Quote of the Day 7-15-10
If you truly are “pro-life” in that you believe abortion is murder because the unborn child is a full-fledged human being, then you wouldn’t so casually allow the child to be murdered simply based on its parent’s misbehavior.
Most people who are anti-abortion adopt the label “pro-life” based on the shared notion that the zygote/embryo/fetus, no matter what its stage of development, is an undiminished human being with full human rights. And that’s a principled position which I can respect — if you stick to it consistently. But if you start making expedient exceptions, then your dishonesty has been revealed….
Say, for example, a man goes out and robs a store. Do the police then go to that man’s house and throw his son in jail as punishment for the father’s crime? Of course not. Not only would that be unconstitutional, it would be illogical as well. Well, what if a man goes out and rapes someone, and gets sentenced to life in prison. Do we as a society then go to the man’s family and also throw his children in jail for life? Again, that would seem insane.
Why then… would we sentence a (pre-born) baby to death (abortion) simply because the baby’s father is a rapist? How does that make any more sense than the scenarios I described above?
Allowing a rape-and-incest exception to any abortion ban essentially means we are willing to punish the children for the sins of the father. And that’s not the way our society works.
~Self-described pro-choicer Zombie, PajamasMedia.com, July 14
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Wait..this person is pro-“choice” ???
Yeah, I’m guessing the way “zombie” gets around being pro-life is by NOT believing a fetus is a “full fledged human being.”
The article is really good.
Whatever the situation, I call myself pro-life, no matter what. I don’t support exeptions for rape/incest or mother’s health. Both mother’s and child’s lives are equal and should be equally supported and cherished. I don’t support embryo research, IV fertility treatment, euthanasia and anything that interferes with LIFE.
I do know there are some pro-lifer’s out there that allow exeptions for rape, etc but it’s just too bad they don’t see the bigger picture.
Zombie is 100% correct!
The thinking of “in case of”…drives me nuts.
However I understand most people who claim to be Prolife with the exceptions are not really thinking about what they are saying . Once explained to them most get it and see the whole “in cases of” in a different light and many change their mind on the matter.
I am so glad I am Pro-Life without exceptions…it makes being Pro-life so much more peaceful in my soul. I don’t have to struggle with it at all!
more then anyone else I have heard.
that “more then anyone else I have heard”…does not belong.
Wow. A pro-choicer gets what many “pro-lifers” don’t get. It is indeed hypocrisy! If you are pro-life then you should be pro-life no matter how sad and hard the situation is! EVEN RAPE AND INCEST!
And if you are pro-choice you should be pro-choice no matter how times a woman chooses to abort…12, 13, 14…what does it matter? And no matter how late she aborts…6, 7 months…8 months. Its not a person till BIRTH remember?
Both sides need to stop the hypocrisy.
Sydney I have pointed out the same to many Pro-lifers and Pro-Choicer’s over and over again. It’s amazing how many “Pro-Choicers” really only are a one time Pro-Choicer. And I have never in my life heard more judgement about a woman having abortions then from those who have had one abortion, and are pro-choice. “Oh my God, they are using it as birth control. I would never do that! What is wrong with these women?” Of course this is a way for them to justify their own abortion and say, “see I am not that bad.” Some day when they hit that wall of pain it will all come back to them. That is why we need to keep praying for them.
It really does take the light of Jesus to see into the darkness.
While I was glad to read this part of Zombie’s article, when I clicked on the whole thing and read it all, I had to disagree with some of Zombie’s other conclusions. Z is one of those pro-choicers who firmly believe in the myth that pro-lifers have a stealth anti-sex agenda, that we want abortion to be illegal because pregnancy is punishment for sex. So before you heap praise on her assessment of the rape-exception hypocrisy, take a look at the whole article.
That’s as far as I got into the article – and I stopped reading.
When someone admits they are pro-choice, won’t change or consider changing, then acknowledges pro-lifers are on solid grounded moral principles – then that’s a direct admission morals don’t matter to them.
Why bother reading any further?
There’s not much someone can say regarding morality when they refuse to acknowledge truth. It’s pretty pathetic.
As with all abortion-choicers their own personal interests trump truth, no matter how much they pretend to be right.
Bye Zombie.
When someone admits they are pro-choice, won’t change or consider changing, then acknowledges pro-lifers are on solid grounded moral principles – then that’s a direct admission morals don’t matter to them.
Why bother reading any further?
Because it exposes their mindset, and knowing that, to me, is important.
It exposes the fact that in order to continue with their immorality, they will jump through hoops to do so, even to the point of admitting “yep, you guys are right, but I just don’t care.” Pretty eye-opening. It shows that their arguments aren’t “scientific” at all. It all stems from their desire for license to be immoral and unaccountable.
Z is one of those pro-choicers who firmly believe in the myth that pro-lifers have a stealth anti-sex agenda, that we want abortion to be illegal because pregnancy is punishment for sex. So before you heap praise on her assessment of the rape-exception hypocrisy, take a look at the whole article.
Posted by: ninek at July 15, 2010 3:27 PM
Yeah, but there’s that immorality thing being exposed again. Who are typically the ones yelling that we just “hate sex?” It’s the ones having illicit sex. Zombie got the “no exceptions” part right, but obviously doesn’t realize that WE aren’t the ones who view pregnancy as a “punishment.” ;)
Posted by: Kel at July 15, 2010 4:30 PM
——
Kel – curiosity got the better of me and I went back and skimmed through the article (primarily because of the comments here).
It seems the very thing which Zombie finds so compelling is the one thing that Zombie is admitting he lacks – integrity. (After years of reading – I think zombie is a man – IIRC, I remember seeing a reflection shot he posted).
Rejecting exploring moral truth means rejecting integrity. When someone says they are unwilling to change when it comes to killing human beings, it’s a plain admission that they believe might makes right.
Listening to invalid reasoning why it’s okay to kill innocent human beings is completely insane and after years of slugging it out on numerous websites, I’ve found it useless, unless someone shows signs of intellectual honesty.
I would have rather read that zombie was pro-choice, but unconvinced re: pro-life arguments, but to say you won’t change your mind?
So the integrity zombie applauds, is one he can’t hold without true repentance, and in the end just makes him look hypocritical and foolish.
I agree that “rape and incest” exceptions are wrong. A child *never* deserves to be punished for the wrongdoing of his/her parent(s).
Kel, I agree with you that it is very important to “keep reading” things like this! I think that the people who demonstrate a clear ability to follow one single line of thought all the way through – to its furthest conclusion – are the ones who can eventually most easily be swayed, for the most part. Of course most people don’t think their minds will ever change – that’s true of so many issues, big and small. People feel strongly, and people like to believe that they have thought everything through completely. But if someone can stay on track with a single given topic – as opposed to, say, darting around from one defense to the next (“A fetus isn’t a person.” “Prove to me that it isn’t.” “Even if it were, you guys don’t care about already born children.” “Even if that were true, how does that change the fact that abortion takes a human life?” “That is a religious belief.” etc.) – well, that demonstrates an appreciation for intellectual honesty. All you need to do is demonstrate that it’s intellectually dishonest to justify abortion via any of the common defenses, and you stand a decent chance at changing someone’s mind.
IMO, recognizing that “some” pro-lifers stand on solid moral ground is not an admission, by a pro-choicer, that those pro-lifers are right – just that their motivations, their intents, their beliefs are “good.” They don’t act out of spite or vindictive opposition to extramarital sex, or whatever, they act out of a legitimate belief that abortion is wrong. So it’s not that Zombie is saying, “They’re right, but I will never agree with them.” Zombie is saying, “They are not bad people morally, but I will never agree with them because they are wrong intellectually.” It is easier to argue intellectual points than moral ones, so I don’t really see that statement as a reason to stop reading right there, at all.
I think that the people who demonstrate a clear ability to follow one single line of thought all the way through – to its furthest conclusion – are the ones who can eventually most easily be swayed, for the most part.
Posted by: Alexandra at July 15, 2010 10:20 PM
——
I agree with you – except that’s not what zombie did. It wasn’t a straight line of thinking.
Sharron Angle’s position is that the child is fully human from conception and deserves protection of life. The straight line of thinking is to inquire – what makes the child fully human? zombie only concludes that the immoral exception for rape/incest should not be made.
So, rather than following the “child is human” thinking, zombie takes a sharp left turn to consider why people want the rape/incest exception. This is not Sharron Angle’s belief. He just jumped the track to another line of thought.
That line of thinking re: anti-sex gets very cloudy and zombie makes some illogical assumptions, attributable to those who don’t hold Sharron Angle’s belief.
That’s a complete red-herring – and the discussion about sex in the section “Liberals are lying too” provides way too many indicators that when it comes to intellectual honesty and morality zombie selects personal self-interest rather than the protection of others who are incapable of defending themselves.
Sex is the activity – which is what zombie focuses on, however any intellectually honest assessment of that activity will focus on the moral consequences.
Finally, zombie makes this statement – which is what I saw when I skimmed the article:
If Sharron Angle is being honest – that human beings are being killed – then there can be nothing more horrible then 50 million being forcibly killed against their will. That’s not an opinion – that’s brute force.
As I said earlier – after discovering someone is being intellectually dishonest one doesn’t have to continue reading, because all they provide is additional evidence of that hypocrisy.
I perused the threads and came across zombie’s thinking regarding abortion: 5th month!
My intuition is strongly saying zombie is post-abortive.
I’ll leave it at that.
Zombie brings up the pro-rape/incest exception not to make a random left turn but to indicate why he respects Angle’s position as being intellectually honest, in contrast with other “pro-life” positions. He says:
Why then, if we are to accept the supposition that unborn children have full human rights, would we sentence a (pre-born) baby to death (abortion) simply because the baby’s father is a rapist? (emphasis mine)
That’s a big if. Zombie does not accept that unborn children have full human rights. Angle does. Thus Zombie is able to find both his and Angle’s positions intellectually honest, coming from their relative starting points. That he can appreciate the validity of Angle’s reasoning means he just needs his starting point disproved.