My take is that there are pro-lifers like Charlie Sykes and Mona Charen: genuinely troubled by abortion, aware of and likely uncomfortable with the restrictions on civil liberties that come with being pro-choice. It’s disappointing that they have pretty much gone to ground as the zealots and misogynists have forced through draconian laws…
My take is that there are pro-lifers like Charlie Sykes and Mona Charen: genuinely troubled by abortion, aware of and likely uncomfortable with the restrictions on civil liberties that come with being pro-choice. It’s disappointing that they have pretty much gone to ground as the zealots and misogynists have forced through draconian laws. (Sykes’ Olympian view recently expressed to Will Saletan was awful.) It’s what comes of getting in bed with fanatics without bothering to persuade the general public of the rightness of their cause.
That being said, I’m with you. Most of them don’t give a damn about women or babies. It’s all about the meanness.
Charlie and Mona have come a long way in the last decade. Don't be too hard on anyone who cannot (pretty much by definition) see his or her blind spot. The general illumination often has to change significantly to result in recognition of what some objects in the landscape actually are. Trumpism for them was like a flare gun shot above a battlefield that unexpectedly broke through the darkness and delineated edges and angles and enemies they had not previously been able to distinguish.
I recall Mona's opinion stuff from the Reagan years and don't recall any awareness of the racism embraced by their takes on affirmative action, the welfare queen story, and so forth. But of course in their own sincere perception they weren't racist themselves. The welfare queen story wasn't a dog whistle, it was a valid concern about crime and government being open to fraud. Affirmative action wasn't an effort to unskew the societal playing field, it was patent unfairness to white people. Being against public assistance programs is not about wanting to not pay taxes, it's about ensuring that idle people don't fall into the trap of dependency...
It is encouraging that there are in fact pro-lifers like Mona and Charlie (and a handful of others of my own acquaintance) who are truly pro-life, meaning pro-human.
It is discouraging that all of them together in America, assembled at a basketball game, would hardly be audible against the din of hatred and cruelty emitted by the anti-human "pro" lifers.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not particularly impressed with the Monas and Charlies. They aligned themselves with genuinely awful people by convincing themselves that a greater good was at stake, but never bothered to convince (or even try very hard to convince) the public of the rightness of their position. They wanted to deny people what they had: Choice.
Even now, they have curled up in a ball and not confronted the Dan Patricks of the world.—Charlie’s contention that the Texas case raises legitimate questions completely ducks the real issue. Charen’s column of a couple of months ago in which she urged pro-lifers to support day care was clueless and had zero credibility.
Nonetheless, it’s useful to get a detailed picture of the terrain,and some good might come of getting the Mona/Charlie faction to speak. At the very least, I’d like to know where they actually stand on this horror show in Texas.
I believe this week Texas came up and the consensus was that Ken Paxton personally is pretty much in the top rank of deplorables. as ever trod the stage of American politics.
If as a pro-life sympathizer, you have spent your formative years convincing yourself that the cause you are championing is entirely about protecting the innocent, and that abortion except in very very rare instances is actually just selfish people wantonly terminating pregnancies they have been too lazy to prevent through self control -- especially since championing that cause has been essential to your career success -- well, that's a pretty deep epistemological hole to climb out of.
My take is that there are pro-lifers like Charlie Sykes and Mona Charen: genuinely troubled by abortion, aware of and likely uncomfortable with the restrictions on civil liberties that come with being pro-choice. It’s disappointing that they have pretty much gone to ground as the zealots and misogynists have forced through draconian laws. (Sykes’ Olympian view recently expressed to Will Saletan was awful.) It’s what comes of getting in bed with fanatics without bothering to persuade the general public of the rightness of their cause.
That being said, I’m with you. Most of them don’t give a damn about women or babies. It’s all about the meanness.
Charlie and Mona have come a long way in the last decade. Don't be too hard on anyone who cannot (pretty much by definition) see his or her blind spot. The general illumination often has to change significantly to result in recognition of what some objects in the landscape actually are. Trumpism for them was like a flare gun shot above a battlefield that unexpectedly broke through the darkness and delineated edges and angles and enemies they had not previously been able to distinguish.
I recall Mona's opinion stuff from the Reagan years and don't recall any awareness of the racism embraced by their takes on affirmative action, the welfare queen story, and so forth. But of course in their own sincere perception they weren't racist themselves. The welfare queen story wasn't a dog whistle, it was a valid concern about crime and government being open to fraud. Affirmative action wasn't an effort to unskew the societal playing field, it was patent unfairness to white people. Being against public assistance programs is not about wanting to not pay taxes, it's about ensuring that idle people don't fall into the trap of dependency...
It is encouraging that there are in fact pro-lifers like Mona and Charlie (and a handful of others of my own acquaintance) who are truly pro-life, meaning pro-human.
It is discouraging that all of them together in America, assembled at a basketball game, would hardly be audible against the din of hatred and cruelty emitted by the anti-human "pro" lifers.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not particularly impressed with the Monas and Charlies. They aligned themselves with genuinely awful people by convincing themselves that a greater good was at stake, but never bothered to convince (or even try very hard to convince) the public of the rightness of their position. They wanted to deny people what they had: Choice.
Even now, they have curled up in a ball and not confronted the Dan Patricks of the world.—Charlie’s contention that the Texas case raises legitimate questions completely ducks the real issue. Charen’s column of a couple of months ago in which she urged pro-lifers to support day care was clueless and had zero credibility.
Nonetheless, it’s useful to get a detailed picture of the terrain,and some good might come of getting the Mona/Charlie faction to speak. At the very least, I’d like to know where they actually stand on this horror show in Texas.
I believe this week Texas came up and the consensus was that Ken Paxton personally is pretty much in the top rank of deplorables. as ever trod the stage of American politics.
If as a pro-life sympathizer, you have spent your formative years convincing yourself that the cause you are championing is entirely about protecting the innocent, and that abortion except in very very rare instances is actually just selfish people wantonly terminating pregnancies they have been too lazy to prevent through self control -- especially since championing that cause has been essential to your career success -- well, that's a pretty deep epistemological hole to climb out of.
Blind spots are everywhere.