Who's being extreme here?

Consider saving children in the womb vs. killing babies born alive

  • Follow Editorials

It’s interesting – a nice word for astonishingly hypocritical – that many of the same folks who want to put restrictions on the Second Amendment right to bear arms won’t consider reasonable limits on abortion.

Which, unlike the right to bear arms, doesn’t happen to be in the Constitution.

It’s also amusing to see how the national media report on both. CBS News talked about proposed new restrictions on gun ownership as being “reforms.” An Associated Press story on abortion laws in Arkansas and North Dakota called them “the nation’s toughest bans on abortion.”

One supposes it’s a “ban” when you’re against it, and a “reform” when you’re for it.

Then again, we thought news stories were just supposed to report the facts, not advocate for or against.

The media go all out to portray – to borrow anti-gun verbiage, let’s call them abortion “reforms” – as being extreme. And perhaps the two states’ laws will hit judges that way: Arkansas’ bans abortion after 12 weeks, North Dakota’s after about six, when a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

But what’s more “extreme”? Those two measures, intended to save the lives of children in the womb? Or these two cases:

• Kermit Gosnell, an abortionist in Philadelphia, was put on trial for the death of a female patient and the killings of seven babies that prosecutors say had been born alive – and who were then killed with scissors.

• As one report put it, Florida lawmakers “were shocked during a committee hearing” recently when a Planned Parenthood lobbyist argued that it’s legal for babies born alive in botched abortions to be killed on the spot.

“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” the lobbyist said. “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

Mind you, the lobbyist is talking about killing a live baby that has been completely delivered.

Historians normally label that “infanticide.”

But by all means, it’s the pro-life advocates who are extreme, right?

Comments (19) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
specsta
6592
Points
specsta 04/12/13 - 01:43 am
4
16
Confused Much, ACES?

There have been over 2000 gun deaths in the US since the Newtown massacre, including murders, suicides, and accidental death by children discharging firearms.

ACES could only list ONE case of a doctor who is on trial for ending the life of a fetus after delivery.

Guns kill. This is not a complex physics equation to decipher. Guns kill. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. Guns kill babies, children, parents, workers, teenagers, students, grandparents, and anything else. A bullet has no remorse, no feelings, no prejudices. Its job is to rip into human flesh and destroy it.

There are tens of thousands of deaths from firearms every year.

Women and their partners who come the conclusion to have an abortion do not take their decision lightly. No one gets an abortion "just for fun". No one. Since the procedure is LEGAL, it is not our place to judge those who have come to such a serious decision.

To group restrictions on abortion with restrictions on owning a gun, as ACES feebly attempted to do in this opinion piece, is a serious stretch. There could not be two more unrelated subjects.

Truth Matters
7139
Points
Truth Matters 04/12/13 - 02:16 am
2
13
Guns

Perhaps another difference is that none of the serious advocates are proposing banning ALL weapons. Anti abortion law makers are making it impossible for women to make decisions about their health by virtually eliminating clinics or rigging rules that make it impossible for them to operate. That is in effect a BAN on what the law says is legal.

So what laws are good laws? Those with which conservatives agree?

Let's compare the rationale against background checks with that of requiring more stringent voter ID. I Agee that voter ID should be required, but to require IDs that virtually are unattainable for many who have been voting all their lives makes little sense unless the goal is to not allow certain people to vote. Keeping people from voting is what Third World nations do. America is better than that, aren't we?

So we want no background checks for people trying to attain weapons that kill, but massive ID requirements for people who only want to vote.

ACES, you will increase your credibility with many when you begin to write about and denounce legislatures writing voting laws that even go as far as not allowing college students to vote where they attend college.

longleafpine
3689
Points
longleafpine 04/12/13 - 07:14 am
7
2
Specsta

Never have I seen or heard of a gun jumping off a gun rack or out of a gun cabinet to shoot anyone. A person has to pull the trigger to cause the gun to fire and 9 times out of 10 the person is either a criminal or mentally unstable.

Background checks or the banning of "assault" weapons would not have prevented the last rounds of school shootings. The last one used his mother's leglly purchased weapon and he killed her with it before he went to the school.

carcraft
27005
Points
carcraft 04/12/13 - 04:02 am
10
2
Of course you can't restrict a liberals "right"

I would argue that when a trocar, (large needle), is shoved into the head of a baby being born it is infanticide. We really don't know how many late term abortions occur because records won't be released. The difference is about 6 inches of birth canal. President Obama voted (while in the Illinois legislature), to allow babies born during botched abortions to be left to die. We can't even get the pro-abortion folks to recognize that Planned Parent Hood has allowed underage girls to have abortions while being molested and manipulated by older men. Of course we can't have any restrictions on liberal rights, including the right to vote multiple times!!

carcraft
27005
Points
carcraft 04/12/13 - 04:34 am
7
2
Voter fraud is a problem!

Here is a list of 9, yes NINE people who got caught up in voter ID laws. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/22/449243/report-nine-people-de... When I looked up other stories they were repeats of these nine. Looking at the voter fraud side of the issue here is what I found http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/marguerite-kloos-voter-fraud-si... . Here is an election official and her daughter that voted twice. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-ke... Here are some voter fraud cases from Georgia. http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/24/12-charged-with-voter-fraud-in-georgia... http://gbi.georgia.gov/press-releases/2010-12-21/arrests-made-brooks-cou... For every person denied the right to vote I can probably come up with ten involved in voter fraud. I haven’t even started to list sources. Any common sense approach to a liberal right is totally unacceptable! The right to own guns, actually listed in the constitution can be manipulated by liberals any number of ways. Here is a bill telling veterans they are denied the right because they may suffer from mental illness! http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry81.htm . Of course could you imagine the outcry if 100,000 voters were denied the right to vote because some Doctor thought they may have a mental problem!

Riverman1
86854
Points
Riverman1 04/12/13 - 06:44 am
8
2
CNN and MSNBC

Of course, "the news organizations," CNN and MSNBC are openly campaigning this week to put more restrictions on gun sales. They have both admitted to the tactics. Think they would ever devote a week to restricting abortions?

justthefacts
22681
Points
justthefacts 04/12/13 - 07:20 am
4
2
Hyperbole

"but to require IDs that virtually are unattainable for many who have been voting all their lives makes little sense" For instance?

Fiat_Lux
15902
Points
Fiat_Lux 04/12/13 - 08:14 am
6
2
Yep, the usual soulless, liberal drivel

Logic and an ability to be rational still are not required to comment. Neither is an understanding of such basics concepts as murder and personal responsibility and, especially, of the inability of inanimate, nonsentient objects to form intent, much less act on their own.

I heard a good phrase the other day: There is nothing wrong with questioning [values/morals/traditions/the existence of God, etc], as long as you do it with a clear conscience and not just to rationalize your behavior.

Of course, that wouldn't mean squat to you if you would be willing to kill your own baby, a person that you created, because it's not convenient or would cost too much, or would derail your plan for your own life. Nope.

owensjef3
5639
Points
owensjef3 04/12/13 - 08:36 am
1
6
Are you serious AC
Unpublished

Are you serious AC

burninater
9680
Points
burninater 04/12/13 - 08:41 am
2
6
One supposes it’s a “ban”

One supposes it’s a “ban” when you’re against it, and a “reform” when you’re for it.
--------
No, it's a "ban" when you outlaw it (such as post-6-week abortions in ND) and a "reform" when the legality is unchanged.

Use your brains.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/12/13 - 08:46 am
8
2
Specsta......show us ONE
Unpublished

Specsta......show us ONE incident where a gun killed someone please.

Also, I'm confused. Just a few days ago you said "Each person is worth something just because they exist. Period." And yet now you are defending abortion? Did you change your mind on people's lives being valuable?

You also JUST said "Since the procedure is LEGAL, it is not our place to judge those who have come to such a serious decision." Well, since owning guns is legal, then why is it our place to judge those who decide to exercise that right?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/12/13 - 12:29 pm
5
2
Can someone give me a logical
Unpublished

Can someone give me a logical reason why a law abiding citizen should not be able to own any type of gun they want, including machine guns?

---edit----
I can't help but laugh by the fact that someone gave me a thumbs down for asking the question, but can't post the logical reason I was asking for in the first place. I guess they were just upset that I asked a question that they can't answer.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/12/13 - 08:46 am
5
2
"No, it's a "ban" when you
Unpublished

"No, it's a "ban" when you outlaw it (such as post-6-week abortions in ND) and a "reform" when the legality is unchanged."

So when NY BANNED high capacity magazines, and called it a reform, it wasn't a ban?

scoobynews
3896
Points
scoobynews 04/12/13 - 08:53 am
5
1
One doctor!

One doctor on trial for "killing" several babies! Don't try to minimize it. Unplanned pregnancy is 100% preventable under normal circumstances and abortion is murder. The only way it is not preventable is rape but even now we have the morning after pill for women who report it. As for victims of abuse if we had more harsh punishments for these sickos then we may have fewer incidents. As for gun control there will always be sickos killing people just like there will always be abuse and rape. More laws are not the answer stricter punishment when broken is the answer.

americafirst
966
Points
americafirst 04/12/13 - 09:03 am
6
1
Which state requires an ID to

Which state requires an ID to vote which is "virtually unattainable" by anyone? I think Truth Matters needs to rethink his handle.

Austin Rhodes
2906
Points
Austin Rhodes 04/12/13 - 09:54 am
6
2
Abortion = pre-emptive death penalty

Not sure what makes a liberal's head hurt more...the theory that abortions reduce the need for capital punishment because so many "would be" criminals (unwanted children) are exterminated BEFORE they can commit crime...or the question as to what they would do with an abortionist who carries a handgun everywhere for personal protection.

allhans
24005
Points
allhans 04/12/13 - 11:06 am
3
1
Makes one wonder if these

Makes one wonder if these anti-guns posters even believe what they are preaching. Guns laws won't stop the thugs with guns that are killing each other along with innocent bystanders. Check WHO, and what kind of, people are using guns to kill. It is not a pretty picture.
Do they really want only criminals to have guns, because we know, without a doubt that the lawbreakers will find guns...Stealing, Robberies, Smuggling...They will find a way...and these anti-guns folks want to be defenseless?
NO! and if Obama was on the other side they would be right there with him fighting the opposing view.

nofanofobama
6856
Points
nofanofobama 04/12/13 - 11:27 am
5
1
while i feel for the victums

while i feel for the victums of sandy hook tragedy...why as a tax payer must i pay for them to fly on air force one etc.. to petition law makers to take away my 2nd amendment rights..why do the libs find restrictions in the 2nd amendment when it clearly say "shall not infringe" yet in the 14th amendment where we have the right to privacy ..they concot that to mean abortion..one clearly states a right...one doesnt even mention it yet the libs swear to both...

Truth Matters
7139
Points
Truth Matters 04/12/13 - 12:28 pm
2
4
Laws

So by some reasoning, there should not be any laws that are not a 100% deterrent. Let's remove speed limits because speeders are going to speed anyway. Let's not have a law against child pornography because dirty ole men are going to watch kiddie porn anyway and the law won't stop them. Does that make sense?!

Truth Matters
7139
Points
Truth Matters 04/12/13 - 12:30 pm
3
5
Voter fraud

Let's stipulate that there is voter fraud and laws may deter those inclined to commit fraud. Now will you admit that there needs to be laws to further deter criminals from getting weapons?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/12/13 - 12:39 pm
6
2
What law would deter a
Unpublished

What law would deter a criminal from getting weapons while putting no infringement on the guaranteed right that everyone else has? None of the laws that have been proposed so far do that.

Truth Matters
7139
Points
Truth Matters 04/12/13 - 12:40 pm
2
8
In other words

Sounds like it is okay for honest people to be inconvenienced by strict voting laws but NOT okay for honest people to be inconvenienced by strict gun laws. I wonder why that is the case.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/12/13 - 12:44 pm
7
3
Telling me there are certain
Unpublished

Telling me there are certain types of guns I can not own is NOT an inconvenience.....it is an infringement.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/12/13 - 12:48 pm
5
3
Telling people that they
Unpublished

Telling people that they can't own a machine gun, or that they can't own a 30 rnd magazine would be the same as telling people that they can vote in the local election, but not the national election.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/12/13 - 12:57 pm
5
3
Do you see people pushing to
Unpublished

Do you see people pushing to prevent the mentally ill from voting? How about mandatory background checks to vote?

grouse
1635
Points
grouse 04/12/13 - 01:34 pm
0
0
That headline is the worst
Unpublished

That headline is the worst I've seen in a little time: "children in womb...but babies born alive." What? They regress prior to entering the birth canal? The rest of the editorial is a complete non sequitur, as well.

Fiat_Lux
15902
Points
Fiat_Lux 04/12/13 - 03:08 pm
5
2
Angela,

You're being far too logical. You shouldn't expect so much from your audience because they simply aren't up to it. Having a load of cement on board is a big problem when it comes to shifting something, you know, like a poorly-founded opinion.

rmwhitley
5547
Points
rmwhitley 04/12/13 - 07:45 pm
0
0
The problem
Unpublished

is that most democrats and all liberals have trouble with honesty. I wouldn't believe anyone of them on any subject. They're obstructionists and prolific liars, i.e., richard blumenthal, slick willie clinton, billary clinton, harry reid, pelosi, sanders, murray, rangel, warren, jacksons jr. and sr., sharpton, jealous, boxer, waxman, kasim reed, kilpatrick, blagojevich, quinn, holder, biden, obama et al.

internationallyunknown
4424
Points
internationallyunknown 04/12/13 - 09:05 pm
0
0
Turn back.

If God wants the baby 2 live, thn the baby shall live; for its destiny. His will shall be done. On the flipside, if the baby doesn't live, so shall it be His will.

Man should never try to play the role of a "life giver". In man's mind, he subconsciously playing "god".

We must become totally dependent on Him and receive our directions from Him. He created us. God knows what's best for us. If we will only turn our eyes back to Him.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs