Cheesy ethics

First the Dutch introduced euthanasia for the elderly. Next up, defective infants. Now, unwanted babies. We know the next step but I find it curious that here in America we’re working toward the same goal but from the other end of the spectrum: birth control to first-trimester abortion to partial – birth abortion to …

The best term of the day, coined by these people and coming our way soon is “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” Those who dismiss the Catholic church and Rick Santorum (that would include me) might want to reflect that perhaps they aren’t wrong, they may just see more clearly than us what the abortionists’ goal really is.


Filed under Uncategorized

33 responses to “Cheesy ethics

  1. FlyAngler

    In a word, eugenics.

    Need proof? Read just some basics on Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who believed that society should prevent “undesirables” from breeding. Progressive social theory run amok.

  2. Greenwich Gal

    Hey AJ – don’t you want to chime in about how abortion, even late term, is one of the many rights that should be guaranteed by our “free society?” How we can’t legistate morality blah blah blah…

  3. Anonymous

    I am all for post birth abortions.

    Have you seen some of the morons that walk erect ?

    Perhaps get out of riverside a bit more .

    • You know what, Anon? You sound like every Democrat I know. You pretend to be a friend of “the people”, whoever they are, but you despise them (“Fly Over Country”, “What’s the matter with Kansas?”, “bitter people, clinging to their guns and religion” – that last would be the impostor currently serving as our president).

  4. Sebastian

    Catholics? Santorum?…Still a libertarian?

  5. Sebastian

    Oh well…actually nobody forces anybody to do an abortion. The thing is that the catholic church and Rick Santorum condemn and judge the people who do it (right or wrong; it’s up to you) and that is just plain awful.

  6. AJ

    GG, there’s no morality issue to debate: taking a life is wrong — there is a victim in this case. The only real debate is when does a fetus become a sentient being and not just a couple of cells. The answer? You’ve got me. Back when abortion was illegal, people of means disappeared to Europe; others went to some butcher in some blood soaked tenement. Just as with drugs, people got what they wanted, illegal or not. Having a baby out of wedlock doesn’t carry the shame it once did, and there are plenty of people who want to adopt. I think having an abortion is something that would weigh heavily on somone’s soul, and that if you’re thinking of getting one, you should think again, and not chance something that may eat at you for the rest of your life. Perhaps if everybody shooting their mouth off about abortion would offer financial, medical, and moral support, there’d probably be a lot less of it.

  7. Anonymous

    Sebastian, you’re wrong about the Church. Nobody is excommunicated (and hasn’t been for years) for using birth control or even having had an abortion.

    A former co-worker had confessed to having one and her priest (in the 70’s) threatened her with excommunication, she fell away from her church for years. Sometime in the mid ’80’s she spoke to another priest who told her that it was a matter between her and God and that she was welcome in God’s church and welcome to take communion again. It meant a very great deal to her and I thought it was quite enlightened at the time.

    As I recall, she’d gone on to have five children and was pregnant with her sixth when this all came to a head. She was pregnant with her last child at the age of 40 and the amniocentesis results came back indicating that the child might have spina bifada and her doctors were suggesting an abortion as an alternative but she was completely distraught over the thought of going through all of that trauma again. Her reconciliation with her church brought her a lot of comfort and her child was born free of defect (other than her ginger hair…kidding!).

    Clergy and the Church heirarchy (sp?) have been guilty of terrible things but they’ve also done many many goods things that have improved lives. Like providing the first hospitals and nursing sisters in unserved communities, like providing free education to poor children, I know this for a fact as the Church was responsible for bringing three separate branches of my family out of poverty from the early 1900’s through the late 1950’s.

  8. AJ

    Oh, I forgot. With all the birth control that’s available, you have to be pretty stupid to get pregnant, just as you have to be pretty stupid to borrow $5 million dollars on a $3 million dollar house. There are consequences to stupidity, so stop seeking instant gratification and try to exercise a little self control.

  9. Greenwich Gal

    AJ – We agree! I just find it somewhat odd however, given your recent discussions on the drug debate. I just also happen to think that legal heroin is equally problematic. And immoral.

  10. Sebastian

    Anon: I do respect beliefs and personal experience so much and such thing can not be discussed at any level. My point is that I am not right about a sensible subject as this one nor certainly wrong.

  11. AJ

    You’re right fly angler all you’ve got to do is Google Margaret Sanger Nazis, and a whole lot of stuff comes up. Here she is hanging out with the KKK:

  12. AJ

    Big difference GG, in the case of drugs you victimize yourself until the government comes along and throws you in the slammer for twenty years to save you from yourself afterwhich you can thank them for not allowing you to ruin your life.

  13. Anonymous

    @Sebastian. Sorry for getting preachy, let’s drop it with no hard feelings on either side. Cheers!

  14. Tom

    AJ – You use a photoshopped image on a Sanger satire site to negate my point on Sanger and eugenics? How about you refute Sanger’s own words?

    “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” 
    Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race 
    (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

    On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
    “…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
    On sterilization & racial purification:
    Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

    On the right of married couples to bear children:
    Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

    On the purpose of birth control:
    The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

    On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
    “More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

    On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
    “This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems… Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable – these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation.” Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano’s, New York, 1927) 

    On the extermination of blacks:
    “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

    On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
    In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

  15. Tom

    Sadly, while I find Sanger’s views repugnant, I thinks she may of been on to something now that its been announced that Snookie is pregnant….

  16. Greenwich Gal

    The problem with your previous statement, AJ, is with drugs you can really ruin someone ELSE’s life. And that is the basis of my issue with illicit drugs.

  17. Anonymous

    Nice to see acknowledgement that the pro life position isn’t maybe so kooky after all. Not sure why Catholics in particular are the ones who bear the brunt of pro abortion vitriol since ours is not the only faith that considers it verboten, but whatever. Those who cling to and defend the “choice” euphemism should recognize, as you have in this instance, the danger of treating a woman’s “choice” about her independence and level of interest or ability to mother as sacrosanct. I mean, really, are women so incapable or feeble that babies have to die so that we can feel like we’re getting the fabulous life we feel we deserve? It’s sometimes just embarassing to be a woman and frustrating when we are all expected, as females, to be on the pro-abort wagon. Thanks.

  18. AJ

    Yes they can ruin others lives, GG as can so many other things, but I’m
    talking about having you’re life ruined by the government. The drug war
    has been going on, I believe, forty-seven or forty-eight years now; that’s a
    long time for a war to go on without gaining any ground. And I’ll guess
    that the war has destroyed more lives than any of the actual illicit
    substances has. I know, as far as pot goes, it certainly has because I
    can’t think of a single case of pot having ruined anyone’s life any more
    than drinking one or two cans of beer has. But the war against drugs, as
    far as pot goes and every other drug, has ruined millions of lives, even to
    the small extent that having been convicted of simple marijuana
    possession can prevent someone from getting a college loan or a decent
    job, not to mention in many cases being thrown in prison for many years.
    What does that achieve? The hundreds of billions, perhaps even trillions
    of dollars that has been spent without achieving anything could have
    been put to much better use. The cost of incarcerating someone for a
    year could pay someone’s college tuition for a year, or everyone could go
    to Brunswick, free of charge. I’ve listened to your side of the argument for
    at least a half century now; perhaps you should take the time to look into
    the other side. In my initial post I listed a number of things you could
    Google to get some new facts, and see things from some different points
    of view. My guess is that you didn’t pursue a single lead. It’s time to end
    the destruction of this half century long lose, lose –not win, win — war.

  19. Anonymous

    Some of the very same boomers who called soldiers returning from Viet Nam “babykillers,” have grown up and turned baby killing into a massive endeavor with powerful tentacles reaching into academia, media, and government. Murder Inc. had nothing on the these folks.

  20. AJ

    Tom your following, “AJ – You use a photoshopped image on a Sanger satire site to negate my point on Sanger and eugenics? How about you refute Sanger’s own words?” is completely wrong, and I am in complete agreement with you. My point, and suggestion that you Google “Sanger, Nazis”, and my link to her hanging out with the KKK is to point out that she was Nazi, KKK, New World Order scum, and that her whole raison d’être was to eliminate what she considered inferior races from the face of the earth. Good post: more people need to know.

  21. FF

    Ayn Rand on Abortion
    The following quotations from Rand can be found here, together with references.

    An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
    A quote from Ayn Rand…….

    Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

  22. @Greenwich Gal 7:44: … where as having a baby cannot ruin someone else’s life?

  23. FF @ 10:20, I couldn’t have said it better myself. Thanks.

  24. AJ

    FF, at somepoint a fetus becomes a sentient being, perhaps as early as a couple of months, perhaps even sooner. Premature c-sections prove this. In many, if not most states, someone who murders a pregnant women is charged with a double homicide. A person who is on life support is still considered to have all their rights even though the only thing keeping them alive is being hooked up to a tube, as in essence, a fetus is. Whatever someone chooses to do, if you get pregnant or if you get someone pregnant, there are consequences. Sometimes, if you want to play, you’ve got to pay; and if you can’t live with that, you should keep your pants on.

  25. Greenwich Gal

    Delving Eye – Of course having a baby can ruin someone else’s life. But AJ’s argument was (on a previous post) that what someone does to their own body is no one else’s business whereas he is anti-abortion and I was trying at least to demonstrate that drugs….oh whatever – it is too complicated at this point to go into it. I’m tired.

  26. AJ

    GG, you can’t get tired in a world where he (she) who talks the loudest and the longest, and good ideas and logic gots nothin’ to do with it, wins. Get back up on your feet, I know your good for at least another fifty miles.

  27. Peg

    A crappy husband, a nasty boss, a pain-in-the-butt sibling, etc., etc. can help to “ruin someone’s life.”

    Still – because they are hell on wheels doesn’t mean we get to kill ’em.

  28. Greenwich Gal

    You crack me up, AJ. I’ll be back in form after a nice dinner and a couple of glasses of a velvety French Burgundy.

  29. Anonymous

    Wondering if delving eye really distinguishes between an unborn baby five minutes before birth and a baby five minutes after. Scary. Really scary.

  30. Anonymous 6:07: Not as scary as an ignoramus who leaps to that conclusion.