The limits of pro-choice

A couple of Democrats want to make it a felony for a doctor to implant jewelry in somebody’s eye. You can see the status and the bill here. Just remember, folks, it’s okay for a woman to choose to suck a fetus out of her own body, but nobody, and they mean nobody, can choose to put something in their own eye. The guy who is pushing this bill is the same one who is pushing a law preventing anybody under 18 from using a tanning salon.

10 thoughts on “The limits of pro-choice

  1. You know, Steve. I’m not sure why you think Democrats think it’s fine and dandy to kill babies. My second-cousin would have DIED without an abortion. The baby was going to die one way or another. I don’t know how you can even compare that to something so frivolous as people wanting to put pieces of metal in the most sensitive part of the body.

  2. Pingback: The Moderate Voice

  3. Kyle, I think the distinction they’d make (and I’m surprised you didn’t) is that most proponents of abortion don’t believe it’s a baby but a fetus, which they don’t think is a human being. So, I don’t believe Democrats think it’s fine and dandy to kill babies; I believe they’re wrong about the status of a fetus. I don’t think any charitable person would say the Democrats have a bloodlust for babies.

    What I find humorous about this situation is that it’s two members of the pro-abortion party that want to limit the freedom people have to adorn their bodies. I think it’s really odd to say a woman has the freedom to choose to remove her fetus (something I think any honest person would say is fraught with possible moral, emotional, and physical dangers) but nobody can choose to put something in his or her eye (something that may possibly have only minor physical dangers). Though, to be fair, the guy who is sponsoring this bill, Kevin Joyce, is Catholic, so he may be pro-life and therefore more consistent in his thoughts. I found he has gotten favorable write-ups from media on the right of the aisle, but I can’t find his position on abortion.

    BTW, personally I think your cousin’s situation is probably the only situation where I don’t think I’d have a problem with killing the baby. If the baby is going to die anyway, there’s no sense in letting the mom die as well. But we’d be kidding ourselves if we think that most abortions are motivated by this situation. For example, recently there was this nauseating example.

  4. I think they are more interested in protecting people from themselves. Can’t you see the lawsuit now? “Blind plaintiff sues doctor for going blind after malpractice in adornment surgery.”

  5. Ah, but the answer to the question of frivolous lawsuits is tort reform, something else Democrats generally oppose. And how far should the government go in protecting people from themselves? How much is too much? Seatbelt laws? Restrictions on smoking in public places? Prohibition? The government should be wary of being the business of protecting people from themselves and lean more to the business of protecting people from each other instead.

  6. Maybe it’s the libertarian bent in me, but I don’t think it’s the government’s business to protect us from our own informed choices. Granted there are good arguments to be made about protecting us from some products we buy (e.g. household spray, insecticides, etc.) and from currently illegal substances that may have profound effects on those around us (e.g. cocaine, heroin, etc.), but, come on, we don’t need the government telling us not to smoke, not to put jewelry in our eyes, or anything of that nature.

    I think this invasiveness of government stems from it taking on the role as health care provider for so many people. These types of rules and regulations are cost eliminators. I guess your opinion of government’s duty to provide for our health will shape how you view these things. Personally, I think it’s a dangerous step to give the government the responsibility of our health.

  7. My friend Skye’s dad is blind right now because of an eye infection he got from pink eye even though it was treated correctly. He will be out of work for over three months while he waits for his vision to return. Given the likelihood of infection from any placement of metal in the body – I think the benefits of putting metal in the eye are far far surpassed by the likely costs. However, does the benefit of reducing costs outweigh the value of individual decision making? I agree – probably not.

    Seatbelt laws aren’t designed to protect the person driving. They are designed to protect the person that driver collides with. The person who goes flying through the window often causes the other driver/passengers serious harm.

  8. Sorry to change the subject: but Kyle, where did you hear that the person who goes flying through the window often causes serious harm to others? I have never heard that one – the justification for seat-belt laws I’ve heard is that, when someone goes through the window or is otherwise injured from not wearing a belt, it costs more to treat them and clean up the scene. I don’t know if either have merit, but I’d never heard yours.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s