Leaderboard 728 X 90

Friday, October 19, 2007

Gauging Republican hypocrisy

Just when you think Republican hypocrisy can't get any worse, they go and top themselves.

The latest example comes in a story today about Democrats in the U.S. Senate blocking a bid by anti-abortion forces to cut off money for clinics that provide family planning and other health services, in addition to abortions.

The proposal was defeated on a 52-41 vote. Naturally, Alabama's two GOP senators, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby, voted to cut off funding.

But guess who brought the proposal in the first place. Well, none other than Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). You might remember Sen. Vitter from stories earlier this year about his tendency to consort with prostitutes in New Orleans and elsewhere.

Vitter evidently based his proposal to block abortion funding on, you guessed it, moral grounds.

Now how can Sessions, Shelby, and others sit there and support Vitter with a straight face? Do these people have no sense of irony--or shame?

Just how big a hypocrite is Vitter? Research shows that 80 to 90 percent of abortions are performed on unmarried women. One report found that the abortion ratio for unmarried women was 8.8 times that for married women.

From this information, we can surmise that the No. 1 cause of abortion is sex outside of marriage. And that is exactly the practice that Sen. Vitter engages in--with prostitutes!

One of the advantages of having a blog is that you get to have your very own soapbox. So allow me to get on my soapbox for a moment.

The so-called "abortion debate" in this country is a sham and has caused great harm to our national fabric. I am a Christian who is pro choice, and one of my strongest reasons for being pro choice involves religion. Yes, you heard that right. I am pro choice for religious reasons.

If you believe in a Creator/God, and I do, then you can't help but see that our Creator took the role of pregnancy and put it exclusively in the hands of women. Don't know why the Creator did that, but it's abundantly clear that He did. As a Christian, I would like to see issues related to pregnancy stay where the Creator put them--in the hands of women.

And from a New Testament perspective, we know that abortion existed in the time of Jesus. We know that because the Hippocratic oath, which predates Jesus, mentions abortion. And yet, did Jesus ever utter a word one or way or another about abortion? If he did, I don't see it reported in the Bible.

So why do Christians, of all people, get so worked up over an issue that Jesus himself evidently wasn't worked up about? And some modern-day Christians are so worked up about it that they go to the polls and vote for bubbleheads like George Bush, based almost solely on their so-called "pro life" views. Makes me want to ask, as Dr. Phil might, "And how . . . has that . . . worked out . . . for you?"

The bottom line? Abortion shouldn't even be the issue that we focus on. It's merely a symptom of a problem. The larger problem is unintended pregnancy. A Washington Post story says women with unintended pregnancies are those most likely to get abortions. (Note that they use the word unintended, not unplanned. Many of us walking around out there are the result of unplanned pregnancies, and many of those happen within marriage.)

Pregnancies that are unintended, and truly unwanted, are the problem. Deal with those effectively, and the abortion problem pretty much goes away.

But we don't seem to want to do that. Why? Because that would mean pointing the finger at guys, dudes, hombres--you know the ones who hardly ever come up in the abortion debate.

Here is the bitter truth about our bogus "abortion debate:" The vast majority of abortions are caused by sex outside of marriage. And who pushes for sex outside of marriage? Guys!

Trust me on this; I'm a guy. We are the ones who learn from an early age that it's a desirable thing to "score." And by score, I don't mean kissing and fondling and all of those fun things that come under the heading of "playing snuggle bunnies." I'm talking about the real McCoy, the "I word," intercourse.

Our culture teaches guys that intercourse is the thing to go for. And our culture does a lousy job of teaching guys the consequences of having that attitude.

I can't begin to claim that I understand how women think. But do young unmarried women, let's say in the 18-25 age group, really want to have intercourse all that badly? I like to think they enjoy all of those "snuggle bunny" things, but intercourse? My impression is that, for young women, the "big act" usually is over too quickly and is rather unsatisfying. And meanwhile, they are the ones left to deal with concerns about a possible pregnancy. And science teaches us that the woman even is more likely than the guy to wind up with a sexually transmitted disease. God did women a lot of favors didn't He?

From where I sit, I don't see where young, unmarried women have much (if anything) to gain from engaging in intercourse. But many of them evidently partake because someone pushes them into it. And who is that? A guy!

I suspect that many young, unmarried women would be perfectly happy to play some healthy "snuggle bunnies." But that's not enough for us guys. We want to swing for the fences, go the distance, shoot from three-point territory. (OK, enough with the sports metaphors.)

Are we serious about dealing with the abortion problem? Well, then we need to start teaching guys to deal with their sexuality in responsible ways. It's their desire for the "big act," particularly when it comes outside of marriage, that leads to most abortions.

Are you listening David Vitter?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

You are one sick Puppy.