Abortion, Language and Looking Away – UPDATED

Photosource

“Over a period of two decades, government health and licensing officials were repeatedly presented with evidence about Gosnell, and repeatedly chose to do nothing…”

“No action was taken, even after the agencies learned that women had died under Gosnell’s care.”

Kermit Gosnell was arraigned yesterday on 8 charges charges of murder, and much, much more.

Most of the news reports I’m reading on this story are surprisingly succinct, given the 281 page Grand Jury Report which brings his crimes into sickening detail and make it plain that Gosnell brought a depraved indifference to life and human dignity into his “practice” if one could call it that. The press writes as little as possible, and many of these stories online do not include links to the report.

Many of the women who came to Gosnell were poor, and far along in their pregnancies They paid exorbitant sums to Gosnell (after being referred to him by who? Other doctors?) in order to be stripped from the waist down and given not-so-much as a gown — only blood-stained blankets that were washed once a week. They were anesthetized by unlicensed persons while flea-infested cats roamed freely. That’s just the tip of this iceberg, but I can’t go on because its too upsetting. The babies who “precipitated” and “fell out” of women while no medical personnel were available; babies being pulled out of the pipes or “seeming to swim” in the toilet. Babies breathing and crying before their spinal cords were “snipped” and their bodies were thrown into empty milk-cartins, cat food containers, shoe boxes. Women who were maimed or left infertile, or diseased or killed. The unwashed instruments, the bloody tables and stirrups, the feet severed from babies and kept as trophies.

The press is not going giving a full sense of the scope of this horrorshow, because they will want this story minimized and shoved down the memory hole as fast as possible. There are a few weak lines of spin being bandied about, but do not be fooled; this is about abortion in America, and about a mindset that will excuse a great deal for its sake. Steel yourself to it and try to read the report. Become educated about Gosnell; it is very likely there are more like him — exploiting the poor, cutting every corner and confident that local authorities and regulators will not care. As the Grand Jury asserts:

[After Gosnell's center was approved as an abortion clinic in 1979, the Pennsylvania Department of Healt] did not conduct another site review until 1989. Numerous violations were already apparent but Gosnell got a pass when he promised to fix them. Site reviews in 1992 and 1993 also noted various violations [and] failed to ensure they were corrected. [...] After 1993 even that pro-forma effort came to an end . . . DOH abruptly decided for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro . . . officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions. . . . Several different attorneys, representing women injured by Gosnell, contacted the department. A doctor from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia hand-delivered a complaint, advising the department that number patients he had referred for abortions came back from Gosnell with the same venereal disease.

It goes on and on, noting that not even the death of Karnamaya Mongar prompted the department to look at Gosnell. All of this came to light only after the place was raided for drug trafficking.

The Gosnell story would be repellent enough, even if he had been charged ten or fifteen years ago. The horror is compounded by the fact that people in authority looked the other way, for decades, rather than stop him.

And curiously, given the brevity of these articles I’m linking to, the U.S. press seems to want to look away, too. But they shouldn’t. In 2002 the media quite rightly delved deeply into the cover-ups of priestly abuse in the Catholic Church; they helped to shine a light into vast darkness, raising awareness and making sure there was no more room to hide; they helped precipitate a painful but necessary, and ongoing, cleansing. They need to do that again, here, because it is very likely that — as with those abuse stories — these horrors are not isolated to one town, or one practice or one state.

The UK Press with photographs of those charged and some of the “milder” photos from the Grand Jury Report. I’m told the NY Times has a larger story in its print edition. Will have to go out and buy a paper!

Enough about Gosnell. Let me give you the antidote to that story with this column by Marcia Morrissey who writes about a pregnancy she was pressured to abort:

When you are struggling, and the medical people are so forceful, the idea of abortion blips through your mind, unbidden, because you’re told it is a real option, and when you’re emotional, it’s easy to fall for fall for rhetoric.

Having been told by doctors about all the risks and complications for me and the baby, once I was in the hospital yet again during the pregnancy, for a brief moment, I heard that blip in my mind.

I thought about it, and the idea that I thought of it at all, even for a split second, makes me cringe even now. Maybe that is why I feel compassion for those women who have in a time of weakness, or difficult circumstances, made that decision. I am 100 percent pro-life, but we need to be understanding, and we need to tell women in this position that we will help them, and that God loves them, that he is always merciful, and ready to forgive the moment we reach out to Him. They are not alone.

Like I said, it’s the antidote. Read it all. I am sure that was not an easy piece for Marcia to write.

Finally – something really provocative and straightforward: The language of abortion is euphemism-heavy. Abortion proponents don’t like the word “abortion,” so they use “choice.” They refer to “products of conception,” and “clumps of cells.” Writer and activist Leticia Valesquez, whose daughter has Down syndrome, would prefer that “sensitive language” take a backseat to, you know…life!

Given the choice, I would prefer my daughter to be called a “retard” and know that abortion of babies with Down syndrome had ceased.

Early last month President Barack Obama signed a law decreeing that federal statutes must no longer use the term “mental retardation.” The phrase replacing it will be “intellectual disability.” [...] It seems that, every few decades, old terms for those with physical disabilities or cognitive delays are abandoned in favor of new ones, since existing terms have developed a negative connotation.

But drawing a new word from the thesaurus is not enough. We have to respect the right of the mentally disabled to exist. We need to stop aborting them. Changing vocabulary, while significant, can only get you so far.

As a writer who is also in the pro-life movement I understand the importance of words. Calling an unborn child a fetus, while medically accurate, can depersonalize the child, allowing members of the public to rationalize abortion in the same way that calling certain members of society “useless eaters,” “vermin,” and “life unworthy of life” eventually depersonalized entire classes of people, including the mentally retarded, and sent them to their deaths in the Nazi concentration camps.

My point is this: if an entire class of people, those with three sets of the 21st chromosome, are routinely targeted for destruction—at a scandalous rate of 90 percent—can merely changing the term we use to describe those 10 percent who escape the net increase respect for their human dignity and intrinsic value to society in a meaningful way?

Isn’t a more fundamental change required before having a child with Down syndrome goes from being the greatest fear of pregnant women to being widely accepted by society?

Yep. Pretty hard to argue that “sensitive” language is meaningless when the overall message being delivered by society is “why are you alive at all?”

Again, read it all also this piece on the “silent eugenics” behind that 90% figure, by Timothy P. Shriver.

UPDATE: No Bail for Kermit

More: Singer inspired by her brothers with Down syndrome H/T: Deacon Greg

Related:
How Murder Gets a Pass
Gosnell Patients Talk
Catholic.org
A blog roundup
Sister Toldjah

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Bender

    Mr. Marshall, you really are not very well informed on the matter, are you? All of your nay-saying is wholly irrelevant. Well, not all of it, as I said, yes, pro-lifers will be the first to admit that we could have done better — one can ALWAYS do better no matter what the endeavor. But they did do and still do a lot. Including the NCHLA. They were, in fact, at the forefront of the pro-life movement since it’s inception. They were there for anyone who cared to listen. But too few did care.

    And now we have know-it-alls who think that, if only folks had done this or had done that, pro-life victories would have been a snap. When, in fact, they did do those things.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Yes, Bender, it seems to me that pro-lifers actually did try, and they did do a lot, to try and prevent Roe, and, after it was passed, to try and get it repealed.

    You might not agree with everything they did, Mr. Marshall, but they did try. It might have been nice if some Buddhists, and other religious groups, had attempted to join with them, and back them up, instead of just drifting off, and doing their own thing. You, yourself admit you didn’t do much of anything at that time. At least, they did take it to the streets, unlike all the other sensitive, enlightened souls, who might not have liked abortion, but who, as you say, just couldn’t be bothered to pull in the right direction (or any direction at all.)

    Also, with all due respect, I don’t think you have mind-reading powers; you can’t possibly know all the motives of those who protested abortion during the past decades, so you can’t say that they all just did it to inflate their own sense of moral rectitude.

    I, too, have adult memories of the 70′s, and, I remember, many of those “self-righteous” anti-abortion commentators saying that approving Roe would lead to a culture of death, and cause human life, in general, to be devalued. They were sneered at, as bigoted prudes, at the time, though now they seem unhonored prophets. . .

  • Joseph Marshall

    “So, Joseph, are you basically saying there’s nothing we can do at this point?’

    No, I’m not. But there is one thing we should stop doing and that is trying to undermine Roe v. Wade by passing state laws that simply make it marginally harder to obtain abortions. Most of them are struck down and they pile up innumerable legal precedents supporting the basic decision, making it ever harder for a future court to reverse the basic decision.

    I also think that the attempt to place more sympathetic judges on the Federal Courts helps far less than most people think. The progress of judicial turnover is glacial. A completely new Supreme Court will probably not be sitting until about 2030, if then. The pro-choice partisans are just as alert to the implications of judicial choice as pro-life partisans. Under the circumstances any judicial change has about a 50/50 chance of turning toward pro-life. That’s simply not good enough given the slow rate of turnover on the court.

    A constitutional amendment is the only serious way of knocking that decision down. Just like Prohibition. But, to be realistic, every lone vigilante doing violence at a clinic simply marginalizes the pro-life movement and makes any kind of persuasion that much harder. So does the attempt to inhibit abortions by passing laws trying to chip away at Roe v. Wade by making something other than abortions illegal [like giving collateral aid to a woman who is seeking an abortion].

    Anything that someone with an independent mind would perceive as mere attempt to circumvent the law or strong arm the people who disagree with you will make the pro-life case less persuasive. And all prior attempts to do so HAVE made it less persuasive.

    This particular Chamber Of Horrors in PA, is actually a political gift, but not in the way you might think. The immediate implication is that there may easily be Butcher Shops of this type in your state or mine. I think investigating the possibility in your own state would be well worth the trouble. Reveal a few more of these and you have a basis, once again, to persuade the public that abortions are the problem and not pro-life vigilantes.

    This is one issue where it is absolutely lethal to ignore political facts of life with “there are more of us than them” fantasies.

    It should be clear to anyone with eyes that this country is divided 50-50 on most social and domestic issues. If you are Republican or lean Republican, [as pro-lifers tend to be] the most important people to go into the voting booth are Democratic leaning Independents. They are the people you must persuade, and the more abuse heaped on Democrats AS Democrats, and not merely strong disagreement with some of their views, the less persuasive you will be to those who lean Democrat. And their perception of what is “abuse” is far more important than your perception of it.

    If you look at the demographics, a large number these Democratic leaners are one woman heads of household with lower than average income, exactly the population that is easiest for pro-choice partisans to frighten with headlines of pro-life vigilantes or pro-life strong-arm tactics.

    It is also not helpful to merely note the fact that some states are more pro-life than others. If those states have not passed a pro-life Constitutional Amendment, getting them to do so is where you start first. Momentum in political change is as important as anywhere else and the more headlines like “Utah Passes Amendment” that appear, the more attention you will get from the persuadable.

    That’s about all I can see to start with. But that’s actually quite a lot.

  • Elizabeth Scalia

    Joseph, I tried to contact you at the listed email address, but have had no response. Could you pls email me at theanchoress@gmail.com? I need to ask you something. thanks, elizabeth.

  • http://j3b3.wordpress.com jb

    Gosnell in Philly is but the logical result of the pro-death movement.

    Nothing more truly needs to be said, and for the doubters, DNA ends the issue.

    It IS that simple. BTW . . . one can undermine Roe v. Wade as easily as undermining Dred Scott. Both minimize or eliminate the human being for the sake of whatever special interest.

    And both are horse-hockey.

  • http://j3b3.wordpress.com jb

    All of the commentary is lost in the realm of logic.

    Is it human and alive?

    We don’t need 37.5 philosophers and scientists to appraise us of the meaning “human.” Anchoress, I know you try your best to let the Gospel rule, but even Jesus, tempted on the Mount by the devil, and charging into the Temple to rid it of the “justifiers,” did not spend any time in philosophical discussion.

    He just said – “Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    Yeah . . . infants in the womb (shiloh) re human and alive. How hard is this?

    Any pro-deather wanting to argue, come on over to my site. I would absolutely relish the idea of proving you to be a Hitler/Stalin/Mao in disguise.

  • eaglewingz08

    The story represents the intersection of two liberal sacred cows, abortion and african american abortion (‘health’) service providers and possibly a third (affirmative action). Since liberals fight like banshees to prevent even the most minimum health and competence standards for abortion clinics, outcomes like Gosnell’s are sanctioned and approved by liberal ideology and policies. But don’t dare associate liberal policies or politicians with the alleged murderer, cause he didn’t get his worldview from Rush and Sarah and Glenn, but from the ACLU, hollywood, and abortion on demand democrats at the local, state and federal level.

  • eaglewingz08

    last comment should be ‘allegedly from the ACLU, hollywood, and abortion on demand democrats…”

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Joseph, if abortion is, indeed, an evil, then we’re bound to try and undermine it, legally, if we can. If slavery were—God forbid—re-instituted, would you say that we must just live with it, because it is now the law of the land, and that all those anti-slavery vigilantes are the real problem, because they give the abolitionist movement a bad image?

    Would you really say, “Well, slavery is now the law of the land, so we just have to live with it, and the judges aren’t going to change.”

    (Also, not all anti-abortionists go around shooting doctors, or picketing clinics; not all pro-life people are “vigilantes”, by any means.)

    If someone leans toward Democrat, can you really say they’re an independent? As for those one-woman heads of households—well, churches and moralizers and thinkers of all kinds have been trying to reach them for years, about the horrors of abortion, the folly of having fatherless children and so on; and the response has been, “It’s woman’s body/woman’s choice! Don’t be so judgemental! You’re all a bunch of Christian, pro-life vigilantes, puritans! Get the church out of our bedrooms!”

    And so on. If you can think of some other way to reach them, that won’t get shouted down, please tell us.

    All abortion clinics are chambers of horrors, not just this one. As for the facts becoming known, and creating outrage against abortion in general, I’m not holding my breath. The MSM hasn’t run with this story, and liberal bloggers, such as Huffpo, Wonkette and Pandagon are already offering the explanation that, “This really has nothing to do with abortion, it’s just the act of one criminal doctor.” I’m afraid that’s the meme they’re going to run with, every time a story like this comes out—assuming such stories do continue to come out. The response might be to thoroughly clamp down on any such stories in the future, lest they threaten abortion. . .

  • Jeff

    Lower court decisions striking down challenges to Roe don’t make it harder for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. In no way.

  • Joseph Marshall

    Well, Rhinestone, all I can do is quote the old saying: there are dozens hacking at the branches for every person chopping at the root. And in combating evil, it doesn’t help if your reach exceeds your grasp.

    If a majority of people perceive that pro-life partisans are the problem, rather than abortion, then the pro-life viewpoint has very little chance of succeeding.

    I think they do.

    Now they don’t have to. But pro-life has real enemies who will make hay out of every questionable pro-life tactic to sustain that perception. And, as the Anchoress never tires of pointing out, pro-life’s enemies generally have better media access. So why give them fresh ammunition?

    The difference between this PA clinic and most of the rest is that they went beyond what the law allows. That’s why they can be indicted. It is the fact that they have been indicted which is the real opportunity for persuading the persuadable that abortion is the problem, not abortion protesters.

    There is no point in preaching to the choir. If you want to persuade anyone, if you want to convert anyone, you have to start by looking at the matter from their point of view.

    At the moment, quite simply, the best place to start is by reading what your enemies have been writing about you, because I’m pretty sure that they have gotten a majority of people to believe it, including the truly persuadable.

    You really do have to solve that problem first before you can change anyone’s mind about abortions.

  • beethovenqueen

    Dear Anchoress,

    thanks for linking to the Grand Jury Report pdf. I have to add to your writing:

    “do not be fooled; this is about abortion in America, and about a mindset that will excuse a great deal for its sake”

    that this is also about MISOGYNY and the resultant despicable way women are perceived and treated in our society. There was a pregnant woman, a real human being with a personal tragedy in need of physical and emotional care in every instance. It wasn’t only babies who were murdered: it was also WOMEN and probably GIRLS who were abused and murdered.

    Unfortunately, commenter Gabriel continues the misogyny:

    “Womens liberation and feminism was basically about making women irresponsible, egoistic, pleasure seeking whores, who would not cater to their husbands any longer. (Babylon)”

    @ Gabriel: I believe people are free to love whomever they choose and there is no such thing as a “whore”, either female or male. Sexual freedom is and should be a personal, private choice. Demanding equality is not wrong. Pleasure seeking is not wrong. You don’t understand feminism.

    As for the women who, using Gabriel’s words, “decides to kill her kid”:

    I beseech those who are truly against abortion to SUPPORT those women who are in financial straights, in abusive relationships, or in whatever situation that presents to them no viable alternative. Create alternative solutions that are far more attractive than the abortion clinics. Fight for gender equality so women can earn more to support their families and can be financially independent. Work to create environments where women can thrive during pregnancy and raise their children. Raise boys who grow into responsible, sensitive and gentle men.

    And please stop damning women for enjoying their bodies and for choosing to have sex. I thought we left that primitive mindset decades ago.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    From what I have read, our enemies consider us to be people who hate women (we don’t), who hate sex (we don’t hate that, either) and who want to force them all into some kind of Christian fundamentalism (even those atheists who oppose abortion.)

    They are wrong about all of this, and, if they were operating as reasoning, logical people, they’d figure this out on their own—but they’re not.

    Joseph, in my opinion, our enemies hate us, quite purely, and simply, because they see us as standing in their way. They want sex without the burden of children, and/or they want a perfect, eugenic society, that contains no misfits, or “inferior” children. Both the free love movement, and thw eugenics movement, hark back to the 19th Century; they’ve been going on for quite some time, long before Roe vs. Wade. How, specifically, do you suggest we counter this? Pro-lifers are merely human after all; we don’t know any magic words to make people see us as who we are, not as crazed people who all want to shoot doctors, or to stop the occasional crazy who claims his act of violence was done to as a pro-life gesture (Yah, right!)

    More importantly, we don’t know the magic words to undo the very good work the MSM has done as painting us as such. If we don’t give them the ammunition, they make it up themselves. We don’t possess magical mental powers, to make them see the truth. And, most of do behave: we don’t shoot people, protest in front of clinics, harass others, but, somehow, still, it’s supposedly all our fault, because we’re not doing that one, special, wonderful thing, that would somehow make people see the lights.

    So, somehow it’s all our fault? The other side has no responsibility to look at the facts, and see what’s actually going on in abortion clinics?

    You cannot convince someone of something, if they don’t want to be convinced. And I think much of our society has bought into the myth of total sexual freedom, and a perfect society too deeply at this point, to be easily talked out of it. Also, we have become, as a society, become coarsened, and hardened, by millions of abortions over the decades, so there’s that difficulty, too.

    Some of us, like the Anchoress, like the writers as First Things, Pope Benedict, many evangelical preachers, Mother Theresa, etc., have been preaching pro-life in a very respectful, non-hostile, loving way. Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a hero of WWII, was pro-life.

    We’re trying, but it is not easy. And I’m not sure that trying to find out what goes on in the minds of the posters at Huffpo, or trying to win Wonkette, or Maureen Dowd, over to our side and show them that we’re really nice! Oh, goshers, we really are! Can’t we be friends? I’m not sure this is a good idea.

    To be honest, I don’t think it’s our problem to solve; I don’t think we can solve it, not on our own. As for reading what our enemies say about us. . . I don’t think we’d get much more out of that than, say, a Jew in Nazi Germany would get out of reading Nazi propaganda. Because, just as in Nazi Germany, what you’re reading about is a hateful caricature, not reality.

    By the way, what are the Buddhists, or other Eastern religions, doing on this?

  • beethovenqueen

    “The press writes as little as possible…”

    I would also like to add that it is MISOGYNY that keeps the press silent about what happened to the (hundreds? thousands?) of women that were abused by Gosnell. It is a society that does not give a damn about what happens to women in general that turns a blind eye to the abuse of pregnant women. It is our misogynist country that offers abused women no protection whatsoever, regardless of who dishes out the abuse. That’s why Gosnell was able to continue: Because a woman’s life is worth nothing in this country, regardless of if she is in the womb 5 months or outside the womb 50 years.

    PA, btw, is one of the most primitive and misogynist states in the US in my humble opinion. It’s backward at least 40 years. Thank you Gov Rendell who’s namby pamby annual Women’s Conference is a joke, never addressing any issues of real substance. Thank you Rendell that PA’s EEOC is so understaffed that they refer cases to EEOC offices outside the state.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    It really is like trying to answer the old, “When did you stop beating your wife?” trick question; no matter how you respond, you’re going to look bad. It really is better not to be manuevered into the position of the party that must-explain-everything-and-apologize-for-everything; no matter what you say, it’s not going to be good enough.

  • http://iratetirelessminority.blogspot.com Call Me Mom

    Thank you for the post. Although I would rather not have had to read such a monstrous report.

    “The problem with the Departments of State and Health is not that they lacked authority to end the crime spree that Gosnell and his staff passed off as paracticing medicine. The problem is that the state overseers preferred not to exercise their authority. They chose to look the other way.”
    Truly appalling. Where is humanity when so many have apparently lost the belief that every life has intrinsic value? Imago Dei.

  • ItsNoGood

    Joseph Marshall, you bring sad but provocative thoughts to the conversation, and I’d like to expand on one but also redirect your solution. Rough math: 40 abortions for every 150 American women = many were very bad mothers. Even my own home would have raised six children instead of only five. The momentum of this American holocaust sucked my wife into its currents with bad advice from all directions including her parents when she was so young and so vulnerable. Satan’s most diabolical trick in getting societies to murder their own children is a frustrating paradox for pro-life because while we MUST speak out against it, that very speech is awkward, and polarizes many. Here’s why: Complacently laying down and allowing someone to cut up your own babies or burning them alive is the most disturbing and horrific type of murder. When knowledge settles in, this puts people in a deep personal shock/coma that’s not pleasant to wake up from, and insanity by such guilt is suppressed on a daily basis. Protesting or trying to open up conversation is often met with a self-preserving wall of opposition. Hard truth often hardens hearts.

    Your answer: State Constitutions and The US Constitution + pro-constitution judges = upholding babies’ God-given, self-evident rights to life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness. Yes, this is the one and only MECHANISM by which abortion on demand can truly be stopped. But it’s only the means, not the answer.

    Here is the answer: GOD. It starts with God, and ends with God. (we get to do the middle part). He endowed every human with natural rights, and He is the only one who can deliver those rights, but we must cooperate. “All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing” (-Sir Edmund Burke). The bible says we are his hands. Not you though, because you’re Buddhist (*teasing*). Here’s what we must do:

    1: PRAY for the end of abortion daily and offer ourselves as available for God to use us (preaching to myself here too)

    2: LEARN what you believe and why. Pay close attention to arguments you agree with and disagree with, both from those for abortion on demand and those against it. Observe the tactics being discussed and played out (on both sides). Learn good arguments, good language & terms, and how to affectively deliver truth.

    3:DECIDE where you stand on the issues, what course you will take, and by what set of rules you will govern yourself (such as how dignified you are, how honest, how bold, and in which circumstances you’ll firmly & politely hold your ground or walk away if you encounter intimidation or insults). Learn from mistakes.

    3: SPEAK up in conversation, speak out in blogs, share information on social networks, hold signs, distribute pamphlets, etc. Recognize who is persuadable. Foster friendships, and in proper time, persuade.

    4: ACT on your commitment: Vote, and vote only for pro-life congressmen, senators, governors, Presidents. Encourage your pastor to preach against abortion on demand. Help support pro-life ministries & pro-life organizations who provide for impoverished mothers.

    5: WAIT for God. “Be still and know that I am God.” -God

    -ItsNoGood

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    And President Obama has just celebrated the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade.

  • Brian English

    ” A completely new Supreme Court will probably not be sitting until about 2030, if then.”

    So what? The Court is 4-4, with the awful Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote. We need one vote to get Roe overturned. If Obama is re-elected with a Democratic Senate, then we are in real danger of having a Pro-Roe majority on the Court for 30-40 years.

    “It is also not helpful to merely note the fact that some states are more pro-life than others. If those states have not passed a pro-life Constitutional Amendment, getting them to do so is where you start first.”

    So we should focus our efforts on getting states to pass pro-life Constitutional Amendments, which, because of the existence of Roe, would be struck down as unconstitutional? What an astonishingly bad idea.

  • Tennwriter

    Joseph makes interesting points. And I have not done hardly anything in the pro-life way except some commenting.

    But I think the answer is More Bold.

    We’re not going to convince the Kossacks. That’s okay, because we’re going to completely marginalize them, and when some of them go completely starkers and start literally tossing bombs, we’re going to have the FBI lock them up for life.

    The Socons need to say ‘Our way or the door’…and ‘We’re in charge now, Mr. RINO.’ This is the path to political victory (if done with a smile) and to success at limiting baby murder.

  • beethovenqueen

    Just another thought for everyone:

    Q: What is the #1 cause of death of pregnant women in the US?

    A: Murder by the man who impregnated them.

    Think about that before turning to the “solution” of LAWS rather than providing pregnant women with real support and truly viable solutions that will most certainly require everyone to move from their comfort zones and pitch in.

  • Pingback: Pro-Life Marchers Roundup | The Anchoress

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    another problem confronting pro-life is the fact that our society just isn’t ready to confront, not just Man’s inhumanity to Man, or Woman, but Womans’ inhumanity to children.

  • beethovenqueen

    Rhinestone, I believe that the most abuse of people in our country and in the world happens at the hands of men.

  • http://takkirauta.blogspot.com Ironmistress

    The position of Buddhism is clear and concise in this aspect: abortion is a murder – and this has been stated by Siddhartha Gotama Buddha himself. It is one of the five demeanours eligible for expulsion off the sangha (matricide, patricide, intrigues, foeticide and injuring the Buddha [sacrilege]).

    I wrote a more detailed inspection over the topic here: http://higher-truth.blogspot.com/2010/04/pro-life-vs-pro-choice-who-cares.html .

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    I know you do, BQ.

    But women, like men, are moral agents, capable of judgment, and knowing good from evil. To see them as something less, is true misogyny. Some men have been guilty of great cruelty to women and children, and some women have been guilty of great cruelty to the children, who are put in their care. Abortion is the ultimate child abuse.

    (And, here, you see one of the problems in talking frankly about abortion. You cannot do do, because to do so is to be “Anti-woman!” One must simply bow one’s head, and give women all the abortion clinics they allegedly need, without question, without interference—which is the thinking that gave us Gosnell’s little chamber of horrors of clinic, in the first place. I suspect one reason the authorities were so tolerant of it, is that they didn’t want to be seen as anti-woman, or restricting womens’ right to abortion.)

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Ironmistress, while your own post at that link is pro-life, the article itself seemed to imply that, at least for some Buddhists, abortion is no big deal, because “No one is ever really born, and no one ever really dies.”

    If this is truly what a lot of Buddhists believe, then this does not sound especially pro-life. (I do believe the Buddha himself was against abortion.)

  • Doc

    Can you imagine the corporate media reaction if any other business had seperate facilities for white women while shuttling the poor black and hispanic women to a filthy alternative? That business would be crucified in the press until they were prosecuted in the courts. This proves that when competing leftist designated victims clash, it’s the poor minority women who are the losers. They are simply votes for Democrats and useful tools to hammer Republicans with. Nothing more. Is there anyone left who still respects the corporate media as seekers of truth and exposers of corruption?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X