Hint: it isn’t the question the inquirer is asking…

“My husband and I are thrilled to be welcoming our first child this spring, after an arduous I.V.F. journey lasting nearly two years. We ended up needing an anonymous egg donor, whom we found through an egg bank, to conceive our child. Select family members and close friends who knew that we were trying are aware that we took this route. However, my husband told me that he doesn’t want anyone else knowing that we used donor eggs, and that he is upset that some people already know. He is afraid that in a few years, someone will let slip to the child that they were conceived with donor eggs before we as parents have a chance to tell them ourselves. He believes we’re violating our unborn child’s right to privacy by sharing this fact with others. His fear stems from an experience in his family in which an aunt accidentally revealed to a cousin that his biological father was not the man who raised him. I have pointed out to him that what he fears is not likely to happen, that this is our story to tell as much as our child’s; and I’ve reminded him that we should let our child know how they were brought into this world at as young an age as possible, using language they can understand. Further, I wouldn’t have been able to get through this incredibly difficult and painful process without the small group of family and friends we had to rally around us. It was important to me to be able to share the experience with this group, and with some other good, trustworthy and loving friends. He doesn’t understand or respect this and is depriving me of something I hold dear by insisting on secrecy — and this is what hurts the most. I have pleaded with him to see my side, but he doesn’t budge. Out of respect for his wishes, I’ve now kept it from several additional close friends, which has been painful for me. What could possibly bring him around? Or how could I make peace with his position? And have I really deprived our unborn child of a right to privacy by telling a few people about how the child was conceived? “

Just to get this out of the way, my answer would be, “Tell your silly husband to get over it. Trying to keep these kinds of secrets is eventually indistinguishable from lying. The truth, as they say, will out.”

Did you figure out what I focused on? Know your ethicist! What interests me is this: “He believes we’re violating our unborn child’s right to privacy by sharing this fact with others.“

The Ethicist, a long time contributor to the Times, clearly a progressive-leaning academic at a super-woke school (NYU), accepts that as a legitimate issue in his answer. Yet his employers, virtually its entire staff, definitely most if not all of his NYU colleagues, and definitely most of his students, accept as a matter of progressive gospel that the unborn child has no right to live, and if the mother chooses to treat the fetus or embryo or baby as a wart, a tumor, or an unwanted invader, then that’s what it is. Does the unborn child’s right to privacy magically appear once the mother has decided not to kill it? How does that work, exactly?

Abortion advocates should have to explain these contradictions. They don’t. They can’t.

I have vowed to make this point again and again, every time I see the argument raised in print or in speech, as often as I encounter it and for the rest of my life—as should you.

The Washington Free Beacon, often an admirable and indeed indispensable source of news and information that the left-biased mainstream media hides, distorts, or just ignore hoping it will the public will never have the opportunity to consider it, added this yesterday:

Biden DOJ Enlists Kristen Clarke, Who Defended Black Nationalists Charged With Voter Intimidation, To Combat Voter Intimidation

Continue reading →

Stuff is piling up on the blog like it’s piling up at my home. At least here I have a solution…

1. The Democratic Senators were right to kill the House GOP Mayorkas impeachment, and they did it for the right reasons. Being incompetent isn’t a high crime, and the House can’t end around the Constitution to fire an executive appointment: it is a breach of the separation of powers.

What a waste of time…

2. Canary dying in the public education mine tale: This is a depressing story. Short version: Last March, a Hispanic school principal physically stopped a female student whom he concluded was about to attack another student. The student he physically restrained accused him of assault—she is black, and with the help of her parents blew the incident into a racial one.

Now the principal Columbia High School in New Jersey, Frank Sanchez, has been arrested and charged with assault and endangering a minor. The family’s lawyer is telling the news media that the encounter exemplifies how black students are discriminated against and mistreated. But some parents are saying that the student was a known bully and a disciplinary problem, and the incident has been exploited by a black parents advocacy group to get rid of Sanchez.

Grace and I finally decided to home school grant when he reported that in all of his freshman high school classes (at Alexandria City High, long known as T.C. Williams until the name was changed because a bad cop either negligently, recklessly or intentionally killed a lifetime petty crook who was overdosing on fentanyl in Minnesota. That butterfly causing a typhoon by flapping its wings has nothing on George Floyd.) classes were almost uniformly 15-20 minutes late because the teachers had to settle down the black students goofing around, talking and refusing to take their seats. He said the teacher were afraid to do anything but keep repeating, “OK, now, that’s enough.” Columbia High had to pay the Black Parents Workshop, which formed in 2014, damaged after it sued the district charging that black students were suspended more frequently than white students for the same acts. Occam’s Razor would suggest that this was not because of discrimination, but because black kids engaged in those acts more frequently. Now, if that was the real reason, they are still behaving like that, but get away with it. Problem solved!

Continue reading →

No.

Maybe I should just end the post with that single word, because it’s essentially all we need to know from an ethics perspective.

O.J. Simpson, who just died of prostate cancer at 76, was a bad man, a sociopath, one of the most vivid examples of the narcissist celebrity who believes the basic rules that the “little people” are bound to follow don’t apply to him. I keep reading that O.J. was “controversial.” There’s nothing controversial about a man who slaughters his ex-wife and her male friend at the doorstep of the home he and his victim once shared, with his children sleeping upstairs. Such a man is a villain, and deserves to be executed.

I just watched an interview on Fox News with a journalist friend of Simpson’s who got all choked up talking about “the O.J he knew” and said that Simpson’s legacy was “complicated,” as if he was talking about Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency. “Well, yes, he did some bad things like locking up Japanese-American citizens and selling out Eastern Europe to a brutal dictator, but on the other hand, he did save the nation from economic and spiritual collapse and the world from Hitler…” What ethical relativistic garbage. Simpson was a great college and professional football player, that’s all. There have been a lot of them, and none of the others murdered two innocent human beings and got away with it. Having a fortunate physical ability and success in sports has very little to do with one’s value to society andthe human race, or the content of one’s character. If anything, Simpson was overly rewarded for being able to run fast and dodge tacklers. Moreover, stardom made him into a monster, if he wasn’t one already. Bill Cosby’s legacy can legitimately be called “complicated,” as he was a public figure who contributed significantly and positively to the culture even as he was drugging and raping hundreds of women who trusted him. Virtually everything O.J. did to our culture was, in the end, destructive.

Continue reading →

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama’s flagrant DEI choice for the Court, is a poor jurist and one of the weakest SCOTUS intellects ever, as her Ethics Alarms dossier makes depressingly clear and as she makes clear herself every time she authors a dissent or a concurring opinion. Nonetheless, I’m 100% in her corner as the desperate Left tries to push her into resigning so Biden and the narrow Democrat majority in the Senate can put a 28-year-old transgender Muslim midget of color in her place.

Sotomayor is a target ostensibly because shes 70 (a spring chicken in Supreme Court demographics), diabetic and had one parent who died at a young age, so there is a non-negligible chance that she may shuffle off this mortal coil after Biden vacates the White House, allowing the evil Donald Trump to appoint Darth Vader to the Court or someone similar. This may be part of the reasoning, but I strongly suspect that progressives know that The Great and Powerful O screwed up and selected a liberal justice who lacked the gravitas and acumen to do battle with the SCOTUS conservative majority beyond metaphorically crooning “Feelings,” which is what the “wise Latina” is all about.

Well, tough. The Left made their bed by confirming Sonia, and they are stuck with her. It serves them right for placing ethnicity over scholarship and competence in such an important government institution.

Continue reading →