"...the principle behind the different reactions is clear: You have a right to life if your death can be somehow blamed on capitalism."(link)
Reminds me of Louise Slaughter:
"If ever we had proof that our nation's pollution laws aren't working, it's reading the list of industrial chemicals in the bodies of babies who have not yet lived outside the womb..."(link)
I tried to make sense of that comment at that time considering Louise Slaughter's total support for abortion. Apparently "babies who have not yet lived outside the womb" don't have a right to life... unless they are polluted?
Though Hertzlinger's theory seems about right. The Left's right to life is conditional on the death being the cause of the capitalist military industrial complex Rush Limbaugh League of red neck heartless religious nutsos.
"It doesn't make sense that industrial pollutants in the womb would be a valid indicator of their pervasiveness?"
ReplyDeleteNo that makes sense, but it's not that that grates me.
"Or was it just the language used, referring to a fetus as "a baby" that concerned you?"
You guessed it. If it's baby, then why is she ok with killing them? If you don't think it's alive, then why would you call it a baby?
"Seems like a fairly common generalization to me..."
If I were to start saying, I believe white people are "people", but then i said white people don't have a right to life I guess that could be chalked up to a "generalization" as well.
The point is she's inadvertently contradicting herself... IOW - she's calling something alive that she isn't willing to protect their life. Maybe she didn't mean it that way, but her choice of words is ironic at the very least.
"And even if you don't accept that, it is logically consistent not to be concerned about foreign chemicals in a fetus that will not come to term, and be concerned about them in a fetus that will."
How do you decide which fetus will come to term and which doesn't? Some will, some won't you don't know which. With no abortion laws it's all based on a woman's choice. So I'm wondering how can you make distinction?
Also, if a fetus is just a thing, then how is a crime to pollute it? Even if it will come to term?
Either a fetus is alive, and has rights, or it isn't. That's the point here.
If you think a fetus is an "unborn baby," then you can make the statement that she made.
If you think a fetus is just a bunch of matter then you can't believe that a crime is being commited here to it.
Afterall, if it's just matter, then how can you violate the rights of matter?
"So I don't understand where the confusion comes from... "
I was trying to be sarcastic by saying I was "confused" to make the point. Apparently I'm pretty crappy at doing that these days, so I have to apologize for my own verbal clutziness.