Richard Deshong
Mike Kelly, back on November 17, in post 11,639, I promised you I would get back to you on some of the other points you made in your post 11,638. Being a man of my word, here we go:
You cite Margret Sanger, a woman born in 1879 and who died in 1966, as if she were one of today’s leading proponents of abortion rights. But you failed to mention that during her entire career as a woman’s rights advocate, she championed birth control and took pains to make a distinction between birth control and abortion. And, as a nurse, she refused to participate in performing abortions. You were correct in your claim that she did support negative eugenics, but she was hardly alone in her beliefs with many Americans industrialists, politicians, and even the Catholic church supporting, and even practicing eugenics, during her lifetime. Thank goodness we have been able to get past that dark position here in America. I am glad to hear that you don’t disagree that in certain select circumstances abortion right up to the time of birth may be the correct course of action. Like when it is agreed with doctors that both the mother and child would die if the birth continued, and the decision to save the mother’s life is chosen.
I ask you how you came to the decision that I have made an emotional decision about the Supreme Court’s decision to make abortion a state’s right. Can you refresh my memory and point to anything I have posted that led you to that statement? And while you’re at it, can you explain to me why all but one contender (Chris Christy) for the Republican Presidential nomination wants to pass a federal ban on abortion rather than letting it continue to be a state’s right issue. You may even want to give us your thoughts on why since the court’s decision every state that has voted to add a woman’s right to an abortion in its constitution has resulted in the voters of those states overwhelmingly choosing to do so. If it is a state’s issue shouldn’t the state’s voters’ wishes be accepted?
There a still a few other issues from your post 11,639 I want to address, but for now, I’ll leave you with this last observation:
In your post you stated “…..you condescendingly refer to MAGA supporters as being influenced by some sort of mass brainwashing or some such nonsense. You make claims against MAGA supporters based upon your own conjecture. You have no factual basis for your statements.” In fact, Mike, you are one of the main reasons for my belief. My god man, you’re a lawyer! How else do you explain that not one iota of proof has been presented to the courts in support of the “Big Lie”? Or that after six years and four federally funded investigations led by far-right politicians not one charge was brought against Hillary Clinton over either Benghazi or her misuse of a personal cell phone? Or more recently, how many times does Jim Jordan need to wipe the egg off his face over the Hunter Biden investigation? If he has the smoking gun on the laptop release it. If he doesn’t, shut the hell up. If Hunter is guilty, let him explain himself to the American public in a televised hearing rather than a closed-door inquisition. I could go on and on with similar make-believe things the Freedom Caucus rants about, but I just ask you if this constant making of accusations without actual proof isn’t a form of brainwashing, what do you call it? It may even be that both sides of the political isle are guilty of making false accusations, but when will enough be enough?
Mike, perhaps I am a fool. But I can’t be fooled. Remember, MAGA also stands for Make Argentina Great Again and they even have the red hats to prove it. Oh yeah, and they are run by a narcissistic authoritarian dictator. Sound familiar?
|