Skip to comments.Rush Limbaugh: Rush Answers Abortion Question
Posted on 07/08/2005 6:06:03 PM PDT by wagglebee
I've saved this and the response to it for today, Open Line Friday, to share with you. This woman is a subscriber at RushLimbaugh.com. She said, "Rush..." Her name is Anita. "Rush, I'm a die-hard fan. Though I was raised to support a woman's right to choose, since becoming a mother and listening to you over these many years, I've come to strongly believe that abortion is wrong. But because I'm conservative and believe in property rights, I can't reconcile the government's involvement in the ultimate property right to your own body. Can you help me?"
So I thought about this, and I wrote her back. I said: Dear Anita, perhaps I can. Our Declaration of Independence states that as free human beings, we are entitled to LIFE," and I put that in all caps, "liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration also says that these rights are "inalienable" and "granted by our Creator," God. If our government does not stand for and protect these basic rights, which are the essence of our creation and humanity, then it will not protect any others. In our history, we've had human beings, members of the Supreme Court, give us the disastrous Dred Scott decision, which established that we as human beings could consider certain of our fellow human beings as our property.
Dred Scott permitted whites in this country to own black slaves and eventually this decision was struck down. So, Anita, your child is not your personal property. Your body may be, but your child isn't. Your child is a distinct and individual human being that you helped to create and produce -- and no one owns that child's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So she wrote back and she thanked me, said she "hadn't looked at it that way;" she "appreciated that perspective." So I wanted to share that with you. One of the reasons why is because here we've had these Supreme Court decisions on property rights, private property rights, and you can see how some people interpret all of these, and extrapolate them to other issues in what may be the beginning of their education process. So I thought it was a great question that she asked and I was happy to be able to answer it for her.
yeah it does suck, but you wouldn't say the hell with it, I want my living room back now, and shoot the child. Would you?Time to look up the "Famous Violinist" argument.
Well, you do own whatever clothes, food, etc. you have paid for (not to mention the hospital bill for their natal day). So unless they're ready to pay back what they owe upon demand, they are your indentured servants. Just in case they read the Constitution. ; )
Even if I didn't, my husband might.
Maybe the violinist needs a new racket, his music isn't as soothing as it once was.
I had to stop using the Bill Cosby line, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out."
Like so many other concepts left over from my childhood and youth, abortion has changed the way we must think and speak.
(Can you imagine "When you were nothing but a twinkle in your father's eye?" having meaning in the post abortion world? And then, there's the radicalization of relationships between men and women: I love Dean Martin, but can you imagine "Standin' on the corner, watchin' all the girls" passing PC muster these days?)
Even these women created the uterine environment and the oocyte which was fertilized.
There's an old law that someone who digs a hole is responsible for harm to anyone who falls into the hole. Even if the hole is out of the way, if someone is harmed, the hole-digger is responsible.
In the case of sexual assault, the assaulter is the one at fault, but there is still a responsibility on the part of the woman not to cause further harm. The loss to the woman of continuing the pregnancy is temporary, part of her natural functioning as a human woman. The loss to the child of being removed from her body is permanent, irreversible and ultimate - "death." The only exception is to save the woman's life or prevent significant permanent harm to her life.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
You are totally sick...what do you mean "these women created the uterine encironment"
You are sick, sick, sick....
I'm sorry, but it's true. As normal, functioning human women, their own bodies function to create the uterine environment and the oocyte. There is no blame or fault, here - it just is.
The wrong was in the rape. The child did not even exist at that time, and so can not be held responsible for the fact that he now exists. The woman is not at fault for being fertile, either.
However, in considering or acting to kill the child by removing him, she commits a new, additional wrong. She cannot kill the child except in self defense, and then only if there is no other option.
There must be "bright lines" of right and wrong which we will not cross. Intentional acts to end the life of any human being except in defense of life is one of these lines.
That's encouraging, and lends support to the notion that support for abortion (for the dwindling minority who support unconditional abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy) is pedicated on ignorace and not merely selfishness/malice. This should be an encouragement to the pro-life community. What it means: through education about A) the ramifications of the Bill of Rights as applied to all, and B) what the unborn baby really is, does, and looks like.
Friend, what's sick is telling a bruised, traumatized young lady that brutally ripping out and killing the little person growing inside her will make everything well.
You are completely missing the point...I am in no more in favor of killing babies WHATEVER their conception.
It was his implication that women were responsible for rape or incest because they "made their wombs."
We are no more responsible than he is for creating his d*ck...no matter how small it may be.
I would NEVER abort a baby...no matte what it's conception.
It's his Islamic thinking that has me steamed.
It's also 'endowed by their Creator', not 'granted by our Creator'. Very sloppy piece of work.
excellent remarks both yours and the preceding.
"Verbal Preemption"; commandeering of the language, defining the discussion... tried, tested and unfortunately very effective tactics of the left. Thomas Sowell magnificently displays this sophistry in his book, "VISION OF THE SELF-ANOINTED".
The irony of it all, the left - in setting it's foundation upon the cornerstone of the death-culture (abortion and euthanasia) - literally and figuratively "sows the seeds" of it's own destruction (pun intended) with their beliefs. And their declining numbers (fastest growing states/counties are voting republican) bears this out.
Sort of an internal version of the demographic crisis that dooms Europe - and no surprise either, considering the secular/socialist stamp of that continent.
For my part, I've no problem with proponents of the death-cult continueing their chosen path... in the end, it means less leftists, less dhimmicrats (not like the good, Zell-Miller Democrats; we need those...). They choose their fate, they reap the rewards of what they sow.
In the end, the Bell Tolls for us All... but for your lurkers/DUers reading this mini-rant, I gladly say, "you first!".
boy, uncharacteristic grammatical/spelling errors in my last. It's late; go to sleep.
"He's" a she.
And, if you read the post in question, I never said or implied that the rape was the responsibility of the mother, but she naturally has something to do with creating the child.
As an aside, I think we (pro-lifers) ought to choose our battles wisely. The "rape/incest" argument is a red-herring thrown out by the Left which, in reality, is responsible for a very small percentage (I cannot find the number but I think it's <= 3%). The vast majority are first trimester and for purely elective reasons.
I completely agree. If you believe in the Bible, you know that your body is not even your own.
"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." -- I Corinthians 6:19-20
A couple quotes as a PING:
"Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority ... to defend the lives of the innocent ... among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates ... do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors and others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cries from earth to heaven" (Pope Pius XI Casti Connubii No. 67).
"Every human being, even the infant in the mother's womb, has the right to life immediately from God, not from the parent or any human society or authority. Therefore there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic , social, economic or moral "indication" that can show or give valid juridical title for direct deliberate disposition concerning an innocent human life - which is to say, a disposition that aims at its destruction either as an end in itself or as the means of attaining another end that is perhaps in no way illicit in itself. Thus, for example, to save the life of the mother is a most noble end, but the direct killing of the child as a means to this end is not licit..." (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Italian Midwives, October 29, 1951)
Life is the standard of all value.
Abortion is the horrific culmination to a series of irrational choices.
"And the answer is, the baby didn't "invade" you. You in effect invited the baby to come, by allowing somebody to deposit 100 million live sperm into your genital tract. (News Flash: Now known to be the leading cause of pregnancy.) Even if you tried contracpetion, you knew, or should hve known, the risk, and so there's strict liability here."
You say one thing here which I think causes women to "circle the wagons" when it comes to abortion. We as men have a duty to be fathers when it comes to that. We've abrogated that responsibility lately. When I was a little boy the unwanted pregnancy usually meant disaster for little Suzy, but it also meant her sex partner little Johney could forget all about his bright future as well. (Since he had to forget about that football scholarship now and settle down to his life in the windshield wiper factory to support Suzy and baby Johney or Jeannie).
We need to see a revival of strong dominant honorable men again. That will go along way to solving the abortion fiasco. And that without a lot of socialistic laws.
So how did they get around this. They decided to re classify a human baby into a fetus. In other words it's not alive yet therefore it has no rights.
I'm glad I'm on your ping list. FRegards....
Yep. The whole "it's just a piece of flesh" argument is ridiculous. If it's just a piece of her flesh, why does it have different DNA?
Thanks. Good article.
Correct you only have 2 arms 2 legs. Not 4 arms 4 legs.
You know, I've never heard it phrased like this before. Are there really people who think along these lines?
Yeah. there sure are. They are generally professional philosophers or medical ethicists.
As George Orwell once noted, some things are so preposterous that only "intellectuals" could believe in them.
Here's another Orwell quote I like: "We have now sunk to a depth at which re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."
I'd not considered that point about incest before. Thanks.
Through common grace Christians and non-Christians can work together for a common cause. Common grace does not save, but does preserve man from full expression of his own depravity (Jer. 17:9).
For example, I've known liberals who oppose abortion, and there's a gay/lesbian group called PLAGAL: Pro-Life Alliance of Gay and Lesbians. Even though I would take issue with their personal lives I would be loathe to reject their work for the protection of the unborn regardless of motives. The pro-life movement is not a monolithic, well-funded bloc but a rather rag-tag melange united by a common sense of justice.
Remember the prostitute Rahab and her works.
As an aside, check out what NARAL is doing in my state.
BTW how is the weather out your way (Orofino?)
Sounds like the Hegelian Dialectic to me. (Simply compromise on the slip...downward...downward..downward.) Consider me a speed bump on this road.
The Anabaptist tendancy to try to construct a completely separate Christian culture finds no support in Scripture. Transformation of the existing culture, through lives, however is the duty of every believer within his sphere of influence.
As applied to abortion, if it pleases the Lord to remove this scourge from the land who are we to question His means?
Same here. A great to stay indoors and practice a new Poulenc piece I'm learning.
No question about it, this world is dying and the Christian is a pilgrim and wanderer. However, Proverbs 24:11 is very clear about speaking for those with no voice. I cannot, in good conscience, withdraw from the battle. If we can save one baby from the knife, offer food, clothes, and Christian love to the mother, that is a little contribution to cultural transformation - not trumpeted, just obedient.
I fully concur with your comments on transformation requiring a mssive Spirit-wrought revival beginning with true sorrow and repentence, and almost certainly beginning with reformation in the popular evangelical church and doing away with man-centeredness.
Moving is a great way to get the blood flowing. Congrats on the new home!
Maybe the next US Supreme Court Nominee should be all about abortion and the right of a Human Being to exist -- the most fundamental right in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
My opinion only.
I was thinking of the particular kind of individualism promoted by Locke, which tends to lead to viewing persons as property. What you say is correct. There are two separate individuals, or persons, mother and child. A child is not the mother's property, and for that matter her body is not her property either.
Private property is an important property, but unless you believe in slavery property cannot be extended to persons. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence speaks of an inalienable right to life and liberty, which means we cannot sell ourselves even if we choose to.