Why Thomas Friedman is a Eugenicist nutjob

NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman is Pro-life. He gave that title to his Sunday column, so it should be beyond dispute, right?

“Why I am Pro-life” works if you understand by “life” the success and wealth of people like Thomas Friedman unencumbered by the cares of the weak and the helpless. Nothing should ever hamper or hurt you in Friedman’s world. If through no fault of your own you find yourself related to someone who could derail your hopes and aspirations for yourself, you simply kill him.

Do a search of Friedman’s column for the word “baby.” It never appears. What about “fetus”? Not there either. “Embryo”? Nope. Friedman seems to think the swelling that grows during nine months of pregnancy is literally nothing. A baby just appears at the end of the process that was never there before. The closest Friedman can permit himself to acknowledge that someone beside the mother is in view is to say “fertilized egg.” With a mind like a Totalitarian state, Friedman “disappears” anyone who might get in the way of state objectives.

If Friedman is so convinced, let him come out from behind his word processor and sit across the table from Juda Myer and explain how it is so very important that her mom had the legal freedom to kill her. Or perhaps he could meet on a TV talk show with Rebecca Kiesling and give us his wisdom with her by his side. Or perhaps Ryan Bomberger would be good to look eye to eye and explain the dangerous extremism in the Republican party. But if Friedman is too much of a coward to even use the word, “baby,” in a column that is supposed to be bravely defending a woman’s right to choose to kill hers, then my guess is that he plans to not acknowledge these persons or many others whose lives offend him so much.

Rape is a horrible crime. So is killing a baby. Friedman’s deep commitment to making sure nothing obstructs the latter is shown in the fact that he deliberately misleads the reader to think that Romney is opposed to the rape exception. He also never acknowledges that Obama has fought to ensure that babies who survive an abortion are killed rather than saved. Romney is not the extremist candidate on this issue.

So why does Friedman bequeath to himself the label “pro-life”? Because, if we get the undesirables out of the way by abortion, and then empower the nanny state to control all other inconvenient people (fat children who like to drink soda, etc) then we will get the only “life” that Friedman has decided is worth living.

“That’s why, for me, the most “pro-life” politician in America is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. While he supports a woman’s right to choose, he has also used his position to promote a whole set of policies that enhance everyone’s quality of life — from his ban on smoking in bars and city parks to reduce cancer, to his ban on the sale in New York City of giant sugary drinks to combat obesity and diabetes, to his requirement for posting calorie counts on menus in chain restaurants, to his push to reinstate the expired federal ban on assault weapons and other forms of common-sense gun control, to his support for early childhood education, to his support for mitigating disruptive climate change.”

So there’s the dream: Killing babies and disarming the poor so that they have to follow orders given by the police—orders arranged and planned by those of Friedman’s social class. No wonder Friedman wants to ditch the “pro-choice” label. He doesn’t believe in it. At all.

If anyone thinks women would stay free if Friedman got is way, then they are not reading him carefully. If open air smoking and soda can all be taken away by dictatorial “pro-lifers,” then what about the public health costs of Down syndrome children? Friedman will deny it (maybe!) but I don’t believe him. What is coming down the road from this control freak are mandatory pregnancy exams and mandatory “pregnancy terminations” for the deformed, the less than perfect.

And this will all be “pro-life,” but not “pro-choice.”