But last week, Jill reported that John Edwards wanted to abort Frances Quinn Hunter, the beautiful child he brought into the world with Rielle Hunter, the woman with whom he had an affair while his wife was ungoing treatment for cancer. Jill links to this piece at the Wall Street Journal: "Book Report: ‘The Politician’ By Andrew Young." As noted there (with emphasis added):
According to Young, Hunter called him in May 2007 to say she was pregnant. Young says that when he informed Edwards, the senator told him to “handle it,” to which he replied: “I can’t handle this one.” Young writes that Edward unloaded on Hunter as a “crazy slut,” said they had an “open relationship,” and put his paternity chances at “one in three.” Young says that Edwards asked him for help persuading Hunter to have an abortion. Young writes that Hunter believed the baby to be “some kind of golden child, the reincarnated spirit of a Buddhist monk who was going to help save the world.”As I've reported recently, there is no other issue that's more important to society than the protection of human life, from conception to natural death. I am not one to say that a woman should never, ever have an abortion, but my commitment to protecting the innocents has become much more profound in response to the abortion-on-demand extremism of the Democratic Party, and people like John Edwards.
Now, one of my favorite writers of late is Doctor Zero, who's a co-blogger at Hot Air's Green Room. He wrote a post on the CBS controversy, and it's worth sharing in the context of the pro-choice extremists and John Edwards. From, "The Power of Women and Life":
My own opposition to abortion-on-demand is not religious in nature. I believe there aren’t enough people in the world. The decision to deny a human being his, or her, opportunity to enter the living world and make the choices that compose a lifetime should never be made lightly. For people of religious faith, the exercise of free will was a parting gift to creation from its Author. For the atheist, the expanding nova of human choice brings light and meaning into a universe of cold dust and searing plasma. Either way, life is precious, and it follows that those who follow Pam Tebow’s path are worthy of respect. How can we render that respect, if we insist her choice was absolutely equivalent to terminating little Tim, right up to the moment when his head emerged from the birth canal?I especially like that part about pro-life atheism. But read the whole thing.
We’re nowhere near the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, a naked exercise of raw judicial power… which is apparently so fragile that a son thanking his mother for the gift of life could tear it to shreds. I wonder how many of the other iron laws supporting statism are actually written on tissue paper. If Roe were repealed, the question of abortion restrictions would return to the states, and people contemplating the examples of Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, and Pam Tebow would gain the dangerous freedom to express their beliefs through smaller, more responsive governments. I can understand why NOW and its fellow travelers would be terrified of that possibility. It has nothing to do with “keeping abortion legal,” for there is no chance Americans would ever vote to outlaw it completely, in every state. It has everything to do with siphoning power from the useful fantasy of a world that will never exist, and the ugly caricatures who tower above it with scourges and holy books.
Also, more on Andrew Young's book on potential baby-killer John Edwards, also at the Wall Street Journal, "The Hazards Of Loyalty: Hypocrisy, Hubris and Rielle Hunter." (Via Memeorandum.)
RELATED: From the NY Daily News, "John Edwards' Ex-Aide Andrew Young Speaks on Alleged Rielle Hunter Sex Tape - And Fears For His Life."
No comments:
Post a Comment