Tell someone who identifies as "pro-choice" that they are "pro-abortion. Try it. If you ever have, you know that, without exception, they take great offense.
This is not a new phenomenon. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Abraham Lincoln referred to Stephen A. Douglas as being pro-slavery. Douglas, who actually owned slaves indirectly through his wife, took great umbrage at the label. Douglas' stated position was that he was not pro-slavery, but rather that he was in favor of allowing each state to decide its own policies regarding slavery. In the parlance of today, Douglas was "pro-choice" on slavery. Of course, he never inquired as to what "choice" the slaves themselves might prefer.
Does anyone remember anything Stephen A. Douglas ever did or said on any other topic? Defending slavery was hardly his life's work. As a three-term U.S. Senator, Douglas devoted himself to streamlining the process of bringing new western states into the Union. Douglas' driving passion was the expansion of the United States. But what he is remembered for is having been wrong on slavery.
On this anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, politicians of today should take a lesson from Stephen Douglas. Those on the wrong side of the abortion debate, who finesse their positions by claiming to be "personally opposed, but..." pro-choice civil libertarians -- especially those Democrats who want to regulate every single other aspect of our lives -- are only going to be remembered for their complicity in the murders of over 53,000,000 innocents so far, a holocaust that dwarfs the achievements of Hitler or Stalin.
What do they mean by "choice" anyway? I'll give you a hint: they're not talking about peanut butter.
"Choice" means the right of a woman to choose whether to love her baby, or kill him.
"Choice" means that you have to pay, through your federal, state, and local governments, over $300,000,000 per year to Planned Parenthood alone.
"Choice" means that a baby might be killed by having her arms, legs and head sawed off in the womb, and her trunk divided into sections.
"Choice" means that a baby might be killed by having his body bathed in acid.
"Choice" means that a baby might be killed by having her birth forced prematurely, and be left to gasp out her life in a soiled hospital linen closet, or else have her skull pierced with a pair of scissors.
"Choice' means that a baby's humanity (or lack thereof) will be judged by his health.
"Choice" means that a baby's humanity will be judged not on her health, but on her ability to survive outside the environment that's natural for her state of development.
"Choice" means that his humanity will be judged on his father's criminal conduct.
"Choice" means that a baby has no rights that a born person must respect.
"Choice" means that we have to tolerate 1.5 million abortions per year, including women getting their third and fourth abortions, including abortions as birth control, including partial birth and other late term abortions, including abortions instead of reporting child abuse, including abortions instead of reporting statutory rape, including abortions for minors without their parents' knowledge or consent and including nearly half (or more) of abortions sought because the mother was either coerced or abandoned by someone on whom she should have been able to depend.
If you're pro-choice, this is what you're OK with.
Though how you sleep at night, God only knows.
(Cross-posted to Lake County Right to Life Blog)
14 comments:
I don't want to take this thread too far afield, but it simply remarkable to note that the Democrats were/are abysmal on the two major civil rights issues in American history. Reading Democratic talking points from the 1850s - and here I'm talking about northerners like Douglas - and its practically indistinguishable from how modern Democrats talk about abortion.
perhaps you are confusing "great offense" with mild irritation.
You certainly seemed greatly offended, and wasted no time in contradicting me, when I pointed out that you were pro-abortion.
?
I'm wondering what it is that you're referring to in your last comment...I mean, I have been called a great many things on this blog: child-hater,anti-family, pro-rapist, relativist, liberal, godless.
It's all just name-calling at the end of the day.
ps: what ever happened to Brian?
Brian is still around, I still encounter him on Facebook from time to time; I gather he's presently too busy to write either on this blog or on his own. Which is too bad.
As for you, when you come out in defense of killing innocent babies, you can't get too surprised at your reception.
if a 45-year-old woman gets pregnant, the chances of miscarriage are around 75%.
Is it morally wrong for her to try for a baby, given the high chance of a miscarriage, or rather, the death of an innocent life?
Oliver, like any pro-abort, you're trying to make excuses stick, when you continue to refuse to discuss the principle at hand:
Is it morally wrong for a woman to intentionally kill her child, based on a statistic?
In your view, is it ever morally wrong for a woman to choose to kill her baby?
What I'm trying to discern here is, given that it's the death of so many innocent unborn babies that concerns you, whether you consider it immoral for a woman of 45 years to try for a baby, given the high chances of innocent death.
What I'm trying to discern here is, given that it's the death of so many innocent unborn babies that concerns you, whether you consider it immoral for a woman of 45 years to try for a baby, given the high chances of innocent death.
I've been writing about this all these years, and you still don't get it.
What I want to stop, Oliver, is intentional killing.
Deaths happen. Everyone who ever lived either has died or will, and nothing I can ever do or say will change that.
Sure, if women -- of any age -- stop having babies, then their babies won't die. But then shortly the human race will be extinct. Perhaps you would consider that a Good Thing.
You seem to be suggesting that a woman who knows that her baby might die shouldn't have a baby.
But every baby will die.
What I am fighting against -- and I understand why you don't want to discuss it and keep trying to change the subject -- is intentional killing.
I'm not talking about miscarriages -- that's a medical care issue. Indeed, I can think of some post-apocalyptic science fiction scenarios when it might be considered a moral imperative for every women to have as many children as possible, regardless of their chances of survival.
I'm talking about people making an intentional choice to directly act to kill their own babies. I think any rational moral standard must abhor such action and any moral state must seek to prohibit it.
And, too, as a general rule, statistical probabilities are an extremely poor guide to making moral choices. The moral actor invariably is able to take into account factors that are un-accounted-for by the statistics.
I also question the accuracy of your quoted statistic.
Does that help you understand the issue under discussion any better?
I do realise that intentional killing of unborn babies is your concern.
I just wanted to explore the idea with you that women can by various different decisions put an unborn baby or new-born excessively at risk, and I wanted to know your position on that.
I don't mean to avoid any issues I'm happy to answer your questions i just know we've been over it before and thought it a good idea to pursue something new.
I just wonder, when does the baby get the right to choose????
I agree with all all of the points in your blog, and I am proud to be pro-choice/pro-abortion. I have never taken offense to the label pro-abortion. All of my friends have no problem with that label either. Not sure where you see people getting all upset about that label.
In that case, Jake, I'm sure that you're fine with this, as well.
This, too, is what "choice" means.
Post a Comment