Wednesday, February 15, 2012

...misused definitions

I was honored to post on the Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma blog.  I proudly support this group in effort to abolish human abortion.  Check out the post I wrote:

Deception, Ignorance, Inconsistent Logic…
Those are a few of the possibilities that crossed my mind, but I’ll leave the labels up to you – decide after considering the following:
What is reproduction (specifically in the context of abortion – or wait should we define words differently in various contexts…hmmm)?
As most know that are in any way, Pro-life/Pro-abort/Apathetic-aka-Pro-Abort, connected to the current events of the abortion industry, Susan G. Komen recently decided to reduce/remove/limit (nobody seems to really know the exact intentions) funding to Planned Parenthood.  The reason given by SGK was that they had put in place rules not to grant funds to any institution under any type of investigation.  Thus, never taking a legitimate stand against abortion specifically in the first place.  A short time later, to the surprise of very few, SGK decided to backtrack after being pounded by PP, Pro-aborts, and the liberal media.  In the midst of all of this “flip-flopping” I decided to visit SGK’s Facebook page and read some of the reactions.  An overwhelming amount of reactions went something like… This is an attack on the reproductive rights of women.  
Initially I didn’t think much of what I had read other than “big surprise, the same ol’ women’s reproductive rights argument”.  As I was driving home the next day I got to thinking about that argument and something just sort of “clicked” or at least I knew something wasn’t quite right. 
I wondered – just to be sure – were the people on SGK’s Facebook page the only people who use this type of rhetoric.  I didn’t think so, but I had to make sure so here are a few examples from pretty prominent sources saying things quite similar:
  • “The ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project protects everyone's right to make informed decisions free from government interference about whether and when to become a parent.  The ability to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is essential to women’s equality…”
See the link attached to the quote above (reproductive-freedom) and you will realize that this quote is ACLU’s attempt to describe reproductive freedom and how they must protect it.
  • President Obama said in regard to Roe v. Wade, “We must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.”
That one is from the president and is pretty clear.
Now, let’s look at a few definitions of reproduction:

So… before going any further I must disclose the fact that I am not a doctor, or a biologist, or involved in any type of scientific field.  Heck, I can barely remember a few symbols on the Periodic Table.  With that said, it seems pretty obvious to me that what the President and ACLU are saying simply does not jive with the definitions of reproduction.  
Bottom line – based on the definitions above along with the ordinary sense of most people it is clear that once the “sperm meets the egg” or in less visual terms “the woman has become pregnant” REPRODUCTION HAS OCCURRED. 
Thus, the question is - how can the President and ACLU say abortion is an attack on the reproductive freedom of women when abortion has absolutely nothing to do with reproductive freedom?
Reproductive freedom according to the definition is the freedom to reproduce, the freedom to get pregnant.  It has NOTHING to do with whether or not to give birth.
So, the truth is that women have reproductive freedom and it is not under attack by anyone (with one possible exception – a rapist).  Pro-lifers are all for reproduction – get pregnant all you want – whenever you want.  
The freedom that the President, ACLU, and Pro-aborts are asking for is the right to Murder/Kill/Destroy a baby that exists because of women’s reproductive freedom.
Let’s vow to no longer allow pro-aborts or anyone else to use the term reproductive freedom without “calling them to the carpet”.  This is just another attempt to victimize the mother and criminalize those of us who want to protect those who cannot speak for themselves. 
So, is the use of this rhetoric an attempt to deceive, simple ignorance, or continued inconsistent logic?  Thoughts?
Side note – and I don’t meant to be humorous or insensitive, but if we define reproductive freedom as the President and ACLU want us to: the right to end a pregnancy… what does that mean for the reproductive freedom of men? 


Post a Comment