According to Democratic senators, the most important, pressing issue facing our nation is whether or not a woman has the right to kill her fetus. Strike that. Whether or not states have the right to decide if women have that right. If a Supreme Court Justice were to decide that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, it would NOT make abortions illegal; it would simply toss it back to the states to decide abortion laws.
I was listening to Al Rantel and Michael Savage (who I can only handle in 20 second doses) last night and the two of them both had "words" for senators like Feinstein who vow only to vote for a justice who will uphold Roe v. Wade. Rantel noted that Republicans, who run the pro-life line, have elected justices who were pro-abortion (see Ruth Bader Ginsburg). But Democrats won't even consider someone who doesn't tow their party line. More ridiculous double standards we've come to know and hate from the left side of the aisle.
Mr. Rantel also continued on to pose the question, "If Sen. Feinstein were to read about the 10 million abortions that have been performed in the last two decades in India, simply because the parents found out the fetus was a girl, would she then be pro-choice? What about those women's rights? Or do they have to be born first to be a woman?" Brilliant question.
Democrats, who faithfully plug "Children are our future" propaganda, portray pregnancy as some tyrannical force imposing itself on a woman against her will and outside her control. As though a baby is such a disposable, horrid burden that it can be discarded based on it being "unwanted" or "inconvenient." For them to be so flippant about a life before exposure to elements outside its mother's womb and yet to basically worship at the alter of children once they are born is so completely mind boggling.
The argument that the fetus is dependent is also futile. What exactly are we qualifying as "dependent?" They need the mother to breathe? Granted. Once they're born, they also need the mother and father for food, clothing, shelter until...possibly well into their twenties. According to the IRS, lives can be dependent almost indefinitely. So what makes an unborn child's dependency any different than those who were allowed a chance at life?
What the whole pro-choice argument boils down to is that democratic legislators want girls to be able to have abortions on demand. Although, once you start asking questions such as, "What if the girl is getting an abortion because the baby has a risk of down syndrome? What if they really wanted a boy?" things start getting a little iffy. All the more reason not to ascribe to their ideology.
Posted by Portia at January 10, 2006 04:46 PM | TrackBack
