Monday, January 24, 2011

Kermit Gosnell and Roe v. Wade

The video features Lila Rose from (via The Blog Prof). It's powerful:

As I keep learning, there are few things greater than abortion that more fundamentally separate normal, life-loving Americans from the death-loving dregs of progressivism. Scott Lemieux is simply a vile man. As a college instructor he's made abortion politics one of his pet projects. Rarely is the conventional evil of Democrat-progressive politics better represented than in Lemieux's posts at LGM. See for example, "Once You Get Your Position Sorted Out, Perhaps We Can Talk." There's no need to quote it. He's attacking Darleen Click at Protein Wisdom. As can be seen at the title, Lemieux's all about elaborating all the tired public policy explanations for the enormity of the Kermit Gosnell murders. And that's the thing: It's just superfluous. No explanation is needed. As Michelle wrote previously:
Deadly indifference to protecting life isn’t tangential to the abortion industry’s existence – it’s at the core of it. The Philadelphia Horror is no anomaly. It’s the logical, blood-curdling consequence of an evil, eugenics-rooted enterprise wrapped in feminist clothing.
This is how mass murder gets a pass from progressives like Scott Lemieux and his evil hordes at LGM. And there's yet more here. It's all very clinical. What never comes into the picture --- never, ever --- is the idea that killing the unborn is an enormity of world historical evil. To commit abortion is to violate the command of the absolute truth of goodness: honor life. Our own Declaration of Independence bears this, that governments are established to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All progressives want is more death, destruction, and desperation. I find it horrifying. But then, I look at politics from a stance of fundamental morality, and that separates me --- and my allies like Darleen, Lila, and Michelle --- from the heathen left. And where I may differ from others is that I don't question the civil liberties of abortion, and frankly I'm not necessarily down with the greater criminalization that's alleged by pea-brained progressives. The question is of moral agency. Of moral choice. People of goodness have to persuade women to choose life. That's the imperative, because whatever happens in the law --- whether the remote possibility exists for vacating Roe v. Wade, for example --- the final foundation of both moral right and popular will is in the realm of ideas, popular ideas. So in this sense, it's no contest. Progressive can't win on the merits, they can't win the debate, because they've got no case for life. When you see people like Barbara O'Brien claiming that the system worked in Philadelphia, you know how deep are the evils of these ghouls who are unfortunately fellow Americans.

A Response to Saletan on Late-Term Abortions."


JBW said...

So you wouldn't take away a woman's right to choose and you wouldn't criminalize anyone who underwent the procedure. Interesting, Don: it appears that you and I agree on something, at least as far as government policy goes. I have no doubt that you'll try to distinguish between us with some grade school description of evil as it applies to me but that's to be expected (and slightly amusing).

Where I think you're badly mistaken is in blaming what happened in Philadelphia on progressivism and the pro-choice movement. Just as with the Tucson shooting the real blame falls upon the man who actually committed the acts but outcomes like this are actually more likely under an abortion ban than they are when it's legal. Explain? OK...

Before we outlawed alcohol, it was made by manufacturers who knew what they were doing and produced a safe product (well, as safe as alcohol can get in human hands). Then when prohibition kicked in, a bunch of people who had very little skill in producing alcohol tried to do so to supply the artificially created black market demand: a lot of people were poisoned and/or went blind and some even died. Without some level of government regulation it became much more dangerous. When prohibition was lifted the people who knew what they were doing started making alcohol again and it became safer for everyone.

When abortion is legal it's performed largely by professionals who know what they're doing in a safe and regulated environment. When it's illegal, women are forced to go to back alley clinics or even Mexico where it's much more likely that scenarios like Philadelphia can happen. Economic demand creates an artificial black market with little safety or government regulation.

To restate that in slightly more hyperbolic terms for your friend Malkin: it's the logical, free market consequence of an American, capitalistic-rooted enterprise wrapped in prohibitionist clothing. Or in other words: just as it already sells illegal drugs and brings increased violence to our Southern border, the Invisible Hand also performs abortions as well. And no amount of whining about "the heathen left" will change that fact.