Quote of the Day 1-25-11

Precisely. Nobody is ever for abortion. They support choice. Babies aren’t involved, fetuses are. And not even Gosnell is an abortionist. He’s simply an abortion “provider” who just went a little too far.

If unborn children have no rights or value except what their mother conveys or denies, why shouldn’t Gosnell have stored their bits and pieces in jars scattered throughout a clinic prosecutors called a filthy “house of horrors”? Why should he be charged with a crime at all? Sure, abortion is illegal in Pennsylvania after 24 weeks, but isn’t that an arbitrary number? Medically speaking, what’s magic about week 25?

The politics of abortion normally require that such questions not even be asked….

Viable babies whose heads remain in the womb can legally have their brains sucked out, while those who are allowed to be born then snipped by a lazy abortionist are somehow deemed more human….

Is what [Gosnell] allegedly did really so far removed from the practices you defend?

Or do you really believe unborn babies are no more human than the hamburgers I eat?

~Kevin Leininger, News-Sentinel.com, January 25

18 thoughts on “Quote of the Day 1-25-11”

  1. It’s a good article. Pro-aborts keep responding with “but….but….but….” They don’t have a leg to stand on. This isn’t “choice” they say. Yes. Yes, it is. This is exactly what “choice” is, after you strip off the lies and obfuscation.

       0 likes

  2. During the west coast march Saturday, a woman with a toddler stood on the sidewalk shouting at us.  She was trying to deny Kermit’s actions, trying to deny it had anything to do with abortion, as if he were just some criminal unrelated to what she was advocating.   Her toddler was only months removed from the possibility of what he did routinely.  Oh, it’s not so bad if the office is clean and pretty, right?

    The abortionists can deny till their blue in the face, till the cows come home, and till Satan hits them in the back of the head with a snowball.  The facts stand: he’s one of you, he’s one of you, (google goggle google goggle), one of you!

       0 likes

  3. The facts stand: he’s one of you, he’s one of you, (google goggle google goggle), one of you!

    The Freaks reference is off – it’s “gooble gobble,” not “google goggle.” [/picks the nit]

    Pro-choicers always use the excuse that younger unborn babies can’t survive on their own, but neither can diabetics or people with pacemakers or people who use oxygen tanks.

       0 likes

  4. Ninek, kudos to all of you on the “Left Coast” who marched for the babies and their moms.  It can’t be easy being prolife on “The Left Coast” (though I did meet a prolifer from Berkeley, of all places).

    Of course, Im sure that toddler was “planned” and “perfect!”

       0 likes

  5. Pro-choicers always use the excuse that younger unborn babies can’t survive on their own, but neither can diabetics or people with pacemakers or people who use oxygen tanks.

    Or people who use dialysis machines.

       0 likes

  6. Marauder, thanks for the correction – I remember the movie well, but haven’t watched it lately.

    Philly, the child was perfectly adorable: I hope she grows up to be pro-life!  But even if she doesn’t, at least she’s got a chance to grow up at all.  Too bad that mother couldn’t see the humanity in all children.

       0 likes

  7. “Viable babies whose heads remain in the womb can legally have their brains sucked out, while those who are allowed to be born then snipped by a lazy abortionist are somehow deemed more human….

    Is what [Gosnell] allegedly did really so far removed from the practices you defend?”
     
    The law has to draw a bright line somewhere. A person who is one day removed from their 18th birthday is not an adult and does not have the rights and responsibilities that they would if they were just one day older.

       0 likes

  8. “The law has to draw a bright line somewhere. A person who is one day removed from their 18th birthday is not an adult and does not have the rights and responsibilities that they would if they were just one day older.”

    Yes, this is true Joan, but this analogy conflates morality with custom. Indeed, if I live in the United States there is no injustice if one day I am allowed to vote and the next day I am. That is not an issue of morality but one of custom or tradition. It can easily change one day as well and there would be no outcry as far as being immoral goes.

    But that is not the case with the D & X procedure. The kind of thing that a human being is intrinsically is what constitutes its right to life. Thus when we compare the born child vs. the fetus who is still partially inside the mother, there is no difference in kind between those two beings and thus they should have the same MORAL rights. Should they have teh same CUSTOMARY (I fail to conjure up a better word than this) rights? Should one be considered, I dunno, maybe a US citizen and the other not? Sure. If they both die should one be counted towards the national death toll but the other one not? I wouldn’t have a major problem with that as far as wanting your statistics to be a certain way, so sure. But these are very different situations and questions than the question of how we should morally treat a human being at a certain stage of development, which is what this quote is alluding to. God love you.

       0 likes

  9. Kevin said: Or do you really believe unborn babies are no more human than the hamburgers I eat?

    Sadly, Kevin, there really are many that will make such outrageous claims. One I recently debated on twitter couldn’t admit at one point in her life she was even a fetus!

    A few years ago I had a conversation with Mary Anne Sorrentino – a former executive director of  Planned Parenthood of RI.  While she wants to keep abortion available, she confided her disgust at three things: the complete ignorance of the new abortion defenders; the denial of humanity for late term pro-borns by abortion choicers; and the sheer rate of repetition/use of abortion as birth control.

    In other words, she understood that ignorance of basic facts, and denial in the face of reality was a losing proposition.

       0 likes

  10. ” That is not an issue of morality but one of custom or tradition.”
    Or, perhaps, more broadly, law, because custom and tradition are often components of the law. The author, it seems to me, was specifically referring to the issues of legality surrounding the arbitrary cut-off date for abortion, not a question of morality. But maybe I’m just reading it wrong.

       0 likes

  11. joan said: The law has to draw a bright line somewhere. A person who is one day removed from their 18th birthday is not an adult and does not have the rights and responsibilities that they would if they were just one day older.

    So joan, for the sake of discussion – if the law of the land were to deem you to be killed, because an immutable characteristic of yours, would you be okay with that law being upheld by others?  Would you consider the law, simply because it exists, to be just?  If, not, would you call on anyone to defend you?

       0 likes

  12. The way the abortion lovers are rallying to defend NAF’s lack of action is very telling.  The way abortion lovers are rallying to defend the lack of regulation of abortion buildings is very telling.   It tells me they are more concerned with the ability to kill small human children, than women’s safety.   They are more interested in infanticide than anything else.

    With one exception (not Joan’s obviously), every abortion advocate has merely criticized Kermit the Fraud’s unclean facility.  As long as the office is pretty, kill away.

    Their flair for fantasy is surreal.   At the West Coast March, we heard the paltry number of counter protesters repeating to themselves the following mantras:
    “Abortion is not murder”  “A fetus is not a baby”

    The only thing missing from their fiction?  “The moon is made of green cheese!”

    $103

       0 likes

  13. “So joan, for the sake of discussion – if the law of the land were to deem you to be killed, because an immutable characteristic of yours, would you be okay with that law being upheld by others? Would you consider the law, simply because it exists, to be just? If, not, would you call on anyone to defend you?”

    You seem to be under the impression that if one is to defend one arbitrarily-defined classification scheme, one must defend them all. Maybe it’s not “just” that a 24-week-old fetus can be aborted but a 25-week-old fetus can’t. Maybe it’s not “just” that a person who is 18 years old can vote, but a person who will turn 18 tomorrow can’t, even though they are, for all intents and purposes, identical in terms of physical and mental growth.

       0 likes

  14. That’s right, continue to throw young women under the bus to defend murder.  Oh, sorry ladies, did this guy make you sterile?  Give you a disease?  Kill your breathing infant?  Well, don’t argue with me about it; he only made the “mistake” of letting the baby get a few more centimeters along from one location to another.  Sheesh!  Just cuz the kid took a breath doesn’t mean he deserved to live.  Good golly, ladies, you don’t want those pro-lifers to WIN, do you??!!

    104

       0 likes

  15. joan said: You seem to be under the impression that if one is to defend one arbitrarily-defined classification scheme, one must defend them all.

    So may I put you down as defending the arbitrarily-defined classification scheme of Roe?

    It’s nice to know your choices are so….meaningful.

       0 likes

  16. Thank God for His Holy Word.

    We don’t have to struggle with arbitrary definitions.  He makes it very plain.

    “Thou shalt not kill.”

    The fact that more African American babies in New York are killed in the womb than allowed to see the light of day is unconscionable, unspeakable, wicked and evil.

    It is a bold declaration of the wickedness and depravity of man.

    So many mothers killing their children…

    Words fail me…

    God’s judgment is coming.  Look for it in 2012.

       0 likes

Comments are closed.