Well, more so than usual, I mean.
But I’ve been noticing a word pop up more and more in the letters to the editor regarding this bill, and have thought it rather interesting. See if you can spot the word in the following letters that is rapidly becoming the new pro-abortion meme.
First up is Bev Lindsey from Little Rock:
Women still in danger
If you thought the war on women was over, you are sadly mistaken. Our legislators opened this session with a slew of anti-woman bills in hopes of ending safe and legal abortion in Arkansas.
Politicians in Little Rock are so preoccupied with banning abortion that they have proposed three different abortion bills, including one that bans abortion after 20 weeks, and another as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected. Both of these laws neglect the personal health and personal circumstances of a woman. These bills violate a woman’s body and take away her ability to make these deeply private medical decisions with her doctor and family.
I believe Sen. Jason Rapert and Rep. Andy Mayberry have no regard for women and are playing ignorance of the Constitution. I hope the Legislature reconsiders these horrific laws and shifts focus back toward the issues it promised us it would focus on-creating jobs and fixing the economy.
It needs to help the women and families in our state-not hurt them.
Wow! Concentrated stuff, there!
Up next, Rosalind Creed from Sherwood:
Holding accountable
Anti-woman politicians like state Sen. Jason Rapert have made their priority for this session very clear-taking away a woman’s ability to make her own health-care decisions. Lawmakers have already introduced three bills targeting abortion.
Sitting at the Capitol, these men don’t seem to understand how difficult a decision to end a pregnancy is for a woman and her family. There are so many things that can happen in a pregnancy-outlawing abortion leaves a woman with no options, gravely putting her health in danger.
They don’t understand that banning abortion will not end abortion. It’s just going to make it more difficult for a woman to get safe access to abortion. Legislators will force women back into alleyways and emergency rooms, bringing back an era of unsafe abortion and dangers for women’s health.
Why are these lawmakers focusing on taking away a woman’s access to health care? We have big problems in our state and it’s starting at the Capitol.
These politicians don’t get it, and we need to hold them accountable.
Whoa! What a firebrand, eh?
This last one from Helen Jane Brown of Fayetteville doesn’t have the word, but it nicely sums up the word’s position.
All have privacy right
It’s not about exceptions for rape, incest or health of the mother. It is about an individual’s constitutional right to privacy and personal liberty.
No one but a woman who becomes pregnant has the right, or the burden, to determine whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
When governing bodies start dictating when, where and how a woman’s body must be examined, prodded or probed, it is the end of equal justice for one gender at the bidding of the other. Women’s bodies are not objects to be controlled by any legislative agenda.
I know no one who is “anti-life,” but I know many who profess to be “pro-freedom.” What freedom is more celebrated in our culture than one of self-determination?
Sadly, there are those in elected positions who misuse their power to create legislation specifically designed to deprive half the population of this country of their right to individual freedom.
Surely they understand that we all desire the same thing-we want what’s best for ourselves and our families. Both men and women have the right to personal freedom and self-determination, not just the half with a Y chromosome.
What is it about the female gender that causes some legislators to feel compelled to propose government control over women’s bodies?
The word that I am seeing is, of course, “anti-woman”.
A couple of questions:
If a man can be “anti-woman”, can a woman be “anti-woman”?
If a man can be “anti-woman”, can a woman be “anti-man”? Why or why not?
What are the qualifications to be “anti-woman”?
If a man loves his wife, but hates abortion, does that make him “anti-woman”? Why or why not?
If a man has never been married, but is engaged to be married, can he still be “anti-woman”?
Can the instruments of abortion be labeled “anti-woman”?
If we must register guns because they can kill children, are we also supposed to register the instruments used to perform abortions?
Why do the very people who are for gun control (because it is for the children) are also pro-abortion (because it is not about the children, but about a woman’s body)?
Now those are examples of smart questions.
Because of this new fascination I have of the emergence of new memes, we only have room to run one example of dumb questions this week. Sorry about that. We have Victor Oliver from Bismarck must be a reader of this column, because he’s got a real list of really dumb questions. Let’s hear from him:
Who decides its start?
Jason Rapert states in a recent letter: “When there is a heartbeat, there is life.”
Life doesn’t begin or end. It is. It is a continuum.
Do sperm, egg, zygote and fetus all have this life he wishes to protect? Do we declare each of these with personhood, or does personhood come during a progression of development and experience? Is the embryo or fetus simply a parasitic tissue with the potential of personhood?
Do our views and actions regarding conception, development, birth and death derive from emotion, religion and politics, or from science and reason? Do we ban contraception or do we require the biblical injunction regarding the “wasting of seed”? Which methods do we wish to restrict?
If a person has an everlasting soul, when does he get it? Or, does it preexist one’s physical birth? Do we possess the knowledge and wisdom to decide for everyone?
Well, Victor, if life doesn't begin or end, then yes, a sperm, egg, zygote and fetus all have life. But personhood is different from life. Does a flower have life? Yes. Is it a person? No. See the difference? Knowing liberals, probably not.
If life doesn't begin or end, as you state, then there is no time that a person gets an everlasting soul. And why would we need the knowledge and wisdom to decide for everyone, since you have stated definitively that life doesn't begin or end, it is a continuum. If life is a continuum, then it is reasonable to assume that making a decision for one would result in making the decision for all.
And, for your information, Victor, the biblical injunction was not about “wasting of seed", but of disobeying the Lord's direct command. The full story can be found in Genesis 38:8-10. It is as follows: "8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his: so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord's sight; so he put him to death also."
I'm telling you, liberals are getting stupider and stupider every day.
Please bookmark!
No comments:
Post a Comment