Every now and again, a liberal will make an argument that is striking in stupidity even for a liberal. More often than not, it is made from Senator Barbara Boxer or some other representative from California. During debate over the Nelson health care amendment, that would limit government funding of abortion, Boxer made a very odd statement.

“We don’t tell men that if they want to make sure their, can buy insurance coverage through their pharmaceutical plan for Viagra that they can’t do it. No, we don’t do that, and I wouldn’t support that. It would be wrong. Well, it’s wrong to single out women and to say to women of this country, they can’t use their own private funds to purchase insurance that covers the whole range of reproductive health care,” Boxer said on the Senate floor. (From the Examiner)

This is one of those, “where do I begin” reactions, so I am going to limit it to just one of many lines of thought. What level of insanity must you reach to believe that if the government doesn’t fund a procedure, a citizen is being denied that procedure. From what I can tell, Boxer is asserting that choosing to have an abortion and choosing to have someone else pick up the tab for that abortion, are both the same right.

In essence, the Nelson amendment was an attempt to stop taxpayers from paying for abortion. Boxer’s argument that the amendment was saying women could not “use their own private funds to purchase insurance” is a flat out lie. Of course a woman can use her OWN FUNDS to purchase private insurance. Actually we conservatives would absolutely love it if she used her funds to purchase private insurance. If all of the uninsured used their OWN FUNDS to purchase insurance, we wouldn’t have a need for a public option and we wouldn’t be arguing over most of this health care reform.

Boxer doesn’t want a woman to use her OWN FUNDS though, she is talking about taxpayers footing the bill. So with that in mind, Boxer is suggesting that if the nation doesn’t use OUR FUNDS to pay for abortion, we are somehow denying women an abortion.

Think of it this way, if a stranger knocked on my door and asked me to fund her abortion, and I said no, would I be denying her an abortion? Of course not. Yet if we add a middle man to the mix, the federal government, why is it different? If the woman sent a representative of the federal government to my door and asked me to pay for the abortion, and I said no, I am not denying her the procedure.

Women have the ability to go out and buy a private health insurance plan that covers abortion. They can simply take the money and get an abortion too. They can even utilize one of the many liberal funded programs that will find a way for her to get the abortion regardless of cost. They do not have the right to make me pay for it. Frankly the country as a whole doesn’t have the right to make me pay for anyones health insurance.

Additionally, Boxer’s comparison somehow makes me believe that she also thinks Viagra is a right. If a man walked up to my door and asked me to pay for his erection, I would probably punch him in the face and call the police. So you have my answer on whether denying him the money, is denying him the right.

Abortion and erections are just two of the things I don’t think I should be paying for with my taxes. Arguing that by not paying for them, I am denying someones rights, is arguing against the Constitution and against my own individual liberty. It is my own choice to decide when I am my brothers keeper and what that means, not the federal governments unless it deals with War, national contagion, etc.