|
June 25, 2022
The left has a peculiarly warped view of motherhood
It’s apparent that, significant evidence to the contrary, they believe motherhood is a valueless role that permanently handicaps women.
by Pandra Selinavov
AmericanThinker.com
The Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade. After almost fifty years and millions of abortions, the highest legal authority in the United States has returned the regulation of abortion to the states. And with that decision now on the books, the left is having the group equivalent of a complete psychotic break.
Considering that the rhetoric of abortion and the rhetoric of slavery are virtually identical, the Dobbs decision is not a step forward (or backward, depending on your perspective). Abortion is still founded on the doctrine that an unborn human is not a person. An unborn human is a piece of property, to be cherished or disposed of as the owner/mother sees fit. And even under Dobbs, Abortions will continue.
Abortion pills are federally approved medications and Attorney General Merrick Garland has already declared that “states may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.” A number of major companies have announced they will cover travel expenses for employees who want to get an abortion. The companies on board with abortion include Disney, Netflix, Paramount, Comcast, Warner Bros., Discovery, Sony, and Meta. Celebrities are reacting with terror to the idea that babies might be born instead of sacrificed.
Image: Marie Curie and her daughters, Ève and Irene, 1908. CC BY 4.0.
(Irene, who had two children, received a Nobel Prize in chemistry.)
As disturbing as these reactions are, it was an article by an individual named Jaclyn Friedman that I found most troubling. Among other horrors that she believes babies inflict on their mothers, she says “People who could have cured cancer...will never get the chance because they are forced to care for children they did not want.” (Wow. I never thought of it like that. So, what the left is saying is that clo would probably have gone on to cure cancer if only she had been allowed to spread her legs for the entire football team while not having to raise her son Paul. The only problem I see in that is that she didn't put much time into raising Paul... was a lousy mother... spread her legs for pretty much anyone who'd have her... and didn't accomplish a single thing in her whole damned life except to ruin three men's lives. Oh well. It was only a theory. - De)
I think it’s the comment about people who could have cured cancer who will never get the chance because they are forced to care for unwanted children that goes to my heart the most. Marie Curie won the Nobel Prize twice. She also had two children. Jennifer Doudna has a son but she still found time to help develop CRISPR, the genetic-engineering method that can be used to treat sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and HIV. Maria Goeppert Mayer’s two children didn’t stop her from picking up a Nobel Prize in 1963 for discovering the nuclear shell of the atomic nucleus. Sara Seager discovered 715 planets while being a mother to two children.
There are many more women in the field of science alone who are proud mothers as well as rigorous intellectuals. The left would have us believe that women cannot be productive members of society as well as mothers. There are many children of great women who would vehemently disagree with that characterization.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/06/the_left_has_a_peculiarly_warped_view_of_motherhood.html
Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months |
| 
