Saturday, June 26, 2010

Kathleen Parker misses the boat in latest article

I have to laugh when I read articles and hear everyone try to out "feminist" one another. The original feminists - the suffragettes - Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul and their sisters - were all vehement anti-abortionists. They called abortion - child murder. Don't believe me? Look it up.

Then along came Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug, and Betty Friedan, with their revised definition of feminism,which incorporated killing unborn babies - both boys and girls. Of course Playboy and the hedonists were all to glad to financially support Steinem and NOW because it played right into the irresponsible sexually immature male mind.

Throw in a U.S. Supreme Court that ignores both the law protecting the rights of unborn children and the medical evidence on the development of human life and presto - 50,000,000 dead babies, a society falling apart and stupid articles arguing over the term "feminist."

Meanwhile Kathleen Parker, who years ago seemed to have her head screwed on straight, makes a fool of herself in her latest article. She starts out normal enough asking questions about articles questioning Sarah Palin's "right" to use the "feminist" label. But later on in her article, she veers off the dock when she opposes the reversal of Roe v. Wade, one of the most poorly reasoned legal opinions of all time.

So I wrote to her: 
Kathleen, having written to you in the past and discussed with you certain legal arguments re abortion, I am most disappointed to think that you would not want laws to protect children at the federal level.I will keep the comment simple  - frame it from a philosophical angle.
(read Robby George too if you have the time).
The law does not permit people to kill innocent people - period.

We protect innocent people. - the purpose of law.
If we do not protect innocent unborn children, could we not "change" the law to allow another type or group of people - such as "45 year old and older white women who write for newspapers in the south" to be without protection? because you pose a burden to those those want you gone?
Silly, you say.
Well it happened in 1973 when the court STRIPPED away from the unborn the right to legal protection.
Mark my words. If we do not soon restore protection to these little ones, the next generation that grows up without the sense that the law applies to all, will move to eliminate the elderly rather than pay for their care.....
What is it about protecting the individual right to life that some people find offensive?

After all, it is in the Constitution.

It is right there in the Declaration of Independence.

Well, the good news is that we in the pro-life movement are not going away. We are in the fight until the law prevails. Because right now the law is not sovereign in this land. It is controlled by despots in black robes who  dictate what the populace can and cannot do with our most cherished freedoms. And we have  Congress that in so corrupt as to be only concerned with its next infusion of tax dollars. If ever there was a time to stand up against this tyranny, it is now. So get involved. Make a difference. Save a life. It may be your own.




At 12:01 AM, Anonymous John K. Walker said...

Since the hyper-linked page only shows the latter half of her column, below are links to the complete article and to another recent abortion-related one of hers. Both are full of contradictory reasoning, such as admitting the biological facts, and emotional distress for post-abortive women, concerning pre-birth babies in the light of advances in ultra-sound technology and of greater access to this information by mothers seeking abortion (very welcome, of course, although the relevant scientific facts have been known for 150 years), and even reaching the unavoidable conclusion of legal abortion-on-demand thus being a human rights matter, but ultimately landing in the supposedly “libertarian / pro-‘choice’” side of the argument. This is actually more of an anarchist position, based on “might makes right,” rather than on any universal standards of human behavior (such as the obvious and fundamental “Thou shalt not kill”), as evidenced by the fact that its essential (and by now very tired) “reasoning” (along the lines of “government can’t impose morality”) could be (and was) also used to justify legal slavery and Jim Crow laws.


Post a Comment

<< Home