Don't fall for the fake argument of this law forcing women to carry genetically impaired foetuses or the offspring of rapists. That argument is as old as the hills, and it's a lie. Liberal legislation has enabled the abortions of perfectly healthy human beings in the OVERWHELMING majority of cases. In the few single digit - or less than single digit - cases where the above mentioned categories come into play, I'm sure there are ways to find a humane solution. If the baby's birth really poses a threat to the health of the mother - as was the case during my wife's second pregnancy for instance - well, any sensible hospital staff does not even need a vehicle like the HLPA. These things can be discussed and solved on the spot, serenely and discreetly. And if the baby's father is a rapist, why does no one ever talk about the many couples out there incapable of having children? If a woman absolutely does not want to raise the child - which is of course perfectly understandable - well, I hear that in the US at least, the number of people waiting to adopt a child is almost forty times the number of 'available' children. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that most would welcome children conceived in rape.
In short, it's better to trust human common sense and not have bad legislation which will immediately be exploited for completely other ends than the ones it was purportedly designed for. Roe vs Wade has resulted in the deaths of between 55 and 60 million foetuses which were neither genetically impaired or fathered by sexual predators. I'm not saying that having no legislation at all, or legislation like Alabama's HLPA, is always a good thing. I am just saying that sometimes it's better to stick with less than ideal laws severely restricting abortions - which may, alas and indeed, sometimes result in a tragic outcome - than providing laws that spell doom for litterally millions.
Anyway, predictably, the left lost its head collectively. One such idiot proved for the umpteenth time that leftists simply CANNOT grasp the concept that out there, there are good, decent, intelligent people who just happen to have another opinion. As Saint Winston once said, "some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage."
Via RedState:
That twat is another excellent example of the left's idea of freedom of speech and expression: "Sure, you can say what you want as long as it's exactly what I think". Straight out of the textbook of Frankfurter School icon Herbert Marcuse, more precisely from his 1965 essay 'Repressive Tolerance':
"Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.
Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc."
In short, freedom of speech for mee but not for thee, cause you disagree with mee. A staple of the left since time immemorial.
For more info, a little more than one year ago, we had a blogpost up about the Frankfurter School and its wretched teachings.
Anyway, kudos to that police officer for teaching that twat a lesson. Though she being a liberal, it's a safe bet she will have learned nothing.
MFBB.
No comments:
Post a Comment