I think it's a good example of this:
Posted on 01/23/2014 2:56:42 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Fox News political analyst Brit Hume made a passionate moral argument against abortion on “Special Report” on Wednesday that just may go viral after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) uploaded it on his YouTube channel.
Referencing the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Hume said the Supreme Court decided that a “generalized right to privacy that they basically invented meant that a woman has a constitutional right to snuff out an unborn life — a human being with a beating heart.”
“That’s what a fetus as young as six weeks is,” he added.
Hume expressed shock that, by some estimates, as many as 55 million abortions have occurred since the landmark ruling.
Since 1973, he continued, “science has given us an ever clearer picture of just how much of a baby a fetus is.”
“At 20 weeks, we know now, these tiny creatures can hear, even recognize a mother’s voice. Their toenails are growing and their hearts beat loud enough to be heard by a stethoscope,” Hume said. “The moral case for allowing such beings to be killed grows ever weaker, and it’s advocates resort to evermore absurd euphemisms to describe what they support.”
He mocked pro-abortion advocates for claiming they are just “pro-choice,” that it’s not about killing unborn babies, it’s about “reproductive health.”
Hume praised the “March for Life” protesters who descended upon Washington D.C. on Wednesday, saying they come back every year to remind the country that there is “something deeply false and wrong about all this.”
When Bret Baier asked him where the abortion debate goes from here, Hume said he looks to science to prove more conclusively that fetuses can feel pain, if possible, from the beginning. That would “change everything,” he concluded.
I have no problem with declaring abortion to be what it is: murder and infanticide.
One thing that I've never understood about this opinion is the conservative hostility against a right to privacy. Where the hell else does a right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" if not from a right to privacy? The Federalists argued against the adoption of the bill of rights because (among other things) they feared that by listing several specific enumerated rights, that others that naturally accrue to you by virtue of your having been born human would be effectively destroyed because "they aren't enumerated". This is the primary driver for the 9th and 10th amendments, which as we've seen from history might as well not exist. It seems their fear was justified.
Of course, the Anti-Federalists were right as well. We've seen what has happened in other english-speaking nations that do not have written constitutions to back up their rights. Does anyone really believe we'd be able to acquire firearms at all if it weren't for the 2nd amendment?
I have no problem whatsoever with a "right to privacy", because the fact of it seems self evident. It is the extension of infantacide to be encompassed by this right that I object to.
The elected GOPe has a lot of “perk power” available to them in DC. They are comfortable with letting the left get their way, as long as elected GOPErs get to go to the cocktail parties and get the perks of national office.
I’ve been thinking that all along. Why would they want to bother with the responsibility which comes with being the majority and/or having the White House, when they can just get elected and then mark their time cozily ensconced in the DC bubble, accruing riches and personal power?
It’s not as if most of them are “true believers” in conservatism, the way a good many on the left are true believers in their leftism of whatever flavor. As soon as they thought the winds were blowing from the left, thanks to Obozo’s election and re-election, they jettisoned any “conservative principles” like so much extra weight dragging them down. They don’t even fight the corruption in our elections, which ought to show them that this leftism hasn’t swept the entire country. Instead they just go along and get along-they’re getting theirs, why stick their necks out? Unless it’s to join the left in excoriating a real conservative in their ranks, rocking their comfortable little rowboats?
“A nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope.” Pope John Paul II
There can’t be any doubt that abortion availability has caused more “couplings,” thus more pregnancies, than might have occurred without such abortion availability. But is that the point? The FACT is that, because of abortion availability, 1) an actual number (55 million?) of human lives were terminated, and 2) some extrapolation of that number (15 million, or even 110 million or more) in succeeding generations is more than logical.
But, to be more precise, it isn’t merely abortion-availability that raises the number of abortions; it’s the availability of contraception and the culture of materialism and consequence-free sex that led to the inevitability and eventual availability of abortion.
And I don’t think “new technology” is going to change that.
I think it’s because ‘right to privacy’ has been used as an excuse to justify abortion, forcing same-sex marriage on the populace, and other smaller issues. While meanwhile, the people touting a ‘right to privacy’ are eagerly supporting the NSA and its massive domestic spying program.
But but what did Juan say ?
Well, sort of......
Sosh Security was NOT POSSIBLE to keep solvent, it was always a ponzi scheme and would have eventually gone belly up. It was just a matter of how long it would last. Yes, it would have lasted longer.
Ditto the illegals. They come because they are allowed to, plus they undercut our normal labor prices and live like kings compared to what they had. Abortion had little to do with them coming.
I disagree. When social security started there were 14 workers to every pensioner. Now there are only 2 to 3 workers for every social security recipient. 65 million Americans that are missing would surely have helped this ratio.
Ditto the illegals. They come because they are allowed to, plus they undercut our normal labor prices and live like kings compared to what they had. Abortion had little to do with them coming.
I disagree also on this. It is true that there have always been illegals present in the USA. The question is not one of whether illegals exist but to what degree. For example, which is tolerable? 500,000 illegals or 20,000,000 illegals?
Illegals take up a lot of jobs, construction jobs, landscaping jobs, restaurant jobs, janitorial jobs as well as agricultural jobs, meatpacking jobs, light assembly and manufacturing jobs and packaging jobs.
Many of the jobs that illegals take would not be available to them if 65 million American lives had not been discarded like trash.
Fact: In 2010 more Mexicans were returning to Mexico than were coming in because the job market had fallen so severely.
I think it's a good example of this:
Brit Hume’s commentary was excellent. I do not consider it a rant. I recommend you listen to it.
As I said earlier, they would have helped, but not solved the issues of the program. The ever increasing lack of children (and acceptance of that norm) is a bigger problem than even the abortion rate. The sosh security program was always designed poorly from the beginning, it was never sustainable as set up.
Many of the jobs that illegals take would not be available to them if 65 million American lives had not been discarded like trash.
You misunderstand about illegals. They will always be here as long as we have a better economy than they have and we allow them to come here because they will always take the same jobs for less.
One thing for sure, I hate the idea of abortion, on that we can agree, it's a horrible thing, and not just because of sosh security or illegals, it's just plain horrible.
That being said, on the points we've discussed we disagree, but I'm right.....
:-)
You will have to spell out exactly why and how my conclusion is faulty. The fact is that most women who have abortions made a deliberate decision to have intercourse without using contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. The only logical reason that they would have made that choice is that abortion is widely available and accessible. Ergo, if abortion were not legal for birth control purposes, those women would most likely have chosen to prevent the pregnancies in the first place. Thus, the babies killed in abortion do not represent people who would otherwise be part of our population.
But, to be more precise, it isn’t merely abortion-availability that raises the number of abortions; it’s the availability of contraception and the culture of materialism and consequence-free sex that led to the inevitability and eventual availability of abortion.
And I don’t think “new technology” is going to change that.
I do not disagree that 55 million lives brutally snuffed out for no good reason is unimaginably horrific. I just object to these "what if" statements about how our society would be different if those lives had not been terminated. There is no evidence that those lives would have ever existed in the first place in an abortion-free world.
Contraception has always been available throughout history. In modern times, better contraception was invented. I do not think that making better contraceptives has had much of an effect on society. Preventing lives morally and conceptually is simply not comparable to nonchalantly snuffing them out.
Are you sure you are an ex?
Your own words show the faulty logic.
Consider the phrase, " would most likely". You have no way to know that.
Reality is what is, not what you think it might be...if only...
I'm done, and if you can't see why, don't waste any more keystrokes.
Your conclusion is so faulty, that is based on your first premise {supposition} that MOST women would not have gotten pregnant if legal abortion were not available.
Unknowable.
The conclusion that most women would choose to use contraceptives to avoid pregnancy in the absence of legal birth-control abortion is a logical consequence of the fact that most abortions take place as a result of a deliberate decision not to use contraceptives. If you are unable to explain logically why this conclusion is faulty, then I must assume that you recognize that the conclusion is valid, but dislike it for some reason having nothing to do with facts or logic.
Most often, I run across this anti-contraception attitude from a small subset of Catholics. It is not an attitude I understand, nor do people of other religious persuasions share it.
From what you have said, I cannot discount the possibility that you are a pro-abortion fanatic, and you don't like the high rate of abortion being blamed on the failure to use contraceptives (because it makes aborting women look irresponsible). I honestly cannot tell the difference between some self-styled pro-lifers and pro-abortion fanatics.
There will always be abortion, legal or not, in America or not, in state by state or not.
And there will always be other kinds of murder, theft, rape, property destruction, etc. etc. Making an anti-social activity illegal has never stopped it, but it does help to keep the levels of that activity low.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.