Un-Liberaled Woman

In case you’ve been living under a rock the past three decades or are Ashley “Should Spend More Time In Acting Class Than on the Political Soapbox” Judd, here’s the dividing line on every Democrat’s favorite election-only topic of the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate – Abortion.

I say “election-only” because that’s really the only time you hear about this “IMPORTANT” issue is on the freakin’ campaign trail, OR if a supreme court judge is up for nomination (which only seems to be once every 4-8 years).

For the most part everyone on both sides can agree to the ABCs of all other reproductive right methods – abstinence (100% effective), birth control pills (99% effective) and condoms (98-97% effective – depending on what the brand states).  But as my friend Jim once stated, pro-choice has now evolved into Pro-ONE-choice.  For the most part you don’t hear people debating about the reproductive rights to condoms or bc pills – unless distributed on a govt. school campus which is a different issue entirely (sorry, it is for those that are having a difficult time with that thing called the trufffffffffffff).

Anytangent, to me the issue of abortion can be a very gray issue. I don’t think it should completely illegal. Doing so would make it illegal for doctors to abort the fetus if the mother’s life was in danger. So in this scenario there could be a legal case made for abortion. And I could see where a case could be made for circumstances involving rape/incest.

But oh, but hold up all you pro-choicers – don’t start the celebration wagon yet. That said, all other cases of abortion should not be legal. And before any liberal pipes up about mother’s danger, rape or incest situation – FYI those circumstance account for less than 1% of all abortions – such a small # it practically doesn’t count.  Do we make drunk driving legal even though it only accounts for less than 1% of the total possible results everytime a person gets in the car? No. Do we allow pregnant women to smoke cigarettes or crack cocaine? No. Why Not? Doesn’t the govt. not have the right to put a gun to woman’s head demanding what she do with her body? Gee, liberals, kind of stumped???

That’s because the right to liberty does not trump the right to life. And that my friends is at the center of this debate.

Unfortunately, this weekend the Catholic Church’s top worldwide notable university, Notre Dame, decided to go against the moral underlying of the Pope (the Pope! for @#$!@#$@ sake) and invite the HAPIC (head abortion proponent in charge) to come speak at the university’s commencement. OH! and give him an honorary degree. Brillzzzz! (rolling eyes).  Just what did President Teleprompter say during the controversial appearance. You guessed it – just your standard “we should continue to be open minded in this heated social debate while the side I represent never givens in from their extremist POV.” Classic liberalism – I’m going to request that you be open-minded while I’m as close minded as possible to your positions (via Doctor Zero at HotAir’s GreenRoom)

The majority of people who identify themselves as “pro-choice” do not believe the aborted fetus is a living human being with any legal rights. Some see abortion as essentially a surgical procedure to remove a clump of cells. This view is hard-coded into federal law through the Roe vs. Wade decision, which states that no legal restriction can be placed on aborting a fetus until it can potentially survive outside the mother’s womb. The majority of people who identify themselves as “pro-life” believe the unborn child is human long before it can pass this “survivability” test, so abortion involves the killing of a living human being. This is not a difference of opinion that can be resolved by “holding hands” and “building bridges.” I doubt it is a question medical science will ever resolve conclusively for us, since they’ll never develop a soul detector… and if they did, it would immediately be suppressed by politicians, to prevent it from being used on them.

What people seem to miss is that most pro-lifers (even the religious ones) have compromised on most issues considering the supposed “true” pro-choice stance.  They may not engage in the pro-choice activities themselves, but they accept the public’s use or availability to them.

• They’re accepted the choice of abstinence.
• They’re accepted the personal choice of engaging in sexual promiscuity without protection.
• They’re accepted the personal choice of using condoms and birth control.
• Most have accepted the Plan B birth control option – since technically Plan B is not terminating an already reproduced life; it’s preventing prior to reproduction technically.
• Like myself, they’ve even for the most part compromised on abortion in cases where the mother’s life is in danger, or is a situation of rape/incest.

Pro-lifers have acknowledged and compromised on the debate of pro-choice, but where has the compromise from the Pro-Choice side come in? Instead it’s the argument from the extremist point of view. Since pro-lifers aren’t on the “5 o’clock FREE Abortion Giveaway” platform, then they’re against women’s rights. LMFAO, liberals. Yeah, it’s conservatives having compromised on the access to multiple methods of birth control really not being open minded in this debate (snickers). Doctor Zero makes another excellent point in his post:

The last thing anyone in the Democrat Party wants to do is have a genuine debate, with serious consequences, against the pro-life movement. The best liberals can bring themselves to do is offer tepid acknowledgment that another side to the debate exists, which you can barely hear over the sound of the liberal congratulating himself for the openness of his mind.

Exactly. Oh GREAT ONE OBAMA, please show me at least 1-2 examples of when the pro-choice side of the debate has been open-minded to the pro-life’s stance on the reproductive rights issue?

I double dog dare you! No, I triple dog dare you! Until you or one of your Obamabots can show a clear example of this, take a good tablespoon of  STFU medicine about pro-lifers needing to be more “open minded.”