Liberals are pro-choice as long as you agree with their choice.
Check it out:
It takes me to a story, a column actually, by a good friend of mine, Andy McCarthy, posted at The Corner today. And remember, I proffered the theorem last week that the gay marriage issue was lost the moment we surrendered the language. The moment we allowed modifiers to marriage, opposite-sex marriage, heterosexual marriage, gay marriage, once we allowed that, then for all intents and purposes we lost the issue because marriage is none of those things. Marriage is one thing. Look it up. Marriage means one thing. But by not holding steadfast to that and allowing the language to change dramatically, we lost the issue. And Andy’s building on that theorem in this column.
“My friends at the American Freedom Law Center (I’m on the advisory board) have filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court urging the justices to reverse a Colorado state court ruling –” get this, now, “– that bans public display of ‘gruesome’ abortion images on the remarkable ground that pictures of children who have been aborted might … offend children.”
They’re not children. That’s exactly right. If they’ve been aborted, they are not children. They are nothings. They’re unviable tissue masses. If they are unwanted they are not children, no matter what the pictures say. If they’re unwanted, that’s not a heart that’s beating. That’s a Bible thumper that didn’t make it. So what’s happening here? The American Freedom Law Center has filed an amicus brief, US Supreme Court, urging the justices on the Supreme Court to reverse a Colorado state court ruling that bans public display of gruesome — there are some people that want to illustrate what abortion is by posting pictures of it.
Colorado court banned the pictures because it’s too offensive and it’s scary for kids. And the amicus is asking the Supreme Court to overturn that ban. They said, let ’em post the pictures, let people find out what’s really going on here.