Pro-Life Outnumber Pro-Choice

As human development science progresses, the nation is learning more about what a fetus is capable of throughout the gestation process.  As a result, political opinions on the Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice debate are reflecting new, fundamental understandings about growing fetuses and what value they may have.  We are forced to confront decisions about the human soul which were more easily swept under the rug 30 years ago. Perhaps, we are finally realizing that fetuses are more than "parasites" growing in-utero? (Even if we collectively don't believe in the soul, surely they aren't just parasites are they!) 

Feminists in the United States turned pregnancy into a women's rights issue in the1920's (clearly it is linked to those rights but is it an exclusively female issue?).  However, after years of outrageous claims by hardline feminists (e.g. growing infants are no different than cancerous tumors) their has been a backlash of public opinion.  Scientific knowledge has advanced a long way since 1920 and these incredible claims no longer carry weight with an educated public.  Yet, still, some of these arguments persist.  (Lets not forget the group of individuals recently advocating for post-birth abortion, i.e. infanticide, because, in their view, there is no difference between a fetus and a newly born child.) TCD anticipates that over time, these positions will be very faux pas in the Pro-Choice movement because they are not received well by the public at large, though, it seems, many Pro-Choicers still firmly believe that fetuses aren't "human."

{More After The Jump}

Irony Versus Hypocrisy

Oh you silly politicians.

POTUS's stance on gay marriage (which is officially, "I don't know") is either irony or hypocrisy.  I'll let you, dear reader, decide which. Recently, Vice President Biden, a self-declared devote Catholic, stated he is greatly in favor of gay marriage.  POTUS, on the other hand, is not really against it or for it but is for it in a way but has said some stuff indicating he is against it kind of in a way while still supporting it but not directly ever in any way, kind of, somewhat, a little.  Confused?  Indeed.  Why can't politicians just say what they truly believe?  Something fundamental like this should elicit a clear position one way or the other.  Why wouldn't you just come right out and support gay marriage if you support gay marriage?  The reason is politics, plain and simple.  POTUS has a long tradition of splitting the fence and taking no position.  You can get away with that during a lot of local elections but at the federal level, especially for the presidency, at some point, someone is going to catch on. A friend of TCD's once wrote an article on POTUS' squishy, no-position on every-position approach to politics and that refrain seems to be catching steam in the media these days.  Take this article for example.

Another political irony comes from Elizabeth Warren who has claimed for years that she is native American (and seems to have benefited substantially from that partial identity).  However, it turns out she probably isn't Cherokee and, in fact, had family members who were responsible for rounding up natives and sending them down the Trail of Tears.

 {More After The Jump}

Progressive Theory Of The Day: After-Birth Abortion

Today, smarty-smart academic types are advancing progressive ideas throughout the world. Progress is generally good. I like progress. So progressivism is good right? Well, yes, until you read something like this and begin to think about what progress means in the real world.

Apparently, some scholars -- an actual professor and his prior associates at one of the world's more prestigious universities -- are saying that killing a newly born infant is not immoral. To them, killing a fetus in utero is no different than killing a newly born infant because neither has cognizable value or self-worth... or something to that extent. The idea is so far "advanced" and "progressed" that I have trouble making sense of it. It seems that this progress is light years ahead of anything moderates could possibly comprehend. Being the complete idiot that I am, I'm not sure how this is different from what the Barbarians did hundreds of years ago when a child was born "defective" but perhaps after four (4) more years of college education I will understand the subtle nuances.

Conservative types often argue that killing an infant is no different than killing a fetus. The point being, for conservative-types, that both acts are probably immoral because who would kill a newborn baby? You'd have to be some kind of sociopath to do something like that, right? However, our societal progressors say "Nay!" and actually adopt the same opinion but conclude otherwise. In their paper they argue that neither the new born infant nor the in-utero fetus have moral existence, self-worth or value. Interesting.

[The "scholars"] did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practiced.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Despite the obvious knee-jerk reaction to their conclusions, you have to at least compliment them for being academically honest by admitting that there is no significant difference between a moments-old-fetus and one that is in-utero. So "after-birth abortion" should became a new politically trendy word. Maybe "antenatal infanticide" will join the discussion in rebuttal.

The State Of the Union

I wonder if people in 1776 ever made statements like this? Make people rely on others and that will be all they can do. Stand on your own feet people. Be accountable. Grow up. There is a saying, the man who does not feed himself by his own hand will not think for himself with his own mind. If others control your food (and the ability to live generally), they will control ever facet of you.

Also of interest is the arbitrary deadline for "human life" set by New York. There is a woman who self-aborted her own child. She is now being charged for some crime which is evidently offensive to NY'ers after 24 weeks but not at 23 weeks. Something really special must happen during that week. I guess that's when the stork shows up with the human soul (if you believe in that sort of thing of course... Storks.)

FUN Topics of the Day!

Abortion. It's a fun topic and no one seems to agree on it. What is interesting is that pro-choice advocates sometimes see abortion as bad. For example, a scholar recently had this to say about the millions of female babies that are being aborted (or killed after being born) in India, China and Eurasia. Remember, only female fetuses are the ones being aborted:

"'Ms. Hvistendahl is particularly worried that the "right wing" or the "Christian right"—as she labels those whose politics differ from her own—will use sex-selective abortion as part of a wider war on abortion itself. She believes that something must be done about the purposeful aborting of female babies or it could lead to feminists "worst nightmare" - a ban on all abortions.'"

Following this bit of logic through to it's conclusion... Abortion should be acceptable but abortion of females, specifically, is bad. Ultimately, it seems this well thought position leads to the conclusion: "Abortion is ok, if it is a male fetus." Thanks Ms. Hyisterndahl for clearing that up. I think I now understand. Abortion, generally, is good and abortion of females is bad but willful abortion of males is probably ok?

Another brilliant mind recently made the argument that abortion itself is a good response to a bad situation. Not that abortion itself is ever sad or tragic, rather it is a "moral good" and the procedure is as inconsequential as an appendectomy. Interesting analysis. I didn't realize the appendix could become a living sentient being. It's also interesting to contrast the positions of these pro-abortion scholars.

If abortion is generally good and the procedure itself is inconsequential because it is a good response to a bad situation.... how then are the females aborted in India and China a bad thing? A family in India and China wants to abort females so they can have more money and better economic status. That's actually an argument used by the people above in the "Yahoo Answers" article as a good reason for aborting children. Seems to me, abortion from the progressive mind is either always good, or only good when it involves the male fetus? Either way it seems kind of hard to reconcile the positions.