I Apologize for being on a Little Bit of an Abortion Kick Lately, but if anyone is Getting Tired of the Subject, Please Feel Free to Scan through my Earlier Posts and Use my Labels to Take you to Stuff that interests you. Though Actually, the Next Post Down is also not about Abortion.
Meanwhile, though, one thing that I Wrote in a Comment Recently that's Interesting is an Analogy Relating to Abortion.
You see, there was a Pro-Choice Person who was Comparing the Options of Parenting, Adoption and Abortion to the Choice that one Makes between several Flavors of Ice Cream and the Fact that no Flavor should be Excluded from the Person who has the "Right to Choose". Well, there was another Person Present that Felt that Comparing the Killing of a Baby to a Flavor of Ice Cream was a Little Insensitive. Though I do Understand that no Analogy is Perfect, I came up with a Second Analogy that I Felt Described the Situation a little Better...
There is a Horrible Monster after the Girl and she has three Paths to Choose from as she Runs from it. One of the Paths Appears Easy, for it is Level and even Down Hill in some Places. The other two Paths are Rugged and go Up Hill.
The Problem is that the Easy Path (Abortion) Involves the Killing of a Child who is Tied to a Tree where the Monster will be able to get to her unless the Girl is willing to Climb up one of the Two Rugged Paths in Order to Save the Child.
Unfortunately, the Only Way to Save the Child is through a Climb up one of the Two Rugged Trails up the Mountain and Unfortunately, even the Shorter of the Two Trails (Adoption) involves a Climb that will Last about 5 Months, not 9, because it Takes about 4 Months in Order to Really Start to Show one's Pregnancy. The Girl is in no way Required to Take the Longest of the Trails and Raise the Child.
Now, in Order to Save the Child, the Owner of the Easy Trail, that is the One who Pays for it's Up Keep (the Tax Payer), has been Considering Placing a Gate in Front of the Trail, so that it would no Longer be an Option.
Is this Fair? I don't Know, but it's Worth Thinking about.
If the Girl Takes the Easy Trail, the Monster will most Certainly Kill the Child. What I'm Puzzled about is why the Girl has no Desire to Save the Child that is Roped to the Tree and will Surely Die if the Girl does not Make the Climb up the Mountain in Order to Save her. Perhaps she is Selfish, yet then again, Perhaps it is also because she is Ignorant because no one has ever accurately explained to her the True Nature of the Situation.
Basically what this Analogy is About is Tax Funded Abortion and also Informed Consent. The First Theme should be sort of Obvious. The Second Theme, Informed Consent, well, in most States, the Doctor is not Required to Tell the Patient who wants the Abortion about Fetal Development or Post Abortion Syndrome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I too found the analogy to not be in keeping with the serious issues at stake in abortion but once somebody throws an analogy out there I work with it. It's the analogy the commenter chose and it's fun to beat them at their own game. Again it wouldn't have been my analogy though.
"Now, in Order to Save the Child, the Owner of the Easy Trail, that is the One who Pays for it's Up Keep (the Tax Payer), has been Considering Placing a Gate in Front of the Trail, so that it would no Longer be an Option."
The 'gate' has been in place since 1976. It is called the Hyde Amendment
and precludes any federal
monies to be used for abortion. As you know, only 14% of abortions involve government funds, and those are state funds
from the 17 states which
have legislated it. I guess in sticking with your analogy, there would then be the big gate and
33 smaller gates guarding the 'easy route'. A minor matter considering abortion is a relatively inexpensive medical procedure.
BTW, who in the world tied the little girl to the tree? And where did the monster come from?
Obviously, I'm not good at
allegories!
Hi Z,
I guess you are Talking about the Ice Cream Flavor Analogy. Aside from the Fact that Comparing the Killing of a Child to Choosing an Ice Cream Flavor, Comes Across as a little Shallow, the Analogy also Focuses Primarily on Choice and whether or not a Certain Choice (Abortion) Should be Outlawed, when In Fact, there are a lot of other Issues within the Abortion Issue besides that.
You Mention Tax Dollars in One of your Comments relating to the Ice Cream. Here are your Words..
"Let's say if Baskin Robbins couldn't afford it and the taxpayers had to pay for the pistachios. Some folks just can't live without their pistachio ice cream. It needs to be on the menu..."
Yes Exactly, why should the Tax Payers be Required to Buy the Pistachios?
Back to my Analogy, though...
BB,
I don't know why People so Often Tend to Assume that when I Talk about Tax Issues, it always has to be Federal. If there is anyone out there who Lives in One of the 17 States that Fund Abortions with Medicaid, then this Issue is Still Real for you and even if not, well, you still need to Keep your Eyes Opened for someone who wants to Change the Law so that Abortions are Funded by the State. Everyone who Lives in the US, lives in one of the States. Right?
She Smiles, yes Perhaps there is one Big Gate and 33 Smaller ones, yet to Simplify that, let's just say that the Location of this Analogy is in One of the 17 States that Fund Abortions and thus, the Trail is Payed for and Maintained by that State.
Since Abortion is a Relatively Inexpensive Medical Procedure, it is not quite as Cost Inhibiting to Individuals as Many other Medical Procedures and therefore, should not Require Tax Payer Assistance.
She Smiles again. The Child was Tied to the Tree when those two Lovers were Steaming up the Windows and doing their Thing in the Back of that Station Wagon. If they Payed Attention in Sex Ed, they should Know that.
The Monster Represents the Turmoil, Confusion and Crisis that Takes Place During an Unplanned Pregnancy. If the Girl Takes the Easy Path (Abortion), the Child Dies. Since there is already a Monster in the Story, it made sense to Make him the one who Kills the Child, unless of Course the Girl does what is Necessary to Untie the Child from the Tree (Save the Child), by Taking One of the Two Harder Paths (Parenting or Adoption).
Thanks, you guys, for your Comments. I'll be back with more Later.
"Yes Exactly, why should the Tax Payers be Required to Buy the Pistachios?"
Taxpayers get stuck with a lot of stuff. In this particular arena, consider
1,495,266 medicaid funded
births in the US, or approximately $15 Billion a year. Would we consider
cost to the taxpayer which
'saves' these babies? Would we consider the extended cost of taxpayers
'raising' these children?
I submit we must, if we consider taxpayer funded abortion abhorrent. What the taxpayer pays for
is moot as a point of argument, since the cost
seems trivial compared to the existing alternatives
noted above.
That's just like I've been Discussing with someone through Email in that Abortions are not Done within the Abortion Industry because of Money, or at Least not for the Sake of Making those in the Abortion Industry Rich.
Basically, the Argument was that there is 20 Times more Money to be Made from giving Birth, than from Abortions. The Medical Industry Makes more Money from Birth than from Abortion and therefore the Abortion Industry is "Bottom End" when it comes to Medical Income, so the premise that the People in the Abortion Industry are doing it for the Money simply isn't True.
Well I got Thinking about this, BB, and realized that the Financial Motives are actually a little Different than I at First thought and here you are saying something that Leads Right into what I was Thinking. You see, the Insurance Companies will actually Save Money if they Fund Abortions, rather than Birth and so will the Government.
So you see, it IS about Money. Perhaps not about those in the Abortion Industry Making Money, but instead about the Government Trying to Save Money, yet is it Really Right to Commit Murder in Order to Save Money?
I don't Mind Calling it Murder when Talking about Doctors and Politicians, because they Know very Well what they are Doing, yet I would Never say that to a Pregnant Girl. Most of them are just Scared and Confused and do not Really Know what they are Doing.
Here is an Interesting thing to Note. Adoption (the Continually Forgotten Option) does not Result in Unwanted Children being Raised on Welfare. The Option of Adoption will Save the Government Money in relation to Welfare and Allow the Girl to Pursue her Dreams, rather than being a Single Parent.
The Main Point I want to Make here, though, is that the Government has Plenty of Financial Motives for Pushing, no not just Offering, but Actually Pushing, Abortion.
Just as we've been Discussing on Z's Blog; Pro-Abortion, not just Pro-Choice.
Post a Comment