Sunday, February 26, 2012

Jeesh. Think maybe someone's political stance might be formed by something from real life outside of politics?

[P]MSNBC's  Lawrence O'Donnell doesn't seem to take that idea into any kind of consideration before throwing an estrogen-laden hissy-fit.

"'They don’t seem to notice that fake libertarian Ron Paul takes the most anti-libertarian position on women’s reproductive rights. The fake libertarian does not dare say a word that violates the Republican Party line on abortion. Not one word,' [O'Donnell] added, putting special emphasis on his last sentence, as though speaking to a child."

Of course he's anti-abortion, you bleeding idiot!  He's a freakin' medical doctor, one who has done prenatal care and delivered babies!   He isn't taken in by the propaganda that a baby is just a clump of parasitic cells preying on the life of the woman who happens to carry the blight.  He knows the heart starts beating at about 5 weeks, and babies start moving sometime between 8 and 10 weeks (both of mine were wiggling in their first sonograms at about 8-9 weeks, even if I didn't feel it until about 13 weeks, and only if I focused).  And babies can survive, with help, as early as 23.5 weeks (out of 40). 

Ron Paul isn't looking at abortion from a political perspective.  He's looking at it from the perspective of a member of the medical community, and as someone who hasn't let ideology blind his heart.

Even though I don't like a lot of his politics, I can't help but respect him for this stance.  Because I used to be pro-choice--until I got pregnant with my imp, and saw him on the sonogram monitor for the first time with his heart beating and little arms and legs waving wildly. 

I cannot imagine how anyone who knows how babies develop could possibly be willing to kill them for their own convenience. 

And I thank God every day, for the sake of those who made that mistake, that mercy and forgiveness aren't earned, but given as a gift.


  1. Agreed. (And I don't like most of Paul's politics either).

    One thing that strikes me as interesting - in the non-majors bio book we use, there is a lot of attention given to the reproductive system, to STDs, to contraception...and then almost nothing to fetal development. (I always flesh out that part of the material more; I have charts from the March of Dimes and other places showing just how early different things develop). Sometimes I wonder if the omission of much of fetal development from the textbook was intentional...

  2. I wonder where all the aborted 'babies' would be today, if not aborted, since their mom's didn't want them?

  3. Ricki--I'd assume it was intentional. The pro-abortionists have had what power matters since Roe v. Wade.

    OCM--look at how many couples desperately want to adopt. That should answer your question--the children would be in homes where they are desperately wanted, if not biologically related.