.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
The Expansionist
Friday, November 13, 2009
 
(Note: I have been very busy dealing with the annual Newark Arts Council's art whirl on my other blog, "Newark USA", so have neglected this blog for a couple of weeks. Only.)

Madness from Olbermann. I have decided never to watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann again, because he revealed himself in last nite's show to be an insane and rabid advocate of abortion-on-demand. Olbermann bitches that a principled Democratic Congressman, Bart Stupak of Michigan, will join with other principled Democrats to forbid Federal funding of abortions. Olbermann further complains that a revolt by anti-abortion Democrats could defeat the present drive for universal healthcare and thus cause the death of 44,000 Americans who cannot now afford healthcare. But exactly how many babies would be slautered if the Federal Government were, thanks to the new bill, to fund abortions? Fewer than 44,000? or more — even vastly more? If to save 44,000 people we have to kill a MILLION people, that is an insane deal, a figurative bargain with the Devil that the Devil offers to steal the soul of the Nation.
+
Of course, there is no Devil. But nor is there any such thing as "abortion rights". This was an invention of whole cloth by a Supreme Court that looked at a Constitution that did not say one word about abortion all the while every state had laws against it, some since the 1820s. Suddenly, in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that there was a Constitutional right of a woman to have an abortion, even tho the Constitution says no such thing and even tho laws against abortion had been in place for 150 years. The Constitution had never been amended to permit abortion; the people didn't want abortion-on-demand. But 8 individuals passed an act of legislation over 212 million Americans at the time, overturning 150 years of law without so much as one single word of the Constitution having been changed as to grant a right of abortion. That is called TYRANNY.
+
The "justices" who found such a "right" should have been hanged — they should have become "hanging judges" in the best sense. Their unconstitutional legislation has killed some 49.5 million Americans. But that's not enuf for Keith Olbermann, nor the loathsome dyke Rachel Maddow, who want even more babies to be slautered for women's "rights". That is, today, a bizarre stance for a lesbian, in that a great many lesbians nowadays want to have babies, having admitted that the Radical Feminist clamor for childlessness as the better way to live was all a bunch of lunatic claptrap. Neither Olbermann nor Maddow as of yet has any children. They should both be forcibly sterilized, because they cannot be trusted with a child's life.
+
The idea that Liberals should favor abortion on demand is one of the most bizarre, insane notions ever put forward in any sphere. Liberalism is supposed to protect The Little Guy from the powerful. Clearly, in the issue of abortion, The Little Guy is the fetus, the unborn baby; the powerful one is the mother. There is no issue of women's rights involved in abortion. None whatsoever. The time to "choose" whether to have a child is before pregnancy, not after. If the ball lands in the wrong slot on the roulette wheel after the bet has been placed, no one can be permitted to remove her chips from the table and pretend that she has the right not to gamble — after she has already lost her gamble. You gamble, and lose? Tuf. The time to choose not to gamble is BEFORE you place the bet.
+
If a woman doesn't want to risk pregnancy, there are dozens of ways to prevent it, including The Pill, Jadelle/Norplant (long-term contraceptives that, for reasons not stated in the online articles I have seen, are not available in the United States), and tubal ligation (which is available here). A fetus is not part of a "woman's own body" but an entirely different human being, with a different chromosomal makeup, in temporary residence there. The mere fact that a boy baby can be born to a woman shows beyond question that the baby is NOT part of a "woman's own body", so the issue in abortion is not "control over a woman's own body" at all — a patently dishonest, phony issue — but killing a separate human being. For legal purposes, a mother is a stranger to a fetus, as is shown by surrogacy, when a baby that has absolutely no biological/DNA relationship with the host, is implanted in a biological stranger for temporary housing that amounts to exactly 1% of the current life expectancy of the typical American woman.
+
The biological host of a fetus has no more right to kill that baby than has anyone else, so "equal treatment under law", the premise under which a "right" of abortion was found by the Roe v. Wade court, actually argues the opposite of a right of abortion: if a third party does not have the right to kill a fetus in the second party, neither does the second party have the right to kill the fetus. The life of a biologically normal child is NEVER at the disposition of the parent, be it mother or father, any more than it is properly to be disposed of by a third party, be it an individual or the State. That's what equal treatment under law actually requires: no right of murder for anybody.
+
If universal healthcare means more abortion, then by all means let us defeat it. Let's just put it in terms that even Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow might understand: if we could have universal healthcare only if killing blacks or Jews or lesbian fetuses were required by the bill — or, say, invading Iran were an intrinsic and inseparable part of the bill — would it still be worth passing, to save those 44,000 'regular' Americans who now die from lack of health insurance?
+
You don't do evil to do good. Killing babies to save adults is despicably monstrous, and people who think that is a good bargain need to be ignored. At the least. If public funding of abortions is provided for in the final bill, Rep. Stupak is absolutely right: any such healthcare bill should be defeated. So, Mr. Olbermann, where do you stand if insistence on abortion "rights" (that is, the "right" to take money from anti-abortion taxpayers to fund abortions they oppose) would defeat the bill? Women didn't need taxpayer help to get pregnant. They aren't entitled to taxpayer help to get an abortion, which they are not entitled to get under any circumstances (unless the baby is seriously deformed or retarded). So if you want to save those 44,000 Americans, you will have to agree not to steal taxpayer money to kill babies. And if your precious abortion-on-demand is more important than those 44,000 Americans, we will know how to regard you generally: as an enemy of society, not just of decency. And what do we do with such enemies? How about a little "retroactive abortion"? (Death penalty, artfully rephrased.) How can they object? "Abortion" isn't "murder", or "killing", so "retroactive abortion" isn't "capital punishment" either. It's all in the words, isn't it? Or is it?
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,362 — for Israel.)



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

Powered by Blogger