There is this lady from Florida with the melodious name of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Well, that’s how the folks on the 6 and 11 identify her. I simply refer to her here as DWS, her initials, which may signify her name or The Department of Waste Services. Between the two I like the last one better. Actually she’s the head of the Democratic National Committee, an organization dedicated among other strange things to putting a period, full stop, to the United States one unborn infant at a time.
Ain’t I cute?
Anyway, the Debster was “caught on tape” sometime recently repeating a rote response over and over, like a parrot…and looking not a little like one, too, after being asked a simple question; the simple question being one about the genus and species of her children in utero; a question a two year old can answer. The question she was asked? Were her children human beings while yet in her womb? Even Horton knows that!
But, not DWS. Nope, she as much as took the Fifth. She does not want to say if the things she carried within her for nine months were human beings while there. Why she doesn’t want to say this puzzled me. What even puzzled me further is why a person whose belly is swelling is unable to name, or unwilling to say what, exactly, is the thing doing the swelling. Do we not know that ape mommies have apes inside, and whales, whale babies? We are not reluctant to name those things. What force compels them thus to silence when asked if what is gestating is, well, one of us?
I wonder, too, just what if anything she thought they were during those three times she says she went through the experience. Had she thoughts of her womb’s contents at all? Did she, as I believe anyone else in her condition able to do so would, did she seek the care of and consult with a person trained to advise her and treat her and what she carried within; an obstetrician? Did that person ever use the word “baby”, the word “child” or “boy” or “girl” in her presence? Or was he or she as ignorant of what lurked beneath DWS’s heart as she must have been herself?
What a curious thing, to be treated by someone who was ignorant of what was being treated. Anyway, perhaps she did, and doing so was exercising one of her “reproductive rights”. And she got care for herself and her “product of conception” that she could not help noticing was growing inside her into, well, into what, exactly must have been anyone’s guess. Was she comforted? How could she have been one wonders. Nevertheless, was she comforted to know, if knowledge could have been hers in the midst of all this mystery, that she had, in fact begun the process of gestating a baby, a human baby?
Did she, sitting in her Obstetrician’s waiting room, accept the smiles of other women similarly exercising their reproductive rights during the term of their gestation with the purpose, so far, to at term’s end produce a …? Did she smile back at them, all the while knowing, or believing in her right to believe it…which is even more affirming…, that what was moving and kicking and listening to her heart beating above it was a…what?
Did she ever say the name? can she have dared to sing to it? I think perhaps not, and that is a sad and strange thing, if so. But when one has a right, as terrible a right as a “reproductive right”, one must I suppose obey it in all of it’s dark splendor, steeling oneself against a too personal involvement with the more stern solemnities involved in its exercise. For, no matter where they are in their progress to life, and, really, no matter where or in what condition they are found, those found in violation of their mother’s terrible Reproductive Right are no longer entitled , they are in fact in violation, of their once unalienable Right to Life; that right with which all have been endowed by their Creator. From that moment, they are lives, beings, unworthy of life, and it may be taken from them. Perhaps in that thought is the secret to DWS’s curious lapse about the thing within her.
Rights, of course, are there to be exercised, but when the decision to exercise is made they must be obeyed…completely. Here I make an observation about The Creator God who granted everyone, everything, the right to exist. And so, even he, who certainly could have, did not deny that right to Satan; whom God knew and knows from his first moment as an angel, of whose nature and person he has always been aware. How odd that DWS, who advocates the continuation of such a terror as the “reproductive right” cannot bring herself to name or acknowledge the being(s) upon whom she would exercise that right.
I wonder do her three children, whom she does, finally, acknowledge in the short interview as human beings, do they know that for nine months they lived under her heart unaware of the terrifying fact that they were a scant heartbeat away from their mother’s deadly exercise of her “reproductive right” to murder them?
Finally, I wonder when, during the process of giving birth, or how soon after it, did DWS realize, or decide, her children had become human beings, and that murdering them could conceivably have led to her own execution for that crime in another simpler, saner, more compassionate age?