To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it.

Ayn Rand* said that. So since you choose to assume neutrality your support of abortion is implied.

* Thanks to Ender for having this in his sigline and reminding me of this quote.

Your answer to cars is exactly the reason why we all defended your integrity, mailloux. You did it humbly, directly and with absolute honesty. That’s why we love you so much and put so much trust in your diaries. Indeed, we are friends and it’s a valuable relationship to have !

Also, I greatly appreciate and am humbled by those who defended my personal integrity as an honest diarist. Truly, RedState is not only a community of fellow conservatives, but a gathering of friends.

Take Care, mailloux

I’ve read through the thread and your original comment. First off, I’d like to say that to the best of my knowledge, the post by Mr. Duncan on Alternet.org is legit. He posted under their “Reproductive Justice and Gender” section. If the post is ever found to be false (that is, Mr. Duncan’s post), I will immediately say so in an updated version of my diary (which, as you know, is a commentary on Mr. Duncan’s).

If you find Mr. Duncan’s post to be unbelievable, then I suggest you hang around any run of the mill public college or university for a spell. Read the bumper stickers on students’ cars. Attend some events thrown by student groups with a feminist aspect. Heck, just read the opinion section of the student newspaper. There is certainly a militant, angry aspect to the pro-abortion movement. Hence, Mr. Duncan’s description of a red sheet hanging from the ceiling for revelers to dance behind in effigy of the unborn is certainly well, well within the realm of possibilities.

My post (which again, is a commentary on Mr. Duncan’s post on Alternet.org) examines the trivialization and rationalization of abortion. Is my post too simplistic? It being a blog post and not an entire book, it will certainly leave out much. There are myriad ways in which abortion is trivialized and rationalized. Mr. Duncan and his cadre were but one . . . and one type that I’ve seen a great deal of (I work for a university).

By your comments I will take the not so great leap (in my opinion) and assume you are “pro-choice” or at the very least, extremely sympathetic to several rationalizations for abortion, including aborting for financial reasons. A genuinely pro-life individual will recognize and accept two critical tenets. They are:

1. The preborn are fully human persons who have as much right to life as you or I (already born persons).
2. Economic factors, personal factors, and nearly all health factors (save for the life of the mother) should not trump someone else’s right to life.

There is a time and a place for compassion and there is a time and a place for judgment based on truth and justice. Compassion and justice can perfectly co-exist and do so with perfection in God. Mankind, then, can and should practice both. Compassion should not diminish justice and visa-versa. Hence, compassion for a struggling single mother is the absolute right human response. Help through churches, charities, crisis pregnancy centers, and adoptive parents are available. Does this remove all the challenges of pregnancy? Of course not, but should those challenges be reason enough to end another human person’s life as a solution for relieving those various stresses (financial, personal, health, psychological, etc.)? There, cars, is the matter of justice. On the two pan balance of justice, the right to life outweighs all the reasons you compassionately mention as understandable reasons for abortion. In my opinion, cars, you are obfuscating the simplicity of the issue. The basic right to life should trump convenience . . . it should trump personal economics . . . it should trump most every challenge faced.

cars, I appreciate you commenting on my diary.

Take Care, mailloux

I do not care what motivates them: a child is a blessing.
I do not care about the complexities of life (as a society we should help those who cannot help themselves): a child is a blessing.
I do not care if the article is manufactured: a child is a blessing.
I don’t care about what went on at this party, although what took place is an absolute atrocity: a child is a blessing.

I do care that people are fundraising (why is it so expensive that people would have to fundraise for the procedure?) for the killing of an innocent “child” because it is considered a burden.
I do care that our society is so twisted that such events take place.

There is no choice when one simply does not want the “child”.

The first is that my objections to the article have less to do with the fact of the abortion per se and more to do with the way the women are portrayed – and as a result of that – subsequently discussed in this thread.

The issue that originally prompted me to enter this discussion was that I felt that the linked article was emotionally manipulative in its portrayal of women and soliciting an attitude that appeals to those of us with pro-life beliefs but at the same time both denigrates women and subsequently clouds reasonable discussion about how to reduce or eliminate abortion within our society.

We have posters speaking about a culture of abortion – of women who consider children as a “barrier to self-fulfillment”. We have other posters discussing deceitful and manipulative women coercing others into abortion and feminists emasculating men. We have posters speaking of women who want to kill a child because it is weaker and doing so allows them to exert power and thus boost their self esteem.

All of those assumptions about the reasons that women seek abortion are offensive to me – because as an intelligent and, I think conscientious, woman I resent the implication that women in general act out of such callous self interest and without any consideration of the moral implications of their actions. Even women who choose what is essentially seen as an immoral act rarely do so without considerations other than purely cavalier self interest – in my opinion.

So, I don’t choose to disclose because I don’t wish to have my opinions automatically accepted or rejected on a basis other than their pertinence or relevance to the points I was trying to make. Other posters can make assumptions – but they are only that.

(I don’t know if I’ve been as clear as I’d like here. It’s late – and I think my thought processes are getting a bit cloudy. I know what I’m trying to say – I’m just not sure if I’m actually saying it. I’ll check in again at some point tomorrow.)

Maybe she has a history of addiction or is an addict now. Look at the way child protective services deals with women that have a history of addiction. I don’t see any pro-life or conservative group advocating to help them.

With welfare to work and the work requirement many pregnant women may not be able to keep up with the job hunting/paperwork filling out/etc that is required if she can’t work and needs some cash assistance.

Just look at situations that women find themselves in and she is 13 – 50 year old it could be a pregnant women’s situation.

Now the times we have protested outside the clinic, what you posted is what I see. People driving in and out with new luxury cars. Lots of parents that look financially comfortable with the teen daughters in the back seat. I’m sure there are don’t want to downgrade their life but we should be aware that many are in the middle of a real situation they need some assistance with. It could be something like a light bill or a rent payment.

Claim dispassion all you care to, cars, but your viewpoint comes through anyway, both by what you say and by what you do not say. All in all, I prefer mailloux’s writing as he doesn’t hesitate to say what he believes and why. You don’t do either and therefore are suspect.

I do feel you stated and continue to imply stereotypical attributes to those on the tread who have discussed this diary with you. IMO, not one of the posters, starting with Uma and all the way to myself said anything that warrants your perception. Unless, you are adhering to preconceived opinions.

I still take exception to your skepticism on the mentality of the participants at the party and your labeling of us as “deliberately ignoring the complexities of life.” IMO, that does a tremendous disservice to the participants of the pro-life movement as well as people discussing this with you on the tread.

Fair enough on not discussing your own personal position on abortion. I do think your stand on the issue is what clouds your view of us as well as your take on the diary itself.

As far as Mailloux. He will probably check in on this diary and offer quite sound reasoning and rebuttal. It is the weekend, and it may be after that, be patient. He will address your concerns. We ‘know’ him and I do not think you do, he is due tremendous respect because he knows what he is talking about. I am Not saying you don’t, but he can answer certain points for you.

I thank you again for responding. I look forward to any further discussions that may occur when Mailloux and you talk.

I question the conclusions that Mailloux has drawn from the events in the linked article. It is those conclusions – and the bald fact that the article’s portrayals leads precisely to them – that bother me.

To quote Mailloux: “The “feminist” party attendees funded the murder of a child, contributed to the destruction of a mother and father, and validated the actions of the abusive women. I guess that’s why they call it the “feminist mystique.”

Aside from the clever snark at the end – the other conclusions and those voiced further upthread about manipulative women coercing others into abortion are what I object to.

I didn’t say that the pro-life movement in general demonizes women and simplifies the issues – I said that conclusions like the ones voiced in this thread in response to the linked article do. And as such are insulting to women in general – and so should be avoided.

I’m not going to speak of my own views on abortion and I would appreciate if you don’t make any assumptions in that regard. In the context of this discussion they are irrelevant. I’ve tried to approach the discussion from a dispassionate viewpoint.

The linked article very obviously feeds into a set of stereotypes that easily allow an automatic response of disgust and attendant moral superiority. It prompted that response in me. I’ve tried to look at exactly why.

When I realized that I was reacting as much to the apparent celebration of the event – as well as the actions of the women towards the lone man at the party I began to feel like I was being manipulated. The red sheet business just seemed rather over the top to me.

What prompted my entry into this diary were my doubts about the veracity of the linked article and the issues I’ve tried to articulate in response to that.

As to the idea of not engaging in “that type of activity”, there are many remedies for making sure that that type of activity doesn’t result in the conception of a child. “Accidents” do happen, but that, to me at least, is a signal that that child was meant to be conceived, meant to have a life.

I’m sorry if I sound too judgmental in this situation, mom2. Don’t mean to, but it’s impossible not to conclude that an abortion is chosen as a solution because that’s what the mother determines is most convenient for her.