The Progressive ‘Me’ Mentality

It’s hard not to see narcissism from the Left. We all love praise and attention, but it’s more of a mental condition of liberals/progressives. We see it with the 300 awards shows we’re forced to watch. We see it with Al Gore and Laurie David and their global warming crusade (if it really wasn’t about them, they’d telecommute their lectures or hire local talent to present it rather than burning all that carbon flying everywhere to tell people to stop burning carbon). But the biggest illustration of the “Me” syndrome is in the abortion debate.

The classic example of this is the Amy Richards ‘big jar of mayonnaise‘ editorial. Here’s a reminder:

I looked at Peter and asked the doctor: ”Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?” The obstetrician wasn’t an expert in selective reduction, but she knew that with a shot of potassium chloride you could eliminate one or more.

Having felt physically fine up to this point, I got on the subway afterward, and all of a sudden, I felt ill. I didn’t want to eat anything. What I was going through seemed like a very unnatural experience. On the subway, Peter asked, ”Shouldn’t we consider having triplets?” And I had this adverse reaction: ”This is why they say it’s the woman’s choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That’s easy for you to say, but I’d have to give up my life.” Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn’t be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It’s not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I’m going to have to move to Staten Island. I’ll never leave my house because I’ll have to care for these children. I’ll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise. Even in my moments of thinking about having three, I don’t think that deep down I was ever considering it.

The specialist called me back at 10 p.m. I had just finished watching a Boston Pops concert at Symphony Hall. As everybody burst into applause, I watched my cellphone vibrating, grabbed it and ran into the lobby. He told me that he does a detailed sonogram before doing a selective reduction to see if one fetus appears to be struggling. The procedure involves a shot of potassium chloride to the heart of the fetus. There are a lot more complications when a woman carries multiples. And so, from the doctor’s perspective, it’s a matter of trying to save the woman this trauma. After I talked to the specialist, I told Peter, ”That’s what I’m going to do.”

I added the link in Amy’s piece because I wanted to illustrate the absurdity that choosing a “selective reduction” with potassium chloride wasn’t killing someone.

Now she’s joined by Caitlin Moran in the Times from London, responding to a pro-life documentary:

I have problems with that assumption. For one thing, I believe something very elemental and, in the most academic sense, nonChristian. One of Sawyer’s biggest postmotherhood dilemmas over abortion was trying to work out where “life” begins with a foetus, and concluding that if abortion could occur before “life” begins, that would be a “right” kind of abortion. But given that both science and philosophy continue to struggle to define what the beginning of “life” is, wouldn’t it be better to come at the debate from a different angle entirely? For if a pregnant woman has dominion over life, why should she not also have dominion over not-life? This is a concept understood by many other cultures. The Hindu goddess Kali is both Mother of the Whole Universe, and Devourer of All Things. She is life and death. If women are, by biology, commanded to host, shelter, nurture and protect life, why should they not be empowered to end life, too? I’m not advocating stoving in the heads of children, or encouraging late abortions — but then, no one is. What I am vexed with is the idea that, by having an early abortion, a woman is somehow being unfemale and, indeed, unmotherly. That the absolute essence of womanhood and maternity is to sustain life, at all costs, whatever the situation.

My belief in the ultimate sociological, emotional and practical necessity for abortion did, as I have mentioned before, become even stronger after I had my two children. It is only after you have had a nine-month pregnancy, laboured to get the child out, fed it, cared for it, sat with it until 3am, risen with it at 6am, swooned with love for it and been reduced to furious tears by it that you really understand just how important it is for a child to be wanted. And, possibly even more importantly, to be wanted by a reasonably sane, stable mother. Last year I had an abortion, and I can honestly say it was one of the least difficult decisions of my life. I’m not being flippant when I say it took me longer to decide what work-tops to have in the kitchen than whether I was prepared to spend the rest of my life being responsible for a further human being. I knew I would see my existing two daughters less, my husband less, my career would be hamstrung and, most importantly of all, I was just too tired to do it all again. I didn’t want another child, in the same way that I don’t suddenly want to move to Canada or buy a horse. While there was, of course, every chance that I might eventually be thankful for the arrival of a third child, I am, personally, not a gambler. I won’t spend £1 on the lottery, let alone take a punt on a pregnancy. The stakes are far, far too high.

I’m too tired– you have to die. I’d love to see her to-do list. “Get new countertops, get manicure, go have a champagne brunch with friends, get abortion, meet hubby for a night at the opera.”

I am almost shocked into submission by the assertion that women should have power over death, especially the death of her own children. If she really believed it she wouldn’t have had to justify it by saying “I’m not advocating stoving in the heads of children, or encouraging late abortions — but then, no one is.”

The entire problem with Amy and Caitlin is their need to rationalize their irrational decision. For both of them their contentment with the current lifestyle is the deciding factor. Essentially, maintaining their high-profile liberal lifestyle is more important than human life.

In other words, it’s more important to be a progressive than it is to be a mother.

Child-raising is exhausting. I haven’t seen a movie in the theaters for ages, I don’t go out dancing. I haven’t touched my turntables in over 4 years. I don’t get to go to many cocktail parties.

But if I put that kind of lifestyle over the life of a child or even another human being, I would be a callous, cruel person. No amount of rationalization would change that.

It’s worldwide Blog for Choice day!

Not a coincidence it falls on Blue Monday. But several posters are out there talking about why they’re proud to be Pro-Choice. Not surprisingly there’s no elected Democrat speaking out about it. Jessica Valenti left a typical “easy option” post over at PuffingTons.

Alternatively, you can find Canadian judge Bertha Wilson who’s proud to be Pro-Choice. And she goes into why she’s pro-choice.

I believe, however, that the flaw in the present legislative scheme goes much deeper than that. In essence, what it does is assert that the woman’s capacity to reproduce is not to be subject to her own control. It is to be subject to the control of the state. She may not choose whether to exercise her existing capacity or not to exercise it. This is not, in my view, just a matter of interfering with her right to liberty in the sense (already discussed) of her right to personal autonomy in decision-making, it is a direct interference with her physical “person” as well. She is truly being treated as a means — a means to an end which she does not desire but over which she has no control. She is the passive recipient of a decision made by others as to whether her body is to be used to nurture a new life. Can there be anything that comports less with human dignity and self-respect? How can a woman in this position have any sense of security with respect to her person?

While I agree with Bertha that the state shouldn’t tell anyone what to do with her body, she doesn’t address the science behind abortion. She merely states that she’s being “forced” to nurture new life.

Well, Bertha, A) sexual activity can lead to pregnancy, and as it was her choice to engage in such an action, the choice to be pregnant was an assumed risk of the sexual activity and B) there is one thing that comports less with human dignity and self-respect, and that is to stand idly by and rationalize the killing of the most basic form of human life– the child.

So be proud all you want. Your particular nearsightedness does nothing but increase the objectification of women as sexual objects in our sex-crazed culture.

At some point in the near future, I’ll post the logical (and secular) reasoning behind banning abortion.Publish

Democrats run from abortion debate

I don’t know what the deal is but Democrats can’t own up to reproductive rights. Especially politicians. Hillary hates the abortion issue. She wants abortion to be “rare but safe”. Any legislation introduced to make abortion “rare but safe”? Nada. Nothing. Will it be a core idea of her campaign for President? Of course not.

Hillary, rare but safe is how I want my steak prepared at Applebee’s.

Now Harry “Never Smiles” Reid (D-NV) is introducing legislation to “increase funding for family planning and to improve access for emergency contraception”. The article states he’s an abortion foe. So, how about this, Harry– if you guys don’t like abortion, how about proposing legislation that makes abortion illegal? Then we’ll see just how much of a foe you are?

Oh, but they can’t do that. Can you imagine the firestorm that NARAL would kick up? I’m sure Amy Richards would handcuff herself to his office door in protest. No way some rich old white man from Nevada is going to tell her she needs to buy the big jar of mayonnaise!

The article goes on to say what great support the bill has amongst the democrats and it infers that the legislation is “pro-life”. Reid’s press statement on the issue said:

“There are few more divisive issues in America today than abortion, but there is an opportunity to find common ground if we are willing to join together and seize it,” Reid said recently. “The rate of unintended pregnancies is unacceptably high.” Legislation such as his, he added, “can reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and the resulting abortions in America today.”

I’m sure that the legislation proposed is going to somehow miraculously reduce the abortion rate in the country. Well, I hate to mention it, but “emergency contraception” is abortion. What it does is it prevents embryonic implantation through a big hormone-bomb. An embryo was destroyed through conscious intervention by the mother & pharmacist. That’s still abortion. But you have to remember the abortion argument is all about labels, and the more non-human things sound, the more likely they are to be acceptable to the general public.

Embryo = just a bunch of cells = not a person.
Fetus = organism inside a womb = not a person .
Emergency contraception = induces miscarriage = not an abortion, it’s contraception!

The Democrats are also putting funding into issues for contraception (fine) and helping support mothers with at-risk and unintended pregnancies. It’s something the “Democrats are really getting into”.

But the problem still exists– abortion is legal. Democrats somehow think there’s going to be a “middle ground”. And all of this legislation is somehow going to make the pro-life sector thing, “Oh, yeah, they don’t want to abort all the babies now, so let’s vote for them now.”

It’s like someone coming up to me and saying, “OK, we are going to kill 5 million of every 15 million children born. What do you think?” I say that it sucks. Then they say, “OK OK. Sorry. How about 3 million?” Again I say no. Then they say, “How about this. We kill 3 million, but we give the other 12 million cute teddy bears.” And I will say, “What’s your problem?”

The issue still remains. Abortion is killing humans, and not just any humans, but the most fragile humans– children. We can’t compromise when it involves the deaths of so many innocents.

And the Democrats don’t get it. They never will, because it means giving up abortion. And abortion’s been their bread and butter issue amongst young women for a very long time.

************************************

In similar news, I left a note about abortion & the sanctity of life with Bob Geiger over at the PuffingTons Host. And, surprise surprise, my post was deleted. Again.

Conservative bloggers, for the most part, let all comments land on the boards. That’s the way I do it. All comments are allowed so long as their on topic. I don’t cut out opposite views. But Bob Geiger, along with many others, don’t get my posts. They’re censored.

It’s like they’re taking a page out of Al Gore’s book. Or is he taking one out of theirs? Stifle debate. That way it seems like nobody is disagreeing with you.

Bush proclaims ‘National Sanctity of Human Life’ day

I proclaim it’s time for an Aquanet Moment! And it goes to a previous recipient, Democratic lunatic Bob Geiger over at the PuffingTons Host.

Now, when we talk about respecting the sanctity of life, we’re talking about respecting life enough not to kill it. So, we’re talking about the death penalty, euthanasia, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and yes, Bob, war.

So, let’s see how Bob, high-up Democratic operative, sees it:

Bush then goes on to brag about all the steps his administration has taken to promote his famed “culture of life” saying “we are helping to make our country a more hopeful place.”

Naturally, this doesn’t take into account the many safety-net programs that have suffered under the Bush administration or that his party has blockaded a minimum wage increase for the last 10 years. What about so many elderly and disabled who have had to do without home heating assistance with Bush’s crew running the Congress?

Heating? It’s like Bush is leaving people out in the cold. What a cruel bastard! Oh, but the utility companies have heating assistance. And there are religious charities that assist the elderly. And their families. But, you know, if the Feds don’t step in regulate, well, it’s just cruel!

I guess there’s also no point in talking about the fact that, since Bush became president, almost eight million more Americans have no medical coverage of any kind or that his refusal to even acknowledge a health care crisis has left millions of elderly Americans and children with no ability to stay healthy. But, hey, once that little cell becomes a child, the GOP’s obligation to care seems to cease, doesn’t it?

So all of these people are turned away at hospitals, right? Oh, that’s right, they aren’t. In fact, anyone with or without medical insurance can be treated in our system, and it’s usually the state that picks up the tab.

But, you know, if the Feds are regulating it, it’s broken. Right, Bob?

And, of course, the saddest and most profound hypocrisy is that Bush’s little proclamation comes too late for the 3,030 U.S. military dead in Iraq, the thousands of troops who have come home maimed and bearing the scars of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome or the untold number of Iraqis killed in the name of Bush’s life-affirming effort in Iraq.

And Bush is the one killing the troops, right? Or is it the insurgents? And are the insurgents inspired by the anti-war sentiment that’s flooded our media since the first day we invaded Iraq? And the more divided we are, the more it bolsters the insurgents? So, in reality, when you openly talk about withdrawing from Iraq and getting out by the end of the year, you’re giving the insurgents incentive to continue attacking our troops because their strategy is working. And the more insurgents there are and the longer they fight, the more US Troops die.

So, in reality, you’re the one “killing the troops”, Bob. You and the 33% of Democrats who actively want the US to lose in Iraq.

And then there’s the omission of abortion and the millions of babies aborted each year. Those people are killed because they’ve been classified as “less than human” by people like Bob. One million children dead, and nothing from Bob. Of course, he’ll say he regrets every abortion, but that’s like saying, “I regret the law which allows us to legally kill young children. But I have no plans to change it.”

Such a stance is insanity. And to criticize a pro-life President on such a day from a pro-choice position is the height of insanity. One can of Aquanet and a match for Mr. Geiger.

NY Times fumbles abortion story

The NYT Public Editor, Bryan Calame, has revealed that a recent story about a woman sent to prison for “abortion” in El Salvador was, in fact, sent to prison for strangling her newborn to death. HotAir, amongst others, provided this vetting about a month ago.

Nice to see Calame calling one of his reporters on such a poorly-researched story.

Abortion Increases Risk of Miscarriage

In fact, many things do. According to the abstract of this article:

After adjustment for confounding, the following were independently associated with increased risk: high maternal age; previous miscarriage, termination and infertility; assisted conception; low pre-pregnancy body mass index; regular or high alcohol consumption; feeling stressed (including trend with number of stressful or traumatic events); high paternal age and changing partner. Previous live birth, nausea, vitamin supplementation and eating fresh fruits and vegetables daily were associated with reduced risk, as were feeling well enough to fly or to have sex. After adjustment for nausea, we did not confirm an association with caffeine consumption, smoking or moderate or occasional alcohol consumption; nor did we find an association with educational level, socio-economic circumstances or working during pregnancy.

According to another (biased) site that was quoting the article and actual statistics:

However, they confirmed that women who had had a previous abortion experienced a 60 percent higher risk of having a miscarriage in another pregnancy. Women using the in-vitro technique had a 40 percent greater risk of suffering a miscarriage.

I think that’s striking. And it’s really something that we don’t hear much about, even though it’s relatively common knowledge. Abortions drastically increase miscarriage chances.

One reason is increased risk of scarring of the uterine wall, which can cause complications later, epsecially for placental development. But outside of that, there’s another, deeper pysiological reason.

Abortions in UK on rise

We all remember what Hillary Clinton, presumable 2008 Presidential Candidate, said about abortion:

We come to [the abortion] issue as men and women, young and old, some far beyond years when we have to worry about getting pregnant, others too young to remember what it was like in the days before Roe v. Wade. But I think it’s essential that as Americans we look for that common ground that we can all stand upon. [Our] core beliefs and values. can guide us in reaching our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century. Source: Remarks to NARAL, Washington DC Jan 22, 1999

So, what are the results when you make abortion “safe & legal”? Why, it’s an increase in abortion rates because people don’t think it’s that big of a deal:

Ms Furedi said there had been a shift in public opinion about parenthood. The stigma of abortion had diminished but there was now concern about being a poor parent. “Parenting is considered to be very important and is taken seriously these days,” she said. “The idea of just drifting into unplanned motherhood is seen not to be a good thing and you could argue that among many groups of people in society abortion is seen as a more responsible response to being a victim of uncontrolled fertility,” she said.
[...]
Abortion figures continue to rise year on year. Latest figures show that there are about 165,500 abortions for British residents a year.

Now, if you read the article, there really isn’t any evidence which suggests abortion is “losing its stigma”. The closest it gets is this:

Asked if a woman should not have to continue with a pregnancy if she wanted an abortion, 63 per cent agreed and 18 per cent disagreed.

However, the preceeding paragraph contradicts any meaningful “loss of stigma” data as less people think abortion should be free & legal everywhere:

The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,000 adults found that slightly fewer adults agreed that “abortion should be made legally available for all who want it” than five years ago. In the survey in May, 59 per cent agreed with the question compared with 62 per cent in 2001.

The only person thinking that there’s a global shift in abortion’s stigma is the author of the article, as the evidence presented is not global or conclusive.

But the fact that abortions are on the rise is not a good sign. It contradicts the mentality that having “safe & legal” access to abortion clinics decreases abortion.

There’s another myth that’s debunked in this article:

Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), said one women in five was now childless at the age of 45 and an increasing number were making the choice not to have children at all.

Ms Furedi said there had been a shift in public opinion about parenthood. The stigma of abortion had diminished but there was now concern about being a poor parent. “Parenting is considered to be very important and is taken seriously these days,” she said. “The idea of just drifting into unplanned motherhood is seen not to be a good thing and you could argue that among many groups of people in society abortion is seen as a more responsible response to being a victim of uncontrolled fertility,” she said.

So people are afraid of not being a good parent so they get abortions. Who would be worried about this? The poor? The underclasses? No, it’s the middle class and the rich. A baby would impose on their lifestyle so they abort it. They want to wait until they are good and ready before they have a baby. Before that– abortion, if they get pregnant.

These childless jet-setters have now revealed that “keeping abortion safe & legal” isn’t for the lower-class, as it is often argued. It’s for the middle and upper classes. And even worse, it’s a case of convenience! The women don’t want to change (notice I didn’t say “give up’) their lifestyles to cater to the needs of a child. Here is the real, ulgy truth of abortion.