Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

A friend of mine, who is pro-choice, pointed out something rather important to me the other day. He said that he thinks no woman is actually ever pro-abortion. What he meant to say is that, in an ideal world, every woman would keep her child. It’s just that he thinks (and many pro-choicers think) that sometimes circumstances FORCE a woman to have an abortion.

I disagree with that, and this ad sums up why. It is not up to mothers (or anybody else) to decide whether their child’s life is one that the mother (or anybody else) thinks is worth living. That’s not anybody’s call but the child’s. And it’s not up to mothers (or anybody else) to decide that their own inconvenience and poor decision making is a good enough reason to kill a child.

On the other hand, since we’re on the topic of the direction the pro-life movement is going, conservatives/libertarians need to be aware that their pro-life position and their economic/small government positions are not compatible. Ideologically speaking, maybe. Practically speaking, no.

One cannot advocate keeping millions of more children alive who WILL be born into poor environments and would otherwise have been aborted (that’s where the percentages are highest — at the bottom of the economic scale), and then refuse them health care, a good education, and equal economic opportunities — on the grounds that one prefers small government at all costs and would rather pay less taxes that would go to help those very kids so one can afford a new flat screen TV and a third garage. That’s hypocritical. It’s saying what’s important is that the child is born, not what happens with it afterward. It’s saying what’s important to pro-lifers is that the mother bears out the pregnancy, not the life the child then leads. Life, however, is life from conception to death. Not just til birth.

If we’re going to be moral caretakers of life, we need to include all of it in our care taking, at least until the child can do so itself.

And that’s one of the major true reasons why the pro-life movement is on the defensive nationally: People can smell hypocrisy no matter how righteously it’s dressed up.

People rise up in the hundreds of thousands because 4,000 American Soldiers died in Iraq fighting a war they are not sure they agree with, while we elect a president who wants to do everything in his power to ensure MILLIONS of Americans — future Soldiers, Doctors, Scientists, Teachers, Artists, and Humanitarians — are slaughtered mercilessly.

I am unapologetic about my “tone”.

People are being murdered and you are concerned with tone???

For real?

This goes right along with my deep-seated anger over what is happening!

We are worried with having civil discourse about MURDER!

We are not sitting at a table discussing Gas Prices or Taxes… we are talking about ACTUAL people being robbed of their ACTUAL lives because they are an inconvenience.

And, just to be clear, I’m not trying to start a gaddamned movement. I’m not interested in “encouraging” people to get out to the poles and vote for this or that proposition.

I’m trying to catalyze outrage, disgust, and horror over the flippancy with which we treat our most vulnerable humans!

Pro-life is a cliché.

Pro-life is a political position.

Pro-life is a voter base.

Pro-life is bullshit.

“Pro-life” is a distraction taking the attention away from the genocide being committed while we sit in our cozy chairs theorizing, speculating, and being civil.

People rise up in the hundreds of thousands because 4,000American Soldiers died in Iraq fighting a war they are not sure they agree with, while we elect a president who wants to do everything in his power to ensure MILLIONS of Americans — future Soldiers, Doctors, Scientists, Teachers, Artists, and Humanitarians — are slaughtered mercilessly.

Forgive me for my tone and sounding harsh and polarizing, but FUCK that!

cb

As for the bit about branding, marketing, etc. It’s sad but true. If you want to create a movement, you need people to 1) Hear your message/point of view and 2) You need for them to respond to it.

You can disagree if you want. But Pro-Choice (unfortunately) won the positioning game a long time ago with this issue. Though Pro-Life is a nice sounding word, in many American’s minds it equals Anti-Choice. And most Americans will oppose anti-choice any day of the week.

Brand message aside, like I said before this is an incredibly divisive issue. It’s one I’m still wrestling with. Of course, I am against taking innocent life. But it’s interesting to me how the GOP can be so Pro-Life on the front end, but Pro-Death on the back end (i.e. capital punishment.)

However, I can’t escape being troubled that actual human life is a “political issue” or something that must be well-branded to protect.

Honestly, this really angers me.

Why the fuck do we make everything into “issues” and “stances” or “positions”… why must everything have a damn marketing campaign?

This is actual human life (full of dignity and worth), not a Soda Company or Brand of Jeans.

Truly, one of the great devices that has robbed human life of it’s dignity and worth is the forces-that-be turning life into a political stance or an issue to be discussed over tea and crumpets each election year.

cb

P.S. Yes, I said fuck.