FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:49 pm
Hmmm. You see on my telling, the conversation between me and Mannie where I told him that we don't all see abortion as child murder, and he responded that this is impossible and everyone who says that is just a murderer with a guilty conscience... that's just as good as could be expected from him.
I didn't say "impossible," flash. But I would say both "illogical" and ultimately, "disingenuous." Those words certainly apply.
Look at it this way. Everybody -- abortionists and anti-abortionists -- agree on a couple of simple facts. One is that the purpose of an abortion is to stop a human child from ever coming into the world. It's what abortionists want abortion for, and it's what anti-abortionists are against. But there's no debate at all about what the purpose is. It's to kill that entity (call it "baby," call it "cluster of cells," or call it "lil fetus person").
Secondly, all agree completely that if a pregnancy is not violently interrupted, then the normal course of events will produce an entity that is a full human being, in every sense you can think of. In fact, every abortionist, flush as he/she may be in the prime of adulthood, was also once one of these babies/fetuses/little persons. There are no exceptions, no arguments and no doubts.
So the only disagreement is not on the question of whether an abortion curtails a human life. It's the question of WHEN and HOW it does it. The abortionist wants to say that it curtails it before that human life can officially be reckoned to exist. But not the most ardent abortion-advocate doubts for one second that it does curtail that life. So it's just a question of whether it's earlier or later.
That's why abortionists have recently slipped so easily over into full infanticide. Kermit Gosnell may have been the first, but as the Virginia governor Ralph Northam made clear recently, Gosnell is only the first to lead where the parade is going. Because really, there's no difference anyone can identify between a late-third-trimester or mid-birth abortion, such as are practiced widely outside the US, and killing the same infant a few seconds later. And everybody, especially the abortionists, see the logic of that.
The upshot is that we all know exactly what we're talking about. It's just that some people want to do it, and some see it as an evil. But there's no real debate about what it is. It's curtailing a human life. It's preventing a human being, by pulling him/her apart, before the inevitability of birth.
All I am suggesting is that if we want a real answer in this debate, we should first stop lying. We should call it what it is, and then see if we can make a rational and moral case for doing it.
And I think we all know exactly why that's not the way the debate is being conducted. It's because one side has a set of facts it desperately wants to hide, and a moral condition over which it would fain cast a thick shroud of confusion. Yet, truth be told, nobody's actually confused, save perhaps those whose mental state is below the level of understanding basic facts, or perhaps those who are willfully refusing to see. We all know it's a human being, not an ape or a peanut, we all know it would become a full human (even if we say we think it isn't now) and we all know that's the whole point of abortion...to end that.
PS -- I still have not seen anyone brave enough to say why we should be encouraging women not to put their infant children up for adoption, but to kill them as "fetuses" instead. Want to take a run at that?
