Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Is it because once the baby is out of the womb, they do not care about the baby or what happens to him/her? Somehow the reason that pro-choicers would not support such legislation does not satisfy me necessarily.
The fact is the GOP loves to use abortion as a wedge issue, but when it comes to walking the walk, they are afraid to walk the plank. I don't know why the Democrats don't stress this out, but abortion when put up against economic issues such as giving corporations the right to screw the people over economically always comes up short. The example I allude to countlessly ad nauseam is the vote of the 37 senators considered most pro-life when it came to allowing the EPA to use data from studies conducted by pesticide companies which used pesticides on pregnant women who have yes, you guessed it fetuses.
Many of these babies will be put up for adoption, so shouldn't it make sense that if South Dakota was going to ban abortion except when the mother's life was in danger, to also fund foster-care programs, adoption programs, and child-care programs? Wouldn't it make sense to fork aside some funds to ensure that these babies find loving homes where they could lead productive lives?
Or does the criticism and charge that right-wingers only care about the baby if he/she's in the womb ring true more than ever today? So, many of these politicians believe that well the mother should bear all the responsibility for taking care of her child? Is that what it is? Well then, maybe some Republican should bring up a child care bill. Hell, rescind the tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of the country and see how much support is drummed up. My guess is that Republicans and our supposedly pro-life president will not support this bill if the richest Americans have to pay for it. Would they support it even if the tax cuts weren't on the line or would this be another social program that the government shouldn't have to pay for?
Kudos to Senator Coburn for going against the majority of his party in voting no on that legislation. At least he is being consistent on this issue, but shame on the "pro-life" senators who chose money over the unborn.
The right believes in a lazy form of pro-life ideology: they believe that if you ban abortion, then abortions will magically disappear because everyone will be loathe to break the law. How NAIVE! They believe that just being against abortion and stem-cell research will be enough, that they don't have to call for better economic conditions that help lower the rate of abortions. They do not believe in providing a social safety net to ensure that mothers do not have to resort to abortion because they are impoverished and cannot afford to have the baby. Many on the right do not believe that corporations should be prevented from testing their products on pregnant women such as the example I have provided above. Is this pro-life ideology? Many of them do support executing those on death row, even though a true pro-lifer would claim that one innocent executed is one too many when hundreds could potentially be exonerated and probably some have even been executed. I challenge the right to bolster the middle class and the poor so that mothers have a decent income to start a family. I challenge them to put ideology aside and work towards reducing the number of abortions. I challenge them to put their loving rhetoric about how every baby needs a chance and start providing them with one to succeed in life instead of having to rely on the lottery which determines if you'll be born into a rich family or not.