Saturday, August 25, 2012

- Aborta-Palooza

Although the media is loath to admit it, abortion has been a political loser for the left in recent years. The reason for this is part morality, part technology. The moral part of the abortion debate has always been clear. No one, not even NARAL wants to kill babies. It’s wrong. We all know that. There are a few members of the left who are so wrongheaded that they have reconciled themselves to arguing for it anyway, but in their hearts they know, killing a baby is wrong.

The technology part of the debate is that thanks to it, we can tell that the ‘fetal matter’ that NARAL and Planned Parenthood so jokingly dismiss as morally irrelevant, is actually uncomfortably similar in shape to the baby we all know we do not want to kill. In effect, the popular opinion of what constitutes a baby has moved to an earlier date in the gestation cycle.

But at this point the left is willing to grasp at any straw it can. Their record is a disaster so they can’t rely on facts. And since they have to rely on emotion as a decision making tool if they want to have any shot at all of keeping control of the government, they are going to try to rely on that most emotive of voter – the single woman.

My fiend John Derbyshire once got in big trouble for stating something that was both empirically true and obvious. No, not that. This was way before that. What he said was (forgive my sloppy paraphrase John) that if women’s suffrage were rescinded, then no democrat anywhere in the country would ever be elected to anything again. The left read this (or John’s more elegantly phrased version of it) and immediately decided that he was advocating for denying women the right to vote. He wasn’t - he was just making a point.

I on the other hand, think there are all kinds of people who really should be denied the vote. For instance, I believe that anyone who does not have an individual net positive tax burden shouldn’t be allowed to vote. If you don’t pay in more than you get back, then I think you should be free to participate in society in every way; but no vote. I think this should apply to a government salary too. If you work for the government in any role but uniformed military (who pony up their share in other ways), then you should be denied the right to vote until you leave government service. Then of course, you get your vote back - so long as you have a net positive tax burden.

I don’t think there should be any restrictions on race or intelligence or ‘English speaking’ or anything else. I can think of examples where all those metrics would be misapplied. But in our ongoing battle between the makers and the takers, I come down firmly on the side of the makers. They should be the ones who decide who gets what. I simply don’t believe an 18 year old puppetry student who has never worked a day in his life casts a vote with the same wisdom as someone who has been paying into the system since they were 15.

With all that said though, apart from the fact that it would achieve a political goal (an admirable motive in itself to the denizens of the left) I can’t think of a good reason to categorically deny women the vote. And since that’s so, we must persuade them instead. Even though they tend toward sentiment instead of reason – even thought they are almost single handedly keeping the party dedicated to the destruction …excuse me… the “fundamental transformation” of America, we still have to allow them to vote.

The good news though is that with regard to abortion, that seems to be happening. More and more women are realizing (rightly in my opinion) that a human life is a thing to be valued. They realize that the most dedicated advocates for abortion through the years were really monsters trying to rid the world of ‘undesirable’ people.

And for that reason I think it’s a reflection of their desperation that this year’s Democrats are flailing about so wildly for a group they can whip into a frenzy. They’re grabbing on to a pro-abortion stance because it’s the closest thing they have to a viable issue. And the voters it appeals to can be frightened into voting their way like no other. It’s the perfect sub-demographic for them. Wildly sentimental and easily frightened.

But you know Democrats. They won’t just stick to the facts – they really can’t. So instead of telling them that Romney-Ryan would allow religious groups to not pay for their condoms, they’ll accuse the Republican party of burning single women as witches. Instead of describing their (actually quite moderate) views, they’ll depict affable Paul Ryan as a torquemada of the 21st century, and soft spoken and eminently faithful Mitt Romney as… I don’t know some kind of Mormon monster with his 19 underage wives chained up in the basement. I don't really know... something hyperbolic like that. But I do know that whatever it is they decide to say will be taken FAR too far.

And that will be their undoing. The Romney and Ryan views on Abortion and religious liberty pertaining to birth control are not extreme. In fact for most of the right, they aren't extreme enough. They are not wild eyed religious revolutionaries and the public will have a very hard time seeing them that way. But the Democrats and their major media water carriers will do their best to tell that story none the less.

So we’ll all have to put up with listening to it for a while, but I don’t think we have to be afraid of it. It’s too far from the truth and whenever the Democrats run off the edge like that, people know it. They know the Tea party is not the terrorist wing of the Republican right. They know the occupy movement is not soft spoken intellectuals who clean up after their own protests. The truth always comes out – usually in spite of Democrat efforts. And even if they turn the Democrat convention in to Aborta-palooza, the truth will come out about this too.


Chess said...

Im sorry but i would have to add ? a hs degree. But the odds are that most people who are negative tax burden are also sort of not educated.. So your high bar would take alot those out that my education one would.
Mitt has to learn that the media only gets a joke when they want to get a joke. Which is about 0 with R&R.No jokes bout b-days from here on.
Im a little surprised that no one has ever called some repubs out on the abortion is ok if it endagers the life of the woman. ALL pregnacies endager the life of the woman.ALL.
In 25 years of anesthesia I saw alot of bad things happen during and after pregnancy..Its just a messy subject that I dont think will ever be cleaned up.
I just think there are soooo many areas that R&R could be doing "body" punches that they are missing.Body blows add up.
Have a good convention. Embrace all. And make those arms feel heavy in about the 11th round then bring the haymaker.

Ikaika said...

In south Florida, the only Hussein ads I've seen are scary mitt romny Paul Ryan are goin to take away your right to abort. Ultimately this is further taken to insinuate that women are complete morons (according to the DNC); a vote for R&R is a vote for 17th century morality.
My wife ells me that she has encountered moronic women that project this inanity. The most vocal proponents of keeping women afraid and stupid are democrat men.

The part of the Klan has another rift. In supporting homosexuality in the same scope of civil rights, any blacks don't appreciate their struggle for equality being leveled with the ability of two gay guys to call themselves "married".
We may be witnessing the collapses of the national democrat party.
Why? They shot their wad in the last three years in three branches of govt and america is waking up to the mess that they left.

chess said...

"I have a dream"----that you are correct Ikaika.