I stumbled across an article on a liberal site, bemoaning the fact that Rick Santorum (“our favorite bigot”) got a law through Congress giving medical providers a right not to perform abortions or refer for abortions if their consciences were violated by abortion. Now I know this particular site is not what you’d call mainstream, but I think it represents a certain perspective out there.
What’s so terrible about this law to a liberal? If they really are “pro-choice”, shouldn’t they be in favor of a law that gives that choice? They want to force doctors, nurses, hospitals and insurance providers to participate in something they find immoral? These are the people always saying that everyone should have the right to choose for themselves.
Of course then one remembers the women’s rights conference held in Beijing, a country that performs forced abortions. I went to the National Organization of Women’s site and tried to find articles critical of China’s policy, and all I found was articles critical of Bush for being critical of China’s policy. There were articles critical of the persecution of Falun Gong, but none critical of China for forcing women to abort their children.
It’s just like the homosexual debate. It’s not enough for them to be allowed to freely practice their lifestyle, which they’ve had for ages. They’ve got TV shows, for crying out loud. Try to find one about a conservative pastor, except to mock him. No, that’s not enough. They want government to subsidize it and every voice raised in dissent to be silenced. They would force me to approve of it from my pulpit. If you doubt me, spend a little time looking at what’s going on already in Europe and Canada on this front.
So, choice means choice for them. Choice for the amoral “progressive” to never ever be restricted in any decision they ever want to make, not even by someone else exercising their choice. The choice of the modern liberal makes every other man his slave. And they call us the fascists.
One thought on “Exposing the mask of “pro-choice””
Absolutely true. Really, “pro-choice” doesn’t mean pro-choice, it means pro-abortion. But we can’t call it that because it’s not “morally neutral” and if we call it that we’ll be accused of being intolerant. And you’re intolerant if you call homosexuality wrong.
Of course, it’s been pointed out that the one thing our society won’t tolerate is “intolerance”.
Had a post on my blog a while back on “tolerance and “moral neutrality””, which is related; if you’re interested, click my home page and look on the right for the link.
But nice post, by the way. I’m glad the law got through congress.