Friday, May 29, 2009

Canadian Feminist Comments on Partial Birth Abortion-- Denies There Is a Debate on Abortion

When deBeauxOs denounced the Irish Catholic Church's role in the abuse of children, I called her on the fact that she and her blogging partner fern hill support the legality of Partial Birth Abortion. It did not strike them as ironic in the least that they denounce kids getting savagely beaten upby clerics, while supporting the legality of a procedure which involves stabbing a half-born late-term baby in the head and sucking his brains out.

I also raised the issue of the abortion debate

What did fern hill have to say about that?

There you have it folks. There's no debate because she says so.

Do you understand where they are coming from?

If they say there's no debate, then there's debate. It's there fiat.

If they do not like the terms of a debate, it does not exist for them.

How convenient.

What if everyone did that?

I don't like the terms of the global warming debate, so there's no debate.

I don't like the terms of the Muslim debate, so there's no debate.

And magically, all arguments, all opinions, all opposition, all concerns magically disappear.

Everybody walks in lockstep in my world! Wow! Nobody contradicts me. I am intellectually unchallenged. I have nothing to answer and nothing to justify. I don't have to think, I just have to assert, and it's true! And if someone says otherwise, I just have to shut him out. La la la la, I'm not listening! I'm ignoring you! It's my opinion, so it's true, your opinions are wrong because I say so!

It's all so very easy.

Doesn't this fit with the image that they project of fundamentalists-- of people who assert and will not listen or reason? Fundamentalists are supposed to boil down their arguments to "because God said so" whereas feminists just say "because I said so." When I consider how they consider fundamentalists to be stupid, unthinking and unable to argue, it just all seems so ironic. It's so easy to say the other side can't argue when you won't argue.

Their only power seems to be their assertion. Not the quality of their facts, their argumentation, their logic or their consistency.

Because that would actually require thinking about one's beliefs, and attempting to go above and beyond the general terms of the debate into intellectual territory they're not used to.

They're used to dismissing any religious person as unable to reason because they cling ignorantly to the idea that if a religious person emits an opinion, it must be Revelation-based, and it cannot be debated, as it is has no basis in reality.

(And yet here I am, using words and concepts accessible to people of all faiths and none.)

And so, when they are presented with the challenge that partial birth abortion is child abuse, it's only natural that fern hill responds:

I thought your attempted parallel between child abuse and abortion too stupid to address.

She thinks it, so it's true. There is no concern whatsoever about the pain the unborn child suffers, the technicality of allowing to kill a baby who's hanging out of the mother, his lack of personhood because he's still attached to an umbilical cord.

Most people would consider these things as worthy of consideration, that the unborn child deserves more than being put into an ideological category of "non-personhood" in the name of safeguarding feminist power.

When hardcore feminist pro-aborts look at a fetus like this, they see a "non-entity":

You have to wonder how brainwashed and heartless do you have to be too look at a late-term fetus and consider him to be undeserving of any other label than an "appendage".

The strength of the pro-life movement is that we are willing to face head on any and all issues related to fetal rights. Perhaps it's just as well that they are in denial. The rest of the world operates on a very different intellectual plane. Their abortion ideology will implode under the weight of its own contradictions, and people will come to see the ugliness of what it proposes. Their calling pro-lifers "zygote zealots" won't hide those truths. It's only a deflection from the substance of the debate, which is precisely what they want.