39 Years After Roe v. Wade…

January 23, 2012 By 23 Comments

Hundreds of Thousands Converge on Washington to March for Life…

…so the press is covering a small crowd at the statue of Joe Paterno.

Filed Under: Uncategorized 23 Comments
  • Reality Check

    This was never about abortion. It’s about whether women should have full citizenship and full rights, or be ruled over as property by fathers, husbands, and priests.

    • Michelle

      R.C., as a woman and as someone who considers herself a feminist, I can tell you that Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (along with other Founding Mothers of the feminist movement) would have been appalled that abortion was attached like a bloodsucking leech (quite literally) on the back of the feminist movement. Were they around today, I’m sure Ms. Anthony and Mrs. Stanton would have told you that the so-called “right” to abortion does nothing to advance women’s rights and choices in our country today, and indeed diminishes them by making women subject to men who, for their own convenience, pressure pregnant women to have abortions against their will.

    • Chris

      Gee RC, if the feminist agenda is the cure-all, why are you people still so miserable, forty years later? Why didn’t the sexual revolution, unlimited access to contraception, the mainstream concubine, and abortion-on-demand bring you the complete personal fulfillment Obama wants you to have?

      Don’t worry, history is replete with societies that sought to attack God’s people, and ended up in a pile of smoldering ashes (Egypt, Babylon, the Romans, the Ottomans, the British, the French, the Nazis, the Soviets, etc.) Don’t be shocked when all of your rights are gone and we join that ignominious list of failed empires.

  • Hezekiah Garrett

    Some reality check. Legalized abortion has just made it easier for cads to pressure women.

    Right fucked up notion of freedom there, mate!

  • Consistency

    Because infanticide is the true measure female freedom. What abortion “rights” would men possess that women would not?

  • Reality Check

    Except it’s not infanticide, consistency.

    A simple logic exercise. In this country there are hundreds of thousands of fertilized eggs in frozen storage, some will be implanted, nearly all will be thrown away.

    Please place hundreds of thousands of infants in frozen storage and then tell me how they fare.

    One of these things is not like the other…

    • http://www.likelierthings.com Jon W

      It wouldn’t be a perfect law, but if you sponsored a bill that made abortion illegal after the embryo, if frozen, would suffer significant damage, I would vote for that. Would you?

  • Rosemarie

    +J.M.J+

    I spent the whole morning at the doctor’s office undergoing a battery of tests (I’m apparently healthy, thank God!). In between tests, I got to sit in the waiting room and watch CNN on the flat screen TV. They sure did cover the Paterno story (God rest his soul!) over and over again with footage of mourners touching his statue, and a candlelight vigil, and friends saying he died of a broken heart, etc., etc. They also mentioned the March for Life – briefly.

  • Consistency

    Reality check, you ignored the original question. While we’re exercising logic, being able to survive freezing temperatures precludes life? You cannot biologically or theologically claim that an embryo is anything other than a living human. The fact that it lacks organ systems which demand warmth and energy is irrelevant. What percent of the abortions you support are done because of rape, incest, or health of the mother as opposed to convenience?

    • Reality Check

      It doesn’t matter why they’re done. It’s none of your business.

      You cannot force a woman to give birth. Her body, her decision. Period.

      • http://www.likelierthings.com Jon W

        Now we’ve found Reality Check’s absolute principle, the one thing he or she will not compromise on. All the scientific and moral arguments about implantation, viability, personhood, etc, don’t really matter and, in fact, are not really arguments at all. They are completely beside the point.

        The point is that the individual has an absolute right to contract with whomever over doing whatever to his or her own body. If you are not addressing this, you are not arguing with Reality Check.

      • http://www.mystagogia.net Kathleen Lundquist

        It is Nature that “forces” a woman to give birth (after becoming pregnant through the usual method). Whether you look at it from a teleological (philosophical) or a purely evolutionary standpoint, reproduction of our species inheres in, i.e. is the essence of, sexual activity.

        Denial of this fact has launched the feminist movement and our culture at large into desperate, dangerous illusions.

      • bones

        Whose body is extracted during an abortion?

  • Marthe Lépine

    Just one little aside here: It is proven that some cultures prefer boy babies over girl babies, and abortion has given those people the means to “choose”. In what way would aborting all the girls advance women’s rights?

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      It doesn’t matter why they’re done according to “Reality Check.” I guess women’s rights only means BORN women’s rights. If someone wants to kill them in the womb simply because they are girls, that’s not a problem.

  • Consistency

    Because, the rights millions of infants being killed each year in the name of our hypersexualized, irresponsible, conser culture is no ones business apparently. Aren’t you the ones normally crowing about science? Why dismiss it now? Her body, her decision? The decision is sex, not avoiding responsibility.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    Study Reality Check’s remarks carefully:

    Us: We stand for the right to life at every stage from the moment of conception until natural death.

    The Culture of Death: What about cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother?

    Us: A direct attack on the life of the unborn infant – or any infant – can never be countenanced by humane people.

    The Culture of Death: What? You would force a poor innocent child who had been brutally raped by her own uncle to carry that pregancy, even when her doctors state that for her to do so would almost certainly further traumatize her? What kind of monster are you?

    Us: We are not to kill – or allow to be killed – except when it is necessary to do so to by a deliberate aggressor.

    Culture of Death: O! Say no more! Monstrous, abominable wickedness, that thou would’st permit this innocent angel to be doubly mangl’d by nature’s cruelty to her poor body! Unjust, hideous exactation of her life’s hope for another life unknown. Woe! Woe to all who listen to these dread, cursed fiends of horror who spread their wickedness upon . . . (etc., etc.) (Pause at suitable points for applause.)

    Us: Well, erm, uh, . . aboritons in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, then.

    The Culture of Death: It doesn’t matter why they’re done. It’s none of your business.

    Us: But . . . but, we thought . . . it mattered.

    The Culture of Death: No such luck, . . . Chump! Too late!

    Remember this exchange. Let’s not be chumps any longer.

    It is never OK to poison, stab, razor, or otherwise wield a weapon against a baby, born, or unborn.

    And anyone who says it is OK, is in the same boat with Dr. Josef Mengele.

    Yah.

    M-E-N-G-E-L-E.

    Don’t let the Culture of Death turn you into another Mengele.

  • Observer

    @Reality Check
    Freedom is not license. You cannot say you have the freedom to do what you want with your body to incur injury on another person and someone else’s life (Common Sense.) The logic of argument is purely a slippery slope trying to be justified by..what’s the common vice of man’s fall?..pride. It’s not an argument at all, but a mere emotionalism of pride being rationalized and justified at all fronts of a woman’s soul. More so, the sad domino effect of injury to a woman’s body and the infliction upon her soul is only therefore being justified by (and more so incurred) by the simple cooperation of terming the developing human life. Sad, and very much a red herring, is to call it her right, since it follows the same coldness and cruelty of a man who leaves her deprived of love, injured, abused, hurt, and in an association of usury for which she is beckoned to lend her very being to put an end to a life which she feels incapable herself to care for (because of a determinist and nihilistic philosophy which was a precursor for WWII & continues to perpetuate the inner life and good of society.) So, keep your logic for the mad and let us retain and keep our sanity.

  • Kevin

    Reality Check has no interest in any discussion. The only thing Reality Check is interested in us a louder megaphone. And maybe a better turnout of fellow pro-death activists.

    Well don’t forget Goebbels. If you’re going to tell a lie, you better make it a BIG one and you better repeat it a LOT or people will cling instead to the truth.

    The “Reality Check” types are deeply invested in this lie: killing inconvenient humans is justifiable.

    If you mention embryology they take their marbles and go home.

    Now, Reality Check, how long is it going to take before you revert to inchoate, lip-foaming insult? Because in terms of a pure science argument, you got nothing.

    And this “none of your business” rubbish. What craven special pleading.

    So how do you explain the published goals of 20th century militant feminism aborting uncountable hundreds of millions of girls, with an increasing rate?

    It would seem Reality Check must applaud this result else admit to a flawed premise?

  • rc

    The kids that are actually already alive, that are in orphanages and foster care should be looked after first. How will ending abortion help the overpopulation.

    • AfroDoc

      And… in comes “rc” with another myth. That statement assumes:

      1. That the world has a problem, being “overpopulated.”
      2. That children in orphanages and foster care are “more alive” than those living in utero.
      3. That we don’t have the ability to look after all of the children in the world.
      4. That it’s ok to kill someone if by looking into our crystal ball we foresee a difficult life ahead.

      All four of these statements would have to be true for rc’s argument to make any sense. In fact, none of them are true.

    • Marion (Mael Muire)

      That neglected orphans should suffer anywhere in the world is a shame on society. Men and women of decency and of conscience can and do care about their plight and seek to remedy it.

      However, first and foremost, above all else, bottom line, number one, even before we get to neglected orphans, or other sad and sorrowful situations, where it all begins, what it is, is:

      Decent and civilized human beings don’t take up weapons of destruction to exercise lethal force, except as a last resort to defend themselves against intentional aggression.

      Ever.

      Even if I owned a gun to protect myself and my home, (I don’t own one) I don’t get to shoot a fleeing armed intruder in the back, even if he has my jewelry and my laptop with my whole life on it, and is running away with them.

      I don’t get to wield lethal force for jewelry or laptops.

      I don’t get to take a man’s life unless he has me in a “it’s him or me” situation – His hands on my throat, or a gun or knife aimed at me, or at someone else I want to protect.

      The cops don’t either; it’s unlawful. And rightly so.

      You don’t attack individuals who aren’t in the act of attacking your very life, or the lives of others.

      And you certainly don’t attack babies, who intentionally threaten no one.

      You don’t target babies for destruction.

      You don’t put an infant in your crosshairs, and pull the trigger.

      Humane humans don’t pick up poison and poison babies. They don’t take a pair of metzenbaum scissors into their hands, and with the cold steely blades, stab babies. They don’t cut babies into pieces.

      Decent, civilized men and women don’t mix salt and water and apply it to babies so as to burn them to death. In or out of the womb.

      Decent, civilized men and women, while they have breath in their body, do all in their power to prevent babies being targeted for death. To prevent babies being attacked. To prevent babies having death dealt to them.

    • Observer

      Stop trying to fabricate and justify a humane reason to apply the nucleic form of evil being furthered since the Cluc Cluc Clan. You can stop using the same dilemma posed by cultists who want to bring the world to their door-steps along with their fraudulent medical application of justifiied nucleic r-a-c-i-s-m. I hope almighty God does the same thing he did in Sodom and Ghommora to the door-steps and the very institution of an evil empire associated by ill men who knowingly and willingly cooperate with evil. May He Who is Love mute hatred of such an evil empire by giving people the resilience and impenetrable walls (and the perpetual assistance of their Guardian Angels, Mary’s Intercession, and the pure filial love with the saints in Heaven with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) to ignore and exclude this false and posionous dilemma from all forms of discussion by pure common sense. I hope the silence of this non-sense will be achieved and perfectly done in God’s grace to bring about conversion of sinners to pure and filial love.