Unless they misunderstood the question, this is a good thing.

If for no other reason than the possibility that it may force this administration to grow a conscience with regard to the unborn, I think I like the results of this new Gallup poll:

Kinda makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Sarah Palin was pro-life, yet so-called Republican strategists want the party to jettison her and her socially conservative constituency. That leads me to believe that these “strategists” are nothing more than Democrats wanting to sabotage the GOP.

To me, this issue has always been a relatively simple one. There are lots of things in this world that are inconvenient, and we would do well to remove them whenever we can. It’s inconvenient for me to be poor, so I work. It’s inconvenient for me to be alone, so I marry and have a son. It’s inconvenient for me to be hungry, so I keep food in the house and stay employed so that I can afford to do so. But as far as it being inconvenient for for me to deal with the homeless dude screaming at me on the street yesterday, I never for a second think there’s an option to murder him. And yes, while it is inconvenient for me to watch President Obama flush my son’s future economic independence down the shitter, I’ve got no option to do violence to him. I don’t have a right to choose whether to murder. I have an absolute obligation not to murder.

If you ask a pro-choice person about whether they view not killing the President or a homeless person as a “choice”, I’m sure they’d agree with me. We don’t get to choose to kill people who make our lives inconvenient. Except of course in an instance of self-defense where we must kill in order to fend off a deadly attack against our person or that of our loved ones. Other than that, however, just because a guy cuts you off on the LIE and you spill your coffee on yourself, the law doesn’t give you a legal choice to either a) let it go; or b) kill the bastard. The only option is A. We get no choice to kill in this instance.

So why is it so different with the unborn? You’d think that a defenseless baby inside your body deserves the same protection as the President, the homeless dude, and the guy that cut you off, wouldn’t you? Especially when that defenseless baby is your own family. Not so, apparently. If your unborn baby makes your life inconvenient (or even if she doesn’t!) you can hire a guy to take a vaccuum to her skull and suck out her brains. All within the bounds of the law.

What a country.

The only way the pro-choicers can conceivably reconcile this is to view the unborn baby as inhuman. Which one of these things is not like the other?

Rock

Newspaper

Soda can

Baby.

To the pro-choicer, there is no difference at all between any of them. To the pro-choicer, they are all inanimate objects susceptible to being tossed in a garbage can for any (or no) reason at all.

To me, that ’s sick.

An unborn baby human is a human. If it isn’t, what else could it be? And if it is OK for a woman to have the right to choose what happens to her body in re: her unborn child (after the most important choice of all is made to actually conceive the baby in the first place), then why isn’t that same right bestowed on the baby itself? Your right to choose to kill the baby isn’t trumped by the baby’s right to choose not to be killed? We have statutory rape laws that say a minor is incapable of consenting to sex. Shouldn’t it follow that an unborn baby should be legally incapable of consenting to be killed?

Again, this all depends on an important distinction that is ludicrous on its face–that unborn baby humans are somehow not human.

Anyway, that Americans view this issue as I do by a 51-42 majority makes me somewhat happy.