I just read this story from Christian Science Monitor by Linda Feldmann, a 24-year veteran of the magazine. For several years now, every time I read a CSM story, I ask myself if anyone there has even the remotest inkling of what that “C” stands for on their masthead?
For those of you who are looking for clues about the Left’s schemes to target various audiences, this article sheds a clue, which you may find useful should you ever be able to confront a leftist cadre member, or one of their booboosie (H L Mencken) on the issue of our “war on women,” as I recently did while wandering a left-leaning news site. (Mencken never had wanton sexuality in mind when he coined that term, referring to boobs of a different kind altogether, still I think you can see the word fits.)
Ostensibly about the GOP, actually this article is not, at least in the first instance. It’s first mission is to reaffirm certain beliefs among the faithful, to remind them that their feet are planted on firm ground here, then from there build a case against the enemy around them.
To do this here, this article has to presuppose that the right to an abortion and the morality of abortion are the same.
Note: You often see leftist’s speak in a condescending “As everyone already knows…” tone of voice, even when those words are not actually spoken out loud. You can see that here, and it’s a device to let the faithful booboosie readers know the author is speaking from a position of strength and certifiable truth. This in turn allows the faithful reader to snuggle like a baby in church in the arms of her warm reassurances, before she proceeds with her attack on others outside their circle who would disrupt this serenity, in this case Republicans.
This is also your first clue the writer hasn’t the foggiest notion about the deeper meanings of the things she is about to say, which should serve as a perfect invitation for you to join in with some sort of reply, should you get the chance. Lefties almost always telegraph their shallow eptitude in this way, not to mention a certain degree of insecurity, which is why they use this primarily among booboosies several ranks below them, or directed at enemies in a venue where they can quickly high-tail it out of there without any follow-up questions. It is a practiced leftist tactic.
In this case readers are quickly invited to arrive at the conclusion (in their tiny minds) that their side of the politics of abortion is the moral one.
Then, by mentioning the social conservative wing of the Republican Party (already defined as Evil Incarnate), before the other more receptive wing, she attempts to launch a preemptive strike against what will follow, that they are once again being pressed to profess opposition to all sorts of abortions that go far beyond the four corners of the original Roe v Wade (1973), maintaining to the dull wits of their readers that an abortion, from “the day after” pill to an ice pick in the eye of a baby accidentally born alive at eight months, are all the same. Again, all abortion is moral.
Finally, this article is a general warning that any Republicans who publicly proclaim any dimension of immorality here will once again invite the wrath of the much-feared Hook-up brigades who can do to them what they did to Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia or Mitt Romney a year earlier. A flick of their false eyelashes and you’re finished, Republican. So appease these fire goddesses of the Back alley three-drinks-and-I’m-yours-Baby, Baby bloc. Or else.
For a fun excursion, just Google “War on Women” and go directly to their “Images” page, and view the really fine art associated with this term, mostly promulgated by the Left. It’s excellence shows that feminists have been able to recruit some really fine gelded men to do their art, and an army of semi-beautiful lesbians to pose as women who might some day actually become pregnant by using their bodies any damned way they please. The use of the pagan goddess Gaiea is also a nice touch, an ironic offset against a rueful and judgmental Nature that punishes promiscuous conduct as ruefully as Michelangelo’s God.
I can’t say where Ms Feldmann of CSM sits in the feminist pecking order, a central planner or low-end mouthpiece (it’s not that hard being a leftwing publications writer, 1) a good command of the King’s English but 2) a general inability to critically think with it, and 3) some kissing up involved), but clearly, to one of their target audiences, single women between 20-30, the object is clearly to keep their minds as vacant and unquestioning as they were when they first graduated from Briarcliffe.
Now I find this unmarried group, as a voting bloc, to be generally inconsequential. Understanding this would be a real plus for any Republican and even the occasional adventuresome Democrat who might like to come into politics through a different door than the one the Party now holds ajar. I’m told they make up 23% of voters, and went for Obama 67-33, but I doubt the raw strength of that number. I think it is contrived. As we wrote here after Ken Cuccinalli was defeated in the Virginia gubernatorial race, and cited by Ms Feldmann, the loose-and-easy vote (or so-called “war on women” victims) had nothing to do with Terry McAuliffe’s win here. The Dems putting up a faux libertarian to steal 6% of Cuccinelli’s vote (a kind of voter fraud), and the GOP establishment’s refusal to fund Cuccinelli over the very non-existent fears cited here are what carried the day for McAuliffe.
This vaunted elastic-thigh vote was as inconsequential in Virginia as it was in getting Barack Obama elected in 2012. There simply aren’t enough of them to carry an election, and outside of the northeast blue corridors, where Republicans shine Democrats’ shoes anyway, (including the DC portions of Virginia and Maryland), they are entirely of no consequence, which should tell us a lot more about the moral climate rather than the voting strengths of those blue states in the first place, causing us to wonder why national Republicans west and south of the Pennsylvania line are so afraid of the sexual peccadilloes of Yankee horndogs making the bar scene in out-of-the-way places like Hartford.
Their bark is far worse than their bite.
But a larger question looms. While 55 plus million babies have been “aborted” (I’m using the polite term here) since Roe, the annual abortion rate has been diminishing for several years, as has national polling on the general opinion about abortion (for it versus against it), where they are almost 50-50 now. (On late term abortions and other forms of Sanger-like baby murders, the sort Obama approves, the ratio has always been at least 75% against, as has public disapproval of across-the-board federally-funded contraception and abortion associated with Obamacare.)
One has to ask, if we are pumping 4 million students out of the public schools each year, over half of them girls, over half of them going on to college, and that 1.3 million girls replacing the approximate 1 million women leaving the demographic by becoming older and wiser, then how come that demographic isn’t getting bigger even as they say it is getting more powerful? Why isn’t abortion the flavor of the day at the nation’s medical concession stand? Why are the majority of visible and voluble women protesters in the streets lesbians, with no gynecological interest in abortion choice whatsoever, instead of fertile young hotties? (You think we can’t tell the difference?) Why are 80% of inner-city black children aborted in New York, but diminishing westward to scarcely 10% in black ghettos once you cross the Mississippi?
Two words, Repentance and culture…
…Staunchly supported by both evolutionary and religious morals, which clearly are regional.
As I have written elsewhere, morality is both an evolutionary term and a religious one. Darwinist and religious philosophers simply disagree as to which came first, the chicken or the egg. Rather than argue that, I prefer to think of them working in tandem on critical survival issues such as this. Besides, I’ve always believed God almost always works inside Nature.
But in the off-chance we may get to level a remark at one of these pro-abortion type ladies-of-the-frequently-bounced mattress persuasion, on the possibility they may have the capacity for thinking, as some young people often are, and we can get one or two sentences out in order to draw them out, and make a point to anyone else watching, it’s important that we try to make the best of it.
For instance, I recently had this exchange:
The “right” to an abortion and the “goodness” of abortion are two different matters. Proving the dictum of La Rochefoucauld that hypocrisy is the price that vice pays to virtue, even Teddy Kennedy went to his grave still saying he was against abortion.
Being against abortion is still the virtue in the room.
This is why the Left is so much against this. They are anti-virtue,. anti-morality, and back in the 20s and 30s’ even loudly proclaimed this bias. Today they are too stupid to even know the difference between virtue and vice, so are easy gardens to plow with self-delusion.
I wouldn’t worry about the GOP, though. They are as afraid of their own shadows as Democrats are unaware of their own souls. I however will vote for any candidate who expressly states that he does not ever want to appeal to the incontinent-thigh vote, and doxy-wing of American womanhood.
Followed by a reply from a woman I assumed to be young:
A lot of flowery words that just mean your opinion is the only right one. You can dress up a pig and it’s still a pig. You’ve a right to your opinion, you just don’t have the right to force your opinion onto anyone else! That’s really the crux of the matter in plain English!
This girl gave me one more riposte:
You’ve been misinformed. On this issue there is only one right answer. Sorry. Choose wrong and the entire civilization around you falls. Morality is not just a religious absolute, but an evolutionary one. It is Darwinian. You can look it up. So, this is not just an opinion. It is a natural law. You can scrape all the grease paint from a prostitute, and have her give out for free what she once took money for doing, and she is still a tramp….since you mentioned dressing up a pig.
At some time, when you’re 30, maybe 40, even 50, you’ll know I’m right. I just hope you aren’t carrying too much baggage then. A statistic you probably don’t know is that of the 55 million abortions carried out since Roe, over half of the mothers have regretted them. There are plenty of studies. They’ve been sorry, wished they hadn’t done it. They know shame. And many have changed their behavior going forward because of it.
Private, silent repentance.
I made these comments in a leftwing venue, so didn’t expect applause of approval. Don’t look for it if you want to do the most good.
What I tried to convey is that while the young are now taught to disregard any notion of morality (government-approved morality does not go by that name) because it is religion-based, Nature invokes the same morality as well for clearly immoral behavior, once it reaches a certain level among the population becoming survival-endangering. Nature can’t really stop this, it can simply punish it. All Nature does is let the organism die, whether an individual, a family, a tribe, a small community, or a national culture, but always in the hope it is replaced by one more survival oriented. Nature abhors a vacuum, and will always allow a stronger organism to replace it.
George Carlin once said that according to his priest there were six individual sins involved in attempting to cop one feel, so when I think of all the hours of planning, hard work and expense I expended, at 20, just to secure that one cop without getting my arm broken, or a sharp fingernail in my face, the idea of walking into a saloon of wall-to-wall hotties wearing no underwear, with the relative assurance that I would walk out with one of them after no more than $30 invested, is a tempting thought to wish I’d been born 40 years later.
But then I think again. Men who climb mountains climb mountains, and they have no use for anthills. And my generation was taught to climb mountains. These Friday-night bar trollops are no hills for real steppers, no more than they were 50 years ago, when we had a common name for them we’re no longer allowed to use in public.
Nature indeed does seem to turn young women, just like young men, away from wayward acts of indiscriminant skirt lifting once certain other biological factors kick in, such as parenthood. For you Gaiea fans, the mating-for-life process appears to be the most natural of processes, and the most preferred way to perpetuate the species…while staying sober. On the other hand young women since Roe have justified abortion as an effective prevention of parenthood, not to mention stretch-marks, ugly fashion choices for several months, sagging breasts, and yes, the fear of marriage, and the giving up of the “good life,” as they perceive it to be at 24.
As Lincoln once said, this is the fight in which we now find ourselves engaged. For at 30 or thereabouts, a more domestic life – even for lesbians and gay men – seems to take on a certain allure. Motherhood and fatherhood ain’t so bad either. So, as we’ve known since the 1980s, when all the feminine magazines suddenly began dealing with the ticking biological clock of the 40-something professional women who had missed this boat, we know that there are all sorts of questions, if not downright regrets, among women about the choices they made when they were 25. Abortion would have been only one of those regrets.
Regret is nothing more than a private repentance.