THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

RIGHT TO LIFE EXPERIENCE | 2011-09-06

The Right to Life Movement is a total failure in my sense of the term. But it is a giant success in the political sense.

One of the basic rules of politics I keep stressing is that the qualifications for being chosen as a leader of a group are the same as taking over the leadership of the country one aspires to.

If you asked most people about Pro-Life they would not say that it is a failure. It is all over the place, it forces one presidential candidate in the general to give it full lip service.

More important, pro-life can turn out the protestors as well as blacks can.

Pro-life has enormous organizations and lots of money compared to other movements.

All it has failed in is in saving life.

Raising money is not the same as real success, and the whole pro-life setup demonstrates this very well.

It is VERY unusual for a congressional staffer to tell his boss he won't work on something. That was one of two times I remember when I actually risked my job for my conscience.

The pro-life movement was fighting in vitro fertilization. My boss had a perfect pro-life record.

How he voted on the question was not my business, but I did tell him flatly that I refused to WORK on the anti-in vitro side. But I was absolutely opposed to this anti-life stance and could take no part in it.

Many a congressman would have fired a staffer who said that. So it was not a theoretical risk. As a respectable conservative pimp I made my living helping in the battle for many causes I wouldn't spit on, but there is a limit..

In-vitro has now produced tens of thousands of people, all of them for couples who could not have children any other way.

The "prolifers" argued that a lot of newly fertilized embryos died in this process.

What they never thought about was that many if not most of the fertilized eggs in a human female have died historically.

According to the Pope, all babies who die in the womb die unbaptized.

But an aspiring leader who takes exceptions like this into account, and does not yield to the screaming points of its hard core will not get to be elected.

So the pro-lie MOVEMENT is doing just fine.

But things like this in-vitro bit have cut back on its appeal to anybody but fundamental Catholics and fundamental Protestants.

So they have leaders and lots of money and get heard from, They just don't save any lives.

Pro-whites have done much the same, but we haven't even broken the Speech Barrier , much less being a voice on the national scene.

COMMENTS (12)

#1 Gavin | 2011-09-06 08:12

So what's the difference between a movement that accomplishes it's goals and one that just flounders around in a neutered state?

I think it is militancy in morally attacking those who oppose it.

You must first mock and ridicule them, then attack with your points.

You can make a living talking about how moral, good, truthful and honest your side is but that won't achieve the goal.

You have to develop a mentality where you are totally right and the other side is evil, then spread that mentality.

#2 dungeoneer | 2011-09-06 11:16

"You have to develop a mentality where you are totally right and the other side is evil, then spread that mentality."

Too true,but did`nt you say not too long ago that you did`nt want to label the anti-whites as evil people?

#3 Gavin | 2011-09-06 11:34

I changed my mind.

#4 Genseric | 2011-09-06 11:47

Good.

#5 Genseric | 2011-09-06 11:42

<blockquote>In-vitro has now produced tens of thousands of people, all of them for couples who could not have children any other way.

The "prolifers" argued that a lot of newly fertilized embryos died in this process.

What they never thought about was that many if not most of the fertilized eggs in a human female have died historically.</blockquote>

In vitro fertilization is not wrong because it kills many or destroys <i>any</i> viable embryos (life) in the process. It (the process) is wrong because it is <b>unnatural.</b> It is wrong because it IS playing God. Not LIKE..... IS.

There is right and there is wrong. Just because Science has advanced to a degree where our biological power is sprawling, that doesn't mean we are OBLIGATED to leverage it.

In vitro fertilization is just as unnatural as lesbian parenting is.

In vitro fertilization is just as unnatural as homosexual-male parenting is.

In vitro fertilization is just as unnatural as abortion is.

#6 Gavin | 2011-09-06 15:40

Define "natural" and why we should see what you call "natural" as the highest good.

In vitro has resulted in thousands of healthy, smart white children being born. That is desirable to me.

#7 Genseric | 2011-09-07 10:16

I am not here to define "nature" for you. You are plenty capable. And I am not saying YOU (or anyone) should take my views as your own. I am giving my opinion on the laws of nature. The laws of nature dictate you DO NOT play Supreme Being.

In Vitro is just ONE MORE symptom that American society - even European society - is fucked up beyond all recognition.

Take it for what it's worth. It IS an opinion. Still no one addressed the MEAT of what I said. Gavin, explain WHY what I said is untrue/false. If not generally speaking, explain why it is untrue for yourself?

"In vitro fertilization is just as unnatural as lesbian parenting is.

In vitro fertilization is just as unnatural as homosexual-male parenting is.

In vitro fertilization is just as unnatural as abortion is."

In vitro fertilization is just as unnatural as cloning human beings.

And, unlike you, I WILL NOT change my mind on In Vitro (unnatural). Nor will I change it on Pro-life/Pro-White.

Here's a question for you, Gavin. If smart, White children are your goal, shall we then take the "Smartest of The Smart" and clone them? Why not? Cloning is just as unnatural and would likely produce MANY more geniuses than In Vitro.

So, Cloning too? I mean for those women or men who lack the anatomically requisite parts (semen and viable eggs). Shall we scrape up some of their DNA and "Grow Them Some Children?"

#8 OldBlighty | 2011-09-07 10:43

You are all missing the point of the article.

#9 Genseric | 2011-09-07 19:59

I think I get the main point of the article.

"Dollars and donors doesn't denote success by default if you don't DO what you profess to get done."

I just had a minor bone of contention to make with a certain MAJOR talking point. That's all.

#10 BGLass | 2011-09-06 19:44

Define "natural" and why we should see what you call "natural" as the highest good.

In vitro has resulted in thousands of healthy, smart white children...."

Especially true due to the women pushed into "careers." They have to be "breadwinners" for many reasons and also have kids. So, that winds up prolonging children to times past when they would usually have them, something in vitro has been used for. How "natural" was it that they should have "careers?' anyway. If they could be natural, there would maybe not have been the need for in vitro, as they wouldn't be desperately trying to get pregnant at 40. Everything has become very artificial, sometimes to correct a previous artificial thing.

#11 Genseric | 2011-09-07 09:59

Someone once told me, "Two Wongs don't make a White."

#12 shari | 2011-09-07 12:13

Aren't we told that we are made in God's image? It seems to me that "playing God" is doing something that He wouldn't do. Something bizarre, cruel and unnatural. Not trying to help.

In any case never trust an evil, bizarre, genocidal government to make just laws.