In (speaks for itself) I presented the video of Emily Lett promoting her abortion.
The video is embedded again at the bottom of this post.
I used this screen cap to reflect what I saw as the flippant attitude.
But there was another aspect I thought about but didn’t write about.
It’s reflected in the featured image.
And it is captured by Elizabeth Scalia at The Anchoress, sent to me by reader Mike:
If you let yourself become distracted by what is coming from her mouth, you miss all that is revealed in her face, which tells the whole, and very different story. A month after the abortion — with the dramatic change in hairstyle that so many women effect when emotions are high and they need to feel in control of something — watch Emily, then. The light is gone from her eyes. The seeming disconnect between pc-fed head and instinctive heart is laid out in breathtaking and stark incongruity, even down to the shadows, the blue note, the lack of energy. Devastating. Cognizant of it or not, she is a mother in grief.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I pray The Anchoress is correct, that she is feeling remorse. Only then can she ask God for the forgiveness that she must have, and begin to heal.
Be thankful that YouTube is a recent cultural phenomenon. Otherwise, we might have to endure videos of Nazi concentration camp guards assuring us that Auschwitz was a positive, happy experience, or racist KKKers joyfully recounting how one night they chased down a black man (I refuse to use the racist, inaccurate term African-American) and lynched him “in order to make the world a better place”.
Combining modern technology with barbarism is a recipe for societal collapse.
I’m not sure what drives this fetish for empathizing with people who do really rotten things. She Killed Her Baby. I hope she feels so spectacularly horrible about it that she becomes a caution to others who contemplate doing the same. But I couldn’t care less what comes of her. All I care about is what didn’t come of her because she snuffed it out.
“I’m not sure what drives this fetish for empathizing with people who do really rotten things.”
See Testament, New. That’ll get you started.
I don’t like trying discern what her inner emotions are based on camera lighting, hair styles, and what the viewer perceives as subtle changes in behavior in a couple of minutes of video. It’s like when Joan Walsh and Brian Beutler pretend they have magical powers that enable them to write about acts of “coded racism” that nobody else can detect.
I understand why people want to believe that she has unacknowledged regret deep in her own heart and that she’s unconsciously remorseful. Maybe that’s true. But I say we let her words and actions speak for themselves. The way I see it these are the facts: She wanted to narrate and produce a video about her own abortion to de-stigmatize the procedure; she followed that desire through to its conclusion; she made the finished video production available for the world to see; she has the option to remove the video from public viewing at any time but chooses not to take it down.
I don’t see regret, remorse or sorrow.
I still cannot watch the video.
I’ve known a woman who has had several abortions. She later became a Christian and turned to God for help.
Yet, even now, her anger at herself and the ‘situations’ she created, her grief and her loss have been totally preserved within her memory.
And, all of the emotional and moral scars, now shown on her face, have become in her eyes ‘logs’ of projection which demand perfection from others. Counseling wasn’t sufficient to help her.
Vacuous is as vacuous does.
The Left has actually helped destroy millions and millions of future Democratic voters since 1973. This is referred to as “The Roe Effect”.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122695016603334449
Proof that logic alone does not elevate us above the animals. Without morality, humans share the same sphere as the animals.
A person of religion can pray that God visits their hearts, but should have no illusion that these people are vicious, dangerous, and unpredictable as a tiger or a venomous snake. They will kill for convenience and have no remorse for doing so.
I am unaware of any species of animal that will…unless in times of extreme dearth…kill its young.
Male lions, on taking over a pride, will kill the off-spring of the former dominant male, but only in order to fully express their own genetics.
Male bears will attempt to kill their own cubs for food, but the females will defend them to the death.
Humans, in the greatest era of plenty in our history, routinely kill our own progeny.
There is plenty of evidence that some animals stop reproducting when times are lean.
The is incotrovertible evidence that eagles let the weak chicks die by directing their feeding to the stronger chick. They may not overtly kill the weaker eaglet, but when they stop feeding it, the result is inevitable.
Change your mind? Nah.
“There is plenty of evidence that some animals stop reproducting when times are lean.”
Who said different? Animals, including humans, lose the ability to “reproduct” in extreme conditions. What does that have to do with my point?
Link to your “incontrovertible”…and logically disconnected…eagle claim, please. How does that relate to my point?
Changed your mind? You’d have to have one working first.
There are insects which eat their some of their own hatchlings when there are too many of them for the available food supply (which is usually something of a certain size, like a paralyzed caterpillar). Evidently the mother insect can estimate some logical value for
[# of hatchlings > extent of food supply]
vs.
[# of hatchlings < extent of food supply]
but is unable to similarly estimate
[# of eggs > extent of food supply]
vs.
[# of eggs < extent of food supply]
because she definitely doesn’t start chowing down until after the lil’ devils hatch.
None of which seemed terribly germane, so I wasn’t going to mention it.
You have not been involved with animal breeding and raising.
The subject is very complex and I have not had my coffee yet, but infanticide is not at all rare among non-human animals. The evidence tends to get eaten by one of the parents, or a litter mate, so this is less than obvious.
The Anchoress makes an excellent point. Even as Emily is being wheeled out of the procedure room, regret is obvious on her face and continues. Any smile afterward is obviously forced; all one need do is watch with the sound OFF.
For those who cannot watch the video (I confess I have not; I just skipped to approx when her hair changes), she starts being wheeled out at this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxPUKV-WlKw#t=134
If it was just no big deal for her, and so “right”, a month later she wouldn’t be making a video and still contemplating it.
I agree. She’s seeking validation of her act by getting supporters of infanticide to shore her up with their expressions of approval for what she knows deep down in her soul was a dastardly act. I view this more as an outward expression of the internal argument she’s having with God to evade His condemnation for all eternity.
Yeah and come to this site if you want to get support and approval for your belief that you can take away her liberty based on your beliefs.
If all you have got are the inferences you make from looking at a video, you have nothing. That goes for you, janitor and ‘The Anchoress’.
She is arguing with god? Maybe you are arguing with rationality?
But, troll, none of us has “liberty” to kill another human being.
To assert otherwise is irrational. To say nothing of savagely stupid.
Modern liberalism attempts to dodge difficult questions via sophistry; in this case, by pretending that the question is actually a different (and much more tractable) question. Not just sophistry, but cowardice and an immature conviction that reality will simply go away if one can ignore it long enough.
Here, the question is about the human status of something at one time, vs. its status at some slightly later, but arbitrary, time. The question itself is perfectly good; we attribute more substantial “human rights” to a person who is alive than we do to the same person after he dies. Exactly what those human rights might be for the person in either state, living or dead, would be a legitimate debate. Similarly, a person has substantial “human rights” after his birth; the issue is the extent of his rights just before birth. Some people think he has the same rights, some think he has fewer. Only rampant liberalism defaults to the claim that he has no rights, and it does that by refusing to engage the question, insisting that it’s a matter of “women’s rights” instead. Since there’s no substantial debate about that, it seems that the problem is solved, but that’s an illusion; the problem not only hasn’t been solved, it hasn’t even been considered.
When one party to a debate won’t even face the question, one can speculate why. And an obvious answer is that maybe that party knows the answer, and doesn’t like it; leaving avoidance the only option.
Your post is highly rational.
Her liberty ended with the “choice” to have unprotected intercourse. She didn’t give a damn then about possibly killing an unborn child. The girl just wants to have fun. Let someone else pay the price for her fun with their life. She’s the final arbiter of the child’s “due process”, according to all you barbaric sickos braying about “A woman’s right to choose.” Her choice ended when she chose to spread her legs.
I guess all the extreme anti-abortionists are passionate pacifists. There has never been a war were innocents, including babies and pregnant women did not die.
If you fight in a war, build weapons or even advocate for war, you are killing babies. Just because you are somewhat removed doesn’t absolve you from your dastardly acts.
We know with absolute certainty that children, including infants, have been killed in drone attacks under Bush and Obama. Where is the outrage? When you have stopped all wars, we can start to work on women who voluntarily undergo an abortion.
When we stop all pregnant women from driving…
See? A really stupid argument. Again. You really don’t troll all that well.
OK, we need to stop them from driving. We need them bare-foot and pregnant.
How is war like driving? In war, combatants intentionally kill.
See? A really stupid argument. Again. You really don’t troll all that well. You don’t refute at all. All you do is deny.
“How is war like driving?”
Both involve the incidental risk of killing pregnant women.
“In war, combatants intentionally kill.”
Yes. They intentionally kill combatants. Sometimes. See Storm, Desert, Highway of Death.
You are right about my trolling. I do it REALLY badly, because I don’t do it at all. I would never go on a moonbat blog thread and show my ass as you have.
Well said, good points.
War has been declared on children?
Cool!
Where do I sign up? I really want to do something about those little twerps who won’t stay off my lawn.
That straw man ain’t going to fly. It’s been burned to the ground a hundred thousand times. She took the life of her own flesh and blood, end of story. Her regret already shows, but I don’t care.
She’s disgusting.
The enemy knows we have protocols against such acts. That’s why the enemy uses women and kids for shields and cannon fodder. If you don’t want them killed, go talk to the Raghead-in-Chief about his muzzie buddies.
Ragspierre, you are a bore.
I feel all micro-agressed. You should have sent me a trigger warning.
Meanie.
No matter what this woman does or says publicly or privately, I suspect this will haunt her forever. It is sad. She can’t ever hide or run from it. It will affect her.
It’s sad that her child is dead. It’s not sad that she’s sad. She should be sad……and a whole more.
>> See Testament, New. That’ll get you started.
>> I am unaware of any species of animal that will
It’s a tough roe (get it) to hoe (don’t go there), that is, to appeal to Nature and the Testament, New, in one thread, but you’re not bad at it.
So desperate for her fifteen minutes and so sad after she got it.
Thread is haunting me.
My grandmother, a life-long non-religious liberal and feminist, aborted her last child during the Great Depression (yes, there was abortion then). Hard times, mouths to feed. I never heard about it, don’t recall my parents ever saying anything about it, and presumably she didn’t think much about it. Then, one by one, 10, 15, 30 years later, each of her older children died.
Not long before my grandmother’s death in the 90s, while we were talking and looking at pictures that included her deceased husband and sons, she started crying — about the son she had aborted, who she had never met.
I doubt that this “woman” had a happy Mother’s Day today.
I hope she spent it crawling on her belly crying for mercy.
Earlier today I thought about this woman and her dead baby and what a horrific act of barbarism and bullying she committed in killing a defenseless, unborn child.
I believe she will feel remorse for the rest of her life. She will always remember no matter how hard she tries to push it from her mind; it will always be there. I don’t think it’s a time to destroy or hurt her; but to feel the sorrowfulness of what has happened. She will pay for this all by herself the rest of her life. She will never escape no matter what she says or how hard she tries. This was her child. I just wish someone had talked her out of it.