Matt Welsh:
I took the bait.
I couldn’t help but open an email with the subject line: “You’re afraid of this pro-choice argument”
Afraid? I’m afraid of a lot of things. Actually, five things: spiders, asteroids, ghosts, head lice, and malaria. But arguments? Especially pro-abortion arguments? Definitely not on the list.
I might be frustrated by them; annoyed, angered, even disturbed, but afraid? I don’t think so.
Here’s Rachel, trying to strike fear into my heart:
Dear Matt, ever since I first read your blog I knew you were a cowardly fake. It wasn’t until I started reading some of your anti-choice articles that my suspicions were truly confirmed. You spend a lot of time picking the low hanging fruit. You attack the weakest abortion rights arguments while ignoring the glaring weaknesses in your own position.
If you had the guts or the brains you’d try to respond to the most important abortion rights argument… bodily autonomy or bodily integrity. This means that we have the final jurisdiction over our own bodies. Nobody can claim a right to our body that goes above our own right. Nobody can use our bodies without consent. We cannot be forced to donate organs or blood to someone else. A fetus must survive on a woman’s body so the woman has a right to withdrawal her consent and her body at any time.
This is the pro-choice argument that no anti-choice fanatic… especially one as stubborn and simpleminded as you… could ever possibly dispute. If you still don’t understand, try to imagine this hypothetical…
Imagine that you wake up one morning in a hospital bed. In the bed next to you is a famous singer. He is unconscious and all of these tubes are connected from him to you. A doctor comes in and explains that the singer became sick and you are the only person with the right blood type to match his. They need you to remain hooked up to him until he recovers… they tell you it should only take nine months. Until then, he needs to use all of your organs… your kidneys, liver, lungs, everything… just to survive. If you unplug yourself, he will die. So do you think you are obligated to stay plugged in? Does he have a right to live off of you like this? Should you be FORCED to stay connected to him?
That’s what situation the pregnant woman is in. Instead of harping on all of these irrelevant issues, I wish you’d be brave enough to address it from this angle. It is immoral to require a woman to sustain a fetus and it is moral for a woman to make a decision with her body based on what is right for her. How can you argue against this?
But I guess your blog is more about preaching to the choir than actually being intelligent and bold in your writing. What a shame.
-Rachel
Here’s my answer:
Dear Rachel,
You’re right. You win. I have no response. I can’t think of any reason why you’re wrong about any of the points you raised.
Well, I can’t think of any reason — except for, like, ten reasons. So I’ll start with five reasons why that hypothetical is flawed, and move on to five additional reasons why your overall argument is flawed.
Here we go:
1. Your analogy is flawed because it presupposes that the relationship between mother and child is no more significant, and carries with it no more responsibility, than the relationship between a person and some random stranger in a hospital bed.
This is absurd. If we’re trying to make this hypothetical as close to pregnancy as possible, shouldn’t the sick singer (or violinist, according to the original iteration of this hypothetical) at least be your child? Your argument doesn’t work because the fact that your child is your child, and not some strange adult from across town, is precisely the point. Hidden cleverly in this hypothetical is the insinuation that one cannot agree that an unborn child has a right to his mother’s body, without agreeing that anyone in the entire world, in any context, for any reason, at any point, for any period of time, has a right to a woman’s body.
Nice try, Rachel.
Just because a mother is expected to be a mother doesn’t mean she’s also expected to be a slave, a prostitute, and a forced organ donor to talented musical artists. Indeed, the extent of our responsibility to a person hinges in many ways on our relationship to them. You would, I assume, agree that you have a responsibility to your born children, wouldn’t you? And your responsibility to them extends far beyond your responsibility to your neighbor, or your plumber, or your trash collector, doesn’t it? The relationship matters. Your hypothetical fails because it pretends that relationships are irrelevant.
2. Your analogy is flawed because it leaves out an important detail: how did the singer become ill in the first place?
Aside from cases of rape, a child is only conceived because two people intentionally committed a particular act which has, literally billions of times, resulted in the conception of a human life.
This singer came down with a terrible sickness. You might feel pity for him, but you didn’t cause him to be sick. You didn’t put him in this state. You had absolutely nothing to do with it. The same cannot be said when a child is conceived.
3. Your analogy is flawed because, when framed properly, it doesn’t strengthen your moral position — it defeats it.
The hypothetical should be this: your own child becomes very sick because of something you did. He needs a blood transfusion and you are the only match. Would you refuse to give him your blood because it infringes on your bodily autonomy? Could this be morally justified? You put your kid in the hospital and now you will choose to watch him die because he ‘doesn’t have a right to your blood.’ THIS scenario would be the closest to abortion. And, if you are consistent in your affinity for ‘bodily autonomy,’ you could not criticize parents who’d rather let their child die than be inconvenienced by a blood transfusion.
Sorry, but in my opinion not one of Matt Welsh’s 10 points directly addresses the fundamental right that Rachel has asserted: She, and she alone, has a sovereign right to control her own body. He’s either finding fault with her analogy, making some ridiculous claim for the priority of “natural order” over individual human will, or arguing against absurd extensions of her entirely reasonable assertion of personal autonomy over one’s own body—suggesting, for example, that it would provide justification for public masturbation. He can’t risk coming right out and stating his own underlying premise: That a woman does not have a sovereign right to control her own body.
The fact of the matter is that we’re going to be governed either by one premise or the other. One allows every woman a moral choice, and the freedom to act in accordance with the dictates of her own beliefs and conscience. The other does not. It imposes restrictions based on a set of beliefs that are not shared by everyone.
I have mixed feelings on the issue.
On the one hand, I understand that there are some instances such as rape, incest, medical complications, etc., where abortions are potentially necessary and even perhaps desirable.
I also tend to think that persons who would consider having an abortion outside of those circumstances, would ultimately be horribly poor parents, thus potentially saving the child from a nightmare existence.
On the other hand, it’s objectionable when you see Collective Drones reducing abortion, which should be viewed as a serious life changing decision whether you’re for or against, to little more than a Disney ride from which you can earn a T-Shirt.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/18/i-had-an-abortion-t-shirt_n_1435234.html
That’s the common fundamental misunderstanding of the core argument. No one is arguing what the woman, the mother, can do to her own body or not. Rather, what some are arguing instead, is whether or not the woman, the mother, has the right to do anything she wishes to the body of the child within her. At the end of the day, the argument can be boiled down to this:
Either you support the unborn child’s right to live.
Or you support the right of the mother’s clitoris to have responsibility-free orgasms.
What amuses me most about all of this though, is that perhaps for the very first time in human history, we have the very first political faction that is anxiously rushing to commit their own genocide. In many cases they’re positively gleeful about it. The majority of those who would have an abortion are likely progressives, who would then bring up their child as progressives too. So in many ways the Collective is effectively facilitating a kind of Final Solution unto itself.
Unbelievable.
OK, here’s an alternative: Every woman having an unwanted pregnancy will be required to continue it, provided the man responsible is found and forced undergo involuntary castration.
One involuntary castration for every involuntary birth. That sort of balances out the matter of gender rights and responsibilities.
How so?
If the male of the species were capable of gestating a human zygote and embryo from their testes, you might have some kind of moral equivalency there. Men’s pants would also look much different.
@Kraken:
As a physician, a neonatologist to be specific, there is only one medical condition that would potentially “require” a woman to abort for her own health, and that would be cancer requiring chemotherapy while she was pregnant before the infant is viable. In 19 years of practicing medicine, and being involved in the care of tens of thousands of babies, I have never had a case like that. In fact, I know of only one case that falls into that category, in Italy in the 1950s. The woman was a physician who decided to carry on with the pregnancy and gave birth. She later died of her cancer, but her daughter survived. Other than such a rare case, there is no medical condition that requires abortion to treat the mother.
The pro-abortion crowd might have some credibility on this issue if they were not shouting about a woman’s autonomy to make the choice to abort without demanding that taxpayers who consider abortion to be murder be forced to pay for abortion. Autonomy inherently means acting on your own, not relying on others to financially support your personal decision.
@Pete:
To people like Greggie, pregnancy is a choice. When in actuality, pregnancy is a choice like a hang over is a choice.
@Pete, #5:
You’re blurring the issue. The question is not one of medical necessity, or of how you or I happen to personally feel about abortion. It all comes down to one simple question: Does a woman have a fundamental right to exercise sovereign control over her own body, or does she not?
@retire05, #6:
You pretend that you’re a proponent of non-intrusive government, individual liberty, and personal choice and responsibility, while in fact you want a government that’s empowered to intrude into the most private areas of an individual’s personal life to make damn sure that their decisions and behaviors conform to your own beliefs and ideas concerning what is right and proper. How do you explain this contradiction?
@Greg:
You say I am blurring the issue? Hardly.
The straightforward answer to your question is no. Neither a woman nor a man can legally sell their body for sex. Neither can one legally sell body parts. Nor can one use – legally – illicit drugs. Nor can one drive intoxicated using one’s sovereign body.
The blurring on the issue of abortion is wholly the definition of the pro-abort side, which twists and turns frenetically to avoid admitting the inherent humanity that scientifically begins at conception when a totally unique set of human chromosomes comes into being. The fertilzed egg is the beginning of the continuum of a unique, separate human being. Arbitrarily assigning the moment of departure from the birth canal as the beginning of life, claiming that dependence on the mother for nutrition, oxygenation, warmth, growth and development ignores the continued dependence of the infant on the mother -or some other adult- cor continued growth and development for years. The pro-abortion position depends completely on the barbaric idea that tbe portion of human development that occurs within the womb is not a valid and necessary component of human life. It is inherently selfish and wholly unscientific, as well as devoid of compassion.
Guaranteed exercise of a woman’s sovereign right to her own body: take one aspirin, place it between your knees, and grasp it firmly. Ladies, your vagina is your own. No one else owns it. If you don’t want any sperm in there, it is your sovereign right to keep the sperm out. No sperm, no baby. I learned that a long time ago.
The difficulty arises when a woman desires the really good feelings which accompany the activities which accompany the insertion of a foreign object into the vagina. It is sad but true that in many instances the good feelings do not last, while the union of sperm and egg does last.
This is a philosophical problem. How does the woman satisfy the short-term desire to become a mother, and then change her mind when the desire goes away? Having taught adolescent females I am aware of how strong this feeling can be.
Is it legitimate to desire a child, then change your mind three months later?
Seems hardly fair to the new life, which had no choice in the matter.
@Greg
But…
You also said (although to highlight the cognitive dissonance I’ve changed ‘woman’ to citizen’)
Yet in almost every other category I can think of (guns, light bulbs, cars, energy resources, health insurance coverage, what type of cake they are willing to bake, heck, even soda size) you very consistently support the party that wants to take away the right(s) of citizens to act “in accordance with the dictates of their own beliefs and conscience” and instead wants to “impose restrictions based on a set of beliefs that are not shared by everyone.”
Just curious how you explain *that* contradiction.
@Greg:
@retire05, #6:
You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of cause and effect, rights and responsibilities.
I most certainly support a non-intrusive government. If you want to drink yourself into a stupor, have at it. But when you wake, it is not my responsibility to provide you will aspirin for your pounding head ache. I support your choice to drink to excess. I do not support your demand that I be held responsible for your actions. And with each action, there is an equal, and opposite reaction.
You want to have risky, unprotected sex? Knock your lights out. But don’t then be unwilling to accept the result (cause and effect, rights and responsibilities). Don’t ask me to pay for your hang over meds, or to pay taxes that support abortion clinics, or fund your HIV/AIDS drugs.
Of all the abortions performed in the United States each year, even the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, claims that less than 1% are done because of rape/incest. 99+% are simply because women did exercise their right to have control over their own bodies, but nature has a way of making us responsible for our actions, and just as you exercise your right to drink to excess and you will generally wind up with a hang over, unprotected sex puts you at risk of a pregnancy.
It is no surprise that as a man, you support abortion. Abortion has been a boon to all irresponsible men as it has provided them a “get out of jail free card”. All the fun with none of the resulting costs. No child support payments, no responsibility to a child that you created but did not want. How unfortunate that radicals like Gloria Steinham sold women a bill of goods that abortion was designed for them.
So, here we are still having this debate long after Roe has been determined to be bad law, even by left leaning legal scholars. A law pushed by men on stupid women who never realized they were being played like a cheap fiddle. If women want true equality, they will hone their skills in saying “Hell, no, buddy. You’re not using me as your free prostitute. I have more respect for myself than to give you my body to use for free for a few short moments.”
@Pete:
Well that’s just it isn’t it? On the one hand female Drones in the Collective will chant that they don’t want Republicans inside of their vagina. But on the other hand, female Drones want every government worker they can find to party in their vagina, so long as they’re throwing out plenty of free schwag (see Sandra Fluke).
@Greg:
Except that it doesn’t, because remember, your question represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the core issue. Your question is framed incorrectly.
Again, no one is arguing whether or not the woman (mother) is able to have sovereign control over her own body. Rather, what some are asking instead instead, is whether or not the woman (mother) has a fundamental right to exercise sovereign control over the body of the unborn child within her. That’s the correct question.
The bottom line: some side with the unborn child’s life, some side with the orgasms of the mother’s clitoris. You’re either one or the other.
The contradiction is explained by your own misunderstanding of the issue. You fail to recognize unborn children as human beings who are deprived of their own individual liberty when terminated inside the womb. It is a personal choice for a man and woman to engage in an act that will result in pregnancy, particularly without protection. As a result they ought to accept the responsibility of their personal choice. I know that you have concerns with fathers having to be “found,” but in most cases the fathers in couples outside of the Collective don’t have to be “found.”
@Pete:
It’s called Newspeak and/or Colletivese. You know; uncontested arrival, shared responsibility payment, social justice, Affordable Care Act, progressive/liberal, job-lock, etc. It’s merely a relabeling game that convinces low-level activist Drones in the Collective, but rarely anyone else.
The phrase Pro-Choice is just another example of Collectivese word play. It’s meant to portray abortion as a kind of Collective honor or feminist sacrament that enshrines a woman’s sexual interests. They want the focus of the argument to be on the woman’s self-serving “choice,” rather than whether or not the unborn child has a “choice” of its own. This is why Greg incorrectly frames his question in the manner that he does.
We have reached that point in a political debate where the Left tries to redefine all the terms so as to shut down debate with themselves as as ”winners.”
The commentors here as well as that blogger’s 10 points are all excellent refutations based on the original meanings of the terms involved.
Way back when Moses was alive there was clarity on when life began:
Exodus 21:22-25.
Later King David waxes poetic about the human embryo.
See Psalms 139: 13-16.
What is happening is an attempt to redefine terms.
This time, the Left is losing.
Don’t expect them to give up.
They never do.
It’s not a choice, it’s a baby.
@retire05, #11:
I’m willing to accept that every woman has a sovereign right to determine whether to continue a pregnancy or not, whether I personally approve of her choice or not. Freedom to make moral decisions in accordance with one’s own personal beliefs and in accordance with the dictates of one’s own conscience is the highest level of personal responsibility there is.
Your argument concerning public health costs is about as disingenuous as arguments come. I don’t hear you ranting about the 443,000 U.S. deaths per year that are directly attributable to tobacco sales and use. Should we consider the extent of annual public health care costs directly attributable to tobacco sales and use? That comes to $65.4 billion per year in federal dollars, plus an additional $16.4 billion in state dollars, for an annual total of $81.8 billion. Related productivity losses cost the economy an additional $151 billion per year. Compared with something you most likely defend as an individual choice, the public costs of your abortion clinics, HIV and AIDS drugs are hardly a drop in the bucket. Apparently your disapproval isn’t really a question of tax dollars, as you claim. When the Obama administration proposed upping federal taxes on tobacco products to discourage use and to raise dollars for healthcare programs, people were howling about intrusive government and the right to make personal decisions.
Or how about the public health care costs of the American obesity epidemic? Obesity has risen by 34 percent since 1960 and the incidence of morbid obesity is now 6 times greater than then. People shoveling junk food other excessive calories into their faces is running up national healthcare costs by $190 billion per year. Yet when the Obama administration attempted to address the issue of obesity and junk food habits—two things that are obviously closely related, and obviously are adding to mounting public healthcare costs—the anger, derisive laughter, and self-righteous lectures about personal choices were nearly deafening. But personal choices involving sexual conduct are evidently somehow different. Again, it certainly isn’t an issue of public costs, because the cost comparison again involves drops vs. buckets.
Refer back to post #1. Rachel’s argument—which Matt Welsh also dodges—completely ignores such issues. She simply asserts that A woman has a fundamental, sovereign right to control her own body. Period. Nothing else should enter in. Either she does or she doesn’t. If republicans are going to attempt to change the law to deprive women of that sovereign right, they should be able to explain how it is that this doesn’t make a total lie of their small, non-intrusive government and personal rights and personal choices mantra. She has dared Matt Welsh to do that, and the hypocritical chicken shit hasn’t done so. Why? Because it is a total contradiction.
I support the right for each individual to make a personal moral choice and to take personal responsibility for it. Is that important distinction too difficult to grasp? Does the fact that you support personal choice in the matter of smoking or dietary habits mean that you personally advocate tobacco usage and the consumption of a dozen donuts and three super-sized McDonalds meals per day?
Women demanded sovereign control of their own bodies, as I recall, after generations of religious and legal repression. Men didn’t force the freedom of choice on them. What we’re actually seeing at present in the republican party is an effort of conservative men to take that freedom away. Lots of luck with that. There are more women voters than men. Hasn’t it occurred to you to wonder why the GOP is losing them?
The reduction of human dignity to ownership of one’s person undermines the source of dignity (God, whose claim on us surpasses our own claim on our physical selves). If one owns one body, one might sell it, give it away, abuse it, forfeit it for crimes committed, destroy it. Not so if another has a higher claim. God is the source of human dignity, and our unspoken concession to elide God from every argument about rights reduces such arguments to shouting matches, where the bigger crowd must win the field today and relinquish it tomorrow as discourse becomes debased into a popularity contest.
@Greg:
You would know disingenuous arguments.
You seem to be laying out the position that no one has a right to limit what people do with their bodies (which I disproved and you ignored) then imply that taxpayers should be obligated to pay for abortions because some people choose to smoke or get fat, and taxpayers are paying for treating those choices. The glaring flaw in this pro-abortion tangent is, as usual, ignoring the inherent humanity of the unborn victims of abortion. This debate point you make is a typical leftist tactic to avoid addressing the real issue, which occurs when the leftist cannot refute the overarching point.
Bottom line, if the zygote/embryo/fetus isn’t human, then where did all of us come from? If the pro-abortion side is ever honest and admits the obvious scientific truth, then abortion cannot be characterized as anything other than murder.
@Pete, #17:
Whether or not public money is involved is totally irrelevant to the question as to whether or not a woman has a fundamental sovereign right to exercise authority and control over her own body. It’s just a diversion. I didn’t bring it up.
A single cell can be identified as human, but that doesn’t make it a person. Some people want to assert that a fetus is a person, and therefore should have rights equal to those of the woman carrying it. The assertion is based on a religious position that isn’t shared among all people holding religious beliefs. It isn’t even shared among all Christians.
@Greg:
It is not just based on a religious position, Greg. The majority of my job is caring for what classifies as a fetus based on gestational age. The idea that pro-aborts have argued for decades (“just a clump of cells”) is another disingenuous argument. A fertilized human ovum is the beginning of the human life cycle. That is a scientific fact. A clump of skin cells, or chondrocytes, or hepatic cells, or neurons will never ever grow into a physically mature human being. A fertilized human ovum will – provided an abortionist doesn’t destroy it.
The exit from the birth canal used by the pro-abortion crowd to declare one eligible for human rights protections is nothing more than selfish convenience for those already born. The infant outside the womb did not change from the moment right before exiting the birth canal – the environment in which the infant was existing is the only thing that changed. The born infant cannot survive on its own, as it must still be fed, have waste removed, be cleaned, warmed and protected. It cannot walk, or feed itself.
On another note, the position you put forth that a woman has a sovereign right to do what she wishes with her own body – and that she is the only person with tbe right to decide to abort or carry to term – has another flaw beyond what has been brought up. Would you accept the concept that if a woman decides to autonomously carry the baby to term and give birth that the male involved in conceiving the child, but who wanted to abort the infant, should have the right not to pay child support? That would be the autonomous thing to do – or do you support current law that the sperm donor be required to pay child support?
@Pete, #19:
What something has the potential of becoming isn’t the same as what it presently is. A fetus has the potential to become a person. That doesn’t mean it already is a person.
@Greg:
Great scientific argument there, Greggie. NOT!!!
@retire05, #21:
It’s what is known as logic.
@Greg:
Maybe because their efforts have been so mock-worthy.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167738/fewer-americans-reported-healthy-eating-2013.aspx
I’ve actually wondered myself considering that female Drones in the Collective are paid less.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128513/Women-paid-significantly-Obama-White-House-male-counterparts.html
http://freebeacon.com/senate-dems-betray-lilly/
At last, a glimmer of understanding of the fundamental core of the issue.
If the assertion that abortion is murder is based on a solely religious position, then why are there so many secular and atheist pro-life organizations?
http://www.facebook.com/AtheistsAgainstAbortion
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/20/are-pro-life-atheist-groups-promoting-sound-science/
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1909/atheist_secular_and_prolife.aspx#.UQH6WUqH1FN
Exit Question: At what point after conception does a human become a person?
@Greg:
Something you’re not good at.
@Greg:
No, your argument is not logical, no matter how much you insist that it is. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, a.human infant born prior to term gestation at 37 weeks minimum, should not be granted rights as a.human being. Infants born less than 1800 grams almost always require incubators or radiant warmers to maintain normal human body temperatures, because they do not have sufficient body mass to maintain their own body temperature. Infants born at less than 30-32 weeks cannot typical breathe without mechanical respiratory support, and less than 34 weeks infants almost always require tube feedings because they cannot coordinate breathing and swallowing food. Using your “logic” these infants
– by gestational age fetuses – these are still “potential” humans and are therefore not entitled to what are considered human rights. The only difference between these premature infants and the victims of abortion are the environment in which the arguably human individual exists. Even a newborn infant at term is not the same – from a developmental standpoint which you are arguing for – as who that infant will be at 10, 20, or 60 years of age.
You are denying as all pro-aborts do against the continuum of the human biological state which begins at the moment the ovum is fertilized and ends when an individual dies. You might have a valid position if science ever demonstrated either a fertilized human ovum developing into say a tree, thimble or cadillac, or a fully formed human spontaneously generating from a mudpie, a pimple, or anything other than a fertilized human ovum.
Again, the pro-abort position cannot be defined as anything other than murder unless the inherent humanity of tbe fertilized ovum/zygote/fetus is denied.
And though you keep bringing up religion as tbe basis for opposition to abortion, note I have argued my point without any use of religious philosophy.
@Pete:
And yet courts have held people responsible for causing the death of a “wanted” unborn babies still in the womb, naming these crimes murder and manslaughter. Seems to me there is a legal inconsistency in the courts system. Is it a human life to the court only when the mother wants the baby? If what one “wants” or “doesn’t want” is the consideration, then why is it acceptable to terminate unwanted life only if it is in the womb? And what about the “wants” of the father, as isn’t it sexual discrimination if he has no right to choose? Rather arbitrary of the justice system to have different sets of rulings based on female “wants.”
@Ditto:
There is an ethicist at Princeton whose name escapes me at the moment, who has argued that parents should have the right to terminate any infant up to 30 days after birth because the infant is unaware and therefore does not have tbe ability to sense existence, and thus does not qualify for human rights. This is professor of ethics…the chair of the department, IIRC. Goebbels would be so proud.
I would say that sentence was incomplete. Here it is written completely and correctly:”A fetus must survive on a woman’s body so the woman has a right to withdrawal her consent and her body at any time, prior to conception.”
@Pete: This point you made to Greg:
is an example of why people do not have a: She, and she alone, has a sovereign right to control her own body. as Greg said.
If someone believes that, then they would believe they have a sole right to decide if they want to use their body to drive drunk. ie., that it would be nobody’s business but their own. While driving drunk is /may be dangerous to others that the car may run over, we know for sure that killing an unborn baby is fatal to that human being. A woman has no more right to control whether her body drives drunk than she does whether she kills an unborn human.
would it be better to force the mother who want to abort, by promissing an amount of money
plus a take over the baby and instead of spending multi millions on parenthood,
open creche center to have them been take care of until they are adopted by family who want the baby,
which would be wanted and loved all his life,
this baby has a right even in the womb, he is a futur AMERICAN TO CARRY ON THE NEW GENERATION ROOTS, SO TO BE THE SURVIVAL OF AMERICANS WITH ROOTS DEEP IN THE GROUND AND DAMN PROUD
TO BE SERVING HIS COUNTRY WITH ANY TOOLS HE HAS BEEN GIVEN AS SOON AS THE CONTACT SEXUAL MADE THE FETUS BEGIN TO GROW AND GIVE HIM HIS UNIQUE IDENTITY, TO GROW OUT OF THE WOMB AS A HUMAN WITH A SOUL AND BRAIN CONTAINING INTELLIGENCE TO LEARN
AND LATER JOIN THE SOCIETY AS A BEST HE CAN BE, A KIND, GENEROUS, AIMING AT FINDING
HIS WORK PLACE TO RISE WITH THE COMPANY, AND PROCREATE TO CONTINUE TOWARD THE NEXT GENERATION OF ROOTED AMERICAN, WHO WILL FIND THEIR PLACE AS LONG AS THE GOVERNMENT
DID NOT GIVE IT TO FOREIGNER BEFORE HE WAS READY TO EARN IT, AND AND AND WHO ELSE WILL PROTECT THIS
AMERICA, NOT THE FOREIGNER WHO ARE NOT BRED IN THIS COUNTRY, AND HAVEN’T DEVELOPE THEIR ALLEGIANCE,
WHICH SHOULD BE TOTAL,SO TO FEEL IN THER GUTS
THE UNDISPUTED LOVE FOR AMERICA,
Matt Welsh
THANK YOU FOR THAT POST,
that woman , I see her as self center, who doesn’t believe there is a GOD, and is living against the grain of life, and surely doesn”t want to give a life to her own baby,
and she can’t see the consequences of her abortion, which also could leave her cripple
and she doesn’t have the tendancy of raising a family, and not the brain,
which she dare to accuse you of missing, SO SHE CAN REFRAIN FROM SEX OR POISON HER BODY,
WITH PILLS SO TO HAVE ALL THE SEX LIFE SHE WANT UNTIL SHE DIE FOR HAVING BE SELFISH, AND DEVELOP A CANCER,
FOR HAVING LIVE AGAINST NATURE,
BYE
@Pete:
Obama held a similar post birth abortion (infanticide) position in 3 separate Illinois Senate votes:
This is the same Obama who’s radical far-left agenda supports extremist gun-control measures “if it can save one life”.
@Ditto, #32:
The three bills in question are examples of the sort of duplicitous legislation that is occasionally concoct to provide something to display to a particular segment of a politician’s constituency—in this case, anti-choice voters—while simultaneously providing a means to attack opponents who will be compelled to vote against them. They’re generally titled to sound entirely commendable, propose something that sounds entirely reasonable, but contain one or more elements that makes their passage totally unacceptable to the opposition, for reasons that are not immediately apparent. They’re deceitful both in their content, and in the fact that those who construct them don’t actually expect them to become law. Their function is entirely within the realm of political theater.
One is either aware of this sort of duplicity, or is incredibly naive about the workings of American politics.
@Redteam, #29:
Having sovereign control of one’s own body doesn’t include having license to do any damn thing one pleases. Your body itself is a unique space, entirely within your personal realm of sovereign authority. Everything within the boundaries of your body—within the boundaries of your skin—is your own personal territory, because in fact it is you.
Public highways and roads lie outside the boundaries of your person. Everything lying outside of yourself is to some extent a shared space, where different rules necessarily apply.
GREG
that”s why the fetus growing is part of your sovereign body, and it command you to include it,
as one who came in you to be counted as your responsibility to protect his vulnability,
and help him to become the human he is there only for that purpose,
YOUR SOVEREIGN BODY HAS BEEN GIVEN THE TREASURE OF A LIFE, BY WAY OF YOUR SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, YOU HAD AGGREED TO PURSUE FROM YOUR FREE WILL,
THE CONSEQUENCES ARE YOUR INHERENT DUTY TO INCLUDE AFTER BECAUSE YOU FAIL TO INCLUDE IT BEFORE THE SEXUAL
PLEASURE YOU WHERE SEEKING,
SO YOU ARE IN THE OBLIGATION TO RENDER THAT BABY TO THE TIME WHEN HE IS OUT OF YOUR SOVEREIGN BODY, THAN GIVE IT TO ADOPTION IF YOU STILL DON’T WANT IT,
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXTERMINATE A LIFE FROM ALL STAGES OF GROWTH, WHICH BEGIN
FROM THE WISPER OF LIFE FETUS TILL THE BIRTH,
AS IT IS
WITHIN YOUR BODY WHICH IS NOT FOREIGN,
TO YOUR BEING,
AND IF A LEADER INCITE YOU ON THE REMOVING LIFE, HE IS NOT FIT TO LEAD, DON’T JOIN HIS MINDSET BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE SOVEREIGN CHOICE TO DISOBEY HIS EVIL MIND,
A fetus, even an embyo is NOT part of a woman’s body, Greg.
It is screened off from her body.
That is how a baby can have 1/2 of its DNA from its father.
When the father’s DNA is very different from the mothers (like the RH factor being the opposite) the mother can suffer prolonged morning sickness because of the foreign body within her.
According to many older cultures and laws the body of the baby is AS sacrosanct as is the body of the mother.
When a woman harms herself in an attempt to end her pregnancy, she can be punished as can any aider and abettor.
Only recently has some abortion been legal under constrained circumstances here.
Planned Parenthood has tried its best to salve the filthy consciences of women who abort for no reason other than personal selfishness.
Now, as a result of their success at that, we have a minority of women with seared consciences who desire more women to join them in their supposedly guilt-free lifestyle.
But it doesn’t work.
Even the Jane Roe of Roe V Wade now vehemently opposes the abortion she once sought.
When you tell a lie over and over and over that it is OK to kill your baby you might imagine it a victory when women do so.
But roiling inside these broken women is an emotional battle that leaves them a shell of their former selves.
@Greg:
If it gives her the right to kill someone, why would anything else be out of bounds.
Redteam
that was sharp and accuate,
BYE
@Greg:
So you’re saying Obama is in that category? He had no problem voting present for almost every vote that was taken while he was serving, but when he got the chance to vote to kill babies, he took that opportunity. His middle name must be Dilbert.
@Greg:
So would you include the brain, with which you can use to decide to do anything you wish? You stepped in it Greg, wipe your shoes.
Nanny G
I said that is part of your body,I really don”t see the difference,
should I have said, it”s within your body?
my understanding is the same , where ever the location in the body, in the lower part of the womb,
I guess you mean, it’s detach from the wall of the womb?
BYE
@Nanny G, #36:
In Nazi-occupied France, the puppet Vichy government made abortion a capital offence. Women who assisted other women in ending unwanted pregnancies were guillotined.
On a related note, the S.S. in Nazi-occupied France used rape as a means of retaliation and reprisal.
In Nazi Germany, aiding an “Aryan” in obtaining an abortion became a capital crime in 1943.
1 million, 37 abortions in 2012, in only AMERICA,
FROM Ditto”s calculation,
WE WOULDEVER KNOW IF HE DID NOT FIND THE NUMBERS,
@Greg:
NYC: 80% of Abortions Were Minority Babies
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/nyc-80-abortions-were-minority-babies
Forward!
Kraken
hi
most of ,
the ANCESTORS WHERE POOR PEOPLE MEANING ,VERY POOR,
they had about 10 or more babies to feed, and from their womb
came the brightest human of the world,
bye
@Kraken:
And never forget that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, envisioned abortion as a means of culling humanity of what she termed the “mongrel races”. The woman was an evil eugenicist, suggesting in writing to a fellow eugenicist that black ministers were the means to convince blacks to terminate their pregnancies. Based.on the demographic data of abortion, Sanger’s political descendents are succeeding at their goal.
And Greg, I notice you have no refutation of anything I have posted on this subject…..
Pete
there are two GREGS HERE, and from the two last comment it gave me a question,
that he could be the CONSERVATIVE ONE,
CHECK 33 34 42 ANSWERS NO LIKE THE LIBERAL GREG WE KNOW.
GREG TELL US WHICH ONE YOU ARE
@Pete:
Well that’s just it, eugenicist Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to act in part as an ethnic cleansing tool. Much of what Greg cites in regards to Nazis prohibiting abortions is revisionist balderdash parroted by clueless comedians and college professors who have a political interest in rehabilitating socialism by incorrectly associating Nazi Germany with the Right Wing. We can either listen to the jokes of comedians and the uneducated ravings of college professors, or we can look at the historical record.
It’s true that abortion was forbidden in the Aryan stud farms known as Liebensborn. But while the National Socialist German Worker’s Party did indeed prohibit abortions for those they felt were of Aryan descent, they simultaneously promoted abortion to those not of Aryan descent, especially in nations that they came to conquer. So like that of Margaret Sanger, the Nazi’s interest in abortion was purely eugenicist in nature. Here’s what Heindrich Himmler wrote to Willhilm Keitel in 1939.
“According to statistics there are 600,000 abortions a year in Germany. The fact that these happen among the best German racial types has been worrying me for years. The way I see it we cannot afford to lose these young people, hundreds and thousands of them. The aim of protecting this German blood is of the highest priority. If we manage to stop these abortions we will be able to have 200 more German regiments every year on the march. Another 500,000 or 600,000 people could produce millions of marks for the economy. The strength of these soldiers and workers will build the greater Germany. This is why I founded Lebensborn in 1936. It fights abortions in a positive way. Every woman can have her child in peace and quiet and devote her life to the betterment of the race.”
The Nazi Heredity Court of 1934, ruled that “…pregnancy may be terminated, with the concent of the woman concerned, uless the foetus is already capable of independent life, or unless the termination of the pregnancy entails a serious danger to either the life or health of the woman herself.”
The Collective also conveniently forgets the Nazi campaign, “Auswahlfeiheit” (“Freedom of Choice”). Here’s what Hitler had to say:
“They may use contraceptives or practice abortion–the more the better. In view of the large families of the native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. Active trade in contraceptives ought to be actually encouraged in the Eastern territories, as we could not possibly have the slightest interest in increasing the non-Germanic population.”
“The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring. . . represents the most humane act of mankind.” Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 10
Here’s what Racial Administrator Erhard Wetzel had to say:
“Every propaganda means, especially the press, radio, and movies, as well as pamphlets, booklets, and lectures, must be used to instill in the Russian population the idea that it is harmful to have several children. We must emphazise the expenses that children cause, the good things that people could have had with the money spent on them. We could also hint at the dangerous effect of child-bearing on a woman’s health. Paralleling such propaganda, a large-scale campaign would be launched in favor of contraceptive devices. A contraceptive industry must be established. Neither the circulation and sale of contraceptives nor abortions must be prosecuted. It will even be necessary to open special institutions for abortion, and to train midwives and nurses for this purpose. The population will practice abortion all the more willingly if these institutions are competently operated.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/7354284/Hitler-abortion-poster-sparks-anger-in-Poland.html
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1209-gardiner
What’s particularly interesting to note here however, is that much like socialist nation North Korea, the current administration has appointed a Science Czar that advocates forced abortions.
Drone Greg belongs to a very sick legacy.
Collective Drones will never directly respond to anything that they haven’t yet received talking point orders for. What they don’t realize though, is that the items they don’t respond to tell far more about them than their recitation of the Collective’s talking point orders do.
@Kraken:
Bravo.
The modern left wants to run from its radical roots. They have adopted catch phrases (War On Women; It’s For The Children) when in reality, nothing is farther from the truth. Our objection to being forced to purchase Sandra Fluke’s birth control pills, while she traipsed all across Europe with her very wealthy boyfriend, was labeled a war on women, yet liberal talking heads are still calling Sarah Palin a “moron” on TV.
You fight fire with water. When the left claims it is the side that supports women and minorities, point out how they still subscribe to the eugenics of Margaret Sanger and how Hitler, himself, was an admirer of Sanger.
@retire05:
Well that’s just it. Always fight ignorance with information. The key is to utterly ignore and dismiss the garbage being taught by high school teachers and college professors, and go directly to the source of information. With the internet, that’s easier than ever in today’s age. All it takes is a few cursory searches to discover that pretty much everything the Collective claims is incorrect.
Folks need to come to the realization, that one doesn’t become educated by going to school and perusing Facebook during lecture while listening to some clueless activist professor blather through a Power Point presentation. Rather, one becomes educated by reading books, preferably published before the Summer of Love. Lots of them.