I just read a killer op-ed piece in the NY Times by columnist Thomas Friedman. He has some pretty choice questions for all of us to ask ourselves about what "pro-life" means. You should click on the link and read that article now if you haven't already. Don't worry. I'll still be here when you get back.
Now I'm not going to rehash the entire article, but in a minute we'll review some key points. First, let me state that Tommy boy and I don't agree on all of his talking points. Friedman considers New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to be the most "pro-life" politician in the country because of the nanny state he's created. I noticed that Tom falls short of actually approving of Bloomberg's policies. He simply notes that Bloomberg has earned the right to be called "pro-life"...really pro-life in the ways that are important to Friedman. I think that Bloomberg's government interference in the diets of New Yorkers is absolutely sickening. But then, you can't have it both ways. You can't let people poison themselves voluntarily all their lives and then let them take advantage of medicare and medicaid later for the disastrous consequences of their life habits. Alternatively, if you take away everyone's right to slowly kill themselves with food and cigarettes then you sure as shit better put into place some solid healthcare for those you have forced into playing by the rules. But I digress. This is about the definition of "pro-life", not about the role of government in our fatty or sugary diets...at least not entirely.
So what does "pro-life" mean? As far as I can tell, it means pro-fetus only to many conservatives. "Pro-life" conservatives want to be able to dictate legally what happens to a unborn fetus until it is safely born. Then, it's hands off. Friedman calls people with this approach "pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative(s)". This is an apt description. If you want to believe that life begins at conception, and we can all pretty much believe that life ends with death then how can you stop being 'pro-life" at birth??? See what I'm saying here? This is a serious WTF moment folks. When you want to cut school meal programs, WIC (Women, Infants and Children supplemental nutrition program), welfare programs, government mandated insurance, and other programs that help people live, then how can you call yourselves "pro-life".
Friedman goes on to address weapon ban legislation. If you allow people to own weapons that go far beyond hunting and home protection, guns that are designed for military use in wartime, then how can you be "pro-life"? These are weapons designed to kill large amounts of people in a short amount of time. There is nothing "pro-life" about them. Now I'm leery of weapons bans myself. I do think there is a place in home use for assault weapons. If there is a chance that I have to defend myself against zombies (somewhat likely) or a tyrannical government (moderately likely) or a full country invasion by aliens or a foreign power (I think that is scheduled to happen later this week) then I want quick access to anything from a M16 to an RPG. I don't own any weapons of that sort, but they sure do look like a lot of fun. Of course, I haven't labled myself "pro-life". Gun bans are a slippery slope and I lean towards private citizens having too much access to guns rather than not enough. That's just me.
The environment is another one of Thomas Friedman's writing points. How can you limit, restrict or underfund the EPA and still call yourself "pro-life"? Damn good question T-Fried! You have to remember that the Republicans (and some Democrats...incl. Obama) devastatingly bypassed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and other environmental protections to promote natural gas production in 2005. Is this "pro-life"? How is eliminating health safeguards "pro-life". It isn't. It's "fuck-life". So climate scientists overwhelmingly believe that the earth is warming. There is a chance that by limiting greenhouse gasses and other pollutants we can slow or reverse that process. Yet conservatives want less environmental restrictions on power industries. That doesn't sound right, and it sure as shit doesn't sound "pro-life".
One point Friedman misses a golden opportunity to discuss is the death penalty. Folks, the word death is right the fuck in there. Can you be "pro-life" and pro death penalty? I. Don't. Think. So. Hey, now! These people committed atrocities! They threw away their rights when they went to the dark side! Did they? Why not leave them to rot in prison for awhile and save some money on long court cases and lengthy appeals. And of course, our legal system is flawless, so there's no chance that we'll kill innocent people. Right? Nope. Is killing innocent people "pro-life"? Is killing guilty people?
Here are some other dropped balls by Friedman. What about selective service? Is that "pro-life"? Wars? Is supporting US actions in foreign lands "pro-life"? How many politicians have children in the military, fighting in the middle east and elsewhere? What about adoption? Where are all the adopted children from the "pro-life" people? I know some who have adopted children, but not every one of them. It is the ultimate hypocritical horseshit for someone to be "pro-life" and not to have adopted a single child. That is the same NIMBY bullshit that gets liberals into trouble all the time. You know why liberals are "pro-choice"? Because they don't want a bunch of inner city kids running around their front yards and mooching their true-born children's college funds. So they send tools to the city. Most of those tools don't work well, but they can at least sleep at night. Take some of their tax money and send it out of the suburbs to help the inner city poor and misguided as it is their consciences are clean.
So here we are, with conservative voters and politicians willing to hang the "pro-life" label on themselves, but only as it relates to fetuses or unborn children as some like to call them. In a world where we're discussing "legitimate rape" and the ability for a woman's body to shut down to avoid pregnancy, a world where voters may be for the death penalty, for assault weapon ownership, for gas and oil industry, anti-welfare, anti-insurance regulations and mandates, anti-EPA, anti-union, how can anybody, conservative or liberal, republican or democrat label themselves as "pro-life". Thanks to Thomas Friedman for inspiring this entry.
Here's George Carlin's take on the same concept from many years back.
If you like this article, don't forget to share it around the web! There's a button for that down here somewhere...and please feel free to leave your comments in teh section below. Go America! Scratch that. Let's reach across the color aisle here. Go America!
Fo Reelz,
Caustic the Clown
No comments:
Post a Comment