If a politician in the 19th century took a position on slavery analogous to that of Obama and Biden on abortion, his claim would go something like this: “I do not endorse slavery. I wouldn’t own slaves. I think people should be free not to own slaves, if they wish. But I am pro-choice. I have been a consistent champion of the right to own slaves for the last ten years. And I will make defense of that right a priority in my presidency. Of course, I hope fewer people will feel the need to resort to that choice, and so as president I will put into place economic policies that will reduce the need for slave labor in agriculture and in factories. But, to ensure that slavery remains an option for white men who should, after all, be free to decide how to manage their own affairs, I am in favor of providing subsidies for the purchase of slaves by whites whose farms and factories are at risk because of the high cost of wage labor.”
-- Patrick Lee in the National Review
You may argue that slavery is different from abortion, and you would be right. Abortion is worse. While slavery takes away your physical freedoms once you are born, you at least have life, and the potential for a change in circumstances resulting in your freedom. Abortion destroys any chance at life, liberty, or happiness, before the very chance for them begins.
But relax... if you are reading this, at least one person chose life... your mother.
Too bad for all those who didn't, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment