I’m listening to the radio this morning, and in a news segment there was a little blurb about John McCain choosing a so-called pro-choice running mate. The announcer then made a mention of abortion “rights.”
Being one who chooses to err on the side of life, I have a big issue when someone talks about abortion “rights.” America has a duty to protect her citizens, and the unborn certainly don’t have the capability to speak up for themselves. Just as I feel we should reinstitute usury laws to help protect the financially weak (the lack of such laws unfairly harming minorities), I feel we should protect a child who happens to reside within his/her mother’s womb. Where do their rights factor into abortion “rights?” But that really isn’t the issue of this post.
I’ve read so-called pro-choice advocates argument that a mother is here now, and a child is only a possiblity in the future, so society must err on the mother’s side when making this choice. That is certainly a sound argument (sound = the conclusion follows the premise, regardless of whether or not the premise is flawed; it’s a logically consistent position).
So let’s take that sound argument to another issue of the day. Global Warming. The proselytes of the Church of Global Warming warn us of a Vengeful God that will strike at us if we don’t do “something.” They propose policies that would bankrupt our nation and cost lives now all for the sake of some future possibility.
So which is it? Does a certain present automatically override possible futures? Or is just that progressive folk have chosen certain issues about which they feel passionate?
Look, as a conservative, I actually do respect the sound arguments of others. I’m just asking for some consistency here.