Liberals hiding in the back alley of abortion debate

When mega pastor Rick Warren asked then-presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008, “At what point does a baby get human rights?” Obama famously stated: That’s “above my pay grade.” Liberals used to respond to this question by answering that personhood is established when the fetus is viable — meaning when the baby is able to live independently of the mother. However, as medical technology has enabled this to happen as early as 20 weeks — a time when almost all abortion advocates believe the procedure should be legal — the viability defense is no longer invoked. And now, it seems, abortion advocates — a la Obama — are opting to avoid the question altogether. Even worse, they’re using the red herring of women’s health and safety to divert attention from the real issue at hand: whether the pre-born child has the right to life.

Last week, self-described progressive talk show host Thom Hartmann posed the question, “Isn’t it time to have a conversation about . . . when life begins?” Women’s Campaign Forum President Sam Bennett responded that to talk about the origin of human life was to “devolve” the discussion and tangentially stated that women will die from sepsis if abortion is not “safe and legal.”

Moveon.org is beating the same drum with a new ad featuring House actress Lisa Edelstein, in which she asks, “Why is the GOP trying to send women back . . . to the back alley?”

The flawed logic is that abortion should not be outlawed because some women will find any way to get an abortion, even if it is dangerous. Apart from the ridiculous assertion that a law is only worth passing and keeping if it is upheld by all the people all the time (talk about an argument for anarchy!), the so-called pro-choice crowd does not give enough credit to women to act righteously with new information accessible to them. In other words, if women start believing — based largely upon recent advances in medical technology — that life begins at conception, hearts and minds on the issue of abortion will change and abortion will be seen as an immoral act — namely the killing of another human being.

Even Roe v. Wade author Supreme Court Justice Henry Blackmun left room for abortion to one day be rendered illegal, writing, “[If the] suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.” In the words of Georgia Right to Life Director Dan Becker, backer of the state’s Human Life Amendment, “The personhood of the preborn child is the single point on which the entire debate turns.”

If abortion is overturned in America, it will not be a strike against women. It will be because there will be a consensus that life begins at conception. As a result, women seeking an abortion in a “back alley” will not be the victim with no options portrayed so effectively in the days leading up to Roe v Wade. Rather, because the child in utero is a human being with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, she will be an accessory to murder. This may sound harsh, but perhaps that is because for 38 years we have become accustomed to the lulling, euphemistic language of the abortion debate. Even the very word “abortion” belies the brutality of the procedure in which a pregnancy is customarily ended by vicious tearing or sucking.

  • jmk1502

    Just curious: how can you “pro-life” morons rail against a woman’s right to choose, and then holler and scream when the (unwanted) child ends up sucking up social services, which you obviously detest? Which side are you going to take, knuckledraggers? Face it: women are going to get abortions whether they are legal or not, just like people are going to use illegal drugs whether they are legal or not. How did that Prohibition thing work for you? The answer is to legalize things that are going to happen regardless, and stop incarcerating people for asinine “crimes” like marijuana possession. Hopefully sooner rather than later, the younger generation will smarten up and stop letting the mindless old senile geriatrics dictate our policy.

    • refoundit

      jmk, just curious: how can a “pro-abortion” moron so passionately advocate a woman’s right to choose, and then holler and scream when (unwanted) new information might result in a more informed choice, which you obviously detest? Which side are you going to take, knucklehead? Face it: people who make money off the abortion industry are going to encourage abortions whether they are the best choice or not, just like drug users are going to use illegal drugs whether they are the best choice or not. The answer is to advocate things that are in accord with natural law regardless, and stop attacking people for trying to prevent poorly-informed “choices” like abortion. Hopefully sooner rather than later, you will smarten [sic] up and think more deeply before confusing your personal preferences for actual truths.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/24/liberals-hiding-in-the-back-alley-of-abortion-debate/#ixzz1FIXs4daa

  • AtomicAsphalt

    Heck, here in Michigan we wouldn’t have any factory jobs left if the abortion factories were to go out of business. And just like our thriving homelessness industry, our proud State depends upon the murder of the unborn and the sanctity of the “unhoused” to survive this modern world. In Michigan, a young female planted on the sofa watching Springer is called an “Obama voter in between ‘medical procedures.'”

  • sawdustking

    About a month ago I got in a “conversation” with a liberal woman who’s kind of locally semi-famous for getting in political arguments at the bar. She even argues with fellow liberals, which is why my 2 liberal friends (everyone should have at least one) made me switch seats with them so they wouldn’t have to talk to her. I was getting, well drunk, and the place was empty so I stepped up to the plate. She wanted to disgust a woman’s “right” to abortion. Really, who brings up abortion at the bar? So I went straight for the “when does a child become human” jugular. Damn near made her cry. All she could come up with was, “It’s complicated!” and “You’re just a right winger!”. To which I replied, “No it’s not.” and “So what, when does a human become human, and why?” When you bring up why that really stumps them, if not conception or perhaps birth what transformation does the fetus achieve to become human?

    If you really want to get them confused compare Roe v Wade to Dred Scott. In both cases the logic for the decision was that a human wasn’t really a human. Well, maybe she went home and for the first time in her life considered the question, but I doubt it.

    PS We also had a nice conversation about global warming (or lack thereof).

    • des1

      I don’t know who you’re talking to, but I’ve never had one be bothered by the question of when it becomes a human being. There are two general responses…..

      1) It doesn’t matter because it’s the mother’s body. Until it’s viable (and some say until it’s born), it’s her decision no matter what you call the fetus.

      2) Fetuses have less rights than a baby because a baby has less rights than a child because a child has less rights than an adult. Under this argument, an fetus can be terminated because it doesn’t have the same rights as a newborn. Again, the question of humanity is irrelevant to this train of thought.

      • sawdustking

        This woman was so stupid I had to give her the “viability” defense, then turn around and squashed it by explaining that viability is becoming earlier and earlier and that in 100 years a newly conceived embryo could probably be taken from the womb and incubated in a lab – so why is the human of the future human then but not today? etc. And I even offered that if she felt it was birth I’d disagree but at least some respect her for having a semi-logical reasoning. My biggest argument with birth is that surely once a baby is born it has a fully developed central nervous system and is capable of feeling pain and this doesn’t happen overnight.

        Bottom line is when you’ve been supporting the mass murder and torture of millions of defenseless infants you simply can’t afford to think about the moral repercussions.

      • Tex Expatriate

        Whenever I hear that argument about fetus I always ask what they understand a fetus to be. They will usually argue that it is unviable tissue. Then I tell them that the word fetus is the Latin word for baby.

        The fact is, you cannot use logic to defeat a true believer in baby-killing. They believe in killing babies because it is convenient.

        • des1

          That is exactly it. They have decided what the answer is, and don’t care what the argument against it might be. If you developed a machine that allowed us to hear the thoughts of a 12 week-old fetus and we found out it was crying “Mommy,” they’d still say it was ok to abort it.

          Whether it’s because they are pushing a more Progressive view on sex (which includes not having any consequences) or because they just enjoy sticking it to Conservatives and Christians (no matter who they have to agree with to do it), the bottom line is that nothing you say means anything to them. They are convinced they are right and can’t even hear your arguments.

    • Princess12

      A thinking liberal? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

      • jmk1502

        Nope. Thinking conservative is an oxymoron, since a “progressive” wants to move forward, while a “conservative” wants to never change, even in the face of immutable facts. Keep those knuckles draggin’, buddy.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Life begins at conception | abortion debate | when does life begin | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment -- Topsy.com