Roberts NOW!
My two favorite factoids so far related to the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court by President Bush are (1) that his wife is an executive of a group called "Feminists for Life"; and (2) that NOW has already organized a rally against Roberts for this morning in Washington. The second factoid provides an example of what I wrote 2 weeks ago here, namely, that groups like NOW have to oppose any nominee of President Bush because that's what they do for a living. (See my post below, "Moderation and Money.")
But the first and second combined point to what I can only hope (I don't think it will come true, though) will be an epiphanic moment in American culture when the MSM is forced to confront the fact that there are many, many, many women who are not only not pro-choice, but are actively pro-life, so that to cede to fringe interest groups like NOW the mantle of "speaking for women," or protecting "women's rights" is silly and illogical. I know in my only life in a Catholic parish in Wisconsin that I can go whole days without ever bumping into a woman who is pro-choice. (My wife sure as heck isn't.) Women simply aren't monolithic.
Which brings me to a philosophical point. If "rights" mean anything, they must mean those things that are "self-evident." It is self-evident that people should be able to worship the God of their choosing. It is self-evident that citizens should be able to choose their governors. It is self-evident that citizens should have the right to speak freely in criticism of their government. It is self-evident that government should not be able to seize the property of private citizens without just compensation. It is self-evident that the law should treat people equally without regard to race. Etc. Etc. But if half of the people in America don't believe that they have a right to privacy that extends to killing their unborn children, doesn't that seem like pretty strong evidence that such a right isn't "self-evident," and therefore isn't a right at all?
Roberts will be confirmed. But it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I would expect Democrats to focus a little bit (although sub rosa because wives are typically off limits) on Roberts' wife's pro-life activities. But it might backfire.
But the first and second combined point to what I can only hope (I don't think it will come true, though) will be an epiphanic moment in American culture when the MSM is forced to confront the fact that there are many, many, many women who are not only not pro-choice, but are actively pro-life, so that to cede to fringe interest groups like NOW the mantle of "speaking for women," or protecting "women's rights" is silly and illogical. I know in my only life in a Catholic parish in Wisconsin that I can go whole days without ever bumping into a woman who is pro-choice. (My wife sure as heck isn't.) Women simply aren't monolithic.
Which brings me to a philosophical point. If "rights" mean anything, they must mean those things that are "self-evident." It is self-evident that people should be able to worship the God of their choosing. It is self-evident that citizens should be able to choose their governors. It is self-evident that citizens should have the right to speak freely in criticism of their government. It is self-evident that government should not be able to seize the property of private citizens without just compensation. It is self-evident that the law should treat people equally without regard to race. Etc. Etc. But if half of the people in America don't believe that they have a right to privacy that extends to killing their unborn children, doesn't that seem like pretty strong evidence that such a right isn't "self-evident," and therefore isn't a right at all?
Roberts will be confirmed. But it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I would expect Democrats to focus a little bit (although sub rosa because wives are typically off limits) on Roberts' wife's pro-life activities. But it might backfire.
posted by PDB at 7:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home