Stageleft likes to poke fun at my pro-life stances. But here, I think he really puts his foot in his mouth in regards to my post about 5-month-old fetus Garret getting operated on:
Now, I may not agree with the foetishists, but I have always admired their intuitive grasp of spin. Like the PETA lunatics who have shoehorned the ridiculous term “baby seal” into the debate on fur, foetishists understand the importance of carefully chosen words in shaping public opinion. So hats off to whatever propagandist came up with the notion of naming foetuses. Nice touch!
Lots of people name their fetuses, on both sides of the abortion issue-- either their "Christian" or "given" name, or a nickname. It's very common. Read a pregnancy message board.
Maybe some of my women readers who named their children in the womb would like to address this point. My oldest daughter had a name in the womb, and my youngest had the nickname of "Critter" for most of the pregnancy.
"May I suggest taking it one step further? Why stop with the foetus? Imagine the heightened impact if the above had read:
..a five month old foetus named Garrett (son of Myldrid Ovum and Curtis “Wiggles” the Sperm)…"
Ah yes, ever so desperate to justify abortion, pro-abortion people must ridicule the notion that the fetus is a human being and is loved by their mothers. So they have to resort to equating a fetus with a 23-chromosome gamete.
Seriously, don’t you think that would further help to conceptually detach the all-important foetus from its disposable temporary bio-support pack (formerly referred to as a “woman”)?
Again, the woman must be supreme to these people: the fetus must have no rights or no humanity. If the fetus is humanized and given rights, it must mean that the woman is unimportant or secondary.
It's not a zero-sum game.
_________________________
Visit Opinions Canada
a political blogs aggregator
_________________________
