(Dan Patrick, (R) Texas)
I just don’t understand liberals and “reproductive rights” activists in times like this. This furthers the evidence of the left’s love for abortion.
I remember this news story from a few months ago. This broke in late March actually where a Texas lawmaker Sen. Dan Patrick (R) who is also a conservative talk show host is introducing legislation that would offer women $500 to sign away their rights to the child and agree to place the baby for adoption.
Today; August 1, I was driving home from the train station where this was the hot topic of the day. The talk show host was a pro-choice man who was very angry about this. I tried to call in, but was put on hold and never got through.
I have been researching this tonight and basically; when the story broke earlier this year, all the expected groups and “pro-choice” folks were furious as well.
Some called it oppresive. Some alleged “baby-selling.” Some said that it was unconstitutional and this was another form of government intrusion.
First, how is it oppressive? A child gets to live and the woman has another choice.
How does this qualify as a “baby-selling” procedure? Baby-selling in the U.S. is illegal and nothing is different here than if the woman put the child up for LEGAL adoption on her own. But a Texas lawmaker wants to offer up an incentive for it, and people are enraged over it. Why? Hmmmm.
As far as governmental intrusion, I’d say the government already intruded when Roe V. Wade was legislated in the 70′s. Somehow, liberals didn’t mind that intrusion.
Finally, why do liberals call themselves “pro-choice”? This is precisely what I wanted to ask this blathering talk-show host today. Is Dan Patrick forcing them to take him up on it? It doesn’t look to me like he’s taking away a choice, but rather offering them another one.
It seems to me all evidence suggests that liberals and organizations like Planned Parenthood are interested in only one choice — abortion.
Everytime you hear a ranting liberal try to re-characterize the conservative position of “pro-life” to “anti-choice” (as they have done many times in the past), remember this moment and give them a subtle reminder.
If they’re going to be pro-choice, they need to shut up about this and allow women to have this choice as well.
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
Comments
Pro -Choice sounds better than Pro -Abortion. Just like Pro-Life sounds better than anti-abortion but you NEVER, unless you’re reading a Christian Publication read/hear the words PRO-Life.
And you’re right. Roe V. Wade was liberals shoving their beliefs down the throats of all Americans.
I see your point Steve, and it’s a difficult one for liberals because when the conversation is framed around pro life, or pro choice, you win in public sentiment, obviously.
But to be fair, is it not accurate to call the pro life people the “forced pregnancy” movement? Because if the goal is to prevent access to medically safe abortion, then that is an exacting description, is it not?
Al-
The problem is that too many women use aborotion as a form of birth control. It’s again, a great way to obfuscate from the responsibility of one’s actions. Birth control is too cheap (abstinence) is cheaper for someone to get pregnant and decide that the baby is inconvenient. Even the Pro-life crowd (the mainstream ones) are not against abortions for the life of the mother. The mother is obviously more important. BUT that being said, those cases are few and far between. What about the life of the baby? Liberals never ask themselves that.
If you don’t want to run the risk of getting pregnant, don’t have sex. It’s not rocket science.
I am militant in my views that an unborn child should have a chance to live. That being said, I also believe that the wording of our Constitution (specifically the 1oth amendment) leaves the powers to determine abortion’s legality firmly in the hands of our state governments. Go read and reread your copy of the Constitution. Abortion is NOT covered – explicitly or implicitly. So, it’s up to the states.
But, without getting into a circuitous and neverending philosophical discussion of abortion, I think that Dan Patrick has a good idea. This is not “baby selling.” It is an enticement to do what is morally correct. It is a chance for someone who is wayward to buy some redemption without penalizing a child. It’s a chance for someone who is a victim of circumstance to do what is necessary without the regret of ending a small life.
That may sound chauvinstic of me. I am gay and will probably never deal with any aspect of having children, but I am a human with a conscience, and I know that any inducement to carry a child to term and offer him/her up for adoption is not in anyway a bad thing.
I guess I just don’t understand the argument. It just goes to show how much of an investment the left has in aborting children. It’s a concept that I don’t debate often because it’s one of the few issues where – It’s alien and incomprehenible to me; I don’t understand the other side in anyway at all. It’s morally wrong. That’s all there is to it.
Great comment, Philip!