We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.
The Qualities of Manhood
by Paul Walfield
25 February 2003
to some in Hollywood, ripping life from its place of growth in the womb
is manly, whereas those who oppose the killing are wimps.
An acorn, or apple seed properly watered and growing is not thought of as anything but the aforementioned young trees. No one questions the authenticity of the life that is bringing forth the stems and roots. Nor would anyone argue that ripping the young sapling out of the ground would kill it.
Apparently to some in Hollywood, ripping life from its place of growth is manly, whereas those who oppose the killing, are not. While in some perverse and barbaric thought processes that makes some sense, to the civilized, it does not.
The self-proclaimed actor of "renown," Ed Harris as reported by CNSNews.com has determined that President Bush is not "manly" because the President opposes abortion. The crowd Ed Harris was speaking to when he made that statement reacted with "wild applause." Mr. Harris continued to intimate that he was a manly man. Perhaps reading lines in a script, and pretending to be someone else in front of a camera is Mr. Harris' definition of a man; it may not be to most others.
Mr. Harris explains that as a man he is greatly influenced by his wife and in fact is in his wife's "hip pocket." For Mr. Harris, being educated to the struggles, trials and tribulations of a what it is like to be a woman, makes him a "man," and males who oppose abortion cannot be "men."
The so-called "pro-choice" movement is terrified at the prospect that mainstream America is not in lock step with them. Poll after poll shows a majority of American's opposed to partial birth abortion and want more restrictions, such as parental consent, on abortions in general. The pro-abortionists see their position as slipping. Like most who are desperate and have little conviction in their own arguments, the pro-abortionists embrace any argument that seemingly supports their "cause."
The problem for them is not just the absurd definitions and blurbs they embrace; it is the weakness of their foundation.
Take the basis for their arguments. They claim they are pro-choice, not pro-abortion. They demand that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion as an integral part of the woman's claim of dominion over her own body. Although it may be argued that the ultimate choice for a woman is not to have sex and get pregnant in the first place. As that is the only true "choice" with regards to her body and pregnancy; apparently, the pro-abortionists want a second bite at the apple.
The flaw is as it has always been that a baby, a fetus, what ever you want to call it is anatomically a separate entity from the woman. At best, it derives its nutrition from the mother and is maintained in what would otherwise be a safe environment (without "choice") to grow.
The pro-abortionists want to persuade the populace that the unborn are not only part of the woman's body; they also claim that it is not life. Two arguments that just don't wash, but are necessary for them to maintain that they are not pro-abortion, but merely pro-choice. Semantically, being pro-choice is by necessity, being pro-abortion, and not just because the opposite, not allowing the woman a choice after pregnancy, is anti-abortion. Consciously or not, those who believe in "choice," are effectively pro-abortion because the demand for one is the sanctioning of the other.
Though such connotation is rabidly denied by said group. If you have as your criteria that women have the right to have an abortion upon demand, you have to be for abortion.
The question then becomes why is it distasteful for the pro-abortionists to be viewed as such. Naturally, it has to do with the depth of their convictions and their willingness to deceive to achieve their goal of permanently maintaining the status quo. After all, if most Americans believed the pro-abortionists rhetoric, such as the unborn is part of the mother's body and had no life, there would be no need for the pretense.
A woman's right to have an undigested piece of food removed from her body stirs no controversy, no one sees it as part of her body or alive. Ed Harris and his crowd want the populace to understand that a "fetus or more correctly the unborn has the same connotation as a rotting piece of meat in a woman's gut. Fortunately, Americans see the difference, including the pro-abortionists.
Unfortunately, the pro-abortionists don't care.
The qualities that are necessary for being a man are naturally, generally, subjective. Understanding the needs of others, women included are no doubt high on most people's list. Perhaps the highest quality is altruism; a sense of humanity that calls for the selflessness that manifests itself in the quest to protect the innocent and helpless.
Ed Harris and his ilk's need to subordinate such altruism through the use of deception and bogus slogan's, is anything, but manly. Mr. Harris might also do well by trying to square being in someone's "hip pocket," and maintaining one's "manhood."
Paul Walfield is a freelance writer and member of the State Bar of California with an undergraduate degree in Psychology and post-graduate study in behavioral and analytical psychology. He resided for a number of years in the small town of Houlton, Maine and is now a California attorney.Paul can be contacted at [email protected]