Dawn Eden tipped me off on this Planned Parenthood reaction to two big trucks with pictures of aborted fetuses on them in Memphis.
Planned Parenthood questions the accuracy of the pictures. Its president says the ads are blatant intimidation.
"It’s intended to make women feel less than equal, less than capable of making their own decisions about their life and family. It’s directed toward horrifying." says Barry Chase, president of Planned Parenthood in Memphis.
Well actually Planned Parenthood wants babies in the womb to be seen as less than equal – to not even be human at all. Abortion supporters always feel threatened by the reality of what they endorse. NARAL called the 3D ultrasound a "weapon" and PP in this case call pictures "blatant intimidation." Now it does make you wonder what pictures they would consider to be accurate? Obviously it can’t be pictures of actual babies torn apart in the name of choice. Accurate pictures for them would have to de-emphasize their humanity and be the pictorial equivalent of a product of conception or a tissue mass. Something very amorphous that you can see as a choice instead of as a person. A Picasso-like surreal picture that invokes zero sympathy would have to do. An out of focus photo as blurry as the words they hide behind. It would have to be a picture that invokes the idea of parasite, a term they like to use. Something that invokes the though of having something inside you like what happened after a face-hugger in the move Alien/Aliens got hold of you.
One thing is that Planned Parenthood can’t really come up with a photo to plaster on trucks to tour the country to support abortion. They can’t use ultrasound pictures and of course can’t show any part of the reality of abortion. Abortion supporters have always hid behind slogans and buzz words shifting the debate to that of choice, but not of what the choice entails. Along with Jack Nicholson they say "You can’t handle the truth."
Obfuscation is part and parcel of the culture of death. We are now seeing the whole thing playing out once again when it comes to the embryonic stem-cell research. Once again we get promises that don’t focus on the details. No mention of what is entailed. Whether it is Constitutional amendments purporting to ban cloning by redefining what cloning is or touting a made up statistics on back alley abortions, facts have never been friends of the culture of death. Though this is a positive thing that they must still lie to get support. That people would not support for the most part if they were actually honest about what they support.
23 comments
The pro-abortion will still tout that the unborn are not human and get as much mileage out of it as the can, but I’m seeing more and more of them conceding the point. That children in the womb are indeed human, but it is justifiable to kill them in circumstances. This is both tragic and good at the same time. Tragic in that such advocates openly worship consequentialism, but good in that perhaps many others on the fence will see the stark grimness of such a position and step back from the precipice.
Please, could you give up on the idea “culture of death” nonsense. The Middle Ages of Europe was a culture of death, but today’s society is not for a variety of reasons.
This is because since the Enlightenment, their has been a growing, though not always actualized antipathy towards cruelity. (Garland, Punishment and society, 232) You see this even among elements of the Nazis, as shown by the research in Ordinary Men, when they complain about the failure to provide mercy shots.
Capital punishment has gone the way of the dodo in most industrialized states, and many 3rd ones as well.
Also, since the rise of secularization, formerly popular activities like dueling, slavery, rioting vendettas, lynch mobs, human sacrifice, and viligantism have almost vanished, and when do occur are harshly punished. Corporal punishment, wife beating, and (Mueller, Remnants of War, 167, Horowitz,The Deadly Ethnic Riot, 560-5)
The murder has decline significantly since the Middle Ages. (Mueller, Re
Infantcide is almost non-existence, hence why parents killing their babies is huge news in America. And abortion has become tolerated because it’s a personal decision and accomplished out of sight of the public. (Mueller, remnants of war, 163)
Now, I know what you Christianites are going to say. You’ll either attack me for being historically illiterate, though you’ll offer no proof.
Or you’ll trot out Hitler. And guess what, I can handle that. First, he was an aberration because had someone else taken power, the “appeasement” of Chamberlin would have worked, and he’d be a hero. This is because, as Manchester has noted, WWII is “inconceivable without him” because as Keegan notes, “only one European wanted War: Adolf Hitler” (Keegan, the WWII, Manchester, the last lion,197) Plus, while producing horrific casualities and a great deal of destruction, the second world war’s total damage is limited when compared to early wars, when entire nations, both the attacker and attackee, were wiped from the face of the earth. (Keeley, war before civilizatiom 160) (Mueller, Remnants of War, 166)
And this history lesson brought to you free of charge by your favorite secularite.
Now, I know what you Christianites are going to say. You’ll either attack me for being historically illiterate, though you’ll offer no proof.
Or you’ll trot out Hitler.
Or will simply dismiss it as it does not bear on the intrinsic immorality of abortion. It’s not either the Middles Ages OR the Enlightenment, it’s both and.
“Christianites” ????
Shouldn’t the use of this moniker convince us all to quit feeding the Troll?
When they are not fed they pull up stakes and find another bridge beneath which to sit. The Troll’s comments are too silly to debate and it won’t listen anyway. You know the old saw – never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and just annoys the pig!
Sister, it’s a play off the term “secularite”, a term several people, including, I believe(though I may be wrong, the site’s owner have called me. But you’re a Christian, steeped in hypocrisy, thus unable to feel when it reaches up and slaps in the mouth.
As for my comments being “too silly to debate”, you’ll see that my comments are based on fact, hence all the citations.
Sister, it’s a play off the term “secularite”, a term several people, including, I believe(though I may be wrong, the site’s owner have called me.
Ok. So two wrongs make a right? As far as your notes being fact. This only works on the assumption that Christians think that Middle Age folk were not fallen. Since abortion was condemned by the Church throughout its history, The Culture of Death label is not outrageous.
Hoodlum,
Well, I’m glad that the McEnlightenment is treating you well in all aspects of your life. Your city, job, and home seem to be reaping the fruits of it. I’m not sure, however, what it has to do with the concepts of the Culture of Death and Culture of Life. Christians will state that the former has been present in humanity since well before the beginnings of history (as a supposed student of this concept, I’m sure you won’t be confused by my usage of it). Objective historians will also rather clearly trace the development of the Enlightenment from within the development of Christendom (especially it’s religious dimension). Your simple chronological dichotomy makes no sense. I think that you would like Hegel, but I must inform you that history is rarely so simple.
You see this even among elements of the Nazis, as shown by the research in Ordinary Men, when they complain about the failure to provide mercy shots.
Is “mercy shots” a euphemism for lethal injections?
… and if it is, how does that even remotely counter the notion of a prevalent “Culture of Death“?
In addition, Hitler was not an aberration-he had lots of company, such as Mao, Stalin and his successors, and a lot of others on a smaller scale.
…I thought the popular term to slam us these days was “Christianist” (to put us on the same spectrum with “Islamists.”)
Brigand, but “objective historian” you mean those who agree with you, right?
No R, by “mercy shot” as in a shot given to end the suffering. Battilion 101 members complained about of Jews shot, but only wounded, were allowed to languished rather than being “put out of their misery.”
R, it shows that what a real culture of death is, and that we’re almost the complete opposite.
OK, so I was thinking of the wrong definition of “shot”; but my basic point is the same.
“Is “mercy shots” a euphemism for lethal injections?”
Yeah, a lethal injection of lead.
Face it, secular atheism has killed far more people in one century than organized religion has killed throughout recorded history. Not that comparing body counts is any way to argue for the truth claims of atheism or theism.
Anybody who offers the term enlightenment as though it were one, monolithic element betrays his own ignorance. There were several enlightenments – some guided by a more secular ideology (the French) others more hospitable, if not outright influenced by religious thought (the Scottish/British). The former Enlightenment influenced the French Revolution, and in turn the totalitarian bloodshed that flowed in it and in the 20th century. The latter influenced the American Revolution, and the relatively benign state that flowed from it.
Hoodlum strikes me as a person who has read a lot of books, memorized a lot of stuff, but otherwise has learned nothing from them nor does he offer much in the way of unique insight. He does glory, as do most over-educated (though unintelligent) trolls in getting a rise out of his audience. In that regard, at least, he is a complete success.
Actually, a good medievalist could set you straight on the idea that people went around hacking, killing and bludgeoning their way through the Middle Ages.
Actually, now that I think about it, I’ve run into other folks who think that Monty Python movies are documentaries…
I don’t even get Hoodlum’s argument. Is he saying that abortion is not indicative of a culture of death because, even though millions die from it, it is is done “out of sight?” I don’t know how simply being able to cover your tracks makes what you do life affirming.
Yeah Zummo, hence the Catholic prelates I deal with at my museum jobs and my secularite professors agree that you are wrong in that assessment.
That’s one of museum jobs involve educating Catholics, and many a clergy guy has told me I am good.
Miss Jean- many military and social historians will contest that “good medievalist” (aka medievalist you agree with) view.
miss jean- I’ve never watched them. You can file this line in the trash can with the “Hitler Pope” attack Catholicites like to use on Pius XII’s critics.
No David, my argument is that we’re not a culture of death, because in many regards, like infantcide, rioting, vigilante mayhem, we’ve improved from the real culture of death that is the middle ages, and to say otherwise is incorrect.
secular atheism has killed no one. See communism and atheism are not the same, hence why you had the Catholic-Marxist liberation (sp?) theology, and why, according to Djilas, Tito was a Catholic.
Also, the fact that communists are atheists does not remove all religious influence from one’s behavior. For example, one of the reasons the Khmer Rouge were far more vicious than the Vietnamese was religious background. The Rouge were heavily buddahist thus, at certain level, believed that “suffering receieved was suffering earned”, thus dispatched their foes with less hesitation. The Vietnamese, being moe Confusious (sp?) oriented believed in reforming people, hence their use of reeducation.
Plus Christianity’s failure to kill as effectively is not from a lack of trying. The Catholic Ustashi would have put up Pol Pot like figures had it not been for the brave resistance of the Tito’s Partisans.
many military and social historians will contest that “good medievalist” (aka medievalist you agree with) view.
Cuts both ways, doesn’t it?
I don’t see how any reasonably informed person can come to the conclusion that we are not living in a death culture. Just look around.
Also, the fact that communists are atheists does not remove all religious influence from one’s behavior. For example, one of the reasons the Khmer Rouge were far more vicious than the Vietnamese was religious background. The Rouge were heavily buddahist thus, at certain level, believed that “suffering receieved was suffering earned”, thus dispatched their foes with less hesitation. The Vietnamese, being more Confucian oriented believed in reforming people, hence their use of reeducation.
So that’s why the “religious” Khmer Rouge wiped out as many Buddhist monks as possible?
Next you’ll tell me that Stalin was such a monster because he was an ex-seminarian…
Yeah Zummo, hence the Catholic prelates I deal with at my museum jobs and my secularite professors agree that you are wrong in that assessment.
That’s one of museum jobs involve educating Catholics, and many a clergy guy has told me I am good.
Well then, I guess you got me then. if many a prelate has told you you are good, then I just can’t possibly rebut your substantive point telling me I am wrong.
Oh. Wait. You actually didn’t offer a compelling argument that I was wrong, but merely asserted it.
Want to try again, or are you content showing yourself to be a very ignorant human being?
Thought so.