Wasn't it a truism that a woman had a right to privacy, especially on reproductive matters? This strain of argument became so, um, strained that recently a friend of mine who is pro-choice had herself removed from NARAL's mailing list because she was tired of their endless (horrifyingly non-metaphorical) illustrations of the privacy of women's bodies being invaded by various politicians. ("Bush on Your Body", I believe one particularly charming series was whimsically entitled. "Where's Bush on your Body? Find Bush On Your Body!" I can still hear her repeating, mockingly.)
I was reading a Weekly Standard article when this paragraph piqued my interest (underline added, of course):
From the instant of Palin's designation on Friday, August 29, the American left went into a collective mass seizure from which it shows no sign of emerging. The left blogosphere and elite media have, for the moment, joined forces and become indistinguishable from each other, and from the supermarket tabloids, in their desire to find and use anything that will criminalize and/or humiliate Palin and her family. In sharp contrast to the yearlong restraint shown toward truthful reports about John Edwards's affair, bizarre rumors have been reported as news, and, according to McCain campaign director Steve Schmidt, nationally known members of the elite media have besieged him with preposterous demands.
"Preposterous demands"? What on earth could that be? (Such understatement and restraint is kind and tasteful, but sometimes unhelpful. But it lets me know I'm not reading DailyKos.)
A few seconds' searching turned this up:
"... The Atlantic, once a respected, thoughtful voice of the American left, has actually promoted the lunatic -- and utterly disproven -- theory that Gov. Sarah Palin wasn't pregnant with Trig (her new baby) at all. Trig is really Bristol's son, and the governor of Alaska took time out of her schedule fighting against hack GOP congressmen and oil company insiders to fake a pregnancy on her daughter's behalf," writes Michael Graham in the Boston Herald.
"According to Steve Schmidt of the McCain campaign, mainstream media organizations are demanding to see medical reports on Gov. Palin's amniotic fluid and a DNA test on little Trig," Graham says.
The Atlantic? The Boston Herald? Wanting to know the details of a woman's amniotic fluids??? Geez! -- I thought these were still respectable publications. What next: Samples? Photographs from her gynecologist? Ugh!
I'd heard that Kos had floated the pregnancy rumor, but I had no idea that the mainstream would be that bizarre. (Or partisan: they certainly haven't been demanding that Edwards take a DNA test, despite far more evidence.) (And they still have no apparent interest in asking Obama to release his college transcript, which might seem a tad more relevant, no?)
"A woman has a right to privacy, especially in reproductive matters." "She has a right to do what she wants with her body." "It doesn't matter what a politician does in his private time, or who he sleeps with -- it's indecent to be concerned with such things." I don't agree with all those statements (I worry if he lies to his wife, he'll lie to us -- and I notice women can't actually auction off a spare kidney, legally) but the mainstream media and "progressives" supposedly do.
Supposedly.
I don't know if anyone noticed yet, but a woman's right to do what she wants with her body is a point of convenience. It often applies for the pro choice women of this world, but not really to the pro life women of this world.
When women have a lot of children or are deemed unfit or unworthy by society to have children we suddenly want to stop them somehow. The left tends to belittle what they do and question their motives. Sometimes they suggest laws should be in place to stop these people (how awful to preserve human life). In the past as a society we did things like the forced sterilization of the mentally disabled. It's every woman's choice though right.
I remember being very excited about being pregnant again. Our own OB-GYN decided to lecture us about how she could only ethically perform 3 c sections on a patient (which is odd because I've only had the one to date) when she found out that we were not nor were we ever going to use birth control. I didn't actually think my family size was any of her business. But the minute she found out that we would not be using any baby killing or prevention she felt it necessary to try to discourage us. She isn't the only person we've come across who thinks we've done something bad.
For the record any man who would lie to his wife would most certainly be just fine with lying to anyone else. So it does make a big difference.
The democrats do seem pretty scared to be floating around stories that you'd find in the enquirer.
Our own OB-GYN decided to lecture us about how she could only ethically perform 3 c sections on a patient (which is odd because I've only had the one to date) when she found out that we were not nor were we ever going to use birth control.
It would be unethical for her to risk your life. Apparently, if she knew a woman needed 4th C-section to save her life, and her baby's, the "ethical" option would be to risk the death of both?
So, I wonder, would she see a problem with put a similar "ethical" limit on the number of abortions a woman was allowed to have, as each also presents an increasing risk to her future health?
And what of the "ethical" implications of abortion itself?
You know, I'd love to make a pithy comment, but that's just foul, disgusting and disturbing. It's quite scary how far the leftist side of the country has slipped towards various authoritarian socialisms (national or international), and just who thinks they're in charge.
It's also refreshing just how scared they are that the American people don't want their poison anymore. :D
Posted by: Michael Zappe on September 8, 2008 11:20 AM