For some reason my Yahoo! page sometimes has links to the Daily Kos site. Normally I ignore them but this one caught my eye: Daily Kos: ‘Pro-life’ terrorists super excited about this year’s Fetuspalooza. It was about as winsome and attractive as a protest by Democrat Fred Phelps.
I realize that those in the pro-abortion* crowd would give the author virtual high-fives, but it occurred to me that the shrill, hateful rhetoric actually helps us. Sometimes just standing next to an out-of-control person makes you look better by comparison.
Here’s a sample:
Ah, January in Washington D.C. Bare trees, icy sidewalks, inauguration plans underway—and terrorists dressed up like sweet little grandmothers bussing to the nation’s capital, ready for their annual celebration of restricting women’s access to health care.
That’s right, it’s time for Fetuspalooza 2013!
One of the best things for the pro-life movement would be for middle-ground people to go to the march and watch how the pro-lifers behave relative to the pro-abortionists. She can use personal attacks like “terrorist” all she likes but regular people will see that those really are sweet little grandmothers – and people who regret their abortions, and those who understand that we shouldn’t kill innocent but unwanted human beings, and so on.
Killing unwanted human beings is not healthcare. As with nearly all pro-abortion arguments, the author ignores the health of the unborn human being destroyed because she is unwanted.
And yes, we do try to protect fetuses. Human fetuses. As in human beings at a particular stage of development. We think it is bad to kill human beings at any stage of development just because they are unwanted.
Ever since the Supreme Court held in 1973 that yes, women have the right to decide whether and when they want to have children—a right that has been redefined, restricted and outright denied ever since—the fetus fetishists have gathered for the “March for Life” to either celebrate or mourn, depending on just how successful their war on women and doctors has been in the preceding year. In 2012, 19 states passed 43 new laws restricting reproductive rights, so you figure there will be an awful lot of celebrating at this year’s march.
Yea for restricting abortions! Good for those states and those laws. That is worthy of celebration.
The author uses the fallacious term “reproductive rights.” Anyone familiar with science or logic knows that abortion kills human beings that have already been reproduced. Reproductive rights could apply to birth control, but never to abortion. And even if that term wasn’t anti-science, it would ignore the rights of the unborn human being. If you kill her then you took away her right to reproduce someday.
Sarah Kliff at the Washington Post writes about one such fetus fetishist who has devoted her life to terrorizing the Allegheny Reproductive Health Center in Pennsylvania and is very excited about her upcoming four-hour bus trip to “to spend the day with 100,000 other people who feel the same way that I do”—meaning, of course, a big group hug with thousands of other like-minded terrorists.
Well, she called us fetus fetishists and terrorists again, so she must be right. Oh, wait, which side celebrates the destruction of over 3,000 innocent but unwanted human beings each day?
Helen Cindrich got her start in 1972, when “she saw a woman on a television talk show describing her pregnancy as a ‘parasite.'” Cindrich turned to her local Catholic diocese to find out what she could do to stop women from having non-Cindrich-approved feelings about their pregnancies. Naturally, her diocese was only too happy to help her get involved in the movement because Jesus was all about preventing women from accessing health care, even when it means they’re going to die, because that’s so lifey.
The parasite argument is very common with pro-aborts. There are many things wrong with that, thought I actually like it when they use it. It may fire up their base but middle-ground people will be repulsed.
In addition to the points in the link, I like to ask the “parasite” argument people if they would approve of killing the baby by any means once she is delivered but still connected by the umbilical cord. After all, by their definition, the baby is living parasitically off the mother. So to be consistent the baby could be killed with anything you’d use to kill a real parasite — hammer, gun, RAID, etc. I have literally had people delete an entire series of their comments on Facebook after having the logical conclusions of their arguments exposed with that example. Or they’ll do anything to change the subject.
Re. the women’s feelings — I don’t know the person she is referring to, but we aren’t in the business of approving feelings, we are trying to protect innocent but unwanted human beings.
I know countless pro-lifers and not one opposes abortions to save the life of the mother, so that objection is a straw man.
The author’s projection of extremely limited anti-abortion violence to all pro-lifers is dishonest and inconsistent. Pro-lifers have been shot by pro-aborts, so using her logic the pro-aborts are all terrorists. And every pro-life group and individual I know opposes violence against abortion providers.
Eight of Pennsylvania’s 22 surgical abortion providers failed to gain approval under the new law. They can offer medical abortions, using a prescription drug, but not perform surgical procedures. To comply with the regulations, abortion clinics will need to install hospital-grade elevators and have a set number of parking spaces.
Yea! One of the many things the radically pro-abortion media doesn’t tell you is about how shoddy and unsafe abortion clinics are (and not just for the unborn).
The author goes on to call us terrorists a few more times, so again, she must be right. This looks more like terrorism to me.
The post pretty much sums up the Daily Kos and those who agree with it. As irritating as they are, it is impossible not to look good by comparison to such radical pro-abortion extremists.
Just keep reminding people of simple, irrefutable facts and logic:
It is a scientific fact (and basic common sense) that a new human being is created at fertilization. It is simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions. The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons). Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life.
Our opponents can call that terrorism all they like, but deep down we all know it is the truth.
* I used to use the term pro-choice, but that applies to very few people now. Anyone who supports taxpayer-funded abortions — as the Democrat’s platform does — is pro-abortion. They think that pro-lifers don’t have a choice as to whether they should have to fund abortions, and they think that one of our society’s problems is that we aren’t killing enough unwanted human beings.