Dear Paul,
I need to have a word with you about your seemingly unhealthy obsession with my womb and what goes on inside it.
First, I would just like to point out that your Libertarian street cred and claims to be against government overreach into citizen's private lives goes right out the window when you start trying to legislate what certain private citizens (i.e. women) can and can't do with their reproductive organs.
It's also hard to believe that you really want to limit the power of the federal government when you have signed on as potential "first in line to the throne" should Mittens actually be chosen as the next president.
I often wonder why the people who whine the loudest about "big government" are usually running for a position within it. I'll save those musings for another post.
Anyway, lets get back to my ladybits. You've made it obvious that you see social programs as unsustainable and crippling to the economy.
Yes, I know you're legit. You worked at McDonald's once and eventually managed to become a millionaire (through marriage). If you as a white male with no uterus to speak of can do it, why not the rest of us? Amiright?
As a woman who bore a child at the tender age of 19 and had to raise that child alone, with no physical or financial help from the father, I can vouch for the saving grace of government assistance.
It was the very same social programs that you want to cut that helped me and my child to survive.
I don't know how you think young women with no higher education or life skills can make ends meet without some sort of societal support, but I would love to hear about your plan to "magic" their problems away.
Seriously, I would love to know how you plan to make minimum wage, unskilled labor jobs sufficient enough to cover the cost of rent, daycare, food, clothing and health insurance.
Because the real hard work for women begins not when she is carrying a non- cognizant, non-feeling, non-viable cluster of rapidly dividing cells, but instead when she gives birth.
Suddenly she is faced with the fact that she is unprepared financially, educationally and, in many cases, emotionally for the demands of motherhood. Single motherhood is a particularly cruel process as a woman has to bear the burden of meeting all the needs of two people while barely earning enough for one.
Perhaps you and Mittens have set up a fund to support the children you claim to care so much about? No? Well color me surprised.
I've also noticed that your tax plan would place a larger burden on those who can least afford it. Taxing the plebeians in this way will force them to tighten their belts and panic over how to pay for the basics of everyday life.
Taxing million or billionaires a little more would, at worst, force them to change to a cheaper brand of feed for their polo ponies and perhaps dismiss three of their five pool boys.
I think somehow progress and innovation would not grind to a halt if this were to occur.
I'll end this post with a quote from your favorite heroine, Ayn Rand:
I need to have a word with you about your seemingly unhealthy obsession with my womb and what goes on inside it.
First, I would just like to point out that your Libertarian street cred and claims to be against government overreach into citizen's private lives goes right out the window when you start trying to legislate what certain private citizens (i.e. women) can and can't do with their reproductive organs.
It's also hard to believe that you really want to limit the power of the federal government when you have signed on as potential "first in line to the throne" should Mittens actually be chosen as the next president.
I often wonder why the people who whine the loudest about "big government" are usually running for a position within it. I'll save those musings for another post.
Anyway, lets get back to my ladybits. You've made it obvious that you see social programs as unsustainable and crippling to the economy.
Yes, I know you're legit. You worked at McDonald's once and eventually managed to become a millionaire (through marriage). If you as a white male with no uterus to speak of can do it, why not the rest of us? Amiright?
As a woman who bore a child at the tender age of 19 and had to raise that child alone, with no physical or financial help from the father, I can vouch for the saving grace of government assistance.
It was the very same social programs that you want to cut that helped me and my child to survive.
I don't know how you think young women with no higher education or life skills can make ends meet without some sort of societal support, but I would love to hear about your plan to "magic" their problems away.
Seriously, I would love to know how you plan to make minimum wage, unskilled labor jobs sufficient enough to cover the cost of rent, daycare, food, clothing and health insurance.
Because the real hard work for women begins not when she is carrying a non- cognizant, non-feeling, non-viable cluster of rapidly dividing cells, but instead when she gives birth.
Suddenly she is faced with the fact that she is unprepared financially, educationally and, in many cases, emotionally for the demands of motherhood. Single motherhood is a particularly cruel process as a woman has to bear the burden of meeting all the needs of two people while barely earning enough for one.
Perhaps you and Mittens have set up a fund to support the children you claim to care so much about? No? Well color me surprised.
I've also noticed that your tax plan would place a larger burden on those who can least afford it. Taxing the plebeians in this way will force them to tighten their belts and panic over how to pay for the basics of everyday life.
Taxing million or billionaires a little more would, at worst, force them to change to a cheaper brand of feed for their polo ponies and perhaps dismiss three of their five pool boys.
I think somehow progress and innovation would not grind to a halt if this were to occur.
I'll end this post with a quote from your favorite heroine, Ayn Rand:
An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?
No comments:
Post a Comment