Comments on abortion legislation that the NYTimes deems "inappropriate"

On May 1, liberal NYTimes columnist Charles Blow published a column titled:

Abortion’s New Battle Lines:Legislative changes in several states — combined with less fervent support for abortion rights — could prove to be a new challenge for Roe v. Wade.

Many comments followed, not including mine, which was censored out. Note that I wasn't in disagreement with Blow. In fact I was criticizing those who disagreed with Blow.

Here are the comments I commented on:

#6, from PKBenham:

Speaking of sanctimonious...Ms Burns assumes that poor women are well-served by abortion. Poor women want help to support their children...not a dead baby. The tragedy is the simplistic thinking that assume poor women need abortions or else it is discrimination. The real discrimination is the mindset that promotes abortion of poor unborn babies.

#10, from Nandarini [the NYT removed this comment later; and while I disagree with everything Nandarini says except for the words "the" "and" and "a," I don't understand why he was censored out either]:

The woman who was in the center of the Roe v. Wade case utterly changed her mind later - this is indisputable fact. She may even have become Catholic. I think I recall that, but would not want to state it as fact. So many many young women are in agreement that abortion is killing and more than that, are actively campaigning for life. A wide spectrum of people are clued in to the truth about Margaret Sanger and her targeting of populations she considered unworthy to live, the myth of eventual over population, and disturbing trends involving demographics in developed areas of the world. China is changing its policy. In the US being "pro choice" especially when you are young, is no longer prevalent. Talk with young women. They do not feel oppressed instead honored. You cannot think just a blob of tissue while watching what happens in an abortion with ultrasound. Ultrasound is why Dr. Bernard Nathanson, responsible with others for the propagation of several myths many people believe are truth, as well as the creation of the term "pro choice" later renounced his support and source of income and became Catholic... all after seeing ultrasound. Dr. Nathanson, who is an excellent writer living in NYC who has produced several books, was responsible by his own admission for thousands and thousands of abortions including that of his own child, in his prominent position at a New York hospital several decades ago.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is my comment on the article and these two comments. See if you agree with the NYT that it isn't "fit to print:"

Let's examine some of the dissenting opinions voiced here. I'll refer to anyone who doesn't reveal their gender as "he" for simplicity's sake.

#6, PKBenham, justifies antiabortionism first by presuming that he can read the minds of all women--and that all of them only get abortions because they need child support and can't get it.

But many females don't want to carry a fetus to term. Perhaps you don't realize this, but it's a difficult process, as is childbirth itself.

Without modern medicine, childbirth was the most common way females died (due to the evolution of our big brains, BTW, which only slide through the pelvic girdle with difficulty, because if the girdle were any bigger women wouldn't be able to walk efficiently, and that was mandatory for our hunter/gatherer ancestors).

Women are especially likely to choose abortion if the man is nowhere to be found--and/or a rapist--and/or especially if the rapist is a relative--regardless of whether the state makes child care available.

So it's ridiculous to presume that all women want to give birth whenever they're impregnated, regardless of their situation. Especially if the \"woman\" is a child herself.

This is what gives rise to situations like the one going on as you read this in Mexico, where abortions are nearly impossible to get (except in Mexico City). In the state of Quintana Roo a 10 year old girl who'd been raped by her stepfather is being forced to carry the fetus to term.

This is the Earthly Paradise that antiabortion fanatics, led by the Catholic Church, are determined to impose on us.

Which just goes to show that the Catholic Church's quasi-promotion of child abuse doesn't stop at harboring and protecting its pedopriests--situations like the one in Mexico are repeated regularly throughout the parts of the world dominated by the Church Universal's tender mercies, or by Protestants who follow Catholic dogma where women are concerned.

PKBenham winds up with another dishonest argument, saying "the real discrimination is the mindset that promotes abortion of poor unborn babies."

But there is no such thing as an "unborn baby," neither legally, scientifically, nor biblically (the Bible give babies status only after they're a month old). Note that many fetuses aren't even potential humans.

This is what's known in debate circles as argument by definition. Instead of having the integrity to admit he's making a religious assertion, PKBenham just tries to slip it in.

Thus PKBenham postures as a person of high morals, quite superior to those of us who disagree with his assertions...but then uses cheap debater's tricks to try to win the argument, instead of coming out of the closet and admitting that he's making a purely religious (though non-biblical) argument.

I expert more morality from those who claim they're far above me, morally.

Next we have #10, Nandarini, talking like a Jesuit. He claims that antiabortionism is "campaigning for life," asserts that abortion is a weapon used against the poor countries, and that overpopulation is a "myth."

He's doing what in debate circles is called "lying" (Unless he simply stopped taking his meds and is repeating what the Voices in his head tell him to say.)

Some simple facts, easily corroborated by anyone with Internet access:

1. The world's population has QUADRUPLED since 1900. It's now over 6.8 billion.

2. The human race is increasing in number by over 140 more people per minute, 24 hours a day.

3. United Nations figures estimate that 1 billion people don't get enough food or clean water--they're starving.

4. Virtually every poor country already has more people than its land and water resources can sustain, and usually that sustainability is actually decreasing. Haiti, for example, exploded from 3 million people in 1950 to 10 million now. Its desperate people have chopped down 98% of the country's trees. The exposed topsoil is vanishing in the process known as desertification.

5. As a direct result of overpopulation, the world is currently experiencing the greatest extinction of plant and animal species since the Quicxulub asteroid killed off the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.

No one finds abortion pleasant. But antiabortionism is a culture of death on a vast scale. People like Nandarini call themselves "pro life." That is a sick joke to anyone who knows anything about ecology.

I'm not talking about women's rights here. I'm talking about upcoming suffering and death that'll make the Black Plague look like a day in the park.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are now named Desertification, Collapse of the Porous Aquifer, Fisheries Collapse, and Chemical-based Agriculture Collapse.

Did you know that oxygen isn't a natural component of the Earth's atmosphere? That 2/3 of it comes from tropical rainforests that hordes of humans are cutting down rapidly? But oxygen won't run low in our lifetimes, so who cares? It's just the pre-pre-born we're endangering...