Posted on 03/04/2009 9:55:28 AM PST by IbJensen
For social liberals, what is it about abortion that makes some of them consider it a sacrificial rite through which only the killing of an unborn child can truly liberate a woman from the clutches of paternalism?
A rule approved in the waning days of the Bush administration established broad protections for health-care workers whose religious faith, conscience or moral misgivings forbid them from participating in an abortion.
Last Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services, which is still without a confirmed secretary, announced its intention to rescind the regulation. There will be a 30-day period of public comment before the rule is overturned. Here is mine.
No politician can be found who admits to favoring abortion. To acknowledge moral misgivings means you are at least acknowledging the beating heart and brain waves extinguished during an abortion are of greater significance than, say, the removal of an appendix or a tumor. Infected appendices can burst, killing the individual. A tumor can grow, become malignant and cause death. A growing unborn child can be born and contribute not only to the betterment of the country, but if you’re utilitarian about it, increase the tax base. Abortion kills a potential taxpayer, which ought to override every other consideration for liberal politicians who are constantly looking for new sources of revenue.
Why do social liberals say they want to make abortion “safe, legal and rare,” but then spend all their time on the first two and none on the third? It is relatively simple to reduce the number of abortions, even while keeping them “safe” and “legal.”
Show the abortion-minded woman a sonogram of the fetus she is about to destroy. A 2005 survey by Care Net, a network of about 1,000 antiabortion pregnancy centers in the United States and Canada, based in Sterling, Va., found that “72 percent of women who were initially ‘strong leaning’ toward abortion decided to carry their pregnancies to term after seeing a sonogram.” That isn’t depriving a woman of her “choice.” It is providing more information so that her choice will be fully informed.
Carried to its logical conclusion, repealing the “conscience rule” would allow hospitals to require pro-life doctors and nurses to participate in abortions. The Catholic Church teaches elective abortion is a mortal sin, so the government is considering a requirement that would place a Catholic in the position of risking excommunication and the eternal damnation of his or her soul. Evangelical Christians regard abortion as equally offensive. Where is the separation of church and state when you really need it?
Arguments in favor of overriding the conscience rule include concerns that it might apply to people dispensing contraceptives at the pharmacy. Others say it could be used to prevent rape victims from receiving pregnancy protection assistance at a hospital. These are arguments we’ve heard before. Even if pro-lifers grant these exceptions, it isn’t enough for the abortion lobby, which uses extreme situations to keep the door open to abortion on demand for any and all reasons.
In my view, there are far fewer people who oppose contraception than oppose abortion. Besides, one prevents conception and the other kills something that is living and, if left to be born, will breathe. Any employee at a pharmacy who doesn’t want to sell contraceptives can ask another store employee to do it. You can’t bring an aborted baby back to life, even if a woman later regrets the decision, which many do.
To repeal the conscience rule is an affront to every American who believes government ought to be under God, not play God. It is an insult to religious faith and to pro-lifers of no religious faith who see the danger of rendering one category of human life as having less value than another. We should be aware of where this can lead.
If you are a resident in an assisted-living center, you might consider putting an extra lock on the door, because you are next. By the time our consciences have been reprogrammed, the bureaucrat who decides you’ve outlived your usefulness will have forgotten how to feel guilty about anything.
When their turn comes it will be entirely different.
Many of those old fossils on the left are looking ripe for a visit by Dr. Kervorkian.
Barack will need to waste old folks to cut the deficit. They didn’t vote for him anyway, which makes them immediately expendable; they use up a lot of medicade money in their latter years which would be available for other purposes if the old folks were euthanized a year or so after retirement. In addition, those who are retired military collect pensions from the federal government, and it would be possible to redirect all of that money to more worthy recipients, while getting rid of a troublesome class of people. Other retired federal employees are more tractable, and eliminating them would not be as pleasurable, but they still collect a lot of retirement, and that money could be spread around the ‘hood with good effect. There are also a lot of old white women who have a good bit of money, and while the government would eventually get quite a bit of it through estate taxes, this money can be collected sooner by the government if they just wax those old gray broads.
A lot of money is spent on special education for children with physical disabilities, as well as medically for their treatment and therapy— not to mention the fact that the tax base is negatively impacted when the parents of such children are not able to be as fully employed and taxed as they would be if they were not burdened with such children. Furthermore, many of these children end up on social security at an early age and mess up the system for everyone else. Obviously, these kinds of kids belong in the gas chambers with the old folks. Rational governance demands it.
And finally, a federal organ inventory should be conducted annually so that the organs of those who are not productive as defined by the government can be harvested for the benefit of those the government deems worthier of them.
SARCASM or SATIRE? Maybe.
China has been doing this for years.
They're usually the organs of Christians and political dissidents.
The only problem here is that eventually the supply of dissidents will be greater than the number of bullets with which to kill them.
It is the conclusion to surrendering the Rights to Life, Liberty, and Freedom to the Government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.