As an evolving advocate of localism, I've found much of Friedman's Pied Piper globalism hard to stomach. But in this op-ed, he nails the obvious hypocrisy of “pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life" conservatism.
Why I Am Pro-Life, by Thomas L. Friedman (New York Times)
... If you can name an issue, you can own the issue. And we must stop letting Republicans name themselves “pro-life” and Democrats as “pro-choice.” It is a huge distortion.
In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control — like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a “pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative.” I will never refer to someone who pickets Planned Parenthood but lobbies against common-sense gun laws as “pro-life.”
There were a lot of problems with this piece, however.
ReplyDeletehttp://wellspentjourney.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/possibly-the-worst-new-york-times-op-ed-in-the-history-of-new-york-times-op-eds/
I tend not to have conversations with the anonymous, and I have rules about that for the blog ... but, yes, if you fundamentalistically (intentional misspelling) disagree with Friedman's POV, then I suppose there are problems. Since I do not walk down the street looking at women and wondering if they've had an abortion, this being something that does not obsess me, then I agree with Friedman and there are fewer problems.
ReplyDeleteNext time you comment, try to have a name, okay? Thanks.