When Choice Is Not A Choice
Liberals are anti-choice if they don't like yours.
-
Tools:
We recently reviewed a book about knights and knaves. The central idea was that although people used to think that government employees worked hard to benefit society, such knightly behavior is a thing of the past - most government employees are now known to be as knavish as any businessman and work to benefit themselves before the public.
Unfortunately, many people who claim to serve others turn out to be serving themselves. For example, the Wisconsin Republicans changed the law so that the state government would no longer withhold union dues from employee paychecks and automatically hand the money over to the union. When left to collect their own dues by voluntary submission from each member, unions have found that their income drops like a stone. Apparently most of the workers who were formerly forced to pay union dues don't value the "services" provided by the union bosses, at least not enough to pay the price they wish to charge.
The unions attempted to recall the politicians who voted to cut off their gravy train. The politics became so open and so raw that even liberals are admitting that union politics has little to do with protecting workers, it's about getting taxpayers' money to unions so they can use it to re-elect Democrats.
 |
| But only if it's a girl. |
Feminism Has Knaves, Too
Back in the early days of the republic, some women were treated badly, and early suffragettes worked to end real abuses and wrongs. When modern feminists came on the scene, though, rhetorical excesses such as claiming that all sex is rape indicated that they weren't really interested in the lives of most women.
"Consciousness-raising" sessions reached out to women who didn't feel abused and made them unhappy with their men. This was unhelpful both for the domestic tranquility that means a great deal to most women and to any unfortunate men in their lives.
One of the feminist fights concerned abortion "rights." Forgetting that laws against abortion were put in place to protect women from the dangers of abortions urged on them by men who didn't want any more children, feminists demanded the unconditional right for any woman to have an abortion at any time.
Feminists even supported "partial birth abortion" where a baby who's close to term is forced to deliver feet first. The doctor then stabs the child in the back of the neck while the head is still inside the mother. This is considered to be abortion and not a murder only because the child isn't completely born yet.
Feminists believed that restricting even this horrible procedure would lead to limits on other abortions. Arguing that being forced to carry an unwanted child was a form of slavery, feminists declared, "No one has the right to determine what a woman can do with her own body" and proclaimed the universal "right to choose."
Their support of a woman's right to choose isn't universal, of course. The National Organization for Women opposed a bill which would have let pregnant women use handicapped parking on the grounds that pregnancy is not a disability and that pregnant women should be encouraged to walk more whether they chose to walk more or not.
At bottom, NOW supports a woman's right to choose not to have a baby, but is entirely uninterested in helping should she choose to give birth.
The Down-Side of the Pro-Choice Position
Feminists are learning that if you let people choose, they won't always choose as you think they should. We've discussed the shortage of marriageable Asian women, caused because Asian mothers would rather give birth to sons than to daughters and thus choose to abort more girls than boys.
Women in Asian cultures quite rationally would rather raise boys because sons support their parents when they get old, namely themselves. Daughters help their husbands support the husband's parents, not their own.
Most Westerners are confident that the government will take care of them when they get old and don't much worry about the gender or future usefulness of their children, though this may turn out to be a mistake. Asians who don't trust government to take care of them want lots of sons.
The traditional method of choosing sons over daughter was female infanticide, that is, killing girl babies after they're born, usually by drowning. There's very little difference between drowning a girl after she's born and piercing her skull before she's born. The distinction, such as it is, is important to feminists, most of whom admit that killing babies after they're born is murder.
Modern son-choosers use ultrasound to determine sex as early as possible and abort girls. This saves the mother's energy which would be required to bring the child to full term and reduces her period of enslavement to an undesired fetus.
Feminists are up in arms since most sex selection involves aborting girls. Aborting boys is OK, but it's not OK to abort girls? Are they demanding rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for unborn women?
Technology Amplifies All Issues
Ultrasound can't determine sex until the baby grows enough for the genital area to be visible, but recently-developed blood tests can show gender at 7 weeks. USA Today reports:
Though the technology could help families at high risk of having a baby with rare genetic diseases, some experts worry that couples could misuse the blood tests by deciding to abort a fetus based on gender. ...
The technology raises serious ethical concerns, says Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. Female fetuses are commonly aborted in India, he says. A May analysis in The Lancet estimates that between 4.2 million and 12.1 million were "selectively" aborted in India from 1980 to 2010. [emphasis added]
If a woman has an unlimited right to choose, how could it be a "misuse" of the test to decide whether she wanted the child or not? If abortion on demand is OK, how could aborting more girls than boys raise "serious ethical concerns?"
USA Today is not alone in worrying. Instead of waiting until the second paragraph, the New York Times put sex selection in the first paragraph and suggested that the test is being misused:
While sex selection is not considered a widespread objective in the United States, companies say that occasionally customers expressed that interest, and have been denied the test. A recent study of third pregnancies in the journal Prenatal Diagnosis found that in some Asian-American groups, more boys than girls are born in ratios that are “strongly suggesting prenatal sex selection,” the authors said. [emphasis added]
Both these papers have expressed strong support for a "woman's right to choose." They've banged the drum in favor of abortion at any time, for any reason, without telling the father, without telling parents, and without telling anyone else, for decades on end. They've argued that this choice is purely between the woman and her abortionist, no matter how young she may be.
If that's so, why are they all steamed up? This test lets women find out earlier than ever whether they want to keep the child or not. The earlier the abortion, the safer for the mother and the shorter her period of slavery to an unwanted fetus.
You'd think feminists would be dancing in the streets, but no; they're muttering about ethical concerns in an area where they've argued that there are no ethical issues at all.
Sorry, ladies! Choice is either OK or it's not. Pregnancy is either slavery or it's not.
If choice is OK, if a woman has the right to determine what she does with her body, there's no ethical issue over what that choice might happen to be, or any unfortunate side-effects of a particular choice.
If, on the other hand, abortion is in any way ethically questionable, then on what grounds is it OK to abort boys but not OK to abort girls? Or does the "right to choose" apply only when women choose as feminists would choose, and it's not really about "choice" at all?
Were feminists genuinely interested in expanding women's choices? Or were they simply seeking power any way they could find it, like all the other knaves we know?
Once again, liberals find themselves on a slippery slope.
-
Tools:
What does Chinese history have to teach America that Joe Biden doesn't know?
What you're asking for is some sort of consistency which liberals of all sorts seem to find at least appalling, and worts wicked and evil (if they actually believe in evil). The diehard feminists of both genders mostly have no use for men at all, and would be fine if boys were aboted or just murdered after birth. They can see no problem with that at all.
They're fond of saying that all men are simply latent rapists, but when it's pointed out that all women are simply latent prostitutes they explode. What's good for the goose is supposedly good for the gander, but not for the gals in NAG or is it NOW.
"Liberals are anti-choice if they don't like yours."
Conservatives are anti-choice if they don't like yours.
This is a language game. "Pro-Choice," a 'Liberal' term; "Pro-Life," a 'Conservative' term. "Anti-Abortion" "Pro-Abortion"...
The whole thing an open and obvious dialectical structure, and one of the most deft crafting of a half/half divide of the population by social engineering.
The article states that: "One of the feminist fights concerned abortion "rights." Forgetting that laws against abortion were put in place to protect women from the dangers of abortions urged on them by men who didn't want any more children, feminists demanded the unconditional right for any woman to have an abortion at any time."
However what is not mentioned is the thousands of back alley abortions, and clothes hanger slaughters by quacks and desperate women themselves that was pandemic before abortions were legalized.
This position is NOT "pro-abortion." It is merely pointing out facts that are left out of the discussion from one side.
The facts that are left out of the discussion on the "Liberal" side is that many of those involved in the initial debate were actually from the eugenics movement - 'Planned Parnenthood', for example has a checkered and dark past for the founding members who were part of the Harriman funded eugenics movement, that not only advocated and put into practice abortion, but forced {undisclosed to the patient} sterilizations, and advocacy for genetic engineering of the "lesser races."
These were the same core groups that 'advised' the Nazis, during and before the Second World War.
Again, those who cannot see that the core issue is 'divide and conquer' via social engineering ala the Public Relations Regime, will never be aware of the larger problem of WHO is driving the ship to confused turbulent waters.
ww
Abortion is America's greatest sin. Life begins at conception. Murder is murder no matter how you try to disguise it. No one asks when are you going to deliver your fetus or what are you going to name your fetus. Everyone knows that it is a baby, plain and simple. To change that person's description of being a baby to that of a fetus is a liberal trying to absolve their guilt as in Clinton's use of language manipulation of "What is is?". Legal maneuvers don't make something not guilty, common sense always knows right from wrong and abortion is clearly wrong and the pro-abortionists know it also, right to the core of the matter.
@ Willy, @ Bassboat:
Both your remarks, while having their points, illustrate why any discussion of freedom and choice is immediately polluted whenever abortion is mentioned. If you're interested in having a discussion of the value of free choice and who might or might not favor free choice, we might be better served by discussions of how you wish to defend yourself, the car you choose to drive, the place you choose to live, how you choose to worship God, or how you choose to educate your children.
Abortion is a poisoned well; it has been made deliberately so and no serious discussion of it is possible for the foreseeable future, and here are a few reasons why:
*Abortion as it relates to public policy, health, and welfare grows out of two progressive ideas: that society at large ought to be involved in shaping who may and may not produce children (cf. Margaret Sanger), and that women should be driven out of the home and into the workforce. (Current federal tax policy also achieves this by making single-income families unaffordable.) Both these notions, when brought near governmental power and decision making, are incalculably destructive both to current and future generations.
*Abortion was not a political football prior to 1972 when the Supreme Court decided it had jurisdiction to decide such a question. Previously, all such issues were decided at the state level -- which is where they belong -- and individuals were closer to the decision making. Individuals everywhere were dissatisfied with their state's laws, to be sure, but the entire country was not embroiled in a bitter, reasonless argument. Once the Supremes ruled on it unilaterally, not only was the decision making seized rudely and made as far as possible away from any democratic accountability, but further still by removal from any legislative reach. Few things in American history were more destructive -- but again, deliberately so.
*Abortion debates are designed to avoid or invalidate other, more fundamental issues, like the value of abstinence, the question of moral judgments on individual behaviour, the result of blanket-non-judgmentalism no matter what the behaviour, and the destruction of inter-generational bonds.
Brother John,
You will note that I led off my comment with the statement that abortion is a sin. With sin the only choice is to sin or not sin, that is the only freedom that we are given, free will. If abortion is not a sin, not murder, then we can debate it. For me there is no debate, to compromise with sin is to sin.
This is my belief therefore I cannot be involved in a debate as to merits of abortion. I simply made a comment on Scragged on the abortion topic espoused by the pro-abortion people. That comment was once again that if you believe in sin and that murder is a sin then there is no debate as I believe in life at conception. Being a simple person I can look into any child's face and know what abortion would have done to that fetus or as I call it, baby.
If we are to be hard core about your absolutist rant above Bassboat, then we must....as all things in the space-time condominium are cyclic - and in fact fractal wave driven, make our decision points at some random point in the cycle. This is because it is like a Möbius strip, a loop.
As such aspects spiral through time: This gives rise to the temporal concept of 'Potential', optimum development through time. All of life is in a state of potential as we move through time.
What are the beginnings and endings of life? The most common answer would be, “from birth to death.”
“We are born to die,” “We are born, we pay taxes and we die,” ect...thousands of example throughout literature.
Now there are those who feel strongly that this historical outlook is in some way a “Liberal Conspiracy.”
The truth of the matter is that it should be phrased; “from conception to death,” or “we are conceived to die.”
No to make lite of those with such strong feelings, but this must be confronted openly, that most societies consider birth as the genesis of a persons life.
We may wish to now change the ideal to the concept that 'Human life begins at Conception, which would mean the bonding of the egg and sperm to become a viable zygote. Under this maxim the zygote is no longer what it is in fact, a 'potential human being', it is now deemed to be a human being.
Well, since we have put our thumb on that point in the cycle, what is the same logic would demand that we recognize that the sperm and the ovum, are prior to the bonded zygote, it they are made to die in some way, that too is murder. These are in fact human potential bearing cells, just as the zygote is.
As it is, the menstrual cycle of the woman means that nature is culpable for the demise of any unfertilized ovum as a general rule. However, every time a man ejaculates anywhere other than the route necessary to find the ovum is murdering countless human beings. Perhaps this “wasted seed” concept is in dogmatic circles seen as a sin. But if we are to be consistent, the murder of these sperm cells should be as illegal as killing a zygote, or purposely murdering an ovum [which is the way in which some cream contraceptives, and birth control pills work.]
We are going to need new prisons...privately owned prisons most certainly.
Yes, of course I know how this will be received. Accused of being “ridiculous,” of scurrilous insincere argumentum. But this is not so, because there are other factors involved, such as the woman who is already a manifest human being with all the human rights of any other human being being dictated to as to her powers over her own life and body. And this acceptance of a woman in such a light, does not translate into her rights as unconscionable license or sloth – such as waiting to some long term in pregnancy to deal with it.
That reason must balance all aspects of the issues involved may gall the dogmatic mind, is no motivation to give up reason.
ww
I rest my case.
A very weak case that equates a reasoned argument and an appeal to empty dogma.
The issue will not just "go away" because it has been "poisoned", it will only fester.
ww
I do believe that the article presents an interesting argument that I had not considered previously. It certainly does seem to me that either choice is acceptable or it is not. Telling people that the choice is okay if done for the 'correct' reasons seems a bit off to me.
That being said I do tend to stay out of abortion arguments in the general case because there is no reasonable argument, in general, for or against it. After all the argument comes down to a difference in the definition of 'life.' The argument is then quickly reduced to a childish 'no it isn't! yes it is! no it isn't!'
As the article correctly states abortion rights activists will in all arguments I have heard, agree that killing a baby that is fully born is murder. They simply do not believe that it can be called alive I suppose until the umbilical cord is cut. You can disagree with that all you want but the argument would have to get down to a very philosophical nit picky argument on the definition of 'life.' That is not possible in a highly charged political atmosphere.
"They simply do not believe that it can be called alive I suppose until the umbilical cord is cut."~jonyfries
I have never heard such a ridiculous argument from other than the anti-abortions side as an assertion, and it is obvious strawman.
And this is one of the reasons the 'debate' becomes glued down in the absurd. Both sides making up crap about what the other sides argument actually is.
Honest debate sabotaged by lunacy seems to me more a case of the dialectic at work in social engineering. The zealots from both sides get all the headlines.
Dumbed down Amerikans cannot followed reasoned debate, so the media offers them only lollipops...
This is a really a scary place when one ponders the realities here.
ww
The cutting of the umbilical cord may be a bit long, but personally I don't see much of a difference between that and the partial birth abortion. Surely the act of finishing getting the head out of the womb can't be argued to change the nature of the child in anyway.
This is exactly the point though the definition of life presented to support partial birth abortions seems absurd to me but I have to argue the philosophical argument of 'what is life.' That is the basis of the disagreement on the matter. I've heard from some people when the heart starts beating, or when there is neural activity, or when the baby is fully out side of the woman, or when the baby is a separate entity (hence umbilical cord).
The definition of life can not be logically deduced because the premises are different. As an example, a virus is not as complex as a zygote. I believe we can all agree that a virus is life. Being more complex the zygote may also be considered life. However, the virus is a fully functioning, whole end product of a life form. The Zygote is not and therefore may be considered not life.
You can argue the philosophy, but you can't argue this on politics it simply doesn't work.
I think Jony, that you are arguing 'what is life?' - when the question is 'what is HUMAN life?'...
As you can see, I tried to approach this philosophically in the aspect of 'potential' and 'actual' in my remarks above.
And as we know if we contemplate deeply, even potentialities have aspect through time. In physical existance they grow and wane...
But the point of 'viablilty' outside of the womb is surely pertanent to this subject.
But I am not arguing for or against - merely remarking on reasonable approached for making such arguments. A rational consensus may be possible, but not as long as emotion, ignorance, power, and politics are mixed into what should be a medical and philosophical [Hypocratic]discussion.
ww
One more note.
I think that there should be political honesty here.
Theological dogma has no place in this discussion, the first amendment forbids forcing ones religious beliefs onto secular legal questions.
"Sin" is not unlawful nor illegal under constitutional law.
ww
@Willy
The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. That means something very specific, and possibly not what you think it means.
Anyway, to kill is to sin. May we not legislate against the taking of life? Of course not. That is absurd. Thus, if one believes that an abortion is the taking of a life, then to legislate against it is perfectly reasonable.
The last paragraph of your posting at 1:03 AM makes and reinforces my point, that as long as *Roe* stands, no rational discussion is possible.
Discussions of partial-birth procedures are utterly ludicrous since there is no rational or medical basis for such a thing. If the mother's life is threatened - and it statistically never is, at that point in the term - then you just deliver, no discussion necessary. And as I said earlier, any sane discussion must begin with how such "unwanted" or "unplanned" pregnancies likely to end in voluntary termination can be prevented in the first place. That would be rational.
In any event, the chief mark of a civilized society is what is done with its least useful or most helpless members. We try to err on the side of caution when someone is on trial for their life or liberty - that it is not possible in these instances (what should be a medical and philosophical - read "religious" discussion) speaks volumes about American society and those who post with such an attitude.
And Willy? I'm trying to stay rational. But if you happened to be in the same room with me when you spelled "America" with a "K", you'd be picking monitor glass out of your forehead for the next week.
I have made no defense of 'partial birth abortions'.
If making law based on religion isn't 'establishment'of religion, what is?
I distinquish between America the republic, and Amerika the empire and police state. I don't care if you like it or not.
ww
Martial Artist from age 13 {grin}
"philosophical - read "religious"~Bro John
There is a distinction between "theological" and "philosophical", whether one recognizes it or not.
The theological being 'faith based', need not necessarily attend to logic and reason, and these can be transcended by various means in theological thinking.
Of course we can do away with distinctions. Trash the idea of blue, red, yellow etc, and just say, "oh it was some color, but not black or white.." or "No no no, there IS only night and day, no dusk, no dawn.."
Or one could say, why the hell do I have to point out such seemingly obvious things to supposedly educated people? Why do we have these childish outbursts over words? What is the big deal about 'K' for 'C', aside from some jingoberry American Exceptionalist attitude? “My mother drunk or sober.”...”America republic or police state.”
As far as I am concerned there is a lot of unbridled and unrecognized emotionalism in the attitudes here. I suggest you might think about that.
ww
The establishment of religion would be something that required a person to be of a certain religion to join the government, receive benefits, requiring prayer ect.
My reading of the establishment of religion would be something like this: Religion can be in the government; the government can't be in religion.
That isn't to say that religion being in the government is always the best, but it is constitutional in my reading.
Well, as far as I'm concerned your reading of the First Amendment is jejune.
It says nothing of prayers as a necessity for establishment of religion.
It is a much more reasonable reading interpretation that making actual law based on religion would be much more agregious to the rights of those who did not hold such religious views.
I am opposed to the trivial matters such as banning nativity scenes and crosses in public areas, or even concern about public prayers...as much as they may bring "insult" they do not bring the force of real harm that laws do bring.
This area of the constitution has been trivialized purposely in my view, to confuse the essentials with silly chatter. Again, it is perception manipulation and the agenda of PR to confuse and put everyone at each others throats over totally meaningless issues.
ww
I think for clarification Jony, we can take your description of what it would take to establish religion: "required a person to be of a certain religion to join the government," as already covered within the body of the Constitution. That being the case a more general reading of the First seems to be given credence.
After all there is an internal linkage within the First having to do with religious freedoms tied to freedom of thoughts, expressions and ideas, as is dealt with the language pertaining to a free press.
And whereas there were to be no "implied" powers given to authority.
The Ninth makes very clear that much is implied as well as enumerated, as to the rights of liberty. So the largest and most expansive interpretations are valid when speaking to the rights guaranteed in the document.
ww
US Constitution:
Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
ww
I chuckle at the attempts to change the topic of abortion into a philosophical discussion about what is right or wrong from a secular point of view. They refuse to answer the question, they try all sorts of scenarios while ducking the simple yes or no. I really don't care what their stance is, that is an internal spiritual matter to me. While I am sure that I will be assailed for my beliefs, that is ok. Please note that I did not rant, I simply stated my view on the matter nor did I accuse anyone of ranting.
I wouldn't think anyone would suspect you of understanding that abortion is a philosophical discussion Bassboat.
ww
I continue with my chuckling at the vapid comments.