Pro-Life Women for Senate

I guess I hadn't been paying attention--there are NO pro-life women in the US Senate. That may very well change this fall. Four women candidates for the US Senate are pro-life. Is this a trend?

Comments

[Kamilla]

I hope it's a trend that we have more pro-life politicians winning elections. I'm not especially impressed with the pro-life women in politics as the ones I am most familiar with seem to be more anti-abortion than comprehensively pro-life.

If they could manage to stop whining about the rough treatment and sexist comments, I might be more impressed.

Kamilla

[Jehu]

Kamilla,
Given the options out there, I'm not terribly concerned (nor, do I suspect the @1M unborn children that won't make it this year) with whether a politician is actually pro-life or merely 'anti-abortion'. Honestly, I don't even care why they're anti-abortion. They could be anti-abortion because they believe that abortionists aren't making proper rituals to Molech prior to their sacrifices and I'd rather have them in office than most of our Senators.

[Christopher Hathaway]

more anti-abortion than comprehensively pro-life

What does this mean?

[Kamilla]

Christopher and Jehu,

It's not a tremendously difficult concept to grasp. Being pro-life is about much more than merely being opposed to abortion - it encompases being against ESC research, just to name one contentious issue.

If you take a look at the numbers needed to do any effective research and develop potential treatments -- the numbers of embryos destroyed for the sake of ESC research is gargantuan. Then, if you also take into consideration other life issues such as certain birth control methods, the new supposed "emergency contraception" - ella, which is really a stealth form of the same class of drug as RU-486, and I could go on -- but yes, I am concerned about much more than mere abortion. Griswold and Eisenstadt may have been the thin edge of the wedge, Roe and Doe may have been the hammer to provided the first crack -- but these following issues will split things wide open and any hope of reinvigorating a culture of life will be lost for a generation or more.

So yes, I care about why they are anti-abortion and if they are genuinely pro-life.

Kamilla

[Jehu]

Kamilla,
This being the United States, given our history, the abortion issue is going to have to be settled through violence, much as we settled slavery. One might say that every drop of blood shed by the forceps must be atoned for by blood shed by the sword, and that the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous indeed. The abortion issue is THE central issue in American politics today, as its the one that gets people most enraged. Had the courts not intervened to prevent a democratic solution to the problem in Roe, avoiding a massive effusion of blood might be possible, but I honestly think it is too late now and that civil war is inevitable. Ironically, it'll probably break out over something else, and future historians will debate whether it was about abortion in much the same way that historians debate the Civil War I and slavery. The other differences (e.g., tarrifs and treatment of the South like an economic colony) were important, but it was the radicalization and anger over slavery that made the problems intractable to peaceful settlement.

[Margaret]

"One might say that every drop of blood shed by the forceps must be atoned for by blood shed by the sword, and that the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous indeed. "

One might say that if Christ's blood hadn't already atoned. We have but to repent.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Jehu,

I can think of no scenario in which violence from our side would be necessary in ending abortion, or even effective. The first Civil War was not fought over slavery but seccession and I can think of no states that would secede over the restriction or outlawing of abortion as the batlles lines cross within all the states. Moreover, the only way abortion will be criminalized here is if we turn the consciences of a significant percentage of the population. There might be violence from the pro-abortion side, but I do not see that as being very effective either.

[Jehu]

Margaret,
The slightly revised quote is an adaptation of one of Lincoln's addresses.
Christopher,
The US is in a cultural cold war presently. Abortion is one of the issues now, just as slavery was one of the issues in 1860. Illegal immigration, socialism or not, homosexuality, and the notion of the technocratic managerial (but liberal) state are others. Neither side believes the other is morally legitimate. Given American history, it'll end in blood. Like in 1860, many of the other issues could be defused conceivably if the issue of abortion wasn't in play. Pretty much every judicial confirmation turns on this issue. Note that I'm being descriptive here, not necessarily prescriptive, as I believe that a second Civil War would lead to the deaths of at least 80% of the population, primarily due to the destruction of our incredibly brittle infrastructure.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Jehu,
Your predictions do not correspond to the reality of America's situation. Abortionists represent a small fraction of the medical community. Those who seek abortions also represent a minority. Who will go to war to defend this practice? A civil war that you imagine requires organized armies on either side willing to fight.

Abortion may be America's greatest sin, but it is not one Americans will shed their blood to defend. Most Americans don't even want to pay attention to it, and to fight for it at the risk of their lives requires a form of selflessness that is incompatible with tolerance for abortion. Any society that allows the killing of its own children is incapable of mustering a vigorous defense of itself that would require sacrifice. I can imagine rioting and some small radical terrorist movements but nothing organized enough to split the country, let alone destroy it.

We'll be destroyed by economic collapse long before NARAL and Planned Parenthood could recruit even brigade's worth of soldiers.

[Rob]

Most Americans don't even want to pay attention to it, and to fight for it at the risk of their lives requires a form of selflessness that is incompatible with tolerance for abortion.

[mason]

I just wanted anyone’s opinion on if I was in the wrong here, and what any of you guys would have done in this situation. So my wife is quite liberal and I’m more on the conservative side, and she’s about 3 months pregnant. She can’t work right now, so I’ve been forced to support her as of late. The thing is that about a week ago she started asking me if she could borrow $400, and being pretty secretive about the reason why. I soon found out that $400 was the average cost of a back alley abortion, which is ridiculous considering that she knows how vehemently pro-life I am. After refusing to give her the money and the countless hours of arguing that ensued, I ended up making a comment about how if she wanted to do something liberal with $400, she should take advantage of Obummer’s “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” so that “instead of murdering our kid, he can have satellite internet at a smashing price!” (I linked it so you can actually see it’s about $400 in taxpayer money that our President chose to waste on this crap, aren’t I so funny hah). The messed up part is that she went and told her dad, who happens to be just as liberal as her, and who also happens to own the house that we’re renting. To make a long story short, my tenancy has been “suspended” from his house (I’m now staying at my buddy’s place until this thing blows over) and he gave her the money to get the abortion. I haven’t talked to her in almost a week, so it’s pretty safe to say that she has already gone through with it. So my question is, do you think I was being inappropriate for mocking my wife and father in law’s political ideologies, or do you think I’m being unfairly persecuted because of my relative conservatism, and the Obummer joke I made has little to nothing to do with this? I’m thinking the latter.