IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING

“I love movies”. A statement everyone says, or almost everyone. Is it true? No one loves all movies, or music, or art. They love movies they find enjoyable. I don't think there's a person alive who loves every movie and, conversely, dislikes every movie. It goes without saying “I love movies” is not accurate. “I love movies that appeal to me” makes more sense. Love is constantly professed to films and no one gives it a thought. Why? They're trivial. Nothing useful will be gleaned from picking this statement apart because no one cares and that's how it should be.

It gets interesting when we get into the non-trivial. “I want small government”. Another statement we all hear on a regular basis. Not trivial and not true. If you're on food stamps do you want small government? Social Security and Medicare? Desire the world's strongest military? World's best schools? Desire certain goods or services banned for whatever reason? No one wants small government. “I want small government regarding the parts of government for which I don't understand or agree” is more like it. They want very big government concerning the parts they endorse.

“I am pro-life”. Uttered constantly and definitely not trivial. Is it true? We have to define it first. Does it mean anti-war? Perhaps. Anti-death penalty? Maybe. Anti-gangland murders? Who are we kidding? Those people are alive. We all know it means the person is against abortion. We, as a society, have attached the statement ”I am pro-life” to being against abortion. But not just any old abortion. It definitely does not mean “I'm against abortion personally, but if you're for it that's okay”. That's the definition of pro-choice. It means ”I am against abortion personally, therefore, the government should punish those who have one”. That's the definition. It also defines arrogance but that's another story.

I went on a pro-life website—also known as an outlaw abortion website—and wrote “If you are against abortion, that's fine. But you have no right to prohibit others from having one”. Fighting words in this environment. I was merely fishing for a response without too much bloodshed. What I received taught me a lot: ”You have the same mindset as Southern slave owners; if you don't want a slave, fine. But you have no right to keep me from having one”. Wow. This is the angle. Fertilized eggs are equated to slaves, which I presume are equated to non-slaves with civil rights. Okay, I get it. This helps to explain the other phrase I hear: “A fertilized egg has the same rights as any living (born) person”. Simple, to the point, and horrifying how people just let it lay there. It's so loaded with three huge topics which must fit together in perfect harmony for it to be true that I cannot understand why I haven't seen this thing dissected long ago. Or maybe it was and I missed it. Possible. Either way, I doubt my treatment will be redundant. Here's my attempt to break this whole thing down.

Can a person who is born (I'll call a 'living person') choose to drink alcohol? Yes. Can a living person choose to use nicotine or pharmaceutical drugs? Of course. Therefore, a pregnant woman, also known as a living person, can choose to ingest all these drugs as well. Whatever she consumes, the fertilized egg/zygote/fetus (I'll call a 'fetus') also consumes. Never, however, is there a choice for the fetus. “Mommy's had a tough day; it's time for you to consume your Merlot. Your Marlboros. Your Valium. Eat it and don't make trouble”. Living people have choices and the fetus has none; it is force-fed every day.

This seems terribly unfair to the fetus. It's supposed to have the same rights as the living but has no way to stop being pumped full of barbiturates and amphetamines. Let's try this: Can we make it illegal for a pregnant woman to use alcohol, nicotine or pharmaceutical drugs (I'll use the term 'drugs')? Let's say we can. From now on pregnant women no longer have the right to ingest any drugs that could affect the fetus. That seems fair.

Has this given the fetus the same rights as a living person? Well, we've just created two distinct classes of people; pregnant women is one class, non-pregnant people is the other. And if “A fertilized egg has the same rights as living people” is true, which living people are we talking about, the pregnant or the non-pregnant? Let's examine.

Does a fetus have the same rights as a non-pregnant person? The non-pregnant person has the right to use or not use drugs. The fetus does not. Two different rights. Not equal. That was easy. Let's try pregnant women. Pregnant women no longer have the right to use drugs. Drinking wine while with child is now a crime. This is perfect, the pregnant woman has had rights taken away by the government to equate her to the fetus. Both have absolutely no choice. Like mother like fetus. In this circumstance I can comfortably say a fetus is equal to a pregnant woman and not equal to a non-pregnant person. This is making sense now.

To make a fetus equal to a living person, we have to create two classes of people: one class has a choice, the other does not. More specifically, when a woman becomes pregnant she essentially becomes a ward of government during fetal development. New laws just for her are created in order to make her fetus equal to a living person, in this case a pregnant living person, not the non-pregnant.

So it turns out “A fertilized egg has the same rights as living people” is true as long as the government takes rights away from pregnant women.

“Wait a second”, I hear people saying. “Fetuses have the same right to life as any living person. That's the issue”.

Okay. Are we now removing the law that states pregnant women are not allowed to use drugs?

“Yes, stop this ridiculousness. The fetus has a right to live just like you and me and that's that”.

So we're changing “Fetuses have the same rights as living people” to “Fetuses have the same right to live as living people”. All other rights are removed. The fetus has the right to live only. Nothing else. The pregnant woman, having all the rights as anyone else, can do whatever she pleases. It's open season in the womb. Absolutely no barriers whatsoever to what can infiltrate, medicate, injure, nothing. No restrictions at all. As long as the fetus lives.

“You're exaggerating...”

I'll accept that. As I'm sure you'll accept this: what is possible and legal to occur, not what is likely, is the issue.

We're left with two choices and only two choices for those who subscribe to “Fetuses have the same right to live as living people”:

-Leave pregnant women unregulated, which allows them to do whatever they want as long as the fetus lives. Or:

-Have the government remove rights from pregnant women.

If you choose the former you show disdain for the health and well-being of the fetus. What it must endure for nine months is absolutely unimportant to you. Quality of life is irrelevant. As long as it lives your job is done. (Of course, if it lives it is by choice of the mother. If it is not her choice it is compelled by the government. If it is compelled by the government this choice coalesces with the latter choice):

You want pregnant women to fall under government supervision and be considered a different class of people from non-pregnant folks. They must be monitored closely by the state during gestation to assure they don't do anything... “unladylike”.

“Fetuses have the same right to live as living people” is very easy to say if you're ”pro-life”. And it's very untrue. So let's stop saying “living people” as if it includes all people. Stated correctly:

“Fetuses have the right to live if and only if government takes rights away from pregnant women”.

Now that I read this, it goes without saying. But it had to be said.