I have two simple questions for pro-abortion (or perhaps “pro mothers and doctors being able to kill viable infants at will” is a more accurate label…a bit long, I admit) advocates.
How can you honestly and sincerely defend the new Massachusetts abortion law? If you can, how do you look yourself in the mirror or sleep at night?
Abortion will now be allowed at any time before birth in Massachusetts after Governor Maura Healey (D, or course: what other party would do this?) eliminated the state’s abortion limits yesterday. Previously, the Bay State had allowed abortion only up until 24 weeks. Now a fully developed unborn infant can be killed any time during the 40-week gestation cycle, even second before birth. That means that the child could be delivered via C-section and instantly be protected by law as a living human being, but an unborn infant at the exact same state of development and fully viable can be murdered in the womb after the mother’s water has broken and contractions have begun.
To be fair, now, the home of my birth and happy childhood isn’t the only barbaric state with such an immoral law. Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and the District of Columbia of course, also believe that being able to kill living and viable infants in the womb is a human “right.” Peter Singer, the Princeton ethics professor, once caused an uproar when he said that as long as we were allowing abortions up to birth, why not let the mother see her baby first after it is born and then have the option to kill it? He was right: morally and ethically, either homicide is exactly the same. The distinction between born and unborn at that point is arbitrary and a legal fiction, created to let mothers feel better about a monstrous act.
Ethics Alarms 
Here is a piece of information from a Fox News article titled “Dem Gov Maura Healey signs sweeping Massachusetts bill allowing abortions up to birth“…
I’m sure no pro-abortion potential mother would ever falsely fabricate some kind of “maternal health complications [or] fatal diagnoses” to legally justify killing their unborn baby, naaaa… that would never happen.
Pro-abortion advocates and their tendency towards utter morally bankruptcy seem to always find some kind of way to get rid of those annoying little parasites, now they can legally murder them at the point of birth.
Cue the pro-abortion advocates saying something like no Doctor would falsely diagnosis a patient so they could kill the unborn baby because they would lose their license. Sorry abortion advocates, but most of the general public that’s not morally bankrupt and delusional can see right through that lie.
That horrific photo on the right is chilling. I’d also like to hear or read and abortion advocate defending THAT.
Do you suppose that’s really a poster those girls are holding up or is it photoshopped?
Impossible to tell now. I have seen that “parasite” line before, though.
Snopes calims it was a real pictuerew taken, though it is not certain if the poster was a pro-abortion message or a mockery pro-abortion messages.
The reliably left leaning Snopes calls it true:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/parasites-rights-abortion-sign/
I don’t give Snopes a ton of trust, but if they’re verifying something that makes the leftists look bad, I’ll give it some credence.
Young Bill wrote, “Do you suppose that’s really a poster those girls are holding up or is it photoshopped?”
As a 30+ year professional Photoshop user for professionally printed advertising, catalogs, flyers, and website graphics I don’t think the text was Photoshopped onto the poster.
I’ve got nearly 800 political comics and photograph memes and my collection grows almost weekly. I know someone that sends them to me regularly. When I see something, like this one, that I have any suspicion at all that it might be photoshopped I do multiple things;
For this photo that I got 2020, I did the best I could to find an original. I found what I think was as close to an original as I’m ever going to get through Snoops, at “Did Pro-Choice Protesters Carry a Sign That Likened Fetuses to ‘Parasites’?“
This photo emerged some years after I started hearing the “clump of cells” and “parasite” arguments being used by pro-abortion activists. I think the photo is true to what you see and I don’t think the words on the poster were Photoshopped.
That’s my opinion based on my experience.
Well, those girls sure look parasitic to me.
Blissfully unaware (READ: Breathtakingly Oblivious) of the cascading irony.
PWS
That’s the slippery slope argument that gets into the ugly “unworthy life” argument. Anyone who’s not fully self sufficient is a societal parasite. Infants are, as are the infirm.
Matthew B wrote, “Anyone who’s not fully self sufficient is a societal parasite. Infants are, as are the infirm.”
I’m not touching that one with a ten foot pole!
First, I am not abortion advocate and in fact am far more of an anti-abortion absolutist. “Life of the mother” does not ever apply in my mind, as plenty of doctors have pointed out that there are exactly zero conditions that require the killing of the fetus, though there are treatments that have the double effect of the child’s death. There is a major difference between removing a cancerous womb and allowing the child to die and injecting a child with drugs to induce a heart attack or dismembering them. So now you understand my bias in answering this question. I’m not going to try and defend this, as I find it abhorrent and indefensible.
In speaking to and reading the defenses of pro-abortion advocates, this is merely a logic-free chance to change the name of the fetus to something horrifying to get shock value and use the cognitive dissonance scale to help in a failed debate. The “logic” used is that the fetus is a separate organism (hey, they’ve got that right) that is unwanted and takes nutrients from it’s mother (they like the word host, though the dictionary doesn’t) and causes what the “host” subjectively sees as harm. This is persuasive to some low intelligence people who forget that there actually is a definition of parasite and it requires a bit more than what is mentioned…like being of specific parasitic species, and not the same species, to start. I have not found that this argument has much of a defense aside from you are not the pregnant woman who wants an abortion so shut up.
When is “abortion” not immoral?
Excerpt…
So basically this limit of abortion predated Michael Dukakis’s tenure as governor. This limit had not been repealed even when the Kennedy family influence was at its zenith.
What changed?
i still say it all boils down to women wanting to carry on like cheap New Orleans whores during carnival week without consequences. But hey, if the guy’s got six-pack abs and gets you all hot and wet, why not?
There is the moral double standard that gets me the most. Liberal women have zero, absolutely zero, problems telling men “if you don’t want to be a father, keep it in your pants.” If you’re pro life, then it is NOT a hypocritical position to say that to a man. You apply the same standard to both sexes. If you’re pro choice though, the only way to escape that hypocrisy is to give men a free pass. Let me have the “escape button” where they can say: “You’re on your own if you go through this and keep the baby.”
One could argue that puts the burden on the state, but that only represents a blip on the radar of the real world. There are men who have that escape button: the felon class. They can knock up women left and right with minimal consequence. The state isn’t exactly going to go and garnish their prison commissary account, nor their drug dealing profits.
And many men do not want the consequences either.
Have you heard of nakedlydressed?
http://www.Threads.com/@NakedlyDressed
No POCs in that picture; curious, that…
PWS
On that note, what would the demographic spread be for vocal abortion up to birth proponents? What is the demographic category that most enthusiastically espouses support for such(not has the most abortions)?
My bias wants to conclude that the answer to these questions would make these policies appear aligned with soft racial genocide.
It’s all white, well turned-out girls, except for one white guy in the back taking a photo with his phone. I’m going to guess these are all women who are steadfastly on birth control pills and the chance of their ever getting pregnant by accident is zero. Many of them probably don’t even have sex with men, or certainly not strangers. They are making sure “women of color” or “Latinx women” who are constantly put upon by those black and Hispanic guys are not burdened with unwanted pregnancies so they can flourish and be like them. Again, they don’t want too many nappy headed or dark-haired little kids gumming up the works.
All who support this deserve the worst in this life and the next (assuming there is one). There is no reasoning with objectively obvious evil.
On social issues, Democrats are the party of degeneracy as an official platform. Many Republicans are degenerate too, but it’s not enshrined in the official platform.
Democrats advocate for:
There comes a point where it’s no longer rational to treat some of these positions as sincere. Many of these policies are evil.
Abortion is a great example. Safe, legal, and rare used to signal that pro choicers didn’t really celebrate abortion as a positive good but rather a necessary evil in limited circumstances. Now, sorry to say, but women are one of the leading demographics that support this. Many women vote for the right to kill their own children.
We have a long way to go to get back to God.
How did they become this degenerate? These positions were not tenable in 2002.
Sometime in the future this generation will be judged by the actions towards its most vulnerable population. Hint: it’s not grown women or young adults. I believe we will be judged and found lacking. One could argue, and well, I believe, that abortion is a way implemented long ago towards controlling the minorities. Where are the free abortion clinics typically located? Posh white neighborhoods? White dominated rural areas? Or typically neighborhoods with Black and Hispanic populations? We love our statistics. What are the statistics,by race, on abortions?
oh here you go…
https://www.kff.org/state-health-policy-data/state-indicator/abortions-by-race/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
This is statistically higher for the population of black and Hispanics in the US.
I heard Howard Stern once say better an abortion than a bunch of unwanted children. I think that is also something to consider, even if it was said by Howard Stern.
We, as a society, don’t value humanity. It’s clear in how we treat the unborn, how children are regarded and how we treat each other. We don’t pay for teachers, mothers are not valued even in the women’s movement, maybe specifically in the women’s movement. If someone says I’m a stay at home mom (or dad) it’s like the death note on conversations. Then they ask what else? As if raising little humans isn’t enough. As a SAHM (stay at home mom) trust me when I say raising decent humans properly is a job all by itself. It’s not surprising so many don’t want the responsibility. It’s hard and there’s no training for it, not like in the past. Pawn off children to daycare, as is the current custom. Who wants to be saddled with children? We made our bed, now we get to stew in it.
How can you honestly and sincerely defend the new Massachusetts abortion law? If you can, how do you look yourself in the mirror or sleep at night?
Going to play (a little bit) devil’s advocate here, because I was genuinely curious. I too am horrified that such a law could be passed. I wanted to know what reason could even come close to anyone think this is a good idea. How could anyone look at this, say, “that seems good,” and sleep at night without having the fires of hell consume their dreams?
Desperate, I searched the internet, and this is what I came up with.
1. The language of the law does not permit women to abort babies after 24 weeks. It allows physicians and doctors to rely on professional judgment without fear of prosecution.
2. Abortion is so broadly defined that it includes miscarriages and stillbirths.
3. A patient’s mental heath might change after the 24th week.
4. Late term discovery of fatal fetal abnormalities discovered.
5. Late term severe (but non-fatal) abnormalities discovered.
6. Mothers having to travel out of state for abortion services.
7. Keeping the decision between doctor and mother.
8. The belief that viability is not a adequate legal dividing line.
9. The belief that the government should have no say in abortion at all, and this is the only way to guarantee it.
10. Political/ideological commitment to abortion.
11. Life of the mother.
There might be more. Most of what I have seen falls into one of these categories. If anyone has any to share, feel free to add to the list. However, just because it is a reason, doesn’t mean it’s even a good reason or a well-thought-out reason.
In summary, or TLDR, there are no good arguments. Only people are so obsessed with sacrificing their children at the altar of Moloch. I’m mostly done with it and them. Our society can’t survive with this mindset.
John Paul,
Really good and thorough evaluation.
Thanks for sharing it.
Steve
I’ve long maintained that the democrats are different in that the mainstream has embraced the extreme position, unlike the republicans. As an example, I will cite Todd Akin.
I think the google AI summary is pretty accurate, so I’ll use it here:
The Controversy and Backlash
Note the political fallout, the republicans widely condemned his remarks. It killed his political future. One would hope the same applied to democrats, but no. They can be radicals on the issue and hold office. Both sides like to claim a similar statistics: pro life people like to cite that 70% think abortion is immoral, while pro choice people like to cite 70% are opposed to making abortion illegal. Both sides are talking past each other, missing a key part: that there are people who think abortion is wrong and immoral, but don’t want the government regulating it. They are the moderate and most of the rational people in the debate. Then there are some that are still rational people sitting on either side of that line; people who are pro choice and don’t see abortion as immoral or wrong, and pro life people that are not nuts. Then you have the crazy extremes. People like Todd Akin and his followers. At least they’re outsiders to the mainstream. Then you have people who are sick in their love of abortion. Sadly, they also happen to be nearly every elected democrat.
I like to cite the example of Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell recently died, while serving a life sentence for murdering infants. What he did was murder in Pennsylvania, and it sent him to prison to end his days. Had he done the same in 15 states, he would have died a free man. What he did wasn’t illegal in Illinois. Barack Obama was the Illinois State Senate Health and Human Services Committee Chairman and ensured a bill to make such practices illegal. Obama made sure the bill died in committee. The bill passed after Obama became a US Senator, and the bill stood for a decade before the blood lust of democrats overturned it.
Which raises the question of how it came to be this way. It certainly was not this way in 2002.
How did they become so gung-ho on abortion, when back in 1982 FJB voted for the Human Life Federalism Amendment.
At some point in the paat, here at EA, two points were made.
If an American citizen murders another person in another country and the other country doesn’t prosecute, the US doesn’t simply pick up the slack and prosecute and throw the American in jail. National sovereignty is the boundary of law enforcement.
Could we not approach the abortion issue similarly. There is a long tradition in America regarding individual liberty and this spills into familial sovereignty. I am largely free to do what I want with my family in the way that I choose. Another, situation of sovereignty might be seen in things like the castle doctrine for self defense.
Given that the quality of unborn is a unique state for all people during life and death, perhaps we could simply say that while someone is unborn, the state has no jurisdiction to proactively intrude the family kingdom and impose restrictions. However, if a woman is pregnant(intending to keep the baby) and is assaulted and miscarries and the baby dies then murder can be charged on the basis that the assault violated the prerogative of the kingdom.
This point is an interesting observation:
That’s not completely true but is very limited. 18 U.S.C. § 1119 lets the US prosecute anyone who kills a US national but only if the foreign jurisdiction doesn’t prosecute.
On the other hand, child sex abuse is a prosecutable crime for any US national wherever it is committed. Those laws have withstood constitutional scrutiny. I would think that congress could expand those if such laws survived the political process.
Late term abortions require some version of delivery, during which the doctor kills the baby before breath is taken.
What sort of ghoul performs this murder?
What sort of ghoul celebrates this law?