A few weeks ago I was at someone's house watching the UFC fights.  The sister of one of my friends was there; she claims to be a feminist and is a hardcore liberal, as is evident by the hybrid Civic she drives, plastered with more liberal, hippie, tree hugging, war loathing bumper stickers than any person could possibly read at a red light.  She has an assortment of different T-shirts with sayings and slogans on them that I have seen before, liberal for sure, but none too memorable.  But the shirt she was wearing this night caught my attention immediately and stands out in my memory.  It simply said "Reproductive Freedom Fighter."

I sat there in an unnoticeable awe for a moment or two because from this three worded statement I derived two meanings.  Think back to all the proclaimed "freedom fighters" from the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The liberals, like Cindy Sheehan, called them "freedom fighters," whereas those who see the value in war referred to them by their more proper name: terrorists.  They were terrorists because they killed innocent people.  They were terrorists because they utilitized violence to hopefully achieve a desired result politically.  They were terrorists because they terrorized people.

Here is this shirt claiming that this female is a "reproductive freedom fighter."  How utterly appropriate.  Like the "freedom fighters" over in Iraq and Afghanistan, these Feminazis too are terrorists.  They too kill innocent beings in order to achieve a desired political result.  How utterly appropriate.  It would be like Dahmer wearing a shirt that says "I kill boys and eat them."  The same message is conveyed; however, being a "reproductive freedom fighter" is much more politically correct and sociably acceptable.  Somehow murder is OK before delivery, I don't get it.  Somehow it is fine to terrorize children before they are birthed, but you can't do remotely the same after they are born.  Try stabbing a scissors in the stem of the brain of a birthed child.  But if you claim to be a fighter for reproductive freedom it is seen has heroic and tolerant.

The other meaning I derived from the shirt was the fact that it implied she fights for the freedom to reproduce or to have the choice to reproduce freely.  This argument, however, is utterly fallacious because every woman has the right and the freedom to choose whether or not to reproduce.  Each can make a conscious choice whether or not to pursue the activity that can end up in reproduction.  Women already have reproductive freedom; it's called choice.  They can choose the leave the pants on or take them off.  However, calling it reproductive freedom is just another one of the many sugar coated liberal sayings, kind of like our new word for terrorism, man-made disasters.  It's so warm and fuzzy!

On one hand she claims to be a freedom fighter on the reproduction front.  But on the other hand she claims to want the freedom to reproduce because assumingly she doesn't have such freedom.  She wants to be able to terrorize children and murder them, but at the same time have the choice to create them or not.  As fashionable as it is to be a "reproductive freedom fighter" these days, why can't these people realize that if they exercise their current freedom of being able to choose that they would not need to fight for further freedom in reproductive "rights?"  If "A" potentially leads to "B," why take that route?  Just for the sake of murder?

Which brings me to my next point.  One of my former co-workers once told me that her sister had her second abortion a day or two prior to when she told me that.  She said it nonchalantly, like saying that it is raining outside or that she walked her dogs before work.  Whether or not it was truthful, I am not sure.  That is besides the point, however.  The matter of saying it like so matter-of-fact and casually was ironic because she was talking about a human life.  This former co-worker was also a member of PETA, that crazy animal "rights" organization.  The utterly ironic part is that she doesn't want a pig to die for my eating pleasure, but doesn't have a problem with a child being murdered.

I enraged her one night before that, talking about my right to eat animals because I am on the top of the food chain and how they taste so good.  I could tell she got quite mad and I told her I was going to dine on pork chops for dinner that particular night.  She called me over to her work area and showed me a few PETA videos on animal cruelty and whatnot, like it was supposed to change my mind.  Imagine what she'd think if I tried showing her videos of the horrors of baby killing.  She claimed that pigs are smarter than humans (they probably are smarter than some humans) and that killing them is wrong.  My question to her: When was the last time pigs send someone to the moon?  When was the last time a pig did an open heart surgery?  When was the last time you had a pig do your taxes?  You get the picture.

She was outraged by a pig being my dinner, but had absolutely no problem telling me her sister had her second abortion.  This as totally backwards.  When someone is much more concerned with the treatment of an animal, and whether or not that animal ends up on your plate next to a starch and vegetable, than their concern for is a human life, something is wrong.  Somewhere down the road there was a disconnect.  When animals have more rights than humans, something somewhere went wrong.

These two ladies show the quintessential liberal view on life, however.  One claims to be a "reproductive freedom fighter," terrorizing life in the name of "choice" and the other places a pig's life much higher than the human life slaughtered by her sister's second abortion.  The fact remains, however, that there is no reason to be a "reproductive freedom fighter" because women already have the freedom to reproduce when they want to.  It's just greedy to want even more choices and options when they already have all they need.  Priorities are backwards, too, when animals are placed at a higher standing than children, than humans.  When killing a pig is seen as cruel and horrific, but the murder of an unborn child is as nonchalant as a casual nod, something is backwards.

If murder is illegal, how can women still freely opt to kill humans?

Liberals love to take the moral high ground, or at least their version of it, on numerous issues.  One of them is war.  Classic liberal foreign policy is about appeasement, negotiation, and peaceful resolutions, if that is even possible most of the time.  What's missing, of course, is war.  They see war as an unnecessary evil.  Some even see it as unjustified murder with the slaughter of innocent civilians and even innocent sheep herders.

It seems that liberals are also against capital punishment as a means of punishing criminals, the worst of the worst among us.  They don't see it as justification and proper punishment for someone who destroyed human life.  Not only is it wrong in their eyes, it is torture because sticking a needle in the arm of a criminal causes cruel and unusual punishment.  That is laughable, to me at least, because I have a friend that draws blood in a hospital.  Therefore, by that logic, he is torturing each patient he encounters every day he works.  Where's the ACLU for all of these tortured people?  If anything we need capital punishment that strikes fear into potential criminals so it is a deterrent.  That's exactly what crucifixion was in the time of Jesus, and why they paraded the soon to be crucified around so people could see why they were going to soon be nailed before them.  That way, if they were smart, they would not commit the same offense, unless they wanted to suffocate to death. 

Yes, the liberals have a much higher moral standing on murder than conservatives, except for, of course, the killing of babies.  They particularly like that.  An embryo, kill it; a fetus, kill it, a terrorist, give him iced tea and turn down the music.  It's starting to make sense, isn't it?  Babies are bad and criminals are good.  Of course there is a huge difference, fetuses and embryos are not alive whereas murderers are.  So by default they have a right to life, regardless of the fact that they have taken life.  Plus liberals don't like the word "consequences" very much, which is why they like to rid babies from women who can't get enough choice and why they don't like to punish criminals or terrorists with what they have coming their way.

Luckily for liberals and scientists alike, Obama has resumed federal funding to destroy embryos.  This is after he pledged millions of dollars for overseas family planning, or abortion, depending if you want to use the sugar coated, feel good name or the actual name.  I'm absolutely delighted that my hard earned and easily thefted tax dollars can be put to use to murder children.  I would prefer my tax dollars only be used to kill terrorists and criminals, but, really, what's the difference anyway?  I remember when President Bush denied federal funding to stem cell research of the embryonic kind.  People swore he made such research illegal when he obviously didn't.  In fact, the Star Tribune published a letter to the editor about just that; a woman was outraged that mean President Bush made embryonic stem cell research illegal.  I had to comment on her piece and set her straight, whether or not she believed the facts, I haven't a clue.  President Bush had it right though, he didn't want my tax dollars being used for legalized murder.

Scientists must also be delighted that Obama has decided to take the politics out of science.  That must mean that now scientists and the like are free to more or less kill at will.  There won't be any of those pesky politics to interfere with the destruction of life, especially pro-life politics.  That would be horrible.  Not to mention that embryonic stem cells have been shown to be far less successful than those from the umbillical cord or adult stem cells.  But those don't involve death, so they are less preferred by those liberals with outstanding morals.  Now that politics are out of science, does that mean "global warming" or "climate change," take your pick, will be forgotten about since it is totally political?  I won't hold my breath.

Apparently Obama sees it a different way.  He will take, or at least say he will take, the moral high ground on war.  But unborn babies and embryos, destroy them at will.   Women can't get enough of the thing called choice.  And even when they choose incorrectly they won't have to suffer any of the consequences, good or bad, because there is always another choice.  What I don't understand is if the issue of choice is such a big deal, what about the choice to partake in the activity that certainly leads to a fetus?  They chose to do that, so they have already had their choice.  Apparently not however.  The thing is that denying a woman choice after choice would be immoral, regardless what the choice leads to.  So again, liberals take the moral high ground because they care and let people live without consequences.  Unfortunately, without consequences they will never learn.

Maybe I'm blowing this all out of proportion.  After all, fetuses and embryos really aren't real people.  Maybe I just long for such moral high ground and the ability to be sensitive like these liberals with no regard for babies, but much regard for terrorists, both foreign and domestic.  Is it that I have been brainwashed and that I am not tolerant and sensitive like liberals?  I highly doubt it.  I will gladly sacrifice such "morality" to oppose infanticide.  I would rather be called any and all names in the book than advocate someone to vacuum out a baby's brain so it does not see the light of day.  It is a great tragedy, however, that our leaders don't see it the same way.  Instead we slaughter babies and embryos like they are baby cows.  That is an unfair comparison, though, because baby cows seem to now have more rights than humans. 

How is there not more outrage against the extermination of unborn babies and embryos, at least as much as there is against "animal cruelity" and the like?