Thursday, January 31, 2013

Women and Children First

... first to sacrifice, first to suffer, first to die.

Toure Neblett, hipster MSNBC host, killed his own child because it was inconvenient. Toure came out and said as much on the air.
I like the way Toure's top button is undone and the collar folds down. Very chic!
There's a good takedown of Toure over at Kelly Clinger's. While it's all worth reading, here's the particular tidbit that struck me.
Toure begins by talking about a relationship he was in 15 years ago. He says, “I was in a committed relationship with a woman I knew was not the one. She also knew it probably wasn’t going to work out…” If you are in a relationship that you KNOW isn’t going to work out, why continue to call it a committed relationship and stay in it? He goes on to say “…and then she got pregnant…” ... 
“I knew that the pregnant woman and I were not going to be able to form a lasting family.” Then why have sex like a married couple, who is ready for the real commitment of a family? Talk about a picture of selfishness and cowardice. 
“She decided it was best to have an abortion… and in some ways that choice saved my life.”What a weak, narcissistic response to having your child killed…that hiring a hit man to kill someone who had half of your DNA saved you.
Yay! Toure was saved! This is the part where we should all be nodding our heads (or waggling them side to side) and saying, "That's right. You got to save yourself, man."

It's the part where a grown man helped the woman who was sexually gratifying him to kill his child. It's the part where the grown man shrugged his shoulders at that woman's possible post-abortive depression. It's the part where Toure was able to put on his sport coat over his casual clothes and stroll down the street knowing he didn't have anything to do that day other than find someone else to boink.

Women and children first.

Addendum: I feel very proud of  myself that I made it all the way through this blog post and didn't call Toure a subhuman piece of filth or a moral scrofula. I deserve a cookie.


Anonymous said...

What a piece of crap he is. He should have put a "raincoat" on it. That, and there are other ways to prevent pregnancy. If you are too immature to have sex, and the consequences of it, then you shouldn't be doing it. Actions have consequences, and killing a baby is wrong.

Jedi Master Ivyan said...

Anon, those birth control methods don't always work. The solution is a return to the values and faith of a bygone era.

K T Cat said...

Ivyan, haven't you been watching TV and the movies? People in those bygone eras were doing it just as much as we were, they were just hypocrites about it.

We're still trying to work out what happened to all of their illegitimate babies, but don't worry, we'll find them. There's just no way that modern morality is worse. None!

tim eisele said...

"We're still trying to work out what happened to all of their illegitimate babies"

I know you're just being snarky, but that's actually a good question. Reading fiction from the 1800s and early 1900s, there's the impression that the world was crawling with orphans (without being too clear as to whether the parents were actually dead, or had just dumped the kids at the orphanage). And reading biographies of famous people, the number who lost one or both parents while the famous person was a child, is huge[1]. But, I haven't found a good estimate of just how many orphans or children raised by single parents there *were* at the time. The records are evidently sketchy. So are orphans common in older fiction because they make a good story, or because there were many, many orphans? Beats me.

So, how common *were* unwanted and abandoned children in the old days, anyway?

[1] And then there's the massive infant death rate. When people kind of expected maybe a quarter of newborn children to die within a couple of years, how do you distinguish the ones who died of disease from the ones who died of neglect because their parents didn't really want them?