Search This Blog


Opponents' agendas should not derail abortion bill

As sensible legislation advances through the Louisiana Legislature regarding abortion, in response the pro-death abortion lobby is blowing a hypocritical gasket over anything, to the least degree, that even only discourages the ability to terminate human life.

Comically, concerning three bills addressing the practice the spokeswoman for one of these lobbies ranted, “All three of these bills show an utter disregard for women's health and safety … they all let legislators, rather than doctors, practice medicine,” seeming oblivious not just to the fact that her group’s view shows utter disregard, but outright hostility, enmity, and cruelty to the health and safety of unborn human beings, but that understanding the value of human life is not a medical but moral question – a value of society translates into law (we hope proceeding from a divine source).

More hypocritically, abortion supporters seem particularly concerned about one of the bills, HB 25 by state Rep. A.G. Crowe, which mandates that information about the consequences of abortion to the mother and fetus are spelled out to her before a decision is made. These opponents argue that some of the information that would be disseminated does not have scientific consensus surrounding it, and term this a kind of misinformation the real of agenda of which is to discourage abortion.

But this criticism fails if we adopt the attitude many display concerning the man-made “global warming” hoax. Even though little hard evidence suggests that man’s activities are causing rising temperatures, some supporters of notions to severely curtail economic activity to prevent this maintain that even the possibility that this could happen justifies these actions, to be on the safe side. Why not adopt the same attitude with abortion: if there’s any doubt at all that the unborn experience pain at 20 weeks rather than 30, let’s err on the side of safety.

To understand the real source of opposition to this bill, however, we must come to grips with the motivations of many of the opponents. Some are closet racists, who see abortion as a vehicle for non-whites to voluntarily curtail their reproduction. Others are utilitarian eugenicists, who want to purge defective genes out of society in order to reduce the presence of the disabled in society and the health care costs they impose on the state. (Both kinds are not new to western democracies, with dire consequences.) Still others are narrow-minded feminists who see pregnancy as man’s imposition on women and count every abortion as a victory over male “oppression.” And some take pieces of silver in exchange for providing these services in some way to ending innocent life.

Many abortion advocates do not have such venial motives; either they are morally confused about the sanctity of life or they selfishly put the convenience of the aborter over human life (when the woman’s life is not genuinely threatened). However, too many, often the most strident boosters of abortion, hypocritically mask their true agendas, probably in many cases not even willing to admit it to themselves much less to the public. This explains their true motives behind fanatical opposition to a bill that merely provides more information.

More information never is a bad thing, but no doubt this information will prick at some women’s consciences and they will opt out of abortions as a result. Regardless, opposition to this happening reveals the true agenda of many abortion supporters – they care nothing about the women involved (they already despise the unborn, obviously); rather, they have one or more agendas to fulfill by trying to maximize the volume of abortions. Such sentiments do not constitute valid reasons to reject the bill.

No comments: