“Abortion is Hate”; a sign at yesterday’s Free Speech rally in Boston

by Skip

evil-tolerance-silence-speech-ach-chaputI only caught only a little bit of the Free Speech Rally on TV yesterday. The one that struck me the most was before the “official” rally started on the Boston Commons band. All of the local Boston channels had roving reporter / camera guy crews roaming the crowd on the outside of the barriers that were erected to protect the few dozen actual Free Speech Rally attendees.  The snippet I saw was about a single older gentleman surrounded by a “micro-mob” of 20/30-somethings (many of the college kids in that area) screaming all kinds of foul language at him.  The least foul word was “Nazi” – which was hurled his way (in screams and hand gestures).  His “failure” to meet the fanatics opposing him?

While the gentleman stood stoically on that rise, taking the vileness from these “tolerant” people whose message they keep telling us is “love”, the reporter relayed that he hadn’t been talking, hadn’t been engaged in debate (neither in calm or in yelling), or mindless screaming his position.  No, all he had done to rile them up was to silently hold up a single sign:

Abortion is Hate

I wish they had shown the sign and I can’t find it anywhere on the ‘Net.

He is right – abortion is hate.  It is hatred towards Life.  It is hatred against the pillar that one should not murder.  It is hatred of a decision that was made that could result in a new life.  It is hatred towards responsibility.  It is hatred to a large, large consequence of ignoring that decisions have consequences.  With that last part, it is a hatred towards norms that gotten us this far as humanity, as a people.  It is a hateful act – to take the life of an innocent victim whose only “crime” was to be conceived by someone that hates them.  It is hatred in that it is selfish – ME! comes first.

Normal people would stand admonished by this.  Not that crowd – they would not stand for any correction to their stances – and the ability to kill the unborn is one of them.

When the police finally came to “rescue” (I believe at the gesturing of the reporter), he was directed to another area.  They failed to escort him and while I had to leave at that point, it was clear that the crowd was not going to let him go to that place.  Isn’t that fascism?  Isn’t that a silencing in and of itself?

It certainly wasn’t the “tolerance” that this crowd seems to espouse. But is anyone surprised at this?

Not me.

Leave a Comment

  • 175jfs

    Where’s Currie, Handcuffs Rodger, and Hoorigan to defend their stalwart “peoples defenders”?

  • Bruce Currie

    If you don’t like abortion–don’t have one. Last I checked, we still lived in a pluralistic society–much to the chagrin and dismay of Groksters–where the religious or social views of a distinct minority do not dominate. That minority would like a safe space for white supremacists and neo-Nazis to spew their garbage, but can’t abide that the right to abortion is a Constitutional guarantee, based on established science and moral teachings equally as valid as any claims by opponents. Who are in the main in an absolutist camp with those who long for an imagined time in the past when women and minorities knew their place, and real men strode the nation like John Galt unbounded.

    • Liberal Conservative

      so…what are your thoughts on the 2nd amendment?

      • Ed Naile

        If he doesn’t like the Second Amendment – you can’t have one.
        I believe that about sums it up.
        Standard progressive feeling.

    • granitegrok

      The first of our Rights is the Right to Life. What does it say about us as a Society that we condone the deliberate murdering of innocent babies? No matter how you wish to coat it, no matter what Latin terms you try to use, that’s the bottom line – killing of innocents.

      Yes Bruce, the Supremes made it a constitutional right. So why, among all of our other Rights, does it demand money from me to for someone to be able to “express” this RIght in doing a massive evil (the taking of a life)? Make no mistake – the science is clear: it is a new life with a chromosomal configuration that is different than the mother’s,

      Do I have the right to demand of other taxpayers to pay for all of my costs to express my First Amendment Right (like pay the hosting charges of the “Grok)? Or my second (I’d love to get a compact 9mm SIG for everyday carry)?

      We are (were?) a nation of negative rights – deliniating what Govt could NOT do to us but Progressives have been bastardizing that for decades ever since the New Deal and FDR’s Second BIll of RIght that demanded that Govt DO things FOR us.

      • Bruce Currie

        Re: “We are nation of negative rights.” No. Your view of the Constitution is the position of those who opposed creating the Constitution in the first place. You’d be leading the anti-Federalist cause against the Constitution, and favoring retention of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation had been a failure–they were too weak to hold the country together or meet problems requiring collective solutions. Madison was only one of many, if not most, of the men who arrived in Philadelphia determined to write a constitution giving government the power to govern. The constitution is not a straitjacket–much to your dismay.

        Madison campaigned tirelessly for the power of the federal government to be decisively superior to the states. He even favored an absolute federal veto over all state laws. He opposed most of the concessions to state power that made it into the final document, but defended the new constitution in the interest of compromise. He made it clear in Federalist #58 why supermajority requirements ( a favored hobbyhorse of the right today, and responsible for much of the gridlock in Congress ) were a bad idea: “In all cases where the justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of good government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule. The power would be transferred to the minority.”

        As for your claims about abortion: sorry,but it’s an issue about which people will disagree. In a pluralistic society, that’s just how it is. If you don’t like abortion, then don’t have one. But you’re not in a position to pick and choose what to support and what not to–move to a theocracy where your religious views can dominate. Mandatory motherhood is not a constitutional requirement, and those who hold such a view seem to think that “right to life” begins at conception, and ends at birth. At which time, Libertarian Social Darwinian thinking takes over, and those who won the sperm and egg lottery savor their privileged status for the rest of their lives.

        And last I checked, many of our constitiutionally guaranteed rights entail costs by government–police protections for controversial speech for example.

        • sb

          Motherhood is not mandatory, you are correct. You conveniently leave out that it is the result of choices. No modern day virgin mothers that I know of.

        • granitegrok

          “”We are nation of negative rights.” No.”

          When one peruses the actual text of the original Bill of Rights, the language is quite clear as they are strewn with “shall not” meaning Govt CAN’T do things it might otherwise wish to.

          As opposed to the Progressive / Socialist FDR’s Second Bill of Rights which is predicated on the philosophy of POSITIVE Rights meaning that Govt HAD to do things FOR you – the complete opposite of the founders.

          The Constitution is NOT a living document to be bent to the will of the wisp political fad of the day.

          • Bruce Currie

            Your claims are not those of a majority of constitutional scholars, though it’s not for want of effort on the part of our oligarchs, who’ve spend $$$ to build a conveniently self-serving “originalist” movement in jurisprudence over the last several decades.

            Here are two eminent scholars of the Constitution who disagree with your claim that “the language is quite clear” (the considerable debate around the 2nd Amendment is just one example of un-clear).

            “…originalism is an especially undesirable method of interpretation if it is used by all branches of government for all decisions. The Constitution contains many gaps.”–Erwin Chemerinsky

            “The framers discerned fundamental principles…. But our acceptance of the fundamental principles has not and should not bind us to those precise, at times anachronistic, contours. … We current Justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as Twentieth Century Americans. We look to the history of the time of framing and to the intervening history of interpretation. But the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time. For the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs. What the constitutional fundamentals meant to the wisdom of other times cannot be their measure to the vision of our time. Similarly, what those fundamentals mean for us, our descendants will learn, cannot be the measure to the vision of their time.”–Justice William Joseph Brennan? Jr.

          • Radical Moderate

            Wow…Bravo Bruce. You’re actually engaging in a pretty decent debate using your own words rather than posting links. You may have copy and pasted some of the Madison stuff, but all in all its a really decent debate on abortion.
            http://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/17967-Audience-Clapping-Gif.gif?1

          • granitegrok

            So I take it that you disagree with Scalia, THomas, Gorsuch – hardly out of the mainstream? Without originalism, the Constitution can mean anything someone wants it to. The Founders were precise and concise with their wording and meaning. If you ascribe other meanings instead, you have dismissed them out of hand as you have thrown away their original desires for this country and the relationship between The People and their Government.

            It is the height of hubris to determine that our circumstances should determine what the Constitution “should” say. Instead it is incumbent upon us in today’s age to dig out the original meanings and philosophy and THEN apply those to the governance and judicial decisions at hand.

          • Bruce Currie

            As I wrote above, our oligarchs have made a concerted effort to make “originalism” respectable. The Kochs and others have richly funded the Federalist Society, which identifies and grooms promising right-wing lawyers for bigger and better things, and has done so almost since its founding in the early 80’s. Bork was an originalist, and his nomination didn’t fly 3 decades ago. Now, Trump promises to nominate only those judges or scholars vetted by the Federalist Society. Originalism itself hasn’t changed, it’s still a crabbed and narrow way to read the Constitution using the fig leaf of original intent to mask its corporatist slant.

            As for “original meaning”, given that the Founders couldn’t agree on what everything in the Constitution meant, originalism’s claims are suspect: there is often no one right meaning to be discerned.

            As for “precise and concise with their wording and meaning”: there’s “equal protection of the laws”, or “commerce…among the several states”, as two famously ambiguous turns of phrase.

        • granitegrok

          “But you’re not in a position to pick and choose what to support and what not to”

          Perhaps I can’t – but for those that run for elected office I can have input to my taxes funding abortion. If you haven’t noticed, there are a number of places that are looking to shut off the public treasury from such evil. I will keep active in getting such people into (and then keeping them) such offices.

          • Bruce Currie

            “…shut off the public treasury from such evil.” Which, data shows, makes resort to unsafe back-alley abortions more likely for women desperate enough. Especially since it seems that ardent right to lifers also tend to oppose some or most methods of birth control, which fact also makes abortion more likely, not less. Again, we live in a pluralistic society; if you don’t like abortion, then don’t have one. But you should recognize that reasonable people can and do differ on this, and that it should finally be a decision left to the woman and her doctor.

        • granitegrok

          And, oh, with a degree in biology, I can definitively say that Life does begin at birth – a co-mingling of chromosome from both mother and father. You may wish to deny it, but indeed that is the starting point of a new person. Without conception, there would be no “us”.

          Unless you can tell me that there is another human source of procreation of which I am unaware?

          • Bruce Currie

            Pregnancy doesn’t begin until the fertilized egg is implanted, which happens several days later–if it happens at all. And it doesn’t happen at least 50% of the time. 50% of human lives gone, often without the woman even knowing she was pregnant. Most religions recognize the rights of the woman take precedence over those the fetus may claim, which is one very good reason abortions should remain safe, legal, and assuming good access to family planning–rare.

          • granitegrok

            You’re deflecting in two ways.

            Pregnancy isn’t Life – it is only nuturing that Life. Yes, implantation is necessary for supply nutrients et al to keep that Life alive and growing. As the baby grows, nuturing will take different forms of its lifespan.

            Sure religions may do so – it is a thorny problem when there may be no good reason. When our Eldest was born, TMEW told the Doc to save the baby first; my take was the opposite. It must be seen, however, that a Life would have been lost in either case.

            And for the record, a fetus is just another name for “unborn child”; it is still a Life.

        • Ed Naile

          Did Madison champion inventing new rights by means of Supra decisions?
          I missed that part.
          I thought we had a process for amending the constitution.
          You must have a cut and paste answer somewhere.

Previous post:

Next post: