The Planned Parenthood videos
The Planned Parenthood videos have brought home an ugly reality that has less to do with Planned Parenthood and its policies and more to do with abortion itself.
Abortion, both legal and illegal (and I remember the days of illegal abortions quite well), rests on some very harsh facts: a human fetus is being killed through the decision of its mother. I’m not debating the pros and cons of abortion itself here (I’ve expressed my views already in the post I just linked to, and in others).
Abortion not only rests on that fact of destruction of a human fetus, but what makes most women who have an abortion able to do so is denial (partial or complete) of that fact and all it entails. And the Planned Parenthood videos, in discussing the dismembered body parts of aborted fetuses, rips apart (I use that metaphor purposely) that denial.
The denial has reached such epic proportions that writers such as Janet Harris advocate for the triviality and ease of the moral decisions involved in abortion, because the procedure can more easily be promoted if women are able to block out what is actually happening. I have never said—and am not saying here—that a decision about an unwanted pregnancy is either easy or simple. It is extremely serious, and one of the functions of the Planned Parenthood videos is to drive that point home through their graphic nature as well as the repugnantly cavalier attitude of the health professionals who are speaking on them.
Liars, rationalizers, and narrative conformity.
I can sympathize with a fifteen year old girl who gets knocked up and then chooses to have an abortion. I disagree completely with the decision, but I can sympathize.
Planned Parenthood on the other hand I consider an updated version of Bugsey Siegle’s Murder Inc. that specializes in babies.
It’s also worth mentioning that every time I’ve encountered a woman who has had an abortion she has been pressured into it by the man who impregnated her. She does it to keep him around and, of course, he eventually leaves her.
Puts the whole “choice” thing in perspective.
If conservatives can’t get some kind of win out of this, we are in big political trouble.
And the group that has done this has more. Drip. Drip.
Note how well Carly has handled this issue; and nearly ever other issue.
Matthew:
I certainly disagree about that “pressure from the man” thing in general, although it may have been the experience of the women you’ve met. The people I know have had a very different experience.
As in the story I wrote about my college friend, many men don’t even know the woman is pregnant, especially if the two are not in an ongoing relationship, which is frequently the case. In those instances the man certainly isn’t telling the woman what to do, since he doesn’t even know about the pregnancy.
I also know of several cases where the man was trying to tell the woman not to have an abortion, and she insisted on having one. Quite the opposite of the situation you posit. Somewhere I thought I had a post I wrote on it; can’t find it now. But there are many men who grieve the children they lost through abortions insisted on by the women in their lives.
I agree that it is a “repugnantly cavalier attitude” which, IMO, is rife with sanctimonious condescension. In other words, a typical leftist expression of any given opinion.
I see these women as nothing short of being the doctrinal heiresses of the likes of Josef Mengele.
It boggles the mind to consider how such people can live with themselves.
Cornhead:
Carly is just more and more impressive as time goes on. I really really hope she gets more traction with the public. I’ve talked her up to several people and they’d all never heard of her before.
really? it has nothing to do with abortion itself.. and EVERYTHING to do with their polic
International Guide To Modern Tropes from the Department Of Irreproachable Nomenclature
Illegal aliens — undocumented citizens
Looters — undocumented shoppers
Terrorism — man made disasters
Terrorist — (ipso facto) not a true Muslim
Inveterate procrastinator – leading from behind
Hasn’t a clue – strategic patience
Boot licker — leather fetishist
Abortion on demand – Planned Parenthood
“Birth Control: to create a race of thoroughbreds” – Margaret Sanger – Founder of (the negro project) – Planned Parenthood
Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization. Brentano’s Press, NY, 1922, p 189.
In April of 1933, Birth Control Review published an article by Dr. Ernst Rubin, who was Hitler’s director of genetic sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene. In this article Dr. Rubin wrote:
“Eugenics Sterlization: An Urgent Need.” – Birth Control Review, Volume XVII, Number 4 (April 1933), pp. 102-4.
Sanger called for concentration camps:
Mararet Sanger. “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review Volumn XVI, Number 4 (April 1932), pp. 107-8.
“only 13,500.00 [or 13.5% of the 100 million U.S. population of the time] will ever show superior intelligence” ibid. p. 264.
so the rest HAVE to go…
This latest story on the horrors of abortiion is beyond politics. Its a story about the dark side of human nature. However, politicians should be asked the hard questions about their position on abortion. Unfortunately, the msm will try to ask gotcha questions of republicans while asking democrats questions about why easy access to abortion is so important to women’s health.
Fiorina is growing on me too. She is great at staying on point and brushing off the pesky mosquitoes of the msm.
Just read on another site a list of the 39 companies that contribute to Planned Parenthood. It is sickening, and all the more so because we are so intertwined with a number of them.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/21/meet-the-41-companies-that-donate-directly-to-planned-parenthood/
(the list was reduced to 39 after publication)
Wells Fargo holds our damn mortgage, and our investment portfolio both. I did not choose them, but the mortgage was was sold to them. Our investment adviser was not affiliated with them when we signed with him; but they bought out his company.
AT&T is our telephone, TV and internet provider. There may be other options, but they are limited and it would be very difficult to change. (I believe that AT&T now owns Directv)
American Express; will go once they sever their relationship with Costco.
My wife cannot survive without her 1/2 coke a day. No Pepsi thank you.
On and on. These huge corporations get so entangled in our lives that it is very difficult to separate from them even when you are thoroughly disgusted.
The very word fetus now gives me chills. My twin grand children were born at 7 months. Next month they head off to college where they will both play intercollegiate athletics. They were not fetuses at 6 months and 29 days; they were viable, although small, humans.
Paul Popenoe: was an American founding practitioner of marriage counseling. In his early years, he worked as an agricultural explorer and as a scholar of heredity, where he played a role in the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century.
[they knew that if women were on their own, they would have lots of abortions… so their desire for funding by any means dovetailed the most extreme area of feminist thought in the destruction of the family… without the earning power of their men, women would be disposing of kids that they could not themselves pay for, nor want to keep. the free sex and love movement turned it into a billion dollar industry, on par economically with large international companies like General Motors.. of which many of those large corporations donate to the agency along with lots of money from the wealthy]
Popenoe and sanger with gamble did a lot.
read the wiki on him and all references to sanger are scrubbed and shoved down the memory hole
Clarence James Gamble married to Sarah Merry Bradley-Gamble, was the heir of the Procter and Gamble soap company fortune. He was an advocate of birth control and eugenics, and founded Pathfinder International.
like the early feminists, all these people are from WEALTHY well knit and commiserate familiies.
which dovetails with what bella dodd said (paraphrasing):
communism and socialism, are inventions of the rich and wealthy to get their power back from the people and return to the past.
PROmote reGRESSIVE policies…
PROGRESSIVE
from her personal letters archive:
December 10, 1939
Thats $4,205,981 in 2014 dollars corrected for inflation
money, eugenics, genocide, using priests and people to trick others, and so on.
to read the rest of the letters and such is to read a lesson in how to accomplish such stuff.
a person who would hire black doctors, and seek out ministers to train to asuage the victims of any idea they are victims and put aside protests would never sell the trash they make for $$$, would they?
Just a suggestion – a lot of people here seem to have some interest in what Fiorina has to say. Right now it looks like she isn’t polling well enough to make the debates. You don’t have to pick her as Your Candidate just to send a few bucks her way to help her have a fighting chance. I think her presence on stage would up everyone’s game.
Neo, I’m just going from personal experience so it might just be the people I’ve met (which frankly isn’t many.) It might not be that common statistically.
However, I do think that in at least some cases some men use abortion to avoid being trapped in a relationship that they started merely for sexual gratification. The woman might not actually want it. None of the pro-abortion crowd seems to consider that it’s possible to push people to do things they do not want to. IPlanned Parenthood is just happy to pocket the money.
I can easily see a man being horrified to find out a woman had aborted his child without even telling him she was pregnant. I certainly would be.
before you like carly, read about her and feminism. she is wealthy enough to seem to be on both sides of the issue… meaning, she tries to appeal to mutually exclusive groups by pandering to both sides knowing they dont hang out and compare notes
some headings from google
Carly Fiorina’s “feminism” is an elitist lie”
Why Carly Fiorina’s feminism flummoxes liberals
Here’s How Carly Fiorina Wants to Redefine Feminism
Carly Fiorina champions feminism as Republican cause
Carly Fiorina, Feminist?
Carly Fiorina’s Feminism Is Just a Transparent Marketing
Carly Fiorina: A real feminist
Carly Fiorina: It’s time for the GOP to reclaim the term feminist
GOP candidate Carly Fiorina paints a new portrait of feminism
she is anything you want her to be as long as you send her a few bucks and so on.
you think people who champion murdering babies in the womb and increasing the numbers to make more money, and even siding with one child policies, and sterlization, and more
would tell the truth?
I was part of a late-term abortion when I was 17 and my girlfriend was 15, and it’s the biggest regret of my life. She was tall and looked older, modeled for Jantzen swimsuits and went out with guys in college. She and I became inseparable and I assumed we would be together forever. The pregnancy snuck up on us (or at least it did on me), but I had a summer working in a warehouse and the thought of an abortion never crossed my mind.
Her parents were wealthy, and never liked me — even though I was senior class president and a star athlete. There was a real “class” split in who attended our high school. Her parents paid almost no attention to her.
She was six months along, and by now definitely “showed,” though she found dresses to wear which disguised things to some degree. I felt the baby kicking. We called it Pumpkin.
Then on a Tuesday night at 10:30pm, she called me (it was late enough that my mother answered the phone and knew something was wrong) and said that her parents had finally figured out she was pregnant. She was going in the next morning to he Sellwood Specialty Clinic to have an “induced labor” abortion at 7am.
I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t even have my own car. To somehow take my mother’s car (my father was long gone) and try to go get my girlfriend was just — beyond my imagination at that point. She was only calling to see if I could pick her up and take her home, as her parents were going to the Bahamas. Their flight was at noon.
Everything went as planned, and nothing was ever the same.
Miklos:
That is heartbreaking. I am so sorry.
Choices are for humans that are free to have. A serf or a slave of the Left, doesn’t actually have a “choice”. It’s just an excuse to boost the power of Leftists. And their profit, of course, which is used to create more evil.
The Leftist alliance, because it needs to maintain and grow organic tactical and strategic assets outside the normal portfolios of unions and political fiefdom cities, desires the usage of funds which can be liquidated or laundered.
In other words, a criminal organization cannot enforce their power without funding.
In insulating themselves, through the profoundest of denial from what they do, these people have literally murdered their own humanity.
“Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” NIV
I was offered an abortion, when I turned out to be pregnant round and about in 1979 by a guy that I loved, thought that I would marry, and whom I thought loved me. As it turned out, my affections were misplaced, we didn’t and as it turned out, he didn’t. For I never heard from him again after I wrote him a letter breaking the news.
I was always grateful for the choice offered by the AF nurse who broke the news to me – although her saying, “Come in, close the door and sit down,” should have been a clue. She had the row of prenatal vitamins lined up on her desk. She said that I was pregnant, but knowing my single situation (yes, it was a small base, everyone knew everything about everyone else, and I was sort of a public personage through being on-air talent at FEN-Misawa) she said that the military hospital could arrange for an abortion at a local clinic. Almost without thinking, I said, “No, I’ll keep the baby.”
Which I did, and raised my daughter as a single parent. She is now my business partner, and I have never had a moment of regret.
The choice was offered to me, and I said “no.”
But it was hard, now and again. I likely had a lot of career damage from it.
I have known only two women who have admitted to having an abortion. One was an older woman in her early 40s. She threw a baby shower for a co-worker and during the baby shower discussed her own infertility problems. She confessed she’d had several abortions when younger and unmarried and wondered if that may the cause of her infertility. I was silently disgusted she would bring up such a topic at a baby shower. Her cavalier attitude was horrible.
The other person I knew was someone I met in the military. We ended up being roommates for awhile, and she seemed like a very troubled individual. For some reason, I seem to attract people who will confess their lives to me. She knew I was Christian and asked one night how I would feel about her if I knew she had an abortion. I think she wanted condemnation. Instead, I told her that I would feel badly for her if she felt she had no other options and that if I had been her friend at the time, I would’ve provided any support I could.
She then told me a horrible story of drug use, random sex with men while high, and ending up pregnant. She never told anyone (I don’t think) and secretly got an abortion. She had severe depression issues and a drinking problem as a result. I felt so badly for her and wished she’d had some support. I don’t think she was unaffected by her ‘choice.’
” … repugnantly cavalier attitude of the health professionals … “
These words hit the spot.
And that we have gone from “safe, sane, and legal” (the war cry of those who wanted abortion to be legal in all 50 states before Roe v Wade) to this, as you so well put it Neo, “repugnantly cavalier attitude” says a lot about us as a society.
If the doctor crushes the fetus inside the woman, it’s an abortion. If the same doctor crushes the fetus outside the women, it’s murder.
I’m surprised no one in the media has approached Wendy Davis for comment on these videos given her “courageous” and “heroic” stand to defeat the Texas ban on abortion after 20 weeks. Interesting that none of the celebrity PP supporters have denounced what was seen in the videos and distanced themselves from the organization. Do Lena Dunham or Gwenyth Paltrow not care that they are the public face of an organization that sells near-delivery, viable baby organs?
I recall watching the 2012 DNC on the night they had the head of NARAL followed by Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood speak. Their enthusiasm (and the crowd’s) for abortion made me uncomfortable. It seemed to be a demonstration that the movement was well past the early days of making abortions “safe, legal, and rare” into something…darker.
It seemed to be a demonstration that the movement was well past the early days of making abortions “safe, legal, and rare” into something…darker.
Don’t you dare squeak:
Democrats Seek Federal Investigations of Group Behind Planned Parenthood Videos
Check the names. Rabbi Lapin won’t be pleased.
Lizzy:
Yes, we are descending into something darker. Much darker. It has multiple features, all with overriding features of Totalitarianism and Tyranny. On issues of reproduction, governance, economics, societies, sciences, expression in all ways, self-evident Truths, the laws of nature and nature’s god.
I see a Perfect Storm of tyranny, crony capitalism, and cyberonics. It will become a Black Hole for humanity. The gravitational pull is becoming monstrous.
Neither Christian nor Islamic worship nor atheism can deliver us.
When the DNC booed God three times — three times — at their convention, it made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”
— Saul Alinsky, now roasting in the Hell he romanticized
It always strikes me as willfully obtuse when the abortion enthusiasts refuse to acknowledge they are snuffing out a human life. It’s just a clump of cells, they say.
Yet, here they are selling fully-formed organs that are valuable precisely because they are human.
It’s a woman’s right to do what she wants with her own body. But here’s a body being parted out, and the heart and the brain are fetching top dollar. If this is the woman’s body we are talking about, how many hearts and brains does it have?
Conceivably (no pun intended) a woman could have “donated” two hearts and two brains before she goes on to have her first “keeper.” Why is she still alive, then, let alone getting impregnated? This wouldn’t be possible it it were her body we’re talking about.
One of the enlightening things about my former life in the Navy is that I got to experience first hand how other people live. Forget college courses about other cultures; they’re just full of leftist lies about other cultures to convince their young gullible students that America is the most evil, most racist, most progressive-sin-du-jour country ever to exist.
I lived in Japan for seven years. It has its faults. One thing, though; the Japanese do not delude themselves when it comes to abortion. They acknowledge that a human being is killed. That’s why you can go to Buddhist temples and see tiny statues dedicated to the souls of the unborn. The aborted as well as the stillborn.
These are the Mizuko Jizo. Mizuko means “water child.” Jizo is a Buddhist saint (or divinity, I never quite got the distinction). Jizo, Ojizo-sama in Japanese (the “O” being an honorific meaning essentially great, the “sama” being an honorific a step up from “san” or Mr./Mrs. basically meaning “lord”), is the protector of travelers and most especially the souls of those who died too young to rack up the good deeds to make it into paradise. Ojizo-sama hides their souls in his robes to protect them from demons, and takes them across the the Buddhist version of the Rubicon into the other world. Where they can be reborn.
Women, often accompanied by their men, who have had abortions visit their Mizuko Jizo regularly, as often as monthly. They place flowers or toys before them, knit tiny hats or sweaters so they don’t get cold in winter, even put little umbrellas over them to protect them from the rain.
http://www.tofugu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Zojoji_01.jpg
There is a Mizuko Kuyo, or water child memorial service, that focuses on the soul of the unborn child.
Abortion doctors and nurses have annual ceremonies to make amends and apologize to the souls they have, in Japanese (and South Korean, and Taiwanese, but I’m far more familiar with the Japanese) terms been forced by necessity to kill.
I’m not offering this up as a model we should follow. But they don’t kid themselves about what it is they’re doing. It’s not a clump of cells, it’s not “tissue,” it’s not a puppy or a crow. It’s a human being, and they’re killing it. They reason that certain social norms and values require an act they all admit is a necessary evil, and their guilt is mitigated by the Buddhist belief in reincarnation, but they don’t trivialize abortion as anything other than killing a human being with a soul.
I love how the new meme has come down through the Dems, even Joshingly Earnest said it in his press briefing: ‘Heavily edited video’, as if the whole video is not available on YouTube. Like those ACORN videos, the Planned Abortionhood videos being ‘heavily edited’ is evil and shows an agenda, while 60 Minutes’ ambush interviews being heavily edited for tv are totes cool and are totally impartial.
Gawd, I hate lefty hypocrisy.
I am in favor of abortion, provided there is no age limits ….
That line shuts them up … sometimes.
Regardless of who the nominee is Fiorina should be the veep candidate. It’s great identity politics and she is impressive personally and politically.
Abortion is murder. Life begins at conception. What Planned Parenthood is doing is no different then Dr. Mengele in the camps.
Where the hell is the Republican party on this issue. They are handed an issue and refuse to use it. Is it any wonder that conservatives stay home and that Trump is so hot.
Neo Says: The denial has reached such epic proportions that writers such as Janet Harris advocate for the triviality and ease of the moral decisions involved in abortion, because the procedure can more easily be promoted if women are able to block out what is actually happening.
The point is that there is no such thing as morals, and they look down on people who have them the way a sociopath (without morals or guilt, and used to be called a Moral Imbicile), looks down on others because they lack morality and mediation by guilt
this has funded most of the feminist organizations (as did the wealthy friends of Gamble of Proctor and Gamble), which has insured that regardless of law, there is a steady stream of exterminations. it was much easier to convince women, whose morals are more fluid (due to Darwinian evolution) to take the amoral action, they are also more apt to choose to follow than lead under pressure.
ie. we are not allowed to focus on differences, as those differences would mean a means for them to defend themselves from such trickery
ie. we cant question the morals of that agency, for if you do, you bring down ire on yourself and the abandonment of your potential support from others so that they dont bring it down on them.
ie. the same above is true of feminism in general for the reason we now equate women with feminism, and we now pretend that women, the strong smart people they can be, could never succeed or keep succeeding without a amoral communist agency fighting for them.
women are nothing cause feminism is everything
and note, being against an amoral victimization free love socialist/communist organization is NOT the same thing as being against women, unless you believe that feminism IS women…
I dont… i know tons of women that have succeeded before feminism, and would have succeeded without it, and without giving credit to an agency that has done more to destroy what htey say they want, than actually help them get waht they wanted. they are now more unhappy than at any time records and surveys started
by the way, this is why women who are against feminism are not real women… ie. they are selling to the population that feminism IS women, and without it, women are not women..
It seemed to be a demonstration that the movement was well past the early days of making abortions “safe, legal, and rare” into something…darker.
those were NOT the early days!!!
those were the arguments in the 1970s after the money donated in the millions by wealthy people to exterminate blacks, chinese, and not so smart poor whites, was given in droves…
that safe, legal, and rare argument came 40 years AFTER the start of the movement under Sanger/Rudin/Popenoe/Gamble/Hitler/etc.
by the way, this is why women who are against feminism are not real women… ie. they are selling to the population that feminism IS women, and without it, women are not women..
Want it or not, the womyn are the guardians of standards and boundaries.
Without their approval boys wouldn’t be walking around with pants down their waists looking like nits or worse ….and, they raise the boys.
There is something wrong going on with the womyn of the land. Faghagery is another example ….
Steve57 Says: It always strikes me as willfully obtuse when the abortion enthusiasts refuse to acknowledge they are snuffing out a human life. It’s just a clump of cells, they say.
but they are not snuffing out a life according to feminist doctrine…
I have tried to show this many times, but people seem to not want to hear the justifications that create the outcomes and make evil ok and who is writing, and protecting those ideas voilently
to the feminist leaders your a rube who just doesnt understand that a baby is not a baby until momma decides its a person. According to feminism, its women who grant personhood to a growth of cells no different than a cancer.
if she removes it, then she decides its not a person, and its not murder unless its a person. (Which now they are extending to infants and the handicapped).
the father has no rights, as he cant have rights until after the woman decides on personhood, then he doesnt have rights but does have responsibilty… even if the child is not his own!!!!
tag… your it cause you earn more!!!
(and cause you didnt have the baby tested the day it was born and so lose your right and you have to pay for other mens children whether you want to or not).
its funny… but the same dialectic that Satan uses in the garden is used on women to get them to do all kinds of things ranging from having lots of sex with people (which makes them feel used and fee bad but they have to follow the sisterhood), smear fruit essences on them to be prettier (please, no ugly fruit – this is magical thinking not principals), murder their kids under the idea that they have the power to make persons or not, destroy the family for financial gain (and take from the husband to fund the freedom of which they dont seem to understand how two people in one home is economically better than two people in two homes and do not want to lose the way they have been used to living – and so turn the man into an indentured slave who can always go to the debtors prisons), undo the constitution, destroy society as their leaders tell them to… open the borders, and so on
in truth you dont have to give them much of anything, just tell them they get alot and take from them… they dont notice the difference and having for 40 years… and will fight you tooth and nail if you try to stop them…
its their problem as there is nothing an outside force can do without feeding into their patriarchy, and all that stuff…
you cant even complain…
as your not free to do so if they dont like it!!!!
On a slight tangent….
Michael Sandel is a Harvard professor, respected liberal, and overall mensch who is the teacher of a mega-successful course entitled “Justice” and the author of a book called “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets”, in which he decries such practices as selling kidneys. He’s often the go-to guy for reporters who need to reaffirm their prejudices with a quote attached to a suitably furrowed brow.
I await with baited breath his opinion on the matter. Nobody will ask him; I would be surprised if he answers and even more surprised if he follows his own principles to condemn PP, rather than toe the line with the democrats. Otherwise it will be clear that his philosophy is nothing more than an elaborate rationalization, ie sophistry.
Stever57: Thank you very much for that.
Some time ago, I was having a conversation with a wise old sailor about abortion. I stated my belief that a human life is created at the instant a sperm cell unites with an egg. He responded that life is not “created,” it is continued.
Steve57 Says:
July 23rd, 2015 at 3:58 am
Meanwhile, there are abortion in Japan. Why?
its their problem as there is nothing an outside force can do without feeding into their patriarchy, and all that stuff…
you cant even complain…
and … clap you must!:Brett Favre Found Guilty of Not Clapping Hard Enough for Caitlyn Jenner
Or else!
Yeah, Artfldgr, “safe, legal, and rare” was Bill Clinton’s stock way of describing his support for abortion. I was referring more to the overall tone of the current abortion debate vs. the eugenicist origins of Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood.
I don’t think most Democrats of the 80’s and 90’s would have rallied around Wendy Davis’ overwrought plea to keep late-term abortion legal/widely available, nor would they have remained silent over horrors like Dr. Gosnell and these recent PP videos. I think most politicians still would have known it was important to maintain the appearance of not supporting what is essentially infanticide.
This change in attitude, the willingness to boldly support late-term abortion despite new technology like 3D sonograms, or worse, when the baby survives a late-term abortion (e.g. Obama’s horrific “born alive act”) is the darkness. It’s not that they’ve deluded themselves at all; they’ve acknowledged it is ending a viable life (for late-term) and they are OK with that. OK with the babies organs then being harvested, apparently. This is the stuff of sci-fi and horror movies.
As several people have said, it it were a matter of recovering expenses for donated fetal tissue, there’d be a fee schedule.
There’d be no negotiating, no haggling, no “you go first”.
If there were no money in it, above expenses, would PP even do this?
Hillary! has been quoted as saying life begins when the baby leaves the hospital and Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. This is not merely about aborting the pre-born but about redefining all life by convenience.
emphasis added.
Yes, you did say “most”.
And that generous assessment might even be true.
It might …
But if “most”, then certainly not all.
” Wednesday, Jan 23, 2013 10:43 AM EDT
So what if abortion ends life? …
Mary Elizabeth Williams
[Paragraphing altered for readability and quoting]
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/
We should all speak Truth to Power!
Take down didn’t take long!
DNW:
You may notice that—unless you know something about the author of that piece you linked that she doesn’t reveal in the article—she has not had an abortion. She is “pro-choice” and advocating abortions for others. She refers to her pregnancies but never to her abortions. She says if she needed to in the future she wouldn’t hesitate to have one. But she never for a moment indicates she herself has actually faced that decision and had an abortion.
Not that that matters. I have no doubt that some women have abortions while agreeing that the life within them is human. I just don’t see how that essay was written by one of those women.
If the same doctor crushes the fetus outside the women, it’s murder.
————–
But it will only be prosecuted if the doc is doing something else illegal, such as an illegal business selling prescription drugs.
Ted Kennedy drowned a woman by his actions. KKK Byrd likely funded executions of blacks via KKK.
Did anyone prosecute them?
People should stop thinking of America as a nation ruled by law. You aren’t ruled by law.
As for why Japan has abortions even though their population is declining…. their culture is closer to 1920 and 1950s America. But their economic, technological, and legal standards are closer to 1990s America.
They conduct abortions for the same reasons people in America circa 1920 or 1950 had abortions, even though they were difficult or expensive.
The Japanese do not utilize the power of the state to forgive sins. That is in the realm of spiritual and religious powers. And in that, they utilize Jefferson’s advice, which is to protect the State from religion and to protect religion from the State.
However, PP and other Leftists, utilize the old indulgence system of the Catholic Church. If you pay enough gold to clerics and the Pope, you get a free ride to Heaven. Express.
In other words, it’s like extortion, except for the soul. If you don’t pay… well, if you don’t pay PP and pay them homage and respect, what will you do about the guilt of living in Western society? Turn to Jihad to mitigate it? Most people will take the easy road, pay their extortion racket, Obey Leftists, and then sleep at night without guilt.
That’s why they cannot be forgiven. That’s why they need to be smashed, the Leftists as well as anyone who follow them.
In other words, I consider the Left, by paying for more abortions, to be obtaining a “trigger” via inflicting a “trauma” upon women or other targets. Once this “trauma” is affixed to the soul, PP can gain the absolute loyalty of such denizens by using NLP or other methods of mind control to “trigger” the trauma, thus gaining control over the Free Will of the targets.
By eliminating the competition religions, the Left can monopolize the methods to ease and deal with guilt. Putting a stake in the hearts of their slaves, invisible shackles.
That’s why women who refused to have an abortion, refused to be shackled by the guilt and sin that others can use to control, appear much more confident and happy, like Sarah Palin or others.
What we see in America aren’t women with “pro choice” powers. What we see are serfs, sex slaves, and slaves of the Left acting like they have a “choice”.
They are Obamites. Cavalier denial and immorality rooted in unshakable ignorance is the root of their identity.
G6loq said:
“Meanwhile, there are abortion in Japan. Why?”
Japan is not a Judeo-Christian country, and with an entirely different moral and ethical tradition. For instance, since law is the basis of society, reason can be violated for the sake of the law but the law can never be violated for the sake of reason.
By the same token the general welfare of the family ro community can not be sacrificed or harmed for the sake of a particular individual.
My approach to the target has to take me back to the Buddhist divinity O-Jizo-Sama. You will often see individual statues of Jizo in villages and along roads. He can be seen as the protecting deity of the village, and consequently of its children since the first requirement to be a successful community is to produce a next generation (I will now not go off on a tangent about the insanity of gay marriage).
This leads us to one of the sources of the Japanese moral view of abortion. For centuries
Neo: just now heard on Rush — next up in the videos, VIVISECTION of aborted babies to “harvest” organs.
My. God.
Beverly, take a good look at real tyranny and compare it to the Democrat propaganda concerning “Lincoln the Tyrant”. There’s always a gap between propaganda illusion and how things are done in practical realit.
My optical mouse struck again. It hit the submit button for me and minimized the page. But it’s probably best to break up what was shaping up to be a rather lengthy post.
For centuries the vast majority of Japanese, the hyakushotachi or farmers, also known as domin or dirt people, lived on the knife’s edge of poverty. Most individual farms were small, an acre or less. They could barely support a family in even the best of times.
Natural disasters, famines, bandits (during the Sengoku or warring country period just prior to the Edo period especially), and excessively cruel taxation (which was common during the Sengoku and Early Edo, at least) all meant that not all children that were born or conceived could live. For the good of the family, for the good of the community, so that some children would have enough to eat, others had to die.
So for centuries abortion and infanticide were common if sporadic forms of population control. This custom became known as mabiki, which is best thought of a weeding the garden or thinning the herd. By weeding the garden I mean if too many seeds of the desired crop sprout some will have to be uprooted so the remaining ones can grow up strong and healthy.
Buddhism did not condemn this as harshly as our shared religions certainly did. It was seen as a necessary evil, and with enough prayer, ceremony, and appeals for forgiveness the spirits of those killed out of necessity would be appeased, helped to the other world, and could be reborn at a better time.
You know, even up until WWII farmers who were impoverished and couldn’t support their families would sell their daughters to Geisha houses. Which isn’t as bad a fate as you might think as Geishas were and are not prostitutes but entertainers. A Geisha might sleep with a favored guest of her own volition (ADM Yamamoto had one as a girlfriend) but it wasn’t part of her job. But the Geisha was required to work off the substantial lump sum the house owner had given her father, and buy an expensive new kimono every year, so she was in indentured servitude for decades.
But back to the point, in large part that’s how the Japanese view of abortion was formed (also the Taiwanese and Koreans have a similar take, but I’m much more familiar with the history of Japan). They still see it that way. That’s why I said in my first post that the Japanese have come to believe that “certain social norms and values require an act they all admit is a necessary evil.” A young single woman who is a student, who can’t afford to take care of her child unless she drops out, isn’t destroying her individual future. She’s destroying the future of her family. The Japanese individual birth or death or marriage certificates. They have a family registry. They can extract individual entries which for immigration purposes are accepted by the USG as the equivalent of a birth or marriage certificate, but they’re part of a family history.
At least that’s how it was up until the last couple of decades. The sense of obligation to ones family and one’s ancestors is breaking down. Which is one reason why fewer and fewer Japanese are getting married and having children. Which makes the high abortion rate (Japan always had a high abortion rate due to the above factors) insane from a demographic standpoint. But their view of abortion was molded over centuries, it has long been accepted, and I don’t see that changing soon.
*The Japanese don’t have individual birth or death or marriage certificates.*
My optical mouse again. I’ll be typing along and it highlight and delete text at some random point on the screen. It happens in the blink of an eye; sometimes I catch it, sometimes I don’t.
neo-neocon Says:
July 23rd, 2015 at 1:34 pm
Yes, and I suppose we are focusing on two different things here. I was not even thinking in terms of the emotional investment on some personal level.
You, presumably, focus upon a certain intellectual or emotional disconnect which is necessary for most women who have had abortions, in order to even go through with the process.
What I was looking at was the moral judgment which the author as a woman and advocate of unrestricted access to abortion, was making on the matter of permissible homicide..
She acknowledged that the fetus was a life, a human life; and that it is being killed.
Not only that it is being killed for the ostensible sake of, as is often said, “the life of the mother” (if “mother” is the proper word to use here); but, that the notion of “for the sake of her life” includes issues of subjective life quality, convenience, social opportunity and personal fulfillment … not merely survival and physical health.
Thus, she says: ” … not just in the most medically literal way, but … in the possibilities for them and for their families. ” This, in assuming the woman even has a family, the fulfillment possibilities of which are narrowed by the bringing of a fetus to term and then giving it up.
The author reinforces this framing in an earlier paragraph which I did not quote:
The fetus is therefore conceived of by her in the following fashion:
She says it is indeed a human life. The process of an abortion kills a human.
This killing of a human is permissible not because it has done anything criminal, but because it is unequal, and therefore kill-able at the whim, or judgment if one prefers, of the woman who for some months must bear it, if it is to be brought to term, and she then be freed of it.
If this is judged an inconvenience, then the fetus is a human life worth sacrificing for the sake of the bearer’s other options … “always”.
Now, I would guess, and it’s just a guess, that in this woman’s moral economy, the fetus still may not be killed by strangers against the bearer’s will; even though it is presumably unequal to everyone else outside a womb as well, and not just to her.
For example, under her scheme the fetus is no doubt unequal to her male neighbor as well. And should she be unemployed and on welfare the fetus may become dependent on the state, which includes him. Yet I do not get the feeling that she would agree that he might kill it, or “sacrifice it”, in order to reduce his taxes, or lessen the inconvenience to his neighborhood of another welfare dependent bastard crowding it.
For some reason, possibly because she believes she has a property interest in the fetus, possibly because she feels the neighbors will not be inconvenienced in the same way or to the same degree as she would should she have to bear it to term and then give it away, they may not insist it be killed.
That right to kill this unequal human it seems, is her “privilege” (the term is used advisedly) and hers alone, I think we probably correctly assume.
I say correctly, because in a rather significant way, the critical issue here reduces not the life of the victim, nor even the health of the “host”, but to the “will” of the host and its privileging against all moral considerations vis-a-vis this particular “unequal life”.
What her views might be on the killing of temporarily dependent human life outside of the womb, should it be an inconvenience to those who might be determined by some measure to be the most interested parties, other than mere neighbors who pay taxes, I would not guess.
But it would seem to me that if we looked hard enough we could find other somewhat parallel examples of unequal lives, even using a standard generally the similar in almost all respects – apart from the fact that the temporary residence of the dependent takes place for some months in the womb.
I should note too that I am conceding her something more than might be necessary when I refer to a “dependent” human life, since the term she actually used in the quote was “non-autonomous entity”.
Using that rubric, I am sure we could expand our category of the killable-at-will even further.
Steve57 Says:
July 23rd, 2015 at 3:43 pm
*The Japanese don’t have individual birth or death or marriage certificates.*…
Many thanks for the info. Given the Japanese demographic curve, they can’t afford any abortions.
Bottom line is … infanticide is a human trait across cultures. I lived in India for a few years. Children are routinely abandoned or treated like cattle…..
They’re poor, they must.
Here, it is convenience …..
Leftists don’t have souls. So think of them as zombies or ants and your morality or ethics should automatically adjust based upon changing variables.
However, if you accept them as humans, then you accept their behavior as equal to your own in some degree. Do people really think Leftist, their actions and justifications, are on par with your own actions and justifications?
I suppose you have to also understand the attitudes the Japanese had toward their own lives.
The Buke, or warrior caste (samurai), lived according to the warrior code of Bushido. Which over the 268 years of enforced peace of the Edo period eroded to become a mockery of what it was when there used to be real wars to fight. But it is true that they tried to steel themselves to be ready to die for their lord at any instant.
And to commit seppuku if they disgraced their lord, or if they felt their lord had wronged them in protest.
Suicide was a privilege for the upper classes. It was illegal for peasants to kill themselves to escape their misery. If a peasant was discovered trying to commit suicide or survived the attempt, they’d be buried up to their shoulders or simply bound and immobilized in a kneeling position and placed by the side of the road. Passers by would be invited to slice their necks bit by bit with a blade of sawgrass until the peasant died.
Until the Hdeyoshi shogunate the lower warrior castes were drawn from the upper class of the peasantry. There was a possibility of social mobility. Hideyoshi disarmed the peasantry with his famous katana-gari or sword hunt. Tokugawa formalized the divisions of society into the nobility (the powerless Emperor and his court imprisoned in luxury in Kyoto), the Buke, and the priests, and the remainder were commoners. There were distinctions within the groups; farmers were superior in status to artisans, and merchants were the lowest of the commoners.
Then there were the untouchables or Eta.
All the commoners were severely oppressed. Their role was to toil, produce children, and pay taxes. Especially the farmers, in the form of rice. The taxes were set by their lords who were only concerned with meeting their own economic requirements. It didn’t matter to them what the productive capacity of he land was.
When conditions became intolerable the peasants would revolt. So while Japan was generally at peace from during the Tokugawa shogunate from 1600 to 1868 when the Emperor was restored, there were 1240 documented peasant revolts during those 268 years. That’s several dozen during every year of the The Shimabara rebellion lasted 4 bloody months.
Optical mouse strikes again.
The point is that it isn’t as if most lives were valued at all anyway.
The peasants knew their lives weren’t worth anything, as did the lower ranking samurai. And as the peasants were affected by Bushido, they as well as the lower ranking samurai didn’t really value their own lives.
They’d sacrifice their own lives willingly in revolt, or going over their lord’s head and appeal to the Shogun directly to correct their lord’s unjust rule. Which was a death sentence for the entire family, as that was treason against their lord. But they generally got redress for their communities and the injustice corrected.
Again, the life of the individual could not be valued over the interests of the family or community.
There may be a bit of a generational shift re: “a lump of cells” issue. I do not know anyone who buys that, especially given the current medical technology which allows us to see an already formed baby very early into pregnancy.
However…
Most people, IMO, are missing the point in the abortion discussions.
The real question is not whether it IS a fully-fledged, separate (with its own DNA) human life. Of course that is. Nobody denies that. The question has been answered.
Now, the REAL questions are 1) whether the fact alone that there exists another fully-fledged human life can *impose a legal obligation* onto another into supporting it with her own bodily resources, as well to assume all of the physical changes, risk, and pain of that process + childbirth, and 2) _IF_ so, may this obligation be neatly generalized onto all cases of pregnancy during all of their durations or we can draw some limits and exceptions, and 3) _IF_ 2, on what account, i.e. what are the specific principles subordinated to the one established in 1 that allow for the exceptions established in 2?
It is on THAT account that the opinions are divided today.
Most people do not really have an “opinion”, they have a visceral reaction (either way). That is because we have largely lost the ability to argue from PRINCIPLES and to establish a hierarchy among them. So we accept a “right to life”, but it is a vague displaced notion with no context. Is it a negative right only? Or if it implies a positive obligation for others, what are the limits of it? If we accept a positive obligation here, what prevents us from extending it onto other similar contexts where A is in mortal danger if-not for a certain thing done by B? Is a right to “expel” a baby without killing it imaginable, given a technological context in which it could be supported outside the womb? If so, what prevents us from acting on THAT principle in the world of current technology? Are we sure we are not treating pregnancy as a moral stand-alone, as opposed to applying other GENERAL principles to it? etc. etc.
It is on THESE questions that opinions clash today.
(I clicked submit without rereading, when this happens I usually end up posting something incoherent and illegible. My apologies.)
This is one of the best reflections on the abortion decision that I’ve read.