Today, Joseph Farah does a nice job of laying out every ridiculous right-wing argument against abortion. Let’s take a look, because it’s pretty clear that the man just didn’t do his research:
Notice he doesn’t reference the one critical document the U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to consider in making a ruling – the Constitution. Instead, he talks about “personal freedoms” and “the rights of women” to make decisions “about their own health care and reproductive rights.”
From where does this “personal freedom” to extinguish the life of an unborn baby come?
From where do these “rights” descend?
Do they come from the Supreme Court? Do they come from God? Are they unalienable rights like those referenced by the Founders? Is the taking of the life of an unborn baby when the mother’s life is not endangered really a matter of health care? Or is it a matter of selfish convenience and utilitarian ethics?
We have lots of rights which are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The right to inter-racial marriage? Not specifically stated. Desegregated schools? Not there. The Founding Fathers didn’t have to mention abortion, because, among many other reasons, when they were writing the Constitution it just wasn’t an issue because it wasn’t illegal.
And then there’s the subject of “reproductive rights.” Do you know which countries and societies have violated the rights of parents to make decisions about reproduction and child-bearing? They are the countries and societies that emphasize abortion – countries like China that dictate to parents how many children they will be permitted to have.
Ah, someone should have done a simple Google search on this one. Because if he had, he would have found that the countries and societies that violated the rights of parents to make decisions about reproduction and child-bearing include places like Romania, where childbirth was compulsory and doctors would do monthly checks of women to make sure that they weren’t having abortions; or nearly all of Latin America where abortion is outlawed and birth control is highly limited. Indeed, forced and coerced abortions in China are a travesty, and a huge violation of reproductive rights. But historically, the limitations on abortion and birth control have been far more wide-spread and egregious than the single China forced abortion example.
Therefore, one could easily make the argument that government-approved and government-financed and government-subsidized abortion represent the gravest threat in the history of mankind to this notion of “reproductive rights.”
No, one couldn’t, unless one also wanted to make the argument that government-approved and government-financed and government-subsidized militaries lead to a police state, or government-approved and government-financed and government-subsidized Presidential salaries lead to a dictatorship. See? It’s a big, illogical jump.
Planned Parenthood is in the abortion business – big time. The organization has conducted 1.4 million abortions in the last seven years. At the same time, the organization’s own records show it has provided only 25,446 adoption referrals – with the number declining year after year.
Planned Parenthood is not about offering women choices. It is not about planning parenthood. It is about snuffing out the lives of as many unborn babies as it possibly can.
It’s not about planning parenthood? Then why did they give me birth control for free?
In fact, the majority of Planned Parenthood’s resources go into education, healthcare like STD tests and annual exams, and contraception access.
But it is always surprising to me to hear an abortion proponent like Dean tell us: “I understand that the decision to have an abortion is one of the most difficult a woman can make. We can all agree that abortion should be rare, but it should also be safe and legal.”
Why should it be so? Why is the decision to have an abortion so difficult? Why should it be rare?
The answer is simple: Because it is killing. It represents the taking of an innocent life by someone else. Dean knows that. Planned Parenthood knows that. Deep down in our souls, all of us know that.
Well, no. It should be rare for the same reason that open heart surgery or gallbladder removal or any other medical procedure should be rare: Because it’s easier and generally better to prevent it in the first place. But if you need it, it should damn well be there.
And that’s why it is perfectly appropriate and moral to have laws restricting the practice. That’s precisely what our Constitution requires our federal government to do – to protect the lives and property of its citizens and their “posterity.” One definition of “posterity” is those yet to be born.
Again, when the Constituion was written, this wasn’t an issue. And “posterity” is defined as “descendants” — descendants have to actually be born, or they haven’t really descended, have they?
The Constitution is actually very specific about abortion. You don’t need to read between the lines. You don’t need to read the minds of the Founders. You can just read the simple, plain, English-language words they used in the preamble to the Constitution to see what they clearly meant.
Sure. They clearly didn’t outlaw abortion, which, in their time, wasn’t criminalized.
Dean also says: “This difficult personal health-care decision should be made by a woman, in consultation with her physician, and not by politicians in Washington.”
Yet, 33 years later, it is clear that is exactly what Roe v. Wade was all about – politicians in Washington, disguised in black robes as Supreme Court justices, making the decisions for Americans.
I missed the point in time where Justice Blackmun dragged my by the hair to the clinic and forced me to have an abortion. If he wants to talk about “making decisions for Americans” then he should support their right to choose — then every American can make the decision themselves. And he says pro-choicers use Orwellian-speak.