Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Abortions are more violent than guns, doncha' know?

Taken from the Facebook group "Abortion Is Murder"
Not good enough this year, people! 
In the world of calling out bologna, I realize that Sarah Palin is low-hanging fruit. I still think her comments of late deserve to be discussed, and isn't talking about Sarah Palin so much fun? This week was the anniversary of Roe v. Wade  which got many-a conservative up out of their seats to yell and scream a little. Usually around this time, conservatives call out pro-choicers in the usual ways, like posting this bologna on benches, then inevitably on Facebook,  but this year is different. 

This year is special. If there is one thing conservatives like Sarah Palin are good at, it is taking advantage of timing. They are actually great at it- lefties take note. Sarah Palin used her Facebook page to call out President Obama's "hypocritical" speeches which highlight the need for gun control measures to protect children, while simultaneously supporting abortion laws. "See, his commitment to our children is selective," Palin writes. "When children in the womb are on the chopping block, the President is silent. When he places the Second Amendment, however, on the chopping block, children are his focus." She makes a good case, yah? Our president is full of bologna, yah? Well, not really. In the next sentence, I think she highlights the true motives of her anti-abortion rant. "Never mind the fact that his latest proposals would not protect them from evildoers and would, in fact, leave responsible, law-abiding citizens less able to protect them as well..." Oh, okay. I get it now. This year, the usual Roe v. Wade rhetoric has been replaced by pro-gun rhetoric disguised as anti-abortion rhetoric! Are you keeping up? I told you those sneaky conservatives were good at taking advantage of timing. 

Doncha' be killin' those unborn babies,
okaaay?
This isn't really a post on abortions- whether they should be legal or not- (they should-) whether it is hypocritical to support their legality while also supporting gun control laws- (it's not-) but instead to read between the bologna-filled lines. Sarah Palin doesn't care about abortion laws. She just wants to keep her guns, guns, GUNS! We get it, Ms. Palin- you love your guns. 

It isn't just her, either. On his show from January 16th, Rush Limbaugh had a similar opinion of the President's hypocritical positions. (The transcript can be found here toward the bottom of the page.) When a caller ended his call with "You can't spend 40 years telling people and telling children that if I make a mistake -- if something comes up and this child that I don't want is in the way of my future and the way of me graduating high school, is in the way of me going to college, is the way of me being happy, is in the way of whatever I want out of life -- then it's okay for me to kill the baby. But later on when I become a disgruntled employee, when I become an unhappy student at school because children are bullying me, then I want to eliminate them to get them out of the way? It's the same concept." Rush responded with "Well, it's a good point. You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun." Oh, Rush. Conservative pundit Erick Erickson tweeted "The President is surrounded by children, all of whom if born alive following abortion, he'd be okay with the doctor finishing the job." People get away with saying this kind of bologna all the time because people are too scared to come off as a supporter of baby killers.

Isn't it equally hypocritical, then for conservatives to support the overturn of  Roe v. Wade, be so pro-life that they wouldn't even allow abortions in the case of rape and incest, and then cut funding for programs that would allow these children to have a chance for success? Yes, it is. But then that's not the real issue anymore, is it? Abortion is an issue that has been hijacked by politicians and media pundits to tug on your heart-strings. If they are the good guys who think that every child deserves a chance at life, and liberals the bad guys who want to murder babies by the thousands, then in order to be a good person shouldn't you be a conservative, too? I call bologna on the clever combinations of anti-abortion and pro-gun rantings of 2013. 

EDIT: I would also like to quickly add that conservatives often say that making guns illegal will not do anything to keep people safe- that making guns illegal will only keep good guys from obtaining them, and that the bad guys will continue to purchase guns. Why is it, then, that making abortions illegal will prevent them from happening? Abortions have been around since the beginning of time, after all. Safe abortions are another story. By making abortion illegal, wouldn't we just be forcing women to revert to hangers and back-alley procedures? Of course we would. Although this thought doesn't really add to my point, it does add to the hypocrisy that conservatives are so quick to call liberals out for- bologna, if I do say so myself. 

*Just in case you are interested, here is a link to an interesting piece from the January 22nd edition of Fresh Air about Roe v. Wade and what's going on with abortion rights right now. 

7 comments:

  1. Jules- I like your observation at the end about the connection between unwanted babies being born and the subsequent need for funding for social programs to support those babies. Unfortunately even if abortion was illegal and you could save all those babies, you still can't guarantee those babies into a loving and supportive household. I would forsee lots of babies left for dead- ugh, I find that to be a much more disturbing image than a sterile and safe operation..hmmmm. Thanks for pointing all all that bologna!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm with you, Holly. Talk about hypocritical, yah?

      Delete
  2. Thanks for posting Julia. Awesome!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have to call some bologna on you anti-conservatives on using "timing" as well. I mean you are being pretty bold using a "timing" defence, while " your kind" are using these school shootings to advance their "assault weapon bans" ( even though assault weapons are very rarely used). Don't get me wrong I am against all the school violence, but just because you get rid of the trees the wind will still blow. How about we address the root of the problem, the violence. As far as your stance on Row v. Wade, good read

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bold is my middle name.

      Well, Mr. Meyer, I see your point. But, I have to argue with you anyway. I don't know if liberal politicians are exactly "using these school shootings to advance their 'assault weapons bans'" so much as crafting policies in response to them. I don't think liberals would care about banning assault weapons if they weren't used to kill people, in this case children. Of course violence is the main problem, but access to assault weapons and other unnecessarily dangerous guns exacerbates the violent tendencies, and makes killing whoever, whenever that much easier!

      Delete