Posted on 11/14/2003 5:46:23 PM PST by rhema
A RECENT NEW YORKER CARTOON: IN A MIDDLE-class living room, a middle-aged man is tied with ropes to a chair, and gagged. His wife, her coat on and two packed suitcases at the ready by the front door, is pouring gasoline around him from a large tin can, and turns to address him with the following words: "Look, it's not you, it's me, OK?"
I've had this taped to my fridge for weeks, next to more sedate quotes by P.T. Forsythe and G.K. Chesterton, and I break up every time I go for seltzer water. But it came to mind in a special way when I heard the response of NARAL's Kate Michelman and her cadre to President Bush's signing of a ban on partial-birth abortion:
"George Bush has crossed a line," she roared, "and we are going to be working hard to make sure every member of America's pro-choice majority understands the significance."
The New Yorker cartoon line is good writing: You can hear the woman's voice. You have heard it scores of times on sitcoms—some girl breaking up with some guy and letting him down easy. The statement is usually a lie, of course. Or, let us give the benefit of the doubt and say the woman is acknowledging that the male castoff does not necessarily leave her cold or give her the creeps. No, it's also (she generously concedes) a character flaw in herself: He has good qualities but she is not the person to appreciate him after all. If he is soup, she is a slotted spoon, OK? She blames herself for not having seen it earlier. So ... sorry, goodbye, beat it.
The cartoonist has made the couple middle class and frumpy and married, which is deliberate, I'm sure. The psychologizing depicted in the cartoon—a combination of New Age sensitivity and abdication of responsibility—was once edgy and nouveau but has become mainstream. Your own grandmother talks like this now.
I've been wondering about the cartoonist, some "Cheney": Did he just dash this off and file it with the magazine and move on to the next searing social commentary? Or did he play with it in his head a while, unpack it, tease out its applications? Did NOW and NARAL flit through his mind for even a second?
Take an American woman of average education. She knows herself to be a human. Therefore, the "product of conception" (let's concede some terminology) morphing at warp speed in her womb can be reasonably called "human"—at least in the casual and imprecise way we would grant that analogous products in a dog are "doggy." She knows these products are "life" in some sense, since what last week resembled an undifferentiated cluster of soap bubbles this week has sprouted discernible digits.
But she is careful not to fuse the two words together and call the blob "human life" because them's political fighting words. Putting "human" and "life" in a phrase is an ad hominem trick practiced by pro-lifers to garner support for their anti-woman cause, right? And she doesn't believe in their cause. Why? Well, because the thing in her uterus is not a "human life." (All right, so she's not sharp with tautology.)
That's enough talk about the little ... whatever ... in her body. We are obviously at an impasse regarding its status. Shall we now move on to a more promising part of the equation that might yield clearer directives? What would that be? Lo and behold, the woman, of course! Maybe we can't all agree on whether the fetus is "human life" but we can all agree that the woman is. She has a Social Security number, after all.
The woman is the one we should concern ourselves with. She is the one who is positively, absolutely, indisputably, incontrovertibly a human life and therefore deserving of fullest protection under the law (for reasons not easily adduced with any metaphysical certainty in these post-absolute times but nonetheless still universally acknowledged).
And the woman is hurting, she will have you know. She has her reasons—which are none of your business—why continuing with this pregnancy is injurious to her psychological health. She wants you to know that she is personally opposed to abortion as a casual birth-control fallback, but this is different. If there were any other way ...
Moreover, she does not feel completely good about herself for doing what she is about to do. What she must do. And she is very sorry indeed, and it is with deep regret that she has to say to the parasite that has somehow lodged itself in her womb and in her life: "Look, it's not you, it's me, OK?"
When the 'thing' in the uterus is still merely a visible blob, no arm buds or leg buds, he or she can still be tested to discover whether she has Down's Syndrome, or a host of other genetically identifiable diseases. How is this possible if the thing is only a blob of tissue, not yet a human being? Well, put simply, if it were merely a generic blob of tissue, she would not be testable! This little girl in the womb may be tested to discern what diseases WILL manifest perhaps years later, because she is already the individual human being she will always be throughout her lifetime, her lifetime begun at her unique conception!
The 'blob of tissue' argument is based on a deep and very destructive LIE. But then most of the lines of argument defending the abortion holocaust are based in LIES purposely constructed for maximum effect on the public psyche.
By the time a woman knows she is pregnant, it is no longer a "blob of tissue", but a very, very recognizable thing.
Nooo... actually Hon, it ain't your body, as a simple DNA test can easily prove.
If I was completely lost to all feeling I would have to include a few others.
Let us not stop with "a blob of tissue".
Carry on.
"Sorry boss, but I can't work this weekend, therefore I must abort you (retroactively). Nothing personal, but NARAL will back me up on this. Oh yes, TAKE THIS!"
"Sorry, Son, but we can't afford the cost of keeping you alive. The nurses, the drugs to keep you from having fatal seizures, the oxygen, it's all too much. So me and your mother are here to say goodbye. Just let me put my pistol to your head, it won't hurt much."
This is the kind of heartless world they want us to live in.
The other thing that comes to mind is that maybe all that's really needed is to give the every foetus a Social Security Number right away, make that number a woman's ticket for free medical care during a pregnancy, or something......... Maybe we can't all agree on whether the fetus is "human life" but we can all agree that the woman is. She has a Social Security number, after all.
It might be funny if it weren't so sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
