red in tooth and claw
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jul 18, 2005
Abortion archpriestess Katha Pollitt contemplates a world without Roe, and cranks up the truculence. Democracy, she concedes, is too fickle an institution to protect the right to feticide. Some excerpts from her latest column:
In 1993 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg caused a flurry when she seemed to endorse this view: Roe, she declared in a speech, had "halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue." It's not an insane idea, even if most of its proponents (a) are men; (b) think Roe went too far; and (c) want abortion off the table because they are tired of thinking about it. ...
Overturning Roe would definitely energize prochoicers and wake up the young featherheads who think their rights are safe because they have always had them. That's why some staunch prochoicers have "Bring it on!" moments. ...
The trouble is, getting rid of Roe would energize antichoicers too. Even in prochoice states, they might be able to win spousal notification requirements, bans on "partial birth" abortions or even on all second-trimester procedures except to preserve life and health. A national consensus on abortion might or might not develop over time, but any such would not likely be as permissive as Roe. ...
If Roe goes, whoever has political power will determine the most basic, intimate, life-changing and life-threatening decision women -- and only women -- confront. We will have a country in which the same legislature that can't prevent some clod from burning a flag will be able to force a woman to bear a child under whatever circumstances it sees fit. It is hard to imagine how that woman would be a free or equal citizen of our constitutional republic.
Among the hardest of hard-core ideologues, Pollitt's contempt is fiercest for those in her own camp who give away the game by resorting to euphemisms or evasions that imply regret, moral ambivalence, or a bad conscience about abortion. She can't hide her disgust with NARAL for running a "Please Help Us Prevent Abortion" ad campaign. Because of the blatant cynicism? No, because it suggests that abortion is a bad thing. For those who have made their peace with state-sponsored homicide, it's the terror of this judgment that provides the heat behind the hatred.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Jul. 22, 2005 10:54 PM ET USA
special ops sacerdos, Since Katha Pollitt is an atheist, she wouldn't consider herself "one of Satan's servants". However, I hope that she will come to understand the rights of the unborn and how "pro-choice" can be an euphemism for letting the pregnant woman's parents, boyfriend or husband make the choice of abortion for the woman. I agree with Pollitt's commentaries 80% of the time (when she isn't discussing abortion or religion, that is). But the other 20% makes me shake my head sadly.
Posted by: Fr. William -
Jul. 18, 2005 9:57 PM ET USA
The graphic gives us a vivid image of where Pollitt and her blood-thirsty cronies are coming from: Pollitt & co. "feed" off of (make their liviing from) killing and/or advocating the slaugther of babies. Not once will you see her refer to the pre-born baby & his/her rights, freedom or equality. Without question, we can definitively state that Pollitt is one of Satan's followers. I do pray for her conversion, however, to come to know Jesus Christ and His Teachings and His Church.
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Jul. 18, 2005 5:46 PM ET USA
It reminds of the Black Dog that is the symbol of the Black Friar Dominicans in the UK. Put a stick in its mouth, light it and set the world on fire. Well done Diogenes!
Posted by: -
Jul. 18, 2005 11:49 AM ET USA
Rabid feminist candor is always refreshing -- it gives us something clearer to fight, an enemy that we can sink our teeth into...