KKKlassy pro-abortion quotes

KKKlassy pro-abortion quotes January 24, 2014

“Frankly I had thought at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

“There are times when abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white.” – Richard Nixon. The guy who gave us Harry Blackmun, author of Roe v. Wade.

There’s a reason for this:

New poll: 62% Americans see abortion as ‘morally wrong’, 84% support restrictions

Normal people *know* that this is murder. Being consequentialists as most Americans are, they don’t necessarily let the fact that it is murder stop them from supporting it. But most people shift uneasily in their seats when abortion fanatics say, in cold blood, “So what if it’s murder?” The average “pro-choice” person feels the sting of conscience when confronted by such feverish apostles for evil and edge away humming “Don’t stand so, don’t stand so, don’t stand so close to me.” They have a haunted conscience. They’d much rather not think about it. In their relationship with the true fanatical pro-abort, they are much like what Lincoln described in one of the debates with Stephen Douglas, as he talked about the way normal people–even people who were uncomfortable with abolitionists–regarded slave dealers:

[Y]ou have among you a sneaking individual of the class of native tyrants known as the slave-dealer. He watches your necessities, and crawls up to buy your slave at a speculating price. If you cannot help it, you sell to him; but if you can help it, you drive him from your door. You despise him utterly; you do not recognize him as a friend, or even as an honest man. Your children must not play with his; they may rollick freely with the little negroes, but not with the slave-dealer’s children. If you are obliged to deal with him, you try to get through the job without so much as touching him. It is common with you to join hands with the men you meet; but with the slave-dealer you avoid the ceremony,—instinctively shrinking from the snaky contact. If he grows rich and retires from business, you still remember him, and still keep up the ban of non-intercourse upon him and his family. Now, why is this? You do not so treat the man who deals in cotton, corn, or tobacco.

Replace “slave dealer” with “Kermit Gosnell” or “partial birth abortionist” and you have the sense that even most so-called “pro-choice” people feel about the thing. The majority of those who put them down as “pro-choice” do so in the spirit of wishing the whole damn thing would go away, who cringe with embarrassment when the fanatics say, “So what if it’s murder?”, who try to tell themselves that they are well-meaning feminists who just want it to be “safe, legal, and rare”. They are consequentialists, to be sure (like the right wing consequentialists who supported torture because they imagined it was “keeping America safe”). But like those consequentialists, they are haunted in conscience by it and keep wishing it gone. Truth be told, a lot of them would not complain if there were more restrictions on the whole filthy practice. They hear the quote from the Salon people, or the elitism of Ginsburg or the frank and open racism of Nixon or Margaret Sanger or the naked confessions of lies told in order to sell the vile thing and they’ve got nuthin’. Pro-abortion ideology corrupts and ruins everything it touches. Cherishing human life is natural, normal, and healthy. All normal people sense this. Only the most ruined and crazy conscience of the pro-abortion zealot fails to grasp this, which is why people like the Salon lunatic repel, even other liberals.

So here’s the thing: Why are the abortion fanatics still inexplicably allowed to control the Democratic party? They will never be trusted even by people empathetic to the rest of their agenda because even a big percentage of their own base feels toward them as the average schmoe felt toward Lincoln’s slave dealer. And outside the party, that percentage just goes up. If the Dems are smart, they will finally break the ideological death grip these fanatics have on their and make *some* move to get in touch with the majority of Americans. Make a move, Dems. It’s the smart thing as well as the right thing. Get rid of these nutty abortion Jacobins and *bend* on this, for the love (quite literally) of Christ. You’ve got nothing lose politically and everything to gain. Right now you have, as you guys keep irrationally letting the fanatics choose, a President who–with open and naked contempt for what 70 percent of Americans think–favors stabbing babies in the brain with scissors and even letting babies who have been born die. He is is radically out of touch with his constituency–even his party constituency. So why keep putting up with it? Doesn’t mean you have to embrace the brain-deadness of the Thing that Used to be Conservatism. But why not, if nothing else, steal this issue from them by taking seriously and obliging the prolife movement with some serious concern for the unborn, since the intransigence of your party leadership on this matter is *the* reason the Thing that Used to be Conservatism still has the political legs it does, despite being run by a leadership that is out of ideas and wedded to nihilism.

Dems: Can you not see how massively stupid your leadership’s pro-abortion zeal is? Can you really not see that?

"A wise course of action."

“Why Call It Progress?”
"Oh, so long as we understand that 'rationalization' doesn't have to equate to 'making the ..."

“Why Call It Progress?”
"Oh I'm glad she forgave them! I forgive all of the follies of my parents ..."

“Why Call It Progress?”
"I know it's a bit more complex than that, and...Nope, that’s pretty much it."

“Why Call It Progress?”

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Dave G.

    It would be easier to make the case that support for abortion is stupid if the Democrats were struggling in the polls. The main reason the party has struggled is because of the economy and Obama’s health care debacle. Apart from that, until the mandate release really, the Democrats were far better off in the polls.

    BTW, this was a very telling statement:

    “Doesn’t mean you have to embrace the brain-deadness of the Thing that Used to be Conservatism. But why not, if nothing else, steal this issue from them”

  • Matthew

    I had a discussion with my Priest once about pro-life Democrats, and how they seem to have just gone away. The reason? The party drove them out. There was/is a push to move all Blue Dog and pro-life dems out of the party because they aren’t “liberal or progressive enough”.

  • Mark R

    You mean after all you express about elites, the majority really matters about how the country is run?
    If so many disapprove of abortion, why then is it so common?

    • Why is abortion so common if legalizing it was supposed to make it rare?

  • Eve Fisher

    Well, some of us believe that there are situations in which
    abortion might be the only answer. Savit Halappanavar in Ireland, who died in an Irish
    Catholic hospital because, although a Hindu, and although her dying fetus was
    killing her they could/would do nothing about it because the Bishops decreed:
    “Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before
    viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never
    permitted.” Even if both mother and child die. A 14 year old girl who I knew in the early 1960’s who
    was knocked up by some relative and was taken to Mexico by her parents for an
    abortion because it was illegal in the US; and died of it. Marlise Munoz, brain-dead currently forced-by-the-state-incubator for a fetus which the hospital says is not viable…

    • disqus_HXPuP9E9zS

      Dear Eve,

      1) Please document that it was the fetus that was killing Dr. Halappanavar.

      2) Even if the mother’s life or health is threatened by a fetus she carries, what justification is there for deliberately killing the fetus rather than trying to save both the mother and the fetus?

      3) Do you not realize that Catholic teaching permits interventions in many cases to save the life of the mother, even ones that likely or almost certainly kill the fetus, provided that the killing is not deliberate? You may wish to learn about the Principle of Double Effect, as it is relevant to your comments and apparent that you do not understand it. Catholic teaching differentiates between direct abortion (which is always wrong according to Catholic teaching) and indirect abortion (such as the removal of a Fallopian tube carrying a fetus in the case of an ectopic (tubal pregnancy) because such a pregnancy would very likely otherwise result in the death of both mother and child).

      Consider these words: “The old law permitted abortion to save one life when two would otherwise die. The new law [law since Roe v Wade?] permits abortion to take one life when two would otherwise live.” -Herbert Ratner, M.D.

      • kenofken

        Has good old Herb ever been in the position of being told he’ll have to just suck it up and soldier his way through septicemia because “that’s the law”? I’m betting no.

        • disqus_HXPuP9E9zS

          1) I haven’t followed that case in months but I recall reading that it was uncertain that Dr. Halappanavar had even requested an abortion.

          2) Have you, kenofken, ever been in the position of being cut to pieces by a scalpel, dismembered by forceps, or stabbed with scissors so that your brains may be aspirated to collapse your skull because “that’s the law”? I, too, am betting no.

          • Eve Fisher

            Dr. Halappanavar was pregnant; the fetus/baby was dying within her; she was in sepsis; she was refused an abortion because the fetus still had a heartbeat; the fetus finally miscarried; she died of septicemia. These things happen; she could have, perhaps, lived with intervention. But as Father John Ehrich put it, “The unborn child can never be thought of as a pathology or an illness. That is, the child is not that which threatens the life of the mother, rather it is the pathology or illness (cancer, premature rupture of membranes, hypertension, preeclampsia, etc.) which threatens the mother’s life.” Except that sometimes – as in the list given by the priest – the unborn child IS the illness. It happens. And sometimes in the pursuit of keeping the fetus alive, the mother will die and sometimes, both mother and fetus will die. If that’s acceptable to everyone, just say it that way and let women know what they’re in for: that women are expendable in the pursuit of a viable fetus. Some people would say it was better for Savit Halappanavar to die than to violate Church teaching; that the 27 year old woman who was given an abortion at St. Joseph’s Hospital in 2009, where the doctors said her chance of dying if the pregnancy continued was “close to 100%” should have been allowed to die. I disagree. I say these cases tell us exactly how dangerous conscience, unregulated by charity, can be.

            • disqus_HXPuP9E9zS


              The Catholic Church teaches that all human life has equal dignity (I do not see how you can get closer to blind justice than that).

              Why do you believe that the Catholic Church says “that women are expendable in the pursuit of a viable fetus” as you wrote above?

              • Eve Fisher

                I think that when people decide that a woman’s life is secondary to preserving the life of the fetus inside of her – especially if doctors say that the fetus is dying and killing the woman in the process – they are saying that the woman is expendable. And I am not blaming the Catholic Church per se; I see this in the absolute pro-life stance in general, which says that absolutely no abortion is permissible, in any case, even if the mother is dying or (the recent Texas case) dead. In the same way, to be fair, the absolute pro-choice stance in general sees the fetus as expendable, and that abortion should be available to any woman at any time for any reason. I disagree with both. I think most people disagree with both. I believe that abortion may be painfully necessary in cases of rape, incest, and especially in cases to save the life of the mother.

    • Mariana Baca

      Please read more on the case of Savita Halappnavar — the issue was not that the Catholic Church was preventing treating both mother and baby. The doctors were not motivated by Catholic ethos, nor did bishops say that the fetus needs to be prioritized *over* the mother — both should be equally treated as patients and triaged appropriately. http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1119/346307-x-case-legislation-abortion/
      Nor did Irish law specifically prevent early delivery in this case due to a precedent in the 1990s. There was mismanagement of symptoms, recognizing the problem promptly, and treating it adequately, as well as inaccuracies in how the law was written confusing doctors. http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-patient-report-1121411-Oct2013/ A bill was promptly passed to clarify this issue in the law. Unfortunately, it does have a “mental health” exception people (and the bishops) believe can be abused. But it clarifies how triage can be done when both patients are at risk.

  • kenofken

    In the instance of abortion, conservative Christians are laboring under the same delusion that lost them the gay marriage battle. In both cases, they insisted to the last that they had won the culture and had the real majority, and that it was all being squelched by a secret elite society of Sith-like media moguls and Nancy Pelosi.

    You aren’t losing because of the obstenance of the elite. You’re losing because you haven’t done the hard work of winning the culture. You haven’t engaged the culture the way gays did for their cause for the last 40 years. You’ve spent most of that time scolding the culture and rubbing their snouts in images of aborted fetuses and calling anyone who didn’t buy into your whole platform murderers, or accessories to murder. You’ve spent the time crafting too-clever-by-half legislative end runs around Roe and measures designed to intimidate/humiliate women, like the ultrasound rape bills and a culture of angry misogyny betrayed by “legitimate rape” theories.

    You have locked arms with a large wing of political conservatism which preaches “pro-life” in the abortion arena but which displays seething contempt for all non-fetal life with policies that are pro-war, pro-torture and Social Darwinist in the extreme. You have made it clear that you will settle for nothing less than total uncompromising criminalization of abortion in all circumstances – rape, medical danger to the woman’s life, anything, and that the state will always have total discretion in making that call, and that even miscarriage will place a woman under potential presumption of criminal wrongdoing. You have also made it clear that ending abortion is not your end game. It’s an opener, to be followed as soon as practicable by near-total bans on contraception and a broader agenda to roll back the sexual revolution and LGBT rights wherever possible.

    You don’t have 84% willing to buy your whole program, and you’re not offering anything else. Yes, people are not as comfortable with abortion as a primary birth control method as they once were, and that’s all to the good, but your movement leaves them with no viable alternative. Either hold your nose and fight all incursions to Roe, or else buy into a legal and social regime that few Americans, and damn few modern women, want to live under.

    • Dave G.

      Actually, gay rights, like most post-Christian ethics, are successful largely because advocates of the same gained influence in key areas that shape the cultural mindset. Growing up, the media, educational and cultural portrait was simple: gay rights good/religious fanatics (defined as not accepting things like gay rights) bad. Other issues were portrayed the same. That’s the main reason. There are others of course. But that’s the biggie. Control the information of a culture, and after a few decades, you can get 66% of the population to believe squares are round.

    • Dear sir, while I agree that the Church has at times expressed her moral teachings in a tone-deaf manner or failed to express them at all–especially in defense of marriage–I can’t help but note the irony with which your tin-eared accusations are made.

      Your dissatisfaction isn’t with the Church’s methods in spreading the gospel of life. Otherwise the news that law and public opinion are turning firmly against state-sanctioned infanticide wouldn’t have elicited such bitter remarks. You don’t resent how the Catholic Church communicates her doctrine so much as her insistence that the doctrine remain Catholic.

      You choose to post on a Catholic blog. If you wish to engage us in a convincing manner instead of merely claiming unearned moral superiority at our expense, then learn what we believe and our reasons for championing those beliefs. It’s not like we’re trying to keep this stuff secret.



    • SteveP

      Ah, yes, delusion. If a woman desires the pregnancy, it is a child. If not, it is a lump of tissue. Likewise, “gay” is different unless that person desires “same” treatment.

      As the summary of the argumentation of both “gay” rights advocates and abortion rights advocates is “SHUT UP,” making the case that a delusion does not reality make is an impossible task.

  • Jonna

    If you define abortion as murder in all circumstances, then you should also advocate for Catholic funeral rites for all miscarried pregnancies. Perhaps you do. Abortion is a sorrowful, but sometimes medically necessary option. It should remain legal, but limited. There will always be frightened, impoverished, unloved, coerced, and, yes, at times irresponsible women who can’t see beyond this option, even if Roe is overturned. How do we engage them? As Cardinal O’Malley illustrated in his homily in DC this week, right-to-life advocates need to discern whether we’ve become the mob ready to stone the woman caught in adultery. I worked for a crisis pregnancy center over a decade ago. A few volunteers extended Christ’s compassion to our clients; most judged and even loathed these compromised young women. I was often amazed at their resilience in the face of judgy church ladies pretending to care about them. The March for Life is really only a march against abortion. We have a long way to go.

    • Benjamin2.0

      It should remain legal, but limited. There will always be frightened, impoverished, unloved, coerced, and, yes, at times irresponsible women who can’t see beyond this option, even if Roe is overturned.

      Lots of people want to do lots of gravely immoral things for lots of very emotional reasons. I see no reason, though, why more conventional murder, armed robbery, or car theft should be “legal, but limited.” In fact, it’s plainly obvious with these other examples in mind. The argument from emotion is always an argument from consequentialism. The argument from the projected feelings of your parishioners fares even worse for the sake of your frank inability to even know them.

      • Jonna

        Benjamin, My question was, “how do we engage them?” not “how do we categorize them?” Unfortunately, if you are dealing with human beings, you are dealing with human emotions, which overshadow theory. “Just say no” in theory should work – but in reality is insufficient. So how do we as disciples engage them?

        And I did know the feelings of my volunteers because they were all too happy to tell me and others, often under guise of being “prayer warriors” what they thought of the 15 year old raped by her step brother after getting drunk with him or the college freshman reporting her third unplanned pregnancy and on and on. We often needed to reinforce our confidentiality policies with our prayer chain, which sometimes was more of a gossip chain. Again, human emotions in play and not theory here.

        • Benjamin2.0

          I don’t think calling moral reasoning “theory” quite gets us from emotionally distraught to legal but restricted. Consolation is morally mandatory, but legal permission of murderous acts is morally impermissible. These aren’t mutually exclusive. You seem to be suggesting, furthermore, that the judgmentalism of your parishioners demonstrates a need for legal acceptance. If you are, I don’t see how it follows.

          • Jonna

            I’m not making a political or moral statement. Again, how do we engage them? We can theorize or reason or legislate, but we aren’t reaching actual people. I don’t believe we will change this law, but we can change hearts and minds one by one by being a loving presence. Calling a women a murderer may satisfy the need to be morally correct or calling her a slut may have satisfied a need to feel morally superior. Both statements might be technically true to some. But are we helping her or creating an environment that enables her to ask for help?

            Cardinal O’Malley’s comments are worth considering ,”The pro-life movement needs to be the merciful face of God to women facing a difficult pregnancy. Being judgmental or condemnatory is not a part of the Gospel of Life. We never want that woman to experience the pro-life movement as that angry crowd. The truth is that the only way that we can save those babies is by saving the mothers. The antidote to abortion is solidarity, community, where people are willing to care for one another and for the most vulnerable.”

            • Benjamin2.0

              I’ve been replying to your assertion “[i]t should remain legal, but limited.” While abortion should not remain legal, your concern for some perceived lack of forgiveness is valid. I’m saying it doesn’t lead to the assertion in question. It leads away from it.
              Calling a murderer a murderer is correct regardless of one’s feelings pro or con or supposed need for moral superiority. Feelings ought to reflect reality or be corrected (entertaining the converse frequently leads to disaster, case in point). Forgiving sinners is mandatory, feelings to the contrary notwithstanding. These truths are not in conflict, they’re related. One can’t forgive sinners if there is no sin.

              • Jonna

                Your comments lead me to believe that you are more interested in holding a righteous stance than in preventing actual abortions or ministering to real people. I don’t think we can find any common ground. God bless.

      • Eve Fisher

        Life of the mother. See below.

    • Guest

      The reason I did the up vote is because of statements you said about the way women are often treated after having an abortion. I also think there are times when, what is legally seen as abortion, is allowed (via double-effect, which is not intended as abortion, but legally would be seen as abortion). I don’t think we should use extraordinary circumstances to define the norm, however, I agree with about half of what you say.

    • There is a mismatch between what the Church calls abortion and condemns and what doctors call abortion. Just as a start, would you support a change to the CPT code (which is set by the government via CMS) to eliminate the mismatch? A simple modification, just paperwork really, would make discussing things clearer.

      I think that you have pointed out to a real problem though I do not think I care for your solution. You might find inspiration in prison ministry and even the military chaplaincy in the hows and whys of extending Christ’s mercy and love to people who might be in very bad situations or who might have made a really bad choice.

  • IRVCath

    Moderate America doesn’t rake in the camoaign donations. The hardliners do. That’s your problem.

  • Chesire11

    For the same reason the republican Party cannot come to grips with what are, in essence, the very moderate set of reforms enacted under the Affordable Care Act – the have spent so much energy exploiting the issue to gin up their base that they are now boxed in on the issue. You can’t tell your most vehement supporters that, if “X” happens, the world comes to an end, and then suddenly wake up one morning and tell them that the end of the world isn’t such a bad thing…

    • A very moderate set of reforms to increase health insurance coverage would not result in an increase in the number of uninsured and a rather unusual number of unilateral adjustments beyond the law to avoid the disintegration of the US insurance market.

      We’re all now waiting for the other shoe to drop to see how many cancellations are going to come when the next set of mandates are actually implemented. Had the actually been implemented on the law’s timetable, we’d be talking about adjustment measures that are normally reserved for national emergency. We’re already holding our breath in hopes that Accenture fixes the back end payments code so that hospitals and medical offices don’t start getting their credit lines cut and their ability to restock consumables impacted by August of this year. That’s a hard deadline.

      • Chesire11

        To a large part you are conflating two distinct issues, namely the reforms, which are quite moderate, consisting of efforts to leverage the existing markets to extend insurance coverage, and eliminate abuses on the part of insurers, and implementation which has been poorly executed.

        The number of uninsured has actually decreased as a result of the ACA, not increased (-1.2% since December), though there are instances in which policies that do not meet minimum standards have been discontinued by insurers, much as a restaurant, in order to serve the public must meet certain minimum standards of food safety, or be shut down.

        Compared to the alternatives available, and the approaches employed by other major industrialized countries, yes, the reforms have been VERY moderate.

        • The number of signups to the ACA does not exceed ACA caused cancellations. The difference is made up of people who lost insurance via the ACA and got insurance through another route. It’s pretty easy to get confused over the numbers at this point because the Obama administration isn’t reporting numbers with a lot of frequency and specificity.

          In case you haven’t noticed, all the 1st world health systems are running into problems. Many of the systems that US leftists want us to imitate are acquiring more market features, for example, Canada.

  • Obpoet

    Ginsburg’s statement sounds like something out of Germany in the 30’s, which makes it all the more stupefying. Can she not hear herself? Is she totally unaware of the connection between abortion and eugenics?

  • Terry Mahoney

    This article pretty much sums up why Pro-Life efforts are failing, and should continue to fail.

    This is an exhortatory document, defining a casus belli, and using the language of war and vilification to define the opposition.

    Guess what? It doesn’t work! Outside of those who already feel like you do, Mr. Shea, all you are presenting is something that is seen as either A) White noise by those in the center of this debate or B) Further proof that no negotiation is possible by those who hold that abortion is a woman’s choice.

    I don’t mean to single you out, either. What you wrote is what is normally presented by the vehement pro-Life crowd. The problem is that it is not working, and these efforts are doing nothing to stem, slow or, stop abortion.

    From my time in the Marines, I learned that when the frontal assault isn’t working, you adapt your strategy and tactics to overcome obstacles to accomplish the mission. The mission here seems to be saving the lives of unborn children, no?

    The failed strategy of a no-holds-barred assault on Roe v Wade being put aside, what would actually make a dent in the number of abortions? It seems to me that the best strategy would be to take the resources available and present them to these mothers in such a way that keeping the baby is the easiest decision.

    To do that, you would need to stop vilifying the opposition. That’s step one. They control access to these women, and as long as you maintain the current relationship with its inherent lack of trust, you won’t be able to have an impact.

    The next thing you would have to do is present an alternative for these women, via organizations like Planned Parenthood, that is attractive to both the woman and salable by the staff. Free pre-natal care, compassionate adoption services, scholarship programs, and even a place to live, all without the layer of religious messaging currently applied in healthy doses.

    If the life of the unborn is really our primary concern, our best ally in protecting that life would be folks like Planned Parenthood, as long as we built a culture of trust. If they had the tools to help these women keep the baby, more babies would be born.

    If what I suggest makes you physically ill, then perhaps your goal isn’t saving life, but rather beating the abortionists.

    • Actually, getting to Heaven is the primary concern of most Catholics, a process that is not helped by killing children.

      As I noted above, there are two extremes to any political issue and that definitely includes abortion. At the one end is a denial of dual effect and a no/never attitude that needlessly cost the lives of mothers. At the other You find Prof. Singer advocating infanticide, Dr Gosnell actually committing it, and Alisa LaPolt Snow advocating for it in front of the Florida legislature.

      Now tell me how you are going to build a culture of trust with an organization that pays a lobbyist to advocate the legalization of infanticide on the grounds of concern for the lives of children?

      • Terry Mahoney

        TM, I’m not trying to be trite, but loving thy neighbor as He has loved us is the primary concern of the Catholics I most admire.

        To answer your question: “Now tell me how you are going to build a culture of trust with an organization that pays a lobbyist to advocate the legalization of infanticide on the grounds of concern for the lives of children?”

        1) stop calling it infanticide. You are calling them murderers when they don’t see it as murder. You may be correct, but it doesn’t help.

        2) offer these services (I outlined above) on THEIR terms. What does it matter, if the end result is that women will be electing to keep their babies?

        3) Don’t focus on Prof Singer, Dr Gosnell, or Ms Snow. Focus on providing a light of hope that young mothers facing a terrible decision might turn toward.

        As an aside, I wonder how doing all of the above would keep anyone out of heaven.

        You aren’t paying for, or supporting, abortions. You are merely placing yourself most advantageously so that women might choose NOT to have an abortion.

        • I’m going to be charitable and assume you are not familiar with the three people I referred to. It’s not a linguistic trick or manipulation, I am talking about the advocacy of children being permissibly killed after birth. If you want to stop calling *that* infanticide, we have a problem.

          Dr. Gosnell is currently serving time for the murder of just born children. Snow advocated against a “born alive” bill clarifying that once a child is born, then it has rights. And Dr. Singer has been building the intellectual case for killing babies up to 6 months post birth for many years at Princeton.

          Do you think that Dr. Gosnell should not have been put in jail? Do you think that it is appropriate to advocate for the legal killing of a 5 month old baby as Prof. Singer does? Are you for a time period post birth where the mother and Dr. can privately decide to kill a born child through neglect or active measures?

          The pro-choice crowd has no hesitation in bringing up difficult edge cases to bedevil pro-life advocates. They have a number of such edge cases themselves. This doesn’t even rise to the level of edge case. It’s murder under the current legal regime and you are saying to leave that alone and not to worry about it.

          A botched abortion that produces a live birth does not require anything but common decency to be medically stabilized if possible and given up for adoption. The mother wouldn’t be inconvenienced beyond a bit of paperwork to give up parental rights. No health reasons exist to kill the child. There is no economic burden on the woman. Planned Parenthood is against this. Why should they be?

          • Terry Mahoney

            “The pro-choice crowd has no hesitation in bringing up difficult edge cases to bedevil pro-life advocates. ”

            You are correct. And who cares. Why should your behavior be based on the virulently pro-choice.

            The three you mention are outliers, hardly pertinent to what I am discussing, and I guarantee you, not influential to the moderate middle that lends political power to the pro-choice crowd.

            I’m not saying not to put Gosnell in jail (he is, and in a pro-choice state, right?) or listen to what the other two say. It’s not what a majority of those that are supportive of safe, legal and rare abortions support or would vote for.

            Taken in that light, how does anything I wrote keep one out of heaven, if that is your primary concern, OR, not do a better job of saving unborn children than fighting a losing battle?

            I’m not trying to pick a fight. I really think the best, most Christian way to fight abortion is to make birth the easiest choice.

            • One should always keep an eye out for winning tactics. They should not be adopted wholesale but when they are not morally problematic they should be adopted. Defining and discussing the extreme on their side is not problematic so neutralizing their advantage should be on the pro life agenda. The pro choicers want to get us on record with a coherent defense of life without explaining their coherent choice theory. Whoever is explaining their coherent theory is losing with the squishy middle. By forcing them to define a coherent theory the squishes choose between two disliked knowns instead of the current situation where they choose between a disliked known and a vague platitude.

              Loving and treating the women well only goes so far politically. It does not win the public policy fight. Accurate information helps win the policy fight.

              • Terry Mahoney

                “neutralizing their advantage”

                Wouldn’t it neutralize their advantage if pro-life folks said, “we hold all life sacred, but we aren’t going to argue the finer points. Instead, please let us help women give birth if they so choose” and made that choice incredibly attractive.

                Why aren’t you addressing that point? You keep going back to the war of words, a war which pro-life folks have been losing and will continue to lose.

                Adapt, overcome, and save thousands of the unborn.

                • In the Archdiocese of NY, any woman can knock on the door of any parish and say I can’t afford to have this baby and there is a long-standing promise that the Church will find a way to make it happen, whether by signing her up for aid, arranging for private help, whatever. It’s a commitment that was long ago extended. I’m not sure that there is anywhere where a pregnant woman in trouble would be turned away by the Church. I don’t want to rehash that because it’s already a settled topic and it doesn’t get the job done as far as the law acting correctly.

                  The reality is that the vast majority of people don’t like talking about abortion. It is an unpleasant subject. They equally dislike consistent pro-choice narratives and pro-life narratives. The conventional media simply don’t detail what those consistent pro-choice narratives are, making that position much more attractive to those who would just like the whole thing to go away. Instead they focus on defining and describing the pro-life consistent narrative which equally repels the squishes.

                  By all means make the pro-life narrative more attractive. I certainly won’t stand in your way. Accurately describing and asking people to consider the consequences of the consistent pro-choice position should not get in the way of that.

                  • Terry Mahoney

                    Works out the same in Diocese of Paterson.

                    However, you are dodging my question. Wouldn’t MORE babies be saved if we didn’t argue the point and made free birthing services, with attendant scholarship programs, etc, through institutions like Planned Parenthood?

                    I get your point about how articulating the stand of each side equally would send a more even message to those in the middle of this debate, but it’s not going to happen. You are tilting at windmills if that is your aim.

                    My point is that by continuing to “fight the good fight” instead of focusing on ACTUALLY promoting life in a manner I describe, pro-life efforts are not accomplishing the mission.

                    An open door policy with “the Church will find a way to make it happen, whether by signing her up for aid, arranging for private help, whatever.” is not the same thing as an articulated, inclusive program that women’s health clinics are comfortable recommending.

                    This is what would make a difference.

                    I think, however, the horse is dead, my friend. Good luck telling the tide not to come in. I won’t try to stop you any more 😉

                    • Nope, fewer babies would be saved. You’re assuming good faith from a crew who cover up for infanticide (Gosnell) and when politically possible, advocate it. Planned Parenthood is not pro-choice. It is pro-abortion. It seeks a lower level of regulation for its medical procedures than procedures of like complexity and risk which makes it not particularly pro-woman either. Some partners do more harm than good in taking on.

                      You declare that “it’s not going to happen” but don’t give any reason why that should be the case. Political message discipline is exactly about turning every question into an answer that furthers your message.

                      There are two political games on the abortion issue, turning squishes into principled, pro-lifers, in Catholic speak, engaging to create a conversion of the spirit, and making sure that squishes understand exactly how moonbat unreasonable the principled pro-choice stand actually is.

                      The pro-choice side does the exact mirror image of this but has a tougher hill to climb because our principled position is not fundamentally morally abhorrent. They only win by having the field to themselves and we should stop letting them have that advantage. What is the disadvantage to saying it?

                    • Terry Mahoney

                      “The pro-choice side does the exact mirror image of this but has a tougher hill to climb because our principled position is not fundamentally morally abhorrent. ”

                      And yet, somehow, they manage to succeed. It’s such a mystery. Keep at it then. Reality will catch up shortly

                    • They succeed because pro-life people actually answer trap questions instead of treating them like the traps that they are and turning them to a better use. They also tend not to ask the mirror image trap questions designed to appeal to the squishes who are, as on most question, the vast majority.

            • Sus_1

              “I really think the best, most Christian way to fight abortion is to make birth the easiest choice.”

              I like this. If the women/girls having abortions were the primary focus, how many abortions would happen?

              In my opinion abortions are going to continue to happen until the reasons why a woman/girl would choose an abortion are solved. People feel they can excuse infanticide because we are doing a terrible job of taking care of lots of children already.

              • Terry Mahoney

                Sus, you have summed up my feelings well. If it wasn’t pretty much a sentence to a lifetime of miserable poverty (if they keep it) or a guilt ridden ride of judgement (if they give it up) perhaps they would be inclined to keep their babies.

  • So long as the pro-life movement permits the battleground to examine only one extreme on the continuum of life/choice political positions, the Dems will not be forced to back away.

    The cure, funny enough, is to get GOP politicians to get out of their defensive crouch and simply ignore questions designed to place them on one extreme and instead answer why they hate and feel aversion to the other extreme, infanticide.

    The trick is to establish infanticide as a real threat (Singer, Gosnell, etc), and that the GOP politician stands against infanticide and actually has an intellectually defensible and robust defense against this evil, unlike his opponent who’s a bit squishy on the subject.

    Democrats will instinctively denounce infanticide but when pressed will not do a very good job against Prof. Singer’s arguments, and will be vulnerable as soft on infanticide unless they put a lot more space between themselves and the pro-abort radicals then they are used to.