This is a continuation of an exchange with “mgarelick”, who commented on my post What do they do with the babies? You can read the exchange below that post, but although my post was focused on the practice of abortion, he was more focused on the abortion providers. My response starts here.
Yes, it is peripheral to the issue at hand, which is the horrifyingly brutal and grisly reality of the abortion trade. Yet you persist in diverting the conversation to the periphery. Why is that?
I’d really like to hear your views on abortion itself. Do you consider it morally wrong? Start with the third trimester. Is aborting a baby during the third trimester OK? Or is it nauseatingly repulsive? We have all been subjected to a desensitization – the process of deadening our sensibilities to the point of hypnotic stupor. That’s part of what Nathanson and his friends at NARAL did in the early days. That’s why I want you to read some of that stuff. Here’s an excerpt:
I was one of the founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968. A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to issue the decision which legalized abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this? It is important to understand the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.
THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization.
Did the op-ed you read present the “liberal enlightened, sophisticated” issues you wanted to read to the exclusion of more important issues? Is the New York Times an unbiased hard-news organization, or is it a left-leaning one, uninterested in presenting conservative issues? What about the author of the article you read? What are his or her biases, and did you take them into consideration?
We are being fed a marketing message. Most of the time we are not even aware of it. Here’s an example. Are you aware of the existence of an organization called the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association? Are you aware that its membership is a far larger percentage of journalists in general than gays are as a percentage of the overall population? And are you aware that there is an active debate among its members as to whether journalists, in reporting stories related to homosexuality, have a responsibility to include any viewpoints that are counter to those of homosexuals? A bit off the point, but I bring it up to make this point. The media is increasingly biased and under the influence of people with an agenda. They filter out what they don’t want us to hear, and they hyperbolize what they do want us to hear. The only want to avoid the hypnotic effect is to be watchful for and suspicious of those trying to weave their evil spells. You also said:
I am uncertain about the exact boundaries of any rights held by a fetus, but I am comfortable saying that resolution of that question does not settle the question of whether a pregnant woman must be forced to carry to term.
You say fetus, I say baby. What’s the difference?
If we use the clinical phrase, it has the numbing and comforting effect of keeping us detached from the moral issues. And we can properly wonder whether such things as whether it has human rights is ‘above our collective pay grades’. But if it is a human baby, that’s a whole different matter. The one shown here was not aborted. It was born at just 22 weeks. Had the mother decided to, it would have been perfectly legal to abort it in many countries.
Consider this. Suppose you have a baby girl who is perfectly normal, beautiful and bright. She’s the apple of your eye, and you take delight in her, and have high hopes for all she can become. Then a tragic accident, and she’s left with a damaged brain. She’s no longer beautiful, and she’s no longer especially bright. She no longer has any real potential. She is able to walk and talk and feed herself, but she is no longer capable of complex thought. What do you do with her? If it were legal, would you end her life? Our law does not allow that, of course. We would consider that a heinous crime – murder. But would your answer be different if the accident had occurred while she was still in her mother’s womb? That killing would be legal, but would it be right? And why, oh why is it legal?
Few of us can rise above our moral cowardice. We know that life starts in the womb. If we cared to, we could decide legally what stage of development would be needed to give the baby human rights. We could say it happens at conception, or the moment a heart starts to beat, or the moment brain waves can be measured, or the end of the first trimester, or something. But that moment is not the date of birth. That’s no longer an option for us. We are far too technologically advanced. We routinely do c-sections in the second trimester, and the babies live. Soon we will be able to do it in the first trimester.
We have also bought into the idea that sex can be anything we want it to be, that it can be with whomever we want, and that it certainly does not require marriage. That’s just one of Satan’s lies, one he has been recycling over and over again from the dawn of recorded time. What if we actually started to discuss honestly the idea of abstinence? What if women no longer saw abortion as a means of birth control? What if we stopped looking at unwanted pregnancy as if the woman had nothing to do with it? What if we sent the message to women everywhere that if they want to engage in sexual activity, they should be prepared to become a parent? Maybe then we would stop succumbing to the hypnosis, and see that we are, in the name of sexual freedom, engaging in the most horrible killing spree in the history of mankind?