Maybe Infanticide Isn’t All That Popular?

Is America finally moving to solidly pro-life? This poll says we may:

In just one month, Americans have made a sudden and dramatic shift away from the pro-choice position and toward a pro-life stance, according to a new Marist poll.

The shift was led by Democrats and those under 45 years old, according to a survey taken Feb.12-17 in the wake of efforts in several states to legalize abortion up until birth.

“Current proposals that promote late-term abortion have reset the landscape and language on abortion in a pronounced – and very measurable – way,” said Barbara Carvalho, director of The Marist Poll.

In a substantial, double-digit shift, according to the poll, Americans are now as likely to identify as pro-life (47 percent) as pro-choice (47 percent). Just last month, a similar survey conducted by The Marist Poll found Americans more likely to identify as pro-choice than as pro-life by 17 percentage points (55 to 38 percent). Democrats moved in their pro-life identity from 20 percent to 34 percent

Perhaps the push by Planned Parenthood to relieve themselves of legal liability by essentially legalizing infanticide is proving a step too far? I hope so. That is what all the late term abortion laws are about, by the way: PP wants no more Gosnell’s. They could do that by not being butcher shops, but I guess they feel that post-facto legalization of Gosnell’s crimes is better. One thing I’ll say about PP – they definitely know how to lobby. We should be studying their methods carefully…they’ve got the entire Democrat leadership locked down, even when PP is demanding things which are political poison.

14 thoughts on “Maybe Infanticide Isn’t All That Popular?

  1. Cluster February 26, 2019 / 9:17 am

    PP is a money laundering outfit. Tax payer money goes in, campaign donations to Democrats goes out, and in return, PP’s business model of abortion is promoted and subsidized. It’s not complicated. What Democrats don’t want people to know is that black babies are aborted far more often than white babies and Margaret Sanger is smiling. What’s hard to believe is that a major political party thinks infanticide is a winning position.

    I have also never understood this:

    Warren Buffett says wealthy people like himself aren’t paying enough when it comes to taxes

    Why does Warren have to wait for someone to tell him to send him more taxes? Character is what you do when no one is looking. This is a big opportunity for you Warren, don’t blow it. Just write the check and send it in.

    • M. Noonan February 26, 2019 / 11:57 am

      Buffett is a liar, of course – and he knows he’s a liar. It is a liberal thing.

      • Amazona February 26, 2019 / 12:18 pm

        The thing about great wealth is that it is usually acquired by people with an independent kind of mind, people who reject the idea of letting someone else control their property. Sheeple don’t usually get rich.

        And people with great wealth also tend to use a lot of it on their own, without Uncle Sam dictating the terms after siphoning off a lot of it to fill federal feed troughs to pay for the administration of their money, for the greater good. They donate to funds and foundations or they start their own, focusing on what they think is most important—-the homeless, education, animal cruelty, veteran outreach, etc. They actually believe that, as this is money they earned by being better at something than other people and therefore making more money at it, they have the right to decide how it is spent. This, of course, is anathema to the collectivist.

        Worse, when people actually get to decide how THEIR money is spent, it tends to be spent on actual good deeds, meeting actual needs, not just distributed to buy votes. This is another reason to take that money away from the people who earned it, and turn it over to the government.

        The goal is not to get more money flowing to charitable programs—the goal is to use more money to prop up a bloated and corrupt government system of powerful federal agencies run by political appointees under the guise of funding government programs with appeal to the Dependent Class.

        The Right, of course, is completely inept and helpless when it comes to explaining that every agency that handles money for any purpose bleeds off a chunk of that money for itself, meaning that the more government agencies are involved the less money finally fights its way through to the stated intent for its confiscation in the first place. Eliminating the biggest of these agencies, the ones at the federal level, means more money is left for administration by the appointed administers of trusts and foundations or by the state and local governments. Unfortunately for the power-hungry Left, this also takes away a major source of its power by putting decisions and control closer to the voters, a negative for anyone committed to government by a massively powerful Central Authority.

      • M. Noonan February 26, 2019 / 4:42 pm

        All I know is that, in general, I grow more anti-rich because it seems a disease of wealth that once a person gets a large pile, he or she becomes liberal by default. Even the Koch brothers are mostly interested in keeping their own way clear, not in generally helping freedom, as such. Trump is the odd one – though, not unprecedented: plenty of rich people through history have “betrayed their class” by coming down on the side of regular folks. Some from bad motives, to be sure, but it is a thing that does happen.

        But, for the most part, they become socialists with a gold card – never doing anything which would even slightly inconvenience themselves, but always willing to back efforts to pester middle class and upper middle class people. More and more I want the Wealth Tax just to punish the bastards: let them know that if they want to play politics, then politics can play right back…and maybe either stay out of it, or back freedom.

      • Amazona February 26, 2019 / 8:05 pm

        Yeah, but using the power of the State to punish people just sounds so….Stalinist.

  2. Cluster February 26, 2019 / 10:32 am

    Has anyone seen Alyssa Milano with #MeToo? Democrat Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax’s women victims are trying to get a hold of her.

    • Amazona February 27, 2019 / 1:51 am

      She might be trying to design a hat that incorporates all the various genders for the next Woman’s Or Whatever March. I’m thinking a pink p***y hat with a couple of blue balls tacked onto the back and a floppy rainbow teeny tiny kind of a elephant trunk thing dangling off the front………….

      As for the actual full body costume, well it just boggles the mind. That would fall into the “There’s not enough mind bleach in the world” category.

  3. Amazona February 26, 2019 / 12:03 pm

    I haven’t looked up the voting record for the bill that just failed to pass the Senate, but only 53 Senators voted for it, including only 3 Democrats, and 3 Republicans were not present. So, doing the math, where were the other Republicans? Voting with the Death Squads to allow infanticide? When I get back home later I will check out who voted how. I have a feeling Michael Bennett of Colorado voted against the bill, which just might be what puts that seat back in Republican hands. If the Colorado GOP can get its collective head out of its collective nether regions and figure out that its job is to get Republicans elected, that is.

    I made a comment in passing the other day about how Virginians must have really missed slavery, as they were so eager to reinstate a version of it by passing a bill saying, essentially, that a child is the property of the woman who carried it even when it is no longer in her body. That idea has been percolating and I have come to realize that abortion, at any stage, is really just based on the idea that one human being can OWN another, and therefore decide its fate. The act of abortion reduces a human life to mere property, to be disposed of at will, and isn’t that a definition of slavery?

    I wonder if this is an approach that would gain traction with people who are enamored of that powerful word “choice” to the point of letting it override the actual truth of abortion–that it ends a human life because it is inconvenient. The narrative has been that it has been all about the female gestator and HER “rights” and that has moved a lot of people to tolerate abortion even if they dislike it or find it wrong, Pro-life advocates have talked about the inherent right to life of any human being, but that is kind of an abstract concept to many. However, slavery is a concept easily understood, with its own mental visions and awareness, and I think the idea of OWNING another human being is something that might penetrate the consciousness of a lot of people more easily than the existential concept of simply being human.

    Last night I heard Glenn Beck on the car radio talking about a new movie—I believe it is called “Unplanned”. It got an R rating, though it contains no violence, sex, etc. Aside from a grainy sonogram of a human being being sucked into a tube, in the womb, as it fights for life, that is. And that is what the Death Industry doesn’t want people to see. Even a baby so tiny it can be sucked out of the womb through a tube has a sense of being, a sense of needing to fight to live, and that is something the Death Movement cannot afford to be seen by the public.

  4. Retired Spook February 26, 2019 / 2:32 pm

    Just when I thought my contempt for Democrats had maxed out.

    • Cluster February 26, 2019 / 4:21 pm

      Why is the woman’s health more important then the babies health? Asking for a friend.

      • Amazona February 26, 2019 / 7:49 pm

        But…what if the endangered child is a girl? Wouldn’t refusing her care amount to denying health care to a woman, albeit a very young and small one?

        And just how, exactly, would providing care to a living breathing human being quite separate from its gestational womb, have the slightest impact on any care the gestational female might receive on her own? I’m envisioning two beds or tables, in two separate rooms, with two separate medical teams. I’m just not clear on how the one would have an effect on the other.

      • Cluster February 26, 2019 / 10:37 pm

        But…what if the endangered child is a girl? Wouldn’t refusing her care amount to denying health care to a woman

        Love it. That is a full reverse Alinsky

    • M. Noonan February 26, 2019 / 4:44 pm

      Since a lot of Democrats are using that same theme, I can only assume that this is the DNC Memo version of how to talk about it…but it is absurd: once the kid is out, even if it is the result of a botched abortion, it is a living, breathing human being and American citizen…no matter how you want to look at abortion, as such, once out of the womb, you are your own. Amazona is right that it is a species of slavery to think otherwise. But here are Democrats insisting that the kid has to die, regardless. Sick and disgusting.

      • Amazona February 26, 2019 / 8:04 pm
        a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another………
        a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person:

        If a woman is pregnant, residing in her womb is a human being with its own DNA, its own personality, its own identity. Even the Death Brigade has had to admit this. So if the Left insists that this human being is nothing more than property, owned by the woman, wholly subject to her regarding its destiny and fate, and entirely under her domination, how can this separate human being be considered anything BUT a slave? And the woman a slave holder, with the power of life and death over the property she controls.

        When a human being is owned by another, that human being is a slave.

        While biology might dictate that the enslaved human being must be physically nurtured by the body in which it is forced to develop, a body by the way which is responsible for its existence in the first place, that does not change the fact that to reduce this person to the status of property owned by the woman is to say it equals a slave. By her actions, and not by any action of the child, the woman has assumed this responsibility. Not liking it, not wanting it, does not change the basic fact that there is at that time a human being which has to be treated as any other human being, not as mere property to be disposed of at will.

        While the hysterics would howl that this does not apply to a pregnant woman, that the child she carries has no separate and inherent rights, even if one agrees with this argument once that child is born it can no longer be considered her property without being considered a slave, as she is claiming to own it and therefore have dominion over its fate.

Comments are closed.