I love to read about linguistics, behavioral economics, theory and philosophy. I listen to music some might call outdated, write satirical and high testosterone plays, consume too much caffeine and ruthlessly defend modern and contemporary art.
Somewhere between "We the people" and "intervened," the right to abortion on-demand has been staring us straight in the face all these many years, and only pro-choice liberals have been able to see it. How unfortunate that Mr. Berkowitz has had abortion providers enter his home while hes still asleep and stand over his bed glaring at him just as he wakes up from the time he was born. It must have gotten buried in the dense, overblown verbiage about the right to bear arms and all that stuff about enumerated powers, just after the "free health care for everybody" clause. Hmm, no I don't think it was buried, much like your ego isn't.
Those in favor of the right to abortion-who, strangely, are often squeamish about using the word "abortion"-are likely to be taking on a cautiously defensive mode these days, however, as recent events in the world of child murder have cast those in its employ in an even more negative light than they typically deserve. Who is squeamish about using the word? What ass did he pull this out of? Choice isn't a euphemism for abortion, pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion, it means a position that stands back and lets a woman take control of her body. A position Berkowitz wouldn't understand if it fell in his lap wearing red, white and blue.
A Planned Parenthood clinic manager in New Jersey this past week offered advice to a man posing as a pimp on how to ensure the availability of abortion to an underage prostitute. This woman believed the man on the tape to be a multiple felon guilty of child exploitation and, rather than report him, offered him assistance in becoming an accessory to infanticide. This is the inevitable result of a culture that embraces moral relativism for it's own convenience. As opposed to this single incident being a result of a person with less than altruistic tendencies? Blame the culture whenever possible, right? A culture that still finds abortion taboo, no matter whether Berkowitz would like to admit it or not. This is not to say that all liberals have bought into the abortion-as-unassailable-right credo that is the stock in trade of the far left. Far left? Last I heard, you don't have to sleep hugging a copy of Das Kapital to be pro-choice. Vasu Murti has, in fact, written a book entitled The Liberal Case Against Abortion, which makes no grandiose religious plaint against the practice, but which simply calls upon supposedly compassionate liberals to be consistent and afford unborn humans the same regard that they would an endangered species of grasshopper when a logging bill makes it through a state senate. "Unborn humans" is a needless, tear-jerk term. Any egg, ejaculation, or for that matter, cell has the potentiality to develop into a human being given our current technology. He's using a bad reductio ad absurdum argument -who would choose the life of a grasshopper over a human? Well if the grasshopper weighed 8 lbs and a woman was forced to carry it for 9 months against her will, I think she'd have a problem with that.
It hasn't been a month since even the Huffington Post was compelled to repost that "A doctor whose abortion clinic was described as a filthy, foul-smelling 'house of horrors' that was overlooked by regulators for years was charged Wednesday with murder, accused of delivering seven babies alive and then using scissors to kill them" in Pennsylvania. I reiterate: This is what happens in a culture of self-indulgent moral relativism. No, this is what happens when you have government regulators. I can't even imagine the horrors in a society of individuals as self-indulgent as Berkowitz. Thankfully, this degenerate disgrace to the medical profession hasn't been lionized in the press as some sort of liberal martyr, but those for whom this issue is near and dear are not about to let an undeniable Conservative electoral sweep dissuade them from using lies and distortions to further their agenda.
H.R.3, a bill designed to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to subsidize abortions in a country consistently opposed to them-when you poll outside New England, New York and California, anyway-has been falsely labelled as a bill intended to lighten the abhorrence of some kinds of rape. The term "forcible rape" has never had a separate legal standing relative to "date rape"-if you have sex with a woman who is either unwilling or unable (because of alcohol or drugs) to give her consent, you are guilty of rape. One could, of course, argue that the penalties for such a crime are too lenient, and I would concur, to some conflicted feminists chagrin, but the language of HR3 is not intended to shield rapists, but to shield defenseless human babies, whether it is convenient to say so or not. "Defenseless human babies?" We're back to this again? Good for you bro. If you have a problem with the needless deaths of defenseless human babies, you should have a problem with your God - natural miscarriages result in more fetus deaths than abortions. Here I was thinking that life was sacred, I guess the lord does work in mysterious ways. If we are to be a country resolved to permit infanticide, at least have some pride and don't ask me to pay for whatever moral code-or lack thereof-to which you choose to subscribe. Hmm, step 1: Look up infanticide in a dictionary. Step 2: Okay, we'll make a deal - I won't make him pay for abortions, if I don't have to pay for wars. 3. Because any moral code that isn't in line with his isn't a moral code at all. But of course!