An impressive speech from Michelle Obama tonight …
She’s stunning! My biggest concern is why, when the Democrats care so passionately for the rights of women, gays and the poor, why can’t they spare a moment’s thought for the babies being ‘terminated’ in their millions every year?
“spare a moment’s thought”
Isn’t that a hallucination, Graeme?
What do you offer as evidence that ‘the Democrats’ (a monolithic term) are as callous as you suggest?
And define ‘baby’.
Graeme is quite right …. the trendy liberal element often get hung up on rights for abandoned puppies and gay marriage etc etc etc … no criticism intended of those issues … but unborn children are being selectively murdered in abortion clinics.
I’d say people living on the breadline in the USA might be slightly sick of these sickly democrats gazing longingly into some heavenly middle distance … promising some sort of nirvana but never having the balls to identify the real root causes of their country’s ills
Having seen all my own kids on ultrasound at very early term mate – i define baby as what i’ve seen on those scan. Something real, flesh and blood, palpable and human.
Those who terminate these little ones are no better than the scum teacher in Kaitaia who [clip] poor defenceless little kids.
[Comment: Please moderate your language, or I will do so for you. – P]
Thank you for reminding me I have *no desire* to debate abortion law here on thePaepae.com.
Oh aren’t we defensive today?
And here’s the (clearly election year) tribute to Edward Kennedy from the convention.
Warning: I won’t entertain mean-spirited attacks on him here at thePaepae.com as has happened here before.
Great admirer of the Kennedys (moral slopjars according to some) … particularly JFK and Bobby. Hugely flawed – Hugely Human.
Bugger the critics and revisionists
Sorry I missed your questions, Peter. Re evidence of the Democrats’ views on abortion:
‘Just as there are no more strongly anti-abortion Democrats, there are also no pro-abortion rights Republicans, who also had to shift their views or face ugly primary challenges.
“It’s further polarization. That’s depressing. I don’t see that as a good sign,” said Joe Heim, a political-science professor at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.’ (www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/166265466.html)
I agree with Prof. Heim that this polarisation is indeed depressing. We have learn how to disagree respectfully and discuss issues in search of truth instead of personal preferences.
Re defining ‘baby’, I accept the Oxford’s ‘a very young child, esp. one not yet able to walk’. I don’t accept that they are non-human, any more than I do toddlers, teenagers, or the elderly (although I have entertained doubts re teenagers).
As for relevance, did you know we are now ‘terminating’ over 40 million a year as part of women’s ‘reproductive health’?
Thanks for your reply Graeme.
And thank you for that most interesting article at the Milwaukee Wisconsin Sentinel Times (Group helped force out anti-abortion Democratic incumbents) which demonstrates gerrymandering and jockeying for position and policy influence are alive and well in politics — among Democrats and Republicans.
With respect, neither the article nor your reply adequately support what I saw as your original homogenous demonisation of ‘the Democrats’ as lacking empathy …
… why, when the Democrats care so passionately for the rights of women, gays and the poor, why can’t they spare a moment’s thought for the babies being ‘terminated’ in their millions …
It’s your statement’s shallow categorisation of a group of people (or a class?) as being monolithically of a view about a topic — any topic — that I object to. People are individuals, even Democrats.
From what I read of your statement, you project on to them, not just a view, it seems to me, but also an indifference or cruel disregard … which I think is unfair
Best wishes, Peter
PS On reflection, if you don’t mind, I don’t see this as the place for us to debate abortion law questions, such as when a foetus becomes ‘viable’ … so I will leave your response to my query about your definition of ‘baby’ for the purposes of your ‘murdered in their millions’ unaddressed.
I agree that shallow categorisations are unhelpful and I certainly don’t believe that the Democrats are lacking empathy. As I see it, they are actually overly-empathetic for the women’s plight (do you remember Ms Obama’s triumphant tone re women’s right to choose? We’ve won! No mention of the plight of the babies).
I don’t see them as cruel but determinedly in denial. Indifferent? Being made that way by Orwellian newspeak, where ‘babies’ is the incorrect term for ‘products of conception’, ‘abortions’ are now ‘terminations’, clinics are renamed ‘reproductive health centres’ etc. I mean, why would anyone feel any compassion for a product of conception being terminated in a women’s reproductive health centre? We should instead rejoice that women’s health is being improved… And I do, but not when it’s only at the expense of the babies’ health.
Consider even the term ‘viable’. It comes from the Latin vita, life – isn’t a foetus a life? Viable means ‘capable of maintaining life’ and a foetus is capable, with its own blood system, beating heart and brainwaves detectable at 6 weeks. All it needs, as we all do, is a suitable environment – we can create ‘viable foetuses’ in ‘test-tubes’.
I was glad to find the Libertarians For Life acknowledge the need for both women and babies to kept free with non-aggression as the key element.