The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “Mississippi Proposition 26”

Of Michelle Goldberg: When “Mississippi Women Win” The Unborn Lose, As Does Humanity

Michelle Goldberg has a piece out in the Daily Beast touting victory for the women of Mississippi over the defeat on November 8 of the Personhood Amendment proposition.  “Mississippi Women Win” is the title of her piece, and it illustrates a very important point.  Michelle contends that the women in Mississippi, and probably women all across America, in her view, have won something – the right to continue legally killing their unborn children.  She is right about that.  However, and quite disturbingly, Michelle seems over satisfied with this.

She writes:

It was the latest bit of evidence that the American right has overestimated public support for its agenda.

Our “agenda” is one of life, and of recognizing the value of life, that human life in fact begins at conception, which is a scientific fact, and has been for some time now.  Our “agenda” is to provide legal protection for the unborn, from those women that have been intentionally misled and outright lied to by Planned Parenthood, NARAl, NOW, etc. that killing their unborn child is nothing more than having a mole removed.

She continues:

Until now, most attacks on reproductive rights have been aimed at the margins, eroding Roe v. Wade bit by bit. They’ve affected minors, or poor women, or women needing late-term abortions in situations that most people imagine they’ll never be in.

Notice Michelle Goldberg refers to abortion as “reproductive rights”.  It’s a bit of sleazy and thoughtless manipulation of reality on Michelle’s part.  What does “reproductive rights” conjure in the minds of anyone?  In other words, if one knows little or knowing about abortion, does abortion even come to mind when they hear “reproductive rights”?  Because what Michelle is conveying is that ‘attacks on reproductive rights” are really attacks on the “rights” that women have to kill their unborn children.  But if she said it that way, more women would become suspicious.  For all of Michelle’s feminism, she is intent on keeping women in the dark, and uneducated, when it comes to abortion.

She further says that the attack on Roe vs. Wade has “affected minors”.  How?  In other words, a “minor” who engages in sex and becomes pregnant, a “minor” who desires to kill the child rather than have the courage to face the consequences of her actions – to be a woman – ought to be free simply dispense of the “mistake”?  And we should accept that?

Of “poor women”, Michelle laments that even they are not immune from pro-life responders; that poverty is justification for killing an unborn child.  And who pays for the abortion when a woman is too poor to pay for it herself?  Obviously, we the taxpayers are the ones Michelle and other pro-abortion supporters want paying the price for irresponsibility; a most monstrous lust she and they have in seeing us pay for the killing of an unborn child.

Of “the need for late term abortion”, Michelle does not understand, or is too ignorant to know that there are no “situations most people” can’t “imagine” to justify the killing of a child so late in pregnancy.  Unless there is a real and direct threat to the life of the mother, which, in this day and age, is extremely rare, there are “no women needing late term abortions”, as Michelle passionately, but misguidedly, claims.

Says Goldberg:

Amendment 26 was different. It would have interfered with the health care of middle-class women and crime victims, and even the most conservative voters in the country weren’t willing to do that.

How, perchance, does not having an abortion “interfere” with “the health care of middle class women and crime victims”?  In other words, what Michelle is really conveying here is her feminist belief that pregnancy and motherhood itself, is an interference with middle class women, and that having a child “interferes” with a woman’s status as middle class; that having an abortion is merely a part of “healthcare” which presumably all middle class women ought to have the right to enjoy; that for a woman of  “middle class” status to not have an abortion jeopardizes her “middle class” status, and might drive her into poverty.  So far as the “health” aspect goes, our healthcare system in America is the best in the world.  If a woman has a health issue, and is pregnant, unless it becomes legitimately life threatening for her to continue the pregnancy, there are solutions to protect both mother and child.

Of “crime victims”, Michelle can only be referring to rape.  Is a child less of a human being if it is created by, and a product of, rape?  We who are pro-life contend that even in the case of rape, though we acknowledge the violence involved, the unborn ought to be protected from violence itself.  Women who cannot emotionally or psychologically care for a child, knowing it was created out of lust rather than love, ought not be forced to keep the child, but neither ought she have the right to simply discard it, throw it away as if the child was something not human, something not alive.

Of  “most conservative voters”, Michelle is as well wrong on that count.  “Most conservative voters” in Mississippi and in America are staunchly pro-life.  Unfortunately, it appears that the language in Proposition 26 was too vague and misled people into believing its passage would have created more uncertainly than clarity.  Perhaps it was all the pro-abortion activists that had descended on Mississippi as locusts descend on a field of corn, or wheat, and ate alive that uncertainty of Mississippi voters yet unsure whether this Personhood Amendment reached too far into the lives of women.

So, back to work on redrawing a new proposition that, it is hoped, will be unmistakeably clear in its language and its meaning.  If the pro-life movement in Mississippi has learned anything about this defeat, it ought to have learned that language, clarity and meaning are imperative; that if they attempt to pass another Personhood Amendment in Mississippi, or elsewhere, in other states, using the same language as in Proposition 26, it is very likely to be defeated as well.

And what has Michelle Goldberg learned?  She finishes her column by writing:

They (Mississippi voters) may pay lip service to the idea that a fertilized egg is a human being whose rights trump those of women, but they’re not willing to carry it to its clear, cruel conclusions.

In other words, Michelle has learned nothing.  “Its clear, cruel conclusions” is the violent act of abortion itself, not, as she and other pro-abortion supports contest, the defeated proposition.  And “a fertilized egg” is a human being, as science has already confirmed.  Indeed, life, the sanctity of life, ought to “trump” a woman’s desire to indiscriminately kill it.

But Michelle Goldberg, for all her “feminism” would rather all women remain ignorant and uneducated when it comes to the reality of abortion.

What is it she is afraid women will learn?

Of Mississippi, Abortion Politics, The Right To Life, The Right To Kill – And Why We Fight For The Unborn

D-Day – November 8, 2011

A day which may very well live in infamy.  Even yet, pro abortion groups are calling out all supporters, mobilizing their forces, mustering their defenses, making phone calls, sending out e-mails, petitions, etc., for the day in Mississippi when voters of this state will go to the polls to make history – by defining life as beginning at conception, rather than sometime after the mother gives birth.

The pro-life movement has been gearing for this event ever since Roe vs. Wade, and the decades that followed, when abortion rights advocates began broadening the 1973 ruling to include abortion all the way up to giving birth; when abortion became a “right to privacy”; a “women’s right” issue; “abortion on demand”; when Planned Parenthood and others began to demand taxpayer funding for all abortions and demand hospitals and doctors perform abortions against their moral or religious objections; when abortion became, in the eyes, hearts and minds of so many millions of Americans, brainwashed by a liberal, anti-life agenda, as “settled law”.

Nothing in the eyes, hearts and minds of a liberal is “settled law” if they don’t like the law.  Why should it be any different with those of us in the pro-life camp?  And while we have the Constitution on our side and the proof that life in fact does begin at conception (which did not exist at the time of Roe vs. Wade; which, if if had, Roe vs. Wade would never have become law), we still have an uphill battle to fight.

The complaint by pro-abortion supporters is its “vagueness”.  The problem with this argument is that pro-abortion supporters would object to an anti-abortion proposition even if it was absolutely defined.  In other words, if the proposition, in so many words, stated something along the lines of:

Whereas human life shall be defined as that life which begins at conception (fertilization), and as such shall be granted, even in the unborn stage, Personhood status, and the same rights and liberties, including the right to life, as anyone who has been born; that, because the unborn are recognized as human beings, they shall not be indiscriminately killed (aborted) in the womb – or partially in the womb – for any reason except to save the life of the mother, or where there is a clearly defined, and specific, health risk to the mother in which her life, as attested to by professional, competent and accredited doctors, is in danger, or where she might die without otherwise ending her pregnancy;

That whereas an embryo is recognized as human life, it shall not be destroyed or used for its stem cells in, or for, other medical or scientific experiments unless in a manner that allows for its development into a fetus and ultimate birth.

What’s wrong with that?

Pro-abortion supports, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, feminists, so called “women’s rights” advocates, demand a woman be allowed to legally kill her unborn child at any stage of her pregnancy for any reason.  Pro-abortion supporters want it all their way, and pretend to be shocked and flabbergasted when pro-life supporters dare to challenge that.

Pro-life Mississippians will be going for the whole “kit and caboodle” this time around, rather than pick away at the pro-abortion agenda one slice at a time.  We’ve tried, in vane, over the decades to at least end certain types of abortions, like partial birth abortion, and abortion in the third trimester; we’ve tried to stop abortions “for any reason”, including psychological, emotional and financial by providing alternatives to abortion for those mother’s who do not wish, or who cannot afford, to keep the child; we’ve tried to prevent minors from obtaining an abortion without their parents consent or knowledge; we’ve tried to end the taxpayer funding of abortion and forcing hospitals and doctors from performing abortions against their moral or religious objections.

On some counts we have succeeded, on others we have failed.  On some counts where we have succeeded, we have seen those victories overturned by liberal courts.

Either life has value, or it hasn’t.  We who are pro-life contend life does have value.  That is why we fight for it, and will always fight for it.

Planned Parenthood, et. al., contend the unborn are neither human, nor life, despite the fact that there is scientific proof to counter that claim – proof which Planned Parenthood desperately wants to prevent being shown to a woman contemplating abortion.  What possible rational could there be for Planned Parenthood wanting to suppress any evidence, such as a sonogram, that very clearly shows the human life within her?

The answer is not so much wrapped around the money being profited off abortions as it is wrapped up in liberalism and feminism, and the right to life versus the right to work.  All pro-abortion organizations are predominately made up of women.  Liberal women – women who despise the role of motherhood and the whole “a woman’s place is in the home” idea.

Women have always, throughout all of human history, been the primary care takers of children.  And feminists know that every time a woman in the work place becomes pregnant, that pregnancy, and giving birth, will take her out of the work place for a couple of years to a couple of decades while she stays home and raises the child, perhaps having more children in the years to follow.  Feminists know that once the woman leaves the work place to give birth and raise a child, the longer she remains away the less likely she will return.  Feminists also know that a woman who leaves the workplace to give birth and raise a child will likely be replaced by a man.

This, more than the money profited, more than population control, more than anything else is why Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, feminists and other “women’s rights” advocates fight to keep abortion alive.  Pure selfishness.

This Tuesday, November 8, when Mississippians will vote on whether to legally define life as that which begins at conception, thereby giving it legal protection and the right to life, the vast majority of voters who vote in favor of Proposition 26 will not be thinking about the consequences of women losing their role in the work place.  Rather, they will be thinking about the consequences of life itself and value of human life, and how much value to ascribe to human life.

What will the voters who vote against Proposition 26 be thinking about?

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: