Sunday, February 3, 2013

"Outlawing" Abortion

I've never understood the line about the pro-lifers that will make the Supreme Court "outlaw" abortion.  Or at least, it's hard for me to understand precisely why people fall for this.

See Newtown and Abortion.  Note: Many
are pro-life.
First of all, legal abortion was widespread before Roe vs. Wade.  The Court decision was a way for the federal government to dictate a policy for all the states rather than let them decide the issue for themselves.  The decision was a bit of judicial law-making that made restrictions on states.  Reversing Roe vs. Wade would not in and of itself make abortion any more or less legal.  It would allow the people of each state to decide whether it was right or wrong.

What allows this confusion, intentional or otherwise, are the "trigger laws" that state legislatures (the voice of the people within various states) have passed in case Big Fed ever lets them determine this on their own.  The "loophole" to consider abortion a crime is written right into the ever-revered sacred Roe vs. Wade decision itself.

There is a lot of opposition to personhood legislation within the pro-life community.  (More on that here.)  The arguments are various but mostly I think it has to do with the simple fact that American society is too hardhearted to accept it.  It diverts political energy away from less ambitious legislation that has a chance at succeeding.

You might think that the leftwing information factory would be delighted that the pro-life community has less ambitious aims, so delighted in fact that they would use this information against the personhood advocates.  Instead they focus the spotlight exclusively on personhood advocates, hoping that the rest of America will turn against all things pro-life (such as parents being informed of their daughters receiving abortions, anything that is against "freedom").  It has to stay an either-or proposition: either you allow abortion at any time for any reason or you destroy it.  In Lincolnian ultimatum terms:  "American cannot remain half pro-abortion and half pro-life."  Medi-scare-esque tactics of the Left that depend on appeals to fear. (Todd Akin anyone?)

Most of the same people that refuse to see what an authoritarianist slippery slope is the banning of public weapons ("how unreasonable and silly are these people afraid of increasing government intrusion!") will refuse any curtailment of fetus-vanquishing rights no matter how reasonable, because in the end, we all knew that "safe, legal, and rare" was just a euphemistic slogan for "this thing is my personal property—it doesn't matter whether or not it feels anything when the curette grinds it up."

According to the NBC poll shown here (at right), 54% of people surveyed thought there should be little or no restriction on abortion.  Well, clearly a majority are against restricting abortion, right?  By the same poll, 67% were against having abortion without any restriction at all.  Interesting.  But remember that progressivism only pretends to be populist.

Shannyn Moore quoted here thinks that her uterus is more regulated than her guns.  Once again, the implication is that whatever is growing in her uterus in principle cannot have humanity or feelings (note here that we protect animals from cruelty), otherwise it would be the authorities' business as much as it would be to stop parents from sexually abusing an infant (which many lefties are unsure has any more rights than a fetus).  Is it the government's business to make sure that a human life isn't taken without good reason?  Yes?  Then calling it regulation (as though one is regulating  the pollution produced by a car) is disengenuous.

No, Ms. Moore, vaginas don't generally kill people, but their owners often pay a doctor to kill an unborn baby through a variety of ghastly means, though it bothers you a great deal to have any oversight over that delightful exercise of "Constitutional liberty."  Unregulated, mothers might decide to kill a person simply because she is the wrong gender  (gendercide) or because she might be a special needs child (eugenics).

Here we also have a poster which is simply stupid or ludicrously libelous.  (This doesn't seem like The Onion's angle, so I'm not seriously considering that this isn't someone spoofing on the Left's rediculous caricatures of the Right.)  It boggles the mind to try to find a euphemistic term for the gratuitous idiocy of it, but this poster by some presumedly anti-gun, pro-abortion leftists ironically shows a mother tenderly embracing the life within her as a gun is pointed at her belly.  If doctors performed abortions with guns, social conservatives would be for it since they love guns so goshdurned much.

Sure it's meant to be over the top.  It's a bunch of stupid ideas employed as a crass demonization of social conservatives.  That poster (or poster-like meme?) is not an isolated creation.  There are more "memes" whence that came.

No comments:

Post a Comment