Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Rusty Coathangers & Brimstone

OK, I had a short, unexpected chance for a vacation there, so I took it. Let's jump right back into it and grab another big topic, shall we?

Say, abortion.

I know that, as a Republican, I'm supposed to be a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, blowing-up- abortion-clinics fanatic but, quite frankly, I'm ambivalent about the whole subject. Luckily for me, it's far from the top of my list of political issues.

On the one hand, I don't think that it's a good idea to be sucking babies (especially ones who would otherwise live normal lives) out of wombs because a woman forgot to take her birth-control pill or a guy wouldn't wear a condom. That's irresponsibility, and destroying a human life because of it is condoning the lazy, irresponsible, "whatever" attitude of the Left.

On the other hand, from what I can see, most of the women who are having these abortions are people who couldn't properly raise a child if there were detailed instructions given on Jerry Springer every day. And, if they know who the father is, they're usually no better. Stupid people raising stupid kids. We have enough of that already.

Do we really want millions more kids, who are raised by people like that, growing into adults and reproducing, thus worsening the problem exponentially?

Sure, some of these kids would be adopted, but millions more wouldn't be, leaving them in homes where the parents didn't want them anyway and, therefore, consider them an intrusion in their lives and ignore them, leaving them to grow up stupid and perpetuating the problem.

I am pro-life for one reason: I can't stand the people who are pro-abortion.

Now, I've heard the "pro-choice" people say over and over that "we're not pro-abortion; nobody is pro-abortion. But we think that there should be a choice". These are the same people who regularly call Republicans "pro-war". Well, obviously, nobody is pro-war, but they never see the link there. Nor the hypocrisy. Nor the stupidity.

Here's a reconstruction of a telephone conversation that I had with a "woman" (who was probably all of 19 years old) from NARAL about a month before the 2004 election.

Me: Hello?
Her (reading from a script): Hello, I was wondering whether you had decided who you were going to vote for for the Minnesota Legislature?
Me: You mean the Senate or the House?
Her: (10 seconds of silence followed by) I mean the Legislature.
Me: Which branch?
Her: (10 seconds of silence followed by) Melissa Hortman is totally for a woman's right to choose, while her opponent, Stephanie Olson, is completely anti-abortion.
Me: Oh, so you mean the House of Representatives. I have decided and I'm voting for Stephanie Olson.
Her: (10 seconds of silence followed by) So you're 100% anti-choice, then?
Me: No, I'm 100% anti-sucking-babies-brains-out.
Her: (shaken) Well, um, thank you for your time (click).

This "woman", this "political activist", didn't know the most basic thing about how the political process works. Somebody had told her that there was a legislature, but had neglected to tell her that there were two parts to that legislature, The House and The Senate. But she thought that she knew enough about politics to be a political activist.

Somebody had probably mentioned these facts in high school in between "diversity-training" classes, but she was probably too busy doodling names for her future baby (Saandi, Marey) on her folder.

And there you have The Left. Whether it's from their college cohorts, the local left-wing newspaper, CBS, CNN or the rest, they know only what they've been told and they think that they know everything when, the fact is, they know half of the story... maybe.

These people may be intelligent, but they are lazy. It's just easier to accept the propaganda than to actually look into it and find the other side of the story.

That would also explain the mainstream media. It's easier to take what The New York Times or the AP writes, throw in a couple of your own comments and forward it to your editor, than it is to actually research this stuff. Besides, what the NYT & AP has written makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Abortion is bad. I have no doubt of that. But when abortion was illegal in most places, there were also social sanctions against it. Single-motherhood wasn't celebrated as it is today. What would it be like if abortion were suddenly made illegal and unmarried preganancy had nothing to stop it? I don't know that the fear of pregnancy with no abortion available would be enough to stop these completely undisciplined people from making babies. It could be a disaster.

- The Exile

1 comment:

  1. amen exile.
    i feel that when one picks up her welfare check she should get a birth control shot in the arm. no shot, no welfare check. there's one way to decrease abortions.
    you know what else i find interesting, you have to get a license to catch a fish in a lake, but all you need to do is lay down and spread your legs to become a "parent". ironic to me.

    i particularly liked the "pro-abortion/pro choice" versus "pro-war" comparison. how can these people not see that the define the word "hypocrite"?