Women now have the right to choose in Mexico City

The Orange County Register’s Steve Greenhut posted about the vote today in Mexico City that will give women the right to choose to have an abortion in their first 12 weeks of pregnancy. [CNN Link]

Greenhut’s main point was that there has been a lack of pro-life, conservative outrage regarding this topic. He suggested that maybe the lack of outrage is due to the overlap in the anti-abortion and anti-Mexican sects in this country. From Greenhut’s post:

…given the increasing outrage and anger by conservatives in this country about illegal immigration, my cynical side wonders whether some such folks aren’t secretly cheering, or perhaps just ignoring, the likely Mexico City pro-abortion vote. You know, fewer poor Mexicans to cross the border.

I’m not going to go as far as suggesting that anti-abortion people are in favor of aborting fetuses of Mexican women, but Steve is right to point out that this lack of outrage from the “moral” conservative leaders in this country suggests something.

There’s been silence from the right on this vote because they aren’t paying attention to anything that happens in Mexico. They are too busy picketing at day-labor centers and brainstorming on new ways to make the Minuteman organization look different from the KKK.

It is foolish to sit around and attack the symptom if you don’t even care to learn more about the disease.

[Steve Greenhut's post]

  11 comments for “Women now have the right to choose in Mexico City

  1. Jim Bieber
    April 25, 2007 at 11:18 am

    I disagree with Greenhut. There’s only so much energy and resources the U.S. Pro-Life community can spread around. It’s difficult to lobby against the legal right to kill 12 week old Mexican babies in the womb when we are spending time in America working to end the killing of babies who are fully delivered (less their heads, that have their brains sucked out and their skulls crushed before they are delivered dead) the nice term for this procedure is “late term abortion.” The most grizzly medical procedure since the horrors of Auschwitz and ALL the Dem presidential candidates are pledging to bring back late term abortion if elected.

    You are correct that there is a portion of anti illegal immigration people who favor abortion as a means to reduce the underclass and people from the third world. “Conservative pro aborts” are pretty transparent unlike Liberals. Since the Nazi loving founder of Planned Parenthood began her crusade, liberals have changed their rhetoric to be more P.C. but for a significant number of liberal pro-aborts, abortion isn’t about sexual freedom for women, it’s about weeding out the underclass and curtailing minority reproduction.

  2. Dan Chmielewski
    April 25, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    Geez Jim, if you want to track the history of Planned Parenthood by to Nazism, can I bring up how Prescott Bush earned his fortune (which his sons and grandsons now enjoy).

    Let’s make every child a wanted child and invest in better sex education programs, better pregnancy preventation technology. Abstinance education doesn’t work and you cannot legislate morality even though the you’re part of the “limited government” crowd, you want government to legislate the sex lives of individuals.

    And the term Pro-Abortion is inaccurate at best; it’s Pro-Choice as in protecting a woman’s right to choose. Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion. It will move into the back allies and more women and children will die. Just remember, the vast majority of Americans support a woman’s right to choose and Row v Wade to the tune of 52-70 percent depending on which poll you read.

  3. Jim Bieber
    April 25, 2007 at 3:13 pm

    “can I bring up how Prescott Bush earned his fortune”

    Okay Dan bring it up– please tell me what part of Nazism did poppa Bush support? What did he say? Exactly who did Bush meet with? The Bushies traded with Germany true, but he was no Limburg.

    Margaret Sanger embraced the core of Nazism, had members of the Nazi party speak at Planned Parenthood meetings. Even the current P.P. web page makes vague reference to Sanger’s zeal of eugenics and apologizes them away as being a symptom of the era. Type her into Google and you’ll find all the original documents photos, not hearsay Bush talk.

    “you want government to legislate the sex lives of individuals.” No, I and most pro-lifers don’t care about others sex life’s.

    There’s no denying that abortion is taking a life – Scott Peterson sentence was the death penalty; the special circumstance that qualified him for the death penalty was DOUBLE MURDER. Who were the two individuals that he killed – remember the other name? Baby Connor got state recognition and protection. People don’t give tumors or globs of tissues names and the state the state doesn’t prosecute people for lancing an organ. When an unborn baby is killed – it’s treated as a murder.

    “Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion.” Yeahhhh and the point is? Outlawing child molestation only forces men into back allies or forces them to travel to the Thailand where it’s safe and legal. Molestations will always happen regardless of how many laws are passed. Why are folks who seek to criminalize pedophilia always wanting to regulate others sex life’s?

    And finally you cite a current poll saying that a majority of people feel – whatever. Pre Civil War, a majority of Americans supported slavery. Slavery was a personal moral issue between a farmer and his God. Then along came those damn busybody Christian Republicans always sticking their noses into people’s private matters. “If you don’t like slavery Don’t own a Slave!”

    Medical question? How many lbs per square inch does it take to crush a newborn baby’s skull if it has a body weight of 3 pounds?

    Maybe we can start a pool on the blog? I’m betting 6 lbs.

  4. Dan Chmielewski
    April 25, 2007 at 5:10 pm

    http://www.clamormagazine.org/issues/14/feature3.php
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
    http://www.rense.com/general40/bushfamilyfundedhitler.htm
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html
    133,000 references on Google to “Prescott Bush”+”Nazis”, or as you would say, “hearsay.”

    Let me turn your arguement around on you for a sec, substituing abortion for gay marriage. How does letting two gay men or two lesbians marry harm your marriage or the institution of marriage? There was a time when interracial marriage was forbidden (unless you were Strom Thurmond and took the hired help when you wanted). So, to use your slave analogy, does this mean gay marriage will happen some point in the future even if the majority of Americans are against it?

    No here has ever advocated for pedophilia. But I’m amused that you’re recommending Thailand.

    Back to my original point; being pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Every child should be a wanted child and abortions should be safe, legal and rare. I will ask you again, what about supporting better sex education and improve birth control technology. Would you suppot that if it reduces unwanted pregnancies?

  5. Jim Bieber
    April 26, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    ARRRGGGggggg.

    You are a frustrating guy to spar with. You have A.A.D.D. Argument Attention Deficit Disorder.

    I’ll get back to you on gay rights..

    Granddad Bush was one of 7 board members of a company that traded with the Nazis .

    In the link you shared –

    “Fritz Thyssen (search) was an early financial supporter of Hitler, whose Nazi party Thyssen believed was preferable to communism. THE DOCUMENTS DO NOT SHOW ANY EVIDENCE BUSH DIRECTLY AIDED THAT EFFORT. His position with Union Banking never was a political issue for Bush, who was elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 1952.”
    It goes on to say – “Fritz Thyssen broke with the Nazis in 1938 over their persecution of Catholics and Jews, and fled to Switzerland. He later was arrested and spent 1941 to 1945 in a Nazi prison.”

    No doubt P. Bush was a money grubbing multinationalist who didn’t care about the politics of Germany. A scumbag? Probably. Was Trading with Germany the foundation of the Bush Dynasty‘s core philosophy. No.

    Margaret Sanger’s idea’s were taken by the Nazi’s top level government scientists who cited her works– they had the political power to institute what she only could speak and write about.

    Read what she wrote, what she founded Planned Parenthood on – Sanger’s one evil bitch.

    “Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying . . . demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism,” “The Pivot of Civilization.” 1922,

    “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population”
    A Plan for Peace”, Margaret Sanger was published in Birth Control Review April 1932

    d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

    f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

    g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

    How can she be anything but a villain? For the sake of ‘abortion rights’ her history, what she advocated is swept under the rug. Dan, take the first step be a high profile liberal and publicly denounce her as EVIL.

    Your gingos and bumper sticker replies are all lame – “every child a wanted child” bla bla bla heard it all before.

    Here’s a rule for debating you can have to declare as a winner on your web page; whoever uses the most Orwellian twists to a Noun is the looser. The person who can’t call an apple an apple is the one who’s got something to hide.

    “No one is pro-abortion” that’s simply not true. People are propoents.

    I’m “PRO” I’m PRO; breast reduction surgery, vasectomy, nose jobs, , hair transplants, tumor removal, boob job, I’m even pro root cannel. All these elective medical procedures have a positive out come. Why is it that abortion is the ONLY medical procedure that has moral consequences? What’s the difference between it and the others? Why shouldn’t it be used as a method of birth control if it’s ‘safe’?

    The fact you have to use the word “choice” and cannot speak directly about THE subject means you can’t discus or confront the subject matter, the act of aborting a pre born baby. You could watch open heart surgery on your high definition TV at dinner time. NO ONE can watch an abortion at dinner time – tell me the difference. Knifes, blood, doctors, operating room, what’s the difference? What makes you squeamish when you see the procedure?

    I’ll end it on this, PLEASE answer my one question – within all this blogging back and forth just answer this one question. Did Scott Peterson kill one or two people?

    You can just write 1 or 2 if it makes it any easier.

  6. Dan Chmielewski
    April 26, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    Jim —
    you’re missing my point on Ms. Sanger and Prescott Bush; its ancient history and doesn’t have any reflection on today’s Bush family or today’s planned parenthood. And besides, the Bush family owes what it has to the Saudis not the Nazis.

    If you want me to play the “denouncing” game, you had better be prepared to play it yourself.

    I did speak directly to the subject; you’re not listening. I cannot tell a woman what she can or cannot do with or to her body. That’s between her, her doctor, and God. I am pro-choice on allowing a woman to make the decision that only they can make. I am sorry if that concept is too great for you to grasp. Tell me Jim, why aren’t men more responsible for the children they sire.

    You’r great at situational ethics and examples Jim; is it right for a 14 year old rape victim to be forced to carry the child of her rapist to term? What if it was your daughter? Would you make her carry the baby to term?

    I will answer your question; Scott Peterson killed two people — his wife and his wanted unborn child.

    Now do me the courtesy of answering my questions: would you agree that people are sexual beings and being sexual beings, sex education and better birth control technology would be beneficial to preventing unwated pregnancies? Would you agree abstinance education doesn’t really work?

    I believe Republicans don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned because it simply eliminates a wedge issue you have been able to use for years. I also find it amusing that when Republicans have a majority in their favor, its because they are on the right side of history. But when you’re in the clear minority, you bring up the slavery issue.

    I’m looking forward to your rationale on denying equal rights for gays and lesbians to marry.

  7. Jim Bieber
    April 27, 2007 at 5:12 pm

    “The Irish are lazy and unreliable”

    Slavery was debatable. In America, scholars, clergy, and pillars of the community publicly debated the pros and cons of slavery. Eventually the debate moved from whether it is moral to practice, to should the government (state or local) outlaw it.

    If you go through records of abolitionists vs pro-slavery debates and written arguments you will find that is isn’t an “analogy” it is an EXACT word for word parallel of the current debate on abortion; same rhetoric, same arguments, same accusations. The pro slavery side would argue personal values, private morals, the right to choose and throw out economic issues. They would discuss the ‘institution of slavery’ and argue anything except the core issue; the humanity of the Negro. They would offer a cost analysis showing that they had to have slavery because even if they wanted to hire ‘free workers,’ the Irish, it wasn’t feasible as they were lazy and unreliable. Labor supply and technology was a central argument concerning slavery, but it wasn’t the issue. Immigrant labor or slavery and the quality of a particular ethnic labor could dominate the debate on the issue of slavery i.e. “The Irish are lazy and unreliable.”

    Nowhere in the debate could pro slave owners ever concede that a Negro was a human. They had to avoid the real issue; who is human and who isn’t.

    I had to beat it out of you but in your last post you finally fessed up: “I will answer your question; Scott Peterson killed two people — his wife and his wanted unborn child.”

    Dan, you acknowledged that Baby Connor was killed, you referred to him as a person. But you cleverly put in the qualifying asterisk “wanted.” If you want or don’t want something does it change its physical make up? If I want an apple to be an orange does it become what I want? If a woman wants a baby to be a tumor does it become a growth?

    There are two types of pro-abortion activists. The blind to science and physical evidence, those who view the unborn as blobs of tissue from the moment of conception until the umbilical cord is cut. The realists who acknowledge that yes it’s a separate person, separate DNA, finger prints, blood type BUT that person can be scarified (killed) for a higher goal or principle. The realists is far worst Dan, you know it’s a person but it can be killed if – use your asterisk.

    No there’s no need to go back and forth on this issue, addressing your questions gay rights, birth control would be like discussing the cotton gin or crop rotation in regards to slavery it doesn’t address the core – the humanity of the subject.

    “Now do me the courtesy of answering my questions: would you agree that people are sexual beings and being sexual beings,..” uhhh – please stop hitting on me.

  8. Dan Chmielewski
    April 27, 2007 at 5:54 pm

    Jim —
    If you don’t want to answer my questions, then fine.

    Connor was nearly to term; quite different than a barely fertilized egg, so your arguement doesn’t really wash here.

    But I have asked you twice now about questions of sex education and birth control. You still won’t answer. Have fun on your trip to Thailand.

  9. Jubal
    April 27, 2007 at 10:44 pm

    Connor was nearly to term; quite different than a barely fertilized egg,

    So is humanity a matter of size and form, Dan?

  10. Dan Chmielewski
    April 29, 2007 at 7:08 pm

    Matt —
    Since you’re Catholic, let me ask you…in th eevent of a stillbirth or a miscarriage, what is the official church response to this? Is there a funeral. I have only heard of one case when a couple with a stillbirth late into term had some sort of memorial service.

    I also don’t recall a specific Biblical passage answering the question of when life begins, so please enlighten me.

    As to government, you don’t get a tax deducation for a pregnancy; you get it the year the kid was born.

    And I’d be happy if either of you would answer my question: can we invest in better, long term sex education? Can we invest in better birth control technology? Still waiting for an answer.

  11. Chris Bieber
    April 30, 2007 at 9:32 pm

    Dan,
    your negation of the individuals(UNIQUE 23chromosome HUMAN BEINGS) right to life is quite “admirable”.. or shall we say “clever”..

    Actually it was useful in surmising YOUR inability to grasp the reality of YOUR slippery slope of GodPlaying and qualifiyers of life and DoubleThink….remember that in 1984…the conditioned ability to think that diametrically opposed opposed thesis/ideas/facts were both true and logically consistant..at the same time.

    My younger brother Jim evidently has read some of the books I had given him over the years… to use SOURCE DATA to refute the innocent facade of pedastal mounted Margaret Sanger and her spawn the Planned Parenthood eugenics and abortion empire….funded by humanitarian wellmeaners like the Duke, Rockefeller, Draper and Bush families/fortunes./cabals…

    But I guess that is “the past” to you..

    Your condoning of the actions of the past and UTTER INDIFFERENCE to the consequences of those barbaric and WELL THOUGHT OUT actions of the past is quite startling.

    I have read some of your posts on this site in the past and your lucidity and vernacular and points were not always at this lower rung of debate.

    History and its de facto arguments need to be grasped by you again.

Comments are closed.