American Thinker: Daniel Payne: 'Pro-Choice Only Goes So Far'

Source:American Thinker- is a let's say new-right, or populist-right publication.

"The media's relative radio silence concerning Kermit Gosnell's baby butchery is well-documented at this point, so it's hardly worth mentioning that it will likely continue to be underreported and undercared about by most Americans. Yet still, another peek into the world of abortion rights is merited, if only to examine the neurotic philosophy of the "pro-choice" lobby.

In Arkansas, an anti-abortion law has outlawed the procedure after twelve weeks of pregnancy, which has resulted in two doctors bringing a lawsuit against the state. The Arkansas chapter of the ACLU denounced the law and concurrently announced: "We may not all agree about abortion, but we can all agree that this complex and personal decision should be made by a woman, her family and her doctor, not politicians."

Actually, the crux of people not agreeing about abortion rests entirely on whether or not the decision should be left to individuals or to the law, rendering the ACLU's grand declaration somewhat paradoxical. At any rate, when it comes to "complex and personal decisions," the ACLU is, to say the least, conflicted.

"ACLU Welcomes Health Care Decision," read one of the organization's press releases last year. Which health care decision was that? Nothing too big or consequential, just the Supreme Court's upholding of the Affordable Care Act. You know, the law that takes a massive amount of "complex and personal decisions" away from everyone -- women, families, doctors, you name it. Obamacare is one of the most sweeping anti-choice laws of the past fifty years, but the ACLU "welcomed" it. Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?

It is. President Obama, for one, is also woefully confused when it comes to the definition of choice. He has, of course, been a longtime supporter of abortion rights, affirming his steadfast commitment to a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. Concerning abortion, that is. When it comes to drugs, he's remarkably less enthusiastic about rights, or choices, or bodily sovereignty; the grossly expensive, mass-incarcerating War on Drugs has continued apace under his wise leadership. So it's all about choice, until it's a choice concerning something of which the president disapproves, even if it's something he himself did in moments of youthful indulgence." 

From the American Thinker 

I'm not going to get into the abortion debate either. Anyone who reads this blog, knows I'm not just pro-choice on abortion, but pro-choice on a helluva lot issues, just as long as it doesn't involve one person using their freedom to hurt an innocent person. The only other thing I would say about abortion here is that it's generally not about whether someone is pro-choice or anti-choice. It's about whether someone is pro-choice on abortion, or thinks abortion should be illegal in America all together, except perhaps for some rare exceptions. 

I believe what Daniel Payne is arguing in his American Thinker article, is that a lot of supporters of abortion rights in America, like to call themselves pro-choice. But the fact is that they're not very pro-choice at all. Sure, on abortion and perhaps women's health care in general and sexuality for gays. But on a whole issues and he used narcotics as one, so-called pro-choice supporters in America are actually anti-choice and pro-state. 

The anti-choice-left, are not just anti-choice on issues like marijuana, but gambling, school choice, and even pornography, when you look at the militant wing of the feminist-left and if you look at someone of the nanny state debates from last year, soft drinks and junk food. And Mr. Payne used President Obama and his advancement of the so-called War On Drugs, as his case in point. And as someone who voted for Barack Obama twice for President, I completely agree with Mr. Payne on that.

You can also see this post on WordPress.