Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

“Objectivist” moonbat: Trig Palin should have been aborted

Notice how so-called “pro-choicers” claim to be for a woman’s right to choose whether or not she has an abortion, yet when the woman chooses not to abort, she gets criticized by these sick freaks?  Add this schmuck to the mix (from Newsbusters):

In stunningly self-centered, cruel fashion, Nicholas Provenzo, writer for the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism suggests that Sarah Palin’s decision to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome, is a financial burden that others are forced to suffer with.

…

The full first paragraph of the piece which is circulating amidst the blogosphere reads (emphasis mine):

Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin’s decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

I’ll wait for you to pick your jaw up off the floor.

Aborting a child with a disability is not only, according to Dr. Mengele here, a “moral” choice, but a “moral” imperative!  For you parents out there with special needs kids, you apparently missed the boat on this one.  As Rusty Weiss puts it:

Morally justifiable reasons for killing a baby?  There is no justifiable reason for taking any child’s life, and to call it a moral obligation to society is undeniably one of the more disgusting things to be written by a human being, about another human being.

In fact, advocating the abortion of a child based on the potential of that child having a disease or imperfection of some kind raises echoes of Nazi Germany’s quest for an Aryan race.

Wow.  The existence of such a despicable, vile cretin makes me question my opposition to abortion in at least one case!

Advertisement

September 18, 2008 - Posted by | abortion, moonbats

5 Comments »

  1. I’m stunned!
    I think that’s the most evil thing I’ve heard yet in this campaign.
    I agree with you Jon, I’d rethink my opposition to abortion in the case of Mr. Provenzo.

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | September 18, 2008

  2. Sanger would be proud.

    Comment by Henry | September 18, 2008

  3. First, Nick Provenzo has responded to the many misrepresentations of his views in a followup post at:

    http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2008/09/fundamental-right-to-abortion.htm

    Second, I’m going to speak up to support Nick Provenzo’s *moral* defense of the 90% of women who have learned that their fetus has DS and who eventually chose to abort.

    If a woman takes a serious look at the consequences for her life of having an abortion vs. raising that child, and she decides that an abortion would best foster her happiness in the full context of her life, then that is her legal right. And more importantly, she would also be making the *morally* right choice for herself.

    Of course, if a woman chooses to have the DS child, that is her right and I genuinely hope that things work out as well as possible for the child and the family.

    But to uphold the 10% women who choose to have the DS child as automatically morally superior to the 90% who choose to abort is wrong.

    Those women who have made the difficult decision to abort do not deserve to be tarred with the label “murderer” for choosing their own happiness. And anyone who would attempt to saddle those women with an unearned guilt should be ashamed of themselves.

    Comment by Paul Hsieh | September 18, 2008

  4. Those women who have made the difficult decision to abort do not deserve to be tarred with the label “murderer” for choosing their own happiness.

    Ted Bundy “chose his own happiness”, too.

    And anyone who would attempt to saddle those women with an unearned guilt …

    “Unearned”? Hey, no one told them to open their legs and then knock off the “parasite” (or, as Obama likes to call babies, “punishment”).

    Comment by crushliberalism | September 18, 2008

  5. “I’m going to speak up to support Nick Provenzo’s *moral* defense of the 90% of women who have learned that their fetus has DS and who eventually chose to abort.”

    I will venture a guess that there are a minimum of 350,000 Americans who would disagree with the notion that their lives are worth less than yours. To call it “moral” is reprehensible.

    “Those women who have made the difficult decision to abort do not deserve to be tarred with the label “murderer” for choosing their own happiness.”

    Hogwash. Those women chose their own happiness when they made the choice to have sex. Whether performed with contraception or not, you cannot argue that the act of sex is widely known to result in life. It is specifically that choice which has consequences. To characterize the decision to abort as “difficult” is garbage. There are two other choices which are decidedly more difficult: choosing to raise the child and choosing to allow someone else the opportunity to adopt the child. Those are difficult choices. Abortion seems quite easy in contrast, no?

    Comment by TheBad | September 18, 2008


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

« Previous | Next »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers