There are quite a few habits I still hold from my Naval Academy days. One of these is the daily paper. As plebes (freshman, at normal universities), we were required to subscribe to a paper. I got the Washington Post. (If nothing else, it had three pages of comics.) Unlike my classmates, I didn’t read the entire sports section and skim the international articles; I used the sports section to polish the mirror and read the entire international section, most of the editorials, and all of the comics.
That all as a prelude to say that, strangely enough, I still read the paper. It’s a lot less quiet these days; I usually read the paper standing up at the kitchen island while the kids eat breakfast. I read the same sections, with particular attention to the editorial pages, in between referreeing early-morning fights over cereal.
Yesterday morning brought this little gem. Mind you, our paper ran a large article (I think it was even front page) on this woman running a sex ed program at a church for Planned Parenthood. You’d think they could add a note (they’ve done it before for other people) that this nice, “random”, concerned citizen is in fact the volunteer communications coordinator for Planned Parenthood of SE Virginia. Or maybe mention that her husband is the executive director of the same. Just might have some bearing on how you view her statements.
Re ‘Poll shows shift in abortion views’ (front section, May 16): I do not believe there has been a big shift in public opinion about the choice for women and their families. At best, ‘pro-life’ is a confusing term; at worst, it’s deceitful and skews any poll results. I am pro-life and pro-choice. I do not know anyone who promotes abortion. Pro-choice advocates understand the moral calculus women and their families undertake; it confirms our understanding that listening to that still, small voice inside is very pro-life and that all decisions should be honored.
Americans are fortunate to have a legal system that safeguards the freedom women need to protect themselves and establish healthy families. I hope public language will evolve to more accurately reflect the complex question of what it means to be ‘pro-life.’
I love the, “Well, I don’t think that’s true” comment about the survey. Funny, but my first thought on seeing the news that, for the first time, more than half of the country polled pro-life was that maybe, just maybe, people were finally starting to see through the nasty little euphemism “pro-choice”. After funding overseas abortion organizations, approving taxpayer funding of domestic abortions, killing adult stem cell research while promoting embryonic stem cell research… Maybe people actually realized that Planned Parenthood isn’t about parenthood at all. That abortion is not about choice, it’s about murder.
So, being pro-life consists mainly in listening to the voices in your head whispering, “Kill it! Now! Nobody will know!” Don’t we usually consider that grounds for involuntarily committing someone to the psych ward?
A pertinent definition:
The adjective Orwellian refers to these behaviours of State and The Party, especially when the Party is the State:
- The political manipulation of language, by obfuscation, e.g. WAR IS PEACE. Using language to obfuscate meaning or to reduce and eliminate ideas and their meanings that are deemed dangerous to its authority. …
- Official encouragement of policies contributing to the socio-economic disintegration of the family.
- The substitution of traditional religion with the adoration of state leaders and their Party.
- The encouragement of “doublethink,” whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent, e.g. giving up liberty for freedom. Similar terms used, are “doublespeak“, and “newspeak“
- The revision of history in the favour of the State’s interpretation of it.
And I would add, “See also: redefining ‘pro-life’ as ‘being pro-abortion’.”