(In response to ABORTION REDUCTION article by Jonathan Merritt in Relevant Magazine: http://relevantmag.com/magazine/current-issue)
---------------
It’s so hard to know exactly where to begin to flay the diatribe masquerading as a “new discussion”. Ironic that there is very little merit to Jonathan Merritt’s decidedly liberal (and grossly misinformed and misinforming) invective about abortion. Allow me to reveal my true colors up front, literally. I’m a biracial (black/white) thirtysomething who is a married father of three. I was adopted at 6 weeks of age and was born as a result of rape.
I’m thankful to our nation’s stalwarts in the fight against slavery. They didn’t give up because people claimed that abolition was a divisive argument. I’m grateful that singularly focused and passionate people sought not just to seek a better life for those enslaved, but to rid our society of the very law that failed to recognize their full humanity. We hardly consider that a myopic viewpoint or their actions polarizing.
Jonathan would’ve been more accurate to say that the tagline for the abortion debate should’ve been: Conning America since 1973. The Pro-Abortion industry has been intentionally propagandizing the American public for decades. Yet, somehow, efforts of those who believe the 1973 decision was an egregious assault on our true liberties, have managed to educate the public, increasingly swaying our society toward a more prolife viewpoint. Forty two percent versus fifty-one percent? A stalemate? I thought stalemates occur with something closer to a 50-50 split. Must be new math. A 51% to 42% result would ensure an unquestionable victory in any contest.
And this is just the beginning of Merritt’s seeming Pro-Obama advocacy piece.
Throughout the article, the only ones vilified are the ‘Christian-right’. There’s never a mention of those organizations, like Planned Parenthood (whom Obama supports whole-heartedly), who have poured hundreds of millions into campaigns of deceit and lobbying efforts to prevent any prolife legislation. Who in the world does Merritt think has brought ‘abortion reduction’ policies to the state level? Prochoicers? Commongrounders? It has been the effort of the very groups he spends so much time demonizing in this disingenuous piece that have worked on grass-roots levels to bring some sanity back to the ill-decided Roe v. Wade (and Doe v. Bolton) decisions.
Inextricably tied to ‘abortion reductionist agenda’ is this ‘Whole-Life’ mentality that somehow claims that caring for pregnant woman and encouraging adoption is part of some epiphany. This is nothing new. I can recall the many Pregnancy Resource Centers that I’ve worked with over the years, churches, and adoptive parents who’ve been doing this for decades. Just because an instrument of the media (albeit Christian progressive media) says it, doesn’t make it true.
There isn’t a shred of evidence that any legislation that Obama has supported has ever reduced abortion. Omitted from this article is Obama’s staunch advocacy for Planned Parenthood, federally funded abortions (as included in the HealthCare reform legislation), his opposition to protecting infants born alive due to botched abortions, and his support of the liberal SB 99 sex education bill (in Illinois). None of this shows someone who has even attempted to find common ground. SB 99, which Obama voted for, struck the language that described abstinence as the “only protection that is 100% effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy, STDs and AIDS”. It was changed to: “…abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy…” Thankfully, the bill never made it out of the Senate. Beyond the rhetoric is legislation with words that truly matter. How in the world do we approach an issue without being willing to acknowledge who is an ally and who is an antagonist? The point of this is, as President, his political advocacy is a continuation of what he has ardently supported during his adult public life.
I do agree with Merritt on one thing: actions speak louder. But whose actions reflect an intention to reduce abortions? Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Barbara Boxer? Patrick Leahy? Barack Obama? Every single one of these pro-choice politicians adamantly supports the very organization (Planned Parenthood) that encourages promiscuity in the guise of sexual liberation and tolerance, that has legally fought against EVERY pro-life state policy from being enacted, and aggressively markets teens with factually misleading information about sexual behavior and abortion.
Who, on the left, does an ‘abortion reductionist’ partner with that has made great strides against Roe v. Wade? I would propose that the list would be extremely short. Could Merritt illuminate any recent abortion-restricting legislation that has been introduced or overwhelmingly supported by pro-choice politicians? Making adoption easier has been the goal of many conservatives—not something new that Obama is heralding. The suggestion, toward the end of the article, that prolifers need to do more than vote ignores the magnitude of effort that happens every day, in every state, to save and change lives.
My parents can claim the ‘abortion reductionist’ mantle. They can claim the “We’ve Translated Belief into Action” mantle. They adopted 10 children and fostered several others. They have supported orphans from around the world. They have financially supported prolife organizations that have sought to restrict abortions through the very policies that have helped reduce the overall national abortion rates. They’ve never demonized anyone on the left for their opposing ideology. They’re not considered progressives even though they’ve contributed to providing an environment where abortion isn’t the only option. They’re what the oft-quoted ‘abortion reductionists’ would call extreme right wing. Why? Because they believe ardently that abortion isn’t something to merely be reduced, but eliminated. Just as slavery was a human tragedy, the inherent nature of abortion is the same; otherwise, why in the world are we even trying to reduce it?
=======================
Ryan is an Emmy Award winning broadcast design and branding professional in Atlanta, GA.
For more information, visit: http://www.shouldhavebeenaborted.com
© 2009 Ryan Scott Bomberger
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
I Want My GroceryCare
It seems we have a government who increasingly, since the establishment of this great nation, feels that in order to ‘promote the general welfare’ thinks that it needs to generally promote welfare—for all.
Typically, when an American family comes across hard times, it makes the difficult choice of doing without. The normal response isn’t a shopping spree at the local mall. The painful truth is that there isn’t the money to cover the expenses, so the sacrificial act of getting by with less now is preferable to sacrificing a whole lot more down the road, when crushed under the weight of debt.
But apparently simple mathematics and economics escape our illustrious government representatives. And I’m the first to avoid blaming a particular party, because both the GOP and the Dems share the blame of shameless reckless spending and arrogant unwillingness to curb their over-spending addictions. It’s been over a half-century in the making, and it seems our disconnected leaders are suffering from a severe case of denial. Reality means nothing, so in this vein of fantasy I propose some ideas that our current administration should champion with expedience and zeal.
GroceryCare. Yup. How can we possibly talk about the right of millions to Healthcare if they’re not first fed? What kind of callous government can overlook the daily plight of every American? Before we can even speak of someone’s personal health, we must teach him or her to fish, or at least, give them some fish. Ok, a lot of fish, and plenty of hearty vegetables, and fruits, and fluids rich with anti-oxidants, and multi-grain bread to sop up the trans-fat free butter that must be on everyone’s grocery list.
Yes, we Americans have been fooled into thinking it all starts with Healthcare. We need to stand up and demand GroceryCare. It is the first step to a healthier citizen who can praise his or her government for realizing that no one should ever go hungry. And that way, we will never bite the hand that feeds us. Give and we shall receive, oh Government. Please, take away our cornucopia of grocery stores. We don’t need all of those choices. Feed us and our bellies will be full as well as our hearts—brimming over with gratitude.
And along these lines, I propose that in order to enable us to exercise our right of GroceryCare, it is glaringly obvious that we also need GasCare. How else can we get to that single source of government-issued sustenance without a means by which to get there? So, our very health is dependent upon the government’s gracious extension of another sacred right of ours—to have gas. Can you imagine what kind of health ramifications there would be if we couldn’t get our food? If we couldn’t get to our jobs? If we couldn’t travel like everyone else, freed from the constraints of costly (global-warming causing) fuel? The stress that we save our bodies, and thereby committing thoughtful preventative healthcare, is incalculable (kind of like the Stimulus Package’s effect on our economy).
But one cannot possibly broach the subject of Healthcare without the means by which so many of us make it by, every day—Credit. So, in light of the millions of Americans who are without good credit, or are seeking better credit options but are left without a way to have what others have due to the poor state of Credit, I propose PlastiCare. Yes, nearly every day, we Americans are defined by our ability to swipe that plastic. Think of all of the anxiety that can be eliminated if people know that the government is taking care of their plastic. Health experts would certainly see a sharp increase in individual and collective happiness as the barriers to materialism are leveled. The government’s been living off of credit for decades, seemingly without consequences, why shouldn’t the debt-strapped American public? Let’s subsidize it and ensure that PlastiCare gives hard-working citizens (oh, and the lazy ones too) a sense that there’s no limit to what can be achieved…I mean, acquired.
So, I beg my fellow Americans to think beyond just HealthCare. There’s a world of rights we haven’t claimed for our own. Let’s jump into that same river our elected leaders have thrust themselves into. The current is fast, furious and irresistible. Let it take us away. For we know we have a government who has already charted the course, has navigated its tumultuous turns, and will, in the end keep us all above water.
Then again, this was a literary exercise in fantasy.
=============================
Ryan is an Emmy Award winning broadcast design and branding professional in Atlanta, GA.
For more information, visit: http://www.shouldhavebeenaborted.com
© 2009 Ryan Scott Bomberger
Typically, when an American family comes across hard times, it makes the difficult choice of doing without. The normal response isn’t a shopping spree at the local mall. The painful truth is that there isn’t the money to cover the expenses, so the sacrificial act of getting by with less now is preferable to sacrificing a whole lot more down the road, when crushed under the weight of debt.
But apparently simple mathematics and economics escape our illustrious government representatives. And I’m the first to avoid blaming a particular party, because both the GOP and the Dems share the blame of shameless reckless spending and arrogant unwillingness to curb their over-spending addictions. It’s been over a half-century in the making, and it seems our disconnected leaders are suffering from a severe case of denial. Reality means nothing, so in this vein of fantasy I propose some ideas that our current administration should champion with expedience and zeal.
GroceryCare. Yup. How can we possibly talk about the right of millions to Healthcare if they’re not first fed? What kind of callous government can overlook the daily plight of every American? Before we can even speak of someone’s personal health, we must teach him or her to fish, or at least, give them some fish. Ok, a lot of fish, and plenty of hearty vegetables, and fruits, and fluids rich with anti-oxidants, and multi-grain bread to sop up the trans-fat free butter that must be on everyone’s grocery list.
Yes, we Americans have been fooled into thinking it all starts with Healthcare. We need to stand up and demand GroceryCare. It is the first step to a healthier citizen who can praise his or her government for realizing that no one should ever go hungry. And that way, we will never bite the hand that feeds us. Give and we shall receive, oh Government. Please, take away our cornucopia of grocery stores. We don’t need all of those choices. Feed us and our bellies will be full as well as our hearts—brimming over with gratitude.
And along these lines, I propose that in order to enable us to exercise our right of GroceryCare, it is glaringly obvious that we also need GasCare. How else can we get to that single source of government-issued sustenance without a means by which to get there? So, our very health is dependent upon the government’s gracious extension of another sacred right of ours—to have gas. Can you imagine what kind of health ramifications there would be if we couldn’t get our food? If we couldn’t get to our jobs? If we couldn’t travel like everyone else, freed from the constraints of costly (global-warming causing) fuel? The stress that we save our bodies, and thereby committing thoughtful preventative healthcare, is incalculable (kind of like the Stimulus Package’s effect on our economy).
But one cannot possibly broach the subject of Healthcare without the means by which so many of us make it by, every day—Credit. So, in light of the millions of Americans who are without good credit, or are seeking better credit options but are left without a way to have what others have due to the poor state of Credit, I propose PlastiCare. Yes, nearly every day, we Americans are defined by our ability to swipe that plastic. Think of all of the anxiety that can be eliminated if people know that the government is taking care of their plastic. Health experts would certainly see a sharp increase in individual and collective happiness as the barriers to materialism are leveled. The government’s been living off of credit for decades, seemingly without consequences, why shouldn’t the debt-strapped American public? Let’s subsidize it and ensure that PlastiCare gives hard-working citizens (oh, and the lazy ones too) a sense that there’s no limit to what can be achieved…I mean, acquired.
So, I beg my fellow Americans to think beyond just HealthCare. There’s a world of rights we haven’t claimed for our own. Let’s jump into that same river our elected leaders have thrust themselves into. The current is fast, furious and irresistible. Let it take us away. For we know we have a government who has already charted the course, has navigated its tumultuous turns, and will, in the end keep us all above water.
Then again, this was a literary exercise in fantasy.
=============================
Ryan is an Emmy Award winning broadcast design and branding professional in Atlanta, GA.
For more information, visit: http://www.shouldhavebeenaborted.com
© 2009 Ryan Scott Bomberger
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
THE COMMON SOUND OF COMMON GROUND
Last Sunday we were called upon, once again, to find Common Ground from a leader whose words often contradict his actions. Finding Common Ground appears harmless, on the face of it, but what does it really imply? I suggest that Common Ground is invoked more by those who desire for you to cede your position while they hold to their rigidly held convictions...beliefs, of course, that are touted as inclusive and embracing. There are instances where common ground is the area where we should attempt to meet. However, there are some issues in our society that so deeply violate and coarsen our humanity, the only ground on which to stand is higher ground.
Should we have found 'common ground' on slavery? Should we have found 'common ground' on women's right to vote? Should we have found 'common ground' on the liberation of the victims of the Nazi death camps in WWII? Should we have found 'common ground' when our nation was savagely attacked on 9/11 by those who'd like to annihilate us? Abortion is not an issue that simply needs a semantic overhaul, Mr. President. It's a core issue of our humanity that illuminates how we, as a society, regard the most defenseless among us. It defines what we believe truly empowers an individual. And what is it about this issue that has some clinging to the rhetoric of 'reducing abortions'? Why reduce something that gives so much clarity and strength to an individual? Shouldn't we be encouraging more abortions as the possession of this right makes us a stronger people?
The answer is simple. Abortion is indicative of a much greater societal problem that only worsens as people willfully ignore the truth. As one who is, like Obama, both black and white, I can't help but recall the 1857 Dred Scott decision. Just as in Roe v. Wade, this supremely unconstitutional and shameful ruling determined that a certain class of people were "non-persons" and thereby not entitled to the protections of our Constitution. I'm eternally grateful that our Congress overturned the decision of 7 profoundly misguided Supreme Court justices and brought Justice with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. How ironic that, in 1973's Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court actually pulled language ("due process of law") from the very amendment that ascribed full humanity and citizenship to black Americans in order to strip those very same rights from the unborn.
Common ground can be unstable, as the truth begins to erode a loose foundation of emotional underpinnings. We can't reclaim the destroyed lives in the Nazi death camps. What would've happened had we entered the war earlier? We can't reclaim the Rwandans who were slaughtered in the name of Hutu-Tutsi tribalism as the world chose to do nothing. But today, we have an opportunity to stop the judicial criminality and the cleverly marketed vernacular that excuses the death of millions in the name of 'Choice'...a political machine that has shown it has absolutely no interest in common ground, or often the simple truth. Its very mission (NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood) is to prevent discussion, to fight any common-sense prolife legislation, to downplay heterosexual marriage and fatherhood, and to encourage promiscuity in the guise of sexual liberation and tolerance. Barack Obama, himself, never showed any interest in finding common ground on the difficult issue of abortion. Both as a senator and as a presidential candidate, he was an outspoken supporter of the "Freedom of Choice Act"--the complete antithesis to last Sunday's supposed clarion call. In fact, his carefully crafted words to the Notre Dame audience should be considered in context to the recent DHS "Rightwing Extremism" report (see pg 2 of 9), released by the Obama administration, which considered those who hold prolife views possible terrorists. Who's demonizing whom here?
Common ground is a small area indeed. And it is not often that it is the shared destination, particularly in political discussions. But beware of the lure, of the enticing rhetoric, that insists it is where you should plant your feet. You might find that the ground you thought was so solid is nothing but sinking sand.
======================
Ryan is an Emmy Award winning broadcast design and branding professional in Atlanta, GA.
For more information, visit: http://www.shouldhavebeenaborted.com
© 2009 Ryan Scott Bomberger
Should we have found 'common ground' on slavery? Should we have found 'common ground' on women's right to vote? Should we have found 'common ground' on the liberation of the victims of the Nazi death camps in WWII? Should we have found 'common ground' when our nation was savagely attacked on 9/11 by those who'd like to annihilate us? Abortion is not an issue that simply needs a semantic overhaul, Mr. President. It's a core issue of our humanity that illuminates how we, as a society, regard the most defenseless among us. It defines what we believe truly empowers an individual. And what is it about this issue that has some clinging to the rhetoric of 'reducing abortions'? Why reduce something that gives so much clarity and strength to an individual? Shouldn't we be encouraging more abortions as the possession of this right makes us a stronger people?
The answer is simple. Abortion is indicative of a much greater societal problem that only worsens as people willfully ignore the truth. As one who is, like Obama, both black and white, I can't help but recall the 1857 Dred Scott decision. Just as in Roe v. Wade, this supremely unconstitutional and shameful ruling determined that a certain class of people were "non-persons" and thereby not entitled to the protections of our Constitution. I'm eternally grateful that our Congress overturned the decision of 7 profoundly misguided Supreme Court justices and brought Justice with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. How ironic that, in 1973's Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court actually pulled language ("due process of law") from the very amendment that ascribed full humanity and citizenship to black Americans in order to strip those very same rights from the unborn.
Common ground can be unstable, as the truth begins to erode a loose foundation of emotional underpinnings. We can't reclaim the destroyed lives in the Nazi death camps. What would've happened had we entered the war earlier? We can't reclaim the Rwandans who were slaughtered in the name of Hutu-Tutsi tribalism as the world chose to do nothing. But today, we have an opportunity to stop the judicial criminality and the cleverly marketed vernacular that excuses the death of millions in the name of 'Choice'...a political machine that has shown it has absolutely no interest in common ground, or often the simple truth. Its very mission (NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood) is to prevent discussion, to fight any common-sense prolife legislation, to downplay heterosexual marriage and fatherhood, and to encourage promiscuity in the guise of sexual liberation and tolerance. Barack Obama, himself, never showed any interest in finding common ground on the difficult issue of abortion. Both as a senator and as a presidential candidate, he was an outspoken supporter of the "Freedom of Choice Act"--the complete antithesis to last Sunday's supposed clarion call. In fact, his carefully crafted words to the Notre Dame audience should be considered in context to the recent DHS "Rightwing Extremism" report (see pg 2 of 9), released by the Obama administration, which considered those who hold prolife views possible terrorists. Who's demonizing whom here?
Common ground is a small area indeed. And it is not often that it is the shared destination, particularly in political discussions. But beware of the lure, of the enticing rhetoric, that insists it is where you should plant your feet. You might find that the ground you thought was so solid is nothing but sinking sand.
======================
Ryan is an Emmy Award winning broadcast design and branding professional in Atlanta, GA.
For more information, visit: http://www.shouldhavebeenaborted.com
© 2009 Ryan Scott Bomberger
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)