We Must Name the Lobsters
Nov 17, 2009 Five Non-Negotiable Issues, Supreme Court
In an episode of The West Wing a small circle of people, including Joint Chiefs, the President’s Chief of Staff, and the President are presented with a situation where a leader of a terrorist nation is going to be making a ceremonial stop in the United States. The administration has recently, since agreeing to the ceremonial handshake with the President, gotten solid evidence that this leader was the mastermind behind a foiled plot to bomb the Golden Gate Bridge. The dilemma amongst the small circle is whether or not to take this guy out with the one chance they have. It is the opinion of everyone except the one ultimately in charge, the President, that they should take the terrorist leader (we’ll liken it to Ahmadinejad turned bin Laden). The President is grappling with the idea, though it seems inevitable that he will ultimately agree with his counsel. The problem is that the plan that is devised to take this leader out, and in a way that does not incriminate the United States, falls after the ceremonial handshake. The Chief of Staff is trying to make it such that the handshake is nothing more than it needs to be. He cites a time when he used to take his young daughter to the seafood place and the first thing she would do is name all the lobsters in the tank so that he couldn’t eat any of them.
So goes the problem of the pro-life movement. The biggest, and possibly the only shortcoming we have in our time of living is that we don’t know the unborn child. They are nameless and faceless. We can see two arms and two feet, we can see a skull and a skeleton, and we can even see them move. But we can’t see their smile, we can’t know their personalities, and we aren’t able to hold the precious little person in our hands and know them enough to love them. Again, this is the biggest and possibly the only shortcoming of the pro-life movement, and when you look at the methodology of the pro-choice contingent you have great evidence. Consider the most obvious example, Planned Parenthood…
- They don’t want the pregnant mother to get any literature from the sidewalk counselors, because they might realize that they are already a mother.
- They don’t want the pregnant mother to hear anything that makes what is inside of them a human being because the mother might realize that she is already just that – a mother.
- They don’t want the pregnant mother to see an ultrasound because they might realize they are already a mother.
- They don’t want any sort of waiting period where a pregnant mother, already a mother, might realize that fact and change their mind.
- They are so worried about the pregnant mother realizing they are a mother, they don’t even want to show the mom their baby when something goes “awry” and the baby is delivered alive.
All of this is an effort to make sure that the mother of the child, and any other influential person in the situation, do not come to know the child that is already alive. The child that is already alive.
Fortunately science is on the pro-life side. The better our images get, the more the pro-choice side has to sprint in another direction. (It’s ironic that the pro-choice side is, in most other cases, entirely apologetic of anything scientific, but I digress.) It is vitally important that we do everything else we can, on top of the scientific evidence that only some will pay attention to, to give a name and a face to the unborn child. The precious feet and the at-this-many-weeks facts are a good start, but we need to do even more than that. We need to give names to these children. This isn’t to “make the decision more difficult,” but to inject the truth of the matter into the discussion. After all, this is a live human being. Never has it been known that a pregnant woman has delivered anything other than a human being. There is no chance that what is growing inside of the woman, sometime in the future to be delivered, is a bowling ball or a bag of designer make-up, both of which can be amorally chucked into the garbage can.
The tragic events of 9-11 shook everyone I know to their respective core. Yet even I have to admit that not having known anyone, personally, who was affected in the tragedy gives me a far different experience than another person who lost a friend or a loved one at one of the three sites, on a plane or in a building. The point is this: We must make the lobsters known so that they can be loved as more than an inconvenient growth on a woman’s body. We must give name to the lobsters in the tank.
Great Danger in “Guidelines”
Nov 17, 2009 Governmental Reach, Health Care, Obama Administration
Today’s news that the U.S. Preventative Task Force has changed its advice that women should start regular mammograms at 50 rather than 40 will surely anger cancer organizations and medical doctors worldwide. The anger should not stop there, however. As we are in the midst of a debate on nationalized health care this has staggering ramifications on the health care that Americans could come to expect under government-controlled health care. Consider two points:
- The “numbers” show that a 40-year-old woman has a .19 percent chance of dying of cancer before she turns 50, so it’s quite reasonable that government-controlled health care will not cover mammograms before the age of 50.
- Groups of people – death panels – will decide what kind of health status of people (including age, likelihood of success, etc.) get treatment and what kind of treatment
When you put these two factors together, you get a health care system that is both deciding you cannot be screened for an illness before a certain age, and then determining whether or not you can be treated if you do get the disease anyway. Your only recourse is to pay for this screening out of your own pocket.
Now this is a true women’s issue, and one that should have all women in this great land very, very afraid of government-controlled health care. Call your Senators now and oppose the public option!
Tags: Health Care, mammogram, public option
Working on your own demise
Nov 3, 2009 Governmental Reach, Obama Administration
Today’s elections point out something very interesting. That something is not new, and in fact it seems to be the rule more than the exception, but it’s brought to light again today. That something is the idea that the country chooses its representation based on the motivation and interests of the electorate, the elected (including those who won on a recount or several recounts) think that it extends to their entire agenda, and then the elected begin to work on their demise in full force. In fact, when it comes to the presidency, they call this effort “The First 100 Days.”
Today we will see this referendum on governmental reach in all of the key races. There are places where conservatives should have no chance at winning, considering the results of just a year ago. There is even a place where a 3rd party candidate is going to win just to spite the president AND the liberalization of the so-called conservative party.
Mary Kate Cary of U.S. News and World Report points out that it is no other than fiscal conservatism that is winning out.
Maybe it’s because they can see what’s happening. Democrats can read the polls: Independent swing voters are moving toward the right, and the Republican base. The wide American mainstream is broadening to include fiscal conservatives—yes, some of whom have all sorts of opinions on social issues—but they are united in their concern about the growing size and scope of government. Wasn’t that the lesson of August’s tea parties—that people of all stripes are concerned about massive government growth? Isn’t that what’s really threatening the left?
This is something that happens on both sides of the aisle, though tonight will be a referendum on the one year of government overreach by the Obama Administration. It will be spun as something entirely different, but there’s simply no other reason why fiscal conservatives would be winning in these areas that were so largely won by Obama just one year ago.
Tags: elections, fiscal conservatism, Health Care, Obama
