I like it when pro-aborts talk openly. The public gets to see what they really think. The public does not understand what militant pro-abortionists say about abortion and fetal rights. And even when they make public statements, the liberal media filters out pro-life questioning of their assertions. I can't say it's entirely the media's fault-- I do think that Canadian pro-lifers could try harder to get their message out, but I suspect many of them don't want fetal rights legislation badly enough.
I want to, once again, highlight an abortion thread that is being held on En Masse. I already mentioned this thread in a post yesterday.
The newstory being discussed involves a woman who shot herself in the abdomen, hours before she was to give birth, thereby killing her unborn child. She is being charged for the act.
Yesterday, I highlighted the fact that pro-abort militants, in contradiction to established science, believe that a fetus is a part of a woman's body. One poster, named Senor Magoo, tried to question the language that the fetus is part of a woman's body, by appealing to science, and the feminist morningstar replied that scientific fact is irrelevant.
Today, Infosaturated, a feminist pro-abort commented
"This event has nothing to do with the abortion issue. [...] Right-to-lifers are attempting to frame it as such in order to find a crack that could give fetuses rights.
Whether this is about abortion, fetal victims of crime, or mothers killing their babies, it's about the same thing, and militant pro-aborts do not want to have that debate.
She continues:
What we need to be arguing is that doctors do not abort fetuses that could survive outside the womb
That's simply not true. Joyce Arthur, a noted pro-abortion militant, says there are socially-motivated abortions, such as teenagers who are in denial about her abortion, or a mother in a domestic abuse situation.
But the fact is, we don't know the details. This is all hearsay. We have no firm statistics on this kind of thing, because abortionists do not provide it. They may gather in meetings, and their general consensus might be this is the case, but we have no surveys.
One item of interest is that governments will not provide a definition of when an abortion is medically necessary. I'm pretty sure medical associations do not, either. If there are no medically necessary abortions, there should be medical standards to which we can appeal to so the public can know the truth. But all these standards are informal. In other words, we are only get one side of the story, the side of those who make money and are ideologically invested in the practice. That sounds biased to me.
Infosaturated continues:
They perform an early delivery not an abortion if the mother's health demands it.
No, they also abort handicapped babies for the fact they are handicapped. That has nothing to do with mother's health. It has a lot to do with people's sense of eugenicism and convenience.
How is it sane family values to carry a pregnancy to 20 weeks, considering the unborn as part of the family, then discovering he has a genetic malformation, and deciding he should be "terminated"? How is terminating family member a positive family value? What does that say about unconditional love in the family? What do you suppose the born kids will think, unconsciously, if they develop a fatal disease? "My parents won't love me because I'm a burden on them."
By framing this as an abortion they are creating the underlying message that full-term babies are at risk of being aborted unless we pass laws against it.
Well, it's not just about abortion. It's about fetal rights. This is precisely why pro-lifers should call the issue the "fetal rights" issue, otherwise, pro-aborts use this verbal shell game to say it's not about abortion.
The issue at hand is: do fetuses deserve legal protection.
If they're not at risk of being aborted (which isn't true, there's always a risk), this story shows they are certainly a potential risk of being shot, by the mother herself, or someone else.
In truth, not even the most passionately pro-choice individual supports the idea of aborting rather than delivering viable fetuses.
Then why not pass a law against it? Because while they may not support it for themselves, they support any other woman's right to choose this. They simply do not want to confront the issue of the value of the unborn child.
Why would a passionate poor-choicer not support the idea of aborting a viable fetus? If abortion is so hunky-dory, then it shouldn't be a problem, right? Is it, or is it not immoral to kill a viable fetus for any reason whatsoever?
If it is immoral, then on what basis? Here's the answer: because we're talking about human life, and you don't take human life lightly.
They know that's the answer, but they won't come out and say it, because they know that their ideology puts their own personal equality ahead of human life.
Infosaturated says:
If we get sucked into arguing that minutes before birth a fetus is no different that moments after conception we just sound like extremists denying reality because we don't like it.
Gee, ya think?
She says, instead:
The argument is not that these conditions are equivalent in any way, the argument is that only a woman and her doctor are in a position to determine the best course of action for her in her particular case.
Yeah, and do not have that discussion about the morality of killing a fetus. Do not put that into the equation, because that kind of inconvenient discussion just muddies the final result which is "total autonomy" for women.
It sounds like a strategy led by ideological fear than a search for the truth. Do not question. Do not have that discussion. Do not or else there will be political consequences.
No point in the pregnancy can be selected where it becomes appropriate for the state to step in and assign rights to the fetus that take precedence over a woman's right to complete sovereignty over her own body.
Let's see here. The most passionate poor-choicer will never support the abortion of a viable fetus. However, no one should step in and stop this immoral action, because goddess forbid another human life is weighed into the equation. Even though it is when it's one own fetus, it is. When it's another fetus, who is basically the same creature, we can't impose morals on that mother. Even though we impose on personal autonomy in all kinds of situations, we can't impose in this one. Because the end-- female autonomy-- justifies the means.
That's what it boils down to, folks.
What we need to counter is the "pro-life" groups attempts to infer that perfectly healthy sentient viable fetuses are being killed because there is no law against it.
In Virginia, there's a law against. In Canada, there is no law whatsoever. Laws are not perfect deterrents. What laws allow for is accountability, especially in the case of homicide.
Again, avoidance of the fetal rights issue. This is precisely why I think pro-lifers should call it the "fetal rights" issue. When we call it the abortion issue, we allow the opposition to play shell games like this-- "it's not really about abortion...".
Check out the Big Blue Wave Message Board
