By Sam Pierce -
A few weeks ago, most of us heard about Julia, a composite character created by the campaign of our composite president (the man is something of a political chameleon, being anything at any time as long as his handlers think it can get a block of votes). Julia’s purpose was to illustrate the benefits of big government inserted into the major stages a woman’s life. Of course, the campaign had to assume that women, or at least those who might be influenced by Julia, are stupid.
Being a composite Obama supporter, one could assume that Julia is “pro-choice.” One could also assume, from reading about Julia, that she never married. No marriage was mentioned in her story, but this could be because marriage does not in itself create the apparent need for big government intervention. Best that Julia keep her options open in today’s squalid society. (Or as a Misfit Politics video tells it, Julia may want to enjoy a same-sex marriage in our brave new world.)
At the age of 31:
Julia decides to have a child. Throughout her pregnancy, she benefits from maternal checkups, prenatal care, and free screenings under health care reform.
Let us suspend disbelief and ignore the use of the word “free” in the campaign’s story. Julia decided to have a child and is receiving care throughout her pregnancy.
What does this say about Julia and how she views the baby growing inside her? Does she view little Zachary (the son who eventually will start his indoctrination in kindergarten which benefits from the federal government taking money from the taxpayers in one state and giving it to dependents in another) as a baby while he is in her womb? If he is a baby, when did this become the case?
Is Zachary a baby because Julia “chose” to be pregnant? If the pregnancy was an accident or as composite candidate Obama put it, “a mistake” (in which case Zachary might be seen as a punishment), would Zachary be the equivalent of a tumor? Would Julia require the services of Planned Parenthood (the entity which profits from abortion and receives blood-money from taxpayers… but not for abortions, wink, wink, but let’s just say “opportunity costs”) to get Zachary the tumor removed from her body? That is a powerful “choice!”
If it is not simply Julia’s “choice” which dictated whether the unborn Zachary was a baby or a tumor and Julia is “pro-choice,” there seem to be two possibilities. Either Julia believes that little fetus, Zachary, is a baby inside her womb or that a fetus is not a baby until the head has been delivered or a moving target point of viability has been reached.
Imagine if the former were the case. How depraved must one be (perhaps given the state of society and the years of degradation at the hands of liberals and “moderate” progressives it is not her fault) to believe that the fetus is a baby and yet it is perfectly fine to have him killed? It is hard to fathom that level of selfishness , but again, given modern trends, I suppose it may be the reality. The removal of faith and morality from every possible facet of public life can lead to a sad state of humanity.
Let’s give Julia the benefit of the doubt and assume that she has been sufficiently indoctrinated by progressive supporters of our composite president in the tax dollar drains that are our public schools. We’ll stipulate that Julia does not believe that the fetus, Zachary, is a baby until the head has been delivered. Thus it would be too late to “choose” even partial-birth abortion, a practice approved of by the Republican Senator from Illinois. Of course, if the composite State Senator Obama had his way, and Julia did have a late-term abortion despite which, little Zachary survived, he could have been set aside to die as opposed to receiving care. (For those who say this is not true, please review the transcripts of the Illinois General Assembly which show composite State Senator Barack Obama arguing against the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” or Jill Stanek’s site.)
When Julia discussed her pregnancy, how would she refer to Zachary? Remember, he is not a baby yet. Would she refer to “the fetus?” Would she ask her friends if they would like to feel the movements of the fetus? Would she shop for clothes, furniture, and other baby items with her mother and ask, “Wouldn’t this look cute on the fetus?” I can almost here Julia, once narrowing down who the “fetus daddy” might be, letting the potential composite father know about the situation: “Remember when we hooked up after the OFA rally? Well, I didn’t tell you, but I decided to get pregnant. I am carrying your fetus! Now, don’t get any ideas about having any rights. It is my body, my choice… but I might eventually seek child support, so keep in touch.”
Cross-posted from "Societal Squalor"