"Yes, Abortion is Murder. Thank You for Admitting as Much.
"First off, the disclaimer: This post is not about the abortion law in New York. I have yet to read the thing. No, this is a post about the law recently proposed in Virginia by Democrat Kathy Tran. (Ed. As it turns out, the New York law is even more extreme. And the celebration of its passage was absolutely vomit-inducing.) This, as we shall see, is proof that not only have supporters of abortion rights been lying to us since the days when states made their own rules about abortions, but this never was about a 'right to privacy,' it was never about 'healthcare,' and it was never about 'regulating women's bodies.' No, the argument in support of abortion rights is, and always has been, about avoiding responsibility. It is murder with the intent to remove an economic and physical requirement for raising another human being.
"Virginia governor Ralph Northam has stated that the bill would allow abortions while a woman was in labor and dilating. (Ed. Actually, Tran said this under questioning. Not that Northam's defense of the bill was any less reprehensible.) Here's the thing: There is no difference in the effect on a woman's body between delivering and aborting a baby at that point. Seriously. None.
"I'm not ignorant of the possible negative effects of pregnancy. I am aware that it hasn't been all that long since death due to complications of childbirth was the most common cause of death for women in this country. In my personal life, I watched my ex-wife (we were married at the time) hospitalized for pre-eclampsia after the birth of my daughter Cecilia. I saw how panicked the doctor was when she resisted getting treatment. I know what's at stake here.
"But when you're talking about aborting a viable baby at the point of birth you're not talking about healthcare. It would have done my ex no good if they had murdered my daughter before delivering her. The effects on her body would have been precisely the same. No, what you're talking about is a blatant dodge of parental responsibility.
"Barack Obama said it best: 'If one of my daughters made a mistake, I wouldn't want them punished with a baby.'
"He wasn't speaking of the cost to his daughters and their bodies. He wasn't talking about their health. He was talking about them avoiding the consequences of their actions.
"And that's what this really is. There is no difference between killing a child whose mother is in the process of delivering them and leaving that same child in a plastic bag in the hospital dumpster a day later. None.
"Here's my other favorite argument in favor of abortion:
"'Well, if I have my child, you don't want to give me welfare to raise it, or pay for its college, or..'
"And the other variant: 'It's cheaper for society to pay for an abortion than it is to pay for welfare to raise the child.'
"Once again, what you're talking about is not healthcare. They're not referencing a woman's right to her own body. They're talking about how they shouldn't have to pay for their own offspring and shouldn't be forced to raise the kids they created. That's what this really is.
"Under these circumstances, there is no difference between a mother getting an abortion and Rae Carruth's murder of his pregnant girlfriend. He killed her because he didn't want to pay child support. That is what these women are doing. They're murdering people over money. The fact that they're willing to abort children at the point of birth proves it. They've already carried the child to term. The incisions necessary to abort a child and perform a C-section are identical. The effect on the woman's body is identical.
"Are there reasons for a woman to avoid birth other than economic? Sure. I know a woman (who shall remain nameless) who is white. She was married to a white man. She got a black boyfriend and got pregnant with his child. There was not going to be a way to hide the fact that it was not her husband's child. She sought an abortion because she didn't want her husband to know what she had done. Ultimately, she did the right thing and had the child. I'm proud of her for doing the right thing and walking out of the clinic under the effects of the drugs they had given her before they were going to give her anesthesia. For the record, she had a ride home. Someone had gone with her. That's a good thing too.
"The point of telling that story, though, is this: She was still trying to avoid the consequences of her actions. She knew what would happen if her husband found out she had been cheating. She did it anyway and then thought to hide evidence. Mob bosses order the murder of witnesses to crimes all the time. There is no difference.
"So honestly, thank you, abortion advocates. Now that you have openly admitted that abortion is about neither healthcare or a woman's right to her own body, we can have an open and honest discussion in this country. We can finally talk about the truth: It's all about the money, baby. It's all about a life free from consequences. Abortion isn't about Women's Rights or healthcare. It's about murdering children because they cost too much. Thank you for finally revealing your true though processes. You've been very helpful.
"And know this: There are those of who are not surprised by this. We always knew what it was about. And understand what I am about to tell you:
"I am the implacable enemy of all abortion advocates. I am the implacable enemy of all who commit abortions. I see your murders for what they are. I do not seek compromise or consensus. I seek the abolition of legalized murder in the United States. And no, I'm not interested in helping women who would get illegal abortions avoid the consequences of their actions either. Stop murdering people. And stop lying about your motivations. We're not dumb enough to believe you." - Jim
(Ed. And to those who object to the sentiments above and insist that the proposed changes to Virginia's laws wouldn't allow abortion on demand at any time for any reason, changing the language from "the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irredeemably impair the mental or physical health of the woman" to "likely to result in the death of the woman or impair the mental or physical health of the woman" leaves the door wide open for just that very thing. Removing "substantially and irredeemably" means just about anything can justify even a third trimester abortion so long as one doctor - ONE - agrees to sign off on the procedure. If this had passed, it would've definitely been abused by the unscrupulous.)
*****
Now Let's Talk About Governor Northam's Yearbook Photo
I actually don't believe in torching a political career over an offensive photo taken more than thirty years ago. I hate this Culture of No Forgiveness - birthed by the Twitter Mob - in which all violators of the new social mores receive the same brutal punishment with no sense of proportion, no statute of limitations, and no possibility for parole (so to speak). I hate it, first of all, because I'm Christian and therefore believe everyone should be provided an avenue to redemption. But I also hate it because it flies in the face of our entire legal tradition. Does it make sense to give petty thieves and grand larcenists the same sentences? No? Then the guy who once, decades ago, stupidly donned blackface or a Klan hood to be edgy shouldn't be treated the same as the guy who's consistently expressed racist sentiments over many years up to and including the present day. In the former case, an apology is sufficient penance.
Of course, I don't have a lot of sympathy for Northam -- especially since he's now walking back his apology and denying that he's actually in that photo. And given that he's embraced the rhetoric of SJW "anti-racist" activism in the past, I must admit to enjoying a little schadenfreude watching him suffer the consequences of his own ideas. Definitely a banner story for Glenn Reynolds' "Annals of Leftwing Autophagy"!
*****
Meanwhile, in the World of Publishing...
… we have the unfortunate story of Amelie Zhao, who pulled her debut YA fantasy novel from her publisher's schedule after she was attacked by SJW's for her supposed "anti-black racism".
Obviously, I have not read Zhao's book - I'm not one of those YA "influencers" who gets access to ARC's - but based on her own explanations, it sounds like her intention was to portray slavery in Asia, not the Americas. No matter: the totalitarians went after her anyway because she didn't tackle slavery the "right" way.
According to the SJW Mean Girls, you see, a YA author should look like she stepped out of an advertisement for the United Colors of Benetton -- but she must think like everyone else. No going off the script. No bucking the strictures of the industry's "sensitivity" hucksters. No going out on a limb to tell an honest story that hasn't been filtered through dozens of political sieves until it has all the flavor of purified water. You will write the one novel the provincial radical left wants you to write or you will be declared one of the untermenschen.
Obviously, this whole affair pisses me off. As a matter of fact, Larry Correia's characteristically pungent post on the subject captures my feelings precisely. How dare these witches bully this poor author into abandoning her dream -- and how dare they keep this book from the rest of us! I say we let the publisher know that we won't stand for this censorship-through-intimidation. The pre-order page for Zhao's book is still up; go and make her a best-seller.
No comments:
Post a Comment