Wednesday, October 29, 2008

I'm Pro-Abortion: On Demand, Safe, Legal, No Questions Asked!

From Op-Ed News:
"Any government having the power to prohibit abortions has the power to require abortions. Any government having the power to prohibit birth control has the power to forcibly sterilize women (and men)."
And I love the 1st Amendment argument that follows:
With an overall population growth rate of less than one percent, the United States is not facing a decline in its worker or consumer base, nor is it experiencing out-of-control population growth. Currently, with the availability of effective birth control methods and the choice of legal abortions, at least in the early stages of a pregnancy, women are allowed to exercise some control over having children. However, the freedom of choice by American women is under a relentless and increasingly successful attack.

Trampling on the First Amendment’s separation of church and state, a powerful religious minority has been aggressively pursuing a broad range of worldwide restrictions on the availability of birth control and on the privacy rights of American women to terminate unwanted or dangerous pregnancies.(Emphasis mine. Ed. What the writer does NOT mention, but should, is how the imposition of a religiously inspired prohibition against abortion violates the religious freedoms--albeit 'irreligious' they may be) of people (moi!) who are not opposed to the procedure.)

On November 4, South Dakotans will vote on a ballot measure to prohibit practically all abortions, allowing exceptions only for rape, incest or the mother’s health. Colorado voters are being asked to go even further and officially define any fertilized human egg as a "person" under the state constitution, conceivably prohibiting even widely-accepted birth control methods.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain opposes legal abortions, believes Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and wants to appoint like-minded Supreme Court justices. During a recent debate, he ridiculed the idea of a mother’s "health" exception to the criminalization of late-term abortions. Going even further, his running mate, Sarah Palin, believes abortions should be prohibited even for pregnancies conceived during forcible rape or incest.
You know, you think about it, Scarah-cooter's just about the epitome of hypocrisy, bringing a fatally damaged child into the world, in the expectation that she'll get Society's help in caring for it. Taking, in other words, from others according to their ability, giving to her according to HER need. Fucking c*nt! The essay continues, exploring that theme:
Acting on her religious beliefs, Palin recently chose to give birth to her fifth child, whom she knew to be suffering from Down syndrome. Although, as governor, she slashed state funding in Alaska for schools for special needs children by 62 percent, she promised this week that, "In a McCain-Palin administration ... the parents and caretakers of children with physical or mental disabilities will be able to send that boy or girl to the school of their choice – public or private." She went on to say that "federal funding for every special needs child will follow that child."

Sarah Palin made a choice to give birth to a child likely to have expensive "special needs" throughout its life, and she now wants to require tax payers to provide for her child’s private education. Not that there’s anything wrong with governments helping parents care for their special needs children, but what if there is an economic crisis? For example, in contradiction to Palin’s promises, McCain has proposed an across-the-board freeze on all discretionary federal spending.
Then comes the question: Should one have children the optimal care of which they cannot afford to provide? Are people "entitled" to breed? If so, why? I can think of no pertinent answer in the affirmative, other than the imposition of some outside metric on the rights, liberties, and freedoms of prospective parents. But that sounds a LOT like what, for instance, Prop 8 in California does doe gay marriage. How is it possible to argue for the rights of one group claiming generally accorded liberties--to have children, for instance--and against the right of any other group to that same class of liberties?

I have often wondered about the men who oppose abortion on demand (or at all, in effect) on the basis that they believe women will 'abuse' the procedure and abort healthy fetuses (which they'd call "babies'). It seems to me they must have the LOWEST possible respect for women in general.If these men actually believe what they are saying, how can they leave their children at home, alone with these potential Medeas.

And I wonder about their female relatives, if they know in how much distrust, disgust, and contempt their men hold them, apparently, conceiving them all as potential, wanton murderesses of their off-spring; and if they do, why they tolerate it.
Note: graphic shamelessly lifted from Andy Singer’s No Exit

2 comments:

GrannyGrump said...

Can you name any activity that was mandated by the very people who had fought to ban it? Just one?

Woody (Tokin Librul/Rogue Scholar/ Helluvafella!) said...

i don't understand your question, 'madam'...