Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Abortion: A follow-up

My previous post was about the way our nation's approach to abortion is plagued by contradictions, and also by a host of arguments that are disingenuous at best. Here are some more general thoughts about abortion:

Barack Obama has, without a speck of evidence, accused pediatric surgeons of performing unnecessary tonsillectomies for the sole purpose of lining their wallets. Isn't it interesting that he has never accused abortion providers of performing unnecessary abortions on women who are young, fearful, and not fully informed? Especially when there is plenty of evidence that this not only occurs, but occurs regularly?

If pro-choice liberals are so concerned about women's health, why aren't they marching in the streets and demanding that justice rain down on Frantz Bazile and Belkis Gonzalez. Doesn't their muteness over that case, and their conspicuously low volume over Kermit Gosnell's, bring into question their self-proclaimed status as protectors of women?

Polling has long shown that a majority of Americans -- even among those who identify themselves as pro-choice -- believe access to abortion should be subject to some restrictions rather than being carte blanche. But how many Americans are aware that the Democratic Party does not officially support any restrictions? And how many are aware that in the year Obama was elected president, the party altered its platform to remove the words "safe" and "rare" from its stated goals regarding abortion? You can read an after-the-fact editorial about that topic by going here.

Liberals are completely within bounds when they say it is contradictory for conservatives to support the death penalty while opposing abortion. And so are conservatives when they say it is contradictory for liberals to turn a blind eye toward the killing of babies while professing opposition to the death penalty.

Admission: We conservatives have a duty to acknowledge that liberals don't own a monopoly when it comes to inconsistency on abortion...Most of us, including yours truly, say that limits on abortion should include an exception for cases in which a pregnancy results from rape or incest. But doesn't that run counter to our claim that all life is equally precious?...I would not feel right speaking down to a rape victim as she made her way into an abortion clinic. However, part of me is troubled that I feel this way, because deep down I know Wesley Pruden was correct when he long ago posed the following question: If all life is innocent and precious at conception, how can the child of a rapist be less worthy of protection than the child of a bishop?

Prediction: The Gosnell case will eventually result in America's public debate about abortion being much more open and honest. I predict this in spite of the fact that the MSM's refusal to report on the case means many Americans are not familiar with it right now. Gosnell's deeds are known just well enough that they can not be kept hidden forever from the general public.

Declaration: Although we are right to be revolted by Gosnell and his actions, we should not rejoice in his being found guilty, nor should we make him the prime focus of our revulsion. Yes, his actions were monstrous and thus he must be considered a monster, but the reality is that our culture decided years ago to see no evil when it comes to abortion, and our various governments followed suit by opting to wear blinders up to the moment of delivery. In such an environment, killings like the ones carried out by Gosnell are inevitable. They are the logical conclusion of our abortion policies -- the bottom of the slippery slope, if you will -- and therefore our main criticism should be directed at the culture that produced those policies.

And lastly, we should not direct our ire at the kind of women I alluded to above, those who choose abortion when they are "young, fearful, and not fully informed." Like I said in my previous post, our culture has conditioned them to think of pregnancy as a problem rather than as an incubator of human life. Most of them are not bad people, and as time passes most of them will come to rue their decision. Civil society needs us to extend to them our love, not our condemnation, and it makes me proud to know that this is what the vast majority of us have always done.

No comments: