In reading the various articles responding to the new health care plan and it’s refusal to use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, I came across this article from the Daily Kos by McJoan. One line jumped out at me and left me scratching my head. Can anyone tell me why it has taken a ban on public abortion funding to figure this one out?
Women would have to plan in advance, think ahead to whether any circumstance in their future life might lead them to have an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy and buy that extra insurance, just in case.
Really??? Women would have to PLAN AHEAD? They would have to think about the consequences of their choices and actions BEFOREHAND???? Seriously?
Perhaps if women were doing this all along, there would be no need for abortion to begin with. If this is one of the side effects of the new health plan, then for the first time, I’m on board.
Imagine. People taking responsibility for themselves. Unheard of! The next thing you know, we’ll all be looking both ways before crossing streets! Insanity!
*Gasp*
Someone from the Daily Kos made sense? Someone from the Daily Kos understands that women can actually take responsibility for their behavior?
Well, it is too much to ask considering her solution wasn’t to think twice before spreading your legs – her answer was to get your own private insurance to pay for it.
So close, yet so far away!
MK,
rather than comment on your topic, I’ve centered on the word ‘consequence’. I am wondering if ‘choice/choosing’ is just one part in the sequence we call: ‘acquisition’. Notice that I did not say ‘THE’ as in the lone stage, but one stage among many. I’ve wondered why we PL’ers are often stymied by this word. Perhaps, we too focus exclusive attention to a word that is part of a process: the [non-demanding child]. THE solution (since ‘child’ and ‘needing’ are repetitious terms) is ‘access to abortion’. Only a ‘dead child’ will appease this. Please note how the word ‘wanting’ is just one more word in the ‘acquisition’ sequence.
Have you ever been bugged about calls to ‘have’ an abortion … and not ‘commit’ an abortion.?
John,
When we “take” communion, we RECEIVE it. We don’t actually “take” it. Take is the wrong terminology.
Likewise, you don’t have an abortion. You receive gifts. You TAKE what you want.
A child is a gift. It is given. You receive it. But when you end it’s life you turn a gift into a demand.
So yes. You receive a gift. You make a choice. That choice causes a reaction. In this case it destroys the gift and ends a life. That too has consequences. Future generations are destroyed, sin is brought into the world, the person suffers spiritually and emotionally. The ramifications are far reaching if not endless. Certainly not quantifiable.
To choose is to be proactive. To receive is to be passive. Having an abortion is not simply “not having a child”. It is not passive. It takes actions along with choices.
You’re right. You don’t have an abortion (passive). You commit an abortion (active). And a dead child might be a “consequence” but that is reducing that little life to it’s least denominator. It’s so much more than a “consequence”.
a while back, I read these lines in a poem called ‘The Night’.
” … a library turned to dust.
No shadow to mark its passing
in the night.”
Could it be that the ‘gift’ of human life is not seen in the ‘night’ of today’s knowledge?
Well, we’re definitely trying to “erase” them. Not acknowledging that they existed, and must be taken away, but pretending that they never existed in the first place.