The national conservative community is in convulsions today as a result of a US Senate floor speech that Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) gave yesterday.
The crux of the speech is below, thanks to You Tube.
In it, Senator Boxer equates, under the proposed new health care legislation, the ability to gain an abortion by a woman with the ability to gain viagra by a man.
And from Drudge on, the howling has continued by national conservatives for the past 24 hours.
Now hold on....
Think about it.
Senator Boxer's comments do so much for us, as a nation, regarding the EVER on-going debate on abortion. In fact, she brings it down to the best common denominator for us to discuss and attempt to answer: is abortion birth control and is it a commodity like Viagra?
From Sen. Boxer's point of view, the surgery of abortion seems to be equal to the use of a condom or the purchase of viagra.
It's all about sex...and when that creates a baby, then it becomes about birth control - post conception birth control, legal in America.
In her mind, and by her speech on the floor of the US Senate, abortion has nothing to do with the child within. Nothing to do with the broken hearted single woman who was used by some dirt-bag guy for fun and discarded when the pregnancy test flunked him. It's a matter of sex and nothing more. The commodity of Viagra equals, in her mind, the commodity-service of abortion.
Think about that for a second.
Wow, am I missing something or does that just sound as though the real foundation of the debate just simply is too gruesome for apparently honest and concerned leaders like Sen. Boxer to actually investigate?
Let me know your thoughts.
Den
I found that speech very interesting. The usual feminist argument concerning abortion is rape/incest/life of mother, which are all reasonable arguments. The argument that abortion should simply be birth control, which is what I believe many pro-choicer's actually feel, is almost never heard due to it's breath taking brashness and disregard for human life. To hear Barbara Boxer actually come out and say that on the Senate floor is further clear evidence of what a malignant narcissist she is. Absolutely appalling.
Posted by: Justin Boggs | December 10, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Dennis, great job pointing out the absurdity of Sen Boxers comparison. As Justin pointed out the "save the life of the mother" argument gets used alot. It would be interesting to know in today's advancing medical community how often that really is required. Dr. Joseph P. Donnelly was former medical director of Margaret Hague Hospital in New Jersey. From 1947 to 1961, there were 115,000 deliveries at his maternity hospital with no abortions. Dr. Donnelly says:
"Abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother's." That was 40 years ago. So is the save the life of the mother argument real or just a smokescreen that they get away with because no real statistics are brought forward? The best statement I ever heard on the subject of a save the mother situation was "the life of both the mother and child should be fought for and if the child is lost in the process we weep and grieve over that loss".
If anyone hasn't read Abby Johnson's coversion from Planned Parenthood to Christian it is well worth Google Newsing her name. She talks about seeing an abortion on ultra sound and the reality and Holy Spirit hit her hard. She watched the baby(or "the tissue" to use the code words) recoil and fight against the instruments trying to take his/her life. I wonder how many people would be convicted if they saw what she saw on that TV screen? Maybe Sen Boxer?
Posted by: Doug | December 10, 2009 at 03:53 PM
Nonesence! How we compare aboortion to viagra. We should take into account that usually the woman must be brave to do the abortion. It is very risky. Besides, all people can feel and it is not true that they do not regret of their babies. I believe if the women could satisfy the childrens needs and if there father of this child didn't refuse from it there were less abortions.
Posted by: Rapidshare SE | February 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM
I'm not sure I follow your comments...are you saying that if birth parents cannot take care of the babies the parents should abort them? Or are you saying that if the babies won't be loved then they should be aborted? Or am I missing something...
I'm not quite "getting" what you are trying to say. Please explain...
Thanks,
Den
Posted by: Dennis Mansfield | February 21, 2010 at 11:43 AM