Feng Jianmei was forced to have an abortion by the Chinese government in her seventh month of pregnancy. Pro-abortion people say that they are all about protecting women’s rights.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
- spren on HUD Climate Advisor
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
This post is revolting. I know why you’re doing it, but I’m not a fan.
Let me state that in the clearest unequivocal terms.
And for so long I thought you didn’t go there. And I was proud.
But now… find a common ground, and this isn’t it.
Yes, killing children is revolting.
Word games are defeating your game, player.
Well, I don’t disagree. And also, a skeptic blog can rightly and with the readers encouragement overlap with politics because climate skeptics now tend to agree on a broad set of conservative principles. But abortion more than any other issue I think is divisive, and this is where there could be bitter rift sown even among conservatives. So, it is not that you don’t have a very graphic point, and it certainly your prerogative to do whatever you want Steven, but does the fight have to be fought here? When it could divide and not conquer? I only think in terms of what our “consensus” is, and in keeping our ship together to win. Maybe I’m wrong. And maybe I’ve overestimated the weight of my feeling. Could be. And no big deal. It’s just my two cents. Or maybe I’d put in three cents this time.
I agree with you. This post does not discriminate between a forced (by a government yet), late-term abortion, and a voluntary (or even medically recommended, as for the survival of the mother), early-term abortion. It just says all abortion is killing, and killing is wrong.
Let me be clear about my position (and you may consider this MY three cents): I believe that man is spirit, incarnated in a body. I believe life begins, not at conception, but when the spirit enters the body, which may be at any time before birth (or not at all, in the case of a miscarriage or stillbirth). I believe that the abortion debates do not address that higher perspective, and so remain divisive and vain. I believe there are good arguments being made on both sides of the debates (such as that “the right to choose” has often been abused as “the right of convenience”–but I am against forcing a woman to have a child by her rapist; I consider such forcing aiding and abetting an immoral and criminal act).
Fine points Harry. But my point is that we don’t need to go there here.The warmists are trying to portray skeptics as members of the “lunatic right,” or religious zealots. That’s not true, but if a blog wants to become that, we need to make it clear that it has nothing to do with skepticism. Clear as day. The things about guns and all is fine, in moderation. But this would seem to be a bridge too far. This is a skeptic blog, not a forum for the Christian Right. Or is it?
I’m not concerned with pleasing the lunatic left.
Eric Simpson says:
February 6, 2013 at 6:59 pm
Fine points Harry. But my point is that we don’t need to go there here.The warmists are trying to portray skeptics as members of the “lunatic right,” or religious zealots. That’s not true, but if a blog wants to become that, we need to make it clear that it has nothing to do with skepticism. Clear as day. The things about guns and all is fine, in moderation. But this would seem to be a bridge too far. This is a skeptic blog, not a forum for the Christian Right. Or is it?
UMMMMM…it takes one being a Christian…to understand killing ones’ own, for convenience….. is moral corruption or a sickness of our social morays?
I’m not alone. And those that want their fix of climate skepticism without the Moral Majority flavoring are going to spend more time at wuwt or jnova, wherever. http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/
K
I’m probably just contrarian right now, making a mountain out a mole hill. Will certainly calm down tomorrow, and it won’t amount to a hill of beans then. It’s not that big of a deal, as I said earlier. So.. ok.
I am 100% against the unnecessary taking of any life – human or other animals. The only reason I have meat in the house is because there are other mouths to feed.
Well, I know what you’re saying about meat. I’ve had some close relationships with cows… and I mean that they’ve been our livestock… and I kind of want to not eat beef for that reason. Still, I just cut down, don’t go all the way. Maybe some day.
Eric,
Steven has posted holocaust pictures with not a peep from you. What is revolting about the picture?
I am angered by the knowledge that one person/bureaucrat can, with premeditation, take the life of another with no consequences. That woman is devastated for life. On top of that, they violated her to take a life.
Stop pushing the thoughts out of your mind. Face them.
@BarackObama
President Obama: “If there’s even one thing we can do, if there’s just one life we can save—we’ve got an obligation to try.” #NowIsTheTime ( for scalpel control )
@Steve: Thanks for posting this. The left is all about injustice. If this isn’t injustice, I don’t know what is.
Trying to link forced abortions in China with the pro choice movement in the US is insane. It also discredits this blog and the work it does to discredit the climate change propaganda machine.
Yes, killing children is different in China than doing it in the US. Thanks for clearing that up.
It’s called “Selective Hypocrisy”.
An accepted behavior for aberrant liberals.
Trying to tell us that not one of the 55,000,000+ humans deserved a chance to live discredits your humanity.
Not one…? Really?
Mickey says:
February 6, 2013 at 2:25 pm
Trying to link forced abortions in China with the pro choice movement in the US is insane.
[ my bold ]
I take it that you are a guy? 🙂
I believe most guys should not try to make the “pro-choice” argument without actual reference’s.
http://www.unfairchoice.info/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortions.pdf
http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/332633/nevada-court-force-abortion
http://pop.org/content/forced-abortions-in-america-case-before-1643
After reading these: I ask you – is it the womens’ “pro-choice”?
If a school yard bully coerced you into giving up your lunch money – would you call it “pro-choice”?
@Mickey: “Pro-choice” is virtuosity of language. Since when is a child a “choice”?
Please heck spam bin 🙂
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Come on, folks. THere is a big difference between a first trimester abortion and a late-term abortion. Also, a difference between a voluntary and a forced abortion. As people make mistakes, abortion should be available, but only for the first trimester while minds are made up about the future.
Having legal available abortion does not mean you have to use it. As the US is based on freedom of choice, it is patently unAmerican to try to impose one’s personal, possibly religious beliefs on all of other citizens. The Am Ped Soc agrees that the first right of a baby is to be wanted. The advent of legal abortion has allowed many unwanted babies that would have comprised part of our future criminal population, like it on not. Freedom of choice, a woman’s control of her own body, and tolerance—all should be reviewed and appreciated regularly.
higley7 says:
February 6, 2013 at 7:14 pm
The advent of legal abortion has allowed many unwanted babies that would have comprised part of our future criminal population, like it on not.
That has to be one of the dimmest statements I’ve ever heard in support of killing. He/she mighta also have been the next Einstein…….. Jonas Salk …………
@higley7: “unwanted babies”
Too bad nobody asked those babies if they wanted a chance to live.
“As people make mistakes, abortion should be available …”
Here in Canada, I have to pay for those “mistakes” with my tax dollars, whether I like it or not. In this case, who is doing the imposing, hmm?
higley7 says:
February 6, 2013 at 7:14 pmThe Am Ped Soc agrees that the first right of a baby is to be wanted.
Soooooooooooo before the Am Ped Soc – Before Legalized abortion……there were no “unwanted” children who grew-up as productive citizens? There were no adoptions?
IT makes no difference if I was wanted or not – It is my personal responsibility /or lack of that brings failure or success..
Freedom of choice
2/3 rds of abortions are comitted under coercion.
http://www.mccl.org/forced-abortion.html
“Protect expectant mothers from violence and coercion
Forced abortion, or coerced abortion, is one of the abortion industry’s dirty little secrets. Even though Planned Parenthood and other abortionists deny it, post-abortive women confirm the grim truth that most abortions—nearly two out of three—involve pressure, coercion or even violence against pregnant women.
Pregnancy is a vulnerable time for a woman; the threat of forced abortion greatly increases her vulnerability physically, emotionally and mentally. Pregnant women have a right to be safe and protected from any threat of violence or coercion.
A forced abortion, or coerced abortion, occurs when a woman undergoes an abortion against her own wishes. Coercion often involves the threat of physical harm, blackmail or other acts in order to force a pregnant girl or woman to have an abortion.
Coercion facts:
64 percent of abortions involve some sort of coercion.
45 percent of men interviewed at abortion clinics recalled urging abortion, including 37 percent of married men.
Teens are at higher risk for becoming victims of coerced abortion.
According to researcher David Reardon, women give these reasons, among others, for undergoing abortion:
Forced by their mother, father, husband or boyfriend
Lack of support from social network
Persuaded / pressured by abortion center”
THE STUDY http://www.unfairchoice.info/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortions.pdf
There are cases of abortion survival, where the baby breathes outside of the room.
Many grow up to perform public service announcements in support of the rights of their fellow abortees to have chosen.
Do the math… yes there is a chance a baby will grow up to murder. A murderer may kill one to hundreds, a genius saves BILLIONS. What a world this would have been if Thomas Edison, Luther Burbank, Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk had never taken their first breath.
For our future sakes, stop killing the geniuses who would have cured cancer, or solved the longevity puzzle.
room -> womb
🙂
“The Am Ped Soc agrees that the first right of a baby is to be wanted.”
That statement takes Orwellian to new levels.
Wow, what a contentious subject. There are things we must consider logically, however.
How are we to know whether a foetus (proper English spelling) will become the next Einstein or Manson? There is equal chance of either, if not both. So the very idea that if Edison had been aborted causes you cognitive haywire about what society may have missed out on, consider yourselves lucky he wasn’t yet another slimy dictator-wannabe, like Obama, a very weak example considering Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mugabe.. Need I continue? Regardless, humans have the Natural Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
There’s a difference between coerced and forced abortion BUT, when the pregnancy is healthy and normal, either are immoral. As an aside, c-section birth may also be looked upon as forced abortion, but this is when conditions exist to endanger mother and/or foetus. State sanctioned and forced abortions are murder when the pregnancy is normal. Full stop.
When the pregnancy is not normal and endangers the mother and/or foetus, it should be the mother who makes the decision to EUTHANASE, along with specialist advice (NOT State “advice”). When it’s discovered the foetus has some incurable disease and will require endless support from the State (which should have been discovered earlier if possible), if the mother proceeds with the birth, the child’s eventual welfare is her responsibility.
In conclusion (providing I haven’t I missed anything):
1: Every abortion (State enforced or otherwise) has undoubtedly removed future Einstein’s and Manson’s from society.
2. The future societal net worth (+/-) of the foetus is unknown and unproven.
3. The intentional killing of a human being is still murder, unless considered euthanasia or punishment for like crime.
4. All manner of animals not used for food are routinely, by the millions, “euthanased” (murdered without self-choice) endlessly. How are they somehow below human standard?
5. It’s politically correct to kill flies, cockroaches, spiders, fish, octopi, plants etc., but not dolphins and whales?
PS. I have a child of my own. I like dolphins and children, they taste like chicken.