https://x.com/bskimike22802/status/2024576428210331821?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"
I am pro-choice.
Before you block me, let me explain.
You know how the left does S-tier redefining of words? They hijack language and steal meanings that belonged to something else entirely, then act offended when you notice. Let me walk through a few examples, because this matters to where I am going.
The rainbow. God placed it in the sky as a covenant with Noah and all of creation, a promise never to destroy the world by flood again. Genesis 9:13 is clear on this. It is one of the oldest symbols of divine promise in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Now? It has been completely hijacked by the LGBT+-!$# movement.
Gender. This was once a grammatical and biological term. A thing measurable, observable, and rooted in reproductive science. Now it has been redefined as a feeling. Like anger. Like hunger. Something that can shift on a Tuesday afternoon and demand that the rest of the world restructure its language, its laws, and its locker rooms to accommodate it. A feeling that, apparently, overrides chromosomes, anatomy, and decades of established medicine.
So I have decided to play the same game. I am reclaiming a term. I am taking "pro-choice" back and using it the way I WANT to use it. Because if they get to redefine rainbow and gender, I get to redefine pro-choice. Fair is fair.
The Part Some People Apparently Need to Be Told
Here is a biological fact that, based on current political discourse, a surprising number of adults seem to have missed in their science education. Or perhaps they are choosing to ignore it for ideological reasons. Either way, I am going to state it plainly.
SEX CAUSES BABIES. Unless you are spending a significant sum of money in a laboratory with a turkey baster and a very patient fertility specialist, the mechanism by which human beings reproduce is biological intercourse. This has been true since before recorded history. It is not a controversial statement. It is not a political position. It is cell biology.
I only feel the need to say this because we are now living in an era where some people assert that men can have babies. So I figure if we are revisiting human reproduction from scratch, we might as well start at chapter one.
Surprising, I know.
What Being Pro-Choice Actually Means
Now. With that established. Here is my position.
I believe the woman should have a choice. And since, as we have just reviewed, sex causes babies... she should absolutely have a choice about whether she wants a baby. That choice is called NOT HAVING SEX.
For most of my followers, this is not going to be a revolutionary concept. The idea that choices have consequences, and that the most effective way to avoid a consequence is to make a different choice before the consequence occurs, is fairly well-established logic. It is actually the foundational premise of most adult decision-making.
You want to be pro-choice? Great. So do I. Choose responsibly. Choose with intention. Choose knowing that another human being may result from that choice. THAT is pro-choice.
Here Is Where I May Lose Some People
I want to be straightforward about this next part, because I think it actually separates me from a lot of people on both sides of this argument. We do not have to agree on everything. I have never demanded agreement as a condition of conversation.
First, a personal note. I asked my wife for exactly ONE thing last Christmas. Not a watch. Not a new anything. A donation to Pre-Born (). That is the organization I believe in when it comes to walking alongside women who are scared and uncertain, providing real support instead of a surgical procedure followed by a parking lot. Just thought you should know where I stand before I continue.
Now. Here is the part that may generate disagreement.
If the woman did NOT get a choice... if she truly, genuinely, did not have any say in what happened to her body... then I believe she should get a choice afterwards. And I think you know what I mean without me having to spell it out.
But it has to be IMMEDIATE. Not a political debate. Not a waiting period designed to make the decision more agonizing. If that is the circumstance, then the decision belongs to her and it should be available to her right away.
I know that is a soul. I am not pretending otherwise. I believe in life at conception. But I also believe in something else, which is that evil exists in this world. Real, terrible evil. And I am not willing to demand that a woman carry the physical evidence of someone else's evil for nine months and then for the rest of her life. That is a small compromise I am willing to make, specifically and only to get to the larger goal, which is eliminating abortion as a form of birth control.
Because THAT is what we are actually talking about the vast majority of the time. Not the hard cases. Not the tragic exceptions. We are talking about a society that has allowed the termination of a human life to become a casual alternative to contraception. We are talking about over 1.4 million procedures per year in the United States, the overwhelming majority of which have nothing to do with rape, incest, or the mother's health.
So Let Me Reclaim the Term
I am pro-choice. I believe women should have full, complete, and meaningful choices about their reproductive futures. Those choices include choosing their partners wisely. Choosing to use contraception, while knowing and accepting that no contraceptive is 100% effective, and that engaging in sexual activity with that knowledge means you have already accepted the residual risk of pregnancy that comes with it. Choosing to wait. Choosing the incredible responsibility of bringing a new human being into the world. And in the most devastating of circumstances, a choice I acknowledge with grief and not celebration.
What I am NOT is pro-casualty. I am not pro-convenience. I am not in favor of a system that has turned the permanent ending of a developing human life into a routine medical procedure with the same moral weight as having a tooth pulled.
The left stole the rainbow. They are busy redefining gender. They have turned "choice" into a one-directional concept that only ever seems to mean one specific thing.
I am taking it back. And I am using it the right way.
You want to be pro-choice? Start by making better ones.
But what do I know. I am only a science teacher who has spent sixteen years explaining to teenagers how human reproduction actually works, and who apparently still needs to explain it to some adults on the internet."
16 comments:
It reminds of of Limbaugh's approach. Be arrogant. Talk down to people who disagree with you. Demonize them. Mock them. Be presumptuous that you and only you are right and those who disagree with you are Nazis and evil, anti-Christian people.
It's not something I recommend, but I can see the comparison.
"And I am not willing to demand that a woman carry the physical evidence of someone else's evil for nine months and then for the rest of her life. That is a small compromise I am willing to make, specifically and only to get to the larger goal, which is eliminating abortion as a form of birth control."
He just rationalized murdering an innocent by reducing that innocent to "physical evidence", as if it isn't both that and a human being as well. Absolutely shameful.
If we had legislators courageous enough to outlaw abortion except for cases of rape, incest and to prevent the mother's death (I can handle the last one because there is no such possibility any doctor can prove), I could accept that as a great advancement. But to start off with that in a debate on the subject isn't working. It's cheap rationalization.
My wife had two daughters from her first marriage. Her oldest bears a sad resemblance to the dude she foolishly married at 19. The time spent as his wife, as well as the years prior to the girls each reaching 18 years old, were trying times. Any bad marriage or relationship can leave behind such reminders (known as "children"). Be they born or not born yet, it's all the same.
Of course you show your ignorance here.
The similarity is that Rush was ardently pro choice, and he was equally adamant that abortion was the lesser choice.
From a practical, legal, standpoint I would absolutely support banning all abortion except rape/incrst/life of the mother. To eliminate over 97% of abortion and give the prating whiners their exceptions, would be great. Unfortunately the Dan’s of the world would never agree to that. They want to use the rare exception to legitimize the vast majority.
Craig:
From a practical, legal, standpoint I would absolutely support banning all abortion except rape/incrst/life of the mother
In other words, Craig would "allow" women who are rape victims to make their own moral decisions when it comes to a pregnancy, but you would deny that freedom to other women. Just to be clear.
Thanks, Skippy, but no thanks. Being a sexist patriarchal Pharisee is SO first century!
No, I’m perfectly willing to compromise on abortion law and give your side the exceptions y’all keep demanding.
But it’s good to know that you’re essentially arguing for 100% unrestricted abortion.
Rush talked down to stupid people who should know better. You're just stupid, so I try to keep that in mind.
I'm saying that I do not wish to allow for any exceptions because there's no justification for any of them, but that I would not lose my shit if abortion was banned with your list of exceptions remaining. Lots of children will see the light of day. In time, there will be no legitimate argument for not also banning the exceptions, too.
Being a baby killing Molech worshiper is so much better! There is no "moral" decision other than to allow the unborn to live. There's no "moral" option which includes rending the most helpless and innocent of our kind limb from limb. Dan once again proves his claim of being a Christian is just posturing.
Art,
I agree that my preference would be for no exceptions. Which, strangely enough, is Dan’s position. The pro abortion position is that there should be zero restrictions on abortion. The corresponding position would be zero exceptions. Yet most pro lifers are willing to compromise on those three exceptions, while the pro abortion refuses any compromise. But somehow the side willing to compromise is the extreme side.
They stand on their heads and insist the world is upside down.
That too. The fact that their idea of compromise is expecting 100% capitulation to their side is insane. We are willing to give them the exceptions that they most often whine about, and that is not enough.
Much like the debate on immigration. The default leftist position seems to be that there should be no limits on immigration, and the only compromise they seemingly will accept is that everyone else adopt their position.
But of course, they are not concerned about victims of incest or rape, nor the life of any pregnant woman. They're only concerned with not being required to accept the responsibility of justly and righteously dealing with the consequences of risking pregnancy.
The women who have suffered those things are merely tools that they use and discard in their rush to facilitate unlimited abortion.
Rape doesn't make the baby less human. And too many doctors have said there is no situation where a baby in the womb would have to be killed to save the mother's life. Ergo there is NEVER a need to abort--it is always murder.
Glenn,
No one is arguing against that. What I’m saying is twofold.
1. If legislation was passed the prevented abortion in every instance other than the three exceptions, I would absolutely support eliminating 99% of all abortions.
2. The 3 exceptions are merely a smokescreen to support unrestricted abortion by the ASPL. They would never support the legislation in #1 because their concern for those victims is a lie.
Post a Comment