Tuesday, April 13, 2010

What Pro-Choice Really Means and What It Has Done

Excerpts of "The 'pro-choice' fraud exposed
Peter Heck - Guest Columnist"

"Who knew the most pro-abortion president in the history of the United States would so effectively obliterate the deceptive front the abortion movement has been able to sustain for nearly 40 years? But hats off to Mr. Obama for a job well done.

"Scientifically, medically, constitutionally, morally and ethically, the case for abortion rights is so intellectually bankrupt it is a national embarrassment that we take those who argue it seriously.

"Intellectually speaking, this argument [Pro-choice] has always been beyond silly. To say that you're pro-choice is absolutely meaningless unless you acknowledge what act you believe people should have a choice in doing. The question has always been, "choice to do what?"

"Yet despite this reality, these anti-human rights activists on the left have been successful at tempering the inherent evil of their position by falsely representing themselves as fierce defenders of "a woman's right to choose." No matter how many times this fraud was exposed, the myth perpetuated thanks to a complicit media that refused to acknowledge how barbaric one's mindset must be to – in this enlightened age – still believe in the savage ritual of human sacrifice. But no more.

"How can we know? Because the great champions of "choice" themselves – Obama, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, et al. – just crammed through a healthcare bill that intentionally thrusts the government directly between every woman (as well as man and child) and their doctor. And they did this with the blessing of the criminally misnamed "choice" lobby!

"ObamaCare opens the door to government access of your most personal medical records. It mandates government-enforced purchase of government-approved health insurance that will cover government-permitted procedures. It stands to take the most critical and private decisions about your well being and place them in the hands of a faceless bureaucratic board that is more concerned with cutting costs than extending your life. They will determine whether you need the pacemaker, the bypass or the stint. You, meanwhile, are left with no...choice."

"It's never been about personal liberty. It's always been about a macabre obsession with advancing a legal right to kill kids for convenience. That's pure, unadulterated evil."

(Peter Heck (peter@peterheck.com) hosts a two-hour, daily call-in radio program on WIOU (1350 AM) in Kokomo, Indiana. "The Peter Heck Show" comments on social and political issues -- and doesn't shy away from recognizing how faith influences politics.)

Peter Heck points out so well the total and complete hypocrisy in the whole pro-choice debate (click the title of this post for the total article). It never has been nor never will be about choice only about killing an unborn baby for someones convenience, not necessarily the mother's either. It is ridiculous to call oneself pro-choice when the only real choice wanted for women is the right to kill a baby who has had no trial, no guilt, no ability to do anything other than try to live.

And to say it is okay to abort, aka-kill a baby, before it is viable or able to live outside of the womb, that is just a bad joke and a really bad argument; because, babies outside of the womb wouldn't live long if they weren't cared for and fed by someone. So technically they can't truly be viable until they can make themselves dinner (which may even go to staggering ages such as tweens or teens), or can live on their own (could even cause more older ages like college age to be included), or care for themselves (include all physically or developmentally delayed individuals in this part). So maybe we should take the whole abortion debate into infanticide or genocide; because, logically not rightly, that is where the argument leads.

And just so everyone knows I am PRO-LIFE with absolutely no belief in abortion for any reason not even to save the mother's life. In most cases, doctors would try to save both mother and baby even if it meant one or the other died during birth. And in normal moms, I can't think of any who wouldn't give their own life for their child, no matter where that child is in development.

I expect to lose some readers because of my stance, and that is okay if the truth of what pro-choice means affects someone that much. Truth must and will prevail. This is a judgmental post; I am judging ideology not people. They are not one in the same.

1 comment:

Debra said...

I'm with you sister!