In Their Own Words: Pro-choicer admits life begins at conception, but says “all life is not equal”

Posted by: ST on January 23, 2013 at 6:09 pm

Photo of 10 week old baby courtesy of David Barlow/National Geographic's In the Womb seriesSometimes your political opposition’s arguments are so deeply disturbing yet at the same time revealing, that there’s no need for you to add any major comment to it. These types of arguments essentially can speak for themselves (and usually not in a good way). All I’ll add to this conversation is that I’ve – like many of you –  come across many a pro-abort in my time who adamantly deny that life begins at conception, who’ll say it’s only a life when it becomes “viable” as per the Roe v. Wade ruling. Yeah, I know it’s warped, but this IS the “feminist” movement we’re talking about here, so keep that in mind … because what you’re about to read below is much, much worse, while at the same time being an oddly refreshingly candid admission of what we already know about the “pro-choice” crowd.  Very few in the “choice” gang will own up to the below sentiment, but I’ve come across a few who will and, let me tell ya, for someone whose eyes were already wide open on this issue, my eyes get all the more wide every time I hear or read variations of this.  It is astonishing to me that anyone with warm blood running through their veins can believe that life begins at conception yet still think it’s ok to terminate that life.

The writer is Salon’s Mary Elizabeth Williams and she gives you a LOT of insight into the TRUE inner-workings of the typical rabid “feminist’s” mind when it comes to the issue of abortion.  Again, I’ll let her words speak for themselves (bolded emphasis added by me):

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. 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.

When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.

When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?

We’re so intimidated by the wingnuts, we get spooked out of having these conversations. We let the archconservatives browbeat us with the concept of “life,” using their scare tactics on women and pushing for indefensible violations like forced ultrasounds. Why? Because when they wave the not-even-accurate notion that “abortion stops a beating heart” they think they’re going to trick us into some damning admission. They believe that if we call a fetus a life they can go down the road of making abortion murder. And I think that’s what concerns the hell out of those of us who support unrestricted reproductive freedom.

But we make choices about life all the time in our country. We make them about men and women in other countries. We make them about prisoners in our penal system. We make them about patients with terminal illnesses and accident victims. We still have passionate debates about the justifications of our actions as a society, but we don’t have to do it while being bullied around by the vague idea that if you say we’re talking about human life, then the jig is up, rights-wise.

It seems absurd to suggest that the only thing that makes us fully human is the short ride out of some lady’s vagina. [...]

Don’t they? The majority of women who have abortions – and one in three American women will – are already mothers. And I can say anecdotally that I’m a mom who loved the lives she incubated from the moment she peed on those sticks, and is also now well over 40 and in an experimental drug trial. If by some random fluke I learned today I was pregnant, you bet your ass I’d have an abortion. I’d have the World’s Greatest Abortion.

“All life is not equal.”  Margaret Sanger would be so proud.

(Salon link via @KatMcKinley)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

13 Responses to “In Their Own Words: Pro-choicer admits life begins at conception, but says “all life is not equal””

Comments

  1. Mr Evilwrench says:

    I’ve come to the same conclusion, even as a total unbeliever; you don’t need religion to frame the argument. Once the egg is fertilized, it has its own unique human DNA, and is entitled to the same rights as any human. There are many milestones it must pass even before birth, certainly after, but even as a single cell, it is alive, it is human. Killing a human with premeditation is murder, whether or not it can defend itself.

  2. Great White Rat says:

    Science is clear that life begins at conception, and medical science has provided us the ability to see life in utero in amazing detail. The abortion lobby on the Left remains passionate in its drive to deny the obvious and to keep the women in their clinics ignorant of the facts.

    So what we have here is the liberals – who boast so loudly about how grounded they are in “science” – deliberately ignoring scientific data because it contradicts one of their – well, let’s call it a sacrament. Abortion, to the leftists, is a matter of theology, not science.

  3. cathy says:

    I got the perfect example of the warped liberal mind today. My son-in-law posted on FB yesterday his support of Roe vs Wade. Today he posted the petition to sign to save the Orca whales! He thinks we “must help them”. So murdering babies is ok but for God sake save those Orcas.

  4. Alastor says:

    On a related question – do you know if anyone has compiled the statistics with the ratios of live births to abortions for the various census-groups ?

    I wonder how successful Margaret Sanger’s wishes have been ? What percentage of white pregnancies (Margaret Sanger-approved) are terminated by abortions as compared to what percentage of black pregnancies are terminated by abortions (which abortions further Margaret Sanger’s beliefs) ?

  5. Jeff Brodhead says:

    So what we have here is the Elitist world view… WE have the power, so WE can determine life and death, whether that life is guilty of murdering a dozen people, or innocent of all crime. WE will tell you what not to say, what not to eat, when you can live and when you can die… all in the name of “the right to chose”

    The Marxist mentality stinks!

  6. Tom TB says:

    Pre-natal corrective surgery is more common, and successful. The “blob if tissue” argument makes no rational sense. As a dutiful son who helps out his 92 year Mother, I wonder sometimes what women who were proud of their abortions think as they age alone, but what do I know, I’m just a Man!

  7. Liz says:

    Sad. I would not want to be her mother….next she’ll be justifying euthanasia for the senile.I think I like it better when they DON’T believe life begins at conception. I always ask a women what she would think if I put a pregnent cat to sleep and then scooped out all the baby kittens and gentle killed them…that would be OK right? They always squirm!

  8. Carlos says:

    The question of “life” v. “tissue” is irrelevant to pro-death people.

    But what is scary is that it’s such a short step from where they are with the above argument to ridding society of its “weaker” members (you know – the ones born without “normal” intelligence, those who’ve lost limbs or are paralyzed, etc.)

    And the amazing thing about that is, they don’t have a clue that they, individually, are just as liable to not be included in the “correct” classification as the next person or the person they themselves deem to be in a “weaker” group!

    But then, consequences have never been of concern to the statist mind…

  9. Chris in N.Va. says:

    Point to ponder:

    When an individual is under general anesthetic for surgery, and even on a ventilator to ensure proper airway, that person has been rendered “non-autonomous” and, by definition, wholly at the mercy of the attending medical personnel as to whether nor not that person survives the procedure, regains consciousness and rejoins living society.

    Likewise, if you suffer a stroke, heart attack, or other sudden debilitating condition, you may — for awhile at least (maybe even 9 months?) — be unable to “survive” without outside medical (cf: biological) assistance.

    In either case, is the life above “not as important” as otherwise normal, healthy, non-hospitalized lives?

    Sadly, there are those who would answer, “Absolutely!”

  10. Kate says:

    This is what happens when you question who is more important, the living, the about to be born, or those who require assistance with living.

    Basically, we know that abortion is for the convenience of the woman who finds that the pregnancy will present problems…it’s an inconvenient time, they don’t want anyone to know about their “mistake”, they don’t have the monetary or emotional support to raise a child and, of course, there are some actual medical/emotional reasons that sometimes I find hard to evaulate, such as in the case of rape (where the child is punished for the actions of another)or perhaps the unborn child is medically evaluated to have medical issues cause the child to have many disabilities.

    That said, we do have the medical technology now to reduce unwanted pregnancies, we have effective forms of birth control for those who condone the idea. And there is that old fashioned idea to abstain from behavior that leads to pregnancy. The problem is that the present generations have effectly distanced the reasoning for sexual relations from it’s scientific purpose…to create life and prolong the species. Now it is more of a recreational activity purely for the pleasure of the individuals involved. Forget that there is always a risk of pregnancy. That’s how DEVOLVED this current culture has become!!

  11. Jen says:

    I have an acquaintence(hard to say the word friend) who fancies herself a liberal feminist. She is fully supportive of abortion and in conversations we have had over the years, has plainly stated that euthanasia should be legal and utilized. She feels no one with Alzheimers or dementia should be allowed to live past the initial stage, and is fully comfortable with euthanizing cancer, stroke, and incurable disease individuals.Looks down on families who sacrifice to care for these individuals. Same with down’s syndrome or anyone who cannot contribute to society(via work and taxes). Very supportive of rationed care(of course she and her ilk are the only ones qualified to determine who should and shouldn’t receive care).Wants a single payer system, because everyone should be eligible for the care the intellects deem worthy and the intellects will be able to stop care given to those unworthy and therefore undeserving.
    The root of this thinking is the juvenile, jealous, no-one-can-have-something-I-can’t-have attitude that is the hallmark of liberals.It also is rooted in the State-is-God religion that takes the place of a true faith based religion that they work so hard to deny and ridicule.

  12. That column is actually good news for the pro-life movement. Its explicitness will make it far easier for us to refute, and ultimately destroy, the pro-abortion culture.

  13. BBHunter says:

    * Lobbying and supporting gun control as a means to protect children.

    * Lobbying and supporting government financed abortion on demand to protect children.

    - Can you spot the absurd hypocricy between these two statements. I’ll bet you can kids.