Note two recent quotes from putative conservative commentators Peta Credlin and Janet Albrechtsen. In order:
- “As an imperfect Christian myself, who doesn’t always agree with the teachings of my faith…”
- “Had grass-roots democracy been allowed to take its normal course…there is a good chance women would have secured abortion rights in those states where they now face…a criminal offence for taking control of their bodies.”
Both these quotes were imbedded in sensible articles. Both articles would have been better without the quotes. Though the second quote is more profoundly wrong than the first.
The first is pregnant with unanswered posers. What is meant by “teachings of my faith?” Some teachings are so fundamental that you simply can’t be a Christian, even an imperfect one, which we Christians all are, unless you accept them. Of course, if by teachings she means woke pronouncements by the current Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope, then that’s a quite different kettle of fish. My point is that people should not write about the importance of Christianity in our national life and leave important contextual statements hanging. At best its sloppy. Very sloppy.
The second quote from Ms Albrechtsen is disappointing for its dishonesty. I expect such dishonesty from lefties not from conservatives. The article correctly defends, and puts in proper perspective, the Supreme Court’s decision in overturning Roe vs. Wade. It also establishes Albrechtsen’s point of view that women should have “abortion rights.” That’s fine, so far as it goes. Where it goes wrong is in anchoring such rights in women having control of their own bodies.
No one with any sense, decency or fairness would deny women the right of “taking control of their bodies.” (Covid-vax fanatics, aside.) But that is not what abortion is about. It is about deliberately killing an unborn baby; and in brutal fashion when it is late-term. And the overwhelming number of such unborn babies killed would be born healthy, and grow into children and adults. So, it’s not the mother’s body which is at issue here. It’s the unborn baby’s body. It’s the unborn baby’s body! A separate body.
Conservatives should not use euphemisms and/or deflections to hide the truth. We can have a civilised debate about abortion; only provided the pro-choice side are willing to be honest. You can’t have a debate when one side insists on starting with a false premise.
It’s the unborn baby’s body. It’s the unborn baby’s body! A separate body.
Yes, but here is the rub. How can you protect the unborn baby? What rights does it have?
Don’t agree?
Then find a faith who’s fundamentals align with yours, plenty to choose from.
And yes I’m sick of body my choice in the should I be allowed to legally murder my unborn child debate.
A man’s penis is an inseparable part of his body. Where he sticks it, however, is not just his decision. Her body, her choice. Maybe she should think about it before she opens her legs.
Damon appears to have a rather ego centric view of the abortion issue. More directly, it appears that these women quite clearly understand that abortion is a question for the woman. Which is, simply, reality.
I don’t think it’s that simple
Spack off, Hubris.
We’ve done this circle already in the End of The Beginning thread.
You lot had nothing to argue in your favour then, and you don’t now.
As regards Peter Smith’s post- An additional consideration is that even nominally conservative-friendly or ‘open-minded’ editors in the mass media are so throughly captured by the woke Maoism that characterises the West’s terribly beige intellectual landscape and political discourse, that such dishonest shibboleths and rhetorical weaselry must be put into every article they write, in order to not be burned at the stake upon sighting.
We may see such things for some time yet, until the Left’s necrotic fingers are finally pried off the media and general public discourse.
there’s at least one other body in this equation that never gets talked about
while the rhetoric runs that it’s all wymynys and bebbies, it hides the fact that a whole raft of lifetime viability rides on the father too.
father the cause, father the reason, father the slave
the tacit implication is that you with the dick … you will stfu and do as we say.
we’ll see about that
Er…no; there are at least two other human beings immediately involved.
And no human society can afford to ignore the effect of abortion on demand on its future.
A society which demands the right to kill off the next generation is doomed.
As is one that despises its own culture.
Pace Peter Smith, I’d suggest Credlin and Albrechtsen aren’t really conservatives at all.
“abortion is a question for the woman”
Before abortion comes conception. Let them argue that they do not have any responsibility there, either. The only case I know was the Virgin Mary.
Hubrissays:
June 30, 2022 at 5:24 pm
Damon appears to have a rather ego centric view of the abortion issue.
Really? What’s “ego centric” about what he said?
More directly, it appears that these women quite clearly understand that abortion is a question for the woman. Which is, simply, reality.
Are you willing to apply that to the converse? Is refraining from abortion also “a question for the woman” i.e. she takes sole responsibility for the consequences? If she’s got absolute carte blanche to kill the baby shouldn’t she have to take all the responsibility for not doing so?
Neither woman is a conservative.
Albrechtsen can be unintentionally funny though.
She wrote a ‘Why Oh Why’ piece in the Weekend Australian 2 saturdays ago expressing concern for Rebel Wilson experiencing what
“could be her first Gay relationship”
A Spook?
Possibly.
Both being cowardly and having a bet each way by surface appearances or on short leashes with Rupert’s minions.
However the conversations I already have had on this subject I have been even surprised on the vitriol and blind emotion since the ruling. I thought gay unions being misnamed was bad enough. Polite discourse is near impossible if you disagree.
Australia’s laws like in NSW are an abomination. Where I stand anyway.
I would like to see no abortion, however I am pragmatic and had a diverse life. I am very well aware of the fallibility of the human mind. If one wished to go through this than the earlier the better, well into the first trimester. Otherwise only for “life or limb”, suicidal cop out excuses don’t apply.
Once a human life is in there sorry biology trumps my body my choice. Evolution has rightly or wrongly burdened the placental mammal female of our species to carrying a new life for a gestation period. We cannot change that yet with technology, even with drugs or surgery.
I know some will disagree with me, fine. That is your choice. I normally keep out of this topic because how emotionally charged it is but please respect my opinion. Yes I disclose I am a baptised Catholic with the sacraments but don’t practise anymore.
It would also lead to be a more honest discussion and debate about abortion if reality was admitted into the actual proceedings. To speak of abortion as, for example, a form of ‘care’ given to a woman clearly indicates that a truth cannot be acknowledged. Likewise calling abortion a ‘health procedure’, or a form of contraception, and so on. For the indications then are that truth cannot be admitted, that at 12 weeks, the mother is carrying a being with a heart, brain, limbs, and so on, for I barely know the facts in these regards but only to say that I think that at about 23 weeks the unborn is a viable human being once outside the uterus. I suppose what I’m saying is that if supporters of abortion were prepared to describe exactly how any particular abortion is carried out; and were prepared to describe the state of the desecrated, dismembered body; and to describe the treatment of the dead (or sometimes live) aborted child, and then go on to refer to that destruction of life as a mere routine event of no consequence to either memory, soul or psyche, they may then receive a hearing and would in turn be open to hearing refutations. As things stand, though, abortion is a practice about which the women themselves are lied to and a practice about which the women themselves lie, largely for fear of the truth. What can be a greater lie than the confected gratitude in the form of a keepsake celebrating the abortion event – the ‘event’ as falsehood and not as bloody, bone wrenching, killing reality. I further suppose that the workers in the abortion industry must be something else again. No word from them as to how they do it. That would be telling.
What I cannot understand is the pro abortion crowd banging on how life is precious and everyone is amazing.
So amazing that if they carried Dylan Walcott they would have aborted him.
What never gets mentioned is “ fudge am I glad she got rid of the little bastard”. The couple breaks up and male goes on to the next female and the cycle continues.
Who is really benefiting here.
I remember a client telling me his daughter finishing her nursing degree and the first job she had was working in the abortion room in the hospital. There is a bin with the dead featuses. No name no coffin – imagine seeing this.
I also had a non religious friend, state school industrial , he got his girlfriend pregnant while at Uni. One of the best things that happened to them.
A rape victim kept the pregnancy. The joy and companionship of the pair is amazing.
It appears to me we are frightened of life and it’s challenges.
That’s because Ms Albrechtsen sees herself as a feminist first and everything else second. She sees herself being a Christian the same way as does Nancy Pelosi, who uses her position to get an audience with the Pope, even though she’s pro abortion, which is forbidden by the Christian faith.
Albrechtsen and Pelosi simply keep shopping for witchdoctors until they find one they like – for example a pope who’s rather partial to Marxism.
For a woman, feminism is the ultimate witchdoctor because it makes her feel righteous and virtuous, even though it approves of child murder.
There are many arguments in both directions for abortion for various reasons.
I will summarise a few simple points.
1. We define a person as being alive based on heartbeat, once heartbeat ceases is when we legally call a person deceased.
An unborn child has a heartbeat after 6 weeks or less.
2. If a woman undertakes an abortion, no crime has been committed, however, if another person accidentally or intentionally kills an unborn child, it is considered murder/manslaughter.
3. The father has no say in what happens.
4. If a child is determined to be downs syndrome or some other serious abnormality, it is subjective as to whether or not life or death is the lesser evil
Having read much on this topic I am left wondering about the current mentality of the west. What happened to contraception? Surely we are not just rabbits who just do it? There are such simple and easy to obtain items for those who want to play to use. Sounds fairly gung ho that it’s my body but I or we just can’t be bothered beyond the passion and/or lust of the moment to just go for it. The more I read on this the more I reflect on what happened in Russia after the communists took over in the early 20th century. People need to do a bit of research and history. Plus to call oneself a Christian is also a challenge if we deliberately ignore the tenets of faith in the Bible. Of course no one is perfect but at least we should make some real effort to follow what is written.
which includes the challenge of facing death – many are so terrified of their own death they want someone else to kill them instead, likened to putting down a dog, but human beings aren”t dogs .
Dave
What happened in Russia when the communists took over?
We define a person as being alive based on heartbeat, once heartbeat ceases is when we legally call a person deceased.
Not quite. It’s true in the case of a person who already has a heart. It’s not true in the case a fertilized egg or a zygote in the mind-blowing process of organizing itself to construct a heart, and a brain, etc. No serious person looks into the microscope at that stage and say “Uh-oh, no heart! No brain! It’s dead!!!”
I am in awe of Rex’s “Woke Maoism”. Tell that to Frank Dikkotter
To restate my case less sloppily: the key word in your statement is “ceases”. In a conceptus, zygote and early fetus, the fact that there is no heartbeat doesn’t indicate death. Heart coming. Stay tuned!
To answer the question on Russia. After the civil war was over and the Communists took charge is was encouraged to abort babies, the nation ended up somewhat depleted of a generation that followed that era.
That, and the social order broke down so badly, Lenin was forced to rescind practically all the radical Bolshevik anti-family, anti-marriage, free abortion policies amidst a storm of youth gangs running amuck in the big cities, rampant alcoholism (aside from the drug use of his own enforcers, the Cheka), collapsed networks of communication and supply, and more.
But for all the foreign help and investment they received (predominantly from America) in that period 1919-29, the Soviet Experiment would have ended in total oblivion.
And so you should be.
The only difference between the insanity, violence and strict ideological orthodoxy of traditional Maoism and the ideology trolls like yourself live by, is you don’t have a physical Mao to worship.
But there are plenty of interpreters of the woke ideal out there to slavishly follow.
Shame everyone else here gets it but you. But you wouldn’t be a woke Maoist if you could comprehend my meaning straight away, would you?
Rex: you’re an idiot
TO
You are a not-very-adequate troll, try again.
4. If a child is determined to be downs syndrome or some other serious abnormality, it is subjective as to whether or not life or death is the lesser evil
So I ought to be able to go out on the street and shoot downs syndrome kids, thereby creating lesser evil in my community in my subjective estimation, and be acquitted of murder? Are you serious?
And if you mean only while the defective child is in the womb, it only kicks the can down the road. Why is it OK to kill people in the womb because “subjectively” it’s a lesser evil, but not when they’re born? What changes about the “subjective” assessment and the possibly ensuing killing?
I think it was the Nazis that came up with the term “lives unworthy of life”, but whatever, there’s a stench about it.
No, because true evil exists which can only use lies and rhetoric to argue their point. There is no reasonable debate on the murder of babies, it’s pretty cut and dried.
You cannot reason with evil.
Hey Judge: cases coming your way
https://twitter.com/adamparkhomenko/status/1521966837591908353?s=21&t=9nDHa51iL3l4Ex2o4KfWrQ
Hubris is getting terribly excited about ladies swathed in capes and bonnets today.
What is it with the latter-day Left and Costume Dramas?
Rex: you seem rather obsessed with imposing laws on American women. Or is just all women?