Have you noticed that Pro-Choice politicians always claim to be against abortion? Just watch Obama during the debates coming up and you’ll hear that same tired, familiar line: “For me personally? I think abortion is wrong. In fact, I think it’s reprehensible!” (They always like to use the word reprehensible for extra effect.) But then he will continue. “Nevertheless, we must protect a woman’s right to choose.”
Somehow, they think this brilliantly thought out position sounds moderate, mainstream and middle of the road. Supposedly, it’s the dream position which ought not to offend anyone. And every politician who recites this manta seems to believe he’s the first. He acts as if he came up with some incredibly, original, diplomatic solution to a national problem.
Politicians are not alone with this rhetoric. In fact, most Pro Choice people of any profession claim to be against abortion. Interesting, isn’t it? Everybody is against abortion but everybody wants to protect someone else’s right to practice it.
How facinating it would be to apply this peculiar philosophy to other ideologies:
” Personally, I think it’s wrong to hold up a Washington Mutual Bank. But if you want to hold one up, who am I to judge?”
“Personally, I think it’s wrong to shoot up people in a shopping mall, but if you want to shoot them, all the power to you!”
And perhaps, during the Pre-Civil War, the northern abolitionists should have been less dogmatic. It would have been much more tolerant and far more inclusive to say, ” Personally, we are against slavery, but we must protect the southern slave owner’s right to choose.”
Does that sound like a foolish comparison? Keep in mind that it was a Supreme Court decision (Dred Scott) which protected the rights of slave owners. This same court ruled that a slave was not a complete human being. He was the property of his master, who could spare his life or dispose of him at will. Today we look to a different Supreme Court decision as our moral compass. Roe Vs. Wade ruled that an unborn fetus is not a human being and is therefore the property of the mother to keep, or dispose of, at her will.
In conclusion, just speaking for myself, “Personally, I think it’s wrong to be inconsistent with our history and allow our morals to be influenced by a brainwashing society. But if you want to do so……I will vote for whatever legislation I can to stop you. And you’ll hear no apology from me. After all, if something is wrong, it’s simply wrong. Is that not so? Why can I say this so easily? I’m not running for office and I don’t need your vote.”
This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.
Share this on
