Sen. Gillibrand Compares Pro-Life Support to Racism

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Washington Free Beacon:

"I think there's some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable. Imagine saying that it's okay to appoint a judge who's racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic. Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America—I don't think that those are political issues anymore," Gillibrand said.

"And we believe in this country in the separation of church and state, and I respect the rights of every American to hold their religious beliefs true to themselves, but our country and our Constitution has always demanded that we have a separation of church and state," Gillibrand continued. "And all these efforts by President Trump and other ultra-radical conservative judges and justices to impose their faith on Americans is contrary to our Constitution and that's what this is. And so I believe that for all of these issues, they are not issues that there is a fair other side. There is no moral equivalency when you come to racism, and I do not believe there is a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive freedom.


Gillibrand, who barely registered in the Register poll this past weekend, is obviously trying to get attention. Does she really believe that pro-life equates in any way to racism? Or is this a ploy to boost her campaign?

https://pjmedia.com/trending/sen-gillibrand-compares-pro-life-support-with-racism/
 

gary_webb

Damned glad to meet you
Imagine saying that it's okay to appoint a judge who's racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic.
If it's okay to vote one into the U.S. House of Representatives to represent Little Mogadishu, then what's she prattling on about?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Why do they think you must only oppose abortion for religious reasons?
It makes it easier to defend against an argument you can control ("separation of church and state") by defining the argument against them this way. If they have to defend murder as murder, they fail every time, so they defend murder as a health care right of the mother, and define the argument against the health care right as religious in nature.

Dishonesty has worked for them for many decades on multiple issues, so they continue it with this one.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
I dont have a religious bone in my body, yet there are issues with some abortions for me. Not all of them, I recognize there is a need. But I dont think convenience is one.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I dont have a religious bone in my body, yet there are issues with some abortions for me. Not all of them, I recognize there is a need. But I dont think convenience is one.
I consider myself a Christian, but my problems with abortion are not based on religion. I agree with the first amendment's allowance both to practice religion and prohibition on government mandating religious practices into law. Murder is not a Judeo-Christian thing to me, it's just something government has a legitimate role in controlling the legality of for secular reasons. While I am opposed to abortion for most reasons, it is entirely reasonable from a secular point of view to accept abortions for the physical well-being of the mother, or if a woman was raped (she holds no personal responsibility for creating the child if she was), and in cases of non-consensual/non-adult incest (a simple re-wording of a category of rape).

We know from organizations like Planned Parenthood those add up to less than 5% of all abortions. So, we're not looking to ban abortion, just common-sense abortion control of elective abortions.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I listened to her whole thing a few times. I think what really ticked me off was the moral equivalency argument.
It's typical on the left to re-cast issues from their opponents but can she really pull off something as ridiculous
as to suggest the right has no moral argument at all in their opposition to abortion? Really?

It's as though the right doesn't give a fig about "life", even though they call it Right to Life, or Pro-Life.
They just want to twirl their Snidely Whiplash mustaches and find ways to oppress women, for no discernible reason.

This is why I can't discuss such issues with such people - they honestly believe that you do or believe what you do,
because you're just evil. NO logic, no rationale - JUST the wish to hurt others, for no reason at all.

I can't do that - I HAVE to assume people do things for reasons, even if their reasons are based on crap. I've met
some awful people in my life, but whenever they've done something wrong, they had a reason, and it wasn't just
to be cruel to someone.

No moral equivalency? For Christ's sake, "moral equivalency" is the right's ONLY argument. Their sole argument
is that it is human life, and it is being killed.

She wants to compare the right - to racism? Fine. I'll make the left's argument the same as defending slavery.
You like that? Because the fundamental difference the left has - is property. The rights they claim to defend
is that the fetus, the baby - is their PROPERTY, as in part of their body and therefore owned by them, and free
to dispose of them.

The very same arguments used to defend slavery. They're not people, they're my property. I object to Northern
States passing laws refusing me to re-acquire my property. I object to the federal government refusing to allow
me to re-settle in the new territories and take my PROPERTY with me. I refuse to let the federal government forcing
me to give up my property. All of these were - in different words - very real objections raised prior to the Civil War.

And that is the argument of the left - this being growing inside me - it's mine to do whatever I want with. In fact,
I have to right to dispose of it AFTER BIRTH due to a failed abortion.

And the right says, no - it's not property. It's a separate human life, and if we claim that a heartbeat or a working brain
means life - at the end of life - there really can't be a sensible objection to it at the beginning.

To be honest - I don't know if I believe all that exactly, but it's the moral equivalency that she's missing.
This is the same reasoning that says "the science is settled". The same reasoning where I claim - they're talking like
a religious zealot, claiming heresy on all disagreement.

It's all good - she has no chance at the nomination - but her approach to an issue is all too common.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
NO logic, no rationale - JUST the wish to hurt others, for no reason at all.

But Sam in 'their' mind it is EVIL to force a woman to give birth to an unwanted bit of flesh

Because the fundamental difference the left has - is property. The rights they claim to defend
is that the fetus, the baby - is their PROPERTY, as in part of their body and therefore owned by them, and free to dispose of them.
Unironically someone on the right pointed that out in the past 2 weeks
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Why do they call abortion a reproductive right.
When you abort you aren't reproducing, you are killing.

Why don't they call it what it is . A right to kill.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Lemme rephrase.


Usually, it's because usually religious people are the ones who usually say that life starts at conception.


Usually.


I hope that clears up any confusion as to exactly what the **** I meant.
:lmao: I didn’t think or imply you meant it as an absolute.
 

Toxick

Splat
:lmao: I didn’t think or imply you meant it as an absolute.
Well the question was "why is opposition to abortion always attributed to religion" (or something to that effect)... It's because religious folk are the ones who are most often the ones who are extremely vocal about conception = life. And whether scientists say that (although I'm quite dubious that this is the scientific consensus) or the SCOTUS (I'm dubious about that as well) - the religious adherents are most often vocal about it, holding picket signs about it, and flooding my facebook timeline with pictures of feti and disgusting pictures of fetal dismemberment.

Thus answering the original question.


Although good little Catholic boys and girls would have noticed in the bible that God (more than once) draws an association between life and blood. Which tells me life begins with the appearance of the first blood cell... Generally 3 weeks after conception.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Well the question was "why is opposition to abortion always attributed to religion" (or something to that effect)... It's because religious folk are the ones who are most often the ones who are extremely vocal about conception = life. And whether scientists say that (although I'm quite dubious that this is the scientific consensus) or the SCOTUS (I'm dubious about that as well) - the religious adherents are most often vocal about it, holding picket signs about it, and flooding my facebook timeline with pictures of feti and disgusting pictures of fetal dismemberment.

Thus answering the original question.


Although good little Catholic boys and girls would have noticed in the bible that God (more than once) draws an association between life and blood. Which tells me life begins with the appearance of the first blood cell... Generally 3 weeks after conception.
Most vocal, sure.

The science is really indisputable, though. When it is exactly a specific life is generally considered when can't split into twins (maybe 12 days) but it being alive and separate from the host is pretty indisputable.
 
Top