Now that one needs to have had a child to have a legitimate argument, where can we take it from here? Let's see, I suppose having a son of military age gives you the most moral authority. Unless, you know, your son is actively serving in the military and you support him. Or your son died in service for his country, and you don't hate the president, and are proud of your son's service.
So where can we go from there? Number of children? Difficulty/length of deliveries? Difficulty during pregnancy? Mastitis? Spent lots of nights sitting up with sick children? Maybe we should come up with some kind of point system. A Caesarian gets you so many points, morning sickness all nine months gets you so many points. I'm feeling full of moral authority already.
1 comment:
Excellent post! Where does it end?
But this is the same symbolism over substance argument the left uses for all of their issues.
You can't comment on racism/discrimination if you are white (especially white males).
You can't voice an opinion on abortion unless you've been in a position of having an unwanted pregnancy. You can't even argue for adoption over abortion unless you've adopted children yourself.
Heterosexuals have no right to argue against gay marriage and how it will potentially harm traditional marriage when heterosexual marriage has such a high divorce rate.
And now single, childless women have no right to comment on the war in Iraq because they won't pay the price of losing a child or a husband in combat.
It's a classic liberal tactic - they try to shut down any resistance before the conversation has even begun.
Post a Comment