Which agenda really serves women’s rights?

Republican voters, struggling to decide which candidate will best handle the myriad problems facing America under the Obama regime — problems that include a stagnant economy, a collapsing Europe, a boiling Middle East, etc. — were treated to a New Hampshire debate that focused on . . . birth control.  A post-debate NYT op-ed establishes why this was such a driving topic for the moderators — the Left is going to make this election about abortion.  Because Obama is rapidly losing any semblance of support on issues that matter for the future of this country, the Left is hoping to agitate women with visions of Bible-wielding sex police storming into people’s houses, arresting them for owning condoms:

But the message from Iowa was crystal clear: Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman Jr., Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry all stand ready to restrict a woman’s right to make her own childbearing decisions and deny essential health care to millions of women.

The Republican field is united in its determination to overturn Roe v. Wade; to appoint Supreme Court justices supportive of that goal; and to end government payments to Planned Parenthood for family planning services, cancer screening and other vital health services provided to low-income women. The candidates also want to reinstate the global gag rule that barred family planning groups abroad receiving federal money from even talking about abortion.

The op-ed goes on for several more fevered paragraphs, all urging women to rise up and say “Keep the Republicans out of my uterus.” The liberal women on my “real me” Facebook page are responding with appropriate panic.

There is no doubt but that the Republican candidates, even formerly pro-Choice Mitt Romney, are now or have become disenchanted with the Leftist obsession with abortion and “reproductive rights.”  I too have come disenchanted with a culture that is obsessed with infant death and, worse, that celebrates random, rampant and dangerous youth sexuality.  Here are a few random thoughts on the subject:

Contrary to the New York Times‘ fears, I’m not worried that the egg will be totally unscrambled, with the world reverting to a repressive era characterized by back alley abortions.  Too many things have changed in the past few decades.  Unwed motherhood and birth control are an integral part of our culture now.  Without the easy option of abortion, women and men may be more zealous about birth control.  And if a pregnancy happens, the likelihood of coat hangers or social death are certainly smaller.

Also, if Roe v. Wade, a singularly badly thought-out decision, is reversed, all that will happen is that the abortion debate will revert to the state level.  The big urban states will keep abortion; the smaller rural/Southern states will not.  Then, there will be a few years as people get to examine these experiments in progress and see what works best for women and children.

In my role as a parent, I wouldn’t mind at all having a more repressive culture.  Yesterday, a teenager I know said, “Our principal just discovered that twelve-year olds are sexually active, and now she’s bringing people into the school to teach them how to do it right.”  Since I was driving a carpool at the time, I was so shocked, I almost ran a red light when I heard this one. I immediately launched into my tried and true lecture that, just because kids have the physical maturity to do something doesn’t mean they should do something, although with data about pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, depression, self-loathing, and the failure to connect well in adult relationships.

I know, though, that I’m fighting a rear guard action.  These kids are inundated by sexually charged movies, TV shows, songs (especially songs, lately), plus, as this boy said, detailed instructions from their schools.  Hollywood is setting the agenda, and it’s one that lacks any sense of decency or morality.  I think it would be a good thing if rampant sexuality became more difficult.

I’m also willing to bet that, if one could get all the liberal mamas and papas in my world to figure out that unfettered everything is putting their kids at risk, simply because it means that sex is always “in the air,” they too might agree that putting the brakes on things is a good idea — especially if they could be brought to understand that putting the brakes on things is not the same thing as reverting to a 1620′s ethos.

Specifically regarding chemical birth control, whether it means giving girls the pill or unfettered access to the morning after pill, I’m really opposed to that.  The pill isn’t just a contraceptive.  It is an incredibly potent chemical cocktail that manipulates a woman’s, or more disturbingly, a growing girl’s body.  All women know that from the moment you take your first pill, you not only stop getting pregnant, you gain weight, you have mood swings, you go for baby-faced men, your skin breaks out, you risk blood clots (a friend of mine almost died that way), and sex becomes less enjoyable.  Also, if you’re unlucky, it makes you vomit.

What’s ironic is that the same liberals who spend a fortune on organic milk and grass-fed beef, or who refuse to vaccinate their kids because of the risk, embrace the idea of exposing their still-maturing daughters to this stuff.  Irony is probably the wrong word.  Our culture is so insane we’ve moved into a post-ironic era were nothing should surprise us anymore.

So I’ll end this post with a question:  As between the Democrats who push relentless for unfettered abortion and birth control access for tweens and teens, and the Republicans, who would like to make abortion a state matter and stop having the federal government fund it, which party do you think better serves women’s needs?

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. LSBeene says

    I will be approaching this from the perspective of a man, who does not have children, but one who certainly cares about our future generations.

    One of our biggest obstacles, as BookWorm alluded to is that our popular culture ONLY puts forth the wonderful aspects of very adult relationships (to include sex) towards our teens.  Even when it’s an unwanted pregnancy, the girl is protrayed as some heroic figure fighting in justice of “that that don’t understand and / or care”.

    When I was a young man I was typical, in that, while I did deeply care about the girls I dated, and genuinely love them, I also desired a physical congress with these girls.  And, should the girl not “put out”, I wasn’t, as is stereotypically portrayed in the media, some pushy mean jerk, but I just lost interest.  That puts enormous pressure on girls.  She sees that her friends who do “put out” have relationships, and that they are left to be wall flowers.

    As much as some folks lament the “bad old days” of waiting, courtship, and social pressure to not “put out”, as an older person I realize that courting and waiting have tangible, real-world benefits.

    I’ll try to organize this post so I don’t tangentally ramble on … as I tend to do if unchecked, lol.

    1)  Of course the democratic stategy is one of concentrating on abortion.  Think of it in the macro – the Democrats looked at the demographics, and realized they needed to marshall certain voting blocks.  With women their energizing issue is abortion.  Was birth control suddenly a huge topic, or did George Stephanopolous, it seems to me almost blatantly taking his talking points from the DNC, realize that in order to marshall the young female vote the Democrats needed to set up a straw man of conservatives restricting women’s desires and “rights” (I’m pro-life, so the “right” to unlimited abortion doesn’t sit well with me).

    Look at this statement provided by Bookworm:
    stand ready to restrict a woman’s right to make her own childbearing decisions and deny essential health care to millions of women

    Good Lord.  Could that be MORE one-sided?

    Of course, forgotten in all of that is that there is a BABY.  No one is denying “essential health care”, people want to stop funding Planned Parenthood who takes the money from federal dollars and, due to their fungiblity, pay for all the services around abortion (medical staff, keeping the lights on, medical supplies) that, in effect, contributes to abortion.

    If Planned Parenthood would open their books, and stop “being clever” about their mingling of funds, and ONLY used federal dollars for pap smears, ultra-sounds, and other sundry, then they would be far less likely to be being threatened with defunding.

    Those women would still be able to get all the other services at all sorts of clinics and hospitals. 

    2)  Children will act like children act – meaning they want to grow up NOW, and they want to be treated like adults.  As any parent knows, and as I know as an NCO in the military, children and young adults are not always ready for what they want to be ready for.

    As to young adults …. well, they are young adults, but they are adults – not much to be done there.

    But, when I hear about liberal/leftist/progressive (what-have-you) programs that constantly try to take the place of parents it boils my blood.

    Look at Hilary Clinton.  Not to pick on her, but her example fits perfectly:  Chelsea wasn’t allow to get her EARS PIERCED until she was 16.  She was sent to a private school, and had a tightly controlled and regimented life.  It wasn’t because she was the “first daughter” – as other Presidents have managed to do otherwise.  No, Hilary didn’t want HER daughter to go out getting laid, getting drunk, experimenting with drugs and all that.  I for that, I sincerely applaud her. 

    My issue is the “good for thee, but not for me” elitism that the left’s luminous lights regularly engages in. 

    3)  As to abortion specifically.  When I was growing up I was raised by a liberal feminist woman.  I was raised to believe all the pithy slogans and “commen sense” of a feminist mother. 

    a) “Men shouldn’t even have a vote, because it’s a woman’s body” : while all the while feminist legal scholars have never fought for a man to have a right to a “paper abortion” or do abdicate his legal responsibilities
    b) “Her body her choice” : never mentioning that a developing child will die during an abortion.
    c) “It’s not a baby, it’s a fetus” : a clever use of latin to dehumanize the unborn child – considering that fetus means (roughly) “Small person”

    And, full disclosure, at one point in my young adult life, I participated in an abortion.  I got a girl pregnant and both she and I wanted her to abort.  She did.  I take full responsibility for my part in it. 

    And like Norma McCorvey (Roe of Roe v Wade) I later deeply regreted my involvement.  Her baby was born and put up for adoption.  I participated in killing mine, and it haunts me.

    4)  Speaking of Norma McCorvey – feminists always talk about Roe v. Wade in glowing terms.  It’s based on a set of lies.  Lies the attorneys who went to the Supreme Court likely knew were lies.  The same feminists who claim women never lie about rape (or so rarely so it’s not worth discussing) never point out that Norma McCorvey claimed to have been raped, to better help her case – and it was completely untrue.

    I have read – on the internet, so I want to make it clear that this is to be taken with a huge huge grain of salt, that she also said she was raped by black men.  **IF** this is true, then when her baby was born, it would have been clear she had not been raped by men who were black.

    Point being – her feminist lawyers seemed to think “the end-justifies-the-means” and that lying, in the Supreme Court, on a decision that would effect millions (and millions of unborn) was perfectly acceptable.

    How come that part of the story never seems to make the rounds in our media.  It’s certainly part of the history of Roe.

  2. bizcor says

    “How come that part of the story never seems to make the rounds in our media. It’s certainly part of the history of Roe.”

    Because there is a lack of backbone in many of the Republican representation which thorougly ticks me off. Therefore we get John McCains and Mittt Romneys instead of Sarah Palins and Paul Ryans. The Fresman class of 2010 have begun to dig in which was evidenced by the deficit ceiling and payroll deduction fights last year. There are not enough of them yet. We need to elect more.  
     

  3. suek says

    >>a) “Men shouldn’t even have a vote, because it’s a woman’s body” : while all the while feminist legal scholars have never fought for a man to have a right to a “paper abortion” or do abdicate his legal responsibilities>>
     
    Very good point.
     
    I think a woman has the right to choose, and she makes that choice when she chooses to have sex with a man.  Yes, rape is a different case. 
     
    Men should have the same right.  It takes two to tango.
     

  4. LSBeene says

    Bizcor,

    Agreed – but here’s my problem with that position (namely being unwilling to right the wrong of rewritten history)

    As the left tells and re-tells its’ factually incorrect version of history, or lies by omission – their narrative grows stronger.

    In some ways the leftist machine (academia, the MSM, gov’t institutions & think tanks they fund) is like dealing with an abusive partner.  They’ll take a swipe at you every now and then to “keep you in line”, but come the day when you really stand up for yourself and don’t let them lie about you, abuse your children, or use the violence by proxy of the state or the “re-education camps” of our schools to re-write history, that’s when the full force of their ire is used.  Careers are destroyed, people’s futures are put in jepordy, and in extreme cases they use the courts (both criminal and civil) to break you or imprison you.

    We need to tell and re-tell the true story of Roe v Wade.  Even if you’re a pro-choice conservative / Republican, I truly believe one of the differences between “us” and “them” is that we believe in history and an honest narrative of it.  If your (anyone’s) “truth” is good, just, verifiable, and able to withstand scrutiny, then that truth does not need “help” or modification – it stands on its’ own merits.

    We constantly let the left drive re-written history into our lives because “arguing the ‘small stuff’ isn’t worth it” – but the fact that Roe v Wade (this particular subject, but it applies to many leftist narratives) is based on lies, lies of omission, and a distorted narrative of history  … and that we allow it, just means we are slowly allowing them to win on issues where we cannot afford to lose.

    I hope I have added to the discussion.

    Steven

  5. Les says

    In general, when a group wants to restrict what a person can do, it’s bad.  This case isn’t an exception.  The fetus is a potential not an actual human being.  It’s fully dependent on its mother until birth.  It becomes an actual child when the mother gives birth.  Any rights are solely the mother’s until birth.  This right cannot properly be taken away at any level of government.

  6. Ellen says

    But a child is totally helpless after birth for some time.  It can’t walk like a baby horse, or feed itself like a baby chick.  It relies on its mother for food, for warmth, for all its care.  

    I’ll admit to being a pro-lifer and I don’t think we can set any time when a fetus magically becomes human.  It is, or is isn’t and from fertilization, there is life there.   

  7. heather says

    In general, when a group wants to restrict what a person can do, it’s bad.

    But the “group” of society already restricts lots of things that a person can do.  
    I can’t add on to my house without a “restricting” permit that dictates how I do the wiring.  I can’t speed without risking a ticket.  I can’t murder a person who is already born without serious jail time or more.

  8. suek says

    >>The fetus is a potential not an actual human being.>>

    It is against the law, punishable by fines and time in jail, to remove from the nest or in any way harm the egg of the Golden Eagle.

    What’s the difference?

  9. LSBeene says

    @ Suek,

    Not a bad point – and I have seen it before, and seen it countered.  Don’t mistake me, I’m not being just contrary, but so you’ll be prepared:

    The Golden Eagle is an endangered species and therefore your analogy is not accurate. (again, just telling you the answers I have seen – not sniping at you).

    The two-part answer I have seen that (IMO) works:

    1)  A human life is not on par with an Eagle – we, as a society place a higher value on human life.  No matter what fine charge to someone for killing an endangered or protected animal, murder is charge we reserve solely for the killing of a human being.

    2)  While Golden Eagles or any other animal may be few in number and therefore possibly deserve protection, human life is always infinately more precious, and we kill, on average, more than 1 million unborn children a year in the U.S. alone.

    Since 1973 (Roe v Wade) over 40 million unborn children have been killed / aborted.

    @@@@@@@@@

    On a related note to the original post : we must always be countering the false charge that if Planned Parenthood is defunded that women who want general OB/GYN services will be denied those services that there are plenty of hospitals and clinics that can do that – and as PP’s #’s decline other clinics will open up to take their place.

    Steven

  10. Charles Martel says

    The fetus is a potential not an actual human being.  It’s fully dependent on its mother until birth.  It becomes an actual child when the mother gives birth.  Any rights are solely the mother’s until birth.  This right cannot properly be taken away at any level of government.”


    This is magical thinking: The “potential human being” only becomes an “actual child” once it slips down the magical birth canal. In magical thinking, one is not human from conception but mysteriously changes from thing/property/parasite to bouncing baby by traveling less than a foot. (In fact, this magic is so powerful that you can keep a “potential child” from becoming human by letting it almost be born before you suck its brains out.)


    It’s also presumptive thinking: “Any rights are solely the mother’s until birth.” No argument in support of that assertion, no discussion of what “rights” we’re talking about. Not a real good practice on a blog that disdains RBBSS–”Reasoning by Bumper Sticker Slogan.”
     
    It is also dismissive thinking. Until the black-robed priests of SCOTUS declared that “fetuses” are not persons, we dimwit Americans and Westerners had assumed that they somehow were. Imagine that, billions of us through the centuries living in ignorance until our moral and intellectual superiors gifted women with the ability to intone magical words: “It’s a child! If you harm it I will have you prosecuted for murder!” “It’s my property, and I want it eviscerated!”

  11. says

    But the thing is, if they thought a child was actually independent, why do they support government ownership of children and Child Protective Services?

    Why is one thing good and the opposite bad, when it is convenient for them? Selfish interests are also known as conflicts in interest. If your interests conflict, you shouldn’t be making the decisions that will redistribute somebody else’s wealth from them to you. They should get a say or a chance as well, especially if all you’re doing is stealing their stuff. 

  12. MacG says

    “The fetus is a potential not an actual human being.” 


    So at least they admit the fetus is a human just not an actual one :/  It seems that their definition manes to be fully human is to be independent, self supporting.  Lessee here…um yeah what about their constituents…ha ha.  The real concern of what is human is when one actual human can no longer be an actual human and must rely on someone else to survive and thus the slippery slope to euthanasia for the ‘infirm’.  Well there’s another one of those word thingys that can mean infirm to you and me or actually infirm to the writer (probably meaning you or me).
    This is about the only area that a progressive will use hard line categorical words. All other words are up for grabs.  It is not the word but what the duplicitous meaning in their mind is when they say ‘is’.  What I mean is they are saying white while thinking black.
    Like when the congress tables a law and say it was titled “Republicans get their way” and when they need a quick law they resurrect ‘Republican get their way” strip all the words but the title and stuff it with “Biggest Government Possible” program, making it look like the R’s are for the Biggest Government EVER. 


    Isn’t this the double speak that Orwell talked about?

  13. Les says

    Ellen, helpless and fully dependent may have some similar attributes, but they aren’t the same.  A child depends on the parents to protect him and to raise him, but is no long physically tied to his mother and receiving nutrients necessary for his life through that connection.
    heather, for the first two examples, I wonder what the impact would be if there were no laws.  I can see it more for the case of speeding limits because there are some very bad drivers out there (and come to think of it,  it also seems as almost all drivers I see are ignoring the speed limit anyway) than for the housing permits.  As to the last case, the proper role of a government is to protect a person’s rights, the most important of which is the right to his life.  This is where I think the entire debate centers – when does life begin, when is a human a human? (This probably applies to suek and LSBeene also).
    Charles, you did get me very interested with your saying,  “Until the black-robed priests of SCOTUS declared that “fetuses” are not persons, we dimwit Americans and Westerners had assumed that they somehow were.”  Looking at the born alive rule (I’m not a lawyer so, granted,  my understanding may be a misunderstanding), it seems there was part of the West prior to the SCOTUS declaration, which did not think of the fetus as a person.  As for disdaining RBBSS, I admit at times my thinking is fuzzy which is probably why I seem to see some of that RBBSS in your post.

    Ymarsakar,  besides my thinking being fuzzy at times, my comprehension is also.  So forgive, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.  I do favor a minimal role of the government though.
    I have wondered if there would ever be any truce between both sides of the debate.  I can’t see it since the philosophical ddifferences are so great. 
     
     
     
     

  14. Les says

    Sorry for the bad formatting in my last post.  I had spaces in my last post to distinguish replies to individuals, but they disappeared. I guess I shouldn’t be so lazy and I should preview the next time.

  15. Charles Martel says

    Les, I’d be happy to clarify any RBBSS thinking on my part that you referred to. Alas, you neglected to provide an example of it.
     
    You also neglected to address the main objections I and others here have made to your thinking: You assert, but do not prove the “fetus’s” lack of humanity. You claim the existence of rights that appeared ex nihilo only 39 years ago, but do not seem to think it important to explain to the rest of us how they came to be and whether they are defensible in light of what we now know about “potential humans.”

  16. bizcor says

    LSBeene
    Great back and forth on this debate btw.”

    That’s why we hang here. I don’t always comment but I don’t miss too many post and the ensuing comments. We are “Bookies”  

  17. suek says

    >>The two-part answer I have seen that (IMO) works:>>

    Except the two parts don’t address the issue at hand: whether the embryo/fetus is a particular being or not. The two parts are addressing the issue of whether a certain type of life should or should not be protected by law, not whether the certain type of life exists or not.

    In other words, the egg of the Golden Eagle is considered to be a Golden Eagle. Therefore, it is protected. That says that the State considers the undeveloped embryo which is the fertilized egg is actually equivalent to a mature protected species. Yet somehow, the undeveloped embryo – or the more developed fetus is _not_ equivalent to the adult of the species, according to the State. That is illogical. Either the undeveloped embryo of both species is equivalent to the adult of the species, or it is not – take your pick, but be consistent.

    It’s rather like the situation in which a person who causes the death of a fetus can be convicted of murder, but the woman carrying the same fetus can take herself down to an abortion clinic and cause the death of the same fetus and be guilty of nothing. It’s illogical. Either the fetus is a person or it is not. If it is, then both are guilty of murder. If it is not, then neither is guilty of the same.

  18. Charles Martel says

    Suek, your problem is that you don’t understand that logic has no place in the world of magical thinking that SCOTUS led us into in 1973. 
     
    Roe v. Wade gave women the power to confer value and humanity on an unborn child. If she wants it to survive, just her saying so confers special properties on the child that render it protected by the full force of law. If she decides to have it killed, just her saying so renders it an unchild that is outside the law and not entitled to protection.
     
    Once you understand the awesome power of magic, suek, and its ability to instantly transform a child from Worthy to Unworthy, you gain a great insight into the Culture of Death.
     

  19. MacG says

    SueK a little Devil’s advocate here.  They would say that the egg is a potential Golden Eagle and therefore it deserves protection should it make through gestation. Same as their position for humans and actual humans. I think though you hit on it as they are treated equally under the law.  Imagine a poacher trying out Peter Singer’s post hatching abortion defense in court…
     
    Your latter point is all about intent.  Was she intending to carry to term?  The former governor Jerry Brown (70′s) appointed Rose Bird Court overturned every death penalty case she could based on intent.  No one can prove intent.  Even though one guy stabbed his victim 67 times (literally) you could not prove that he intended to kill the victim.  Well if he did not intend to kill after 67 stabs perhaps he is sicker than all that and should go anyway to the chamber.  Wait.  I said sicker. I see he must have been insane…OY.  This is the greater logical inconsistency though:  They will save the life of a convicted criminal on the basis he might not have done the crime and let life in the womb be killed which has the innocence that they wish their convicts had.

  20. MacG says

    Maybe some political cartoon guy can make up this scene:  A two panel cartoon of a woman leaving an abortion clinic in the first (maybe a clinic person waving good bye with cash in their hand “Ya’ll come back now, Ya hear?” and in the second the same one arriving at the Ted Bundy execution screaming “Stop State Sanctioned Murder!”

  21. LSBeene says

    Suek,

    Darn good points.

    Before I go on – let me be clear: I am not a pro-life zealot nor one of those who condemns those who do not agree with me and automatically praise those that do agree with me.

    I used to be very pro-choice, as that was how I was raised.  My views now, being pro-life, were based on my own reasoning based on what I have learned.

    1)  The term fetus gets bandied about quite a bit, and I largely reject it.  Fetus is a stage of development.  The pro-choice crowd latched onto it, IMO, for it’s dehumanization effect due to most of the public at large’s ignorance of Latin.  Medical terms are often in Latin and most of us, to include me, are often unaware what the heck those terms mean. 

    Fetus means (roughly) “small person”.  But to refer to an unborn child as a fetus reduces the impact of the act of ending that unborn child’s life.

    Toddler is a stage of development, as is elderly.  Fetus, embryo, post-menopausal, pre-adolescent, and pain-in-my-butt-rug-rat are all scientific terms for stages of development, especially the last one as I have seen highly trained and competent mothers use it as a succinct descriptor.
    I use unborn child in a discussion on abortion so as to not allow a person who is pro-choice to define the parameters of our discussion, set the narrative and definition, and to remind folks of what is at stake.
     
    2)  Charles Martel had an excellent point earlier as to the whole “magical thinking” explanation.  I had heard it before, but he said it well.  Often all of us hear a description or explanation that takes our own feelings and thoughts and boils it down to a well thought out set of words we wish we had had when we had tried to express our views in an earlier discussion.
     
    The idea that a child, at 20 weeks, or 30, or any other arbitrary number is ONLY a child, simply because it has passed the birth canal, or been C-Sectioned out of the mother is absurd.  The discussion always seems to come back to some kind of ownership based on the mother and her wants or lack of a want.  But, here’s the thing, and there’s not getting around this : In law, morality, and to many people’s understanding no person’s life, freedom, or right to exist needs to be validated nor can be INVALIDATED simply due to the want or believe of another person.
     
    Take a perfect case in point.  (this is from memory):  A few years ago a young lad and his girl got her pregnant.  They both agreed they did not want the baby.  They both came up with the idea of the young man to punch and kick the girl in her stomach to cause an abortion.  They then did so.  She was completely on board with this, and no coercion was inferred, So the boyfriend beat and kicked her stomach and she aborted.  HE was charged with some manslaughter/murder statute, but she was not.
    A few quick points:  Either it’s murder / manslaughter or it’s not.  Even back in the bad old days of slavery : if I killed my own slave, I was not charged with murder – and if I killed another person’s slave I was not charged with murder.  Simple property restitution was required, but that was it.
     This boy was charged with murder / manslaughter, even though the ADA had a CHOICE if to charge him, but the girl could NOT be charged.  The idea was that although it was an attempted abortion that lad was not a health care provider, and even though he had not only the mother’s permission, but she had asked him, he had no legal protection.  She had total immunity.
     Huh?
     I realize this post is long and don’t want to write for writing’s sake.  I’ll wait for replies and then see if I should add to what I was going to say.
     Steven
     

  22. MacG says

    Spell check correction correction Thanks Bizcor, at times like that I wish I had spent my life learning how to draw artfully rather than with a vector drafting program   Sheesh.

  23. suek says

    >>The pro-choice crowd latched onto it, IMO, for it’s dehumanization effect due to most of the public at large’s ignorance of Latin.  Medical terms are often in Latin and most of us, to include me, are often unaware what the heck those terms mean. >>
     
    A fair point.  I use fetus because my background is animal science – it’s a natural term for me.  I also had Latin in high school – so my biggest problem with the term is that I continue to spell it “foetus” and get the little red squiggly line under it every time!
     
     

  24. Danny Lemieux says

    Ah, Suek. That sure brings back memories. There’s nothing like the smell of foetal swine and formaldehyde in the dissection lab in the early morning. I have that same “foetus” spelling quirk, probably because so many of my instructors were Brits.

Trackbacks

  1. Watcher’s Council nominations…

    The Noisy Room – Sunlight Down The Spider Hole The Political Commentator – A one-picture metaphor for the Obama regime plus a lot of words! Joshuapundit-The Tale Of The Swine New Zeal – Blinded by the Left: How Marxists Wrote……

  2. Watcher’s Council Results…

    Here are this week’s full results:Council Winners*First place with 3 1/3 votes! Joshuapundit – The Tale Of The Swine Second place with 2 1/3 votes – The Razor- Is The Republican Party Stupid? Third place with 1 2/3 votes – New Zeal- Blinded by the Left…

Leave a Reply