The new legislative session started yesterday with much fanfare, especially because the DFL controls everything. The DFL is pretty excited about this turn of events and has their agenda ready to go with absolutely zero desire to compromise. What's on the agenda you ask?
Weed, weed, and more weed.
"Bodily autonomy" for women.
Spend, spend, spend.
Avoiding giving the 18 billion dollar budget surplus back to taxpayers, and figuring out how to keep overtaxing us as long as possible.
I'll comment of two of those.
First the surplus, Walz promised everyone checks last year as a way to bribe voters with their own money (actually for those who pay minimal taxes, it was OPM), yet he failed to deliver on that promise. Surprisingly with no check on the DFL spending, the talk of rebates in very quiet and there doesn't appear to be much urgency
But, what's interesting is the insistence of "bodily autonomy" for women.
I started by looking up the definition of autonomy and learned that autonomy is defined as self government. So what is being proposed is that women be given the right for self government of their bodies. Let's start with the obvious that during pregnancy science tells us that there are two individual, unique, living, human bodies involved. Then let's go to the obvious, that autonomy is unlimited by definition. Finally, isn't giving a group a right that is not extended to any other group based on their membership in a protected class illegal?
What I think is that this is another example of those on the left using a term when they really don't mean what they say. We regularly hear leftists talk about allowing people to love whoever they want. Then you dig deeper and find that they really don't mean everyone. In much the same way, I suspect that this "bodily autonomy" they talk about isn't really "bodily autonomy" with the exception of abortion.
Hey, the reality is that these legislators don't really want "bodily autonomy" for women, they just need a high minded term to substitute for unrestricted abortion.
4 comments:
The left is famous for perverting language to serve their agenda, whatever that agenda is at the time (it can turn on a dime if necsessary).
In this case, it's another example of using a term meant to appeal to emotion. "Bodily autonomy" suggests a women's right, wherein women will no longer be "oppressed" by those not women. But as you suggest...because it's true...it's really just a dishonest distraction from the real issue of murdering one's own child to appease whatever cheaply rationalized preference the woman...or others pressuring her...might have.
I would add that I don't get how the left expects that anyone is fooled by such blatantly dishonest tactics. Even lefties who bleat on about such inventions as "bodily autonomy" don't believe what they're saying. They simply expect that most will join in on the ruse as if they all do in fact believe whatever...in this case, "bodily autonomy"...is the true issue.
Art,
I agree that it's a dishonest tactic designed to fool people. The honest truth is that they don't want women to have "bodily autonomy", because that opens up all sorts of possibilities that are negative.
Those on the left buy in because they already agree with the larger issue, how many of them are too ignorant to know what autonomy really means is unknown, but likely large.
“Healthy, principled disagreement” as practiced by those who thrill to brutality to vent their irrational rage:
Mike Rogers lunges at Matt Gaetz during House speaker voting, other members intervene.
On the one year anniversary of the insurrection.
You and Marshal and the other thugs make violence reasonable. 500 years of nation building needed that myth.
(and btw: you guys talking is evidence how much rent-free room in your heads I create)
Post a Comment