Hard Hearts at the Other Forum

Governor Northam in Virginia and a couple of cold-hearted legislators came up with an abortion bill that makes post-birth abortion legal. It allows for abortion when the "mother" is in labor, and if the baby is born alive, it will be made "comfortable" while the mother and the doctor decide whether they will let it live, or will kill it. Thank goodness, the bill has failed. But you know they will try again, until they get what they want. That's how the left works.

The fellows at the Other Forum have had a discussion about the New York bill, which they seem fine with, since late-term abortions are rare, they say, and are usually only performed to save the life or health of the mother, or if the baby is not viable. They are missing a huge part of the point.

People scorn "slippery slope" arguments but in this case, we have been sliding down the slope since 1973.  We've gone from "safe, legal and rare" to celebrities "celebrating" their abortions ("It was marvelous!"), to women having multiple abortions, to relying on abortion as birth control, to a mother and her doctor deciding whether her just-born infant will live or die.

What the Other Forum fellows (and many others) are missing is, regardless of how rare, abortions that kill a full term baby will be legally sanctioned. Or maybe they're not missing it, but just don't care that it will become part of our national life, our national soul, if you will, when it is canonized into law. It will create a view that if babies can be killed at the time of birth -- or after, as in Virginia  -- it will be codified into our laws that we don't value the life of infants. Infants being persons, that means we don't value the life of persons. People.

A woman's right to choose does not outweigh a baby's right to life. "Reproductive freedom" for a woman does not outweigh a baby's right to life. Abortion is not a woman deciding what to do with her own body; it is a woman deciding to end the life of another person.

One fellow over there posted, "If you don’t approve of abortion, don’t have one." Utterly disingenuous. How about, if you don't approve of guns, don't buy one. If you don't approve of bank robbery, don't rob a bank. If you don't approve of global warming, don't pollute.

They do not understand that the killing off of future generations has an impact on our whole culture and civilization, which means it is far from being "between a woman and her doctor".

Why do women have abortions in this day and age when birth control is so cheap and easy? "But birth control isn't always reliable," they say. Well it's reliable enough to prevent hundreds of thousands of abortions every year. But not, of course, if it isn't used.

The reason the feminist movement is so adamant in support of abortion is because it lets them be like men. At its core, feminism is hatred of men, but on the surface, for many individuals, it is hatred of men, as well. At least, on some level. And it is jealousy and envy ... it is about getting even with men. For thousands of years, men could screw around and there would be no consequences for them, no responsibilities. If women did that, and they were "punished" with pregnancy and children.

Now, several generations of women have been able to screw around with no consequences, due to birth control, but that still isn't enough. When the pill malfunctions, when they forget to take it, or when they just don't want to go to the trouble, abortion is their ace in the hole. It has the added bonus of mutilating and removing from her body a problem that exists because of something a man deposited there.

One guy at the OF posts, "Bravo New York. Yes, the christian righties have put their spin on it to make it look like a woman can decide up to prior to giving birth to have an abortion without any criteria, and lots of dummies are eating it up on social media."

Lots of hatred for Christians and conservatives over there, although they reserve their deadliest venom for President Trump. In any case, abortion without any criteria is basically what we're talking about because the "health of the mother" criteria is not legally defined. Moreover, a doctor is not always required to perform an abortion.

Another guy sez, "Well, imagine an anencephalic fetus and for whatever reason the woman didn’t find out until 30 wks. You want to force her to carry to term? But like those poor Covington Catholic boys sent to protest Roe V Wade, you won’t ever have to be burdened by the options."

So now we're what-iffing and dreaming up scenarios for hundreds of thousands of abortions, when anencephalic fetuses only occur in 1 in 5,000 pregnancies, most of which end in miscarriages or the babies are born dead. But let's focus on that so we don't have to acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of abortions are performed every year without medical reason.

As for the Covington Catholic boys, they weren't sent to protest Roe v. Wade. They went to support respect for life in the womb. Apparently leftist proaborts can't conceptualize respect for life in the womb.

They fantasize a lot over there -- about people they don't like. One old fellow writes,

"To be fair to the anti-reproductive rights crowd: The consequences of pregnancy must be allowed to happen without human intervention regardless of whether the fetus was the product of rape, the mother will die or be maimed by carrying the pregnancy to term, or whatever comes out will live a short and horrible life of illness, deformity, and/or killing poverty.

These are people of very stern moral character able to stand for truly horrific events.

That's the good ones. Many in the anti-reproductive rights crowd are simply about misogamy and patriarchal power."

First, the "anti-reproductive rights" crowd doesn't give a fig about a man's reproductive rights. It doesn't matter to them if his child is the one getting shredded by the woman incubating it. Second, a number of women who became pregnant by rape carried the babies to term and either gave them up for adoption, or so bonded with them during the pregnancy they kept them to love and raise, so pregnancy by rape isn't an automatic reason to deprive a baby of its life. If the mother's life is truly in danger, aborting the pregnancy might be justified, but again, there is anecdotal evidence by women who lived it that a dangerous pregnancy can be gotten through successfully.

Who defines "short, horrible life"? Many such children have gone on to live happy and successful lives? Shred a baby because of a deformity? Or because of "killing poverty"? What is killing poverty? There is no such thing! Government and private programs abound for helping those in poverty. How insulting that this man, who probably lives a life of plenty and ease, would have a child killed because of poverty!

Dr. Ben Carson, a brilliant man and former neurosurgeon, grew up in a life of poverty. How fortunate for those whose lives he saved that he was not aborted.

But the most telling of all -- and this is probably very widespread in the pro-abortion crowd -- is this guy's fantasy about pro-life people being about misogamy and patriarchal power.  Man, the feminist movement has brainwashed so many people in this country -- men, even, who should be able to think more clearly rather than wallow in emotion.

In any case, because of the Virginia bill (defeated, thank God -- but for how long?) our country has crossed the threshhold into territory where officials with the power of government are introducing infanticide to our land.

People like the fellows at the Other Forum probably freak out at the comparison Christians make between abortion and the sacrifice of children to Moloch in ancient Israel. But they are more alike that different -- the chief similarity being dead offspring that need not have died.

And that slippery slope? Some folks suspect that the next step will be euthanasia for the frail and sick elderly ... or even healthy seniors -- like so many members of the Other Forum. Will they become willing lambs for the slaughter, just to be consistent with their abortion stance? Or will they suddenly become aware of the sanctity of life?