“Don’t deny the link between poverty and single parenthood” Response to New York Times article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-deny-the-link-between-poverty-and-single-parenthood/2018/03/18/e6b0121a-2942-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html?utm_term=.61bffce745c6

Advertisements

Women Choose

I recently read an article in the Wall Street Journal called Why Aren’t There More Women in Science and Technology? by developmental psychologist and social science writer, Susan Pinker.  It cites the results of a study published last month in the journal Psychological Science which analyzes data from the world’s largest educational survey. The article immediately calls […]

Interesting Perspective on Compromise in the wake of Florida High School Shooting

Peggy Noonan is former presidential speechwriter and current columnist and author wrote a recent article called The Parkland Massacre and the Air We Breathe. Noonan perceptively identifies the degradation of our society starting with the dissolution of the family as well as cultural inputs which are negatively impacting all of us.

Near the end of her article she proposes a compromise in public policy goals between Republicans and Democrats when she says,

The idea: Trade banning assault weapons for banning late-term abortion. Make illegal a killing machine and a killing procedure.

In both cases the lives of children would be saved.

Wouldn’t this clean some of the air? Wouldn’t we all breathe a little easier?

It is a provocative and innovative proposal that is likely meant to call both the Republican’s and Democrat’s bluff rather than be taken seriously as a piece of legislation. However, I can see this type of idea being more popular among voters as the debate on guns moves forward.

Noonan clearly sees that each group wants the opposition’s purported rights eradicated on moral grounds.  However, her case is a bit too simplistic in that the moral analogy of banning a gun versus banning the killing of an unborn child are not, in my opinion, equally weighted. The analogy further slips when comparing the two in light of the Constitution whereas one right is explicit and pervasive since the founding and the other is interpreted as implied and added late. However, I see the merit in offering her argument as an olive branch in hopes of some change.