With all that's been said across the traditionalist blogosphere about Sarah Palin's selection as McCain's running mate, one point of view is particularly bothersome.
Over at VA's some of the (presumably "Traditionalist") commenters to her entry The Shameless Left are saying that it's a woman's choice (you know, "a woman's right to choose" applied selectively) whether or not to allow a Down's baby to live. Commenter Rollory even goes so far as to assert that based on the fact that the parents of Down's children "created" the child, then they should have power over such baby's life. This, my friends, is the antithesis of traditionalist American conservatism. I have to wonder from whence these people (originally) hail.
I for one hope beyond hope that Mrs. Palin never considered it her choice to terminate her pregnancy. As mere human beings who have no power to "create" life, we definately have no power to extinguish it on a presumed right of choice. A human baby is not a physical structure that we've "created" with our own hands, for goodness sakes! If you want to exercise your choice to destroy such a structure, none of the rest of us has any say in the matter. But engaging in sexual intercourse is not the same thing as creating life. If you believe it is then your worldview is definitely not traditionalist.
This idea about the sacredness of life is one of the fundamentals of genuine traditionalism.
"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." -Daniel Webster
Monday, September 1, 2008
Sarah Palin, Down's Syndrome, and Traditionalism
(Note: Be sure to read Nora's excellent comments to this entry where she lays out a few of her own theories on why modern women advocate abortion, and why men do nothing about it. Also that feminism is more responsible for our decline than all the other destructive isms.)
Terry, thanks for your perspective on this.
ReplyDeleteI've been troubled in reading on many 'conservative' blogs that some think abortion is a reasonable, or in fact the preferable choice if a 'defective' child is expected to be born. I suppose we are seeing the results of the growing post-Christian influence in America. Many people who consider themselves conservative or libertarian don't share the basically Christian value system which shaped our traditional America.
Your comments are similar to what I said in my response over at my blog. Our lives are not our own, at least as we Christians see it, nor are our children's lives our own to take or to 'terminate' as we see fit.
-VA
VA, thank you.
ReplyDeleteI can't get on board with some of your commenters, particularly those that defend abortion on the basis that it's "normal" for mothers to kill their offspring, therefore the moral thing to do is to sanction the killing of the unborn to save them the potential misery of being murdered by their own mothers after birth. Had I ever gotten the slightest hint of that sense from my wife I'da divorced 'er in a heartbeat.
It may be more commonplace than some of us would like to admit, but it definately ain't normal and it shouldn't be treated as normal, ever. Nor should we ever give people who entertain these notions any indication that such abnormal behaviorisms are acceptable or will be tolerated under any circumstances.
I personally feel that people of different cultures are more or less inclined to do these sorts of things, just as certain people of certain racial and cultural backgrounds are more inclined to do other things incompatible with our own. And that's, of course, why I want immigration stopped.
Somehow people believe that our moral decline has happened in some sort of a vacuum. It hasn't, as you well know. And as I've said many times before, we have enough of our own scumbags without importing more.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that those conservatives intend to do willingly and consciously away with the concept of sacredness of life. My theory is that we are dealing with a rather involved and dangerous psychological mechanism here. Dangerous, because people are not aware of it and thus never discuss, let alone tackle, it.
ReplyDeleteIt is, I think, wrong to assume that women want abortions because they are weak or in a predicament. It is because women had all through history the control over which child was going to live and which wasn't, a practice that got somewhat curbed by the advent of the rule of law. If they are demanding the "right to choose" now, they want their traditional power position back, not more, not less. I think that the conscious knowledge of this has been lost at some point in time, but it is still there, alive and kicking and, as I said, even more dangerous because we are not aware of it.
The German penal code of 1871 (which is basically still valid) excluded capital punishment for women who killed their newborn child within a limited period of time the details of which I have forgotten. I do not think that this was due to some early advanced knowledge of postpartum depression, I think it was a recognition of this fact.
Did you know that the figures for "crib death" cases grew when the figures for other causes of infant death declined? Did you know the gruesome estimations of unknown cases of infanticide that have been recorded as SIDS cases? You can hardly be blamed if you don't because it needs some in-depth research in the Internet before one comes across some substantial information because it is – you've guessed it – not all that frequent- or openly discussed.
Now America! The position to which American women have been elevated will never cease to amaze me. There is a wedding industry of stunning proportions, unknown, I dare say, anywhere in Europe. I do not know a single woman who decisively EXPECTED (!) a diamond ring delivered at betrothal. In America, couples cripple themselves financially by a budget, of which the wedding dress is very often the biggest item, so that She can have her grand entrance in white. (And don't you dare telling me that the husbands-to-be want anything like that as well!) Or the obscene prom-cult, or the even more obscene beauty pageant cult, where teenagers look like seasoned expensive hookers and little girls just grown out of their nappies like cheap hookers. Anybody who says that fathers want anything like that for their daughters needs his head examined.
And the women behind all this are the same who stridently demand "equal rights" including the right to legally kill their children, because they seriously think that they are disadvantaged because of their sex.
My other theory (which, of course, may be wrong) is that during the frontier and colonization past of early America women had an extraordinary importance and that somewhere along the path of history somebody has forgotten to remind them that those days are over. The only civilized country subject to the rule of law where somebody like Marybeth Tinning was able to kill several (how many? 8?) of her children and wasn't even suspected because – you know – women are always victims and never perpetrators or because they are naturally good and nurturing (Choose your reason, it's free!) is America.
Feminism has done more damage to Western society (and probably irrevocably harmed your country) than leftism, illegal immigration, libertinism or whatever together and the fact that not even dyed-in-the-wool conservatives dare to BASICALLY challenge feminism proves my point. Some "excrescences" – yes. Feminism as such? You must be joking.
Another theory of mine, one that tries to explain why feminism is exempt from any serious challenge, is, that feminism is, literally, closer to home for all of us than any other damaging ideology or "-ism". Even a conservative woman doesn't want to have HER OWN absolute freedom curbed and even a conservative man wants peace and quiet at home and will do anything but muster up the nerve to speak out against it. Not even against an abomination like abortion.
I rest my case.
Terry's reply to VA appeared while I was writing my own reply.
ReplyDeleteDon't we need to discuss what "normal" is? So women used to kill their children. Does that make infanticide "normal", excusable, legal?
It used to be "normal" to make an ornate drinking bowl from one's (probably very cruelly) killed enemy's skull. That was "culture". Today, we go to prison for anything like that. That is civilization.
Tell those women who find it "normal" to kill their children that they are the chattel of their husbands, because, after all, that too used to be "normal" as well.
I have never heard a more debased argument for abortion than that.
Nora, I'm about as cool headed as they come, and yet these kinds of arguments in favor of abortion enfuriate me.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your eloquent and lucid (and lengthy) comments. Where do I begin?...
Well, let me say that I couldn't agree more with a lot of what you wrote. Is feminism the root cause of America's problems? I don't know. I do tend to believe that feminism and leftism, multiculturalism and all the other isms that are destroying America are all closely connected. Did feminism (the empowerment of women) kick it all off? Quite possibly.
Your theories are very interesting. Thanks again for the great comments.
-Terry
Nora's comment is so lengthy and wide ranging that I may have to address her points separately in separate posts. For the time being let me address this,
ReplyDeleteNora writes:
(And don't you dare telling me that the husbands-to-be want anything like that as well!) Or the obscene prom-cult, or the even more obscene beauty pageant cult, where teenagers look like seasoned expensive hookers and little girls just grown out of their nappies like cheap hookers. Anybody who says that fathers want anything like that for their daughters needs his head examined.
I can't speak for other "husbands-to-be", but when I was one I definately didn't want all of that. Nor can I speak for other fathers, but again, I certainly don't want that for any of my daughters, nor does my wife.
But more than anyone who says that fathers want this for their daughters needing their heads examined, fathers who actually do want this for their daughters most definately need their heads examined. They probably oughta be institutionalized.
Everytime I see one of those commercials late at night advertising the "Girls gone wild" videos, or even think about them, I simply get sick to my stomach as I'm always reminded that these girls have dads and brothers and uncles and grandfathers, none of which, if he's halfway in his right mind, could ever approve of such.
Did feminism (the empowerment of women) kick it all off? Quite possibly.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely!
Discussing feminism is akin to opening Pandora's Box.
Nora, I've said many many times that women can be the most ruthless people on the face of the earth. They can also be the most loving, caring people on the face of the earth. But your comments about women seeking to regain their ancient power over life seems to indicate that you believe with me that women have a ruthless base nature about them - a nature men have nothing on, incidentally - that, unless men exercise a restraining power over, will eventually be let loose in all its ugliness and fury.
ReplyDeleteI personally think it's more radical to say what I just said above about the ruthlessness of women, than it is to say that feminism is primarily responsible for our current levels of hedonism.
When I trace America's history back, I can't not notice that the ratification of the fourteenth amendment paved the road to woman's suffrage in America, and that America has been in a steadily increasing state of decline ever since.
But is it your opinion that feminism was responsible for the fourteenth amendment?...
Well, don't I feel special now, as a woman who had no engagement ring, borrowed a blue dress from her mother in which to get married and got married at the local courthouse, followed by dinner with close family at a restaurant. I have to agree with the_editrix that the wedding culture is way out of hand in our nation.
ReplyDeleteHowever, getting back to the point of this post, I have always held that the only point at which a woman has a choice in whether or not to give birth, is when she chooses to engage in those activities whose natural result, given the Lord's blessing, is conception. (This opens up the whole rape/incest can of worms, but to my way of thinking, the lack of "choice" in those instances is not the baby's fault. He/She is just as much a victim of the rapist/incestuous party as the mother and perhaps more so. The mother, after giving birth, can choose to give the child up and put it all behind her, but the child can never forget that they are the product of a violent act.)
I am wondering how you view the latest announcement that Mrs. Palin's unmarried daughter is pregnant. Of course, this news was only released to quell the rumors that her youngest child is actually her daughters. This gets me thinking. The rumor was that the daughter of the VP candidate had a child out of wedlock and that affects the VP's credibility in character issues. So the solution is to release news that the VP's child is currently pregnant with a child out of wedlock. Mrs. Palin's baby couldn't have been the result of an out of wedlock pregnancy for her daughter because her daughter is currently pregnant out of wedlock. This makes Mrs. Palin look better than the rumor, how?
CMM, you say that, different from its mother, a child conceived through rape can never forget that it is "the product of a violent act". That is true. But only because there will always be some grown-up heartless moron who is unable to keep his (or her) trap shut.
ReplyDeleteEditrix,
ReplyDeleteYou are right in that.
However, I tend to believe that the truth is better in all circumstances than a lie. Which would be ultimately more harmful to such a child/person - to tell them the truth right off with the reassurance that God wanted them here so much He went to extraordinary lengths to get them born, or to cover it up and let "some grown-up heartless moron" use it against them later?
...you believe with me that women have a ruthless base nature about them...
ReplyDeleteI do indeed. I used to work semi-professionally with horses when I was younger, now with gundogs, and they are living with me in the house. Everybody who has closely watched animals will have lost any delusion about female frailty and submission. Different from human females, they just can't put on an act, act coquettish or coy. They are sheer and undiluted ruthlessness.
I personally think it's more radical to say what I just said above about the ruthlessness of women, than it is to say that feminism is primarily responsible for our current levels of hedonism.
It is indeed. I, personally, find the word "hedonism" much too weak for the current state of society anyway.
When I trace America's history back, I can't not notice that the ratification of the fourteenth amendment paved the road to woman's suffrage in America, and that America has been in a steadily increasing state of decline ever since.
But is it your opinion that feminism was responsible for the fourteenth amendment?...
Terry, I am not knowledgeable enough about American history to have an informed opinion here, so all I can do is to speculate. On one hand, women, with their mixture of ruthlessness and sentimentality have always been at the forefront of any "progressive" cause. Harriet Beecher Stowe and "Uncle Tom's Cabin" certainly boosted the abolitionist movement considerably.
On the other hand, I don't see how due process could be denied to the former slaves for any prolonged period of time after the decision was made not to deport them to Africa.
But, to quote Obama, the question is really above my pay grade.
It would be interesting to speculate whether woman's suffrage (helped by fourteenth amendment) INEVITABLY led to gender feminism of the destructive sort we are now suffering.
CMM, I do not have any children and I may be wrong. But I seriously think that a child should have already reached a certain level of maturity before it is told. But whatever, I like the concept of reassuring them "that God wanted them here so much He went to extraordinary lengths to get them born" very much indeed. If a child is mature enough to understand that, it is mature enough to be told about his origin.
ReplyDeleteEditrix,
ReplyDeleteI concur with the required level of maturity. I am also in agreement with you about the ruthlessness of women.
Mom wrote:
ReplyDeleteI am wondering how you view the latest announcement that Mrs. Palin's unmarried daughter is pregnant. [...] This makes Mrs. Palin look better than the rumor, how?
Mom, I don't know, I didn't devise the strategy. You'd probably have to ask the McCain team about that one. But the way I view it, in a nutshell, is this:
Bristol Palin has been failed by her parents. Her Mom, the most important female in her life, chose a "career woman's" life over a life of motherhood. She (Mrs. Palin) could have chosen either/or, but she tried to have her cake and eat it too, something that rational people know is impossible. Her Dad, the most important male in her life, chose a supportive spouse's role over the role nature, reason and religion had secured to him.
Thus Bristol Palin has been failed by her parents. But more than being failed, she has been betrayed by them; they are using Bristol and her situation as proof of their "family values."
But as Laura W. wrote at VFR, "supervised children don't get pregnant."
Where, I ask, was Bristol's supervision?
I have to take somewhat of a dissenting view on the pregnancy thing.
ReplyDeleteFirst, contrary to what Laura W. says, supervised children DO get pregnant. It happens.
When they are old enough for sexual activity and pregnancy, they are also at the age to be somewhat independent. Nobody, not even stay-at-home moms, can supervise their teen children 24/7.
Back in the 'Leave it to Beaver' era, when virtually all mothers were stay-at-home moms, girls did most assuredly get pregnant, even in the best of families, adolescent hormones and urges being what they are.
In those days, it was simply handled more discreetly. I don't question the fact that it happens far, far more often these days, but now it is not even a cause for embarrassment on the part of most teens or their parents. And many of the supposedly conservative parents nevertheless put their girls on the Pill so that there is no risk of pregnancy.
But even the best and most attentive parents find it hard to counteract the influence of popular culture, which is loaded with sexual messages and imagery. Even in our local Christian school, the teens still wallow in the x-rated pop culture of the day, regardless of how strict their parents may be at home. The sexual messages are everywhere, and even those who shelter their kids as much as they can find that their children are exposed second-hand to much of the worst influences. It's everywhere.
I sympathize with parents of teens today; it's harder than ever before to keep kids separated from the corrupt culture around us. I am glad I am past that stage of life and no longer have that battle to fight as a parent.
But those who blame the parents 100 percent are expecting the impossible; children in their teens can't be protected all the time, unless you shackle them to yourselves and never let them out of your sight.
-VA
VA, we are talking about humans, not about mechanical gadgets, so if somebody says that supervised teens don't get pregnant he is bound not to mean that NO teenager got pregnant and that supervision was 24/7. But it was, and that is the difference, the rare exception and nobody shrugged it off as "one of those things".
ReplyDeleteI don't think that it is simplistic to say that in times when we dared calling "nice girls" by that name, nice girls didn't become pregnant, even though the supervision wasn't (COULDN'T BE) 24/7. Then, it was understood that, at that age, a relationship with a boy or man intimate enough to get one pregnant was out of the question, contraceptives or not. One respected one's parents and -- yes -- one was afraid of the social consequences as well.
And as far as the hormones were concerned, we were expected to sweat it out and we did. Since when are "hormones" an excuse for anything? If for a pregnant teenager now, then what next? For a sex offender?
But it is elitist now to remind girls of the fact that they are "nice girls" and in a time where it is the accepted practice to follow the call of one's hormones they don't have something like a "reputation" to lose anymore either.
To be honest with you all I've been half waiting for someone to come along saying that Bristol and Levi began having sex with the permission of Bristol's parents (and an ecstatic approving response from Republicans.) Something that isn't uncommon today either.
ReplyDeleteI know quite a few women that became pregnant both as teens and out of wedlock. The common denominator in all of them was lack of parental supervision. In fact, in one case the parents allowed their daughter, on the weekends, to hang out up town, at night, unsupervised ... for thirty minutes at a time. She was required to check in at home every thirty minutes. In my view that isn't supervision; it's a recipe for disaster. I even warned that it was a recipe for disaster before the disaster ever occured. But it didn't change anything, obviously.
VA, isn't it part of a parent's responsibility as a parent to recognize and understand the fact of teenage hormones, and to put up road blocks to their children yielding to them? Further, aren't we supposed to understand that teens with hormones jumping are particularly adept at utilizing what unsupervised time we alot them to their own perceived advantage?...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI wrote in the original entry that I hope beyond hope that Sarah Palin never considered it her choice to abort her baby. This is interesting because the entry was written on Sept. 1.
ReplyDeleteOn September 2 I received an email from Dr. Dobson's CitizenLink organization titled "Gov. Palin announces teen daughter's pregnancy; Dr. Dobson offers Prayer".
Here's an excerpt from that email in which the Palins are quoted on their daughter Bristol's pregnancy:
We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents, they said in a statement Monday. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.
If I take what is said by the Palins at face value, then apparently Sarah Palin does believe it is her choice whether to abort her baby or not. In fact she apparently not only believes that she - a 44 year old adult woman - has the right to make this choice, but that her 17 year old minor daughter Bristol (and all 17 year old minor children by extension) have the right to make the choice between life and death for their babies.
So, essentially, the hopes I expressed in the original entry have been dashed.
The least she could have done would have been to make a distinction between an adult woman's choice and a minor child's choice. But she probably looks at it like a lot of other people I know who say that if a boy is old enough to go to war, then he's old enough to purchase and consume liquor, and our laws should reflect that. In Bristol's case (and as I said before, all 17 year old minor girls by extension) Mrs. Palin's logic probably goes "if she's old enough to get pregnant she's old enough to decide to abort."
But maybe I'm just reading too much into her statement. And maybe I'm reading too much into Dr. Dobson's blind support for Palin.
And by the way, I don't know whether any of this stuff people are saying about Levi's (Bristol's boyfriend and the father of her child) MySpace is true, but if it is he sure as heck isn't someone I'd want any of my daughters marrying under any circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI happen to believe that marriage is not always the answer to righting the wrong of an illegitimate pregnancy. In point of fact it's probably rarely the answer, particularly in today's goofed up world. What mother or father in their right minds would wish upon their teenage daughter a marriage that has a very good chance of failing.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
But like I said, I don't know anything about Levi. Maybe he's a great kid and has all the stuff to be a great father and a great husband to Bristol. Could be.
The least she could have done would have been to make a distinction between an adult woman's choice and a minor child's choice.
ReplyDeleteTerry, once one allows exceptions from sacredness of life one will find it difficult to support one's stance, factually and ethically. Why should a mature woman have more "right to choose" than a girl? I say (for argument's sake) that a girl has her whole life ahead of her whereas a mature woman lives (in the majority of cases) in more or less secure circumstances. auch an argument is in no way less supportable than yours.
Human life is sacred. Full stop. And any (ANY!) qualification will take to to very slippery grounds.
But maybe I'm just reading too much into her statement. And maybe I'm reading too much into Dr. Dobson's blind support for Palin.
I don't think you do.
Nora, thank you. Please allow me to clarify my position...
ReplyDeleteI wasn't trying to say that an adult woman has more right to choose to kill her baby than a teenage minor. I realize that this is an untenable position to take. I was really just trying to make a point concerning Sarah's public statements on the matter, and the apparent content of her "family values".
The Palins released a statement to the press saying that they were proud of their daughter for deciding to have her baby. This implies that 17 year old Bristol Palin was afforded the choice in the matter, and that her parents recognize her right to make that choice (thank God she made the right one, eh?).
As the father of a sixteen year old daughter, I can tell you that I recognize and grant no such choice to my daughter. Not that she would make the wrong one, but it's not her choice to make, neither morally nor as a dependent child living under my roof. As her parent I have complete authority over her until she comes of age. So if there's any "choice" to be made, I'll make it for her ... if "choice" is even the right word here. And I'd never give her any impression that she has such a choice.
The point is that Sarah Palin, if her statement says anything about her view on the subject, seems to believe that a 17 year old minor pregnant child under her care and supervision has an independent choice in whether to have her baby or not. But as parents and guardians we should not even entertain the notion that they have such a choice in any case.
I think it says something about the depth of Palin family values that they put it in these terms without making some qualifications to their statements. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding what they meant.
I understand better now. Thanks for clarifying that for me, Terry.
ReplyDeleteI am sure I don't "get" some details in their right context because I am not American and I don't want to make my criticism of Sarah Palin, who seems to be a nice woman, sound too personal and judgemental. But one thing she isn't: a conservative. I'd like to refer to the discussion at VfR. At one point Lawrence Auster said that Palin "represents something that has replaced conservatism" for which he hadn't yet a name. I replied that there is no name for it because what she is can't be defined as a political stance. All she is, is "unconventional". So she chose not to abort her child, so she has no hangups about shooting, and she happens to be still married to the same man. Is that enough to be be labelled "conservative"? What a toil is that "unconventional" marriage and family life for her husband?
Being conservative is, as I put it at VfR, not a patchwork of non-politically correct items, it is a lifetime concept, a worldview.
The discussion about the pornographic site somebody recently recommended at VfR shows that it is enough to spite just one politically correct issue (in this case feminism) to pass as a "conservative". More cases in point: Those "Islam critics" who happen to be Muslims and, somewhat naturally, tackle Islam first, but would like to abolish religion generally. Hirsi Ali or Irshad Manji come to mind.
I may be wrong, but nothing I have read about Palin in the Internet resembles your family life, as you describe it here.
As I said, Palin seems to be a nice woman, she may be even an able VP, but to sell her as conservative is akin to false labelling.
As an aside: I am somewhat bound to like her out of sheer cussedness because the German media picture her as a cross between Torquemada and Dzenghis Khan.
Thanks again, Nora. I read your comments at VFR and thought them very interesting and insightful.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Sarah is not a conservative.
I wrote at VFR that there's a large "eccentric" community in Alaska and that there's an element among Alaskans that one might call "rugged individualism", and that this is sometimes mistaken as conservative. I think Sarah can be described as both of these, but not as a conservative.
Incidentally, have you read Wasilla resident Mrs. Kania's postings at VFR?
As a former resident of Alaska I know a little bit about the state and its people, though I claim no deep understanding of them as Mrs. Kania might have. Alaska is not a conservative state for starters, as I said in one posting at VFR. But beyond that, and in reply to some of Mrs. Kania's sincere statements about the Palins, particularly about their being "very normal people," which I translate to mean "they're just your average American family", I take respectful exception in a couple of emails to Auster on the subject. Hopefully he'll find them worthy of posting and you can read them there. If not I'll post them here at my site.
But I like your term "unconventional", Nora. I think it's a better term than my "eccentric" for describing what Sarah Palin is in part.
In Alaska the unconventional is more "normal" than it is here in the lower forty eight. As I wrote in part to Auster, it is not a novelty in Alaska to see a woman shoveling three feet of snow off of her roof while her husband stands safely on the ground giving her directions and orders. But I don't think it's normal either, anymore than I think it's normal to see a woman wade out waste deep into the frigid waters of the Russian River to catch salmon, but neither is it a novelty.
None of that, among other things, is conservative, it's unconventional as you said.