Thursday, November 11, 2010

Abortion Gang Member Can't Figure It Out

What does the Brenda Drummond case have to do with the abortion issue?  Wonders Christie from The Abortion Gang.

It's the classic "coathanger" abortion story. Brenda Drummond shot her full-term fetus in an effort to kill her unborn child. And the Supreme Court of Canada acquitted her in 1997.

So feminists, care to defend that case? Go ahead and harp on about how Brenda Drummond should have had access to a safe and legal abortion at term, and that the medical system should have been legally obliged to perform it.

Christie also omits to mention that  the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the fetus in Canada has no legal existence. Not that the fetus does not have any rights. IT DOES NOT EXIST under the law (until birth. THEN his existence is recognized retroactively.)

What kind of law system doesn't acknowledge what actually exists?

It makes sense to put in place a legal fiction for something that doesn't exist, e.g. corporate personhood.

But to blind oneself that something that really does exist, e.g. a fetus, is foolish.

She writes:

"I am not even really sure where some anti’s found this case"

Gee, a Supreme Court of Canada ruling from 1997. How hard could that have been to have found that? (Not to mention remember it!)
And this is the gist of her post:

What I can’t seem to figure out is the logic behind highlighting a case like this one. This has nothing to do with abortion rights (except for, thank you Canada, recognizing the rights of the mother over the “rights” of the fetus). What does this one woman’s situation have to do with the right to abort an embryo or a fetus? What does almost any fetus story have to do with abortion rights?

Somebody has not been paying attention to the debate.

She can't make the connection so what does she conclude?

This seems to have to do with highlighting the “crazy.” It seems to be the same thread, over and over. “Women are not sane enough to make decisions about their bodies. See? Look at this psychotic woman. Just look at her. How can you trust someone like her to make a decision about having a baby? Honestly. How?”  I can see absolutely no other reason to use this case to argue against abortion.


When anti’s use cases like this one to argue against safe access to abortion, I always wonder: if women aren’t sane enough to decide whether or not they want to have a baby, how can you trust them to raise one?

Before I explain the obvious, i.e. what Brenda Drummond's case has to do with abortion, let me address her issue with women.

The Brenda Drummond case highlights precisely WHY "Trust Women" is a dumb slogan.

Brenda Drummond WASN'T trustworthy.

So WHY should we trust her?

Christie seems to be saying: trust her anyway?

Brenda Drummond couldn't even make a SANE decision about her late-term fetus and we're supposed to trust her?

We're supposed to ignore her inability to make a rational decision and let her make one? One that kills?

Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.

Christie's comeback is that she couldn't raise a child, so why not let her have an abortion?

Because...she doesn't need to raise the child.

Brenda Drummond had two other children. One wonders how they fared. One also wonders if they would have preferred to have been aborted at near term.

Feminists act like this irrational act should be Exhibit A in the case for why abortion should be legal. The woman could have killed herself.

Yeah, but what was she trying to do? She was trying to kill her baby.

So the feminist answer seems to be: Brenda Drummond should have been HELPED to kill her unborn child.

Not locked up. Not told not to do it.


And, this Abortion Gang Member wonders what this has to do with the abortion debate.

Does she not understand that what is being sought here is, first and foremost, the right for the fetus not to be killed?

I think the problem is that many people who support abortion rights are so focused on the woman, they can't understand why someone would think abortion even consists of killing, let alone the killing of a human being.

And some people are so in denial of the process, they don't want their minds to get too close to that reality.

See, if the act of abortion itself were not the stigmatizing factor, people who support abortion rights would be absolutely forthright about that reality. They're forthright about that reality in other parts of the world. Not here. Abortion rights people would say very plainly that the act they seek to defend kills a human being, and it's no big deal.

But they don't do that. Not most of them. Some of them do. But those who do, don't think too hard about the moral implications of it.

The other reason they're not forthright is that they don't want to upset the clients. Because many of the clients are unware of that reality. And some of them are and don't want to be reminded-- because they know what they're doing is wrong.

Realities don't matter in these settings. Euphemisms are commonly employed to shield them from it. It's results that matter. The result that matters is the inconvenient unborn child is discarded and abortionists can make their cash.

That's what happens when you have a morality that supports the ends justifying the means.