> In an Op-Ed on “Why I’m Pro-Choice” in the Michigan Daily > this week, Emma Maniere stated, quite perfectly, that > “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that > abortion saves lives, too.” She understands that it saves > lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in > the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, > in the possibilities for them and for their families. And > I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus > every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my > conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth > sacrificing.
Why stop there? Maybe you didn't abort your fetus, which is now an inconvenient, smelly, crying 3-week-old baby. Suddenly the weight of parenthood is finally sinking in. This baby is changing "the roads...you get to go down". If aborting a child in the womb will "save lives", then killing that infant will work just as well. Isn't that baby's life be worth sacrificing too, Ms. Williams?
Her basic argument is this: the child in the womb is weak and defenseless, therefore as a bigger and stronger person I have a right to kill you if I want.
This argument does not need to stop with pregnancy. Since she agrees that the fetus is a human life at every stage of pregnancy even the birth of the child places no threshold on her argument. Any weaker and defenseless human being who has less autonomy than another is at the mercy of the stronger one and this morally acceptable - it is the logical end of the evolutionary notion of survival of the fittest. The lesser and weaker person can be killed simply because the stronger person wants to.
I am not sure I have seen a more morally reprehensible argument and this coming from a mother. God help our nation!
"Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always."
Aren't liberals always saying that other people's "positive rights" trump "unalienable rights" and can be used to justify "redistribution of wealth"? If mothers are free to kill in order to avoid inconvenience, why can't the rest of us have the much more modest freedom of being left alone?
They can't have it both ways. They speak out of both sides of their mouth. Or perhaps they should just dispense with the pretense of offering arguments in support of their positions.
Shocking admission!!!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete> In an Op-Ed on “Why I’m Pro-Choice” in the Michigan Daily
> this week, Emma Maniere stated, quite perfectly, that
> “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that
> abortion saves lives, too.” She understands that it saves
> lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in
> the roads that women who have choice then get to go down,
> in the possibilities for them and for their families. And
> I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus
> every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my
> conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth
> sacrificing.
Why stop there? Maybe you didn't abort your fetus, which is now an inconvenient, smelly, crying 3-week-old baby. Suddenly the weight of parenthood is finally sinking in. This baby is changing "the roads...you get to go down". If aborting a child in the womb will "save lives", then killing that infant will work just as well. Isn't that baby's life be worth sacrificing too, Ms. Williams?
How abominable.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't stand to read the whole article, it so paralyzed my mind and spirit. Such evil.
How does one respond to a woman like that who baldly claims that evil is good and good is evil? "What can men do against such reckless hate?"
This was published in Salon, which makes me wonder, do our countrymen agree? Has the water already risen so high?
Her basic argument is this: the child in the womb is weak and defenseless, therefore as a bigger and stronger person I have a right to kill you if I want.
ReplyDeleteThis argument does not need to stop with pregnancy. Since she agrees that the fetus is a human life at every stage of pregnancy even the birth of the child places no threshold on her argument. Any weaker and defenseless human being who has less autonomy than another is at the mercy of the stronger one and this morally acceptable - it is the logical end of the evolutionary notion of survival of the fittest. The lesser and weaker person can be killed simply because the stronger person wants to.
I am not sure I have seen a more morally reprehensible argument and this coming from a mother. God help our nation!
Note the liberal inconsistency:
ReplyDelete"Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always."
Aren't liberals always saying that other people's "positive rights" trump "unalienable rights" and can be used to justify "redistribution of wealth"? If mothers are free to kill in order to avoid inconvenience, why can't the rest of us have the much more modest freedom of being left alone?
They can't have it both ways. They speak out of both sides of their mouth. Or perhaps they should just dispense with the pretense of offering arguments in support of their positions.
That's an interesting regarding positive vs. unalienable rights.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't it fall prey to the fallacy treating "liberals" as a single entity?
Not that I doubt the woman who wrote that horrible article also thinks that wealth should be redistributed by strong central governments.