The pro-choice movement’s design flaw, part 3

Just came across this from Matt Walsh at The Blaze:

I can’t help but notice a potential correlation between [the Democrats] eagerness to murder the next generation and their inability to win elections. There is an argument to be made, at least, that you can’t cultivate future voters by ripping them to pieces and selling them for parts…

He goes on to defend this assertion, then makes another important point as well:

…how can we [pro-life Christians] be so selfish, bigoted, and hateful if we’re the ones trying to convince you to stop killing your children? Pro-life Christians would benefit the least from the abolition of abortion, yet we are the only ones calling for it to be abolished. If we really hate black people, why are we trying to see to it that more black people are permitted to enter the world? If we really hate women, why are we advocating for a policy that would result in more of them existing? If we really hate you, why are we arguing in favor of something that may ultimately help your political objectives more than it helps ours?

If we were truly hateful and bigoted (and politically savvy) we would celebrate your abortions more than you do. Every time another abortion clinic opened in the inner city, we would be there to cut the ribbon and throw a parade. Instead, we’re there to protest and pray. Why is that? Why are we trying to help you and save your children if we are so filled with hate?

Read the whole thing:

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/matt-walsh-dear-democrats-maybe-you-should-stop-killing-your-voters-in-the-womb/

Other posts in this series:

Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the infamous SCOTUS decision that required all states to allow unrestricted abortion. It is the day that our government officially installed a “might makes right” ideology. My size and power means that I have the “right” to destroy human life inside my body that I find inconvenient, untimely, or otherwise undesirable. Will this human life hinder my goals in life? Am I just “not ready” to be a mother? Does this human life have some characteristic I find objectionable? Then I get to destroy it. There is so much wrong with this way of thinking, but that’s what we are up against.

Many people used to support abortion but changed their minds. Here are a few:

Here is a list of more people who used to support abortion but are now against it, including some former Planned Parenthood workers, abortion doctors, and politicians. Here is another list (there might be some overlap).

Even though Democrats get the rap for abortion, not all Dems support it. For example, there is an organization called Democrats for Life of America. Evidently, one in three Democrats is pro-life. Isn’t that wonderful? So refreshing. There is also a Facebook page called:

Whole Life: Pro-life Democrats, Progressives, and Feminists

I am unsure how many people it represents but I follow them to show support for our common cause.

 

“Why did you have me, Mummy?”

The sort of situation that appears below demonstrates how the pro-choice worldview means that a particular position within the family is more important than the person who occupies that position. I first noticed this dynamic while watching the movie October Baby a few years ago. But let me explain using the post that appears below as an example.

I am not sure that the daughter’s question was properly addressed. The daughter may have been asking, “Why did you have ME?” Not, “Why did you HAVE me?”

“Pro-choice” in the story below means that there is a child who occupies the first position in the family, due mother’s “choice” to have such a position available. The position matters more than the particular child who occupies it. Here’s why I can say this: the third child was aborted because the third position in the family was unwanted. If the first child had occupied that third position, she would have been aborted without remorse or regret.

That she is alive now is a total dice roll, and I can’t help but wonder if she intuits this.

The Jar Belles

“Why did you have me, Mummy?” Well, there’s the million dollar question. I have just tried to explain the pro-choice demonstration I’m going on to my seven year old daughter. I’ve attempted, in the past, to answer her questions about procreation as simply and truthfully as possible, but I know I’ve fallen short. There are things she doesn’t understand. Her question is a good one though. If I am going to stand outside the Polish embassy and yell at the top of my voice that women have a fundamental right to choose whether to carry a child to term, then why did I, still at uni, much too young, and not the most maternal person, have her?

View original post 433 more words

The connection between the national debt and abortion

By the same guy who argued that the Democratic Party is committing suicide through it’s support of abortion:

The Connection Between the National Debt and Abortion

He ran the numbers and concluded that:

…it is undeniable that there is a significant contribution to the national debt from abortion due to the lost wages of aborted babies who never became adults and formed families…

The United States of America is on a path to financial suicide by promising welfare benefits to seniors it cannot sustain partly because we abort so many of our unborn children based on a woman’s right to privacy…

The connection between the national debt and abortion is lost national wealth and accelerated insolvency of the welfare system.  Abortion undermines our true social security by eliminating workers who can take care of us in our old age, and contributes to the open-loop nature of our current Social Security system…

The pro-choice movement’s design flaw, part 2

Remember when I blogged about the pro-choice movement’s design flaw? How they are aborting themselves out of existence, that they have a hard time cultivating their own activists since they are getting rid of them as fast as they can? Here’s a post by somebody who actually ran the numbers on it and came to the same conclusion:

The Suicide of the Democratic Party

He says:

Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, liberal, progressive Democrats have staunchly defended, promoted and attempted to expand abortion rights.  In states voting Democratic, women terminate pregnancies more frequently than in states voting Republican.  This suggests that the Democratic support for abortion is effectively a genocide of future Democratic voters.  In other words, the Democratic Party is committing suicide by supporting abortion rights.

 

The pro-choice movement’s design flaw

As I discussed a few days ago, the pro-choice position is so weak that is must be propped up by governmental force. It is not self-sustaining, since, with every single abortion, it is aborting itself further and further out of existence. What I mean is that every aborted human life is somebody who will never be an activist for the cause they believe in so fervently. If they believed in it so much you’d think they’d be able to rely on raising their own activists. But that is difficult for them to do–they’re getting rid of them as fast as they can. This explains why they must use the government to insert their ideology into crisis pregnancy centers–they need converts. By design, they greatly attenuate their own capacity to raise their own activists, which reveals a design flaw in the cause. It is a self-refuting proposition since by design it relies on making converts. I do not think it is a coincidence that the pro-life movement is a youth movement.

Related: Why aging liberals are so nasty and frightened

Is the pro-choice position so weak that it needs to be propped by force?

I think this legislation and the decision upholding it provides evidence for the weakness of the pro-choice position:

Appeals Court Upholds California Law Forcing Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortions

The federal appeals court that is considered the most liberal in the country has upheld an onerous California law that forces pregnancy centers to promote abortions…

… the California law infringes upon the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment by forcing pro-life pregnancy help organizations to disseminate a state-sponsored message effectively referring for abortions…

The law will force 150 local pregnancy help non-profits, including the 74 state-licensed free ultrasound facilities, to give each of its clients the following disclaimer, which includes the phone number of a county social services office where a client could obtain an abortion covered by Medi-Cal.

The notice, which the law specifies must either be posted as a public notice in “22-point type,” “distributed to all clients in no less than 14-point font” or distributed digitally “at the time of check-in or arrival,” applies to all of the entities—even those licensed by the state.

“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”

Why not just leave crisis pregnancy centers alone? It is as if leaving them alone is a great risk that needs to be attenuated by government action. They even specified the size of the font. Micromanagement is a sign of insecurity. I think the people who believe in this crap are scared.

Pro-choice puritans absolutely rely on the coercive power of the state to advance their unjust and grossly inaccurate view of the human body. Those views don’t stand up on their own; hence, their need to use the state to advance them. Men and women really ARE different, and sex actually DOES make babies. We are not simply a spirit or a mind lodged inside a human body. Every human being is significant starting from the moment of conception, including YOU. If even one human life is insignificant because of its location and size, then that diminishes the significance of everybody, since we all started out that way.

The prolife position upholds equality, but in a different way than the prochoice position. Every human life has equal dignity and an equal right to life, starting at conception.

There are at least two pro-life contradictions

Even among those in the pro-life camp, there is controversy over using the sorts of images that appear in this video. I am in favor of it, but even so, I am not sure how much these images do for the cause, or how many people convert to the cause because of the images. Unfortunately, the “right to choose” is propped up by at least two more fundamental “rights,” “rights” many in the pro-life movement have embraced.

What this means is that, logically, the pro-life movement as a whole has embraced a contradiction. Many in it have embraced the more fundamental “rights” while arguing against the “right to choose.” If the more fundamental “rights” are true, then the “right to choose” is much more difficult to argue against. But if the more fundamental “rights” are false, then the “right to choose” is much easier to argue against. I wonder what would happen if everybody in the pro-life movement rejected the more fundamental “rights.”

Even so, slaughtering the unborn is barbaric no matter what contradictions those who oppose it hold. Innocent human life is inviolable.

See also:

The pro-choice view of justice is not rational

I had an exchange with someone regarding my assertion that fertile couples do not have a right to pregnancy-free coitus. Her basic claim was that:

“…forcing women to give birth in unwanted pregnancies is inhumane.”

“Forcing women to give birth…” Who is doing the forcing? Do you see how she has tried to shift the burden onto others? There is no responsibility whatsoever being taken, just a irrational appeal to justice.

It is irrational because fertile couples don’t have a right to pregnancy-free coitus. There is no contraceptive method that is 100% effective, and so for fertile couples to claim a right to pregnancy-free coitus is to claim a right to the impossible. It should be obvious that nobody has a right to that which is impossible, and so this is why I say it is not rational. When you see Catholics talking about “the contraceptive mentality,” this is what they are talking about. Purely recreational, baby-free sex is a very seductive idea, and using contraceptives feeds right into it.

unbornIf we accept the pro-choice premise, that fertile couples DO have a right to pregnancy-free coitus, then it makes sense to claim that an unwanted pregnancy is an injustice because then the baby is like an unwanted intruder. But since that premise is not rational, we must reject it. Thus, carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term is not an injustice. In fact, it is a profound act of humanity to bring another human being into the world.