Actually the pathetic attempt was made by G.B. Trudeau in his so-called comic strip, Doonesbury. In the strip that came out September 30, 2012, Trudeau referred to legislation co-sponsored by Congressman Paul Ryan, called the “person-hood” bill. The legislation would have given the unborn person-hood status and thereby given them first amendment protection, or ‘life’ protection. With a Democrat president and Democrats in control of Congress, the bill has little chance of becoming law, so the comic strip was not written to stop the passage of the bill, but rather in an attempt to influence women to vote against the Romney/Ryan ticket.
I am interested in how liberals use language and misconceptions to attempt to sway young, women voters.
Two examples I would like to address are the use of the terms “fertilized egg” and “the rapist’s baby.” Yes, a human is conceived by an egg being fertilized. Does the fertilized egg possess the same properties of all living organisms?
According to Hickman, Roberts, and Larson (1997), any living organism will meet the following seven basic properties of life:
1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and
complex molecular organization.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems
demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization.
3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves.
4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides fidelity
5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining
nutrients from their environments.
6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle.
7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment.
A fertilized egg meets all seven requirements – See The Definition Of Life. Trudeau, and others prefer to use a term that sounds less ‘living’ in order to make abortion more socially acceptable. Terms that describe the fetus as a living being infer that to rid the mother and/or society of this being would entail the killing of the infant – hence he calls it a ‘fertilized egg’.
As to the term, “the rapist’s baby”, of course the baby has two parents. Any baby conceived belongs to both the rapist and the victim and could just as easily be termed the victim’s baby. It would make more sense to define the child as belonging to the victim as she has the sole responsibility for its care. The use of that term, however, isn’t used because it is much harder to discard our own child. I almost gave Trudeau kudos for calling the child by a name given to a person at this stage and then I realized that this was probably done to reach those who have come to realize that those who are pre-born are indeed persons. Perhaps if identified as “the rapist’s baby’ they will be sufficiently hated so as to warrant death.
G.B. Trudeau suggests that Congressman Ryan proposes to send a mother and her doctor to prison, along with the rapist, if she does not give birth to the “rapist’s child.” In reality, however, the bill doesn’t deal with the nature of the crime nor deal with who would be considered the criminal. I think it is safe to say that should a ‘personhood’ bill pass, 99% of the doctors in the USA would be pleased to abide by this life-saving bill and only abortionists would deal in abortions. I believe mothers would continue to be considered victims.
My personal opinion of those, including Trudeau, who are attacking Paul Ryan for his introduction of this bill is influenced by the disgusting way they have turned Ryan’s views up-side-down or wrong-side-out. He is being described as anti-family, anti-women, and a man who wants to ‘let women die’. The truth is just the opposite as he wants to stop the killing of unborn women and stop the pain of abortion that has caused so much destruction in the USA.
From 1973 to 2008, ca 50 million ‘legal’ abortions occurred.
The Guttmacher Institute says that only one percent of all abortions per year are due to rape or incest. As for saving the life of the mother, here is what physicians report:
When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.
(I know this to be true now and long before Roe vs Wade. My first sister died shortly after birth due to the doctor’s effort to save my mother. He did not not intentionally kill my sister, however, she died as a result of her birth and the efforts of the doctor to save my mother.)
The bottom line is this. Congressman Ryan’s proposal would save lives, millions of lives. It would end the hurt that abortion has brought to millions of women and save the lives of unborn children. To ignore these facts, and report only negatively concerning the legislation, is grossly unfair to the congressman. If one chooses to vote against him or even campaign against him, then do so, but to present life-saving legislation as something unkind or cruel to women is like calling good, evil. It is presenting light as darkness and sweet as bitter.
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20
Mothers are usually young and often uninformed concerning the unborn. Lawmakers are not! Voters, we must not be uninformed or misinformed!
- Letter: Trudeau strikes again (reporternews.com)