In You I Don't Trust

One of my favorite mush-headed liberal bumper stickers is the one that reads, "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?" The answer, of course, is that I can't. I'm sure that, if you are anywhere near average, any child you have will be weaned way too soon, over-inoculated, fed on junk food and way too many refined carbohydrates, exposed to way too much TV, and eventually sent off to public school, which is junk food for the mind. With any luck, he'll also be taken to a "main line" Protestant church and fed junk food for the soul. So no, I don't trust you to bring your child up right. However, unlike the liberals, I find something even more important, and that is your absolute, inalienable right to bring up your children in whatever way you wish. (Please note that the raid on the FLDS compound in Texas was "informed" by a _liberal_ mind set, not a conservative one.)

The reason that children who are already born have better prospects for survival than children in the womb is quite simple. It has to do with bonding. Now, it is true that considerable bonding does occur during pregnancy, but as far as we know (it could be shown otherwise eventually) it's all in one direction, i.e. it's the mother who becomes bonded to the child. But this only happens if she is happy being pregnant, and doesn't consider the child a "thing", or an imposition, or an inconvenience. In Scripture, the question is asked, "Can a mother reject her own child?" And the answer is yes, she can -- especially if her pregnancy is "unwanted" and she has been brainwashed by liberal propaganda that she doesn't have to put up with such things if she doesn't want to. And yes, studies have shown that abortion causes psychological havoc, but in only some cases, i.e. among women who fell into that gray area of uncertainty. Others have developed a coldness, and a hardness of heart, that would be the envy of the burly female guards at Buchenwald.

So the bonding process is a somewhat chancy thing up to the moment of birth. But at that moment, something magic (actually very instinctive -- very, dare I say it, Darwinian) happens, and the mother decides that this small, wet, squirming being is really kind of OK, and she starts taking care of it and nurturing it. And it is this process, and its continuation and extrapolation to other facets of life, that constitute the "safety net" for the child, not any sort of "parenting" propaganda, much less any anti-parenthood propaganda. If it weren't for these instincts, the human race would have died out eons ago. In fact, it would never have gotten off the ground (or out of the trees). The first "human" child to be born of a pre-human primate would have been dropped on his head while its mom went in search of a perfectly-ripened banana, and that would have been the end of that. But that's not how it happened, and only liberals have the cosmic gall to claim that all of this instinctive power can be quashed, and reversed, by governmental fiat. Thank goodness that we are, indeed, animals as well as human.