Thanks, But No Thanks

Texas state Senator Wendy Davis and her advisers have begun informing influential Democrats that she intends to run for governor in 2014.

Davis made a national splash last June when she mounted an unsuccessful filibuster against new proposed abortion clinic regulations.

Texas state Senator Wendy Davis

The bill banned abortions after 20 weeks - or five months - and required clinics to meet the same standards that hospital surgical centers do, and mandated that a doctor who performs abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Except for the twenty week ban, the bill requires vastly increased protection for females seeking to terminate their pregnancy. It requires that the "doctor" performing the abortion actually be a doctor. It requires that the "clinic" used meet accepted hospital standards for - among other things - cleanliness, safety and sterilization of equipment.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.  So what did Wendy Davis object to in the new regulations?

Late-term abortions(abortions after five months) and live birth abortions(after actual birth of a living baby) are now banned. Apparently, this is unacceptable to Ms. Davis, who is a highly vocal and visible supporter of a woman's "right" to terminate her potential children. 

Ms. Davis has received many awards during her political career. Among them:

"Bold Woman Award" from girls, Inc.
"Champion for Children Award" from the Equity Center.

Now that's confusing. A woman who has become the State's new champion for pro-choice received an award declaring her a "Champion for Children". A "Champion for Children" ought to be fighting for their "right" to life, rather than filibustering for their termination. Perhaps an award declaring her a "Champion for Motherless Sex" would have been closer to the mark.

The United States Bill of Rights guarantees all of us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The issue when it comes to Rights is: When does an developing embryo become of of "us"? That's a never-ending  concept for us all to squabble over, argue for or against, maybe even go to war over..

So what's the real issue here? Today's modern woman wants to enjoy sex without consequence.

Abortions because of rape, incest and medical problems seem reasonable to many people. I - for one - would not be wanting to raise the offspring of some 80 IQ savage, and I definitely would not need to wait 5 months to have the pregnancy terminated. 

I have no dog in this fight other than perhaps the long term survival of our species. It seems to me we should have some sort of safeguards in place to prevent unborn children from being slaughtered by women to whom motherhood would be an inconvenience or burden to their lifestyle..

There are plenty of women who want to be mothers. Let the rest of them get sterilized if they so choose.

So, if I have no dog in this abortion thing, why do I say "no thanks" to Wendy?

Anybody who believes that the termination of developing life should be acceptable for no other reason than personal choice or convenience will easily buy into the notion that terminating life that has been around too long is acceptable also. You know, old people.

That sort of person I don't want making the rules.