Just a few points about abortion.
Firstly, a regular thing that (stereotypically left wing) abortion advocates say is that 'pro life' people only care about the life of unborn children. Since, typically, they tend to also be right wing (neocon), pro-war or militaristic. Which does indeed mean that they only oppose murder of the unborn but not the mass murder which is deceptively labeled 'defence', most of whose victims have already popped out of the womb. It always disappoints me that nobody inverts the argument on them immediately, because they (abortion loving 'liberals') only care about murder of people after they have left the womb, and not before. (And even then they will love a war if it is a 'humanitarian' one in their mind, eg Libya.) Me, I figure all murder is wrong. Revolutionary, I know. lol.That said, I really don't support criminalisation of abortion. Now you may think that is a huge stretch or even doublethink on my part, but if I may?...while I see no pragmatic way to criminalise abortion without having a massive state apparatus...I am wary of the wrath of hundreds of millions of kids who were cut down before having a fair chance. Regardless if that happened before or after they headbutted a mattress, by the way. I doubt they're actually angry since if there is any justice they will be at peace. But could you look them in the eye?
whatever deeds that may be (article gets to what I'm talking about, roughly a third of the way down).
Which leads me to my next statement. I have looked at this from as many angles as I can, and I don't think there's any justification for aborting an unborn child, that could not also be used to justify euthanasia or murder of placenta-free children or the elderly. Well, it feeds from a tube, so do a lot of people in hospitals. It can't feel pain, so can't someone under anaesthetic. It is dependent, so are a large percentage of children, elderly, late stage pregnant, disabled, sick, etc etc. It is dependent on one person only, well so are newborns, to be honest. Or I bet there are a small number of clinically insane people who develop similar attachments to one person only. You get what I'm saying.It irritates me a little that the pro life people have a crutch that they use, which is to say that 'abortion is black genocide' - this is their appeal to PC 'liberals', and don't get me wrong it is a good one, as it pushes their big liberal racial PC button. By all means play their game when you can if it helps. Certainly it is true that in America (where this argument is made, mostly) blacks per capita have three times the abortions that whites do. But still, since blacks are 11-13% of the USA population, the overall majority of abortions in America are most certainly of white babies.
What does it say about us, that it is only a bad thing in the public's mind if a disproportionate number of black babies are killed? Where is the sympathy for the white babies, especially from the mostly whites on both sides of the Western abortion debate? It's genocide alright, but white genocide as well as black. Their attitude seems to be like, "oh sure, kill white babies all day, but don't kill black babies as that's genocide!" Would it be OK if a proportionate number of blacks' and whites' babies were killed? Would a 'quota' of diversity compliant killing be OK?
I agree though, that a lot of white (often, AAA, like the ultimate SWPL liberal David de Rotschild. SWPL, I love that site, very sophisticated satire, I should do a review on it sometime) 'liberals' who profess their undying love for all things African secretly like the black abortions as in their sick mind this 'helps' them sort of like how the pimpin' UN turning up in a 3W country 'helps' them with the AIDS kill-shots.Oh, and there's the (crazy, I know) idea of universal morality and that there really are standards of good and evil above and beyond the 'human condition' and that all murder is a crime against Grasping forcep, such as Bierer or Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus. Based upon his knowledge of fetal orientation, he moves the tip of the instrument carefully towards the fetal lower extremities. When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity. The surgeon then ... pulls the extremity into the vagina.
... With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities.The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum, or spine up.
At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left hand along the back of the fetus and "hooks" the shoulders of the fetus wit the index and ring fingers (palm down). Next he slides the tip of the middle finger along the spine towards the skull while applying traction to the shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts and pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way.While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.
Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and safe elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient. (source)