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.
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the family put...
- Jay Evensen: Should Utah raise its gas tax?...
- My view: Chaffetz named ‘politician of...
- My view: Torture, morality and the laws of war
- Letter: Wood burning an easy target
- Letter: Patriots or serfs?
- Kathleen Parker: Placing blame for massive...
- Charles Krauthammer: Democrats use... 78
- In our opinion: Police training should... 44
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington 41
- In our opinion: Wood burning ban... 37
- Robert Bennett: More political... 36
- Letter: Patriots or serfs? 33
- Paul Mero: Reasonable solution to... 30
- In our opinion: Moving forward... 24