Liberals and pro-abortionists have as much a right to express their opinions as anyone, that much we can agree (although it’s not always the courtesy extended to conservative on college campuses, for one of many examples).
So, liberals and pro-abortionists: Please! Please, do express yourselves! Reading my colleague Chris’ post about Democrat candidate for Lt. Governor Jody Wagner, reminded me of a question I’ve wanted to post here for a long time:
Why don’t liberals and pro-abortionists finish their sentences when claiming abortion should be available on demand?
You know what I mean: I heard Democrat candidate for Governor Creigh Deeds say it recently and often, too. Chris quoted Wagner. Are you there yet?
They never finish their sentence about choosing. Choose what? An abortion, that’s what! So, say it! What are you afraid of?
Here’s Wagner’s sentence, for example:
“I strongly support a woman’s right to choose, and I would have voted to allow the funding. …”
Again, choose what? Schools? No, we know liberals are against choice there. Pension options other than Social Security? No, absolutely not, we know that, too. Choose adoption? Come on, you’re kidding, right? Certainly, not for choice for medical professionals, Catholic hospitals, private and religious schools, in union elections, in how we use our energy supplies, in teaching homosexuality or Obama indoctrination, or in ramming down our throat a government-run health plan (that would pay for abortions).
Seriously, why don’t liberals ever finish that sentence? Are they afraid of their own ”A-word”? Could it be there are embarrassed and only want to speak in code to their radical fringe? They must know the semantics of “choosing abortion” sends shivers down the spine of most rank and file voters.
So, liberals and pro-abortionists, we’re trying to help. Please, finish your sentences. So, the next time you say with such pride and self-importance, “A woman’s right to choose,” if, for only grammar’s sake, say abortion.
[...] are interested in issues affecting traditional values and encourage them to sign up for alerts [...]
Because it’s not about women choosing solely abortion- it’s about women’s right to choose how they wish to handle their reproduction, be it abortion, contraception, birth, etc. Women have the basic right to choose what they want to do with their bodies; it’s only a matter of time before our legislators apply this principle elsewhere, such as the legalization (or at least decriminalization) of all drugs & euthanasia & gay marriage. What someone wants to do with their own bodies, so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else or property, is their own business and they have a right to do this as mature, thinking, legal adults.
And adding the word “abortion” after the word “choose” has no bearing on grammar.
Jeff: You couldn’t be more wrong. Incomplete thoughts have everyhing to do with grammar. You were never told in elementary school to finish a sentence properly? “I choose” is not a sentence. If you are correct, then there can be a generic, catch-all phrase (as euphemistic as it would be) fora ll those items you listed to end the sentence.
Furthermore, and most importantly, it isn’t a “body” issue when a baby is viable outside the womb. But if you’re such a libertarian, I’m sure you will be first in line to support school choice, strongly oppose FOCA (and its elements in the health care “reform” bill), oppose card check, oppose forcing the teaching of homosexual lifestyles in schools, among many other things. You say some of these issues don’t intrude on others. How about Catholic Charities in Mass., which was forced to shut down its adoption service, because the state mandated it make babies available to homosexual “couples”? So, you support freedom to practice religion, too?
Steve,
The Admin
Actually, I never stated what my specific stances are. I was just trying to clarify the “liberal” position. Nothing is more refreshing or elusive than consistency, which is something that clearly isn’t being upheld here; in fact, it’s the best way to determine the difference between someone who has a principle and someone who just wants things done their way).
You’re rather quick to bring up homosexuals, so let us look at that. Given that gender is difficult to determine (recall Caster Semenya for example, or the fact that many men have XX chromosomes) and that, as the APA recently published that one’s sexual orientation cannot be changed, why is the Family Foundation, in this regard, so anti-Family? The answer cannot be “Because it is the traditional understanding of marriage,” because it isn’t. Societies have thrived while accepting homosexuality such as ancient Greece & Rome. Even in modern times, Norway, Canada, the UK, South Africa and others- these countries are not degenerating because they apply the same liberal principle of human rights (and marriage, according to our own Loving v. Virginia, is a civil right) equally to all people. So I ask- what is so wrong with homosexuals, who are human beings and deserve equal civil rights, sharing their lives with each other? They can form families and raise children as well as heterosexual couples (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids), so why are they excluded from The “Family” Foundation’s auspices?
(By the way, “choose” isn’t the verb in the sentence, “Women should be allowed the right to choose.” “To choose” is used as an object in this case, which is different than, “I/you/we/they choose.”)
Hmm…seems as if you have to copy + paste the webmd link in order to see it.
Jeff: You brought up homosexuality in your first comment. Check it, you mentioned “gay marriage.” As for principle versus expediency, you might not agree with us, but if you examine our principles and upon that which they are based, we’re very principled. Again, we’re for liberty. We’re not the ones who try to limit choice in education, work, religious exercise, etc. You have undertaken the traditional liberal practice of starting a topic then chaning it completely. I answered your initial charge, yet you can’t say whether you are for or against any of the issues I listed.
Steve,
The admin
??? Why do you dodging the points I mention? I never changed the subject. I ask for consistency and brought up a valid counterexample to how the Family Foundation doesn’t live up to it’s principles. You claim to be fighting for Virginia’s families, and yet you stand against civil liberties for homosexual families. More examples: You claim to be for liberty, and yet you (by “you” I mean “the foundation”) call for restricting pornography and for limiting women’s reproductive rights.
But I’ll stick with the homosexuals for now, since it goes to the heart of the matter (allowing people to do what htey want with their own bodies). Why is the Family Foundation so against the civil rights of homosexuals? Why is the “Family Foundation” anti-family in this instance? What is so wrong with homosexuals, who are human beings and deserve equal civil rights, sharing their lives with each other?
Jeff – You’ve made some very good points. The Family Foundation (TFF) would have people believe that their values always reflect Christian values and that the American model is in perfect harmony with Christ’s teachings. The reality is, they’re all for “Christian values” but only if it doesn’t threaten financial assets. How can one say they believe in the “right to life” when they don’t believe that (once born) people have the right the very essentials that SUSTAIN that life; for example healthcare, food and shelter? Plus, as I’ve said on a previous thread, why doesn’t TFF advocate laws that would keep stores, shopping malls etc. closed on Sundays to keep the Sabbath Holy? After all, that’s one of the Ten Commandments. They only invoke the Bible when its convenient as in homosexuality, marriage etc. Using the Bible only when its convenient is hardy “pro-God.” To the contrary, it’s using God’s name to support a political agenda. That is foul and shameful.
I am confident that people will change them minds’ about abortion when medical science can prove that a child will be gay or straight. When this medical breakthrough comes about and abortion rates skyrocket, only then will the gays and left will start calling abortion genocide.
Mark, I shudder to think how the “Family Foundation” would define “traditional marriage” before the days of Loving v Virginia. Loving v Virginia *clearly* states that marriage is a civil right, and homosexuals deserve every civil right that everyone else receives.
The Family Foundation picks and chooses based on their backwards ideology; there’s no logical coherence besides, “This is what we believe.” All I’m asking for is consistency. Do NOT call yourselves the “Family” Foundation when you aren’t standing up for all of Virginia’s families.
Jeff: You continue to follow typical liberal debating tactics of sliding down hypothetical roads and changing the subject. Now, you’ve done both. TFF wasn’t around during Loving. How can you make any statement about our intentions? Here’s your logic: Democrats wanted to maintain slavery in the mid-19th century. Democrats today want to return to slavery. In fact, we are consistent. We believe in tradtion families and are upfront about it. Show me any society where “homosexual families” are traditional. They are not. They are contrived. People of the same sex were not created to procreate, so by definition, they are not families. You can live together all you want. But don’t force the state (the people) to recognize it. If you think we’re backward, then 58% of Virginia is, because that’s what the Marriage Amendment passed by.
Lastly, you have strayed remarkably from the topic. Must be because you cannot ansswer why liberals won’t say the “choose abortion.”
[...] the e-mail, NARAL was up with this out-of-breath-huff (click here or not). I noticed it when I saw a pingback to the blog (NARAL linked to one of our posts, here). It accused us of “fundraising” at their expense. We did ask for money, but asked [...]