The problem with that argument is that it only justifies your position. And indeed, it doesn’t even justify it so much as say, “well, I am not as bad as you.” I prefer to positively explain why private guns ownership is good, rather than why keeping one is not as bad as something else. And if the other person does not accept the premise that a fetus is a person, if they believe that an abortion does not end the life of a person, then the argument gets you nowhere. To a pro-choice type, saying, “I support the Second Amendment but oppose abortion,” is a bit like saying, “I support the Second Amendment but oppose stepping on ants.” I am not saying that this view is correct, but it is widely held and you have to deal with that.
Which is not to say that there is never any point in making that comparison. The other day someone told me that they thought the Second Amendment should be disregarded while Roe v. Wadeshould be upheld. So this person wished to hold sacrosanct a right that was not in the Constitution, while denigrating a right that was actually written in it. That kind of contradiction is easy to point out and pillory a person with and maybe if you make the person feel sufficiently ridiculous, they might re-examine their position.
And for that matter if a person is pro-abortion and admits that a fetus is alive, then feel free to pillory them on that point as well. Consider, for instance, Mary Elizabeth Williams; essay yesterday So What if Abortion Ends Life? In it she admits that human life begins at conception, but abortion is fine and dandy regardless. Let me share some of her wisdom:
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.
The only explanation for why the fetus can be deemed life unworthy of life is that it is 1) not autonomous and 2) inside her. Well, if autonomy gave one the right to life, then I guess if Christopher Reeves’ wife chose to murder him that would have been okay? And as for being inside her, what would she say if one Siamese twin wanted to kill the other. Very often conjoined twins share vital organs that reside in only one body, so one is literally using the other as life support and yet would we say to them it is okay for the “independent” twin to kill his or her sibling?
I also particularly love this part:
My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to. And if you believe that it begins at birth, or somewhere around the second trimester, or when the kid finally goes to college, that’s a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless.
So... its okay to think that a child’s life doesn’t begin until they go to college? Does that mean a parent should be able to kill a high schooler? No, probably not, but such a weak line suggests that she is not thinking as deeply on the subject as she pretends to be. And of course, she supports gun control because it will save lives.
So while it is not normally a strong argument to compare supposed abortion rights to gun rights (although Steven Den Beste makes an interesting comparison), because most on the pro-choice side do not accept the factual premises of those on the pro-life siade, in individual cases it might be a great point.
And then there is the special case of Barack Obama. I say special because I can’t think of any other prominent individual whose pro-choice position is so radical that it so effectively cuts into his own position. First, for Obama, gun control is all about the children (see right):That’s an image from his press conference when he announced his executive orders and legislative proposals for gun control, and he made sure to surround himself with kids who wrote letters to him pleading for gun control. Also for free candy. Really mostly, for free candy. And yes, that is a joke, but a joke with a point. There is a reason why kids don’t vote: because they lack the maturity to deal with life as it is. For instance, I had twopoststhe other day talking about the relevance of rape, a crime that these kids probably don’t even know is a thing.
And of course Obama declared in a weekly address that “If even one life can be saved, we have an obligation to try”:
But of course I demolished that childish and simplistic thinking the other day. But it’s about the children!
So if we can save one life, eh, Obama? Well, that is not what you thought when the issue came to infanticide. From Andrew McCarthy’s searing work on the subject:
There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”
No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.
They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.
No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”
Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.
But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.
The record, however, doesn’t lie.
From later in the article:
My friend Hadley Arkes ingeniously argued that legislatures, including Congress, should take up “Born Alive” legislation: laws making explicit what decency already made undeniable: that from the moment of birth — from the moment one is expelled or extracted alive from the birth canal — a human being is entitled to all the protections the law accords to living persons.
Such laws were enacted by overwhelming margins. In the United States Congress, even such pro-abortion activists as Sen. Barbara Boxer went along.
But not Barack Obama. In the Illinois senate, he opposed Born-Alive tooth and nail.
In other words, these proposed laws would require doctors to try to save such a fetus’ life and naturally forbid all people from killing it. And indeed, this is not a matter of the choice of the mother. If the fetus is actually outside her body, and it can live, what consequence is it of hers? If she doesn’t want to raise it, I am sure many childless couples would be happy to adopt her baby. But that is what we are talking about: a baby, by the definition of all but the most radical. And here is Obama’s rationalization for allowing for a fully born infant to die:
OBAMA: Yeah. Just along the same lines. Obviously, this is an issue that we’ve debated extensively both in committee an on the floor so I — you know, I don’t want to belabor it. But I did want to point out, as I understood it, during the course of the discussion in committee, one of the things that we were concerned about, or at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation. So, can you just describe for me, under this legislation, what’s going to be required for a doctor to meet the requirements you’ve set forth?
SENATOR O’MALLEY: First of all, there is established, under this legislation, that a child born under such circumstances would receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, and that’s as defined, of course, by the … practice of medicine in the community where this would occur. It also requires, in two instances, that … an attending physician be brought in to assist and advise with respect to the issue of viability and, in particular, where … there’s a suspicion on behalf of the physician that the child … may be [viable,] … the attending physician would make that determination as to whether that would be the case…. The other one is where the child is actually born alive … in which case, then, the physician would call as soon as practically possible for a second physician to come in and determine the viability.
SENATOR OBAMA: So — and again, I’m — I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?
SENATOR O’MALLEY: In the first instance, obviously the physician that is performing the procedure would make the determination. The second situation is where the child actually is born and is alive, and then there’s an assessment — an independent assessment of viability by … another physician at the soonest practical … time.
SENATOR OBAMA: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, is being — that — that — labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, it — if you think there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that’s the case — and — and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.
Read the whole thing, because there is even more of value there, but there you go: he didn’t want doctors to face liability. So much for the idea that “if even one life can be saved, we have an obligation to try,” eh, Obama? Apparently a doctor is exempt from that obligation.
I don’t know or particularly care if Obama thinks life begins at birth. He famously said that the question was above his pay grade with modesty that rings increasingly false. I don’t expect to convince a radical like Obama on gun control or abortion. But I can point this out to his followers, that Obama doesn’t really believe in doing anything necessary to save a life. And maybe, just maybe, someday a reporter will ask Obama about the contradiction between his claim that we have an “obligation” to ban guns if will save a life, but on the other hand, a doctor doesn’t have an obligation to save a fully born baby who didn’t die on schedule.
---------------------------------------
* I will note that I have always believed that abortion is justified when the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy, on the logic that it is hardly distinguishable from the right of self-defense. The only difference between a fetus whose gestation places a mother’s life at risk and a criminal threatening your life is that the criminal is doing so intentionally. I think this is a difference without distinction, however. So while I would honor any woman who would risk her life to bring another life into this world, I do not believe the law should require her to do so.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years. I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence. If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right. And thank you.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates. And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here. And you can read a little more about my novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed communication. I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on his property. Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him. Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision. Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report. And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request. That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.
0 comments:
Post a Comment