Beautiful Pro-Life Video

Tuesday, January 30, 2007


What I always find interesting about "pro-choice" arguments is that most always follow with the caveat "but I don't believe abortion should be used as birth control or multiple times by irresponsible women who refuse to use reliable birth control."

Why not? If abortion is morally acceptable...if abortion is perfectly safe...if abortion is nothing more than the equivalent of removing a cancerous tumor...then why shouldn't a woman do it 50 times? 100 times? If it is perfectly normal and acceptable to do it once, then it should be perfectly normal and acceptable to do it an unlimited number of times. Why on the second, third or fourth abortion is suddenly a woman viewed with disgust, even by those who portend to be "pro-choice"? If you're truly pro-choice, why shouldn't you applaud a mother who aborts her unborn baby simply because her dog doesn't like kids OR if the unborn baby is a boy and the mother only wanted a girl. Why's her choice, isn't it? Nothing at all wrong with abortion, is there? It's not a baby yet, so there's really no difference between preventing a pregnancy and terminating one, is there? Why aren't pro-choicers in favor of women just ditching birth control pills and condoms and getting abortions every other month?

I'll tell you why. It's because, deep down, "pro-choicers" know that abortion takes the life of another human being, and they KNOW that taking the life of another human being is WRONG, no matter what the circumstances. Their acceptance of abortion to fix a "temporary lapse of judgment and responsibility" by a mother is merely a rationalization to demonstrate how "woman-friendly" they are. It's a feel-good, politically correct smokescreen used by spineless individuals to deflect conflict from themselves so they can sit in their comfortable little world and turn a blind eye to the horrors of abortion. As it is, abortion is being accepted under the guise of "choice" as somewhat of a "get out of jail free card" for women who just refuse to acknowledge the implied acceptance of the chances of getting pregnant by participating in an act (sex) that inevitably eventually leads to the creation of another individual human life. There's a political agenda that we've all been brainwashed to accept in this country, and "pro-choicers" have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker. Question: Why don't men get a "get out of jail free card", too? Why are the "choices" for men so limited? They are limited to whatever the mother decides? Why is the mantra for men "he should have kept it in his pants", when it is so politically incorrect to say the same thing about the woman, especially when women should actually have MORE incentive to do so considering the increased stake she has in preventing pregnancy? Women have the choices of; have the baby and keep him or her; have the baby and give him or her up for adoption; have the baby and take him or her to a nearby hospital or fire station and drop them off without consequence or further responsibility; or kill the unborn baby before he or she has a chance to live out their natural life (a life that was brought about by the mother and father's actions, as we all know). The last choice supposedly ends all further consequences and effects on the mother for the rest of her life (we now know that this is not always the case; many women are physically injured or killed by abortion, and a large portion of women are psychologically and emotionally harmed by abortion, sometimes leading to suicide or at least a long, painful path of self-destruction through substance abuse and/or promiscuity.)
A father's choice is; let the mother make the decision kill their child without any input or consideration of the father's wants or feelings, or; be emotionally and financially responsible for a child that THEY may not have wanted but had no say in whether he or she was born (we know this is not true; the father ALSO had the option of not having sex to prevent the life for which he is now responsible, whether the child is allowed to be born or not). The ultimate result of abortion-on-demand for women will be that men will win the right to financially abandon their progeny in the interest of equal rights, which will in turn promote MORE abortions. This is a slippery slope we're on here, people.

If abortion were to be allowed AT ALL, it should only be allowed for women under the age of consent in the state in which they reside. After all, they are really the only ones who cannot legally consent to the act of sex, regardless of their willingness to participate, and therefore do not have the ability to enter into an implied contract between themselves and any unborn human being who comes into being because of her actions. This is the only logical policy if the "pro-choice" argument were to be implemented in it's truest form.

We all know that this is ridiculous because the life within the mother is human, regardless of how he or she came to be or of the age of the mother. The circumstances of his or her existence are irrelevant.

Get a grip, people. Without the inherent right to life, all subsequent rights are meaningless.

I wonder if Al Gore would consider making a documentary entitled "An Inconvenient Life"?

"Usually, terrible things that are done with the excuse that progress requires them are not really progress at all, but just terrible things."

- Russell Baker (1925 - )

No comments: