The Westboro Baptist Church believes that God lets America's soldiers die because we have "accepted" homosexuality and abortion in society. Makes perfect sense.
The paradox that is conservative politics. Pro-life. Meaning, promote life, protect life, proliferate life. Okay makes sense, conservatives are against abortion, because abortion ends the life of a developing “fetus” or “human” (not here to debate abortion per se, that’s a matter of philosophy that requires a deep analysis that I’m not addressing at this moment). But, does Pro-life in the conservative context only apply to the “unborn”? What about the currently living, like our own American citizens, Iraqi citizens, Pakastani citizens, Afghani citizens? Well I mean conservatives tend to overwhelmingly support war (a war based on lies, a war for hegemony, a war for natural resources), and war tends to DESTROY LIFE. So if someone is Pro-Life, shouldn’t they promote life, in all aspects? Oh that would just be too much to ask….
But now the paradox, the contradiction that is mainstream conservative politics has come up with some new bullshit that is beyond any form of comprehensible logic (see http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/15/south-dakota-gop-pushes-bill-to-legalize-homicide-in-defense-of-the-unborn/). Basically, if you live in the state of South Dakota and this bill passes, and you are an “abortion doctor,” if you’re mowed down from 150 yards by some American Taliban religious fanatic National Rifle Association gold star member, who has Ted Nugent blasting is his ipod, while dressed in some off-season fatigues he got at the military outlet (they have great deals on thermals, levis and dickies by the way) then the your assassin can essentially claim self-defense. It’s a legally sound argument, if you accept the notion that a fetus is a human, a person, well then it’s just defense of a third person. But society hasn’t accepted that notion, and its absolutely nutty to reduce matters to “an eye for an eye”: you take a life, I take yours, especially if you label yourself “pro-life.” Taking a life to show your pro-life?… Passing a bill to essentially promote armed “pro-lifers” to burst into Planned Parenthoods and start knocking off doctors with SKS-type assault rifles is a bit ehh backwards. Retarded (that’s directed at you Mrs. Palin).
I don’t have a problem with the idea of Pro-life, I have a problem with how its discussed in the media. What isn’t discussed is that a disproportionate number abortion clients are young African-American woman living in conditions comparable to 1980′s Beruit. What isn’t discussed are the origins of Planned Parenthood, its Founder Margaret Sanger, and her subscription to racist ideals like eugenics. What is a problem is that this matter is primarily discussed by men when they don’t fucking get pregnant, carry 8 pound bulges for 9 months, push out 8 pound bulges, and deal with the opposite sex asking them “when are you going to lose the weight.”
Abortion is a misrepresented and complex issue, its one part ethics, one part class warfare, one part America’s history of repressing the rights of women. Women with money aren’t concerned about whether or not they have a “choice”; they will always have a choice. Money equals power, so even if abortions were outlawed again, if a women with money wants an abortion, she can get one. The problem is with women who have no money. So if you want to say abortions are illegal, you better be willing to provide indigent women with means to: a) prevent unwanted pregnancies (ie education and contraceptives) or b) deal with unwanted pregnancies (ie funding to help them have a baby, and subsequently funding to raise a child). Well another conservative contradiction arises, they want to make abortion illegal but don’t want to give kids sex education- they won’t be happy until we live in a theocracy it seems, sex is bad, only good in marriage!
The ethical issue, well that has be determined by the society as a whole. Right now, society has deemed abortion up until “viability of the fetus” as legal.
There is another caveat to this matter. Biological speaking, the practice of abortion, is counter-intuitive. The scientific function of sex is pro-creation. Socially, the function of sex is to “bust a nut.” Herein lies the problem, scientific purpose and social purpose clash when the result is a child that is socially unwanted. However, scientifically, it is the exact result, exactly what was supposed to happen from the act. My take on it, men strap up; women don’t miss your pills. If a kid results, well, don’t be so surprised, cause that is the scientific result of sex. Duh.
