Well, yes they are, you idiot:
“It depended on how much Planned Parenthood was getting per research participant. For our fetal tissue study, we got paid about $200 per baby that we sent. If I recall correctly, I think the compensation to the staff was about $20 per enrollment. If it was a minor study … one time we did a study where they were testing different kinds of pap brushes … we got about $5 for each patient.”
I suppose the only logical conclusion to all of this must be that Abbey is a mysogynist who hates women and wants to refuse them mammograms and stuff. Hmm? Either that or this interview had been highly edited — I think, Donald Trump is involved.
In my other post on this, I made a mistake, actually. I likened abortionists to Nazis. But I should probably apologize as that is highly unfair to the members of the German National Socialist Party.
Notice that the tactic of the left is to always disingenuously frame the debate such that being against their dogmas makes not an iota of difference to being for the torture of kittens. If you’re against what they do, why, you must be a terrible person!
Us pro-lifers are not against providing healthcare to women, we’re against the mass-slaughter of infants. Because that’s what abortion is — it’s pre-natal infanticide. In fact it would be more suitable for Planned-Parenthood to change their logo from a double P to a swastika surrounded by infant skulls.
And, make no mistake about it, if you support Planned-Parenthood, after — actually, even before — these latest revelations about them, then you might as well be a card-carrying member of the German National Socialist Party. A persuasive argument can even be made that the Nazis had a more rational basis for their actions, as it was said to be all for a greater Germany, while yours on the other hand is simply for your own convenience.
All the arguments against an unborn’s right to live can just as well be made for the just-born. And the sufficiently intelligent among them know it, which is why there is a growing fringe among them advocating for the right to late-term abortion, and another smaller faction of them outright advocating for the right of a mother to kill her newborn. And they aren’t merely a lunatic fringe; they are intellectuals, some of whom hail from Oxford.
This is why it shouldn’t be at all surprising that with regards to the realization of their goals, they see more expedience in eschewing dialectical arguments in favor of rhetorical ones to disqualify their opponents before their illogic can be exposed.
When we said abortion is infanticide, we were met with laughter and derision.
When we told them there’s no difference between an abortion and the killing of an infant, they called us stupid. We were said to be woefully misinformed.
They said it was all primitive religious foolery; we were said to be against science.
In wanting to remove a woman’s right to choose, we were told that we hate women.
We were labelled misogynists, and the women among us were said to have ‘internalized misogyny’.
But now, though, the sufficiently intelligent among them belatedly realize that WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG — that there is no ontologically significant difference between a newborn infant and a fetus — and so now we’ve gone from “abortion is not infanticide” to “yes it is, but infanticide is O.K!”:
“Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.”
The lesson here is that when dealing with people who are proven to be morally depraved, not an atom should be ceded–not a single one.
They will call you words like ‘bigot’ to scare you into submission and shut the conversation in their favor.
They will call for boycotts against anyone who’s insufficiently subordinate to their liberal ideology.
They will inflict all manner of wound.
However, now, more than ever, you must stand your ground.
Responding to Arbourist the Happy Abortionist in a post for content’s sake. Her response was to my post here.
“Wow, my very own post. I appreciate the vitriol and furious whinging going on all for me benefit. Thank you.”
Vitriol and furious whinging? Feminists love bandying about their collection of victim cards, no? You aren’t seriously taking this all personally, are you?
“You seem not to realize that using violence is almost exclusively in the realm of men. It’s all fine and well to faff on about some specific case of women behaving badly, but it is certainly not the standard for society.”
You seem not to realize that none of what you say here seems an objective reaction to anything I’ve said. Let me remind you that you were admonishing me for ‘condoning violence’ against women, despite that you would do or condone the same on men. Of course, to save face, you deny this (and have in fact denied this). Your initial response to my previous post, however, can reasonably be construed to mean exactly that. But more to the point, you seem not aware that what you said is profoundly misandristic (violence is exclusively in the realm of men?), at least if we were to adopt the conventional feminist ‘I-am-woman-hear-me-roar’ metric for ascertaining mysogyny. See, feminists were just recently aghast by the study (which you’ve no doubt heard about) that seemed to show significant differences between the wiring of male and female brains. It reinforces stereotypes, they say — you know, like that galactically ridiculous stereotype that men are different from women [*nudge-nudge, wink-wink*]. Feminists will have none of that, see. Yet, here we are, hearing, from a feminist of the same cabal no less, that men are in fact significantly different from women. Feminist seem to be inordinately inclined to bandy about ‘differences’ that seem to point to them having some moral advantage — yet when it can only succeed in doing the opposite, they are apparently nonexistent. But, hey, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
“Wow, you had better call in the MRA’s and MGTOW’s to fight this feminist revolution. Feeling all oppressed while being the dominant class in society is hard work, mostcertainly.”
Of course this is another one of your attempts to bait me into responding in a manner that concedes a false premise, but hey, why not let’s give it some thought: why is it that to you men seem the ‘dominant class’? You’d think if there were no significant differences between the sexes, then thousands of years of evolution would have ironed that out, no?
“Well, violence would certainly be decreased if men would stop killing each other no? But we certainly can’t have that, much better to blame women for the problems of men. You certainly have that talent down cold.”
Let me remind you again that I was referring to a specific case where violence was clearly being done on men. But, as per the usual feminist rhetoric, you completely gloss over this fact, going on a weird tangent claiming men are violent to each other anyway, as if any of this makes an iota of sense.
“I don’t recall supporting the women’s actions on the video. But if you’d like to erroneously attribute things to me that I didn’t say, do be my guest.”
So I say in no ambiguous terms that the men would have been morally justified in physically retaliating against the women who were behaving rabidly against them and you retort by accusing me of condoning violence, and I’m supposed to take that as you NOT supporting the women’s actions in the video. The principle of charity hardly means I have to accept your post hoc rationalizations and/or your backpedalling to save face.
“Sorry to interrupt your fetus-worship but again, mischaracterizing what I say doesn’t make your argument any stronger. Fetuses are not sentient during much of their development, giving them more rights than women is quite asinine.”
I wonder why you always think your moving the goalposts would simply pass by me unnoticed. ‘Sentience’ is merely the minimum requirement for someone to be able to drive and vote, something you say fetuses cannot do and therefore can be killed. Do I really have to quote what you said?
O.K., here’s you (emphasis added): “Let me know when fetuses start acting like full members of society, fetal voting rights, fetal driving age etc.”
If you’re now serious about making ‘sentience’ the minimum criteria for having the right to live, then I’m content to point you to our previous discussion where I’ve dismantled this argument, and from which you have unfortunately learned nothing.
In any case, thanks Arbourist, for upping my daily readership from 5 to 6.
This video shows a group of Argentine men protecting a church from a mob of pro-abortion feminists.
Some liberal media outlets had apparently described this event as “clashes”. Which is, needless to say, borderline extra-chromosomal, given that all one sees is a group of men who are holding hands and praying as they’re being assaulted by a group of women who are with great irony acting in a manner that almost convinces one that maybe abortion isn’t so bad after all — I mean, had every single one of them been aborted, the world would have been a much better place.
I suspect that if even a single man there had defended himself and punched even just one of those women’s lights out — which would have been both morally justified and downright amusing — , we’d be hearing the same news outlets, awash with feminazi cash as they were, crying that angry Catholics attacked women protesters.
See, feminism — or at least feminism in this latest iteration — is actually about giving females less rights. After all, if the odds that a baby will turn out female is 1:2 (which is reasonable), and the number of abortions in the U.S. alone is about 3,000 per day, then there are approximately 1,500 females per day that are being given exactly ZERO rights.
..at the depths to which some will go to defend a ‘woman’s right to abortion’.
Been discussing abortion with pro-choicers from the internetz a while back, and it pretty much went like this:
Me: At what point does someone acquire the right to live?
Him: At the third Trimester.
Me: And why not at any time before that?
Him: Because at that point it’s conscious, can feel pain, and can possibly survive outside the womb.
Me: Newborn babies are hardly conscious and can hardly feel pain, much less one that’s at the third trimester. But even if you were right (which you aren’t), why does it suddenly get the right to live, unlike, say, some animals who are undoubtedly self-aware, conscious, and feel just as much pain as we do? — I mean, if that’s your criteria. Also, even if it can survive outside the womb, it won’t be able to for very long without the help of the mother or someone else. Which raises the question: if the mother who, barring instances of rape, chose to risk its being born in the first place isn’t morally obligated to care for it, why is anyone else, or, for that matter, why is everyone else (the state)?
Him: Well, because animals don’t have the rights we humans do. Besides, the mother has a right because it’s her body; “[o]nce a fetus is separate from the mother it becomes a separate human being with all the rights of a child…”.
Me: How would you avoid the charge of specie-ism, then? Surely you’re aware yours was an argument as fallacious as one that stems from racial or sexist prejudices. And, the mother and the fetus that is — for fun, let’s say — a day before being born, is, to you, a *single human-being*? Right. Is a pair of siamese twins a ‘single human-being’? Better: suppose someone is hooked up to a machine to survive — is he and the machine a ‘single human-being’?
Him: [He has nothing at this point, and so goes on and blathers:] “No woman under any circumstances should be forced to take any pregnancy to term against here [sic] will. No non person [sic] has any rights that usurp another human being. You join the human race upon birth and not one split second before.”
Me: In other words: for you it’s O.K. to kill the baby — oh, sorry, I mean the ‘fetus’! — even a day before it gets born, because, unluckily for it at that point, he hasn’t, in your words, “join[ed] the human race”.
Him: [Crickets chirping..]
And that, ladies and gents, is the level of inanity to which some people would go to protect “women’s reproductive rights”. Not all, of course (perhaps most there aren’t merely good at arguing, for all we know) but a lot. Certainly a scary lot. It’s not just one person there that I’ve encountered saying they’re all for baby-killing as long as it’s done in utero.
In fact some people do follow such views to their logical end, and what’s done is: since, prior to birth, the mother is *technically* not a parent and the baby is *technically* not a child, the doctor waits for the baby to be half-way out, so to speak, and then proceeds to stab it.
Thusly, it’s not murder since it’s not human. And, technically, the mother can’t be guilty of child-abuse since she’s not a parent at that point.
[cue in: Louis Armstrong’s ‘It’s A Wonderful World’..]
So since I’ve had zero to do the past few days, I’ve barged into an abortion discussion which mostly seemed like an echo-chamber of pro-choice tropes from atheists who demonstrably have little idea of the arguments against their position.
These guys are intelligent, no doubt, maybe even more than I, but the fact however remains: they are completely ignorant of the arguments against their position, evidenced by the tripe that was on display.
Their issue with abortion, or the reasons they are pro-choice, could be condensed in a few words, really:
1. The fetus isn’t human, anyway.
2. So what if it was potentially human; potentiality doesn’t matter.
3. We need to respect a woman’s choices with regards to her body.
Well, firstly, that a fetus is human isn’t really in dispute. Rather what is is whether it should be afforded rights. There seems to be much confusion between ‘human’ and ‘person’; a fetus is human (if it’s a human fetus, that is) but not a person in the conventional sense. So the question isn’t at all whether the fetus is human but whether this human should be afforded the same right as that of a person, specifically the right to live.
For reasons that are blindingly obvious, pro-choicers like to eschew ‘potentiality’ as a factor for determining whether one has a right to live; what is merely potentially a human-person (a fetus), they say, isn’t actually a human-person, for what is becoming is yet to become. And, as if it hasn’t been amateurish enough, some even respond to the potentiality argument by parroting Sam Harris, saying sperm is potentially human too but nary a tear rolls down our cheeks upon its passing. Or they’ll say, jeeringly, that each cell in our body, containing our DNA as it does, is potentially human too, obviously equating this with what one means when he says the fetus is potentially a human-person.
Of course this is all blitheringly idiotic, as it confuses nomological possibility with ‘potentiality’ of the sort that’s relevant here. Sperm or any other cell in our body won’t turn human by themselves; there’s no risk of someone’s ejaculate magically becoming a full-fledged human-person all by its lonesome. By contrast, however, a fetus, through the normal course of events, will be a human-person.
It gets worse: when you ask most for their criteria for being a human-person, you usually get ridiculous answers (like I got) like it should be sentient/conscious, have the ability to feel pain, and so on. When it’s pointed out that, with this criteria, even lower-level animals fit the bill, the senselessness gets compounded with answers in the line of ‘those animals aren’t human!’, because humans, apparently, are special because they are, egads, human!
They appear to be dumbfounded when you expressly point out that a full-grown chimp, or, heck, even a full grown rat, would be, using their criteria, more of a person and thusly ought to have greater moral status than a newborn infant. At some places I’ve discussed this even, pro-choicers get shocked witless when you make the abortion-infanticide equivalency by pointing out that newborn infants are not self-aware, have only a rudimentary form of consciousness, and scarcely feel any pain besides hunger (prick them with a needle and they’ll feel nothing). They won’t accept the moral equivalency of abortion and infanticide despite that they hardly have any reasons for not doing so.
This is when they’ll argue — in other places I’ve discussed this, they’ll even often risibly be arguing — that it makes no sense to compare humans to animals because, come on, humans are humans. ‘They’re like special, yknow!’ As if that answers anything, as if I’m a jerk for making the comparison, despite that it was their criteria for personhood.
Of course an infant has greater moral status than an animal who more fits their criteria of person, but for that we’ll need two things: 1, reference to the divine, and, 2, reference to its potential, both of which are realities the pro-choice atheist denies, putting him thusly at a pickle, since he’ll now have to admit either one of two things (or both): 1, a full-grown chimp has greater moral status than an infant, or 2, he’s a specie-ist — that is to say, he ascribes greater moral status on humans because he’s human, which is to admit to making an argument that’s equally as fallacious as one that stems from racial or sexist prejudices.
Finally, I’m not at all convinced that the ‘choice’ of the woman trumps the life of the fetus. That begs the question that the fetus has no right to live in the first place. And, barring instances wherein she was raped, or where her life were in danger, it is to forget that she made a choice long before this ‘choice’ we’re all supposed to respect and bow down to.
To know exactly where in which your run-of-the-mill pro-choicer’s arguments logically conclude, one need only familiarize himself with the work of bio-ethicist and very respected secularist philosopher, Peter Singer, who is both a champion of animal rights and is of the mind that there is zero difference between abortion and infanticide.
Having seen ‘You Don’t Know Jack‘ the other day, a film about Jack Kevorkian starring Al Pacino, and having witnessed, in particular, the grittingly painful scene where Jack assists an old man to die, got me drearily thinking about today’s culture of death, and how, through the stream of anti-religious sentiment currently pervading the media, it can only get worse.
Jack Kevorkian, of course, is better known as doctor death; he’s a doctor who helps people in a unique (actually, not so unique nowadays) way –he helps them die. For his patients, life, presumably having been predicated for so long on happiness and well-being, turns worthless soon after the illness and misery with which they are afflicted becomes too much to bear. Death becomes the only solution to a miserable life; it provides the only escape from a body that’s become a prison.
The sad reality is that from a naturalist perspective, there really is no arguing against euthanasia done on the basis of mercy and compassion; It seems to me to be a battle that will be inevitably lost to the culture of death, given how our modern intelligentsia is slanted towards naturalism.
Put on the naturalist-atheist goggles and use happiness, well-being or any other consequentialist idea as the metric by which you appraise human life, and you’ll see how assisted suicide and the whole culture of death can make a whole lot of sense; If meaning and value can be reduced to mere sentimental predispositions which are the residue of evolutionary processes, then they are both, for good or for ill, illusory. Without God there can never be any meaning or value in any real and objective sense, for nothing can be found in nature that can be the moral imperative to value life –or, value anything, for that matter.
It should therefore come as no surprise that death, to an extent, becomes the solution: an unwanted pregnancy can be solved by killing the fetus; terminal illness and the concomitant misery it brings can be solved by killing yourself.
These are, of course, polarizing issues with which many a naturalist- atheist will find himself kosher, so, while I don’t mean to impugn the moral competence of those for whom God is of no considerable import, I cringe thinking about how this worldview, when followed to its logical conclusion, extinguishes the will to value human life, producing more moribund states-of-affairs.
I read this from a pro-abortionist at another blog.
Notice how changing some words to what they ACTUALLY mean puts his/her ignorant diatribe in better perspective.
Pro Abortionist says:
” Also, before Roe v. Wade, abortions were not performed in a medically safe environment and therefore, many women died or were no longer able to have children as abortions were performed by people who were not qualified to do so. So…just b/c you want to make it illegal for a woman to get an abortion, it doesn’t mean it won’t happen and you are therefore, NOT protecting the lives and health of women at that point. How is that Pro-Life? I also want to clarify something….the WOMAN will decide what to do with her body. It is her choice and her decision and she may choose to consult with friends, family, doctors or God or whomever but bottom line is. It’s the Woman’s choice. Not yours.
The good news for all the women out there is that the right to choose has already been decided and has been upheld by courts across the country for decades. Even now…when people who want to take away women’s rights and freedom of choice, and even though there are many radicals in several states who have attempted to pass laws making it even more difficult for women to access health care and family planning services, ALL of the laws have been struck down in federal court and a women’s right to choose has been protected. “
Without violating the principle of charity, this is what his/her diatribe really means (granted he/she may be too ignorant to realize it):
Also, before Roe v. Wade, [killing babies] were not performed in a medically safe environment and therefore, many women died or were no longer able to have children as [baby slaughtering] were performed by people who were not qualified to do so. So…just b/c you want to make it illegal for a woman to [slaughter her baby], it doesn’t mean it won’t happen and you are therefore, NOT protecting the lives and health of women at that point. How is that Pro-Life? I also want to clarify something…..the WOMAN will decide what to do with her [baby]. It is her choice and her decision and she may choose to consult with friends, family, doctors or God or whomever but bottome line is. It’s the Woman’s choice [to kill her baby]. Not yours.
The good news for all the women out there is that the right to [kill her baby] has already been decided and has been upheld by courts across the country for decades. Even now…when people who want to take women’s right [to kill their babies] away, and even though there are many radicals in several states who have attempted to pass laws making it even more difficult for women to [kill their babies], ALL of the laws have been struck down in federal court and a women’s right to [kill her baby] has been protected.
So, if we don’t provide a “medically safe environment” for mothers to be able to kill their babies, they might do so elsewhere and will thus be endangering themselves. And this you say would be the antithesis of being ‘Pro-Life’. Also, people who want baby-slaughtering to be illegal are “radicals”.
O.K., I get it; you’re a nut.