When Liberals refer to me as “anti-choice” I realize it is a predictable personal attack to make it sound like I’m anti-freedom. As usual, they aren’t finishing their sentences (anti-choice to do what?) and they are ignoring that another human being gets killed when one of the alternatives is chosen.
My first reaction is that I am not ashamed to be anti-choice, provided that they mean “anti-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings (regular abortions) or anti-choice to stick a sharp instrument in a baby’s head and suck out her brains (partial-birth abortions, aka infanticide) or anti-choice to let born-alive abortion surviving babies die in closets (the method of infanticide protected by Barack Obama).”
The ironic thing is that other than the legalized destruction of innocent human beings these folks are really the ones who are anti-choice:
Anti-school choice (whether it is the choice of which public school to attend or the option of home schooling)
Anti-choice of parents to know if their children are receiving birth control at school
Anti-choice of parents to know if their children are having an abortion, which involves great physical and mental risks to their daughters in addition to destroying their grandchildren
Anti-choice for medical professionals not to perform abortions or dispense abortion pills
Anti-choice to own guns
Anti-choice of the unborn to determine if they can live
Anti-choice for secret union ballots
Anti-choice to access conservative radio shows
Anti-choice to teach the flaws of Darwinian evolutionary theory
Anti-choice of people to choose how they want health care insured or provided
Anti-choice on the voters of America to decide social issues democratically
Let’s just say that consistency on the “choice” topic isn’t their strong suit.
What others am I missing?
Filed under: Politics | Tagged: abortion, anti-choice secret ballot, evolution, ID, obama, partial birth abortion, Politics, religion, school choice, unions
Anti-choice of people to choose how they want health care insured or provided.
Anti-choice on the voters of America to decide social issues democratically.
Good suggestions – those are going on the list!
And eventually
Anti-choice when it comes to our religious views and serving in the public sector…
Probably,
Anti-choice to raise our children with our own values.
Those are a couple i hope never make the list.
I always ask – when will the baby get to choose whether to be born or aborted?
It must be a sickness, and these poor conservatives simply can’t help themselves when it comes to passionately fighting against any and all measures that would make for a more just world. This condition, let’s call it “conservativitus”, clearly involves a serious deficiency in both compassion and empathy, a coldness of the heart, if you will…
Today it’s anti abortion, and tomorrow it will be anti eating meat.
What ever the cause, these conservatives, as if inflicted with a bad case of Tourette’s Syndrome, seem to be unable to control their impulse to scream out “No way!!” whenever any change is proposed to make the world a better place.
It’s as if they love living in the past.
yes, liberals are by far so anti-choice. Liberal thought is simply Anti-Christ wrapped in a humanist anti-God package. I believe most modern liberal thot is rooted in old Gnosticism. In its more simple form, early Gnostic’s believed that the created world was evil and was totally separate from and in opposition to the world of spirit. The supreme God dwelt in unapproachable splendor in this spiritual world and had no dealings with the world of matter.
Its not hard to observe society today and not see this evil at work in our culture. There’s absolutely nothing new under the Sun. God Bless, Herm
Hi Lefty,
Your statements seem self-contradictory to me. You imply that fighting something means you are fighting the wrong thing. But Liberals fight plenty.
“It must be a sickness, and these poor conservatives simply can’t help themselves when it comes to passionately fighting against any and all measures that would make for a more just world.”
Liberals passionately fight for abortion and “same sex marriage,” for example. So with your definition they are doing the wrong thing. Hey, we agree on something!
But people fight eating meat today. Are you saying they are Conservatives? I’d be skeptical of that.
Your “living in the past” theme self-destructs as well. Liberals want to preserve unrestricted abortion rights. Are they ‘living in the past?”
uhh. Lefty.
Trust me, there are very few, if any, conservatives against eating meat. In fact, it’s conservatives who hunt the most.
Liberals are the anti-choice ones. They do not allow citizens of this country to make choices. They would rather the government make choices for them.
Very good points. Liberal have to be very selective in their presentation of the facts in order advance their agenda.
nice looking blog by the way…
I’d also have to refer to something Reagan said, something close to.. “each of those wishing to end a life, are already alive.” and are lucky to have a choice in anything at all. No one cut their lives off short.
Often times when interviewed and they do want to cut choice options for conservatives, like guns, secret union ballots, conservative radio, I notice how much hate they seem to carry inside them. That is the scary part, the venom in how they say what they say.
As far as I know, Sarah Palin hasn’t done any harm to anyone. She has a pro life stance, and that’s her right. Yet, the women who talked about her, wished her dead, said horrible things about her, and said it with such ugliness. (Sandra Bernhardt being one example).
We sure strike a nerve with truth and fairness….
Excellent points, Barbara, especially about Palin. A pro-life woman in politics was not to be tolerated by the pro-legalized abortion zealots.
Anti-choice on whether to hire open homosexuals by our school systems.
Anti-choice on what books to allow or disallow in school.
Neil: Anti-choice to teach the flaws of Darwinian evolutionary theory
Don’t forget we need to teach the flaws in Einsteinian gravitational theory.
Why is it that biology tends to be singled out as being “flawed”, when we understand the mechanisms of evolution in far greater detail than we do gravitation.
Where is the uproar to concerning teaching Newtonian mechanics in school?
“Anti-choice of people to choose how they want health care insured or provided”
O.K. Neil you lost me on that one…
As far as I can tell, even without this wonderful post, liberals are anti-everything I believe in. When “equality” turns to raising minorities and their rights above and beyond everything this country ever stood for, it is downright anti-American. No absolutes, it is a scary concept and it doesn’t work.
@Carrie:
“When “equality” turns to raising minorities and their rights above and beyond everything this country ever stood for, it is downright anti-American”
Care to clarify what you mean by that? I don’t want to put words in your mouth on this…
DJ…
that was me in a comment. My phrasing was a little confusing, I’ll give ya that…
my point was that they want to bring everyone under a government-provided healthcare system… which would mean that the government would have the monopoly and no one would have choice in that manner. Ask anyone who’s lived a country with socialized health care (or, better yet, worked in socialized health care) and you’ll find that there is no choice and that is not a good thing.
Havok…
observability.
Also, the fact that the evidence for gravity is thus far un-contradicted. The evidence for evolution has plenty of correlative contradicting evidence.
@washedandforgiven:
“my point was that they want to bring everyone under a government-provided healthcare system… which would mean that the government would have the monopoly and no one would have choice in that manner”
Not necessariy, bottom line, one of the things killing Detroit right now is that buisnesses are being health care providers, fact is, perhaps a system like the one in the UK wouldn’ be the best fit for the US, HOWEVER, their needs to be an alternative to the current broken system we have, the only fair thing, is at the least preventative and emergancy and catostrophic health care across the board, anything else, the insurance companies can supliment.
[...] As Neil points out, the liberals are rather anti-choice themselves; they just don’t like to tell you what [...]
Anti-choice on whether to hire openly female people by our school system.
Wouldn’t the person’s credentials as an educator be MUCH more important than their sexual orientation?
The solution is simple – create another government and have them compete with each other. As a consumer of govt services, you get to pick and choose which one you like.
Seriously, competition is not desireable in every aspect of life, and some things would seem to more efficiently provided by a monopoly – like the military and the police, and I would submit, healthcare (at least basic, emergency cover). If something is being provided by a monopoly, I don’t see any reason why that monopoly shouldn’t be, in principle, owned by everyone – ie. part of the government.
You already get universal emergency coverage. The facts point to the rest of healthcare being much better if open to competition. Check out the prices of elective cosmetic surgery and lasik, for example. Competition yields much lower pricing and better services.
@Neil:
“You already get universal emergency coverage”
yes we do Neil, and You and I and every other American are paying for it AND our own health coverage. It would be much more fair if WE paid ONE TIME through our taxes for the basic preventative services, emegency service and catostrophic heal;th, and if we paid according to our ability for the OTHER stuff (i.e. glasses, galsses should be available to all who NEED them, Lasick should be fo those who can afford it).
It isn’t as complicated as people make it.
No being an US’ian, I’m not entirely sure about your health system. I did think that in the US a doctor couldn’t refuse to treat you, but you always had to pay. Thanks for the info.
Are these facts limited to the US system or do they take into account systems found elsewhere in the world?
How does this competition affect the cost of basic health care, like routine checkups and examinations, colds and flu, broken bones and other injuries etc?
The actual cost of basic care would go down if it wasn’t covered by insurance. It is a bizarro world where people don’t know and don’t ask what the costs are. If your auto insurance covered oil changes and you didn’t know the cost, do you think the real cost would go up or down?
The pro-abortion camp has often used language to conceal the truth. ”Pro-choice” and “terminate a pregnancy” are examples. The term “partial birth abortion” was effective in drawing attention to a horrendous procedure. “Embryo Destructive Research” I believe, should be used by pro-lifers to describe ESCR. I first saw the term when reading the Levin article linked to this website.