Dropping pebbles of thought into our conservative echo-chamber

Posts tagged ‘class’

Aborting Obama

Some time ago, I wrote about the issue of abortion and I posited that there was a spectrum of views that could be measured–with a 0-100% ratio–where 0% was the view that abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, and 100% was the view that abortion should be legal under all circumstances.

It looked something like this:

100% Legal  [—————|—————]  0% Legal

I argued that any view on the subject of abortion would fall between those two extremes.

For instance, the view that abortion should be legal only in the case of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother’s life would fall on the scale roughly at 15%.  The view that abortion should be legal until the third trimester would fall roughly at 85%, and the support of so-called “morning after” pills would fall somewhere near 30% on the scale.

One could quibble with the percentage points that I assigned to any particular viewpoint, but the overall theory was sound.

I further submitted that there were not two sides of the abortion debate, but three; pro-choice, pro-life, and pro-abortion.

My own position on abortion is such that I have had many debates with people representing views from nearly every point along the scale.

I am a conservative with a very thick libertarian streak.  I personally believe that abortion is heinous and despicable.  I mourn every child lost at the hands of an abortion doctor.  However, I still believe that the decision to carry a pregnancy to term must remain in the hands of the woman, and not in the hands of government bureaucrats.

This position doesn’t win me many friends, to say the least.  Most of my fellow conservatives disagree with me vehemently, and, although I believe that they respect me, this disagreement has led to some pretty heated debates.

Most liberals disagree with me too, because I would restrict abortion access to the first trimester, if it were left to me.  However, it is nearly always a distinct faction of liberals that hotly debate against my position, and they are the ones that I would describe as pro-abortion.

It seems counter-intuitive that there would be a class of people who believe that abortion is a positive thing, but I assure you that they do indeed exist.

Certainly Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was pro-abortion.  In fact, Sanger was a noted eugenicist.  She believed in abortion as a means to cull the population of “undesirable” races.

But even Sanger’s extreme views fell within the abortion scale that I created.

I have debated the abortion issue with many people on all sides of the spectrum for many years.  I thought that I had heard it all.  I believed my scale to be an absolute representation.

Until I met Barack Obama.

President Obama’s views on abortion are so very extreme that they do not fit on the scale that I created.  He doesn’t just believe that abortion should be legal under all circumstances…

He actually voted that a baby who managed to survive the abortion process could be denied medical care outside of the womb.

That, my friends, is not pro-choice.  It isn’t even pro-abortion.

That is MURDER.

Infanticide.

With the Democratic National Convention gearing up, and all of the political winds pointing to their focus on women’s reproductive issues, Obama’s extreme position is something that should not be left ignored.

We need to hammer this home; over, and over, and over again.  The Democrats simply can not be allowed to set themselves up as the champions of women’s rights with this kind of blood on their hands.

Not now, and not ever.

Advertisements

Why the Democrats Can Win Elections

My first day back in college (today) was fairly instructive, if unintentionally so.

As an accounting major, I am taking a business class.  It’s pretty standard stuff.  Nothing too extreme.  Apart from a fairly decent narrative from my professor, I would have been bored to tears.

Until he said one thing that woke me up pretty quickly…

He began to expound on the two philosophies of wealth; infinite wealth and finite wealth.

Infinite wealth is the theory that wealth is created, and therefore in unlimited supply, whereas finite wealth theorizes that there is only so much wealth to be had, thus anyone with too much of it prevents others from attaining more.

At one point, he asked us to raise our hands if we believed that wealth is created.

A no-brainer, right?  Or so I thought.  Of course, I raised my hand.

When he asked about finite wealth, to my dismay, more than half of the class raised their hands, at which point the professor went on to briefly say that there is merit in both theories.

Did he really believe that, or was he simply “going along to get along”?

Either way, it made me uncomfortable, because there can be no merit whatsoever in the theory of finite wealth.

The notion that there is only one pie to be divided–and that those who have a bigger slice are taking away from others–ignores the person who baked the pie.

Hard work creates wealth.  Without it, there is no pie at all.  But Barack Obama and his supporters are legion, and they believe that the pie willed itself into existence.  Moreover, they believe that they deserve an equal slice of that pie, whether they helped to bake it, or not.

If I buy a house that is in poor condition, and work to clean it up and repair it, the house would be worth much more (theoretically) than what I originally payed for it.  In this way wealth and prosperity are created.

I’m sure that I am preaching to the choir here, but seeing so many people mindlessly buy into the notion of finite wealth first-hand really did open my eyes (wider) to the stark differences between conservatives like me and the liberals that we oppose on a daily basis.

And with people who are that thoughtless having the power to vote, it is no wonder that ideologues like Barack Obama and other liberal Democrats can pander to them enough to win elections.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: