by Faba Calculo 1/8/14
Back in the day, before I pretty much gave up on TV, print, and radio news for the web, I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh. One term I still recall him using was feminazi, his word for a feminist who sees abortion as a positive good and for whom the more abortions there are, the better, even all else held constant.
Rush himself insisted that there were very few such people among the feminist leadership: no more than a half dozen, as I recall. But what he didn’t tell us, as best as I can recall (this was the early 1990s), was that there was another type of person, one step up from a feminazi, who, while they don’t set the life of the unborn at a negative number, do set it at zero, meaning that not a finger should be lifted to save the life of the unborn. Call them the semi-feminazis.
The latest example of this, and probably the most appalling one I’ve seen to date, is that of Marlise Munoz (see: When Anti-abortion Law Hurts a Grieving Family). Munoz apparently suffered a blood clot shortly before Thanksgiving. She was alone when it happened, so all we know about how long she wasn’t breathing is that it could have been up to an hour. There appears to be little or no hope for her to ever recover (most likely, as I hear it, the latter), and she had left instructions that she didn’t want heroic measures taken to keep her alive on life support. Being a paramedic, she must have had a good idea what that meant, but there was one thing she doesn’t appear to have been aware of at the moment of her collapse (since the papers I’ve read describe it as something the doctors at her hospital discovered).
She was pregnant.
Fourteen weeks pregnant. And that is where the law kicked in, overriding her wishes on whether or not she wanted to be put on life support in favor of keeping alive her fetus / child. And that is where the semi-femi-nazis stepped in. Call me naïve, but, before I read the comments section to the above story, I’d had hopes that even Salon.com-style liberals would rally to the side of the unborn child, especially given that what the doctors are currently asking for is two to four more weeks so that they can make a determination of how much, if any, harm there has been to the child.
Whether they argue from a feigned concern for the child (e.g., the child might have been harmed, therefore it’s cruel to risk letting it come to term), from a sense of disgust (e.g., the child is just a parasite feeding off the mother), or a strict sense of the mother’s wishes for not being placed on life-support, wishes expressed without reference to whether or not she was pregnant. Has it come to the point that it’s so inconceivable that a woman who, in general, wouldn’t want to be kept alive on life support indefinitely would want to be kept alive long enough to determine the condition of her unborn child and possibly bring it to term?
If so, welcome to the semi-feminazis. • (1380 views)