Pro-lifers outnumber pro-choicers 500-to-1 at massive S.F. abortion rally
Visualize for a moment what would happen if San Francisco hosted a rally on the hot-button topic of abortion. How many people would you expect to show up to support each side?
Well, considering that San Francisco is the city that regularly votes in overwhelming numbers for Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, two of the strongest abortion advocates in Congress, and that San Francisco is perceived as being among the most liberal cities in the nation, you would likely anticipate the pro-choice side to vastly outnumber the pro-life side at any rally.
You couldn’t be more wrong.
Because when the anti-abortion group Walk for Life staged a march in San Francisco last Saturday, January 23, they turned out an overwhelming and jaw-dropping 40,000 pro-life activists, who were met by a well-advertised counter-protest which managed to draw no more than 80 (that’s eighty, eight-zero) pro-choice advocates. 40,000 vs. 80 is a 500-to-1 pro-life advantage, something that seems inconceivable in the sex-positive liberal stronghold of San Francisco. How did this happen?
We’ll get to verifying the attendance levels at the end of this essay (skip down to the section below called “The Numbers” if you’re curious now). Meanwhile, let’s get a taste of what the day was like!
This picture shows what miracles a deceptive camera angle can wreak. As the huge mass of pro-life protesters assembled for the march, a small contingent of counter-protesters awaited them here across the street. Could you guess from this photo that the pro-life marchers in the distance outnumbered the pro-choicers by 500 to 1? Because the handful of pro-choice counter-protesters are in the foreground, they fill the camera frame impressively — while the pro-life contingent fades away into the distance.
Always pay close attention to news photos! Even an undoctored image can be framed in such a way as to deceive.
Dueling Narratives
This sign kind of summed up with perfect concision the two-pronged pro-choice strategy for the day. The “text,” to get all postmodern, is to focus on women’s ownership of their own bodies and their individual rights of self-determination. The “subtext” is to intentionally destroy any sense of propriety in the proceedings, to use vulgarity and sexuality to rob the other side of its innocence and somehow in the process thereby drag the pro-lifers into the gutter where prim virginity is no longer a source of power but rather something to be mocked.
The fatal flaw in this horribly ill-conceived two-pronged strategy is that that subtext totally undermines the text, and vice versa, so that the argument ends up canceling itself out. Any legitimacy your point of view might have had instantly evaporates when you start yelling “Cunt cunt cunt!” in your opponent’s face. You can try to win by having a rational debate; alternately, you can try to win by punching below the belt; but if you try to do both simultaneously, you are sure to lose.
(And no, don’t ask me what’s going on in the crotch region of that sign — I couldn’t figure it out either.)
This impressive banner encapsulated the other most common message that the pro-choice side tried to put forth: that the pro-lifers’ religiosity was the basis for their “hateful” beliefs, and that they were mostly not from the Bay Area and were thus outsiders bringing an unwanted ideology into a liberal enclave.
Once again, one wonders if the total irrelevance of the pro-choice message is intentional or not. So much effort went into this banner, and yet it in no way addresses the concerns of the people on the pro-life side. As a result, I imagine that the banner was completely ineffectual in changing anyone’s mind, and instead seems to have been made solely for the amusement of the pro-choicers.
Here’s a video of the pro-choice side chanting their favorite slogan, one which they repeated over and over for hours on end all day long:
“Christian fascists go away, abortion rights are here to stay! Right-wing bigots go away, abortion rights are here to stay!”
I understand that each side strives mightily to frame the abortion debate in their own terms, because to even acknowledge the opponents’ point of view is to lose the argument. But if you’re actually trying to change hearts and minds, squandering your brief time on the soapbox with a statement like “You’re all a bunch of assholes — go away!” isn’t going to do the trick.
Full Disclosure:
(In American politics, one is not really permitted to discuss the abortion issue while feigning impartiality. There’s no such thing as neutrality anymore. So I should say where I stand on the issue, since my stance will likely affect your perception of this essay.
I am mostly, though not enthusiastically, “pro-choice.” But that doesn’t mean I am pro-abortion. I think abortion is gruesome, and is often traumatic, and should be avoided if at all possible. Yet I balk at the notion of the government dictating which medical procedures are allowable, and at bureaucrats intervening into the inviolable relationship between doctor and patient. In other words, my libertarian bent and anti-authoritarian attitude trump my strong distaste for the concept of abortion. This is made possible by my personal assessment that an embryo is not a fully fledged and legally definable individual until it reaches the level of “viability” — in other words, until it becomes mature enough to survive outside the womb, which is at around five-and-a-half months of gestation.
This issue of “ensoulment” — the point at which a human egg becomes a separate human life — lies at the heart of the abortion debate, though it is rarely discussed in overt terms. Opinions range from the “Every Sperm Is Precious” Monty Python family to late-term abortion advocates who say a baby isn’t a baby until it draws its first breath. Me, I fall somewhere in the middle. I don’t think a one-hour-old fertilized egg counts as a separate legal entity, nor do I think that a premature 7-month fetus can just be tossed into the garbage can as so much excess tissue. In my admittedly non-expert opinion, at some point a fetus’s brain develops to such an extent that it achieves awareness of its individual consciousness; and at some point its body matures enough that it could survive outside the womb. Both of these developmental markers seem to happen right around the point of earliest “viability,” somewhere between five and six months of gestation. And so, lacking any more likely indicator of a fetus’s moment of “ensoulment,” in my (once again admittedly non-scientific) opinion, that’s the point at which a fetus can be dubbed a separate human being with all attendant legal rights.
Because of this, although I reluctantly must concede that the state should not outlaw abortion up to five-and-a-half months, I strongly oppose late-term abortions after that point, because at that late stage, abortion could be considered homicide.
I realize that this middle-of-the-road position will likely please no one, and may possibly even anger some readers on both sides of the argument for not being sufficiently pro-choice or pro-life. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything nor draw adherents to my point of view: I’m just laying all my cards on the table so you know where I’m coming from. Whatever my personal opinions are about abortion, I can still cast a critical eye on both sides of the debate and see where they fail and where they succeed. Now: On with the essay!)
Where was I? Oh, that’s right: Narrative efficacy. Not every message at the march was as ineffectual as our first three examples shown above. Several of the pro-life marchers carried signs that struck deep in the heart of the pro-choice ideology, and must have caused great philosophical distress among those who saw and actually paused to ponder the messages. For example…
Ouch! Now here‘s a sign that a leftist doesn’t want to see. Margaret Sanger’s unabashed and overt racism has always been a big problem for Planned Parenthood’s public image, as has her leading role in the eugenics movement. It’s extensively documented that Sanger saw birth control mainly as a way to decrease the number of “unfit” in society, a category which in her view included foreigners and racial minorities. Her defenders try to mitigate the painful truth of her racism by pointing out that at least she wasn’t as bad as those eugenicists who called for the active extermination of blacks and other “unfit” groups; Sanger merely advocated the more mild “negative eugenics” in which undesirable populations are gently eliminated over several generations by means of lowering their rate of reproduction through birth control. So hey, she should be praised as the least bad kind of genocidal racist!
The flipside of his sign was just as devastating. Sanger’s notorious “Negro Project” has become such a public relations disaster that the library which houses her personal papers felt compelled to issue a long defense of The Negro Project and Sanger’s reasons for starting it. To give both sides of the dispute equal time, here is the crucial paragraph from the essay linked above defending Sanger’s statement:
Sanger reiterated the need for black ministers to head up the project in a letter to Clarence Gamble in Dec. 1939, arguing that: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” This passage has been repeatedly extracted by Sanger’s detractors as evidence that she led a calculated effort to reduce the black population against their will. From African-American activist Angela Davis on the left to conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza on the right, this statement alone has condemned Sanger to a perpetual waltz with Hitler and the KKK. Davis quoted the incendiary passage in her 1983 Women, Race and Class, claiming that the Negro Project “confirmed the ideological victory of the racism associated with eugenic ideas.” D’Souza used the quote to buttress erroneous claims that Sanger called blacks “human weeds” and a “menace to civilization” in his best-selling 1995 book The End of Racism. The argument that Sanger co-opted black clergy and community leaders to exterminate their own race not only gives Sanger unwarranted credit as a remarkably cunning manipulator, but also suggests that African-Americans were passive receptors of birth control reform, incapable of making their own decisions about family size; and that black leaders were ignorant and gullible.
So: Was Sanger just manipulating naive black clergy to participate in the slow-motion genocide of their own race, or did she just want to provide the gift of sexual freedom to African Americans? You decide.
It was only much later in the 1960s that theorists expounded the notion that birth control’s main function was to enable the “sexual liberation” of women, who should be able to have sex freely without any physical consequences. In Sanger’s mind, birth control was not so much about sexual enjoyment as it was a way to improve America’s genetic stock by preventing the wrong kind of babies from being born.
But even the “sexual liberation” justification for birth control and abortion has its potential flaws. This pro-life protester displayed a distinctly feminist message which presents the other side of the same argument: Is the Sexual Revolution just a trick to get women to “put out” more often and by so doing become nothing more than “re-usable sex objects” for men?
Once again, this message directly confronts the arguments presented by the pro-choice side, and it therefore is much more effective than other messages which don’t acknowledge the opposing side’s issues.
More effective signage from the the pro-life side. Pointing out that many leftist heroes of the past were anti-abortion is a painful reminder that there is no unanimity on the left on the abortion issue — just as there is no unanimity on the right.
But then again…sometimes people do live up to stereotypes — in this case, the “angry Christian warrior.”
Speaking of stereotypes…in the other camp we have dour-faced and decidedly unsexy feminists demanding sexual freedom.
While the sexual energy, contrary to all preconceptions, seemed to be mostly on the pro-life side.
Near the staging area for the pro-choice contingent, someone had taped these signs onto the Porta-Potties. Hmmmmmmm. As a point of reference, ponder these comparable signs from not too long ago in American history:
Are we entering a new age of ideological Jim Crow?
As always, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (a transvestite street theater group who dress up as nuns) blessed the rally with their presence. Unfortunately, no one seems to have clued them in that the whole joke of men dressing up as nuns went stale about 30 years ago, and that their particular brand of “genderfuck” (intentionally defying traditional gender appearance) is now about as shocking as teenage boys with piercings and eye-shadow. I.e., not anymore. The time has come to stop humoring these buffoons and their worn-out schtick.
The small group of counter-protesters waiting to confront the marchers included one woman with this rather unnerving off-topic sign. What is its relevance to abortion?
The other side of her reversible sign showed this no-less-angry but somewhat more relevant message. Yet since the pro-life marchers were themselves mostly young women and did not in any way match her stereotype of embittered male abortion opponents, the accusatory tirade on her sign seemed more reflective of the pro-choice side’s misapprehension of the conflict than an accurate description of the pro-life side’s motivations.
The rally’s organizers carefully arranged a solid wall of pretty young girls at the front of the march, presumably to make it more photogenic and to drive home the point that the pro-life side is not just a bunch of old fogeys.
Awaiting them was a smaller but equally devoted clique of pretty young pro-choice girls who had taken it upon themselves to “re-interpret” the pro-life signs, doctoring them to display pro-choice messages instead.
Though I remain more than a little confused why anyone thought the phrase “Men Regret Fatherhood” (the word “Lost” being crossed out) could possibly be construed as a good rallying cry for the pro-choice side.
Speaking From the Gut: Do Extreme Messages Work?
Many protesters on both sides of the aisle displayed messages with heartfelt and unapologetic sentiments that could be considered a little over-the-top and in-your-face. Do such messages “work” in terms of influencing the public debate — or can they be counter-productive? Let’s take a look at some of the more extreme messages on both sides and ask the question: Did you really want to say that?
Extreme Pro-Life
The more confrontational kind of pro-life protests inevitably include gruesome pictures of dead fetuses dismembered by late-term abortions. While I understand the intent of the shock value — This is a real baby you’re killing — I have the suspicion that a lot of average folks are simply turned off by the gore and see such imagery as exploitative.
Oops — looks like someone violated Godwin’s Law. Never a good idea. Though, to be frank, there were admittedly only a tiny handful of Nazi or Hitler comparisons visible all day, a relief from the bad old days of anti-Bush or anti-Israel protests, where seemingly 50% of all signs featured a swastika.
Surviving family members of actual terror victims might take great exception to this claim. Few if any women who have abortions do so out of hatred for their offspring or as an ideological act of intentional murder for the sake of terrorizing babies. Sure, if you accept the premise that an embryo is a human being, then more people have died from abortions than have died in terror attacks; but even conceding that premise I don’t quite get how abortion counts as an act of terrorism at all, much less “the worst kind of terrorism.”
Another overly melodramatic plea which some might deem as just barely crossing the line into the realm of the ridiculous.
While humorous, this sign will have absolutely no effect on a pro-choice opposition which already sees religion — and Christianity in particular — as the enemy.
Extreme Pro-Choice
Leftists often mock anyone who accuses them of being nothing more than a bunch of “atheists and communists.” Unfortunately for the pro-choice side, the accusation can no longer be so easily dismissed when the two main contingents who showed up to support their cause were…
…atheists…
…and communists. (“Revcom.us” at the bottom is the Web site for the Revolutionary Communist Party, who indeed comprised a substantial portion of the pro-choice protesters.)
And what is it with these people’s inability to get a grip on the concept of capitalization? If your entire organization is devoted to revolution, why not spell it either “REVOLUTION” or “revolution,” instead of the embarrassing “REVOluTiOn!”
Another overly extreme message is to position your side as aggressively pro-abortion, rather than the more palatable “pro-choice.” There’s a very good reason why the movement insists on the “pro-choice” euphemism: Because it resonates with the public. Essentially saying “Free abortions for everybody!” makes you seem a little too enthusiastic, and, well, a bit bloodthirsty.
The wearisome Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence predictably beclowned themselves by offering condoms to the passing pro-life girls and yelling “Use condoms!” Stay classy, guys.
Even though there were fewer than 100 pro-choice protesters, most of them had some kind of wrongheaded or counter-productive message on display. A common variant (seen in several other photos here as well) was gratuitous and purposeful vulgarity, what one might call “cunting the culture.”
And even though it was the United States Supreme Court which gave us Roe v. Wade, and it is the United States federal government which insists on allowing unhindered access to abortion against the wishes of many states and citizens…it just wouldn’t be a proper left-wing protest without a dash of anti-Americanism thrown in for good measure!
Racial undertones
There was a racial undertone to the day’s proceedings as well. The vast majority of the pro-choice side was white, while a substantial percentage of the pro-life side were racial minorities — in particular, Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander. Here, a group of Hispanic teens is interviewed for a radio show.
Some of the marchers had signs or shirts in Spanish, while others sang Spanish-language hymns.
One of the few network TV crews to show up was from Channel 14, the Hispanic news channel — covering an issue of interest to their viewership.
Meanwhile, some of the folks over on the mostly white pro-choice side were still imagining that they represented the interests of oh-so-oppressed minority groups. The problem, honey, is that your immigrant sisters don’t stand with you!
Scenes from a Rally
Cappuccino TV?
Sarah Palin remains Queen of the Villains for her pro-life opinions — especially her unforgivable decision to not be a hypocrite and instead live up to her principles by refusing to abort a child she knew would be disabled. She gave birth to Trig and loved him anyway! How dare she!
What exactly goes through your mind when you choose a “The Vaginas Are Coming” shirt and a 2004-era anti-war sign to bring to an abortion rally?
This woman on the pro-choice side had what I judged to be the most idiotic sign at the entire rally. Her accusation, I assume, was that one-third of pro-life women had in fact themselves had abortions, and so were all hypocrites and thus had lost the moral high ground. But her argument gets tripped up on its very first assumption: Perhaps, “statistically speaking,” one-third of American women overall will have an abortion at some point in their lives; but by definition that one third of women will almost all be in the pro-choice camp, otherwise they wouldn’t have chosen to have abortions in the first place.
This form of “logic” is very commonplace on the left; it is almost universally assumed that anyone who takes a moral stance against anything is him- or herself the most extreme practitioner of the very thing being condemned, and thereby a hypocrite of the worst kind. Thus, all politicians who vote against gay rights bills are themselves assumed to be closeted gays; preachers who praise monogamy are inevitably having affairs; law-and-order advocates are secret criminals; and women against abortion must necessarily have aborted their own babies. Presumption of hypocrisy is the default setting for the Left, and that presumption prevails even in the total absence of any evidence. Or, in this case, the most ludicrous of statistical fallacies.
Without the presumption that conservatives are hypocrites, the moral basis for many leftist tenets crumbles. Because if someone who actually is virtuous advocates a virtuous path, it’s impossible to criticize their position. Only by pointing out the messenger’s possible flaws can the message be rejected or mocked.
Are there preachers who have had affairs? Certainly. Anti-gay politicians who are themselves gay? Sure. And are there pro-life women who themselves have had abortions? Undoubtedly. But the percentages are tiny, despite every possible example being trumpeted by the media at every opportunity. Because Jim Bakker had an affair, leftist logic goes, all bombastic preachers have affairs. All celibate priests are secretly child molesters. And all anti-abortion advocates regularly have abortions.
Interestingly, those women on the pro-life side who did have abortions in the past all seem to freely admit it, and in fact use their experience (which they describe as a very negative experience) as a testimonial to help other women avoid making the same “mistake” they made. So even if this sign was true (which it isn’t), it still in no way would undermine the conviction of those on the pro-life side.
The sign refers to investigations such as this one in which 91% of Planned Parenthood clinics were caught on tape saying they would not report cases of statutory rape which came to their attention. Interestingly, the undercover report documented at the link is very similar to the “sting” exposé by James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles against ACORN, but received much less nationwide media coverage.
Uh…if you insist. Whatever you say, mister.
This video shows short clips of two different pro-choice chants: The first refrain is
“Keep your rosaries off our ovaries!”
…followed by
“Pro-life supports killers, we remember Dr. Tiller!”
Some of the pro-life signs humorously pointed out the bizarre disconnect of a leftist philosophy which seems to value all life on earth — except human life.
And to confirm the topsy-turvy environmentalist worldview: a vegan pro-choicer’s bag which declares her to be an “anti-species-ist” (in Trustafarian Spanish, naturally).
“HAVOQ,” for the curious among you, is the Horizontal Alliance of Voraciously Organized Queers. Seriously.
Wow — here’s a rare sight. A true pro-lifer whose dedication to a single noble idea transcends outdated political boundaries! Kudos for consistency, at least.
While the coat-hanger icon was used as a shorthand by nearly every group on the pro-choice side to signify the back-alley abortions that would supposedly happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned…
…the Bolsheviks uniquely felt the need to explain the obvious to the unenlightened.
The loneliest Queer Kiss-In in San Francisco history.
The Numbers
Walk for Life had over 35,000 attendees pre-registered before the rally, and on-site estimates placed the final number of attendees at probably closer to 40,000, which from my vantage point actually seems like an under-count.
The San Francisco Chronicle tried to downplay the size of the crowd by characterizing it vaguely as “several thousand,” but they also more accurately assessed the size of the pro-choice counter-protest as “only a few dozen demonstrators.” In fact, that was an under-count too, as I later took overhead photos of the pro-choice contingent and carefully counted exactly 80 counter-protesters total — which probably included more than a few uninvolved passersby, but I wanted to be generous. (The far-far-left IndyBay tried to spin the numbers as 200 counter-protesters and cited the Chronicle‘s ridiculous “several thousand” pro-lifers, but I saw nowhere near 200 in the pro-choice camp.)
Although there’s no way my pitiable narrow-angle camera lens and ground-level view could possibly capture the full enormity of the pro-life crowd, I did my best with the following photos:
This picture shows that subset of the crowd which could squeeze onto a lawn to hear the pre-march speakers. There was overflow in every direction, and more people streaming toward the rally with every passing minute.
Here’s the front of the march as it started — along with the rain, unfortunately. The column was 25 people abreast at the start, but that narrowed to perhaps around 15 people abreast further back. Take that into account when weighing the next images.
After the march was already well under way, I stood in one spot and took a picture looking back toward one end of the human column — which you can see extends off to the horizon…
…and then pivoted and took another photo toward the other end — which also extends beyond the visible horizon.
I’ve been to anti-war rallies which were estimated to have in excess of 100,000 people, and they all seemed smaller than the one seen here. Only 40,000? If you say so….
But those two pictures only showed the back part of the column. I ran ahead and climbed up a staircase to snap yet another picture showing a different segment of the march not visible in the previous photos, streaming around a curve in the Embarcadero and once again disappearing off into infinity in both directions.
Here’s a short video taken from the same vantage point, futilely attempting to convey the enormous length of the pro-life column of humanity, which curves around the corner in the distance.
After about half an hour the pro-choice contingent, which had been tagging along in a small cluster next to the march, finally caught up to where I was and paused for a while on the sidewalk below to protest the passing crowd. That gave me the opportunity to snap this overhead photo and count them one-by-one. I came up with 80 total — count them yourself if you’re curious.
I also took a closer overhead photo of the stationary pro-choice contingent to confirm my count — though in this image only about 70 are visible.
(I realize that these from-a-distance shots are not particularly interesting, visually, but I present them here just to provide some evidence for the crowd size estimations.)
You might be tempted to justify the small turnout at the counter-protest because it may have been poorly advertised, or that the Left was caught by surprise, learning of the rally only the day before, preventing any possibility of generating a substantial pro-choice presence. But no. First of all, the Walk for Life is an annual event, and everyone knew full well months in advance when it was scheduled to happen. The local leftists protest the Walk for Life every year, so it was most definitely on their calendar. Furthermore, the counter-protest was widely and extensively advertised on local liberal sites (which is how I found out about this event myself, since I scan such sites for local happenings). Examples of online notices exhorting people to come stand with the pro-choice counter-protest can be found at IndyBay, BACORR, SFist, Bay Area Progressive Directory, among many others. In short: It was no secret. Everyone who was possibly interested in the issue knew that January 23 was the big day.
The question then becomes: Why did basically no one on the pro-choice side show up, aside from a few demented radicals? I can only imagine that the answer is this: That every liberal in the Bay Area is already so confident that the status of abortion in this country is unchangeable and safe as a permanent socio-political fixture to such a degree that they feel it isn’t worth defending, since it’s not really under threat. What else could explain a 500-to-1 disparity in pro-life vs. pro-choice protesters in the most liberal area of the United States?
But if 40,000 people come out to rally against something you take for granted while only a handful stand against them, perhaps you shouldn’t take it for granted any more.
Or could it be that the support for abortion in the Bay Area is not nearly as strong as it once was?
In this new America, anything is possible.
Good work as usual, Zombie. I do appreciate your efforts.
BTW: My thoughts on the legality of abortion rather parallel your own. I have had some luck
in summarizing things thusly: “Abortion should not be rendered unto Caesar.”
Best I can do.
Did anyone see Ellie Light?
It is clear that Sanger started Planned Parenthood with a racist/bigoted agenda. The bigotry has not changed.
Why are they expressing bigotry to women that are pro-life?
Wow, putting a NSFW warning on the link on the front page might be helpful.
Exceedingly well done.
I suspect you are right, the 500-to-1 ratio likely reflects more the left’s confidence, rather than their indifference – and, alas, they’re right to feel confident. The tortuous explanation of your own position on abortion is proof enough of that. You obviously feel completely comfortable in admitting to all that the state of medical science dictates the limit of your compassion toward the unborn. In addition, grounding your philosophy on abortion in your libertarian leanings provides what Our Dear Leader calls “a teachable moment”. For those struggling to see the difference, libertarianism is amoral, conservatism is not.
Being pro-life is a valid choice for a woman.
While I doubt the 500-1 ratio holds true for the actual bay area numbers, pro-life is growing. People are realizing that abortions do end a life, they aren’t like getting a pap smear, and they will eventually be outlawed. Much like slavery.
I’m pro-choice too: choosing birth control, choosing abstinence, choosing adoption, choosing love. These are all great choices. Heck, in birth control alone, you have a choice between 13 or so different options. The only choice I can’t support is choosing to kill a child because you were lazy (or any other statistically rare reason)
I don’t care who outnumbers whom….
I believe abortion is a woman’s choice. I do not believe I would ever have an abortion…I don’t know…but I will not stop you .
My experices with Pro lifers shows me that they tend to be people that play God, want control over others, and are usually bible thumpers.
I would think women that do not want a child have a rason not to want it…and would not welcome it and treat it right..and please don’t give me the “i’ll take it” bs.
HOWEVER!!..late term abortion is wrong, disgusting and lot of other words. If a child is viable outside the womb..it should be treated as so.
I am not a feminist by any means, infact I’m relatively conservative, just happen to think abortion is between a woman and her God, not me/you and your God.
Your opinion may be different..so be it, that will not change mine. Scream,rant,rage..it’s my opinion. I am, have always been, and will stay pro “choice”,
The cognitive dissonance necessary to paint and stand behind the “Religious Bigots Unwelcome in SAN FRANCISCO” would cause derisive laughter in any other circumstance.
I cannot imagine Saint Francis, upon quizzing the banner carriers about the reasons for their complaint, doing anything else but falling to his knees in prayer for their mortal souls.
Of course the act would cause the crowd to label him as a religious bigot… thus resulting in the insanity of San Fransisco not being welcome in San Francisco.
There is only ONE measure of a nation’s wealth. It’s progeny. All the gold, paper, goods, cars, fancy houses, and other “STUFF” is utterly worthless without the next generation to value it.
Our nation is sick because it is killing its children… murdering its wealth… for its current avarice.
Bless the folks who stand up for life, and pray for those who cannot or will not see…
r/The Mighty Fahvaag
“As the huge mass of pro-life protesters assembled for the march, a small contingent of counter-protesters awaited them here across the street.”
Makes sense.
“Could you guess from this photo that the pro-life marchers in the distance outnumbered the pro-lifers by 500 to 1?”
What?
“Because the handful of pro-choice counter-protesters are in the foreground, they fill the camera frame impressively — while the pro-choice contingent fades away into the distance.”
What?
Pro-lifers and pro-choice are mixed up.
I can assure that you will not be able to get a teenager today to have an abortion, specially the ones I know. These kids today are been thought to love their environment, dogs, cats and they learn at a very early age the conception process. There is no way that these kids can become murderes of their own flesh. Yes, sometimes a pregancy can take place in an non-ideal moment of your life but to kill a little baby? No teenager that I know would do that today, thank to the environmentalists of the world for making us care so much about our earth and our life and the meaning of every living thing on earth!
Why would lesbians need abortion? That poster she was holding was an image of hell.
Nice work, Zombie. While I don’t agree with all of your opinions, I certainly respect the integrity of your reporting. That is no small thing. Integrity in the media is a rare thing these days!
Robert
“Every Sperm Is Sacred”
Once I saw George Stroumboulopoulos, host of “The Hour”, a Canadian Broadcasting Cooporation show, quoting Mounty Pyton’s hilaroius music in their “Meaning of Life” humour movie, as an official position of the Catholic Church.
Good Grief.
He’s not alone in swallowing Monty Python skits as if they were actual history. Millions more are just like him.
The moment that the sperm meets and fertilizes the egg, brand new human DNA is created. Brand new human DNA that has never before existed on this earth or in the universe. This is pure science. This happens within 24 hours after sex. If one does not tamper with that brand new human DNA, it will become a human being. How is it that an embryo isn’t human before 5.5 months? If a woman doesn’t want to carry a baby she should take some responsibility before having sex, instead of murdering someone because she doesn’t want to deal with the consequences. Because that’s exactly what it is, murder. When you stop a human being from having a chance at life for any other reason than self defense, you are a murderer. By eliminating a human embyro, no matter what stage of development it is at, you are stopping that embryo from growing into a human being and enjoying a full human life. Yes, woman have complete jurisdiction over their own bodies, but a human embryo isn’t their body, it’s another persons body, and by claiming jurisdiction over an embryo, women are proudly declaring themselves to be slave masters.
I support Zombie’s rather ambiguous position on abortion. Or I should say that have come to agree with him on an issue in which debate and discussion are particularly unfruitful. On most political matters it’s possible to debate from a practical standpoint what would be the best policy and possible moral implications. On the abortion issue we are starting from moral absolutes and revealed doctrine. The BIble has little to say about abortion and absolutely nothing about the exact time of ‘ensoulment’. People often just ‘feel’ that abortion is either murder or it isn’t. There’s no arguing with them. On the other hand, calling your opponents morons (a constant in left wing discourse) isn’t going to win any converts. Of course converts probably isn’t what they want anyway, they just want to prove their moral and intellectual superiority.
You don’t know the Bible very well.
My position is similar to yours – I don’t like abortion, am not pro-abortion, but balk at the idea of making it completely criminal. I base that on my libertarian bent. Bottom legal line for me? Even full human being does not have the right to the use of another human being’s body without their consent. But that does not stop me from believing that a woman granting that consent is a beautiful and desirable thing, to be encouraged.
I hate the way that pro-life people are told to just sit down and shut up because they “hate women”. That’s bogus. I believe in honest discussion and advocacy of wherever one’s position falls, not muzzling of dissent. I have no problem with encouraging women to choose life, and working to make that choice more possible for them. I don’t want women or doctors thrown in jail for making a difficult choice. Neither do I want any woman to be pressured into abortion, or to feel as if she has no other choice. How does that kind of environment “support women”?
The press would have us believe that it’s all about pro-woman vs. anti-woman, or throw them in jail vs. abortions are great. The truth is that most of the American public, especially women, have much more nuanced views than that crude simplification.
Yes, it’s risky to speak on a subject as charged as abortion if you refuse to take a definite stance on it. But there are worse positions to be in. One such is to be opposed to all abortions for religious reasons, yet hold that some abortions must remain legal because to ban them would render the law itself an unenforceable mockery.
That’s my position, by the way.
The United States will not accept legal restrictions on abortion until we can recreate the “culture of life” (George W. Bush) that pre-existed the Sexual Revolution. Not all aspects of that sea change in attitudes were bad — there is a baby in the bathwater — but the demotion of a developing unborn child to a rightless inconvenience should be undone. Indeed, it must be undone if the nation is to make any progress against this ultramodern form of genocide.
Of course, to achieve the restoration of that respect for life will require that bluenoses and libertines both accept that the rightness or wrongness of abortion has nothing to do with sex. But that should be obvious to anyone with three functioning brain cells.
Thank you Zombie.
Don’t kill that person, let someone ADOPT her/him.
Thanks for the disclosure, Zombie. I agree with you.
I realize that this middle-of-the-road position will likely please no one
Wrong. This position will actually either please a plurality of Americans, or at least be considered a tolerable and rational position by them. I happen to be ambivalent about abortion, and I believe I have the company of a plurality of Americans. Unrestricted abortion is only the tip of the ‘Death Culture’ iceberg. Unrestricted abortion goes hand in glove with the notion of rationing older citizens out of existence, or the ghastly utilitarian notions of doing away with the most severely disabled (a position opposed by many disability-advocate progressives). Also, the outrageous notion of forbidding parental notification as the default, as if the majority of American parents were potential ‘honor killers’ or something. Third trimester abortions for the convenience of the mother (as opposed to medically justifiable ones)? Bad idea.
‘Our Bodies, Ourselves’ has more application to non-pregnant citizens facing the threat of nationalized healthcare than it does to the militant feminists who coined the phrase.
“One such is to be opposed to all abortions for religious reasons, yet hold that some abortions must remain legal because to ban them would render the law itself an unenforceable mockery.”
The ridiculousness of this position becomes immediately apparent if you try to apply it to other areas where the government dictates behavior.
A traffic signal on a back-country road that might see a state trooper go by twice a year is entirely unenforceable, but that doesn’t mean we should not bother putting up stop signs and speed limit markers, or that we should stop enforcing them when people are caught in violation.
In spite of the fact that murder and theft have been outlawed in some form by most every government since the dawn of recorded history, people still do both, and people still manage to get away with both, too. I doubt anyone would take that as being a reason for the government to stop attempting to enforce those laws.
The numbers are wrong. The ratio was something more like 100 to 1. Not even the organizers claim 40k+, so that should tell you something. Did Zombie count the people at the 10:00 AM counterdemonstration rally and the Brass Liberation Orchestra? Obviously not.
The 1/3 statistic is likely referring to spontaneous abortion, in which the egg is fertilized but, for whatever reason, does not implant into the uterus wall or is simply expelled from the body.
Just to present one possible alternative meaning for the “Statistically speaking, 1/3 of you have had abortions” sign: I consider it at least possible that the sign creator is referring to the fact that approximately 1/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriage, usually before the woman is even certain she is pregnant. Of course, that is an illogical comparison, but hey, a lot of the other signs were illogical, too.
You lukewarm hypocrites make me sick. Why can’t you handle the truth that child sacrifice is an abomination? That it is so disgusting, tolerating it is an abomination? You think this depression was the result of a housing crisis? There would not be a housing crisis but for abortion, which has killed off 1/3 of a generation that would be buying their first houses right about now.
@ #24: Off your meds, buddy? Wow.
24 you are soooooooooooooooo right.
and to add to your statement…it has caused that earthquake in haiti and the big snows in the Southeast, and the financial crap on wall street!! you got it goin on buster!! nailed it~~ What else..oh the jenny craig/weight watchers argument, the fact that snow gathers on my satellite dish and disrupts my tv reception , and abortion has caused that little geek in N. Korea to go nutty.. and…..hahahahahahahahahaha
wanna share meds????
sorry…I ment 27
…NOT 24…
27
thanks!! #29
Finally an accurate account!! Thank you!!
)
Thank you for the “most extensive” display of this great march on the whole world wide web.
I congratulate you on your grand effort. Thank you for fighting the good fight.
May God Bless you and all who fight for the weak and innocent,who fight for the unborn babies, and who fight to preserve the Judea-Christian values upon which our nation was founded.
May God bless you with the gift of LIFE, a happy, healthy and prosperous life. Amen.
Zombie:
Great essay, as usual. And I’m shocked to see the relative turnouts in San Francisco. You may want to correct what’s likely a typo, however:
“Sanger’s notorious “Negro Project” has become such a pubic relations disaster…”
Or were you making a wry joke with “pubic?”
Only two questions for pro lifers…
Why is it that they hate those poor parents and the children of those parents after they are born?
Why is it that they depend on people like me and people like us to fight and die in their lousy rich man, poor man wars that they love so much?
their pro life…love death logic…blows my mind…
Who hates them? We just don’t trust the government nor believe it is the government’s job to take care of them. It’s we, the Church, who must take care of the poor.
Thanks, Zombie;
Yes, many of the “1/3 of women” go on to regret their abortions and join the pro-life side. Many women, when asked why they had an abortion, say “I didn’t think I had a choice”. And then, years later they visit an OB’s office and see an ultrasound at, say, 12 weeks gestation and realize the “Lump of tissue” line was just that-a line.
I’d like you to please view a few of the 3-D ultrasounds from about 6 weeks gestation to the point at which you already agree abortion is terrible and ought to be outlawed? I hope it changes your mind about what gestational age should be protected by law. I’d like for abortions to be illegal, but before anyone’s mouth foams! think about what that would mean: a strong majority of elected representatives willing to pass that kind of a law, because their constituents supported it. (Or would there need to be an amendment to the Constitution?) I think we’ll get there sometime soon, either we convince the pro-abortion and pro-choice types, or they finish exterminating themselves with abortion, gay marriage, contraception, euthanasia, stem-cell research on their embryos, you name it. (It’s creepy how enthusiastic the left is about ending their bloodlines.)
Very interesting coverage and analysis of the event. Thank you.
Also, thank you for sharing your personal thoughts on abortion. Mine are not too different from yours, and I suspect that many other Americans feel similarly.
I believe that abortions puts at odds two values that Americans hold very dear: life and freedom. Which do we value more, the life of the unborn child or the freedom of the mother to choose for herself whether to have an abortion. To take an innocent life is a hideous thing, but to deprive someone of their freedom to choose and act for themselves, especially in such a personal matter, is also hideous. It is apparent that each of us weighs these two values differently.
As for myself, I have always been opposed to abortion. I would no sooner take the life of an unborn fetus as I would take the life of my one-year-old daughter. However, I used to side with the pro-choicers, believing that the government should have no right to make that decision for someone. Now I am not so sure. When my wife got pregnant, I took the time to gain a more thorough understanding of the development of a child. I realized that I could not pinpoint the time when the baby went from being a lump of cells to being a living person – only that it seemed to happen very early.
I realize that all rights have their limits. In the case of abortion, one right must limit the other. I believe that this choice needs to be made on a social level, not decreed by the courts. We, as a society need to decide whether we collectively value the life of our unborn more or the freedom of individuals to terminate the life that they have concevied. If we choose to allow abortion, we further have to decide what limits we will place on that practice: early term abortions, late term abortions, partial birth abortions, post-birth abortions? At what point does freedom to live outweigh freedom of choice?
Wow i stumbled on this over at http://thisainthell.us. Outstanding work Zombie. I have never seen any journalism of this quality from any source on the topic of abortion. ever. This is a perfect example of what journalism should be. Thank you very much!
oh and #36 (Poor Citizen)- why dont you just quit it with that “boo-hoo rich people make poor people fight wars blah blah blah” If you have served in the armed forces (big if), shut your damn suck-hole b/c you volunteered for it. No one made you sign that contract. And if you haven’t served, let me tell you that not all of us in the military are poor helpless minions of the rich. I’ve served with plenty of guys from well-to-do backgrounds. And yes there are plenty of poor people in the military but i’ve never met a single soldier who feels victimized by the rich.
First, let me rip apart a thirty year old mantra that women believe the government has no right to tell
them what we can do with our bodies.
The government already does that. They tell you what trimester you can and can’t have an abortion.
That “can’t tell me what I can do with my body” argument is totally, completely and comprehensively fallacious.
Now about the numbers of pro lifers outnumbering the numbers of pro abortion people both in San Francisco and nationally.
Just ask yourselves a simple question.
Let’s see, so I want to support butchering the unborn or not?
I think not. Case closed.
They [the government] tell you what trimester you can and can’t have an abortion.
This is a widely held but false belief. In Roe the court decriminalized abortion at any time during pregnancy.
Now about that “my body” slogan. Remember the feminist fury against women who choose to have breast implants. Consistency of principle has never been a virtue among feminists, libertines, or any other element of the Left.
Thanks once again for an unbiased and thorough report and informative graphics, Zombie. You rock!
Performing OB/GYN ultrasound exams, I see early human gestions moving around with their heart beating. I also see what secular humanism has done to Americas youth.
The children need parents they can count on while they are helpless, and secular humanism gives us Molock worship. Lucifer loves secular humanism. There are no limits, and you can be your own god.
It makes me want to puke. America needs Christian morality, and respect for human life taught in schools once again. The rest of the world can go to hell with their hate for morality.
lbelle obviously you mean thank you for a count that makes you feel more secure in your own preconceptions. I will lean to zombies count unless someone can show how their count is more accurate.
Poor Citizen wandering of topic again and taking swings at thin air.
It is so hard for those on the left to believe that Pro lifers and conservatives are concerned about life, charity, self reliance and personal responsability (and no, govenment regulations and programs are none of those).
I contend that “ensoulment” is a specious red herring. The real issue is sovereignty; namely, who has the authority to truncate a human life and under what circumstances. Pro-choicers say the mother possesses that authority and may exercise it on her own terms (at least up to various arbitrary developmental stages, in some states). To say that this is not the pro-abortion position is a to make distinction without a difference.
Abortion is and always will be murder. Laws that prohibit it do not infringe on any individual right, nor do they act as a government proxy in individual decision making (you can choose not to become pregnant by not engaging in pregnancy-inducing behaviors). We must recognize and accept that we do not have the requisite authority to decide matters of life and death. We do have a responsibility to uphold the standard of respect for life prescribed to us by a sovereign God who alone has all authority.
In my admittedly non-expert opinion, at some point a fetus’s brain develops to such an extent that it achieves awareness of its individual consciousness;
~~~~
I’d strongly urge you to watch Linnart Neilson’s “miracle of life”. What that man can do with a camera . . . (see the “old” version).
He inserted a scope with a light into a pregnant woman’s uterus. Her 15 week old fetus (whose eyes were closed) was VERY OPINIONATED about the experience. He did NOT like that light. His mouth was wide open in the expression of a screaming baby. If he’d been in an oxygen environment, he’d have been crying. Loudly. He was trying to pull away, and was actually batting at the scope. Technically, he wasn’t “viable” outside his mother’s womb, but he certainly had a seperate and distinct personality and was aware of what was going on around him.
I have to quote Darleen Click:
“I’ve always supported the idea that the government has no business being involved in abortion in the first 12 weeks (either to support or prevent abortions) for adult single women of sound mind — call me Very Reluctant Pro-Choice — but that doesn’t mean I suspend my judgment that the vast majority of abortions are done for convenience and are, therefore, immoral.”
Hello Michael,
nice name.
so where are we?..we are where the rubber meets the road. I dont wander, u do.
Ive done four wars, and three turtle doves and u have done nothin. Remember that.
so much for thin air. eh? ha ha…
as for those on the left or those on the right when it comes to history and kids…u better get some… honey, life, history, and …future
do u hear me? …. fool….
While I think it’s great that leftists don’t want to breed much, I wish they could at least find a superior way to go about avoiding pregnancy but these are government indoctrinated folks who more than likely vote Democrat after all…
Wow, whoda thunk it! I hear next week there’s a Rachel Ray convention where they expect Rachel Ray fans to outnumber Rachel Ray opoonents by 500 to 1. Break out the tea pots, revolution is here!
Now for just a little ray of Christian sunshine, courtesy of Leatherhead:
“It makes me want to puke. America needs Christian morality, and respect for human life taught in schools once again. The rest of the world can go to hell with their hate for morality.”
I say we nominate Leatherhead to be the next Vicar of God. Take that whole Jesus thing and really bring it on home . . . for everybody just like him. (Don’t worry about the missing chromosome. we’ll engineer it in later.)
Keep reaching for the stars, people.
Your crowd numbers are way off. Just because somebody claims that an anti-war march has 100k people, that doesn’t make it true. So don’t compare your bad crowd estimates to IndyBay’s
Politicians were there at 10:00 AM – did you count them? No. The initial parade of pro-choice marchers going up Embarcadero had 130 people in it. Were you aware of that? Obvously not. Did you see the people in the brass band? Did you count them? You’re worse than the organizers, who have a lower count (35k+) than you – and they’re lying on purpose.
Why did one pro-lifer come up with 22,900?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=55885
Why did right-wing PipeLine News come up with 23-25k?
http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=walklife2010.htm
Why did the Catholic News Agency come up with 25k?
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/25000_attend_west_coast_walk_for_life_event_continues_to_grow/
Check yourself, Zombie. A ratio of 100-something to 1 is similarly impressive – there’s no need to exaggerate.
The mayor of SF showed up in 2005 to actively oppose this march, but the thinking now for most people is to ignore it. That’s part of the reason for the low numbers of SFers showing up.
i am not pro murder, but i would never take your right away to commit murder. you can connect the ligical dots of the two topics and the reasoning
The turnout, no surprise, was due to busloads of people being brought into the city on Saturday.
Secular humanism, btw, is contains more morality than you perceived Christian POV. Think of acts done in the name of God (any God) that are violent in nature. Roerder shoots Tiller point blank in a Church. Moral? Don’t think so. Your church leaders as pedophiles.
ah, myth buster, spewing crap without a solution to the problem. always a pleasure, “nuculer” engineer, to hear your thoughts.
@40 – yes it is because your position is not consistent. If you start telling me you are anti-IVF, pro-punishment for ALL parties involved in abortion (the female, anyone who goes with her, the doctor, his staff, etc.), then you have a consistent position.
but your side never tackles the hard issues. your focus is solely on protecting the unborn and your side does NOTHING to address not getting preggers in the first place. and then you don’t give a crap once it is actually out of the womb.
you’re just, like, so moral.
Where were the pro-abortion busloads?
Excellent journalism, as usual, Zombie!
#27 isn’t “off his meds”; more recent data suggests that one pregnacy in five (rather than one in three) ends spontaneously, most often during the first 14 weeks. In one study, 30%-50% of spontaneously miscarried fetuses examined had chromosomal anomalies, and the examined fetuses had serious structural abnormalities.
This doesn’t mean that one woman in three has had an abortion, or that the woman carrying that sign isn’t off her meds.
It may mean that there’s something to the Biblical concept of pre-quickening abortion that conforms with Nature and Nature’s God, to some extent. I don’t think that works, though, without a concept that abortion is an extreme measure meant for extreme circumstances. There is a lot that the pro-choice side could learn from the pro-life side’s playing up sexual responsibility, and from its pointing out that not all “sex-positive feminism” is promoted with women’s well being in mind (as opposed to more sex for leftie men).
I’ve been presented as a “sex-positive feminist” in a couple of academics’ books (so it must be so!), but I turned down an invitation to join the counter-protest. Those folks lost me the first time they opposed a Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The “reproductive rights” organization organizing this counter-protest had the usual alphabet soup of leftie slogans on its website, and one of them was about honoring heroes … like George Tiller.
Oh, no. No, no, no, no, no.
#43,
It appears you hate my freedom of speech, and think name calling is cool.
Just because you don’t believe as I do, does not make you an extremist. Please stay on topic, get a job, and become part of the solution.
Well skeezs I dont have a clue about u…
I am an american, and I dont care about u as an american … cuz I do not care about those who care about being americans..
so screw u
that is where this crazy man …that lives in europe guy says about u..
ok…
these americans at least have some balls about them..do u?
Search “Abortion Instruments” Grantham Collection. THIS is why we Walk for Life.
Wonder if any of the “pro-choice” women would carry those MY BODY, MY CHOICE signs to oppose ObamaCare? Same thing, isn’t it? The government can control every procedure you have but NOT abortion? Their arguments and positions always contradict themselves and these inherent contradictions always reveal the fraud and agenda behind their positions. Forty years later it is becoming soo obvious how damaging radical feminism was for women. Abortion, divorce, sex without responsibility, and on and on devalued women to the point where youny women are casually referred to as “bitches” and “hos”. This is what the fight was all about? This “gender equality”? What a travesty.
But Zombie — I only see one prong in that poster… You keep saying two prongs… Am I missing something?
12. Ceatris said:
“…Pro-lifers and pro-choice are mixed up.”
Ooops — good catch! The typo has now been fixed. Don’t know how I managed to miss that one. Thanks for noticing it and pointing it out.
And ‘charity’ aka ‘welfare’ for women who don’t abort and give birth doesn’t work either. Sexually active men and women have to be encouraged to take personal responsibility for their actions and behaviors rather than encouraged to ‘abort’ or go on the gov. dole.
The leftists do realize that encouraging abortion is ultimately going to shrink their base? Of course, leftists can’t preach personal responsibility, it’s not in their DNA and they would lose their base that way too. Oh what a conundrum!
Contrary to what most people think, abortion isn’t a complex technical issue. The big question as to when life begins is easy to answer. Everyone agrees that a new born baby is a person. Now, is the baby fundamentally less developed the day before it is born as opposed to the day after? A logical person would say no. You can’t use viability outside the womb because a new born isn’t viable on its own without great intervention either. So now, how about two days before it is born. Is the baby fundamentally less developed? Again I say no. How about three, four or five days? It would be very hard to pick a point were one would say that the baby isn’t developed enough to be a person. The only logical point where you could legitimately say the baby isn’t a person is just prior to conception. Until conception, there is no person. After conception, there is a person. Look up “conception” in your thesaurus. Words like “beginning,” “formation,” and “start” are listed. Aborting a baby is definitely destroying a person. Anything else is just rationalizations.
Personally I am pro-choice. Women are free to keep their legs together. Men have the choice to keep their zippers up. Good birth control methods exist. Humans aren’t mindless beasts that can’t control their behavior; they can most assuredly control their behavior.
Here is the rub though; humans don’t want to control their behavior. The sex drive is very strong and people want to have their fun, yet don’t want the unintended consequences. I can understand this because I felt the same way when I was young. In fact, I thought abortion should be legal. It wasn’t until I was married and had a son did I realize how special and precious creating a baby really is. As a parent now, it is infinitely more difficult to condone abortion.
This is the real dilemma for me. I know that abortion is wrong, but chronically useless people are a severe drain on the world. In all honesty, there are millions of people around the world that are living a horrible life and will die an untimely death due to their own perpetual, and apparent, lack of ability to help them selves. Look at Afghanistan, Somalia etc. Even in this county, when you look at the lowest rung of society: people in prisons, on welfare for generations, hopeless drug addicts, illegals who don’t work etc. I have to be honest, I feel sorry for them, but I don’t want this country destroyed trying to support them all and this country will be destroyed we don’t change course. A part of me says that if an abortion will avoid bringing another one of these into the world, it may be a good thing, as bad as that sounds. I look at all these scumbag prisoners (murderers and rapist etc.) costing us billions to house. That is why I can’t shut the door on abortion just yet. At this point it is a matter of survival.
so many on the left are just downright ugly and I am not talking physically
As a former fetus, I’m pro life.
So much for my slogan. I can not call something a right that is exercised at the expense of another person’s rights.
Look, I’m a man…. so whatever women think about that I really don’t care because if the woman I live with gets pregnant, then we both have a decision to make…. not just the woman.
As you say, the basic question is this… when is the fetus a human?
the only problem with your solution of somewhere in the middle is this… is it 160 days or 170 days when you think the “fetus’s brain develops to such an extent that it achieves awareness of its individual consciousness” at which point it is a human and should not be aborted in your opinion.
what if it is 138 days?
and that is the problem… since no one can say for absolute certainty when that is, if you believe in not destroying a human with a soul or “consciousness”, then you have no choice but to default to conception. Otherwise you are just playing around with the wording… to justify a position.
There really is no middle ground unfortunately.
That does not mean that I say women can not have abortions, all I say is that you either believe a human exists at conception or you don’t… you can not give yourself some wiggle room just to make it more convenient to make a case for abortion.
Wow comin from Cali and only 80 miles from that hellholebay this is something!!! Peeps are fed up with everything that is a lie. Margaret Sanger was evil! And now it begins because of the exposure of her agenda, the killing of the speechless, the innocent! Thank you for covering this and thank the peeps for coming against this abomination!
I would carry a “MY BODY MY CHOICE” any day of the week. Because it is my body, not yours, not Obama’s, not any one else’s it’s mine. Abortion is as old as mankind. It’s not a new idea of modern man…
Either it is done legally and medically or it is back alley with a coat hanger or herbs.. People carry a baby to term, kill it, bury it, throw it in the garbage.. If I wanted an abortion, I would go where it is legal.
I would “not” advise my girls to have an abortion or not, I would ask them to keep their knees together as much as possible…and take a double dose of birthcontrol…but it would be their decision. Severl young women that we know that are unhappy at home..have gotten pg on purpose. The state is so accomadating with welfare…and they can move out..disgusting. Oh, yes, the babies we know of in this situation have ended up staying with grandma or a niece or…. so, why have an abortion when you have a meal ticket. When a child comes into this world it should be a child of love, and the parents should be giddy with love for this child
‘CHOICE”, from the beginning of time to the end of time. Women have control of their plumbing, not you. It will never go away, no matter the laws the controlling religious people try to make. Rape, incest, mental illness, drugs are all considerations. I do believe late term abortion is the worse thing that could happen to the child that could at that point live outside the womb
There are many more important things than abortion to base your political vote on. If you are not careful, there won’t be any people to get preg to have abortions that you can oppose out of your sense of misplaced moral outrage.
I just read a story about a young girl, repeatedly raped by her father…over a ten year period…then became pregnant…
then the law said that she had to tell her parents if she was pregnant…
then when she told her parents…her dad shot her four times in the head…
so much for caring…and so much…for the law..eh? so much for caring..
and so much for god.s law…eh?
This was good work, but a challenge to the authors view on abortion may be considering the validity in charging a double-homicide to someone who kills a woman a week pregnant. The potentiality of life only a week old is considered a full person in the eyes of the prosecution, which may be the State. If there is any doubt as when to call life Life wouldn’t this act as a pretty reliable legal default?
Potential is as potential does.
As far as the aesthetics of politics, and maintaining the middle-ground in order to remain relevant (as the author seems to do) how does one ignore the aesthetics behind a populace that doesn’t understand that “reproductive choice”, and control thereof, is a preliminary to sex itself? Am I creating a false dilemma? Or are we so belligerent to think we are free to shoot our guns, but not face the consequences of the bullets corruption? (More false dilemma?) A judgment must be made.
number 40
I just seen ur lousy butt hole response to one of my responses…hey, respect dude…ur from texas, ignorant, young, dumb and stupid..I respect that!
but hey, its to be expected cuz you dont even know me.
I served 26 years. And I served in four wars, including vietnam. You, on the otherhand, like most of these snakes in here, served only, yourself, so dont worry chucky…u deserve what you get..so go get some..for yourself, like these big brother, big monster, big bigness, big oil, big bank people like ur dad, and like ur whore family ok?
My take – abortion is an evil, but the extension of government authority to ban it on a federal level is the greater evil.
I would not object to reverting this to the state level, in which case my guess is about one-third of the states might ban the procedure, one-third might enact laws and amendments to ensure it cannot be banned, and the other third would continue to contest the issue for years to come.
I used to have some sympathy for the abortion-rights side politically, but after the Sarah Palin situation in the last presidential election, no longer.
Zombie, you mentioned that the Planned Parenthood hidden-camera investigation was similar to the ACORN videos from James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles. O’Keefe was actually involved in both. His partner on the Planned Parenthood sting was Lila Rose.
53. That’s because I don’t think pregnancies are a problem, per se. Some pregnancies are a crisis, wherein the mother has health issues or lacks the means to take care of the baby, and some babies have health problems. None of these situations makes pregnancy a problem, just a challenge to be overcome. But if you need a solution to the “problem,” then I say Crisis Pregnancy Centers are that solution. They assist women through difficult pregnancies, provide adoption referrals, and give away baby supplies.
Nice photos and report, zombie.
Nice post hunter.
“YOU RAPE, YOU DIE” is a marvelous example of Looking-Glass-World thinking. The US Supreme Court has established that it is un-Constitutional to execute rapists, but perfectly Constitutional to kill rapists’ offspring — who also happen to be the offspring of the rapists’ victims.
“Why is it that they hate those poor parents and the children of those parents after they are born?
There is just nothing to say to this. That proabortion people keep spouting the “they hate the kid after it’s born” mantra shows how little they really have to stand on. And I know plenty of people-my husband included-who served in the military by choice, and weren’t poor. What is your point there??
“Think of acts done in the name of God (any God) that are violent in nature. Roerder shoots Tiller point blank in a Church. Moral? Don’t think so. Your church leaders as pedophiles.”
Ugh, yeah. Let’s think of the millions-tens and HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS-of people slaughtered by the non-religious communist and facist governments in history. Let’s think of all the non-priest pedophiles out there. Gee, yeah, religion really causes all the bad in the world, doesn’t it?
Poor citizen, are you really saying that it should be A-Ok for MILLIONS of babies to be aborted every year, because one poor girl was born to satan himself, apparently, and died as a result of HIS actions? THAT’S your justification for abortion? Surely you can come up with something better.
Finally-to all those who say (religious) prolifers don’t care about the kid once born: catholics-every single catholic church-have Gabriel’s Project which gives pregnant women everything they may need for that baby. Everything. Including a church-member family willing to babysit. No strings attached, you don’t have to start going to their church. Most other denominations have similar programs-any church will help a mom in need. All the religion-based crisis pregnancy centers-who have to discuss abortion as a choice BY LAW-give away any and all needed baby items as well. So how-exactly-do prolifers hate babies once born? Lose the talking point, it makes you look really stupid.
Why do liberals get excited about an early ultrasound in a planned pregnancy if it is not a life? It is so hypocritical. With modern science, you can’t pretend an early pregnancy is not a human being. They need to be able to say “I choose murder” if they want to be pro abortion.
Zombie I too am of two minds about the issue. There are times when the medical procedure is necessary but I balk at having to pay for someone else’s birth control. Especially since preventing pregnancy is not all that difficult and if a woman’s body is her own responsibility then she ought to take care of contraception before she has casual sex with whoever. Once she has made the decision to have unprotected sex then the law of consequences comes into force. Just as if she chose to stick her hand into a fire, her skin would burn. A+B=C.
If you don’t want a baby, don’t have unprotected sex. Don’t whore around, don’t prostitute yourself on the altar of “it’s my body” hedonism. Just as if you don’t want to die, don’t drink and drive. How is it that the same people who are hysterical about the causes and effects of climate change can jump all over everyone and their irresponsibility concerning our “carbon footprint” but they can’t be responsible for their own behavior on this issue?
People are complex aren’t they?
More por-lifers than pro-choicers turned up at a pro-life rally … holy cow! Next thing you’ll be telling me is that more Republicans than Democrats turned up at a Republican fundraiser.
@ Poor Citizen, I stand corrected on the matter of your service. Thank you. But i don’t find it particularly necessary to attack my family. you are more than welcome to cowboy up and debate the issues however. my dads a blue collar guy by the way. And why did you stay in so long if you are this upset with the state of things? Who did you serve with btw?
“My body, my choice.”
Sure. From a PP presentation (ostensibly about how clueless the Religious Right is):
“I choose to stop at a red light.”
I suggest these morons try choosing the alternative. Several times, in rapid succession. Then they’ll see the impact (pun intended) of their choices on other people.
HUNTER wrote: “‘CHOICE”, from the beginning of time to the end of time. Women have control of their plumbing, not you”. Hunter, I realize that you have probably never survived even an undergraduate biology course, so here is an update..It IS NOT YOUR BODY which is being sucked into a plastic cannula. The HUMAN body being destroyed, 90% of the time for specious and selfish reasons, is a completely unique genetic being. A being that is not even DIRECTLY connected to the PLUMBING you so crassly refer too. The placental barrier prevents even the exchange of blood between mother and child. Even if the orthodox religious perspectives are ignored in these arguments, there is NO question that a human, differing only in developmental stage (as an infant, toddler, pre-adolescent, adult, etc)from the rest of the population is KILLED. Sadly, the unborn have no voice, and are being conceived in a culture that has divorced sex from responsibility. The preposterous notion that women, while being equal to men have come to to translate this with “sameness” has ignored the fact that women have been the real casualties in the sexual revolution, as have over 40,000,000 unborn Americans. Men have been the winners in the contraceptive wars, the legalization of abortion and the destruction of the family…but after all, as long as we can have all the orgasms we can and women can now have sex with men whom have less regard for them than in generations we can all cheer the “freedoms” we have. Heaven help us.
“My body, my choice”?
Pray tell, exactly what part of the woman’s body is excised during any of the various abortion procedures? Her head? Nope, she gets to keep hers. Her arm? Nope. Her penis? She doesn’t even have one. All of those parts belong to the genetically-distinct person who, not five minutes ago, was happy, safe, and growing in his mother’s uterus. That is, until she paid a doctor $300 to rip him apart and vaccum his remains up like so much litter to be discarded with “medical waste”.
Forgive my bluntness. I see my own four children, vibrant, growing, alive, and I grieve for the loss of the unborn. My point is that it is patently NOT her body. It belongs to someone else. Abortion is a travesty of unspeakable magnitude.
But I suppose I can see how if you believe that waterboarding is torture and eating cows is unethical then killing unborn people by barbaric means is perfectly fine. After all, we certainly don’t want to tell people what they can and cannot do–except when they’re driving, of course.
Heh, crossposted with Dr, Mark. Well done, sir.
If pro-lifers didn’t outnumber pro-abortionists then there wouldn’t be many of any of us anywhere to protest or stand for anything.
Strange how so many things that leftist/progressive want to be necessitated as as a ‘norm’ would eventually result in the destruction of man/womankind.
We ALL started out as a zygote (a single-cell that contains two copies of chromosomes—one copy from each parent), we once were ‘invisible’ to the naked eye and if someone who is now known as our biological mother had decided to rid her womb of those cells we would not exist right now.
As a former helpless human zygote, I’d like to take this moment to say, “Thanks, Ma.”
Thanks for the nice essay and photos zombie.
Correction?? RE: the sign with 1/3 statistic
So even if this sign was true (which it isn’t), it still in no way would undermine the conviction of those on the pro-choice side.
Should this not read…
undermine the conviction of those on the **pro-life** side.
Zombie,
unless I miss understand what you are saying about your last picture, I believe your count is off by about Half???
Great work by the way.
What a complex issue. I just change my mind according to who annoys me the most……
If we’re on the topic of slogans, I kind of feel this one is attractive:
“Innocent until proven guilty, Human until proven otherwise.”
I would prefer if humans stopped seeking abortions, but I have misgivings about banning the procedure through force of law. Everyone over the age of 30 knows that teenagers are… a bit clueless sometimes. If a teen girl gets pregnant, and the law says she can’t have an abortion, then there is a very real possibility that she will seek a “back alley abortion” and possibly wind up dead herself. That said, I take deep issue with the pro-choicers who simply argue that it is the woman’s right to choose as if she is choosing between two “morally equivalent” options. She can do either A or B.
A=choose life or B=terminate the pregnancy.
A or B.
I think the choice really reduces to:
A=choose life
or
B=terminate the pregnancy.
That is, it is more like:
A
B
where A is a choice above and morally superior to B.
Anyway, as I stated above there are practical problems with banning abortions completely, but the pro-life position clearly seems to be the far better position in terms of its morality.
72. “A house divided against itself can’t stand.” History confirms this is true (not that it needed confirmation, considering Jesus said it first). What do you suppose would happen if we went that route? Nothing good, that’s for sure. It is better than the status quo, yes, but that doesn’t mean that something really bad won’t happen, up to and including sparking Civil War II. Not to mention, your fears about giving the Feds more power would, to be logically consistent, mean that you object to the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.
myth buster:
“Not to mention, your fears about giving the Feds more power would, to be logically consistent, mean that you object to the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.”
I was going to actually post something along the same lines, but hesitated because it’s dangerously close to Godwinning yourself. Still, bears mentioning – would it be acceptable now for someone to ‘I personally oppose slavery, but I don’t want to set the precedent of allowing the Federal government to confiscate the property of private citizens’? I think not.
People are figuring it out. Abortion is murder.
Soon the civic will be where murdering an unborn child is seen as the horrendous crime it is.
At that point it will be up to the pro-lifers to show mercy. Punishing people with 18 years of parenthood is not the civil solution either. Some people are not cut out to be parents. Forcing them just hurts the children.
A social compromise that allows everyone to at least get by needs to be found. I favor adoption.
87. GregP said:
“Correction?? RE: the sign with 1/3 statistic..undermine the conviction of those on the **pro-life** side.”
Thanks for noticing that. Now fixed.
This is the problem with being forced by the dictates of impartiality to refer to each side by its own “pro-whatever” moniker; since nobody ever gets dubbed “anti-” anything, it’s easy to get the “pro-”s mixed up and make typos of this sort — which I apparently did twice in this essay!
Zombie, I thought your analysis was excellent, including (and especially) your “full disclosure”.
In case you were curious, Jewish law says that “abortion, when necessary, must take place before the first 40 days, when the fetus is referred to as ‘mere water.’” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion )
I’m the grandparent of 10. 3 of our grandkids
weren’t born with the best set of circumstances.
But today they are alive because their lives
weren’t ripped away from them in the name of
“convenience” or “relief” by their mother.
Many years ago my oldest grandchild was born
on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. She was one
of the grandkids who, in some other families, would’ve
never seen the light of day. I continually thank
God for her, and for the light and preciousness she
brings to our family and friends. This sweet teenager
knows she is special, and she understands that she
was spared the abortionist’s knife. She can thank her
mother for that.
I was in Washington, DC, at the much larger March for Life. The crucial element for me was the presence of a large contingent of women who are “Silent No More.” They all held big black signs proclaiming “I Regret My Abortion.” For 3 hours in front of the Supreme Court, more than 40 of these women stood in the cold and, one by one, gave their testimonies. These women had abortions; suffered years of pain, depression, self-destructive behaviors, suicide attempts, addictions, etc.; found forgiveness through Jesus Christ, and were able to stop their self-destructive behaviors, but still suffered from grief; and finally, FINALLY found freedom, healing and peace when they found fellowship with other hurting post-abortive women.
Anyone having listened to these women would be very unlikely to consider having an abortion, I think. Their stories could not fail to melt all but the very hardest hearts.
(see http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org)
My sister Mary showed me the truth over 20 years ago. I went to visit her at an Airforce Base (co-oincidentally in the San Franciso area). She was working in a neo-natal intensive care unit. She placed a tiny baby in my hand. He was a record holder for the unit as the youngest of all time. I could not believe how wonderful and how small.
Then she said to me …
The Supreme Court says that child is not alive.
Life begins at conception. Simply Truth.
94. And that would be what Isaiah was talking about when he accused them of teaching human tradition instead of doctrine and having hearts far from God even as they worship Him by mouth. The biological fact is that the fetus’s heart begins to beat at about three weeks after conception, so the 40th day comes long after the heart has begun to beat.
I am 53 and when I grew up in the 60′s and 70′s we had kids to play with, tons of them on our block alone there were always enough kids to play army and have a small mock war. No less than 40 probably closer to 50 kids that all knew and played together threw snow balls at cars and football and baseball, hide-n-seek.
Today is different, big time different, back then single kid homes
were as few as single parent homes the average house probably had 3
kids ours had 6 and our neighbors had 8. Today’s neighborhoods are sad in comparison and the safety in numbers is gone.
FRANK in 17 hit the nail on the head while a lot of you use the old Seinfeld quote “Not that there’s anything wrong with that”
to justify still sitting on the fence. This issue is black and white, choose your side there is no middle ground.
“As always, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (a transvestite street theater group who dress up as nuns) blessed the rally with their presence. Unfortunately, no one seems to have clued them in that the whole joke of men dressing up as nuns went stale about 30 years ago, and that their particular brand of “genderfuck” (intentionally defying traditional gender appearance) is now about as shocking as teenage boys with piercings and eye-shadow. I.e., not anymore. The time has come to stop humoring these buffoons and their worn-out schtick.”
The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are not transvestites; they’re men. The Sisters are not a street theater group; they are a charitable group with chapters across the US that raise money and awareness for gay men’s health issues.
They’re not attempting to be funny for your sake but wholly mocking the hypocrisy of Christians.
It is amazing that we in San Francisco have to put with the insanity of the Christian right. 40,000 people descended on my city and this is the first I hear of it. We are well aware that the Christian right loves to bus in thousands into a fair city so that the demonstration garners media coverage. Because that’s how pathetic you are.
I wonder how much this stupidity cost us. You are not going to change our minds. We will never surrender our rights.
#71: I served 26 years. And I served in four wars, including vietnam.
What other wars did you serve in? What branch of the service? Of the units you were in, which was your favorite?
What can I say? First, this was an excellent article what with the pictures to verify the words written from a fairly unbiased point of view. Very welcomed in this day of so much PC.
So are the ultra sounds the pictures that speak the truth, the whole truth, and help women realize the worth of the child within them.
No woman I know says she is with fetus, but with child, my baby. She knows! She doesn’t have to have any one else tell her what this “tissue” really is, her baby, with much of her characteristics, a special and unique human being, needing protection and nurturing. That’s what mothers do-instinctively, even without training-it is part of their DNA, as is the DNA of their child a telltale sign of the parents.
Pray tell with all this science how can we not know that terminating a pregnancy means killing a child, whether at 2 weeks, 2 months, or 6 months, or 9 months. The months don’t change the status of the child, just the age and development. It is nothing more than mental gymnastics to think differently. Let’s be honest and realize that.
Sure we can choose as a people to kill our babies, in the womb or outside the womb. We actually have that ability in a free society. But is it wise, is it good, is it beneficial? What are the consequences [for surely their are many]? What we sow, we will reap.
Killing produces more killing, does it not? Isn’t that what psychology tells us? Can’t we see the connection?
The pictures in your article show us very clearly the consequences of taking this path down this road. Will we like those consequences? Will we be a more compassionate society, more loving? Those pictures give us a glimpse. Let us learn the lessons now, before it is too late and a thoroughly utilitarian attitude overcomes the compassion we still display as a society steeped in the Judeo-Christian principles of love of God and love of neighbor. Beware: Whatsoever we sow, that shall we reap.
Nice jounalism, Zombie. I am beginning to be a real fan of your work.
Notice the caliber of the “nuts” on both sides. Even the pro-life nuts are better (self-)presented than the out-and-out whackos on the other side. Seriously, you’re pro-abortion, and THESE are your ideological soulmates? No wonder you didn’t show up! It reminds me of gay pride parades, where it seems the gays are all weird fetishists of some sort.
500-1. 100-1. You (I forget who) admit that it still is overwhelmingly in the pro-life favor. Then why nitpick? It’s still lots and lots to one. In military terms, it means a crushing victory.
“Ooooh, lots of pro-lifers showed up to a pro-life march.” Thus dismissing the significance of the massive turnout, whatever the actual numbers (which is also nitpicked). Yes, but the pro-abortion crowd was also summoned, and failed to show. That’s the point. The event was overwhelming in its support, and underwhelming in its opposition.
Poor Citizen – Let’s set something straight. It’s not the children of the “underprivileged” who overwhelmingly serve in the military. This is 60′s-eras rhetoric, when the children of the privileged had many ways to miss the draft, while the poor did not. The majority of those who serve today are from the Red States. Lots and lots of Bible-Belters there.
Of those in the military who vote, 65% vote Republican, as opposed to 35% voting Democratic. This is why the Dems always try to undercount military votes (their rhetoric notwithstanding), and the Republicans are always striving to get the votes counted.
Look at the Republican politicians. See how many of them have children or grandchildren volunteering to serve… while we’re at war! Palin comes to mind. (Many others, too.) This was another reason the Left had to destroy her. In every way, she walked the walk.
What is true is that the liberal elite still tend to guard their kids from such service. Such is beneath the blue-bloods. The upper-crust whites tend to be Dems, while the middle-class whites tend to be Pubs, unless they are the 8% union-guys.
Like it or not, the Conservatives in this country overwhelmingly walk the walk on military service and abortion. Forget the old Lefty propaganda. Conservatives are simply decent, moral people. It is the crass politicians who give Conservatism such a bad name.
Finally, on abortion, my motto is, “It’s a baby when you want it… and a fetus when you don’t.” It’s purely semantics. It’s all about convenience. When you begin to see a baby as rewarding, as opposed to the responsibility and work involved, then there is no decision to be made, as there is only one choice.
Ask your mother if she ever considered aborting YOU. What if she says yes? “Sure, Honey, I was going to abort you, but the car blew a gasket on the way, and we couldn’t pay for both the repairs and the abortion, so we kept you.” Damn! That was close! Whew! Talk about stepping over your own grave!
But hey, you WEREN’T aborted. You got yours: To hell with the next guy and his chance to live!
Came over from Bookworm Room. I appreciate the work and thought you put into this. And I have to agree with your take on the issue. The government position on abortion will change as its’ position on many things will change.
Thanks much,
Al
Aha!! A topic the trolls can REALLY sink their teeth into. . . it’s getting harder and harder to defend the beloved”o”, isn’t it ,guys? Gotta find something to squeal and name call about…Abortion is murder, plain and simple.
Women have the choice to keep their legs closed and use protection. Once it’s a baby (other than rape) it’s not a woman’s choice, it’s murder.
Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, vocabulary, and analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education and performance on mathematics and reading assessments.
Abortion helps level the playing field.
SLED Argument
by Scott Klusendorf, Director of Bio-Ethics, Stand to Reason (www.str.org)
There is only one question to resolve: What is the Unborn?
Before reviewing the SLED argument I shall address three issues that are frequently brought up by Pro-abortionists. They are:
1. Privacy – Women have the right to privacy. ANSWER: Yes, But does the right to privacy include the right to mistreat your own toddler as long as you do it in your own bedroom? Clearly not. If the unborn are human then they deserve the same care and protection the toddler has.
2. Economic hardship – Can’t afford another child. You would force a poor woman to have a child she can’t afford? ANSWER: When human beings get expensive can we kill them? Can we execute toddlers if it will make the family budget easier? Clearly not.
3. Forcing morality – You’re trying to force your morality on us! ANSWER: Don’t you think the mother who has the abortion is forcing her morality on her unborn offspring?RESPONSE: It’s not the same thing. You’re assuming that the unborn are human. ANSWER: Ahh! And you’re assuming that they are not!
The Issue is not Privacy, Economic hardship, or Forcing One’s Morality On Another. It’s one thing: “What Is The Unborn?” People who make arguments for abortion would never use those arguments to justify killing toddlers. The only reason they do is that they are making a fundamental assumption that the unborn are not fully human. This brings us to the SLED argument.
———–
In the S-L-E-D Argument, we show that there is no relevant difference between a child in the womb, and one outside the womb. The unborn differ from the born in only four ways, and none of those ways are relevant.
Here is the SLED argument:
1. S – Size: The unborn entity is smaller than a newborn. True. But since when has size had anything to do with the rights that people have? A Pro basketball player is larger than the first lady, but does that mean he is more of a person?
2. L – Level of Development: A four-year old is less developed than a 22 year old. The 22 year old has a fully developed reproductive system, but we don’t say that a four year old is less of a person. If robots could do all that humans do, would that make them human? Clearly functional ability and development are not what make us human.
3. E – Environment: Where the child is. It has to do with where you are. When people tell me that birth is what makes the fetus human, I ask this question, “How does a change in location suddenly transform a non-human tissue blob into a human being?” You won’t get a good answer to this because there isn’t one. Location does not determine who you are. “Where you are has no bearing on who you are.” [quote by Dr. Frank Beckworth]
4. D– Degree of Dependency (Viability): If viability is what makes you human, that means that those that are on insulin, those that depend on heart pacemakers, those that depend on kidney machines, are not people and we may kill them. It also means that John Glenn is not a person when he is in space. Clearly, viability is not what makes us human.
I would extend your ‘middle of the road’ position some more:
A fertilized egg is not — in a purely objective, functional or developmental sense — a full ‘person’, and few would equate it exactly with the life of the mother. Even the Catholic Church allows preference to be given the mother in emergency situations, as long as the procedure is not specifically intended as an abortion.
HOWEVER, that fertilized egg *is* 100% ‘human’, and again in purely objective terms, does have a distinct, unique, and complete genetic identity (so the ‘Every Sperm is Sacred’ extreme is irrelevant, a red herring) as a sort of proto-person (barring bad luck or malice it *will* become a full person, and it is a continuous process, not two neatly defined separate states).
Therefore, while that early embryo is not a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense, it most assuredly is NOT ‘nothing, just a lump of tissue’ –some intermediate level of moral consideration is warranted.
It is possible to make a purely secular objection to creating embryos willy nilly for stem cell research, and I am increasingly convinced that the focus on pushing embryonic stem cell research — in spite of most progress being made elsewhere — is an intentional effort to keep people used to thinking that an embryo is morally nothing in an effort to defend the flank on abortion.
The policy middle ground should include:
1) no partial birth abortions
2) no late term abortions barring actual medical problems for the mother or weird rape/abuse cases that come to light late for legit some reason
3) no abortions for minors w/o parental consent, with a court order loophole again for weird cases (which do NOT include “My parents will be upset”)
4) a short waiting period – 48 hours?
5) possibly a mandatory 3D or 4D ultrasound
Do that and a good part of the objections will fade, and people will focus on hearts and minds instead of the club of the law.
I think it is reasonable to allow some abortions while, at least at the margins, discouraging them.
The hostile reception to the coming Tebow pro-life ad illustrates what is so wrong — and typical — about the liberal approach to the social issues: it’s not just a matter of having a law that protects something controversial, but rather it must be *promoted*, and any criticism at all is heresy, an outrage. It’s one reason I’m concerned about gay marriage — every pulpit (classroom) will be used to push the notion that homosexuality is a positive, unimpeachable good.
I’d also add #6 — mandatory information on adoption.
I did an in-depth survey of the Planned parenthood website a couple years ago and two things absolutely disgusted me: a) the fundamental dishonesty of the whole site — even in the areas on pregnancy and fertility – not having a single illustration of a baby/fetus/embryo inside the uterus, and b) the section on adoption being written to portray it *negatively* , rather than as an ideal which just might not work in some situations.
Zombie,
I disagree with your position on abortion, but I respect the way you state your case. I also appreciate and respect that you show respect to others, something that is rare when it comes to this topic.
You rightly conclude that defining when an unborn person _is_ a person is key to the discussion, although it is not the only important part as I will show later.
Unfortunately, defining when life begins can be hard to pin down. It’s a slippery slope. You rightly claim a 7-month old fetus is clearly a person, but deny a zygote one hour after fertilization is, which is perhaps intuitive, but misguided.
The reason is this. The 7-month old is not only unmistakably human, but she could probably survive just fine if she were born. But what about a week earlier. Well, probably, too. What about a week before that? What about a month?
The problem with your definition, although it seems very reasonable at first, is that it means there’s some point where the fetus, or embryo, or whatever, is not human, and then a moment later, she is.
Some people draw the line at birth, which you agree doesn’t make sense. There is no magical transformation achieved by moving through the birth canal, or drawing a breath. Such a definition would be completely artificial, much like setting the age of majority at 18. There are legal and philosophical precedents for such a definition, but it is morally and scientifically indefensible.
Some people draw a line at viability, which also seems reasonable at first, but what’s viable for someone born prematurely in the U.S. with access to the best doctors and latest medical technology would not be viable in a third world hospital with only the rudimentary care. Does this mean how much money you (or more specifically your parents) have determines whether or not you are human? I don’t think anyone would claim that.
Despite the non-intuitive conclusion that something that is literally microscopic is a human being, there is really no other choice if you want to be strictly logical and scientific about it. Even with a single fertilized cell, you are still talking about a genetically unique individual whose destiny as a full-grown person is already defined, if she but lives long enough. This is not a potential human. Everything that makes a person human is already there, and she will become recognizable given only time and basic care (i.e., be allowed to grow within her mother’s womb). Some day it might even be possible to transplant a zygote into some kind of artificial womb and allow her to grow to maturity. An egg or a sperm? Those taken separately are potential life. Once united in conception, the potential is realized.
I said above that this definition is one of the key elements of the abortion debate, but not the only one. The reason I say this, is that more and more people seem to be willing to concede that any unborn child is human but that abortion is still justified, i.e., “Yes, it’s a human, but I don’t care.”
The logical conclusion of _that_ thinking is the attempt to justify infanticide. And if you think that is beyond the pale, there are those on the fringe of the pro-abortion types that will argue that very thing.
I specifically did not mention “ensoulment”. I believe God creates a soul for the new person at conception, the only ongoing act of creation He still performs. However, if you accept that killing defenseless humans is wrong and that unborn children are defenseless humans, the abortion question can be answered without religious considerations. Those who support abortion must deny one or both of those antecedents.
Pro-abortion people will at this point usually fall back to the “health of the mother” argument, which merits discussion, but really that’s a straw man. Justifying abortion for that reason is like justifying shooting people in the street because some of them are criminals who are dangerous to others.
This is hardly a comprehensive discussion, but I hope it is enough to get someone thinking.
Good article!
Rick
As ever, a great read. I highly value your candid observations and obvious skill at capturing the scene. BUT, I had my son (3) on my lap as he flailed with the mouse looking for his Thomas The Tank Engine site and clicked here by accident. The top pic on the opening screen that contained the bizarro crotch drawings was a bit shocking and confusing for the lad. I closed the browser as fast as I could but he still wanted to know what was stuck to those girls. My fault for letting him have the chance to errantly click on your site but moving the shock value pics to lower down or page two would be appreciated by a parent a bit slow on the trigger.
Again, I am a huge fan and do not intend this as criticism.
I would consider myself pro-choice, and anti-abortion. You can choose whether or not to have sex, when to do so, birth control….you can have all those choices. You can’t choose to kill a baby because you made a poor choice earlier.
I think an important step in helping the pro-life cause is to focus on adoptions. It can be difficult and extremely expensive to adopt. I’m not suggesting cutting out any home visits or background checks, but there are lots of wonderful people out there who want children very much, and could provide a stable, loving home, but can’t afford the fees. There are also lots of wonderful people waiting to adopt this very minute who have spent alot of money and time in hopes of having a child, but the waiting list for a baby is really long. Pro-abortion people like to talk about babies being unwelcome, but there are couples out there wanting children more than anything. Pro-lifers need to encourage adoption.
55. Leatherneck:
It appears you hate my freedom of speech, and think name calling is cool . . . Just because you don’t believe as I do, does not make you an extremist. Please stay on topic, get a job, and become part of the solution.
And to what was Leatherhead referring? This comment of his:
It makes me want to puke. America needs Christian morality, and respect for human life taught in schools once again. The rest of the world can go to hell with their hate for morality.
Sorry, LH, but you’re just a little too inconsistent to be taken seriously. I suggest you stick with analyzing caliber modifications. That way you can increase the distance between you and the people you target -you know, the ones who disagree with you.
Thank you, Zombie, for honestly stating your own opinion and congratulations for refusing to let it interfere with a professional job of photojournalism.
68 Hunter:
The embryo or fetus isn`t your body. Its another persons body. By destroying that fetus you are destroying something that isnt you, it doesnt matter if it is located within you
Zombie,
I want to thank you for this excellent essay- you have shown more journalistic integrity than any of the “major news outlets” I have read.
More importantly, I want to thank you for your intellectual honesty.
I don’t share your position on abortion.
(I think the indisputable scientific fact that an embryo/nascent human being is genetically human and unique and distinct from its mother (or anyone else) from conception onwards should be reason enough to provide it with legal protection- even if it is dependent on the woman carrying it for survival (many people are dependent on others for survival outside the womb.) I’m not comfortable with the state granting legal protection based on its judgements concerning the “ensoulment” of individuals.)
But I don’t think your position is un-reasonable and I want to thank you for openly articulating it.
If more people on both sides of the abortion issue were willing to be as honest and rigorous in their thought as you have been, and as rational in articulating their position, we would be in a much better place as a country.
(Full disclosure: I’m Bay Area native- born in Oakland, baby- and long-time resident who has walked 4 times in the annual Walk For Life.)
Planned Parenthood was founded on racist and eugenic beliefs. Do these beliefs exist today in Planned Parenthood? Check out this film and see for yourself. It exposes Planned Parenthood in a BIG TIME WAY !
Maafa21 : New film exposes Eugenics and Black Genocide from Abortion
Some claim that the abortion issue is about choice, privacy, women’s rights, or reproductive freedom.
But that’s just marketing hype.
In reality, the legalization of abortion was about EUGENICS.
And now, a stunning new movie lays it all out with incredible documentation.
The film is called Maafa 21 and it exposes a plan to create “racial purity” that began 150 years ago and is still being carried out right now.
It’s about the ties between the Nazis, the American eugenics movement and today’s “family planning” cartel.
It’s about elitism, secret agendas, treachery and corruption at the highest levels of political and corporate America.
Maafa 21 will show you things the media has been hiding and politicians don’t want you to know.
So if you’re ready to see the real agenda behind “choice,” fasten your seatbelts …
IT’S SHOCK AND AWE TIME!
Maafa21
http://www.maafa21.com
Maafa21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America ( Trailer and Embedded Code Below)
117@Frank
>The embryo or fetus isn`t your body. Its another persons body.
Where is that person? Loitering with your magical skyfairy in the clouds?
“(And no, don’t ask me what’s going on in the crotch region of that sign — I couldn’t figure it out either.)”
I-Pad??
“Choice” is a neato word, but oftentimes, it’s used like this: “I had an abortion because I didn’t think I had a choice.”
Okay…so I am going to be blunt and concise. You are either pro-life or you’re pro-abortion. there is not really and in between. you cannot think its not a life at one point during gestation and not the rest of it…its either a life or it isnt (and it is from the moment of fertilization. From the moment on abortion is (or should be0) considered homicide. now i know that doesn’t cover even close to everything in this essay or article or whatever it is…but i just needed you to see it like this…there is no gray areas in life issues…its black and white…right and wrong…good and bad…or in this case a life or not a life.
****AN ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION*******
hello Zombie,
thanks for your reporting on this, and on other protests that you’ve also spotlighted.
Now, my question is, when I press the `print’ icon on your stories, it does not go to a printable page, but instead sends me back to the page where I just pressed the `print’ icon.
Is this a problem at your end, or with anyone else; is it a deliberate thing, or am I overlooking things.
#115.
Inconsistant? If anything, I am consistant in all my posts. As a white Christian nationalist male who has morality, I realize that scares your type of world view.
Don’t worry, in America you are welcome to continue being an arse. Compliments of those who defend this country. You are welcome boy.
123. R.B. Glennie:
Sorry, that’s not my bailiwick. Try asking the same question on the PJM contact page:
http://pajamasmedia.com/contact-us/
Wish I could help you, but I haven’t a clue.
120. No, it’s right there.
kochevnik: liar, thief, murderer, just like his father, the Devil. kochevnik, you are a eugenicist. Scum like you are the ones who should be put to death in the gas chambers you would have built for others. Like Hamon, hanged on the noose he intended for Morticai.
124. Leatherneck:
Yes, your posts prove you are consistently hypocritical. Why you claim that as some kind of honor escapes me.
I just read a story about a young girl, repeatedly raped by her father…over a ten year period…then became pregnant…
then the law said that she had to tell her parents if she was pregnant…
then when she told her parents…her dad shot her four times in the head…
And you cite this as a common occurrence? Most pregnant teenage girls are not impregnated by their fathers or other close relatives, and most parents deal with a daughter’s pregnancy very differently than this murderous pervert you cite. Those parents (the vast majority) should be informed if their underage daughter is seeking an abortion.
Thank you *so* much for your objective commentary. I was a pro-lifer in the march. I was very dismayed by how much the media had ignored the march and its message. You got it spot on! Thanks, again for getting it right!
#122 Stephanie – I’m sorry, but I have to side with the author. Early-term babies are okay to abort, because the mother is only “a little bit pregnant”.
Thus does the position fall apart so readily.
127@myth buster
Nice dodge. Your entire opposition to abortion rights is based upon mythology and superstition and dogma from a cult that molested and murdered children in a Roman pagan temple built over a necropolis. Your religion was so sick and perverted it disgusted even the Romans under Constatine, who had the cult heads executed and took over management in 300AD.
But your handle alone is a red flag. It is a complete misnomer.
When a child comes into this world it should be a child of love, and the parents should be giddy with love for this child
Now there’s a completely stupid argument I’m truly sick of hearing – a person’s humanity is not dependent on someone’s else. Using Hunter’s logic, it would be OK to knock off a friendless street person nobody loves, because the fact that nobody loves them makes them less than human.
As a friend of mine, (an “oops” baby – the 4th child born 10 years after Number #3) once said, “How many people are here because their parents had one glass of wine too many one night?” And yet, once she arrived, she became the cherished baby of the family.
In some idealized world, “every child will be wanted.” In our imperfect world, the response to many positive pregnancy tests will be “Oh, %$@^&%$#!” not “Hooray, hooray!” The mistake is thinking that the &$@@#% is carved in stone and will never change, or that one person’s feelings can invalidate the humanity of another.
kochevnik: A fetus has its own DNA, its own genetic fingerprint.
You don’t have to be religious to realize that abortion is different than getting a tumor removed, as a pro-life atheist like Nat Hendoff can tell you.
You don’t have to be religious, but you do need an open mind, some scientific knowledge and an IQ slightly above room temp. So that plainly rules you out, since you are an ignorant, bigoted snotpicker. In fact, the existence of your kind makes me think twice about banning abortions. I am rather happy when pro-abort leftists bray about their “rights” and refuse to reproduce. People like you really shouldn’t raise children, or pass on your clearly defective genes. So, hey, when leftists murder their own offspring, you can see it as simply Darwinism in action. Heh.
Odd how repubs are pro-gun yet anti-abortion. They are really the same thing.
134@what comes around
Nice to see you finally cracked open a book. How did you decide I’m a leftist? Being wrong is correlated with being dumb by liberal elites.
My how timely: christian terrorist crusader gets his comeuppance http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/story.aspx?id=409136. 55 million christofascist brownshirts remaining to indefinitely detain then the USA can be a nice, safe place again!
137. One day, kochevnik, you’ll get to live in your “paradise” of a world without Christians, and when you do, you’ll curse God for inflicting such a punishment on you. For far from being a source of evil in this world, Christians are the only real good in it. When you see a world without Christians, it will be a world of wholly unrestrained evil.
132. By the way, my defense against that charge is that it never happened. You made that up, because you are a liar, a thief and a murderer, just like your father, the Devil. There is no light of truth in you whatsoever. Christians were falsely accused of many abominations throughout antiquity- atheism, sexual perversion, cannibalism, infanticide, and conspiracy to overthrow the Empire, all entirely without any merit whatsoever. In fact, many Christian apologists not only refuted such accusations, but openly mocked the absurdity of the charges, as it would not even enter into the heart of a Christian to consider doing any of the things that pagans accused them of without a shred of evidence. So yes, the Romans were disgusted by the practices Christians were falsely accused of engaging in, but there was never any evidence that Christians engaged in such things, because indeed, they didn’t.
liberals say a woman’s body is the whole point of the argument.
But they dodge the question, is a baby in the womb “her body” or is it the body of another human being? In the second case, one has no more right to kill it than to kill a guest sleeping in your upstairs bedroom.
Any woman who says ‘its my body’ is ducking the question, not settling it.
When does a baby in the womb ‘become’ human if it is not human already? What magic pixie dust grants it humanity at some later stage? Is it ‘brainstem’ or ‘heart’ or some physical characteristic? Is that all that makes us human, physical parts? OF course not.
When the DNA combines into a unique new code for a unique new person, when one cell splits into two, there is already a person there.
And if a unique person doesn’t have the right to stay alive, even if it’s inside another person temporarily, then I don’t know how one defends anyone’s right to stay alive. The smallest and weakest among us, etc.etc.
138@myth buster
>When you see a world without Christians, it will be a world of
>wholly unrestrained evil.
Funny you say that, because evil is a christer construct. No christers == no evil.
140@Dave
You’re babbling incoherently about a cell cluster parasite with salamander eyes. Like any parasite, it should be removed if the host wishes it. Even by your argument, the host is well within her rights to do so. Since you advocate choice you should consider changing teams. Right now you’re actually burrowing holes in the fundie positions Thanks!
141. Life in the Tribulation will cure you of that delusion within a day or two. You will see things you never imagined humans were capable of, and it won’t be long before many people become Christians, but people like you will kill them, though they shall do you no harm. You will kill them and think you’re doing God a service (and indeed, you will be serving your god, the Antichrist). You son of Satan, you can’t see how much of a hypocrite you are. You say, “I am righteous; I do no wrong; it is Jesus and His followers who are wicked. They must die, so that righteous people like myself can live in peace, cleansed of their corrupt genes once and for all.” You are a scorpion; your nature is to sting, poison and kill. You are reprobate in every way, such that not even the unborn are safe from your blood lust. Justly, you should die the death you plan for Christians.
Interesting… WordPress pingback didn’t go through. Anyway, my comments on this fascinating essay are at
http://spinstrangenesscharm.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/zombie-anti-abortion-demonstrators-outnumbers-pro-choice-counterdemonstrators-500-to-1-in-san-francisco/
kochevnik said,
“Odd how repubs are pro-gun yet anti-abortion. They are really the same thing.”
Common idiotic ‘gotcha’ claim of alleged intellectual consistency is “How can you be against abortion but for capital punishment?”
Easy — if you consider innocence and guilt.
Funny ho the standard issue ‘progressive’ wants to spare innocence and kill guilt.
should be…
Funny how the standard issue ‘progressive’ wants to kill innocence and spare guilt.
144@newscaper
>Easy — if you consider innocence and guilt.
How about nature va. nurture, newscaper? As in an unaborted, unwanted result of a criminal rape goes onto do the same as an adult? Funny that’s a LIBERAL position you’re taking.
And how do you know the guy you shoot wouldn’t go on to become a US President, if only you hadn’t struck him down newscaper?
In probability terms, anti-abortion and anti-gun are the same thing. If you’re too dense to understand that, it only advocates MORE abortions are necessary. Over the last 10,000 years man’s cranial capacity has been diminishing, and abortion is one stopgap to stymie our retrograde into hairy primates.
Great article, Zombie, I always look forward to your work.
But on to my criticism: I don’t think you meant “Enormity”.
Love,
A Pirate
thanks for your reply about printing, Zombie, and keep up the great work!
I’ve seen a lot of people who support their pro-abortion stance because they believe in a woman’s “choice” or reproductive “rights.”
However, abortion in itself is a question of human rights, and you don’t have to be a Christian to recognize the intrinsic evil of abortion.
Abortion is the intentional murder of an innocent unborn person. That is a fact.
Any biology textbook will tell you that life begins at conception when the sperm and egg unite, forming a unique human being. True, he or she is only a single cell, but that doesn’t change his or her humanity as the cell contains his or her entire genetic make-up, and immediately following conception that embryonic human begins to grow and develop. This doctrine of life beginning at conception had stood up under the scrutiny of modern research. No rational biologist would tell you that life begins at some later stage. Also that life is human life and therefore, an individual human person is formed at conception. The Law of Biogenesis states that “life begets like life,” meaning that humans give birth to humans.
Some, while admitting that life clearly begins at conception, argue that “it” is not a person but merely a “blob of tissue” and a fetus. It is important to note here that embryo and fetus are terms used to describe various stages of biological development. There is no difference between these and other commonly used terms like baby, child, adolescent, adult. Also, these terms describe stages of biological development, meaning that they describe the development of an already living being. All the scientific data collected so far supports life beginning at conception.
Since it is clear that life begins at conception and that life is that of a human person then this person must have the same intrinsic rights that every person is entitled to: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights cannot be justly and morally taken from a human person. The newly conceived person is completely innocent from any willful crime. Therefore to abort (or intentionally kill) a person in his mother’s womb is homicide and the same as killing a born person. Abortion is murder.
Remember, the situations surrounding the issue of slavery and equality were the same. Supporters of slavery often argued that Africans were “sub-human” or “little better than a animal. Later, when faced with growing consensus that Africans were clearly human persons, slave owners argued that slavery was a “necessary” institution. Historically, women have been considered less human than men, or “sub-human.” Hitler justified the Holocaust by presenting the Jewish as – yet again – “sub-human”
Now, I in no way intend to compare pro-abortionists with Hitler or slave owners, but I would like those who consider themselves pro-abortion or pro-choice to ask themselves why they support abortion when life clearly begins at conception. It is not about “choice,” but rather about whether or not the rights of all human beings, men and women, black and white, born and unborn, are respected by their fellow men (and women).
Regards,
Knucklehead
I fail to understand why the “choice” NOT to abort a child is any less a “choice” than to kill it. Why can’t THAT “choice” be respected & seen as a legitimate decision. I am still amazed that our society has made it legal to kill our children, but puts to death one who kills anyone else. Mother Teresa said,”Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love but to use violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest detroyer of love and peace is abortion.”
I am intrigued by your essay. The idea of simple thought is absent in so many Americans today, and the inability to have a simple debate is no longer possible because people often allow emotions to run rampant rather than respectfully hear out opposing argument and weigh the facts.
Zombie, I am interested to know if you have ever read Maureen Condic’s work titled “When Does Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective”. As someone who is less concerned with argument, and more of the issues at hand I would recommend it. It is a short read, to be certain.
Cheers,
Mr. Gotteswort
I doubt anyone here thinks abortion should be (which it is- they are done right here in my city) legal in the last month of pregnancy. At least few will admit to it. Everyone knows that we are talking about a baby, and the fact that the baby is located 6 inches up the mothers birth canal cannot change that truth in our minds. So lets go back a few weeks. What has changed about this baby? It’s the same baby in the same place- just a little smaller and a little more vulnerable. Let’s go back a little bit more- say one week before “viability”. What amazing thing has happened to the baby in the space of a week to make it less human? Nothing! Only our ability to care for it in the outside world has changed. Each year we push that date back a little further. Were all the previous babies less human? No. Human is human. From the moment of conception- all the mother adds to that unique individual is nutrition and protection. Abortion is killing a child. It is foolish to deny it. You may think it is called for,(I think it’s murder) but don’t fool yourself. It is killing.
80% of all embryo’s (fertilized eggs) don’t survive at natural reproduction (Prof. John Harris, Bio-ethic at the university of Manchester in the Dutch documentary “Tegenlicht”), so would the embryo be ensouled right after conception? That’s an awfull lot of souls that won’t be able to live their life outside the uterus…
To me the ensoulment probaly takes place after about 4 weeks, when the embryo starts to develop a gender. Science has no answer to why an embryo grows out to be a male or female (of course it becomes a male by the production of testosteron but it’s not clear why this happens to the one embryo and not to the other, male female). The embryo before it has been ensouled can be seen as “pure flesh” just like our bodies when it’s time to put them in a coffin (Gen 3:19 for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return).
Charles #100: Of course they’re men. A transvestite is someone wearing the clothes associated with the opposite gender. You’re thinking transgender or transsexual.
It might be interesting to note that a similar pro-life rally occured in the nation’s capital on January 22, 2010. Here,around 300,000 Pro-Life marchers assembled on the national mall and marched to the Supreme Court. I personally saw 2 counter-protestors, presumably, there must have certainly been a few more–though I would be surprised if they number even up to 80. Like the San Francisco rally, this event was ignored and misrepresented by the major news media (as it chronically has been in the past).
The media being*liberal’s par-for-the-course (Fox News acting as a strawman conservative). Zerohedge.com is the only news site I read regularly.
“I strongly oppose late-term abortions after [5.5 months]”
but ya don’t say it should be illegal. If the government has any appropriate role it’s punishing homicidal people. If you don’t think the gov. should punish killers you’re more anarchist than libertarian.
“to late-term abortion advocates who say a baby isn’t a baby until it draws its first breath”
The most extreme abortion advocates say a woman should be allowed to kill her kid after it’s out, even years later. That’s the error in defining humanity by intelligence or brain-development: anyone deemed stupid or malformed is a non-human (beast?). When the gov. tests intelligence it can ask for agreement w/its’ policies. Then any dissenters, proving their idiocy, will be executed.
“unwarranted credit as a remarkably cunning manipulator, but also suggests that African-Americans were passive receptors of birth control reform, incapable of making their own decisions about family size; and that black leaders were ignorant and gullible.”
Implies, “if you make these arguments you actually are praising Margaret and insulting blacks”. Bullshit. You don’t have to be a genius to lie nor a fool to believe a lie. Trust enables trickery and man is inherently trusting and social.
“or did she just want to provide the gift of sexual freedom to African Americans? You decide.”
The 2nd option can only be believed by someone who ignores the facts. In other words, “do you accept Margaret’s documented genocidal intent or will you pretend you never heard about it?”.
“was gratuitous and purposeful vulgarity” (a sign w/the word “vagina” is pictured)
I’m sure you’re referencing signs that said, “cunt, snatch, twat, pussy, etc.”. Show one of them in a picture then. Vagina is icky but it’s not a dirty word.
“Meanwhile, some of the folks over on the mostly white pro-choice side were still imagining that they represented the interests of oh-so-oppressed minority groups. The problem, honey, is that your immigrant sisters don’t stand with you!”
Hah ha.
“the most ludicrous of statistical fallacies.”
Don’t forget, such a #’s probably derived from averaging out the # of abortions across the population as if each woman got the same # of abortions. More realistically you’ve the chicks who’ve abortions once and regret it and the concious-less women who’ve 2+ abortions b/c they don’t want kids or condoms.
“they would not report cases of statutory rape”
It’s called “statutory rape” to keep people from confusing it w/real rape. There shouldn’t be sexual age laws. The Supreme Court ruled Texas can’t persecute buggers but a 18 and 17 year old aren’t to fuck. Anyone know what congressman or case started such nonsense laws?
“A true pro-lifer” supports the death penalty. It’s simple math. 1 man takes away a life or more w/out just cause, the scales of justice are weighed out of balance in his favor, he’s killed, the scales are brought closer to a just balance. Kill a murderer once and he won’t kill twice.
Liberal-speak is a sort of mislanguage related to corporate talk and political correctness. All 3 use words not to convey concrete ideas but emotional associations. Normal speech is primarily denotative while pc mislanguage is connotative to the degree it’ll expend with denotative meaning. Fools tend towards liberalism b/c it resonates w/their feelings. Wise folks tend to be more libertarian (which’s now more conservative than the Republican party) b/c they love reason. The author of this blog is too thoughtful and analytical to stay liberal-leaning for long. Slowly, begrudgingly, his respect increases for the opposition. Soon he’ll convert.
-OR-
Given how he lays out standards (like a baby’s human at 165 days) but doesn’t take them to their logical conclusion (abortions performed after 165 days should be tried as homicide) he may stay in the mud of indecisiveness ’til death.
*composing pictures to deceive the viewer.
It took me a while to get here but, once again, you show yourself to be a very thoughtful person who does very impressive work.
I would like you to consider reading the book Unplanned, http://unplannedwebcast.com/ the story of Abby Johnson who worked at Planned Parenthood for 8 years before she had a change of heart.
She assisted with an abortion done with an ultrasound at 3.5 months. What she saw changed her point of view. The 13 week old fetus fought against the cannula, kicking and twisting. This is the link for the first chapter. http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/unplanned/downloads/chapter1.pdf