Today’s irony brought to you by Rolling Stone
Last month, Rolling Stone published a fascinating article on the infamous serial killer/cult leader Charles Manson. The author got to know Manson fairly well in the course of doing research for the piece, even visiting him at Corcoran State Prison. Unsurprisingly, Manson is still as disturbed as ever:
“Look, here’s how that works,” he says. “You take a baby and” – here he says something truly awful about what you could do to that baby, worse beyond anything you could imagine – “and it dies,” and here he says something equally wretched. Then he goes on, “I know what you’re thinking. I can see your brain rattling and running back and forth. But what happens when that baby dies?” He breathes in and he breathes out, he breathes in and he breathes out. “A dog would have done it, kill to take another breath. So, was it wrong to do it to those people?” And it’s at moments like these that you realize prison is the only place for him, and hope to hell he never puts his hand on your skin again.
I have to wonder what abhorrent act Manson proposed that was too gruesome to even write down. Twisting off the baby’s limbs? “Snipping” the baby’s spinal cord with a pair of scissors? Shredding the baby’s body to pieces with a vacuum? Starving the baby of oxygen? Chemically burning the baby alive?
Must have been worse than all that, because Rolling Stone is a
“pro-choice” magazine.
Charles Manson describes killing a baby, but Rolling Stone can't stomach the description. I wonder if it was a description similar to what happens at Planned Parenthood?
"In the same way, what's done to a first-trimester fetus sounds horrible until you realize the fetus is unable to feel pain."
This isn't a particularly good argument, considering that some already born human beings cannot feel pain either due to genetic disorders, and yet many/most people would still be horrified at these human beings getting killed, especially in a gruesome manner/way.
And the point I was trying to make is that aborting a first-trimester fetus is not analogous to "baby-killing" except in the imaginations of extremists. The mere gruesomeness of a surgical procedure doesn't make it morally objectionable.
Of course it does not. What is being done and why it is being done determines whether a procedure is objectionable. As already pointed out, just because a first trimester fetus cannot feel pain, does not mean it is ok to end its life. If you think it is ok, then you need to argue why it is ok to occasionally kill individual humans at will, based on their age.
If you think it is ok, then you need to argue why it is ok to occasionally kill individual humans at will, based on their age.
I'll answer why: the fetus is not an individual human the same way you are or I am. It's still developing inside its mother's body. To my mind, this is a relevant distinction. Why isn't it relevant to you?
Every single time I discuss this subject with a pro-lifer, I find I have to remind them that the mother is more than the housing for the all-important fetus. Why is it that pro-lifers always, always, always ignore and dismiss the mother as if she's of no consequence to the matter whatsoever?
Wrong again as usual.
No one dismisses the mother.
But who else is going to stand up for the life of the defenseless child?
Even abortionists themselves have described the gruesomeness of a first trimester abortion
You cannot discriminate against us just because we are in a particular stage of development.
Why is that so hard for pro aborts to understand?
They rally on about equality and women not begin the property of men, and then turn around and treat the child in utero as thought he/she is her property.