A Question Manufactured Through Deception
Asguard said:
... shes not a human being ....
The thing is that she never was a human being in the minds of the people making this argument.
The laws and customs we have regarding the dead include their will, while alive, after death. You better damn well bet that if I die without a Last Will and Testament there will be people raising holy hell if someone even looks at the mere possibility of maybe considering the proposition that perhaps it would be better for the living (who, after all, the funeral is intended for) if I am given a Christian burial. That is to say, even my mother wouldn't try that.
But why would I care if I'm dead?
Marlise Muñoz is not a human being; she is a corpse. But she was a human being. At least, she was supposed to be. How they treat her in death is at once no different, as well as derived from, how they regard women in life.
I mean, look at the naïveté of the
counterpoint in this discussion:
• To manipulate statistics in order to create a false dichotomy.
• To cite the rules in complaint about being labeled, when the behavior in question is demonstrably accurate according to the term demanding complaint.
We don't hold megalomaniacal serial killers up as a reason to have a discussion about whether the whores deserve to die.
Oh, wait. Some religious people who have a problem with prostitutes do.
Sorry, bad example.
How is this question legitimate when it depends on omitting otherwise quite ordinary information and considerations? That the advocates for this desecration of a corpse cannot honestly describe the issue taking place is indicative.
No, really. Look at what we're focusing on:
• The rights of the fetus versus the rights of the corpse.
And look at what we're omitting:
• Demonstrably unethical medical practices by JPSH to manufacture this circumstance.
• Demonstrably deceptive legal assertions by JPSH to manufacture this circumstance.
• But the fetus may be viable? It wasn't when this started. Why do you think there is no death certificate, or why it took the courts to pry the obvious out of the hospital: They knew she was dead from the outset, and they conspired to create the appearance of viability.
• That Marlise Muñoz has no rights as a corpse is a straw man; that having no rights as a corpse reflects disregard of her rights as a person while alive, however, is exactly the issue.
• JPSH is trying to bring a futile pregnancy to term.
• Oh, and by the way, when everything is said and done, and the medical data is laid out, and the procedures established ... if JPSH is right to do what they did, then we are back to equal protection, and every woman who dies while possibly pregnant is subject to this sort of treatment because it would be a willful disregard of that fetal-American's constitutional rights to not do so. So think about the labor. Think about the costs. And think about the fact that this was a futile pregnancy from the beginning of JPSH's adventure. Oh, this is going to get messy. From civil rights to insurance companies to both homicide charges and acquittals (you can't prove the car accident caused the death of a fetus after months of experimenting on it inside a corpse, as maybe the doctors accidentally aborted the pregnancy) to is there a God because God only knows what else.
The rights of a corpse versus the rights of a fetus? That question is
so beside the point here. There are times when the question isn't clear about the
living. No, really. If I had to merely sign the orders restraining a pregnant woman to carry to term because she was suicidal and her suicidality was considered indicative of a lack of competence to make such a medical decision on her own behalf, I would just find a doctor who would do the abortion. But, yes, there are times when this can become a legitimate mess in and of itself, with no encouraging from fervent aesthetes looking for any place or person into which they might plant their godly flagpoles and roil their colors in heated, windy passion.
We are talking about a potential paradigm shift in medical ethics. You know, ethics? The kind of quasi-moral consideration of means and ends by which attempting to deceive people and manipulate the law in order to desecrate a corpse on behalf of one's own aesthetics kind of undermines the credibility of the question?
But, hey, she's a woman, and women can be pregnant, so we don't need to pay attention to ethics, do we?
Tell you what:
When it actually does come down to the rights of a corpse versus the rights of a fetus, let me know.
To reiterate:
That the advocates for this desecration of a corpse cannot honestly describe the issue taking place is indicative.
And I would once again note that all of this is because some people who advocate circumstances that would profoundly affect women don't want to talk about what those effects would be. You know ... because ... well, she's just not important in all of this, is she? Reiterating life at conception and the rights of the fetus? Check. Comparing a woman's humanity to that of a man, but subordinate to the man's human condition? Check. The rights of a corpse, including a bit a few pages back about pissing on the dead? Yeah. We've got that, too.
What I would very much like to know is why the advocates of LACP are so
not inclined to discuss the implications, effects, and consequences of that outcome.
I mean, we're over forty years since
Roe. Forty-one years, plus a couple of days, of anti-abortion advocates effectively rejecting the proposition that a woman has human rights.
We're
fourteen months into this discussion, which was specifically designed to be about what happens to women if we accept the LACP assertion, and the one thing that is clear is that the question of what happens to a woman's human rights makes some people very uncomfortable, since it's the one thing that seems off limits.
Now, I
get why the anti-abortion advocates do this. History teaches that this is predictable behavior.
I admit, though, I don't get why some others would help empower them.
It is quite obvious that de Beauvoir still holds true, that there are two kinds of people in the world, humans and women, and when women act like humans they are accused of trying to be like men. This discussion is evidence in support of her point.
And despite those decades of disrespect, despite the fourteen months of screaming flight from the actual topic, apparently we owe it to people to not use words that accurately describe reliably predictable behavior underpinning the movement.
And next, perhaps, we'll be hearing that when someone gets caught trying to hop contexts in order to inflate a statistic with the intention of guiding the discussion into fallacy, the only proper response is to accommodate them, because let's face it, if they don't like
misogynist, they're really not going to like
intellectually dishonest.
To the other, though, they'll want to have the discussion. Because, well, the actual topic is what happens to a woman's human rights and status under LACP, and as we all know,
anything is better than talking about that.
