What continues to amaze, as pro-abortion supporters and activists throw every conceivable argument they can come up with against the proverbial wall in hopes that one might stick,is how insubstantial, emotional and often intellectually dishonest those arguments are. As the Supreme Court deliberates, we are certain to hear and read many more, and I honestly can say that I am hoping for a legitimate and persuasive one to finally emerge.
What I fear we will get, however, as the arguments do not stick but slide off that wall like wet tissue, is more warnings, threats, insults and jeremiads, like Justice Sotomayor’s despicable “stench” question, which I translate as, “Aren’t you properly terrified that if we don’t just do as the pro-abortion machine demands rather than analyze a difficult problem objectively according to facts, law and ethics, people who have already made up their minds regardless of all of those will be furious?”
The “pro-choice” rhetoric increasingly reminds me of the arguments made by the slave-holding South as thoughtful abolitionists and the anti-slavery sentiment strengthened ten-fold by “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” began backing defenders of “the peculiar institution” into a corner. They primarily invoked invalid or dishonest arguments: “science” and “studies” claiming to prove that black people were not quite human (see above), and did not have the “necessities” (to quote poor Al Campanis a century later) to be free; slavery had been permitted so long that it constituted a betrayal to end it; a Supreme Court ruling had protected the practice, and the way of life that slavery’s practitioners enjoyed and benefited from immensely would be threatened if slavery were banned. These are all essentially the same arguments being advanced today to justify continuing to treat another group of vulnerable and exploited human beings as property and non-humans. The fetus doesn’t deserve human rights because it isn’t “viable” or “cognizent.” A right that has been part of the law for half a century should never be challenged. Roe v. Wade is to the unborn as Dred Scott was to slaves.
And, perhaps most of all, American women have thrived by treating developing babies as disposable by “choice.”
Here is Ryan Harkins’ Comment of the Day addressing the related argument, advanced by a law professor, that the right to kill the offspring of incest and rape is essential to the advancement and success of people like her.
There are so many things to say, and have been said, about situations like this. It is a tragedy and a crime that a father would molest his daughter in such a fashion. Yet the child conceived is innocent. My wife reminds everyone she can that when her mother was pregnant, she didn’t know if the child was her lover’s, or her father’s. See, her father had been forcing himself on her for years. Unbeknownst to my mother-in-law, he’d had a vasectomy and likely could not father any children, but when she became pregnant, she didn’t know if it was from her father or from her lover. Someday, maybe we’ll conduct a genetic test to find out for certain. But what difference does it make? My wife is the wonderful person she is now. I love her dearly. If she actually is the creation of incest, so what? It isn’t her fault, and her very existence dragged me out of the darkness of depression and self-loathing. Not only is she innocent of her grandfather’s crime, but her very life has improved the lives of those around her.
I cannot discount the pain and life-altering situation that such a pregnancy entails. The violation of trust between father and daughter is enraging. A father is supposed to protect and defend his daughter, not exploit her. Yet, as tragic as conception from such actions is, the recourse to abortion merely exacerbates the situation. The guilty party skates scot-free. The raped lives not only with the desecration, but the knowledge that she ended the life of an innocent party. The guilt persists for decades.
The real conversation should not focus on a women’s right to choose, but how the allowance of abortion allows so many crimes to proceed undetected. Abortion spares women the consequences of unrestrained sexual activity, but allows men unbridled access to consequence-free sexual exploitation. Women would be better served to insist on fidelity and self-restraint, instead of surrendering to the second-best recourse of mopping up the consequences of rape, incest, one-night stands, and casual relations with no expectations of life-long commitments.