June 14, 2007
Separation of What and State?
I get the feeling that people (like Peter O'Connell of East Greenwich) who would get incensed at this paragraph, from a story about Philadelphia's declaring itself the City of Brotherly Love and fetal massacre:
Cardinal Justin Rigali, the spiritual leader of hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics in the region, immediately responded with a rebuke urging "people of good will," as he put it, to reject the "divisive and erroneous label."
... would hardly blink at this one:
Planned Parenthood helped Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown draft the resolution. Other council members pressed her to withdraw it, but she refused.
The report explains that the resolution has "no practical implications," but some government officials apparently believe that it is never pointless to proclaim fidelity to the Church of Choice and its gruesome sacrament.
From the report, regarding the resolution: It proclaims that the city supports "women's reproductive rights and freedom" and defends "the right to choose a legal and safe abortion as a final but critical option for women."
A final option, then. This is the thing for which protection is sought, is it?
So, destruction of fellow human beings is meant as a last resort, according to this resolution.
Does that not suggest disapproval of access to noncritical abortion or as a first, second, or prior-to-final option?
That invites clarification of what might meet the criteria presummed by the writers of the resolution.
I think the hypocrisy is barely concealed by the thin veneer of the "pro-choice" label and rhetoric.
Posted by: Chairm at June 16, 2007 11:17 PMFrom the report, regarding the resolution: It proclaims that the city supports "women's reproductive rights and freedom" and defends "the right to choose a legal and safe abortion as a final but critical option for women."
A final option, then. This is the thing for which protection is sought, is it?
So, destruction of fellow human beings is meant as a last resort, according to this resolution.
Does that not suggest disapproval of access to noncritical abortion or as a first, second, or prior-to-final option?
That invites clarification of what might meet the criteria presumed by the writers of the resolution.
I think the hypocrisy is barely concealed by the thin veneer of the "pro-choice" label and rhetoric.
Posted by: Chairm at June 16, 2007 11:18 PM