Friday, April 20, 2007
Can the liberals on the Supreme Court be any more out of touch with reality?
... at stake in cases challenging abortion restrictions is a woman's "control over her [own] destiny." - Ruth Bader-GinsbergThe usual pro-abortion blather. It's as if these people believe that somehow these women get pregnant completely at random and have no say in the matter of conceiving a child in the first place. You don't get to be a Supreme Court Justice by being stupid enough to believe that kind of bullshit, but it's clearly what Ms. Ginsberg and her ilk want YOU to believe.
Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right "to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation."I wonder how this is relevant to the discussion. I further challenge anyone to show me how being a mother conflicts with "[participating] equally in the economic and social life of the Nation." Motherhood is the very essence of the economic and social life of ANY nation. Without it, all humanity would cease to exist.
Their ability to realize their full potential ... is intimately connected to "their ability to control their reproductive lives." Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.Frankly, I don't see how being a mother interferes with any of the above. Women do realize their full potential as mothers. They do the most important work in the world which, as a man, I absolutely cannot do. I don't see how banning partial-birth abortion or, for that matter, ANY abortion, interferes with a woman's ability to control her reproductive life. Women DO choose to have sex, after all, and KNOW the risks involved.
What she is suggesting as legitimate would be the equivalent of my running General Motors into a court battle over an accident that was my own fault. I knew the risks involved in operating a motor vehicle. I knew I could have an accident. The accident may have ruined my life, and quite a bit more so than simply giving birth and raising a child would ruin the life of a mother. Therefore, Ms. Ginsberg, your argument that a woman being able "to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature" is as much bullshit as my making the same claim against General Motors in the above example, not to mention an insult to mothers all across America.
I really don't need to go on here. If this is how Ms. Ginsberg introduces her position, the rest of it can't be any less idiotic.
Is the Left's entire position on abortion based on the faulty premises that women don't choose to have sex and that babies aren't human? Can't they come up with something substantive? They couldn't use the libertarian argument that the government should just stay out of it, now could they? After all, that argument would be an admission that their entire socialist agenda is as much bullshit as their position on abortion.
What else is new?