For decades pro-life folk have been patronizingly reminded that, “Abortion is an emotional issue.” With a pat on the head and a sympathetic frown, we have been told in so many words that we are too emotional, too fragile, too unstable to discuss abortion rationally. We let our emotions run away with us. This by media types, politicians, and those whose own emotions never seemed to get in the way of compassion for the victims of abortion.
With the real threat to unfettered access to abortion on the horizon, we can now see who is being emotional. With new abortion laws in Alabama and Georgia, plus prolife victories in other fronts, the prochoice side is in a panic. Dramatic (and false) claims are made that to remove abortion is to prohibit contraceptives (they are not the same, as abortion always must follow conception), women dress up like breeders from A Handmaid’s Tale to protest (gaslighting Christians, actually), and boycotts are demanded. Maybe Neil Young will write another song.
But the population in general have caught up to the fact that the “product of conception” is a human life. No amount of screeching, no platitudes, no legislation can change that fact. Ironically, it is the prochoice group who stand the most to lose from abortion. Of the 60,000,000 abortions committed since 1973, a vast majority of those children, had they been allowed to live, would be raised by prochoice mothers.
As to the trope that “the prolife movement is the war on women,” please enjoy this short history lesson.
There is some debate within the pro-life community regarding how abortion ought to be banned: completely, all in one act of legislation, or incrementally, bit by bit and over time. No one argues that abortion, in any form or at any time ought to be legal, but can it be outlawed all at once?
Doug Wilson on how, and why, abortion will be eliminated. Excellent read.
Every person who picks up a firearm, knife, or machete in order to murder innocent victims has been “socialized” to commit murder. Every child and young adult today has been conditioned in destruction, for every mass-shooter knows this:
- That he is only alive because her mother found her convenient.
- That he is alive only because his father didn’t push his mother to abort.
- That he is alive only because her mother didn’t learn of a congenital birth defect from an ultrasound.
- That he is alive only because he wasn’t one child too many.
That he is only alive because her mother was willing to take time off from her career.
Every child living today knows that his or her life is by the permission of someone else; that the life they enjoy is not a right, but an allowance, a permission. There is nothing unique or special about them other than that they were wanted at a particular time. They may have had siblings who were not wanted, who were the disappeared. Some even knew their twin (and more) siblings in the womb before, suddenly, one was gone.
Every child living today knows that their life depends upon someone else’s permission and that someday they can choose life or death for another: their own child before birth, their own disabled child, or an aging parent.
Someday they may decide that life itself is not worth much. It doesn’t seem to mean much if it can be tossed away so easily. Every help is given to the mother who wants to end life, and very little to the life itself, or the mother who cherishes it.
Every mass-shooter has grown up in this world and has lived these truths. Each takes this to heart. Then they merely act on what they have been taught.
Is it not odd to expect a different behaviour than that which is taught?
When the lives of others are so worthless, is it a surprise that they become targets?
Can we expect a society of peace when life is so disregarded?
We cannot simultaneously instill a respect for life and its disregard.