On the same segment Melissa-Harris Perry so classily showed her
support for the pro-aborts in Texas by dangling two tampons from her earlobes,
she also made a speech in which she put the abortion debate to rest by proposing
that life begins whenever a parent feels like it. Even as this speech was very short, she
managed to express ideas from a conglomerate cesspool of ideologies and talking
points, often contradicting herself.
This will be a line by line response to that speeh.
You may want to first watch her speech here.
“When a pregnancy is wanted by the mother and father, their
family, their community, even their country, it is easy to think of the bump as
the baby...”
That’s because it is a baby. Actually, the baby makes the bump.
“But not every pregnancy is a fairy tale. The ultra sound reveals severe birth defects.”
Eugenics. One very famous
eugenicist was Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood, and saw
minorities as inherently inferior. Even
as liberals champion themselves as the party of the minority, they seem not to
realize that being in support of abortion is being against the disabled (and blacks) - 90% of
Down Syndrome babies are aborted, for instance. There is a blatant contradiction
in claiming the disabled have rights that should be protected (and should be given
privileges that often violate someone else’s rights) all the while believing
that they are so invaluable to society that mothers should have the right
to terminate them.
And if it is good for a mother to terminate her unborn
child because of its defects, then what does that say about mothers and fathers
who choose not to terminate?
“A child is raped and becomes pregnant...”
Only 1-2% of abortions are performed on fetus conceived in
rape. So here we are using a very small
minority of women to support mass slaughter.
“Another baby would jeopardize a mother’s ability to feed
her living children...”
No, the mother jeopardized
her children by having sex in full knowledge that it could lead to the
pregnancy of a child she could not support.
Why should we even have sympathy for women who are barely able to
support their current children, but still manage to find time to court and
sleep with other men at the risk of becoming pregnant again?
“A woman decides she does not want a child at all...”
That decision should come BEFORE she decides to have
sex. It is not that difficult a concept for pro-aborts to grasp. The Republican
Party is supposed to be the anti-woman party, and yet Liberals happily believe
that woman are too incompetent to weigh the consequences of having sex outside
of marriage or are too sex crazed to respect those consequences once they have. Conservatives call women to be responsible for their actions and so naturally, we're anti-women.
“These are different pregnancies...”
No, these are different WOMEN!
Not only has she dehumanized the fetus to be merely a ‘pregnancy,’ but she is trying to qualify pregnancies in illegitimate ways to legitimize
treating fetuses differently under the law.
So much for the leftist equality of outcome. Isn’t it the leftist’s belief that no matter
where you began, whether or not you were poor, wealthy, abandoned, abused, that
people should all be able to make $20 an hour and live in 200 ft² mansions? Why should that concept not also apply to the
fetus whether it was conceived in rape, has defects, or is the Royal Baby?
“An unwanted pregnancy can be biologically the same as an
unwanted one, but the experience can be entirely different”
This is an unnecessary and unjustified qualification. A pregnancy is objectively a pregnancy. The subjective experiences of individuals
does not negate what is objectively true.
The fetus (which Harris-Perry has cleverly equated with ‘pregnancy) remains
objectively a fetus, a living human being, irrespective of how the mother views it.
“Eggs are fertilized, embryos implant, fetuses grow ... but
when does life begin?”
Engines rumbles, wheels
turn, the car moves!! ...but when has
the car really started? Don’t these active actions signify to the
observer that a car is started? Likewise, all these stages of development
during a pregnancy signifies to us that the fetus is alive!
“I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of
the parents...”
Oh? Not the community, Harris-Perry?
Here’s the problem:
If parents are the final, authoritative arbiter of life, then they
maintain that authority even after the child is born, and passing through a few
inches of skin wouldn’t automatically erases that authority beyond your say-so. The authority to kill a baby while in the
womb remains the right to kill babies outside the womb.
Yet we are all well aware
that Harris-Perry doesn’t really believe parents
determine when their child is alive for what should happen when the mother says
their baby isn’t a life and the father does?
Harris-Perry would probably say that the mother ultimately has the choice even if
the mother and father were married. So
it would not be the parents who chose
when life began, but the mother, making Harris-Perry’s position even more
subjective and frivolous.
“...the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the
parents ... but not science...”
Of course, not. Science objectively and
unequivocally states that life begins at conception! That the moment an organism begins to grow,
use energy, react to its environment, among other things that a zygote and
embryo does, it is alive. That fact is inescapable
and so Harris-Perry must discount science – that thing that proves Global
Warming is real and that people are born gay.
“The problem is that many of our policy makers want to base
sweeping laws on those feelings...”
No, we want to base them on the SCIENCE! ...on the FACT
that the fetus is a living, human being and so has the right to life.
