Posted on 08/08/2016 3:21:35 AM PDT by Benny Huang
National Organization for Women (NOW) President Terri O'Neill doesn't care when life begins. As someone who speaks, writes, and advocates incessantly on the abortion issue you'd think she would have given it more thought; but you would be wrong. Professor O'Neill, who is rabidly "pro-choice" (on abortion at least), is blithely unconcerned with when a developing fetus is actually a person deserving of protection from lethal violence.
O'Neill sat for an interview at the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia with Jason Rantz, a radio host from Seattle's KIRO. When the topic turned to abortion she became belligerent, calling out Republicans for being "viciously anti-women" because of their stance on abortion. When Rantz asked her a hypothetical question--whether she would oppose abortion if it could be proven scientifically that a fetus is a human life--she replied: "I don't care. Of course I would support abortion."
Yes, that's pretty much the same attitude I have encountered over and over again among the stridently pro-abortion. They generally refuse to ponder when life begins, a question that isn't difficult to answer and doesn't have anything to do with religion. It's always "mammograms this" and "back-alley that," but never do they talk about that thing they're sucking out of the womb with a shop vac.
When I heard Terri O'Neill's "I don't care" remark I was reminded of Planned Parenthood's yearly advice to its fan club about how to discuss abortion over Thanksgiving dinner. For several years in a row the abortion giant has warned that "Debating when life begins...may get you nowhere." Yes, that's true. Once the pro-abortion fanatics concede that there is no meaningful difference between a child five minutes before birth and a child five minutes after birth, the debate is basically over and they lose. They prefer to steer the conversation elsewhere, usually toward non-sequiturs and straw man arguments.
Planned Parenthood had yet more advice for your dinner table. "Instead focus on your shared values and the big picture; for instance, talk about how you believe everyone should be able to afford to go to the doctor, or how the decision about when and whether to become a parent is a personal one."
Look! Squirrel! Of course procreative decisions are personal but the fact remains that if you're pregnant that ship has already sailed. The kid already exists and you're already a parent. The question is whether you and your doctor may legally conspire to snuff out the child's life.
Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood's president, Cecile Richards, doesn't want to talk about when life begins either. Despite overseeing the world's largest abortion provider she seems to have given the question very little thought. In the wake of last year's Center for Medical Progress (CMP) undercover videos she appeared on "America with Jose Ramos" to engage in a little damage control. Ramos posed what he erroneously called a "philosophical" question: "For you, when does life start? When does a human being become a human being?"
Richards talked around in circles for about a minute without giving a straight answer so Ramos pressed a little harder. "But why would it be so controversial to say...when do you think life starts?" he asked. "Yeah. Well, I don't know if it's controversial," she replied. "I don't know that it's really relevant to the conversation."
Not relevant to the conversation! Yes, she really said that. The central question of the abortion issue is completely irrelevant to Cecile Richards. I don't think it would be unfair to summarize her position as "I don't care"--just like Terri O'Neill's.
"For me, I'm the mother of three children," Richards continued. "For me, life began when I delivered them. They've been probably the most important thing in my life ever since. But that's my own personal decision."
Her children's lives began for her at birth. For some other woman life may begin at another time, earlier or later, but for Cecile Richards her children only became children when they ventured down the birth canal. Before that they were goo or invasive parasites or something; anything but children. The reality of another person's humanity is apparently a big mystery which we must all figure out for ourselves--or, more accurately, for other people who happen to be our offspring.
For people who say they want to keep religion out of the debate they sure seem to be stuck on the metaphysical. Their approach is at least "philosophical," to borrow a word from Jorge Ramos, if not downright religious. They speak as if the genesis of life is a profound mystery, as if no one's answer is wrong as long as it is sincerely felt and never pushed upon another woman. That's quite simply insane. Other than the unborn, no one else's humanity is discerned through the personal feelings of another person.
Most people, I believe, know in their heart of hearts that abortion is killing. Not all people, of course. There are a few people who don't know much about biology or haven't given the issue much thought. These people are easily swayed through relentless propaganda that a fetus is just two microscopic cells and remains in exactly that state until birth when it magically sprouts into a baby. I have met people like this, and I can think of a few politicians--Bill Clinton for example--who appear to be genuine dupes of abortion propaganda. Clinton famously talked about embryos undergoing fertilization and "becoming little babies" while discussing stem cell research with CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Clinton, who is literally a Rhodes Scholar, ought to know that embryos are by definition already fertilized. An unfertilized embryo is a contradiction in terms. His lack of biological knowledge may explain why he doesn't understand all the fuss about abortion. Blameless as he may be in his ignorance he is still ignorant.
But plenty of other people know better--particularly people who are intimately involved in the macabre procedure. These people have no illusions about the humanity of their victims but, like Terri O'Neill and Cecile Richards, they just don't care. For example, two abortion industry figures seen in last summer's CMP videos discussed children being born alive before an abortion could be performed. (See the third and sixth videos featuring Savita Ginde and Perrin Larton respectively.) That's a good thing from their perspective because whole babies are very saleable.
In the third video, "Dr." Ginde is seen parsing through baby parts in a petri dish. "Was that just the little bits of the skull?" asked the undercover videographer David Daleiden. "Mmm-hmm," says Ginde. "I only see one leg. Here's a foot. It's a baby."
It's. A. Baby. She said the word that no Planned Parenthood shill would ever use in a public forum.
For those who insist on denying the humanity of the unborn I would ask that you defer to the experts--namely the people who kill them for a living. Don't ask them the question on a talking heads show, of course, because they'll lie. Ask them in the comfort of their own death chambers. When their guard is down, when they think they can trust you, they will drop all pretenses and tell it like it is.
A Planned Parenthood employee in Freehold, New Jersey spilled the beans in 2008 to a young female activist who was conducting an undercover video sting. "Is the baby born alive?" asked the young woman who was pretending to be 22 weeks pregnant. "Usually, for the most part no," the employee replied. "But it does happen where it's still alive." The young woman asked if such a procedure is really an abortion, to which the employee responded, "No, it's an actual delivery. But it wouldn't be able to survive on its own. So eventually the baby does die."
This is the way people really talk inside abortion clinics. "Fetuses" are suddenly referred to as babies and "tissue" becomes feet and legs.
Abortion is a gruesome procedure that kills the most innocent among us. Most people instinctively know this and none more than the contract killers who perform abortions for a living. Yet the killing goes on and on with no end in sight.
“Most people instinctively know this and none more than the contract killers who perform abortions for a living.”
Oh, c’mon now...there’s only one person in the world who has a legal right to kill children and it is mothers. Mothers, and only mothers, have a legal right to kill children and kill children they do...at the current rate of 1.25 children per second.
You’re blaming the wrong people and acting like the real killer is some poor victim.
This is simply a march of demons. Nothing comes between them and the souls they want to consume. Think I’m joking? Try debating with one. If you’re not convinced you’ve just witnessed demonic possession after encountering one of their screaming banshees I’d be mouth-agape surprised. I doubt that would happen though, these people are gripped by an evil so profound it doesn’t translate into human or humane concepts of reason.
calling out Republicans for being “viciously anti-women” because of their stance on abortion.
What an idiot. With about 50 percent of babies killed being females isn’t the pro-choice Democrats that are anti-woman?
The issue now, I think, is to start trying to get young women to think. To actually, really think. To ask themselves whether someone who is willing to brutally kill helpless babies is capable of ANY compassion to anyone, including to the young women/girls whose blood money they happily take. In other words, do they think *their* life and health are safe when they entrust it to a sociopath who easily and without conscience kills the most innocent among us?
I think the real reason for legalized abortion is to condition people to believe that human life only has value *if* it is productive. In the view of those who rabidly promote abortion, a baby is nothing but a useless parasite, and has no value until society begins to invest in it by teaching it skills useful to society. Once someone accepts that premise, it is fairly straightforward to get them to accept the premise that it is okay to snuff out other useless humans—people who can no longer work because of disability or age. (The poor on assistance would be safe, because they support the left’s power base, even though they are takers and not contributors to society.) Their whole goal is to create a perfect society—and their dream society does not recognize any intrinsic value to individual people.
Exactly
Actually thinking and communicating constantly on social media all the time about everything seems like fairly separate and divergent behaviors. At least to me. A very high % of young women appear to have been raised on this social media stuff, or at least use it heavy. Seems like it would be a good way to condition a population not to think or at least to think differently.
Freegards
They do too care, these babies are sacrifices to Baal and molech.
Oh, they care, all right! Those babies must die to please Baal!
If getting to that point legally is facilitated by treating the mothers as victims, so be it.
If you hire a hit man to kill someone you can do without, you are as guilty of murder as is the hit man. It is far simpler to round up and either imprison permanently or execute the hit man than it is to chase down each and every person who might wish to hire one.
Women are often literally bludgeoned into agreeing to abortion by paramours who have no desire to pay child support. They may be poor. They may have emotional problems. They may present a sympathetic profile to a jury that no babykilling doctor can begin to match.
The babykilling doctor is another story. He/she kills the innocent for $$$$$ and $$$$$ only. One other possible motive is to make a very fat living working about eight hours a week. Each one deserves to be executed.
Unbelievable...and insane.
I spent decades as a pro bono attorney representing the Christian heroes in what was one of the most militant "Operation Rescue" style organizations in this country. 1130 were arrested mostly for felonies for invading the mills and their killing rooms, desterilizing everything in sight, breaking raw eggs in the suction machines to render them unusable until rebuilt and generally saving 30 babies from surgical slaughter on average per incident for each killing day when such a mill was closed. p> Fewer than thirty were convicted of ANYTHING, and most of that handful were convicted of the equivalent of a parking ticket which they generally refused to pay. One man paid a minor fine to get official court generated paperwork to be framed to prove to his grandchildren what he was doing when the baby butchers were running wild courtesy of our lawless courts.
I haven't changed my mind. Nor will I. If that makes me insane, so be it. What are your psychiatric credentials> Matchbook Cover University?
And you can believe it. A sane government would issue hunting licenses for hunting baby killing "doctors" with an annual yearlong open season, no limit and annual awards for maximum efficiency.
Apparently, 60+ million surgically slaughtered babies are not enough for you. And you call me insane.
Thank God, there are no lawyers in heaven.
Wanna name one of your fellow pro-aborts that you imagine to be in heaven? That would be pro-abort to the moment of death. Didn't think so!
Are you confusing the one and only God with Baal?
Yes, they actually use the term "obligate parasite" to describe an unborn baby.
Jus' sayin' ...
GOd, you just make up your own arguments as you go along...nothing you have said about me has any basis in reality. You’re a loon. Don’t talk to me anymore, freak.
You advocated that the mothers who decide to abort their unborn bear the punishment and that the paid medical killers be left scot free to ply their trade as paid hit "medical" men/women killing innocent unborn children for $$$$$$.
They take shameless advantage of the desperation of many poor pregnant women and take payment as killers.
Do you suppose that there are "doctors" emotionally driven to perform pro bono abortions because they are committed to the "cause" (of murdering inconvenient babies)?
Do you suppose that there are women sick enough to purposely conceive so that they can hire "doctor" scrape to kill the kid?
Why do you suppose that the entire pro-life movement wants to target the medical/$$$$$$ killers and not the mothers? The answers are practicality and human nature. Strip the killers of their medical license and about 95% of abortions go away. Execute them as you would execute them for killing a newborn and the remaining 5% are threatened. Punish the mothers instead and you are just being mean to poor women or careless women or whatever. That's how the spin will go. I don't give a shit about punishing mothers who abort so long as abortion is as extinct an evil as Auschwitz. You want to protect the killers and so I will insist that whatever your self-serving rationalizations and utterly impractical views, you are no pro-lifer.
I have earned my right to speak by defending those who defended the unborn most militantly. What have you done?
Note that it was not necessary to call you a freak or a loon. You are what you are and that is obviously bad enough.
AND, you actually invoke God in defending the paid murderers of His precious unborn babies. THAT is your reality. You started this argument with your eccentricity in protecting the abortionists
Oh, and may each and every abortionist ride the lightning. No undramatic deaths by injection.
I’d prefer to hang the bastards in the public square, with signs reading “Abortionist” around their necks.
But that’s just me.
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.