Is This the Best They Can Do?

Can’t the abortionists do better than these lame statements? Are these the best minds the pro-death movement has to offer?

“Your arguments remind me of Animal Rights activist arguments. Your [sic] saying that the life of organisms other than advanced human beings should be protected by law. If a human fetus without a cerebral cortex should be protected by law then in that case you should also not be able to kill any sub advanced human organism. You should not be able to kill and eat living animals and living plans [sic], you should not be able to kill living germs, should not be able to scratch your arm and kill living skin cells, should not be allowed to cut your hair and kill hair cells etc. If you want a 'Protection of Non Advanced Human Life Law,' you can't stop with a fetus. Your [sic] missing the point of what makes humans special, it isn't the mere fact that we are humans, it is our rationality and thought.”

Posted by “Disambiguation” at:
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=423303&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=1&Author=&Keyword=&pgnu=1&groupnum=0

If rationality and thought are the basis for being special, then Disambiguation’s own validity must come into question. I’ve never met a new-born child capable of rational thought, although I’ve met many children who had higher-level cognitive processes than this.

Considering who we are dealing with, let’s put it this way:

If I had not had an abortion, I would have had a child. Period. Not a clump of hair or a bundle of skin cells; not a frog or a puppy or a DVD player; not a carrot or a philodendron. A human child. No matter how much I might have wanted to choose something different, the end result of conception, the meeting of human sperm and human egg, is another human being.

The unborn child is simply younger than you and I. If we must use rational thought to define our humanity, most of the living would have to be destroyed for being incapable of it, including many of those whose anti-life opinions are published and read as if they have credence or integrity. Case in point, debunked by our friends at After Abortion (check side-bar link):

"On December 23, Kevin Drum, a progressive/liberal writer at the Washington Monthly's blog, took note of the 'Some Democrats want to soften party's stand on abortion' article in the Times and added an angle pertaining to how women experience abortion.

'I'm usually in favor of more inclusive language, greater sensitivity, etc. etc. But obsessing about the emotional turmoil of getting an abortion just doesn't work. Since we fundamentally believe that there's nothing wrong with pre-viability abortion, shouldn't our job instead be to persuade women that they shouldn't feel emotionally whipsawed if they choose to get an abortion? It's awfully hard to take both sides.'"

When did we start obsessing about the emotional turmoil of abortion? As far as I can see, the grief of post-abortive women is denied. Therapists and counselors generally refuse to see the harm that is done, and look for absurd solutions to an obvious problem. Even when the patient can identify the issue which causes her pain, the therapist denies the link.

What does Mr. Drum think the abortionists have been doing for more than thirty years if it isn’t trying to make women swallow abortion as a perfectly acceptable solution to unwanted pregnancy? Shouldn’t our job instead be to persuade women that they shouldn’t feel compelled to engage in the sexual behavior that results in conception? Shouldn’t our job instead be to convince women that our special role in nurturing the offspring of the human race is vital to our survival? Shouldn’t our job instead be to persuade men and women that each human life is precious, even Mr. Drum’s (may he thank God daily that his own mother chose to give him life)? And before I give him too much weight, how many abortions has Mr. Drum had that make him an expert on women’s issues? I tire of hearing this argument from people who haven’t been there. They don’t have the experience and cannot speak to this subject.

Back to Disambiguation, and his pseudo-scientific argument:

“This is why the anti abortion movement lies in religion and why it is rejected by a majority of free and educated people, because it has no basis in the real world. Religion says humans are special because we have some kind of exalted status, we don't. We are special because of our advanced brain functions which come through evolution. Human embryo's [sic] do not have these functions, hence are not advanced human life that should be protected by law.”

By this definition, two-year old children are not advanced, and infanticide should be legalized. By this definition, the mentally disabled and injured are lacking advanced brain functions, and should be euthanized. By this definition, the elderly have lost advanced brain functions, and do not deserve to keep living.

And on this last note, may God forgive me for thinking with great satisfaction about the potential fate of the generations that made Roe v. Wade a reality in our country. You are aging in a world that is learning to dispose of human beings who are no longer functional. Paybacks are hell. In spite of myself, I pray you will not become weak, helpless, and at the mercy of these cold-hearted people who deny your viability.

Feel free to leave God completely out of this issue. Believe if you like that we are simply the most intelligent animals on the planet (which is arguable). Then explain to me the purpose of destroying our young from an evolutionary standpoint. If Charles Darwin were alive, I’m sure he would also like to hear how you have managed to pervert his perfectly viable theory that species adapt to their environments in order to survive into something that says the youngest members of a species aren’t actually members of that species, yet. When does a puppy become a dog? Do you think Darwin would say it isn’t a member of the canine species before it’s born? Do you hear your own ignorance yet?

If I took a pregnant bitch, started cutting the pups from her womb and destroying them, I would go to jail for cruelty to animals. Yet, I could do this easily to human children with a medical degree and the blessings of such great minds as these abortionists.

Survival of the species should be driving our animal instincts toward the preservation of our offspring. We are not destroying our young for the evolutionary benefit of the human race, which would mean making sure the smartest, strongest, and best bred in the ideal eugenic society are the ones who survive. Not yet, anyway, although I’m sure there are many wealthy white people who aren’t saddened at all at the impact abortion is having on the impoverished and people of color. Instead, we are thinning the herd indiscriminately, without knowing whether the ones who survive the womb are eugenically ideal or not. Must I name-drop to prove it? Has anyone listened to the latest pearls of wisdom dripping from the mouth of a certain wealthy, spoiled, hotel heiress? She survived the womb, and the existence of rational thought processes in that brain is open to debate.

But whose ideal are we using? I am free and educated. I regretted my abortion, and then I found religion. I didn’t find religion, and then start regretting my abortion. No amount of double-speak can convince me or any other woman who has been pregnant and is honest with herself and others that what I aborted was not human.

What if my ideal is to rid the world of the kind of people who espouse the murder of children for convenience? You and your kind are a threat to the human race: a barrier to the survival of the species. If you were a rogue chimp in the wild destroying the offspring of the other chimps, they would most likely kill you or at least drive you away from the group. Apparently, they are more advanced than we on the evolutionary ladder.