John on March 29, 2005 at 12:39 pm
I’ve always disliked Anna Quindlen’s take on everything. I even disliked that sappy movie based on her novel “One True Thing.” So no surprise that I find her take on the Schiavo case distasteful from start to finish. In fact, I was so irritated I had to respond. I sent her the following e-mail today (read her piece first, it’ll make more sense):
As often as I read this sort of thing, I have to assume there is great satisfaction to be had in wielding Rousseau’s Confessions as a blunt object to dash apart the icons of piety. Moral free-agency, which really is the one-note in your particular music-box, is a lovely idea about which one can write forceful columns and make impassioned dinner party speeches. What a pity that it always ends in misery for well, for Rousseau’s children, certainly.
The Greeks and Romans lived in the sort of world you apparently think ideal. They were great practitioners of abortion, infanticide (especially girls), suicide, prostitution, and what we would today call pedophilia. And, best of all, no Bible! Of course, their culture was also marked by the utter subjugation of women under patria potestas, slavery, and the cruelty of the “Circus.” But in the words of another great iconoclast, “You have to break a few eggs ”
I suspect your whole outlook would change if you could grasp one point, really get it as a fact of history and human nature: People are not “noble savages.” People are essentially venal and selfish. Therefore, in a world of moral free-agents, the strong will always use the weak for their own purposes and pleasure. Often it’s the state, sometimes it’s the petty tyrant, sometimes the husband or uncle, and sometimes all of the above. Ultimately, moral free-agency results in a world without morality or freedom, especially for women and children.
I don’t expect a response, but if I get one I’ll post it.
Category: Pro-Life |