I came across this Slate article defending and promoting the dismemberment of unborn children. Abortion is a travesty, but the support of abortion not what was particularly interesting about this piece. Rather this part is:
And partly because the bill was written by nonphysicians using nonmedical terminology, there is a good deal of uncertainty among doctors about precisely which procedures will be illegal come July.
…
In some ways, these new second-trimester bans are of a piece with the national movement to intimidate and harass physicians, with strategies that range from forcing them to perform unwanted ultrasounds and read from factually flawed “informed consent” scripts, to forcing them to obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals (which may refuse to provide them)—or new efforts to simply refuse to let doctors learn about abortion in the first place.
This has echoes of earlier pro-baby-killing insanity in Texas. You might remember that last year the baby-killers got in a fit because Texas instituted laws where abortion clinics had to “meet the same architectural, plumbing, staffing, training and other requirements that apply to surgical centers”.
Didn’t it seem odd to anyone else that somehow baby-killing “clinics” were not held to the same basic safety standards that applied to other clinics? Didn’t it seem even more odd that leftists, usually in favour of safety regulations, were so opposed to the application of safety regulation in this particular case?
But this article combined with the earlier Texas events point out something even more odd: when it came to their sacred rite of abortion, the leftists seem to recognize that stringent regulations have negative effects on the ability of service providers to provide services.
Now compare this to Obamacare: somehow the leftists realize that heavy, arbitrary, and unclear regulation hurts the ability of baby-killers to kill babies while at the same time calling for even heavier, more arbitrary, and more opaque regulation on the health care industry as a whole? Do they want health care to be worse, do they lack the ability to integrate particular reasoning into wholistic worldviews, or are they just base liars and hypocrites?
When it comes to baby-killing, leftists even go so far as to say that basic regulations are simply forms of harassment and intimidation. Yet these same leftists will happily call for far more stringent and arbitrary regulations on everything not related to baby-killing. So, by the leftists own logic it seems that leftists wholeheartedly support the harassment and intimidation of any productive activity.
It it interesting to note how hypocritical leftists are on regulation. When it comes to things that are unimportant to the leftist, like economic production and good health care, stifling regulation is good, but when it comes to something important to the leftist, like massacring babies, any regulation at all is too much. As I’ve written before, the definition of good regulation to a liberal is anything that increases the power of government and doesn’t personally impact them, while the definition of bad regulation is anything that inconveniences them personally.
“Didn’t it seem even more odd that leftists, usually in favor of safety regulations, were so opposed to the application of safety regulation in this particular case?”
Not to me. Let’s recognize abortion clinics for what they actually are. The equivalent of a Medieval dungeon, an abattoir, a butcher’s shop where the meat isn’t actually consumed. Of course the liberal has no concern for health and safety in such places, no more than you would if designing a concentration camp.
What you point out is that Liberal logic and outlook doesn’t actually need to apply to their sacred altars. So, when a Liberal says he wants black people to have equal voting representation with whites, this is disregarded when the will of a huge black voter turnout forced through Prop 8 in California. When the Liberal says he wants a less violent America, this is disregarded when it comes to pop culture and Hollywood. Similarly, when the Liberal says he wants healthcare highly regulated, this just doesn’t apply to abortion. Abortion is not really healthcare to the liberal, its a sacrament.
And so they pray to the ghost of Georg Tiller, may his filthy soul rest in hell, that the mean waycist right wingers won’t violate their expression of ‘religious’ freedom, which much like the Canaanites, is intrinsically bound up in the sacrifice of children.
“which much like the Canaanites, is intrinsically bound up in the sacrifice of children.”
This is the kind of little detail that accumulates to make Christianity undeniable. The realization that we do, in fact, have neo-pagans running around literally sacrificing their own children to their worldly idols. I once read somewhere the observation that between abortion, birth control, and careerism/materialism displacing maternalism, that women today have essentially made a religious commitment to sterility and self-abnegation. It’s gruesome to think about, but truly there is nothing new under the sun.
I always thought unborn babies were vampires. They feed on life, and have no reflections…what’s wrong with going a little van helsing on something that may or may not ruin your life? But seriously I am pro-abortion up to a certain point when its clearly a little human growing inside of you.
Do they want health care to be worse, do they lack the ability to integrate particular reasoning into wholistic worldviews, or are they just base liars and hypocrites?
D: Both B & C, because C leads to B. The Leftists lie to themselves about their own nature on multiple levels everyday, but the most fundamental lie they tell themselves is that they are, at base, a decent individual. They might believe they have flaws, but they see these as minor flaws on an otherwise holy being. From this, they get the idea that whatever they think and feel at the moment must be some kind of reflection of fundamental reality. So, when they feel put upon by the responsibility of a child out of wedlock that they brought upon themselves by being a whore, they are utterly unable to bring logic into play. All they can do is attempt to emote and manipulate people into defending their actions, the way liars often deflect by calling you crazy for pointing out their misdeeds, and any attempt at putting facts or logic into play will antagonize them.
Shows how warped their lives are that exterminating their own children is the only freedom that matters (other than homosexual marriage, but that is symbolic)
“I am pro-abortion up to a certain point when its clearly a little human growing inside of you.”
Another almost perfect example of Liberal hypocrisy. Science is the supreme arbiter of all things…. except when it can answer the profound question of when exactly there is “clearly a little human growing inside of you”
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
Unlike a lot on the Right I am pro abortion since it offers eugenic and social good and I do not in any way shape or form believe the creator meant people to be baby factories for children they can’t afford or lack the moral character to parent. Nor is celibacy for life going to happen nor is the world going to revert (well for some long period of time anyway) to a place where every hand has value and we are all farmers or something. Even when that was the case people had birth control methods and used them .
Frankly smaller family sizes are normal and to be expected in a modern world anyway since there is roughly zero chance a young person can afford to start a family at 18 or 20 or will have such resources or be allowed to in a capitalist system.
From a more cynical POV, 75% of abortions are among non Whites and almost all of them, probably 90% among the dysgenic class, I see little bad outcome from this.
Also let me ask what’s the moral difference between early term abortion (prior to when the fetus can survive with ordinary care) birth control, alternate sexual practices or just plain abstinence among health married couples?
I can’t find any, in every case , a child that could have been born isn’t
To my way of thinking what choice people make in this arena is there’s between them and God . A state could at heavy social cost prohibit birth control and abortion but it won’t help.
Japan for example, had a huge fertility drop with only condoms as birth control and well one could ban condoms I suppose, nothing but an Anti-Christ state would have the resources or will to ban all sex to stop disease and such.
States that stop contact between male and female genders such as Islamic ones end up with mass homosexuality.
Also its not like ending pregnancy is new , Wikipedia may not be the source of all sources but it article on infanticide is eye opening
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
From the highly Christian middle ages
Whereas theologians and clerics preached sparing their lives, newborn abandonment continued as registered in both the literature record and in legal documents.[8] According to William L. Langer, exposure in the Middle Ages “was practiced on gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference”.[45] At the end of the 12th century, notes Richard Trexler, Roman women threw their newborns into the Tiber river in daylight.[46]
Unlike other European regions, in the Middle Ages the German mother had the right to expose the newborn.[47] In Gotland, Sweden, children were also sacrificed.[48]
In the High Middle Ages, abandoning unwanted children finally eclipsed infanticide.[citation needed] Unwanted children were left at the door of church or abbey, and the clergy was assumed to take care of their upbringing. This practice also gave rise to the first orphanages.
However, very high sex ratios were common in even late medieval Europe, which may indicate sex-selective infanticide.[49]
Me now
What the “highly Christian” middle ages was probably like was late marrying men (20’s typically) if they had the resources at all in arranged marriages with the younger guys not celibate but fornicating like crazy with prostitutes or lose women (Aquinas mentioned tolerance of Prostitution as a social good) and the resulting babies simply exposed. The basic goal was to get the younger women married off to older guys and most likely the sex ratios were skewed so that younger female children were exposed anyway. Any young men without prospects probably lived hand to mouth till they had some , engaged in fornication or just engaged in sodomy or bestiality as people always do. Some of course became Monks which doesn’t rule out sodomy or fornication for some either
And yes if you stop the other methods you’ll get lots more abandonment and infanticide. You could spend tons of resources arresting dumb young women but you’ll need a jail bed and an orphanage at once.
Assuming people are going to magically hold out till marriage at like 25 than spend every bit of effort on massive numbers of babies in a modern society, heck or any society a Westerner would live in is wrong.
However if you just want to reduce abortion its pretty easy , male birth control and more porn, VR porn is the killer app there. Eventually we can make ultra-realistic responsive porn without human performers which takes care of the moral objection (unless you object to masturbation on Biblical grounds which is consistent but futile)
The other option is a theocracy with sexual morality at gunpoint (you could take the frustrated young men and used them like the Iranians do as morality police) and some kind of government control over the economy to ensure jobs for young men than deliberate limits on female leaning and action basically like a Taliban State but good luck getting anyone to cooperate and do understand that such a state will be quite poor .
What we do, honestly limiting family size right out in the open isn’t very Christian but again the West isn’t Christian anymore and its not even our native faith, its mine, barely but its a cultural import and an indirect product of Ancient Rome. As such expecting us to not revert to who we were is a bit arrogant, IMO anyway.
It’s plain and simple, really. Everyone who participates in child-murder should be executed.
I echo the above statement.
If you want to eliminate abortion, you simply make it a capital crime, as murdering any child would be. One cannot be for abortion, and then somehow be against parents being able to execute their children at the age of 5. There is no logical reason to make exiting the womb some kind of cutoff point between ‘a ball of cells’ and murder.
1) If you punish abortion with some short prison sentence, yes, you may have illegal abortions in back alley clinics (especially in a culture with no sexual taboo system where women get pregnant with no support system), but if you punish it with execution for both the woman and the ‘doctor’, then the practice virtually disappears. Women will not risk being shot in the head to terminate a baby that they would be perfectly free to give up for adoption (although this would be discouraged on a general scale since children almost universally develop better with biological mother and father).
2) Yes, you want large families. If having exorbitant wealth prevents large families then the trade-off isn’t having small families, its getting rid of some of that wealth (redirecting it out of the public’s hands), or altering conditions so that the two things are not mutually exclusive. Valuing material wealth in society is part of what has led the West to its decaying state. Having one or two children is not ideal at all. 4-5 should be the average, with many producing more.
3) “To my way of thinking what choice people make in this arena is there’s between them and God ” Again, Modernist madness. It is between them and God on Judgment Day. Until then, if their actions are degrading the society then they are responsible to that society. And any society which slaughters its own defenseless babies is a degenerate one. There’s can be no equivocation. Unless there are some extenuating circumstances, murder is punishable by death, regardless of the victim’s age.
Put it this way. Excluding cases where the mother will die, ALL ABORTION is conducted for reasons of comfort. Emotional comfort, financial comfort, sometimes pressure from external forces. Weigh that up against a potential death sentence for the perpetrator and women will avoid any chance of it occurring.
“Assuming people are going to magically hold out till marriage at like 25 than spend”
In a Reactionary state, the average marriage age would be about 20, perhaps 19. It’s only in Modernity that we have waited so long.
Mr. Citadel (a pen-name, surely?),
There were orphanages that turned out productive participants in society and they were usually run by the Church. That isn’t around anymore, because many denominations have become Feminised or, in other words, largely useless…
Remember that an orphan is a child whose parents have died but yet the other definition of an orphan is something abandoned by its parents.
Best regards,
A.J.P.
Alan J. Perrick (a pen-name, not-so-surely?)
Yes, and in the Reactionary State, the church would most certainly take up this responsibility again. It is unfortunate that the last vestiges of this once noble tradition are now being swept away by a raft of anti-discrimination laws that are basically saying “turn the children over to the state, or allow them to be adopted by child molesters… for tolerance”.
You will always have children who lose their parents, and yes even children who have to be given away because the parent is incapable of being a parent. The Church is the institution to raise them into good citizens, but adoptive parents can often do a good job as stand ins for their biological parents. As was typical in the old days, Churches would vet the would-be parents which made things a lot more rigorous.
Abortion is the murder of the innocent. People who condone the murder of the innocent are not to be condoned. They should be vivisected and the remains treated as bio-waste. Live by the scalpel, die by the cleaver.