The selfishness of slavery and abortion

Abortion rationalizers and slavery defenders have similar motivations

Hatchet

By Lucas Roebuck

Don’t be fooled. The media / left-wing outcry against Gov. Sarah Palin’s rise to prominence is not about her experience (or lack thereof ). With Sen. Barack Obama having a Slim Fast resume of a similar girth to Palin’s petite vita, Republicans and Democrats have learned to talk out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to experience.

No, the blitz to discredit Palin is really fueled by one position: her opposition to abortion. Her strong (some say extremist) anti-abortion position has made left-wing feminist groups, like the National Organization of Women, finally come out and back Sen. Barack Obama. (NOW had been sitting on the fence on Obama, presumably to punish him for not selecting Sen. Hillary Clinton, who does support abortion rights, as his running mate). Many have called abortion a wedge issue, something used to divide and polarize political or demographic groups for partisan gain. Abortion is indeed a wedge issue in the way that slavery was in the 1860 election. For the moral opponents of slavery, the practice of human ownership was a repugnant, dehumanizing act. For the moral opponents of abortion, the practice of infanticide is equally repugnant, depriving the most vulnerable humans of their lives.

•••

No honest debate about abortion can be had until some consensus is reached on when unique human life begins. Abortion-rights advocates avoid this discussion because it is a losing battle for them. Although anti-abortion advocates tend to fall into the “ religious” demographic, science has clearly fallen on their side. DNA is the unique human “ fingerprint” that biologically distinguishes us from our parents. The sperm or egg alone is not a unique human life. Only at the point of conception does a human become unique — that is clearly when science dictates that the new human life begins. Is that new human life worth defending? What does allowing the arbitrary extinguishing of life at its earliest stages say about the moral foundation of our society? 

Like the pro-slavery thought in the Old South, abortion rights activists muddle the question with red herrings, false comparisons and selfish rationalizations. Southerners in the mid-1800s argued that slavery was a necessary institution needed to deal with an inherently transient and often destabilizing lower class. For the landless poor, slavery was a humane way to provide stability and lawful harmony to this lower class of humanity. This sort of viewpoint was argued by people like South Carolina Gov. James Hammond (1807-1864 ) and Vice President John C. Calhoun (1782-1850). Southern slavers used a humanistic defense for slavery. Civilization could only advance if some people were freed from menial tasks to do the work of the enlightenment, they argued. 

Slavery, it seemed, was morally defensible in the name of the greater good. At the very least, abusing the politically weak (blacks, slaves) to give economic benefit to the politically strong (whites, slave owners) was justifiable because the strength of the overall economy and the larger upside to society. Of course, this counters the foundational values of our society, where all people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If slavery was so great, why weren’t people subjugating themselves in droves to be slaves? Because depriving people of life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness is a dehumanizing, immoral thing. 

Did not the slaves yearn to be free?

••• 

Modern arguments defending the practice of abortion show shades of the pro-slavery case. Why should babies be born into loveless families? Teenagers having children almost assures an underclass of poverty. Statistically, these children will be part of troubled demographics, so won’t they be better off never having been born. Abortions are justified because we a) don’t really know when life begins and b) society is better off without these unwanted people overpopulating the least appealing demographics. The echos are haunting. Slaves are better off in forced servitude, they just don’t know it. Aborted children are better off never being born. 

This is a sad justification for the politically powerful (parents, grandparents, and the mother) to abuse the powerless (children still in the womb ) with the benefits again going to the powerful. 

We cannot ignore the true burden a woman has in carrying a child to term and the real sacrifices that a woman who is charged with caring for a child must make. The dreams of a woman who has an unexpected child, particularly a young woman, can be hampered or obliterated. This is undeniable.

The economic hardships the South faced after the Civil War were also undeniable. A way of life, a significant culture, was decimated. But to allow the South to continue this way of life by taking away the freedom of blacks was morally inexcusable. To allow the killing of a child for the sole reason that a woman wants to continue her life without the burden of childbearing and child-rearing is equally inexcusable. Ultimately, slavery and abortion justifications were born of selfishness, or putting your needs in front of someone else’s. If, as science suggests, human life begins at conception, then abortion is putting the needs of the mother ahead of the infant. 

Do not children yearn to live and grow ? Ask the survivor of a botched abortion, 31-year-old Gianna Jesson if she would rather be dead.

••• 

It’s often been rhetorically effective to say that Republicans, commonly the party that opposes abortion, only cares about a child from conception to birth. While the statement is an unfair generalization (millions of Republicans give time, money and more to help ease the burden of a crisis pregnancy and provide for adoption), it’s powered by partial truths. Ultimately, the issue of abortion transcends party politics and speaks to the very ideals — life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness — that are bedrock to American society. 

With freedom — like the freedom to have sex, for example — come consequences. Pregnancy is one of them. So, if mass distribution of condoms and sex education for kindergartners is the way to end unwanted pregnancies, then so be it. If we need to have a windfall tax on oil corporations to pay for prenatal care (and postnatal care) for mother and child, then so be it. If the government needs to cover the cost of the adoption process, so be it. If we need to have DNA paternity testing and then force fathers to be accountable (and they should be!), so be it.

Biological limits aside, fathers should have to bear as much of the burden as possible that a child brings. 

The disclaimer should be made: In rare cases where a mother faces a real chance of death in carrying a baby to term, abortion should be allowed. Such a case is a life-for-a-life issue, and none of us has the moral standing to judge here. The mother’s life is not greater or less valuable than that of her child. I do not fault the mother who must abort her child to live. I do note, however, that the mother who gives her life for her child is noble in the best sense of the word, like Lorraine Allard, a cancer victim in England last year who denied herself life-saving chemotherapy because it would kill her infant. The baby was born, but the cancer in the mother was unstoppable at that point. Two months alter, Allard died. There is no greater love — the ultimate act of selflessness. Yes, a woman with an unexpected pregnancy faces real consequences. Society, the government, churches, nonprofits and individuals should aggressively help mitigate those consequences. Both the mother and child have intrinsic human worth.

••• 

The fight to protect a woman’s right to have an abortion is ultimately a selfish fight. The ability to kill one’s own baby serves to accommodate the legitimate, immediate and longterm needs of the mother and the ultimate expense of the baby. A baby is very threatening to the needs of a mother. It threatens the careers of women. It threatens the sexual freedom of women. It threatens the livelihood of women. It threatens the very hopes and dreams of women. 

Palin, an anti-abortion woman, challenges abortion as a method to protect those freedoms. Forget her experience. She is a powerful symbol that children don’t have to be a threat to hopes and dreams for a woman. Abortion advocates think she’s a false symbol, so she must be destroyed lest she actually curb the legality of abortion. Professional journalists, most of whom side with abortion activists, have shown they are all too willing to be the agents of onslaught. Before this election is over she may be destroyed. 

But for now, for the weakest, most powerless humans of all, Palin represents hope.

A powerful video from an Iraq vet

McCain's masterful media strategy

Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck

Sen. John McCain ran with the media as his ally in his quest to become president in 2000. The press loved his “Straight Talk Express” when he gave them unlimited access to his campaign. The love-in was so great that the senator jokingly referred to the media as his “ base ”

We all know how well playing to that base did for McCain in 2000, who was stomped by then Gov. George W. Bush in the GOP primary. In 2008, McCain has switched his base from the media to another, slightly larger group called “evangelicals,” the very same who mobilized and put Bush in the White House — twice.

Not only is McCain limiting press access to himself but also to his prize-fighter vice presidential choice, the politically exotic Sarah Palin. His flip-flop on the media has gone deeper than access: His campaign, led off by a salvo from Palin at the GOP convention, has launched a full-frontal assault on the credibility of the national media, accusing them of not just being in the tank for Sen. Barack Obama but also out of touch with average Americans.

“And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone,” Palin said. “But here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion — I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country.”

McCain has run eviscerating ads (you can find them on YouTube.com ) mocking the presses “love affair” with Obama.

The effect of these attacks on the media, if unchallenged, mean that the news-consuming public will be more likely to assume that positive coverage of Obama is illegitimate — which will make voters less likely to pull the lever for Obama in November.

Conventional wisdom says that for the politician, insulting the press is akin to biting the hand that feeds you. In reality, McCain has the media right where he wants them. The media essentially can’t fight back because 1 ) the data support that they have been extremely biased in their reporting on Obama and b ) the public is savvy enough to already have picked up on this huge bias.

(For what it’s worth, I believe most of the media bias for Obama is an unintentional product of “Manhattan Myopia,” the tendency for national journalists to see the world only from a New York City perspective, as opposed to some sort of conspiracy. )

The narcissistic, self-absorbed media also can’t resist writing about itself. The media love being in their own spotlight, so we’ve seen a lot of hand wringing and self-doubt as the articles and pundits ask a question with an obvious answer: “Are we biased for Obama ?” Even though the media has half-heartedly defended itself against the McCain campaign’s accusations (and those of many conservative groups ) that the press is biased, the statistics published in the “mainstream” media as part of this handwringing are pretty damning.

As Time magazine reports, “ A review of 17, 455 print stories between July 7 and Aug. 17 by the news-clip warehouse LexisNexis found that Obama received 38 percent more coverage than McCain.” In the same article, Time admits, “So far this year, Obama has graced Time’s cover seven times, compared with three for McCain and one for his running mate, Sarah Palin. Newsweek has placed Obama-focused stories on the cover eight times in 2008, versus four for McCain.”

The criticism over the bias of MSNBC’s Chris “ Obamagives-me-a-thrill-up-my-leg ” Matthews and Keith Olbermann during the conventions was so intense that parent company NBC pulled the pair from anchoring the debates.

Other examples: Oprah welcoming Barack Obama on her show but not Republican Sarah Palin. The New York Times running an Obama-written column on the surge but rejecting McCain’s because it wasn’t like Obama’s opinion piece.

The public is siding with McCain over the media. A Rasmussen survey “ finds that 50 percent of voters think most reporters are trying to help Obama win versus 11 percent who believe they are trying to help his Republican opponent John McCain.... Seven out of 10 voters (69 percent ) remain convinced that reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and this year by a nearly five-to-one margin voters believe they are trying to help Barack Obama. ”

McCain has the media in the position of a sports referee who was caught making a bad call. And even if McCain’s depiction of media bias is inaccurate (it isn’t), it doesn’t matter. The public believes it is so. So McCain can run against a liberal national media, guilting them (maybe fairly ) into giving him more fair coverage and undercutting the effects of their biased coverage of Obama — and making them second-guess anytime they want to say anything nice about Obama.

Overtly positive media support for Obama may have helped him with the Democratic primary, but it has backfired in the general election.

As McCain found out in 2000, who needs enemies when the media are your friends.

###30###

Obama and Palin's inexperience

Historically, Obama would be the most inexperienced president ever

Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck

Of course, when the Obama campaign slammed Gov. Sarah Palin for her "inexperience," the Democrats were throwing a proverbial boulder in a glass house. Within hours of the announcement of Palin as the GOP VP nominee, the Obama camp put out this statement: "John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency."

Ultimately, the experience argument against both candidates is a red herring. I could compose an equally asinine statement about Obama: "Democrats (want to) put a former 'community organizer' with zero executive governing experience directly in the White House."

A thorough understanding of how our government operates certainly is critical to being able to run the country, but obviously both Palin and Obama possess this knowledge. A state government is a microcosm of the U.S. government, so running one is the best hands-on training one could get before becoming president. Although Obama isn't "running" anything, serving as a U.S. Senator also affords one a close look into the processes of governance as well, such as budgeting, etc. 

As far as foreign policy experience is concerned, by the measure Obama is suggesting we weigh candidates, no president since George H.W. Bush has had any going into office. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had none. Neither did Jimmy Carter (who by the way had just two more years of governing experience than Palin when he became president). 

In terms of time on the job, neither Palin nor Obama have much room to talk. Palin has about 14 years of political public service (two years at a statewide level). Obama has slightly less time on the job: 10 years of political public service (three years at a statewide level). 

This really pales when you compare it to the experience of, say, their running mates. John McCain has been in congress for around a quarter of a century. Joe Biden has been in the Senate for 35 years (two years longer than this whippersnapper of a columnist has been alive!). Heck, even former Vice President Dan Quayle, unfairly targeted by the media when he ran for VP as being "inexperienced," had FOUR TIMES the congressional experience of Obama. Quayle spent four years in the House and eight years in the Senate before becoming Vice President.

As a matter of record, Obama will arguably have the least "experience" of any president in U.S. history (experience being defined in this case as serving as vice president, governor, congressman, cabinet member or an officer in the military) ... in as much as experienced matters. The possible exception is Grover Cleveland (who like Palin, was a governor who served two years before becoming president). For what its worth, Vice Presidents have been elected with less experience than Palin.

The only real difference between the relatively inexperienced newcomers Palin and Obama is that one of them is running for the top job, and the other just wants the number two spot. So if McCain/Palin are elected, the Republicans are putting their most experienced foot forward. If Obama/Biden win, the Democrats are putting their least experienced foot forward.

Which is why Democrat attacks on Palin's experience make no sense. 

Hopefully, our national discourse will move beyond the experience question and on to more substantive issues. For example...

We know both Palin and Obama have talked the reform talk. But who has actually done anything to fight corruption. Palin and Obama come from two corrupt political systems: the Alaska GOP and the Chicago-area Democrats. The Chicago Tribune's political columnist John Kass, who knows Obama well, had some interesting things to say on this subject.

"The young Alaska Republican put her political career on the line by challenging the corrupt, old Alaskan Republican bulls on their sleazy pay-for-play politics and their use of the public trust to fill the pockets of their friends. She didn't merely talk about abstract change in Washington. She challenged corruption at home, challenged her own party bosses—some of whom are already in prison—at great risk to her political future.

It is something I've begged and begged Obama to do with the ham-fisted pols in Chicago and Illinois—to not merely talk about change far away, but to take a principled stand even if that stand runs counter to his political interests at home; to challenge the thugs of his own party, to give us a reason to believe he's the man he says he is. He has politely declined.

In this, Obama obviously has more experience than Palin."

Meanwhile, consider this from the Anchorage Daily News:

May 18, 2007: "Gov. Sarah Palin got elected pledging to change the way business was being done in Juneau. Her commitment to open, transparent government is a stark contrast to the prevailing ethic in the Alaska Legislature. ... Ethics reform, sneered at by a few lawmakers and many lobbyists, is now a reality. Gov. Palin's fingerprints are all over the bill and to the public she is the face of ethics reform."

Of course, Obama isn't running against Palin. He's running against the much more accomplished Sen. McCain, whose track record of bipartisanship and anti-pork is undeniable. 

But if Vice President Palin is called on to be president, as have roughly a half-dozen VPs in our nation's history, she would have at least the experience Obama has now. More importantly, she has proven as much as any candidate on either ticket, she's capable of real, positive change.

###30###