Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Pro-abortion Crowd Changes Their Argument, Now Suggest Pro-Lifers Don’t Care About Kids

Pro-abortion Crowd Changes Their Argument, Now Suggest Pro-Lifers Don’t Care About Kids

If pro-abortionists want to make the abortion debate For the Children™, I’m more than happy to oblige.

The March for Life is an amazing event that brings pro-lifers from all over the country to D.C. to march in support of the sanctity of each and every human life.

Life, we believe, begins at conception and is not subject to convenience or circumstance of birth. For years, anti-lifers, though they prefer the innocuous “pro-choice” moniker, have argued over fetal viability, have tried to convince themselves (and others) that a fetus is not really a person, and have discussed at length when a fetus becomes a baby.

Their attempts to reduce the miracle of life and birth into a procedure akin to an appendectomy have largely failed. 3D sonograms and other rapidly advancing medical technology show a picture vastly different from the clump of cells they’d prefer.

And so there’s been a shift in the argument. No longer are pro-abortionist arguing about when a life becomes a life et al, instead, they’re accusing pro-lifers of not caring about kids or life in general. It’s almost as if they’re projecting. Almost.

This burgeoning argument is everywhere:

“Forced-birther”?

These are things no one, and I mean NO ONE in the pro-life movement says or believes. I have no idea where they get this stuff.

I’m so old, I remember when words had meaning:

This shift in attack is ultimately a positive for the pro-life cause. If pro-abortionists want to make the abortion debate For the Children™, I’m more than happy to oblige.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

theduchessofkitty | January 19, 2018 at 7:02 pm

We can play this game, too.

Let’s call them “Pro-Death” and be over with.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to theduchessofkitty. | January 21, 2018 at 4:26 pm

    When referring to the Abortion Mills operated by Planned Parenthood I always refer to the workers as Baby Killers. When the word abortion is used I always interject some derivation of baby killing. When fetus is used I say baby. Often when someone says capital punishment is murder I often say that the government is providing a humane post birth abortion as opposed to jamming a scissor into the back of the head of a wiggling crying baby.

    About ten years ago I had a conversation with a friend’s recently university indoctrinated self-proclaimed feminist daughter here in Sweden. We discussed many topics. The last topic was a woman’s right to choose. The way I dealt with it was to get her to spell out all of her baby killing doctrine. So a woman has a right to kill her baby no matter what right? -Yes. You know that some women kill their babies because they feel it is not the right time to have a baby and some even kill their babies because they are going on vacation, is that still ok? -pause- -Yes, a woman has a right to do whatever she wants to do with her body. Ok basically you are going with that, it is a woman’s sole choice. I understand now. So you know a baby can be tested for gender right? -Yes. Now it does not exist today but some people suspect there might be a gay gene. It doesn’t exist but if it did, a woman could kill her baby if she found out it was gay or if the baby was a girl and that would be perfectly OK to you. Right? This is where this recent college grad had a complete meltdown. Total short circuit. Everything out of her mouth was complete babble and she knew it. My mantra at that point was but a woman has a right to kill her baby no matter what. We seldom conversed after that.

The left is deranged.lets just leave it at that.

… instead, they’re accusing pro-lifers of not caring about kids or life in general.

Wanting the unborn to survive a pregnancy = not caring about kids or life?

I’m sorry, this kind of logic makes my brain hurt.

    The “argument” is simple: anyone who is for babies living but against the taxpayer being required to support everyone else’s children is somehow “anti child.”

    So let’s turn that on its head: if the anti life crowd is so “pro child”, why do they want to KILL them all with Planned Parenthoods, especially the children of those women who would be on government assistance? Why are Planned Parenthoods primarily in black and hispanic and poor neighborhoods? Because anti life people are pro child? pro black? pro hispanic? pro poor?

    The truth: the anti life crowd is MORE against public assistance for minorities that the pro life crowd who want the children born and whose tax dollars pay for WIC and Food Stamps.

Pro-life is pro-life. It means we don’t want you to murder a viable human fetus.

There’s a million disingenuous terms for their side all of which attempt to obfuscate the murder of a viable human fetus.

    n.n in reply to Andy. | January 19, 2018 at 7:45 pm

    Baby. Fetus is a technical abstraction that refers to a stage of development in human evolution. Its use outside of a clinic is designed to deny legitimacy of a human life when she has no voice to protest or arms to defend her right to life.

Two moral axioms: individual dignity, intrinsic value, throughout evolution, from conception to a natural or anthropogenic (elective abortion) death.

The rite of elective abortion is a wicked solution, a final solution, to an admittedly hard problem. Unlike one-child, the normalization of selective-child is evidence of a cultural or general corruption, which, fortunately, seems to be contained to a minority. Its remedy will require a religious/moral renaissance, a Judeo-Christian affirmation, and a pragmatic treatment of its diverse, first-order forcings.

I have no idea where they get this stuff.

Rhetorical, right?
You DO know, Kemberlee.
They make it up.
To them, truth has the same value as the life of an unborn child.

Biological life, in the near-frame (i.e. scientific logical domain), does begin at conception (the “source” of the evolutionary/chaotic process, a merger or synthesis of two evolutionary/chaotic processes – mother and father). This is both observable and reproducible in the near-domain. What we do not know is the source of consciousness. Unfortunately, we cannot discern between origin and expression in the scientific domain, but presume based on a high degree of correlation (i.e. “consistent with”).

LGBTQ = transgender spectrum, why so [politically] congruent (i.e. exclusive/discriminatory/diverse)? Where gender is a set of physical and mental (e.g. sexual orientation) traits, normally distributed, with low standard deviation.

There are two genders: masculine and feminine, and two binary sexes: male and female. The significance of gender is with respect to fitness. Men and women are equal in rights and complementary in nature.

While the transgender spectrum has no known redeeming value to humanity or society, its features are only one or a minority component of a complex constellation of physical and mental traits that define an individual. There should have been equal treatment, but it seems we settled for [political] congruence (“=”) or selective exclusion of politically unfavorable, but tolerable, orientations and associations.

Order of responsibility: Mom and dad, first. Community, second. Kids, from conception.

Individual dignity; intrinsic value; self-moderating, responsible behavior. Vive la libertad!

That’s audacious of them, considering that the abortion movement started to kill off black babies.

Actually, this is an argument Sanger’s Genocide Brigade has been making since forever. Not new, not true.

This is really an old argument. I’ve seen it for years. It’s very like the “chicken-hawk” slur, wherein if you don’t belong to the military/send your kids into the military, you have no standing to argue for a strong defense.

It often takes the form of, “Oh, yah? How many kids have you adopted?” Certain minds think this is a killer argument…

    It often takes the form of, “Oh, yah? How many kids have you adopted?” Certain minds think this is a killer argument…

    Ain’t that the truth. And the really wacky thing is that if you answer, “four”, or “two, plus I give 5% of my income every year to orphanages,” or “one, plus I’ve sponsored 5 poor kids in foreign countries for the past 20 years”, they persist in claiming you hate living children, because nevermind. They’re incapable of rational argument.

The main problem with the pro life people is that they are not graphic enough in describing the abortion horror. They allow the abortion people to frame the conversation in sterile terms of “fetal tissue”, “unwanted growth inside a body” etc. Get some pictures out there and show what is happening and how it is done. If you are going to fight over it, fight!

The counter is so painfully obvious: the “pro-life” crowd loves all children, not just the ones the “pro-abortion” crowd fail to murder.

(And I write this as someone who is “pro-choice,” so I don’t really have a dog in this fight.)

Kemberlee Kaye,

Presumably, you are against fertility clinics which create and destroy embryos in order to help couples have children of their own.

Here’s a simple thought experiment. There’s a fire at a fertility clinic. Down one hallway you hear the soft hum of the incubator holding hundreds of zygotes. Down the other hallway, you hear the cry of a small child. You may not have time to save both. Which hallway do you choose?

    Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | January 21, 2018 at 10:37 am

    FYI there are many pro-lifers who distinguish (a) between embryos and fœtuses; or (b) between implanted and unimplanted embryos.

That’s an interesting argument and it makes a valid point, that we value living children more than “fetal tissue”. However, it fails as soon as the “fetal tissue” becomes a viable living child within the womb.

That argument worked well prior to technological advances that allowed us to see what was happening inside the womb.

So, I have a question for you. There is a newborn baby straight out of the womb. The mother looks at it and decides she doesn’t want it. Would you rip it’s arms off and snip the spine for her? What if she decided that 1 day before birth? Would you be willing to get the forceps and hack it up?

So my question to you is, at what point, EXACTLY, do you feel it a horror to hack up a baby if the mother decides the baby is not wanted? 1 month before birth? 1 month after? What exact time frame would you be willing to assure the child does not live an unwanted life?

    elle: However, it fails as soon as the “fetal tissue” becomes a viable living child within the womb.

    Viability is part of U.S. abortion law. States are allowed to restrict abortion after viability, typically at about 24 weeks.

    elle: That argument worked well prior to technological advances that allowed us to see what was happening inside the womb.

    Every midwife and mother who lost a child prematurely knew exactly what was living in her womb.

    elle: There is a newborn baby straight out of the womb. The mother looks at it and decides she doesn’t want it. Would you rip it’s arms off and snip the spine for her? What if she decided that 1 day before birth? Would you be willing to get the forceps and hack it up?

    Viability is part of U.S. abortion law. States are allowed to restrict abortion after viability.

    elle: So my question to you is, at what point, EXACTLY, do you feel it a horror to hack up a baby if the mother decides the baby is not wanted?

    Abortion is nearly always the worst choice.

      You did not answer the question. What point is it murder? The “unwanted burden” is a loser argument with regard to abortion because, to be valid, you have to accept that birth is a meaningless milestone.

      You had your little fire exercise. I have one for you. What is the difference between killing a child 8 months in utero versus killing one 8 months old if the goal is to rid the mother (or child) of an unwanted existence?

      If there is a fire, a baby is crying and the mother says to you, I don’t want it. Would you let it burn?

        elle: You did not answer the question.

        First, thank you for answering our question directly. We thought we had answered your question, but will try again.

        elle: What point is {abortion} murder?

        Let’s start with where we agree: “we value living children more than ‘fetal tissue’. However, it fails as soon as the ‘fetal tissue’ becomes a viable living child within the womb.” In other words, the value people place on embryos change over time. From birth all agree that the child has a full right to life. Nearly all agree that once viable, the fetus has a right to life unless there are extenuating circumstances (a serious threat to the life or physical health of the mother, grave fetal malformity, or incest). We agree with that.

        So the remaining question then concerns pre-viable abortions, as brought up in the original post, and to argue about abortion of a ninth month fetus conflates the issue. We answered this by saying “Abortion is nearly always the worst choice.”

        Should early trimester abortions be criminalized? No. Abortion is an ancient practice, and outlawing abortions will just create an underground criminal economy. However, if you really want to reduce the incidence of abortion, then government should encourage the means to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and people should be encouraged to seek solutions other than abortion.

          JoAnne in reply to Zachriel. | January 20, 2018 at 5:42 pm

          Who’s this “we?”

          The many Zachs always speak as if they are royal (or a gaggle of high school kids engaged in a research project). I have my favorite “Zachriels,” though, among the “we.” He’s occasionally insightful (a rarity among the Zachs because they tend to stick to “just the facts, ma’am,” a major handicap in discussing . . . pretty much anything.), and I once thought I detected a glimmer of humor from my favorite Zach. I could be wrong, though, on that last point. He may have been entirely earnest, and I mistook it for self-deprecating humor.

          I also have my least favorite Zachs (i.e. the one who quotes Wikipedia without a shred of shame, the one who latches onto a word with no comprehension of connotation vs. denotation, and the one who can’t figure out the difference amongst Constitutional rights, federal and state laws, and federal and state regulations. These might all be the same Zach, but I prefer to think that no one is stupid enough to manifest all three.

          Fuzzy Slippers: Wikipedia without a shred of shame

          Wikipedia is a valid secondary source, though we usually only cite Wikipedia regarding facts established with a strong consensus.

          Fuzzy Slippers: the one who latches onto a word with no comprehension of connotation vs. denotation

          We are quite aware of the distinction, and as our goal is communication, we are more than happy to listen to clarifications.

          Fuzzy Slippers: and the one who can’t figure out the difference amongst Constitutional rights, federal and state laws, and federal and state regulations.

          We are quite aware of most aspects of the U.S. system of government, including the distinctions between the constitution, law and regulations. We are more than happy to learn more, though.

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | January 21, 2018 at 10:47 am

          Nearly all agree that once viable, the fetus has a right to life unless there are extenuating circumstances (a serious threat to the life or physical health of the mother, grave fetal malformity, or incest).

          That is not true, in two ways.

          1. The official “pro-choice” position is that even such a fœtus is not a person, and therefore has no rights. If it did have rights, how could malformality or incest strip it of those rights? Is it OK to kill a 3-day-old, or a 3-year-old, or a 30-year-old, for being malformed or the product of incest?

          2. The official “pro-choice” position disagrees with your formulation of “a serious threat to the life or physical health of the mother”. Specifically the official “pro-choice” position objects to the words “serious” and “physical”. All attempts by states to legislate such an exception have been struck down at the behest of NARAL, the ACLU, etc., because they insist abortion must be allowed for any threat to the mother’s health, whether physical or mental, and no matter how trivial. In other words, they insist on an exception that completely eats the rule, because there is no conceivable case that it would not cover.

      Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | January 21, 2018 at 10:34 am

      Viability is part of U.S. abortion law. States are allowed to restrict abortion after viability.

      No, they’re not. Not without making an “exception for the mother’s health” that is so wide as to completely negate the restriction. States are not allowed to narrow the exception in any meaningful way. Even when the baby is already halfway out of the womb, states may not restrict in any way the mother’s “right” to have the doctor murder it; that’s what “partial birth abortion” is.

This article is about the change in the argument to saying that pro-life people don’t care about children once they are born, therefore it is okay to abort. My point is that is a loser argument, because to be valid, birth a meaningless milestone.

You could get 500 people in a room, and you would get 500 different dates that they believe is THE date that you can no longer hack up a baby, and that is without even considering the issue of the creation of a soul.

My point point is that perhaps you can understand why people who believe that it is wrong to hack up a baby prior to birth would march to save them, just as you would save an unwanted child from a fire.

elle: My point point is that perhaps you can understand why people who believe that it is wrong to hack up a baby prior to birth would march to save them, just as you would save an unwanted child from a fire.

Absolutely. We understand completely. However, to even imagine that they would emerge from the fire with the incubator knowing they left a child behind would be horrifying to most people.

    It is a fair point, and I think there can be some valid disagreement as to whether or not morning after pills or abortions prior to the formation of the child are humane, assuming you don’t believe in the creation of a soul.

    But anyone who is “pro-choice” should understand that they are promoting a hideous murder, little different than hacking up a child after it is born. I never understand why they walk around acting so smug about it.

I went to today’s Women’s March in North County, San Diego. I was invited by a friend, and thought I’d go along.

It was actually a rally for the Democratic Party. Most of the signs were anti-Trump, with a mere handful having to do with any women’s issues, at all. There was one Bernie supporter, and one BLM supporter. More signs about DACA and LGBTQRSTYV than about women’s issues.

The same was true of what I heard of the speeches.

Apparently, there are no women’s issues in California.

There were plenty of police, and one speaker was very clear that the marchers were not to respond to the predicted counter-demonstrators. That, at least was good.

I saw one guy with a MAGA hat along the way. The only other people along the route appeared to be demonstrators who had decided to find a place to sit while they waved their signs.

People did wave to the police, who waved back.

    Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | January 21, 2018 at 10:50 am

    I saw plenty of pussy hats. Apparently people didn’t get the message that those are now hateful displays of transphobia or whatever.

Zachriel: Nearly all agree that once viable, the fetus has a right to life unless there are extenuating circumstances

Milhouse: 1. The official “pro-choice” position is that even such a fœtus is not a person, and therefore has no rights.

More than 80% of people, including 2/3 of people who are pro-choice support some restrictions on abortion. Planned Parenthood’s position is consistent with Roe v. Wade.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend