"Has the non-negotiable stance and rhetoric against abortion rights strayed from the Scripture’s call to choose life and led to a grave disrespect for life even inside our houses of worship?"
So asks Chicago Tribune religion reporter/blogger Manya Brachear in a June 1 The Seeker blog post, headlined "Is abortion inevitable consequence of abortion debate?" It followed in the wake of the May 31 shooting of abortionist George Tiller. Tiller, an usher at Wichita's Reformation Lutheran Church, was shot during the Sunday service there.
"Has the quest to save lives robbed people of their humanity," Brachear asks in concluding her story. Nowhere in her article, however, did she look at the other side of the coin and wonder if the rhetoric of abortion rights activists leads inevitably to the moral legitimization of infanticide.
Surely Ms. Brachear is not unaware of Princeton University bioethicist Peter Singer, who believes it should be legal to kill disabled newborns. From a 2006 "You Ask the Questions" interview in the British newspaper The Independent (questions are in bold):
Did caring for your mother as she developed Alzheimer's change your views about the propriety of terminating the lives of young children with severe mental retardation? LEILA MORRISON, Bath
No.
Would you kill a disabled baby? KAREN MEADE, Dublin
Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman's right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Wow. There is a chasm
June 2, 2009 - 17:15 ET by Chris NormanWow. There is a chasm opening up in this country between left and right that I don't think will ever be bridged. Not when perceptions and rhetoric has gotten to this point - and will only get worse. I think we are already in a cold civil war.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Hello!
June 2, 2009 - 17:24 ET by danebramageOpening up? It's been opened up for decades. Where have you been, Chris?
The split is inevitable. It's been a long time coming and who knows how much longer it will take, but we will separate at some point--either peacefully or by force of arms. I've been advocating peaceful separation for years, but no one so far has been willing to listen.
It's been a long time
June 3, 2009 - 11:16 ET by Chris NormanIt's been a long time coming
If it's "been a long time coming" then that says it wasn't always this bad.
dane, I'm hardly naive. Please don't be a conservative version of liberals here who write demanding preciseness of language. I have been here a long time and I've commented numerous occasions on the left's bile.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Huh?
June 2, 2009 - 18:05 ET by BKeyserChicago Sun-Times Religion Reporter Wonders if Murder Is 'Inevitable' in Abortion Debate
They're killing living, helpless fetuses without trial, and not under the guise of self-defense. If it's not 'murder' then it sure as hell must be manslaughter! Yeah, I'd say its inevitable...
Exactly, I like how these
June 3, 2009 - 03:56 ET by gmaniac1Exactly, I like how these dolts care more about the murderer than the innocent lives that they take. It's similar to the death penalty debate. The left wants to understand the past indiscretions that made someone kill and not to try to prevent it from happening in the future, but to sympathize with them. That is one warped group of people.
When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!
Well, technically, they did
June 3, 2009 - 06:46 ET by GrannyGrump42Well, technically, they did have a legal "due process". Two people with "Dr." before their names agreed with their mothers that they deserved to die.
Their crimes? Their mothers thought that their own lives would be easier if they died.
And they were truly executed -- digoxin, the drug Tiller injected into their beating hearts, is the same drug used in lethal injections.
Where is the ACLU and the claim that a digoxin injection is "cruel and unusual punishment" that causes undue and intolerable pain?
Or do they only speak up for those about to be executed if the condemned actually committed a real crime?
Yes, murder IS inevitable in
June 2, 2009 - 18:15 ET by RowaneYes, murder IS inevitable in the abortion debate. Abortion is murder.
"Nowhere in her article,
June 2, 2009 - 18:29 ET by GrannyGrump42"Nowhere in her article, however, did she look at the other side of the coin and wonder if the rhetoric of abortion rights activists leads inevitably to the moral legitimization of infanticide."
Abortion rights rhetoric leads inevitably to more than just the moral legitimization of infanticide.
According to abortion rights rhetoric, abortion is benign, beneficial, "the most fundamental right of women". There is no rational reason to object to abortion. The only reason to object to abortion is a desire to see somebody "punished for having sex" by "forcing parenthood" on them.
So, by the logic of abortion rights rhetoric, when a woman refuses to exercise this most fundamental right, she can have no rational reason to do so. She can not rationally reject abortion, because it is benign and beneficial. The only reason ever to reject abortion is to want to punish somebody -- in this case, the man -- for having sex, by forcing parenthood on him.
Murder is the most common cause of death among pregnant women. How many of those murders are there every year? And how many of them are incited by abortion rights rhetoric?
Granny
June 2, 2009 - 19:04 ET by mandrakeTwo questions,
1) You make an extraordinary claim..
"Murder is the most common cause of death among pregnant women" and ask others to provide the answers..why?
2) Your screen name ends with the number 42, are you a Douglas Adams fan? Just wondering.
google your sentence
June 2, 2009 - 19:07 ET by katainkentfind your answer.
___________________________________________
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past - George Orwell - 1984
Your right
June 2, 2009 - 19:23 ET by mandrakeI was clueless on that subject. But then I'm generally clueless on most subjects. However, logic seems to indicate that if legal abortion were not an option for couples that it would lead to an increase in double homocides..men being what we are.
Murder of pregnant
June 2, 2009 - 19:46 ET by GrannyGrump42Murder of pregnant women:
http://www.now.org/i...
Motives vary, of course. Sometimes they're murdered by other women who want to steal the baby. Sometimes they're murdered to keep an affair a secret. But plenty of them are murdered for refusing abortions. And I can't help but wonder how many of the men who committed these murders just KNEW that women don't REALLY love the "blobs of tissue", that there is no rational reason to object to abortion, that the b**ch must just be trying to ruin his life.
And yes, I'm a Douglas Adams fan. And I became a Granny at 42.
First of all, anything from
June 3, 2009 - 04:04 ET by gmaniac1First of all, anything from NOW is purely political and nonsensical at best. Anyone can site the USDOJ statistics and not expect people to look it up for themselves. Why not look up the statistics yourself and not just expect some left wing feminist organization to do so for you? Hmmm, maybe because you agree with them regardless and research is not your specialty. So I call b.s on this one. Also, let's say NOW's politically motivated assetion is true, than why murder the child? Do we think this will somehow prevent the violence? I doubt it. Violence begets violence and people kill for a bevy of reasons.
When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!
I wasn't agreeing with NOW
June 3, 2009 - 06:49 ET by GrannyGrump42I wasn't agreeing with NOW that the solution is to convince the woman to go through with the abortion quickly before the sperm donor does violence. I was just pointing out that NOW recognizes that pregnant women are shockingly often the victims of homicide. And I was adding that it's NOW's own "nobody could ever have the teensiest rational reason to object to an abortion" rhetoric that no doubt contributes to many of those murders.
I found the DOJ website and
June 3, 2009 - 04:20 ET by gmaniac1I found the DOJ website and does not specifically state about pregnant women.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm
So where does NOW get their information, specifically about pregnant women?
When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!
I've found other articles
June 3, 2009 - 06:52 ET by GrannyGrump42I've found other articles about the appalling rate of homicide of pregnant women:
http://www.washingto...
And NOBODY, not even people who note "The motive was that she refused to get an abortion," makes a connection between the abortion-rights assertion that there is no reasonable reason ever to object to abortion, and the murderers' rage that these women refuse to abort.
Singer's logic
June 2, 2009 - 18:54 ET by KC MulvilleLike most pro-abortion thinkers, Singer believes that the right to live your life depends completely on your consciousness. To be human is to be conscious. The argument is that we have no right to kill other beings, or other humans, to the degree that they display intelligence, or even sentience. If a creature can think or feel, so the argument goes, we have no right to kill them. But if we determine that they can't think (or think well enough, as we define well enough), we do have the right to kill them.
The fun begins when you ask them to explain why intelligence makes any difference. Most of the time they just assume it. (You can always tell when you've rattled their assumptions, because they have no other argument than "aw, come on.") The next stage is when they reach back to someone (anyone) from ancient Greece, and then argue that what defines man is his rationality. They never grasp that this answer only repeats the question in a different form.
If you abandon the idea that humanity is defined by intelligence alone, the world gets much clearer.
The bloody abortionist cult
June 2, 2009 - 19:03 ET by seven"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.
"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.
"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
Just curious, have you ever
June 2, 2009 - 19:12 ET by balboaJust curious, have you ever read the complete context of any of these?
Context is clearly
June 2, 2009 - 19:21 ET by JerContext is clearly necessary. I can't say with any certainty that she never made any of those comments, but I watched the complete (app.) 45 minute interview Mike Walllace conducted of Sanger years ago when Wallace was at the top of his game, and he was hitting her with seemingly every controversial statement she had reportedly ever uttered or written, and there was nothing that was even close to those posted by seven.
Jer
the above mentioned
June 2, 2009 - 19:39 ET by katainkentbooks and articles are available online (some in whole and some only every other page - a curse of google.books) if you'd care to look at context.
I read them the last time someone produced these quotes. I was curious.
___________________________________________
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past - George Orwell - 1984
You can read "The Pivot of
June 2, 2009 - 19:49 ET by GrannyGrump42You can read "The Pivot of Civilization" online here:
http://onlinebooks.l...
Sanger was a eugenecist and racist. She didn't go to Germany in the 1930s just to drink beer and eat bratwurst.
Granny, thanks to both you
June 2, 2009 - 20:13 ET by JerGranny, thanks to both you and kat for the suggestions, info, and link.
Wow, a granny at 42! That means I could theoretically now be a (gulp) great-granddaddy.
Jer
Jer (and Bal)
June 2, 2009 - 20:56 ET by lotrContext is important when statements are dependent upon it. I can't imagine how any context could mitigate the meaning of any of these statements. Hitler, despite the "credit" given him, was not the originator of "eugenic philosophy."
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
→ lotr
June 2, 2009 - 20:59 ET by Cool ArrowI believe that distinction belongs to none other than Charles Darwin's cousin.
I forget his name, but if you'll google it, I'm sure you'll find the father of eugenics.
"The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the court is because he's black". - Joe Biden
The context matters, and it
June 2, 2009 - 21:07 ET by balboaThe context matters, and it does make a difference.
OK, give me an example
June 2, 2009 - 22:32 ET by general companyof how one of those statement could be used in a "positive" way? I have been trying since they were posted, but I am not that smart.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
exactly
June 3, 2009 - 12:14 ET by lotrSorry, but you can't whitewash Sanger's "pathological progressivism" as evidenced by such quotes (assuming they are true). There are similar quotes from Der Fuhrer, but nobody complains of them being taken out context.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
→ Interesting lotr
June 3, 2009 - 15:52 ET by Cool ArrowShe includes this, "and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
If it occurs to them? If they realize?
Hardly synonymous with "should any misconstrue"
Rebellious? Rebellious to a gift?
You rebel against being forced into something you don't desire.
She was somewhat sneaky, but not very.
"The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the court is because he's black". - Joe Biden
Cool...
June 3, 2009 - 18:22 ET by JerThis quote is apparently taken from a letter Sanger wrote in 1922. Do you have a link to the entire document?
Jer
lotr...Context
June 2, 2009 - 22:48 ET by JerI can't imagine how any context could mitigate the meaning of any of these statements.
Imagine this:
"Someone once said the most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it but I reject that view."
Context can be important. Even though my example is clearly apocryphal.
Jer
Jer
June 3, 2009 - 12:24 ET by lotrThat's a creative example, but I would consider it a tad bit more than simply taking a sentence out of context -- it would be deliberately misquoting, since the quote would then really be someone else's. I rather doubt that is the case here.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
lotr...
June 3, 2009 - 15:42 ET by JerUnderstood. It was merely for the sake of illustration. However, I do question the context of the quote containing the words "we don't want the word to go out...[that we want to exterminate the Negro population]"
The cynical interpretation is that Sanger is saying that is indeed their actual objective but for godsake let's keep it a secret. I could be wrong, but I think it more likely that Sanger wanted to ensure that a false impression wasn't conveyed misrepresenting their true intent which had nothing to do with extermination of a race.
Jer
Understood also. You
June 3, 2009 - 18:14 ET by lotrUnderstood also. You raise a valid point too about that specific quote, although you might want to check out the point Cool Arrow makes in his post above (which, judging by the timing, looks to be a rebuttal....).
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
The old "context" argument?
June 2, 2009 - 22:29 ET by sevenAny fool can see with millions of abortions mostly done on minorities there is no confusion on context.
Planned parenthood has had a hand in the death of millions. The quotes from sanger fit the reality and history like a glove. Sanger had a wicked attitude and it lives on. Buy their works we know them.
So Ms. Brachear should have
June 2, 2009 - 19:12 ET by JerSo Ms. Brachear should have been aware of a brief, obscure interview of a Princeton professor from Australia published in a British newspaper nearly three years ago, and then incorporated his bizarre responses into her blog post about the murder of an abortionist occurring the day before.
Turn in your keyboard Ms. Brachear.
Jer
Singer's radical views
June 2, 2009 - 20:35 ET by Ken ShepherdSinger's radical views should be widely known by any religion reporter worth his or her salt.
Even if she's unaware of Singer's radical positions, the fact remains that she only sees the abortion debate as endangered by radicalism from the pro-life side of the equation.
Maybe so. And
June 3, 2009 - 18:34 ET by JerMaybe so. And perhaps the professor's views would be an interesting and provocative topic for a separate blog. But her failure to include those views in the subject blog seems rather trivial.
The actuating event was Tiller's murder only the day before. If the offices of Operation Rescue had been burned to the ground or Randal Terry shot to death, the focus may have shifted accordingly.
Jer
Of course murder is inevitable
June 2, 2009 - 20:43 ET by IamTinmanOf course murder is inevitable given that one side of the debate commits it every hour of every day. More fetuses lives are ended in one hour than abortionists and their staffs have lost in recorded history.
The doctor shouldn't have been murdered, murder is wrong. Too bad the pro-abortionists haven't learned that lesson.
Singer"s Radical Views
June 3, 2009 - 03:50 ET by LaValletteSinger as well as many abortion supporting ethicists and commentators agree that in the face of scientific knowledge it can no longer be denied that abortion is the killing of a human being at a particular stage of his/her development. However in their view this killing is not "murder" as the being being terminated is not an innocent being. The very fact that that being is unwanted renders that being as an "unwelcome parasite" on the person that is carrying it, and as one commentator recently put it "it is on the same class as a rapist who forces his presence and body onto and inside a woman's body" and has the potential of causing harm to that person not only at the moment but for the rest of her life. Since it would be regarded as legal "self defence" for the woman to use force against anyone threathening her p[hysical well being, such as a rapist, then ipso facto she also has the right to use lethal force against the "invading foetus". The fact that in most cases, other persons rather than the woman herself carry out the lethal deed does not seem to be an issue.
One other thought: "Has the quest to save lives robbed people of their humanity," Brachear asks in her report. Why the bloody hell did we go to war against the Germans and the Japanese in the WWII. Furthermore turning the argument on its head "Has the quest to secure what the Right to Choose, ostensibley under the guise of saving the physical and emotional lives of some woman ( or more commonly their economic and social well being) robbed people of their humanity and turned us a nation of killers of our own children?"
Wanted
June 3, 2009 - 08:52 ET by KC MulvilleOf course, the problem with that point of view is that the baby itself makes no threat, and legally, a threat isn't merely something in the eye of the beholder. The law demands that a reasonable person would view it as a threat, not just the whim of the mother.