We couldn’t possibly celebrate the 40th birthday of Roe v. Wade without liberals, and pro-abortionists, declaring their love for legalized abortion. Yes, I understand abortion is an issue with fifty shades of grey, but just as liberals like to put the Bill of Rights on a graduated scale, which allows them to push for the abolition of the Second Amendment; they put life on a similar scale. They have to since it’s the only way they can be intellectually honest in a debate, albeit while looking like idiots.
Salon.com’s Mary Elizabeth Williams did just that in her January 23 piece, where she holds the view that “all life is not equal.”
Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.
[...]
My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to. And if you believe that it begins at birth, or somewhere around the second trimester, or when the kid finally goes to college, that’s a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless. We can’t have it if those of us who believe that human life exists in utero are afraid we’re somehow going to flub it for the cause. In an Op-Ed on “Why I’m Pro-Choice” in the Michigan Daily this week, Emma Maniere stated, quite perfectly, that “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that abortion saves lives, too.” She understands that it saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families. And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.
So, Williams admits that a fetus is a human life, but “so what” if we kill it. Is she saying that some babies need to die? Granted, if a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, then an exception can be made, but Williams is talking about healthy pregnancies. The mother is the “boss,” and she can do whatever she wants, regardless if her health is threatened or not. Remember, “all life isn’t equal.” That is quite a depraved moral compass, and it never ceases to amaze me how liberals always have a top-down model for everything.
However, NRO’s Katrina Trinko penned a much more eloquent critique yesterday.
By this same logic, isn’t infanticide also fine and dandy? After all, if we’re talking about autonomy, kids aren’t exactly independent as soon as they are born. No infant can take care of themselves. And even later on in childhood, children rely heavily on the adults in their life to provide shelter, food, and emotional support. What about kids and adults who become disabled in life? What about quadriplegics? They’re not going to be able to take care of themselves. Is it okay if we just off the lot of them? Heck, what about needy friends who seem to be falling apart unless we talk to them regularly and console them? Okay to just shoot a couple of them so that we don’t have the burden? Should we ship the grandparents that spent all their money and are now financially dependent on us to the local executioner?
Yes, if the fetus is a life — and a human being — and not a clump of cells, that makes a huge difference. No one would ask a woman to respect the rights of a clump of cells. But it is valid to ask her, difficult as it is to have an unwanted pregnancy, to realize that the death of the child — the child who was totally innocent and has done nothing except be conceived — is not an appropriate way to handle this.
“All life is not equal”
Great, thank you for that, Ms. Williams. Now, then the Conservatives start hunting down the liberals who want to take our guns, we just have to point to Mary Elizabeth’s opinion and we are then just hunky dory, no crime here, we just determined that your life is not as equal as mine. Neighborhood kids bothering you? No longer a problem. Brother-in-law drank all of your beer? Hey, problem solved now. White folks got you down? Got a solution for that. Harry Reid won’t allow the Senate to pass a budget……?
Thanks again Mary. Nice to know that evil comes in both genders.
“All life is not equal”
So we can bring back slavery?
That was a rationale for slavery, that they were somehow inferior human beings.
We treat children like they’re a dose of the clap and people wonder why life is devalued. If The Almighty does not punish America, then He owes a huge apology to Sodom and Gomorrah.
Here’s the thing…
If the life of an unborn human fetus is considered to be a sexually transmitted disease by these creatures, when does the outright infanticide start?
Here’s a question. Has there been a statistical uptick in infant homicides since Roe V Wade?
By this, of course, I mean murder of infant children by one or both parental figures, and that would include ages up to pre-adolescent 12 year olds.
There are several interrelated principles here: “All life is not equal”. Here in Germany decades ago, the nazis had as a prime moral principle, namely “unwertes Leben”. Directly I translate the term as “humans not worthy of living” or more freely as “humans whose life is not worthwhile”. The “all life is not equal” thesis can be seen as a logical derivative of “unwertes Leben”. The nazis used a spurious racist theory (some “scientific” [sic!] research was done to support the theory) in order to determine just what sub-group of life embodies “unwert”, viz., “not worthy of living” or “life having no worth”.
For argumentative purposes ONLY, I will tentatively accept the thesis. It is to be noted that the nazis did not ever deny that Jewish life was not human!!! NEVER!!! Let us tentatively accept the position that there are “good” nazi reasons for the conclusion that Jewish life “is not equal” to Germanic life. A very important principle thrusts itself on a “morally” thinking nazi (and I can show that even a Himmler had moral qualms). Is it morally permissible, not to speak of being morally imperative, to kill “unwertes Leben”? Please do recall that nazi racism justified itself “scientifically” as promoting the improvement, indeed the survival of the HUMAN race (that constitutes, of course, “wertes Leben” or life worth living). Well, it seems that a certain sub-group of humans constitute “unwertes Leben”. The goal is to advance and to improve human life. This is the END aimed at by MEANS of the act of killing a form of life not equal to all other life. Such killing (let us call it “post partem abortion” with no age limit) was a moral problem for many a nazi (and the nazis had difficulty inculcating the willingness to kill in their chosen executers). The moral question is: Do the ends justify, viz., morally permit the means? The “end” is worthy (= “wertes Leben”, the “means” is lethal. The nazis rejected the age old principled belief that the ends do not justify morally any and all means whatsoever. The “means” must be moral in themselves even if this leads to the conclusion that they cannot in specific cases be used to bring about certain worthy ends.
Flash forward to our days and we find the VERY same moral argument. The use of abortion is clearly a use of a “means” that is lethal to the aborted human and is done so for the good “end” of making life better or even securing life for the not-to-be-mother. I find myself HORRIFIED to encounter in America a type of argument that my relatives had to confront in bygone times. I thought that such argumentation had been relegated to the dust bin of history, only to discover it as a Supreme Court decision (1973) finding its concrete “execution” (Obama’s term) in the HHS Mandate and in the “killing fields” or, better, the “concentration camps” of groups like the governmentally subvented Planned Parenthood.
I’ll end this comment with reproducing a moral quandry faced by the Cardinal in the film “The Cardinal”. The unmarried sister of the Cardinal had become pregnant and in the last hours before birth she had experienced complications leading her into coma. The Cardinal was thereby responsible for a decision. What decision? The doctors said they could only save either the mother or the baby and that the means used must teleologically lead to the death of one or the other. What was the Cardinal’s decision? The princple that the ends to not justify the means confronted the Cardinal in a very personal manner. In this case, the conscious termination of one innocent life could save the innocent life of the other. What decision? The Cardinal instructed the doctors to try to save both. He could not decide that “all life is not equal”. The logical consequence was to make a decision based upon the ends justify the means. In the story, the mother dies and the child survives. Think about it! Did the Cardinal make the morally correct choice? What would you have done? More importantly, why????
Oops, I made a mistake in the end sentences. The Cardinal based his decision upon his REJECTION of the principle that “the ends justify the mans”. This meant that he could not chose consciously and with intention to have the unborn human be killed for the very worthy case of preserving the life of his beloved sister. I repeat: Does the reader really reject the principle of “ends justify the means” or does s/he does so only at times? You know where I stand, i.e., in the film on the side of the Cardinal. And I know what the pro-abortions would say about the Cardinal. And YOU???
The spirit of Molech
“A life worth sacrificing.”
Of course the whole thing gets silly with the advent of cloning technology. We’re almost there. Goats, cows, cats etc have been cloned.
With cloning, any cell nucleus can be developed into a full adult.
They can clone from Any Cell In The Body. Think about that. Any cell.
Very soon now, cloning humans will be well within our capabilities.
That means, if you are against abortion, and you bleed, sneeze, spit or otherwise eject a living cell from your body, don’t throw it away, that would be Killing A Human Being.
Instead, bring the precious cell material baby to an advanced biology lab immediately, so it can be developed properly.
Failing to do so would be murder!
Come on!!! The Swamis I have read manifest intelligence. One cannot kill a human until said human is alive, before or after birth. Any birth control that prevents conception does not kill any living human. There is a distinction between a cell POTENTIALLY becoming a human and a living human in ACTUALITY. You might buy some used copy of scholastic logic and you surely will receive enligthenment concerning the potentiality/actuality distinction. You have presented my strained philosophical mind with an argumentum ad ridiculum (to pervert a bit of Latin). If you must argue, please turn to my comments above. I would love to receive a reply.
Note: My response to you has not touched upon the MORALITY or not of cloning humans, and on purpose. I do have objections. They are, however, irrelevant for the line of argumentation (sic!) that you presented. You may think that the whole argument is silly, but I suggest it is not silly relative to the individual, i.e., the unrepeatable individual aborted. My clone is not I!!!
Planned Parenthood and its sleezy hand-maiden backroom operatives are practicing eugenics, pure and simple. If this story isn’t eugenics, what in the world will it take for America to wake-up and realize Roe vs. Wade is a frontal attack on EVERY religion.
In February 2010, the office of an abortionist in Pennsylvania named Kermit Gosnell was raided for allegedly providing prescription medication for anyone willing to pay.
However, once the police were inside they discovered a butcher shop.
The room was occupied by drugged women who were bleeding in filthy recliners.
In the basement, they found the remains of 45 aborted babies in jars, bags and
other containers.
Leading up to the trial, the extent of Gosnell’s wickedness came to light.
Because Gosnell would perform abortions no matter how far along the pregnancy was, many of the babies were delivered alive.
This didn’t stop Gosnell from following through with the death sentence.
Gosnell would stab a pair of scissors through the back of the breathing child’s
neck, severing the spine and killing the baby.
Seven babies were killed in this horrific manner that we know.
Gosnell and nine of his staff have been charged with murder, infanticide and
abuse of a corpse.
As sick and disgusting and wrong as this is, what does it say about our society
that many believe if these babies were killed weeks earlier, that Gosnell would
merely have been performing a so-called “normal medical procedure”for these women?
What does it say when tens of thousands of babies die every week in our
country?
When tearing them limb from limb when they are a little smaller isn’t a crime?
What really separates Gosnell from a “doctor” who will perform an abortion when a baby is 20 weeks old and not when they are 25 weeks old?
Are they really different?
This isn’t about women’s “rights.”
This is about the over 1.6 million babies destroyed by abortionists every year
in our country alone — babies who were to grow up and have a shot at making a
life for themselves.
But they never get that chance.
You and I must work together to end abortion in our country to save the 1.6
million innocent babies being aborted every year.
I know it’s a tough fight.
Stories like this crush my heart.
What it also does is strengthen my resolve to fight even harder than before.
It might not happen tomorrow, I believe if you and I and millions more pro-life Americans stand together, we will ultimately put a stop to the massacre that happens every day.
Convinced this isn’t wanton legalized murder on a scale as yet not witnessed in our USofA? Yes, it’s happening in every Planned Parenthood and its affiliates every hour of every day in our communities. Eradicate this sickness, by joining pro-life advocates for sanity and sanctity of life…stop this mass murder taking place right under our noses.Pray. Amen. Mass infanticide, that’s what’s happening in the USA.