Friday, January 27, 2006

ROE V. WADE

As a certain Congressman put it, for social conservatives, "life begins at conception and ends at birth." There is no such thing as a "culture of life." There is my life, and your life.
If one who believes that life begins at conception is genuinely pro-life, then, accordingly, that person, while he or she may not support the idea of, I don't know - alleviating child malnutrition, stopping child abuse committed at his or her own hands, efforts made to increase the quality of neonatal care and pre-K education - , one would think that, at least, such a person would not be demonically opposed to private charities that are in favor of such things.

I fear what's being aborted is a little tadger named "Democracy." If the government can interfere with a decision between a woman and her doctor then essentially they have "eminent domained" her uterus. And because the fallout from Roe v Wade being overturned will mostly impact poor and middle class women, there is an almost feudal aspect to this whole story. Hillary may have sounded like a doofus when she invoked the "plantation" meme (and I think you know what I mean) but that's where people without money are going to be living. I wish to God that Jesus would just come back and give some more lectures, maybe set a few people straight--maybe even appear on a panel with Buddha, Mohammed, Shakti, Vishnu, Coyote...but I digress. A woman who does not have sovereignty over her own body is not a free woman. End of story.

Please read this article: http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2006/01/26/why-i-support-roe-vs-wade/

Next thought:
Astonishingly, though, such charities, which bear so much of the grunt work as far as performing these activities are concerned, are scolded by the social rights because they are - well, you know, terrorist fellaters and liberals.

So what does the social right do in its spare time to improve the quality of "life" for children? It tells them that there is only one way of learning things, that there is only one way of thinking, that they should be ashamed of their bodies, that people different than them should be hated for their mere existence, and so on, while it provides whatever social services it provides. In other words, it devalues life under guise of honoring it.

The social right's claim to being "pro-life" would also sound less disingenuous if it were not the case that it is conservatives more than Democrats who are responsible for the stigma society places on adoption and single motherhood. Conservatives claim that an unwanted child can always be adopted or raised alone - but these folks constantly rail on about how the non-nuclear family has led to the disintegration of America. In other words, people's respect for life=people's disrespect for life. Orwellian newspeak.

And as far as "abstinence only" education goes, if one is convinced that it is the "right" policy (morally), as well as the one that will lead to the "right" result (no unwanted children) (never mind that history has put the lie to this notion), then why not let the concept speak for itself, instead of trying to shut the sex-education crowd up and vilify them? As any Constitution lover knows, the answer to speech of which one disapproves is more speech, not hate.

The most disingenuous thing about the "pro-life" movement, at large, is this: many, if not most, of its members - at least those concerned with Republican party politics and strategy - are scared to death that Roe v. Wade will be overruled. Why? Because the Republicans have used the case as a wedge issue, year after year, to polarize the country, and have won elections in doing so. If the case were overruled, the true believer single-issue voters, their objective having been realized, would actually be forced to take a look at the rest of the Republican party's platform. Ken Mehlman does NOT want that. And, given that the country supports the Roe decision, 66 to 25%, if it were overruled, the party will experience quite a backlash.

As a practical matter, overruling the case may not have many significant consequences. The states that would, if the case were overruled, ban abortion, have already made it all but impossible to obtain one within their borders already; states like New York, where abortion is legal, would allow it to remain legal.

So, go ahead, Supreme Court, overrule the case. We'll then see (again) who is really "pro-life," and voters will act accordingly. And, Supreme Court, if you, after overruling Roe, try to touch Carey, Eisenstadt, or Griswold (even though Alito and Roberts "said" they wouldn't), that much more misery will be in store for the Republicans.

John Ashcroft once said "People say we shouldn't legislate morality. I say that's all we should do."

Go ahead and try, guys. You'll have a lot bigger problems than losing to a dead man. And this is not coming from a liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican, but a simple student of history.