Pro-abortionists move further and further away from where the American people are on abortion
By Dave Andrusko
Amanda Marcotte
Of course even this understates where she is coming from. Writers often don’t compose their own headlines. To Marcotte the very notion of a “reason” implies a woman needs to explain why she is taking the life of her unborn child and this is most decidedly not what she is saying (rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/07/15/every-reason-for-an-abortion-is-a-good-reason).
We talked on Monday, as Marcotte does at the end of her post, about Jessica Grose (“Saying they need to get out of a ‘defensive crouch,’ pro-abortionist says enough of apologizing for having abortions”).
Grose wrote
“We trot out the saddest stories: a
woman who really wanted a baby but terminated because the baby was not
going to be able to live outside the womb or a woman who can’t afford
another child without tumbling into poverty. But a lot of women have
abortions and don’t look back. A lot of women don’t want a baby, and
they don’t care whether the fetus is viable or how much money is in
their bank account. Where are their essays?”
Marcotte’s strategy for dismissing anyone who disagrees with her never varies and is as tiresome as it is outdated.
We are hung-up prudes, totally uncomfortable with sex, and therefore determined to punish women for their “sins”—especially those who do not have “acceptable” reasons to abort.
But what does Marcotte do with all the data that says that a majority of the public opposes the reasons given for almost abortions? They’re confused, inconsistent, looking for (there’s that word again) “good reasons” to have an abortion.
Indeed, it quickly becomes clear that Marcotte has almost as little use for this “mushy middle” and its “desire to make abortion available, but only if you somehow have proved yourself worthy of mercy for your supposed sins” as she does for us!
So it’s not just we “anti-choicers” who so tick Marcotte off.
While it fuels Marcotte’s perpetual sense of indignation and rage, the fact is the way most people morally calibrate abortion is not along a good/bad axis. It’s rather the older the baby is, the more he or she “looks” like a newborn, the more uncomfortable they are taking that child’s life.
Here’s where pro-and anti-life forces really separate and explains why the future is much more promising for us.
The Marcottes love to hector the “mushy middle” for their moral ambiguity and lecture them that it is impermissible to inquire why a baby was destroyed. They are angry at the very thought that women ought to be accountable for their actions. At the risk of stating the obvious, they are infantilizing women, a charge they routinely hurl at us.
Pro-lifers are not angry. We treat all women and men as moral agents. We want to move those in the middle in the baby’s direction by helping them understand that one does not earn legal protection because one “looks” right (whatever that means) but because they are one of us. To treat them otherwise—to set up a sliding scale– is lethally invidious discrimination.
Moreover, we understand that people are people, but we also have faith in the good sense of the American people. We believe that we can move the needle by assisting those in the middle to appreciate that the 10-week-old child looks EXACTLY like what a 10-week-old child is supposed to look like—which is exactly how ALL of us looked at that point in our developmental journal. Likewise for any other juncture—earlier or later.
The irony is just enough to take your breath away. Every day at the very same time they denounce pro-lifers for their “radical” position, the abortion apologist grows further and further away from where the majority of Americans are on abortion.
And given their absolutism, it can only get worse for pro-abortionists.
Source: NRLC News
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment