Prompted by George Stephanopoulos of ABC during a Republican debate, Presidential aspirant Mitt Romney declared “I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice” And then: “I changed my position.” – The logic is somewhat confused, because, theoretically, if he never was pro-choice, he now would have become pro-choice, while his position now would have become only effectively “pro-life,” as some of such meat eaters like to call themselves. But the more interesting question is why these people do change their positions. Is it the will of the people that is holding drunken sway here?
It has been suggested that quite a number of Democratic politicians, including perhaps Bill Clinton and Obama, may secretly not be as much for the death penalty as they declare to the people, but that they are forced to join the hanging crowd, since the lynch mentality, especially among fundamentally loving Christians, is in full vogue. If you want to capture these Christian hangers-on to the Democratic ticket, you need to get a hang of saying what you don’t believe (proving that you don’t really believe that any god will get you for such expedient lies).
Politicians in a democracy claim, when it suits them, that they have to follow the will of the people. Bush II, of course, was doing the Will of God when he ineloquently fudged Sundays and much of the rest of the week, but he also listened, one hears, to what his political strategists whispered in his right-leaning ear. No problem: this is after all a Christian nation and therefore the Will of God can best be read in the tea leaves of the Will of the People.
Thank the Lord, there are two enormous tax deductions to be had from playing with (not to) the will of the people: advertising and the church. The justification is obvious: the people do not know what is good for them and therefore we need to heavily subsidize those who change the will of the people, from misguided or vacuous, to God’s Will of the People. After such billion dollar investments in the Will of God, it is only reasonable to comply with the will of the people, which (at least after such enormous tax deductions and suggestive benedictions) should now be held Sacred. What’s a poor politician to do but to change his or her position, after the spoken-to-people have spoken?
It is then only marginally of interest that fertilized eggs and fetuses are also sacred. They do not have any expressed will-to-choice yet, sacredly are still to be fertilized with the compost of advertising and religion. Blessed are the vacant in spirit for they shall inherit the winds of innocent political digestive tracts, filled with the meat of processed and canned simulations.
A woman with a will of her own is clearly anti-democracy. If she were pro-democracy, she would be pro-advertising and pro-religion, and so pure indeed that there would be no difference between her vacancy of will and that of a fertilized egg, fertilized with the will of the Sperm of whom millions shall die for the good of the nation, so that one shall live to be fertilized by benedictions and ads.
Could we conceivably look for politicians, once again, who have a mind of their own, unlike sperm-plus-egg? How can we join in a democracy when there is no real difference between human minds and primitive collections of biological building blocks?
In order to truly respect the will of the egg above that of the woman and/or the human mind, we really should now work on special methods of communication to fertilized eggs, so that they can get a pre-human version of slogans, jingles, and sermons, messages so primitive that even the mindless can mind them. - No, it would not have to be two-way twittering; after all, we do know what is good for the fetus: it should not have a mind of its own if it wants our full respect.