A good and little noticed point:
Taped The Argument earlier today, fumbled through some closing remarks; this from@michaelbdis the more eloquent version of what I tried to say: nationalreview.com/2022/06/roes-e
Kamala Harris: "First of all, if you are a parent of sons, do think about what this means for the life of your son and what that will mean in terms of the choices he will have."
Well, I'm the parent of a son and a daughter, so I guess I'm qualified to comment.
My first comment is that for years and years men were told to shut their mouths and keep out of this debate as it was a women's issue. Now all of a sudden, and probably in realization that in states which are moving to restrict or ban abortion it has the support of the women there, supporters of abortion are crying out that men need to be voicing their opinion.
Well, in terms of what it means, I guess what it means is that men, who have been absolved of responsibility for their children via the feminist movement, will have to be responsible again. I.e, the flood of "single mothers" that the modern era has brought about probably ought to not be going on. That'd take us back to the old standard, which was where accidents happen, the couple thought of the child first.
That standard existed at least as late as the early 90s in a lot of circles, which was already well into the destruction of standards brought about by the Sexual Revolution. Even that late, as amazing as it is to think on now, you'd find couples that married as the female member of a dating couple had become pregnant. That seems like a rarity now, although just the other day I stumbled upon an item written by a man who wanted to note that he'd gotten a female acquaintance pregnant that he barely knew in a single encounter. When he learned of it sometime later, he actually proposed to her, they married, and it all worked out, an instance of irresponsibility yielding to responsibility producing a successful result.
Of course, irresponsibility has been the theme of the recent era.
Indeed, one right wing legal commentator I read recently attached part of the gross overreaction to the Dobbs decision to a sense of mourning by the left. In one of his columns, Jonathan Turley noted:
Indeed, there is a tendency toward Roe revisionism. Roe supporters ignore that Roe’s constitutional rationale was always controversial, including among some liberals. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, called the ruling “heavy-handed judicial activism” and felt the decision went too far. The original Roe actually died years ago when it was gutted by Casey in 1992 in its logic and tests. It was later the subject of 5-4 decisions that created a confusing muddle of what constituted “undue burdens.”
Such revisionism is a natural part of grieving. In Shakespeare’s “Richard III,”the Queen Mother was asked how to deal with the hate of loss. She responds: “Think that thy babes were sweeter than they were; And he that slew them fouler than he is.” The same is true of Roe revisionism. Roe is now presented as inviolate and beyond question in its constitutional footing, while the opinion that slew it is presented as threatening every right secured since 1973.
In recent years, we've been stumbling back to a backwards restoration of old standards, including from the left. The entire "Me Too" movement has essentially been such an effort. With the death of Roe, which was long on artificial life support, one of the real institutions of the left wing revolution that began in 1968, and which featured the Sexual Revolution, has collapsed.
There were those who mourned the passing of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, and even still do. The quote from Richard III is well applicable here, in some quarters.
No comments:
Post a Comment