Obama, Notre Dame and a new abortion solution
Obama’s speech at Notre Dame is done now. He predictably called for “open discussion” and seeking common ground, despite acknowledging that the positions are irreconcilable. Those who opposed Obama being honored by a Catholic University were labeled “religious vigilantes” (Hot Air: President Obama protesters at Notre Dame were religious vigilantes ). I think many Catholics feel, like I do, that there are areas of the abortion issue that need to be discussed. The thing with President Obama is, we aren’t just talking about whether abortion should be legal or who should be making decisions about getting an abortion. We are talking about things like late term abortions, abortions with no parental consent and partial birth abortions. According to “OnTheIssues.org”, “he insists that no restrictions must ever be placed on the right of a mother to abort a child.” He opposed legislation protecting “born alive fetuses” who survived an abortion attempt and were born.
As long as the President wants to take us down that road, why stop there? Mothers should be able to abort their fetuses until they reach 18 years of age. Older possibly in special circumstances like if your 23 year old has no job and is dealing drugs out of your basement. This would have a variety of positive effects. Imagine a single mother with 4 kids, she can’t afford to pay her bills and feed all her kids. She could just abort two of them. Imagine again the single mother. Her 16 year old is a drug dealing gang-banger. He doesn’t listen to her and she doesn’t have time to deal with him. Abortion! The state could even get involved. You have a 17 year old who has been arrested repeatedly. He has been sent to various juvenile facilities, all at the expense of the tax payer. The state could simply order an abortion instead of continuing to pay for his offenses. It’s not cruel and unusual punishment, like the death penalty, because the 17 year old is just a late term fetus, or “juvenile” as we currently address them. You’re 16 year old daughter gets pregnant and you know you are going to have to take care of the baby. Now you don’t have to worry about the 16 year old getting an abortion, you can just abort the 16 year old. Some nice couple might realize that having a baby seemed like a good idea at the time, but now that 3 year old is really interfering with their careers. That’s easily fixed.
These abortions could be made more convenient by having Fetus Removal Experts patrolling certain high traffic areas. Poor neighborhoods will probably be the biggest users of post-birth abortions. Uniformed experts could patrol these areas on the ready for anyone who needs to be aborted. They will need a nice, snappy, recognizable uniform so anyone seeking their service can find them quickly. They should have dogs too, to help them track fetuses trying to avoid abortion; a German Shepherd would be good. They would have to carry guns of course, how else will they perform the abortions? The Walther PPK has a distinguished record.
A sane person at this point might ask how I could suggest such barbaric ideas. I am not the one who voted to legalize the killing of a “fetus” that survived being born as a possible “choice” for a mother. I have not spoken out about how I “admire enormously” Margaret Sanger, an eugenicist. I am not one of the people who voted for people who did. I am also not one of the people who think Obama should be receiving an honor from a Catholic University like Notre Dame. I am just guy in Nevada who thinks maybe we should be careful about how we start to define certain things. Sometimes a word like”fetus” vs “baby” can make all the difference.
Here R.S. McCain of The Other McCain has done a better analysis of one of my posts than I could: Diversity through Homogenization
May 19th, 2009 at 6:49 am
[...] Obama, Notre Dame and a new abortion solution - rightofcourse.com [...]
May 19th, 2009 at 8:42 am
The leader of the YO MAMA administration, also known as our dear leader, is a disgrace to this country, and to the rest of rational civilization. Putting this aside, I would like to finally out an end to this stupid topic on abortion. For me, its quite simple. There is a natural hirearchy (excuse the spelling, as I am a product of the san francisco public school system) that undelies human emotion; we judge one another based on ability and character, making subjective inferior/superior judgments about one another all the time, whether some will admit to this or not. An action is not just simply judged as moral/immoral based on the crime committed. For example, one man of equal size killing another man of equal size in a fair fight is not deemed as immoral as a large man killing an 87 year old grandmother crossing the street, even though we are taught in this Judeo-Christian society that #1 murder is wrong, and #2 we are all of equal value. We all know that this is not natural human reasoning. Now, back to abortion. I don’t think most people (even those who strongly oppose abortion) would consider a drug-addicted, tariler park trash woman with 6 kids, living with a convicted sex offender deciding to abort her 3 month old fetus, as bad (or not bad at all, but GOOD) as they would feel knowing that Albert Einstein and his brilliant wife (lets say) deciding to abort their 3 month old fetus. I realize that we in a civilized society must draw the line somewhere, and that “somewhere” ought to be at the point of viability (the point where the fetus could live (breathe) on its own without assistance of its mother), which at the current time is about 5 months. This is no different than pulling the plug on a vegetable who cant breathe without the assistance of machines. I would bet that many anti-abortionists would have far less problems with passive euthanasia (the catholic church even supports passive euthanasia) than killing a fetus less than 5 months in age. This seeme a bit silly in reasoning to me. In both cases, death is inevitable. I know the argument to mine. It would go something like this: In the abortion case, man decides the fate of another human/potential human, and in the case of passive euthanasia, God/nature decides. To me, it doesnt matter, since death is inevitable in both cases, the result of the action outweighs the cause/motive. We must also remember that we do not live in a theocracy, and must especially remember that this country is (or at least was, and ought to remain) a capitalist society. Abortion must remain legal, and prevents a great burden on the tax payers, and the criminal justice system.
If anyone would like to thank me for clarifying what appeared to be a difficult topic of discussion, feel free to respond to this brillinat essay, and I will send you my e-mail, in case you would like to personally thank me.
Mike
May 19th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
A conversation about fetus abortion is suddenly hijacked into ludicrous chatter about killing teens at random whims. In he future, I’d like to see more intellectualism and civil rationality instead of sputtering out wild balderdash. It’s far more respectable to persuade than gutter snipe.
You actually illustrated my point. Obama says it is ok to kill a baby who is born, or nearly born. This is acceptable as long as we call it “fetus abortion” as you did, instead of killing a baby, which is what it really is.
Chance