"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.
Choose your language: Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Sunday, April 17, 2005

Interesting contrast

Many who know me have heard me say many times that I will not move to Illinois. For about 8 years I commuted from Indiana to Illinois for work. Besides the ridiculous view on guns in Illinois I now have another reason not to move there.

Michelle Malkin has the story:

Pro-abortion forces in Illinois make it a criminal offense get a bill through the House that would prohibit an ultrasound from being administered without a doctor's order, the Illinois Leader reports. Bryan Preston notes:

Why would Planned Parenthood, an industry leader that aborts children and makes millions doing it, care a bit about the safety of children in the womb? Simple. It's hard to see an ultrasound and remain pro-choice. Once you see that your potentially aborted wad of tissues has fingers, toes, eyes and a nose and all the rest it becomes a person in your mind, and that makes you less likely to become one of Margaret Sanger's company's customers.

Meanwhile, in Indiana, House legisalators overwhelmingly approved a bill that would require abortion providers to tell a woman she can see an ultrasound or hear the fetus's heartbeat, if there is one, before an abortion is carried out.

Correction, 4:50 pm: The Illinois bill passed the House but has not yet become law. The title of this entry has been changed accordingly. (Thanks to Luke Blanshard.)

I found the following comment from the story quite interesting:

Mulligan, who is a strong abortion advocate, said that an ultrasound should not be done for political reasons to make anyone change their minds about any particular purpose.

But potentially preventing an ultrasound so that they will not change their mind is ok? To bad the reporter didn't ask that question. Furthermore, what is the matter with making sure that a person is fully informed about a medical procedure? Its not our fault that being informed tends to mean a woman will reject having an abortion. Protecting the fetus or protecting someones profit margin is the question I want someone to ask.

How anyone can keep a straight face when abortion advocates are talking about protecting the fetus is beyond me. If they were serious I think they would actually push for extreme limits on abortion. After all, sucking a child out of the womb is obviously more dangerous to that child then an ultrasound.

It should be noted that Mulligan has voted against a ban on partial birth abortion. So ultrasounds without doctors approval could now be a criminal offense but infanticide by forcing a partial breach delivery, piercing that babies skull with scissors and then sucking the brain out is perfectly legal in this politician's warped world view.

The mind reels at such inconsistency and the heart breaks at what it serves to accomplish.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions
<< Home

Click for Latest Posts

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: