One of the most interesting things, at least in my mind, about the abortion debate is the amount of hypocrisy and double-speak employed by proponents. I find it amusing then that the anti-abortion movement in Texas has found a way to spin the lies back in the faces of their opponents. Let me break down what I mean. There are two positions in this great ideological divide. 1) Pro-life or anti-abortion or 2)Pro-abortion or “women’s rights.”
Over the last several years, the women’s choice movement has even tried to drop the term abortion from their lingo because it is too heinous a word. They have argued for women’s rights to choose, women’s rights over their own body, etc. They do not argue from the other end very often. You won’t find too many pro-abortion people talking about or spending much time on the fetus or it not being human or it not having rights.
Texas has said that if you are really worried about women’s health, then we need to regulate these surgical abortion clinics and hold them to some sort of medical ethical standard. The legislation that was passed in the state of Texas does just that. It forces practicing abortion doctors to have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital. It also demands that the clinics must be up to the code of other surgical centers.
This is where it gets interesting. All but 7 or so abortion clinics in Texas cannot meet those requirements and will be forced to shutter their services. This means that of all the 100 or so clinics surgically performing abortions, only seven could be considered up to par of a surgical center. Only seven! What exactly is the real issue here? It seems to me that any doctor worth his or her salt would not perform surgery in an environment that is not up to par. Especially when we are so concerned with the health of the mother.
Here is the hypocrisy in full view. The clinics do not care about the health of the mother. They care about the profit of the business. Convenient removal of parental responsibilities through death is big business. Pro-abortion advocates simply cannot possibly conceive of any restrictions to abortion that would protect either the women or the child in view. They have long posed the problem of access to “safe” abortion facilities as a reason for legalization. This proves that for the lie it always was.
Unfortunately SCOTUS has blocked an appeals court ruling that would have allowed the laws to have been enforced immediately. Instead the Supreme Court has opted to allow things to run as they have until the 5th Circuit court makes its ruling. If the 5th Circuit finds no constitutional problems with the law as it stands, then at least the insanity of the pro-abortion movement will be temporarily thwarted.
As you may or may not have noticed, the Ebolavirus has reached American shores and has infected at least two American nurses and killed one Liberian man on American soil.
So here’s the deal, the mainstream media outlets (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) all want you to be terrified of Ebola, only not so terrified you stop being a good little minion of the state. I watched and read several, sometimes conflicted reports about why or why not to be terrified. This is the only conclusion I can think of at the current time for the contradictions in the reporting.
An anchor on CNN stated that closing schools down in Ohio and Texas was “insane” and then went on to say that several thousand people die of the flu every year. See? No big deal! Nothing to worry over here, all is still happy in America-land.
Now I understand the POTUS has decided to arbitrarily appoint (and pay) yet another bureaucrat to head up an Ebola task force here in the US. It seems that the solutions that the government comes up with always entail more government. Imagine that! I feel safer already despite the simple fact that there is a government agency already devoted to protecting people from disease. You remember the CDC don’t you? That crack squad of savvy motivated personnel. They failed so another bureaucratic organization will do better.
I am not scared of Ebola but I would not consider anyone who takes extra measure to keep away from infection to be stupid or insane. The schools in Texas and Ohio are well within their rights to close down for a day and make sure things are extra tidy. The people on the plane with the sick nurse should be extra cautious and report any fever or sniffles to the CDC. Their extra diligence may prevent yet one more American from contracting the often fatal disease. If some kids happen to miss a day of indoctrination into the tolerance society, so be it.
This disease was able to spread to two nurses who took great care to minimize their exposure. It has also devastated areas of West Africa. People should be afraid, just not afraid enough to question the all-powerful leaders of the state and their propaganda machine mouthpieces.
In an article in the Huffington Post, author Curtis Wong asks the question, should incest be morally permissible among consenting adults? He references two real-life brothers who engage in incestuous sexual relationships for gay pornography.
Why am I not surprised? One of the hallmarks of Post-Modernism is the idea that morality is relative (no pun intended). In this worldview the individual decides for their self what is right and wrong. Is it therefore any shock that those who subscribe to this point of view are incapable of rejecting any form of sexual deviance?
Furthermore it seems to me that his inclusion of the terms “consenting adults” for incest is an arbitrary moral requirement. If it is morally right for one person to have incest, why is it wrong to have an “inter-generational” relationship? If you can sleep with your sister, why can’t a senator sleep with an underage boy? Subjective morality cannot give an answer because they have already undermined any moral judgement. If what is right for you is right for you and what is right for me is right for me, nothing can logically be excluded.
I used the term logically because Mr. Wong would likely never openly endorse pedophilia, bestiality or necrophilia. However, Moral Relativism is a contradiction of terms, therefore what seems right to the individual IS right. The concept of good and evil cannot coexist with such a system. Any categorical distinctions that allow for judging actions as good or evil have been removed.
Therefore all you have left is a moral free for all. Moral ambiguity has become the law of the land, and I see no immediate reversal on the horizon.