*sigh*
It's so hard to take feminists seriously about "women's issues" when they blatantly lie about the beliefs of their counterparts in the pro-life movement.
I had wondered how pro-abortion supporters would react to Hairplug Joe saying that "as a matter of faith," life begins at conception. I was looking forward to the double reverse with a twist feminists would have to contort themselves into to continue to support the Obama-Biden ticket, even as Biden attempts to appear more palatable to Catholic voters. So, it was slightly amusing when the haven't-seen-a-baby-cute-enough-yet-not-to-abort-if-Mommy-doesn't-want-him Jill posted this.
The fact that a collection of cells starts to develop when that sperm hits the egg doesn’t make that collection of cells a person, or the moral equivalent of a born human being. I think most people would agree — an acorn is not a tree, a seed is not a plant, and a zygote is not a person, even if a seed is a necessary precursor to a plant and a zygote is a necessary precursor to a person. The fact that about half of fertilized eggs don’t implant — ending the potential development of those early “lives” — coupled with the fact that there is no “pro-life” concern for all those billions of fertilized egg-deaths belies the idea that pro-lifers really believe a zygote is the moral equivalent of a born human being. The anti-choice view has always been more about controlling women and controlling sex than saving lives.
You can always tell when the pro-abortion folks can't argue because that's when they bring out the, "Oh, yeah? What about all those non-implanted fertilized eggs, huh? Huh?" talking points.
So I'll say this again really slowly for those in the back of the class.
Pro-lifers understand that fertilized eggs don't implant for different and natural reasons. They don't get all hysterical about your biology deciding it cannot implant such eggs because no one makes a conscious decision to kill anybody. There's just a big difference between having your period every month and trotting down to Planned Parenthood for your bi-annual abortion. One involves a biological and unpreventable certainty and the other involves an intention to kill.
Not that any of this will dissuade the nutty feminists from talking about periods and how pro-lifers aren't really about babies because they aren't proposing legislation to outlaw menstruation. They think this is a winning argument.
No, they think the real agenda is controlling women and sex because telling them that you should control your own sex circumstances when you don't want children is anti-woman. I mean, it must be anti-woman to point out that only women get pregnant, just like it would be anti-homeowner to point out that inviting a burglar into your home and showing him where the family jewels are might result in a burglary. Because the point wouldn't be to show how one can prevent being a victim. It would have to be that you hate homeowners.
Jill goes on to explain that the "logical and reasonable" Democrat platform regarding babies--that they should be allowed to live only if it is convenient--shouldn't even need an explanation because all reasonable people agree with it...except that all reasonable people don't agree with it. That's why about 70% of Americans say they want more restrictions on abortion, an inconvenient fact for Jill.
If she wants to know why The One and Lyin' Joe are trying to weasel their way around when life begins, she needs to recognize that more people are in favor of sacrifice for family than killing the inconvenient.
|