So Newsweek does a feature, on the very last page, called "The Last Word" in which one of their columnists pontificates about something somewhat relevant, and usually manages to annoy me as well. The worst, by far, is Anna Quindlen. She annoyed me a bit with her suggestion that being a black guy is the same, as far as experience and struggle, as being a POW. (And what, I'd like to know, makes her think she's qualified to discuss either experience?) But now she's really done it, with her diatribe on Palin, and Republican attitudes toward women in general. The section that really gets me is: "Amid the drumbeat of female Amazonian competence occasioned by the Palin nomination ran one deeply discordant assumption, the assumption that women are strong and smart and sure and yet neither sentient nor moral enough to decide what to do if they are pregnant under difficult circumstances. The governor has talked about the choice she and her pregnant teenage daughter have made, but would deny other women the right to make their own choices. She talks about fighting the old boys' network and corrupt politicians, but would turn over the private reproductive decisions of American women to both. This is not choosing life. It is choosing unwarranted intrusion into the family lives of women."
Look, Ms. Quindlen, if a woman is in circumstances so difficult that she cannot afford children, there is one simple act she can avoid, and I can promise no children will result. The sentient and moral thing to do, for women, is make good choices in the first place, or be willing to live with the consequences of their decisions. Aside from that: the government is expected to provide assistance to women and children in difficult circumstances, and honestly, since the government seems fully willing to deal with this sort of thing, I don't see why they can't also speak up to prevent baby-killing.
The big point these liberal pro-death types seem to miss is this one: it is never, never acceptable to kill human beings, regardless of age, for the convenience of an average citizen. Or two or three. Never. Sarah Palin is, in this regard, very clearly a woman of character, who practices what she preaches. Apparently more than 90% of pregnancies of down-syndrome babies are terminated through abortion. But not by Palin, who was willing to accept, greatfully, the hand she was dealt. Whats next? Are we going to develop pre-natal tests for bed-wetters, autism, kids with low IQs, so we can kill them too?
I'm not, in general, in favor of legislating morality. I think Prohibition ranks up there with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff on the list of "stupid acts of legislation." I think we should lower the drinking age to 18, because if you're old enough to vote and select a college major, you're old enough to pay for beer. I'm not even opposed to the concept of legalized marijuana. (a word which I cannot spell, but spellcheck certainly can). And in general I would hope the the government wouldn't need to speak o the subject of abortion. Abortion is evil and wrong, and when its undertaken because it sure would be inconvenient to raise a child with Down Syndrome, or because I'm busy with y career and I don't have time for kids, its even more evil (to the extent that an act can be more evil than random baby-killing).
The point that Ms. Quindlen ad her rabidly pro-choice, old-school feminist buddies miss is this one: Sarah Palin and the rest of us right-wing, pro-life types are actually paying women a greater compliment in our adherence to our anti-abortion stance than the pro-death crowd is. We assume that a woman is capable of planning ahead and making good decisions, so that she doesn't find herself pregnant under "difficult circumstances." We further assume that women are strong and resourceful enough to shoulder the burden of motherhood, regardless of circumstances. Ms. Quindlen and Company, conversely, seem to believe that women are out there engaged in risky behaviors with no thought to potential consequence, and should be allowed to weasel out of any inconvenient pregnancies that arise, because clearly foolish females are too dumb to grasp the cause of pregnancy, and too flighty to handle the demands of unexpected parenthood.
And before anyone raises the issue: yes, cases of pregnancy due to rape r incest are a morally gray area for many, although I personally don't believe that murder is the answer. But what percentage of legal abortions are actually within these categories? This is a mighty thin argument to use to justify the continued availability of legal abortion to clear up any troublesome inconveniences.
The bottom line in this, and any number of other issues, is that the average left-wing type doesn't believe you the citizen, are capable of making choices on your own. They wait the government to be there, like a helicopter parent, ready to save you from the difficulties that might ensue from the poor choices that they assume you'll inevitably make. The right-wing types among us believe that you're an adult (if indeed you are), and you're capable not only of making decisions, but also of dealing with whatever results those decisions lead to. The concept of overturning Row v. Wade is not a government attempt to control your life. Its an attempt to save the lives of unborn future citizens. And more than that, its a clear indicator that you, the adult citizen, don't need external institutions to come fix your problems. You're better than that. You understand cause and effect. We have faith in you, in your abilities, in your choices. And frankly, until we, as a nation, can accept that the average woman is capable of dealing with something as natural and regular as pregnancy, even in difficult times, we will never, never be ready to accept the possibility of a woman being tough enough to handle all the difficulties and inconveniences of running the country.
25 Pound Dumbbell Workout
2 years ago
