:: The S.I.C.L.E. Cell ::

my view from the prison of a SICLE (Self-Imposed Child Loss Experience) due to debilitating maternal disease
:: welcome to The S.I.C.L.E. Cell :: bloghome
SEARCH THE CELL Google Custom Search
| thesiclecell@yahoo.com ::
:: After abortion[>]
:: RealChoice[>]
:: Silent Rain Drops[>]
:: Stanek![>]

:: Thursday, March 05, 2009 ::

I'm neither justifying nor condemning the choice that the mother of the octuplets made, but I AM making commentary on the liberal anchors of the CBS show here. Watch the video.

Have you ever seen libs being this judgmental about say, homosexuality or late term abortion (or perhaps "octo-abortion moms")?

If we can't trust a woman to choose to HAVE children, how can we trust a woman to choose to KILL children???

The double-standard here is just stomach-turning.

If Nadya chooses to HAVE 8 children she's WRONG, but if she chooses to ABORT 8 children she's simply sexually free and more power to her. WHAT?!

I throw up my hands (and my lunch).

Where is the consistency?

Why aren't these freaking libs appealing to their leader for a bail out for Suleman? Instead of rolling their eyes at the audacity of her choices, why aren't they trying to buy her a home and a car and care financially for her and her children forever? Why does it matter to them whether or not her challenges were created by her? They're certainly bailing the heck out of entities whose glaring irresponsibility caused themselves (and everyone else) massive difficulties.

What is it about Suleman that momentarily alters the divide between liberal and conservative thinking? Do the libs think she's the only one in this nation who has made choices that have gotten her and her children into trouble? Oh, so we should all look down on her, but everyone else who makes questionable choices, as long as they don't have 8 children at once while receiving public assistance, is a victim and should be bailed out. That's what their leader stumped on for Pete's sake.

There was a theory held by that most unsavory other party that people should take responsibility for the choices they make. And further, that it is unfair to penalize (see: rob) people who make wise decisions; i.e., they should not be forced to pay for the financial mistakes of others. But that theory was poopoo'd by the libs and their leader who called that sort of thinking "selfish."

Why then are libs being so selfish in regard to Suleman? Where is the lib love?

I suggest they honor their "king" by rolling their eyes less and rolling up their sleeves more. Instead of leaving Suleman to the consequences of her choices, they should be doing their best to fulfill those areas, which, in their opinions, are lacking. To promote "hope and change," they should supply mental health care, a place to live, transportation, child care, food, clothing, anything Nadya and the children need in order to keep the family together and everyone well cared for.

They should be outraged at the suggestion that anyone would come and take her children away, and should support her choice to have 8 more children if she so chooses of her own free, feminist will. Above all, they should never question her reproductive choices for to do so would be the ultimate, anti-woman offense. They should embrace Sulman's differences; individual uniqueness is what makes the world go round after all.

If she should have the right to marry a woman, so should she have the right to NOT marry a man and yet single-handedly populate a small country in spite of her marital or financial status.

Looking askance at any of these facets comes uncomfortably close to conservative thought. And as a nation of community organizers who bring hope, change and fairy dust to the world we simply cannot have that.

:: ashli 12:25 PM # ::

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?