In her September 3, 2008
column, Ellen Goodman not only critcizes Sarah Palin but she also attacks those who who oppose abortion:
"it's the right wing that made social issues into a political issue. The right wing decided that pregnancy was not a matter of private decision-making but a harsh and unrelenting political battle." (emphasis mine)
Perhaps, Goodman needs a history lesson. Prior to Roe v. Wade, the states - via their legislatures - (aka the political arena) were allowed to decide their own abortion policies. Most did not allow abortions but some, in the years preceding Roe, moved to liberalize their abortion statutes.
So abortion (or as Goodman refers to it, pregnancy as a "matter of private decision-making") was already a "political issue."
My question is this: Prior to the Roe decision was there "a harsh and unrelenting political battle" over abortion?
No, because the majority of Americans did not favor abortion. Roe (pushed by Goodman's side) federalized and took the issue from the people, and forced it down their collective throats. This coalesced the very group she now accuses of creating a "harsh and unrelenting political battle." Of course, one might also say Goodman's side created the "harsh and unrelenting political battle" by federalizing the issue in the first place.
Goodman also writes:
"the [Republican] party meeting in St. Paul, Minn., would put decisions about pregnancy in the hands of the government and replace sex information with disinformation. No, you don't have to pass judgment on a 17-year-old to pass judgment on these unrelenting policymakers." (emphasis mine)
Of course, this is a suprising moral judgement passed by Goodman, who earlier in her column criticized, "the 'family value' folks who have fashioned a political wedge out of moral judgements". Nope, no political wedge from Goodman. Not at all.
And to what disinformation does Goodman refer? She provides no evidence to backup her assertion. Time for a biology lesson. It is a scientific fact that the uniting of the human father's sperm with the human mother's egg results in a unique, living, human being. The scientific terminology for this union is conception. For anyone who doubts, see the slideshow at WebMd, "
Conception: From egg to embryo".
When was the last time Ellen Goodman referred to that which resides in human mother's womb as a human being? If one refuses to discuss the basic, foundational, scientific fact of this whole issue, isn't that disinformation?
In fact, Goodman hides behind sterile words and phrases. Only twice in her 700 words does she use the word abortion, once calling John McCain, "an unrelenting opponent of abortion" and the other in reference to the Republican platform being opposed to "every abortion." The rest of the time Goodman talks about the right-wing being against pregnancy or against "private decision-making." Very sterile language she very clearly relates to an abortion.
But what is an abortion? It terminates a pregnancy. What does it mean to be pregnant? From
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, to be pregnant means "containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body." In terminating a pregnancy, an abortion terminates the "unborn offspring within the body." What kind of offspring? In the case of the union of a human male's sperm and a human female's egg, the offspring is a human being.
But what of the part of the definition that says it is an embryo or fetus. Again from Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary:
embryo - "
especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception"
fetus - "
specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth"
So "embryo" and "fetus" are medical terms that define stages of development
not the type of being one is. So let's repeat Goodman's own words ripping the veil of her Orwellian language away to reveal the true meaning of her words:
"the party meeting in St. Paul, Minn., would put decisions about terminating the pregnancy (i.e. life of an innocent, defenseless, unborn human being) in the hands of the government and replace sex information with disinformation. No, you don't have to pass judgment on a 17-year-old to pass judgment on these unrelenting policymakers."
In other words, Ellen Goodman "pass(es) judgement on these unrelenting policymakers" who would dare try to save the life of an innocent human being!
But is it wrong for government to do so. One of this country's founding principles is
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"
(Declaration of Independence)
Governments are instituted to secure certain unalienable rights, one of which is Life!
Not only does Ellen Goodman attack those who would destroy innocent human life but she attacks those who would use government to do the very thing it is instituted to do: Protect the unalienable right to Life!
Of course, Ellen Goodman wants to keep this as a private decision. To hide the fact that she defends the killing of innocent, defenseless, unborn human beings.
