Friday, February 06, 2009

Cue the hysteria

What can you say about a piece that wallows in hyperbole, demagogy and misattributed motives?

Cue the hysteria

Here's a good one. Blob Blogging Wingnut quoted Arthur: "Medical procedures, however, are governed by policy, not criminal law." but SHE deliberately left out the rest of the paragraph: "Doctors already adhere to a Canadian Medical Association policy that permits abortion after 20 weeks only "under exceptional circumstances." Less than 0.4 per cent of abortions occur after this point, all for compelling reasons such as serious fetal anomalies or life-threatening maternal health problems. This means that current abortion practice already matches the preferences of the vast majority of Canadians."

But never fear, SUZY ALL-CAPS added HER own embellishments: "If you practice medicine without a license, you will be charged with a crime. There can be criminal penalties for medical malpractice."

The reader is left wondering if there is any logical or a rational connection between HER comments and Arthur's observation. Is SHE suggesting that abortions in Canada are not being done under physicians' care? Clearly, SHE wants abortion criminalized and doctors prosecuted.

It is simply not true that medical practice is not governed by criminal law.

And in any event the issue is the treatment of the unborn child.

But they never think of that.

Blob Blogging Wingnut's never-ending intellectual dishonesty is unrelenting and is only matched by HER views that pregnant women are powerless incubators who must be forced to gestate their embryos and fetus.

They see what they want, don't they? They want to see intellectual dishonesty and they want to see opponents of abortion consider women as incubators.

As if I am not a woman; as if I see myself as a powerless incubator.

But it's so convenient to make these cynical attributions instead of giving people the benefit of the doubt or being open to other logical possibilities. That would be so intellectually honest.

Nothing else matters. Does SHE envision rows upon row of pregnant women, artificially maintained in a state of coma, kept on life support so that every one of the fetus they carry is brought to term?

Where does she come up with these wild fantasies? I guess she is so devoid of actual arguments that she has to make up these wild imaginings about her opponents' thoughts and motivations.

The next thing you know they'll be accusing me of wanting to institute the Republic of Gilead. It's all credible in their eyes. They have no clue.

When I consider the grand scheme of life on Earth and in the Universe, it does not destroy me to envisage that my mother might have chosen to terminate the fetus I once was.

That is the statement of a woman who did not value of her life as an unborn child.

That thought will not move me to join the mobs of shrieeekkking religious zealots who cannot imagine that a woman once had that power over them.

Again, crazy, wild-eyed attributions of ideas. Feminists are so obsessed with their own victimhood, they imagine that misogyny must live in the minds of everyone who does not agree with them.

I will continue to oppose Blob Blogging Wingnut’s ill-conceived and grotesque rhetoric with arguments that are fact-based, reasoned and compassionate.


They can barely bring themselves to admit that abortion kills a human being.

Reasoned? See above. They can't even see the irrationality of their statements about what pro-lifers think and feel.

Compassionate? They have no compassion for the unborn child. Compassion is a zero-sum game. There's only a limited amount, and it all goes to the woman.

This baby died as a result of no abortion law and the lack of respect for his life. Death was seen as the "compassionate" answer. How is death by intracardiac injection compassionate? Where was the compassion for this baby?

Compassion does not mean killing. Killing is not respectful. That should go without saying, but we lack even the most rudimentary moral knowledge.

This baby should have been loved, not killed. He should have been born and allowed to grow and reach his potential.

But feminists cannot admit that one can or should love an unborn child with all the same goodness shown towards born people.

Their compassion does not go that far.

And I will also hold HER up to ridicule whenever SHE claims that HER crusade is the same thing as the civil rights movement.

She can't use facts, so she must use mockery.

How sad.

All social reformers were mocked in the past. It comes with the territory.