Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb) introduced the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on Monday which was promptly shut down by all but three Senate Democrats.
The goal of the bill was to protect babies that survive abortion. For instance if a mother were to want an abortion while she is in labor (which is perfectly legal in several states) but happened to give birth before the abortion can be successfully carried out, the child would be given all possible treatment to keep that child alive. Or if a baby survived a botched abortion then doctors would legally have to treat that child in all ways to keep that child alive. Many say that this is not an issue but Virgin Governor, Ralph Norman, in a radio interview stated that in a new law that, "The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother." New York State passed a law that allows abortion "under any circumstance" no matter where in the pregnancy the mother is at. Once a child, even one that survived an abortion, is born, there is no excuse for saying this is a "women's rights" issue as that child is no longer apart of her body. There is no law requiring a mother to bring her child home from the hospital. No law saying a woman can't leave her child on the doorstep of an orphanage or a church. There is no excuse for Democrats to have voted against this bill. The morality of the United States is crumbling pretty damn fast. -Jared Zimmerman
0 Comments
Right off the bat it is necessary to note that one: in no shape or form does this piece seek to bash homosexuals. This article is simply a thought experiment. Two: For a majority of this blog, I as the author have tried to refrain from majority opinion pieces and rather majority factual articles. However this piece will have to be an exemption.
The idea for this piece began when a friend of mine stated that she was a liberal for various reason but then used the phrase "and because I love gay people". I then stated that as a conservative and in fact a majority of conservatives don't hate gay people but we do find a problem with homosexual marriage. I then asked her why can't a brother and sister marry? Or a son and mother, daughter and father or some other incestuous combination. My friend was dumbfounded for lack of a better term as she had never been asked this before. I must admit I found this point interesting as it is a rather common point made by those that are pro traditional marriage (if not this point then at least the famous "why can't I marry a dog" argument but I find the incestual point much stronger and often times more convincing). Anyway, the point is if a pair of homosexuals can marry why can't a brother and sister marry? Doesn't the heart want what the heart wants? And isn't it a form of bigotry that family members can not marry other family members? I mean who are we to say that no brother and sister can not marry. Of course most would (rightly) answer no that they can't but the more pressing question that needs answering is why? When asked this, most people are offended at the comparison of homosexual relationships and incestuous ones. However thirty years ago the comparison of straight relationships to homosexual ones was deemed offensive. So what gives homosexuals the right or "pass" to be offended at the comparison between themselves and inceoutusu couples when straight couples are called bigots when they object to the comparison between them and homosexual couples. Hasn't homosexaul marriage become the new striaght marriage in the way that straights and homsexuals can marry but incstous one can't? Doesn't this make straights and homosexuals bigots? Either everyone can marry whoever they want or their needs to be a standard and for most of human history that standard was traditional marriage. With the legalization of homosexual marriage, the definition of marriage is left without a standard as there is no plausible argument against inceosus marriage or for that matter sticking to only two per marriage (Belgium is already looking at the legalization of three per marriage). Again I as the author want to reiterate that this is not an attack on homosexuals or even homosexulity, this is just a question that is going to need to be answered in the coming years as this will become an issue in our lifetime. - Jared Zimmerman |
The latest in our crazy culture.Archives
May 2019
Categories |