TX State Sen. Dan Patrick at TX pro-life rally Saturday photo from Dan Patrick's Facebook page |
There is a rhetorical technique used by the opposition to
truth: deny and contradict over time, then admit to the veracity of the
statement while adding, “So what?” Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sex with that
woman” is a classic example. Months later, after all the denials, when the
proof was undeniable, he admitted to the original accusation along with, “It
was only my private life,” a version of so
what?
Hillary Clinton used it this past week in her “testimony” to
Congress about Benghazi. She said,
With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans.
Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night
decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it
make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to
prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.
We know for certain—and she knew the day of the event, if
she wasn’t entirely out of the loop of national security—that it was neither a
protest nor “guys out for a walk”; it was terrorists. So, months after the
event, saying over and over, “we don’t know,” when we know, and we know she
knows, she deflects by avoiding the real issue and saying, “what difference
does it make?” or, in other words, it doesn’t matter, who cares? so what?
I had not expected the so
what? technique to be used on the abortion issue. But that is what I
recognized this week is now happening.
The argument over abortion has continued to be over whether
the fetus is human life or not: if yes, then that human life is to be valued
and protected as other human life; if not, then the woman is simply making a
choice about a clump of cells that are part of her own body. This same argument
has continued for decades.
As technology gets better, it has become clearer and clearer
that the growing fetus is a human baby, with its own DNA separate from the
mother’s, with the ability to feel and hear within the cushioning environment
of the womb—including feeling pain. Technology has improved greatly on moving
the viability to earlier and earlier weeks. The result of this technological
progress has been that only a handful of doctors are still willing to perform
third trimester abortions; people who understand the procedure are virtually
unanimous in disapproving of partial-birth abortion. Laws now recognize the
death of a fetus as separate and additional to the death of a mother in
accidents or murders.
What I expected, being the positive, civilized person I
strive to be, is that more and more people would become convinced that the
growing life is a valuable human life, and would move from “the choice is up to
the mother” to “because it’s human life, we need to value and protect it.” What
I did not expect was the so what? at this
point.
Mary Katherine Ham wrote a piece last week referring to a Salon piece that I find shocking. The Salon writer, Mary Elizabeth Williams,
admits, very clearly, as practically any pro-life person would, that the fetus
is a human life separate from the mother. These are the paragraphs Ham
highlights:
I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms
of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a few years later were exultant
over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby”
and “this kid.” I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and
grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about
their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend
that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective
like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be
born.
When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human
life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester
abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to
decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you
human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are
you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on
your thumb?
As I said, I would expect such understanding to lead to the
decision to protect life. But Williams goes the exact opposite direction. On the
pro-life side (actually, on the side of truth for many issues), we are subject
to the imposition of terms from the opposition. Pro-choice is an example. This term is particularly repugnant
because it’s not about choice to act; it is about choice of consequences. If a
woman purposely engages in sex, she has made the choice to risk pregnancy—the creation
of a new human life. If she does that and then finds she is pregnant when she
doesn’t want to be, does she then have the right to choose to avoid the natural
consequences—when a separate human life is now involved? Pro-life people are
pro-choice—you get to choose your behavior, but God’s natural laws choose the
consequences that follow your choice.
The president revealed his disapproval of God’s law when he
said (off script at a Townhall in Johnstown, PA, during the 2008 campaign), of
the hypothetical that one of his own daughters could finding herself pregnant, “If
they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” This is the same
person who, in the Illinois legislature, went further than any pro-abortionist
to insist a mother has the right to bring about the death of a baby after birth
if she hadn’t intended for the baby to be born alive.
The Salon writer expresses her distress that the term “pro-life”
is too strong to fight against. So, she grants that the fetus is indeed a human
life, and then says so what?
Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is
not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we
wind up looking like death-panel-loving,
kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a
human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides….
The “life” conversation is often too thorny to even broach.
Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in
the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what
a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly
pro-choice.
She believes, unlike our founders, that some human life isn’t
worth protecting, but calls those of us who believe “that all men are created
equal” are “wingnuts” and “archconservatives” and “right wingers,” while
insisting her viewpoint is the reasonable side of the debate.
So let me be clear: there is nothing civilized about a
person who chooses to kill a human life because it is not convenient for her to
allow him or her to live. That behavior—the very line of thinking that leads to
that behavior—is savage.
Thank the Lord if you can still recognize the difference.
The slip from apparent civilization to savagery among the Germans and Japanese
in the last century was amazingly swift. It coincided with the faulty belief
that some human lives are inferior and not worth bothering about.
In a civilized world, we can never say, “So what if it’s
human life? What does that matter?” Life matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment