Save The Hamster, Kill that Baby!

The title is a link to the Washington Times article that addresses the NEA's handling of a conservative minority in their caucus. Apparently there is a written creed inside of the NEA applying to classroom use of animals:

school staff should "encourage compassion and respect for all living things,"

However, using sickly twisted Liberal logic, this wording cannot apply to unborn children. This same group is a proponet of abortion- excuse me it is called "family planning" in their Orwellian double-speak- and the reproductive rights of the female without parental consent.

Maybe they should change the wording to "encourage compassion and respect for all living things as long as those rights are not applied to unborn humans because they aren't really living things anyway until it feels ok to say they are."

I was wondering about that

vegan abortion doctor

and now this? How can anyone justify the lack of logic in that argument? Some liberal out there needs to explain how exactly this can co-exist outside of some split personality persona?

This article also addresses their anti-voucher movement among other distinctly liberal ideals. However the crux of the argument has to be: save the hamster but kill the baby. We want that hampster to have a long and full life but we can

flowbie

a future student because we think killing humans is ok.

((thank you to my wife for correcting my spelling, I just love to put the P in hamster!! UGH!))