A TTAG reader writes:
In this AP story [Obama Backs Planned Parenthood in Political Fight] the Prez states: “When politicians try to turn Planned Parenthood into a punching bag, they’re not just talking about you. They’re talking about the millions of women who you serve.” Yet when he’s turning the NRA into a punching bag, he’s just talking about some mysterious monolithic entity and not the millions and millions of Americans who they serve? It’s funny how that works.
“If we can save just one child…”
try 330,000 children. compliments of planed parenthood. abortion killed way more than any ar-15.
Oh where to start. What can you really say about a sign that says “Pro-woman, Pro-child, Pro-choice”? Is that woman remotely aware how illogical that is? How is abortion pro-child? I know some people rationalize abortion as being better for the child to die than be raised in poverty or where it is not loved, but that is illogical too.
Perhaps 2nd Amendment supporters should adopt the motto from the large sign that says “Every Human has the right to choose what’s right for them.” I certainly agree with that sentiment when it comes to the defense of my family and the defense of my rights against tyranny.
Of course that statement is inane and wrong too. Their right to chose what is right for them ends when it interferes with my rights. Period. And obviously no one is giving the unborn (or just born in some cases) the right to choose what is right for them!
This^
If you’re defending your family, aren’t you valuing your lives over someone else’s?
I see abortion as simply valuing the person’s life over something that isn’t a person. Yet. Potentially.
I don’t see why we can do one and not the other.
That reasoning is perfectly applicable if the life of the mother is threatened. But you don’t have the right to chose to take the life of another person so that you won’t be inconvenienced.
That’s some male bullshit right there. You aren’t obligated to be a life support system for NEARLY A YEAR for something that is basically a pitri dish full of cells. A blastocyst is not a baby.
Yes, males are the only ones who see a human embryo as life.
So Duke, at what point in that “almost a year” does it have a right to life, or is it ok to “terminate” (murder) it as long as it happens while still in the womb? Or should it be ok to murder it if it is still attached to the mother?
The mother’s right to choose ends after she decides to have sex. Its not like we don’t know what causes pregnacy or how to prevent it.
BTW its not just male BS. A great many women believe as I do. Life begins at conception and at that moment has an inalienable right to life.
Really. . .
Defending one’s family implies that you are defending the innocent from an aggressor, and taking up the position of aggressor against an innocent legally, ethically, and morally negates the aggressor’s right to security and, ultimately, to life if necessary. The life of the innocent is legally valued over that of the aggressor.
I think that someone who kills an innocent, defenseless potential human being is not a person either, and has no potential for becoming one. Therefore, I do not value their life as highly as I do that of the innocent. Can I kill that person?
I don’t see why we can do one and not the other.
So when does a fetus become a living being? When it’s conceived? When it has organs? When it has hands, feet? When it has a functioning brain? When it is a separate entity from the mother? When it is old enough to vote for a liberal government? Please… http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/346876/%E2%80%98it-will-expire-shortly-after-birth%E2%80%99
What about the hypocrisy of saying everyone gets to choose what’s right for them, but women get all the choices in reproduction and men get left holding the bill for a decision they had no say in?
So sorry, but men DO have a choice: Eschew females, and acquire currency.
Conservatives can’t win on anti-abortion or anti-gay. Liberals can’t win on anti-gun, anti-military, or anti-middle class tax increases. Both sides should stop doing these things.
I’d agree on gay rights, but the country has been steadily moving to the right on abortion ever since Roe vs. Wade. The reason is that abortion “rights” hinge not on individual rights but science. In the Roe majority decision Justice Blackmun wrote that “if the humanity of the fetus could be established it would void their decision.” That’s right in the ruling. Science has done nothing but affirm the humanity of the fetus and the left’s only recourse is to obscure the issue with euphemisms and emotion. Slowly but surely opinion polls have shown more and more people opposing abortion and it is now to the point where more people consider themselves pro-life than pro-choice. It may take another generation, but it is inevitable that the right will win on abortion.
Agreed.
That’s why I’m Libertarian
“Liberals can’t win on anti-gun, anti-military, or anti-middle class…” That’s why Progressives keep trying to divide AR15 gun-owners and hunters, that’s why they slowly make the Military a liberal social experiment and that’s why they systematically try to destroy the middle class through byzantine tax codes, destructive overburdened regulations and trickle down poverty. As soon as you believe the battlefield is static, you have lost the war.
Kermit Gosnell could not be reached for comment.
Saying Gosnell is typical of someone being pro-choice is the same as saying Lanza was a typical gun owner.
Who said that, Masswhole?
Gosnell varies from the typical pro-choicer simply in degree. If one accepts that it is OK to abort otherwise-viable fetuses for being ‘inconvenient,’ one is just a short step away from snipping the spines of live-born ‘abortion survivors’. The VAST number of abortions are performed for ‘convenience,’ not to save the life of the mother.
You will recall the recent statement by the Planned Parenthood representative who stated that the responsibility to decide whether or not to provide medical care to a live infant that survived a ‘failed abortion’ should be left to the ‘family’ and the physician. . . Tell me again how this differs from Gosnell?
Gosnell’s clinic aesthetics certainly weren’t the norm. However, the press that is so quick to hang Adam Lanza around the neck of the NRA has been strangely reticent to discuss Kermit Gosnell. I wonder why that is? Could it be that they might be uncomfortable with people juxtaposing late term abortion with infanticide?
I’m pro freedom, thus pro choice. A fetus is not a human being.
The definition of human being gets us into slippery slope territory.
According to an article I just read a few weeks ago in the Journal For Medical Ethics (no, I’m not a doctor, but I like to diversify my reading), it should be legal to eliminate children up to a year or two in age, because they’re not fully developed physically, emotionally, mentally, and can’t contribute to their own upkeep; ergo can’t be considered human beings. The same argument’s been made by the eugenics movement for a vast array of peoples since its inception. This included: the poor, the disabled (mentally or physically), people of certain races (blacks, Jews, Native Americans, Hispanics), people of certain political ideologies, the young, the old, etc.
Which is why my definition is anything with distinct individual human DNA with active cell processes.
Human DNA and actively undergoing cellular division pretty much sums my definition up.
That doesn’t make you pro-choice, it makes you anti-science.
Not according to the law, but you sure started off as one, and so did I.
I’ll remember that next time I cut my hair or clip my nails or maybe get a mole or tumor removed
It appears that there is no limit to the willful ignorance of science.
Let me know when that nail clipping or tumor grows into a human being. I’d be really intrigued by that.
If your tumor or mole has a beating heart, I wouldn’t remove it.
At what exact point does a fetus become a human being?
At the point it stops being a possum fetus.
At what point is a fetus not a human being?
What were you when you were a “fetus”?
Thanx for the input doctor.
See, my issue is that the government is hypocritical on the issue and allows a woman to decide if it’s a baby or not. For instance, a woman can go get an abortion and it’s 100% legal – however if that same woman wanted to keep the baby and was in a car crash due to you running a red light and had a miscarriage, you could be charged with manslaughter for killing the baby.
I’m pro freedom also, but not pro murder – thus am not pro choice. A fetus is a human being – it is a human fetus and has being.
That statement is an oxymoron. Pro-freedom means nothing if it allows for murder, which eliminates all freedom for the victim.
“Which is why my definition is anything with distinct individual human DNA with active cell processes.”
Yup
Obama will be gone in 2016 (which will be a long 4 years). The one to worry about is Bloomberg with his $27 Billion that knows he can buy politicians from both parties that will implement his gun prohibition agenda after Obama is gone.
Bloomberg blew his chances in both parties already, he is tolerated because of the money he throws around, nothing more!
Guns protect families. Abortion destroys families. Which side would barry be on?
Let’s be fair. You can’t paint all abortion with the same brush. There are some genetic defects that most sane people would never wish on a child. The tests for those defects are near 100% accurate and abbortions in those cases are a mercy. I oppose abortion as a form of birth control, but am perfectly willing to accept that there are plenty of cases where it is not just acceptable, it is both morally right and a mercy.
Stephen Hawking would never have been born according to that. A great scientific mind would have never existed…
So just because someone is going to have a genetic disability we should put them out of their misery.
Let’s not discriminate by age, kill all who are disabled, or not otherwise able to contribute to society. /sarc
So, now we’re in favour of ‘mercy killing,’ h’mmm? Who decides who ‘needs’ to die, who ‘needs killing’? You? A government board? The parents?
And what if the government board/parents decide that being female, or having dark hair or skin, or short legs, is a defect worthy of aborting? Is that OK with you?
Murder is neither morally right nor merciful, no matter the excuse.
The NRA, an organization of property owners and manufacturers with a common interest in protecting their property rights and way of life, are demonized as a sinister organization covering for a terrible and blood stained industry of murder.
Meanwhile Planned Parenthood, an organization founded in the name of Eugenics and the reduction of the African American birth rate, an organization which promotes the infanticide of viable fetuses in the name of women’s “liberation” is regarded as “beating up on women…” by a black man no less.
Liberals like to say we are compensating for a snub nose phallus with our firearms. To me it seems like they are the ones who are compensating for something. This level of moral inversion is the kind of thing I would not expect to see outside of a Satanic cult.
Everybody on this blog gets their panties in a bunch when some sanctimonious people want to regulate guns. The weakness of the conservative movement is insisting they have the monopoly on morality, and choose to regulate the bedroom.
I wasn’t aware that abortions occurred in bedrooms – all this time I was thinking that people drove to hospitals and clinics.
They may occur there if they were outlawed, with coat hangers close by in the closet. Anyway, a couple of the young lady’s in the above picture appear attractive – and they obviously support birth control. I will lecture them on conservative principals on “the morning after.”
Nazgul, talk to people who were actually alive back before abortion was legal – the myth of the coat hanger and frequent back alley abortion is just that, a myth.
Somebody has been watching too many movies – e.g “the cider house rules”.
Anyways, if they are willing to risk a coat hanger to “kill” their baby then when they accidentally kill themselves they will get little remorse from me.
That ‘coat-hanger’ thing is a myth, for one; For another, in this modern day and age of accepting unwed pregnancies as a societal norm, not to mention universal availability of contraception, it’s highly unlikely that we will relive the days of back-alley abortions, shunning, and convents.
Just because most children are conceived in bedrooms does not give their parents the freedom to do as they please. It is wrong to suffocate them in their cribs. What’s the difference between that and an abortion? Timing.
At what point does a human become human and therefor deserve protection under the law? When it becomes male or female? That happens at the instant of conception – the child either has two X chromosomes or an X and a Y making it a he or she not an it. How about when it’s (his or her) heart starts beating on it’s own? That would be 18 days after conception when most women don’t even know they’re pregnant yet.
If you can come up with a logical point in prenatal development where a child fundamentally changes into a human other than conception or birth I’m all ears.
It all depends on whose ox is gored, no?
We’re surprised a leftist tyrant is a hypocrite also? The entire leftist ideology is built on contradiction and hypocrisy.
Abortion is not the bedroom. Quite frankly I am amazed when I read gun blogs that, at least in the comment sections, I see so much stupid reasoning and haste characterizations.
There is certainly an out-of-touchness with reason when it comes to statements like “The GOP should stop being anti-abortion”. Really? Quite frankly even most (educated) pro-aborts recognize the humanity of the baby in the womb. But leave that aside. Let us say that I and other conservatives are wrong. We still sincerely believe that the fetus is a human person, and killing it is murder. If I were willing to be pro-choice just to hold office I am saying screw what is right, I just want power.
Really? You libertarianazi’s want that? A hunter sees a deer in the distance. It isn’t clear. He thinks it may be a man, the guy next to him says, no its a deer, take the shot. Were he to take the shot, he would be morally (though not legally) guilty of murder, because what he could see seemed like it could be a man and he was willing to kill. Without arguing for the truth of the pro-life movement, and even (arguendo) positing that the fetus was not a human person, the mere fact that they believe it to be so means that you should be outraged if they adopted a pro-choice position.
Personally opposed, but pro-choice merely means, I don’t give a s#!% about human life. I want to sound like I do.
I can respect to a degree a person who honestly believes and acts for something that is wrong. But to say one thing and do another? No.
Then again, we have commentators here who have favored eugenics (murdering a person for a handicap/genetic defect is not a mercy you bastard). As someone whom the doctors wanted to murder in the womb for being handicapped, and who knows many instances of false positives on DNA tests that some ignorant commentator here puts faith in, and doesn’t care even if it really is positive, because he knows the children who were not aborted when doctors urged abortion. How dare anyone say what life is worth living and which isn’t? This is digusting. And such a person cannot honestly have a coherent basis in believing in any rights, let alone gun rights…sieg heil and all that is what it smacks of.
This^ too
If you can respect the difference in values, disagree and move on.
Acting on it to try to control what a woman does with her body is not so different from those pushing gun control.
What a woman does with HER body is not in question, here. What IS in question is what she does with the innocent being WITHIN that body.
A fetus is not a cancer to be cut out and thrown away. Pregnancy is not an illness. Abortion is, in fact, murder.
As another poster has already said, give it another generation or three, and abortion will be outlawed. Not only is the science is on the side of the anti-abortion side, but its also a simple numbers game: If you kill your future supporters and voters before they’re born, you’re going to see a shift in demographics against your side.
I also think it is insanely ironic that our nation’s first African American President gave a speech at an organization whose founding principle was the extermination and genocide of African Americans.
Not only is it there founding principle, they are actually succeeding in their eugenic program. Because of the abortion-rates, by 2080 African Americans will probably be endangered in this nation, by 2150, and they’ll be all but replaced by Hispanics.
If an organization is founded on a set of principles that include wiping out a group of people, don’t be surprised if those principles are acted upon by that organization.
For the record: I am anti-abortion personally, but I would vote for a pro-abortion politician in a heartbeat who was an absolutist on the 2nd Amendment.
What is the science on the anti-abortion side?
Knock yourself out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development
Embryology. The more we learn about the development of the human fetus (I use fetus here not as a term of dehumanization but merely a label to denote a stage of development like infancy or adolescence), the more delivery appears to be an arbitrary marker of “personhood.”
Pro-life bioethicists have been arguing this for ages. Oddly enough, some pro-choice bioethicists (e.g., Peter Singer is the most notable example) have similar positions, albeit arguing that infanticide is not immoral.
The current crop of dems, including Obama, love to use “for the children” for anything they can. They also love to parade around children to use as props.
Except on abortion. Lol.
It’s funny because it’s true. And I’m pro choice (well, mostly, I’m pro choice up until the point of viability, at which point only if there is a mother’s life in danger). Both sides pick an arbitrary point not based on science “conception” or “the moment it completely pops out it’s a baby, before that it’s not a person! Honest!”. Reality is both are essentially “religious” arguments based on “faith”. And as a religious person I want my gov as far away from my religion as possible. Thus, how about we base it on reality where is that there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between an abortion at 3 months, ethically, and one at 7 months. Or just leave it up to the states and you know, focus on what matters to 99.9% of americans right now–jobs. But I usually end up making both sides mad. Sigh. 😛
I’d agree that abortion laws are completely under the domain of the state governments not the federal. As far as religion, atheists are not completely amoral so abortion is a moral issue but that doesn’t make it a religious one.
There are serious problems with the viability solution. First and foremost is that premature babies are now viable earlier than they were in 1973. Someday (probably not that far in the future) a newly fertilized egg will be able to be removed from the mother and incubated in a laboratory. Therefor a zygote in 2113 may be viable but a fetus in 2013 is not. It makes no sense to tie morality to the flexible state of medical technology. Furthermore, the child is completely viable from the point of conception as long as it stays in the womb. If you have to yank it out to make it inviable how is that not murder?
At three months, that fetus has had his or her own heart beating for over 2 months on it’s own pumping blood that is frequently a totally different blood type than his or her mother. I realize many people try to tale the reasonable middle ground, but sometimes the middle ground between right and wrong is still wrong.
It’s clear that the abortion issue is a complex one. But much of the complexity goes away when you remove the rent-seeking aspect of it – that is expecting someone else to pay for it. Even if the law grants a person a right to an abortion, that should not grant a right to expect someone else to pay for it.
Conversely, if someone strongly objects to abortion, I respect that. If that person wants to actively oppose abortion, then they should engage in the dialog and convince people to not have them. They should not be required by an amoral state to financially support that activity. But again, there should be no expectation of employing the state to force your will upon another person.
I believe that the government’s involvement should be carefully neutral. It’s not ,of course. Politicians across the spectrum engage both their supporters and detractors in a carefully orchestrated dance to maximize their own financial benefit.
The whole “pro-choice” nonsense is a sucker play taken from a freshman marketing textbook. Unless rape, force, excessive alcohol or a roofie was involved, the “choice” was made when the woman decided to forget her birth control or let the guy ride bareback. A bad choice, but her’s to make.
Personally, I’m pro-abortion. I’m not hiding behind language intended to dress up a harsh reality: tiny multicellular parasitic organisms aren’t people.
Yet it’s impossible to get to personhood without first being one of those parasites.
Larger multicellular parasitic organisms named Ralph may not be people, either.
Shows the fascist mindset of Adolf Obama….. He wants to use abortion to control the population He likes women having sex w/o consequences, he wants the public high on dope and sex so he can shred the Constitution. The Guy is a fascist Its no surprise that he want things one way and for a other issue another. Want proof look a t Mussolini in Italy in the 30s.
I’m totally against abortion, for myself, but I’m totally for the stupid people terminating their DNA. I did note the hypocrisy. Besides, the NRA is funded by the evil corporations, not the millions of members. Can I get my check back?
It’s all he’s got. He can’t attack people like he did on the campaign trail – remember the cling to guns and religion quote? Man, he got hit hard over the head for that one. It’s easy to target the NRA because everyone assumes it’s an evil group of rich lobbyists when in fact it’s supported by a small industry and dues paying members. Nothing like the big money he’s received from banks or the other industries that pump big money into politics like tobacco and energy.
Comments are closed.