Posts Tagged ‘law’

Pro-choice: Abortion vs Unions

Posted by Troy on 12th December 2012 in Current Events, Political

Apparently the Democrats being pro-choice only extends to the choice to kill a child in the womb but not to the right to choose not to join a union.

I hate inconsistent thoughts, and here we go.

Obama declared that the right to work law is political.  No, the enforced union laws are political.  Giving the people the right to choose for themselves is never a political move.  Preventing people from choosing any other option is.  What happened is that the unions got the Democrats to be their lapdogs and act as their sugar daddy.  In return for this, they give Democrats a lot of money and try to bully their workers into voting for Democrats.  This is why Democrats love forcing people to join unions.  It means more money into their coffers.

Those people who say that it is unfair that non-union workers benefit from union negotiations are missing some points.  The first point is that I may love my job.  I might not want to go on strike because I think I’m making pretty good money.  You know how long you have to work to make up 2 weeks missed, even with the raise you got?  Past that, as workers become dissatisfied with their jobs, they will form and join unions.  When this passes, they will drop out of the union, and the union should disband.  The reason the unions want to force everyone to join is so their leaders can live high and mighty and take vacations on the union dime.

Wise up.

Long Live the Constitution!

Sex Selected Abortions

Posted by Troy on 30th May 2012 in Current Events, Political

For a longer discussion on the topic of abortion, see the following link to an earlier rant.

http://swampfoxpress.com/political/fake-libertarian-ron-paul-and-abortion/

Now Congress is trying to pass a law which will make it illegal to choose to have an abortion based only on the sex of the baby.  First of all, let’s just go ahead and admit that this law is going to be found unconstitutional.  The act is protected by the Constitution per Roe vs. Wade.  Love it or Hate it, that’s the way it is, people.

The interesting thing is that this makes everyone involved hypocrites.  It’s rather spectacular.

For Democrats, who have been claiming that there is a war on women by Republicans, they have to take a pro-China stance and say that being a girl is a crime punishable by death.   They have to simultaneously condemn that this is happening and say that it’s the right of the woman to have the abortion anyway.  The unspoken side of this argument is that they find sex selected abortions abhorrent, but all other abortions are cool.  Query, what if it was a sex selected abortion because it was a boy?  Would that be okay?  Is it abhorrent to choose to have an abortion over sex in either direction, but it’s cool for any other reason?  This is like coming across two puppies in the pound, one cute, one ugly.  According to the Democrats, you should have both put down instead of killing one and adopting the other on mere physical attractiveness.

For the Republicans, passing this law makes the odd argument that abortions for any reason other than sex selection is okay.  Of course, their position is a little more consistent than that of Democrats.  At least Republicans are against any abortions (with few exceptions such as perhaps incest, rape, or endangerment to the life of the mother).  Their position to try to stop a certain kind of abortion is at least trying to stop some abortions.  However, there is an unintended consequence that they probably do not realize.  Suppose a woman wants a son but having a child would be a great hardship.  She is pregnant, and she wants to have an abortion unless it is a son.  The doctor tells her that he cannot tell her if it is a boy or a girl and do the abortion.  Not willing to take the risk, she has the abortion without finding out the sex.  It turns out the fetus was actually a boy that would have lived had she had been told it was a boy.  Oooooops.  So, the Republican take is that you have to either take both puppies or kill both puppies, but not one or the other.

This law is ridiculous because it assumes that people are stupid.  Let’s take the woman in the Republican example.  She goes to a clinic, and the doctor says he cannot tell her the sex.  Don’t you think that she will figure out that she can go to a different doctor, have a sonogram, find out the sex, and then go to the abortion clinic and have an abortion anyway?

Long Live the Constitution!