The reasoning by some of the more dim-witted pro-aborts goes something like this:
If five year olds were regularly being murdered at government clinics, surely more action would be necessary than just standing around talking about how bad it was? And if more action was taken, and that same action is not being taken to prevent the "murder" of the unborn through abortion, then despite all the rhetoric, pro-lifers do not really consider the life of the unborn to be equivalent to a five year old's life.
This same reasoning has come up before. When it did, I had no time to sit down and write a response. Today I do.
First, consider the major difference between a unborn baby and a five year old. That being that the five year old can exist independently from any other human being (ie is not physically attached to anyone or wholly contained within another person), while as the unborn baby that is in danger of termination is in most cases totally enclosed within another human being and totally dependent on staying within that human being; ie, the dependence cannot be transferred to another.
Therefore, the comparative rescue scenarios would be very different. In the case of the five year old, the child could be nabbed and taken home and looked after and would in most cases be grateful for not being killed and therefore unlikely to run off and get themselves killed at some other time at the termination facility.
The unborn child, on the other hand would have to be rescued via his or her mother, who in all probability wants the child dead. Therefore it would not be a rescue but a kidnapping, which would require long-term detainment of an ungrateful, unhappy person until the child was sufficiently mature enough to survive being born. The chances of a successful rescue in this case would be slim enough with all that would be necessary.
What about destroying abortion premises?
Given the nature of abortion, destroying premises would not make much difference as the aborting women would go elsewhere. As far as I can tell, most abortions are done in NZ hospitals which are also used to save lives as well as destroying them. More harm than good would be done by destroying abortion facilities. Unlike, say, destroying WW2 concentration camp gas chambers that were used to kill people. The sole purpose of those sorts of facilities were to kill only, therefore destroying them would not have any adverse consequences.
Targeting abortionists?
Doesn't work. Even if one abortionist is killed (as has happened in the US), society takes a dim view of abortionists being killed, and strangely enough, this creates more sympathy for the abortion industry, therefore in all likelihood, makes it more difficult to restrict abortion over the long term.
What to do, then?
What the pro-aborts don't want - make abortion a public debate. Show developmental pictures of unborn babies to get the idea across that human babies are being killed in abortion - it's not just stopping a pregnancy. People have a real disconnect between what they think is actually happening in an abortion and what actually happens. Therefore being shown the baby is vitally important.
I'm willing to bet that if a documentary of what abortion actually is was shown on TV, we would have outrage up and down the country and a national demand for our abortion laws to be enforced.
The pro-aborts know this, that is why they stomp on any group that attempts to show the public what abortion is and who it kills.
They need the general public anaesthetised to the whole abortion conversation. They need everyone to think that abortion is a private matter that should only concern the woman involved. They need everyone to think it's only a pregnancy being halted, not a baby being killed. Because once that pregnancy is thought of as a baby, all hell breaks loose.
Related Link: No Minister - Helpful Abortion Statistics
If five year olds were regularly being murdered at government clinics, surely more action would be necessary than just standing around talking about how bad it was? And if more action was taken, and that same action is not being taken to prevent the "murder" of the unborn through abortion, then despite all the rhetoric, pro-lifers do not really consider the life of the unborn to be equivalent to a five year old's life.
This same reasoning has come up before. When it did, I had no time to sit down and write a response. Today I do.
First, consider the major difference between a unborn baby and a five year old. That being that the five year old can exist independently from any other human being (ie is not physically attached to anyone or wholly contained within another person), while as the unborn baby that is in danger of termination is in most cases totally enclosed within another human being and totally dependent on staying within that human being; ie, the dependence cannot be transferred to another.
Therefore, the comparative rescue scenarios would be very different. In the case of the five year old, the child could be nabbed and taken home and looked after and would in most cases be grateful for not being killed and therefore unlikely to run off and get themselves killed at some other time at the termination facility.
The unborn child, on the other hand would have to be rescued via his or her mother, who in all probability wants the child dead. Therefore it would not be a rescue but a kidnapping, which would require long-term detainment of an ungrateful, unhappy person until the child was sufficiently mature enough to survive being born. The chances of a successful rescue in this case would be slim enough with all that would be necessary.
What about destroying abortion premises?
Given the nature of abortion, destroying premises would not make much difference as the aborting women would go elsewhere. As far as I can tell, most abortions are done in NZ hospitals which are also used to save lives as well as destroying them. More harm than good would be done by destroying abortion facilities. Unlike, say, destroying WW2 concentration camp gas chambers that were used to kill people. The sole purpose of those sorts of facilities were to kill only, therefore destroying them would not have any adverse consequences.
Targeting abortionists?
Doesn't work. Even if one abortionist is killed (as has happened in the US), society takes a dim view of abortionists being killed, and strangely enough, this creates more sympathy for the abortion industry, therefore in all likelihood, makes it more difficult to restrict abortion over the long term.
What to do, then?
What the pro-aborts don't want - make abortion a public debate. Show developmental pictures of unborn babies to get the idea across that human babies are being killed in abortion - it's not just stopping a pregnancy. People have a real disconnect between what they think is actually happening in an abortion and what actually happens. Therefore being shown the baby is vitally important.
I'm willing to bet that if a documentary of what abortion actually is was shown on TV, we would have outrage up and down the country and a national demand for our abortion laws to be enforced.
The pro-aborts know this, that is why they stomp on any group that attempts to show the public what abortion is and who it kills.
They need the general public anaesthetised to the whole abortion conversation. They need everyone to think that abortion is a private matter that should only concern the woman involved. They need everyone to think it's only a pregnancy being halted, not a baby being killed. Because once that pregnancy is thought of as a baby, all hell breaks loose.
Related Link: No Minister - Helpful Abortion Statistics
The other obvious element is that to protest against the state by taking serious action is generally a one time affair - and you get locked away.
ReplyDeleteI have a greater responsibility to my family to be there for them. After all, the other element to this is talking about the destructive nature of children being raised in the absence of a father.
All action needs to be legal, and we need to rely on the process of democracy to allow a full and frank debate. This is a tough area for all, and there are no easy answers.
And the easy solution does involve asking a doctor to end a life.
Additionally, we can help spread awareness that there are other options to abortion (and trying to diminish the frequency of the need for abortion) through charitable works or funding such works.
The idea you fisk (very well and more charitiably than it deserves) was raised by Danyl McLauchlan, who is nothing more than a smart-arsed, attention seeking cynic. Danyl does nothing, says a lot and contributes very little to any debate.
ReplyDeleteWho says anti-abortion advocates do nothing. Does someone like Danyl KNOW what they do?
You are bang on about the anaesthetisation of the population on abortion. The pro-aborts are very worried now that some truth might come out, and they will get fingered.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, since most everything is fair game as art, including Henson's photos on what grounds do people object to the founding vigorous action of their liberation.
ReplyDeleteMight it be that regardless of political argument and postures an atavistic part of the brain is repelled by mutilating fellow species members?
In public anyway. Polite society demands a fence. A high one.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHairy, I've done the favour of removing your abusive comment. Should you ever decide to have a child, CYFS might first insist you have anger management sessions.
ReplyDeleteIf you currently have a child, you might wish to adopt a nom-de-plume to avoid being hounded by Dr Kiro.