I recall studying the women’s suffrage movement back in high school. Throughout it all, one argument was used over and over: do it for the children. Women voting, they argued, would be the only way to end child labor practices and to make sure the government had the interests of the children in mind. Compare that to the arguments surrounding today’s most politically charged subjects.
A woman’s right to an abortion, they tell us, supersedes the right of the child to live. The right of homosexual couples to wed and raise children is far more important than any effect that it could have on the children themselves, or so they say. We are told not to worry about the massive deficits our government runs up, because clearly the illusion of “jump-starting” the economy is more important than the insufferable debts being passed on to the next generation.
We used to understand that as adults, we had a responsibility to look after the interests of children at the expense of our own interests. The current discourse reflects the loss of that understanding.
- In our opinion: The 3 levels of Christmas
- W. Bradford Wilcox: Why the working-class...
- John Florez: Utah's prison relocation is like...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Cogitating on...
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: New Christmas...
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net
- My view: Doing away with cursive is bad idea...
- My view: We deserve better than current...
- Letter: Patriots or sheep? 62
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net 45
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the... 36
- My view: Chaffetz named... 34
- Jay Evensen: Cuba not likely to change... 34
- My view: Torture, morality and the laws... 30
- Jay Evensen: Should Utah raise its gas... 28
- Letter: Police not the problem 24