Redefining the terms of the argument  

rm_RandomXS2 63M
63 posts
6/16/2005 8:38 am

Last Read:
3/5/2006 9:27 pm

Redefining the terms of the argument

Eventually I'm going to have something positive and happy to say. Be sure to carry your umbrella that day because pigs will be flying and you don't want to get caught in that!

Now I have to address a long-festering piece of silliness that REALLY BUGS ME! (Gasp! Now THERE'S a surprise!) This time it relates to the right-wing's ability to redefine just about ANY argument with unabashed and unashamed NewSpeak. Abortion and Stem Cell research are my current targets - the "conservatives" insist on labeling the opponents of their position "Abortion Rights" advocates, while calling their's a "Right to Life." Slick move. The "Right to Life" is firmly enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, while, Gosh! Abortion doesn't appear to be there anywhere, now does it? Hmmmm. That they manage to conveniently forget about "...Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" will be addressed later.

Corollary to this is the belief that "Life begins at conception." Well...yeah. Hard to argue that anyone possessed of life was NOT conceived. One sort of follows naturally from the other. But while it may be true that conception preceeds life it is NOT true that conception MUST lead to life. The logic is flawed. This is not even a given in the world of PLANTS!!! Go to your Bible and find the parable of the seeds that fall on hard ground, etc. Seeds are, by definition, fully capable of becoming full fledged plants, yet we see that many, in fact most, do not become trees or flowers or hemp plants. Nature itself argues against the logic that conception MUST lead to life. I have had many songs, stories, paintings, relationships, etc. that never quite made it through the gestation period. Am I therefore guilty of musicide, Litericide, Articide, or Romanitcide? Certainly not - not all things that CAN be MUST be. We make choices. Whether governments like it or not that is our nature. And this is the real issue that our lovely friends on the totalitarian side of the political divide very much do NOT want us to see.

Leaving aside ideology for a moment, lets just have a look at the potential consequences of enshrining a "life begins at conception" notion into the law of the land. This argument is being put forth by abortion/stem cell foes in such a way as to preclude anything but a live birth of a human child (who can then, presumably, be outfitted in fatigues, given a weapon, and sent off to kill whoever the government decides is a "terrorist" or get his/her ass blown to pieces in some god-awful place we have no business being - but I digress...) This being the case, would it not follow that any pregnancy not carried to term must be viewed as a potential criminal act on the part of the mother? A full investigation must be undertaken to ensure the "rights" of the fetus. Did the mother have a glass of wine early in the pregnancy? Did she smoke a cigarette? Take the wrong combination of prescription or, even worse, illicit, drugs? Did she stay 10 minutes too long at the gym?

I'll agree that that may seem a silly exageration. Unfortunately such prosecutions have ALREADY taken place. Primarily in relation to drug-addicted mothers - but the precedent has certainly been set.

BUT WAIT! It get's even better. If it is codified that "Life" begins at conception and that notion were to be enshrined in the constitution LOTS of interesting stuff happens. The Constitution states very clearly that one becomes a citizen by being BORN under the appropriate circumstances or by being naturalized. By definition a fetus is NOT a citizen and therefore has very limited legal standing - presumably inherited from the parent. For instance, a fetus can be counted as a second victim in a murder case, etc. Well and good and perfectly reasonable. However, imagine what happens to citizenship if "Life begins at conception" is added to the constitution. Would it not then follow that the fetus would have legal standing (the whole point of adding such a thing) and, by extension, citizenship? Would that make anyone CONCEIVED in the US a citizen? How do you prove it? Must you record every sex act? Register it with the Government? Get a license?

Before we pooh-pooh such ideas bear in mind that Government powers, once planted, tend to grow like weeds, and with just as much restraint.

So we come to the REAL reason all of this nonesense so infuses the body politic. One word: CONTROL. This is little more than a poorly disguised attempt to "put women in their place" by placing that most defining attribute of womanhood - their wombs - under the control of the Federal Government. To what use those wombs are then put depends merely upon the whims of the moment...starting with a lack of reproductive choices, including contraception. Once the principle that the Government has the right to control the nation's wombs it requires very little in the way of "national security concerns" to envision either forced abortions or forced pregnancies depending upon the prevailing political winds. This already happens in other countries, so don't pretend it can't happen here.

I'm not a big fan of abortion per se. I would rather it was less common and reserved as a choice of last resort. I'm never going to have to make that choice and am supremely unqualified to make it for anyone else. I also believe it should BE a choice - the question that remains is WHO'S?

So it's time we took back the terms of the argument and redefined them as what they REALLY are. Instead of "Abortion Rights" let's call it "Women's Rights." And let's call the "Right to Life" what it, in fact, is: "Government Control of Women's Wombs"

Gee...see how easy it is when we define these issues as they really are?


MsLoveRose 34F  
2432 posts
6/16/2005 12:28 pm

WILL BE BACK LATER...

live more, laugh often, love much


MsLoveRose 34F  
2432 posts
6/21/2005 9:44 pm

Random, you never cease to amaze me....

shall the sunrise open and go deep...just a litte

this is simply a matter of choice....its should be used as a matter of last resort...and the governtment in control of the population....we might as well live in china....(wont go there) i just dont understand the whole idea behind right to life....right to be born...i have a right...to myself to be true, honest, and loving in all that i do....i wonder if the politicians can say the same thing..... it appears that the choice of the matter is always going to be into controversy....i myself, have a story that almost fit into this category.....

i am a woman with a sexual disfunction...i over-ovulate...my ovaries dont know when to stop....my hormone levels are all heightened maybe 10-15 times....but at even levels....i can mass produce eggs to ensure a multiple birth...i am a walking lab rat and if the government wants to use me as an expirement then i have to decline....i am made the way i am just because...maybe i will have to populate the country...boy would that be a sight!!!! sunrise babies galore....(sick humor here) maybe i just not supposed to have the picket fence with little johnny and becky(lack of baby names) runny around in the yard....steril mothers want what i have. Fertility clincs have no idea whats going on....i know that one in ever 100 million(maybe less im no effin stat watcher!!!) have the same issues....its just that i could make a fortune donating eggs to stem cell resarch....i could make a fortune in the black market...selling eggs door to door(sick humor again)....the choice is still mine and until i pose as a national threat...i guess the government has no choice in what i say....or do for that matter

live more, laugh often, love much


Goldenhairgodess 64F
396 posts
7/20/2005 4:07 am

Wow Sunrisegirl,
And I thought I was unique! Populate the country! That would be
so cool! But not much fun for you(except for the making part LO.
I agree that the Government has no business butting in to what a
woman chooses to do with her reproduction abilities. They do not
have a very good track record when it comes to the populations they
are supposed to represent. When I vote I always vote for replacing
the current representatives feeling they are already corupt.


Become a member to create a blog