There are those who don't believe people are "pro-abortion". I beg to differ in the most strenuous terms imaginable.
Cases in point:
I guess with all the emotion and hurly-burly of the workaday world, Miss Baker missed how the natural parents of this unborn Down's Syndrome child, whose potential health problems are not insurmountable, chose to meet with three families promising to give him a good home and life.
The tenor of Miss Baker's article is unmistakeable: any intervention to save the life of a child whose condition doesn't mean crippling agony is inexcusable. For Miss Baker, it borders on cruelty that families would respond to an ad to adopt this child and give him a chance at a productive life, that his natural parents, distressed by the news of their child, might have a change of heart and seriously consider letting him live and, above all, the thought processes of all involved don't lead to the politically sacred cow of abortion.
Is adoption cruel? My God- Angelina Jolie would be in prison! Is a child with Down's Syndrome doomed to a life of permanent suffering? Nope. If pro-lifers of any stripe are concerned only with "fetuses" (particularly the "nonviable" ones), would they try to adopt babies? These are logical questions so why didn't Miss Baker anticipate them? If one were to give her the benefit of the doubt, she did but did not wish to entertain them.
This kind of pig-headed ignorance is feature rather than a bug of the devout pro-abortionist. Abortion is an endgame, both literally and figuratively. Any other right human beings enjoy rests upon the right to life. As abortion stops the life processes of one in utero, making his other rights permanently moot, being "pro-choice" for abortion benefits (for lack of a better word) one party and certainly not the other. It is a power dynamic enjoyed by the few. Choosing life obviously opens up other avenues of choice and rights but threatens that dynamic. The mere idea that the natural parents of the Down's Syndrome child, the true subject of Miss Baker's disdain, might consciously elect not to what she would rather have done is beyond offensive. The parents, both natural and prospective, and the priest are incidental. Had the natural parents approached the priest or other families or just plain opted not to abort, I am confident that Miss Baker would grind her teeth that abortion wasn't the end result. She knows the natural parents no longer are considering abortion. They have chosen. Isn't she happy with their choice? An exercise in liberty has been fulfilled with a conclusion that should make everyone happy. Why isn't Miss Baker?
Before I go on, the crap about women being forced to bear young or "non-viable" babies is junk that doesn't deserve a significant response. How the hell do you think the human race propagates itself? Do you know any babies who drive to work so they can pay taxes? And what is the standard for human life and who sets it? Eugenicists would have a field day with that last question.
The passage of a modest bill in Texas that would ban abortions after twenty weeks and require abortuaries to abide by the same standards as other health clinics has been met with satisfaction by pro-lifers and fury with pro-abortionists who have tried filibustering the bill or disrupting its passage with violent and childish protests, including the throwing of bodily fluids on others and exposing themselves.
Putting aside one's personal or political feelings on any subject, when has dousing anyone in waste ever been an effective method of persuasion? No one thanks you for smearing crap all over them and then decides that yours is a sane and valid position. It is a way to disgust and threaten people, though. The irony of it all is that years from now, after the socio-political and financial meltdowns that surely coming, these sad, lonely little people who relished in self-absorption to the point where they glorified the death of another's offspring will be dribbling masses of blubber sitting in their own sh-- and just hoping that the "ME" generation takes pity on them.
Fat chance. Ye who live by the sword- or by the belief that abortion is far too important to be regulated as hospitals and health clinics are- so shall ye die by it. If the Gosnell trial has taught these people nothing, it is time to acquaint the dyed-in-the-wool with Third World healthcare. It's egalitarian, in a way. Everyone gets shoddy treatment, if at all, or must line up at an NGO clinic that might soon be shut down after a military coup or ethnic cleansing. Obamacare might be close enough to ignite the spark of inquiry in these minds but I wouldn't hold my breath. Abortion is not the top priority for women's health and I would defy the professional pro-abortionists to prove it. I have arrived at the conclusion, given the events of the past few weeks in Texas, that sensible limits and regulations threaten the very political being- or, rather ego- of those for whom abortion is a priority.
Finally:
The sick crime against an eleven year-old girl does not bring out indignation against her rapist or the woman who allowed this crime to occur but the rather demonic and trollish blame of Christ who somehow represents the pro-life population on the planet (don't you want to be on Jesus' side? Come to the light.). Rape has been the perennial hard case and the reason for lax abortion laws in many countries. It is not the first point of anger in pro-abortionists, however. Their non-reaction to this crime echoes the repeated revelations that Planned Parenthood covers up child sexual abuse. What does stand out is the question of age. Had this child chosen to abort (and how does a child do so?), she would have been regarded as a woman. Now that she has chosen not to abort, she is a child who has no knowledge of what she is doing (and this is somehow Jesus' fault).
But she chose!
Immaterial. If a child cannot abort her own child under the most extreme of circumstances, what does a pro-abortionist do? The feelings of revulsion against a child (and a child conceived in such grim circumstances) cannot be checked by the personal act not to abort and give credence to the fact that a third party's interests are material. The eleven year old girl has made her child a part of the equation. It's hard to "choose" (insert own euphemism here) a "non-viable" "clump of cells" when he or she is personalised. It is especially difficult when one's own ego has depended on the belief that abortion is completely correct in every respect without the thought that it should be measured or even discussed.
So there are no pro-lifers in the pro-abortion movement. The avenue for discussion has been bottle-necked for one thing only- the very thing that, pride withstanding, cannot be questioned or forgone.
Cases in point:
Jezebel writer Katie J.M. Baker slammed Virginia Catholic Priest Rev. Thomas Vander Woude for his offer to locate an adoptive family for a six-month pregnant mother of a Down's Syndrome child. He offered it as an alternative to abortion.
Baker ridiculed Vander Woude:
“But abortion is sin!” the pastor said (we’re paraphrasing). “Let me pressure you into carrying to term by hastily crowdsourcing an adoptive family!”When hundreds of people from around the world responded to Vander Woude’s plea, leading his church to narrow down the offer to three families who are being reviewed with the birth parents and an adoption agency, Baker remarked:
Lo and behold, hundreds of people from all over the world volunteered! The church narrowed down the offers to three families, which the parents are reviewing with the help of an adoption agency, according to the paper. It's great that so many families were interested. But the woman in this story is still being coerced into carrying to term.She said, “So many mistreated babies and kids with Down's live terrible lives. Instead of throwing resources at a nonviable fetus, why can’t the church help children with Down syndrome that are already alive? Because anti-abortion folks care more about fetuses with fairytale narratives than actual babies.”
 |
| Even the animal world can't believe how stupid this is. |
The tenor of Miss Baker's article is unmistakeable: any intervention to save the life of a child whose condition doesn't mean crippling agony is inexcusable. For Miss Baker, it borders on cruelty that families would respond to an ad to adopt this child and give him a chance at a productive life, that his natural parents, distressed by the news of their child, might have a change of heart and seriously consider letting him live and, above all, the thought processes of all involved don't lead to the politically sacred cow of abortion.
Is adoption cruel? My God- Angelina Jolie would be in prison! Is a child with Down's Syndrome doomed to a life of permanent suffering? Nope. If pro-lifers of any stripe are concerned only with "fetuses" (particularly the "nonviable" ones), would they try to adopt babies? These are logical questions so why didn't Miss Baker anticipate them? If one were to give her the benefit of the doubt, she did but did not wish to entertain them.
This kind of pig-headed ignorance is feature rather than a bug of the devout pro-abortionist. Abortion is an endgame, both literally and figuratively. Any other right human beings enjoy rests upon the right to life. As abortion stops the life processes of one in utero, making his other rights permanently moot, being "pro-choice" for abortion benefits (for lack of a better word) one party and certainly not the other. It is a power dynamic enjoyed by the few. Choosing life obviously opens up other avenues of choice and rights but threatens that dynamic. The mere idea that the natural parents of the Down's Syndrome child, the true subject of Miss Baker's disdain, might consciously elect not to what she would rather have done is beyond offensive. The parents, both natural and prospective, and the priest are incidental. Had the natural parents approached the priest or other families or just plain opted not to abort, I am confident that Miss Baker would grind her teeth that abortion wasn't the end result. She knows the natural parents no longer are considering abortion. They have chosen. Isn't she happy with their choice? An exercise in liberty has been fulfilled with a conclusion that should make everyone happy. Why isn't Miss Baker?
Before I go on, the crap about women being forced to bear young or "non-viable" babies is junk that doesn't deserve a significant response. How the hell do you think the human race propagates itself? Do you know any babies who drive to work so they can pay taxes? And what is the standard for human life and who sets it? Eugenicists would have a field day with that last question.
The passage of a modest bill in Texas that would ban abortions after twenty weeks and require abortuaries to abide by the same standards as other health clinics has been met with satisfaction by pro-lifers and fury with pro-abortionists who have tried filibustering the bill or disrupting its passage with violent and childish protests, including the throwing of bodily fluids on others and exposing themselves.
Putting aside one's personal or political feelings on any subject, when has dousing anyone in waste ever been an effective method of persuasion? No one thanks you for smearing crap all over them and then decides that yours is a sane and valid position. It is a way to disgust and threaten people, though. The irony of it all is that years from now, after the socio-political and financial meltdowns that surely coming, these sad, lonely little people who relished in self-absorption to the point where they glorified the death of another's offspring will be dribbling masses of blubber sitting in their own sh-- and just hoping that the "ME" generation takes pity on them.
Fat chance. Ye who live by the sword- or by the belief that abortion is far too important to be regulated as hospitals and health clinics are- so shall ye die by it. If the Gosnell trial has taught these people nothing, it is time to acquaint the dyed-in-the-wool with Third World healthcare. It's egalitarian, in a way. Everyone gets shoddy treatment, if at all, or must line up at an NGO clinic that might soon be shut down after a military coup or ethnic cleansing. Obamacare might be close enough to ignite the spark of inquiry in these minds but I wouldn't hold my breath. Abortion is not the top priority for women's health and I would defy the professional pro-abortionists to prove it. I have arrived at the conclusion, given the events of the past few weeks in Texas, that sensible limits and regulations threaten the very political being- or, rather ego- of those for whom abortion is a priority.
Finally:
In a truly horrifying story from Chile, a young girl was repeatedly raped by her mother’s partner and became pregnant. Her despicable mother reportedly called the “relationship” consensual. The brave girl said, “What my mother is saying is lies…. That man hurt me. He said if I told my mother [that he was abusing me] he would kill her and my younger brother.”
The girl, known as Belén, told a reporter, “I’m going to love the baby very much, even though it comes from that man who hurt me.”
Enter the always classy pro-aborts...
The sick crime against an eleven year-old girl does not bring out indignation against her rapist or the woman who allowed this crime to occur but the rather demonic and trollish blame of Christ who somehow represents the pro-life population on the planet (don't you want to be on Jesus' side? Come to the light.). Rape has been the perennial hard case and the reason for lax abortion laws in many countries. It is not the first point of anger in pro-abortionists, however. Their non-reaction to this crime echoes the repeated revelations that Planned Parenthood covers up child sexual abuse. What does stand out is the question of age. Had this child chosen to abort (and how does a child do so?), she would have been regarded as a woman. Now that she has chosen not to abort, she is a child who has no knowledge of what she is doing (and this is somehow Jesus' fault).
But she chose!
Immaterial. If a child cannot abort her own child under the most extreme of circumstances, what does a pro-abortionist do? The feelings of revulsion against a child (and a child conceived in such grim circumstances) cannot be checked by the personal act not to abort and give credence to the fact that a third party's interests are material. The eleven year old girl has made her child a part of the equation. It's hard to "choose" (insert own euphemism here) a "non-viable" "clump of cells" when he or she is personalised. It is especially difficult when one's own ego has depended on the belief that abortion is completely correct in every respect without the thought that it should be measured or even discussed.
So there are no pro-lifers in the pro-abortion movement. The avenue for discussion has been bottle-necked for one thing only- the very thing that, pride withstanding, cannot be questioned or forgone.
No comments:
Post a Comment