From a recent commenter on the A Facebook conversation on abortion post:
You know I find it funny that the people talking about abortion in this are ones who will never have to make that decision.
This is like so many other pro-abortion* sound bites. It is an emotive, fallacious bumper-sticker slogan repeated ad nauseam such that the pro-legalized-abortionists just nod their heads at it. They never stop to think how meaningless it is.
A simple response: Debate on whether an act is moral and should be legal is never restricted to those committing the act. Do only thieves get to decide whether stealing should be legal?
* Yes, I said pro-abortion. People who wanted slavery to remain legal weren’t “pro-choice,” they were pro-slavery. (And that would make another good response: “Did only those considering owning slaves get to debate the morality of slave owning?”) And there are remarkably few “pro-choice” who oppose taxpayer-funded abortions, which is obviously pro-abortion.
Eternity Matters 
Oh, yes, been there, seen that, got the t-shirt. I’ve wondered why this doesn’t work everywhere. “Only those actually contemplating or perpetrating murder get to discuss the morality of murder. Leave the police, the public, the judicial system out of this.” “Only the poor get to discuss the morality of poverty. Don’t let anyone else get involved. It’s not their choice.” Or how about “Only Christians should contemplate the value and beliefs of Christianity. Atheists and skeptics have no place in the discussion. They’ve made their choice anyway, right?” Strange, none of these seem to work. But it should work fine in abortion where fathers have no input, the public has no interest, murdering babies is not an issue, the public paying for it is demanded without allowing the interests of the public. Or, maybe it doesn’t work in the abortion question, either?
LikeLike
They don’t seem to mind that 9 men on the SCOTUS stuck their noses into the issue. And they don’t tell pro-abortion men to butt-out either.
LikeLike
How about the one that was popular back in 2003 and 2005: “Only people involved with military service get to have an opinion that it’s a good idea to go to war with Iraq. Otherwise, you’re a chicken hawk.” (Conveniently, it was perfectly OK to be anti-war, however…)
I see the Left try this horse-pucky all the time. “If you haven’t been there, you have no right to say anything about it.” Why? I can’t read what others say who’ve been in that position, or base an opinion on what my reasoning and common sense would tell me?
I especially resent the more fundamental implication that I’ve go no right to express myself. I always thought that was the right that our liberals cherished among all others…?
LikeLike
When people say, “Only the people making the decision get to discuss this,” what they’re saying, of course, is that, “the people who have most affected by this decision [or are the only ones affected by it] are the only ones who get to have a say in the decision.” Let’s grant them that premise, and take that to its logical conclusion: who is the MOST affected by the decision? Who can be more affected by the decision than the one being aborted? Why not ask those who survived abortions (like Gianna Jessen) or who were nearly sacrificed on the altar of “a woman’s right to choose” (like Jack Nicholson), and see what they say?
It is not surprising that those who were *most* affected by abortion (or would have been, had their mothers carried out their first thought) are profoundly pro-life. It surprised me that Jack Nicholson is pro-life, and he admits that his pro-life views are out-of-step with the remainder of his fairly liberal views, but once he found out that his “mother” was actually his grandmother, and his “sister” was actually his mother, and she almost aborted him, he couldn’t support abortion any more. Same with Gianna Jessen, who at 7 months gestation survived the saline abortion that was supposed to have killed her. The only reason she survived at birth was that her mother gave birth to her before the doctor was there, and the nurses called an ambulance, instead of sticking her in a bucket to die.
LikeLike
I would just ask if they would be willing to extend their logic to voting and taxation. Simply put, if you don’t pay taxes, and if you’re on welfare, you don’t get to vote for people who distribute tax money. Just say, “I’ll stop talking about abortion once you agree that every welfare queen has to get her tush tossed off the voter rolls,” and they’ll stop.
Of course, that would destroy the liberal base, ensure complete conservative victories in every subsequent election, and then we could get women like Christine O’Donnell, Michelle Bachmann, and Sarah Palin to outlaw abortion. 🙂
LikeLike
Of course, specific to abortion: men have to pay for child support. I doubt that any lefty would be okay with a guy getting a girl in a family way, then leaving her to scrape by and not be able to put food on the table while he makes six figures and enjoys the high life. By their rationale, though, he should be able to force her to abort, and, since it’s not a baby anyway, it’s not like he’s asking her to do anything bad.
(As Haemet readers know, I once snarked that a pregnant pro-abort should abort, just to know what it was like, and oooohh doggies, the hatred that came my way! You would have thought that I suggested, Jonathan-Swift-style, that she kill her own child.)
LikeLike