Charmaine on FOX News Sunday: Does Baby Amillia Change the Abortion Debate?

Im sorry, but I couldn’t watch the clip. I tried, and got as far as the commentator who said “The question of when life begins, at conception or at birth, is a never-ending argument between those for and against abortion.” At this point my mind shut down in protest, complaining loudly that I had subjected it to such nonsense.

Wow… two straw men and false dichotomy in one sentence. Impressive. Also very, very, very wrong.

1. The debate is not over when life begins, but when human rights begin.

2a. The options are not ‘at conception’ or ‘at birth’ – the majority of people actually go for something in between.

2b. There are more than two possible positions.

3. Noone is for abortion. Absolutly noone. There are only those who are against it always, and those who consider it unpleasant but nessicary.

4. In one line, the speaker managed to clearly imply that anyone who does not oppose all abortion wants to kill Amillia.

Even by Fox standards, that one was bad.

Im going to try watching the rest. But if any more lines like that come up, I wont be able to think for a while.

Thanks to you and Charmaine for pressing on so significantly.

Bob.

In reply to the first commenter above, Suricou Raven…

Actually, I have met many people who were “for abortion,” so saying that absolutely no one is means that you just haven’t met anyone who is yet. Think the March for Choice in 2004. I was there–counterprotesting silently the entire day, holding a sign that said “I Regret My Abortion”–and you would be red-faced if you were witness to the filth and pro-abortion spew I was exposed to. Please don’t tell me there are no people who are for abortion. Not all in that march were, but I saw and heard and withstood those who are by the thousands, for hours. all because I stood up with the sign and didn’t say a word otherwise to anyone. All because I was one of about 50 people holding such a sign.

And “the majority of people actually [went] for” the belief that black folks in this country didn’t have human rights at all either. Didn’t make it right, though. That “majority” once believed that blacks didn’t get those rights ever, never mind at conception.

One can rewrite the med school textbooks all one wants (and many are doing just that), but in truth, that doesn’t make those fabricated redefinitions of human life’s beginnings different than med schools have been teaching doctors for a hundred years or more. (I can provide the cites and quotes from 5 or 6 of the original textbooks/human biologists if you would like, but it would be rather lengthy. Just let me know.)

The debate over “when human rights begin” for blacks didn’t get started until enough common-sense-thinking folks stood up and reminded us all that it was ludicrous to deny blacks human rights by saying they were “less than human” and that they were “the property of the slave owner” which is exactly what the Supreme Court said. Those were the entire cruxes of the argument.

And those are the entire cruxes of the prochoice and proabortion element: that unborn human life is “less than human” therefore doesn’t “get” human rights. Heck, they even borrowed the same Supreme Court language for Roe v. Wade, if you read the decision, calling the unborn person “the property of the mother.” If the pregnant human being is being called “the mother,” it cannot be argued then that the unborn person is any less than “a human child.”

American political correctness and narcissism has resulted in this semantics war. Fortunately, there are still a lot of folks who see right through it.

Suricou, with all due respect, “impolite pro-choicers”? That is clearly the understatement of the decade, it sounds like you either weren’t there that day or didn’t witness what I witnessed there. You’d have had to be standing near me all day to witness the vitriol and yes,the pro-abortion mentality from that many people. Your definition of pro-abortion is lacking. One who supports abortion to the exclusion of rational thought, of common decency and consideration of others who disagree and of quite a lot of scientific evidence about the physical and psychological harms to the WOMEN from abortion, is part of the real definition of “pro-abortion.” We at our blog make the distinction regularly among commenters there. We don’t label all who advocate for abortion as “pro-abortion.” We know that not all are. We don’t run into too many pro-abortion people on our blog by its very nature (note I don’t use the insulting term “pro-aborts” as too many other pro-life folks do, which I abhor), but we have had them visit and comment.

Let me ask: have you seen the “III-Revised” edition of the American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM III-R), which listed abortion as a life event which can produce Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)? I have a copy. It was listed from 1987 to 1994, then mysteriously, without any backing-up research whatsoever, it disappeared from the subsequent editions. The APA fell victim to the quite powerful abortion industry and its many advocates (and it is an industry: in 2004, a $1.3 Billion industry) and they succumbed to political correctness in taking it out without cause. Right now, as we write, there are powerful psychiatrists and fathers of daughters who committed suicide over their abortions, mounting campaigns to get it reinstated in the manual. If you’d like to read about the citation, we published an article on it, here, http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2004/05/you-might-recall-my-recent-comment.html

Does that concern you that the medical community would lower its own standards and fold like that? That they felt strongly enough about listing it in the first place, that they had enough hard, cold evidence to list it for 7 years? The people I know who deny that this is significant, who put their heads in the sands on this and many other women’s health risks caused or worsened by abortion, are indeed “pro-abortion” in that they are protecting abortion from being harmed by its own truth.

Lastly, there indeed were people there at that march “who happily encouraged unprotected sex for the *purpose* of aborting the resulting pregnancy.” How about the brash young fellow (I won’t call him a man because he wasn’t) brandishing the vertical sign that read “BABY KILLER” with an arrow pointing down to himself, yukking it up and shoving his sign in my direction to make sure I saw it and heard his sneering laughter? If you’d like to put yourself in my shoes and really understand what I’m trying to relate, you can read it here, http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2004/04/march-4-25-04-continued.html

If you read that, you will hopefully understand that anyone who gets that frothed-up at the mouth to “protect abortion” from people like me who regret our abortions, is indeed “pro-abortion.” I understand why too, at least in many cases: they don’t want to second-guess their decision the way I second-guessed mine. It could hurt too much to face it. We have found that those who get the most unhinged like that, are the ones most afraid to face the pain of it. This isn’t said as a “holier than thou”, it’s just a fact from our own personal experiences, online and off, both with ourselves and with others.

And there are hundreds of thousands of us but we can’t all come out in public about it because of the “political correctness” of our times and because we’d all be attacked as I was that day. It’s no wonder we don’t really know how many women suffer silently for fear of being tarred and feathered for no longer supporting abortion, even our own.