October 11, 2000

"Yet the babies dying daily do not thank you, Albert Gore!"

"A Woman's Right To Choose?"


He stands up straight, his head erect, yet tilted slightly for the light:
"A woman's right to choose," he says; "that is, you see, what I think right."
And all around, they shout and cheer; "Liberals," perverts, each up tight--
Folk with too little common sense to even question what is meant.
While the media rejoice once more, "Thank you our Vice President."
And yet the babies dying daily do not thank you, Albert Gore!

The more fatuous the intellectual underpinnings of a popular political movement, the more dependent it becomes on the use of appealing slogans. Almost all facets of Socialism--the intrusion of the collective into the realm of the individual and his family--are premised not on reality, but on shibboleths that appeal is some way to those who feel inadequate in one respect or another. (See The Lies Of Socialism, linked below.) These make sense only if seen as part of a compulsive war against the Natural Order.

Thus when the Left seeks to create a new inroad into traditional Society, it always tries to make it appear to be the vindication of a basic right. Thus the Abortion debate in America has been framed by the Left as being over something known as "A Woman's Right To Choose!" But of just what does this Woman's Right To Choose consist? It is premised, we are told, on a "right to privacy." But exactly what is included in that right to privacy, and what excluded?

In the America of Modern "Liberal" dogma, a woman cannot choose to kill herself. She may be put into restraints and/or drugged against her will. But from conception to birth, she can choose to kill her baby.

She may be terribly sick, and very well informed on medical matters, yet she may not elect to take medication that has not been approved by the Federal Government. But at any time, from conception to birth, she can elect to kill her baby.

Outside of a few Counties in Nevada, she cannot offer a man the use of her female parts for hire. But at any time, from conception to birth, she can go to a clinic and allow a butcher the use of those same parts, so long as the purpose is to kill her baby.

She cannot work for less than a statutory wage level; or attempt to obtain advantage with an employer by use of her feminine charms. She cannot use the wiles of Ruth, the most virtuous woman in the Old Testament, to secure her future. But from conception to birth, she can choose to kill her baby.

She cannot decide to take herself out of the Social Security System, or refuse to join. But she can make certain that the baby, whom she carries, will never take part, by deciding to kill him.

If she is herself an employer, she cannot choose to hire someone of her own race or religion, in conscious preference to someone more diverse--or even to give preference to someone who grew up in her own home town or neighborhood, in preference to a recent immigrant. That the "Liberals" tell us is "discrimination." But the woman who cannot discriminate against the new arrival, sure can kill her baby. That is what Al Gore calls, "A Woman's Right To Choose."

At many Universities, today, "Liberal" Administrations even sit in judgment over a young woman's right to elect whom she will consider to be her "sister" in a purely social organization. Women in sororities are being stripped of their right to choose those to whom they want to be really close. But, praise be to Al Gore; the whole Sorority can get pregnant, and take a bus down to the clinic to kill their babies.

In many States, so-called "Domestic Violence" Laws are being interpreted to allow Judges to order a women out of her own home, or to force her husband out--all without trial and against the will of both--forcing them to live apart in violation of their marital covenant. But no Judge can interfere with that same woman's right to kill her baby--whether or not her husband consents.

In the more "Liberal" States, a woman may not even carry a handgun for her own protection--indeed, in New York and the District of Columbia, may not even own one. But she can kill her baby on the merest impulse.

In many areas, if a woman wants to keep her children out of school--even if she is trying to educate them at home--she may be subject to prosecution. Indeed, this Administration--the one Al Gore is a part of--is on record trying to Federalize the education of children; even suggesting that those parts of the curricula that relate to value formation, reflect Federal directives. But do not fear, that same woman can kill her children's little brother or sister, because that involves what Al Gore has labelled, "A Woman's Right To Choose!"

A woman under 21, may not even drink legally. But she can still kill her baby. She cannot drive without passing a test and securing insurance to protect others from harm. But no one can stop her from killing her baby.

Clearly, what we have here is not an issue that has anything to do with Liberty or Freedom or Privacy. What we have is a verbal rationalization for killing small babies. The people who promote this, show almost no concern at all for the myriad of laws and regulations--many of them emanating from a Leftist mindset--which restrict the right of a woman in America to choose in just about any other area of which the mind may conceive. There is something truly depraved that the one exception is in the completely unnatural act of infanticide. Dare one to suggest that this preoccupation with aborting the fundamental life process can only be viewed as one more example of a Leftwing war against the Natural Order?!

The callous terminology, "A woman's right to choose," also raises a serious question of the mental fitness of the user. Words are substitutes for images--some static, some dynamic. Some people make the transfer very rapidly, some very slowly. But the normal person has some ability to visualize concepts. To discuss a mother's right to have her live baby torn apart, for the purpose of killing it, as a "right to choose," suggests such total insensitivity to human feelings as to cast doubt on the perceptual abilities of the speaker. If the speaker is just using words without the ability to visualize what he or she is actually talking about, he may be suffering from a very, very serious mental disorder; one that goes directly to the ability to function effectively in a world that depends upon communication.

This is not the only evidence that people, who embrace the new Leftist "morality," do indeed suffer from a major perceptual deficit.

Many of those who use this cold terminology are also part of that tiny group who refer to Homosexuality as an "Alternative Life Style," and the dull as "mentally challenged." Obviously neither of these terms scans. No one able to properly visualize what words in combination mean, can possibly visualize people engaging in muscular simulations of sexuality with members of their own sex, as having a lifestyle. Life connotes the process that flows from God's Creation; the relevance of sexuality to Life is as the medium for its continuation. Perverting that medium is to deny life as an ongoing process.

This has nothing to do with the question of toleration. One can certainly advocate compassion and toleration for the dysfunctional. We are talking about the peculiar choice of words, and what that choice tells us about the user. And, if we are correct, it tells us a great deal.

It is basically the same with the appellation "mentally challenged." If there is one thing that the dull child is far less likely to be than the normal child, is mentally challenged. Indeed, if you are able to visualize the dynamic of mental challenge; if you understand the variations in human response; you will realize that the extent of mental challenge that any child finds in life is vastly more likely to correlate positively rather than negatively with the level of that child's intelligence. The smart child will be challenged to explore the possibilities of every situation by his own exciting perceptions. The dull require the most skilled handling to find and accept challenge at all.

Again, our point has nothing to do with the question of compassion--only what a peculiar choice of words tells us about the user. It is also obvious, that our conclusion will explain the Vice President's seemingly self-destructive penchant for exaggeration.

The usual reason given to reject the political advocate of legal and readily available Abortion, is on moral grounds. There is a serious question of morality here, beyond any question. But there is also a serious question of mental competence. Those who talk about a Woman's Right To Choose may be mentally unfit--seriously unfit--to hold high office. Their ability to visualize reality is in doubt.

Main Information Center & Menu>>
Conservative Intelligence Center

Novel Demonstrates How To Turn Media Bias To Advantage. (Note Adult Themes--Not For Under 18.)
Return Of The Gods

April, 2012>>
"Diversity" In Context: Reality vs. Leftist Fantasy

May, 2011>>
Freedom Of Choice? Gulliver Discovers America (What Mankind should have learned with Eve, but didn't!)

November, 2010>>
Perception Of Reality--Or Lack Of It

Economics Of A Sociopath>>
Keynes & The Keynesian Appeal

Terry Schiavo: An End To Rational Analysis?

The Feminist Absurdity

Compulsion For Uniformity

"How The Welfare State Works"

The Lies Of Socialism

Introduction To This Web Site

Politics 2001--Lesson 2000