Friday, March 22, 2013

The Emancipation Approximation

Let's check in with our old friend Matt "Bam Bam" Barber, the Boxing Nun.
"So I've got the goatee and the suspenders, but I'm wondering...is there anyway I could possibly look more like a douche?  What do you listeners think?  Lines are open..."
‘Pro-Choice’ Slave Masters Losing War
The pro-aborts are losing. They know it, and they hate it.
It's true.  We're being underbid in the marketplace by the pro-bono-aborts.
As LifeNews.com reported in January: “CNN released the results of a new poll showing a majority of Americans want all or most abortions prohibited – a clear pro-life majority.”
Well, I guess that's it.  The practitioners of anti-choice activities (or an-cho-vies, as the pro-aborts like to call them), have sounded the death knell for Roe v. Wade.
Indeed, the winds of life are blowing free the foul stench of a pro-abortion culture of death.
I told the other people in the movement that "pro-abortion culture of death" was a crappy name for our new line of imposter fragrances.  Good name for a punk band, though.

Oh what the hell, I might as well get out of the boat, seeing as it's sinking and all...  From the LifeNews "report":
In August, CNN released the results of a new poll showing a majority of Americans want all or most abortions prohibited — a clear pro-life majority.

The survey asked: “Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?” Some 62 percent want abortions illegal in all cases or legal only in certain instances while just 35% want abortions legal for any reason.
If you click the link above (warning: goes to a pdf), you'll see that this poll, from August 2012, is mostly about the presidential election, with one question on abortion (or two, depending on how you answer).  I guess there's an art to reading polls without skewing, because I looked at this thing and got a very different impression of the results than the experts at LifeNews.com did.  Maybe you guys can help me decode this statistical mumbo-jumbo (click to embiggen):


To my untutored eye, it seems like the number of people who think abortion should be legal under any circumstances has actually increased -- by 10 points since 2011.  The number who think it should be legal in at least some circumstances has decreased by 6 points, but the percentage of the population who think it should be outlawed has also decreased by the same amount.  So while I guess you could come to the conclusion -- as the an-cho-vies at LifeNews.com (or Li-Nom, as we've just decided to call it) do -- that 62% of the American people are opposed to abortion by adding the number of people who want to see it criminalized to the number who wish to keep abortion legal, but with restrictions (pretty much the case since Roe v. Wade was first decided), you could also hang a left turn, adding the "legal under certain circumstances" crowd to the "Legal under any circumstances" degenerates, and conclude that a clear 82% of the population favors the Pro Choice position.

Instead of reaching back to last summer, Li-Nom could have avoided all this murky ciphering by simply going with the more recent CNN poll, headlined "Strong majority oppose overturning Roe v. Wade."  But like I said, arithmetic was never my strongest subject.

Anyway, back to Bam Bam...
This is why President Obama and his fellow pro-abort zealot, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, have unilaterally, arbitrarily and unconstitutionally forced, through Obamacare, every taxpaying American citizen to fund “free” abortion-on-demand.
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, pregnancy termination and the latest hit movies are now included free with my basic cable package.
This draconian overreach is in perfect keeping with the 2012 DNC platform, which, for the first time, admits without shame: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to … abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”
"You can, of course, choose to support a woman's right to control her own body -- it's your soul that's going to roast in Hell, not mine -- but at least have the decency to be bashful about it."
Psalm 8:28 commands: “Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.”
MATT:  And why would you even consider having an abortion?
WOMAN:  Well, physically I'm too weak to survive a pregnancy, the father abandoned me, and I'm too poor to raise a child.
MATT:  Those are all rational considerations, but I have this Hebrew pop song from the Sixth Century B.C., so your argument is invalid.
With its 1973 Roe decision, the U.S. Supreme Court put the government’s official stamp of approval on mass murder.
I dunno, Matt.  Even if you do consider abortion to be murder, it's still only one count of homicide.  It wouldn't be mass murder unless Octomom had an abortion.
Since then, the battle lines have been drawn. This is war. They, “pro-choicers,” are the bad guys, while pro-lifers are the good guys. It really is that simple – that black and white. It’s good versus evil.
Not that Matt wants you to enlist in his war and fight on behalf of white and good against black and evil by, say, shooting an abortion provider.  He would just like to point out that physicians are not signatories to the Geneva Convention, so if you happen to take up that AR-15 you are legally entitled to buy without a background check at a gun show, and point it in the face of a doctor and he happens to surrender, you're also legally entitled to make him work as slave labor on that bridge you're building over the River Kwai.
To the unenthusiastic mother, politically motivated abortion violence is deviously portrayed as an acceptable escape from what may seem a desperate situation.
"Yeah, sure, kid, the doctor says you've got 'PTSD' or some such crap from getting raped and impregnated by your uncle, but remember, doctors are enemy combatants in this war.  If you want my opinion, your real problem -- besides the broken jaw and the fractured ribs -- is a lack of enthusiasm.  Perk up, wouldja?"
To the innocent child, it is – without fail and without due process – execution by torture.
Which, thanks to John Yoo, is also now legal, making this war a whole lot easier.  I predict the blastocysts will be home by Christmas.
Consider the horrific practice of Partial-Birth Abortion, innocuously tagged “Intact Dilation and Extraction.” 
Begin by considering that "Intact Dilation and Extraction," a medical procedure, was tagged with the made-up term "Partial-Birth Abortion" by a Congressman and a lobbyist.
 "I'm dipping my pen in a uterus-shaped inkwell so the ladies don't feel left out."
This is a practice so brutal and so needless that even the liberal American Medical Association (AMA) admitted that it is never necessary under any circumstances.
Actually, that's what the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 admits ("a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary").  The AMA says, "According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion," which is not surprising, since "the procedure has had a low rate of use, representing 0.17% [of all abortions in the U.S.]."  The fact is, it's always seen more use in fundie talking points than in health clinics.

The AMA goes on to say that "ethical concerns" i.e., a stink, "have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."

So I guess the "American Medical Association (AMA) admitted that it is never necessary under any circumstances" can be checked off Matt's Tell a Lie For Leviticus! bucket list.
In Dred Scott the Court absurdly held that African-American slaves, even if emancipated, were not fully persons and therefore could never be considered U.S. citizens. Likewise, Roe v. Wade ruled that children in gestation are not fully persons and are therefore not entitled to their most basic civil right: life.
Dred Scott v. Sandford did indeed hold that slave owners could not be deprived of their property without due process, but that raises the question: Who's The Chattel? (one of the more offensive sit-coms of the mid-80s).  If we follow Dred Scott as precedent, then any embryo who escapes a pro-abort woman's womb through the Underpants Railroad could be caught, thanks to the Fugitive Fetus Act, and returned to her, even though she was trying to get rid of it in the first place.  But if the fetus can force the pro-abort to feed and house it for nine months, then it's actually the woman who's the slave, in which case they'll have to start making those Princess Leia metal bikinis in maternity sizes.
Call yourself “pro-choice”? Shame on you. You’re no better than a modern-day slave master. Dump the garbage and join the right side of history.

There’s plenty of room over here.
There sure is, Bam Bam. Mostly because people got up as soon as you started talking and found another bench.

8 comments:

Carl said...

or an-cho-vies, as the pro-aborts like to call them

I hate you.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

...in which case they'll have to start making those Princess Leia metal bikinis in maternity sizes.

Did you check to make sure they don't already, Scott?
~

Stacia said...

In my misspent post-youth pre-middle-age days, I was an insurance agent in Kansas and met Ms. Sebelius a couple of times. "Zealot" is the last adjective I'd use to describe her, and not just because it starts with a "z."

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm late for the streetcar named Underpants.

Chris Vosburg said...

Matt writes: In Dred Scott the Court absurdly held that African-American slaves, even if emancipated, were not fully persons and therefore could never be considered U.S. citizens. Likewise, Roe v. Wade ruled that children in gestation are not fully persons and are therefore not entitled to their most basic civil right: life

In other words, in this truly insane leap of non-logic, a fetus is a slave and should be set free at the earliest opportunity, rather than imprisoned in the womb and forced to come to term.

Be free, little fetus, be free!

Oh wait, isn't that essentially the same as aborting a fetus?

God what a fucking moron.

Weird Dave said...

Mmmmmmmm..right wing math.

BillyWitchDoctor said...

To the unenthusiastic mother

There's where it stops being funny to me; any time one of these pricks invokes the falsity of an "unenthusiastic mother" casually getting a drive-thru abortion so she can party that night.

Because no concern on the woman's part is a real concern to these nozzleknobs; the wimmens is just doing it for convenience (or, for fuck's sake, "politics").

Li'l Innocent said...

Well, Scott... haven't had time to check on my fave intertubes locales in a few days, and I must say returning to this toasty, golden-brown, hand-basted, sage-stuffing-stuffed treat is just divine.

Bam Bam goes from strength to strength, tho, doesn't he? First the neologisms, then the apocalyptic weather report, then the math, then the delightful absurdist interpretation of the ACA, then the thing with the Dred Scott Decision -- well, words fail me. But they don't fail you, babe!

Nadine said...

Damn you, Scott! I've now been whistling the song from "Bridge Over the River Kwai" for 3 days now. I'm holding you personally responsible for this one.

~The Minx~