September 03, 2008

Is the Philly Daily News literally going nuts??

Yesterday it was Fatimah Ali's threats of a race and class war if The Messiah isn't elected in November. We also had Ronnie Polaneczky's illogical assertion that because Sarah Palin is for abstinence-only sex education, her 17 year old daughter's pregnancy is "proof" of this philosophy's failure. Today, nutjob Jill Porter picks up on Polaneczky's theme, and takes it much further:

It's about the fact that Gov. Palin's ideology failed, that abstinence-only sex education failed even in her own family. It's about showering Bristol Palin with praise for making the choice to keep her baby, and denying the legitimacy of any other choice.

Once again, if Bristol Palin becoming pregnant is "proof" of abstinence-only sex ed.'s failure, we can also then state that any teenage girl who has attended a comprehensive sex ed. program in school -- but ends up pregnant -- is proof of that philosophy's failure.

We all knew that McCain's campaign was going to be about perpetuating the past, in his pro-Bush stances about the war in Iraq, taxes and other failed policies. And Palin's appointment to the ticket - a cynical, desperate ruse to appeal to women voters - is a vivid reminder of another part of the past that will be resurrected if the GOP wins.

Who's "we all," Jill? You and your granola-munching, Prius-driving coffee clach buddies? There's no better illustration of the contempt urban-dwelling elitists have for middle America than the above statement. "We all," when about ONE HALF of the country is backing John McCain.

Because she's pro-slavery.

She believes that women should be enslaved to their wombs, that they should risk their health rather than end a pregnancy that's unwanted or unwelcome or involves a deformed embryo.

Ah yes. But I seem to remember that slavery was abolished here in the US and elsewhere because it was inherently immoral -- and because it involved treating other human beings as property. The US Supreme Court once even justified slavery on these grounds. Now, granted, an unborn baby is the "property" of the mother (and father, although his rights in this matter are virtually non-existent, but that is another argument) but we are talking about a human life here. Doesn't that fact alone merit special consideration? Heinous multiple murderers get more legal protections from capital punishment than do unborn (innocent) children. And the irony of it all is, people like Porter much more often than not are vehemently against the execution of said heinous murderers, all the while demanding abortion on demand -- because otherwise it puts women into "slavery." Never mind that another human being is involved.

She believes that women should be enslaved by the government, which should dictate the most pivotal decision of her life: whether and when and under what circumstances to have children. The only exception that Palin supports to an abortion ban is "a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued." How compassionate.

"Compassionate?" Whereas Porter would terminate the life of a Down Syndrome baby merely because of that fact? What other "defects" would Porter believe justifies killing an unborn child? How compassionate is THAT? Unbelievable.

And "enslaved by the government?" This is biggest joke of all. Again, it's not as though the government is mandating you do work for no compensation. If the presence of another human being in the equation doesn't merit special consideration -- at least to some degree -- we are nowhere near the "compassionate" society that Porter invokes. Hell, the [better] argument for "slavery" is the fact that the federal government requires employers to do their own work for them -- calculating the amount of taxes their employees owe the government and then collecting it for them. Where's the compensation for this effort? Aren't the 16th and 13th Amendments in conflict here?

If people being forced (via threat of imprisonment) to do the government's job for them is necessary for the "good of society," how is the argument that women need to exert special care for unborn infants any less "logical?" And keep in mind that I say all the above as a pro-choice individual, but a pro-choice individual who believes in sensible, humane restrictions on abortion, and who believes that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision.

(Once again, h/t to the indefatigable Gooch!)

Posted by Hube at September 3, 2008 05:24 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I think you're overstating the contradictions a little and, consequently, missing the more interesting point in the discussion. Either an abstinence-only sex education program or a comprehensive sex education program can only be said to have failed when a young woman becomes pregnant after having taken such a course if the purpose of the course is to prevent pregnancy.

I don't think that those who advocate abstinence-only programs think that's their purpose (I suspect that those who oppose abstinence-only programs that that, either). I don't honestly know why anybody who favored abortion on demand would support any sort of sex education program. Prevention of disease, maybe?

Even more interestingly from the content and tone of those who've been using her daughter's pregnancy to beat Gov. Palin over the head it's rather clear that they view pregnancy as a misfortune that happens to a young woman. Could that view be any more different from Gov. Palin's? Or a good deal of the country's?

Posted by: Dave Schuler at September 10, 2008 09:20 AM