If I was able to defend in court a person's God-given right to hunt every day of the year, say, in order to feed his family, this would open the door. If the court ruling also struck down the restrictions on the 'bag limit' (the number of animals killed,) this would be an added bonus. After all, a lot of the politicians and judges like to hunt so I could target who I lobbied. It would still be a very hard court case to win, but then again, if I fought long and hard enough, I just might win eventually.That's pretty much how it works. Except that merely striking down all the restrictions on hunting is not enough. For full analogy, Jim must lobby the government for subsidies - so that low-income families too could exercise their right to hunt. On the long run, the government would have to provide free hunting equipment and ammunition to every citizen who feels like going to the nearby forest and shooting something that moves. Cause it's their human right, got it?!
People would then need more guns, ammunition, clothing and they would appreciate coming to a store that has qualified employees. My sales would sky rocket and I could very well become independently wealthy in a very short time. I could open up franchises in other provinces. Just think of the money I could make!
And what about the taxpayers that would have to foot the bill? That's the beauty of making the society pitch in to pay for your privileges - they'll barely notice. Let's take abortion funding as an example. Here, in New Brunswick, we have the pro-abortion lobby suing the provincial government for refusing to subsidize private clinic abortions. Want to know what this whole dispute amounts to money-wise? 600 or so abortions on demand, costing $550-$750 each - that's $330,000 to $450,000 - less than a dollar per NB taxpayer.
Sure, if those abortions were free, then the number of clients would be a lot higher; probably we'd have the same proportion as Nova Scotia - 1300-1400 private clinic abortions a year. The direct cost of those abortions would be ~$1,000,000. That's still roughly $2 per taxpayer.
But aren't there plenty of indirect consequences of abortions - from various health complications associated with the procedure to the overall cost of the family breakdown and the social decay? Of course there are. But those are listed under different columns and, obviously, the abortion supporters will never admit that it's their business that results in all those costly social problems. Just as they will never admit, that abortion takes away a baby's live. For them it's letting their customers exercise their "right" at the society's expense. Which, as we've seen, amounts to merely a few dollars a year per taxpayer.
Are you going to take a day off work and drive all the way to Fredericton for mere $2 a year? How about going to Ottawa to protest against having $4-5 of your annual tax return spent on abortions on demand nation-wide? (~100,000 abortions at $550-$750 each, divided among 15 million taxpayers.) At the same time, wouldn't Morgentaler's franchise (which, as I heard, is losing money,) benefit from that extra million? What about those for whom having an abortion for free means saving $550 to $750 or even more? No wonder they take their time to campaign for taxpayer-funded abortions. And the people in charge of making the decision often grant them their wish - because not everyone is able to realize, that this is about babies' lives, not just so many cents per paycheck.
You see, killing is a profitable business. Even some insurance companies admit that the "choice" to kill an unborn child is cheaper than giving birth. Unless the people are made aware that the baby in the womb is just that - a baby, with a beating heart and a unique personality being formed - the baby killing business will continue to prosper.
1 comment:
wow. beautifully written. Thank you for being a strong voice for reason and for those who are too small to speak for themselves.
Post a Comment