Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Liberals and the Abortion Debate

Liberals should really recuse themselves from the abortion debate in this country. They serious have no leg to stand on the debate. On one leg they rely upon the argument that a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body. Even if you stipulate, for the sake of argument, that the being living inside of her body is not another human being, there is really nothing to support the conjecture that women, or anyone for that matter, have an inherent right to do whatever they want with their bodies.

In taking such a stance, liberals fail to recognize that we do not have the right to do anything we want with our bodies. We do not have the right to sell our bodies sexually. We do not have the right to put any drug we want into our bodies. For that matter, we don't, technically, have the right to even kill ourselves (though good luck in trying to punish that crime).

And in case the liberals hadn't noticed, even the First Lady advocates restrictions on what we can do to our bodies. She would like to penalize restaurants for serving fatty foods, or restrict what our schools serve our children.

Some other examples of what some on the left would like to do to control what we can and cannot do with our bodies:

--forbidding children from bringing their own school lunches
--forbidding smoking in public or in public buildings
--requiring motorcycle riders wear helmets
--outlawing trans-fats in restaurants

So, with the left wanting to control our freedom to make our choices in THOSE areas, why do they feel they can argue that society has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body in THIS instance?

The other leg that liberals try to stand on in their fight for abortion centers around the argument that what is inside the woman is NOT a human being with inherent rights. Again, this argument is loaded with hypocrisies.

If it is NOT a human being living inside the woman, what is it?

If government has the power to declare one segment of humanity to be "non-human", do they also have the potential power to declare other segments of humanity to be equally non-human? Don't think that's possible? How do you think the Nazis convinced the vast majority of Germans in the 1930s to agree to the extermination of the Jews...by indoctrinating the public to the idea that Jews were less than human. How do you suppose that certain segments of the Islamic world justify the extermination of the Jews or, for that matter, any infidel...by convincing the Islamic population that Jews and infidels are less than human. Is there any difference between that and what the world, in general, has done in convincing a vast majority of us that unborn children are less than human and therefore, without fundamental rights?

What's to stop government from declaring that anyone over 75 is non-human, or people who are out of work for more than a year, or pedophiles, or rapists? China, in their attempts to grapple with population issues have outlawed more than one child to a family. Look up sometime what China does to enforce that law. You'll be shocked at what you discover.

Additionally, how can liberals, on one hand, declare an unborn human to be unfit for fundamental rights while advocating animals have rights, or, as in the case with the pending UN resolution, that acts that endanger Mother Earth are a crime?

As I said when I first began this blog, I feel the key to conservatism is to be sensible. And that part of being sensible is to accept the fact that none of us have all the answers. And that even liberals have important elements to add to the debate over issues. But when anyone, liberal or otherwise, cannot provide even the most basic elements of common sense to their side of the debates, it makes it very difficult to give any credence to what they say.

No comments: