Needless to say, in response to my post on Sarah Palin, Thank you for nothing, Ms. Palin, I have been receiving the usual, typical talking points from pro-lifers about "cold-blooded murder." As if anyone over 12 years old hasn't heard their shtick endlessly. It's amazing how each person takes the stance that he/she is actually informing you of something you don't know and have never heard before. It's more than boring by now.
Don't we accept "cold-blooded murder" on other fronts? Don't these wonderful people, who are writing to me and identify themselves as "Christian," accept the murder of human beings for all sorts of reasons? (If they have their way, in fact, we will be seeing the death penalty applied to many more crimes than murder.)
These supposed lovers of life are among the most blood-thirsty, when it comes to following, like lemmings, the orders from above, to send their sons to die. It perturbs them not to send young men, in the bloom of their youth, to be blown apart in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan, and, perhaps, Russia -- for absolutely nothing! They willingly send their sons to their deaths, or to be mutilated beyond recognition, because they're sold government propaganda. Contrary to their insistence, there is nothing "life-affirming" about these people.
(See the views of two traditionalist, pro-life ministers in The Religious Right: "Heralds of truth" as political lackeys -- here.)
"If we fight them over there, we won't have to fight them over here," goes the refrain. How could anyone buy such preposterous reasoning? "There has not been an attack since 9/11." Who says another attack was ever planned, after all the years of planning that went into the 9/11 catastrophe?
Thugs pulled off an operation that took down buildings in New York. They should have been hunted down as thugs, the way the government hunted down Dillinger. There was no need to intrude our military into a sovereign nation, unless, of course, there were other reasons for doing so that have nothing to do with U.S. security. And we know there were other reasons. They have been delineated ad nauseam, by now, and began with Pat Buchanan's brilliant, and now classic Whose War?
If our security and intelligence had simply been doing their jobs, and had just paid attention to warnings given them by ordinary citizens, like the head of that flying instruction school, who informed the FBI of suspicious characters taking his courses, 9/11 would have been avoided. See Jim Bovard on this.
Back to our caring pro-lifers, who supposedly love "life" so much, and talk about the "innocent" fetus. Well, these young soldiers are innocent, too, as far as I'm concerned. Is the "innocent" tag applied, because I'm supposed to think of a 19-year-old boy, who never got to live out his life, as having been a "sinner?" Is that the idea? Is that why he's not considered "innocent" enough? Am I expected to buy their theological stuff?
Also, one of their favorite talking points is the fact that many doctors will not perform the procedure. Well, yes, because they do not want to be shot through their kitchen windows, or have a family member accidentally shot in their place. That's enough to put restrictions on any activity, as these pro-lifers well know.
So, pro-lifers, unless you have something unique and genuinely different to say, don't bother me with your staid, memorized talking points. When you cease sending your sons to die, I'll believe that you are truly pro-life.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I am firmly pro-life AND support the death penalty for those proven guilty of capital crimes.
Unfortunately, most of my compatriots slaver over Bush and his wholly elective war. Most pro-lifers do not like to be asked how many young men and innocent civilians have been killed, not to mentioned those countless others permanently rattled in the brainpan.
Damn war!
Mark Slater
Shudder! I just cannot see it. First, Palin is not in the feminist game. She's a strong person who sees a role for herself in politics. We've need such a woman in this country for a long, long time.
As for Bush's war, history will right it differently than the elistist media whom so many in our country slaver over. Boy, I sure don't see many people slavering over Bush ... just about the whole populous is too busy slandering him. My admiration for Bush is that he has not bent. Now that takes real character and just makes the Bush haters all the more angry.
"Palin is not in the feminist game"
If not, then why does she use one of the major clichés of the feminist movement -- concocted only from feminist minds -- about breaking ceilings in the name of women's "progress?" Is it progress when a woman, who does not have to work, leaves minor children at home? Palin is the type of "conservative" woman, who does not want to seem out of step with the times, hence the desire to appropriate the feminist label. There are even two "conservative" organizations of women that take the label. She adds to the proof that liberals have won the culture war.
Like everyone else, conservatives have internalized the leftwing habit of dropping the "racist" expletive on others. We now see in this Palin affair that these "conservatives" are proudly using the leftwing's "sexist" accusation. Will we soon be seeing them attacking others for "homophobia?" What's left? Where did these terms come from? Who invented them?
"We've need such a woman in this country for a long, long time."
And why is that? Because even people who call themselves "conservative" are caught in the race-gender game, and cannot break free. There's no earthly reason why we "need" a woman in this or that position or "need" a colored person in this or that position -- any more than we need a fat or skinny person in a particular position. You're simply demonstrating the degree to which you've been brainwashed.
Anonymous, I was referring specifically to that which is called the "Christian Right", whose peculiar reverence for Bush seems unshakable. As for the "elitist media", I have no partisanship with them whatsoever, so who cares!
As for history vindicating Bush and his war [a nouveau-conservative talking point, since nearly everyone in the present understands what a shambles it is], there may be a kernel of truth in that. History has already forgiven Lincoln and Wilson. FDR's surrendering of Eastern Europe to Stalin was quickly forgotten, so you may be right.
Mark Slater
It's a pity that most pro-lifers tend to be so long-winded, and few of them can write a simple, brief response to posts. So, here are my brief responses to sections of a comment from another "Anonymous," whose treatise would probably be the equivalent of five or six full pages.
To my overall points referencing pro-lifers disregard for life in general:
"That's your prerogative I suppose, but just saying it doesn't make it so. You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion, no different than the opinion of those pro-lifers that see things differently than you do."
This always surprises me. Who else's opinion could it be but mine? Where is the implication that it's anyone else's opinion?
---------------
"I'm irritated as well that you keep using the same tired arguments: Pro-lifers aren't really pro-life because they don't oppose the death penalty or war or birth-control or any of the myriad tired arguments. ... If you oppose the death penalty why don't you oppose abortion?"
Another thing about these folks, they tend to read ideas into the words actually printed. In no way did I imply that I oppose the death penalty. I can think of several cases of murder pending right now for which I think the death penalty is an adequate punishment. My point was that pro-lifers, and other "Christian" types, are so blood-thirsty that murder is not enough. If they have their way, they will extend the death penalty even to non-capital crimes. And, I might add, Lord knows, if this bunch got full power over the country, they would extend the death penalty to sellers of contraceptives and to women who have abortions (after they've taken care of the doctors).
----------------------------------
And, of course, "Anonymous" has to list the myriad reasons offered by non-believers for aborting the fetus, which, of course, according to pro-lifers, are not good enough reasons at all: Among them is: "G) she was raped (as if having the baby aborted will make less raped than) ..."
Yes, here is the heart of their lunacy. A 13-year-old child is gang raped by four monsters, who play with her for hours and hours, and she is impregnated. As if that is not enough for her mind and soul to contend with for the rest of her life, her dear "pro-life" parents insist that she carries the beast's seed to full term. So, now for nine months, this child, instead of working to get over the horror of the experience at the hands of these subhumans and possibly heal to some degree, must extend her suffering into the future. Any protests from her are sternly dealt with by insisting on her obligation to worry over the "innocent" fetus, which is about to put an end to her innocent life. What kind of psychosis could lead anyone to promote such notions? Such parents should be punished along with the four raping beasts.
-----------------
"You think that's no different than a young adult person signing up for the armed services and then actually being called to do the job they signed up for and possibly being killed in the process? Call me stupid, but I think there is a big difference."
That "young adult person" you speak of is very often an 18-year-old, who has had the misfortune to be born either to military-crazed parents, who have indoctrinated him with the notion that fighting for a pack of scheming neo-cons, who have usurped the American government in the cause of another government, is the same as fighting for one's country. Or he is born to a "Single Mom," who has no ability to control his aggressive maleness, and is glad to get him out of her life before he becomes a criminal liability. Or he is seduced with recruiting lies coming from high-pressure, deceiving military recruiters. Whatever causes him to sign up, there is no reason for this country to be involved in military hostilities with any other country on earth. No country is eager to take on the USA, but there are, as I've said before, thugs, who are mad as hell about our policies that impact their lives. Our young men should not be used as tools in an overreaction to criminal acts by foreigners, when so many other alternatives are available. And, yes, to me, this young soldier is an "innocent."
----------------
But then, Mr. Anonymous surprises me with this: "But that being said, I don't want anybody going to war. I have four sons and when one of them mentioned going into the military, I about fainted and strongly encouraged him to consider something else, anything else. So far, so good. My conservative friends may or may not agree with me, but that's my son I'm talking about. I'm not God."
Well now, this is wonderful, and truly encouraging. In a way. Since he's actually saying that if other men's sons want to go off and die, that's their business. But, hey, that's progress of some sort. He cares about his own son's lives. Dissent like this from the orthodoxy is why I also suspect that such people as these pro-lifers, would allow that hypothetical 13-year-old daughter to be cleaned out, after a devastating gang rape. They might force her to carry full term, if the pregnancy occurred during a consensual date with the boy next door, but they're not all total psychotics.
------------
"However, I think it is disingenuous for those that are on the liberal side of the spectrum to be all upset about the choices she [Palin] and her family have made."
I don't know how someone like myself, who would eagerly vote in Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin as President and VP, can be called "liberal," but this is evidence of another pattern of rightwingers -- slamming dissenters with the "liberal" label, as they used to do (and some still do) with the "Communist" label. What would they do without those labels? And, by the way, it is true conservatives who are disappointed by the choices made by Sarah Palin. Why would liberals care? She's actually living out their schemes.
Elizabeth wrote:
"Yes, here is the heart of their lunacy. A 13-year-old child is gang raped by four monsters, who play with her for hours and hours, and she is impregnated. As if that is not enough for her mind and soul to contend with for the rest of her life, her dear "pro-life" parents insist that she carries the beast's seed to full term. So, now for nine months, this child, instead of working to get over the horror of the experience at the hands of these subhumans and possibly heal to some degree, must extend her suffering into the future. Any protests from her are sternly dealt with by insisting on her obligation to worry over the "innocent" fetus, which is about to put an end to her innocent life. What kind of psychosis could lead anyone to promote such notions? Such parents should be punished along with the four raping beasts."
Elizabeth, abortion is an invasive surgical procedure much like any other, leading to complications up to and including permanent sterilization and death. Assuming the parents do the "compassionate" thing and have the fetal product of rape aborted, how would it be justified if there are complications that lead to her death or inability to choose to be a mother in the future?
I hear this "rape-incest" conundrum all the time from the pro-aborters. My answer to that is IF rape-incest is that prevalent, wouldn't the responsible, compassionate thing for parents to do is get their daughters on birth control ASAP?! Shouldn't public service announcements be broadcast, informing parents of rape statistics and urging them to put their daughters on the pill, etc.?
Then, if your gang rape scenario plays out, the girl is rushed to the hospital, treated, given "Plan B" as a backup and she doesn't have to deal with the trauma of abortion on top of the rape trauma.
A lot of wags say that with a big military, every problem has a military solution. Well, it seems that with unrestricted abortion on demand, every problem can only be solved by abortion.
Abortion wouldn't be necessary with a strong contraceptive regimen in place.
Anonymous wrote:
Assuming the parents do the "compassionate" thing and have the fetal product of rape aborted, how would it be justified if there are complications that lead to her death or inability to choose to be a mother in the future?
=======
Baloney. The odds of such "complications" are so slight as to be non-existent. This is just part of the scare-mongering that is supposed to convince us that even the youngest child should be forced to bear a full-term fetus. There are girls who become menstrual by eight years old. According to the scare-mongers, we are to believe that it will be better for her health, mind you, to allow her to carry a nine-month load.
Complications are more likely to occur from childbirth in such youngsters, rather than from an early removal of a fetus. We're a long way from those wire clothes hangers in back rooms, although most pro-lifers would prefer to deny it.
Post a Comment