The Unfiltered Reaction To Dobbs By Abortion Fans May Do More To Turn U.S. Culture Against The Procedure Than Anything Else

It certainly should.

I was planning on posting “Thoughts On What An Ethical Solution To The Abortion Ethics Conflict Might Look Like, Part 2: A Solution,” which has been languishing since November. I had decided to wait for the Dobbs decision before finishing my draft. As I have watched, read and listened to the ugly, ruthless, intellectually dishonest and sometimes unhinged reaction first to the Alito draft and now today to the final Dobbs opinion overturning Roe, however, I am seeing a hopeful development. The fanaticism and complete comfort with idea of killing nascent human life has burst out the abortion fans like pus from a boil. It is rank and horrifying, but it is also honest and revealing. They can’t hide behind “choice” any more. Finally, they are revealing just how corrupt their thinking is and how warped their values have become.

Consider this exchange on CNN today, as CNN Newsroom host Alisyn Camerota used the network’s favorite conservative commentator (because she’s not a conservative) and co-host of “The View” (and you know what THAT means), Ana Navarro to debate Republican strategist Alice Stewart regarding the Dobbs ruling…

ALICE STEWART: I can tell you, having worked and advocated in the pro-life community for many years, there are crisis pregnancy centers set up across this country that are there to provide assistance, financial assistance, for expectant mothers.

ALISYN CAMEROTA (interrupting): Right, but I mean, after they’re born.

STEWART: Before, during, and after they have their child, whether they decide to put it up for adoption or they want to keep it themselves. There are services in place in the pro-life community that will help in this situation.

CAMEROTA: But Alice. Hold on. Let me just talk to you about that. There are something like 410,000 children in the foster care system right now in the U.S. So, clearly, they’re not all being adopted. And some of these babies will have obviously physical disabilities. I mean, what is the plan? Obviously, they’re not just all being taken care of currently.

Let me stop here. I am encountering this argument more and more over the last few months. Camerota is genuinely arguing that it’s important to let mothers kill these kids before they are born. No more intentionally vague and deceitful “choice” cover-words. That’s her “plan.” That’s the Democratic Party’s “plan.”

Then Navarro jumped in to show she’s a fool as well as fan of eugenics.

ANA NAVARRO: And I am not anybody to tell you what you need to do with your life or with your uterus. And because I have a family with a lot of special needs kids. I have a brother who’s 57 and has the mental and motor skills of a 1-year-old. And I know what that means financially, emotionally, physically, for a family.

And I know not all families can do it and I have a step-granddaughter who was born with Down’s Syndrome and you know what? It is very difficult in Florida to get services. It is not as easy as it sounds on paper. And I’ve got another step-grandson who is very autistic, who has autism and it is –

And their mothers and people who are in that society who are in that community will tell you that they considered suicide because that’s how difficult it is to get help, because that’s how lonely they feel. Because they can’t get other jobs. Because they have financial issues. Because the care that they’re able to give their other children suffers.

And so, why can I be Catholic and still think this is a wrong decision? Because I’m American. I’m Catholic inside the church. I’m Catholic when it comes to me. But there’s a lot of Americans who are not Catholic, and are not Christian, and are not Baptist, and you have no damn right to tell them what they should do with their bodies. Nobody does.

Imagine, people pay this inarticulate, babbling idiot to render her opinion on national TV! Let’s see:

1. The resorting to “my life and my uterus” rings desperate and dishonest now. Hmmm, let’s see, is something else involved in an abortion other than the mother’s life and her uterus? Unfortunately, Stewart didn’t have the wit to knock that statement out of the park as the sickening rationalization it is, but this is CNN’s unethical game: find inarticulate, slow-witted conservatives for alleged “balance.”

2. Navarro, even more clearly and guilelessly than Camarotta, is literally saying, “If we don’t kill these children before they are born, they are a lot of trouble and expense!”

Would it be tasteless and excessive to reference Nazi Germany now? Why?

3. The last paragraph is a classic of justified hypocrisy and Ana’s proud integrity void. What’s the matter with believing one thing in Church while denying it aggressively in public? After all, she’s an American!

4. The government has the right to tell people they can’t kill whomever and whatever they please. In fact, it has the obligation to set such limitations.

There they are, everyone! These are the people who are fanatic about abortions; this is how they think; these are their values.

Aren’t they repulsive? Isn’t what they are saying completely devoid of respect for human life? Are these really the kind of people you trust?

It’s so good of them to finally show us who they are.

12 thoughts on “The Unfiltered Reaction To Dobbs By Abortion Fans May Do More To Turn U.S. Culture Against The Procedure Than Anything Else

      • It’s been out in the open for a few years now, it’s just taking the front page now. Remember “shout your abortion?”

    • It’s about elevating selfishness to the highest virtue. Whatever I WANT is what I get. If I don’t want a kid, I can make it go away. If I don’t want to be married, I can divorce without fault. There’s a lot of self exaltation in the pro-choice camp. To say you should have the right to kill your child out of convenience and career goals is morally awful.

  1. Having lived through the late 60s in a women’s college, I heard all of the arguments for abortion. The most repeated was that women should have the same right as men who could have sex without any negative after effects. The argument that “the pill” gave women that freedom was not an adequate answer. The ideologues went further with their argument that women should have absolute control of their body–no one had the right to dictate a women’s “health” decisions. I became the pariah of our residence hall when I pointed out that if a woman wanted to be in control of her body, why was it she couldn’t accept the responsibility of controlling her body in the first place. The failure to apply this simple logic to the issue will forever make me wonder why pro-abortion women cannot see that this failure is possibly the strongest argument that women are the weaker sex, especially when it comes to critical thinking.

    • JG said:

      The most repeated was that women should have the same right as men who could have sex without any negative after effects.

      Ayy, carumba! What a foul rationalization that is. Also, it’s not really operative anymore since parentage can be easily discerned with DNA tests, and males can no longer escape responsibility for the financial burden of a child, at least.

      I get the impression (I was in college in the mid-1970’s myself) that at that time it was tied up in the women’s rights push. The idea there was that the right to abortion was central to women taking control of their lives, and not being forced to have unwanted children. And part of that was also the idea that women should be as free as men to have sex without having to raise the consequences of it.

      Of course, as you point out, there are a variety of ways women can control conception — from abstenance to a careful insistence on birth control. Apparently, that’s never been good enough, and your point about that being an argument for intellectual weakness among the fairer sex is apt. I don’t believe that for a moment, though — I find it more likely a demand for lazy irresponsibility.

      I seem to remember one of the “brat pack” movies from the 1980’s — Sixteen Candles, I believe it was, where a drunk hot girl being driven around in an expensive car by Anthony Michael Hall’s character said to him that birth control pills allowed her to be “…really, really irresponsible.”

      Is that what pro-abortion women are fighting for?

  2. These have always been their values, together with the value of wanting to carry on like a cheap Las Vegas whore on a busy weekend.

    • Haha. Glad I had just swallowed a mouthful of coffee before I read that! Saved my monitor from a nasty cleanup. 🙂

  3. After watching Trump, I learned he was the great exposer. He forces people to take clear positions, and by seeing the clear position of the pro choice side, it’s exposed. Even when I was on the far left in my 20’s, abortion is one of the first issues I switched on because I couldn’t stomach it anymore. Back then, there were also pro life liberals as well.

  4. There are something like 410,000 children in the foster care system right now in the U.S. So, clearly, they’re not all being adopted.

    What is the underlying principle here?

    It is okay to kill people if we can not help all of them.

    How do we apply this to other contexts?

    Do we say, because we can not help all of the homeless, it is okay if some punk kills a bum as part of a gang initiation? (I made a similar poin t on Usenet newsgroups decades ago.)

    Or what about refugees. If a country can not take in all refugees from places like Afghanistan or the Ukraine, do they get to gas the remaining refugees to death?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.