Pete Buttigieg lacks logic on abortion issue

Democratic 2020 hopeful Pete Buttigieg [pronounced "Butter Judge"] has made the cowardly and illogical statement that if you lack a uterus, you ought not to have an opinion on abortion. In his thinking and taking it to the next logical conclusion, if a mother wants to kill a man's son on his thirteenth birthday, it isn't up to the father to go against it because he didn't give birth to the child.

And here, all along, I thought Butter Judge was an intelligent guy. All he seems to be is a cowardly Democrat, but I repeat myself.

The South Bend, Indiana mayor spoke in Greenville, South Carolina, mentioning freedom in the context of killing babies under the clinical term known as abortion.

"You’re not free if your reproductive choices are being dictated by male politicians in Washington," he stated, substituting the term 'reproductive choices' for the murdering of a human life.

The young politician's remark comes with the territory of being a progressive. His immoral position on abortion is totally in line with the other Democrats running for the 2020 nomination.

Although Butter Judge hasn’t spoken in detail about his beliefs surrounding abortion, during a mid-February appearance on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" with host Joe Scarborough, the mayor replied to a question about abortion law with a remark that mirrored his South Carolina speech:

SCARBOROUGH: Do you support the late-term abortion legislation that was passed in the New York state legislature, as well as in Virginia?

BUTTIGIEG: I don’t think we need more restrictions right now. And, you know, what I’ve learned in Indiana, being in a place where a lot of my friends, a lot of my supporters even, come from a different place than I do, being pro-choice, I just believe that when a woman is in that situation, and when we’re talking about some of those situations covered by that law – extremely difficult, painful, often medically serious situations where life or health of the mother is at stake – the involvement of a male government official like me is not helpful.

[It's referred to as 'restrictions' when leftists want to condemn something, and 'a woman's right to choose' when they want to avoid anyone else having the right to choose for a baby that cannot defend its life.]

This is a garbage argument frequently made by pro-choice politicians and activists. In short – no uterus, no opinion. Unfortunately for Buttigieg, and other idiots who continue to use this argument, "no uterus, no opinion" is logically flawed, and it opens up a massive can of worms as it pertains to other laws.

A law cannot be experiential, written only by those who have or can experience the situations which the law is made to address. In addition, there are myriad laws written by men that deal primarily with women, like laws pertaining to rape and its punishment.

The idea of experiential law undermines all law. If one has not committed murder, been close to a victim of murder, or been involved in a murder case, how can one be suited to draft a law criminalizing murder? No murder experience, no opinion. 

If you don't have the capacity to become pregnant or have an abortion, you should not be allowed to create legislation dealing with abortion [unless you're talking about Roe v. Wade which expands abortion and was decided by nine Supreme Court justices, all of whom were men].

You don't have to have cancer in order to cure it and you don't have to have a uterus to have a sense of what is moral and correct in terms of the baby growing inside. But to make matters worse, Democrats are increasingly accepting the idea that a woman can decide to terminate her pregnancy after the baby is born. Of course, that isn't terminating the pregnancy, the pregnancy is complete. That is terminating an infant, plain and simple.

To suggest that men shouldn't have a say in abortion is ridiculous and stupid, but the ridiculously stupid progressives use that argument because it sounds compassionate while it's merely immoral.

I hope you'll follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint. Politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and hopefully entertain you bigly.

Tweet

The Tragic Death of Walter Scott

The death of Walter Scott was caught on video showing how he was running away from the cop who stopped him for a broken taillight. The cop assumed the shooting position and fired 8 rounds into Scott's fleeing back. 

Unless something falls from the sky in court, I cannot fathom how the cop, Michael Slager, will not be found guilty of murder.

The incident took place in Charleston, S.C. and was extremely disturbing. 

Here was a man, obviously scared, running from the police officer only to be gunned down and handcuffed as he lay on the ground, probably already dead. There's more to the story but that isn't what this post is addressing.

Rev. George Hamilton, the minister who presided over Walter Scott's funeral, told the hundreds gathered there that the shooting of a black man by a white man was the act of a racist cop. This has a high probability of being true, but it is not a fact, at least not yet.

"All of us have seen the video," Rev. Hamilton said. "There is no doubt in my mind and I feel that Walter's death was motivated by racial prejudice." He called Slager a disgrace to the North Charleston Police Department, and I don't disagree.

Apparently, Rev. Hamilton believes things based on "feelings" from personal beliefs that came from learning them; it is internal "evidence" that satisfies his belief system.

Perhaps religious people are better able to put more credence in their beliefs about something that lack external proof or evidence, than, say, a detective, scientist, or a defense attorney. 

I am not implying that religious people are wrong about the existence of God, for example, simply that it's easier for them to believe in something they feel strongly about without clear proof that their belief is justified. It's called "faith."

"This particular cop was a racist. You don't Tase a man and then shoot," Rev. Hamilton said, and thankfully added, "we will not indict the entire law enforcement community for the act of one racist."

Mr. Scott was described by the minister as a born-again Christian, "not perfect," but told the people gathered that nobody is perfect.

Mr. Scott on left, Race-baiter on right

According to The New York Post, the Rev. Al Sharpton is expected to make his voice heard on Sunday at the vigil for Mr. Scott. That should be uplifting and a voice of reason and love. After all, Rev. Al is a man of God, right?

"Where Al sees a buck, you can count on that schmuck."



Tweet

Liberal Logic

Isn't it interesting how the Democrats are against probing deeper into the IRS scandals while the GOP is champing at the bit to do just that? First they claim that liberal or progressive groups were treated the same as tea party and other conservative groups--that is, they were also targeted by the IRS. And somehow, if this were true that would make it okay with them. So, as long as the IRS unfairly targets Americans, as long as it doesn't discriminate any particular group of American, it's okay.

Liberal logic.