I wish I had better design skills. If you do, please feel free to make a better version of this poster than I did:
The vast majority of my Facebook friends are Progressives, ranging from hard Left to really hard Left. Despite their political orientation, I’ve discovered that some of them are still pro-Life — pro-puppy and pro-kitten life, that is. Opposing animal shelters that kill strays is the only politically correct pro-Life stance the Left will countenance.
With just a little tweaking, though, one of the pro-Animal life posters really makes a very good anti-Abortion poster. What do you think?
I was recently brought face to face with the nihilism that underlies the Left’s desire for socialized medicine, which they’re sure will bring with it the perfect statistics that routinely gladden socialist nations when the UN or WHO or some other Left-leaning world body compares healthcare statistics in various parts of the world. Invariably, those comparisons always show the U.S. health care system in a poor light. Who cares, of course, that the statistics are utterly bogus? They’re so beautiful to the statist eye.
My insight into this nihilism came during an evening with some friends and neighbors. The story is a bit long but, I think, worth it. It all began when my son expressed dismay at data from his AP Environmental Science text-book:
In 1900 the U.S. infant mortality rate was 165. In 2011 it was 6.1. This sharp decline was a major factor in the marked increase in U.S. average life expectancy during this period. The United States ranks first in the world in terms of health care spending per person, but 54th in terms of infant mortality rates.
(G. Miller, Scott Spoolman, Environmental Science, p. 100.)
My son didn’t want to believe that America, which he thinks is a great country, could rank so low in something as basic as infant mortality. As it happens, I knew that those numbers were wrong, so I immediately spoke up. I got as far as saying “Those numbers are wro…” when a far-Left physician in the room literally shouted me down.
“This is not political. We don’t need to hear any of that right-wing crap. You’re going to turn this in a political argument. This is science.” The other guests looked stunned.
I tried again. “I’m not talking politics. This is about statistics. You need to know that….”
Again, the Leftie physician cut me off. “Little Bookworm, don’t listen to her. She’s just going to go on with her political crap. The problem is with the U.S. medical system.”
I tried again. “Let me finish. This is a statistical problem.”
Leftie cut me off again. “No, don’t go there.”
I ignored him and went there anyway. “Stop!!!” I hollered at the top of my lungs. The room fell completely silent. I finally had my say.
So much to share with you (23 separate articles at last count) and so little time. I’ll therefore get right down to business and you might want to give yourself some time to review all these fascinating articles at your leisure:
Another pundit figures out Cruz might be the man
I’ve made no secret of the fact that I support Ted Cruz, and have done so since he took a stand on Obamacare. Ross Douthat (whose writing I respect) has suddenly realized that those of us who support Ted Cruz might be on to something.
Ted Cruz makes sense on taxes
Certainly Ted Cruz’s flat tax plan ought to help people realize that he’s offering genuine change for the better, not just platitudes and painful socialism. Heck, you’d think that all Americans would support a candidate who wants to deep six, or at least severely de-fang, the IRS and, in doing say, make our tax system fairer and make doing business in America more tempting for both American and foreign corporations.
Daniel Greenfield waxes eloquent on the heckler’s veto that is Islam’s stock in trade
After clearing his throat about the Obama administration’s despicable pandering to Palestinian terrorists, along with its sickening chastisement of Israel (this from an administration that would never dare blame the victim if a drunk woman walked naked through a biker’s bar), Daniel Greenfield gets to the real point, which is the fact that the West lets the mere threat of Islamic anger paralyze it.
The world’s one billion Muslims, whose delicate emotions are always infuriated by something, enforce an Islamic status quo in which no non-Muslim dares to violate the Muslim superiority complex.
Some might say that the billion Muslims are just looking for things to get angry at… but that would just make a billion Muslims angry.
When buildings fall or buses blow up, when people are stabbed, shot or exploded by the unofficial representatives of the bilious billion, we go right past the crime to the anger that motivated it. “Why do they hate us?” becomes the question and Muslim anger becomes the pivot of national security policy.
Since Muslim anger causes violence, we stop terrorism by tiptoeing around anything that might make them angry. Minor things mostly like freedom of speech or freedom of religion. If you’re a Coptic Christian who makes a YouTube video about Mohammed, you can be sent to prison when some of the moderate Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda locals murder four Americans while shouting, “Allahu Akbar.”
After weeks of brutal Muslim murders, Kerry has gotten Israel to reinforce a ban on Jews praying at the holiest site in Judaism because it offends Muslims. Next up, maybe Jews will be restricted to the seventh step of the Cave of the Patriarchs again. Because that was the “Status Quo” under the Muslim conquest.
As my lengthy quotation in this “quick hits” round-up reveals, Greenfield’s article falls into the must-read category.
[Click on image to enlarge.]
Finally, here’s the third and last part of a three-part series in which I attempt to deconstruct the lies, misstatements, and illogical conclusions of posters popular amongst the Progressives on my real-me Facebook feed. Part 1 has a longer introduction about my goals, and analyzes a painfully misleading and quite vicious post about Paul Ryan. Part 2 tackles stupid gun control posters
And now it’s time for part three, the abortion edition. As always, I put the poster up first and then add my commentary:
Excuse me Ms. Leftie, but do you understand that the government does not fund churches? Yes, it’s true that churches don’t pay taxes. This comes about because the power to tax is the power to destroy,n or at least to discriminate against something. The First Amendment prevents our government from doing that.
Do you also understand that churches don’t have a political say over your body? That is, unlike a theocracy (say, Iran), the church does not run the government. Instead, it’s the parishioners who, applying religious doctrine as they understand it, use their rights as citizens of a representative government to vote for representatives whose views align well with theirs? No? I didn’t think you knew that.
Having exposed your ignorance about religion and government in America, perhaps you can explain to me why we fund Planned Parenthood in the first place? If Planned Parenthood really is just about women’s health,why do we fight over it with every budget rather than paying the same money to other neighborhood clinics that provide only women’s health care without also providing abortions?
Could it be because the real nudge-nudge, wink-wink going on is that everyone knows that those federal funds aren’t really for generic women’s health care but, in fact, meant to subsidize abortions? Keep in mind, little lady, that money is fungible. (Fungible is a fancy word meaning that one dollar can readily be substituted for another.) The fact that Planned Parenthood ostensibly applies its federal funds to manual breast exams — since the clinics don’t offer mammograms — and other basic health care means that the money saved on those breast exam appointments can be applied to other services . . . such as abortions.
The anti-Second Amendment Left was feeling very smug the other day (as my Facebook feed attested) because they think that The Daily Show’s new hack, Trevor Noah, hit one out of the park in attacking the sheer inhumanity of the crazed pro-Life gun holders on the Right:
The point is, if pro-lifers would just redirect their powers toward gun violence, the amount of lives they could save would reach superhero levels. They just need to have a superhero’s total dedication to life. Because right now they’re more like comic book collectors. Human life only holds value until you take it out of the package, and then it’s worth nothing.
There’s your logic for you: All those people who claim to be pro-Life but support the Second Amendment are gross hypocrites; while the pro-Abortion crowd that wants to use government force to disarm the American public is all about “life”!
I have just a couple of numbers to share with you, both from 2011, because I found reports for that year that I could easily compare. I doubt the numbers have changed significantly since then:
Number of abortions performed in 2011 in the United States: 1,100,000
Number of homicides using guns in 2011 in the United States: 8,583
The only way for the Leftists to think they win when comparing pro-Lifers who support gun rights to pro-Abortion types who want to ban guns is if the Leftists do not believe that a fetus is human. Of course, every woman who’s carried a baby to term knows, if only in her heart of hearts, that this is a lie.
To hold that those fetuses are not human, so that their deaths cannot be counted when compared to crime victims’ deaths, is possible only when a belief system has turned into a death cult. The Nazis did this when they convinced themselves that Jewish lives weren’t human lives; and the Left has done it when it comes to fetal lives.
The problem, always, is that once a culture starts deciding which groups among it, no matter how human they appear, aren’t really, truly human, then that culture inevitably slides into mass genocide. This is especially so when resources become scarce, whether through natural causes (droughts, floods, volcanoes), or through unnatural science that declares, all evidence to the contrary, that humans are so destructive to Gaia that they must begin to erase their presence from Planet Earth.
First they came for the fetuses, and I said nothing because I was no longer a fetus….
Several of my recent posts have focused on the American Left’s death cult, otherwise known as unlimited abortion. As I’ve stated repeatedly, the Left’s risible claim that abortion does not take a life, combined with its obsessive demands that the right to abortion be unfettered up to, including, and even after a viable baby is born has turned me from a fairly mindless, garden-variety, pro-Abortion, old-time Democrat into someone who is edging remarkably close to being pro-Life. Even though I can still accept situations in which an abortion is reasonable, I’m so disgusted by the Left’s death cult that I want to run as far away from it as possible.
The Left doesn’t just have a death cult, it also has a lack of life cult. It is true that American women still seem to be shtupping like rabbits. In 2013, following a five-year drop in baby-making, American women gave birth to almost 4,000,000 new babies (and aborted about 300,000 more). Americans are therefore just about holding their own demographically.
In Europe, though, the demographics are a nightmare, which goes a long way to explaining Angela Merkel’s bizarre desire for her country to be repopulated with Muslim Arabs. While the Muslims are picking up where they left off in 1683 and looking towards a European conquest, Merkel is obsessively focused on cheap labor to care for an aging German population.
What’s fascinating about Europe’s declining baby numbers is that it’s entirely possible that the problem isn’t just because women are making good use of birth control and abortions to limit family size. Instead, as has been happening in Japan for a long time, it may be that the Europeans have lost interest in sex entirely.
I don’t have any scientific basis for reaching that conclusion. What triggered the thought is a video that a Danish travel company made urging wannabe grandmothers to buy their children vacation packages to the sexy warm climates in which they are most likely to get pregnant:
My Progressive Facebook friends — and I have many because I’ve spent almost my entire life in the San Francisco Bay area — have a new meme that’s got them terribly excited. Here, in all its glory, is what Progressives think counts as intelligent argument both to support abortion rights and destroy Second Amendment rights:
Because I hate dense paragraphs — they’re very hard to address — let me break the above risible effort at logical argument down into its component parts:
Women who want to terminate a life (provided that life is within them, which is legal and known as abortion, as opposed to a life that is not within them, which is illegal and known as murder), must take all or some of the following steps, depending on their age and the state within which they live:
Wait 48 hours before proceeding with the requested abortion
Get permission from a parent if the female is under the legal age of consent.
Have a doctor’s note explaining that the doctor is intentionally carrying out an abortion.
Watch a video about the results of an abortion (i.e., a fetus will be vacuumed out of the womb or disassembled to remove it from the womb).
Have an ultrasound so that the woman sees the life she intends to abort.
Further, because some states do not like abortion, the woman opting to go ahead with the procedure might have to:
Travel a great distance to find an abortion provider.
Take time off of work to travel that distance (and, probably, to recover from the procedure).
Stay overnight in a strange town.
See strangers holding graphic pictures of what happens to the fetus she will abort, with the same strangers pleading with her not to act.
It’s unfair that women should have to suffer this information overload, inconvenience, and indignity to have an abortion. Therefore men who intend to buy a gun should be subject to the same level of inconvenience. Men should therefore suffer too. The rationale: “No woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?”
Where to begin?
I haven’t had much luck embedding Facebook posts with videos at my site, but I’m trying again:
If that doesn’t work, go here.
I’ll just add what I’ve said before: Why in an age of Obamacare does Planned Parenthood get special funding over and above all other healthcare providers?
PETA famously produces ads comparing animals to humans. These ads work because PETA understand that people feel incredible compassion for animals, especially if they’re cute animals.
Additionally, the people most likely to feel this incredible compassion for animals are those who spring from the Leftier side of the political spectrum. I’m sure that are conservative vegetarians, but I haven’t met any. We may adore our dogs and cats, but we’re not averse to a nice steak or roast turkey.
The vegetarians I know are all Progressives. Eating animals is cruel and bad, they say.
Funnily enough, this Leftist sensitivity doesn’t extend to humans when they look like animals. Two posters illustrate this. I found the first on the Facebook page of a Leftist friend; the second I found on the internet while searching for images of fetal development:
Certainly, at two-and-a-half weeks, human embryos are indistinguishable to the untrained eye from other mammal embryos. But isn’t the Left always lecturing us about b eing inhuman if we don’t care for the animals. Well, unsurprisingly, it turns out that in modern Leftist world, when all animals are equal, it’s the human animal that’s less equal — and less deserving of protection — that others. As a friend always says of the Left, if they didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.
To take this whole thing a step further, I have two more posters for you. The first shows fetal development in the first trimester:
After eight weeks pass, that fetus looks pretty damn human to me. Could my Facebook friend — who’s a biologist — not project just a month ahead to understand that the little wormy thing that she can’t conceive of as a potential human is just weeks away from becoming recognizably human? The second shows how swiftly that fetus begins to look like the baby who turns into the boy in that first poster:
For more about the unscientific thinking of those on the Left, this article attacking Bill Nye’s logical fallacies and scientific errors is useful.
Again, I’m not hardcore pro-Life. I recognize that there are certain situations in which abortion has a place. What I’ve come to hate, though, is the Left’s deliberate moral and scientific blindness, and most of all I hate the Left’s death cult when it comes to abortion. It is these profoundly disturbing attitudes that keep driving me further and further into the arms of the pro-Life crowd.
Boehner was merely an effective manager, rather than an effective conservative
Andrew Klavan is kind enough to point out that Boehner was in some measure a very effective House Majority Leader:
I can’t help but notice that under Boehner — and largely because of Boehner, because Boehner outsmarted President Obama in the 2013 budget negotiations — federal spending has declined over a five year period for the first time since the post World War II cutbacks. And because of this, as the economy has struggled to a sputtering recovery despite Democrat mismanagement, the deficit has been sharply reduced…
Also under Boehner — and also largely because of then-minority leader Boehner (and the likewise much-maligned-by-conservatives Mitch McConnell in the Senate) — the disaster of Obamacare is 100% attributable to the Democrats. It hasn’t got a single Republican fingerprint on it.
As Klavan sees it, Boehner’s fall came about solely because he wouldn’t engage in a head-to-head fight with Obama over Planned Parenthood. Boehner believed (and still believes) that fight will destroy chances for a Republican victory in 2016. I have two points to make.
First, if Boehner’s right that the fight will fail it’s in part because he refuses to engage in the fight at the intellectual level. Carly Fiorina is the first prominent Republican to frame the fight in non-religious terms, and boy did she make the Left squirm when she did so. In other words, part of why Boehner can’t win the fight is because, even though he’s pro-Life, he has absolutely no idea how to fight against abortion at anything other than a monetary level.
Second, speaking of that monetary level, the fight really boils down to something James Taranto said three years ago, and it’s about the difference between checkbook Republicans and ideologically-driven conservatives. The context was the fact that Paul Ryan seemed to understand a conservative vision of small, not big, government: