|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to
forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce
unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
George Orwell, "1984".
The article in question begins; "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bill that defines fetuses as human .."
Well, if a fetus is a human being, and the mother's life is not unquestionably threatened by it, then the act of abortion is murder. Some would go further and say that a mother should be expected to sacrifice her life for her child, but I will pass on that issue in the face of the more glaring crime at hand.
This linguistic juggling could not have gone unnoticed, and we read; "Rep. Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, vehemently urged colleagues to support the bill sponsored by Rep. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, and reject the substitute offered by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat. The Lofgren bill, DeLay said, ' fails to acknowledge that when unborn children are killed they have been murdered. Life and death should not be subsumed beneath a semantic fog.' ''
Well (again), if you wish to get away with murder a fog is exactly what you wish to operate under.
It seems that you must either you engage in "doublethink" or acknowledge that women are permitted to commit murder. Alternately, you could say that women are legally allowed to play god in deciding who lives and who dies; secularly speaking, a purely arbitrary and tyrannical control over life and death.
Of course, if killing a fetus is not really in fact murder, that would mean that those who kill a fetus without a "woman's consent" (read men) will be jailed for a crime they did not permit. No matter that these individuals were unaware that the women was pregnant, for where the interests of women (as dictated by the Feminist High Command) is concerned, "intent" is no longer required to gain a conviction.
I should note in passing that that this is a "Republican-sponsored bill" as Oklahoma Republican Rep. J.C. Watts put it; "We must stand up for mothers and their children.'' It seems that the party known for its "insensitivity"
to women has lost the words "fathers" and "men" from its vocabulary. Could it be that the Republican Party is the party of the traditional woman (as opposed to the Democrat's "progressive" woman) and that the reason that the Republican Party is more favorable (or less unfavorable) to men is because the traditional woman still finds a use for men, while the "progressive" woman finds men "expendable" and worse?:
"Other Republicans stressed that 24 states have laws similar to the bill at issue, and that it deals only with women who have already chosen to carry a pregnancy to term "
So Republicans favor "women who have already chosen to carry a pregnancy to term" while Democrats favor women who have chosen not to carry it to term. In both cases it is "women's choice" that decides the issue, and the difference, as mentioned, is that mothering is the traditional role and the one Republicans support.
Tom Pollock (Spartacus)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
