Chan Lowe: More "personhood"
There’s only so much you can write about the hypocrisy of conservatives who want government to stay out of our lives unless it’s to impose restrictions on a woman’s right to an abortion, or to prevent gays from getting married, so let’s give that up for now.
Instead, let’s focus on how the rights of the unborn seem to outweigh those of the born. Once a nine-month-old “person” has been brought into this world, he or she, if unfortunate enough to have been born poor, is likely to avail him- or herself of government programs. Neo-natal programs, food stamps, child-care allowances—unfortunately, they all represent that repugnant redistribution of wealth conservatives love to rail about.
Now, if conservatives really cared that much about the sanctity of life, they would prioritize and expand these programs, and do so with smiles on their faces, because they ease the painful decision so many women must confront as they determine whether they will carry their child to term. If a woman of little means knew that the bundle of joy she was carrying was less likely to become a crippling financial burden in a world where most of the chips were already stacked against her, she might be more likely to “choose life,” as they love to say on the license plates.
In a world where the State had a vested interest in ensuring that a child has the best of care at the beginning of its life (as it does in, say, Scandinavia), Roe v. Wade would diminish in significance, because more women would exercise their freedom of choice to give birth.
But that makes too much sense. Besides, “more government programs for the poor” is⎯let’s face it⎯a real loser when it comes to conservative fundraising.
CHAN LOWE has been the Sun Sentinel’s first and only editorial cartoonist for the past twenty-six years. Before that, he worked as cartoonist and writer for the Oklahoma City Times and the Shawnee (OK) News-Star.
Comments
What makes you think all infants will be on welfare? I am fortunate to enough to be able to bear children.. But there are many people both heterosexual and otherwise, who COULD BE loving parents. Unfortunately due to physical issues or sexual preference, they cannot. Abortion robs not only the child of life, but good people a chance to be great parents.
Here is the difference between conservatives and liberals, like yourself Chan. Conservatives believe that each abortion could be the death of a great idea or a great person... Liberals view abortion as just another mouth to feed...
Your hypocrisy surpasses all conservatives, you want a larger welfare state but you also want to advocate terminating pregnancies at the same time.
Posted by: Brian | November 14, 2011 5:20 PM
Brian, Show us how that would work by getting all the kids currently needing adoption permanent homes. Then I may take you more seriously.
Posted by: ImKate | November 14, 2011 7:43 PM
Brian,
What a wonderful thought of yours.
How many children have you adopted so far?
Posted by: Rosie Barro | November 15, 2011 11:37 AM
Rosie my sister is adopted Korean.. I am blessed to have children and happy to take on the parent role. I have also volunteered my time to help disadvantaged children, have you? Or are you too self absorbed to volunteer?
Imkate, I'm not a politician but I would guess if you ask the children who are/were orphans if they wanted a chance here on earth, I bet all would say yes....
Posted by: Brian | November 15, 2011 12:11 PM
Yay ImKate and Rosie! There are thousands of children in desperate need of a good home right now. But they aren't young enough, white enough, black enough, their eyes aren't blue or maybe brown, and heaven help them if they have a medical condition. To say nothing of the bloody paperwork prospective good parents that are even interested must go through. GIVE ME A BREAK, BRIAN!
Posted by: mel | November 15, 2011 1:04 PM
Brian,
I am the proud mother of 3 biological children and 2 adopted children. Am I too absorbed to volunteer? No, just too busy. It's great that your parents chose to adopt your sister. But why haven't you? I ask because you seemed to suggest in your earlier posting that people would adopt children who had not been aborted. Again I ask, Why haven't you??
Posted by: Rosie Barra | November 15, 2011 2:19 PM
Rosie, ask your adopted children if they should've been aborted. Having been the benefactor of adoption, I would think you would agree that life is precious. That is, if you really have any and I sincerely doubt it.
Mel, paperwork? Really? Racism, really? Over 99,000 Koreans have been adopted in this country in a decade, did ethnicity really matter?? Poor excuse.. Why do all of that when you can just abort them.
I mean does anyone hear themselves???
Posted by: Brian | November 15, 2011 2:40 PM
Brian,
Why are you so mean?
I feel that life is precious. I also believe that every individual should
have the freedom to choose whether or not they are going to be parents.
I have adopted some of my children. You have not. My question to you remains unanswered. I think it's very important to practice what one preaches. If you are against a woman's right to choose, and suggest that people will adopt those who are not wanted, then I can't help but wonder why you haven't adopted a child by now.
Posted by: Rosie Barro | November 15, 2011 3:51 PM
Another mouth to feed.
Victim of rape.
Another child on welfare.
Come on, let's call it what it is: SMOKE SCREEN
We all know very well MAJORITY of abortions are out of CONVENIENCE(heaven forbid pregnancy should interfere with "her" career.
We all know the majority of abortions are done by well doing families, and not by the poor ones. As it's obviously seen in any store when most of those pulling out the food stamps have 6-7 children in tow.
How about the other side of the coin? When will you do a cartoon on the hypocrisy of a tree being sacred, but an unborn child can just be disposed out of convenience?
And don't kid yourself. You know very well most abortions are out of convenience.
Posted by: Zalmo | November 15, 2011 7:37 PM
Abortion is not giving a woman a choice. Abortion is giving a woman the right to murder her own baby, simply because of the INCONVENIENCE of having a baby! Perhaps she should think of that BEFORE having random sex.
Yes, having sex before thinking of the consequences is random sex.
The choice is already made by the time a woman is impregnated.
Have any of you ever met a woman who was truly GLAD that she had an abortion?
Posted by: Mary R | February 17, 2012 3:42 PM