Here's another one of those questions that I really have no good answer to:
Why is abortion the key issue for the Democrat Party? Why are they so obsessed with it?
Ever since John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court, the Dems have been in a tizzy because he's Conservative, Catholic and his wife is a member of the anti-abortion group "Feminists for Life" (apparently it's OK to go after Republican nominees' wives now).
I can't really imagine a worse policy to build your entire platform on than vacuuming babies out of the womb or injecting formaldehyde into their brains if they're too big to fit into the vacuum nozzle.
Did they sit down one day and say, "Hey, I have an idea. Let's base our party's entire ideology on abortion."
They would let everything that they "believe in" (not that they really believe in anything more than power at any cost) crash and burn for the sake of saving Roe v. Wade. Why?
The closest I can come to an answer is that it's part of their "progressive" agenda that wants no progress anywhere, unless it involves a sexual issue. But even that isn't really an answer.
Some of the Democrats tacitly admit that it's wrong when they say that they would like abortions to be rare, but most of these groups see all abortions as a good thing. NARAL is absolutely obsessed with increasing the number of abortions and making it as easy as possible for everyone, including little girls.
Why? What could make a person think that way? Is it some deep-seated self-hatred, or have they really just never thought about why they're obsessed? Either way, it seems to me that these people have some very deep psychological problems.
Anyone care to enlighten me?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMaybe its a combination of altuism and self-loathing.
ReplyDeleteYou know -- they want for others what they'd like for themselves, but they hate themselves and think they're a waste of skin, so abortion becomes the answer.
Or else they are still living in the 60s and trying to fight battles that don't need to be fought.
I'm at a loss, I don't understand why abortion is issue #1 for the dems. Aren't there other things to be concerned with? I really do believe they are beginning to hang themselved with their abortion drum beat.
ReplyDeleteWhich party is it that is obsessed with abortion?
ReplyDeleteWhich party has devoted immense effort to getting judges with the "correct" opinions appointed, and blocked the appointment of hundreds (yes, hundreds) of "incorrect" ones?
Which party is trying to go back to the '60s and re-fight this battle, rather than leave well (or even bad) enough alone?
Which party, despite high resonance ultrasounds which confirm that a 'fetus' fulfills all the criteria to qualify as life, still insists abortion is not murder, simply a 'choice'?
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats are clinging to the '60s worldview even when presented with evidence that view was ill-conceived.
Wanting to right a wrong does not make anti-abortion Republicans 'obsessed' with the issue. Trying to maintain the status quo, when science and technology no longer support it --is nothing less than profane and certainly qualifies as obsessive.
Wow! YOU HAVE A TROLL!
ReplyDeleteUh, John, that would be the Democratic party. And Roe was decided in the 70's. But whatever. I will not engage you, as I am a constitutional attorney and you are, I presume from that comment, not.
Ex, I have a very good answer for you. It stems from the ideals of radical feminism--the idea that men and women are not different at all: that it is merely the Patriarchy of men that impose those differences on the genders. Since men aren't able to have kids, why should women have them? Never mind that women are naturally inclined to be "mothers" or to view sex as something with "feeling" and consequences. If you remove all of that, somehow, it makes us equal to men. Radical feminsts and NARAL, in order to forward this mentality, need to completely remove sex from any kind of consequences. The way to do that is to simply make the consequences easy to get rid of. That way, no women is ever beholden to anyone else for the stupid choices that she makes. We know the left don't believe in personal responsibility, so its not a hard shift to abortion being a sacrement in that religion.
And then, isn't having a child somehow being subservient to male-ness, according to them? Forcing a woman to have a child is only the first step in forcing women into the kitchen (and off with the shoes!). They have equated abortion so deeply with women's rights, and in such a maniacal way, that to extricate it would be to admit that a simple part of their mentality is wrong. Where at first it was merely a question of privacy, it is now inextricably intertwined with ideology. Its as fanatical as any.
If you follow the left's logic to its end, it isn't merely choice that they're after--its control. Think of the slogan, "Every child should be a loved and wanted child." That, my friend, is discrimination (not to mention, based on recent child abuse numbers, not productive, either). Who are we to say that a person who is not conceived in a relationship of love, or who is not conceived intentionally, is not worthy of life? We simply aren't. Or how about "Abortion reduces crime." That one implies that becaue the majority of people who have abortions are poor minorities, then poor minorities are a crime risk. At that logic, we should start extermination proceudres.
But in all honesty, that's Utopian thought. No color, no original thinking--a society where everyone is equal and everyone is loved.
I could go on and on, but I will stop here.
Yes, Princess, I do have a troll, and I even got one who can write a coherent sentence. That's much more fun than the "fish-in-a-barrel" ones who write like a 1st grader. His logic isn't any better, though.
ReplyDeleteHe hasn't commented on my latest batch of posts, though. I was hoping that I could have a pet troll that I could abuse by throwing real logic at him on a daily basis (sigh).
Anyway, your comment makes a lot of sense, but I think that it can be taken one step backwards to find the root cause.
(Hey! That's just like when the Left wants to find the "root cause" of terrorism or poverty, isn't it? Maybe they'll agree with my analysis!)
I'm still working it out, but I think that I may have found an answer. Hint: it ties in with my baseline explanation of Lefties as children.
If I get all of the pieces in place, I'll post it this weekend.
Oh for God's sake.
ReplyDeleteWhy are we so concerned with abortion rights? Here's a hint: roughly half the Democratic Party are women; therefore abortion right is an issue that affects us. We don't like the thought of some middle-aged guys in suits establishing control over our reproductive systems. I don't care if you think it's murder. I don't care if there are adoption agencies. I don't care if you think pro-choice means a one-way ticket to hell. It is MY BODY, not yours. But don't listen to me; go on and post your ridiculous wounded-child theory or whatever it was.
And you're worried about "little girls" having access to abortion? Why aren't you worried about "little girls" having babies?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteCould it be that maybe we're more worried about "little girls" having sex in the first place?
Sly & the Family Stone had a tune more than 30 years ago called "Babies Makin' Babies." It's still true today. Why?
And why aren't we pushing the idea that if you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant? Instead of catering to our basic instincts, why aren't we trying to raise the bar?
“NARAL is absolutely obsessed with increasing the number of abortions and making it as easy as possible for everyone, including little girls.”
ReplyDeleteLet’s talk language:
Merriam Webster’s online gives definition for “girl” as follows:
Main Entry: girl
Pronunciation: 'g&r(-&)l
Function: noun
1 a : a female child
Female child doesn’t really say enough, let’s extrapolate and see how MW defines “child”:
Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: 'chI(&)ld
Function: noun
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
So, if a girl is a child, and a child is defined by any of the above definitions, it is physically impossible for a girl to have an abortion, because she has not yet entered puberty and therefore cannot get pregnant in the first place.
It is the manipulation of words that determines the manipulation of our reality (i.e. it’s not a “war” anymore, it’s a “struggle”).
Anon, that was an amazing twisting of the English language! Positively Clintonian!
ReplyDelete99% of the people in this country assume that the word "girl" refers to someone who is "underage", i.e under 18 and, therefore, physically able to have children (although probably not mentally prepared).
But you, just to make a political argument, reject the accepted meaning of the term. A stupid argument like that may work on your side of the political spectrum, but we here on the right put a little more thought into things.
And definition 2a seems to fit you perfectly. You see, my theory isn't so much that it's "wounded" children who become Liberals, just that Libs are, emotionally, children who, for one reason or other, just never matured emotionally.
If you really want to read my theory you can go here and here.
I have no desire to control your reproductive system. But if you're too stupid to use birth control when you're out getting laid, I don't think that a human being should have to die for your bad choice.
As I've said before on this blog, I'm ambivalent about abortion. I'm not so much against abortion as I am the idiotic, unthinking fanatics that support it and refuse to see any other side of the issue.
And, if that baby that's about to be aborted could articulate, I'm pretty sure it would be screaming the same thing that you are: "It's MY BODY!" right before it died.
I wasn’t trying to make a political argument, I was trying to point to a flaw in your word choice. As I said, the language we choose to define our opinions is becoming increasingly important, as the world is ever more complex and diverse and therefore requires a new degree of specificity we may not have had to contemplate previously. I disagree with your statements, but you will notice that at no point did I choose to qualify your statements as “stupid” as you have mine, directly contradicting your previous columns indicating that you are on the side of maturity.
ReplyDelete