|
|
Aborting Personal Responsibility
Declaration Of Terms:
For the purposes of this column I will use the
broader, vile term "liberal" to mean "one that is
pro-choice" since it is an
apparent litmus test
used to call oneself a liberal. If there is a Pro-Life
liberal that has not been eaten alive by his own party then let him show
himself and be recognized for the true freak of nature that he is. Oh - and
"moderates" don't count since the word "moderate" is a derivative of the
French word "weenie" meaning "complacent, gutless, fence riding wonder who
fears confrontation and lacks conviction" |
|
 |
Anyone who has given a Christmas gift and heard the "...Awww, but I didn't
get you anything..." response knows the joy of giving for the sake of giving
- "the gift of giving". Those that help someone in need feel good about
doing a good deed and acting selflessly - especially if they were not
prompted to do so. Everyone likes this feeling and it's good karma to
practice selfless acts. Liberals, however, appear to be addicted to this
feeling and have adopted many "causes" in which they can "help others" by
speaking for those who cannot speak (animals, trees, even "mother earth"),
and help those who cannot help themselves (the bums, hobos, mentally ill &
the drug addicts AKA the homeless). They have adopted a very self righteous
attitude about it. There are endless examples of their need to do good and
to make life better for their beneficiaries. They are organized: PETA,
Greenpeace, the EPA, etc. They have causes like "Homelessness, Save The
Whale, Save The Spotted Owl, etc. They are activists with activities like
Tree Hugging, Anti-Fur/blood dousing attacks, protests against animal
experimentation, etc. They insure that they not only make life better for
their recipients - but even protect and save their lives in some cases.
Even "Mother Earth" has been given "life like" qualities with James
Lovelock's absurd Gaia theory - Earth as a living organism. What is the
hypothesis of Gaia? Stated simply, the idea is that we may have discovered a
living being bigger, more ancient, and more complex than anything from our
wildest dreams. That being, called Gaia, is the Earth. Earth must be kept
healthy, thus Earth Day. Whatever...
(This is reminiscent of The Lorax By Dr. Seuss. Did you ever read that
Earth Day, liberal, indoctrinating P.O.S.? "I am the Lorax. I speak for
the trees". Read it again with adult eyes. A Seuss fan I usually am. Cat
in the Hat and Fox in Sox are pure genius but some sins are just
unforgivable.)
What do all of these "causes" have in common? They are groups of liberals
that have chosen to speak for groups that cannot speak for themselves. They
are the holy self appointed ombudsmen of the voiceless. The lives and
condition of life, for those that they defend is very important - even, dare
I say, sacred. Ok, then why are liberals Pro-Abortion? (They prefer
"Pro-Choice" - as if that makes the result any different).
For Plant and Animal (read: non-human) life they offer the following
arguments:
"We're speaking for those that can't speak for themselves!"
"We're helping the helpless!"
"They'll go extinct and we'll be responsible - life is sacred! What right
do you have!?"
And my personal favorite "It/They must be protected for future
generations"
When Pro-Lifers use these very same arguments about human life they act like
WE'RE extreme! Why? Only the object of the argument changed - from
plant/animal life to human life! Why?! It's the SAME argument! How on
earth can they not understand our argument?
Because pregnancy is inconvenient, that's why. The undeniable fact is that,
left alone to develop, a fetus, like it or not, far more often than not,
will develop into a baby - a new human person. Period. But having a baby
right now inconveniences them personally and intrudes into their own
"personal space". Whoa! Dude! 'Tis true - a baby will put a real harsh on
your mellow...huh huh... Liberals oppose anything that has (what they view
as) a personal consequence. And THAT is what makes them hypocrites.
The only single explanation for this duplicity is pure selfishness. "I want
what I want, when I want it, and you can't tell me any differently". They
argue about the poor quality of life for unwanted children, abuse, birth
defects, life only begins at birth, etc. but that's all just
rationalization. Babies are being born 3-4 months premature (sometimes even
earlier) and living very normal lives. How can life begin only "at birth"
when you can induce labor and deliver the baby at almost any time? Granted,
generally, the later the delivery date the better - but still a good point.
A baby born today could very well have come yesterday. Was it not "alive"
yesterday? Not the same "person"? Simple "tissue" yesterday, but certainly
a child today? Regardless, the "where-does-life-begin" argument
overshadows, for me, what is the real issue here: Personal responsibility
for ones actions - and that is what liberals are avoiding with abortions.
Like a vampire avoiding holy water, liberals will do anything, anything, to
avoid the horror, the burning, the blistering, the misery of personally
responsibility.
Women have always had a choice: The choice to not get pregnant in the first
place. But once they are pregnant is it a "choice" to destroy what was
created? Is it murder? Certainly, at the very, very least, it is an
irresponsible, evasive & cowardly cop out. I guess some call it "choice".
Whether you believe "it" is a life, a person, a soul or whatever does not
matter (that is, for this part of my argument). I am speaking of a sequence
of events and a responsibility to live with the consequences of your
actions. Liberals never want to do this so they rationalize and explain to
you why they don't have to have any consequences for their actions at all.
Liberals say that pro-lifers are too naïve - that there have always been and
will always be abortions. That's a topic for another rant. But even if
true how do you go from that point to actively subsidizing this behavior.
All barriers have been removed for women seeking abortions. There is no
social stigma associated with it anymore and there are entire clinics set up
for just this activity. That's apparently not enough. Nope. Now we have
public money to fund it.
I have no illusion of changing the world overnight but is it too much to ask
that the government not take my money from me (forcefully, I might add) and
spend it on this horrific orgy of irresponsible behavior?: The correcting
of the irresponsible actions of others with publicly funded abortions.
I don't want to be forced - by my government - to support any such actions
much less pay for other peoples abortions. It should be an embarrassment to
you to have anyone else forced to pay for your mistakes (hell, it should be
illegal!) and then have the solution be another mistake. Women with one
abortion under their belt (so to speak) should be ashamed of taking public
money. Not to mention women with 2, 3 or more abortions racked up. People
who act like this should be ashamed of their behavior and modestly grateful
to anyone who does help them in any way. I feel they are neither. Don't
misunderstand me, I feel abortion is wrong regardless of who is paying for
it but you can make a much better "privacy" and "it's my body" case to me if
you are not taking my money for "your body".
While you may want to argue with me about whether abortion is killing or
not, when life begins, etc. you certainly can't argue that abortion
(especially publicly funded) is a character trait of responsible people -
people who are dealing with the consequences of their actions in a
responsible way. Then again, perhaps you can - doing so would make you a
liberal.
Next week: Even More Haiku!
Gas prices are down
Big Oil is not so bad
No one will thank Bush
|
|
|
