The president of NARAL-Pro-Choice America, Ilyse Hogue, gestures as she leaves the stage at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on July 27, 2016. Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Gary Cameron *Editors: This photo may only be republished with RNS-WAX-OPED, originally transmitted on August 1, 2016.

Euphemisms abound in the Democratic platform on abortion

(RNS) As I read the Democratic Party platform on abortion, I couldn’t help but wonder what George Orwell would have said.

In 1946, Orwell wrote a famous essay, “Politics and the English Language,” that described political speech and writing as “largely the defense of the indefensible.”

“Political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness,” he wrote. Politicians turn to strange phrases in order to “name things without calling up mental pictures of them.”

The 2016 Democratic platform contains a number of these euphemisms that hide abortion in a haze of abstraction:

“Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice.”

The terms “reproductive health,” “reproductive rights” and “reproductive justice” are newer additions to abortion-rights ideology. They seek to counter the effect of “right to life” language, which is grounded in the Declaration of Independence and resonates with many Americans.

On the surface, who can be against “reproductive health,” if by that, we mean healthy reproductive experience? If “reproductive health” is another way of saying abortion on demand, then we should wonder why one would adopt that term. What exactly is wrong with or unhealthy about a woman who is pregnant?

Next comes “reproductive rights.”

Does this term mean that a woman has the right to reproduce? Thankfully, no one denies a woman that right today, although nearly a century ago, it was popular among progressive elites to promote compulsory sterilization of those deemed "unfit" to reproduce.

If “reproductive rights” does not refer to the right to reproduce, does it mean the right to not reproduce? I doubt anyone would quibble with that definition. No woman should be forced to engage in sexual relations against her will. And the majority of people with moral objections to birth control still maintain a woman’s freedom to obtain it. No, the reason “reproductive rights” is controversial is because the term means the right to end the life of the human who already exists in the womb.

“We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured.”

Some have lauded this statement as the most progressive platform on abortion ever adopted by a political party. But “progressive” is a slippery term.

A century ago, most of the “progressives” were advocating eugenics and forced sterilizations. Two hundred years ago, the “progressives” were the ones who enacted laws to hold abortionists accountable for preying on poor women (alas, Kermit Gosnells have long been with us).

“Progressive” and “advanced” are terms that mask a power play. They promote the idea that the “progressive” is at the vanguard of the future of justice and equality. As descriptors, though, they are empty of substance.

Besides, when you look at the surveys of Americans on abortion, you might conclude that the Democratic National Convention platform is not “progressive,” but “extreme” -- as in “out of the mainstream.” Do the majority of Americans really agree with the Democrats? A slight majority champion abortion rights, but 64 percent believe abortion should be illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent in the third trimester. The DNC is far out of the mainstream on abortion regulation.

“We believe that reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health and wellbeing.”

There’s the “reproductive health” euphemism again. Translation: We believe that the ability to destroy one’s offspring is core to young people’s wellbeing. Of course, that only refers to the wellbeing of some young people. The younger you are, the more vulnerable. It’s hard to look at a dismembered corpse left after a second-trimester abortion and conclude that “reproductive health” makes a great contribution to that young person’s wellbeing.

“We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.”

Translation: Not only do we believe in the right to abortion, we believe all Americans who have a moral objection to violence against the unborn must subsidize abortion through taxpayer funds. To put it another way, the DNC wants to take away a pro-life "woman’s right to choose" to not cover the cost of the abortion industry’s violence against the vulnerable.

“We recognize that quality, affordable comprehensive health care, evidence-based sex education and a full range of family planning services help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.”

For a moment, it seems the DNC platform sees “reducing the need for abortions” as a positive development. This is the closest the current statement comes to the “abortion should be rare” language from past party platforms. If the trajectory of these platforms holds up in the future, the next DNC platform will strip this language away, to fully hide any moral quandary over abortion.

“We are committed to creating a society where children are safe and can thrive physically, emotionally, educationally, and spiritually. We recognize and support the importance of civil structures that are essential to creating this for every child.”

After arguing for the right to an abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy, the platform then speaks of a society that is safe for children. Sorry, but we will never create a society safe for children if we imagine the woman and her unborn child in an adversarial relationship, or argue for the right to kill a child up to the point he or she is in the birth canal.

Orwell was right about political language, which is why our manner of conversation about abortion conveniently shifts whenever we find it necessary to distance ourselves from the humanity of the unborn.

But no amount of euphemism can avoid the fact that in “medical waste” bags and freezers of abortion clinics, there are tiny, broken bodies of our fellow humans to be disposed of, all in the name of “reproductive health.”

(Trevin Wax is managing editor of The Gospel Project and author of multiple books, including “Clear Winter Nights: A Journey Into Truth, Doubt and What Comes After”)

Comments

  1. OK lets put fetus worship rhetoric in its most honest context:

    “We seek to impose our will on the lives of pregnant women because we don’t consider them to be people or beings whose interests matter. Therefore we avoid discussing her at all costs to focus entirely on the life of a fetus.

    We have no problem declaring that a woman must bear the child of their rapist or must suffer severe medical complications or death for our beliefs. After all a woman is of no consequence but a fetus is. But under no circumstances do we care whether a woman will be capable or willing to raise a child. Nor will we provide any assistance in doing so. Our concern for life only extends for 9 months of gestation”.

    (alas, Kermit Gosnells have long been with us).

    Alas Kermit Gosnells can only operate in an atmosphere where safe, well regulated abortion procedures are difficult to come by. Where onerous restrictions limit the choices of poor women so much they are willing to take chances with clinics which are clearly unsafe. Fetus worshipers who invoke Gosnell as an example of unfettered access to abortion are full of bovine excrement.

  2. Some will no doubt object that this argument was made by a man and is thus invalid on that basis. I found it well reasoned, but again, no doubt, will be assailed for that opinion as well. It is often asserted that pro-life people only care for the baby during the nine months of its gestation. I’ve witnessed many unplanned pregnancies in my time, primarily among working class whites, and in all those cases, except in the rare instance of adoption, the children were raised within those families with measured success. The argument from the consequence of rape represents a miniscule percentage of “unplanned,” (I use the term advisedly) pregnancy. Medical complications and death from pregnancy are rarely the justification in actual fact for abortion. Unplanned pregnancy in many instances, but not always, is merely an inconvienience to the one who chooses not to fulfill the responsibility to the child she bears. Pardon me, while I strap on my helmet to receive the incoming brickbats.

  3. For someone purporting to criticize Orwellian language, you engage in plenty of it yourself. Both sides in the abortion debate do this, so please don’t be a hypocrite. Don’t tell me that the Democrats are using “child” incorrectly, when it’s your side that wants to change the longstanding definition of personhood to include “unborn children.” Also, does the “right to life” extend to a woman at high risk of preeclampsia with an unintended pregnancy, or does your new definition override that?

  4. The author uses a George Orwell quote to condemn “political” language, and then goes on to says that such missleading language was created to counter the “right to life” language. He says the Right to Life language is based on the Declaration of Independance, something all true Americans believe in: “the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.” He forgets that this is also political language; many a slave owned by its author would see it as less than completely true.

  5. Exactly right, just like how the word “slavery” never appears in the Constitution. When people supporting a cause can’t use its name, they have real problems.

  6. I find it invalid because he criticizes euphemistic language while engages in it himself. In a far less honest fashion. There is not so much reasoning employed as it is making unfounded assumptions and reiterating a position of dogma. The reference to Kermit Gosnell is just evidence that the author is willing to play fast and loose with facts as well. Pretty much all of Trevin Wax’s posts are glorified religious conservative screeds. But in all fairness, that is his job. He is literally a shill for the Southern Baptist Convention.

  7. Actually it references slavery in Article I, Section 2. This is the three-fifths clause that explains the apportionment of representation and taxation. It reads:

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.

    A distinction is made between free and not free persons (aka slaves).

  8. I guess Trevin Wax has a right to write a hit piece against a woman’s right to control her own body.

    BTW, “control her own body” is not a euphemism to me. It’s the crux of the matter. I believe a major portion of this issue is about controlling women’s lives, including childbearing. If greater efforts were made to control male lives, medical decisions and reproduction, I’d probably begin to rethink my opinion.

  9. Exactly my point. The Consitution references slavery without actually naming it — the Founders were either so uncomfortable with slavery or knew that their customer base was that they didn’t want the word in their document. Likewise, with all their legerdemain the Democrats are trying to put lipstick on a pig — and likewise, are avoiding the word “abortion” like the plague.

  10. We know some founders were against it and other were for it. But both groups didn’t consider it a deal-breaker for forming a nation.

    Frankly if a fetus worshiper could bother to address the concerns of women on the subject of abortion, they wouldn’t come off so much like dishonest, self righteous, callous, control freaks. But here we are.

  11. I don’t think that the Democratic Platform statements on reproductive rights are euphemistic. They are problematic but not because they employ euphemisms; rather, they are problematic because they are overly simplistic. They overly simplistic in that they reduce the abortion question to a single issue: reproductive rights. And in so doing, they open the door for all-or-nothing thinking where everything about abortion revolves around a woman’s reproductive rights. The issue of the human status of the unborn and how we determine that status is assumed to be unanswerable and thus a personal issue. But the problem there is that the person making the judgment on the human status of the unborn child has multiple concerns including those about her own desires and welfare. This results in the person making the the choice about the human status of the unborn child as having a conflict of interest.

    Yes, the Democratic Party Platform does have euphemisms; but so does the Republican Party Platform. These platforms are marketing tools designed to sell the Parties and their candidates. And who, when trying to sell themselves is not going to try to market themselves by shading the facts and using euphemisms?

    Rather than paying attention to these platforms, we need to focus on the most recent performances of both parties. And once we do that, we should realize that when for whom to vote, two parties is too few for us to make intelligent choices.

  12. Translation: There is an invisible magic sky fairy, and I know what it thinks, so I get to tell you what you can and can’t do with your own organs.

  13. As I read it, the Democratic Party policy unequivocally supports the right to “safe and legal abortion.” It classes this as part of “reproductive health.” However, the phrases ““reproductive health,” “reproductive rights” and “reproductive justice” are not euphemisms, as they include other things, such as the right to treatment for diseases of the reproductive organs, including sexually transmitted infections and and cervical cancer, the right to factual sexual education and advice about contraceptives.

    To state or imply that “reproductive health” only refers to abortion is inaccurate and unfair. If the writer wants to decry abortion or contraception, that is fair enough, but attempting to portray the phrases, “reproductive health,” “reproductive rights” and “reproductive justice” as just being about abortion strikes me as less than honest.

  14. To correct the record, the Founders either wanted slavery gone or saw it as a necessary evil or a wolf they had by the ears. The claims that slavery was a positive good came later as the battle lines hardened. Beyond that, have fun preaching to the choir.

  15. “the Founders either wanted slavery gone or saw it as a necessary evil or a wolf they had by the ears.”

    Or had no problem with it whatsoever. They were politicians with diverse points of view. To claim there was any kind of uniform disdain for it is revisionist fiction. Then again any attempt to sanctify the founders like apostles or a unified group suffers from such issues.

    There were a lot of problems with the initial creation of the US which would be rectified much later.

  16. In that case, you should have no problem providing quotes from Founders labeling slavery a positive good.

  17. “Drop your drawers Sally, here comes Long Tom!”
    -Thomas Jefferson

    How many “founders” owned slaves? How many of them freed their slaves in their lifetime or at all?

    As referenced above, Thomas Jefferson apparently had no reservations about engaging in involuntary sexual concubinage. So much so that we even know the name of the slave who bore several of his children (who were slaves as well). Some reluctance there!

    You are treating American history like Bible study. Expecting a proof texted answer.

  18. Nice try to dodge. How about actually providing the quotes? As I said, if any Founders saw slavery as a positive good, it shouldn’t be hard

  19. What dodge? Slavery was a given and was well supported enough to force compromise and accommodation on the issue from opponents. As a “positive good” one only consider the wealth it brought the nation in those years and the lack of political support for its abolition.

    Slavery existed unabated for 80 years after founding. Any uninform perceived reluctance you claim is entirely unfounded conjecture. It speaks for itself. You made a claim you could not possibly support.
    You made a claim which no evidence was given in support. So no evidence is needed to refute it.

    But the facts speak for themselves.

    https://www.quora.com/How-many-of-Americas-founding-fathers-were-slave-owners

    Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 49% owned slaves.

    “Some slave owners emancipated their slaves (Richard Bassett and John Dickinson). Other slave owners opposed slavery and supported abolition (Jacob Broom and William Samuel Johnson). Other slave owners opposed the slave trade if not slavery itself.

    Of the 26 slaveowners, 19 owned multiple slaves and relied on slave labor for their livelihood.

    At no point can someone make a good faith claim that all those 19 somehow opposed slavery as some moral wrong absent evidence demonstrating it.

    Again, treating history like Bible study is merely inviting revisionist nonsense.

  20. You keep talking about what some of the Founders ought to believe, rather than what they actually believed. So let me try one more time. Please produce quotes from any Founders describing slavery as a positive good, instead of something so iffy that it can’t be described by name in the nation’s founding document.

  21. Not at all. You made a spurious claim that the founders as a group considered slavery either completely wrong or something which they reluctantly accepted. You omitted the probability that they also may have supported slavery. You deny it was even a possibility.

    The facts concerning slavery’s acceptance make your claims not only highly unlikely but outright revisionist.

    “instead of something so iffy that it can’t be described by name in the nation’s founding document.”

    That is entirely your opinion on the subject. From there you made the unfounded assumption that they all condemned it in some fashion. Rather than the more plausible one that they were compromising for the sake of moving on to other subjects.

    “Please produce quotes from any Founders describing slavery as a positive good”

    Please demonstrate that the 19 slaveholding members of the Constitutional Convention referenced in my link, who neither advocated abolition, nor freed their own slaves, had any reservation on the institution. You made a claim you could not support. I need not refute it beyond what I have already done. The fact that a good number of them made a living slaveholding and never said a word against the institution is clear enough evidence here.

  22. In the end the unborn child with a beating heart is a slave to the mother. Although full of life, termination, which equates to killing & death is an outcome for thousands & thousands.

    Its not reproductive health or a spiritual or an emotional thriving, just political & legal hype. Another form of genocide, no graves though, just buckets & garbage.

  23. Nothing spurious about it, as demonstrated by your inability to actually provide any of the quotes I asked for. Check out any good history book about slavery during that period, and you’ll find that the range of opinions ran just as I said — from a necessary evil to something that needed to be banned. It was later, between the shift in anti-slavery attitudes from seeing slavery as a social evil to a personal evil and the invention of the cotton gin that slavery’s defenders started calling it a positive good — you can make a good case that it started with Calhoun.

    And yes, in the Constitution the Founders turned to euphemisms when dealing with slavery the same way the Democratic party is turning to euphemisms when dealing with abortion. And for the same reason, to avoid the stigma attached to the actual label.

  24. I don’t need quotes when I have evidence plain as day to the contrary. You made a ridiculous, implausible claim and ask me to refute it. A claim like yours without evidence can be refuted without evidence. But I went one step further to show why your claim was ridiculous. I did all the work required and moreso.

    Show me a single reference where “the founders” universally condemned slavery as immoral. You won’t find one. Your premise is revisionist fiction. Much like Trevin Wax’s take on the abortion issue.

    And back to the article, the author is writing garbage. He accuses the pro choice side of using distancing euphemisms yet engaged in it himself.

  25. Quotes from the slaveowner, Thomas Jefferson:

    “The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state.”

    “He [George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piractical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce[.]”

    “The voice of a single individual of the state which was divided, or of one of those which were of the negative, would have prevented this abominable crime from spreading itself over the new country. Thus we see the fate of millions of unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and heaven was silent in that awful moment! But it is to be hoped it will not always be silent and that the friends to the rights of human nature will in the end prevail.”

    Yes, you need quotes if you are to have any hope of understanding WHY people act the way they do. So as I’ve repeatedly asked, provide quotes from ANY Founder calling slavery a positive good rather than at best a necessary evil. So far you have failed to offer any — you claim there were Founders that so believed, but have not offered any evidence to back up your claim.

  26. Thomas Jefferson lied in public about his involuntarily companionship arrangements. His statements concerning reservations about slavery cannot be taken at face value.

    You also demonstrate how proof texting and quote mining have their limits. Jefferson also does not represent the entirety of slave holding founders.

    “but have not offered any evidence to back up your claim.”

    I offered as evidence 19 members of the constitutional convention owned slaves, kept them with narry a word against the practice.

    Your take on the indirect language of the constitution also is fairly naff. It of course represented a compromise of opposing/crossing views.

  27. I’m sure that as a man an unplanned pregnancy *is* merely an inconvenience, primarily because it’s not your body that will ever have to suffer the rigors of it, nor run the risk of death or severe bodily injury from it. And, after all, nobody ever questions your right to ownership of your own body or your disposition of it, and you’re not obligated to EVER share it or its parts with anyone else without your consent. Must be nice in your cozy little male privilege bubble.

    For women it’s very fundamental…either we own our bodies or we do not, either we can decide when and under what circumstances we will share OR not share our bodies and their parts with others or we cannot. If we do not, cannot, we have fewer rights to our own bodies than all men and even the dead. If our rights to our own bodies can be ceded against our will to a third party We. Are. Slaves. As a woman, as a human being, as an actual person, I’m not okay with that. If anyone wants my blood, bone, skin, tissue, or organs (including use of my uterus), they’d better d**n well have my express and ongoing consent.

    P.S. Consent to sex is neither consent to gestate, nor to give birth. It’s merely consent to sex with a given partner, is revocable at any time, and is NOT transferable from one’s partner to his offspring.

  28. It’s not a euphemism to me either. My body belongs to me. It’s not property of the state, or of the church, or of a man.
    Anyone who wishes to live that way will hear no objection from me. Just leave ME out of your BDSM fantasies.

  29. Not to mention the DOI has no force in law. It’s a letter of revolution. A break-up note to King George.

  30. So your proposed solution is to make the woman a slave to the fetus?
    How is an entity that’s having ALL of it’s needs met by the labor of another’s body a “slave” in ANY form. Herp-a derp. The only heartbeat that matters is the woman’s. Without the woman’s heartbeat, the fetus cannot survive. But she can sure survive without the fetus’s heartbeat.

  31. “Human” doesn’t come with any rights to the use of the body of other humans, even if the needy human will die without it. There are no “conflicting rights” or “conflict of interest” in MY body. All of it belongs to me at all times, and that is THAT.

  32. I don’t avoid the use of the word “abortion” nor do I incorrectly regard the fetus as a “slave.” The fetus cannot BE a slave, because it performs no work for the benefit of another.

  33. lady_black,
    If we are talking about peers, I agree. But we are not. The reproduction of life first provides for both immediate and long-term survival and thus is a necessity in general, not in particular. Second, no human life as the right to take another human life without due cause. Considering that the unborn child is, outside of rape, the product of both the host and her partner and thus the result of a consenting behavior even when reproduction is not desired, to punish the unborn for the behavior of the host and her partner with death shows ethics that do not contribute to survival. And the failure or refusal to see the special set of circumstances in which the unborn exist is often due to a conflict of interest by the host.

    Yes, the expectant mother has rights. And so should the unborn. And unless we would abolish the rights of either party, we have to recognize that we are dealing with a collision of rights, not just the prerogative of one group.

  34. Who says it only matters “between peers?” Are you making a special pleading for a fetus? That’s a logical fallacy, you know.
    I do not have to provide the use of my body to “peers,” “inferiors” or “superiors.” It’s MY BODY. I get to say who uses it, when they use it, and IF they use it.
    Consent to intercourse is not consent to gestate, nor is reproduction an imperative for anyone in particular. There is no shortage of humans on the planet, nor is there even a shortage of humans *perfectly willing* to reproduce, so there’s certainly no pressing need to preserve any individual pregnancy. There are many more where that one came from. Perhaps even from the same couple, just at a better time. Perhaps not at all from that couple.
    There simply IS NO SUCH “RIGHT” to be gestated. “The unborn” don’t have “rights.” Those belong to the un-dead. And there is DEFINITELY no “collision of rights” to MY body. Full stop. The only person with rights to it is ME. You may WISH otherwise, but that doesn’t make it so.

  35. lady_black,
    Where is the fallacy? Yes, it is your body. And the unborn has a body too. And like it or not, that unborn child is a product of your body for the purpose of reproduction. And to forget the special relationship that the unborn child has with the mother is done by only focusing on the rights of the mother.

    And yes, there is no shortage of human life. However the current abundance of human life is due to reproduction and no abundance of human diminishes the value of any individual human life. Otherwise, we might as well say that if we have too many children, then the unwanted ones can now be counted as non humans. Or if we have too many men, the unwanted ones can be counted as non humans. Or if we have too many women, the unwanted ones can be counted as non humans.

    Yes, the unborn have rights. But it seems that those who struggle the most to see those rights are those who have a possible conflict of interest in the recognition of their rights.

    Again, the unborn child has a special relationship, wanted or not, with the expectant mother. The unborn is the product of both the mother and a wiling partner. And yes, there is a pressing need to preserve any individual pregnancy just as there is a pressing need to preserve any individual human life. And if we forget that, we have what was seen in the movie, The Purge. So either you have a collision of rights or no one has rights.

  36. Remove it’s “body” from mine, and let it HAVE it’s “body.” I have no issue with that.
    MY body isn’t up for grabs. There IS no “special relationship.” I don’t care HOW “special” you think it is. YOU gestate it in YOUR body, then. My body, you do NOT get.

  37. lady_black,
    You can deny nature’s design here, which you do when you so flippantly say remove it from your body. That nature designed women to have children does not imply that your body is up for grabs. Again, pregnancy is a work of your body, it isn’t some foreign invasion and pregnancy is the result of your choice to participate in sexual relations.

    I don’t want your body. I just oppose the claim that women can have unborn children murdered. I am not the one making claims on another person’s body, you are when you say that women should be free to have the bodies of their unborn children destroyed.

  38. I don’t care about nature. Natural is BRUTAL. Humans have been thwarting nature ever since we abandoned hunter/gatherer status and moved to agriculture. We defy nature with great relish, and gleefully. And we will continue to defy nature.
    YOU defy nature. You live in a house. You use a computer. And when you’re sick, you take medicine and have surgery. If something about your body isn’t working, you alter it.
    So, therefore, you can take your argument from nature, wad it up, and stuff it up your giggy, sideways. Hypocrite.

  39. Lady_Black,
    I understand that you don’t care about nature. It shows your selectivity in thinking. You are not even thinking about rights, you are thinking about wants and what you want is understandable. It just serves as no grounds for denying the rights and humanity of the the unborn.

    BTW, living in a house doesn’t defy nature. Much of the house was built using nature. It is natural for us to seek shelter because of our need for shelter. And while computers are not a work of nature, they are technology, using them does not necessarily go against nature.

    What goes against nature is denying the natural reproductive process and what really goes against nature is how easily some find it to deny the humanity of others especially as they kick away the ladder that gave them existence.

    You can say ‘stuff it’ all you want, that is a reflection on you. and it is a reflection of your denial of how the unborn are human because admitting that would interfere with what you want.

  40. OH YES, I am thinking about rights. The rights of the female adult taxpaying citizen. You know… “the undead.” A fetus HAS no “rights.” And it doesn’t even FOLLOW that I owe the world pregnancies because someone was pregnant with me. That’s a non-sequitur.
    OF COURSE “the unborn” are human. To which I say “So what?” If you care that much, gestate them yourself. I’ve been spending most of my married life “denying the natural reproductive process.” Again, SO WHAT? That’s what short-term contraception and tubal ligations are FOR. My own daughter is using the IUD. It’s no skin off your nose whether she has zero children or nineteen, and it certainly is none of your business.
    You get to run those whose bills YOU pay. You don’t pay mine. You don’t pay my daughter’s.
    Now run off and play in traffic, will you? What I told you to “stuff” by the way is your fallacious appeal to nature. You certainly don’t live by natures’ rules. You can’t offer one darn reason why YOU get away with not following nature’s rules and I don’t. That’s why you have no say, nor do you have anything of value to add. And you think the likes of YOU are qualified to run my life, or dictate my sex life. When elephants fly!

  41. I didn’t say it was, I said that the modern Democratic party is cloaking its support of abortion in euphemisms the same way that the Founders cloaked their support of slavery in the Constitution.

  42. You’re really claiming that Jefferson’s decades-long opposition to slavery — including attempting to include an attack on slavery in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE — was all a lie? And what “involuntary companionship arrangements”? If you’re referring to Sally Hemings, thanks to DNA testing it’s been conclusively proven that her oldest son — conceived during her sojourn in Paris with Jefferson — was NOT his. As for her youngest son, while it is true that his father was most likely A Jefferson, there were eight men that could have been the father.

    As for those 19 Founders that said “nary a word,” I’ve already provided quotes from Thomas Jefferson. But for the slave-owners that actually signed the Constitution, George Washington freed all his slaves in his will and signed into law an act banning slavery in the Northwest Territory and at one point declared “I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” Benjamin Franklin co-founded the first anti-slavery society in the colonies. James Madison also belonged to an anti-slavery organization, and attempted to advance the abolition of slavery in his politics.

    So once again, please provide a single quote from a Founder calling slavery a positive good rather than at best a necessary evil.

  43. lady-Black,
    But only your rights, not the rights of other humans. Anyone can think about their own rights, but emphasizing the rights rights of only one party and denying the rights of others can lead to abuse.

    That fetus is a human life. And because it is a human life, it has rights. And if you say ‘so what’ to that, whose other rights are you going to say the same to? And who are you teaching to say ‘so what’ to your rights. If human lives don’t have rights, then we our rights are extrinsically based rather than intrinsically based. And that means that those rights can be lost. Your dismissive attitude of saying ‘go run off into traffic’ illustrates that though you don’t mean it literally.

    Your point about nature is not even a point. Again, living in house is not against nature and neither is using technology. But denying the life that nature provides in your body to the point of taking that life goes against nature. It is an attack on both nature and human life. But that doesn’t matter to you as long as you get what you want. How different is that from someone any person who is born in order to get what they want?

  44. Your entire argument is based on a framework of selfishness and moral bankruptcy.

  45. Funny how men always lob the ‘selfishness’ grenade at any women who act in their own self-interest at any time instead of allowing themselves to be forever treated as doormats. Demanding the same rights to our bodies as are unquestionably respected for men and dead people is not selfish, it’s our right as people. Our bodies are not state or church or community property. Women are not required to somehow be more selfless or giving or altruistic than men. Deal with it. Besides, I think it’s pretty darned selfish to demand someone ELSE give of her body against her will while not demanding exactly the same thing of himself, and the law agrees with me.

  46. servant/slave for love & life… yes. All of the needs for life & living come from the mother, father & God the giver of life.

    The mother can exercise her power over the unborn child by what she does or doesnt eat or drink etc. Also the right to life, seeing the unborn has that taken away from it, in the name of freedom.

    If its all about survival then desperation is probably all that matters for some, no need for spiritual or emotional thriving either. Long live the lowest common denominator eh.

    herp over derp divided by false autonomy & wombenomic genocide.

  47. My gender in this instance, has nothing to do with it, I know a good many women who would make precisely the same argument I have made.

  48. Words did not match deeds. Deeds are far more indicative here. About half of the constitutional Congress did not consider black people as people. Virtually none considered them equals.

    The declaration of independence is not the basis of our government. It is an idealized sentiment for separatism from the colonizing power.

    19 members of the constitutional Congress lived off of and profited from slavery without apparent reservation. If that is,not enough proof for you, you are not being rational here.

    Your whole argument is based on revisionist notions completely at odds with how people behaved. Prove to me ALL founders condemned slavery in the manner you speak of, like those 19 slaveholders would have done, if your statement was true.

  49. Indeed. While men and women are about equally likely to believe abortion should be generally available, women are far more likely to actually oppose abortion. I’ve observed over the years that the pro-life movement is largely driven by women. Men tend to feel it’s a “woman’s issue” and not get involved.

  50. So? I would tell them exactly the same thing, but add that they can be as generous, giving, altruistic, and selfless as they want with THEIR bodies. The second they start encroaching on mine, however, they’ve hit my line in the sand, and there will be hell to pay. I don’t owe use of my body or its parts to anyone else unless it’s with my consent. Consent matters.

  51. Since you aren’t willing to actually defend your positions, either that 19 signers of the Constitution kept slaves with “narry a word against the practice,” or that at least one of them considered slavery a positive good, I don’t see any reason for continuing this.

  52. You are trolling at this point.

    If you want to ignore what is given to you, so be it. You are defending a claim you cannot possibly support. I am simply using a very rational inference based on what is available. Something you don’t even bother to address. You are just spinning your wheels and getting further and further from the point at hand.

    I see no point in going any further.

  53. That’s what abortion is. Using technology. NO, NONE, nada, zip, zero “rights” exist to use my body without my consent! Just plain NO!
    This has nothing to do with others and their rights.
    The thing about rights is, THEY ACTUALLY EXIST. There IS no right to grab whatever you happen to need from my body because I was born female. Get that through your thick head, knuckle-dragger.
    “Nature” says two out of three of my children died in infancy, and I died delivering the last one. You were mauled to death by a predator long ago, and you died a painful death because there was nothing that could be done for you. Bollocks on nature.

  54. lady_black,
    Abortion uses technology to do what? Part of what it does is to destroy a human life. And aren’t you justifying that because, according to you, it takes something more than being human to have rights? The unborn are humans, but according to you, they don’t have rights while you do. So aren’t you justify doing more than just grabbing what you need from another? Aren’t you justify the taking of that human’s life?

  55. No, I’m saying SO WHAT if it means a human dies? People are dying every day because the donation of an organ that THEY NEED is not forthcoming. Including children! That doesn’t mean I OWE them what they need.
    I don’t owe that to fetus I don’t want, either.

  56. “The baby has a unique genetic makeup—only half its chromosomes come from the mother, the other half come from the father, and each combination of chromosomes is unique.”A. Williams.

    Violating & distorting life to suit yourself. A slave to progressive thought & medical waste buckets. Home of the not so free, where talk & life are cheap.

  57. So what does a unique genetic makeup have to do with the forced donation of my body? I’m not your slave, or the state’s slave. You care so much about it? Donate your OWN body. Mine you do not get.

  58. Lady_black,
    You seem to be saying that if the human is unborn.

    Right, you don’t owe it to people to donate one organs. But show me how such a person is comparable with an unborn child

  59. It’s not all about the mother & selective data. Yes I care about people distorting & violating life in the name of progressive freedom (how sick is that).From what I can tell, you dont give the living unborn child the same rights that you expect for yourself, you give it a death sentence & moan about pregnancy as if its some kind of prison sentence.

    You dont have to care, you dont have to give a stuff, you can just do as you please & then expect everyone else to do as they please.

    The killing fields, if it was a gun death or a coloured death maybe more people would be up in arms about it.WOEFUL.Taking a life is taking a life.

  60. Of COURSE an “unborn child” doesn’t have *the same* rights as I do. You want to give an “unborn child” MORE rights than I have.
    FORGET ABOUT IT. Cross that right off your list.

  61. So life is not so prescious after all when it comes to fellow human beings for you & your list.Home made segregation & a form of wholesale killing for the unborn.The unborn are slaves at the mercy of their masters, there is no justice there, just a sterile enviroment full of death.

    No, I cant forget about atrocities like that as much as you may wish me to, it’s horrific.Thats why its dressed up with fancy & smooth words, so we dont really think about it so much.A human trait that sets out to deceive.

    The unborn dont even come close to the rights you have & you claim I want to give the child more.

  62. I do NOT CARE. I plan to donate my entire body (or what’s left of it) to science when I die, but right now, I happen to still be using it, and NO, it’s not up for grabs to whoever happens to “need” it in the meantime without my ongoing consent.
    You have a heck of a lot of nerve referring to fetuses as “slaves.” Fetuses CANNOT be slaves, as they are incapable of laboring for the benefit of another. I think you have it backwards. It’s women you would love to enslave. Over my dead body, Buddy.

  63. The living unborn child is given a death sentence for committing no crime & you dont care about the brutal injustice of that. All you claim to see is the oppressed woman.So youre the victim & I am the baddy.You poor living thing.Thankfully many women see it very differently than you & are brave enough to challenge the instituted killing of the unborn.

  64. No, I DON’T. In no sense of the word is unfettered access to my body “justice.”

  65. But its OK to kill an innocent unborn living child & make believe it is a just thing to do.Seems like egocentric narcissism to me & slaves would have been on the receiving end of that too.

  66. A fetus cannot BE a slave. A fetus is incapable of performing labor for the benefit of someone else.
    Many MANY are killed without having committed a crime. This isn’t about a punishment. This is about bodily autonomy and self-determination. A woman CAN end a pregnancy. She always could.
    You can gestate all the fetuses you want. Just use your own body to do it.

  67. Well I am using the body given to me to use to defend the unborn living child from being subjected to death on account of being brought into a living existance at the wish or desire of others as much as I can at the moment.

    The young defenceless being has its own bodily autonomy as far as I can see & it would be ignorant to deny that.It’s not about punishment, OK, but it is still about a death sentence that equates to criminal offences, most to do with murder. And that is the irony here for me.

    Self determination can be many many things then, including taking the life of another.

    So society just “ends” life & self determination takes its sad sad course & dresses it up as some kind of political freedom to be proud & bold about. More like a hellish hole dug by humans & now they cant get out. Digging an even deeper pit & piling up misery & injustice. Aint self determination grand (not). Just another idol to be worshipped.

  68. “Well I am using the body given to me to use to defend the unborn living child from being subjected to death…”
    ONLY if you plan on gestating one yourself! Other than that, you have no input.

  69. There you go being selective with the data again. So we shouldnt talk about gun control unless we have taken a bullet & we shouldnt talk about slavery unless we have been one? Who is going to speak up for the defenceless unborn child, certainly not you, you dont care, all that matters is self determination & bodily autonomy (for some). A very Eugenic input.(thats it from me, thanks).

  70. “Who is going to speak up for the defenceless unborn child, certainly not you…”
    There’s a very good reason for that. A fetus has no thoughts to give voice to. And nobody elected YOU to speak for me, duck.

  71. You have a choice. You have a choice not to get pregnant. That’s your choice. No forced you to have sex and get pregnant. The real dirty secret is that abortion is about as racist as anything could be, since the majority of abortion clinics are in poorer areas, and occur on African American babies. It’s almost like the Dems want to “control” the number of African Americans being born.

  72. No, the unborn child should have “equal” rights as you. How would you like to be a baby that was aborted? As a baby, you cannot protect yourself. You are entirely dependent on the mother and father and society to protect you. When society says it’s ok to kill unborn babies, then the womb becomes a very dangerous place.

  73. Actually, that’s not true. Unborn babies have brain waves, and they have thoughts. It’s proven medical science. They think, they dream, they are tiny, little human beings, just like you and me, except they are still in the mother’s womb.

  74. Great! We already have equal rights! I’m entitled to no part of another person’s body, and neither is a fetus. See? Equality.

Leave a Comment