On Facebook today, I saw where one of my “pro-choice” advocate friends had posted the ruling of the US District Court of Appeals that struck down the North Carolina law that apparently provided a mandate to abortion providers to show ultrasound evidence (pictures, heartbeat, etc.) to potential abortion patients. The ruling was supposedly a protection of the freedom of speech of the abortion provider, no less. I don’t intend to address that specific part of the ruling. Rather, I would like to challenge the specific celebration of my friend and the logic behind their aversion to the North Carolina effort to curb the rate of abortions in that state.
This person, a rather intelligent lady, posted an article on the ruling with a comment that read Merry Christmas to me, my daughter, and my granddaughter (notice it’s not so merry for the unborn daughter). I would contend that those words are celebratory. There is a fine line between pro-choice and pro-abortion that is blurred with such gloating. I don’t believe it would be a stretch to assume that this person, well intended as they are, has crossed that line unintentionally.
The problem here of course is the constant rhetorical ploy of pro-choice advocates that they believe that abortions should be minimized. This rhetoric is usually used to humanize a seeming inhumane effort. Why would someone place so much effort in maintaining a woman’s right to kill her unborn child? Well, “It’s her right”, they might say. “But, we do believe that abortions should be minimal in number”, they usually continue.
I would like to propose just a couple of thoughts about this.
First of all, why should abortions be minimized? If the thing that is being killed is merely a piece of genetic material, who cares? Kill them all, I say. If it’s only so much genetic junk like a fingernail or a wart, slay it! Do whatever you like with it, as much as you’d like with it. Less is more, I say.
Secondly, if a high number of abortions are immoral for some reason unknown to me, celebrating the demise of an effort to minimize the number of abortions is not consistent with the normal pro-choice rhetoric. If there is some intrinsic morality in reducing the number of abortions while maintaining a woman’s right to have an abortion, then celebrating an effort to induce a reduction of abortions is self-defeating.
In my opinion, these two points clearly show that the idea that militant pro-choice advocates want to minimize abortion is just a rhetorical device used to bring light into a darkness that is obvious to most people. It’s a false light though. Don’t be fooled.
As far as the court ruling itself, the only thing I’d like to question is once again, what’s the problem? If that thing is merely a piece of genetic material, then what’s the problem with showing the one who is electing to kill it a picture? I once had a wart frozen. I looked at it and it didn’t bother me a bit. People have ingrown toenails removed quite often. Sometimes they stare at them for weeks before they have a doctor remove them. Gallbladders, cancers, and all sorts of living things are removed from human bodies and in this modern era, its rare that the patient doesn’t see an image of the targeted tissue, pre-surgery. What’s the big deal with the tissue being terminated in an abortion? Show the photo. Put it in a jar of formaldehyde. Who cares? Apparently the pro-choice advocates care. I think I know why.
A long time ago, I watched Daffy Duck put on a fake pair of rabbit ears and try to fool Elmer Fudd into believing he was a rabbit. It was rabbit season and Bugs Bunny knew it. To save his own hide, Bugs would tell Elmer that it was duck season. Not to be outdone, Daffy would look down the barrel of Elmer’s double barrel and claim to be a rabbit, wearing his attached appendage. Of course the problem for Daffy was that although he tried to fool the persistent hunter, Daffy looked too much like a duck. Not only that, he fell trap to the rabbits appeal to repetition. If you repeat something enough times, people will believe it.
My friends, the reason pro-choice advocates don’t want pictures of unborn children shown to abortion patients is that the pictures look too much like a “duck”. In fact, it walks, quacks, and looks like a “duck”. Of course by “duck” I mean human. The photos resemble a human baby. The heartbeat resembles a human heartbeat. If ladies see that or hear that, then they won’t have the abortion. How is that an intrusion into a woman’s right to choose? It may weigh on the chooser, but it doesn’t render the person decision-less. As far as I can tell, it informs a woman’s decision. Maybe the choice is not actually what’s being defended…
I don’t see how more information hurts anyone. But then again, “its wabbit season”, I guess.