The Right To Choose

It would appear as if the radical left has mellowed. For years we have been deluged with mindless prattle about a woman’s right to choose. We have the Supreme Court Decision in Roe telling us that this is protected by the Constitution. We have every liberal across the nation telling us that the republicans want to take this “right” away. There have been all kinds of heated battles over this one but this might be changing.

Ever since Hillary decided that she wants to run for President (she has decided that, she has just not yet made her decision public) she has toned down. This femi-nazi from the hippie generation of bra burning , love-ins, and protests has decided that we need to have fewer abortions. She is now affirming what we on the right have been saying for years. There is a pro-choice group on the band wagon to make birth control more available and reduce the “need” for abortions. Their premise is that we need fewer unintended pregnancies and by doing that we will have fewer abortions.

Don’t let these folks fool you for one minute. Hillary has just shed one skin and put on another. This group is changing its tone to appeal to the fringe voters out there. They want to suck enough votes in so that Hillary or another ultra liberal can be elected. They hope to get more liberals in Congress. That is when they will drop the hammer. There will be no more of this middle of the road and unintended stuff. They will go all out to appoint judges who espouse this murderous viewpoint. Hillary will then start telling us how it is a God given (she is evangelical you know) right for all women to get abortions. We will probably have quickie marts on the corners where they do drive through abortions as part of the Hillary care agenda.

We need to look at the record. Look at the past. They can not change their stripes. They will go back to the old ways and laugh all the way there.

Now, if I could only get them to be as passionate about me being able to keep my guns, a right that is afforded to me under the Constitution, then they would be talking. The liberals won’t do that. They only want to kill little babies that can not defend themselves. The libs like people to be defenseless. Kill defenseless babies and keep us from having adequate protection in the form of a firearm.

Perhaps if we could convince them, every time someone is shot, that it was nothing more than a very, very late abortion they would let us keep the guns.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

9 Responses to “The Right To Choose”

  1. Adam says:

    “We need to look at the record. Look at the past.”

    I couldn’t agree more. ntheissues.org has keenly assembled a series of opinions just for people like you, Big Dog.

    Let’s look at her quotes on abortion:

    • Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice. (Oct 2000)
    • Late term abortion only if life or health are at risk. (Oct 2000)
    • Remain vigilant on a woman’s right to chose. (Jan 2000)
    • Keep abortion safe, legal and rare. (Jan 1999)
    • Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. (Jan 1999)
    • Reach out to teens to reduce teen sex problems. (Jan 1999)
    • Supports parental notice & family planning. (Feb 1997)
    • Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
    • Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
    • Recommended by EMILY’s List of pro-choice women. (Apr 2001)
    • Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
    • Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

    As you can see, it has been Hillary’s view for a long time that abortions should be reduced, just not outlawed. I believe this to be the case with many Democrats. Let me remind you that it is the Republicans who are saying no to sex education, a sensible program with valid results, in order to promote abstinence education, a miserable failure of a program.

    Now let’s look at her quotes on guns:

    • Keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. (Sep 2000)
    • Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs. (Sep 2000)
    • License and register all handgun sales. (Jun 2000)
    • Tough gun control keeps guns out of wrong hands. (Jul 1999)
    • Gun control protects our children. (Jul 1999)
    • Don’t water down sensible gun control legislation. (Jul 1999)
    • Lock up guns; store ammo separately. (Jun 1999)
    • Ban kids’ unsupervised access to guns. (Jun 1999)
    • Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)

    As you can see, she is not saying “give up your guns.” This is a Republican distortion put in your head by people like Rush Limbaugh, which explains the phrase “femi-nazi” you used. Clinton, like many other Democrats, follows the belief that those who want to legally own a firearm have nothing to worry about.

  2. Big Dog says:

    Abortion is not a right in our constitution
    There is no “right to choose” to murder something
    No to criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus shows she does not consider it a life
    Voted NO to banning partial birth abortions. So they can continue
    The republicans support stem cell research but will not allow people to abort for that purpose. They will not spend gvt money to murder unborn babies.
    Support right to choose means supports abortions

    How does she determine who should have guns? She is not qualified. The law tells us that we are entitled to keep and beart them. The law also prevents criminals and the mentally ill from having them.
    Limit whose access to weapons. The Constitution does not say this. It says shall not be infringed. Limit access=infringe
    All handgun purchases involve a great deal of background checks. If the gvt licenses and registers then they can say woh gets a license based upon any criteria they want. You like to refer to Nazi Germany. Look at how this issue helped the Jews.
    Gun control protect criminals and only them. There are over 20,000 gun laws and crime is not dropping. This is because CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. That is why we call them criminals.
    They never water down anything. They add to the laws to make it tougher and tougher for me to be infringed.
    She in essence, voted to allow lawsuits against gun makers for someone else’s criminal activity. I suppose you will now want us to sue car makers if their product is used by a drunk driver and he kills someone. Gun makers are not responsible for gun violence. Liberal courts that allow criminals back out on the streets are. There is a 65% recidivism rate for violent criminals. Keep them off the streets and violent crime goes down 65%.

    You have once again shown what I have said. She is tough on gun ownersship, something afforded in the Constitution, and all in favor of murder that is not a Constitutional right.

    Lock up guns and ban unsupervised access are common sense items and you can not legislate common sense. If a person is so stupid that he does not take these precautions what makes you think a law will change that? In addition, the kids that get hurt usually do so with an illegal firearm that their parent, who legally can not own one, has.

    Clinton, like many other Democrats, follows the belief that those who want to legally own a firearm have nothing to worry about.
    Keep dreaming Alice, wonderland is waiting for you. And, I was a gun owner long before Rush Limbaugh was a big name star. I do not allow anyone to fill my head with distortions or anything else, or I would have embraced your point of view by now. If I wanted my mind filled with mindless tripe and molded from mush I would have gone to college when I was a teen.

  3. Adam says:

    Line by line analysis of what Clinton said about abortion does not change the fact that you were wrong in saying she is changing her opinion for the 2008 election. Her opinion has stayed the same. Don’t duck out on that fact.

    Speaking of facts let me be a fact checker for you, since you love to play that role for me.

    “There are over 20,000 gun laws and crime is not dropping.”

    This is a double whammy of misinformation. First of all, there are not 20,000 gun laws. This is an often spoken “factoid” which most likely came out of the 1960’s. Counter to the Republican belief, simply saying something enough times doesn’t make it true. I can find a hundred people quoting the stat, but not a single person giving clues as to how the number was developed. A more recent accounting of the gun laws shows far fewer than 20,000. In fact, a report by the Brookings Institute estimates about 300 gun laws nationwide. Maybe you can give me a better source.

    http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

    Second, crime has declined over the past few years. I cannot find a single source to back up your claim that is has increased, but according to the Whitehouse, “Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993 as measured by the National Crime Victimization Survey.” Maybe you can give me a better source here too.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/crime.html

    “There is a 65% recidivism rate for violent criminals. Keep them off the streets and violent crime goes down 65%.”

    This one is a doozy. While I’ll assume you are relatively accurate in the 65% area, you’re wrong in comparing the recidivism of criminals to the violent crime rate. Because 65% of criminals are repeat offenders, 65% of crime is committed by them? That’s just a bit flawed. Perhaps you can talk me through that math. Also, how do you suppose we pay for the prison space to hold all these criminals we are locking up forever?

    “If I wanted my mind filled with mindless tripe and molded from mush I would have gone to college when I was a teen.”

    No, instead you chose to go into the military where you became a belligerent warmongering conservative. Pick your poison.

  4. Big Dog says:

    We can both cite studies that show the number or don’t.

    Here are a few:
    Wheeler/CDC>
    National Center for Policy Analysis>
    John Lott, University of Chicago Law School>

    The fact is, regardless of the actual number, which is well over the 300 The Brookings Institute cited, there are criminal problems.
    65% of violent crimes are commited by repeat offenders. It only stands to reason that if they are not ont he street, there will be around 65% fewer violent crimes.

    I am not familiar with the numbers you quoted but reading the numbers there appears to be a slight increase from 2002 to 2003. Also, this is a nationwide study. I would bet that if you looked by geographical region you would find that there are more violent crimes in big cities with tough gun control than there are in more urban areas with easier gun laws. New York City, DC, Chicago, all have more violent crimes than rural Texas, Arkansas, and Colorado. Why is it that areas where people are more free to own guns the violent crime rates are lower.

    No, instead you chose to go into the military where you became a belligerent warmongering conservative. Pick your poison.

    In spite of the fact that this is a redundant statement, I will address it. I am not a warmonger (the meaning of belligerent). Therefore, the military did not make me that way. The military is an organization designed to protect the peace but to wage war when there is a threat to national security, or to that peace, if you will. I will leave you with this thought. No one prays for peace more than a soldier, for it is he who must bear the burden of its alternative.

  5. Adam says:

    Well, warmonger (one who advocates or attempts to stir up war) is not the same as belligerent (inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive). You are a warmonger because advocate war, and belligerent becuase your’re always talking about beating some ass. Oh well. Back to the real argument…

    Only one of your links cites a source for the 20,000. “U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Statistics 1991, p. 432.” I’ll check that out sometime and get back to you.

    I’m still not sure of that math for the 65%. It doesn’t make sense to me so I’ll follow up on that later too when I talk to some people.

    Looking city to urban, we’d need to look per-capita of course since there are many more people in cities than rural areas. If you know where to find that, I’ll take a look. I couldn’t find it in a quick search I did.

  6. Surfside says:

    Adam:
    “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. –And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Declaration of Independence

    If you will notice, our Founding Fathers not only wanted the “right,” but the Power to levy War in defense of our country. With the logic you’ve provided above, you would have to also claim them to be warmongers. They knew, first hand, that sometimes you need to go to war to break the bonds of tyranny. Without the American Revolution, you would be unable to embrace the rights you now hold dear.

    In that vein, it amazes me that Liberals are so quick to embrace the First Amendment, yet so eager to rewrite the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” To me, the wording of the Second Amendment is the clearest of them all. Discussion of statistics is irrelevant.

    And, in case you missed it, please tell your Liberal buddies that “Divine Providence” is a direct reference to God. Yes, our Founding Fathers were counting on God to protect our soon-to-be-formed United State. It says so in the last paragraph of our Declaration of Independence.

  7. Adam says:

    I would argue that the founding fathers’ faith was of a different sort than yours. That’s okay though. They were warmongers, no question. I wouldn’t exist today if it wasn’t for that war, but how many lives would have been spared from death due to the United States of America having never been founded? Sure, the United States has helped some people, but some things can not be made up for. Forget about the stats if so choose, but it doesn’t change my opinion that the 2nd amendment is flawed. I will never believe that gun laws do no good and that they only keep the guns out of the hands of legal gun owners. That’s like saying we should print dollar bills on white paper since criminals are going to make them still anyway no matter what protection we try to put in place.

  8. Surfside says:

    Now, Adam, on Hillary & abortion. Maybe you can explain to me a fundamental conflict within Liberal idealogy that I truly have struggled to understand. How can Liberals, Hillary specifically, be philisophically opposed to the death penalty, opposed to putting a truly horrible criminal to death. Yet, find no problem within their/her conscience to blithely allow the killing of unborn babies — and they are babies. Terminology dictates that it’s only a fetus when it’s unwanted.

    I really have to ask if you fully understand what a partial-birth abortion is? It is truly something from a horror story. They deliver the baby, except for the head. Then they insert an instrument to suck the brain out. So, when the head is delivered, the baby is technically dead. This is usually a totally viable baby. The head remaining in the mother’s birth canal is the only thing stopping it from being murder. This is what Hillary is defending? Advocating? What gives us the right to decide whose life is more important — a baby or the mother’s? In a country which protects its citizens so vehemently, who is protecting the innocent unborn babies that can’t speak for themselves and don’t have lawyers? Wait a minute, I think that would be the Conservatives.

    And, when did the “right to choose” contigency miss the fact that the woman and man made a choice to have sex, likely unprotected, in order conceive a baby? When did they forget that the “parents” already had a right to choose, and chose wrongly.

    Now, I can’t speak for you — but my mother told me about sex and it’s joys and pitfalls. She was thorough, and I never forgot. I think giving parents the right to choose whether their child learns in school or from them should be encouraged. The “right to choose” should extend to parents and their children. And, abstinence is not only the only perfect way to stop unwanted pregnancies, but also sexually transmitted diseases.

    “Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)” If you are proud of Hillary for this, you need an attitude readjustment. Usually, these babies were wanted, loved, and mourned. The only reason anyone, including Hillary, didn’t embrace this legislation was they were afraid it might erode abortion rights. They didn’t care what it meant to the grieving mothers/families.

  9. Adam says:

    Sufside:

    I do not feel the death penalty and abortion are related though. One is a choice by the mother, another is a choice by the court system. I believe there are still too many issues with the death penalty, such as racism, to make it justified to put criminals to death. I have never reached a firm conclusion on abortion, honestly. My statements here only reflect the argument that Hillary is not shifting her stance. I will not make a statement either for or against abortion.

    I do however know that sex education in schools is much more sure than sex education in the home. In the home would work if every family had parents with time to talk to their kids about sex. That’s not the case in many homes where parents work several jobs to meet ends. Sadly, these are the families from poor communities who go to schools paid for by property taxes who need sex education the most and instead people like Bush call on abstinence. Kids are going to have sex. There has never been this golden age of America where “you just didn’t do that sort of thing.” That is a fact the Republicans won’t admit. Instead they harken back to a fantasy time.