Abortion Supporters are People of the Lie

They have to distort and pervert language–have to–in order to maintain the lie they are living. Exhibit A: Wendy Davis, who recently filibustered for abortion in Texas.

I am pro-life. I care about the life of every child: every child that goes to bed hungry, every child that goes to bed without a proper education, every child that goes to bed without being able to be a part of the Texas dream, every woman and man who worry about their children’s future and their ability to provide for that future. I care about life and I have a record of fighting for people above all else.

“I am pro-life”.  And by “pro-life” she means she has a solid commitment to tearing babies limb from limb.

  • Rebecca Fuentes

    It’s the classic false dichotomy: people who care about pre-born babies can’t possibly care about children after they are born, and they obviously don’t care about the mothers, poverty, immigrants, unemployment, insert group here . . . but people who support killing the unborn sure care their ugly pink sneakers off.

    • Raymond

      If politicians (and its a stretch to call them people) that vote against women’s health issues also supported things like SNAP, Head Start, Immigration reform, job creation, etc, then maybe it would be a false dichotomy. But since the ones who vote to reduce access to abortion services also vote against the ACA, eliminate food stamps, immigration reform that keeps families together, jobs bills, etc. it seems like there is justification for saying they are not truly “pro-life”.

      • Almario Javier

        The question is not if too many politicians don’t embrace the necessary infrastructure necessary to keep women and children away from the abortion clinic – that is unfortunately true and conditioned by our corrupt politics – but whether it is impossible to do so and still oppose abortion. One can support SNAP and the HLA and similar measures – the majority of our bishops, it seems, do so. Of course, the problem is getting the politicians and voters to listen to the episcopacy – it seems evident that we American Catholics have a bad case of selective hearing when it comes to our clergy.

      • Paxton Reis

        To be clear, SNAP funding was reduced not eliminated. In context to the broad definitions related to coverage we know SNAP is wide open to fraud and abuse. The bureaucracy and politicians have an obligation to ensure this program is managed and run efficiently. If not, it will be those who really need the assistance who will suffer.

        And the ACA contain provisions that supported abortion, and some–not all–the opposition to the ACA was on this front. (Disregarding for the moment the debacle, Sebelius’ description the other day, the ACA currently is and may become next year when mandates hit employer based plans. Time will tell if the ACA actually improves the lot of those needing access to healthcare.)

        • Raymond

          OK, you are correct that SNAP funds were just cut. Do you support those cuts? Whether or not that program or any other spending program is run at maximum efficiency (and you should take a look at the corporate world if you are interested in waste and fraud) do you think that the cuts to SNAP, Head Start, and public education hurt or help the poor overall? And did the political candidates you voted for support or not support those programs? And what are your thoughts on defense spending from a pro-life perspective?

          • Paxton Reis

            Yes, I support the cuts in SNAP as first hand experience shows there is a lot of fraud and waste, and is clearly a program that is being mis-used by many who are not poor. This is were the bureaucracy and politicians need to step up to the plate and clean such programs. When gov’t debt spending reaches a breaking point, it will be the truly poor who are hardest yet. Waste and fraud in the corporate world is self-correcting over time and are a private matter in most cases. Gov’t programs that are inefficient hurt taxpayers directly day in and day out, and hurt the disadvantage as well.

            Public education is broken and we continue to throw good money after bad results in many areas. So how are we spending the money? At the federal level, what has the Dept. of Education really accomplished? It was formed in my lifetime when I came to voting age, so over the past 30+years can we claim that this gov’t entity produced positive results? After 30+ years and tens upon tens of billion in spending by this Dept., is education better off in our country today than it was in 1979? I think the answer is no, so why continue with this Dept?

            Teachers have told me that the class size reduction push has been inefficient and is to the benefit of poorer teachers. A good teacher can teach 20, 25, or 30 students no problem. Look at schools in Korea, Taiwan, Japan, etc., there are far more than 20 students in the class. Of course in those countries, they have different expectations of the family and the student.

            Firsthand knowledge also shows me so-called high school graduates in college needing to attend remedial writing and math courses. Why are we spending hundreds of billions on education, graduating students and telling them they can enter college yet are not qualified to do so? It is a horrible waste of our financial resources to continue along the same path.

            Vouchers are one option for some families. Also, the gov’t and schools should partner with churches and non-profits to establish dormitories for students to retreat to in the evening. Many will never get ahead no matter how much money is spent in the schools as their home life is not conducive to learning.

            Yes, cut the military budget. Politicians, from both aisles, push weapon programs the military doesn’t want. Time to bring home troops from Korea, Germany, Italy etc. Catholic pro-life teachings have been at the forefront of such discussions.

            • jroberts548

              You have firsthand knowledge of how the millions of people who received SNAP benefits misused their benefits?

              Your firsthand knowledge, in a nation of more than 300 million people, doesn’t matter when it comes to setting policy for those 300 million people. If your position is that the SNAP cuts are justified because of fraud, waste, and misuse, you need to be able to point to $5,000,000,000 worth of fraud, waste, and misuse. If you have firsthand knowledge of $5,000,000,000 worth of fraud, waste, and misuse, you should share.

              • Paxton Reis

                Yes, I see waste in my small corner of the world. Multiply it across the country and it adds up. It would be naive to think it SNAP spending is 100% efficient.

                Then consider that families qualify for free or subsidized lunches, etc., and the percentage cut in SNAP begins to come into perspective.

                • jroberts548

                  Is it $5,000,000,000 inefficient? If you’re seeing $5,000,000,000 in your small corner, then maybe instead of cutting everyone’s SNAP benefits, we should just cut them in your small corner of the world.

                  And no program is 100% efficient. That’s just stupid. That’s a stupid standard to apply to anything. Of course SNAP isn’t 100% efficient. It will never be 100% efficient. Even when Christ fed the 5,000, he produced more bread and fish than needed. If Christ can’t be 100% efficient when feeding the hungry, why would you hold the federal government to a higher standard? I don’t see how you can jump from “it’s not a 100% efficient” to “let’s cut $5,000,000,000.”

                  • Paxton Reis

                    Ok, let’s cut the difference…we will both be happy with a $2.5 billion cut, agreed?

                    Of course the gov’t cannot be 100% efficient, but the flip side holds true. Is there absolutely zero room to cut?

                    And the gov’t needs to be held to a high standard. So should we hold them to 60% efficiency? 80%? Agreeing that they are not 100% efficient, we can agree there is room to cut and to improve their operations. That is the moral obligation to those in need and to the taxpayers.

                    With the leftover from Jesus’ miracle what happened to it? Did they trash it? I suspect the crowds took it with them give the perilous realities of mankind 2000 years ago.

                    • jroberts548

                      I don’t know how much, if any, should be cut. Knowing that would require something like real data, rather than some random person’s scattered, unsystematic, meaningless impressions.

                      There are more than 300 million people in America. Your firsthand impressions matter to you, and not to any of the other more than 300 million people in America. If you can’t show me $5,000,000,000 worth of waste, fraud, and misuse, don’t tell me that the cuts are justified.

      • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund
      • Rebecca Fuentes

        In some cases (and in politics, a lot of cases, unfortunately), this looks right. Sometimes, I think it’s a matter of objecting to the solution more than not caring about the problem. Everyone wants job creation. No one seems to agree on how to do it, or how to do it in a moral fashion (if morals are brought up at all). I want to see accessible, affordable health care for everyone, but I don’t think the ACA is an effective, efficient answer to that problem,

        The terribly divisive nature of American politics means that when I argue that illegal immigrants need to be treated with justice and charity, and that I don’t think the usual conservative rhetoric on the issue is either, suddenly my stance on every issue is in question. It leaves no room for discussion.
        Politics aside, we can, as pro-life individuals, do what we can to help women choose life over abortion. That may mean adopting an infant. It may mean buying maternity clothes for an unwed mother. It may mean brokering peace between a pregnant teen and her parents. Some women won’t have hearts or minds changed, but some just need some support and hope.

        • Raymond

          Does that also include providing safe effective non abortifacent (ok, I can’t spell that) birth control? Condoms maybe? Does abstinence-only sex education reduce the number of pregnancies?

          • Paxton Reis

            Many decades ago we were told by birth control advocates that access to birth control would result in stronger marriages, more respect for women, and an end to prostitution.

            Now we can look back and see that this was untrue. Birth control does allow women to be used more readily as a commodity, thus witness the single-mom families struggling in poverty. Look at the broken marriages around us, and the financial strain it puts on women.

            • Stu

              But now it is a huge business. Another example of how the left is actually pro-Big Business and use Big Government to support it.

          • disqus_HXPuP9E9zS

            Raymond,

            The 1960s champions of artificial birth control fobbed off as “health care” drugs designed to induce a diseased state – prolonged infertility – by poisoning women and devices or interventions which monkey-wrench the human reproductive works, usually in women. They declared that these lifestyle drugs, devices and interventions would prevent out-of-wedlock births, abortion, child abuse, divorce, adultery and more. The 1960s were a time of moonshots, psychedelia and great hope in technology and medicine.

            The data are in. After decades of widespread use of these artificial methods, the reported rates of out-of-wedlock births, abortion, child abuse, and divorce have not fallen but have moon rocketed (as have the rates of transmission of sexual diseases). Not groovy. While rates of adultery are difficult to obtain, you may suspect as I do that they have increased. In the USA, unmarried women procure more than 80% of abortions; of the remaining less than 20% of abortions (those procured by married women), a significant percentage may be by women impregnated by men to whom they are not married: abortion in the USA is overwhelmingly a consequence of sex between people unmarried to each other. Further, the majority of women having abortions in the USA were using a “contraceptive” drug or device when they conceived the child they aborted (many so called “contraceptives,” besides failing to prevent conception, may also cause a very early abortion); a greater majority were experienced “contraceptive” users but some abandoned these drugs or devices, often because of their side effects which frequently include depression, weight gain and decreased sex drive, for just three examples. How ironic. Should we be surprised by such unintended effects when the intended effect is to produce a diseased state? Might these effects – intended (infertility) and unintended (depression, weight gain and decreased sex drive) – have something to do with adultery and divorce?

            The sexual revolution has not so much been tried on an enormous scale and found wanting as it has been tried on an enormous scale and found disastrous. While economic and other factors contributed, that revolution has been fueled largely by the use of artificial “contraceptives.” How much worse must things get before those still clinging to great hopes for these lifestyle drugs, devices and interventions rid the moon dust from their eyes and shake the psychedelic dust from their bell bottoms?

          • Rebecca Fuentes

            I say no, for two reasons. First, we don’t do anyone any favors by providing access to an intrinsic evil, nor by encouraging an intrinsic evil by removing the potential consequences. Second, birth control, whether it’s hormonal or barrier methods, is a band-aid trying to correct systemic cancer. It may help in the short term, but it doesn’t address the problems in society today that create broken families and situations where babies are unwelcome burdens.

            I can’t say if abstinence-only education works. I worked with younger teens for 9 years, and that included a few girls each year who were pregnant. More became pregnant in their older teen years. I would say that what they witnesses in their families and neighborhoods had much more influence than what they hear at school. Girls who saw their older sisters, their cousins, their friends and neighbors being sexually active at a young age, having children at a young age, generally thought that was normal. Some could see that it wasn’t a great way to live–one girl’s mother had six children from six different fathers; they moved every time mom got a new boyfriend–but didn’t see any other way to live. Teaching them to use condoms wouldn’t change the prevailing attitude that sex could start at 12 or `13, that sexual relationships were temporary, that the resulting children would be just fine without a stable home. I would guess that abstinence education works in areas where it is widely supported by the parents actions and local lifestyle.

      • Stu

        I’m not for those programs because I think they are ineffective, waste resources better aimed at the needy and ultimately enrich the Big Government/Big Business leviathan that is too big to succeed. I prefer local solutions to local problems because they are generally more effective and allow for greater accountability of al involved. Does that mean I’m not pro-life because I’m not pro-Big Government/Big Business?

  • Rachel K

    I’ve run into this BS before. Many, many people who are pro-choice claim that being pro-choice and being pro-life are the same thing because they’re pro-quality of life or some damned thing. Ugh.

    • BigBlueWave

      You can’t be pro-choice on life. You want and require both mother and child to live, or you don’t.

  • Mike Petrik

    The conceit of the pro-abort Left is that they are caring people because they want big government and massive wealth redistribution. The fact that poverty in this country (and by poverty they refer to households with income insufficent to allow a standard of living that few people could even hope for as recently as 1950) is mostly a function of the collapse of family, which in turn is mostly a function of the pro-abort Left’s stunning cultural success in separating marriage, sex, and children, escapes them entirely. I’ve got nothing against a progressive tax system that respects ability to pay as an important factor in determining how to pay for public services (including the provision of essential services to those who cannot afford them), but the idea that the Smiths down the street or across the tracks are unable to pay their power bill (or even their cable bill) because Bill Gates is rich is just plain nuts. But throwing stones at the rich is just so much easier than actually caring about our most truly vulnerable — the born and unborn children who are at risk due chiefly to the atrophy of family caused by those very same stone throwers.

    • chezami

      And the conceit of the anti-abortion-in-cases-that-do not-harm-GOP-chances-of-election right is that they believe such weak tea “opposition to abortion” taketh away the sins of the world and absolves them from paying much attention to the rest of the Church’s social teaching.

      • Raymond

        Well said.

      • Mike Petrik

        You realize that the GOP would actually do much better in elections if it just gave up the whole right to life thing, don’t you? And you realize that people who identify as pro-small government actually give away more of their own dough than those who identify otherwise, right?
        Leave the transparent triangulation to Bill Clinton, Mark. You should be above that.

        • bob

          “You realize that the GOP would actually do much better in elections if it just gave up the whole right to life thing, don’t you.”
          Not so. I say this as a pro choice Democrat: Republicans know they’d be committing political suicide if they “just gave up the whole right to life thing.” In politics, the first rule is secure your base. And the GOP’s base is social conservative.

  • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ Scott W.

    I’ve never cared for the “pro-life” label even by people who could be genuinely described by it. It leads to exactly this kind of overloading with tangential baloney. There is nothing wrong with “anti-abortion”. It’s specific, and direct. Abortion is evil, offends against human dignity, and is a menace to public morals.

    • Ken Crawford

      I completely agree. The right terms for the sides in the particular political fight are pro-abortion and anti-abortion. The rest is just posturing

      • bob

        Nonsense. I’m not pro abortion. But the alternative is to marshal the forces of the state to force someone to give birth.
        So I guess the real “correct’ terms are pro police police state and anti police state.

        • Marion (Mael Muire)

          “Force someone to give birth?” !

          If Nature takes its course, and without anyone holding a gun to anyone else’s head, a pregnant woman will, in a matter of months, give birth to the little boy or girl who has been growing within her body.

          There’s no question of “force”

          Force is what abortionists use to rip the yet-to-be-born infant’s body to pieces. Or chemical force to burn or to poison the baby’s tissues.

          Apart from the determined action to do away with an infant, there is no use of force at all.

          It is abortion that is force. It is abortion that is violent.

          • bob

            If a woman does not want nature to take its course? Then what? She should be forced by the state to let “nature take its course.” Yes?
            Even if she were raped, right? Let’s let nature take its course?

            • JM1001

              I certainly do not want to say that the state should force a woman who becomes pregnant through rape to bring her baby to term, even though I have moral objections to the choice of abortion. Women in such circumstances, though rare, need all the love and compassion we can give them.

              That said, I will say that a woman who becomes pregnant through rape, and decides to bring the child to term, either giving it up for adoption or raising it herself, has done something that is nothing less than morally heroic. It takes great courage, generosity, and self-sacrificing love to choose to preserve a life (the unborn human) in the face of the evil actions of another (a rape).

              If a woman aborted a baby that was conceived through rape, I can still find that action morally objectionable, even though I recognize that it was the monstrous action of another that put her in that situation; and even though I have nothing but compassion for her as a person, and do not judge her as a person. Plenty of people engage in morally objectionable actions, not because they are bad people, but because they felt forced by the evil actions of others. We still object to the action, but have compassion for the person and their circumstances.

              On the other hand, a woman who chooses to bring a baby that was conceived through rape to term has made a choice of pure moral heroism.

              • Dillon T. McCameron

                “Women in such circumstances, though rare, need all the love and compassion we can give them.”

                Exactly. What’s needed is compassion and charity and counselling and therapy and love.

                Not more blood. Not the death of innocents.

                • bob

                  Yes, strap em down if you have to. Cut em if need be.
                  But for the love of Mike, be compassionate about it!

                  • orual’s kindred

                    Nope, can’t find much sense here :-( Or compassion either!

            • BigBlueWave

              What’s the greater evil?

              A woman who is *forced* to give birth.

              A baby who is *forced* to die?

              I prefer forced birth to forced death.

              • bob

                These are not babies. They’re embryos. There’s a world of difference.

                • orual’s kindred

                  What sort of world? :-) Or should I ask which? :-)

                • Marion (Mael Muire)

                  Shall we also referring to the mother-to-be as “a progenitrix” instead of a “woman”?

                  Dehumanization: the first step in rationalizing doing away with someone. Using a medical term such as embryo to describe a baby will dehumanize the baby as efficiently as any other method.

                  A “baby” is an embryo whom the adults in his or her life want to let live.

                  An “embryo” is a baby whom the adults in his or her life want to kill.

                  • JM1001

                    I prefer to use terms like “unborn human” or “fetal human.” They are scientifically accurate, and so should be acceptable to reasonable people on both sides of the debate.

                    The terms recognize that the new life is still in utero, but they don’t dehumanize that new life (the word “human” is in both terms).

                    • Marion (Mael Muire)

                      OK, let me go one further: Would the expression “insert sharp scissors into the skull of the fetal human, then insert a powerful vacuum into the hole, and commence to suck the brains out, until the skull collapses, then deliver the remainder of the body, so as to ensure that a ‘live abortion’ does not result from the procedure” be a description acceptable to those on both sides of the debate?

                      If not, tough shit.

                    • JM1001

                      For the record, I am fully in favor of accurately describing what happens in an abortion. For example, the particular method you seem to be describing is what’s called dilation and extraction (or partial-birth abortion). Correct me if I’m wrong.

                      Describing exactly what goes on during an abortion is important in critiquing various arguments for abortion that are based on some sterilized view of what happens to the unborn human. So, by all means, describe for people what various methods of abortion involve (if they don’t already know). It’s important that people are aware of what exactly “abortion” means with respect to the unborn human.

                  • bob

                    The only problem with your argument is that an embryo is not a baby. And a baby is not an embryo. They are different, biologically.
                    I’m not saying an embryo is not alive or that it is not human.
                    I am saying an embryo is not a baby. The reason that I say an embryo is not a baby is because it isn’t.
                    This is not my opinion.
                    This is simply the fact.
                    Words mean things.
                    You and I don’t get to decide the meaning of words to fit our politics.

                    • orual’s kindred

                      And a toddler is not an infant. So what do you mean to say?

                    • Guest

                      .

                    • Marion (Mael Muire)

                      And a baby is not an embryo. They are different, biologically.

                      Incorrect.

                      “Embryo” is a scientific term, whereas “baby” is not a scientific term; it is a term of common parlance, and not medically precise as to stage of development, or as to anything else. The dictionary definition of baby is “a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.”

                      This may refer to what is medicine distinguishes as an embryo, a fetus, a neonate, or an infant.

                      When a woman is said to be “going to have a baby”, or “is carrying a child,” these terms are all understood in common parlance to refer to either an embryo or a fetus.

                      If you want to insist that it is medically inexact to describe a woman as “going to have a baby” or “carrying a child,” I would have to agree with you, but not because fetuses and embryos aren’t babies, but because the word baby can refer to any new life, from their first moments of life in the womb, to a year or so after birth. In other words, it is a comprehensive descriptor.

                      It is you who are attempting to redefine the beautiful and age-old word baby, with the specific intention of depriving the developing human person of his or her humanity.

                      However, persons who know better will see through this attempt, and will reject it.

                      The English language: know it; use it correctly.

                    • Alma Peregrina

                      As a physician, I corroborate every single word that Mariel (Mael Muire) said. Every. Single. Word. She is absolutely right. Those are the simple facts. It’s bob who’s spewing opinions, however much he says otherwise.

                    • bob

                      Look in the one case, depending on fetal stage you’re talking about so that has no brain, no nervous system, no awareness that it even exists.
                      Nothing- literally nothing – that it would identify it as a “person” or meet any common understanding of what a baby is. Babies can be seen without microscopes. Babies have brains. Babies have more awareness of their surroundings and their existence than, say, a houseplant.
                      But, hey, I get you. Let’s put doctors and women in jail. Let’s strap down rape victims when necessary. Let’s make sure we’re telling them how compassionate we’re being, of course, because we’re compassionate. We’re only cutting food stamps and infant nutrition to make sure they get off their lazy butts and get a job because they’re the takers and we’re the makers. It’s good for them to not have food and warmth. Builds character.
                      But the important thing is to make sure we protect the dignity of something that has the same self awareness as a head of lettuce.
                      Also, Marion, please retread your own definition: a very young child, ESPECIALLY one newly or recently born.
                      Exactly. In other words, a baby. Not an embryo.

                    • Marion (Mael Muire)

                      “Also, Marion, please retread your own definition: a very young child, ESPECIALLY one newly or recently born.
                      Exactly. In other words, a baby. Not an embryo”

                      Especially does not mean exclusively.

                      It means often.

                      Therefore, the word especially in my definition, by no means rules out the infant who is still in the embryonic stage of life.

                      “Let’s strap down rape victims when necessary.”

                      You seem to come back and back to that “strap down women” imagery. Not only is puzzling, it’s seriously creepy.

                    • bob

                      Of course it’s creepy. That’s why I’m against it.
                      In reality we would probably just imprison women who had abortions, and their physicians. Since there is no difference between a microscopic fertilized egg and a sixth grader, life in prison ought to do it. This being a Catholic blog, I won’t suggest the obvious punishment for child murderers.
                      That’s how we usually enforce laws in this country.

                      However, I’m sure there would be plenty of states, in a post Roe, post privacy world where doctors would be required to report all pregnancies to the local authorities so that if evidence arises that a woman is thinking about an abortion, she can placed in protective custody.

                      You say ‘creepy.’ Yes, exactly. Very much so. I would like to not have that world.

                      There’s no doubt that I would abortion on demand in the fits trimester.

                    • Marion (Mael Muire)

                      I don’t know why anyone would imagine that women who sought an abortion would be imprisoned if the present laws were reversed. Not much point in doing so. Pre-Roe, zero women were jailed for seeking an abortion. None, never.

                      Physicians usually weren’t jailed, either, not for a first offense. If the physician were reported to the state medical licensing agencies, there would be a hearing, and if he were found to have engaged in unethical conduct, he might well have his license to practice medicine revoked. Pre-Roe, the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors took, included a promise not to assist a woman to procure an abortion. So if the man continued to commit abortions, or if he practiced medicine in any way without a license, and were caught, he might serve a prison sentence.

                      I think most people who work for the repeal of abortion-on-demand hope for laws that will protect children and will educate the public about the sanctity of all human life – no matter how weak or strong, no matter what size, shape, color, no matter whether black or white, Jew or Gentile, Protestant or catholic – all will be free to live their lives without the threat of unjust attack, at last.

                    • bob

                      Gosh, I don’t know how I could possibly imagine why women who have abortions would be sent jail post Roe just because state lawmakers have proposed doing exactly that:

                      http://www.policymic.com/articles/25829/iowa-abortion-bill-proposed-legislation-could-send-one-third-of-women-to-jail

                      And just because women DO in fact get imprisoned routinely in countries where abortion is illegal, like in South American countries and in Ireland. A mentally retarded woman in El Salvador got two years. In Ireland, the “Offences Against the Persons Act makes abortion illegal in most cases and carries a penalty of life imprisonment,” according to the Guardian.

                      One need not imagine any of it. It is the present reality, Marion, in places where people who agree with you get their way.

                    • Marion (Mael Muire)

                      ” It is the present reality, Marion, in places where people who agree with you get their way

                      I might reply, Bob, that “in a place that agrees with you,” Communist China, the government actually does abduct women, strap them down and forcibly abort them. The “one child policy.” Hideous.

                      However, to characterize your own position as advocating violence against women in order to perform abortions would be manifestly unfair, and so I won’t do so.

                      Instead, I will keep my head on straight, my feet on the ground, and to try to see the other person for who they are, not for what I imagine them to be.

                      I invite you to join me in doing so.

                      As for me, I don’t “agree” with persons who punish women seeking abortions with incarceration. I say that because I oppose incarceration for women who seek abortions. I believe the majority of pro-life Americans, as well as the American people generally would find such a notion unthinkable, as well they should.

                      I hope you are one of them, in spite of your pro-choice views, Bob, which some would argue, places you firmly in the camp of the women strapping Chinese Communists.

                      However, as I said, I don’t place you in that camp. I think better of you than that.

                    • orual’s kindred

                      I’m kind of swamped right now, but I must say–I didn’t realize whole governments based their political systems on whether or not they agree with Marion (Mael Muire)! And, it would seem, agreeing with her cancels out any complexities, abuses and injustices that can possibly ensue! This is amazing :-D

                      Also, I wouldn’t place you or your views in the ‘strap women down’ camp. However, your entire discourse now seems like a long-winded pretense for dragging out these images your mind keeps circling around.

                    • freddy

                      “Look in the one case, depending on fetal stage you’re talking about so that has no brain, no nervous system, no awareness that it even exists.”
                      And yet it is human, and unique. Not a “piece” of a human, like a clipped hair or nail, but complete in itself, and growing.

                      “But, hey, I get you. Let’s put doctors and women in jail. Let’s strap down rape victims when necessary.” Really? Those are our only choices? EITHER permit killing of pre-born humans, OR criminally prosecute desperate and frightened pregnant women? Funny that people who call themselves “pro-choice” don’t really like to think of other options than abortion.

                      “It’s good for them to not have food and warmth. Builds character.” Because it’s all those lovely “pro-choicers” out there who are donating time and money to crisis pregnancy centers, helping women find jobs and child care, and so on….oh, wait, not so much.

                    • Marion (Mael Muire)

                      “we protect the dignity of something that has the same self awareness as a head of lettuce.”

                      If the dignity of the infant in the womb does not exist in the case of a woman who has been raped, then it does not exist in the case of the child of any other woman.

                      Your “head of lettuce” characterization dehumanizes all children yet-to-be-born, and indicates a mindset that would support abortion not only in the case of rape, but also abortion on demand.

            • orual’s kindred

              This seems to be meant as some kind of trump card. I can’t say it is, though! :-) The fact that the woman who’s been so violated is afterward burdened with the responsibility of a child (should she get pregnant) is part of why it’s such a terrible act. Some are not ready for that kind of responsibility, some will have to face overwhelming challenges. Women in these situations need support, and far too many will not receive that support. Nevertheless, if a vulnerable person’s life is hanging in the balance, is it good for anyone to claim the right to refuse to help that vulnerable person? Is this the solution that people are supposed to live with?

            • Marion (Mael Muire)

              If the woman does not want nature to take its course? (That is, if a mother has an infant growing within her body, and does not want the child) Your answer: that she arrange with a so-called doctor to do violence to the child so as to cut him or burn him to pieces, to kill him, and to dispose of his little body like garbage. To kill an infant who is guilty of no crime and represents harm to no one. If there is a more vicious or wicked act man or woman is capable of, I don’t know what that would be.

              What if the mother didn’t know she had become pregnant, and gives birth (this happens to some women). Should she be “forced” to care for the infant, that is, until Child Protective Services can come and reliever her of the child? Isn’t society cruel if we demand that she may not take a .44 and shoot the newborn infant, instead?

              No! Violence is never the answer when it comes to children.

        • JM1001

          If what you’re concerned about is women being “forced” against their will on the matter of abortion, then this is really where it’s coming from:

          In a national study of women, 64% of those who aborted felt pressured to do so by others.This pressure can become violent. 65% suffered symptoms of trauma. In the year following an abortion, suicide rates are 6-7 times higher.

          Source

        • Stu

          We “force” people to do all manner of things in society through laws. Why must we stop with making it illegal to kill a child? Indeed, when abortion is again illegal it will still happen in instances just like murder, theft, etc still happen today. But surely because of that being the case you aren’t for getting rid of those laws as well because you don’t want ‘forces of the state to force” their compliance.

          Any society that condones the killing of the most innocent among it is capable of even greater injustices. It’s a fundamental issues.

        • Mariana Baca

          So how about “pro-abortion legalization”?
          1)There are countries where abortion is illegal, and there is nobody “forcing women to give birth” — I assume you mean ala Ceaucesu’s Romania. Nobody is advocating that.
          2) If you are pregnant and don’t get an abortion, nobody needs to “force you to give birth.” It will happen eventually.
          3) Many are anti-police-state in all matters other than the protection of innocent life. That is a bad term. Argue in good faith.

          • bob

            They force you by preventing you from doing anything, or imprisoning you and your doctor if you do something.

            If you can think of any American police state enthusiasts who would not argue that they’re actual civil libertarians except except for this one they exception. Like folks who argue for dropping bombs on brown people from remote-control planes: they only want to do it to terrorists.

      • Raymond

        No one is in favor of abortion. But the decisions that a woman makes about her body are between her and her doctor. When white male Evangelicals try to impose their values on poor women, none of us benefit.

        • chezami

          You do get that opponent of abortion come in both genders, all colors, and from far beyond Evangelicalism, right?

          • Raymond

            As a wise woman once said, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. If a woman would never consider abortion, that is certainly her prerogative. But a woman decides that she needs to terminate her pregnancy, it’s only the business of her and her doctor, and her only judge should be God.

            • jroberts548

              And the baby. It’s also the business of the baby. The one she’s killing.

            • chezami

              Gee, and you were just saying that nobody is in favor of abortion.

              • Raymond

                Gee, I certainly was. Even women who have abortions do not enjoy the experience or believe that the abortion is some sort of blessing. And the concept of “abortion maximalists” as stated by someone previously is just perverse.
                But there are circumstances under which women decide that abortion is necessary for their circumstances, and it is wrong for others, particularly men who are not part of the situation, to second-guess that decision.
                AND, there is much that the government can do to reduce the likelihood of those circumstances occurring. SNAP, free or reduced price breakfasts and lunches at schools, Medicare, unemployment insurance, skills training, job search assistance. Oh, but wait. We are cutting those programs because we don’t want to raise taxes on the 1% or cut defense spending. How foolish of me.

                • orual’s kindred

                  Well, are you part of the 1%? Are you included in committees to allocate defense funds? If not, by your logic it would seem that indeed, it’s more than foolish of you to second-guess those decisions, yes? :-)

            • James Scott

              +J.M.J+

              The woman who said that was not wise at all. Homicide in any form would never be a sacrament under any circumstances.

        • Paxton Reis

          Women are abused by abortion and in many cases forced into it by those closest to them. Men are also impacted by abortion, so the White Evangelical argument is a weak canard.

          And in the ACA environment, abortion is between a woman, her doctor, and the taxpayer.

          • Raymond

            It’s the dodge about “the taxpayer’s money” that is the real canard here. With or without insurance, the money has to come from somewhere. If a woman were a court stenographer, for example, or a police officer, or a clerk with the DMV, would you say that she should not be allowed to have an abortion, or even purchase birth control, because “the money comes from the taxpayer”? Do you have moral objections to taxpayer money being spent on drone missiles, or other weapons systems?

            • Stu

              A weapon system can actually be used to defend an innocent life from an injustice.

              Abortion ends the life of an innocent person every time.

              Easy to see the difference.

        • Bill

          Bullshit. There are PLENTY of pro-aborts who are abortion maximalists. Eugenicists, hardcore feminists, some environmentalists and animal rights activists. ZPGers.

          • Raymond

            And devil worshippers. Don’t forget the devil worshippers.

            • antigon

              Yup. Them too, & their allies.

        • Stu

          And the decisions that slaveholders made was between them and the slave traders. And that practice was going just fine until some do-gooders imposed their values upon poor farmers.

          (Sarcasm, BTW.)

        • Mariana Baca

          Ok, then let’s go with anti-abortion legalization, pro-abortion legalization.

          • Raymond

            well, two things.
            One, since I did say that no one is in favor of abortion, I would not agree to any characterization that uses “pro-abortion.”
            Two, abortion is already legal and has been for decades.

            • Mariana Baca

              I wasn’t calling anyone “pro-abortion” but “pro-abortion legalization” — which means the person is in favor of laws that make abortion legal. Are people who are “pro choice” *not* in favor of making abortion legal? That is the core difference between the two groups without any euphemisms or ideology. One group wants abortion to be illegal another wants it to be legal. Why are those terms not acceptable? Because saying “abortion” is icky?

              Whether it is legal or not is irrelevant to the terms. I can be anti-abortion legalization in the USA as easily as in Chile, and someone else can be pro-… in either country as well.

              • Raymond

                OK, it is my opinion that the word “choice” is more accurate, because we (my side, whatever we call it) are more interested the a woman’s ability to make decisions about her body, not (as poor “Abortionus Maximums” contends) because we are in favor of terminating pregnancies.
                How about we call it “Pro-Choice Legalization” and “Anti-Choice Legalization”?

                Or do you find the word “choice” icky?

                • freddy

                  But “choice” is a lie. People who say they are for “choice” deny, first of all, the unborn human a choice. Secondly, they overwhelmingly insist that abortion is the best, and sometimes the only choice a poor woman may make. People for “choice” are not the ones helping women get good pre-natal care, job training, child care, and basic necessities.
                  “Choice,” in fact, depends on what is being chosen. You still cling to euphemism even when you define just what “choice” you are for: “the woman’s ability to make decisions about her body,…” The “decision” you think she should be able to make is whether or not to allow a person to continue to grow inside her body or to kill that person. And the law does, in fact, in many instances define what a woman (or man) may do with her (or his) body. In this country, a woman may not sell her body into slavery; in most states she may not even rent her body for temporary use. She may not use her body to commit a crime; and in many localities her body may not be publicly drunk or nude.
                  Maybe you need to take a good hard look at what exactly you are *for*.

                • Marion (Mael Muire)

                  Choice isn’t “icky”? Why should it be? It’s a perfectly good noun, the nominal object of the verb to choose.

                  One might choose a candidate to vote for, a bus route to ride, a city to visit, an investment to make, a soup to enjoy, a pair of boots to purchase, a charity to contribute to, a car to drive, an attractive person to date . . . all choices. All good things.

                  People who believe that the life of the unborn child deserves protection make these and similar choices every minute of every day. Choices! Choices! Shall I enroll my child in this nursery or that one? Shall I paint my kitchen this shade of ivory or that? Shall I prepare steak or chicken for my guests?

                  We all make all kinds of choices. If we stopped making choices, the lives of all of us would grind to a complete halt.

                  So, calling a person who supports the right to life of the unborn child, “anti-choice”, is like calling her “anti-air” or “anti-commerce”. It’s so obviously wrong, it’s meaningless. Such a thing cannot exist.

                  The terms should be “Those who believe that rights and the dignity of the unborn hinge upon whether their mother wants them or not ” and on the other side “those who believe that the dignity and rights of the unborn are inalienably endowed by their Creator, and deserve no less protection than their own.”

                  Kind of long, but they tell the full story.

  • AMoniqueOcampo

    Wendy Davis is the personification of opportunism. I have no love for her.

    • Raymond

      Do you prefer Rick Perry? What are his positions on these other “pro-life” issues? Does his rejection of Medicare expansion help or hurt the poor?

  • RelapsedCatholic

    Both sides cannot see the forest for the trees. Davis rightly sees SNAP, Medicaid expansion, Education funding, & economic disparity as pro-life issues. She misses the point that abortion represents the death of a child & all their potential. Many people that claim to be Pro-life end their care & concern at birth.

    Making abortion illegal will end many abortions. So does sex education, free or cheap birth control, and a strong economy built from the bottom up. Wendy Davis’s claim of being pro-life would be laughable if it did not expose the hypocracy of many conservatives.

    • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

      “Many people that claim to be Pro-life end their care & concern at birth.”

      please read: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2380/

      • RelapsedCatholic

        Good article with many true points. However counterpoints also abound. Out of the same people’s mouth we will hear about the value of life while decrying ‘welfare queens’ or ‘illegals’. Why do the same politicians that decry abortion also champion economic policies that weaken the middle class & destroy social mobility? How can we not afford to fund SNAP while having the mo ey to fund a military bigger than the next 25 nations combined? (22 of which are allies) Why do so many talk about the sanctity of life while green lighting two seperate wars? Even last election much was made about the ‘parasitic 47%’ of people that pay no federal income tax. Ignoring that half of that number are elderly on social security while the other half was too poor to pay taxes. We complain about people that can’t take care of their kids but refuse to raise the mi imum wage in an industry that profited 117 billion dollars last year.

        Budgets are moral documents of a society. They reveal where a society is willing to walk its talk. Ours is severely lacking in morality.

        (Also, the article severely underestimates the link between sex ed, contraception & abortion rates, it glosses them over completely)

    • Stu

      Thing is, one can be for all of the goals of SNAP, Medicaid, education, etc and believe the current Big Government approach is ineffective, corrupt and ultimately a waste of resources that could be better targeted to those in need.

      And this nation has had cheap birth prevention for years. The only thing it has accomplished is making children seen as expendable and unwanted. A society that does not value children and life at it’s most defenseless stages will never care about other human conditions such as poverty. One must start with the fundamentals.

  • lavallette

    It is the Age of “doublethink” and “doublespeak” as prophesied by George Orwell in his novel “1984″. Recently I pushed a feminist op.ed writer in the newspaper with the largest circulation in Australia to claim, in writing for posterity “I have the right to be pro-choice and anti-murder (of women)” Perfect example of “doublethink” and “doublespeak”..

  • orual’s kindred

    I remember some combox discussions where people were trying to talk to someone describing herself as a Catholic who supported abortion. Many were for some reason focused on proving that babies were human persons, which I found rather odd. It had become clear for some time that the commenter actually did believe that babies were human persons. She just thought that in some cases they had ‘less right’ than others, such as when they (babies) are an inconvenience to their parents. Some animals are more equal than others, etc.

    I suppose something similar’s going on with Wendy Davis. People’s lives are important, but not all people are equally important.

    • JM1001

      Conceding that unborn humans are persons, but that abortion is still in some cases morally permissible, is not a new argument. Judith Jarvis Thomson famously argued exactly that. (Her argument, while interesting, is nonetheless incredibly flawed.)

      The problem I see with contemporary discussions of abortion is that the pro-choice side has completely given up talking about personhood. It used to be the case that both sides of the abortion debate conceded basic facts about an unborn human, specifically that it is in fact human, or belonging to species homo sapiens.

      And so the abortion debate was mainly a metaphysical discussion about whether the unborn human was a person, and if so, what that means in relation to the mother’s bodily autonomy.

      But all of that seems to be changing, which I find extremely disturbing. We are now at the point where the pro-choice side has completely given up on the metaphysical discussion of personhood, or even trying to balance an unborn human’s personhood with the mother’s bodily autonomy (a la Thomson). Instead, the pro-choice side has horrifyingly started to deny that the unborn human is even human.

      Witness the horror, this one from Richard Dawkins:

      https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/311774201012948992

      This is becoming more and more common in the abortion debate. No longer is it enough to deny the unborn human the metaphysical status of personhood; now they must deny that the unborn human even belongs to our species. Absolutely stunning.

      • orual’s kindred

        Indeed, both seem to be some kind of attempts (rather unconvincing, I would say) to do away with inconvenient realities. For instance, I don’t see why different-species rights can’t apply to unborn humans too! :-D

  • BigBlueWave

    That’s one reason I like the phrase “fetal rights”. You are either for them or not.

  • Stu

    Lots of calls to cut Defense spending. And that is understandable, there are areas to cut and programs inherent that are nothing more than Congressional boondoggles aimed at their constituents.

    But what baffles me in those calls is that there is underlying assumption that somehow the rest of the Federal Government isn’t just as bloated as if the group of people running those programs is somehow different than the DOD bureaucrats or that Congress doesn’t use other Departments, like HHS, to push ridiculous programs that don’t work but enrich their constituents.

    Even Obamacare is nothing more than a Big Government hookup for Big Business and does nothing to improve healthcare for masses. If anything, its the beginning of the Healthcare Industrial Complex. Yet the progressives in their zeal to help the little man call for “more, more, more.” Bizarre.

  • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ Scott W.

    One does not have to believe in God to recognize the evil of abortion. Simply google “pro-life atheists” for proof. They, like we, recognize the paucity of the arguments in favor of abortion, and they don’t have to reference God to do it. Take for instance the “It’s between her and her doctor”. This simply does not work. Certainly, many things are no one else’s business other than the parties involved, but this is not, and never has been, absolute. Things become everyone’s business when the parties conspire to injure or destroy and innocent third party, which the child in the womb is indeed. One might as well say beating a four-year old daughter with a cat-o’-nine-tails is an issue strictly between the mother and father. Now of course the abortionist will try the “it’s not human” argument, but here again, this is arbitrary and is defeated by the Deerhunter Principle.

    Also on the list of bad arguments is the “no one is in favor of abortion”. This is disproven by the examples of radical feminists that are on record as deliberately getting pregnant in order to have abortions. It is also disproven by the middle-of-the-road abortionists who speak with forked tongues on the subject. When a woman is tempted by abortion, they tell her it’s no big deal, and with no psychological aftereffects. But when it’s legislation, it’s always how agonizing the decision to have an abortion is on the woman as if doing an immoral act is somehow made moral by doing a bit of hand-wringing. Abortion is evil and arguments in favor of it can only be sustained by incoherent and self-refuting moral relativism.

    P.S. Oh yeah, the nonsensical “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”. First off, it’s pure speculative fantasy. Second, men commit far more murders than women, yet murder isn’t a sacrament.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    If you’re “pro-life”, you believe that to deliberately target the infant in the womb, wielding instruments of death against him or her, (thereby wreaking violence upon the body of the poor mother, also, even though, whether through being uninformed, misinformed, or because of desperation, she has been so unfortunate as to seek the butcher’s knife or poisons for her baby,) is nevertheless an inconceivable act, a reprehensible act, and one which no society with the faintest pretense to being civilized, would tolerate being promoted as an “answer” to anything.

    What is the code of a good physician? The medical profession’s motto is “First, do no harm.” You help the patient if you possibly can, and if you see that you cannot, you admit it and recommend that the patient see a specialist. It is unethical to “fake it ’til you make it” as a responsible physician, because you might harm the patient, which would violate this most fundamental rule of medicine.

    There are many other things necessary to be a competent physician: to stay abreast of advances in your specialty, to listen to patients well, to keep careful records of clinical observation and treatment, and lots more. But “first, do no harm” has been a fundamental requirement for centuries. It’s not sufficient, but it is absolutely necessary.

    Similarly, “first, don’t lift your hand to destroy the helpless and the innocent”, with it’s corollary “don’t support, rationalize, or make excuses when others lift their hands to destroy the defenseless and the innocent,” are not sufficient to win for a person the epithet pro-life. But they are necessary.

    Anyone who supports abortion on demand, but calls herself pro-life , is using that term in a way that shows she doesn’t get what it means.

  • BHG

    i”ve given this post–and this woman–a lot of thought in the last day or two, wondering how we can reach her through her passion for children. I don’t know the answer.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X