So I took a field trip into liberal utopia and wanted to document the experience for you to show you what it’s like. Caution, you may want to grab some anti-bacterial wipes for this one.

By now you’ve probably heard of Amanda Marcotte. She’s the disgraced liberal blogger whose tenure as John Edwards’ official campaign blogger was shorter than Britney Spears’ first marriage.

Thanks to Mark at B4B, I came across Amanda’s latest rantings about how wonderful abortion is and how those who perform abortions ought to be regarded as heroes. Yes… heroes!

I think that abortion is not only a good thing, but I’d like to posit that it seems to me that in the vast majority of abortions, the choice made was the most moral choice for that woman.
[…]
If I got pregnant, I wouldn’t even have to suffer much mental strain to realize that abortion would be the best choice for myself, my family, and my relationship. Abortion, not just the right to abortion but the actual procedure, is a moral good that helps women and families and should be honored as such. Women who get abortions should be recognized as people who can accurately weigh their choices and make the most moral one.
[…]
Meanwhile, other anti-choicers are running around claiming that being an abortionist is like this super great career that people only indulge in for the money. This is horseshit and pro-choicers need to push back and remind everyone that abortionists are heroes, who put up with all sorts of abuse because they want to help women.

If I didn’t know the source of these comments, I would’ve brushed them off as satire, assuming nobody in their right mind would actually think this way. I scrolled through some of the comments and saw a few others who agreed, even cheered, Amanda’s views.

So I thought I’d take a moment to post a comment on the article. Here’s the exchange…

My comment:

“Women who get abortions should be recognized as people who can accurately weigh their choices and make the most moral one.”

No, the moral choice would be that if you’re not prepared to raise a child, you should not engage in sex. Weighing the choices AFTER you’ve become pregnant is neither moral nor responsible, it’s selfish and immature. Otherwise, why not just extend your high praise to women like Andrea Yates for having the moral fortitude to kill her five children and get on with the rest of her life? Afterall, she, too waited until after conceiving to decide to kill her kids… she just waited a few years after conception instead of a few months…

A response by “bluefish A”

dear TexasRainmaker-

please brush up on your reading comprehension skills. if you had come to the discussion prepared, you would have seen that we’ve already been through the having sex doesn’t mean consent to pregnancy discussion about 200 comments ago. see, sometimes contraception fails and unwanted pregnancies do result from that sad fact. also, following your logic wouldn’t andrea yates’ kids have been better off if they had never been born at all- if say she and her husband had used reliable contraception or if she had miscarried or if she had aborted?

To which I responded:

“having sex doesn’t mean consent to pregnancy”

Assumption of risk. I may not consent to drowning when I go swimming in the ocean, but I understand the risk is there. The time to weigh the risk is before I undertake the task, not when a rip current is pulling me under.

“following your logic wouldn’t andrea yates’ kids have been better off if they had never been born at all- if say she and her husband had used reliable contraception or if she had miscarried or if she had aborted?”

Been better off if they’d been aborted? Um, no. They’d still be dead.

“bluefish A” responds:

well in that case, i guess no one should ever swim. or have sex. or go outside. or get pregnant. or eat sushi. or make eye-contact with a stranger.

and then he/she adds:

there’s a difference between a toddler than a blastocyst. kind of like the difference between infanticide and abortion. that, too, was covered 200 or so comments ago.

no more. i won’t feed the troll.

I’m kind of disappointed that he/she was only able to muster two response and a snark before calling me a troll and surrendering. Oh well.

Then “history_mom” weighs in:

It’s sad when people cannot understand the difference between what one woman did in the throes of postpartum psychosis and what many women have done when they have determined that continuing a pregnancy would not be the right thing. Andrea Yates was not a rational agent, able to weigh her options, and therefore her “decision” to kill her children has less than nothing to do with whether other women are capable of determining whether abortion is the best moral choice for them.

But see, I think you already know that but figured you could throw out something you thought would yield an emotional horror response. I guess you missed the memo that squickiness is not an argument for being opposed to abortion.

To which I replied:

“Andrea Yates was not a rational agent, able to weigh her options, and therefore her “decision” to kill her children has less than nothing to do with whether other women are capable of determining whether abortion is the best moral choice for them.”

The comparison is not to focus on the mental state of the mother, it’s to show the inconsistency of promoting the killing of a child in one situation and being outraged about it in another. If a baby can survive, through medical technology or nature, as early as 23 weeks, then how can you say an abortion performed at 24 weeks post-conception is anything different than killing the same child at 3 years post-conception?

And finally “Dianne” tried to toss in a little snark, presumably to be comic relief:

I may not consent to drowning when I go swimming in the ocean, but I understand the risk is there.

Therefore we shouldn’t try to save you from drowning if you start to go under because you knew the risks and decided to swim anyway?

I humored her with a response:

“Therefore we shouldn’t try to save you from drowning if you start to go under because you knew the risks and decided to swim anyway?”

If, by virtue of my taking the risk, I’ve involuntarily dragged another human being into the situation, I’m obligated to aid them - not kill them simply because their presence is now inconvenient to me.

I think the premise of Amanda’s original post and all the comments applauding her goes to show the difference that forms the foundation of the abortion debate… The Left views the situation as that of a single person making a choice, while the Right views the situation as involving at least two people - mother and child. But the Left won’t have the intellectual honesty to admit that, because it would lead to the essential question: “When does life begin?” Without firm evidence of the “magic moment”, it’s hard to rationally argue that an abortion performed at an arbitrary point during a pregnancy is not the killing of another human being.

Honestly, I still think that if modern science were able to definitively prove tomorrow that life does begin at conception, the pro-abortion movement would remain strong relying on the selfish beliefs that a mother should be able to kill at will to accomodate convenience.

Update:
More responses:

Diane:

Therefore we shouldn’t try to save you from drowning if you start to go under because you knew the risks and decided to swim anyway?

Not only that, he shouldn’t try to help himself, nor ask someone to help him.

I’m not worrying about TR; he’s clearly not rational about the subject; he thinks fetuses start at 24 weeks of development. (Or, he thinks talking about a 24 week old fetus allows him to generalize to all states of pregnancy. Doesn’t matter, both positions are stone stupid, unsupported by fact.)

You know I couldn’t help but respond:

“Not only that, he shouldn’t try to help himself, nor ask someone to help him.”

We’re not talking about saving the mother’s life here, we’re talking about abortion-on-demand for convenience (remember, amanda’s point that the “choice” is a moral good?)

“I’m not worrying about TR; he’s clearly not rational about the subject; he thinks fetuses start at 24 weeks of development. (Or, he thinks talking about a 24 week old fetus allows him to generalize to all states of pregnancy. Doesn’t matter, both positions are stone stupid, unsupported by fact.)

Yeah, I’m fully off my rocker.

1. Jason, what in the world were you doing in that liberal cesspool? I hope you disinfected your computer after you left that site!

   I think the most compelling argument that life begins at conception comes from the world of genetics. I think it is pretty much accepted in the world of genetics and the genome that the egg and sperm cells carry the blueprints that will determine all physical attributes and many behavioral attributes of the offspring. That argument is expanded into: if there is no disturbance (natural or otherwise), it is reasonable to expect a human child to be born.

   Death can be defined (a ceasing of all bodily and mental functions). By reversing that definition to get at when life begins, the only answer achievable is, “at conception.” Sooner or later the “scientific” and judicial worlds will have to acknowledge that life begins at conception. Some local courts have already acknowledged that concept by charging a defendant with murder for killing an unborn child. You cannot have it both ways… that the accidental (or even intentional) act of killing an unborn child is manslaughter or murder and allow the process of condemning an unborn to death by summary decision on the part of the mother.

   The Fifth Amendment states, “That no person shall… be deprived of life,… without due process of law:” I’d like to know what law process judges a unborn worthy of the death penalty!

   Comment by Old Soldier — 12:24 pm
   

2. Jason, found you this morning when I stumbled across Marcotte’s site. I was trying to keep from being sick as I went down the comments until I found your responses. I just had a similar discussion on Say Anything’s blogsite yesterday, but we were trying to get to the basis of the right or wrong of abortion, which revolves around the question: “Just what IS a person?”
   We sometimes talk about ‘life’ as basis for ‘rights’, and especially ‘human rights’, but I think the real question we should put to the pro-death camp is “What do you define person-hood to be?” and; When does person-hood begin in the life of a human being?” It seems that these are questions that they will forever dodge and ignore, because it reveals that they don’t really care if they murder someone or not, as long as they get their way.
   I like what Old Soldier quoted about “no person” being deprived of life…
   Do you think this might be the best tack?

   Comment by jSpin — 2:08 pm
   

3. I am 100% against abortion. However in the case of Amanda and her followers, for the good of the child to be born from any of this ilk, I could consider an exception.

   Comment by MikeL — 5:12 pm
   

4. What if a woman can choose to have the fetus removed? Its survival beyond that is up to it.

   If the argument is truly about the capability of independent existence and survival.

   I believe that irrationality is inherent to members of both sides.

   Comment by Adirian — 7:45 pm
   

5. “What if a woman can choose to have the fetus removed? Its survival beyond that is up to it.”

   Can a woman choose to leave her child in the wilderness and fend for itself? Or would she face charges for neglect, abandonment and/or abuse?

   “I believe that irrationality is inherent to members of both sides.”

   There is in every argument. But is it irrational to want to defend an innocent human life from being taken for the sake of convenience?

   Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 7:54 pm
   

6. The reason you can never reason with pro-abortion liberals is because they do not believe in absolute truth. This makes them amoral. Their amorality allows them to shape “morals” to suit themselves, whatever they may be. They see abortion as moral because this is what makes them comfortable. If they believe this, they will never be forced to confront the ugly truth of sin. By avoiding the “sin problem,” they never have to think of themselves as anything less than perfect.

   You will never, ever, ever be able to reason with a moral relativist. Ever. Because they do not believe in truth.

   Comment by amosjo — 7:56 pm
   

7. I would have no trouble considering Amanda an exception to my antiabortion beliefs. Her mother should have been smarter. What a base person; she’d make the devil sick to his stomach. Yuch!

   Comment by Judith — 9:27 pm
   

8. Comment on In Liberal Utopia, Abortion is a Moral Good by Texas …

   Trackback by University Update — 7:17 am
   

9. Can a woman choose to leave her child in the wilderness and fend for itself? Or would she face charges for neglect, abandonment and/or abuse?

   - Are you suggesting leaving a fetus to the care of hospital workers, however likely its death, amounts to abandonment? She can leave the child there when it is born - what is the fundamental difference in doing it before natural birth?

   That’s really just addressing the face of your argument. To many supporters of the “right” to abortion, the fundamental question is that of human life, as opposed to survival. Personally, I judge human life by reason, rather than genetics or religious concepts. A human being unable to reason is not a living human, any more than an immense biomass of cancer cells that once belonged to a human woman is a living human.

   You wouldn’t call a heart awaiting transplant a human being. What if you added a liver? A stomach? Keep adding parts. At what point does our Frankenstein’s monster become human?

   There is no real compromise here, because before it can become a matter of “human” rights, you have to have a working definition for “human.”

   There is in every argument. But is it irrational to want to defend an innocent human life from being taken for the sake of convenience?

   You will find agreement from me that this is exactly the sort of thing law SHOULD concern itself with - I am not with the crowd that believes the law has no say in the matter, that the rights of the woman trump the potential rights of the fetus - but you will not find agreement with me as to what the response of law should be.

   My definition of “human,” being insofar as the law is concerned, “Capable of reason;” and as I do not believe a fetus with a largely undeveloped brain has that capacity, although it will eventually develop it, I do not believe that there is reason to prohibit abortion. Or at least, no more reason to prohibit abortion than to prohibit antibiotics on the grounds that they, too, end life.

   Comment by Adirian — 9:38 pm
   

10. “My definition of “human,” being insofar as the law is concerned, “Capable of reason;” and as I do not believe a fetus with a largely undeveloped brain has that capacity, although it will eventually develop it, I do not believe that there is reason to prohibit abortion.”

    Adrian, would you feel the same way about killing one-year-olds? They cannot “reason”, therefore they must not be “human,” right? For that matter, a lot of adults lack the ability to “reason,” so are they fair game to be eliminated? Your “reasoning” is fundamentally flawed.

    Comment by Old Soldier — 10:10 pm
    

11. “My definition of “human,” being insofar as the law is concerned, “Capable of reason;” and as I do not believe a fetus with a largely undeveloped brain has that capacity…”

    Neither do many victims of stroke and Alzheimer’s disease, the mentally retarded, or infants. So you don’t consider them “humans”?

    Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 10:37 pm
    

12. Adrian, would you feel the same way about killing one-year-olds? They cannot “reason”, therefore they must not be “human,” right? For that matter, a lot of adults lack the ability to “reason,” so are they fair game to be eliminated? Your “reasoning” is fundamentally flawed.

    - One year olds have a fair amount of reasoning capacity. They, like the “a lot of adults” you mention, do not have a capacity as great as most others, but they still possess some faculty.

    Neither do many victims of stroke and Alzheimer’s disease, the mentally retarded, or infants. So you don’t consider them “humans”?

    - Same response, for the most part - I might make a case-by-case exception for true vegetables.

    You are both confusing quantity of reasoning capacity with existence of reasoning capacity.

    Comment by Adirian — 7:39 pm
    

13. “Same response, for the most part - I might make a case-by-case exception for true vegetables.

    You are both confusing quantity of reasoning capacity with existence of reasoning capacity.”

    So you’re saying that infants, in general, have the capacity to reason?

    Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 7:50 pm
    

14. So you’re saying that infants, in general, have the capacity to reason?

    - They would seem to - they can recognize individuals they like, and so must have some process for deciding who to like and who not to. And, similiarly, many infants are initially afraid of individuals having characteristics they are unfamiliar with, like beards or bald heads.

    Comment by Adirian — 4:05 pm
    

15. “- They would seem to - they can recognize individuals they like, and so must have some process for deciding who to like and who not to. And, similiarly, many infants are initially afraid of individuals having characteristics they are unfamiliar with, like beards or bald heads.”

    That’s probably more an instinct than actual, rational thought. And do you think that ability magically appears once the baby leaves the womb?

    The ability to reason is defined as “the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways.” Not simply reacting.

    But if you want to claim that “reactions” (whether orderly or not) constitute “the capacity to reason”, then one can argue a child inside the womb is capable as well:

    By the end of your second trimester, your baby’s hearing will be pretty well developed. He’ll be able to hear what’s going on outside and react to the sounds he hears. He’ll even begin to remember sounds. Like the sound of music or your voice.

    Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 4:24 pm
    

16. So, after 25 weeks, the baby has begun to remember sounds. Which makes this about the point when comparative ability begins to develop - a faculty of reason which is necessary in order to react differently according to levels of familiarity, such as being afraid of unfamiliar characteristics, like beards or bald heads.

    This is, not coincidentally, about the point where many supporters of abortion rights draw the line of legality. Many others WOULD draw the line here except for fear of making precedence, which opponents of abortions rights would most certainly take advantage of.

    Comment by Adirian — 5:13 pm
    

17. […] But as Allah notes, they’re all so glum. So he’s offered a sample of an “upbeat card“… you know for those “abortion is morally good” folks. […]

    Pingback by Texas Rainmaker » When You Care Enough to Send Kill the Very Best — 3:01 pm
    

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

You must be logged in to post a comment.