It's getting truly confusing trying to understand the position of the left. Here's a good example: the one-month-old son of a British woman who left the UK to join ISIS has died of pneumonia in Syria. The mother had asked to be readmitted to the UK but the government there had already stripped her of her British citizenship for joining with the terrorists of ISIS. As a result, the mother's application to return to the UK was denied. Today, the news of the child's death has brought forth all sorts of complaints that the treatment of the mother was "inhumane and illegal". Now compare that with the response from many of the same people to the concept of post-birth abortion. In such abortion, the child is delivered alive and then killed because the mother doesn't want it. The Senate Democrats just voted two weeks ago NOT to require American doctors to provide treatment to such children after their births. So, for these people, the life of the child is unimportant unless the mother is an ISIS terrorist.
Let me be clear: I strongly believe that the children in both of these situations ought to be protected. The life of every child should be protected to the greatest extent possible. There is no way that the position of the mother ought to make any difference for a child's fate.
It's beyond me how the left can differentiate between these two situations.
Let me be clear: I strongly believe that the children in both of these situations ought to be protected. The life of every child should be protected to the greatest extent possible. There is no way that the position of the mother ought to make any difference for a child's fate.
It's beyond me how the left can differentiate between these two situations.
No comments:
Post a Comment