Have you noticed the change from “pro choice” to “reproductive rights”. Progressives have changed terms again. It is hard to keep up with their verbal gymnastics.
Of course, they are not talking about the right to reproduce. They want the right to not reproduce, so it seems strange. Do progressives like this new term because it implies a new “right”. They weren’t so hot on reproductive rights when they were performing forced sterilizations to eliminate government identified imbeciles.
Maybe the change is not toward the new term but away from the old term. Pro-choice won’t work when the government is making your medical choices for you.
The liberals can play their little word games, but we know when the government gets full power you will have no choice and no rights.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in pro-life on August 1st, 2011
Norman Borlaug isn’t as famous as he should be because he didn’t predict global catastrophe. Instead of proposing some global socialist agenda to ward off predictions from intellectual elites, he worked to solve the problem:
Norman Borlaug, the man who saved more human lives than anyone else in history, has died at age 95. Borlaug was the Father of the Green Revolution, the dramatic improvement in agricultural productivity that swept the globe in the 1960s. For spearheading this achievement, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970.
There is a conflict in liberal logic. (liberal logic = oxymoron?)
The pro-abortion crowd tells us that the government has no right to interfere in the decision made between a woman and her doctor. Now they are telling us that the government should get involved in that decision when cost is an issue.
Maybe we should run with this ball. Tell every pro-abortion liberal you know that you are for government run health care because once it is passed and once the Democrats lose power…which appears to be sooner rather than later…the Republicans can run with the precedent set by the Democrats.
After all, if the President can be the “decider” on who gets their tonsils out, can’t the President also decide who should have an abortion. According to liberals, abortion is just a simple medical procedure to remove a clump of cells. That seems pretty similar to having a clump of tissue removed from your throat.
So women are not “punished with a baby”, an adoption agency can come and get the babies before the mother has a chance to see the miracle of life she created. That baby can then grow to help fund Social Security. In essence, having that baby is your patriotic duty…for the common good. Each according to his ability…blah, blah, blah. Having a baby is “an ability”. I sure as hell can’t do it.
Of course, this is all a joke. I just like to see liberals tie themselves up into knots.
In 1992, Ron Weddington, co-counsel in the Roe v. Wade case, wrote a letter to President-elect Clinton, imploring him to rush RU-486 — a.k.a. “the abortion pill” — to market as quickly as possible.
“(Y)ou can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country,” Weddington insisted. All the president had to do was make abortion cheap and easy for the populations we don’t want. “It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it. . . . Think of all the poverty, crime and misery . . . and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario. We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don’t have a lot of time left.”
Weddington offered a clue about who, in particular, he had in mind: “For every Jesse Jackson who has fought his way out of the poverty of a large family, there are millions mired in poverty, drugs and crime.” Ah, right. Jesse Jackson. Got it.
Yup. Got it. Republicans are racist because they don’t want to fund welfare, but Democrats are good for minorities because they want to exterminated them before they have a chance to suffer.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in pro-life on July 16th, 2009
Hillary Clinton said in a Presidential debate that she considered her self an progressive in the spirit of the Early 20th Century American Progressives. Have you taken a close look at the ideas of Early 20th Century American Progressives.
Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr. was nominated to the Supreme Court by Teddy Roosevelt (a Progressive Republican). Holmes was a favorite of Early 20th Century Progressives. He was also a supporter of Eugenics. Eugenics is a theory that believes the population can be improved though genetics and selective breeding. In other words, the government can make the world a better place if the elites could decide who lives, who dies and who reproduces.
In Buck v. Bell, Holmes wrote:
It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . three generations of imbeciles are enough.
Talk about a slippery slope. This is all scary stuff. Hitler put a racist face on eugenics and then put it into practice. Don’t kid yourself into thinking these ideas all died with Hitler. They didn’t. As I wrote a couple of days ago, our current “Science Czar” wrote a book in the 70′s espousing Eugenics. (LINK)
More recently, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg justified Roe Vs. Wade this way:
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. (LINK)
What populations do we have “too many of”?
Eugenics and population control are agendas that Progressives like…they have just learned to keep it to themselves.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in pro-life on July 15th, 2009
Senator Casey has acted on his promise to be a pro-life Democrats:
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement after the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee voted 12 – 11 today to add a provision to the Kennedy health care bill that would require abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood to be included in any health insurance network created by the bill. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) was the only Democrat to oppose the provision. (LINK)
Progressives usually avoid stating their goals, but they can be a scary bunch when their true agenda is revealed (or slips out). Here is some concepts laid out by John Holdren, Barack Obama’s “science czar” (hat tip to Michelle Malkin):
Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
Go to Zombie Times for details including scanned pages from his Nazi like document.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in pro-life on July 12th, 2009
I am a conservative on most issues, but abortion is not one of them. I feel a woman does have rights over her body and that she should have a choice. I don’t feel this is a license to have an abortion at anytime during her pregnancy…or after the baby is born.
On abortion, I am a moderate.
I think life should be consistently defined. The definition should be the same at the start of life as at the end. If you have a beating heart and brain waves, then you are alive and have rights.
I believe in parental notification. When I was 13, I couldn’t get stitches in a bleeding head wound. I was at a friend house and cut my head on broken glass when we were wrestling in his front yard. His parents took me to the emergency room, but they wouldn’t stitch me up until my parents consented…I should have told them a baby was trying to get out.
Many people agree with me and find abortion to be morally reprehensible. Using tax payer money to pay for abortions means the government is making me work part of the year to perform something I find morally wrong.
Barack Obama is not a moderate. He talks about reaching across the ailes, but when it comes abortion issues, he is more strident than Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in pro-life on October 14th, 2008
A doctor in Canada has expressed his concern that Sarah Palin’s decision to not kill her son Trig may decrease the number of abortions. He says that not every woman is prepared to deal with the consequences of Down babies. Maybe his real concern is that the socialist system he works for is not prepared for more Down babies.
The liberals are always screaming pro-choice. This guy is concerned that people will chose not to abort. Do liberals have any guiding principals or do they just make it up as they go along?
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in pro-life on September 11th, 2008
Share on Facebook