Posted on 07/22/2004 7:50:08 AM PDT by ruddigore
But what makes it morally more congenial to kill a particular "defective" fetus than to kill whatever fetus happens to come along, on an equal opportunity basis?Absolutely nothing.
Got to hand it to her--she's an equal opportunity baby-killer.
So in this nauseating piece of trash, Ehrenreich lambasts women who abort for defects such as deafness or dwarfism, yet refers to her choice to abort 2 healthy children based on her monetary situation at the time as 'easy.' Bullshit is to liberals as water is to fish.
She neglects to mention whether Bill Clinton was the father.
She didn't have the freedom not to get pregnant again?
This is a pretty accurate statement. Lionesses sometimes eat their young, don't they? Hamsters do, but I guess to say, "I was, and remain, a hamster..." doesn't have the same ring to it.
"Yeah, I killed two babies, so what? I was poor."
Just sick.
She's right.
There's no way you can call a woman who pays someone to murder two of her children a bad mother, can you?
And I am sure she is a lioness toward the other children that she allowed to be born - lionesses do eat their young, don't they?
No matter what one thinks of abortion, this woman is an a moral elitist.
Personally,
I think she shouldn't be a mother at all.
"Yeah, I killed two babies, so what? I was poor."
Avarice spreads his wings in triumph.
Latest LibLine: "We kill the children because it's for the children."
BTTT
Abortion will be abolished and history will look back on the age of abortion as an age of barbarism. School children will read of it in history books and will crinkle up their noses in disgust much like we now regard infant exposure practiced by the Roman empire and slavery practiced by the colonial powers. Tapes of defenders of abortion and editorials like these will appear in special interactive formats so that children will take away the appropriate frightening lessons that such people did indeed exist and could return some day again. Then we will all work with more conviction and zeal to eradicate such opinions from our society.
The trouble is, not all of the women who are exercising their right to choose in these cases are willing to admit that that's what they are doing. Kate Hoffman, for example, who aborted a fetus with Down syndrome, was quoted in The Times on June 20 as saying: "I don't look at it as though I had an abortion, even though that is technically what it is. There's a difference. I wanted this baby."
Oh really? She wanted her baby and says her abortion is only "technical". She wants the kind of baby she wants--not the gift God has given her. What message does this send to people with down's? They aren't of value because they aren't "perfect"? What is the definition of perfect?
I have heard of women being told that their babies would have down's syndrome but chose to have their babies anyway---guess what? The babies didn't have down's.
Gee I wonder why dwarfs complian of this practice. Maybe they worried that society will start POST natal abortions....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.