Friday, 16 June 2006

Anti-abortion is anti-life

"The recent ban on abortion in South Dakota is a victory for the "pro-life" movement--and thus, anti-abortionists claim, a victory for "the sanctity of human life." But is it?"

Writer Christian Beenfeldt says "No." And I agree with him. Says the unfortunately mis-named Christian:
The "pro-life" movement is not a defender of human life--it is, in fact, a profound enemy of actual human life and happiness. Its goal is to turn women into breeding mares whose body is owned by the state and whose rights, health and pursuit of happiness are sacrificed en masse --all in the name of dogmatic sacrifice to the pre-human.
And he's right, isn't he.

LINKS: Anti-abortion 'pro-life' movement is anti-life - Christian Beenfeldt, Capitalism Magazine

TAGS: Religion, Ethics, Politics-US


  1. No.

    How many Frank Lloyd Wrights, how many potential libertarians, how many P. Cresswells dumped into a disposal tub?

    Get positive, get happy mate. The world is better without murder.

  2. Well, I don't know. Can we aks the baby?

  3. On the practical side, there's something anti-abortionists never take into account. Most women will choose how many children they have. They may abort an early accidental pregnancy to have their children later. If they don't have the abortion and start child bearing young they won't have their kids later in life. Put another way, if there weren't abortions you wouldn't see a dramatic rise in the fertility rate. For all the lost potential to abortions there is further potential unleashed. Many, many foetuses are lost to miscarriages and they too are replaced by lives that otherwise probably wouldn't have been.

  4. "How many Frank Lloyd Wrights, how many potential libertarians, how many P. Cresswells dumped into a disposal tub?"

    None. And the previous comment makes no sense at all. Strange how those who sneer at stay-at-home mums and the welfare state disapprove of abortion.

  5. I have a feeling the vicious cries of "murder" from anti-abortionists (note: NOT "Pro-lifers") is merely away for them to ease the dull ache that arises from the inability to reconcile their hypocrisy with their usual calls for less "big government intervention" in the lives of sovereign individuals

  6. A Humble Proposal in response to Beenfeldt’s pro-abortion column on June 16: How about a “raisonsize lump” of “primitive” cells Eating Contest!? It will be fun, and it should be no problem, since these “lumps of cells…far more primitive than a fish or a bird…doesn’t bear the remotest similarity to a human being.” Do you like yours fresh or deep-fried?

    There is something refreshing about the culture of death when they stick their head out from behind the shadows and their truest thoughts drip from their insatiable lips to dry in ink word shaped blots. Their argument is always the same. The unborn are different, so kill them.

    Note the descriptions of the fetus using APPEARANCE related terms: “Malformed,” “Raisonsize lump of cells,” “Far more primitive than a fish or a bird,” “Its brain has yet to develop… it doesn’t bear the remotest similarity to a human being.” These words and phrases are designed to remove the humanity from the unborn. Take for instance my favorite phrase: “raisonsize.” The size of the unborn is small, so let’s kill it. “Lump of cells.” Are humans ever any more than a lump of cells? “Malformed.” Since when did being “malformed” carry a death sentence? In fact, at certain points in life, any one of these criterion could be arbitrarily applied to YOU. Think of a new born. They are tiny, they are multi-cellular, and they have brains that are ridiculously “primitive.” Do we kill them? Think of a person fresh out of a car wreck. Brain activity is deemed “primitive” and they lost their limbs, making them “raisonsize.” Do we kill them? Think of your grandparent in a nursing home. Their brain lost to old age, and their limbs withered. Do we kill them? They are different, after all…

    Secondly, look how the author demeans Mothers and children: “…forced to endure the misery of unwanted pregnancy and the incredible burdens of child rearing…sentenced to 18-year terms of enslavement to unwanted children — thereby suffocating their hopes, their dreams, their personal ambitions, their chance of happiness... breeding mares whose body is owned by the state.” Now THERE’S a Hallmark moment for you!

    Third, see their appeal against faith: “The ultimate "justification" of the "pro-life" position is religious dogma…American Roman Catholic Church and Protestant fundamentalists…an embryo must be treated "from conception as a person" created by the "action of God." Science clearly declares the fetus as a human (32 Chromosomes at conception). It isn’t a horse, a monkey, or a stapler. It is a HUMAN. Since it is human, it is a PERSON. Since she is a person, we owe her a day in court before we vacuum her brains into the sink.

    Regardless, the real test remains: EATING THE EMBRYO. Something deeply imbedded in the humans confirms that the embryo is human. You can write lies all day long about them being “pre-human,” but when I see you eat the embryo, I will believe that you think the unborn isn’t “human.” Soylent Green, anyone?


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.