It’s Wabbit Season
On Facebook today, one of my “pro-choice” friends 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. Ironically, the ruling was supposed to protect the freedom of speech of the abortion provider. That specific part of the ruling is so ridiculous it doesn’t deserve a retort. 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. For abortion advocates it’s wabbit season!
Abortion, the gift that keeps on giving
This person, a rather intelligent lady, posted an article on the ruling. Her subsequent comment read: “Merry Christmas to me, my daughter, and my granddaughter”. Any potential unborn daughters were not included.
Those words aren’t merely celebratory. They’re gaudy.
There is a fine line between pro-choice and pro-abortion that’s blurred by such gloating. I don’t believe it would be a stretch to assume that these kind of activists, well intended as they are, often cross that line, intentionally.
More is better
The problem is the rhetoric of pro-choice advocates that believe abortions should be “minimized”. This kind rhetoric is used to humanize an otherwise obvious inhumane act.
A conversation might look like this-Why would someone place value 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.
REDRUM by any other name.
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, celebrating the failure 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 mere rhetoric used to fool people into believing abortion advocates are moral agents. Don’t be fooled. There is no reason to think they are being honest.
Signs, signs, everywhere there’s signs…
As far as the court ruling, 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 to have it removed. 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 and slosh it around in front of the patient. Who cares?
Apparently the pro-choice advocates care. I think I know why.
If it walks like a duck…
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 fake, floppy-eared 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.
Reality and perception
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”, if you’ll excuse the metephor. 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 sway the decider, but it doesn’t render them decision-less. As far as I can tell, it informs a woman’s decision. Maybe the choice is not actually what concerns abortion advocates.
I don’t see how more information hurts anyone. But then again, “its wabbit season”, I guess.