On Aug. 4, White House journalist Helen Thomas celebrated her 87th birthday.
I’m 51 and already worried about someday being a burden, dependent on others to care for me.
Thomas apparently is not. That or she hasn’t connected the prenatal-to-octogenarian dots.
At a recent Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa fundraiser, Thomas said:
“Let’s return to the true ideals of the Bill of Rights. The issue is not the right to live. The issue is the kind of life. The issue is freedom without government or outside interference.”
Thomas was advocating the supposed right to abortion. That right doesn’t jibe with the three basic rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence unless one transposes and amends them, as Thomas demonstrated.
Originally, the Declaration stated we were “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Thomas’ interpretation of the Bill of Rights is correct post-1973, when the Supreme Court discovered the right to abort in the Constitution. Now, the rights according to liberal feminists are: “the Pursuit of Happiness, which can only be attained by living an egocentric Life with Liberty from Uncle Sam or any other person telling me what I can or can’t do.”
Helen’s phraseology is interesting. “Kind of life” refers to “quality of life,” the primary reason mothers abort. If a woman’s life plan will be impeded or financially inhibited by the untimely intrusion of a baby, by all means, execute.
“Execute.” That’s too harsh. I guess that word came so quickly to mind because of all the recent news reports such as from the Associated Press about a “dogfighting ring [that] executed underperforming dogs by drowning, hanging and other brutal means.” But it’s bad journalism to use the word “execute” in conjunction with abortion. Shame on me. “Terminate,” yes, that’s the word I need.
Hmm. I realize I should not have used the word “baby” either. The journalistic rule here is the same. We apply personalized terminology to dogs and anything but personalized terminology to preborns. For instance, reporters would never call dogs by their Latin name. “Canis-fighting” would confuse people. But a preborn human is a fetus.
But I digress.
Proponents also promote abortion in anticipation of the “kind of life” they think a fetus may have. If a fetus may be born into a poor or unwelcome home, mercy terminations are in order. “Every child a wanted child” and all that.
Back to Thomas. Her “kind of life” standard is perplexing, given her age.
Because in that circle of life, Thomas is daily edging closer to a time when she will be as mentally and/or physically helpless as a fetus. I can’t imagine her “kind of life” will be pleasant then.
And what about the “kind of life” of those she will have to impose upon for care? There aren’t many who are fully prepared and excited to take on that duty. “Every old person a wanted old person” and all that.
It is likely Thomas has money set aside, however. She has no children, but I’m sure she has money. So she can likely afford the best medical care in the world.
But the New York Times reported July 17 that while the number of elderly people is increasing, “the number of doctors trained in geriatric medicine is declining.” Wonder why.
So Helen’s pro-abortion position will likely come back to bite her in two ways, first by desensitizing our culture to the sanctity of human life, and second by terminating the doctors who would care for elderly people.
Or, rather, shouldn’t we call them archaeopteryx homo sapiens?
Related special offers: