So as of late, something has really been rubbing me the wrong way and today I realized exactly what it was.
A small caveat on the liberals, abortion, and the environment.
First off let me start off by saying, I don't know if there exists anything more green than conceiving, giving birth to, and raising a baby into an adult.
This is the exact plan of nature, whether you believe in God or not, you must believe in the simple fact that without procreation, we as a human race would cease to exist; not to mention, some would cease to find things to complain about, like a women's prerogative, or the choice of a tree; better yet, the choice of oil under the ground.
Now back to the main point. I am not trying to state that all people who are in favor of abortion are environmentalists, or vice versa, or even that either group is a bad group of people, good people are every where. But what I am trying to say is that there should be some type of correlation here.
It is mostly the liberal voice that supports the pro choice agenda, as well as the save the earth and its natural resources no matter the cost to the people.
So now I postulate just a tad in hopes that it will get some people to think outside their box, for everyone has a different set of morals and code of ethics that they choose to live by.
A small caveat on the liberals, abortion, and the environment.
First off let me start off by saying, I don't know if there exists anything more green than conceiving, giving birth to, and raising a baby into an adult.
This is the exact plan of nature, whether you believe in God or not, you must believe in the simple fact that without procreation, we as a human race would cease to exist; not to mention, some would cease to find things to complain about, like a women's prerogative, or the choice of a tree; better yet, the choice of oil under the ground.
Now back to the main point. I am not trying to state that all people who are in favor of abortion are environmentalists, or vice versa, or even that either group is a bad group of people, good people are every where. But what I am trying to say is that there should be some type of correlation here.
It is mostly the liberal voice that supports the pro choice agenda, as well as the save the earth and its natural resources no matter the cost to the people.
So now I postulate just a tad in hopes that it will get some people to think outside their box, for everyone has a different set of morals and code of ethics that they choose to live by.
Does it seem odd that the supposed party of choice and the environment has decided to go against one of the greenest things of all time, that of procreation and child birth? Yet they will allow attacks of both the pen and the physical to fall upon you or anyone that supports this green notion of creating life if you chop down a tree, or speak of using natural resources to help better
protect the economic growth and the safety of your nation!
Does this seem a little odd to you?
Does this prompt something inside of you to scream or whisper "wait a second here!"
If it does, that should be a normal knee jerk reaction.
HOWEVER WARNING BE TO ALL THAT DENY THE RIGHT OF ANYONE TO HAVE AN ABORTION. They will be taken to town on what the liberals view as the antithesis of their doctrine. After all, fetuses can't talk is what you will be told.
Mark my words, if they could, they would not use harsh, mean, rancorous words against their would be parents. I imagine that they would simply ask why they would defend a tree in the middle of the woods, or got to extreme lengths to not allow the recovery of natural resources hundreds of feet under the ground, but yet you won't save me, your own flesh and blood. Am I not as important as a tree or an endangered fish? They would ask these types of questions. And how should, or could a would be parent answer them? I don't know, maybe, yes you are of much lesser importance than the trees in the woods.
Let us remember that maybe, just maybe, you could be even more green, if you went full term and gave your child up for adoption so that parents who could not create children might at least have the option of adopting one from a mother or family who just could not handle a child at that moment in their lives.
After all, having an abortion is not good for the earth anyway I would assume; one would have to (if you went about it the legal way) hire a Dr. and his staff. They would need special instruments and clothing which would then be discarded and left to decompose in a landfill. Then someone would have to (I will leave out the details) discard of the human body, hence disrupting the flow of the earth, whether by digging a grave, which could kill some endangered specie of worm, or by wasting natural gas by cremating the human body. Nonetheless, that is time the Dr's could have used to save a baby or someone else.
I will leave you with one last morsel of yummy, mind numbing information; if a liberal is willing to fight for the protection of some type of recently fertilized embryonic cell of some type of fish or bird, in some out of the way place that most of us if not all of us will never see or visit, why won't they fight for the recently fertilized embryonic cell that lives in pregnant women, which with hope will be born to parents, resulting in a nine month old human being that many will see and visit and with hope many will love? For one, we are all now cognizant of the fact that liberals believe that life starts at conception, but more importantly we see that liberals would rather protect some random fish, bug, bird, you name it, lying in a stream, a nest, or on a rotting carcass then they would a real human being that for the first nine months of hers or his life lives inside their mother.
At least we now know who the voice of the animal/insect fertilized embryo, but who will be the voice of the human fertilized embryo?
I know, it doesn't make much sense at all.
More bits coming soon.
