Conservative Common Man

 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070507090936.m37a86dd&show_article=1

“Separately, growing numbers of pregnant women are risking their own lives and those of their children by seeking back-alley deliveries to avoid fines for having more than one child, Xinhua quoted vice health minister Jiang Zuojun as saying.

Fines range from under 5,000 yuan (646 dollars) to 200,000 yuan (25,800 dollars) depending on the violator’s location and income.

Xinhua said about half of maternal deaths in east China’s Jiangxi province resulted from illegal pregnancies.”

I have heard and read countless statements describing the pro-choice stance as a good and caring one. How could it be otherwise interpreted? After all, they are crusading to protect women from being forced into having “back-alley abortions” and suffering the infections, etc. that come from these experiences.

I don’t recall hearing or reading any comments lamenting the situation described in the excerpt above. I suppose that an outcry against Chinese women having “back-alley births” would not support their agenda. It would appear that reproductive rights only apply to those that desire abortions. Are the only women worth caring about the ones who don’t want children?

It is also apparent that deception and omission are keys to the pro-choice movement. NARAL’s web-site refers to “The Federal Ban on Abortion” in several places. Curiously, the words “partial birth” were not to be found. This should come as no surprise to anyone that has been listening to pro-life news recently.

For example, a bill recently passed the South Dakota House requiring showing a mother an ultrasound of her baby before having him or her aborted, the pro-choice activists claim this would unfairly intrude on the mother’s right to choose. Is the thinking that if a mother saw the child that was growing inside her she would be less likely to have her or him killed? Freedom of choice apparently depends on not having all the pertinent information. NARAL’s summary of this bill:

“Requires abortion providers obtain costly ultrasound equipment, even if not medically necessary for patient care.”

Sheryl Crow has been mentioned a lot recently. Archbishop Burke of the St. Louis Archdiocese recently resigned from the board of Cardinal Glennon because they were going to have Sheryl Crow perform at a fundraiser. The archbishop, being a man of conviction (and an archbishop which means he sets an example for those of like faith) could not support having an outspoken proponent of abortion involved in a Catholic event. She has also made headlines in her campaign against global warming.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070505/cm_huffpost/047713

“And, if we were to act from a place of compassion in every act of our lives, would we be arguing about whether global warming exists? Or would we simply be living our lives peacefully knowing that how we live will affect the planet we leave for our children and for their children.”

The above excerpt from her commentary on The Huffington Post would lead one to believe that Miss Crow cares about our children and their children. At what point does she begin to care? What is her cut-off for jumping from it is ok to have this child put to death and I care about his or her future? Is it a specific age? Does the child need to meet a certain set of criteria to earn the concern?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS