I was reading the blog post “Hypocritical, Irresponsible and Seriously Profane” over at “Sacred & Profane“. Like my last post, Heidi was talking about the Hypocrisy of pro-choice people towards those who choose to have large families. One of the readers posted a comment that to some degree argues the “other side” of this argument. So I thought I would offer a few thoughts regarding the readers comment.
“But, if I’m remembering correctly, you want your choice, but you don’t necessarily want to allow others their choices in the cases of abortion… No one is trying to stop you from having more children, but there are certainly people trying to stop others from having (completely legal) abortions.”
First, I am not a pro-life person who supports killing doctors or blowing up buildings. I do believe abortions are wrong and even believe it was bad law constitutionally speaking, but I do not believe that justifies killing doctors or those seeking abortions. And, even though I believe Roe vs. Wade was bad law, it is still currently the law as the commenter points out.
As to the claim that “No one is trying to stop you from having more children” I would say that is false. Currently it may not be a major movement, but there is a movement and a desire by a growing group of people to limit other peoples family size. The current trend is based mostly around the environmental movement. I think after what we have seen our elected officials do over the last year we should all realize that the ability to regulate family size is not all that far fetched. The health care (Obama Care) law alone gives potential power and reason to the Federal Government as well as our fellow citizens to limit family size. Now that we all have to pay for everyone else’s health care, it will be much easier to complain about the family of 3, 5 or more. Never mind that we actually need much larger families to support the every growing demand for Government services and mounting debt. And lets not forget that President Obama has brought in advisers (czars) John Holdren – Science czar, and Cass Sunstein – regulator czar, both who have been documented as proponents of the population control movement. Mr. Holdren has gone as far as to promote population control through our food and water supply.
Now, regarding not allowing others to choose abortion I would simply like to highlight the breakdown of choice between the two points of view. If abortion was outlawed, women would still have choice. But, if the choice to have children or the quantity of children is regulated then there is no choice but simply the law. So, even if you take abortion away there is still far more choice then if society or Government starts regulating women’s fertility.
Lately I have been acknowledging (to myself) the high level of hypocrisy from the left. “They” want the right to criticize others, but how dare you criticize or question them. “They” want freedom of speech, but how dare you think you are entitled to the same freedoms. “They” want America to leave other countries alone, to not force our way of life on them, to not get involved, but “THEY” want to force their views of population control, and abortion on these other countries. Odd isn’t it? Sounds like typical leftist hypocrisy to me. Ya, Ya I know, it’s not just liberal Democrats that are hypocritical. But still, I do believe it tends to be liberal politicians who display more dangerous societal hypocrisy. Cheating on your spouse while running a “family values” campaign is hypocritical, but not damaging to society to the extent of attacking peoples freedoms, undermining other peoples and other countries family values, etc. We should all be free to choose, so long as we do not choose life. After all, who in their right mind would choose life over abortion? Choose many kids over one, two or even none at all?
Anyhow, here is another video from the Population Research Institute highlighting the attempt to force other countries to legalize and promote on demand abortions.
I have a hard time believing that John McCain is really the candidate of choice for republican voters. He couldn’t get past being the independent voters choice in his last attempt, why now? Seems odd to me that when he couldn’t get republican support in the past and republicans complain about him now that somehow they still are voting for him.
Add to this mix the whole Romney / Huckabee angle and I just don’t buy the McCain support. Romney (prior to suspending his candidacy) and Huckabee were spliting a large number of republican voters. The Romney / Huckabee supporters hardly seem like the McCain type of voters and yet supposedly they are.
Now since I like a good conspiracy theory, I thought I would throw one out for anyone who stumbles across this blog. The way I see it, we have two possibilities for the McCain nomination. One option is that even though republicans have been complaining very loudly about McCain and even though he was unable to get their support previously and even though he is at odds with republican voters on some key issues, they still like him enough to vote for him. The other option (this would be the conspiracy option) is that the GOP had their nomination hijacked by independents and democrats. Here is what I mean. When Ronald Reagan ran he pulled democrats (blue dog democrats) as well as republicans. Could it be that McCain is benefiting from a similar pattern? Perhaps there are democrats that are not happy with their choices (or should I say choice in the form of two different faces) and are joining with independents and some republicans allowing McCain to lock up enough votes to sail into the GOP convention for the nomination.
Regardless of which scenario is correct, if I was a GOP official I would be scared to death of the impending John McCain nomination. John McCain and the rest of the party officials can try and claim he is the best to beat Hillary (who probably will not win the nomination) and maybe even Obama, but if republicans stay home out of disgust then we will see McCain and probably many other congressman hitching a ride home on the Straight Talk Express!
So did you hear the joke about the politician who tried to scare the children to get at mom and dad? If only it was a joke (read here). But the politician was the Mayor of Seattle and the scare…well let’s just say Santa and the Reindeer and the toy factory are about to sink to the bottom of the ocean! It seems the Mayor of Seattle thought the city would hand out energy efficient light bulbs at the tree lighting ceremony while telling the children that Santa and the Reindeer were about to drown if mom and dad didn’t become more “green” (use the energy efficient bulbs).
I don’t know about you, but I am sick and tired of local, state and federal politicians using our children to sucker or scare us adults into doing something when we know better or have differing view points. How about the local school “politicians” who threaten to shut down sports or some other activity if we don’t float them another $8 million dollar bond to misappropriate? They know the parents are afraid that if “little Johnny” can’t play football then he won’t be able to go to college. Hey mom and dad, guess what? The odds of “little Johnny” receiving a scholarship to the local University are pretty stinking slim and in the end you are gonna put on your big boy/girl undies and help them through college. So how about you start thinking about what’s best for your family and not “play the lotto” with “little Johnny’s” academic future!
Personally I don’t have a major issue with the city handing out eco-bulbs though one could argue it was not the best use of tax payer money (especially if the city has not fully converted itself to eco-bulbs yet). But do we really need to cause any more grief and stress on the parents or take one more bastion of innocence away from the children? First the retailers got a hold of Christmas and twisted a lot of the happiness and meaning out of Christmas for both adults and children and now the politicians are attacking! Great, all that’s left is for the Retailers to complete the circle by attacking the official politician’s holiday of April 15th.
I keep reading about how Mitt Romeny will have troubles getting people to vote for him because of his flip flopping on abortion and because he is a Mormon. I can see the flip flopping on abortion, but are a majority of people actually having an issue with his religion? Outside of the political pundits, I have neither read nor heard anyone voicing an issue with this. Maybe his religion is or would be an issue for folks if they didn’t have problems with him out of the gate? Maybe if he was a “swell guy” then people would be looking at his religion as an issue but just don’t make it that far. Personally I could care less if he is a Mormon; I am not too sure why that should disqualify him for the Presidency in and of itself. With that said, I won’t be supporting him for the Presidency. I am not sure what it is exactly, but to me he comes off as arrogant and…..well slimy. Maybe it’s the flip flopping on abortion, maybe it’s the “one” negative review of his governorship I once read, but mostly I think it’s how he presents himself in general. To me he just comes off as disingenuous.