Can We Have A Word – On Language Re: The SCOTUS Leak?

Can We Have A Word –On Language Re: The SCOTUS Leak?

Clarity Please; Not Bumper Sticker Phraseology!


By:Pem Schaeffer

May 10, 2022

[email protected]


How can we have a civil, cogent discussion of the pending SCOTUS decision on Roe v. Wade, if we can’t even agree on the semantics of the discourse? Let’s examine some of the variables in play, and the rhetoric of the most volatile, emotional exchanges taking place.


Basic Terminology:

· To begin with, angry protestors are wailing about the loss of “women’s rights” if Roe v. Wade is rescinded. The dominant woke culture dictates that those who get pregnant and carry a baby are “birthing persons,” not women. If that’s the case, then the subject at hand is “birthing person’s rights.” If you don’t like “birthing person’s rights,” will “ovulator’s rights,” or “menstruator’s rights” suffice? You can’t have it both ways; at least in a sane world. Got that? Or didn’t they cover this in the “Birthing Person’s Studies Program” at your elite university?

· So this isn’t about a “woman’s choice;” it’s about a “birthing person’s choice” to “terminate” a pregnancy by killing the life in the womb, or to deliver that life at term. It’s that binary.

· No more breastfeeding; it’s now chest-feeding.

· Is Kamala Harris now to be known as the first birthing person VP of the United States?

· What of the words Lady, Princess, Queen, Empress, and such? Is Jill Biden now the First Birthing Person of the US?

· If you want to change the language, birthing persons, and other activists, you don’t get to pick and choose when and how it applies to suit your motivations. Without consistency, language is useless. You might as well go with yada-yada-yada in your arguments.


Matters Related to Law & Regulations:

· Let’s be clear. rescinding Roe v. Wade won’t eliminate a birthing person’s perceived right to abortion. Instead, it would make the issue a matter of state law, just as it was before the subject ruling in the ‘70s.

· This reversal, if finalized, has nothing to do with “the poor” not being able to afford abortions, as it is not a law constraining finances. The federal government, state governments, and private organizations will almost certainly fund abortions for any birthing persons who claim they must have one. And will search out those who want one, or are unsure, to keep the sacred act in the forefront of our culture. We shouldn’t be surprised if more funding sources step up.

· “Pro-Choice” companies are lining up to provide special benefits for employees seeking abortion as a recruiting tool, including travel to other states. Amazon and others are so committed to employee “health” that they will cover the expenses of terminating your pregnancy. Abortion tourism is sure to follow; what an idea! Book the trip on Amazon!

· Next let’s discuss the term “reproductive rights.” Just what does this mean? If a birthing person has the right to determine whether to carry a pregnancy to term or to terminate it, how is that a reproductive right? The real meaning should be that the birthing person has the right to decide when to get pregnant and propagate the species. Terminating a pregnancy…a living fetus…goes beyond the rights of the birthing person and raises the question of the rights of that new life, not to mention the potential father.

· Abortion is the intentional act of reversing the creation of a new life by medical means, which is the opposite of a reproductive act. Abortion equals creation cancellation and conception cancellation. The decision about abortion could have been avoided by the use of contraception before the fact, rather than cancellation after the fact.

· “Reproductive rights” more rationally means that you have the right to engage or not engage in behavior that could cause pregnancy. If you choose to engage in that behavior, you have the right to ensure you are using personal birth control means, and that your partner in the act is also taking appropriate measures to prevent the pregnancy. If you fail to take such measures, you haven’t fulfilled your responsibilities connected to your perceived rights.

· Rationally considered, “reproductive choice” for a birthing person boils down to:

◦Before conception: choosing safe sex or unprotected sex.

◦Following conception: choosing medical termination of the conceived life, or taking the new life to term, for raising by the natural parent(s) or other family members, or adoption, for which willing and ready candidates, are always available. The demand exceeds the supply.

· Similarly, what does the term “reproductive health care” mean? Terminating a living being in vitro has nothing to do with “health,” for the birthing person, and especially for the in vitro infant. Health calls to mind words like good or bad, not pregnant. If the health of the birthing person is certifiably at risk if the infant is carried to term, which would be extremely rare, a life-saving abortion can be performed, as incredulous as that sounds.

· While we’re at it, could someone provide examples of circumstances where the pregnancy threatens the life of the birthing person, and termination eliminates that risk?

· If as a birthing person you find yourself with a pregnancy that you don’t wish to bring to a successful delivery under any conditions, shouldn’t you be willing to be sterilized at the same time so you can avoid the same crisis in the future?

· Are we supposed to believe that someone not mature enough to understand the need to use birth control measures, and instead engage in unprotected sex, is mature enough to understand what terminating life in the womb means? Instead of adoption, for example?

· Why not change Title IX from a Women’s Sports Act to a Birthing Persons Sports Act? That way, Lia Thomas can be excluded from the swimming competitions he crossed over to and sent back where he belongs. Restrooms and locker rooms etc should be labeled Birthing Person restroom and locker rooms etc.

· For those of you worried about the upcoming SCOTUS ruling, please state your objections and corrections to the foregoing.


Thoughts In Closing:

· Let’s not forget; what the courts giveth, the courts can takeaway. The same with the legislature.

· Another thought: the left is all about sanctuary cities and sanctuary states for illegal immigrants and criminals of various persuasions. Why is it they can’t find it in the compassionate corners of their collective psyche to think in terms of sanctuary for lives in the womb?

· And another one: Abortion supporters use “privacy” as the Constitutional underpinning for the Roe V. Wade decision. Why don’t they see privacy as relevant in determining whether they can protest and disrupt lives in front of the private residences of Justices?

· And the most incongruous yet: “Abortion Saves Lives.” It’s right up there with “we can’t let them take away a woman’s right to family planning for their future!” That’s like planning your financial future by throwing all your money in the fireplace to keep warm.

· Let’s not forget “Keep Your Hands Off My Body.” Taken literally, wouldn’t that mean no abortion? And what about that life in the womb wanting hands kept off its body?


Stay Up to Date

Follow Us