Texas Rainmaker

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.

Posted by TexasRainmaker |
divider
Tourisme DentaireTourisme DentaireDental TourismTourisme DentaireProthese dentaireClinique dentaireFacette dentairesTourisme DentaireVoyage DentaireTourisme Dentaire Tourisme DentaireTourisme DentaireTourisme DentaireTourisme DentaireDental TourismTourisme DentaireDental TourismMedical Tourism Tourisme DentaireTourisme Dentaire

Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes

Copyright © 2003-2006

Users Online


    •  

      sidediv




    • HuckPac.com



    • sidediv


    • sidediv



  • CATEGORIES

    Fatal error: Call to undefined function wswwpx_fold_category_list() in /home/texasrai/public_html/wp-content/themes/rainmaker/sidebar.php on line 62