I am noticing something strange. It is a weird compartmentalization of two seemingly related topics that surround the pro-life versus pro-abortion cage matches. I say "compartmentalization" because it seems that they are willfully refusing to reconcile two halves of the same coin.
These same right-to-lifers are the selfsame people who do NOT want to provide medical care and welfare for the children that they are so adamant should exist in the first place.
Are they willing to cover the medical care and health insurance expenses that these children need to be able to live healthily, and to be alive at all? It is highly unlikely that the right-to-lifers support the concept of universal national health care. What about the food that the child needs to eat? What about the school supplies that the child needs? What about the clothes and shoes that a growing child needs, and will need again when they outgrow the ones just recently bought for them?
It seems they vehemently insist on not seeing the disconnect that should link the two concepts. They are purposely keeping the two floating ideas trapped away from each other like fireflies stuck inside two separate glass jars.
I find it interesting in a very bad way that the people who are the most vehement, austere, adamant about being pro-life -- are the same people that do not give a fat rat's ass about that life once it is out of the uterus. This is what they call themselves -- pro-life. But where the hell is the concern for that life once it has become an actual individual life outside of the womb, living and breathing in this universe?
*They want to cut funding to public education.
*They want to cut funding to sex education programs in public schools. Some of them want to eliminate sex education from schools altogether.
*They cut finding to social welfare and money programs for poor black mothers.
*They want to cut funding and support to foster programs.
*They cut funding to public health programs. They wish to cut funding to public resources for doctor office check-ups, medical care, medical insurance. County, State, and city health departments.
What is the deal with this self-contradicting phenomenon?
It is ludicrous bs that conservatives screech, "it is precious life! It's babies! We're pro-life!" But then those same conservatives don't give a s--- about what happens to that same fetus _once it is born_. They don't care about it having enough food to eat, they don't care about it receiving medical care, they don't care about it receiving quality education. It is laughable that they say they are pro-life -- but then they don't give a crap about what happens to that life once it is born.
You say it is an innocent baby? Well, guess what -- when it is born, it is an equally innocent child. Why the hell don't you want to support it then?
"Oh but abortion is not taking care of your responsibility..." This is one of the weirdest and least logical arguments against abortion that I have ever heard. How the hell is having an abortion not taking care of one's responsibility? If the woman has weighted the pros and cons and has decided that the best choice of action is to get an abortion, if she has realized that she could not raise the fetus once it grows up, if she has realized that it would benefit herself and it would benefit all of greater society if she gets an abortion, then she is taking care of her responsibility.
"Interfering" and "getting involved" with the care of these patients.
Yeah, well what about heart disease, kidney failure, high sodium, high-fat diets? All of these things are also ultimately the patient's fault. Yet I am predicting that you don't have a problem with trained licensed medical professionals helping these patients with whatever ails them. The patients need the expertise and skill of the doctors then same as with abortion.
Okay, sigh. I have been trying to be diplomatic and trying to avoid the elephant in the room for the entirety of this essay. But that has gone on long enough. All this talk about abortion, responsibility, etc. is supercilious, extraneous, unnecessary, and irrelevant to anyone other than the person that is pregnant.
The only topic that anyone else needs to know is that it is her body, her choice. The number one concern is all that everyone else needs to worry about.
It is notttt a human being at that point, not by a long shot. For goodness sake, when the woman is first pregnant, she often doesn't even know she is pregnant. Don't pregnant women only realize they are pregnant when they are late on their period or they miss a period? Don't they only get clued in that they should take a pregnancy test after that other major sign appears that disrupts their normal everyday lives? She has no idea that a fetus even exists before she sees these signs.
At that point it is simply a zygote, and then slightly later a blastula. A fetus at that term of development does not possess any of the vital signs of life that a normal human person has, up to and including actual babies. If it is very early in the pregnancy, as in right after conception up to the first few weeks. It is not even really a fetus yet; it is barely an embryo. It is just a microscopic cluster of cells and little else. You lose more body cells sloughing off dead skin with an exfoliating loofah.
Repubs want to slash social welfare and education plans out of the budget.
How come the same people that say they don't want to murder or hurt an innocent, sweet, helpless, little fetus -- are the exact same people that will eagerly let the innocent, sweet, helpless, little child starve once it is out of the womb?
These same right-to-lifers are the selfsame people who do NOT want to provide medical care and welfare for the children that they are so adamant should exist in the first place.
Are they willing to cover the medical care and health insurance expenses that these children need to be able to live healthily, and to be alive at all? It is highly unlikely that the right-to-lifers support the concept of universal national health care. What about the food that the child needs to eat? What about the school supplies that the child needs? What about the clothes and shoes that a growing child needs, and will need again when they outgrow the ones just recently bought for them?
It seems they vehemently insist on not seeing the disconnect that should link the two concepts. They are purposely keeping the two floating ideas trapped away from each other like fireflies stuck inside two separate glass jars.
I find it interesting in a very bad way that the people who are the most vehement, austere, adamant about being pro-life -- are the same people that do not give a fat rat's ass about that life once it is out of the uterus. This is what they call themselves -- pro-life. But where the hell is the concern for that life once it has become an actual individual life outside of the womb, living and breathing in this universe?
*They want to cut funding to public education.
*They want to cut funding to sex education programs in public schools. Some of them want to eliminate sex education from schools altogether.
*They cut finding to social welfare and money programs for poor black mothers.
*They want to cut funding and support to foster programs.
*They cut funding to public health programs. They wish to cut funding to public resources for doctor office check-ups, medical care, medical insurance. County, State, and city health departments.
What is the deal with this self-contradicting phenomenon?
It is ludicrous bs that conservatives screech, "it is precious life! It's babies! We're pro-life!" But then those same conservatives don't give a s--- about what happens to that same fetus _once it is born_. They don't care about it having enough food to eat, they don't care about it receiving medical care, they don't care about it receiving quality education. It is laughable that they say they are pro-life -- but then they don't give a crap about what happens to that life once it is born.
You say it is an innocent baby? Well, guess what -- when it is born, it is an equally innocent child. Why the hell don't you want to support it then?
"Oh but abortion is not taking care of your responsibility..." This is one of the weirdest and least logical arguments against abortion that I have ever heard. How the hell is having an abortion not taking care of one's responsibility? If the woman has weighted the pros and cons and has decided that the best choice of action is to get an abortion, if she has realized that she could not raise the fetus once it grows up, if she has realized that it would benefit herself and it would benefit all of greater society if she gets an abortion, then she is taking care of her responsibility.
"Interfering" and "getting involved" with the care of these patients.
Yeah, well what about heart disease, kidney failure, high sodium, high-fat diets? All of these things are also ultimately the patient's fault. Yet I am predicting that you don't have a problem with trained licensed medical professionals helping these patients with whatever ails them. The patients need the expertise and skill of the doctors then same as with abortion.
Okay, sigh. I have been trying to be diplomatic and trying to avoid the elephant in the room for the entirety of this essay. But that has gone on long enough. All this talk about abortion, responsibility, etc. is supercilious, extraneous, unnecessary, and irrelevant to anyone other than the person that is pregnant.
The only topic that anyone else needs to know is that it is her body, her choice. The number one concern is all that everyone else needs to worry about.
It is notttt a human being at that point, not by a long shot. For goodness sake, when the woman is first pregnant, she often doesn't even know she is pregnant. Don't pregnant women only realize they are pregnant when they are late on their period or they miss a period? Don't they only get clued in that they should take a pregnancy test after that other major sign appears that disrupts their normal everyday lives? She has no idea that a fetus even exists before she sees these signs.
At that point it is simply a zygote, and then slightly later a blastula. A fetus at that term of development does not possess any of the vital signs of life that a normal human person has, up to and including actual babies. If it is very early in the pregnancy, as in right after conception up to the first few weeks. It is not even really a fetus yet; it is barely an embryo. It is just a microscopic cluster of cells and little else. You lose more body cells sloughing off dead skin with an exfoliating loofah.
Repubs want to slash social welfare and education plans out of the budget.
How come the same people that say they don't want to murder or hurt an innocent, sweet, helpless, little fetus -- are the exact same people that will eagerly let the innocent, sweet, helpless, little child starve once it is out of the womb?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment