A happy graphic

One to make me consider a cheerier avatar...



With credit to Augustin...

I keep hoping that we're moving closer to some kind of tipping point, where people are going to realize what they're endorsing, how irrational it is, and voila! So, it's probably wishful thinking--but as I've said before if I COuld change, anyonecould change.

to an NPR call-in show (Larry Mantle's Airtalk) on the Gallup show (and the Pew poll that supports it). A pro-life Catholic who called in made an interesting point, I thought, which is that she used to see more female spokespeople for the pro-life movement.

What's funny to me are the callers who want to dismiss this as a "petty issue" or a "diversionary tactic". What I appreciate about Larry Mantle is that he pointed out to this caller that "different things resonate morally for different people," trying to get him to be self-critical, and that he does this with all callers. And it's interesting to hear the old canard, "I wish those pro-lifers would care about what babies after they're born."

Because you know, it's completely impossible to do both. It's just not possible.

so useful, in fact, that it survives the fact that pro-life people do LOTS of things to help women and babies, far more than do pro-aborts.

The charity gap is so wide, in fact, that it's an amazing trick that the side who gives the most is perpetually characterized as greedy and unfeeling, while the side that is the stingiest is always depicted as being generous and empathetic.

employed in the rhetoric of choice. The idea that we can't possibly care about more than crucial issue--Israel and the death penalty? No way!--kind of makes me laugh. It reminds of the Victorians, who, I understand, felt that everyone had just so much energy, so women couldn't be both mothers and workers because they would sort of implode.

Of course, on that the Victorians were right, of which I am living proof. :P