Death

From the DrudgeReport:

PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY
Sun Jan 25 2009 22:13:43 ET

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.

The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

There are so many things hideous about this statement I couldn't discuss them all without consuming your entire lunch-break, but let me list just the some of the worst:

An utter lack of moral sense (call it conscience). All right, she wants the best interest of the state, but the best interest of the state is evil, and thus not at all best, if built upon the slaughter of innocents.

It's premeditated.

It's shameless. They've dropped all pretense for concern for the woman's welfare.

They're all godless Philistines, damn them.

I'm sure there's some great sentence somewhere in Western literature on this point: once a culture treats its children as liabilities, it is doomed to die. Children are the promise of someone to carry on our work of today into the future, and the hope of greatness surpassing what we accomplished. A woman commits suicide on part of her soul when she allows her child to be killed, and a culture commits suicide when it AIMS at killing its children.

Consequent on the last point: its the last stage of the decay of political imagination. It's like the author who can't figure out what to do with the protagonist, so kills him off. There ARE problems with a booming population, but there are GOOD ways to deal with it, and even to channel to unsurpassed heights the latent energy and power of that most marvelous creation, impossible to manufacture, the human being.

And further: when the Speaker of the House treats citizens as items in a pocket book, you know that 1) she's hopelessly out of touch, and 2) that she hasn't read Dickens. Do we really want such a person governing our country?