The rationale for murdering 50 million babies in the US is that they weren’t wanted.
Who else isn’t wanted – and can be disposed of? The Nazis killed far fewer people than Planned Parenthood.
The rationale for murdering 50 million babies in the US is that they weren’t wanted.
Who else isn’t wanted – and can be disposed of? The Nazis killed far fewer people than Planned Parenthood.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
For the record, I do not support a blanket ban on abortion. I think current laws are just about right, for the one reason that otherwise things will be far worse.
Anyway…numbers are much higher than you think. Don’t you remember Intergenerational Justice? Each one of those babies might have had their own children. And so on and so forth.
If we follow the logic of climate change activsts, every abortion is the genocidal killing of millions if not billions of future people.
@omnologos: “I think current laws are just about right, for the one reason that otherwise things will be far worse.”
Worse? How do you get worse than the butchering of 50 million babies? Please explain – I would love to know what you mean by “worse”.
And where do you draw the line? Does contraception cause “genocide” ?
Once a baby is determined to be a threat as a future climate skeptic, it needs to be aborted.
Then you must accept the consequences if someone other than yourself decides that your existence is making things ‘worse.’ Fair enough?
Here in Canada, we have no laws concerning abortion. You could quite happily (wince) abort at the time that birth is due. We have no abortion law in Canada.
Now, I, as someone born some years earlier, to a woman (girl actually) who had not planned a baby or familly with her lover, have another take on this.
Had, back then in the ancient time I was born, abortion had been not only available, but actively encouraged, as it is today, I would not exist. Nor would my sister. We are abortion survivors.
How does that mess with the lefty minds?
Listen, I recognize that abortion is something like prostitution, msturbation and homosexuality. It has always existed, but that don’t necessarily make it right, or acceptable. People have always picked their noses, but it is not nice to do it in public. Personally, I enjoy the presence and care of professional women, but I am single; I’d sooner have a wife and familly.
So, I say, limit abortion to cases of rape and severe depravity (moral decision, I understand) otherwise deny it. After all, there are plenty of inexpensive contraceptives available today, that weren’t to my mother … thank goodness 🙂
I wasn’t aware of that. That is going from one extreme to the other.
Maybe the title of the blog should be changed to “Real Morality”
People come here to discuss their abhorrence of an unrepresentative, unelected elite, who use alarmist tactics to re-define “weather” as “catastrophic AGW” in pursuit of their ambition to tell the rest of society how to live their lives — only to get bogged down in a discussion whereby “abortion” is redefined as “genocide,” (complete with photos of near-full-term abortions, concentration camp victims, etc) in an attempt to tell individuals how to live their lives.
We’ve come full circle.
Unfortunately all true… but it’s Steve’s blog and he’s entitled to do what he wants with it. He does valuable data analysis and media research even if one can’t agree with all of his opinions.
True. The pity is that people who don’t want to be lectured on Biblical morality and how to live yet another aspect of their lives (which, I would think is a great percentage) wind up going somewhere else. To that end, I would observe that, to date, none of these “genocide” articles has been picked up by Climate Depot, et. al.
Ummm, you can kinda click the links you choose to….
Yeah, it was because of this, “Here in Canada, we have no laws concerning abortion.”
It doesn’t look like that doesn’t it.
Remember though that even among conservatives this is a divisive issue. This issue divides us conservatives, and it turns a lot of us off, and I don’t want this blog to start to look like some kind of extremist site. That’s my 2 cents. And do we want to keep harping on an issue that probably cost us the election? Remember the dimwits Akin and Mourdach? Believe me, with rare exception, in every case where abortion becomes a prominent issue, we lose. Do we like kamikazes want to just shoot a torpedo into our own ship, and then we can all go down with the ship, together? And now Obama is sitting pretty to implement his climate and gun stealing schemes, and he is set to work toward turning Obamacare into a scary single payer system. And what about the climate? Tom Nelson reports on 7 Joe Bastardi tweets that cast serious doubt on CO2’s role, as: “I have dug into every paper I can on the physical process that is supposed to allow co2 to work and this magic.The weight against:staggering.” http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2013/01/co2-isn-main-climate-driver-seven.html
Eric, I agreee with the general tenor of your post. But, up here in Canada, during the years of “right wing” exile in the political void, we hashed these arguments out amongst each other and came to a position of reconciliation amongst us right-wingers, of all faiths, and finally unified and won “power”.
It comes down to the fact that there are two Conservative streams: The Christian, social conservative and the libertarian, Christian or maybe atheist, stream.
The deal we made in Canada, after much heated debate amongst social and liberatarian conservatives, was that we are on the same side. “Whilst I might not want what this lady is urging, I support her right to urge it, and she should have her day in parliament, should be heard” And on her side, she supported Conservative policies (as if she woudn’t?).
So. to get the game rolling, the libertarians decided to allow the goals of the the social conservatives, without any counter-offer. But we are all conservatives and sailing for the same haven.
This was a key compromise. In stating, and actually doing, that I would stand by you in your demonstration for an end to aborrtion, I received nothing in return. I was showing solidarity with my conservative allies who were insisting on personal choice and liberty from the state … even though I might, or might not, agree with their goals.The fundamentals we can, and must, all agree upon. Liberty!
Good points, Robert. Although the Akin & Murdoch affairs often gets me so hopping mad at the pushers of the abortion issue, because I think that Akin et al, as well as the fat oaf from NJ, maybe cost us the election. Good points, though. We need to get along in the same boat, not sink it.
First you dehumanize them, then it is easy to kill them. Notice how they refuse to describe them in anything other than non-human terms.
For every 1000 live births, blacks have 471 abortions. For whites it 152 per 1000 live births.
Abortion is a symptom of the real problem, infantile adults. Society is regressing to a fetal position with thumb in mouth. Abortion is just one more way in which adults are now allowed to shirk their responsibilities, and it is a cultural problem that cannot be solved by Hollywood or DC.
OK, so a separate issue, as by your numbers the abortion numbers are skewed heavily toward blacks, and so otherwise the black population would balloon, and with blacks voting 95% Democrat that would affect future voter roles adversely. And Hispanics statistically have high birth rates, and I assume your numbers would show that their population as well would increase more rapidly without abortion, and they also vote heavily Democrat, it appears. So, sometimes our idealism can come around and bite us in the rear. Soon we’ll be completely open borders anyway, so it’s moot, as the floodgates will be open to new immigrants that will be legal from the day they stop across the border.
I personally abhor abortion, but I am afraid it comes down to this. Are you willing to pay extra tax to support 50 million unwanted children? Pay for their food, housing, health care, education and future institutional care? It would seem that those who want to outlaw abortion are the ones least happy about having their taxes raised and increasing the size of the walfare state. That would be an inevitable result of outlawing abortion.
Look at the bright side… fewer libtards…
The rationale for genocide always boils down to the same justification
Actually, many women use it as a form of birth control and there would be fewer births.
“Among the 41 areas for which the number of previous abortions was reported for 2006… 25.5% and 19.2%, respectively, had previously had either one or two or more abortions (Table 16).”
And how about writing laws that further force “fathers” to provide? That would also reduce births.
Then there are those mom’s who only find out after giving birth, that they are in love.
How many saved babies does it take to make it “worth it”?
Yes….it would nowhere near 50 million. Responsible (not that dreaded word again!) birth control use would increase.
Actually it comes down to who gets to play god. Who gets to decide who lives and dies. Simple.
30 years ago(1973) the BBC allowed Jacob Bronowski’s make the documentary program ‘The Ascent of Man.’
This 2.5 minute clip from it says a lot.
Life is sacred.
@tckev: Excellent clip – thanks for sharing.
I’m glad you liked it. It was made back in the days when the BBC allowed decent programs to be made.
Dr. Jacob Bronowski was deputized to the British Chiefs of Staff Mission to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, visiting Japan in 1945, after which he wrote a well-regarded report The Effects of Atomic Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also he knew personally many of the people that worked those nuclear weapons.
His last line “We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to touch people!” is, in this context his most powerful.
I think this movie clip says it all:
Nazi’s got their ideas from Eugenicists in the U.S.
Hillary Clinton and other modern day feminists idolize Margaret Sanger
‘The Mother of Black Genocide’
Eugenicists aim to reduce humanity to push-button order. If society accepts such aims how long before the state decides who should live and who die. In the UK this is going on now, one recent British case is this where the medical people were saying that they knew best –
It’s natural female mammalian nature, especially female human nature to establish selfish control over sexual selection, over birth control. As I watch religiously inspired folk taint the libertarian movement with Nazi references to genocide, I cringe at the great likelihood of angry Michelle Obama taking over for Obama in 2016. Control over sex is not the government’s gun wielding responsibility, especially in an era of pharmaceutical abortion. Every reference you make to it in shrill tone further alienates your potential female allies in the defense of science against charlatanism. You either want to win a battle or you don’t and if you don’t then really you want to lose as a martyr, proudly, but in losing you are dragging me down with you, asshole.
Sorry, I am against genocide
@Nik: “You either want to win a battle or you don’t and if you don’t then really you want to lose as a martyr, proudly…”
In “Return of the King”, one of King Theoden’s men said to him, “We cannot defeat the armies of Mordor in battle”. King Theoden replied, “No, we cannot. But we will meet them in battle nonetheless.“. I would rather die a martyr than live as a coward. Genocide is genocide, and I will stand against it.
@LLAP. Perhaps it would help put us all on the same page if you gave us your definition of “genocide,” and as an adjunct to that, explained how 50 million independent decisions to have an abortion fitted within that definition.
Hitler did not personally kill 6 million Jews. I doubt he killed one. But he made sure the culture allowed it, and it happened. Do you deny that was genocide?
@Ivan: Genocide refers to deliberate and systematic extermination. In this case, it is the extermination of unwanted children. What would you call the killing of 50 million innocent children?
P.S. When I say unwanted children, it is due to the fact that the vast majority of abortions are a result of the pregnancy being an inconvenience:
In Canada, there is no law against abortion. Its legality is not enshrined in law; rather, it is legal because it is not illegal. Despite my opposition to it, I am forced to help pay for them, as they are paid for by tax dollars (the quote below is from the same site as the link above):
“In Canada, almost all abortions are paid for by taxpayers. In British Columbia, Alberta, , Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland, abortion is paid for under the publicly funded system whether it is performed in a hospital or private clinic.”
LLAP, the tax issue is a non starter in your contex.
I, too, am against genocide.
NikFromNYC : “potential female allies ” – I, for one, do not want those “female allies” who use abortion as a convenience.
“What would you call the killing of 50 million innocent children?”
I would call it a gross exaggeration of fact, if not deliberate distortion of the language. To accept this argument means that we have to accept a re-definition of the words “genocide,” “children,” and “systematic extermination.” How it is possible to represent the deliberate and independent choice of 50 million females to terminate their own potential offspring as “systematic extermination” beggars belief. To the best of my knowledge, no-one from any death squads is holding a gun at their head.
While I’m sure it’s all very emotive to post grisly pictures of late term abortions, the statistics indicate that only about 1.1% of U.S. abortions occur at 21 weeks or greater (2005 stats). Again – it’s very emotive to refer to “50 million children,” but the statistics indicate that over 88% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, while over half of all abortions in the U.S. occur within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. Children? At 8-12 weeks? Hardly.
Ivan: “Children? At 8-12 weeks? Hardly.”
If they are not children. then what are they?
Do you subscribe to the view that they are not human until they are born?
“If they are not children. then what are they?”
Technically, it is an unborn foetus. To the best of my knowledge, most (if not all) legal jurisdictions only recognise a child as a “natural offspring,” – i.e. it has to be born first.
“Do you subscribe to the view that they are not human until they are born?
The views that I happen to subscribe to are irrelevant. Like @LLAP, you are attempting to distort the language to make a point. The issue is not whether they are human but whether they are viable children.
Ivan – I think you – and others “… are attempting to distort the language to make a point. The issue is not whether they are human but whether they are viable children.”
We either treat them as humans from the moment of conception, or we are using semantics and other forms of verbal onanism to justify this genocide.
As adults, we don’t have the right to make a decision to end our own lives – but you say we have the “right” to end the lives of those not yet born. What say do these children have in whether they live or die? It is not for me to make that decision, nor is it for you or anybody else to make that decision on their behalf.
“The issue is not whether they are human but whether they are viable children.”
Guess what Ivan – a newborn child is not viable – we are not talking about baby sea turtles here. Human children need a lot of ongoing support outside the womb before they become “viable”. Have you ever noticed that ??
And the point is, these aborted children would have been “viable” had they been allowed to stay where they were meant to be.
Have you noticed recently “ethicists” saying that abortions/terminations should be allowed after the birth of the child. Does that fit in well with your ideas??
But that is the difference. Some people don’t believe a few cells is a human being. For others conception means something magical has happened. At the other end of the scale few would except that a late term abortion is ethical.
@Ivan: ““What would you call the killing of 50 million innocent children?”
“I would call it a gross exaggeration of fact, if not deliberate distortion of the language.”
And … “the deliberate and independent choice of 50 million females to terminate their own potential offspring …”
It all sounds so much nicer and more practical when you change the words. When they are a “choice” or “potential offspring” rather than a child. If anyone is distorting language, it is you.
“Children? At 8-12 weeks? Hardly.”
So when does life begin? Where do we draw the line? As TonyO mentioned above, the latest term being used is “post-birth abortion”. When the left fought for the legalization of abortion, it was done so under the premise of saving women from back-alley abortions. Like everything else, the left does not compromise – they keep pushing. Now the idea of infanticide is being talked about under the guise of “post-birth abortion”. By the way, why don’t you have a look and see just what is happening in-utero from 8-12 weeks:
Those who are staunch supporters of abortion would have you believe it is just a “blob of tissue”.
A fetus is no less a valid stage of humanity than a newborn is. Or a 6 month old. Or a 5 year old. It was never going to be a frog. What your mother carried inside her, was never not you.
leftinbrooklyn – ” It was never going to be a frog.”
That’s the argument I throw at people who go on about when “life” begins – the point where the fetus will only become a human – and not a frog, lizard, cat etc.
Yep. The stages of human development begin when they begin. The only reason to argue differently is because you don’t want to admit you’re killing a human.
Why is it that the anti-abortion camp can’t advance an argument without torturing the language?
“It all sounds so much nicer and more practical when you change the words.”
That is my argument in reverse – it all sounds so much more horrific when you change the meaning of words.
The term “viable” means: “capable of living, (of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.” (You will note that the dictionary uses the term “fetus” and not “unborn children.”) In practical terms, this would apply from birth, or close to it. Medical advances have made it possible – with extreme intervention – to keep them alive from around 23-24 weeks, but whether this is a good thing or not is the subject of another debate. However, prior to that, all bets are off. If the mother dies, the fetus dies – period. Given that the vast bulk of abortions happen well before this point – well – you can see why you’re pushing a losing argument, and why the anti-abortionists have to resort to emotive terms like “genocide” and “aborted children” to try gain traction.
It seems to me that if people really feel this strongly about the need to rigidly control other people’s lives in this respect, that a “win” by the AGW crowd would not be a bad thing. If we could return to a middle ages life-style, at harmony with nature, with no conveniences and restricted mobility, the “problem” would correct itself. If a dramatically reduced population was forced into tribal subsistence-based living, where they had to struggle just for the basic necessities of existence, then they wouldn’t have the time or energy for casual sex, and the problem would largely disappear, much like it did under Pol Pot, I believe.
Better still – we could learn a lot from the Muslims. If we were to join them in a 7th century dark ages life-style, where women are the chattel slaves of the men and under constant supervision, then I’m sure the western abortion rate would very quickly approach that of Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Ivan: “It seems to me that if people really feel this strongly about the need to rigidly control other people’s lives in this respect,”
This, I think, is the great difference between our viewpoints – you consider the freedom to terminate / abort children is not “rigidly controlling” someone’s life.
How can you not be rigidly controlling a person’s life by killing them? You can’t have any more rigid control than that. I look at it as giving someone the opportunity to control their own lives – by being born and growing up.
“you can see why you’re pushing a losing argument” – I am afraid that only exists in your fevered imagination.
Your last two paragraphs are just dross….
You’re going to keep talking past each other until you acknowledge that what you define as human is not the same definition he uses. You also have to be prepared to defend your definition rather than just assume it and then follow on with emotive language.
Glad that someone can see it.
The issue is not “human” (which is not in dispute) – the issue is conflating the word “fetus” to encompass “children” – and now “person” as well.
As I see it, if the anti-abortion lobby wants to make any progress, it needs to take on board three things.
1) They need to stop dismissing their opponents views out hand.
2) They need to stop attacking anyone who questions their logic and hyperbole.
3) More importantly, they need to stop fighting the battles of 50 years ago and move with the times. I hate to have to be the bearer of bad news, but things ain’t going back to the “good old days” any time soon.
They continually rail against the pro-abortion lobby for wanting to push the envelope – but they insist on giving them a free kick. Every time they (reliably) trot out the arguments about “genocide” and “children begin at conception,” a lot of the average punters in the real world are turned right off. In my experience, most of the punters are somewhere in the middle, and they wind up supporting the “progressives” as the least worst alternative – the ones who don’t treat them according to points 1) and 2), above, and who don’t seek to criminalise their behaviour.
“1) They need to stop dismissing their opponents views out hand.”
Well, even you should realise that this is a bit facetious – we can’t have a “partial” abortion – one is either anti-abortion or pro-abortion. It’s a bit like being “slightly” pregnant.
“2) They need to stop attacking anyone who questions their logic and hyperbole.”
Refer to my reply above. (“Hyperbole” depends on one’s point of view).
“3) More importantly, they need to stop fighting the battles of 50 years ago and move with the times. I hate to have to be the bearer of bad news, but things ain’t going back to the “good old days” any time soon.”
Ahh….I see now – we need to be “progressives” – “….move with the times….”.
Actually, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the way we are going is the wrong direction. Are you happy with the way the world in general is going??
Ivan – I don’t care about the “average punter” – I couldn’t give a toss what anyone thinks is “moving with the times” or whatever – abortion is still the killing of unborn children and is wrong. Not too much grey in that, is there?
The “anti-abortion lobby” is not seeking to use semantics and hollow logic, and the pressure of “everyone getting with the times” or any other excuse to kill the unborn.
These (as yet unborn) people have no say in their lives – but that’s ok by you.
Taking the “the least worst alternative” is how the excesses of Fascism and Communism were justified – the killings were done by “the average punter” – not the ruling elite.
“I don’t care about the “average punter”
Clearly. And here was me thinking that the objective of the anti-abortion lobby was to achieve change — when all along it is simply about the feeling of moral outrage that comes from ranting and railing against anyone and everyone upon whom falls the slightest suspicion that they may not completely and unquestioningly accept your view of how the world should operate.
Good luck on that one.
Ivan – “And here was me thinking that the objective of the anti-abortion lobby was to achieve change — when all along it is simply about the feeling of moral outrage that comes from ranting and railing against anyone and everyone upon whom falls the slightest suspicion that they may not completely and unquestioningly accept your view of how the world should operate.”
You still don’t understand – there are some things which may not be compromised without losing oneself. Not much in this world is black and white – but there are no shades of abortion. We can’t abort 15% of a baby.
Obviously, you lead your life without principle – being ready to go with the flow, to be one of the “average punters” and refusing any form of “rigid control” (maybe like ethics…) and using semantics to justify it to yourself, because you sure as hell are not justifying it to me – you see, I don’t care what you want or think. What I do care about is children being allowed to be born and making their own choices – don’t you consider that aborting a child is exercising extremely “rigid control” over them??
I am not part of any “anti-abortion lobby” (is that like climate deniers funded by big oil??)
I am not “ranting and railing against anyone and everyone” – I point out that I consider that abortion is wrong (and live my life accordingly). I subscribe to no religion – I am not a Bible-Basher, quoting a “lake of eternal fire” for gays, abortionists or whomever it is that the “religious” like to condemn. I condemn no-one, as you should not condemn the unborn children. No tricky words there – no playing with definitions – no bullshit.
Just as a point of interest, would you have preferred for your mother to have had an abortion in lieu of giving birth to you? Please give me an honest answer to that.