CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Pro-Aborts Say the Dumbest Things

Feb 21, 2011

This won’t be the first time I draw your attention to some really intellectually-challenged pro-abortion remarks, and it won’t be the last. The pro-abortion position is so morally and intellectually indefensible, that when the pro-death camp seeks to defend abortion, it has to rely on something other than logic, reason, sound arguments, or common sense.

Consider what appeared in today’s Daily Telegraph. Columnist Sarrah Le Marquand has a piece called “Abortion is none of Justin Bieber’s business”. The article contains no serious argumentation, logical reasoning or presentation of fact. Instead it is one long ad hominem attack on Bieber and anyone else who dares to disagree with her.

Justin Bieber had given an interview for Rolling Stone magazine recently and in it he made clear his pro-life position. For this he has earned the wrath of this angry pro-abort. The article is typical of those in the pro-death camp: plenty of nasty invective and mud-slinging, but no proper argument or evidence.

Consider just the title alone. Just what in the world does it mean? In the article she claims he is unqualified to speak on this issue. Why, because he takes a different position than her? If so, all Ms Le Marquand is demonstrating is what a bunch of censorious fascists the pro-abortion mob is.

Or because he is male? But why in the world should males not be allowed to speak on this? After all, half of all victims killed by abortion are male. I would think a national genocide which takes the lives of 50,000 male victims every year (and 25 million worldwide), is very much something every male should be able to speak on.

Ms Le Marquand does in fact inform us why he must not be permitted to speak on this issue: because he has the audacity to actually be a Christian! Yes you heard me right. Obviously anyone who is a Christian must be disqualified from speaking out on the issue of abortion.

But why Ms Le Marquand? Why should Christians be silenced on this issue while secularists like yourself are allowed to speak? It seems to me that in a democracy anyone should be allowed to speak about the important social issues of the day, even – gasp – those dreaded Christians.

Indeed, given that Christians make up 64 per cent of the population according to the last census, just what exactly are you suggesting? Should the great majority of Australians simply sit down and shut up just because of your irrational anti-Christian bigotry?

And if being religious disqualifies one from speaking out on social and moral issues, then what are you suggesting? Should Bieber and billions of Christians the world over never speak out on rape either, or environmental degradation, or unemployment, or various other social injustices, all because of their religiosity?

But consider some more of Ms Le Marquand soggy reasoning. She says this: “Bieber is in no way qualified to judge anyone faced with an unplanned pregnancy, irrespective of their circumstances. None of us are.” None of us? Then if Bieber is not allowed to say that abortion in such a situation might be wrong, then how exactly do you get off in saying it might be right?

Indeed, why are you even writing this article? She even admits that “I’ve never found myself in that position either”! So why don’t you just butt out as well? Why must Bieber be silenced while you are allowed to go waffling on about something which is just as foreign to you as it is to him?

And one more pearl of wisdom can be examined here. She says, “But for those who find themselves faced with unplanned or unwanted pregnancies, legalised abortion must remain an option.” OK, now we have a moral absolute being thrown out in the middle of an article full of moral relativism.

So let me get this straight. The option to kill someone who puts us in an uncomfortable or unwanted position must always remain open. OK, so let’s say I am sick of several street people who have recently started living in my home. They may be needy people, but plenty of times I find them annoying, inconvenient, or a pain in the butt.

By her reasoning I have the option to shoot them; that would be morally acceptable because they are unplanned and unwanted. Strange, but I can think of all sorts of other situations where I find myself confronted by those who are both unwanted and unplanned.

I guess by her version of morality I have the moral right to consider lethal force to rid myself of these annoyances as well. Thank you Ms Le Marquand for offering us this bit of moral wisdom. Life is so much simpler – and convenient – now that I have adopted your unique moral code.

I suppose the only remaining question to ask is, why does a major newspaper even bother to print such morally vacuous and intellectually barren articles? If they are just looking to fill space, I would be happy to submit a few pro-life articles. But I suspect the paper would not be too interested in such an offer.

blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sarrahlemarquand/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/abortion_is_none_of_justin_biebers_business/

[859 words]

22 Responses to Pro-Aborts Say the Dumbest Things

  • Logically incoherent spew on topics of injustice like abortion make my blood boil.

    I should only visit your website in the mornings before work 🙂

    …Arg! I just went to the site and she’s actually replying to posts under the comments! I wonder how she’d respond to you Bill, if you posted this blog in the comments 🙂
    (given her “logic” thus far, she’d probably just delete – to win by censoring).

    Darrell Yip

  • Absolute insanity. We even see ultra liberal, big-mouthed, hostess of ‘The View’, Joy Behar has come out with similar irrational comments. But what I find completely baffling is that these are the same people who are constantly advocating education on abortion and offering the right for minors to make decisions on it.

    Justin Bieber would be in the exact age bracket that they would argue the need for this option available. So with one hand they offer freedoms and liberty of choice and opinion, and with the other, they take it away. In reality, it is indoctrination of the youth to conform to an oppressive lifestyle, all under the guise of unrestricted choice… that is, the choice they choose.

    So obsessed with their own rights to choose, they completely forget that being able to choose involves forming an opinion and adhering to it. But the insanity of it all would argue that you can have an opinion, but only if you keep it silent – which is essentially saying you can’t have an opinion at all.

    As much as doubt I have with this Bieber kid’s Christianity, it worries me to think just what will happen to other youth who have seen the acidic irrationality thrown-back at him, and fearing the same, hide their convictions in attempt to avoid it.

    Parents, I really encourage you guys to be unwavering in your convictions so that you can be a example to your kids. It does a lot to know that there is value to them and they are worth holding on to.

    Ash Curkpatrick

  • Someone posted Rebecca Kiessling’s website on her blog and I posted a comment too – it remains to be seen if she has the courage to put it up. She actually seems to be arguing that violence against women by men is wrong but violence against the unborn is a valid ‘choice’.

    The rape argument is a massive smokescreen for the pro-abortion supporters. Abortion doesn’t unrape a woman, it just adds yet another trauma. Justin Bieber is a just a convenient object to direct their hatred at. That hatred always seems to be just bubbling behind a wafer-thin surface. “How dare somebody connect behaviour with consequences!” It seems to me it’s the ones who most loudly defend abortion and stomp their feet claiming it hasn’t affected them are Exhibit A that abortion affects women deeply. Ash is right, apparently a 16 year old is incapable of recognizing life, but a 14 year old is old enough to exercise her ‘reproductive rights’ or something…

    Some pro-aborts are as logically pretzelized as it gets. Sarrah Le Marquand is one of them. I pray that the light of truth goes on in more and more people as the horror that is abortion and the lies that protect it get further exposed. It’s nice to hear about the hard times Planned Barrenhood is getting in the USA. May this kind of vacuous essay serve only to prove how backward a society is that sanctions this evil industry. Lord, keep on turning up the light and wake people up!

    http://www.rebeccakiessling.com

    Mark Rabich

  • As Sarrah Le Marquand reminds us again, the notions of subjective relativism and absolute autonomy are supposed to trump immutable morality (and logic) in any public discussion of abortion. This assumption is also made in discussions about same-sex marriage, and euthanasia.

    To the extent that state legislation has ratified the opinions of so-called “pro-choicers”, it’s because a modern liberal government is stuffed with ideologues who assert that no objective good exists for which its citizens should strive.

    Alex Anderson

  • Well, this morning she replied. Below is my original post, her reply, and what I just sent her:

    Sarrah,

    I note somebody got to mentioning Rebecca Kiessling before I did – and that you ignored the issue she raises. You clearly think that abortion is a valid choice in rape and that the violence of rape somehow reduces the intrinsic humanity of the unborn.

    The truth is, the rape argument is a smokescreen. Abortion is itself a violent act, a denial of the basic right to life of every human, and a facilitation of the idea that ‘might is right’. Abortion does not ‘unrape’ a woman, in fact it adds to her violations and pain. A society is measured by the way it treats its weakest members and it is highly ironic you rail against a man misusing his strength to sexually assault a woman by thinking her power over her unborn child to the point of killing is OK. The cognitive dissonance you display is startling.

    The reality is that when you use the rape issue you are arguing that women like Kiessling have less intrinsic value. I only have to quote what you wrote – “all options must be made available to women” – which means in your view Kiessling might’ve been legitimately killed. Backtrack all you like, you are still devaluing her life because of the circumstances of her conception.

    But the science is settled at when every individual human life begins – conception – and diversions from that fact are what pro-abortion (and yes, that is what you believe) proponents engage in. You say pro-choice, but pro-’choice’ about what? About abortion – the killing of unborn humans – not the choice about the colour of your car or flavour of ice-cream. Pro-’choice’ is misleading.

    What would you do if you observed a weak person getting beaten up? I hope you would help them and see that the violence stops. But you seem happy to see the violence on the unborn continue and people cynically make money off women’s pain.

    I’d love to see you debate this issue in public on equal terms, not just hide behind a moderated forum. I’m sure Rebecca Kiessling would be especially thrilled to hear how she’s just a “zealot” with no right to defend the weakest members of society.

    Mark, as someone who obviously follows this issue very closely, I’m sure you are well aware that the right of rape victims to access abortion has been rekindled as a political topic in the US due to the proposed No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. Presumably this is why Justin Bieber was asked about his views on that specific aspect of the issue, and why it is subsequently addressed in my column. And as I said, I don’t believe the debate should be reduced to applying differing levels of compassion to rape victims versus women who fall pregnant under less horrific circumstances. To that degree, I actually agree with you when you say the rape argument is largely a smokescreen. For you to allege that I believe “the violence of rape somehow reduces the intrinsic humanity of the unborn” is hopelessly wide of the mark.

    Thank you for your reply.

    I don’t think you are properly examining your own argument – if the unborn have intrinsic value as a result of merely being human, then the circumstances of their conception are irrelevant and even raising the rape situation infers that people such as Kiessling have less value. It’s not “wide of the mark”, it’s what you are arguing. You go to great lengths to make Bieber look as if he is insulting rape victims.

    But no-one has power over somebody elses life and pro-lifers stick with that ethos 100%. You twist yourself into knots to justify deadly danger to the unborn, presumably because you and/or someone you know has had an abortion and you cannot bear the reality. In a way, that is understandable, but it is not good enough. It is avoiding the truth.

    I was unplanned (not rape, btw) and bristle at the idea that the situation of my mother somehow validates a power of life or death over me. I have been human from conception and awarding me anything less than the same right to life as any other human is a slippery slope. Dehumanization of any people is not acceptable. Both my parents grew up in Nazi Germany and you should look up the phrase ‘so fängt es immer an’.

    And btw please don’t change the subject – which is what many are apt to do at this point – by bringing up capital punishment. The subject is the unborn and how they deserve the protection of a civilized society, irrespective of a completely different issue, which people have a wide range of views about, including pro-lifers. But the unborn have committed no crimes, they simply exist. Abortion is uncivilized and backward. It should go the way of slavery.

    This woman claims Bieber is naive, but her ignorance is truly shocking. I wish these people would more often debate in public so their empty and illogical arguments could be exposed for the evil extremism they are. The biggest irony of all is that the the abortionists use the shame the pro-aborts carry (ie. “the lower the termination rate, the better.”, Le Marquand wrote) to keep their grubby women-exploiting industry going. They trade on the very fact that what they do is so horrible people don’t want to think about it and if they are confronted they shoot the messenger.

    Mark Rabich

  • Mark. That was an absolutly fine counter point to a non objective non factual argument. As you say rape is a smoke screen. How many rapes are their relative to abortions after allowing a lie factor to strengthen their case? The percentage should be known.
    Judging also by the state and the malpractices in some abortion centres the back street abortion has moved to main street. In this I am surprised women actually use them You will get no compassion from those who deal in death.
    Why is there no mention of the adoption option? You don’t have to resort to murder.
    Why would you wait till almost full term after bearing most of the restrictions and confinement of a pregnancy before killing it??
    Surely Choice comes before un-protected sex not after.
    Yes some contraceptives fail but they are such a small percentage of the overall slaughter.
    In Russia abortion appears to be being used as a contraception of sorts. Are we going the same way?
    I hope I am mistaken but it would appear that some young girls seem willing to try pregnancy before buying and I sincerely hope that’s not true otherwise it belittles life to no more than a product.
    I have only one suggestion to give to Sarrah. Fully investigate your topic then Sit down and watch a complete video of an abortion with your eye’s wide open then re-consider your article.

    Dennis Newland

  • Hi Mark

    I was interested to read both your comments and the reply you received. But I missed the bit where you conceded she did in fact “have the courage” to not only publish your comments, but respond to you directly.

    In fact the only reason I am even here is because of a link she (or another moderator at the paper) had the decency to also publish when it was provided by a fellow reader. That sort of transparency in the media is rare and should be acknowledged.

    To your credit you included your full name when making your comments, but most people on those news site blogs don’t. I’m not sure it’s fair to accuse a journalist who at least has the backbone to air her own views under her own name and photo, and then hold her own against a bunch of people posting cowardly remarks under anonymous titles, as failing to debate in public. It doesn’t get much more public than that, surely?

    Phil Martens

  • I noticed that Ash mentioned the name Joy Behar, one of the anchors on the less than intelligent American TV show “The View”. I think it should be called “The Spew” and I usually refer to that TV anchor as Joyless Behar. One of my favourites, Ann Coulter was on the programme, defending the CIA’s practice of waterboarding known terrorists to extract information about their plans to commit mass murder. Joyless Behar, always ready to defend the indefensible said to Ann Coulter “You are in favour of water boarding, but you wouldn’t like to be water boarded”. The highly intelligent Ann Coulter responded “Well you are in favour of abortion, but you wouldn’t like to be aborted”
    Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld

  • Actually Dennis contraceptives frequently fail. The failure rate for contraceptives is given in women years. That is the number of woman out of 100 who will conceive in a year of using the contraceptive method. Given that a woman may use contraception for 20 years, 99% isn’t really 99%. A recent study of around 2000 women found that 1 in 2 had an unplanned pregnancy and 60% of those were using contraception at the time. More than half of women who have abortions report they were using contraception at the time. Also if you multiply 99% by the number of women on the pill you will come out with a number of failures that is completely unacceptable if you intend to kill ‘failures’.

    http://www.mariestopes.org.au/research/australia/australia-real-choices-key-findings

    I believe ‘safe sex’ and ‘effective contraception’ are two of the biggest lies fed to our teenagers about sex.

    Kylie Anderson

  • After a few personal experiences and your articles Bill I feel as though we don’t live in a very pluralistic and “tolerant” society at all. It feels more like an anti-Christian society, and you certainly hit the nail on the head with this article. Even talking to non-Christian friends they talk about how we need to accept everyone’s views, and morality is subjective and often straight after begin speaking as if there is a right and wrong view and that there is truth.
    Good on Justin for being pro-life in a pro-choice culture!
    Anthony Lichoudaris

  • Hi Phil,

    I agree with you – surely you can see that I thanked her for her reply. That was not just courtesy.

    It’s not the first time I have posted on this subject (or others) and the vast majority of times what I write something it doesn’t see the light of day. The Age letters section is a great example of this, where opinions that don’t fit the left-leaning narrative get considerably less exposure. I don’t even bother reading The Age much now. Too much of it just isn’t news, but opinion dressed up as news. I’m trying not to be cynical about this, but the fact my post was published was definitely the exception for me. (I know this was the Daily Telegraph, btw)

    As for a journalist writing a pro-‘choice’ opinion and putting her name to it, I submit to you that’s not particularly courageous. I suggest you try and write a strong pro-life article in today’s culture – you may just discover the real nature of courage! Pro-life is not PC. Pro-life will get you hated like no other. Pro-life invites the very definition of bigotry and intolerance. I’ve been on marches, I’ve seen it first hand and I have loads of video footage to back it up.

    In regards to being a public forum, blogs (including this one) have a limited audience, although they are publicly accessible. I realize I could’ve stated that more clearly. I was thinking more of a classic debate format where points and rebuttals can be made live in front of an audience. The pro-life position is so strongly supported by the facts I can’t see any pro-abort having a chance. I don’t know of a single prominent pro-lifer who would shirk the opportunity for a civil public debate on equal terms. If they are even a half decent public speaker, they would win because the pro-‘choice’ case is so weak. I refer you to this book:

    http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Life-Answers-Pro-Choice-Arguments-Expanded/dp/1576737519/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

    And I agree with you also it is hard to give credibility to people who comment anonymously. One of the reasons I think this blog has a lot more going for it than most. It’s very easy to shoot off your mouth when you aren’t prepared to stand up for that opinion. (And I think it generally pulls down the level of discourse too.) But as some people here can attest, you will make enemies. Oh well, I think I’m in good company.

    “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”
    – Winston Churchill

    Who wouldn’t want to stand up for the protection of the gift of life to the weakest members of society? (I admit that being unplanned makes me a bit biased.)

    Mark Rabich

  • Sarah says abortion is “a decision very few women – or couples – take lightly, but one that is ultimately only theirs to make. That’s pro-choice.”
    I am guessing that a huge proportion of abortions are the result of casual sex and recreational sex – increasingly practised by teenagers. How can casual and recreational be equated with “a decision very few women, or men, take lightly? As for pro-choice, nothing is free; society, including the unborn child have no choice but to stump up and pay, economically, socially and spiritually, we all pay for unlimited fornication and of this we have no choice.

    Sarah also reveals how she judges people according to their performance and public image but dismisses integrity and inner character as worse than worthless. How shallow this woman is. And has been said her comments are bestrewn with cognitive dissonance and contradictions.
    Sarah, with all your confident ignorance and opinionated presumption, Justin, for all his youthfulness makes you look like a baby pygmy. Grow up.

    David Skinner, UK

  • Is this woman’s logic if any worth the dignity of a comment? I think not. The bible is clear in not arguing with fools.
    Pat Abrahams

  • The shortest waiting line ever would comprise of those who believe in abortion and think they should be aborted retroactively.
    Frank Grasso

  • Kylie. I would agree with you in that there is no such thing as safe sex. The term used being casual sex. Sex in a loving relationship I.E the majority (marriage would be better) rarely leads to an abortion due to the support of a loving partner. Where it does the relationship invariably fails. Yes the safe sex push is a lie. Another problem is that the seriousness of a sexual relationship rarely gets the attention it deserves in schools. Women can get pregnant if they have sex it’s a simple fact and it places a greater burden on them to control the cause and that is their primary choice and I make no excuse that it can be a difficult one.
    That is the teaching we need in schools regarding consequences. Casual sex bloomed because of the birth control pill and all constraints other than ones own personal standards went out the window. And despite delusions of this being sexism the bar of personal standards needs to be raised again for both sexes. Both need to be taught the seriousness of the consequences and not the flippant attitude of “Oh well you can always get an abortion. That cheapens life in the extreme and will only get worse.
    Humans and other animals have the most beautiful of gifts in that they are able to create a new person. That in itself really bears no relationship to any form of casual sex.
    The feminist movement planned outcome is to have the same sexual freedom -as they perceive the males have- without any consequences, and in that regard contraceptives like the pill and abortion often guarantees that, albeit at a moral and sometimes physical cost to both the woman and the child that has been created. It is not a good conclusion.
    Years ago whilst doing an apprenticeship I was taught how to do my job and taught specifically about safety. If I didn’t listen to and adopt safe procedures I could lose an eye or a hand or my life and I have seen it happen. Yet when it comes to sex education the perceived right to sex often degrades the safety procedures, the outcome and/or its prevention. Slipping condoms over banana’s while half the class is sniggering will rarely tell the beauty of its purpose and the personal need for control rather than the cheap gratification that it often is. In addition to this other options such as adoption rather than murder are rarely mentioned.
    You know we often see situations whereby women are told to deny sex until the man does such and such and whilst that may sound silly it is a fact that the woman’s body is the only one designed to carry the baby and she really is the only person who has control over her body no one else. But! Neither she nor the man has the power of life and death over the life of the child they have created.
    As for “Marie Stopes” I would not even consider surveys undertake by those with a heavily vested financial interest in their outcome. Whilst I could put a complete table of contraceptive percentage of failures on this post that refutes her survey it is not the place to do it. However I would suggest reading independent surveys and FDA analysis of methods available. As none are totally foolproof this is underlines the fact that there is no such thing as safe sex either in terms of procreation or some times fatal disease risk.
    Choice and its consequences are a much needed education.

    Dennis Newland

  • I think her comment (“Abortion is none of Justin Bieber’s business”), is similar to those arguments made 200 years ago by southerners who stated that slavery was “none of your business” to their northern critics.

    David Hutchinson

  • Yes quite right David.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Dennis, I find the Marie-Stopes statistics support the argument that contraception isn’t all it’s meant to be. And given that it’s Marie-Stopes I can at least quote it to pro-choicers and not have them say they don’t trust pro-life propaganda. I can find the tables of efficiency too, my point is 99% isn’t good enough for preventing babies when they will be murdered. 90% isn’t good enough for preventing STDs. There are 35000 commercial flights in the US each day. 99% flight reaching their destination gives 350 crashes a day. Just because 99% is a big number doesn’t mean it is an acceptable number. Of course teens are usually quoted the perfect use not the usual use statistics.
    Kylie Anderson

  • Sorry but the abortion business has not told a lot of truths lately and no doubt their statistics will generally
    support those who want to kill the child, so no I will not accept anything other than an impartial analysis. However amongst all that it must be remembered that a large proportion of abortions are either live birth (murder) or late term abortions where nothing more than a finger needs to be left in the mothers body to be classified as a Partial birth crime free abotion. Why would anyone wait nearly nine months to have what is effectively an assisted birthed child only so it can face the abortionists knife/scissor/ hatchet whatever. And of course you say nothing about the statistics for the thousands of parents waiting to adopt. It seems that as far as some abortionists are concerned (a misnomer indeed) the only good child is a dead one. Forget about perceived or biased statistics regardless of who’s right they are only academic not moral. The greatest trust in all humanity has been placed in the hands of a pregnant mother and that is often sold out without just cause. Also plane crashes are rare whereas wiping out thousands of children per hour simply is not an excuse for you comparisons. People also do their best to make sure that the mistakes in plane construction or operation are erradicated as they become known. It’s a great pity we haven’t done our best to eradicate this bleeding sore on humanity. By your thoughts the rampant increase in the annual abortion rate if applied to aeroplane safety would scare the living daylights out of those boarding aplane.
    End of story.
    Dennis Newland

  • I work for a manufacturer who makes transportable humidity-cribs for babies who are born prematurely.

    The average person simply wouldn’t believe the number of steps we take to make sure that our product is right and when called upon the device will preserve the baby’s life to the best of human ability. Furthermore, should our product fail, there will be a thorough and unforgiving inquisition with our careers and finances on the line.

    The irony is that our biggest customer is the biggest abortion clinic in Victoria, the Royal Women’s hospital (I may be wrong, so I am happy to be corrected.)

    What gets to me is this great dichotomy of thought. Are babies worth preserving or not? Why do we go to such great lengths to preserve one and make such insubstantial waffle about the right to do away with the other?

    Lennard Caldwell Clifton QLD

  • By her ‘logic’, she is unplanned and/or annoying; therefor I can/may dispatch HER.
    Harry Nieman

  • Dear Bill, This silly creature is so eaten up with anger and hatred for men and especially Christian men that you really have to feel sympathy for the miserable state she is in. It is eating away at her so much that she is incapable of seeing any good in what they say or do thus the reason for the attack on Beiber. If she keeps on hating it will consume and destroy her and the sad part is that she has chosen it.
    Patricia Halligan

Leave a Reply