Noonan says Wendy Davis is standing for infanticide

A lot of media personalities are congratulating Texas State Senator Wendy Davis for her filibuster last week in favor of late term abortions. Peggy Noonan was having none of it this morning on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” In soft tones, Noonan brought down the hammer on Davis, saying that she was defending infanticide. You can watch her remarks above. You can also read the key part in the transcript below.

NOONAN: Here’s what — in the story of this young woman, she’s so spirited.  You know, she has such energy and she seems to have such commitment.

But it seems to me — and I think it seems to many Americans — that what she is speaking for and standing for is something we would recognize as infanticide, late-term abortion, the taking of a little child’s life.  That is really, really serious.

(HT: Kirsten Powers)

20 Responses to Noonan says Wendy Davis is standing for infanticide

  1. Aaron A. Smith June 30, 2013 at 11:12 pm #

    It’s really bizarre that we have national debates on whether or not a form of murder should be legal. I’m glad that Peggy Noonan spoke frankly about it.

  2. Akash Charles July 1, 2013 at 2:25 am #

    Wise woman

  3. Paul Reed July 1, 2013 at 8:25 am #

    I hate to say this, but the pro-life movement cannot use terms like “infanticide” or “baby-killing” and yet still insist that women who get abortions should be free from jail time. It’s obvious we don’t take our own rhetoric seriously (even if it is true).

    • Aaron O'Kelley July 1, 2013 at 8:47 am #

      If the law recognized the value of all human life, from conception to natural death (as it should), then I would imagine pro-lifers would have no problem at all saying that women who get abortions should go to jail for it (I would have no problem with it). That is one of the consequences of breaking the law.

      But it is nonsense to insist that a woman should go to jail for an act that her government deems legal. So we have to get the horse first, and then the cart. Change the law, and THEN apply it.

    • Andrew Orlovsky July 1, 2013 at 9:21 am #

      I personally do think that if our society reaches a point where abortion is banned, t women (and the husbands/boyfriends who pressure them) who have had abortions should face jail time . However, the fact that the pro-lifers are not currently pushing that women face jail time just shows the pro-lifers are simply motivated about saving unborn babies, not punishing women for thier sexual sins as pro-choices claim.

      • Aaron O'Kelley July 1, 2013 at 1:37 pm #

        My comment was not in regard to women who have had abortions within the parameters of existing law. I was thinking of a future day, if God might so grant it to us, when unborn life might be protected by law in this country. It would be morally questionable to apply punitive legal consequences to someone retroactively.

        • Andrew Orlovsky July 1, 2013 at 8:50 pm #

          True, I do agree with that. Sorry if the way I worded my comment seemed to indicate otherwise.

  4. Aaron A. Smith July 1, 2013 at 10:33 am #

    Men who are the sperm donors in these situations should be held equally responsible.

    • buddyglass July 1, 2013 at 10:59 am #

      Hard to argue they should be held equally responsible when they means of vetoing the decision to abort.

      • Aaron A. Smith July 1, 2013 at 11:25 am #

        Men who are the fathers of aborted children who did not demonstrate due effort to support the mother through a pregnancy that ends in abortion (e.g. provides no financial assistance at all, abandons mother) should be held responsible. Additionally, people who speak poorly about unwed pregnant mothers (call them foul names, speak negatively about them publicly, etc) should change their tones altogether to doing everything they can to support women who are at risk of getting the abortion.

        • Aaron A. Smith July 1, 2013 at 11:31 am #

          I have probably spoken too much. Sorry. My point is that more parties are responsible for an abortion than the woman getting the procedure.

        • buddyglass July 1, 2013 at 12:12 pm #

          I agree that noone should mistreat unwed mothers. I agree that fathers who neglect to materially support their children and the mother of their children are guilty of something, but they’re not equally culpable in the act of abortion.

  5. Chris Ryan July 1, 2013 at 4:30 pm #

    When Peggy Noonan starts supporting policies that help the lives of born children, she’ll have more credibility when speaking about the unborn.

    Instead Noonan regularly opposes policies to to help the born (eg, Medicaid, Medicare, women’s health services, SCHIP, etc). A large number of GOP congressmen are advocating for a drastic cut of $40B in food stamps. If you’re unconcerned abt ppl eating, don’t expect ppl to think you take life seriously. Its unrealistic.

    • buddyglass July 1, 2013 at 5:07 pm #

      Eh.

      For instance, consider this policy: “Chris Ryan should have all his assets seized and then be killed, his organs sold off, and the proceeds should be used to assist poor mothers and children.”

      I strongly oppose that policy. My opposition to it despite the fact that it would, in fact, help poor mothers and children doesn’t render my claim to want to help poor mothers and children hypocritical.

      • Chris Ryan July 1, 2013 at 8:32 pm #

        LOL, good one, Buddy! But that’s b/cs you’re taking one life in order to support another. Medicaid & SCHIP (to use just one example) are not such a zero sum game, however.

        Let’s not make it so abstract tho. When my best friend moved from Detroit to Dallas I was happy that we’d have a chance to regularly hang out again. But soon his 8yo son had a relapse of cancer. Neither his nor his wife’s job offered health insurance & they both had very modest incomes. When they tried to get Brandon on TX Medicaid they were told that there would be a 20 month wait. In order to get him health care they had to move back to Detroit, where children’s health care is much more robustly supported. Unfortunately for Brandon cross-country moves can’t happen overnight & he went without treatment for months. Brandon died abt 9mos later. Now TX doesn’t have a state income tax & it was at that moment that I realized that my taxes were far TOO LOW. Since that time TX has cut back even more on vitally needed health care services, including pre-natal services for mothers.

        So, no, I don’t believe you can oppose expanding health care & still be authentically Pro Life. Some of these politicians, like Noonan & Perry, act as if life begins at conception & ends at birth. If you’re going to be pro life, support life. As they say where I’m from, put your money where your mouth is.

        • Aaron O'Kelley July 2, 2013 at 12:41 am #

          Chris, I would support expanding access to health care by reducing the government’s role in it so that market forces would make it more affordable for everyone. What happened to your friend is tragic, but the difficulties of that situation could be traced back to the fact that health care has not operated as a competitive business for a long time, which has caused prices to soar. Much of the blame for this situation can be laid at the feed of an intrusive federal government.

          My point here is not to debate the particulars of health care policy, but simply to point out that, simply because a person is skeptical of a bigger role for government in addressing problems of human suffering (given the government’s track record), does not mean that person cares nothing for human beings who suffer. The documented fact that conservatives (who more often claim to be “pro-life”) give more of their own money to charities in an effort to alleviate human suffering than do liberals is a vivid demonstration of the fact that compassion cannot be equated with zeal for bigger government.

          I would like to ask you to reconsider your argument that one cannot truly be “pro-life” unless he embraces left-wing political strategies. That argument assumes the worst about those to whom it is directed, namely, that because they oppose bigger government, they must therefore care nothing for those who suffer. I believe your political leanings are mistaken and will only lead to greater suffering for more people, but I do not thereby assume that you yourself do not care for suffering people. Would you be willing to look past political differences and see those with whom you disagree politically in a more charitable light?

          • buddyglass July 2, 2013 at 10:36 am #

            “What happened to your friend is tragic, but the difficulties of that situation could be traced back to the fact that health care has not operated as a competitive business for a long time,”

            Have to disagree. A family of modest means isn’t going to be able to afford long, protracted cancer treatment even if the cost were a fraction of what it is today.

            That said, given their son had already endured a bout with cancer, the couple might have acquired alternative health insurance before moving to the state, as a stop-gap during the Medicaid waiting period. Or, possibly, they might have chosen to make the move only if one of them could acquire a position that came with health insurance. Moving to a state where you’re not going to qualify for free health insurance to take a job that doesn’t provide health insurance when you have a child with an elevated risk of having to deal with cancer seems ill-advised to me, but I get that there may have been extenuating circumstances that made the move necessary.

            “The documented fact that conservatives […] give more of their own money to charities in an effort to alleviate human suffering than do liberals…”

            I’m not sure this is well-documented, or even true. It is documented that conservatives give more money to charity (which includes local churches), but only because they are, as a group, more religious than liberals. Religious liberals give at a roughly equivalent rate to religious conservatives. Non-religious liberals give at a higher rate than non-religious conservatives. Non-religious conservatives (the Ayn Rand types, no doubt) are the stingiest group around.

            But you’ve said something that goes beyond jug “giving more”. You’ve said that conservatives give more money to charities in an effort to alleviate human suffering. I would wager that, for most conservatives, the lion’s share of their giving goes to a local church and/or in support of someone on an evangelical mission. What percentage of a church’s budget goes to alleviate direct, physical human suffering?

            What would your church have done if Chris Ryan’s friend had showed up one day begging for $100,000 to cover the cost of his son’s cancer treatment? I ask not to malign your particular church; mine wouldn’t have covered the bill either, nor am I sure that it should. I ask merely to point out that if you oppose safety nets that would provide treatment for kids like the one in this example, and you’re honest, you probably need to admit that the end result of your preferred policies is that some poor kids (and adults) are going to end up dying because they can’t afford expensive treatments. One can argue that’s something we must learn to be okay with (because money doesn’t grow on trees), but that’s not the same as arguing it won’t happen at all, which is what most opponents of safety nets seem to do.

          • Chris Ryan July 2, 2013 at 1:39 pm #

            Hey, Aaron, please don’t get me wrong, I’m not intending to malign your motives. I said ‘expanded health care access’ rather than, say, Obamacare, because there are multiple ways to expand health care.

            More broadly, Buddy makes the right point abt the ability of the church & charitable giving to alleviate chronic human suffering. The longtime Catholic hospital–where I was born–is going out of business. Without some amt of redistribution, then, the social safety net will fray, and as Buddy points out some percentage of ppl will hit the ground. My small church even with our strong giving will not catch those ppl.

            None of this, btw, means that you have to be a liberal. Bob Dole was no liberal & he was a huge supporter of food stamps. Romney was no liberal & he ‘invented’ Obamacare. GW Bush was no liberal & he expanded health care thru Medicare Part D and AIDS meds in Africa…

            But Perry is not like those earlier conservatives. He’s slashed my state’s safety net, including pre-natal care. So, I think he needs to re-think whether he’s authentically Pro Life, or if he’s merely anti-abortion. Pro Life should mean more than just the 9 mos the babe is in the womb.

          • James Stanton July 2, 2013 at 3:36 pm #

            “Chris, I would support expanding access to health care by reducing the government’s role in it so that market forces would make it more affordable for everyone. ”

            This would be an interesting ideological experiment. There is no 1st. World country that has a health care system with a reduced government role that is also-cost. There are indeed a number of governments (Switzerland, Singapore, and a few others) that rely on private companies for health care delivery but these all function with strong government regulation and oversight.

            • Akash Charles July 3, 2013 at 1:24 am #

              they also have healthier citizens
              and citizens who live longer Hong Kong is a good example
              privatized with heavy competition and government to keep check and not run it ( cause their politicians admit they can’t do everything!!)

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes