Punish the Innocent
(From the Federalist)
"Abortion has evolved as civil-rights issues often do. What began as a question of conscience for a few has become a concern for many. Legal scholars, including many abortion supporters, now openly acknowledge that Roe v. Wade is hooey grounded in hocus-pocus rather than facts and law. A generation of younger Americans, having been exposed to three-dimensional color sonograms, no longer regard unborn children as lumpy, undifferentiated thing-a-ma-jigs. They think of them as babies. Most importantly, Americans understand that the Supreme Court denied this country the benefit of democratic resolution of the issue. This explains why South Dakota is not alone... If South Dakota has led the way toward a democratic eruption, it also has shaken up the political marketplace by rejecting the popular rape-and-incest exception. The loophole doesn't make moral sense. If life begins at conception, children conceived through rape and incest are human beings. They are innocent of crimes, even if they are the byproduct of horrendous violence against women. So on what basis should we permit their destruction?"
Tony Snow
The rape-and-incest exemption is an interesting exercise in reasoning; one victim is punished (in fact, the ultimate punishment) for the welfare of another victim. Who is at fault here? The rapist and incesteur (if I may coin a phrase). Why should an innocent party (the most innocent party, since an unborn child has never done anything wrong) pay for the crimes of the evildoer?
But, you say, the victimized woman is being forced to pay by carrying the child to term. True, and that is a tragedy, indeed, but two wrongs do not make a right. Should blacks be allowed to hold white people as slaves, because they were enslaved in the past? Do Jews have the right to kill Germans because of the Holocaust? We condemn terrorism, but, by the logic employed in the rape-and-incest exemption, the terrorist should be permitted to redress past grievances in whatever manner is open to them.
It is all a matter of viewpoint, and cuts to the anasthetization of America. Liberals believe in the goodness of everyone; there is not a victimizer who is not also a victim, and so we have no right to judge the rapist and incesteur. (It`s interesting to see how many pro-aborts fight against capital punishment for the evildoers.) At the same time, modern society seeks the pain-free mode of living, and every effort must be made to anesthetize the victim. It will be uncomfortable, and a bit painful to carry a child to term, so the logical thing to do is kill it. That a monstrous injustice is being done to the child is immaterial. The child is very inconvenient, the child brings emotional pain to the mother, so the child receives the punishment due the rapist. Oh, and we`ll give a stern talking to that fellow!
Abortion is a blood sacrament to the left, and they understand that they MUST keep the rape-and-incest exemption established in America`s mind to prevent people from accepting the true horror of what is being done. Abortion will remain if this exemption is considered acceptable. They know that.
Furthermore, they know that-no matter how unwilling a mother-they have placed their mark upon her forever by getting her to rip the unwanted child from her womb and dispose of it in a trash heap. Instead of removing pain from the victimized woman, they have increased it by adding a layer of guilt, the guilt of child immolation. The rapist has raped her again, this time at the behest of those ``concerned`` individuals. Now she must support abortion, or admit that she has done something monstrous. She is doubly victimized by the rape-and-incest exemption-and she has been recruited to their side.
Can a nation treat the innocent in so cavalier a fashion and expect more humane treatment in return? Can we show no mercy in the interest of expediency, and expect mercy in return? The old saying ``what goes around comes around`` (which is an updated version of the Biblical ``as ye sew, so shall ye reap``) applies; whatever your spiritual inclinations, there does seem to be a tendency in the Universe towards a repayment in-kind for deeds. Abortion, no matter the motive, is an act of violence against an innocent human being, and justice demands a redress. Can we complain that terrorists murder our innocent citizens, when we ourselves have murdered our innocent citizens? What, exactly, are they doing differently?
Abortion is a monstrous act of violence, and the rape-and-incest exemption is merely a wolf dressed in fuzzy sheepskin.
"Abortion has evolved as civil-rights issues often do. What began as a question of conscience for a few has become a concern for many. Legal scholars, including many abortion supporters, now openly acknowledge that Roe v. Wade is hooey grounded in hocus-pocus rather than facts and law. A generation of younger Americans, having been exposed to three-dimensional color sonograms, no longer regard unborn children as lumpy, undifferentiated thing-a-ma-jigs. They think of them as babies. Most importantly, Americans understand that the Supreme Court denied this country the benefit of democratic resolution of the issue. This explains why South Dakota is not alone... If South Dakota has led the way toward a democratic eruption, it also has shaken up the political marketplace by rejecting the popular rape-and-incest exception. The loophole doesn't make moral sense. If life begins at conception, children conceived through rape and incest are human beings. They are innocent of crimes, even if they are the byproduct of horrendous violence against women. So on what basis should we permit their destruction?"
Tony Snow
The rape-and-incest exemption is an interesting exercise in reasoning; one victim is punished (in fact, the ultimate punishment) for the welfare of another victim. Who is at fault here? The rapist and incesteur (if I may coin a phrase). Why should an innocent party (the most innocent party, since an unborn child has never done anything wrong) pay for the crimes of the evildoer?
But, you say, the victimized woman is being forced to pay by carrying the child to term. True, and that is a tragedy, indeed, but two wrongs do not make a right. Should blacks be allowed to hold white people as slaves, because they were enslaved in the past? Do Jews have the right to kill Germans because of the Holocaust? We condemn terrorism, but, by the logic employed in the rape-and-incest exemption, the terrorist should be permitted to redress past grievances in whatever manner is open to them.
It is all a matter of viewpoint, and cuts to the anasthetization of America. Liberals believe in the goodness of everyone; there is not a victimizer who is not also a victim, and so we have no right to judge the rapist and incesteur. (It`s interesting to see how many pro-aborts fight against capital punishment for the evildoers.) At the same time, modern society seeks the pain-free mode of living, and every effort must be made to anesthetize the victim. It will be uncomfortable, and a bit painful to carry a child to term, so the logical thing to do is kill it. That a monstrous injustice is being done to the child is immaterial. The child is very inconvenient, the child brings emotional pain to the mother, so the child receives the punishment due the rapist. Oh, and we`ll give a stern talking to that fellow!
Abortion is a blood sacrament to the left, and they understand that they MUST keep the rape-and-incest exemption established in America`s mind to prevent people from accepting the true horror of what is being done. Abortion will remain if this exemption is considered acceptable. They know that.
Furthermore, they know that-no matter how unwilling a mother-they have placed their mark upon her forever by getting her to rip the unwanted child from her womb and dispose of it in a trash heap. Instead of removing pain from the victimized woman, they have increased it by adding a layer of guilt, the guilt of child immolation. The rapist has raped her again, this time at the behest of those ``concerned`` individuals. Now she must support abortion, or admit that she has done something monstrous. She is doubly victimized by the rape-and-incest exemption-and she has been recruited to their side.
Can a nation treat the innocent in so cavalier a fashion and expect more humane treatment in return? Can we show no mercy in the interest of expediency, and expect mercy in return? The old saying ``what goes around comes around`` (which is an updated version of the Biblical ``as ye sew, so shall ye reap``) applies; whatever your spiritual inclinations, there does seem to be a tendency in the Universe towards a repayment in-kind for deeds. Abortion, no matter the motive, is an act of violence against an innocent human being, and justice demands a redress. Can we complain that terrorists murder our innocent citizens, when we ourselves have murdered our innocent citizens? What, exactly, are they doing differently?
Abortion is a monstrous act of violence, and the rape-and-incest exemption is merely a wolf dressed in fuzzy sheepskin.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:25 AM
2 Comments:
Can't argue with your logic - -and indeed -- those sonograms are doing more towards changing attitudes toward abortion than anything I can think of. Having just seen a sonogram of the 3 month baby in utero of my darling niece, one could hardly say one was "aborting" undifferentiated blobs of tissue -- the baby looks just like her in profile -- we all recognized the resemblance. How could you kill that?
Bravo! Well said. I totally agree.
Al of Alnot
Post a Comment
<< Home