For example, I will begin with the news story from MSNBC who apparently doesn't believe at looking how a story affects both parties involved: Literally.
The Story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41935496/
I find it interesting that this article picks specifically on Republican lawmakers, it seems to me this should cause a dilemma for both parties of lawmakers. And actually to be a dilemma for the Democrat majority in the Senate. The Republicans are supposedly being asked to weigh their stance on abortion against the fiscal ramifications of expensive government, yet they make no mention of the Democratic law makers which must have the same dilemma. The Democratic side of the Senate actually COULD vote the bill through if they held fiscal balance above their views on abortion, but the assumption made is that the Republicans would compromise their abortion views for money but that the Democratic law makers wouldn't.
Isn't it just as much an issue for a Democratic law maker to decide that perhaps a nearer balanced budget is worth denying a few underage girls the ability to kill their fetus for free? The one-sided interviews and title of this story reveal an underlying bias both against the GOP and pro-life legislators in general as MSNBC seems to expect only Republicans to compromise on the abortion issue. While Democrats are depicted as dedicated set-in-stone leaders who would not compromise this important issue.
This approach actually reveals yet another bias of the writing reporter, they seem to believe that, in fact, the right to have an abortion is more important than balancing our national budget: They thought it was important enough to ask several Republican legislators if they would compromise their stance to balance the budget, but they didn't mention asking a single democratic senator if they would do the same. The underlying moral orientation seems to be that the Republicans "Ought" to compromise to balance the budget, that they "ought" to allow federal money to be used to kill fetuses. In the name of fiscal responsibility, no less. But yet Democratic law makers aren't even questioned, it's as if they "ought" to oppose cuts to funding abortions and they "ought" to place this priority above balancing a national budget.
On the subject of abortion funding, people seem to forget that there are dozens of other organizations that both help reduce unwanted pregnancies and provide free support to mothers who do wind up with an unwanted pregnancy without resorting to abortion. Financial support of these organizations seems like a no-brainer because the money would not be used in a way that many taxpayers view as funding murder. Yet again and again we see planned parenthood lobbying as though they were the only group in the world that cared about reproductive support of women without so much as a passing mention of the other groups which do much the same work they do but without causing un-natural deaths to fetuses which get involved in their organization.
Why is it more important to pay for a teenage girl who finds out she is pregnant, panics, goes secretly to a clinic, and has the fetus forcibly removed than to use that same money to, say, help defray the cost of delivering or adopting said child.
In fact, why pay for the abortion or delivery at all? especially for underage girls? The idea that abortion is such a sacred right that even parents ought have no say in it is ludicrous at best. Parental consent is required to even provide traditional and routine healthcare options such as ibuprofen for a headache at school, or Acetaminophen for a fever. However, once you get the reproductive tract involved all of a parent's beliefs go out the window, even if it is THEIR insurance that is paying for the procedure they may be morally opposed to in the first place! Shouldn't there at least be a passing comment there? "Hey dad, I got impregnated at homecoming, so I'm seeking a physician to destroy the blastocyst developing in my tween uterus! B.T.W. you're picking up the tab!"
Having a child is a huge decision for someone to make, and yet destroying that potential child is treated in policy as a triviality on par with deciding between hagen das and dippin dots! Of course women everywhere should be free to have a government funded ice cream cone, I mean abortion, and Democrats know this so they will choose to partially shut down our government rather than suspend government subsidized feticide all over the world, while the Republicans are expected to compromise and allow the government to pay for what they view as murder while they cut other less critical programs like education and interstate maintenance.
No comments:
Post a Comment