Monday, January 24, 2005
Behave, We Have Guests
I recently posted a piece by Mr. Herzog. I offered a gentleman we'll call Mr. TEE an editorial spot, but he didn't feel up to it. Instead, he asked that everyone read Kitty Kelly's expose book on the Bush clan. Others have also spoken of it as a must-read. I'm too far behind in my reading to put it next, but it's on my top 5 now.
BUT! I have this friend, John. John is not only a conservative, he's a successful businessman, a vet, and a tireless champion of fair play. When he sees cops speeding with no lights or siren, he tails them, gets their car number and tag #, notes the time, and sends a letter to the head of their department. He's an incredible researcher, and loves to confront the far left champions head to head. He writes frequent editorials for his local paper, and has been published in the NY Times Editorial section.
I could rant on about this guy; when I've been jammed up during an argument, he's come through with the info I needed to win. But he'd get annoyed if I listed all his accomplishments, not to mention his charity work.
In this instance, he's taking a swipe at a liberal lawyer:
Sylvia, it's attorneys such as you and Bill and Hillary who give the other 5% a bad reputation.
Last Sunday, the Los Angeles Times carried your online "debate" of abortion with Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine Law School.
You said, "Absolutely, Roe is settled law. If it isn't, then neither are..."
Well which is it, counselor? "Absolutely settled" or not? IF it IS, then why should you "feminists" (a one word oxymoron)
be concerned about its being overturned? How can something "settled" be overturned? I know. It's deeply intellectual.
"Settled" is a scholarly, relative term which SOUNDS absolute but is not.
You wrote: "Only someone who has never been pregnant and carried a pregnancy to term could think that the awesome decision whether or not to bring a child into the world is less essential to human liberty than parental choice about how children should be educated."
If deep thoughts and opinions require specialized experience, then I certainly do NOT want to hear from any of you thick-ankled, hairy-legged feminists on issues of military service and combat, IN PARTICULAR as they pertain to women and homosexuals. I am a Vietnam Veteran.
You wrote further: "Bodily integrity is deeply embedded in our Common Law tradition."
The vast majority of thoughtful Americans believe that the "bodily integrity" of children six, seven, eight, or even nine months in the womb is inhumanely and painfully violated when they have been delivered except for their heads, which are speared with scissors.
Without a hint of anesthesia to this living, viable child, these scissors are then spread wide apart, opening a larger hole into the baby's brain into which a steel canula is inserted and its brains sucked into a clear glass jar.
"Bodily integrity" violated most brutally and painfully, with no "choice" whatsoever by the baby's father or the baby itself.
You wrote: "Science does not tell us when a fetus becomes a person, only religion does."
Your ignorance is showing, professor. Medical doctors and ethicists have clearly stated, "Life begins at conception."
Just as clearly, it is written in Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you and before you were born I consecrated you."
You wrote: "Control of reproduction is essential to women's equal citizenship and ability to contribute to every human enterprise."
Oh please, stop with the silliness ! What you are saying is that the fathers have absolutely NO say in this "control of reproduction." Either they will have their beloved child butchered, even in the ninth month of its formation, or else they may be forced to support this life for the next 18 years without a WHISPER of "CHOICE" ! Can a father request that he be given his own flesh and blood, to have and to hold and to love, all by himself, should the baby's mother want it out of her sight? Why NO!
Human enterprise would be reduced thereby.
You wrote: "Denying access to abortion is discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and gender, and is also a denial of fundamental human liberty."
Denying a father his own child is likewise discrimination on the basis of gender, and is ALSO a denial of fundamental human liberty, not to mention the violation of the baby's "bodily integrity," which as you already stated is an urgent matter long established in Common Law.
Finally, you wrote: "Law ... never mandates the physical intrusion and denial of liberty that results when a woman is forced to bear a child."
Garrison Keillor said, "If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on the bus?"
The father may be forced to pay child support for 18 years. That's just fine by you, isn't it, Sylvia?
Alternatively, he may be forced to live a lonely life without the child that was also his. Sorry, pal.
Don't be so "sexist." YOU have no "choice." Your baby has no "choice" either. "Absolutely."
Since a picture is worth a thousand words, ponder these, in particular those at the bottom:
http://abortionno.org/Resources/pictures_2.html (Blogger's note: It's gruesome.
I would like to end on a humorous note. God knows you male-hating feminists could use some humor.
Why do sumo wrestlers shave their legs and armpits?
Give up?
So they won't be mistaken for feminists.
Not funny, is it. No. It's "sexist." But those redneck jokes - they're the best, huh.
Balance of NYU faculty to be copied as well.
John Jaeger
Irvine, California
