happened to this wonderful country. We have a President that believes in infanticide. We have people in power that think ungenics is an honorable way to cull out the weak. This is the results of a loss in the belief of God and the Americans willingness to cast away a vote for just the feel of it and not give any thought towards what or who they are voting for. Academia, Marxism, Liberalism and Progressives are a sickness with a hidden agenda that more and more are finding out. But, will Americans pull the cord for the God and Country or for feelings and old inherant antiquated beliefs. I vote God and Country. Do you wonder Liberals what will happen when you finally really for sure piss off the Christians and leave them with no peaceful way to save their values? That little nudge and now the shove into Socialism will hit a bump in the road sooner or later and then what, Liberals? They showed their true worth and beliefs this last Saturday 10-2-10 and that should be enough to have every American worried that they will continue unless destroyed in some manor. There is a Communist in the White House folks and his friends were on the mall last Saturday, these are his people. Will we get rid of them, I hope so. As for Ironside, she deserves the worst that can happen to her and I hope that I will be allowed the opportunity to stand at the gate when she is asking her way in. I will then remind her of how meager she thought of life, how willing she was to destroy one of Gods creation without even a shred of conscience, how she lost God.

  • tsvoigt

    When I read the arguments for and against abortion, I think about my family who had members gunned down on the streets of Warsaw and murdered in Auschwitz by German Nazis.

    What’s the connection between that and abortion? Simple. The ideologies behind both are the same. Post war Germany was an economically broken country and voted in a deceptive and devious dictator named Hitler who was hell bent on saving Germany, or so he said. In the end, his ideologies included the message of killing people who were not “Aryan” enough. But, he went farther than that, not only killing target groups like Jews and Slavs, but killing Germans who were disabled, and somehow in the way or detrimental to the war effort. By that time, insanity had taken over and most Germans swallowed it out of fear and persecution from the very party who promised to save them.

    And, what is the connection between Ironside and Hitler? Simple. They were and are acting and speaking without God. One screamed his rehetoric, while the other talks calmly, convincingly, and with a disturbing coldness in her eyes. Both self-serving and self- involved.

    History proves time and time and time and time gain that when we cut ourselves off from God, we cut our society into pieces morally, economically and physically (have a look at some abortion photos and the pieces in it) producing dissension and unresolved arguments. Of course, the atheist doesn’t have this problem and can rest easy on this earth as did Hitler and so does Ironside.

    To end, abortion is not the problem. The lack of God and guiding morals and the political will to assert those problems are. It has been a problem for centuries, is a problem in Canada (I’m Canadian), Britain, the EU and shortly will be in the USA unless Americans act before it is too late and they will have to swallow government policies out of fear of persecution from the very government who is promising to rebirth the nation and save it from itself.

    Killing will become a morally acceptable management tool to “take care” of the elderly, the disabled, veterans who can’t work, those not perfect enough and those with opposing political views. A new Auschwitz will reopen.

  • Pingback: My Homepage