Wow.
Who would think that these two words would be up for discussion. Eric Blair, writing as George Orwell, predicted as much at the end of the second world war, that those who controlled language and media, controlled the public mindset and therefore, to a large extent, thought.
Now we have a candidate for Senate in what is considered to be a must-win election for both parties who takes a big bite of his foot, (don't know if he used salt...), over the term rape.
Ironically, I think I know what he meant when he used the term "legitimate rape". To be sure, he misspoke, and the notion that he put forth was bone-headed, but everybody and their typewriter has circled, approached and bastardized further that most inglorious of inglorious phrases.
I am not going to try to define the two terms, the one is used in a broad array of scenarios and is fairly contextual. the other seems to be a matter of degrees of familial separation, (I really don't know).
The situation does highlight the presence of an issue that likes to hide in election years, it is exemplified in the issue of abortion.
As technology and science have progressed, (in this case, medicine), mankind has been enabled with a staggering array of choices in their own destiny. In this particular issue, women are able to circumvent the normal cycles and processes that affect them and their lives, in other words, get them pregnant.
We are also able to intervene medically and save the lives of children, before they are born, or make adjustments that allow for otherwise normal development while they are still gestating. It begs the question, whose life is it anyway?
The living, breathing body, the
citizen, is the mother. Yes, she has rights, and it is her body, as far as that goes.
The
beneficiary of the treatment, is the as yet unborn child. As a part of the mother, (as the argument sometimes goes), it has no rights of its own. But if was injured by a third party, tell that to a trial lawyer. If in an unfortunate circumstance, it was injured or did not survive the birth process, its 'estate' would be entitled to sue.
The third, unmentioned party, is the rest of us. (Yeah, the government. They are not a monolithic bad guy as they are portrayed by preachers, politicians and people soliciting donations). We, in the agency of our Legislatures and Courts, decide who can do what and when. It might go a long way in easing that burden if there was a little consistency in the logic we apply. If we are dealing with a real child, then confer upon it citizenship and grant it the rights to healthcare and legal representation that talking people get. If it is not, then take away the prerogatives given lawyers, women seeking child support, and those who desire compensation in the name of a deceased (yet unborn) loved one.
Cold? Cruel? Yes to both. But a line has to be drawn and both sides cannot be absolutely satisfied or vindicated.
We need to decide how we want to handle this issue, because how we handle this one will serve as a model for how we handle the next one. This is a bitch, to be sure, but here it is.
In 1973, the Supreme Court enunciated a right to privacy in the Roe v Wade decision, I believe that they were correct in doing so. Not because there is a right to abortion, but because the Constitution was intended to limit the power of government to restrict rights of citizens and the prerogatives of states.
The decision was a good compromise, extending to the first trimester of a pregnancy, a time when the zygote/embryo/fetus was not considered to be viable, (capable of living outside the womb).
Since that time, political considerations on both sides of the issue have fought to expand or contract the scope of that decision, neither being content to leave well enough alone, neither considering other ramifications of the logic that they put forth.
This is the environment we live in. The volume of shrieking replaces scholarly debate, and respect for the other party is replaced by the vitriol that we see in our election process, (which, if you will notice, is usually modelled on "you can vote for me, a normal, slightly flawed human, like you, or Stalin/Satan over there.....").
Where is it going to end?
Right now, the GOP has turned on Akin and wants to be rid of him, rather than using the opportunity to clarify a position. Granted, this guy is a Neanderthal, but he is what the party has selected.
My prediction is that Todd Akin will go the way of John Ashcroft, (a dead guy beat him), but the GOP needs to take a stand, draw a line and live with it, rather than stand someplace and yell, then pull up stakes and take another stand later. I don't like the absolute stand that the party on the left takes, it is ridiculous and indefensible on every level, but, it is theirs and you know where to find them.
I used to wonder why people don't vote, but sometimes I wonder how come its just me that doesn't have better things to do.
The Eccentric Recluse
