Tag Archives: Reproductive Rights

A Letter to a Friend

Someone recently communicated with me urging on me their understanding of this pas de deux between Holy Mother Church and Uncle Sugar’s current mob in DC over whether or not it would be right and just, proper and helpful toward salvation for the latter organization to insist that the former one knuckle under and forget all this drama about rights of conscience and freedom of religion, and concentrate simply of ponying up the money simple folks need for recently defined simple medical procedures, medications and/or apparatuses.  He took the road more traveled.  Below I try to tell him why I will not.

Have I made it simple enough for him?

Dear “N”,

It is simple, actually.  Pay attention, here.

Let us say that you  have a little business, and the business has three employees.  Let us say further that the government has recently passed a law that anyone who is an employer (you) has to buy health insurance for their employee(s).  That would be the fellow working for you, Billy Bucketbellie.  Still further, let us say that the law requiring you to buy that insurance also states that cosmetic plastic surgery (Nips and Tucks, botox in the butt, nose jobs, etc., even such things as multiple piercings and outlandish tattoos in strange places) are legitimate treatments for legitimate medical problems for the purposes of this new law (We will call the whole thing Reconstructive Health, which term was born as the twin of the Supreme Court decision granting to everyone everywhere their Reconstructive Rights), such that if someone has a skinny butt or a droopy neck and they don’t want it, they have every right to get it taken care of.  And let us say that such Reconstructive Health procedures will be provided absolutely cost free  under the new government ordered and employer paid for health plans that you, thee employer now must get for your employee(s).  There will be no charge to anyone at any time if they want to avail themselves of Reconstructive Health treatments or devices (push up bras are covered…even for men) including no co-pay at the providers office.

It is odd this, is it not?  I mean heart disease, cancer, diabetes and bee sting allergies will all require at least co-payments, but  Reconstructive Health  is provided absolutely cost free.  But, the  Reconstructive Health industry, by the way, is known to have a very strong lobby, and Congress, all of Washington DC is filled with a lot of pierced and tattooed people and people who know them.  Anyway, I continue.

Let us say that you and your family are  True Believers , and what you are true believers of is the  Church of the Original Form .  You believe that the body you were born into the world with is the one God wanted you to have; that since God is all knowing and all good, in His Divine Wisdom he gave you the one body in all eternity that most perfectly fits His image in you and for you, and is a reflection of His Mighty Power and Love to all the world.  Let us say that.  Finally let us say that one of the most sacred doctrines and dogmas of the COF and its believers is that because of this belief in the originality and uniqueness of one’s body it is a grievous sin and an offense against one’s deeply held beliefs actually to alter it in any way through surgical or other means, unless in the course of treatment for a disease or a serious accident.  Furthermore, it is also a serious sin to participate knowingly in someone else’s willing resort to any  Reconstructive Health Procedure.  Your conscience tells you that you cannot participate in this government mandated insurance program as it it presently constructed.  To do so would involve you directly in grave sin.

While you would feel sorry that your employee Mr. Bucketbellie had an operation to remove his wattle, and you would pray for his soul, you cannot in however small a way, join him in that decision, and you consider it a violation of your Constitutional right freely to practice your religion without the interference of government now to be required to provide the insurance which will allow him so to do.

No one anywhere is saying that the Bucketbellie’s of the nation may not pierce, cut,and color themselves as they wish.  They are simply saying that the government should not force them to provide insurance for those poor fools to do so.

I’ll make it more simple, if I can.  Perhaps you don’t smoke, you never smoked and you don’t like to breath second hand smoke. Let us put you back in that business again, and suppose that you have hired Bob Rawthroat, a chain smoker who goes through six packs a day (God help him).  Now comes the government with another plan to save the tobacco growers of the country from ruin and poverty.  You must contribute half the cost of Bob’s half carton of coffin nails each day.

Wanna do that?  I don’t.  While I have no employees yet, I do own a small business and I will not participate in any plan that requires me to pay for something I consider it would be a violation of my conscience so to do.  The bargain I had with this Republic guarantees me the right to do that.  It has broken faith with me, and that is not only wrong, it’s downright despicably wrong, and the people responsible for it are as a former teacher of mine was wont to say, cruds and worms, cruddy worms, for so doing.  I do not like them and applaud the decision of anyone not to obey the law.  It is a treacherous thing to do to a citizen, and makes me wonder if a government can commit the crime of treason against its own citizens.

Yours In Patriotic Duty,

Peter

Advertisements

Nah, That Can’t Never Happen Here —. You Think?

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

This is an abstract from something called The Journal of Medical Ethics.  I have long ago reached the conclusion  that the proper and legal definition of an ethicist of any stripe is : “A person who, for a nice fat fee, will tell you that whatever you wish to do, no matter how bizarre, repugnant, illegal, immoral or fattening, you may do. ”

“That?  Sure, you can do it.  That’ll be $250.00.  Pay my girl Nausea on the way out.  No checks without two forms of picture ID, please.  Next!”

There’s an article here.  You can read a bit more about the story…if you have the stomach for it.  But, all you really need to know is contained in the abstract from JME.  These guys love acronyms, and I want to please them.  At my age, I figure I’ll be next to be okayed for the trip to the Release center.  Oh, wait, I already have that “right”.

It would take a more sober, reasoned and smart person than me to look at that abstract and take it apart bit by bit; exposing it for the outrageously smug, insipid and stupid thing that it is.  I simply want to blow it up, and punch out the authors, the editors and anyone vaguely connected with the thing.  I can probably get a bunch of ethicists to tell me that it’s the epitome of ethics to do so.

But, I won’t do that.  For one thing I haven’t got the plane fare to Australia.  I’m wondering, now though, if its ethical to ask for donations.  Hmmm.

_________________________________________________________________________________

While I was sitting here trying to get the best of my gag reflex a couple of things occurred to my mind.  I imagined a couple of scenes from the near future:

The first is a quiet little corner in Portland, OR, the place first in love with death here in the Untied States.  It’s about 6:00pm on a lovely day in May.  The sound of a garage door closing is heard and then the door opens into a bright, neat, modern kitchen.  A young woman stands  at the central work station obviously preparing something for the evening meal.  She smiles as a tall slim fellow walks through the door and gives her a hug and a kiss.

YW:  Sorry, Brutus, my hands are so yucky.  I’ve been working all afternoon on this.  I thought we’d have something special.  I hope you’ll like it.

YM:  That’s just fine Gladiola.  I’ll fix us a drink.  Where’s Benjie?

YW:  Oh, he’s probably asleep on the rug inside.  He had a busy day outside today running around chasing butterflies.

YM:  I love that little fella.  So, what’s for supper?

YW:  Well you know we had to decide today…

YM:  Oh, yes.  So did you?  I would have been happy to stay home, but BIFFING Steel has this big job they were interested in having us handle and Smothersworth wanted me to look it over.  I was out there all day.  Sorry I’m a little late.  Anyway, it looks like we’ll take it, and you know what that means.”

YW:  Oh, now we can go to Fiji for my sister’s wedding t0 Allred.  It’s her 7th and it means so much, and I can wear that lovely thing I have been so wanting to ever since..”

YM:  Honey, isn’t that sauce…?

YW:  (Looking over at the stove.)  Oh, no, everything’s fine.  I’ll just need you to get the lumps out later.  Anyway, I really didn’t need you today.  I spoke with Polonia across the street.  She said I could do it myself, everyone does these days.  So I did.  It was so easy and kind of fun.

YM:  Oh, here’s the dog!  Hey Benjie, you lucky guy.  I wish I had your life chasing butterflies all day long.  C’mere you little dickens.

YW:  Anyway, afterward, I cleaned it and prepared it for tonight’s supper.  I used Polonia’s mother’s recipe since you liked it so much when we had it over there for the 4th of July last year.

YM: Great!  I’ll make us a drink, now and get outta this straight jacket.  Hey, what are you gonna call your version of the dish?

YW:  Well we were going to name it Bobbie before we decided it would really be funner in Fiji, so I’m calling it Bobbicued Kid.

YM:  (Laughing and petting the dog)  That’s great.  I love your sense of humor.  I hope we have plenty of leftovers.

_________________________________________________________________________________

And, here is the second scene:

“Good morning, East Bluegill Public Works Department.”

“Hello.  Is this where I arrange for a trash pickup.”

“Yes, Ma’am.  What is it?”

“I have a dead kid in my refrigerator.  I did it this morning, and I want it out.  I’ve got some shopping to do this afternoon and need the room.  I checked and I can’t bury it out side where we put Sniggles last year.”

“No, your right.  Besides raccoons might dig it up and leave a mess.”

“I don’t want that for sure.  When can you come?”

“Just wrap it good in some plastic and leave it by the curb before 6:30 tomorrow morning.  Or, if you want, you can bring it to the dump before 5 this afternoon.  Anyway.  Whatever’s easier for you.”

“I think I just leave it at the curb.  Thank you.”

“No problem.”

_________________________________________________________________________________

You may want to write to the JME, I don’t know.  I though of doing so and asking if they had any good recipes.

A Woman Said

What follows was part of a discussion on a well known “social media site”.  I copied it because I thought it said a lot about a great divide in our country, the one between two kinds of people, two generations, two different world views, two different cultures.  It was occasioned by the appearance of a cartoon showing the President of these Untied States wearing the clerical robes of a pope.  It was s satirical cartoon designed for strong reactions, and it got them.  People objected to the artist’s robing Obama as the Catholic Pontiff, commented on his support for abortion and his refusal to recognize the conscience rights of Catholics.  Someone, a young woman, wrote:

I find it disturbing, but I’m mostly offended by the commentary it represents. I don’t like Obama, but I don’t find him to be any more “tyrannical” or arrogant than any other President we’ve had. Calling him a Communist really just illuminates one’s complete misunderstanding of communism, and the equation of abortion with the Holocaust as well as the implication that requiring insurance to cover birth control is equal to abortion, just pisses me off.

And someone replied that while the Holocaust had destroyed a mere 6 million, the death toll from abortion was much higher than that.  They wanted to know why such a thing as that comparison “pissed her off”.  The lady said:

Because those Jews weren’t unborn fetuses whose existence required the cooperation of women whose bodies they’d be inhabiting, stressing, straining and whose lives they’d be massively impacting irreparably as a result…. I think people have a right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. I don’t think carrying unwanted pregnancies to term is part of either of those things.

This occasioned a criticism of the lady’s position on abortion and contraception as rights guaranteed by the Constitution and legitimate medical procedures necessary for good reproductive healthShe took issue:

Yeah… I disagree. People have a right to want to get off with a partner without getting pregnant as a result, and they also have a right to end pregnancies. You see – there’s a part of anyone’s moral compass that may say “well, in the event of rape – or in the event of medical complications – or in the event of abuse – or in the event of an accident…” well guess what – I don’t think the government should be sitting in a woman’s doctor’s office with her… and I don’t consider myself or anyone else an appropriate judge of when it’s “okay” and it’s not to abort an unwanted fetus – so in the interest of liberty, I’m going to excuse myself and the government acting on my behalf, and anyone else I have the power to excuse, of the right to decide when that woman may exercise her physical autonomy. She is a free being – if she chooses to allow a fetus to grow inside her, if she chooses to remove it – that’s entirely none of anybody else’s business. The moral consequences are hers alone, whatever they may be….  I think people have a right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. I don’t think carrying unwanted pregnancies to term is part of either of those things.

As for the requirement that private employer’s insurance policies cover contraception – I could go on at length about the necessity of hormonal birth control for many women (such as myself) for entirely NON-birth control related reasons (if I don’t take it, I get terrible cysts due to my endometriosis – cysts that may very well prevent me from getting pregnant in the future when I choose to) – but also that I don’t think an employer, whether or not it’s the Catholic church, should be making the medical decisions of its employees. Removing one area of coverage allows others to be chipped away at – and employers and insurance companies may find it in their interest to lower premiums by not covering many routine and/or necessary procedures they chose not to agree with for whatever reason.

Someone took issue with her position:

You need not go on at length about the necessity of hormonal treatments for many women. I am relying only on my memory, and anecdotes from a woman (my first mother-in-law, may she rest in peace) who worked for one of the doctors who developed such medications here, but I seem to recall that he and his colleagues were concerned to develop medications for those conditions…and to regulate the menstrual cycles of their patients who were having trouble conceiving. I got the distinct impression that this one doctor, at least, was dismayed at what has been made of his work, since. That is merely an impression, though.

That said, it would be heartless of me to seek to bar someone who needed an effective treatment from getting it, and I would think the same of anyone else who held that view, that they were heartless. However, I would give odds that the number of therapeutic uses to which those medications are put is far outweighed by the number of women who use them for what is thought by most of the world to be their only use. You and I do not agree that people have a” right to get off with a partner without getting pregnant as a result”, especially if the exercise of that “right” requires me…or any other person, or organization….whose religion and deeply held belief consider such a thing morally reprehensible. More than that, I am not alone in thinking that requiring persons who so believe to pay for the means to do so in however small a part is equally reprehensible. In such a case, my constitutional right to the free practice of my religion trumped the other” right” you champion so eloquently…until January 20.

Let me make myself clear, here. There is no right that I know to health care of any kind either enumerated in the constitution or to be found in the shadows of those rights enumerated…except for abortion from 1973, a procedure which I and many others consider homicide, now made legal and claimed as a right, and simply because it is performed by doctors in clinics and hospitals also recognized as a “therapeutic” procedure…an Orwellian mangling of language if ever there was one.

Finally, I’ll risk being possibly incorrect on your position about Obamacare, but I think I will be safe in concluding that whatever it is, your position and mine on the so called “mandate” and its subsequent amendment meet with your approval. If I am wrong you may chalk it up to my leaping to that conclusion from your assertion of a right to mutual getting off without the risk/threat of pregnancy.  Even though the exercise of that right requires the use of some forms of contraception for a perversion of their original purpose.

Time and space do not permit an exploration of why I would reject as immoral such things. Time and space do not allow, either, for a discussion which I think needs being had in this country about responsibilities and duties rather than rights; concepts which would seem to me to rule out such things as mutual getting off without the risk of pregnancy. Suffice to say the arguments would be framed within natural law principles, which I suppose you know well and reject. And, now, I retire.

And that is the way it rests.  Silence reigns, and no one is satisfied with anyone else.

It’s a Ding Dong World #7659

I just read a short bit on a web site called Bio-Edge about this news article and the report it refers to from Old Blighty, where it seems down is up and verse visa.  The fellow mentioned that over there 98% of ladies who get their wombs hoovered do so to avoid the mental distress of  giving birth and raising a kid.  They are very kind in Blighty.

“I simply can’t bear the thought of having this around all that time and missing the Queen’s birthday, or Ascot and all those lovely hats.”

“Not a problem, Lady Snuffem.  We’ll have this out of you in plenty of time for tea.”

The writer asks if the report means that now 98% of British abortions are illegal.  Good question.  Who’s lying to whom?  And, what about the odd duck who does commit suicide, or feel bad for years about having had an abortion.  Would she have felt as bad had the child been born and lived, and was living now?  Is the stress of child rearing a good enough reason to have them all killed…or 98% of them anyway of all of them who are headed for the recycling center?  Shhh!  There are questions which politeness requires us not to ask.

Good Lord, it just occurred to me that may be the reason why the British have all of those fogs and mists and moors to wail upon.  The whole place is neurasthenic.

It is encouraging to note that the doctors who have done the study seem to think that there is some stress accompanying the decision to end a pregnancy before a pregnancy ends.  That may be, if the 98% number tells the truth.  Of course it must tell the truth.  Don’t we all know numbers don’t lie, because , well, who really wants to be pregnant?

“Oh, Dr. Slippenfall, Montague says we just cannot visit Majorca this summer if I am still preggers.  There is such tension at home.”

“Now, now, Adelaide, I know Montague.  His practice requires a rest every once in a while, and you do have that lovely little bulldog Chelsea.”

“Well, if you say so.  There are all of those new things I bought which would just devastate me to leave behind.”

And, so, they will probably conclude and recommend that more should be done about this problem of unwanted pregnancy.  The solution, since ending them seems to be about a guilt free as getting rid of the trash, will probably be to recommend more abortion.

That’s what I think will happen, anyway.  Given the trend toward the death option over there from both ends of the average life span, I figure the place will be empty in about 50 years.

Nature Red

Someone I know observed a bit of nature close up  a while ago…one creature of the Peaceable Kingdom capturing and swallowing whole another one, this swallowing was done after a decent period of playful softening up.  Dinner needed I suppose a bit of persuasion to become just that, and tenderizing of course.  One wonders if that was how the word “cuisine” entered the languages of man.

On this occasion, to be sure, there was no human being, nor nothing near human in the Great Chain of Being involved in the capture, preparation and consumption of the meal.  Nonetheless, there are those, and quite a few of them, who will assert on behalf of such a captor as this one abilities quite on the same level of language and the development of taste as we have until recently thought our own and only ours.

How silly of us not to expect a camel capable of poetry, a mongoose of music, a horseshoe crab of math — and thus not to look forward to  enjoying their society as we might the company of good and jolly friends.

The scene above caused my friend to exclaim about it afterward to a small group of educated discerning adults— the broad daylight in which it occurred, the boldness of the act and the unconcerned presence of two other wild things only a few conspicuous and plainly visible yards from the main event which, itself, took place within spitting distance of our observer.  Finally, as dinner gave a last flip of its tail before disappearing to dissolve into its constituent molecules inside its, umm, host, it occurred to my friend what an uneasy feeling such a thing might produce inside, before death finally won out, and it succumbed to the necessities of life that cause it.

My friend, ignorant of the subtleties, was merely referring to one creature’s final wrigglings in the belly of the beast, and not to the victor’s conscience.

In any event, as I said, the tale bursting to be told was told at this very first opportunity afterward among some others, one of whom, an extremely kind and gentle person, was seen to shudder visibly at its rawness, commenting what a terrible thing it would be to die in such a way and wondering aloud at the order in nature which requires of one creature that it cause the death of another so it may continue to live.

It could be another way one hears this one saying.  It should be in a perfect world where all are equally respected and murder is the repellent deprivation of the right to life, liberty and etc. not only for us who can think but for all creatures, great and small.

Good St. Isaiah pray for us!

I once worked with a person like the one above, who shuddered; another very gentle person.  She was a member of PETA and would not hear of the things we humans do to other creatures that we may keep body and soul together.  “I will eat nothing that has a face,” she once told me.  “Oysters, then?”  I asked one day after having worked my way through most of the animal kingdom to an unwavering resounding “No.”  But, even without faces, oysters were out.  Or, in…  Anyway, oysters, pussycats and such were all equally allowed the right to enjoy whatever it is that we humans have been endowed with.  Of this my co-worker was as certain as I am that oysters are definitely worth eating — raw, fried or Rockefellered.

One fine day I asked this co-worker whether or not she felt as strongly about saving little humans as she did about saving little kittens.  Though it was all of twenty years ago I remember her reply clearly.  “I have only enough energy for one cause at a time.”  It was as clever a non-answer as any Kennedy or Cuomo ever gave.  She once told me that she would have a hard time deciding whether or not to rescue all of her nine pussycats or her one daughter should a deadly fire strike her house.  I thought seriously about making her a gift of a home sprinkler system for the poor child.

I am quite frankly puzzled by the way such people think. My former co-worker could not bear to think of steak without choking up, no pun intended.  The person who was so horrified at the story about dinner al fresco worked for a number of years in the “reproductive health” industry, for one  of those entities whose chief work is promoting something called “reproductive freedom” through, among other things, advocacy of “reproductive rights” which is most often accomplished through the termination of the “reproductive process”.  We need not consider how that sometimes is accomplished, or what it always means.

In the conversation following on the episode of epicurean brutality my friend witnessed, mention was made of this fact, and the necessity for it, the justification of it founded in the desire to ease pain in someone.  Compassion, it seems, is the saving and sole reason for “reproductive health” in the eyes of those who practice and support the industry.

“I could never kill anyone,” said the Shudderer while telling a story about a former co-worker, a mother of two grown children.  The co-worker in this instance held a very responsible and active position in a “reproductive health” facility whose primary business was, well, you know.  This mother was proud of the people her two grown children had become.  Especially proud was she of the daughter conceived by a rape at the age of fourteen or so who had become, herself, a loving and well rounded person.

As I heard of this, I shuddered.

Quislings

It’s become a dirty little word, quisling, entering the language during World War II to describe people who betray their beliefs serving the enemy; a traitor.  The word itself, of course, is the name of a real person, Vidkun Quisling, the fellow who ran Norway for the Nazis.  Though he was what he was, a traitor, we needed something more to describe him.  Quisling’s act of treachery wasn’t some secret sabotage, some dark deed of selling vital information, some dangerous sabotage of a nation’s capability to defend itself.  Quisling brought a new dimension to the traitorous act, added new meaning to the word.  As a matter of fact, Quisling’s life required that the word traitor, itself, be retired.  You see, after Quisling, traitor doesn’t , somehow, capture the cowardly and slimy nature of the business, the act of becoming, living as, being a traitor, a cooperator with evil, a coward, a person who thinks only of himself.  Perhaps I was wrong in using the phrase “betray their beliefs” to describe traitorous acts.  The whole notion of what quisling means belies  having anything like beliefs.

As a matter of fact, the thought occurs that I may be wrong entirely about beliefs and quislings.  Of course they believe in something.  They believe in themselves above all else, and in their privilege to believe in that.  It is their right so to do; and in such matters of right who may say what is not right.

We are surrounded by quislings; and in no small way we ourselves can be quislings, greater or lesser in degree as we go about the day, don’t you know.   Think on it.  Ask the question of yourself.  Are their times and circumstances when you have compromised some thing, some principle which you held, dearly or lightly, for a gain or satisfaction, however brief or inconsequential?  Would the knowledge of it among your friends have led to embarrassment, or the offering of exculpatory excuses?  Did you not conclude while doing this that it would be alright to do so…as long as no one knew, or could gainsay your doing it?  It was the act of a quisling.  I know that I have been a quisling on many occasions, selfish enough to do something for some short gain or advantage, and to hide the secret, or to believe that I had every right to do it.

There is another word, older than quisling, much older, which describes behavior of the same, or similar type: Judas.  But, it seems to me, there is a difference between Judas and Quisling.  Who doesn’t know of Judas’ decision to sell Christ for thirty pieces of silver, of his one despicable act, and his subsequent despair and suicide.  Judas comes to a quick end, a dark and tragic figure, food for flies, a maggots’ nest.  He is there and then gone.  Except as an example and as a reminder of the wages of sin, he doesn’t matter.  He is a curse hurled in anger, and exclamation, an accusation.

Who would curse someone by calling them a quisling?  They would be asked to prove the case.  They would be, themselves accused of breaking faith, of failure to understand , or, perhaps more seriously today, of that great sin intolerance.

Judas convicted himself and imposed punishment.  Quisling, brought to trial at last was executed.  He was convinced to the end, though, that he was right and all creation was wrong.  Well, I guess that was his right, his belief, his truth.

Quisling and quislings came to mind when I read about the number of people who are currently in Congress and governments at all levels enforcing, voting for and supporting what have come to be called “reproductive rights” and a “woman’s right to choose”.  It all boils down to one thing, actually; the rightof a person to take the life of another person, and the support of that right through legislative and judicial and executive means.

Many of these people are members, so called, of the Catholic Church which has taught from earliest times that one has no right to take an innocent life.  At the very highest levels of government they publicly pronounce that they  support policies which allow this.  They accept millions of dollars from large organizations which promote these practices, and their consistency in voting for funds for these organizations, and laws and regulations forbidding those who disagree, or wish to curtail the “rights” is well known.

When asked, they will to a person say that they privately do not wish to see anyone deprived of their lives in such a way; their Catholic beliefs forbid such things, and they are, after all, good Catholics.

Shamefully, some Catholic organizations court their favor, honor their achievements in government and accept their patronage.  But, once in a great while there is an exception.  A case in point is what happened in Minnesota not too long ago when a Catholic school revoked the honors it had bestowed on a legislator after his public support for abortion and acceptance of money from abortion promoting organizations: (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14950)

It is as surprising as it is commendable.  Would that it were less surprising.  Would that it were totally unnecessary.

I suppose that Vidkun Quisling started his life as a bright and loving child, and lived a good part of it trying to do good.  He loved his king and country.  He probably even loved God.  I suppose.  Somewhere, at some time, he became a quisling, and betrayed them all, ordering patriots executed and cooperating in the annihilation of those his masters decided were not persons and had no right to life.

The British newspaper that coined the term “quisling” to describe him and all like him had this to say about its inspired creation:  “To writers, the word Quisling is a gift from the gods. If they had been ordered to invent a new word for traitor… they could hardly have hit upon a more brilliant combination of letters. Actually it contrives to suggest something at once slippery and tortuous.”

He was the first.  How long the list has grown since.