{Introductory Anecdote] … Henry McHenry, having awakened early on a Sunday afternoon, attempted to concentrate on the weekend newspaper but was diverted by his impatience for breakfast. He soon saw Henrietta, his wife of 15 years, (finally!) come down the stairs from their upstairs bedroom, begin to clear away last evening’s supper dishes and, as customary, set up the coffee percolator. She asked her husband, ” Would you like scrambled eggs. ” Yes, and good morning, said Henry, as he pecked his busy wife on her head and declared that he was “starving,” While Henrietta was making the toast and eggs, he inquired as to how their 12-year-old daughter was feeling and received the reply that, at 2: A: M. when Hernriertta went to her room, to deliver her nighttime medicine, she seemed better. Good, Henry emphatically replied while simultaneously reaching for his cup of coffee and Sunday newspaper, After a quick perusal of the sports pages, Henry announced to his wife, that the Yankees had won last night. “That’s nice,” said Henrietta, as she lovingly served Henry his scrambled eggs —-.
Since the dawn of Planet Earth, no game of chance has ever approached the determinative impact of Chromosome Roulet. The game is simple; XY chromosomes reward the possessor with male-ness, and XX with a female identity. The consequence of this eternal game of chance may be easily discerned in the observable cases,, the male and female lion, the rooster and the chicken, the bull and the cow, and the thematic stereotypic Man and Woman. In the case of the Homo sapiens, however, the outcome of the game, in contrast, has eternally carried with it a multitude of societal concomitants of perceived social consequence, in which the male (XY), is traditionally dominant and the female (XX) questionably, subordinate. This dualistic hierarchy has been a societal fixture from the pre-historical drum and spear to our extant age of smartphones and robotic military drones.
The myth of male superiority is eternally and widely held, but completely unfounded,.The belief that men are inherently superior to women in most aspects of life and that they are rationally superior in intelligence ability, and social standing is completely unsupported by fact.
Until relatively recent times, the rights of )married women were legally considered to be a “merger” with the husband who singularly had legal and contractual significance (“couvert”). It was not until 1920 that women were granted the constitutional right to vote As late as 1960, women were permitted to use birth control pills to limit the size of their family. In 1966, ” The Equal Pay Act was passed, in 1964, during the Presidential term of Lyndon Johnson The Civil Rights Act was enacted, in 1972, Title 9 was passed granting women equality of rights under the Educational System, and in 1933 SCOTUS determined Roe v, Wade. affirming the private right of women to elect an abortion.. Contention, over their specific application, has been an accompanying feature relative to such entitlements to date. Tragically, Roe v, Wade has been overruled by the atavistic and partisan SCOTUS.. The latter event has resulted in misery and death and a special revelation of the tragic and costly roulette wheel.
Of all the grossly unjust, and worldwide, ubiquitously (socially or legislatively) male assertions of superiority, enforced by the English-American Common Law and religion (especially manifested in the Middle East), the most irrefutably egregious of all is said proscription of women’s rights to an abortion. It requires no argument to declare that concerning childbirth it is the woman who, singularly and exclusively bears the associated pain and mortal danger. Throughout medical history, the incidence of abnormal pregnancy and childbirth occurred only too often. The impudent and outrageous claim of the government to ban the woman’s right to abortion, for economic or other practical considerations, like economics, health ( physical or mental), or mortal danger, would inarguably appear to be anti-humanistic, emphatically unjust, and pathologically cruel.
Those “pious” religionists who in their devout ignorance, oppose abortion, have no provenance in the “Good Book,” which was completed many eons before the knowledge or conception of sperm, ova. gamete or fetus. The religious “sin merchants” are neurotically attracted to guilt and punishment, akin to horseflies to sticky paper; an attraction that dynamically overrides true morality and empathy. We cannot conceive of any rational principle that would legally deny women this existential right, except pernicious and atavistic male dominance; also, bizarrely, supported by many overly compliant and possibly dominated women.
The undeniable incidents of suffering resulting from the abortion ban, furnish empirical and bloody proof of the danger of being haplessly victimized by the vagaries of chromosomal roulette.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 